SCO Calls IBM Countersuit "Unsubstantiated Allegations" 972
dacarr writes "Yahoo currently hosts a press release from SCO that basically calls for IBM to "move away from the GPL"." Lycoris tries to dodge the flood of idiocy from Utah. Another non-programmer has seen SCO's presentation, and without attempting to verify the facts through his own research, reported on it. One reader buys a SCO license. SCO justifies their continuing illegal distribution of the Linux kernel.
My thoughts... (Score:5, Interesting)
And SCO has been supporting Linux for quite a number of years, and still has the 2.4.13 kernel sources available on their site. Amazingly enough, they haven't removed that from their site, allowing for Linux to be used free of SCO prior to and including version 2.4.13.
If IBM wants customers to accept the GPL risk...
It is now even more obvious that SCO feels that the GPL is too weak to stand up in court. I think that IBM has already planned for this and is prepared to prove that the GPL will hold up. I just find it extremely interesting that SCO supported the GPL up until 2.4.13 and no FANTASTIC strides have been made since that point in the code that *we think* they are trying to claim is their IP.
I guess that SCO is basically screwed unless they can some how force the GPL to break-down in court.
Just my worthless
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Interesting)
GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
This needs sorting out (Score:3, Interesting)
For all the predictably negative comments made by the Linux community, no one it seems, is preparing to challenge SCO and get this resolved. I will guarantee there are an endless stream of SCO jibes on this page now but not a single one of those jibes is something proactive or reactive to this seemingly large problem.
As far as I am aware, this has been ongoing for several months now and is including some very big companies that PHB's have heard of. Now, if a PHB knows that SCO is taking IBM to court and threatening Novell it would seem to suggest that using Linux in any form is likely to have implications at some time in the future, and therefore hold back Linux in the workplace.
Whilst this cloud is hanging over Linux, managers are going to be wary about rolling out Linux solutions and therefore other solutions such as MS ones are going to look increasingly safe choices, particularly with the new legal benefits.
Lycoris users can't be immune (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless Lycoris is referring to the GPL when they are talking about the "prior agreement", it is impossible for them to have another agreement with SCO: the GPL simply does not permit redistribution of code under side-agreements. Either everybody can redistribute or nobody can. That clause is in there precisely to keep companies from doing what SCO is doing.
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Interesting)
For a primer on the distinction, go talk to some former Enron employees. (Not senior management. Employees.)
Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I think, we get down to the heart of the matter. This isn't an attack on Linux per se. It isn't about IP or patents or copyrights. This is about trying to destroy the GPL. I think this statement, more than anything else, shows that MS really is behind this whole thing. What interest would SCO, a puny company who once distrubuted a Linux kernel in the GPL, have in invalidating the GPL? I just can't see why they would make themselves look like complete idiots to do that. On the other hand, who would jump for joy at the prospect of companies turning away from the GPL? Microsoft would be first and foremost on that list.
Re:My thoughts... (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, if they are going to continue allowing the 2.4.13 kernel code to be posted on their site which forces them to accept the GPL through 2.4.13 I can't see how they wouldn't have taken it down months ago. It seems like a rather large hole if the GPL stands up, why would they take that risk unless they "knew something we didn't"?
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Interesting)
Sanity: Guh?! Since when is the GPL license the problem - even if SCO's claims did prove to be true? And how exactly does IBM "move away" from the software license under which their primary operating system is distributed?
I don't think IBM considers linux their "primary" operating system at this point. At any rate, "move away" in SCO's terms I think really means to move away from Linux entirely and go back to solely distributing products based in AIX, to which IBM would have to continue to pay SCO for. Its a statement that's certainly not in IBMs best interests, but certainly is in SCO's.
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Interesting)
The MS link (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? Because if you look at SCOs actions and what they say, they are doing things to attack Linux and the GLP that don't really have anything to do with their legal battles or trying to boost their share price. For instance, in their response to IBM, they say
If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license.
Why this wording? This seems to be a general attack on Linux and the GPL. In what way does this wording favor SCO or its case?
I think it is clear that Microsoft has done a shady deal with SCO, and that SCO will just continue to do anything it can to damage the GPL and Linux even if it is detrimental to SCOs business or share price. In the last "halloween" document MS identified legal attacks as being the only effective way to fight Linux, and now this is happening. Coincidence? I think not.
SCO said:
As the stakes continue to rise in the Linux battles, it becomes increasingly clear that the core issue is bigger than SCO, Red Hat, or even IBM. The core issue is about the value of intellectual property in an Internet age.
Doesn't this ring as being a strange statement to anyone else? Is this really SCO talking, or is it really MS?
What the community should be doing is trying to find evidence of the deal between SCO and MS. I believe that is where the meat of this fiasco really lies, and if it could be found then MS could get in serious legal trouble too.
There must be employees within SCO that are unhappy about what is happening and have access to "interesting" information. The OSS community should set up a mechanism by which SCO employees can anonymously submit information, and we should be encoraging them to do so. A web site should be set up with contact details of SCO employees (Work contact details - email addresses, direct phone numbers) so we can contact them. If nothing else, if a concerted effort was made to do these things it would really f**k up SCO internally - imagine the paranoia if the SCO management know that there is a concerted effort to get SCO employees to snich.
I bl**dy hate SCO now, and I don't think people are being creative enough in thinking of ways that their life can be made difficult.
Re:-1 troll (Score:2, Interesting)
All warranties, terms, conditions, presentations, indemnities and guarantees with respect to the software, whether express or implied, arising by law, custom, prior oral or written statements by any party or otherwise (including, but not limited to any warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or any implied warranty of non-infringement of third party intellectual property rights) are hereby overridden, excluded and disclaimed.
Remember when? (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/xenix
Those two companies should team up again, since their absurd arrogance and disregard for true innovation make good bedfellows.
Perhaps the moron coalition heading up SCO should view the original open source UNIX post --> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=771%40mit-edd ie.UUCP. And then proceed to jump out a window.
the flaws (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Try again... (Score:2, Interesting)
Have they actually gotten down to minor version numbers? Last I heard they were simply saying 2.4 (and 2.5). If this is indeed true it should be pretty trivial to find all the changes from 2.4.17 to 2.4.18 and start narrowing down the list of suspects.
(I agree, I bet you'll find it was Caldera/SCO submitted code, considering old Love said that migrating features from SysV to Linux was their top prioritiy after the SCO buyout)
Re:No time restraint on patents (Score:2, Interesting)
You thought wrong. Neither copyrights nor patents require immediate action when infringement is realized. The amounts of damages you may be able to collect may be somewhat reduced for the period that you didn't take action, but that's all. In particular, IBM has a right to demand that SCO cease using IBM's patented inventions immediately.
Wasn't this what the
UNISYS prevailed with their GIF patent and they got plenty of licensing revenue. As a practical matter, they couldn't sue everybody under the sun, but they certainly did not lose their right to do so.
Small Claims possible? (Score:2, Interesting)
It'd be really funny if SCO got slashdotted in small claims court.
Not liking Lycoris anymore... (Score:3, Interesting)
The unfortunate upshot is that if you support Lycoris, you are ultimately supporting SCO. So it is with a heavy heart that I have to say that I will cease advising newbies to check out Lycoris. Instead, I will advise installation of Mandrake 9.1.
Too bad...Amethyst is really, really nice and is a great "training wheels" distro for those who are migrating from Windows.
Re:SCO is to sue Novell over Unix rights (Score:5, Interesting)
The US Patent Office does not keep track of ownership of patents; they merely record inventors and who the patent is assigned to intially (from the application). Or does McBride think everybody registers all their patent-related contracts with the USPTO?
Well, this is good: McBride obviously has absolutely no clue about intellectual property, which just further supports the notion that SCO's claims are completely groundless. The lawyers are going to have a lot of fun with SCO in court.
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Interesting)
You sure about that? Considering AIX is being moved towards linux (the "L" in AIX 5L stands for Linux!), what else do they have left?
uhoh, is Lycoris screwed? (Score:2, Interesting)
Redmond, WA - August 6, 2003 - Lycoris revealed today that its flagship product, Desktop/LX, is based on Caldera OpenLinux, which Lycoris has a license to develop and distribute directly from SCO. The terms of this previous agreement lock in Lycoris's ability to alter the source code of the Caldera OpenLinux product, which it has done extensively and release the results as Open Source to the public.
Now, as I understand it, Linux is just the kernel that is distributed ONLY under the GPL. So if Lycoris has purchased a license from SCO that covers Linux and is more restrictive than the GPL, then haven't SCO just lost the right to distribute Linux (as IBM suggests)? More to the point, doesn't that also mean that Lycoris have also lost the right to distribute Linux under the GPL? But Linux can't be distributed except under the GPL, so isn't Lycoris sorta screwed?
Re:SCO vs OJ (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why we have an obligation to spread the word. I've already told my non-geek friends about it. Granted, I don't include the gritty details, but they get pissed when I tell them it could affect the price of their Tivo or shiny new PDA.
The way I explain it is this. It's like trying to charge a licensing fee for certain hamburgers. SCO is trying to say that their IP is lettuce, which has been freely available for a long time. So they now want to charge fees for any restaurant that serves California burgers. Plus, they have designs on salads as well. Their suit against IBM is like they just sued McDonald's.
Details are, of course, omitted, but they get the gist of it.
Re:Try again... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it is. A license is just a pre-drafted offer for a contract.
The GPL is eminently enforceable because it doesn't take away any rights. It only grants rights.
NO.
The GPL gives a net benefit of rights, but to say "it only grants rights" is wrong, wrong, wrong.
The GPL, in a nutshell:
Point 0: "Anyone can download and use this work."
Point 1: "You can make derivitive works off of this work"
Point 2: "You must license any derivitive work you make with this license, or a license that works like this license."
This is a contract. Each party gets something, each party agrees to something. Given that this is a contract, and that the GPL is the very first contract of its kind, it very well may be tossed out in court. Toss out Point 2, above, and leave the rest of the GPL standing, and you've almost got a public domain declaration.
(I know perfectly well that software licenses have been largely upheld in court. But, in general, they don't do anything more than limit the sale to one copy and indemnify the software provider. There are a few that have outrageous terms--but, really, those would get dealt with like any other contract.)
(And while I'm rambling--there are derivitive works you can make off of copywritten works. This is what's known as "Fair Use.")
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Interesting)
Not at all GPL problem (Score:2, Interesting)
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, Red Hat, or even IBM. The core issue is about the value of intellectual property in an Internet age.
Not convincing. SCO's shouting loud as if the problem is in GPL and free software and open source, but that seems to me to be definitely a false claim intentionally made-up to confuse people.
This is not a GPL problem. This is not an open-source problem. This is not even a problem of certain kind of license (be it Free or Open or proprietary).
Just imagine (only at the moment) that IBM breached some of its contract terms with SCO and released the "stolen" code, NOT under the GPL, but under some proprietary license where you as a customer never see the source and still have to pay $100000 to use the binary. SCO can (and has to) sue IBM to collect damage. Is this any worse or better than the current situation where IBM used GPL? Probably that would affect the amount of damage (don't know in which direction), but if SCO can collect damage that doesn't matter.
So, even if SCO has something, it's only IBM playing dirty, and that should be all (from SCO's point of view). Not at all a problem of GPL. It seems that SCO wants to make free software/open-source movement look as disrespectable as possible, for some reason.
How to bring $CO down... (Score:2, Interesting)
How to bring $CO down to their knees (this is just theory I don't know much about our legal system), one person in every county in each of the fifty states file small claims (extortion) with that county's court near or on the same date. $CO would have to default most if not all those claims, and most likely would have to file bankruptcy on all those defaults. Now here is the kicker after they file bankruptcy everyone file one more small claim under a different argument, such as operating under a false pretenses. They would then not be able to claim bankruptcy on those defaults and would then have to come out of the companies operating cost.
Organizing a grass roots effort to under take such a task would be hard if not impossible, but my question for you lawyers and law students is, would this essentially work in theory? Lets face it; $CO has personally attacked every person of the Open Source Community, I think it is time for the community to do something about this attack and show the world that people make the difference in the US not corporations.
Excellent Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
My suggestion would be to buy a boxed RH distribution and use that to force SCO to reveal code or get a "clean bill of health" from a US court, even a small court carries weight since it will be the first "ruling" on this issue.
Let's say 500 different claims get's filed SCO is pretty much unable to respond.
Related Questioning of GPL in Germany (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:GPL (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless, they are apparently trying to plug the still-distributing-GPLed code issue by posting this legally dubious notice up front:
I don't think you can invalidate a licence bound with the source material by posting a "gee we are violating this licence because we have to support our customers" notice up front.
I haven't ever seen such a bunch of blatantly amoral weasels in my life. I hope IBM, Red Hat, and any other big guns that jump in to rip these guys apart. With any luck the SEC and the US Attorney General will bring these guys up on criminal charges as well.
I.V.
Talk to Linus (Score:2, Interesting)
anybody care to comment?
Re:-1 troll (Score:3, Interesting)
-1 Not a troll (Score:1, Interesting)
For some reason it is taking way too long for the Linux/F&OSS community to realize what this whole SCO thing is all about. It's about time we start asking the right questions and try to make sense of what apparently doesn't make any.
Why would SCO do all this? Stock scam? Maybe, but not very likely. If it was, they would've already sold their stock, move the money offshore and flee the country, because at this point it's clear that the price is not going much higher than it is.
Are they hoping to win their lawsuit? When dealing with any enemy, the first thing one must assume is that he is not stupid, not matter how stupid he seems. They are not morons.
Why would they produce one press release that looks like a troll after another, one senseless allegation after another? What are their goals? So far what we've heard was:
1. Linux kernel is written by a bunch of school kids who can't possibly make it any better than a bicycle compared to SCO's brilliant OpenServer or whatever.
2. Linux is full of code stolen from a proprietary system, and there is no way it can be free from all kinds of claims of IP property rights, licenses, patents, blah blah blah. In other words, Linux is illegal.
3. The new message is basically GPL is bad. Not yet clear why, but it doesn't matter what they come up with. The point is, GPL is bad, so any kind of "serious" business should "move away" from it.
So all they are saying is nothing but pure FUD, and their goal obviously is to keep it going as long as they can. Furthermore, they don't seem to be at all worried about the consequences, about how they are going to get out of this. All they want is for the FUD campaign to continue as long as possible.
Why Microsoft would spend $10M on a license for something they don't need? Just to be safe from being sued? Noone knew about the lawsuit at the time they bought the license. Noone that we know of anyway. This "donation" is the only evidence of Miscrosoft-SCO relationship we know so far. Or is it? Isn't the whole FUDslide evident enough? Isn't the goal of this whole operation to do as much damage to F&OSS as possible?
From now on we should consider SCO a mere representative of Microsoft for all intent and purpose. We are dealing with Microsoft here, not with a small broken company that's going out of business next week. This is not SCO's attack on Linux and F&OSS. This is Microsoft's attack. In fact this may be their last chance, and they know it. Gates and Ballmer see the end clearly. They are not morons.
And instead of making jokes and bashing SCO we'd better get serious, try to come up with a strategy that will make sure that who is hurt badly as a result of all this is Microsoft itself, and not Linux.
-- K
Re:Try again... (Score:3, Interesting)
To quote GNU's website [gnu.org]:
While it is generally atypical for most copyrighted works to contain licenses (License for how/when/why you can use a book?), software has become different in this reguard because of the ease by which copying can happen. A license isn't so much a contract as it is an extention of existing copyright law, extending or transfering some of the rights normally exclusively reserved to the copyright holder alone.Some links I found usefull:
A Software Copyright Primer [gigalaw.com]
US Copyright Office Website [loc.gov]
crazy theory (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember the article about M$ starting a Linux Lab to investigate Linux? What if M$ plans are to fund SCO (or buy SCO). Throw money at a bunch of layers. Get a court of law to "prove" that SCO owns the "IP" in question.
M$ makes their own version of Linux. Claim that no-one else has the rights to it. The can advertise their Linux as the only "legal" Linux (or something like that). Alternately, they could sit on their "IP" and not distribute Linux at all. Hence Linux would be effectively "illegal".
Now I know that's a big conspiracy theory. But entertain it. Would M$ do something like that?
What would it take to buy them out? (Score:2, Interesting)
Would someone just please... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sign the freakin NDA, get a good look at the code, take notes, and then release the information anonymously on Freenet so all this crap can come to an end sooner rather than later?
Bazaar Style Class Action Lawsuit (Score:2, Interesting)
Linux users should collectively file a class action lawsuit against SCO to stop the extortion of "license fees", litigating using an open source development style. No expensive (cathedral style) legal team would be required. Instead all legal actions would be developed and decided bazaar style. A web portal would allow all class members to see all documents relevant to the lawsuit and to submit their own "patches" to legal filings under development. Elected volunteers would represent the collective will of Linux users in court.
Would many eyes make all holes in legal strategy shallow? In a drawn out war of legal attrition would a broadly distributed volunteer effort outlast an opponent that is rapidly accumulating legal costs?
My understanding is that while the U.S. court system is in practice accessible only to those with a lot of money to pay lawyers, it is in principle accessible to all citizens. This would be a test of that principle.
Warranty on software? (Score:2, Interesting)
IBM urges its customers to use non- warranted, unprotected software.
Since when is ANY software warranted? I haven't seen an EULA in years that didn't say AS-IS, NO WARRANTY like some sort of old rusted heap in a used car lot. Protection? "XXXXX corporation is not liable for any damages that may result from the use of the software." That's REAL protection, guys.reporting SCO to the AG (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Deutsche Bank (that non-programmer) (Score:1, Interesting)
Changed my mind (Score:2, Interesting)
By the way, thanks to everyone who modded my timeline up yesterday. It was nice to see all that work appreciated.
Read between the lines... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would SCO care how IBM treats their customers? It shouldn't care, because if IBM treats their customers poorly they'll go elsewhere, possibly to SCO. So why would they say that? Most likely because they don't like IBM supporting free software. For IBM, software isn't the big seller, it's services and high-end hardware. SCO doesn't have this. At most, SCO is just a software company, but I would say it is just an IP company now. They see their demise if Linux keeps going for free.
The real irony (hopefully I'm using that word correctly) is that if the rumours about Microsoft supporting SCO behind the scenes are true, and Microsoft is the one that put Netscape out of business by giving away web browser software, then Microsoft has really supported the downfall of SCO by setting a business precedent of giving away software.
Re:Mass Small Claims Court (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember, not all the source code in the Linux Kernal gets compiled into every Binary Kernal.
Also remember that you'll probably have to call SCO and talk with sales before you can file. Into they have started doing business with you personally, you won't have any case.
Gates is behind this (Score:3, Interesting)
This is all the proof I need to show that Microsoft is behind all this. SCO's case is all about alleged theft of their code, which will prove to be a red herring. The real issue is to discredit the GPL. It's ludicrous for a company like SCO to pick a fight with so many people, unless they have Microsoft's billions to back them up.
License Fees for caldera? (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as useful value to me, it's just a glorified text terminal.
What is SCO's position on Caldera distrobutions? Do they expect me to pay money for a product that they gave me for free? Can someone provide me with a link that has this information?
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, I'm actually curious. If there is some form of evidence SCO expects me to pay money for a product that was sent to me in good faith, I think my state attorney general should be informed.
Instead of play money, how about Taiwanese Dollars (Score:2, Interesting)
I didn't see a specification that all amounts were in US dollars, and Taiwanese New Dollars are negotiable currency.
I couldn't know what the current exchange rates are for Monopoly Money....
Re:"One reader buys a SCO license." (Score:2, Interesting)
Krill
Mark Webbink's (VP Red Hat) comments (Score:3, Interesting)
He pointed out that even though it has now been months since SCO filed their lawsuit against IBM, SCO has yet to file even a single motion for discovery in the matter.
I suspect SCO is in real trouble, now.
From the above, it certainly appears, as we've long suspected, that SCO was seeking something other than an actual lawsuit.
Now SCO has been filed with a strong lawsuit by Red Hat that could cost them enormous amounts of money.
And to top it off, IBM has responded with counterclaims that should threaten even the continued existence of SCO.
I really don't see any way out for SCO at this point.
If SCO keeps going as they are, they are going to get flattened by Red Hat and oblitterated by IBM. Talk about road kill on the information super highway!
If they settle, the only way they survive is if IBM allows them to continue violating their patents. I guess it's possible that IBM could end up with System V as part of the settlement. In any event, there won't be much left of SCO, but they'd at least be in business.
The executives that got them there would be likely to bear the brunt of the punishment. They'll be out of there.
If the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) investigates and finds problems, some of the executives of both SCO and the Canopy Group could find themselves in a federal country club prison for a while and both SCO and the Canopy Group (depending on the blame for the violations) could end up paying enormous fines as well.
The only way I can see that SCO is gong to come out ahead is if they continue and IBM and Red Hat both stumble. But I can't imagine either making the kinds of mistakes that they would have to make for SCO to win.
Just what is SCO's exit strategy? Or do they have one?
For that matter, what is Boies' exit strategy?
Am I being naive here... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Gates is behind this (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony. Microsoft resuscitating Xenix! (yes kids, Microsoft used to sell a unix clone too).
But like you said: fat chance.
Principal-Agent Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Maximizing the shareholders' value is the the nominal goal of any publicly traded company. For the larger body of shareholders, this means producing reliably increasing returns as this provides them with safely growing assets. Ignoring the dot-com IPO craze, most shareholders are into a company for a long time, hoping that it will provide them with sensible return at at least the market average for the life of their time invested. This is the "will of the voters" for a company.
The problem comes in companies like Enron or SCO when the management has investments in the company, is thoroughly unethical (*cough* rationally-self-interested *cough*), and has made a series of mistakes that they and their stock holdings will eventually be held accountable for. Their goal becomes to deceive the market and the other stockholders to try to maximize the price of the stock in the short term and give themselves a window of opportunity to cash out before that shareholders' value come crash down on them. The executives of Enron, the Principals, damn well were charged with keeping their company running by the shareholders, the Agents, who invested their money in the company in hopes of it staying afloat. This little thing of keeping the company alive that you brush off as just "job security" was their job. Instead of properly owning up to what was wrong with their company, they participated in a "pump and dump" scam that made them filthy rich right before dropping the bomb that ruined the asset value of millions of shareholders, including other employees in the company and many retirement funds around the nation. Shareholders lost big. If they had known over the long term what kind of problems Enron had had for years, they could've shored up for the loss or pulled out safely. Instead, their shareholder value was destroyed through deceptive business practices that made Enron falsely seem far more valuable than it actually was.
SCO is essentially doing the same thing. Their business model has been an utter failure. Even as Caldera, they were outcompeted by better and cheaper Linux distros, so Caldera management bought SCO and decided to bet the company on a outside shot. I seriously disbelieve thanks to their own public comments that SCO's management think that they can win. They're bluffing, and the stock trading actions of SCO's executives seems to indicate that they're participating in a very loud and aggressive "pump and dump" scam. They're cashing out while the stock value is currently about 15 times what it was last year. Here's the best part. It doesn't matter if they cash out if they win. Considering that the company has very low overhead beyond its legal department, I'm sure that if they do win, SCO management will grant themselves quite a huge salary bonus from that windfall (with stock options to boot) with the blessing of all the new stockholders which have started flooding in since the change in company strategy. It's a win-win situation for management!
However, it's an extremely risky gamble for shareholders -- one which the entire company's future is leveraged on. If they lose the IBM case, or if they win against IBM but lose the battle to actually enforce fees on the Linux community, their business model is utterly empty of any future revenue sources on the level that the current stock price reflects. You see, SCOX has a dangerously high price to earnings ratio right now. Any stock analyst will tell you that companies with a high P/E are risky. Usually, a
Re:What would it take to buy them out? (Score:2, Interesting)
SCO can not be bought. The majority of shares are held by Canopy. You will never get 51% ownership of stock because they are not for sale.
What part of can't don't you morons get?
49% does not equal "control" of SCO.
This simple fact has been repeated in every SCO thread.
You can't buy SCO stock and get control of the company.
SCO's bowels are in such turmoil it needs 3 asses to shit out of. Go big blue.