Tag Archives: sco

Toward a Guidepath for Afghanistan

Fear and Loathing in the Blogosphere is exactly right:

There is only one reason to stay in Afghanistan: to put Afghanistan on the glide path towards becoming a functioning member of the SCO. This is essential to our national security because expanding the Core and shrinking the Gap is imperative to our national security. We have to regionalize this conflict by making partners of China and India. And American troops have a key role to play in both protecting the population and training Afghan security forces in the mean time. And both of those jobs are manpower intensive.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is the best chance for peace and safety in Central Asia. And Afghanistan that is capable of becoming a functioning member of the SCO is an Afghanistan that is hostile to terrorism.

That requires more than “Staying the Course” or “Cut and Run” — it requires more than acting as an offshore balancer.

America can help build the future of Afghanistan.

America should surge troops into Afghanistan, defeat al Qaeda, defeat the Taliban as a “state within a state,” and put Afghanistan on the glidepath for membership in the SCO.

A Reasonable End to the Afghanistan War

Last year, I wrote:

Liberals and the left need an Obama administration. Otherwise, it is unlikely that Americans will withdraw from Afghanistan.

As more people talk about leaving Afghanistan to its fate, its worth a second to look around and ask what an appropriate future for Afghanistan loosk like.

Afghanistan’s most important future partner is China.

Afghanistan’s most important future association is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

A reasonable goal for US efforts in Afghanistan is to allow it to become a functional member of the SCO, the club for natural resource suppliers of the People’s Republic of China.

Russia, spurned by China, lashes out at Europe

In the wake of the SCO’s (China’s regional club’s) humiliating refusal to back Russia (hat-tip to Dan Nexon), Russia responded to its growing international isolation by reducing the flow of energy to Europe.

Russia’s government may prompt at least one oil company to cut supplies of crude oil to Europe in response to the threats to impose sanctions in the wake of the conflict with Georgia.

It is rumored that supplies via Druzhba pipeline that meets oil requirements of Poland and Germany will be probably reduced and that the LUKOIL leadership has been given the notice.

The reduction might happen already starting from September 1, the sources speculate. People in LUKOIL, however, say they know nothing about the plans to cut down supplies, and people in the Kremlin declined to comment.

Russia to Cut Oil Supplies to Europe In Response to Sanctions – Kommersant Moscow.

Two other news pieces for context: China has a new oil deal with Iraq, and even Sudan has refused to South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The simplistic analysis is that Putin’s bumbling is just continuing, with his historical uniting of Serbia and Kosovo in condemnation of Russian attempt to redraw borders now leading to the genocidiers of Sudan in taking an anti-Russian line!

A better analysis goes back to the Core/Gap divide: Russia, like Sudan but unlike China, is a gap state.  It creates no wealth, but provides energy that makes it easier for productive countries to generate wealth.  Core energy-consumers, such as China, help develop the Gap and work towards peace in order to do business.  Gap energy-providers, such as Russia, create chaos and extort wealth from the Core in order to pay for their eratic behavior.

Related: Europe looks like it will respond in a reasonable way. So good news for the Southern Energy Corridor, but news for Russia’s South Stream.

The SCO and Russia

I noted last week that Russia’s invasion of Georgia was partially aimed at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (the security alliance including China and China’s energy providers — the former soviet states of central Asia including Russia, Kazakhstan, and so on):

Russia’s actions hurt the things that would have supported Russia as a new core state. By violently attacking neighbors, Moscow is violently asserting hegemony in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is properly a way of China to organize her resource suppliers (including Russia). By attacking a reforming neighbor, Russia is helping to make her own government more obscure. By attacking sources of investment, Russia is helping to disconnect her own economy from the world.

Those who never read this blog may not have caught the Russia-SCO subtext. AFP clearly is in the list, as their particularly ignorance piece demonstrates.

Better analysis is available from Chirol and Tom, who both note China and the SCO are in no mood to play Russia’s expansionist game.

Blogs v. Forbes: Blogs win

Lyons, D. (2007). Snowed by SCO. Forbes.com. September 19, 2007. Available online: http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/19/software-linux-lawsuits-tech-oped-cx_dl_0919lyons_print.html (from Slashdot).

From the confession of error:

In the print edition of Forbes there’s a great (albeit sometimes painful) tradition of doing “follow-through” articles where a reporter either takes a victory lap for making a good call or falls on his sword for making a bad one. Online publications don’t typically ask for follow-throughs. But I need to write one.

For four years, I’ve been covering a lawsuit for Forbes.com, and my early predictions on this case have turned out to be so profoundly wrong that I am writing this mea culpa. What can I say? I grew up Roman Catholic. The habit stays with you.

The case is SCO Group v. IBM. In March 2003, SCO sued IBM claiming that IBM took code from Unix–for which SCO claimed to own copyrights–and put that code into Linux, which is distributed free. Last month a judge ruled that SCO does not, in fact, own the Unix copyrights. That blows SCO’s case against IBM out of the water. SCO, of Lindon, Utah, is seeking bankruptcy protection.

In June 2003, a few months after SCO Group sued IBM over the Linux operating system, I wrote an article that bore the headline: “What SCO Wants, SCO Gets.” The article contained some critical stuff about SCO but also warned that SCO stood a chance of winning the lawsuit. “SCO may not be very good at making a profit by selling software. … But it is very good at getting what it wants from other companies,” I wrote. …

I reported what they said. Turns out I was getting played. They never produced a smoking gun. They never sued any Hollywood company.

Over time my SCO articles began to carry headlines like, “Dumb and Dumber,” “Bumbling Bully” and “SCO gets TKO’d.”

But I still thought it would be foolish to predict how this lawsuit (or any lawsuit) would play out. I even wrote an article called “Revenge of the Nerds,” which poked fun at the pack of amateur sleuths who were following the case on a Web site called Groklaw and who claimed to know for sure that SCO was going to lose.

Turns out those amateur sleuths were right. Now some of them are writing to me asking how I’d like my crow cooked, and where I’d like it delivered.

For some reason, a lot of technology journalism has devoled into hit-piece journalism, like the recent factually untrue CNET review of Lotus Symphony. Forbes, seeing blood in the water, did the same, attacking both a respected global services provider (IBM) and bloggers following the case (GrowkLaw), helping the corporate scheisters of SCO spread fear, uncertainy, and doubt.

But IBM was right, the blogs were right, and SCO (and the mainstream media in Forbes) were wrong. Now Forbes admits it.

Good.

SCO SLAPPs Groklaw

Jones, P. 2007. My very own motion, tra la. Groklaw. April 4, 2007. Available online: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070403233141649(from Slashdot)

SCO. 2007. Case 2:03-cv-00294-DAK-BCW Document 1018. April 2, 2007. Available online: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-1018.pdf.

Groklaw’s Pam Jones

Well, obviously, I can’t say much about this new SCO filing [PDF] at this time. It’s all about moi. A bit more here and here.

I can say this: SCO in its wisdom has just guaranteed that the judges in SCO v. IBM and SCO v. Novell will have to read Groklaw. So, welcome Judge Kimball. Welcome, Judge Wells. We’ve enjoyed very much learning about the law by watching you at work. SCO told you something that isn’t true. No one tried to serve me that I knew about. No one informed me of any deposition date. That is true. It doesn’t feel so nice to be smeared like this, I can tell you that, and to have to pay a lawyer to deal with this harassment. I view it as such, as a kind of SLAPP suit, a vendetta to pay me back for blowing the whistle, and to shut Groklaw up. SCO wants to put a pin on a map and point to it and say, “Here’s PJ.” Then someone drops by and shoots me, I suppose. I certainly have nothing to tell them that is relevant to this litigation.

Forsooth, methinks SCOfolk need to get better aligned with truth, justice, and the American way, as the saying goes. But that’s the judges’ job, so I’ll end my comments about this here.

There are 20 some exhibits, some sealed, most not, and as you will see, stories got planted in the media and then presented in court as “proof” once again. I’ll tell you more later, when I can.

And so the stupidest lawsuit in the history of the world just got stupider. And a whole lot meaner.

And what is she talking about?

This filing (pdf):

In the SCO v. Novell litigation, by agreement of the parties, SCO has until May 31, 2007, in which to serve a subpoena on and take the deposition of non-party witness Pamela Jones. The prospective deposition of Ms. Jones bears on this litigation as well. Accordingly, SCO asks the Court to deem Ms. Jones’ deposition to be on taken in this case, providing notice of the deposition to IBM and an opportunity to participate if the company so choses.

Ms. Jones is the self-proclaimed operator of an internet website known as “Groklaw” (www.groklaw.net). Ms Jones claims to have copyrighted and to maintain Groklawpersonally… Through the website, Ms. Jones has reported extensively on and repeatedly disseminated Novell’s claims of ownership of the UNIX copyrights, as well as generally addressed SCO’s disputes with Novell and IBM since the inception of those lawsuits. The content and commentary of the website (and other evidence) shows that Ms. Jones is not an objective commentator, but rather a vehicle through which opponents of SCO have conducted their case against SCO in the court of public opinion, where no gate-keeper monitors the reliability of content.

SCO has sought to depose Ms. Jones to address, among other things, her participation in Novell’s and IBM’s conduct toward SCO and the content of her website relating to SCO. The notice given to IBM of the prospective deposition by virtue of SCO’s instant Motion is more than sufficient, because SCO has not yet served Ms. Jones with a subpoena for her deposition. Obviously aware of SCO’s designs to depose her, Ms. Jones has neither accepted service of the subpoena nor agreed to appear for deposition, but rather appears to have fled and evaded service of the subpoena. Ms Jones’s reluctance to appear for deposition in this matter is better understood in the context of certain relevant evidence. Indeed, SCO has obtained evidence through discovery of Ms. Jones’ allegiance and financial connection to Novell and IBM, which underscores her motivation to avoid having to testify in this matter.

I’ve been bullied by corporate sheisters before, so SCO’s strategic lawsuit against public participation on the part of Groklaw and Pam Jones isn’t surprising. Only saddening.