Friday, August 08, 2003

8:07:36 PM    

More Crap From SCO Here's the latest crap from SCO's "Investor Relations" department: SCO Media Statement Re IBM Counterclaims LINDON, Utah, Aug 07, 2003  /PRNewswire-FirstCall via Comtex/ -- We view IBM's counterclaim filing today as an effort to distract attention from its flawed Linux business model. It repeats the same unsubstantiated allegations made in Red Hat's filing earlier this week. If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license.  As the stakes continue to rise in the Linux battles, it becomes increasingly clear that the core issue is bigger than SCO (Nasdaq: SCOX), Red Hat, or even IBM.  The core issue is about the value of intellectual property in an Internet age.  In a strange alliance, IBM and the Free Software Foundation have lined up on the same side of this argument in support of the GPL.  IBM urges its customers to use non- warranted, unprotected software.  This software violates SCO's intellectual property rights in UNIX, and fails to give comfort to customers going forward in use of Linux. If IBM wants customers to accept the GPL risk, it should indemnify them against that risk. The continuing refusal to provide customer indemnification is IBM's truest measure of belief in its recently filed claims. Regarding Patent Accusations SCO has shipped these products for many years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these products. Furthermore, these claims were not raised in IBM's original answer. SCO reiterates its position that it intends to defend its intellectual property rights. SCO will remain on course to require customers to license infringing Linux implementations as a condition of further use.  This is the best and clearest course for customers to minimize Linux problems. It seems to me that this blast is less about the merits of SCO's case and more about GPL software being a "flawed business model." That translates into there being no money in it for greedy pigs likes SCO who want to reap what others have sown and labored over for years. We already know what SCO's business model is: pump up the stock price by threat of litigation. I think is often referred to as "pump and dump." But there is one intrepid soul who has taken it upon him self to deal with the problem by sending this letter to SCO along with $199 in Monopoly money: Dear SCO,   I looked up a term this evening and felt that it applied perfectly to your company! Here is the term:   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.   Your company is threatening an entire community of users millions of them, while your executives are dumping stock and making millions.   You have shown NO proof to anyone other than the poor souls who sign away their life (your NDA). I feel sorry for the actual workers in your company who will soon be out of jobs when your company folds, while your executives laugh their way to the bank.   I am hereby sending $199 in worthless money in request for one of your worthless licenses.   Please send my license to:   Brent Michalski Address provided Way to go Brent! 8:07:36 PM    Go ahead, make my day  []  trackback []

8:21:12 AM    

You Can't Be Too Thin Or Too Well Connected Rivals Say Halliburton Dominates Iraq Oil Work. Companies, hoping to win a new round of contracts to rebuild the Iraqi oil industry, say the government has already arranged for Halliburton to get most of the work. By Neela Banerjee. [New York Times: NYT HomePage] So the Army Corps of Engineers awards a $1 billion contract to Halliburton without bothering with competitive bidding. Why does this come as a surprise to anyone given the fact that Vice President Dick Cheney was the former head of this company? There's good reason why contracts should be awarded by competitive bidding: . . . numerous bidders create competition.  Competition lowers the cost.  If bids are rejected arbitrarily or capriciously, contractors will not take the time and expend the money necessary to submit proposals.  They will infer favoritism.  This will result in fewer bids and higher bids.  The statute providing for the award of a contract for a public improvement to the lowest responsible bidder was enacted for the protection of bidders. Patterson Contracting Co. v. Hackensack. Before you cry too many tears for the withdrawing company, Bechtel, just remember that they've been the beneficiary of many of these sweetheart deals in the past. Nevertheless, I don't know people don't find this conduct outrageous, especially given the circumstances by which we were led into this war to begin with. 8:21:12 AM    Go ahead, make my day  []  trackback []