Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Caldera IBM News Your Rights Online

Randall Davis: IBM Has No SCO Code 405

Posted by timothy
from the hey-they've-been-trying-to-tell-you-that dept.
Mick Ohrberg writes "As reported by Groklaw, Randall Davis, renowned professor of Computer Science at MIT has after an extensive search found no evidence of SCO's claims that IBM has incorporated parts of the Unix System V code. Davis says "Accordingly, the IBM Code cannot be said, in my opinion, to be a modification or a derivative work based on the Unix System V Code." Surprised, anyone?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Randall Davis: IBM Has No SCO Code

Comments Filter:
  • Wait... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dayze!Confused (717774) <slashdot.org@[ ] ... m ['ohy' in gap]> on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:30PM (#10279506) Homepage Journal
    you mean that SCO has been lying to us?
    • Re:Wait... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:54PM (#10279767)
      "We are still seeing copyright violations being committed and the damage is still occurring on a daily basis, yet the other side said, "What is the problem? Look, we took it out of the future versions."

      We showed over a million lines of code and where it has existed. [Linux creator] Linus Torvalds has told me that the Linux kernel has around 5 million lines of code. This derivative code accounts for 20 percent of the Linux code base."
      Q&A: SCO Group CEO Darl McBride By Michael Singer
      http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 114341 [internetnews.com]

      WTF! This guy can find a single line!! he must be blind! The CEO of SCO says that 1/5 of linux is a copy. Darl Mcbride would not lie!!!

      Remeber SCO owns c++ too!
      "And C++ programming languages, we own those" -Darl McBride
      Caldera CEO waves UnitedLinux banner By ZDNet Staff August 15, 2002 http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/mai n/0,14179,2877578,00.html [zdnet.com]
      • Re:Wait... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Remeber SCO owns c++ too!
        "And C++ programming languages, we own those" -Darl McBride


        And nobody was more surprised to hear it than Bjarne Stroustrup [att.com] himself!
  • Figures... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:30PM (#10279508)
    Well, you thought that SCO's case had to be standing on SOMETHING, right? COlor me surprised! ;)
  • by Godeke (32895) * on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:31PM (#10279516)
    One thing was pointed out on Groklaw that I think was relevant. Although I think SCO has no case, I'm sure they will jump on the fact that the expert didn't provide an example of a true derivative work run through the same procedure.

    It surely wouldn't have been hard to take some, say, early and "in the clear" code that has been reused and modified over time to show both that it can be identified and to show how code that has evolved can still leave the fingerprint of the original code. Without that counter example the failure to find matches would seem underwhelming. (The closest the testimony came to this was showing a positive result that was generated and showing how it was a commonly repeated pattern in all software written in C, not something specific to these two programs).

    Perhaps elsewhere in IBMs testimony there was reference to this same procedure being successfully?
    • Counterexample DIY (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hummassa (157160) on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:41PM (#10279638) Homepage Journal
      1. Get Linux 2.6.8.1
      2. Get Linux 2.4.0
      3. left out as an exercise for the reader
      4. Show positive result
      5. Don't profit, but have fun.
    • by mindstrm (20013) on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:47PM (#10279707)
      He doesn't need to; the software in question has probably been used many times before for the exact same thing.

      Everyone is getting so far off base on this.

      SCO is manging to convince people that this is somehow difficult to prove.. that they need more research and more time to PROVE that IBM stole code and put it in linux. Their only claim as to why they think Linux has SCO code is "because there is no way linux could have become as good as it did without stealing from us".. ie: denial

      They have yet to show ONE section of code that was lifted. They haven't even shown how one was *similar* enough to have potentially been stolen and heavily modified.. they have shown *NOTHING*

      IT's called an expert witness... and their word DOES mean something to the court.. they stake their reputation on it.

      • by theMightyE (579317) on Friday September 17, 2004 @04:26PM (#10280553)
        SCO is manging to convince people that this is somehow difficult to prove... They have yet to show ONE section of code that was lifted. They haven't even shown how one was *similar* enough to have potentially been stolen and heavily modified.. they have shown *NOTHING*

        I've been thinking this was strange too. After all, if code was copied into Linux it is essentially a public document now - out there for everyone to see. All SCO would have to do is download it and print it out side-by-side with a copy of their matching code. Case closed. SCO wins.

        The fact that they haven't done this extremely simple thing seems to strongly point to SCO being a bunch of total bullshitters. Even if some malicious programmer intentionally stole code and modified it slightly (changed variable names, comments, re-arranged the order of functions in header files, etc.) it should be pretty trivial to show a judge what happened and move on to the 'get sacks of cash from IBM' phase of the trial.

        Funny, you would think that a company that is suffering continuous, ongoing harm to the tune of US$699 per user would be pretty quick to do such a thing...

    • LAW (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Skiron (735617)
      Law is an ass, and there is no way to tell which way this will still come out - on all the arguments.

      It only takes a . out of line to sway the legal result, not necessary the correct and right result.

      It not over until the fat penguin sings, then we can all rejoice.
    • It surely wouldn't have been hard to take some, say, early and "in the clear" code that has been reused and modified over time to show both that it can be identified and to show how code that has evolved can still leave the fingerprint of the original code.

      That's the SCO argument, isn't it, that derivative works are theirs by copyright. Trouble is that the law is different. Copyright covers the representation not the idea. And for software having malloc() in two pieces of code doesn't rise to copyright

    • by darkonc (47285) <stephen_samuel.bcgreen@com> on Friday September 17, 2004 @04:25PM (#10280542) Homepage Journal
      I'm sure they will jump on the fact that the expert didn't provide an example of a true derivative work run through the same procedure.

      It just hit me: He doesn't have to. It's SCO's responsibility to show that there is infringing code in Linux. It's not IBM's responsibility to show that there is none. All that Davis has to prove is that the search is feasible in a reasonable ammount of time (as opposed to SCO's claim of 25,000 man-years). He's done this admirably. Not being able to find anything is simply icing on the cake.

      One beautiful thing about this is that (AFAICT) all (or almost all) of the software he used seems to be Open source (although he has references some similar commercial software), so SCO has absolutely no excuse to not repeat his experiment and come up with different results (presuming that they've actually got a case), given that it takes about 1 hour to run the comparison on off-the-shelf hardware.

      The other beautiful thing about this is -- remember Darl's remarks about an MIT team deep-diving the code?...... (boot to the head!)
      "I've shown you mine, now you show me yours!"

  • by CrayzyJ (222675) on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:31PM (#10279521) Homepage Journal
    rocks are hard and water is wet.

    More at 11.
  • Really??!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by theparanoidcynic (705438) on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:32PM (#10279530)
    I thought SCO was telling the truth the whole time. You mean to tell me that those bastardly socialist hackers have done nothing wrong? Impudence!
    • What's this world coming to!!! Are they going to say that Microsoft isn't a kind and honest corporation next?
  • by Bull999999 (652264) on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:32PM (#10279534) Journal
    8. I have been retained by counsel for IBM in this lawsuit and am being compensated at a rate of $550 per hour.

    20. These comparisons required on the order of 10 hours of computation time on a dual 3 GHz Xeon processor system with 2 GB of RAM. This is a high-end workstation routinely and easily available off the shelf from commercial vendors such as Dell.


    At $550 per hour, I would've used something like a 386 processor with 8MB of RAM.
    • by Aardpig (622459) on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:38PM (#10279602)

      At $550 per hour, I would've used something like a 386 processor with 8MB of RAM.

      Hell, I would have built a wetware turing machine using a dozen grad students armed with abacii. In treacle. With Natalie Portman implementing the I/O subsystem.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:41PM (#10279642)
      At $550 per hour, I would've used something like a 386 processor with 8MB of RAM.

      I guess that's one reason they didn't hire you.

    • by John Harrison (223649) <johnharrison AT gmail DOT com> on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:52PM (#10279745) Homepage Journal
      At $550 an hour from IBM you think he would have at least had the decency to not plug Dell.
  • by I_am_Rambi (536614) on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:35PM (#10279560) Homepage
    What about these snippets? // /*
    */
    while(1)
    {
    }
    return(0);
    return(1);
    if (...)
    elseif (...)
    else

    And don't forget the white space! That is a clear copy!
  • by CheechBG (247105) * on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:35PM (#10279567) Homepage
    SCO's outside law firm have recently found incontrovertible evidence that SCO has been doing some "creative" accounting practices. Said one high-level attorney, "These books are cooked so bad I should have brought some steaks and smores, we could have had a cookout."

    /really drawn-out joke :)

  • Wade'da'minute... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dark Coder (66759)
    The article is a good start but what are the criterias for determining derivatives?

    Which method is covered for source code comparisions?

    1. two printouts held together and up toward a lighted source?
    2. side-by-side subjective eyeball comparision
    3. diff (and all derivative comparision tools)
    4. diff with some wiggle-room command line options?
    5. NSA-grade pattern analysis supercomputer?

    I'm slightly guarded here, but these SCO FUD-busting articles seemed very promising...
    • Read the PDF... (Score:5, Informative)

      by mekkab (133181) on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:38PM (#10279605) Homepage Journal
      He goes into detail.
  • by GillBates0 (664202) on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:36PM (#10279575) Homepage Journal
    where there is no SCO code.

    SCO, don't try and claim that IBM has your code. That's impossible. Instead, realize the truth. There is no SCO code.

    • Darl sez... (Score:5, Funny)

      by phyruxus (72649) <jumpandlinkNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday September 17, 2004 @03:17PM (#10279991) Homepage Journal
      Darl McBride was reached for comment and had the following comments to make:

      There are no American tanks in Baghdad!
      They are nowhere near Baghdad.
      Their forces committed suicide by the hundreds.... The battle is very fierce and God made us victorious. The fighting continues.

      Ooops, wrong script. (fumbles with papers)

      IBM is lying about the lack of stolen code.
      We need another delay to find stolen code.
      There can be no doubt that Linux contains stolen code.

  • by LinuxParanoid (64467) * on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:36PM (#10279577) Homepage Journal
    ... who wrote the comparator tool which was one of the two tools used in the analysis.

    ESR [catb.org] deserves three cheers for 'scratching his itch', making a tool to compare copyrighted code. To have it actually used in the SCO case which was the annoying impetus for its creation (AFAICT) has to be a nice feeling.

    I'm not an ESR fanboy, but I'll give him props when I think he deserves it and in this case I think he does.

    --LP
  • by zerofoo (262795) on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:36PM (#10279579)
    Where do I get a gig like that?

    He basically had some software look for similarities in the code, and then manually verified the hits.

    Wow....$550/hour to do that. I've got a CS degree - I'll volunteer to do it for half that!

    Oh yeah, he also explained the significance of return statements so that non-programmer types could understand.

    -ted
    • by mekkab (133181) on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:41PM (#10279639) Homepage Journal
      Great! Graduate Phi Beta Cappa (summa cum laude, too), run some AI centers and also have excessive experience in Code copyright infringement cases!

      See you in 10 years!

      (trans: read the relevant parts of his CV in the PDF- this guy is FOR REAL.)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:37PM (#10279589)
    That's ... that's ... that's because Randall Davis doesn't have the Secret SCO Decoder Ring (tm) (patent pending) (C 2004 SCO). The Decoder Ring ... it ... it detects our IP where no mere mortal could ever hope to find it!

    And now ... for a limited time only ... buy SCOSource licenses for 5 or more friends, and SCO will throw in a Secret SCO Decoder Ring (tm) (patent pending) (C 2004 SCO) at no additional charge!

    My name is Darl McBride, and I have authorized this message!
  • Scope (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:38PM (#10279601)
    Only the code SCO CURRENTLY says is infringing was tested. According to the document on Groklaw, this was not a line by line comparison.. so if SCO sneaks new code into discovery at some later point, this'll have to be done all over again.

    Why? 6 million lines of code compared against 6 million (or more) will take a exponentially more time than 27000 vs 6 million.

  • SCO code (Score:2, Funny)

    by MikeMacK (788889)
    17. As explained in detail below, I used two programs, called COMPARATOR and SIM, to help automate the process.

    Hmmm...I wonder if he can prove that COMPARATOR and SIM do not contain any SCO code?

  • busted! (Score:5, Funny)

    by 192939495969798999 (58312) <info&devinmoore,com> on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:46PM (#10279694) Homepage Journal
    SCO: b-b-but, you're not supposed to use a COMPUTER SCIENTIST!
    IBM: byte us.
  • by ARRRLovin (807926) on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:52PM (#10279750)
    SCO claims an attack from IBM, using these weapons, is imminent. SCO has 2 carrier battle groups in the area and 250,000 troops on call to go in and find the WMD, pending UN approval. More news to come.....
  • by SpaceBadger (556685) on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:53PM (#10279763)
    Your honour, when we apply the standard abstraction and filtration phases to any Unix System V file we can clearly see that the resulting 0 byte file is identical to every abstracted and filtered 0 byte file in the latest Linux kernel.
  • by HopeOS (74340) on Friday September 17, 2004 @02:55PM (#10279782)
    Although your deposition includes a description of your methodology, it does not indicate whether you established a proper baseline for comparison or how you calibrated your filter. I would be interested to know how far, in your direct experience, code can be modified before it fails to match COMPARATOR and SIM respectively. Furthermore, how closely does the point at which these tools fail to detect a match coincide with the legal Abstraction, Filtration, and Comparison test?

    I do not fault your analysis; I would like to know more about your methodology, beyond the limited scope of the deposition.

    -Hope
    • by Dark Coder (66759) on Friday September 17, 2004 @03:14PM (#10279966)
      Thank you... After being batted down by clueless moderators...I'm with Hope.

      I'm more interested in the Abstraction and Comparision aspect. Forget the Filtration aspect as they seem only to pertain to non-Copyright (mostly patentable objects).

      Now, for Comparision... What are the wiggle room concepts introduced? I know of the most commonly used one such as "Upper-lowercase, multiple whitespaces"

      And for the Abstraction, ones I know of are: inverse logic (a gt b) vs. (b lt a) and inverted or flipped loops.

      I know in for Abstraction, one can evade the copyright in this manner. But for Comparision....?

    • by barawn (25691) on Friday September 17, 2004 @03:17PM (#10279986) Homepage
      Furthermore, how closely does the point at which these tools fail to detect a match coincide with the legal Abstraction, Filtration, and Comparison test?


      Um. Dr. Davis is the guy who first came up with the abstraction, filtration, comparison test - he was the expert witness in Computer Associates vs. Altai. Check his credentials in the first section.

      He actually addresses the point you're asking - the code actually finds looser matches than would be found with abstraction, filtration, comparison. So he just ran them through that, said "well, no matches" - since it's a looser comparison, a stricter comparison would be of no benefit.

      I think the court will give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows how to do something that he was the first one to do.
    • by jgoemat (565882) on Friday September 17, 2004 @05:39PM (#10281047)
      He talks about this in his declaration [groklaw.net] under section 12, Methodology. Abstraction and Filtration are two things that would rule out code. They are meant to filter out parts of the code that are not protectable under copyright (public domain code, scenes a faire, etc.). If the comparison provided matches that were indeed similar, abstration and filtration could be used to show that although they were the same, they were not protectable. Everything must pass the comparison test though, so by doing this he was casting a wide net to find any similar code.
      24. For purposes of my review, I did not first apply the "abstraction" and filtration" analyses to the Unix System V Code. Instead, to be conservative, I assumed that all of the Unix System V code was in fact protectable (although I do not believe all of such code in fact to be protectable) and proceeded to compare all of the Unix System V Code with all of the IBM Code to see if there were any true matches of copied code in the first place. To the extent necessary, I then applied the "filtration" analysis to the reportedly matching code to determine if such code was in fact protectable.
  • by hackstraw (262471) * on Friday September 17, 2004 @03:01PM (#10279845)
    Well, it looks like we only have 2 more months [yahoo.com] until SCOX is back to where it should be.
  • by dR.fuZZo (187666) on Friday September 17, 2004 @03:05PM (#10279884)
    To strengthen their case, IBM needed to trot out an MIT professor to counteract all of those fictional MIT folks that found this infringement in the first place.
  • His resume! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by chill (34294) on Friday September 17, 2004 @03:06PM (#10279898) Journal
    I love this part:

    "I have also been retained by the Department of Justice in its investigation of the INSLAW matter. In 1992 (and later in 1995) my task in that engagement was to investigate alleged copyright theft and subsequent cover-up by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the National Security Agency, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the United States Customs Service, and the Defense Intelligence Agency."

    Holy rat shit Batman!

    • by kzinti (9651) on Friday September 17, 2004 @03:20PM (#10280011) Homepage Journal
      "I have also been retained by the Department of Justice in its investigation of the INSLAW matter. In 1992 (and later in 1995) my task in that engagement was to investigate alleged copyright theft and subsequent cover-up by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the National Security Agency, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the United States Customs Service, and the Defense Intelligence Agency."

      So Professor Davis can not only tell us that there is no SCO code in linux, but he should also be able to tell us how much crack the SCO weasels had to smoke before formulating their outrageous claims.
  • SCO's hubris (Score:5, Interesting)

    by deego (587575) on Friday September 17, 2004 @03:10PM (#10279929)
    [1] SCO identified certain lines of code as being in IBM's code *somewhere*. Randall Davis did not find them *anywhere*

    [2] Mr. Gupta of SCO told the court some specific lines of SCO code mathcing some specific lines of ibm code. That turns out to be a lie. Randall David points out on p. 10 that it is rather obvious even to a non-technical user that they are not similar!

    [3] SCO had the gall to claim a 3-line code

    #endif
    return
    }

    as being stolen!!

    Even among these 3 lines, the #endif was followed by one comment in one code, and one comment in another. And one code had a newline between, and one didn't. As Randall Davis points out, this is like saying that oen author stole from another author since in somewhere in 2 of their books, 2 sentences both end in "the end".

  • by IronChefMorimoto (691038) on Friday September 17, 2004 @03:19PM (#10280003)
    In related news, the same researcher has determined that the brown stripe in the BVD briefs of 77-year-old Frank Wilson of Alatoosa, Mississippi does not contain SCO bullshit.

    Wilson was subpoenaed on July 3, 2004 for apparently using SCO Unix bullshit in his underwear. SCO lawyers contended that, in addition to all of their other bullshit, this particular stripe of fecal matter in Wilson's BVDs was, in fact, similar the other bullshit that they have spread around since they began their legal actions.

    Wilson, a World War II veteran and resident at the Shady Acres Memory Care facility on the western edge of Alatoosa, was not immediately aware of what SCO was in the first place.

    "I thought it was the VA -- finally giving me my money for that piece of Kraut shrapnel I took in 1942! Fucking Krauts! Where's my applesauce? Is my wife around?"

    Officials at the memory care facility noted that Wilson is an Alzheimers patient who frequently forgets to wipe himself after using the bedpan, hence the source of the stripe in his underwear. They were aware of the legal action again Wilson by SCO, but rather than stir up his angina and blood pressure by witholding the mail that he watches being delivered every day, they let him open the SCO legal letter himself.

    "We're just glad he didn't keel over with a stroke," said Frank Johnson, the head nurse of the memory care facility. "He just ranted about the VA and pissed down his leg while asking for his son, who has been dead for 16 years after a car accident. It could've been a lot worse."

    The examination of the fecal stripe in the suspect pair of BVDs turned up concrete evidence that, in fact, the shit was Wilson's. In fact, it was not even bullshit and thus not legally open to subpoena by SCO on the grounds that it was more of SCO's bullshit. No countersuit has been filed, as Wilson's surviving family members have apparently never visited him at the facility and only wish to pay the bills for his care.

    IronChefMorimoto

  • by Anita Coney (648748) on Friday September 17, 2004 @03:19PM (#10280005) Homepage
    Way back in April McBride admitted there were no "line-by-line, exact copies" of code taken from Unix and placed in Linux. He stated that it was a merely a "nonliteral" copy.

    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1561611,00. as p

    • by rusty0101 (565565) on Friday September 17, 2004 @03:43PM (#10280209) Homepage Journal
      If you paid attention to the FA, you might have noticed that what McBride is accusing IBM or other Linux developers of doing, includes changing the variable names to hide the 'stolen' code, and that the software that the Dr. used takes this possibility into consideration, and would find such lines if they existed.

      The basic result is that no such lines existed that can be demonstrated to be non-literal copying, or literal copying.

      -Rusty
  • by helmespc (807573) on Friday September 17, 2004 @03:23PM (#10280035)
    I think SCO is stalling so that they can rewrite their code to match the Linux code...
  • Heh, paragraph 30 (Score:5, Informative)

    by xant (99438) on Friday September 17, 2004 @03:24PM (#10280042) Homepage
    (copied by hand, not pasted, since the PDF is of a fax of a copy or somethign..)

    The box below shows one of the reported matches from the lines of code cited by SCO. COMPARATOR reported a match between lines 588-591 in rclock.c and lines 1665-1667 from System V UW1.1 /src/i386at/uts/io/target/sdi.c:

    Lines 588-591 from rclock.c
    #endif /* RCLOCK_PROF */
    return;
    }


    Lines 1665-1667 from sdi.c
    #endif
    return;
    }


    The two "words"--endif and return--that appear in the two files are so common in code written in the C language that finding them together like this is purely an accident, of no significance in detecting copying. In particular, the code from each file above simply signifies the ending of a routine; it is as if we had found two bodies of unrelated English text that each happened to conclude with the words "the end".

    I think that pretty much sums up this whole case from the beginning.
  • by bckrispi (725257) on Friday September 17, 2004 @03:42PM (#10280196)
    ...without the Smoke & Mirrors.
  • by 1shooter (185361) on Friday September 17, 2004 @03:43PM (#10280205)
    Dan and CBS is very good at finding documents even when they don't exist so they ought to be able to find code that was "stolen" from SCO.
  • SCO MATRIX (Score:4, Funny)

    by rock_climbing_guy (630276) on Friday September 17, 2004 @04:13PM (#10280447) Journal
    Do not try to find the code. That's impossible.

    Only try to realize the truth: There is no code.

    Then you will see it is not the code that is gone; it is only your head.

  • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Friday September 17, 2004 @04:15PM (#10280471)
    While news of no infringing code is hardly a surprise to everyone here, it really explains a lot of SCO's behavior. Everyone believes there probably isn't literal copying in Linux. SCO probaly does too. But SCO is stuck having made so many public statements. What they've been trying to do is sneak in the derivatives, modifications, "methods and concepts" copyright infringements. This explains their steadfast and unbending request for all of AIX and Dynix source code. They know that nobody copied SysV and put it into Linux. But many people at IBM (and others) may have used SysV as a guide to develop their own code. They want to get their hands on anything that looks like somebody at IBM wrote that might be similiar enough to pass off as having some lineage to SysV. Problem for SCO is that current copyright laws do not support this notion.
  • by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH (182037) on Friday September 17, 2004 @04:27PM (#10280566) Homepage Journal
    HA HA!
  • Justice upgrade (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday September 17, 2004 @05:33PM (#10281008) Homepage Journal
    If US justice required evidence to be registered and certified allowable before claims were filed, the system would shed a lot of its unbearable load. Even the appeals before a judge, of disallowed evidence, would be dealt with in a more efficient manner. It's insane that I'm paying for the legal system that SCO is exploiting to promote its equity, now that its legitimate business has failed, while their travesty hasn't even got any evidence, or demonstrated any basis for their claims. After the years they've pushed this thing through the courts, they should have at least produced some evidence. And they're just the flagship corporate operation lawsuit - billions are spent by my cohort of taxpayers to keep litigious corporations and their lawyers in business. We should nip them in the bud, by simply requiring evidence to make any claims based on it.
  • by borgheron (172546) on Friday September 17, 2004 @06:42PM (#10281475) Homepage Journal
    We see that now that you are engaged in an ass kicking contents with an entity that has 20 legs and no ass, you're loosing!

    Not to mention the fact that you have no case!! Never had one, never will have one!! Do you sleep well at night, Darl? Do your employees welcome you to the office when you show up for work? Or do they jeer at the man whose cost them any future they could ever have had in the IT industry in the hope that they might "get rich quick" by trying to bust up Linux?

    Caldera (let's call it what it is...) was one of the Linux leaders and you've turned this once Linux company into a litigation machine just like you're famous for. Well this time, the joke's on you pal. You've come up against two things you didn't count on. One, that a mega corporation like IBM might actually fight you instead of just paying you off and two, the tenacity of the Linux community and our unique ability to find the facts about a given situation. *This* is how it works here, we police each other with the very same eye we've used to scrutinize this farce of yours.

    We have come out on top, and we will always come out on top. We've stared you in your ugly face and we've not flinched.

    Screw you, Darl McBride.

    Sincerely, Gregory Casamento.

Excessive login or logout messages are a sure sign of senility.

Working...