Robert Pogson

One man, closing all the windows.

Monthly Archives / March 2010

  • Mar 31 / 2010
  • 0
Uncategorized

Intel Innovates

Henry Kingman has written a piece describing some technology Intel has developed for the embedded/battery-powered space. It is still x86 but shuts down stuff when idling. The problem with that is that netbooks with GNU/Linux are multi-tasking devices that are never completely idle. This new design may work for cell-phones and the like but a PC is a different animal. x86 is still a resource hog for the number of bits it has to flip to do anything. ARM does not have that problem by design. Intel cannot fix that problem by power management.

It is good to see Intel pay attention to the low end. Where is AMD??? Picking the low-hanging fruit of servers and gamers, I suspect. I have long used AMD for just about everything but they no longer work for me. I need thin clients a lot more than I need hair driers. If I need one of those, I can use Intel. I need 64bit servers and 32bit clients. Where is AMD?

  • Mar 31 / 2010
  • 0
technology

Solaris

I have not used Solaris, Sun’s UNIX species. There are rumours that Oracle will change the licensing of Solaris which SUN distributed as Free Software as OpenSolaris. Free Software licensing is not designed to allow the software to be put back in the bottle, but Oracle certainly can charge a fee for the licence, even under the GPL, if it wants. That is quite reasonable behaviour for a company that charges gazillions of dollars per CPU for the right to use a binary version of their database.

This will, however, cut out some enthusiasm in the FLOSS community to continue work on OpenSolaris. Perhaps a definite fork will result but the situation with drivers will be awkward. Manufacturers, for instance, do not want to make two drivers for two variants of Solaris. The prime motivation for SUN to open Solaris was to encourage software development on the platform ensuring more widespread adoption and quality. Oracle may well feel it can do just as well in-house. Time will tell. Perhaps Oracle will learn something or teach something in the process.

I could rush out to try OpenSolaris now, while it still lives, but I think GNU/Linux does what I need very well.

If Oracle is thinking about making a little money from Solaris, what must they imagine they can do with OpenOffice.org or MySQL? It’s all good, one way or another. Free Software is meant to be used.

Update:
Another article on this subject appeared on the same day that I wrote the above blog entry:

“Solaris Is Dead. Long Live Linux.”

  • Mar 31 / 2010
  • 0
Linux in Education, Teaching, technology

PJ

“PJ” is the pseudonym of the host of the blog, GROKLAW, which has been a rallying point for the whole world of people concerned about the attack on Free Software headed by SCOG. Brian Proffitt has an excellent article, “SCO, Novell: Grokking Where Credit is Due“.

Pamela, with great admiration, I say “shush.”

Yes, Groklaw is a team effort, but every great team has a great coach. The efforts you have devoted to Groklaw have been staggering–physically, mentally, emotionally. Today Groklaw is more than a mere “SCO watcher”–it is one of the best legal watchdog sites in the world, with expanded coverage of all legal challenges to Linux, free software, and open source software.

I would to extend public congratulations from myself and (I suspect) quite a few members of the Linux and open source community for a job well done. You, your site, and the community that surrounds Groklaw demonstrates what it truly great about open source: that the positive collaboration of ideas and skills will always lead to something greater than its makers ever intended.

Amen. I remember, seven years later, the sick feeling I had in my stomach that any of the lies SCOG spread about GNU/Linux might be true or that SCOG could tax GNU/Linux which by then I was introducing into schools and classrooms on a regular basis. GNU/Linux was part of me and SCOG was putting forth that I had cancer. Well, I soon discovered GROKLAW and the free flow of good information there calmed my fears.

PJ is one of the good people on the web. There are many who are not. I have met the evil ones on my blog or in forums where freedom is not respected. She set out to make a repository of truth on the web and thousands rallied around her leadership. She worked tirelessly writing, transcribing PDF images from PACER, courts, and archives all over the web. She inspired people with personal knowledge of events and details to put their knowledge in writing so the history of UNIX, the evolution of operating systems, software, the law and particularly patents, standards and copyright would be there searchable on-line, forever.

No one quite knew how long the road would be and how dangerous. SCOG used every trick in the book of dirty tricks to fool the courts and to intimidate PJ, but she persisted. Evidence in the current trial of SCOG v Novell reveals what a thorn in their side she was. They apparently paid a writer to attack PJ to sully PJ’s reputation. The writer was unrepentant in the evidence presented, even resorting to name calling. She was accused of being a shill for IBM, too by SCOG’s CEO. Why the courts tolerated this evil to live so long is beside my understanding. They had not the slightest evidence to present in the case v IBM even after years of discovery. PJ could not be fooled as the courts were. She kept hammering on the truth into late nights to the point of exhaustion but still with a very high quality of work.

Thank you, PJ, for all your good deeds.

  • Mar 31 / 2010
  • 0
technology

The Zero-sum Game

Matt Asay quite properly predicts that “cloud computing” will be mainstream in a year or so. He quotes figures showing billions in annual revenue already. This has implications for all of IT. If billions are spent on cloud computing are those dollars in addition to current expenditures or are they a replacement for some current expenditures? Probably a bit of both.

There are a variety of cloud services that are imminent:

  • storage, backup, file serving and the like that could replace some expenditures on local data centres
  • load leveling, providing computing power or service where and when it is needed, e.g. buffering variations with time of day
  • wholesale farming out of web applications like e-mail
  • new kinds of web applications
  • virtual desktops or desktop applications
  • remote administration of whatever

Many of these are strictly practical solutions to re-inventing the wheel and over-staffing of server rooms. By that I do not mean people are playing cards in the server rooms but that you cannot have half a system administrator so you pay for a whole one. Further, if you give a system administrator the right tools there is almost no limit to how many system he/she can administer, so the cloud could be filled with sysadmins with fantastic tools unavailable to the in-house guy. It just does not make sense for a small to medium sized business to employ someone to administer an e-mail system when Google or Yahoo can do a better job at a lower price. Shifts from in-house to cloud make sense for almost any service that can be separated in some way from all the other services needed in a business. It is like software. Modularization is extremely helpful if not essential. Farm out a module and divide and conquer your IT problems/tasks.

Some of these overlap into desktop operating systems and applications. Almost no one objects to these things running on a local server. Why not on the cloud? You need some assurances about connectivity, security, backup and uptime. These can be managed. It may not make sense to depend on services a satellite-jump away but on a fibre line with redundant connections in a city, this could be a good plan for business. Already there are services providing basic office applications and thin client desktops on the web. More will come.

To the extent that M$ and other huge software providers cannot capture the flow of services to the cloud they will lose share in the cloud. The speed with which changeover can be made to cloud services is faster than migrating to a new OS because the user mostly has to be familiar with the browser and that is done. Any cloud supplier who has done his homework and provides good infrastructure in the cloud will get the business. M$ has built huge datacentres to capture some of this business but it is not like the desktop. They have no monopoly and no way of securing one in the cloud. People choosing a cloud supplier have lock-in on their due-diligence checklist. It is not 1990 all over again. M$ has an obscene cash-flow that can be used to buy hardware but have they a workable plan to supply software?

New software for the cloud involves innovation, not M$’s strong suit. They can try to mimic their desktop OS and applications but they have alienated large parts of the market with anti-competitive activities so the loyalty of customers is in question. Cloud computing is about lowering costs. M$’s business plan is about enriching M$, not providing service at lowest cost. They will not be able to sustain anything close to a monopoly in the cloud.

Netbooks on the low end and the cloud on the high end leaves M$ struggling to stay relevant in the middle somewhere. It will take a few years to know the result but I would bet that M$’s share of the pie will shrink drastically within five years. The dollars going into the cloud will come in a great measure from M$’s former share. They were charging $1000 plus $40 per client for in-house use of their OS. The cloud, running on FLOSS, can provide the same or better service for a lot less. They were charging $100 more of less for the privilege of using their bug-ridden OS on desktops. A GNU/Linux terminal server costs about $25 per client in quantity one. In cloud-volumes, the cost will be much less. You can buy hosted virtual desktops now. The lack of retail shelf space or OEM suppliers need not hold you back.

  • Mar 30 / 2010
  • 0
technology

SCOG v Novell Fizzles and SCOG Still Sues

In the Salt Lake Tribune we read “Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM, in which the computer giant is accused of using Unix code to make the Linux operating system a viable competitor, causing a decline in SCO’s revenues.
“The copyright claims are gone, but we have other claims based on contracts,” Cahn said.

Well, let us look at those claims after millions of lines of code were handed over in discovery to compare with Linux:

    1. Under the First Cause of Action, damages for breach of the IBM Softare Agreement in an amount not less than $1 billion, together with additional damages through and after the time of trial forseeably and consequently resulting from IBM’s breach, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial; and together with a permanent injunction requiring IBM to return or destroy all source code and binary copies of the Software Products and/or prohibiting IBM from further contributions of the protected Software Products into open source; and for restitution in an amount measured by the benefits conferred upon IBM by its ongoing improper use of the Software Products, including the full amount IBM receives as a result of its ongoing sales of AIX, including software, services and hardware; and for attorneys fees and costs;

    2. Under the Second Cause of Action, damages for breach of the IBM Sublicensing Agreement in an amount not less than $1 billion, together with additional damages through and after the time of trial forseeably and consequently resulting from IBM’s breach, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial; and together with a permanent injunction requiring IBM to return or destroy all source code and binary copies of the Software Products and/or prohibiting IBM from further contributions of the protected Software Products into open source; and for restitution in an amount measured by the benefits conferred upon IBM by its ongoing improper use of the Software Products, including the full amount IBM receives as a result of its ongoing sales of AIX, including software, services and hardware, and for attorneys fees and costs;

    3. Under the Third Cause of Action, damages for breach of the Sequent Software Agreement in an amount not less than $1 billion, together with additional damages through and after the time of trial forseeably and consequentially resulting from IBM’s breach, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial; and together with a permanent injunction requiring IBM to return or destroy all source code and binary copies of the Software Products and/or prohibiting IBM from further contributions of the protected Software Products into open source; and for restitution in an amount measured by the benefits conferred upon IBM by its ongoing improper use of the Software Products, including the full amount IBM receives as a result of its ongoing sales of Dynix/ptx, including software, services and hardware; and for attorneys fees and costs;

    4. Under the Fourth Cause of Action, damages for breach of the Sequent Sublicensing Agreement in an amount not less than $1 billion, together with additional damages through and after the time of trial forseeably and consequentially resulting from IBM’s breach, in an amount to be proven at the time of trial; and together with a permanent injunction requiring IBM to return or destroy all source code and binary copies of the Software Products and/or prohibiting IBM from further contributions of the protected Software Products into open source; and for restitution in an amount measured by the benefits conferred upon IBM by its ongoing, improper use of the Software Products, including the full amount IBM receives as a result of its ongoing sales of Dynix/ptx, including software, services and hardware; and for attorneys fees and costs;

    5. Under the Fifth Cause of Action, injunctive relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502 and SCO’s actual damages and IBM’s profits as a result of the infringing acts pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 (a), statutory damages to the extent applicable pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 (b) and enhanced damages, together with attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505

    6. Under Sixth Cause of Action, for damages in an amount not less than $1 billion, for unfair competition arising from common law, and damages for violations thereof, together with additional damages through and after the time of trial;

    7. Under the Seventh through Ninth Causes of Action, for damages in an amount to be proven at trial for tortious interference, together with additional damages through and after the time of trial;

    8. For a permanent injunction to prohibit IBM from further contributions of the protected Software Products into open source;

    9. For punitive damages under the Sixth through Ninth Causes of Action for IBM’s malicious and willful conduct, in an amount to be proven at trial;

    10. For attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by statute and/or by contract in an amount to be proven at trial; together with pre- and post-judgment interest and;

    11. For all other legal and equitable relief deemed just and proper by this Court.

SCOG tried to amend that load of swill a third time so this is its state. Most of it is about contributing software IBM owned to GNU/Linux such as JFS. The judge expressed “astonishment” at how little software SCOG claimed was copied into Linux.
Viewed against the backdrop of SCO’s plethora of public statements concerning IBM’s and others’ infringement of SCO’s purported copyrights to the UNIX software, it is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM has infringed SCO’s alleged copyrights through IBM’s Linux activities.

If copyrights were not violated it is very unlikely contracts were. The contracts were mostly about using and not giving away the code. IBM did not. It contributed to GNU/Linux stuff it created and owned the copyrights. In comparison, IBM has them cold on violation of the GPL in distributing Linux without source code…. HAHAHAHA.

I am astonished that a judge, an educated person, an experienced person, and a trustee would persue this madness, gambling on an unlikely win in the face of all the evidence.

In a report to the court in SCO v IBM this is what SCOG wrote on 2007-8-31 shortly before Chapter 11, “ SCO believes that the Order would constitute a basis upon which the Court could dismiss SCO’s First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth or Eighth Causes of Action in its Second Amended Complaint. SCO is not voluntarily dismissing these claims, but acknowledges that the Court’s rulings with respect to Novell’s right to waive contract claims if applied to the IBM case would resolve these claims. Because these are separate cases, SCO submits it is appropriate that the resolution of these claims be reflected in a separate Order, and Judgment. This statement is without prejudice to SCO’s right to pursue motions for reconsideration and appellate rights in both the IBM and Novell actions.
With respect to its remaining Cause of Action, SCO states as follows:
Sixth Cause of Action – Unfair Competition

This was on the basis of the summary judgments in SCO v Novell which the jury has now partly reaffirmed. If Judge Stewart agrees with the rest, all SCOG has to talk about is unfair competition as a result of the stillborn Project Monterey from the early 1990s, long before there ever was a SCOG. Their case against IBM stands on one leg. IBM has an octopus waiting in the courtroom for SCOG with claims including violation of the GPL.

If trustee Cahn will not do his job the US trustee and the bankruptcy judge should move this thing along.

  • Mar 30 / 2010
  • 0
Uncategorized

Wireless Insecurity

Wireless is of course handy for mobile devices but a LAN that runs off the premises is risky. SJVN recently wrote about a hole in XP’s wireless stack that has been around for several years and some treat it as a feature rather than a bug.

Where I work, we use wireless not for mobility but to extend the LAN into corners without copper. Here the potential intruders are not out in the bush hacking in but students in our building with pocket-sized wireless devices (prohibited for paedegogical reasons too). We could soon implement increased security but it is easier to shore up a few services on our LAN than distributing keys to our high-maintenance users. Students have access to the LAN via our desktop PCs in any event. It is just a question whether their unauthorized devices are potentially bringing in malware. Since adding Sophos, that problem seems to be under control. At least, Sophos seems to be a larger problem than malware at the moment.

The issue is on the ToDo radar. We have a couple of staff member who bring laptops to work. I would have to block them by MAC after keys were distributed. Since convenience is the order of the day, I doubt that would fly…

  • Mar 30 / 2010
  • 8
technology

Visions of M$

Matt Asay wrote this on his blog, “Microsoft became the biggest software company in the world by creating an ecosystem of software that works well together.“. He was introducing his views on Apple’s software development model but this statement is just mind-boggling. Remember, M$ integrated Internet Exploder into Lose ’95 in order to create a jarring experience for users of Netscape. With that “innovation” they achieved 95% share on the desktop and introduced a decade of terrible malware and made life difficult for all other software developers who had to do the dance of “what browser?”. If the software on my Lose ’95 PCs could be described as “works well together”, I might never have left the fold. The things crashed every few hours. M$ produced terrible software that did not work well and used monopoly to gain/hold share. Their share has declined steadily since 2000 because of their lack of innovation and quality. While M$ has improved their quality they have built in so much complexity it never works will with other software.

I know I take the quotation out of context, but I found it a shocking view for someone of influence in Ubuntu. Later in the article he writes, “I didn’t like the Linux “desktop” until Lucid’s release.“. At the same time that M$ could not keep me happy for more than a few hours, GNU/Linux (eDesktop from Caldera Systems) purred for six months on five machines without a hitch. That was in 2000 and GNU/Linux has constantly improved since.

I am glad Mark Shuttleworth is the one working on the user interface… Matt Asay does not seem to be in touch with reality.

  • Mar 29 / 2010
  • 0
Uncategorized

Scaling Arm Chips

Scale is something we teach in mathematics and physics. The surface area of a cube scales as the square of its dimensions. The area of a square scales as the square of its dimensions. If you double the dimensions, the area increases four times and the volume increases eight times. ARM has the reverse problem, as they make their CPUs smaller within an acceptable power drain, and the perfornance goes up according to Moore’s Law, they run into the problem of “Dark Silicon”. Large areas of the chip currently available will be unusable. The Inquirer has a good article giving an overview of this from a talk by ARM. Unfortunately, they fail to state why this is a problem. Getting more computing power for the same energy consumption is a good thing. What’s bad about this is that as the chip becomes smaller it gets harder to connect the chip to the outside world. Bus-driving lines become too small to carry the load and so forth. Also the robots that handle the chips will be hard pressed to handle devices of the size conceivable in the next ten years. A solution I have proposed is stacking chips or using multiple chips but this is tricky. It becomes a more complicated task, in software, to keep everything working together. This is a huge plus for GNU/Linux which has a big lead over M$ in clustering/HPC. The same techniques can be used to link a bunch of ARM chips usefully. They may still have to resort to bus drivers to interface to the world outside the chips.

What TFA article does mention is that the computing power now available is sufficient for any earthly need for the end-user. This is the end of Wintel which lives or dies on its ability to convince consumers to spend ever larger amounts of cash on “upgrading” to a new PC that runs slower than the one previous. If consumers’ PCs do what they want, they will keep using them with XP or GNU/Linux or whatever. The necessity to buy new machines every few years is gone.

TFA also does hint that with ARM it is conceivable that devices for power users and servers are just around the corner. In the Year of ARM, all things are possible. AMD and Intel are now producing chips with multiple cores each of which is more powerful than necessary. ARM can just walk in and take up slack because there is no way Wintel can offer more than ARM can. We see that in smartbooks now. There are more apps available for ARM on smartbooks than that other OS because developers can move phone apps to ARM on a smartbook very easily. There are tons of phone apps out there.

  • Mar 28 / 2010
  • 0
technology

Netbooks Decline or ARM’s Ascent?

According to Digitimes, ACER and ASUSTEK have cut prices and research on Atomic netbooks to clear inventory and respond to reduced demand. Is this the “flash in the pan” that AMD and others predicted or is it a sign that ARM will kick butt this year? I think it is the latter. The Atomic netbooks are still too pricey, heavy and brutal. Many consumers considering buying a netbook may be waiting for the expected flock of new offerings with ARM power, a kind of hardware-vapourware. The netbook will continue to have a growing market, just not with x86.

Gizmodo has 1047 hits for “netbook”. I doubt they are going away any time soon.

  • Mar 27 / 2010
  • 0
technology

SCO v Novell is unfair to Novell

There is a report on GROKLAW that “Third, the motion said that Novell couldn’t argue anything contrary to the law (perhaps this meant contrary to the law of the case). Novell could not argue that the copyrights did not transfer based on the lack of a 204A writing. Novell said that they would argue based on the contract.“. I find it very strange that in a court of law, lawyers are not allowed to point out to the jury that the law is on their side. Let us hope the jury can read the contract or that SCOTUS slaps the courts in Utah/10th circuit.

Now the thing is in the hands of the jury on whether or not the copyrights for much of UNIX OS owned by Novell back in 1995 transferred to the Santa Cruz Operation. Here we are, seven years later, still discussing a deal that contains a clause with excluded assets containing copyrights. There is potential that the jury could award the copyrights to SCOG and they could use that to sue thousands of corporations and individuals for use of GNU/Linux. Are not the courts existing to see that this kind of thing does not happen??? Tens of millions of dollars and a large hit on the GDP of the world has been affected by this and it is baseless. GNU/Linux was written from scratch and uses open standards.

Holding that Novell cannot tell the jury about copyright law is too much. This is the last in a long line of rulings against Novell, making them fight with two hands tied behind their back. Reports claim the jurors snickered at some of SCOG’s witnesses. Let us hope that translates into the right decision next week. They are taking the weekend off. That may give them time for memories to fade or it may give them time for quiet reflection. We shall see the result. Whichever way the jury rules, SCOTUS should give the 10th circuit a kick to get back in line with copyright law. Holding that copyright can transfer without a writing is very dangerous and could open the floodgates of Hell to every con artist on the planet to rip stuff off, legally. Pretty soon, the 10th cirucuit will create case law saying that a jury could interpret dreams to decide who owns the copyright on any work. They need a spanking and soon.

Judge Stewart is obviously capable of great insight and has the legal knowledge. This case suggests strongly that he is not ruling based on law but on some hidden agenda to give every advantage possible to SCOG. Novell has taken the steps to document their motions very well should an appeal be necessary. I believe whichever way the case turns out, some peer review of Stewart’s conduct of this case is in order. Courts run this way are pointless. We can find bullies galore on the street. We do not need them in courts.

  • Mar 26 / 2010
  • 0
Linux in Education, technology

NComputing Makes an Interesting Argument

NComputing states thatIf your customer is a school and you save the school 75 percent, they spend that on something else“. They made the argument to counter the claim by OEMs and distributors that thin clients are too inexpensive for them to make any money selling them.

Both points of view are correct but missing the specific characteristics of the educational market. Schools look upon IT as an expense and they make no more cash flow by spending more on IT so they spend as little as they can. The things that cause schools to spend money on IT are demands by staff and students and the curriculum. A recent example: My school has two digital photocopiers. They are in a room off the LAN. The company servicing the copiers flew a plane in and had two guys service the machine and ADD a tiny print server so I could connect it to the LAN. Between classes, I made up the Ethernet cable. Thus, our copier service GAVE us something that might have cost thousands if purchased with the copiers instead of trying to sell us something pricey. The advantage to them? The number of copies running through that machine will spike up because people will not bother running an ink-jet or slow laser printer on their desks. We both win and the provider gets a load of good will in the process. Who am I going to call the next time a school needs more printing capacity? We get more speed and lower cost per page printing this way. I get to service fewer printers, too.

Yesterday, my school received a donation of 20 good, but older, PCs. These machines are perfectly adequate to our needs and we had no budget for them. From whence did they come? Computers for Schools and Libraries, an organization that recycles PCs donated from government and businesses in bulk and donates them to organizations like ours. All across Canada, government and businesses donate and students and volunteers refurbish machines instead of scrapping them. M$ even donates the OS that we over-write with Debian GNU/Linux. Sadly, CFSL has to account for all their licences making unnecessary work for the volunteers. M$ donates to keep the supply of refurbished PCs free of GNU/Linux and to prevent illegal copying that might occur if naked PCs were distributed. The volunteers provide services to gain experience for the younger, to keep busy for retired folks or just to be helpful. Businesses donate for a tax writeoff, to reduce maintenance costs, and to avoid land-fill or recycling charges. Government encourages this because it is better for the economy and the environment that PCs last longer. There is an issue with energy consumption but our PCs have a 185 watt power supply so that is hardly a question.

If you can donate thin clients to a school, it will cost you little but, having more PCs, the school may well need more mice, keyboards, desks, printing consummables, bandwidth, etc., things for which schools do pay.

While education may be a niche, it is a large niche and businesses do benefit by selling or giving to it.

  • Mar 23 / 2010
  • 0
technology

SCO v World Bombshell

This is in a report on GROKLAW:

“Novell’s Mr. Brennan asks, When you were presenting to potential customers, you were referring to pre-APA versions?

Mr. Tibbitts answers, In part, yes.”

So SCOG showed malloc code comparisons and preliminary versions of the Asset Purchase Agreement to fool suckers into buying SCOSource commitments not to sue. When the malloc code had been widely discussed after being publicly showed, this is fraud, pure and simple, because the preliminary drafts included transfer of copyright at some point. The final version and the amendments stated explicitly that copyrights were excluded generally. Copyright for manuals was transferred, not for code.

Here are some excerpts:

  • Excluded Assets “V. Intellectual Property:
    A. All copyrights and trademarks, except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare.”
  • Amendment 2 changed this exclusion to “All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies. However, in no event shall Novell be liable to SCO for any claim brought by any third party pertaining to said copyrights and trademarks.”

This wording was chosen because Novell was not even sure it had legal copyright to everything and Santa Cruz Operation certainly did not need copyrights to carry on the business which it did for years. This certainly is not a transfer of copyright in the ordinary senses of the term. SCOG was faudulently collecting millions for not suing people over violation of a copyright they did not own.

The malloc code is stuff that was released years ago by Caldera and certainly is not something SCOG defended in the SCOG v IBM case. Judge Kimball expressed astonishment at how little evidence SCOG presented after years of discovery and litigation.

If a corporation cannot be jailed for fraud, its officers should be.

Pages:1234