Protesters gathered on June 20 2003 in front of Lindon software company SCO to oppose the company's more than $3 billion lawsuit against IBM. Many Linux users from Utah County, held signs and marched while chanting their objections.
"We're just trying to get the media and the public aware of the lawsuit and the kind of damage that can be done when making lawsuits with no merit," said Daniel Miller, vice-president of Utah State University's Free Software and Linux Club.
Audio
Darl McBride answers questions [10.4 MB WMA] More Photos
Reports
2003-06-21 Linux users protest lawsuit against IBM
2003-11-12 SCO v IBM [YouTube] WMV
Documents
SCO Protest
Provo Linux Users Group Flyer [PDF] Photos Photos
More facts and timelines at Anonymous Insider.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
SCO and the Legal Future of Free Software
On February 23 2004, the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology (JOLT) presented Eben Moglen, General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation. Moglen is also Professor of Law and Legal History at Columbia Law School.
Videos
Introduction [YouTube]
Software as a product, as knowledge and as a service [YouTube]
SCO's lawsuit [YouTube]
SCO, free software and Eldred v. Ashcroft [YouTube]
SCO, Microsoft and patents [YouTube]
Distribution of music / movies and 'owners of culture' [YouTube]
Q&A 1 [YouTube]
Q&A 2 [YouTube]
Q&A 3 [YouTube]
Q&A 4 [YouTube]
More facts and timelines at Anonymous Insider.
Videos
Introduction [YouTube]
Software as a product, as knowledge and as a service [YouTube]
SCO's lawsuit [YouTube]
SCO, free software and Eldred v. Ashcroft [YouTube]
SCO, Microsoft and patents [YouTube]
Distribution of music / movies and 'owners of culture' [YouTube]
Q&A 1 [YouTube]
Q&A 2 [YouTube]
Q&A 3 [YouTube]
Q&A 4 [YouTube]
More facts and timelines at Anonymous Insider.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Could SCO v IBM happen to you?
On January 15 2004, Jeremy Malcolm presented at linux.conf.au a paper on issues related to SCO v IBM.
Abstract: SCO's litigation against IBM is widely and properly regarded as an opportunistic and disingenuous gambit that has seriously backfired on the company. However, SCO's point is that the open source development model does not adequately vet contributors' code for violations of intellectual property rights. There is some truth in this, particularly since it is possible to breach intellectual property rights (such as patent rights) completely innocently. Regardless of the merits of SCO's claim, open source developers do need to sit up and take notice of the issues the litigation has raised. This presentation will enumerate those issues, and suggest some of the steps that open source developers should be taking to address them, and thereby protect themselves against litigious intellectual property owners.
Videos
The players and what stage are we at? [YouTube]
What SCO is saying and what SCO claims IBM took? [YouTube]
Intellectual Property Law [YouTube]
When are you allowed to copy [YouTube]
How to protect yourself [YouTube]
More ways to protect yourself [YouTube]
Conclusion [YouTube]
Slides [PDF]
Reports
2004-01-12 Torvalds turns up at linux.conf.au
2004-01-18 linux.conf.au report More More Photos Photos
More facts and timelines at Anonymous Insider.
Abstract: SCO's litigation against IBM is widely and properly regarded as an opportunistic and disingenuous gambit that has seriously backfired on the company. However, SCO's point is that the open source development model does not adequately vet contributors' code for violations of intellectual property rights. There is some truth in this, particularly since it is possible to breach intellectual property rights (such as patent rights) completely innocently. Regardless of the merits of SCO's claim, open source developers do need to sit up and take notice of the issues the litigation has raised. This presentation will enumerate those issues, and suggest some of the steps that open source developers should be taking to address them, and thereby protect themselves against litigious intellectual property owners.
Videos
The players and what stage are we at? [YouTube]
What SCO is saying and what SCO claims IBM took? [YouTube]
Intellectual Property Law [YouTube]
When are you allowed to copy [YouTube]
How to protect yourself [YouTube]
More ways to protect yourself [YouTube]
Conclusion [YouTube]
Slides [PDF]
Reports
2004-01-12 Torvalds turns up at linux.conf.au
2004-01-18 linux.conf.au report More More Photos Photos
More facts and timelines at Anonymous Insider.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Defending Intellectual Property Rights
On February 2, 2004, the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology presented Darl McBride, president and CEO of SCO. SCO's suit (called by some the "case against open source") against IBM for unfair trade practices and other alleged violations was making headlines in cyberlaw and mainstream media.
Videos
Introduction [YouTube] WMV
Intellectual Property [YouTube] WMV
SCO's Intellectual Property [YouTube] WMV
Linux and the GPL [YouTube] WMV
Digital Age Problems [YouTube] WMV
The Future of Free Software v Proprietary Software [YouTube] WMV
Q&A 1 [YouTube] WMV
Q&A 2 [YouTube] WMV
Q&A 3 [YouTube] WMV
Q&A 4 [YouTube] WMV
Q&A 5 [YouTube] WMV
Reports
2004-02-04 Though reviled by Linux enthusiasts, Darl McBride sticks to his guns
2004-02-04 Head of company targeted by virus speaks about intellectual property
Perspectives
2004-01-30 Harvard is Pleased to Invite Darl to Speak
2004-02-02 Free as in Maaah
2004-02-02 Darl Goes to Harvard - My First Quick Impressions More More
2004-02-04 Thoughts on Darl: Beliefs vs. Tactics
2005-02-05 Questioning the Kernel More
2005-02-09 Darl McBride's visit to Harvard
2004-02-15 Darl McBride's Harvard Appearance - Transcript
2005-03-24 Groklaw transcription of Darl McBride presentation
More facts and timelines at Anonymous Insider.
Videos
Introduction [YouTube] WMV
Intellectual Property [YouTube] WMV
SCO's Intellectual Property [YouTube] WMV
Linux and the GPL [YouTube] WMV
Digital Age Problems [YouTube] WMV
The Future of Free Software v Proprietary Software [YouTube] WMV
Q&A 1 [YouTube] WMV
Q&A 2 [YouTube] WMV
Q&A 3 [YouTube] WMV
Q&A 4 [YouTube] WMV
Q&A 5 [YouTube] WMV
Reports
2004-02-04 Though reviled by Linux enthusiasts, Darl McBride sticks to his guns
2004-02-04 Head of company targeted by virus speaks about intellectual property
Perspectives
2004-01-30 Harvard is Pleased to Invite Darl to Speak
2004-02-02 Free as in Maaah
2004-02-02 Darl Goes to Harvard - My First Quick Impressions More More
2004-02-04 Thoughts on Darl: Beliefs vs. Tactics
2005-02-05 Questioning the Kernel More
2005-02-09 Darl McBride's visit to Harvard
2004-02-15 Darl McBride's Harvard Appearance - Transcript
2005-03-24 Groklaw transcription of Darl McBride presentation
More facts and timelines at Anonymous Insider.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Linux Scalability
Major Virtual Memory merge
September 16, 2001
Quote: "The VM rewrite was not posted in public, nor described in public. It just appeared and got merged. Could you at least describe *ALL* of the changes?"
Learn more at Linux Scalability .
September 16, 2001
Quote: "The VM rewrite was not posted in public, nor described in public. It just appeared and got merged. Could you at least describe *ALL* of the changes?"
Learn more at Linux Scalability .
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Yahoo Finance SCO and Investor Village SCO
Investors Abandon SCO
December 1, 2006
Quote: "Last month, SCO Group asked U.S. District Court Judge Dale Kimball in Salt Lake City to reinstate claims against International Business Machines. SCO Group argued that there was no evidence it had withheld information it was required to disclose."
Learn more at Groklaw - Peter Salus .
December 1, 2006
Quote: "Last month, SCO Group asked U.S. District Court Judge Dale Kimball in Salt Lake City to reinstate claims against International Business Machines. SCO Group argued that there was no evidence it had withheld information it was required to disclose."
Learn more at Groklaw - Peter Salus .
Friday, June 26, 2009
SCO v IBM et al
Did SCO get Linux-mob justice?
September 10, 2007
Quote: "Litigants, especially unpopular ones, are entitled to their day in court. In this case, the last word on SCO’s controversial claims should have been delivered by a jury, not by Dale Kimball."
Learn more at SCO v IBM et al .
September 10, 2007
Quote: "Litigants, especially unpopular ones, are entitled to their day in court. In this case, the last word on SCO’s controversial claims should have been delivered by a jury, not by Dale Kimball."
Learn more at SCO v IBM et al .
