Re: OT: Cutthroat Microsoft Tactic
 

Yeah, thanks Baron for clearing that up!

Re: OT: Cutthroat Microsoft Tactic
 

Heh...

'Thanks for explaining it' might be more appropriate. It's total lack of clarity is the primary characteristic of the situation. You can follow this and other technical stories in detail on www.slashdot.org btw. This is a much better place to learn what is going on than most of the IT industry 'news' sites. Once they post a story lots of people with real knowledge and experience can comment and add to the available information, without being filtered by some corporate 'news policy' (censorship).

Re: OT: Cutthroat Microsoft Tactic
 

This is extremely comprehensive.

Re: OT: Cutthroat Microsoft Tactic
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We all must remind ourselves that MS also believes that it owns Binary. Or for that matter any original idea that should ever happend to be invented, software wise, is already owned by MS. "How dare they invent something that we never thought of using a revolutionary programming language never conceived of before! We own the unconcieved ideas of all program and software developers for all time." - CEO Microsaft.

[ June 02, 2003, 21:27: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: OT: Cutthroat Microsoft Tactic
 

By Brad Rhodes, with inspiration from Lincoln Spector's "The Pirates of Pentium" and apologies to Sir William Gilbert...)

Bill Gates:

I am the very model of a Microsoft Executive
Work sixteen hours ev'ry shift on days that are consecutive
I make a line of software that is of the highest quality
But leave in bugs to fix in upgrades in perpetuality

Though some might claim that we compete in ways that are not very just
That's just vindictive rumor spun by folks who can't compete with us
Besides they cannot prove a thing, no judge will ever take their side
We'll crush them with our lawyers known for litigation far and wide.

Men's Chourus:
He'll crush them with his lawyers known for litigation far and far and wide!

Gates:
My coders work a schedule bordering on impropriety
But they'll still work for peanuts til they're vested in entirety
I'm sure that you will all agree that this is all inde-cu-tive
That I'm the very model of a Microsoft Executive!

Chorus:
I'm sure that you will all agree that this is all inde-cu-tive
He is the very model of a Microsoft Executive!

Gates:
We made our windows system one which we hold in propriety
And tweak it every now and then to screw up Lotus 1-2-3
Developing for Windows makes our competition often frown
They haven't any choice -- our system is the only game in town.

We'll use people's inventions that will make our software sell the best
Idea is the first step but the market is the real test
And though we may use other's thoughts and intellectual property
Stealing's such a nasty word, we like to call it R&D.

Chorus:
Stealing's such a nasty word, he likes to call it R&-R&D.

Gates [faster]:
My business tactics are compared with Henry Ford and Genghis Kahn
They built me up from nerdy kid to billionaire and then beyond
And while my competition spews out words full of invec-u-tive
I am the very model of a Microsoft Executive!

Chorus:
And while his competition spews out words full of invec-u-tive
He is the very model of a Microsoft Executive!

*** Source: the Gilbert and Sullivan parody archive.

Re: OT: Cutthroat Microsoft Tactic
 

8/8 -- IBM counter-sues SCO...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">These are just excerpts. IBM has also cited multiple patents from its own 'IP' arsenal that it claims SCO is violating, and pointed out that SCO is violating the very GPL which is supposedly the basis of its own business.

Lesson of the week: Don't piss-off IBM.

[ August 09, 2003, 23:50: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: OT: Cutthroat Microsoft Tactic
 

SCO is a flop as a software company. But they did buy the original UNIX code. What they actually own is in doubt, is it the code, or the code along with the intellectual rights and the licensing rights? This will have to be resolved, but the US courts have always found in favor of the owners of the code in cases like this. The court has always seen the code as being the same as the intellectual rights. If SCO owns the original UNIX code, then we move to round two.

If SCO is correct, and Linux has SCO owned UNIX code in the kernel, then they will be entitled to receive compensation. Only a few Linux shops have the bucks to pay out damages, IBM being one of them. But end Users could be required to license their copies, or cease and desist from using Linux. If LT wrote the SCO code into Linux, he will have a big problem. He could already have a legal problem that will cost him a ton of money, just because he will need representation when this gets to court.

The guys at SCO have already made bucks from this, as did a bunch of people that bought in a <$2 a share http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif , but what is at stake is much larger. If SCO wins or IBM just settles, then Linux will be dead as free ware. If IBM buys a license to use the code, then they will pass it on to their end Users. Red Hat and the other boxers would be in a bad way if IBM settled. There is enough Linux code out there to keep it going, but development will slow to a crawl as the big shops fold or move on to new code.

If SCO wins, then MS buys them out; well it will be Katie bar the door time. MS will have Windows and UNIX. And Linux will be dead in the water. The rumor is that MS would like to use UNIX in the next generation server code, but will not do so unless they can own it outright. And that it was MS that found the UNIX code in Linux. This thing will take years to work its way through the system, but it has the potential to be the largest software battle to date.

Re: OT: Cutthroat Microsoft Tactic
 

As of right now, they only claim Linux kernel 1.2.4.18 and later have the infringing code. It's not quite such a big deal to go back and revise some recent additions to the Linux kernel even if SCO should win. But as their behavior so far shows -- noted by IBM in its counter-suit -- they seem to be interested in making legal maneuvering their new business model. The problem is not that some code has been added to Linux that doesn't belong. They could have complained directly to Linus without having to file any lawsuits. He would have very quickly had the code replaced. But that's not what SCO wanted. The problem is that a major contributing Linux software company has changed management and decided to make its living by litigation.

For this reason alone IBM will certainly not settle. If they settle it opens the door to god-knows-how-many new litigation franchise operations trying some new trick on IBM in hopes of getting some cash in a 'settlement'. SCO's legal claims are very weak anyway, with the GPL itself being the final hurdle they would have to over-come in order to prevail against IBM. They have been distributing the very code they claim is 'infringing' in the current Linux kernel for the whole time they have been making all these noises, effectively voiding their own copyright/patent (whichever they claim that it is covered by). And since contemporary litigation is really more of a test of financial strength/endurance than a test of validity of legal argument, it seems very unlikely that SCO can prevail with its weak position.

[ August 09, 2003, 23:39: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: OT: Cutthroat Microsoft Tactic
 

Thanks for the update Baron.

Re: OT: Cutthroat Microsoft Tactic
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, you have to make a distinction here. Linux is the kernel not the operation system. And they are pretty sure that previous Versions of the kernel would be "legal" in that case so the overall impact on the linux kernel would be small. Besides, there is a GNU kernel being made also named the Hurd. Or you could go with FreeBSD, NetBSD and so on.
But it's fun to see what scumbags M$ are by "buying" a license of SCO. Instead of improving their own product to compete with linux they try to battle it out via other means.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not true at all. If the kernel developers remove the code and replace it, the problem is solved ( if there is a problem which remains to be seen).

[ August 10, 2003, 15:10: Message edited by: minipol ]