On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 02:27 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
> Then why did they publicly state that there was transfer?
They _had_ to state IBM transferred IP into Linux to claim violation of
the Non-Compete, without having to prove where it came from, in the
_original_ *March* 2003 filing. The problem was that many in the rabbid
Linux community didn't care to understand the difference between IP
transfer and the Non-Compete clause of the
> And why did they make a big public show of combing through Linux source
> for SCO/UNIX IP?
That was _added_ in *May* 2003 _after_ IBM didn't settle. I'm _not_
excusing that. That _was_ for "show" and the "smokescreen" (along with
increasing the amount to $3B from $1B). I'm talking about _pre_-May
2003.
Everyone keeps missing my point. It's not to "excuse" SCO, but it _is_
to show how IBM _did_ screw-over SCO. There is a very, very, _very_
important lesson in this lawsuit that 99% of Linux people are missing
(at least not Linus, ESR and many others thank God).
And that's the fact that even if you are one of IBM's most closest
allies, if they see you as a competitor, you're toast. They've got the
size, money and lawsuits to do it, and they won't hesitate.
> Are you saying their legal filings didn't match their public
> statements?
Yes, big time! As of May 2003, they really put on the "smokescreen"
because 99% of the rabid Linux community couldn't see the difference
between SCO v. IBM and SCO v. Linux (that didn't legally exist _until_
*May* 2003).
Rabid Linux bigots were calling for the end of the SCO v. IBM lawsuit as
early as late March, despite Linux, ESR and many others saying it was a
"contract dispute." I'm sure the mega-ignorant IT media helped along
this non-sense, which gave SCO an excellent angle when IBM didn't
settle.
> If so, of what value would that be?
The smokescreen has allowed them too ...
1) Gain funds to take them closer to trial.
2) Belief that when they won on terms against IBM, that the IT media
and most others would believe it was a win against Linux.
#1 has been largely completed, as SCO has now been gutted of any
expenses other than legal.
#2 personally caused me to lose my contract position at a Fortune 20
company. Despite many agreeing that it was a contract dispute, the
greater "indemification issue" eventually killed the project.
> Surely they weren't so stupid as to think _we_ wouldn't fight them?
I'm _not_ saying _not_ to fight SCO as of *May* 2003.
I'm saying that don't think IBM is benevolent in this.
I'm _is_ as bad as SCO!
Caldera-SCO was a very good company that IBM destroyed because it could.
The lawsuit didn't do it, IBM did. The lawsuit and IBM's refusal to
take responsibility by settling is just the ultimate realization.
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- Community software is all about choice, choice of technology. Unfortunately, too many Linux advocates port over the so-called "choice" from the commercial software world, brand name marketing. The result is false assumptions, failure to focus on the real technical similarities, but loyalty to blind vendor alignments.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:03:02 EDT