SCO Linux Licenses Could Increase In Price

prostoalex writes "ZDNet UK says that, while SCO Group's legal department took a timeout from generating new lawsuits, their Linux license prices might be increased. 'Companies that license now may be able to do so cheaper than if they do so later,' [Blake] Stowell said. In the upcoming financials call, SCO expects to announce 6-figure revenue from its SCOSource division."

It makes sense...

[TheWart]

I mean, if they have sold 2 licenses at $700 a license, but upping it to say, oh, $1400 (nice ring to it :)) a license, they can *double* their revenue with no higher operating costs!!

At least that is how SCO probably is seeing it through the haze of their pipe dream.

Only works if people pay.

[duslow]

Yeah, but what if nobody pays for it. How do they expect to generate 6-figure revenue from nothing? They have to win their cases first, and that doesn't seem to be that likely.

Re:Oh no!

[danamania]

If SCO and Rob Enderle aren't outright lying (!) then they hint that they're not going after smaller users.

From Rob's keynote [sco.com] at SCOForum 2004, he states: "Now I hear from the Linux folks that it is SCO that is the bad guy here taking away the rights of those that worked hard to contribute to Linux and to that I say Bull Shit. SCO, unlike the RIAA which is targeting kids, is going after large well funded companies who are perfectly able to take care of themselves. In all cases the firms being challenged have more resources and are larger than SCO. If there is one thing firms like Daimler Chrysler don't need is a bunch of "hang'em high" bigots who think of themselves as judge, jury, and executioner."

So it comes down to - do you believe Rob Enderle, that SCO is only going after the big companies, and isn't like the RIAA and targeting kids..?

Re:"Six Figures" is just $ from an old deal!

[DiscoBobby]

I think you're right, but how many Unixware sales can there possibly be? :)

Jokes aside, that is clearly a possible revenue stream to SCOSource, and would inflate the numbers. But then they're denting the margin of the "core UNIX business" they're pimping lately by assigning some of that $ from each Unixware sale to SCOSource rather than the software side (unless they increased the price of Unixware). You can't count that $ twice. Either way, it's still smoke-and-mirrors.

sure...that will get the customers running.....

[f-bomb]

last time i checked:

anything * 0 = 0

maybe they are just going to charge their UnixWare customers an extra $1400 when they bundle in the 'Linux IP' license

Considering they've already achieved it...

[Lead Butthead]

what SCOsource revenue they have now by EXTORTION, I say they're already generating revenue from nothing.

All proceeds go to defending SCO...

[MbM]

Don't buy a license, don't support SCO and most importantly don't give them any money to defend this business practice in court; it's cheaper and it helps out in the long run.

Re:Before we panic ...

[stratjakt]

Really, has anyone publicly stepped up and said, "SCO is right, and we're buying a license.

Publicly? No. How do you know what the millions of small to mid sized businesses may have done?

700 bucks isn't a lot of money to throw at a potential problem to go away. And if you run a business, it's probably not the right venue to make your moral stand on OSS. After all, you have a business to run, bills to pay, employees, etc..

Re:Oh no!

[vladkrupin]

you probably should! Or it might turn out that SCO doesn't really have the 6-digit revenue from their SCOSource division. That would make them mighty embarrassed, and you wouldn't really want that, would you?

6 digits! Did Microsft buy a few licences or something? I doubt the EV1 deal can bring 6 digits, and there isn't really anything else they can count as SCOSource revenue.

Re:Enderle: "Free Software and the Idiots Who Buy

[vettemph]

What Mr. Enderle was trying to say is: "Free software and the idiots that would pay $699" Think about it, what idiot would buy "free" software. :) Free software may hurt Redmonds economy DEEPLY but would have a positive effect on your wallet and your local economy. No one will just put their MS tax refund under the mattress. We will spend it on something that actually has value. We must press this important issue to all who try to say that linux is a cancer. Linux allows money to flow from place to place, exchange of goods for services and what not. Money sent to Redmond stays in Redmond. It's a black hole. Support your local economy. Hang banners at your grocery store, paint this message on overpasses, tell everyone you know. The money we save using FOSS will contribute to local jobs for our neighbors. Think global, spend local.

Vote for me. :) (actually, I'm not running for anything.)

Re:Oh no!

[ShadowRage]

they're wise not to attack invidividuals, because all is needed is a class action lawsuit, and given their "size" they're a tiny company compared to bigger guys who will simply push them aside until they get tired of them screaming and swat them with a newspaper made up of lawyers.... a class action lawsuit of hundreds, if not thousands of individuals (eg, the opensource movement is made up of people like these) could easily sue for infringement and harassment and deflamation.. and a few million dollars doesnt spread well with thousands of people, and will not have much left over.

so in the end, it'd be suicide to try going after individuals, whilst the RIAA, who have a constant stream of money, and tons of political ties, can attack anyone they want and get away with it with their huge amounts of money, and the fact they control parts of the media, as well as the mpaa..

sco is an ant compared to the riaa. so they're gonna watch it more.

Just an observation...

[di0s]

Just because they may cost more doesn't mean they'll be worth more (as far as business value)... Don't sellers usually lower prices to get rid of inventory that doesn't sell well?

Of course it will cost more

[dbIII]

If you want to get a licence later on you will need to give them enough money for them to recover from bankruptcy.

Re:Before we panic ...

[buss_error]

700 bucks isn't a lot of money to throw at a potential problem to go away. And if you run a business, it's probably not the right venue to make your moral stand on OSS. After all, you have a business to run, bills to pay, employees, etc

The only problem with that is "Once you pay danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane."

The problem with that is...

[Svartalf]

That Copyrights aren't the same as Patents. Users typically aren't actionable for past and current infringements of Copyright unless they themselves are guilty of willful and active infringement- and typically don't owe anything on it. The worst that could have ever come out of this whole thing would be that SCO was right, there was some infringing code and it'd have to come out to be legit under the GPL- once that happened everything would be back to complete normal for the end-users. The only people that would be actionable and possibly facing stautory damages would be the guilty parties of the active act of infringement, not the contributory part. Worse, since SCO's pretty much made a botch job of their enforcement of any possible IP rights by way of keeping it secret- you're supposed to tell the infringers what they're infringing upon so they are obligated to stop. Failing to do so may be an estoppel on their pursuing anyone that currently is infringing- and may cause them to lose rights to the alleged IP with regards to it's use within Linux.

$700 to throw at a potential problem- no, that's not a lot.

$700 to throw at a NON-problem (which is what this is, no matter how you slice it...) is far, far too much.

I can't see what you've said as being really insightful- what you've said is valid, but only in the context of a possible or probable problem and SCO's just not a reality and they're about to be NUKED from orbit by Novell. If Novell gets that Dismissal with Predjudice, I expect that the whole damn SCO mess will implode within a day or so- they didn't own the IP rights at the beginning of all these cases so they're actionable under the Lanham Act and pretty much all of their cases go *POOF*, including the IBM one (since Novell executed their rights per the APA to waive any issues regarding contract or IP with regards to the SVR4 source base...) with SCO facing countersuits and suits regarding their obvious Lanham Act violations, Copyright infringements, and Patent infringements.

Re:Oh no!

[papukanghi]

Just why is /. still following this? I havent bought one for 1 of the 240 node cluster i run. who cares? let them give for a million bucks of for free. Aren't we just giving them free publicity? let them do whatever they want to do with their lie-sense.

Re:A fool and his money.

[Rich0]

I doubt that they'd sue you for license violations as long as you have the right number of licenses and continue to pay the maintenance fees.

Now, once you decide to move on, they will sue you for anything and everything you did or didn't do.

So, if you pay up the $700 you'll be paying it for life - plus all the eventual price increases every time revenue doesn't quite meet SCO's expectations.

Chrysler got sued becuase they used to be a customer and they moved on. SCO is sending a message to its customers - don't leave us. They're sending a message to non-customers too - don't join us!

Re:A fool and his money.

[schon]

I doubt that they'd sue you for license violations as long as you have the right number of licenses and continue to pay the maintenance fees.

Just like Daimler Chrysler, right?

SCO has demonstrated that they love to invent restrictions which are not in a contract, and then sue over 'violating' them.

I have no doubt that when/if SCO decided they needed more money (perhaps to fund more litigation?) that they'd use the contract as a basis for extortion.

"Hey, we believe you're in violation of your contract by running Windows on your desktops - pay us more money or we'll sue you."

Chrysler got sued becuase they used to be a customer and they moved on.

NO, THEY WEREN'T. At the time the lawsuit was filed, SCO fully believed them to be a current customer (read the court documents.)