Message ID: 9860
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-05-30 14:57:00
Subject: SCOX has no beef with Linux, only IBM?

is that correct? SCOX is saying that they worked with IBM, and IBM stold their code and put it in linux?

If that is what happend, does that mean linux users are using illegal copies? Does that mean linux users will owe SCOX anything?


Message ID: 9868
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-05-30 15:09:00
Subject: would IBM steal SCOX technology?

I would think:

1) IBM wouldn’t have to.

2) IBM would know better.


Message ID: 9877
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-05-30 15:36:00
Subject: $1B worth of damages?

According to SCOX: the code that IBM stold cost SCOX $1B in damages? Considering the size of SCOX, and typical revenues, that must of have been some *incredible* code.

Have those hundreds of lines of code – by themselves – actually earned IBM one billion dollars?


Message ID: 9919
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-05-30 17:48:00
Subject: showing code under nondisclosure

agreement? What does that mean? Does it mean the reporters can not discuss anything? Or does it mean the reporters can not pirate the code? Or something else?

“McBride said SCO would start showing the disputed pieces of software code to analysts and reporters under nondisclosure agreements next week”


Message ID: 10529
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-06-03 11:02:00
Subject: What is SCOX waiting for? Reveal code!

SCOX said they would reveal the offending code this week. At least some of the offending code, to a select few, if they sign an oppressive NDA.

So what is SCOX waiting for? If they evidence, and they are willing to present it, then why not now instead of later?


Message ID: 10540
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-06-03 11:33:00
Subject: Re: What is SCOX waiting for? Reveal cod
Recs: 2
Rating: 0
Raters: 0

>> Why? So you, an unlicensed hacker, can see SVR4 code?<<

I thought the code was already distributed on hundreds of thousands of Linux CDs. That is what SCOX is claiming? Is it not?

BTW: where did you get the idea that I am an “unlicensed hacker” ? I’m not. Does the term “unlicensed hacker” even make sense?

>> Get real Faggot! <<

My my, aren’t we all grown up and reasonable? I thought it was the linux advocates who were pimply faced 14 year olds?


Message ID: 10545
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-06-03 11:41:00
Subject: Re: What is SCOX waiting for? Reveal cod

>> Imagine that SCO have one bullet in their gun, why hurry to fire the only shot
you have? <<

Why not? SCOX has had three months to aim.

The sooner SCOX reveals the offending code, the sooner SCOX can put the doubters in their place.

We can all be certain of this: if SCOX *proves* IBM IP violations: SCOX stock price will soar. So why does SCOX want to keep their own stock price down?


Message ID: 10546
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-06-03 11:43:00
Subject: Re: HEY DICKH#ADS: YOU WILL NEVER SEE CO

I think you are right, we will never see offending code, because it’s not there.
If the offending code were there, I could veiw it whenever I liked.

Whan a ranting idiot you are.


Message ID: 10675
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-06-03 19:19:00
Subject: Has SCOX shown IBM the offending code?

It would be weird if not: “we’re suing you, but we can’t say exactly why.”

If IBM has seen offending code, and if IBM is entirely confident that SCOX has no case. Then it is a slam-dunk: SCOX loses. If IBM knew they were in the wrong, they would settle rather than take any chance of losing.


Message ID: 10773
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-06-04 08:40:00
Subject: I expect SCOX will reveal the offending

code on Friday at 4:59 PM PST. That does count as “this week.” Just another evasive tactic, in a case that looks increasingly suspect.


Message ID: 10846
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-06-04 11:42:00
Subject: Re: HEY DICKH#ADS: YOU WILL NEVER SEE CO

>> We all have a right to see the code that SCOX claims to prove their case.<<

Especially if SCOX is going to send us a letter stating that Linux OS may be in violation. If SCOX is going to make such a claim, then SCOX is 100% obligated to back it up.

In this case the German Government is doing better than the USA.

Damn right: put up, or shut up.


Message ID: 10849
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-06-04 11:44:00
Subject: Re: HEY DICKH#ADS: YOU WILL NEVER SEE CO

>> why would scox show their hand?<<

A better question is: why won’t sco show their hand? All SCO has to do is identify the lines of code in Linux. If SCO is telling the truth, then SCO has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by identifying the offending code.


Message ID: 11070
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-06-05 08:28:00
Subject: Re: SCO shows code

The articles title is a little missleading, SCO has not shown any code, only made an “offer.” But here is the part that I really can not understand:

“The NDA prevents those who view the software from identifying the specific lines of code in question or describing the code’s place in the Linux operating system,”

Why can’t they identify the lines in Linux? I defy anybody to give me one good reason for that. One reason other than: this is total fraud on the part of SCOX.

Just looking at the code won’t tell anybody anything. Before the validity of SCOX claims can be verified, some knowledgable people will have to know where those lines of code exist. Then we can investigate the origin of that code.


Message ID: 11074
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-06-05 08:51:00
Subject: Re: SCO shows code

I know it’s a lawsuit. Again, give me one good reason why SCOX can’t reveal the line numbers in linux? Just one reason.

If SCOX is telling the truth, giving us the line numbers could only help SCOX’s case.

Since SCOX can not provide one good reason, I am forced to conclude that this lawsuit is fraud on the part of SCOX.


Message ID: 11075
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-06-05 08:54:00
Subject: Re: SCO shows code

>> SCO getting their day in court, not gonna show their hand till then<<

Why not? If SCOX is telling the truth, it would only help their to reveal the line numbers.

Will SCO have their day in court? I am begining to wonder. I wouldn’t be surprised if, after dragging things out as long as can, SCO simply withdrawls their case.

Also, would be surprised if SCO has their “day in court” on the other side of the courtroom – when a few dozen big companies start suing SCOX for fraud.


Message ID: 11082
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-06-05 09:12:00
Subject: Re: SCO shows code

Stop being evasive. Give me one good reason why SCOX is refusing to give the specific line number in the specific linux kernel.

You can’t, can you? Do you know why? It’s because SCOX is full of sh!t. SCOX has no case, and you know it.

Good luck with your momentum day trading.


Message ID: 11090
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-06-05 10:00:00
Subject: Re: SCO shows code

>> One good reason ?
SCO didn’t like what Linux did with its code.<<

I’m sorry but that doesn’t make any sense at all. If SCOX really wants to slam linux and IBM, then SCOX should prove to the entire world that, yes, IBM really did steal from SCOX.


Message ID: 11092
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2003-06-05 10:07:00
Subject: Re: SCO shows code

>> And Linux is completely innocent ?<<

Until proven guilty, yes. So why not give the line numbers for offending code? Why not back up your claims?

>> Don’t confuse innocent with untouchable. <<

I don’t. I have no doubt that SCOX has hurt linux with their FUD. But, you know what they say: paybacks are a bitch.


Copyright 2003 Yahoo SCOX. Messages are owned by the individual posters.