Where to for the little people [Was: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] foundthis on SCO vs Linux]

[Tom Adelstein]

"Darin W. Smith" <darin_ext at darinsmith.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:10:06 -0500, Tom Adelstein <adelste at netscape.net> 
>wrote:
>
>> This is not a matter of whether SCOis innocent until proven otherwise. 
>> They have the burden of proof. I don't believe they have the goods. 
>> Therefore, I challenge them.
>>
>> I don't understand how discussing the future of Linux is off topic. Can 
>> someone enlighten me?
>
>I think discussing the future of Linux is entirely ON topic.
>
>You are absolutely correct, IMO, that the burden of proof lies on SCO.  
>What I think would be the most productive thing to do, legally, is to force 
>them to reveal, clearly and openly, what code they contest.  As it is, one 
>can only see particular examples they have chosen and only if you have 
>agreed to a rather offensive NDA.
>
>They may be only suing IBM (right now), but they should allow "discovery" 
>by all involved parties--i.e., anyone who has anything to do with Linux 
>kernel development.  As it is, they are (IMO) attempting to hold the entire 
>Linux (and open-source in general) market for ransom.  I believe the word 
>for that is "extortion."
>
>\Ex*tor"tion\, n. [F. extorsion.] 1. The act of extorting; the act or 
>practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any 
>undue exercise of power; undue exaction; overcharge.
>       ^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>2. (Law) The offense committed by an officer who corruptly claims and 
>takes, as his fee, money, or other thing of value, that is not due, or more 
>than is due, or before it is due. --Abbott.
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>3. That which is extorted or exacted by force.
>
>-- 
>D!
>Darin W. Smith
>AIM: JediGrover
>"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite 
>you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." --Mark 
>Twain "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
>

That's my read + some excellent points. I felt the parties at interest argument might work as a second motion filed after a hearing to make a temporary restraining order permanent. A series of discovery motions and interrogatories with several requests for information could keep SCO pretty busy.

It's time for David Boise to disclose his relationship to the court and see if we have any conflicts. 

I wonder if SCO had a clue as to what reaction people would have? 

Another issue might be raised about stock price manipulation. 



__________________________________________________________________
McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network.
Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today!
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge.  Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455