Most Read Technology Reporter For More Than Two Decades

Maureen O'Gara

Subscribe to Maureen O'Gara: eMailAlertsEmail Alerts
Get Maureen O'Gara: homepageHomepage mobileMobile rssRSS facebookFacebook twitterTwitter linkedinLinkedIn

Related Topics: Las Vegas on Ulitzer

Las Vegas: Article

Quick, Darl, Duck. Rotten Tomatoes at 12 O'Clock

Quick, Darl, Duck. Rotten Tomatoes at 12 O'Clock

SCO CEO Darl McBride claims that the discovery that IBM has turned over so far - the stuff that nobody outside the two companies has seen yet - is proving out SCO's contention that IBM played fast and loose with SCO code, which makes him wonder about the caliber of the smoking gun IBM's hiding in the discovery it's trying to keep from SCO. That being said, we assume he's taking his bodyguard with him to SCO Forum in Las Vegas next week.

More Stories By Maureen O'Gara

Maureen O'Gara the most read technology reporter for the past 20 years, is the Cloud Computing and Virtualization News Desk editor of SYS-CON Media. She is the publisher of famous "Billygrams" and the editor-in-chief of "Client/Server News" for more than a decade. One of the most respected technology reporters in the business, Maureen can be reached by email at maureen(at) or paperboy(at), and by phone at 516 759-7025. Twitter: @MaureenOGara

Comments (6) View Comments

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.

Most Recent Comments
Fredrick Kenniston 08/19/04 11:15:20 AM EDT

Daniel Wallace, where are you?

Can't backup your claims of the GPL being pre-empted and invalid? Let's see some proof, back it up, you know, like Caldera/TSG is doing with their copyright, trade secret and contract violation claims vs. IBM.

Don't be shy, step right up.

Fredrick Kenniston 08/03/04 05:18:16 PM EDT

DearMr. Wallace,

GPL is pre-empted by what exactly. Name the case or evidence supporting your claim, please.

GPL is invalid by what exactly. Name the case or evidence support your claim, please.

And, IMHO, from the extensive research I have done on the SCO vs. IBM (and their other suits), Maureen does not have a clue what she is talking about. Darl spewed some stuff, she repeated it. Obviously no research into the veracity of Darl's claims. This is, by far, not the first time Maureen has done such a thing.

I am waiting for your evidence, Mr. Wallace.

Daniel Wallace 07/30/04 03:52:44 PM EDT

"Sorry, Maureen, you've fallen for SCO FUD. SCO is
desperately trying every avenue of attack to avoid a
pre-emptory declaration that IBM does not infring on SCO's
IP with their contributions to Linux"

Why take potshots at Ms. O'Gara as the messenger?
It seems as if a lot of blogs report on SCO's bogus claims.
It almost seems as if there is an agenda led by someone
to caste certain reporters at certain blogs as "dumb".

The facts are that SCO released the same source code
under the preempted and therefore invalid GPL license as
did IBM.

Everyone who can demonstrate "detrimental reliance"
upon the code distributed by SCO can claim
copyright permissions to use the code through the
mechanism of "promissory estoppel" just exactly as IBM
claimed in their pleadings:


Promissory Estoppel
113. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1
through 112, with the same force and effect as though they
were set forth fully herein.

114. SCO made a clear and unambiguous promise to IBM and
others that SCO would copy, modify or distribute programs
distributed by IBM and others under the GPL only on the
terms set out in the GPL; and would not assert rights to
programs distributed by SCO under the GPL except on the
terms set out in the GPL.

115. IBM and others reasonably, prudently and foreseeably
relied upon these promises, such as by making contributions
under the GPL and committing resources to open- source

116. SCO knew or should have known that IBM and others would
rely and in fact relied upon SCO's promises and knew or
should have known that those promises would induce and in
fact induced action or forbearance on the part of IBM and

117. SCO was and is aware of all material facts relating to
IBM's reliance on SCO's promises including but not limited
to IBM's contributions under the GPL, SCO's distributions
under the GPL and the intent, meaning and import of the GPL.

118. As a result of its reliance upon SCO's promises, IBM
has sustained injuries and is entitled to an award of
damages in an amount to be determined at trial. In addition
to an award of damages, IBM is entitled to declaratory and
injunctive relief, including but not limited to a
declaration that SCO is not entitled to assert proprietary
rights with respect to products distributed by SCO under the
GPL except upon the terms set out in the GPL.

Daniel Wallace

David Yellope 07/30/04 02:54:45 PM EDT

Sorry, Maureen, you've fallen for SCO FUD. SCO is desperately trying every avenue of attack to avoid a pre-emptory declaration that IBM does not infringe on SCO's IP with their contributions to Linux

Peter H. Salus 07/30/04 11:55:32 AM EDT

God, you're dumb, Maureen!

Mike 07/30/04 11:06:28 AM EDT

I guess SCO's stock price must be falling again ...

To those who want to know, have a look at to see the history of this whole seedy affair.