Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Caldera Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

IBM, Intel Set Up $10m SCO Defense Fund 300

Posted by timothy from the upping-the-ante dept.
An anonymous reader writes that the "NY Times reports that a group of companies, led by I.B.M. and Intel, plans to announce today that it is setting up a $10 million legal defense fund to help pay for the litigation costs of corporate users of the popular GNU/Linux operating system if they are sued. ZDnet also has a story on this." otisaardvark points out that "The fund is to be administered by OSDL (Open Source Development Labs) and so, amongst other things, could bankroll legal costs for Linus."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM, Intel Set Up $10m SCO Defense Fund More

IBM, Intel Set Up $10m SCO Defense Fund

Comments Filter:

  • Ah what it is to have friends (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:00AM (#7951354) Journal
    Big, Rich friends :-))

    Of course, IBM and Intel aren't doing this out of the kindness of their hearts, but it's still a nice gesture, 'cos it works for us (well, them, I'm not a kernel contributor :-)

    Simon

    • Re:Ah what it is to have friends (Score:5, Insightful)

      by diersing ( 679767 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:25AM (#7951491)
      I think it works for the greater good as well.

      If SCO goes after google, a well recognized name outside tech circles and gets thumped in it's first big, real court battle... it may force the "SCO Get Rich Train" right off the tracks before it really gets started.

      I'm not a kernel developer either, but if Linux costs me $799 per proc to run, Windows and Apple become the cheaper alternative.

    • Partner Link (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:32AM (#7951528)
      Partner link for the NYT article. [nytimes.com]
    • MS is floundering, and Intel's fate is too tied to them now. Perhaps they want to free Linux of the SCO cloud so that they can continue to rocket into the mainstream. = more diverse markets for Intel and a shot at re-charging the flatlined processor market? Also maybe a way to cozy up to the OpenSource community to perhaps steal some light from AMD? Like you said - they aren't doing this for free.

      • Re:new direction sought (Score:4, Insightful)

        by smittyoneeach ( 243267 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @10:11AM (#7951763) Homepage Journal
        MS is floundering, and Intel's fate is too tied to them now
        Well, given the cash reserves and market share of MS, 'floundering' seems a malapropism.
        OTOH, since Intel's compiler now does the Linux kernel, clearly they perceive some market growth in the penguin direction.
        In other news, SCO swears up and down that it lost the winning lottery ticket...
        • perhaps I should have been more concise. I meant that Longhorn seems to be an age away, and with it an upgrade wave that would put a spike in Intel's processor revenue. So perhaps they are trying to encourage diversification in the OS market that supports its processor platform. They can't afford to be so tied to one OS vendor, and its in their best interests to foster the adoption of Linux in the mainstream to accomplish that.

        • Re:new direction sought (Score:4, Interesting)

          by GSloop ( 165220 ) <`networkguru' `at' `sloop.net'> on Monday January 12, 2004 @01:10PM (#7953522) Homepage
          I'll pick a nit or two...

          Floundering may seem like a premature word.

          I recently saw an employee get fired and worse from a client of mine. The employee seemed invincible as he was a serious suck-up to the owner. He used slime tactics, and would stab anyone in the back to get ahead. I knew he would get his just reward - yet even then I dispaired that it would happen in my lifetime.

          This went on for 3-4 years!

          About six months ago, though, it caught up to him.

          So, yes, MS isn't dead, yet. But I know that their kind of behavior eventually costs. And it will cost MS. And I think the cracks are starting to show now.

          So, yes, I think "Floundering" is appropriate. Perhaps a bit visionary or ahead of it's time, but not wrong.

          Cheers,
          Greg
    • Hopefully now no one will get SCOwned.

  • An old proverb comes to mind. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Locky ( 608008 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:01AM (#7951359) Homepage
    The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    • Re:An old proverb comes to mind. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The enemy of an enemy has already proven that they have the ability to be an enemy.
      • Quite right. Even though IBM has seen that it is better to be loved than feared, it wasn't too long ago when they took the Machiavellian stance.

        Remeber when the term "FUD" was invented, that it was in reference to IBM. Remember that IBM agressively takes advantage of the lax patent system, procuring IP whenever and wherever possible. Just because the Gaint is stepping on our enemies doesn't mean he'll won't accidentally (or not) step on us later.
    • Just like Saddam?

      Just like Bin Laden?

      Just like Noriega?

      Just like Ferdinand Marcos?

      Just like Pinochet?

      (Man, that "Proverb" must have come from the inverse of Solomon.)

      Cheers,
      Greg

  • Nice (Score:5, Interesting)

    by michaelhood ( 667393 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:02AM (#7951360)
    Kudos to IBM/Intel for "doing the Right Thing (TM)". Also found it interesting how the ZDnet article words it "Anti-SCO". Harsh. I like it.

  • timing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by parnold ( 119081 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:03AM (#7951363)
    the timeing of this is interesting with today being the day that SCO has to show evidence in court of IBM's infringment on their copyright.

    • Re:timing (Score:2, Interesting)

      by agentforsythe ( 696066 )
      I'm refreshing frenetically, waiting for the /. story regarding SCO's 'evidence'. Ah, what a day to be given mod points. It doesn't get much better than this.

      • Re:timing (Score:5, Informative)

        by !the!bad!fish! ( 704825 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:16AM (#7951434) Homepage
        You need to calm down a bit. Over at Groklaw [groklaw.net] they "don't expect to know much until the next court date on the 23rd".

      • Re:timing (Score:5, Informative)

        by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:23AM (#7951473) Homepage
        Sorry to burst your bubble, but they only have to give documentation to IBM today, the chances of it being read and making Slashdot before the next court session on the 23rd are slim. The only way this *will* make Slashdot today is if SCO fails to deliver any documentation at all, in which case it's likely to be game over, insert coin.

        Here's hoping.

        • We can only wish. Even by giving them back essentially the same document with idle threats and vague allusions they probably will buy themselves at least until the 23rd, and perhaps a significant amount of time after that. Then come the appeals...

    • Re:timing (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:16AM (#7951430)
      What I find amazing is the big stink that SCO brought up about indemnification, and protecting your customers against legal action. Even Laura DiDio, our favorite shill, brings up the indemnification issue time and time again.

      Now look what's happening here. OSDL is indemnifying linux users against legal action (more than an MS EULA can do, by the way), and SCO is... what's that? they're making noises about suing their own UNIX licensees?

      Hypocrites!

      • Re:timing (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Krow10 ( 228527 ) <cpenning@milo.org> on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:52AM (#7951639) Homepage
        What I find amazing is the big stink that SCO brought up about indemnification, and protecting your customers against legal action. Even Laura DiDio, our favorite shill, brings up the indemnification issue time and time again.

        Now look what's happening here. OSDL is indemnifying linux users against legal action (more than an MS EULA can do, by the way), and SCO is... what's that? they're making noises about suing their own UNIX licensees?

        What's really really funny to me is that this is the worst of all possible worlds for SCOX -- it takes the wind out of the extortion aspect of this fiaSCO ("pay up, or da Boies will sue youse") and it doesn't give them the leverage against a company's insurance provider of unlimitted liability that "indemnification" would have -- they actually have to sue an *indemnified* HP customer, or they have to sue *many* linux end users before they can start squeezing anyone on legal costs. As my 1yo daughter would say, Uh-Oh!

        Cheers,
        Craig

  • Covers end users, too (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kennykb ( 547805 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:03AM (#7951365)
    As Groklaw [groklaw.net] points out, one significant item with Intel's defense fund is that it covers end users. That means that it is not redundant with Red Hat's, which covers only developers.

    This announcement should add a new dimension to SCO's nonsense about indemnification.

    • Re:Covers end users, too (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:19AM (#7951457) Homepage
      I've just finished reading this at Groklaw too, and for me the interesting point was the bit about SCO's "Big Linux Target" being a user of Linux *and* holder of a commercial Unix license. As noted by Groklaw, unless this is just Darl shooting his mouth off again, then Google is kind of off the hook. It would also imply that SCO is changing their story again, from "if you use Linux, we can sue" to "if you use Linux and have a commercial UNIX license, we can sue".
      • It makes some sense that SCO would start with a user of both Unix and Linux, because the Unix license presents a target for their legal strategy. i.e. a contract that the user is breaking by using Linux as well.
      • Would that include the free Solaris license you can get by downloading it from Sun, or just a license for SCO's own Unix?

      • Yeah, I'm kinda hoping (Score:4, Insightful)

        by confused one ( 671304 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @10:30AM (#7951896)
        That they'll pick the U.S. Gov't. I can't think of anyone who's a much bigger user of Linux that also has Unix licenses. NASA, DOD & DOE have all worked to improve (add to) linux. NASA & DOE more or less created the Beowulf cluster.

        If they're going after 800lb gorillas...

    • good thing you pointed this out, I was going to say..
      although, I'm not sure how different 'developers' and 'users' are. since the source code is open. It's the same thing isn't it?

      redhat's press relese:
      The purpose of the fund will be to cover legal expenses associated with infringement claims brought against companies developing software under the GPL license and non-profit organizations supporting the efforts of companies developing software under a GPL license.
      Sco isn't attacking us lil guys, th

  • So what will it be? (Score:3, Funny)

    by eggstasy ( 458692 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:03AM (#7951367) Journal
    Megacorps are EVIL! EVIL I say! And they will bring DOOOM TO US ALL!!!
    But... they are wasting $10 million on a legal defense fund to help Linus! YAY MEGACORPS!

    • Re:So what will it be? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:16AM (#7951431)
      Megacorps are neither all good nor all evil. They are just human institutions that plug along and do their thing. What they do often depends on circumstances and who is running them. Often when they do seemingly "evil" things it's out of stupidity and shortsightedness rather than malice.

      As for why IBM is doing this, that's obvious. Intel and the others? I'd say that being on the list of contributors for that is probably the best PR money can buy with the hacker community. If you are a tech company, the hacker community are your customers. They probably just redirected a few mil from advertising. Intel needs good PR right now with the hacker community to help them compete with the AMD Opteron.

      This may be one of the last nails in the SCO coffin, since $10 mil can buy a lot of legal representation and SCO likely can't match that. SCO does not have the cash to bankroll fifty lawsuits. If the legal battle really got ugly, I'm sure the fund could solicit at least another few mil from Linux users.

    • Re:So what will it be? (Score:5, Funny)

      by 3Daemon ( 577902 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:17AM (#7951438)
      And they will bring DOOOM TO US ALL!!!
      Interesting enough then, that Activision, the one megacorp that would actually be thanked for bringing us Doom (well... Doom 3 anyways), seems unable to do so.
    • ...said it best when he wrote this entry in "The Devil's Dictionary":

      CORPORATION, n.
      An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

      In short; whatever the acronym, they're all in it for the green and the Holy Ego.

  • Is that a good thing or a bad thing? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:03AM (#7951369)
    In a weird way this is kind of adds 'validity' to SCO claims. I wish IBM would put a 1 million ransom for capture of McBride or something...
    • So the only thing that is "validated" here is, that SCO might (threaten to) sue you if you use Linux. We know that already, nothing new there. It's in IBMs (and other Linux-Distributors) best interest to put up a good defense in the first SCO vs. Linux-end-user case since the outcome of such a case will have high publicity value.
    • Actually it hurts SCO's claims...
      On of there PR thingys was indemnification, by creating this fund IBM is showing that they don't believe SCO will win.
      They are also making sure that whoever SCO is going to target can defend itself properly. Nothing could be worse than some linux user getting sued and loosing due to lack of funds and setting a precedent.

      Jeroen
    • But, but, it's not an indemnification, it's a legal defense fund...

      It's not agreeing they're guilty and paying their consumers a compensation, is just helping their consumers don't get harrassed by SCO litigation spree.

  • IBM (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bwdunn ( 85165 ) <bwdunn@gmail.com> on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:04AM (#7951372) Homepage
    Since Lou Gerstner took control of IBM (although he is no longer at the helm), this has been a different company. Today they are doing everything possible to help Linux, but of course to that end they are also helping themselves. Still, it must be said that the IBM of today is one great company.

    (I don't work for IBM or have any connections to them other than my Thinkpad T40 (NewEgg has them now for $1600 bucks!)
    • IBM is STILL a shitty two faced company. They plan on moving alot of their software development to India. I personally would NOT buy ANYTHING from IBM. Also, their printer line has the WORST support under Linux!

  • Where can I contribute? (Score:5, Funny)

    by YanceyAI ( 192279 ) * <IAMYANCEY@yahoo.com> on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:05AM (#7951379)
    Is there a PayPal donation link anywhere?

    ; )

  • SCO's new plan. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Saven Marek ( 739395 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:06AM (#7951381)
    The SCO vs Linux legal battle took another turn today, as the SCO group plans action against Caldera, it's former self, for releasing their alleged IP. In a move that stunned the rest of the industry, SCO is effectively suing itself for initiating distribution of SCO IP as GPL code. SCO says they are assured of winning the case as they have all of the evidence and can present it in court.

    SCO claimed that, to defend itself against such charges, it will be making gratuitous use of the OSDL defense fund.

    nude mac desktops [mudshark.ath.cx]

  • Intel and IBM won't throw away that much money... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shisha ( 145964 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:06AM (#7951383) Homepage
    IBM & Intel won't just throw all this money away would they. I think what this means is:

    We're pretty damn sure that Linux is clean. You can be sure too, because if you get sued we'll pay the legal costs for the time being, but since we know that you (we, Linux) will win in the end, SCO will have to pay and so it won't cost us a dime.

    And so our Linux bussiness can roll on. It's more than PR. It's saying we'll win.

  • Bigger promises to bigger fish (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nadsat ( 652200 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:06AM (#7951385) Homepage
    They are making preparations to buffer their new role as being total service providers, providing OS helpdesk and contracting support to corporaions.

    OS was supposed to be use at your own risk... but it seems they are now going to make promises above and beyond a general GNU contract.

  • Ummm. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by anonymous coword ( 615639 )
    Those $10 could be spent on more useful stuff, like doing a full audit of the source code to see what REALLY is in linux. The Linux source bz2s are over 35Mb in size now, who knows what is inside them? There is bound to be some old code laying around that may of been leaked in by an ex caldera/sco employee.
    • Heh. For that matter, while everyone is outsourcing jobs to India and Asia, why not just outsource the evidence collection? That way the experienced coders, et al, can keep their jobs, while outsourced employees do the basic grunt work making sure that there's no infringing code.
    • Of course there must be SCO IP in Linux, because the bz2 tarball is over 35 MB. Golly, there probably is *shitloads* of SCO IP in Windows XP - it's supposed to be over 60 million lines of code. I'm sure the bz2 tarball of the XP kernel is over 35 MB too !

    • Re:Ummm. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kubrick ( 27291 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @10:04AM (#7951719)
      There is bound to be some old code laying around that may of been leaked in by an ex caldera/sco employee.

      Caldera released all of that code under the GPL, though.* If not initially, through the contributing developer, then when they published the resulting body of work as OpenLinux.

      They still retain copyright, but that doesn't mean they can revoke the use, distribution and modification rights that they've already granted to Linux users.

      * (and SCO were still doing so until midway through last year, after this whole kerfuffle started.)
  • This story seems to be about contributions made to the defense fund already discussed here [slashdot.org] in November.

    - Brian

  • check your facts! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:09AM (#7951404)
    OSDL hopes to raise $10 million, Cohen said. So far it's raised $3 million from a group of companies that includes IBM, MontaVista Software and Intel.

  • Smart business move: Ring fence the bastards! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:10AM (#7951410)
    What this may do is set the stage for killing SCO by bleeding them by laywers...

    The idea is simple: Ring fence SCO from accessing customer license fees. Meanwhile, bleed them to death by keeping them entangled in the SCO/IBM, RedHat/SCO suits.

    If SCO cannot extract a single license fee because it ends up in another court case, their business model is effectively dead, thus (hopefully!) devaluing their stock!

  • Zero Hour (Score:3, Informative)

    by Xpilot ( 117961 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:11AM (#7951413) Homepage
    On a related note, according to scocountdown.com [scocountdown.com], SCO should hand over whatever evidence they claim to have to the court....TODAY!

  • End user contributions?? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:13AM (#7951422)
    I know I cannot give as much as Intel or IBM, but I was wondering if there is anyway I can contribute $$ to the fund?? Admitedly my 10$ may not pay for 1/10th of an hour to pay a lawyer, but I would like to feel that I helped destroy SCO in some way. And this isn't a troll, I'd give anything to be part of the reason SCO had to shut it's lying trap!

    • Donate to groklaw (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:25AM (#7951489)
      Donate to groklaw - www.groklaw.net

      PJ is doing some AWESOME unpaid work uncovering and collating all the information about the case and the history of unix, sco, novell, the copyrights etc. Many journalists are looking and linking to groklaw already. If there's one person working against SCO who needs support from the community, it's PJ.

  • I wonder what Darl would have to say about this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustKidding ( 591117 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:13AM (#7951424)
    I wonder if SCO is happy with this, or not.

    Ofcourse, it is yet another news article with SCO's name in it, but it also seems like IBM and Intel think they need a crapload of money to defend people, which in turn suggests that there is something to SCO's claims.

    SCO really wants to go to court, but ofcourse they know they don't stand a chance. This amount of money on both sides could make for a spectacular trial.
    At the same time, some people, who hadn't figured it out yet, might realise that there is no way on earth SCO is actually going to win.

    Besided that, i wonder if IBM and Intel did return-on-investment calculations on this. Maybe they figure the kudos will be worth more than 10M.

    • Re:I wonder what Darl would have to say about this (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:27AM (#7951496) Homepage
      it also seems like IBM and Intel think they need a crapload of money to defend people, which in turn suggests that there is something to SCO's claims.

      To me, it seems as if IBM and Intel need a press release to reassure customers, that's all. Not everyone follows every twist and turn in this, and a potential customer might be swayed by some of the SCO press.

      To me, this is just IBM and Intel showing that their money is where their mouth is, so customers can look and feel safe in choosing Linux.

      Cheers,
      Ian

    • Not quite. Since Linux is open source and all, the primary designers were all dabbling with code in their spare time, or making "free as in beer" add-ons for it.

      Those add-ons qualify as an extension on an operating system that SCO claims is in violation as well, being that one would need a familiarity with a "stolen" product. If anyone profits from it, then by the standards set by the BSA and DMCA, they're guilty.

      Needless to say, however, most of these developers make enough to live (relatively comfortabl
    • Darl says [wsj.com]: 'No amount of money into a defense fund can protect somebody if they're the guilty party,' as you can read on Groklaw [groklaw.net].

  • Sued by RedHat Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Debian Troll's Best ( 678194 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:14AM (#7951427) Journal
    The question of users being sued for running Linux has got me thinking. Now that RedHat no longer offers a free desktop version of their product, would it be possible that a Linux-running site could be sued by RedHat for illegally running a 'pirated' copy of Red Hat Advanced Server? Would this be any different to Microsoft calling in the BSA to investigate a site running unlicensed copies of Windows? What if the RedHat site was running a hybrid type of installation, with portions of the distro taken from the unlicensed 'illegally obtained' version of RHAS, but others, such as package management (apt-get, for example), taken from the free GNU/Debian distro? Are there any lawyers out there that would care to comment. Thanks.
    • "illegally obtained" excuse me but RHAS is open source, there is no such thing, they can't sue us, why they hell would they? If you have 500 boxes all grabbing updates and you say you only have 1 machine, sure they could do something, they could drop support.. but you'd still have 500 RHAS boxes they couldn't touch. problem is you have to touch them now, A LOT more frequently =)

    • Re:Sued by RedHat Linux? (Score:5, Informative)

      by DA-MAN ( 17442 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:40AM (#7951569) Homepage
      I am not a lawyer, but I will try to answer this in that I have spoken with Red Hat directly before regarding most of this stuff.

      Now that RedHat no longer offers a free desktop version of their product, would it be possible that a Linux-running site could be sued by RedHat for illegally running a 'pirated' copy of Red Hat Advanced Server?

      Only if you actually purchased a license do you give Red Hat permission to audit your facilities for license violations. Installing Linux is allowed by the GPL, as many times over as you would like. But you are only entitled to Red Hat services on the machine you paid for. IE NO UPDATES/BUG FIXES.

      Would this be any different to Microsoft calling in the BSA to investigate a site running unlicensed copies of Windows?

      Not really, you can always get Red Hat workalikes built from the source code available to us all. For Free!
      White box Linux [whiteboxlinux.org]
      Tao Linux [taolinux.org]
      CentOS [caosity.org]
      Just to name a few.

      What if the RedHat site was running a hybrid type of installation, with portions of the distro taken from the unlicensed 'illegally obtained' version of RHAS, but others, such as package management (apt-get, for example), taken from the free GNU/Debian distro?

      Depends on whether the machine is licensed or not. I assume a jacked up installation (debian packages on rh system) would void any warranty or compatability assurances that come with Red Hat.
    • As far as I understand, Red Hat Advanced Server is protected by tradmark law, not copyright law. This means that if someone redistributes RHAS without removing Red Hat trademarks, they may be sued for tradmark violation. I don't believe an end user will be in any risk, trademark law is supposed to protect trade, not use.

  • Encouraging, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pembers ( 250842 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:16AM (#7951436) Homepage

    It's encouraging to see that some of those who benefit from Linux are prepared to defend it against predators. But it may mean that they think there is a significant probability that SCOX will not implode before they can file any new lawsuits (as opposed just to threatening to file new lawsuits).

  • SCO stock going down... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bendebecker ( 633126 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:20AM (#7951462) Journal
    They are doomed... again. nuff said.

  • Well (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:23AM (#7951476)
    help pay for the litigation costs of corporate users of the popular GNU/Linux operating system if they are sued.

    That leaves grandmas, 12 year old girls, and nerds in parent's basements out in the cold.

    I guess we now know who SCO is going to target next.

  • Intel has more to contribute than money (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:24AM (#7951484)
    It will be interesting to see how much of the code for X86 that sco is claiming as stolen actually came from intel. Either intel reference code for talking to the bios or for talking directly to the chipset peripheral controllers tends to show up everywhere. Plus there is intels own work on SMP operating systems. Hypercubes were an intel specialty.

    Now if adaptec joins in sco could be in for a ripping the like of which has never been seen

  • Who is not IANAL wins (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tcoady ( 22541 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:25AM (#7951488)
    $10 million? Thats enough money to fund OSDL for three or four years! More proof, as if needed, that this case is principally about lining the pockets of the legal community.

  • The future (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vchoy ( 134429 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:27AM (#7951498)
    "... a group of companies, led by I.B.M. and Intel, plans to announce today that it is setting up a $10 million legal defense fund..."

    I am just looking forward to the day where this SCO's legal challenge gets thrown out of court...I am interested what would happen to all these companies that setup these defense funds worth millions of dollars. I sure hope thy donate this back into the OS community in some form (eg donations, code contributions, OS marketing) etc etc.

    • Re:The future (Score:3, Insightful)

      by djeaux ( 620938 )
      I am just looking forward to the day where this SCO's legal challenge gets thrown out of court.

      As are many others here! Let's hope that IBM's contribution helps get that ball rolling. It takes money to mount enough of a challenge to get SCO's case pitched into the circular file, hopefully with prejudice.

      I notice that a lot of folks are questioning IBM's ultimate motive here. Of course, their motive is to make money & defend their interests. But until SCO's spurious claims are properly squashed, nobo

  • But (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rhadamanthus ( 200665 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:27AM (#7951500)
    Nobody has been sued but IBM, right? And that was for breach of contract! Until SCO actually has the nuts to sue anyone (won't happen), who cares?

    --rhad

    • No but there have [sun.com] been [hp.com] other companies that have 'absolved' their user base of open source sins. Then they've pointed at IBM for not doing anything to 'save' them from the devil [sco.com]

  • linux. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mr_tommy ( 619972 )
    Sure, it's nice to have corporate support, but is anyone else a little worried about big businesses real interests in Linux? We live in a capitalist society : the interest is money and profit. Just makes you wonder what kind of support linux is going to need from these boys in the future, and how dependent they are going to be.

  • This sends a loud and clear message (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:30AM (#7951514) Homepage

    And I for one welcome our new lawyer overlords.

    Say, remember when the Romano-British employed one lot of maurading Saxons to protect them from another lot of maurading Saxons? How did that turn out? As I remember, the Saxons won by default... and then decided to pay one lot of maurading Vikings to protect them from another lot of maurading Vikings...

    Tort. Reform. Now.

    • Re:This sends a loud and clear message (Score:5, Funny)

      by CaptainAlbert ( 162776 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:45AM (#7951585) Homepage

      Say, remember when the Romano-British employed one lot of maurading Saxons to protect them from another lot of maurading Saxons?

      I would say you're showing your age there. :P

      Ah, those were the days. The sight of a circle of Norsemen huddled around a fire, reciting their ancient sagas... imagine a Beowulf clu... oh, wait.

      What do you mean, Off Topic? C'mon, it's more fun than bitching about SCO!

  • bad (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:34AM (#7951538)
    This is bad news, not good news. Before this announcement, SCO legal hound dogs were chasing only the big game; small firms and users were safe (what is the point in sending a 1000$/hr lawyer against a 50$/hr one-man ISP?). Now this fund changes everything: expect to see many more of those faxes [slashdot.org] rolling.

  • I guess this means indemnification (Score:5, Interesting)

    by emtboy9 ( 99534 ) <jeff AT jefflane DOT org> on Monday January 12, 2004 @09:39AM (#7951559) Homepage
    Well, so much for that.

    This begs a couple thoughts/questions though.

    First, $10M US is not that big a pinch really. IBM could throw that kind of cash around without even a blink (kinda like MS throwing $6M to SCO for a "License",) so $10M really shouldn't be too hard to come up with.

    In fact, I would like to see a list of people who are contributing to this, and would like to see some big names on that list (hello Red Hat!)

    Also, this would be an EXCELLENT time for Novell to step up and put their money where their acquisition is, and back their SuSE purchase by getting in on this as well.

    And someone earlier made an excellent comment: where can someone in the general OSS community donate to such a fund? I mean, its one thing for "We the People" to piss and moan about SCO, and then rely on major corps to handle the legal stuff for us (Which is fine for now, but with the way SCO has acted over the last few months, who knows WHO they are gonna sue next), but it would be a much better show of solidarity if we also contributed to this fund, or sone like it, above and beyond the usual contributions to groups like EFF and such.
  • Since SCO approached Google about (SCO)Linux licencing fees, google no longer produces results on searches on "SCO". It has been addressed that any search result in concern with SCO will require Google to pay $695x10000servers=$6,950,000 per result. Therefore Google reprogrammed their search engines to ignore searches on "SCO".

    Is the humour lost on everyone?

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @10:02AM (#7951705)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Hopefully.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Alioth ( 221270 ) <no@spam> on Monday January 12, 2004 @10:05AM (#7951726) Journal
    Hopefully, the nightmare possible scenario I outlined as the possible SCO strategy can't and won't happen now this has been done. See the link to my JE below for an explanation.

  • Part of a legal strategy, not just being generous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RhettLivingston ( 544140 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @10:26AM (#7951863) Journal
    A typical legal strategy for a battle like this is for the side in SCO's position to tackle a bunch of little guys first to build up precedents without actually having to prove their case against an oponent equipped with a like legal force. IBM and Intel are simply serving notice to SCO that that isn't going to fly here. They will put on their defense wherever SCO goes instead of waiting for SCO to come to them.

  • It's brilliant (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @11:36AM (#7952440) Homepage
    This isn't just a proactive strike, this is IBM rolling thunder. Think about it, they totally undermined SCO's FUD machine. The only card SCO has left is saying IBM wouldn't have put up the money if they weren't worried about IP issues. Anyone thinking of buying a license, just in case, is now going to tell SCO to bugger themselves. IBM won't have to actually part with any money unless SCO sues someone and the chances of it adding up to anything close to the total amount is nearly zero. The total amount, chump change for IBM, is realistically more than SCO has to spare.

    IBM comes off looking like a hero, combined with the Linux commercials all over TV this weekend and it's a huge PR win. I'm not easily impressed but this was brilliantly conceived, timing and execution nearly flawless.

    With everything else they've done so well one would have to believe that somewhere inside the folds of the cape there is a sword ready to strike the killing blow.

  • Look at their stock! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by haxor.dk ( 463614 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @12:04PM (#7952716) Homepage
    It's already happening!

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=5d&l=on&z =m &q=l&c=

    SCOX is on a steady downhill slide. Bye Bye Darl!

  • SCOX dropping like a rock (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @12:47PM (#7953237) Homepage
    http://moneycentral.msn.com/scripts/webquote.dll?i Page=lqd&Symbol=scox

    As of this writing:

    Last 15.95
    Change(%) -1.15 (-6.73%)
    High 17.18
    Low 15.77
    Volume 216,036

    It doesn't even bear predicting (because it's a sure thing) that Darl will vomit forth more bombastic FUD today or tomorrow in response to this.

    SCOX stock is the only currency they have. They pay their lawyers in it. If it collapses, they are done.

    But, their bubble can't have much longer to run though... For all the threats, intimidation, spin, etc, SCaldera has YET to take any action on their copyright claims...

    Sooner or later, the Emperor will be exposed for the streaker he is.

  • Smart move (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Performer Guy ( 69820 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @01:19PM (#7953617)
    This is a smart move, in helping others to resist SCO's shakedown they undermine SCO's ability to fund additional litigation and limit the impact of their legal intimidation. Companies who otherwise might have given SCO some money and furthered SCO's PR campaign are now likely to refuse and they'll be backed by the slush fund put in place to defeat SCO.

  • A US-only problem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Teun ( 17872 ) on Monday January 12, 2004 @02:02PM (#7954049)
    As someone that grew up during the Cold War and to admire the USofA for doing The Right Thing (well often...) it makes me SO sad to see how the US legal system is not able to protect it's people against silly extortional tactics as these by SCO.

    Why can't the US repair it's legal system so as to do what happened in for exemple Germany and Poland where the courts told SCO to "Put up or Shut up", i.e. shut up untill you SHOW the problem.

    Regretfully the present situation reflects baldly not only on the flawed US legal system but on a once great nation (and people!) as a whole.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close