The MAIN "SCO" (rant) thread (Please post in here) - Page 7


Page 7 of 39 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 571

Thread: The MAIN "SCO" (rant) thread (Please post in here)

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    48

    just say yo!

    I think that anything that microsoft does is done with the sole purpose being to lock out and attack anything that they see as a threat, except viruses and software bugs. However they seem to do things in such a way that it doesn't seem obvious unless you look at the big picture.

    linux's biggest problem is the fact that most people don't even know it exists and think that it is a high maintenance hacker OS.

    they think that there is a safety net when dealing with Microsoft that Microsoft will "make it all better" when things get messed up.

    legal wise with EULAs and such MS and Linux are about the same. they both work, although they don't make any claims that it will undoubtedly work. If it doesn't work your SOL and there isn't really anyone that will take responsibility for it not working or ruining your computer.

    i don't think that microsoft or SCO are going to get anywhere. Once Micrsoft starts infecting every facet of a person's computer they will most likely change once they get fed up with:

    spyware, adware, malware, programs that insist on installing little nuggets of files and dll's and cfg files all over your system so that when you finally decide that you have had enough of a particular peice of crap program you can't even delete the whole thing because there are files strewn about your computer and your registry. Or programs instisting on installing without asking you, numerous programs that think they are so important that they must be loaded up at start up and make sure you computer takes three days to load.

    once people get fed up they will switch.
    Hey that's my horse

    No combat ready squad ever passed inspection. No inspection ready squad ever passed combat.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Tampa, FL USA
    Posts
    2,193
    I think I'm going to copyright something like
    Code:
    mov ebx,1
    Then anyone that ever creates a program using this code will owe me royalties.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Posts
    21

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    364
    Originally posted by Sepero
    I think I'm going to copyright something like
    Code:
    mov ebx,1
    Then anyone that ever creates a program using this code will owe me royalties.
    Good idea I think I might copyright this:

    Code:
    printf("Hello World!\n");
    friend: first, it takes 2 minutes to load google; second, it take another 2 minutes to search for something; and third, once it finally stops searching, the Search Results pages come out screwed up (where it shows the google logo up top, the search form, and then some random characters like "[47]GGH9")
    zdude255: nope
    friend: damn...
    zdude255: all your viruses are belong to you
    friend: ...
    friend: not funny

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    14,947
    Originally posted by Sepero
    I think I'm going to copyright something like
    Code:
    mov ebx,1
    Then anyone that ever creates a program using this code will owe me royalties.
    Except for that minor little "prior art" deal.

    Originally posted by zdude255
    Good idea I think I might copyright this:

    Code:
    printf("Hello World!\n");
    Same thing.

    If there are already programs in existence that use these pieces of code, then you can't patent them. You're not the person who originally thought them up, are you? Nope, obviously not, since there's prior art.

    Well, hang on, copyright? Or patent? Copyrighting stuff just means you control who can and can't make copies, of your specific piece of work (something that short is too short to be copyrightable). You could patent it, though (patents apply to ideas), except that prior art is applicable to patent law, so you couldn't.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Posts
    21
    There might be something you can do about this.

    Eric Raymond has a notice on his site at this page:

    http://www.catb.org/~esr/no-secrets/


    Roy
    http://www.webservertimes.com

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Tampa, FL USA
    Posts
    2,193
    Originally posted by bwkaz
    If there are already programs in existence that use these pieces of code, then you can't patent them. You're not the person who originally thought them up, are you? Nope, obviously not, since there's prior art.
    Why do you even waste your time posting?
    I was clearly making a joke.
    Honestly, I think you're a pretty good guy, bwkaz, but sometimes I question your mental capacity.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    14,947
    Yeah, yeah, whatever.

    The main part of the post was supposed to be the "copyright or trademark?" question, though now that I reread it, it really doesn't sound that way.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Somewhere, Texas
    Posts
    9,628

    Novell steps into IBM vs SCO case

    The SCO fiasco is about to collapse around them...Novell has released a press statement claiming they never sold the UNIX license to SCO, but licensed it. SCO has no rights to claim ownership of any UNIX IP. Novell has stated that they do not wish to get in the way of Linux development and have reiterating their work with Linux and open-source.



    Here's the story on Slashdot
    The original release is not there...oddly enough, www.novell.com is not there

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Somewhere, Texas
    Posts
    9,628
    The conferance call was recorded and you can listen to it here at Yahoo! Finance it's ASX streaming format and I don't know how well this works in Linux, you might need the Codeweavers Crossover Plugin...if any one gets it working in Linux, post a quick howto here


    Two weeks before the trial with IBM starts and now they are claiming "a breach in contract" with IBM...as they don't have any say-so in IP copyrights and patents anymore

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Panorama, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,053
    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=...&tid=190&tid=99

    --------------
    Novell has put out a press release this morning unequivocally claiming that they, and not SCO, own the patents and copyrights to UNIX System V. If true, this would torpedo SCO's claims over the last few months about intellectual property infringement in the Linux kernel, GNU/Linux distributions, etc. News.com has a story from last night, prior to this press release. SCO is releasing quarterly financial results today, including their notes about how much they've made from their licensing claims.

    Bruce Perens writes:

    "We knew that SCO's attack on Linux was a lie. But we never dreamed of the big lie behind it.

    "This morning, Novell announced some of the terms of the company's 1995 agreement to sell its Unix business to SCO. The shocking news is that Novell did not sell the Unix intellectual property to SCO. Instead, they sold SCO a license to develop, sell, and sub-license Unix. The title to Unix copyrights and patents remains with Novell. To back up this assertion, Novell refers to public records at the Library of Congress Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent Office.

    "In their announcement, Novell refers to recent letters from SCO asking Novell to assign the Unix copyrights to SCO. So, apparently SCO's management team knew that they did not own Unix while pursuing their sham campaign against Linux.

    "Along with this revelation, Novell is reiterating its support of the Linux and Open Source developer community, and its status as a partner in that community. Novell rejects SCO's accusations of plagiarism. Novell management says they do not intend to stand in the way of the development of the Linux kernel, its companion GNU system, and other Free Software.

    "It would be an understatement to say that this leaves SCO in a bad position. The company has loudly and repeatedly asserted that they were the owner of the Unix intellectual property, all of the way back to AT&T's original development of the system 30 years ago. They've lied to their stockholders, their customers and partners, the 1500 companies that they threatened, the press, and the public. Their untruthful campaign caused the loss of sales and jobs, and damaged Linux companies and developers in a myriad of ways. And now, SCO will be the lawsuit target. SCO's quarterly earnings conference call is this morning, at 9 AM MST (11 AM EST, 8 AM PST). Call 800-406-5356, toll-free, to participate. You might even get to ask a question. It should be fun to watch them try to weasel out of this one.

    ---------------
    hahahahaha!
    The plot thickens!!!
    CMonster says, "You can't choose the right OS if you don't have a choice."

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    270
    Looks like the SCO group may get a revocation of its license to use and abuse.

    My advice to SCO: cash the check from MS soon. All top execs: run!

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Somewhere, Texas
    Posts
    9,628
    Hey, if you put SCOs responce letter through the Dialectizer as Redneck...it all makes perfect since!!


    SCO Statement on Novell's Recent Ackshuns
    Wednesday May 28, 10:15 is ET

    LINDON, Utah, May 28 /PRNooswire-FustCall/ -- Th' follerin' statement is bein' issued by SCO (Nasdaq: SCOX - Noos):

    SCO owns th' contrack rights t'th' UNIX® operatin' system, dawgone it. SCO has the contracshul right t'prevent imright donashuns of UNIX code, methods o' concepps into Linux by enny UNIX vendo'.

    Copyrights an' patents is proteckshun aginst peekoolyarrs. Contracks are whut yo' use aginst parties yo' haf relashunships wif. Fum a legal stan'point, corntracks ind up bein' far stronger than ennythin' yo' c'd do wif copyrights.

    SCO's lawsueyt aginst IBM does not involve patents o' copyrights. SCO's complaint specifically alleges bretch of corntrack, an' SCO aims t'proteck an' info'ce all of th' contracks thet th' compenny has wif mo'e than 6,000 licensees.

    We fo'med SCOsource in January 2003 t'enfo'ce our UNIX rights an' we aim t'aggressively corntinue in this hyar successful path of operashun.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    270
    Sounds like parts of SCO are underwater already!
    Last edited by chatins; 05-28-2003 at 02:47 PM.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    517

    "contract rights"

    SCO claims that their suit is not based upon copyright or patent infringement, but rather violation of "contract rights" which were established in their dealings with IBM, and perhaps other UNIX vendors. I think their take is that their contracts with IBM forbid IBM from introducing certain UNIX content into AIX. They claim to be suing for breach of contract, which they claim leaves IBM more legally vulnerable than violations of copyright law or patent infringement. I don't think the nature of these contracts has yet been made public. This is just what SCO's saying.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •