Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Software Linux

SCO - EV1, Licensees, Groklaw, Armed Guards 778

Posted by simoniker
from the many-tidbits dept.
Camel Pilot writes "It looks like the CEO of EV1Servers underestimated the reaction to giving in to SCO demands and licensing Linux. I know we were looking for a new hosting home, and had EV1 at the top of the list, but now they are not even a consideration..." An anonymous reader writes "InfoWorld has an article with more info on Computer Associates denying being a SCO Linux licensee." Also, Mick Ohrberg writes "Pamela Jones, creator of Groklaw, an independent legal research site, responds to some allegations presented by SCO CEO Darl McBride." Finally, an anonymous reader writes "According to the Deseret News, Darl McBride says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed body guard protected him at Harvard Law School when he gave a speech last month." Update: 03/08 20:17 GMT by S : cdlu writes "Now the SEC is unofficially confirming some interest in the SCO and Microsoft connection, according to Newsforge [part of OSDN, like this site]."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO - EV1, Licensees, Groklaw, Armed Guards

Comments Filter:
  • by eddy (18759) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:06PM (#8501613) Homepage Journal

    An SEC staff member told NewsForge that complaints and tips about suspected under-the-table funding, stock-kiting, illegal insider trading, and money-laundering involving Microsoft or Microsoft-connected individuals to the financially struggling SCO Group have been coming into the agency with regularity since last August. Newsforge [newsforge.com]

  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:07PM (#8501626) Homepage Journal
    So the next time some unwashed Unix zealot approached me I could bust a cap in him before the stench reached me.

    Okay now that I've attracted ire from everyone without a sense of humor; It makes perfect sense for him to say that. SCO's success hinges on making people feel sorry for them. Making people feel sorry for Darl because he "has" to carry a gun is a big step in the right direction (along those lines) and most of the sheeple will fall for it, because they don't know the real story. Bravo, Darl, good work. See you in hell.

  • by Jaywalk (94910) * on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:10PM (#8501670) Homepage
    The answer is easy. Do what every other self-respecting Linux sponsor is doing and sue SCO. They had a contract that said the financial terms would not be disclosed. SCO disclosed the terms. Breach of contract. SCO implied that EV1 thought the SCO case had merit. So add slander. Then maybe donate some cash to that fund that was set up to protect Linux users.

    Maybe it won't hold up in court, but at least it will burn off some of the cash SCO received and spread their legal team a little thinner.

  • by eddy (18759) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:12PM (#8501697) Homepage Journal

    Yes, Center7 via Canopy gave licenses away for PR. I'd guess. The interesting thing is; Does this pierce the corporate veil, if CA Center7 -> Canopy -> SCO where now somehow CA are SCO-customers? That's what I want to know.

    That is, if SCO goes under with debt, then Canopy should have to open their coffers for IBM/RedHat/et.al.

  • I wonder if EV1... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rediguana (104664) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:14PM (#8501716)
    will be able to get a refund on their linux servers. That whooshing sound are their customers up and leaving...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:17PM (#8501753)
    According to the Feds, Martha Stewart is worse than Darl! How much taxpayer money was spent prosecuting her for a $60,000 stock trade? What Darl is doing is far worse. He basically a corporate terrorist, trying to extort big companies for lots of money with the threat of litigation, for something he has NO OWNERSHIP rights to. And the Feds don't have a problem with this? They must have their heads completely up their asses sideways.
  • Re:Give me a break!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Planesdragon (210349) <`slashdot' `at' `castlesteelstone.us'> on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:23PM (#8501835) Homepage Journal
    Lets see... one guy pisses off a buncha nerds. He's afraid of firepower?

    You obviously know a different set of nerds than I do, FK.

    The more zealous the linux geek (in my 10-person sample), the more of a gun nut they are.

  • by ferralis (736358) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:23PM (#8501841) Homepage Journal
    <soapbox type=salute> Thank you for towing the line, keeping your site "unmonetized", your tireless work, your insight and frankly wonderful genius [reference.com]!

    I just have to cheer- that letter is full of soul-satisfying smackdown. :)

    GrokLaw is definitely a zeitgheist (sp?), it embodies the spirit of the Open Source movement and quite frankly is an example to all of us as to what we should be doing if we aren't already.

    BIG standing O from the peanut gallery! I know my next charitable contribution is going to Ibiblio, and I know our hero(ine) will be well rewarded!

    </soapbox>
  • SCOpe unknown. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eddy (18759) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:25PM (#8501861) Homepage Journal

    While I think you're correct that there has been a lot of 'bad' or 'uninformed' complaints, I know that there have been some informed too, especially concerning Jonathan Cohen [threenorth.com].

    One thing that indicates that the SEC is doing something (whatever scope) is that SCO has been late with some documents concerning the Bayster/Royce-deal. The contract says that they only to SCO non-damaging way for them to be late with this particular filing is during a SEC investigation. Someone else should post the details since I'm a little fuzzy on those...

  • SCO Logic (Score:2, Interesting)

    by avgjoe62 (558860) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:25PM (#8501868)
    Why, then, does SCO say that IBM sponsors Groklaw? They make the claim based on the fact that they say IBM gave some computer equipment to Ibiblio once upon a time. And Ibiblio hosts Groklaw for free. They have also been telling journalists that I live near IBM headquarters. That's it. That is IBM's "sponsorship".

    Given SCO's interpretation of Derivative Works, the statement above actually sounds logical...

    But then again, given SCO's interpretation of Derivative Works, we all owe royalties to Ada Byron Lovelace...

  • by shrubya (570356) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:30PM (#8501935) Homepage Journal
    Oops, spoke too quickly. CA actually did know they were getting Linux licenses [arnnet.com.au], but they didn't pay extra for them.
  • by mabu (178417) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:33PM (#8501970)
    Although the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) never officially makes public when it investigates an organization, an SEC staff member told NewsForge that complaints and tips about suspected under-the-table funding, stock-kiting, illegal insider trading, and money-laundering involving Microsoft or Microsoft-connected individuals to the financially struggling SCO Group have been coming into the agency with regularity since last August. The SEC "does not take such complaints lightly," the source said.


    Most of the complaints have been registered by telephone and by using the SEC's Web site. "We've gotten a lot of them," the SEC source said. An SEC investigation would look into alleged backtracking and charting fund transfers, suspicious timing of certain stock transactions, possible instances of stock-kiting and insider trading, and other potentially serious infractions.


    Other individuals may be far ahead of the SEC in this investigation. Several open source advocates have been conducting their own, private investigations of SCO's financial dealings for many months.



    More people should complain to the SEC [sec.gov] if this is what it takes to find out who's funding (and profiting) from this legal wild goose chase.
  • The article says, (Score:5, Interesting)

    by foxtrot (14140) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:40PM (#8502053)
    That Marsh, of ev1.net, may have underestimated the backlash, but it doesn't say what kind of exodus there is from ev1.net. As an example, Illiad at User Friendly noted that UF is run on ev1.net servers, but he doesn't think it's worth it to switch. We like to think a lot of people are leaving ev1.net, but I'd love to see real numbers.

    That said, I know there's at least one person leaving: Illiad can stick around if he wants, but I'm not letting any more of my money flow to SCO. I'm getting out, and cancelling my ev1 account at the end of the month. I hope I'm not the only one; my hundred bucks a month isn't all that important, but a bunch of us together are.

    See y'all over at ServerBeach or one of the other hosting companies.

    -JDF
  • by Winkhorst (743546) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:50PM (#8502197)
    As someone who originally suggested we file formal complaints with the SEC, I can only say that SOMEBODY had to wake them up. Whatever the details of the complaints, they can no longer claim it was never on their radar screen. And when Darl finally goes down with his ship--assuming he doesn't dress up like a woman and scramble into the first lifeboat--they had better have done something significant or they're going to find themselves with a lot more than egg on their face. No matter what M$'s lawyers have been telling him, he can't pull this kind of stuff and get away with it in a regulated market. There are still laws.
  • by Proudrooster (580120) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:53PM (#8502231) Homepage
    Yes, you should fear geeks with guns. At last years Penguicon, ESR (Eric Raymond, keeper of the Halloween doc) hosted a geeks and guns session at the local gun range. The highlight of the session was that I got to shoot ESR's colt 45 commander which also shot by Linus himself.

    So my advice is to take threats from geeks with guns seriously. I saw their targets and their shot groups were tight.
  • by Zendar (578450) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:54PM (#8502240)
    Along with the PR backlash, Marsh said he is also disappointed that SCO officials have spoken to media outlets about the financial terms of the contract between SCO and EV1.

    "Any report that we made a cash payment of seven figures is highly exaggerated, and it disappoints me that that quote is out there in the media," Marsh said. "The contract that we signed with SCO specifically prohibits any party from discussing the economics of the transaction. If you have an agreement that calls for certain aspects to be protected, then you would hope that that would be respected."

    Well.. they are dealing with SCO, after all. BTW.. does anyone know where SCO made this comment about the seven figure payoff?

  • Re:Darl McBride (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Thud457 (234763) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:54PM (#8502246) Homepage Journal
    Doesn't Utah have the equivalent of the Baker act? Can't some Utah slashdotter swear out a warrent for him to be forcibly institutionalized "for his own good"?!!
  • by rcb1974 (654474) <richardballantyne&gmail,com> on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:04PM (#8502414) Homepage
    According to the Deseret News article, Linus says: "The real reason why people don't like SCO, and Darl McBride in particular, is that he is so dishonest."

    The article also says that Darl McBride "graduated from Brigham Young University after serving as a missionary with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Japan."

    Whats up with that!? So this guy is a Latter-day Saint AND a returned missionary?! Latter-day Saints are supposed to be HONEST. This tidbit of information about Darl is particulary upsetting to me because I'm a member of the Mormon church too except I'm a huge linux fan and very anti-SCO. I even served a mission and went to BYU like he did, except I only went for a year before transferring into Cornell.

    My point is that not only is Darl is a discrace to the linux community but also to the church. LDS Church members who aren't "honest in all their dealings with their fellow man" are supposed to be forbidden from entering temples. Therefore, this guy should get excommunicated ASAP if he hasn't already because he's tainting the church's image!
  • Re:Give me a break!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by prgrmr (568806) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:05PM (#8502435) Journal
    USA != world

    We live in the kind of world where if the majority of the people in your town don't like your religious beliefs that they feel justified in shooting at you or blowing up your car.

    We live in the kind of world where if the country next door decides they don't like your ethnicity, they feel justified in invading your country and killing the lot of you.

    We live in the kind of world where if the scientists working for the government feel they aren't paid enough they feel justified in selling nuclear technology to terroritsts.

    We live in the kind of world where if the leaders of a country feel they are losing ground at the conference table they feel justified in shooting missles at their neighbor's whose land they covet...

    (For those not up on events, the above correlate as follows: 1. Ireland, Israel/Palestine/Lebanon, Iraq, Kashmir, Somolia, Ethiopia 2. Rwanda, the Balkans 3. Pakistan, Russia 4. China)
  • MyDoom (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ahappli (175582) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:06PM (#8502455) Homepage
    Darl makes the claim that MyDoom was done by some linux guys. If I've read the write ups on MyDoom, it seems to have been done by someone who wants zombie boxes to be able to send spam though. The attacks on SCO, RIAA, Microsoft, etc are side effect, the smoke and mirrors to redirect your attention away from the true intent of the virus/worm.

    He also made the claim that if you worked at a BioTech company used Linux to create a new formula for a drug, you have to GPL the drug. The heck?
  • Re:Give me a break!! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sphealey (2855) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:08PM (#8502478)
    e lives in Utah though, doesn't he? Isn't that a 'shall-issue' state with regard to carry licenses?
    You may have read a bit about the controversy in Missouri (central USA) over the recently passed "concealed carry" law. A Missouri Supreme Court ruling a few weeks ago put the law into final effect.

    Quote from the commander of the Illinois State Police: "We don't have concealed carry in Illinois. And if you come across that bridge carrying a concealed weapon, be prepared to spend 15-20 years in Illinos."

    sPh

  • FTC (Score:3, Interesting)

    by arrianus (740942) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:15PM (#8502589)
    It's good that SEC is investigating them, although it is not clear whether they will find anything. This is really as much or more FTC's arena. Specifically, it would be beneficial if a large number of people filled out FTC's complaint form [ftc.gov] to maybe get some action about false advertising, slander, unfair competition, and so on. It is comparatively easy to show that SCO has directly lied on a large number of occasions. There is probably enough for SCO to convict it of false advertising on the Linux license front.
  • Re:Give me a break!! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by XaosTX (723612) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:21PM (#8502648)
    Correct, USA != world

    We may have litigious bastards [sco.com], but we don't have to worry about an unstable [channelnewsasia.com] government [time.com] which leads to bloody military takeovers or dealing with martial law [iht.com] being enforced to keep the peace.

    As much as I d onot think that ours is the government that it should be (see U.S. Constitution [cornell.edu]), I still think it beats any other form out there today.

  • Why isn't EV1 suing? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Trailer Trash (60756) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:33PM (#8502815) Homepage
    "Any report that we made a cash payment of seven figures is highly exaggerated, and it disappoints me that that quote is out there in the media," Marsh said. "The contract that we signed with SCO specifically prohibits any party from discussing the economics of the transaction. If you have an agreement that calls for certain aspects to be protected, then you would hope that that would be respected."

    This guy doesn't get it. You don't hope for anything; you sue them when they breach the contract. If you're smart, you get damages (and yes, EV1 is being damaged by SCO's breach) and maybe even your money back.

    I keep seeing this "I wish they wouldn't do that" quote from him. If you wish they wouldn't do it, you get a lawyer and sue.

  • Re:Bullshit (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:36PM (#8502850)
    That's assuming the Mormon church isn't behind the case in the first place. I'd give 50/50 odds the church has both McBride and the judge in their pocket, and is trying to milk some money out of IBM and Linux users for its own uses. McBride is probably just a pawn in the whole thing following orders from his church superiors. You don't question orders in the Mormon hierarchy. If they told him to drop the case, he would. They're not doing that, and this is public enough that they clearly know about it. Again, I'd suspect they're behind it.
  • by theolein (316044) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:36PM (#8502852) Journal
    The newsforge story about the SEC finally beginning to investigate both Microsoft and SCO is, if I see this correctly, going to be one of the biggest shakeouts in recent corporate history.

    I was one of the people who, last year while no one was taking Microsoft involvement seriously, posted that there was a good chance Microsoft was involved based purely on the case of what the motivation was behind the whole SCO lawsuit. Now that SCO's case has been shown to be a mostly hot air campaign of lies and public FUD, considering that SCO has yet to openly show a single case of obvious infringement in court, I think it might have well gone off along the following lines:

    SCO was losing both money and marketshare rapidly up until last year, having failed to persuade IBM to continue on project monterey after Caldera bought the rights from the original SCO, and thereby having no modern product and only an installed base of legacy customers whp were looking for other sources in any case. I think that while the original idea might have come from McBride himself to make a legal case for Linux chaos, I would think that probably, one of the first things he would have done is to approach Microsoft, or else he was approached by Microsoft very early as part of Microsoft's FUD campaign aginst Linux.

    The benefits for Microsoft are obvious, as it would bring in, at the very least, doubt into the minds of PHB's who were considering Linux adoption. The fact that the SEC might be investigating Microsoft for funding analysts (something which has been obvious to just about everyone here on /. for years) such as Gartner induces me to think it was probably Microsoft who first approached McBride.

    I would think that Microsoft offered SCO and McBride a very Faustian kind of deal: Carry the legal and above all PR campaign against Linux and especially IBM (who has given an enormous amount of credibility to Linux) and Microsoft would save SCO's and McBride's collective asses. The amount of money involved is small change for Microsoft.

    The fact that McBride is as stupid as the original Faust character, is easy to spot when one looks at other companies who have trusted or sold their souls to the Microsoft machine. Where are they today?

    The reason that I think it might turn into a huge wopper of a case is because, when the threads unravel and Microsoft's tactics are displayed in court, they will not only have been guilty of breaking the antitrust agreements, but also numerous felonies involving the charges mentioned at newsforge. On top of that I can see this one going all the way to the top at Microsoft because I can not see any such huge campaign not being known and sanctioned by Bill and Steve personally.

    And when I look at the current legal mood involving Worldcom's Ebbers and Martha Stewart and the punishment handed out, I don't think that there will be the same mercy applied as there was during the anti-trust trials.
  • RE: Armed Guards... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by vudufixit (581911) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:48PM (#8502987)
    Didn't Michael Corleone say something like, "If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it is that you can kill anyone."
  • Follow the money (Score:3, Interesting)

    by El (94934) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:56PM (#8503084)
    His firm, Boies Schiller & Flexner LP, and other law firms associated with the case have received $1 million in cash and 400,000 SCO shares. So, the lawyers don't have any vested interest in artificially inflating the value of SCO stock, do they? When are they allowed to sell these shares?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:57PM (#8503091)
    when you declare bankruptcy your assets are sold off to pay the debts.

    IBM would get it without question, because they will be owed the most, and they have the most interest in them
  • by TeraCo (410407) on Monday March 08, 2004 @06:06PM (#8503191) Homepage
    I bet it doesn't take into account road fatalities.. in fact, that alcohol number looks very low too. I bet it doesn't either. :P
  • by Dav3K (618318) on Monday March 08, 2004 @06:12PM (#8503237)
    Whoa there dude... calling Mormonism 'respected' is quite a leap. What with the polygamy issue and the historically racist policy, Mormons have ensured a LACK of respect from a great many groups of people.

    But other than that, you're pretty much on target.

  • Re:SCO: (Score:4, Interesting)

    by HiThere (15173) * <charleshixsn AT earthlink DOT net> on Monday March 08, 2004 @06:25PM (#8503362)
    Except that if the stock price should dip below $8, and stay there for a month (cost and time period are approx...I didn't really understand the Pipe contract), then the PIPE investors get to demand their money back in cash.

    Well, it's got a ways to go, but it's been headed that direction for quite awhile now. If it hits it, then SCOX is toast at the whim of outside parties who may not wait for a law suit. Not good, because that could moot the suits & countersuits, leave the fud lying around all over the floor, and leave the "IP" available to be picked up by creditors (the PIPE people) and then sold to who they chose at prices they choose, and with strings that they chose. If SCOX can be brought to bay, this is a much better time to finish things off.

  • SCOX vs LNUX (Score:3, Interesting)

    by spitzak (4019) on Monday March 08, 2004 @06:38PM (#8503458) Homepage
    Here is a weird one SCOX and LNUX [yahoo.com]

    Any explanation for this similarity?
  • by Ian Bicking (980) <ianbNO@SPAMcolorstudy.com> on Monday March 08, 2004 @06:40PM (#8503470) Homepage
    Maybe they would have if Darl had given lots of money to the Democratic party [newsmax.com]. (Or maybe not) It all reminds me a little of Nixon [freezone.org], though...
  • by Krow10 (228527) <cpenning@milo.org> on Monday March 08, 2004 @06:51PM (#8503552) Homepage
    I expect that is correct, if IBM can pierce the veil.
    They only needed to pierce the veil as long as Canopy stayed behind the scenes. The limitation of liability afforded a corporation's shareholders only covers the shareholder from responsibility for the actions of the corporation; it does not in any way protect a shareholder from liability for his or her own actions.

    With this deal, Canopy commited an overt act in furtherance of SCOX's campaign to mislead the public in SCOX's anti-linux campaign when they made the UnixWare license (with the linux indeminification attached) part of the CA lawsuit settlement. SCOX then used this deal to misleadingly imply that CA had entered into a voluntary deal to license linux. I'd say this falls under IBM's Lanham Act claims. IBM doesn't need to pierce the veil, Canopy pulled is aside themselves.

    Cheers,
    Craig

  • Re:Armed bodyguard? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Performer Guy (69820) on Monday March 08, 2004 @07:28PM (#8503923)
    Leave out the "we"s and speak for yourself.

    Coders are a bunch of badasses? ... Riiiiight.

    Misfits maybe but you can't have it both ways, you can't gripe about persecution after Columbine then gloat over your dysfunctional sociopath reputation when it suits you.

    You ain't a gangster, up the Lithium dosage dude.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @07:37PM (#8504021)
    Real Mormons know that every Bishop's interview includes this very important question:

    "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?"
  • by Lew Payne (592648) on Monday March 08, 2004 @08:06PM (#8504307) Journal
    I'd be happy to help clarify some of these similarities, while correcting some of your statements in the process.

    The Mormon/LDS theology is about Joseph Smith, who was able to translate "golden plates" he found buried in the forest (using a seer stone, similar to a divining rod, mind you) and thus wrote the Book of Mormon. One section in the Book of Mormon is the Book of Abraham, again translated by Joseph Smith from ancient Egyptian Papyrus purchased from a travelling huckster.

    Science, namely Egyptologists, have clearly shown that Joseph Smith's translation of these documents (which were shown to be ancient burial scrolls and not an account of the life of Abraham) was not only inaccurate but also fradulent.

    Among the things that we Mormons believe is that Adam (from Adam and Eve) is actually God (see the talks by former prophet and seer Brigham Young), that flesh-and-blood people like you and I (not spirits, mind you) inhabit our moon and sun (ibid) and that all other religions are "an abomination upon the face of the Earth" and their practitioners are "whores from Babylon" (History of the Church, Book of Mormon, Gospel Principals).

    Mormonism has never paralleled, nor has anything in common with, traditional Christianity. The God of Mormonism is different than the God of Christianity, even though the same nomenclature is used to describe Him. Mormonism believes the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distince and separate entities, as opposed to the traditional views of Christianity. Mormonism believes there are three "kingdoms" of heaven which you must qualify for... belief alone is not enough to obtain the ultimate salvation.

    Salvation in Christianity is based on faith and belief; works being the result of this. In Mormonism, it is based on works... you must do everything you can, or you will not achieve the ultimate salvation.

    In Mormonism, if you are not temple-worthy, you will not be entitled to the highest form of salvation. In the temple, you will learn what amount to secret handshakes as you swear an oath to keep this to yourself. In the past, you had to swear an oath to Blood Atonement (... or let my throat be slit, where I shall bleed to death as punishment) (Biography of Brigham Young)... but now, to be politically correct, the Church changed it to something more people will accept.

    In the Church, women are not equal. They cannot hold priesthood office, they are not entitled to the keys to the priesthood, cannot bless their family, and are not treated as equals. It is an interesting culture, accentuated by the individual quirks of different communities and States.

    Overall, I've found it a fascinating community of people who otherwise wish to do good, but are kept ignorant of the true history of their Church and of their religion.

"The greatest warriors are the ones who fight for peace." -- Holly Near

Working...