Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

- - - - -

How do you spell Lawsuit?

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
16 replies to this topic

#1 of 17 OFFLINE   Lance Nichols

Lance Nichols

    Supporting Actor

  • 729 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 29 1998

Posted November 19 2003 - 06:12 AM

According to Darl McBride... SCO is how it is spelled

For those not in the loop, Darl is the CEO of SCO, a company that seems determined to go down in the annuls of computer history as having launched the stupidest lawsuits and threats of lawsuits ever. SCO is suing IBM for IP infringement over code included in the open source OS Linux.

SCO refuses to indicate what code is being infringed, essentially demanding that IBM, and others targeted in the suits have to find it themselves. What code has been revealed was quickly shot down as having being eliminated from LINUX quite some time back, either because questions about the IP validity, or because the code was obsolete.

The general consensus in the community at large is SCO has NO legs to stand on. So what does SCO do? Well according to this NEWSFORGE article they intend to broaden the lawsuits, going after other open source *nix operating systems by attacking the AT&T/Berkley settlement of nearly a decade ago.

For those unfamiliar with the history of the various *nix flavors, most of the tools developed for modern computing, and Internet usage were developed on one, or more, of these open source OS. SCO is hoping to take down the very basics of modern computing's origins.

"Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump, on the back of his head, behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs, but sometimes he feels that there really is another way, if only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it."


#2 of 17 OFFLINE   John Watson

John Watson


  • 1,937 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 14 2002

Posted November 20 2003 - 01:03 AM

I'm expecting someone to try to patent the alphabet soon, and charge us per word for speaking, writing .. Posted Image

On a previous unrelelatd thread, I created the word Suitaphobia for "fear of lawyers" Posted Image

#3 of 17 OFFLINE   Lance Nichols

Lance Nichols

    Supporting Actor

  • 729 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 29 1998

Posted November 20 2003 - 08:30 AM

I really don't understand the reasoning behind all this. Near as I can think of it, is Darl is working to get the GPL ruled on in a Court of Law. If the rulings are unfavorable, this opens a whole can of worms. Invalidating thousands, if not millions of licensing agreements that have been worked out over the last 10 years or so.

Even worse would be the possible invalidation of the *BSD style license agreements, often thought to be much more restrictive the then GLP for freely distributing code, but more "commercial software friendly" then the GPL.

Invalidation of either, or both these licenses would essentially make only "for profit", restrictive licenses the only remaining option for developers. This would in essence force the re invention of the wheel each and every time someone whats to code a title to do X, Y or Z, even if X, Y or Z was done before by other coders, trapping everyone in a sea of interoperability. Granted that is worse case scenario, and unlikely, as (IIRC) the *BSD licenses have been tested in court. The big question mark is the GPL, as it has never been tested in court.

"Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump, on the back of his head, behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs, but sometimes he feels that there really is another way, if only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it."


#4 of 17 OFFLINE   BrianW



  • 2,553 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 1999

Posted November 20 2003 - 01:10 PM

For a really good laugh, take a look at the court filings, especially IBM's Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Compel Discovery. It appears that SCO is dragging its feet in the discovery phase of this court proceeding, and not providing IBM with even a single fact or line of code to back its allegations. Darl claims that SCO has provided over a million pages to IBM in the discovery process, but he fails to point out that none of it is responsive to any of IBM's questions.

More recently, SCO has filed documents with the court claiming that it has never accused IBM publicly, and yet Darl had this to say to VARBusiness:
It's that they've [IBM] taken a substantial amount of our code is what creates the battleground. It's interesting to hear Red Hat speak at financial conference yesterday and their comment is, 'We're really scaling Linux up. Linux is really growing up.' If you take IBM out of the equation, Linux would not be growing up, it would not be SMP-enabled, it would not be multi processing, scaling up to hundreds of servers. It is IBM that is enabling that.
Although SCO's court filings assert that they haven't come up with the proper documents because IBM's document requests are “unduly burdensome,” Darl, in the same interview, reveals that he is actually stalling on purpose in order to increase the damages:
We're sort of fine to let the AIX thing tick, because the longer it goes, when we actually end up in courtroom, we can go back to June 13, 2003, and add damages.
In cases of infringement, the victim (I'm referring to SCO, here) must take action to mitigate damages. If you plagiarize someone in a book you write, then the person you've plagiarized can take action to make you stop selling the book and sue for past damages. But he cannot under any circumstances compel you to continue publishing plagiarized material and pay him a perpetual royalty. Yet that's what Darl expects to be able to do with Linux. Instead of revealing the alleged stolen code so that damages can be halted, he insists on collecting a license for every Linux distribution sold, retroactively, and in perpetuity. Instead of mitigating damages, Darl seems intent on maximizing damages, which (IANAL) the law frowns upon. In fact, nobody could say it more clearly than Darl himself:
Our belief is that SCO has great opportunity in the future to let Linux keep going, not to put it on its back but for us to get a transaction fee every time it's sold. That's really our goal.
If his lawyers haven't told him, they should: By law, he cannot compel the Linux community to continue using his allegedly stolen IP and demand a royalty in return. If stolen IP is in Linux, it is within the OSS community's rights to have it identified so they can remove it and be done with it forever.

SCO is being sued by Red Hat, a Linux distributor, for making threats against Linux customers, which is damaging to Red Hat's business. In court filings in that case, SCO claims that the 1500 letters it sent out warning of legal action against companies that use Linux were simply the basis of a “theoretical legal discussion.” Yet Darl again contradicts himself when he says:
I would say we're suing end users. There are only two industries who use the term 'users,' computers and drugs. Not sure if there's a connection there. But the point is, we're not suing our customers. We are going after end users of Linux and I think there's a slight but significant difference there.
Also, in court filings in the Red Hat case, SCO claims that the Red Hat case should wait until the IBM case is over, since the results of the IBM case will essentially decide the outcome of the Red Hat case. (In other words, if SCO can prove in the IBM case that Linux is tainted, then the Red Hat case should be dropped, since their threats... er, theoretical discussions, will be vindicated. And if SCO loses the IBM case, then Red Hat will be entitled to its day in court. Yet, once again, SCO's public statements are at odds with its court filings on its own web site where it claims that even if it loses the IBM court case, it will still go after end users of Linux, since the IBM case is a contract dispute and has nothing to do with infringement. (Sorry, I'll try to find a link.)

But it's not all bad. Darl, though he appears to have adopted a litigation business model, indicates that he's actually excited about producing and selling a real product:
The core business, we think that's bottomed out and there's upside now with new products coming. We haven't had a new product in our OpenServer base in years and years.
Funny, though, how, according to Darl, Linux would never be as good as it is if it hadn't stolen code from SCO's Unix, which hasn't been updated for “years and years.” Go figure.

Most recently, SCO has threatened to sue Novell using a contract Novell signed with Santa Cruz Operation, a company that still exists today and is currently known as Tarantella. (It's often referred to as “Old SCO” in order to differentiate it from the similarly-named SCO we're talking about.) It boggles the mind that SCO would actually try to pass itself off to the media that it, and not Old SCO (Tarantella), is a party to that contract! If SCO (new SCO) tries to make good on this threat and sue Novell over a contract that it isn't even a party to, then I think sanctions are in order, not just for SCO, but for its lawyers as well.

See that? You got me started!

Journalists at first took SCO at its word, regurgitating its press releases as factual news items. But the web of lies is beginning to fall apart, and (finally!) some journalists are even examining the court filings to try to gain a better understanding of the situation. Those that do express shock and utter dismay at having been manipulated. (Duh!)

And now the GPL is unconstitutional? And everything released under it for the past three years should be declared to be in the Public Domain? Without consulting the copyright holders?

How could it possibly have gotten this far?

My theory is that SCO never intended their claims to see a day in court. I believe that from the very beginning, this was a bid to get IBM to buy them out just to shut them up. When IBM didn't bite, they upped the ante from $1 billion to $3 billion, hoping to scare IBM into a settlement rather than to litigate a $3 billion court case. When IBM still didn't bite, what could SCO do? Up the ante to $3 billion jillion gazillion? Even they knew that would look silly. IBM's heels were dug in, and yelling the threats more loudly wouldn't change that.

But something wonderful happened when they upped the ante to $3 billion. The price of SCO stock went up quite a bit. Since then, it's been a simple Pump-&-Dump stock manipulation scheme. Every day, SCO would come out with a more outrageous claim or a new threat against the OSS community, and each time the stock would go up. Surely, this was paradise!

But, aw, crap, they're running out of people to threaten (the world is only so big), and now they actually have to go through with the court case without a shred of evidence to back up their claims! Crap, crap, crap! Who could have possibly guessed that it would have come to this? Oh, why didn't IBM just buy out SCO when it had the chance? That was the original plan, after all. Oh, sure, it's nice to sell SCO stock at a surprising $20, when they were hoping for, at most, $2 from IBM's buyout offer. Yeah, it's nice to be stinkin' rich, but will it be worth pissing off two federal judges when it's all over?

I don't believe they have an end game to all of this. I think they're pretty much stuck, forced to conduct a lawsuit that was never intended to see the light of day, and forced to face their day of reckoning in the aftermath of these court cases.

When you practice to deceive...
Come, Rubidia. Let's blow this epoch.

#5 of 17 OFFLINE   Tony Whalen

Tony Whalen


  • 3,150 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 29 2002

Posted November 21 2003 - 02:17 AM

Personally, I spell lawsuit like this:


Posted Image

#6 of 17 OFFLINE   Colin Davidson

Colin Davidson

    Second Unit

  • 385 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 1999

Posted November 21 2003 - 04:11 AM


Thanks for your post above. I have been trying to wade through all the information related to this case and it's hard, for me at least, to tell the "smoke and mirrors" from the facts.

Appreciate your time and efforts.

#7 of 17 OFFLINE   BrianW



  • 2,553 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 1999

Posted November 21 2003 - 12:12 PM

No problem, Colin. Since I've been following the story for a few months now, it wasn't that hard for me to slap the above post (including the “Crap, crap, crap!” part) together.

Another thing worth noting is that IBM asked SCO to identify each of the trade secrets and Unix code SCO thinks have been misappropriated, why SCO claims ownership of these trade secrets and code, and how they came into possession of these trade secrets or code (whether developed by them, or acquired by them, etc.). IANAL, but as far as I can tell, this is standard. When someone accuses you of stealing something, the accuser must identify the item that was stolen and offer some evidence that he actually owns it. The accusation must be specific enough to be investigable. He can't just make a general accusation and be granted court authority to go rummaging through your house looking for something – anything – that he thinks he can get away with claiming as his own.

In response to this request for specificity, SCO returned a list of 591 Linux source files that “may or may not” contain misappropriated code.

It may not be obvious, but this is not what IBM asked for. Linux source code is available for anyone to look at, and singling out 591 files of open-source Linux kernel code does nothing to identify misappropriated trade secrets or stolen Unix code. Unless SCO identifies SysV Unix code, it's not identifying anything that it can demonstrate it owns.

And it gets better. Never mind the fact that IBM is entitled to know exactly what it's accused of; SCO has been blasting IBM in public, claiming over one million lines of SysV Unix code have been copied directly into the Linux kernel. Furthermore, SCO has taken investors, analysts, and members of the media behind closed doors, and under protection of a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) purportedly showed them examples of SysV Unix source code side-by-side with Linux kernel source code, proving to them that infringement has indeed taken place. (Not surprisingly, this has had an incredible positive effect on SCO's stock price.) Darl himself has proclaimed that SCO had hired teams of NASA rocket scientists and MIT mathematicians to perform “spectral analysis” to compare Linux kernel source code with SCO's SysV Unix code, and, according to SCO, the results indicate that Linux is almost a verbatim, line-for-line copy of Unix.

Yet, when it comes time in a court of law to put up or shut up, SCO won't have the courtesy to show any of this proof of infringement to IBM, the company who stands accused of misappropriating the Unix code.

So they didn't put up. And they haven't shut up, either. They've recently proclaimed that they're going to sue a prominent Linux user within 90 days, even though they have yet to publicly prove that they own even a shred of Linux.

Oh, but it gets even better. Much, much better.

Remember those 591 Linux files identified by SCO that “may or may not” contain misappropriated trade secrets? Well some geeks (I'm a geek, as if you all didn't know) have been taking a look at it and, well, laughing, mostly.

For example, consider the following, which is the entire contents of include/asm-arm/spinlock.h, one of the files on SCO's infringement list:
#ifndef __ASM_SPINLOCK_H
#define __ASM_SPINLOCK_H

#error ARM architecture does not support SMP spin locks

#endif /* __ASM_SPINLOCK_H */
It's a simple, six-line source file. And it “may or may not” contain a SCO trade secret.

Now if you're a geek, you're probably laughing already. If you're not a geek, go find one, show him this code, and tell him that there's a trade secret in it worth three billion dollars. (Make sure you take away his Mountain Dew so he doesn't spew it all over your monitor.) See how hard he laughs? (It's okay, you can laugh, too, if you want. The geek will think you're laughing at the code. Posted Image)

In English, what this code does is produce a compiler error, issuing the message that “ARM architecture does not support SMP spin locks.” That's all. Why is this funny? Because, since this code produces a compiler error, there is no way it can be included in ANY working Linux kernel.

But, to be fair, this is the list of files that “may or may not” contain infringement. So what was it about this file that the NASA rocket scientists and MIT mathematicians thought was infringement? The answer is three simple letters: SMP SCO is claiming, if not ownership, then at least contractual control over several technologies: SMP, JFS, RCU, and NUMA. (Never mind what they are, just go with me on this.) So, on a hunch, a bunch of geeks used a program called grep to search the Linux kernel source code for any of these acronyms. It takes just a few seconds to execute. They got a list much larger than SCO's 591 Linux files. So they had to eliminate some. On another hunch, they modified their grep command to eliminate those files that mentioned “SCO” and “Caldera” (SCO's former company name), assuming that SCO wouldn't want to implicate itself in a court document.

Guess what? The grep command, when instructed to identify files with SMP, JFS, RCU, NUMA, and eliminate from that list those files that contain SCO or Caldera, produces the exact same list of 591 files that SCO produced for the court. (This was with one of the 2.5 releases of Linux. Othe releases had slightly different results.)

Exactly the same! And it takes less than a minute! And to think that SCO wasted all that time and money on NASA rocket scientists and MIT mathematicians performing all that high-tech “spectral analysis” in order to find misappropriated trade secrets, when they could have just used a simple grep command!

Yeah, sure. You can scroll back up and laugh at the code now that you understand it. If you've stuck with me this long, you're entitled.

Now I must volunteer that this in no way proves that SCO used a simple grep command to produce its list of “may or may not be” infringing Linux files. But that this list includes six-line header files that actually prevent any reference to alleged trade secrets, shows, I believe, that no human examination was performed on these files.

Not surprisingly, IBM has subpoenaed investors who have publicly claimed to have been shown proof of code infringement. As IBM's court document says (paraphrasing), “If SCO can show them, SCO can show us.”

Now before you go thinking that SCO doesn't have a case, there was a smaller list of Linux files that it produced, claiming that the files in that list definitely have misappropriated trade secrets and/or Unix code. No “may or may not” about it. Where did these files come from? Well, as it turns out, it's just a wholly-contained subset of the 591 “may or may not” files. What's different about them? They contain the strings “IBM” and “International Business Machines.” Many of the "IBM" references are copyright notices, but a surprisingly large number of the "IBM" references are comments by programmers who ridicule IBM for its hardware design. IBM had nothing to do with these files, except to inspre frustration in software engineers by providing a less-than-adequate interrupt architecture in the PC. Again, the absence of any human examination of the files is glaringly obvious.

How often is it that a company will litigate a three-billion-dollar lawsuit claiming code infringement, and not even look at the code it's submitting to the court as evidence?

Well, apparently, it's not “never.”
Come, Rubidia. Let's blow this epoch.

#8 of 17 OFFLINE   Lance Nichols

Lance Nichols

    Supporting Actor

  • 729 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 29 1998

Posted November 24 2003 - 07:47 AM

Holy! Brian, you had much more in this then I had. Hell, I didn't even know you could post comments that long!

Yeah, I suspect tghat Darl was hoping that IBM would just do the old "buy them to shut them up" routine. IBM knew better, and now SCO is looking at the end of the line, no matter what they do. Darl, and others are likely doing a bit of "if I am going to be damned I may as well really be damned."

I too have been following this from the start, and have gotten a mild chuckle - ok - out right laughed at some of the statements coming out of SCO. I really don't know what is happening in the back end of SCO, but they have not released new product in years. They expect to stop the rest of the world's march forward by hoping to have lawyers and bean counters side with them on the off chance that SCO might have a case. Basically they are blowing a lot of smoke, then mentioning big numbers and hoping that people will be scared with the big numbers, and not look past the smoke. IIRC, Darl has tried similar stunts in other companies as well.

I hope that the presiding judge throws this case out with extreme prejudice, and rules that SCO must open its code for all to see.

"Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump, on the back of his head, behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs, but sometimes he feels that there really is another way, if only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it."


#9 of 17 OFFLINE   JamesHl


    Supporting Actor

  • 813 posts
  • Join Date: May 08 2003

Posted November 24 2003 - 09:10 AM

One of the big pieces to this puzzle is that a lot of the senior management (McBride included) get a large bonus if the company shows profit for 3 quarters, and with some creative accounting utilizing this linux licensing drek that's what they're shooting for. It's also why the lawsuit is being extended. I think they know they don't have much of a chance, but they have to pretend that they do until they can cash out and let the company go down the drain.

#10 of 17 OFFLINE   Lance Nichols

Lance Nichols

    Supporting Actor

  • 729 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 29 1998

Posted November 26 2003 - 05:48 AM

Looks like the all knowing and wise leaders of SCO plan on targeting GOOGLE as their next extortion attempt.

Google in SCO sights for "Linux Tax"

Man, I can't wait for the Judge to slap them back to the stone age. I feel sorry for any investors left holding the bag by then.

"Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump, on the back of his head, behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs, but sometimes he feels that there really is another way, if only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it."


#11 of 17 OFFLINE   BrianW



  • 2,553 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 1999

Posted November 26 2003 - 11:46 AM

Brian, you had much more in this then I had. Hell, I didn't even know you could post comments that long!
I guess you don't know me very well. Posted Image I can get pretty long-winded at times.

I thought about posting something about this lawsuit, but I didn't think anybody would be interested. (An older thread on this topic died an early death.) But Lance was brave enough to try, and, as it turns out, somebody was interested. (Too bad that somebody turned out to be me. Posted Image)

I'm truly guessing here, but I don't believe that SCO will sue Google, or any corporate Linux user, any time soon. The last thing they want to do is to be in a position (court of law) in which they have to show their cards. I believe it's just more blather to keep the stock price artificially inflated. They've made threats before and not followed through: suing SGI, suing Novell, sending invoices to Linux end users, and several other threats I can't remember at the moment.

I read in an article today (sorry, can't remember where) that referred to the SCO mess as nothing more than a "publicly-traded lawsuit." How appropriate!

Eventually, it will all come crashing down. I've heard the investors referred to as “gullible saps,” but I really don't think that's the case. Investors read and trust financial analysts, and the financial analysts have been fed a line by SCO. They don't read Linux Today or Groklaw, and shouldn't be expected to. After all, the truth – that Darl & Company are actually trying to hijack Linux, claim perpetual royalties, all without a shred of evidence to support their allegations – is almost too surreal to be believed. If I were reading only the financial journals, I think I'd be convinced that Darl believed that he has a case.

What's incredible to watch is how SCO says different things to different people.

To Linux Community: “We own Linux, and you owe us money, BIG TIME! Pay up, or we'll sue!”

To Red Hat: “Honestly, why are you suing us? When did we ever threaten the Linux Community?”

To media: “We have definite proof that IBM has copied millions of lines of code (it's grown from 'over a million' to 'millions' now), and we're eager to show our proof of copyright infringement in a court of law!”

To judge in IBM case: “Millions of lines of code? We never said that. We're suing IBM over a contract dispute, not copyright infringement. As for proof, we can't show any just yet because IBM won't let us look for it.”

To OSS community: “Since the IBM lawsuit is about a contract dispute, not copyright violation, the outcome of the IBM lawsuit will have no impact on our determination to own Linux. We still have proof that millions of lines of code in Linux belong to Unix, and that stands even if we lose the IBM lawsuit.

To judge in Red Hat case: “Red Hat should wait until the IBM lawsuit is over before suing us for making unfounded threats. Since the IBM lawsuit is over copyright infringement, it will dispense with Red Hat's dispute, one way or another.

SCO has recently filed a Motion to Dismiss IBM's Motion to Compel Discovery that essentially admits that they won't know exactly how IBM violated their rights until IBM tells them in the process of discovery:
Meaningful supplemental interrogatory answers can only follow IBM's production of the foregoing materials and the subsequent careful and time consuming review of the documents by counsel and qualified experts.
The ”meaningful supplemental interrogatory answers” refers to SCO telling IBM what the heck this case is all about and what IBM is actually accused of. The “foregoing materials” SCO expects IBM to produce is all the source code for all the versions of AIX and Dynix, and a bunch of other broadly-encompassing documents. The “subsequent careful and time consuming [sic] review of the documents by counsel and qualified experts” is the effort (yet to be expended, despite what they claim in press releases) on SCO's part to comb through IBM's stuff to determine exactly what IBM did wrong, so SCO can properly accuse them at some point in the course of this lawsuit they've launched against IBM. (It's also a stalling tactic in order to delay production of evidence until Darl's stock stock options are fully vested, but that's speculation on my part.)

Sorry, I really didn't intend to go overboard. I just wanted to confess that I get long-winded at times.

...as if you needed to know.
Come, Rubidia. Let's blow this epoch.

#12 of 17 OFFLINE   BrianW



  • 2,553 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 1999

Posted December 02 2003 - 11:08 AM

Oral arguments are to be heard on multiple motions to compel discovery (since SCO is stalling) on December 5, so there's actually a lull in the news pending the outcome of that hearing. If SCO can stall until the end of December 2003, then that will complete SCO's fourth quarter of qualifying stock prices, which will lock in Darl McBride's executive bonus package. Coincidentally, SCO has petitioned the court to delay further discovery until December 29 because - get this - they don't have a patent attorney to represent them.

Oh, yeah, the lull...

So instead of more rantings from a lunatic (me), I give you the top contenders for The SCO Group's new slogan.


SCO: All your code are belong to us.

The New SCO: What's yours is ours.

SCO: Come to us for all your licensing needs. No, really - we mean for ALL your licensing needs.

SCO: Alleging it makes it so.

SCO: Educating the world with a baseball bat.

SCO: It's our world. Get off.

SCO: Don't forget to zip up when we're done.

SCO: Ya got anything else you owe us for?

SCO: Your partner in IT. Or else.

SCO: We'd tell you how to fix it, but then we wouldn't be able to make any money.

SCO: We'll be in touch, because you have to.

SCO: GPL, Shmee pee ell!

SCO: Lawsuit insurance... Yeah, that's what it is!

SCO: We'd tell you what you're doing wrong, but then we'd have to kill you.

SCO: Because shaking down kids for their lunch money just wasn't enough.

SCO: Pump and Dump - It worked for us, it can work for you.

SCO: Linux isn't free, unless you're us.

SCO: We'll turn the lights out for you when we're done.

SCO: Oh, yeah? Well, you can't prove we DON'T own the world!

SCO: You don't even have to do business with us for us to screw with you.

SCO: Love us, or die.

SCO: Holy crap, we're stupid! Do we actually think this will work?

SCO: Doing business with us is like... Aw, who are we kidding?

SCO: Man, this is just too easy.

SCO: Blah, blah, blah! Give us your money!

SCO: You innovate, we litigate!
Come, Rubidia. Let's blow this epoch.

#13 of 17 OFFLINE   nolesrule



  • 3,084 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2001
  • Real Name:Joe Kauffman
  • LocationClearwater, FL

Posted December 02 2003 - 11:39 AM

BrianW, that's some pretty funny stuff.

#14 of 17 OFFLINE   James E

James E

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 193 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 16 2001

Posted December 02 2003 - 01:44 PM

how about

SCO: our code is made of people.:b
20 Movies i like .

"To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)" - Fortune

#15 of 17 OFFLINE   Lance Nichols

Lance Nichols

    Supporting Actor

  • 729 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 29 1998

Posted December 05 2003 - 06:15 AM

This was taken from a posting from Groklaw - quite humorous!

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 05 2003 @ 04:19 AM EST
Since I've seen a couple Monty Python quotes, here's a sketch retooled to fit
SCO Posted Image Hope you enjoy Posted Image

SCO's Verbal Argument

(a judge takes his seat)

Judge: Good Morning.

SCO Lawyer: Good Morning, your honor!

Judge: Ah, thank you.

SCO Lawyer: What can I do for you, sir?

Judge: Well, I called this hearing to hear your reasons why you are suing IBM.
More specifically, to hear what kind of evidence you have against IBM.

SCO Lawyer: Ah, evidence!

Judge: In a nutshell, yes. So I thought to myself "a bit of verbal
argument from SCO might do this case good and shed some light on what this is
all about."

SCO Lawyer: Come again?

Judge: I want to know about the code.

SCO Lawyer: Oh, I thought you were complaining about Mr. McBride's open

Judge: Oh, heaven forbid - I find those laced with humorous snippets of verbose

SCO Lawyer: Sorry?

Judge: The letters are funny.

SCO Lawyer: So he can go on typing then, can he?

Judge: Most certainly! Now then, some evidence please, my good man.

SCO Lawyer: Certainly, sir. What would you like?

Judge: Well, eh, how about some SMP code violations?

SCO Lawyer: I'm afraid we couldn't actually find any, sir.

Judge: Oh, never mind, how about JFS?

SCO Lawyer: I'm afraid we won't have that till after discovery from IBM.

Judge: Tish tish. No matter. Well, stout lawyer, let's see what you have
about NUMA.

SCO Lawyer: Ah! It's still waiting on someone to put it on a cd, we were
expecting it this morning.

Judge: It's not my lucky day, is it? Aah, RCU then?

SCO Lawyer: Sorry, sir.

Judge: Memory Allocation?

SCO Lawyer: Normally, sir, yes. Today the courier's van broke down.

Judge: Ah. USB?

SCO Lawyer: Sorry.

Judge: LPT ports drivers? Serial ports?

SCO Lawyer: No.

Judge: Any evidence about IDE drivers?

SCO Lawyer: No.

Judge: SCSI?

SCO Lawyer: No.

Judge: SATA?

SCO Lawyer: No.

Judge: Floating point emulation?

SCO Lawyer: No.

Judge: Video drivers?

SCO Lawyer: No.

Judge: Keyboard drivers? Vi, emacs, sendmail, x-windows, man pages, bash

SCO Lawyer: No.

Judge: "Tux Racer", perhaps?

SCO Lawyer: Ah! We have evidence for that, yessir.

Judge: (suprised) You do! Excellent.

SCO Lawyer: Yes sir. The media it's on tho, it's ...ah...it's a bit smudged

Judge: Oh, I don't mind a bit of a reading challenge.

SCO Lawyer: Well...It's very smudged, actually, sir.

Judge: No matter. Fetch hither the evidence of IBM's wrong doing!

SCO Lawyer: I ... think it's a bit more smudged than you'd like, sir.

Judge: I don't care how ****ing smudged it is. Hand it over will all speed.

SCO Lawyer: Ooooooooooohhhh...!

Judge: What now?

SCO Lawyer: The paralegal's eaten it.

Judge: Has he.

SCO Lawyer: She, sir.


Judge: Grep?

SCO Lawyer: No.

Judge: Gzip?

SCO Lawyer: No.

Judge: You... do have some evidence, don't you?

SCO Lawyer: (brightly) Of course, sir. It's a lawsuit, sir. We've got...

Judge: No no... don't tell me. I'm keen to guess.

SCO Lawyer: Fair enough.

Judge: Uuuuuh, Gimp?

SCO Lawyer: Yes?

Judge: Ah, well, let's see the evidence on Gimp!

SCO Lawyer: Oh! I thought you were talking to me, sir. Mr. Gimp, that's my


Judge: KDE?

SCO Lawyer: Uh, not as such.

Judge: Uuh, GNOME?

SCO Lawyer: No.

Judge: Ximian?

SCO Lawyer: No.

Judge: OpenOffice?

SCO Lawyer: Not today, sir, no.


Judge: Aah, how about how you found your evidence then?

SCO Lawyer: Well, we weren't expecting to have to answer that.

Judge: Weren't expecting?... It's one of the single most important pieces of

SCO Lawyer: Not according to SCO, sir.

Judge: And just what is the most important piece, "according to

SCO Lawyer: Our MIT analysts.

Judge: Is it?

SCO Lawyer: It's our number one piece of evidence, sir!

Judge: All right. Okay. 'Are they here today?' he asked, expecting the answer

SCO Lawyer: I'll have a look, sir ... nnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.

Judge: It's not much of a lawsuit, is it?

SCO Lawyer: Finest money can buy!

Judge: (annoyed) Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.

SCO Lawyer: Well, it's so full of legal jardon, sir!

Judge: It's certainly uncontaminated by the burden of evidence...

SCO Lawyer: (brightly) You haven't asked me about Pine, sir.

Judge: Would it be worth it?

SCO Lawyer: Could be....

Judge: Have you - (to McBride)SHUT THAT DAMN WORD PROCESSOR OFF!

SCO Lawyer: Told you sir....

Judge: (slowly) Have you any evidence that IBM misappropriated SCO UNIX code
into the PINE e-mail program?

SCO Lawyer: No.

Judge: Figures. Predictable, really I suppose. It was an act of purest optimism
to have posed the question in the first place. Tell me:

SCO Lawyer: Yes sir?

Judge: (Deliberately) Have you in fact got any evidence against IBM at all?

SCO Lawyer: Yes, sir.

Judge: Really?


SCO Lawyer: No. Not really, sir.

Judge: You haven't.

SCO Lawyer: No sir. Not a scrap. I was deliberately wasting your time, sir.

Judge: Well I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to sentence you to death.

SCO Lawyer: Right-Oh, sir.

(The Baliff takes the SCO Lawyer out of the courtroom . A few minutes later, a
distant scream can be heard while the lights in the courtroom dim momentarily)

Judge: What a senseless waste of human life.

(derived as a parody from Monty Python's 'Cheese Shop' sketch)


"Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump, on the back of his head, behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs, but sometimes he feels that there really is another way, if only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it."


#16 of 17 OFFLINE   Paul McElligott

Paul McElligott


  • 2,598 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 02 2002

Posted December 05 2003 - 06:39 AM

Posted Image Posted Image
R.I.P. DVDSpot

#17 of 17 OFFLINE   BrianW



  • 2,553 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 1999

Posted December 05 2003 - 04:01 PM

Lance, that was great! Posted Image

Update: In today's court hearing, SCO argued that IBM should be compelled to deliver more stuff so they can have their experts look through it and figure out exactly what IBM did wrong. IBM argued that SCO has been bragging to the media that it has proof of IBM's misappropriation of SCO's Unix code and that SCO has made a public spectacle of showing this proof to financial analysts, so SCO should be compelled to put up or shut up before IBM produces any more documents for SCO to fish through.

Outcome: Basically, IBM won this round. Under court order, SCO must now particularize its claims (by actally saying what they think IBM has done wrong - what a concept!) and produce evidence to back these claims up within thirty days from Wednesday, or explain to the court's satisfaction why it couldn't do so. All other discovery is on hold until SCO complies with this court order.

Funny Note: The judge really wasn't happy with the way SCO delivered Linux source code (which was unresponsive, anyway) to IBM. First, SCO delivered the source code as a stack of paper printouts, incapable of being scrutinized by ASCII search engines on a computer. Then, SCO delivered the source code on CDs, but the CDs contained not ASCII text files, but bitmapped images of the paper printouts, which were just as unusable. The judge, savvy enough to know what it takes to comply with a request for "human-readable ASCII source code in electronic format," saw SCO's antics for the time-wasting, non-compliant tricks they are and called them on it. Any bets on whether SCO will now fax the source to IBM and hope the judge accepts that as a compliant "electronic format"?

Prediction: IMHO, I believe SCO will actually fail to produce ANY specific claim or evidence, and say it failed to do so because, pursuant to the court order to suspend all other discovery, SCO was unable to obtain the documents from IBM that it needed to conduct its fishing expedition.

Lame, yes. Stupid, yes. But could it be just crazy enough to work?

I really don't think so.
Come, Rubidia. Let's blow this epoch.

Back to After Hours Lounge

Forum Nav Content I Follow