Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Government IBM Software The Courts Linux News

SCO Says 'Linux Doesn't Exist' 739

Posted by michael
from the news-to-us dept.
4A6F656C writes "In an article on LinuxWorld.com.au, Kieren O'Shaughnessy, director of SCO Australia and New Zealand, details SCO's plans for Australia, stating that they have 'prepared a hit list' and "would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP licence." In closing, he adds 'Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix'." UnknowingFool writes "IBM's lawyers have been busy the last few days. Groklaw has reported a number of different filings. On the heels of last week's motions (1) and (2) for summary judgement, they have filed more documents. First, IBM wants large portions of SCO's testimonies striken (removed) on multiple grounds. Deep in the motion, they call out SCO to produce the 'experts' that did the code comparison analysis. If IBM wins on most of these points, SCO will have very little left in the way of legal evidence. SCO answers on IBMs 10th counterclaim. IANAL but from I understand SCO says this copyright infringment that SCO has allegedly committed on one of IBM's patents is irrelevant to the case and the court doesn't need to decide on it. So SCO is saying that they can sue IBM for infringing on their Unix copyrights and patents but IBM can't counter sue on a specific patent. IBM also filed another memo to support summary judgement. As a matter of law, SCO has to produce evidence to backup its claims. This mountain of evidence SCO has claimed all this time: If they don't produce it, the court has to rule in IBM's favor."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Says 'Linux Doesn't Exist'

Comments Filter:
  • by Braingoo (771241) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:41AM (#10078760)
    SCO must figure if we can't own them or buy them then they must not exist!
  • by tcopeland (32225) * <(tom) (at) (thomasleecopeland.com)> on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:41AM (#10078765) Homepage
    ...ever downwards [yahoo.com].
    • Misleading Graph (Score:5, Informative)

      by brunes69 (86786) <slashdot AT keirstead DOT org> on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:44AM (#10078819) Homepage

      Showing a graph of 3 months is worthless, since this whole thing has been going on for years now. If you look at the 2 year chart [yahoo.com], you will see that they still have quite a bit to dip before they even hit the low point.

      • by dapyx (665882) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:57AM (#10079017) Homepage
        Nietzsche: God is dead
        ..a bit later:
        God: Nietzsche is dead

        SCO: Linux is dead.
        ..a bit later:
        Linux: SCO is dead.

      • Showing a graph of 3 months is worthless, since this whole thing has been going on for years now. If you look at the 2 year chart, you will see that they still have quite a bit to dip before they even hit the low point.

        Yet if you look at the chart on the link you provided you will notice their 52wk low was this morning.
      • Market Value (Score:5, Insightful)

        by twitter (104583) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:07PM (#10079174) Homepage Journal
        If you look at the 2 year chart, you will see that they still have quite a bit to dip before they even hit the low point.

        You mean the perceived market value before they started this pump and dump exercise? What exactly will that tell you? What the three month dive means to me is that even Wall Street realizes that there is no SCO case, there will be no further buyouts and SCO is worthless. People who bought into SCO are sorry they did, including Baystar who recommend that SCO fire their remaining technical staff and become a full time IP scam house.

        • by Xibby (232218) <zibby+slashdot@ringworld.org> on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:38PM (#10079592) Homepage Journal
          SCO: If we pester the blue behemoth in court, and thus bring their stock price down, they will offer to buy us, and we can use this Linux thing to inflate our stock price.

          IBM: SCO is trying to inflate their stock price while while we deal with their legal issues. Lets use our resources to tie them up in court until Nasdaq kicks them off the exchange, then we can buy up the remains of the company. Oh, and collect a group of people infront of the office. We'll send Daryl a picture of us flipping the bird at him.
    • According to that nice graph, soon we will be able to say that SCO doesn't exist... Oh great computer gods of the processor - please make it so.
    • by Xenographic (557057) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:25PM (#10079394) Homepage Journal
      ... it probably will.

      If you read them, SCO is betting the farm on a diversion tactic to answer IBM's request for summary judgement.

      Basically, they're feigning surprise that this is an issue, complaining that they need more discovery, and trying to say that they haven't had time to properly prepare for this because it could take 25,000 man hours.

      Unfortunately for them, IBM responds that it's been hammering SCO on this question for over a year now (in spite of SCO sticking their heads in the sand to avoid it). Also, IBM's experts say that SCO's characterization of the times involved is ridiculous and SCO has already claimed in the media *many* times to have made these comparisons already (even though it refuses to provide them to IBM).

      Worse, SCO's "experts" haven't been properly qualified, they're testifying about things they would appear to have no personal knowledge of, and as such IBM is moving to strike our large portions of their declarations, meaning that SCO wouldn't have much of an arguement left. This is especially true because SCO's Samir Gupta, the only "expert" who appears to have done any code comparisons (and I say "expert" because they give no credentials for him other than him being in the employ of SCO), has completely ignored the abstraction & filtration required by the case law (whereas IBM's properly qualified MIT professor has done one refuting theirs, which respects the case law in question).

      Lastly, they point out via copious amounts of case law that SCO does *not* need any more discovery. They show that the only thing which matters for a judgement in terms of *copyright infringement* is the two final works. SCO surely has its own product line, and IBM points them to every version of Linux since 1.0, which is available online.

      Taken in sum, unless SCO can pull off one hell of a miracle to convince the judge in the oral arguments, I would tend to think that SCO is screwed here. SCO's tactic of sticking its head in the sand to try and duck IBM's arguement doesn't seem very persuasive, and *SCO* has the burden of proof to show that there are material facts in dispute. Given how IBM so carefully destroys all the testamony SCO relies on, it's hard to see how SCO could prevail in any meaningful way when these motions are resolved.
      • by red floyd (220712) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @02:32PM (#10080914)
        Basically, they're feigning surprise that this is an issue, complaining that they need more discovery, and trying to say that they haven't had time to properly prepare for this because it could take 25,000 man hours.

        25,000 man YEARS.

        IBM had a nice zinger (pg. 34 of IBM's Redacted Reply Memorandum In Further Support of its Cross Motion For Partial Summary Judgment on its Claim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement):

        "Under SCO's view of what is required to review source code, it would take
        14 million man-years to review this additional code." [referring to the AIX and Dynix code SCOX wants].
  • by Godeke (32895) * on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:41AM (#10078766)
    OK, this part is off topic, but what the heck does "we broke our duck" mean? I'm sure it is some clever down under slang, but darned if I can decode it.

    These lines are the kicker (and send exactly the opposite message from the summary here on /.):

    Early this year, O'Shaughnessy warned that SCO had prepared a hit list and would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP license.
    But this urgency has dissipated with O'Shaughnessy pointing out that he had enough on his plate and would simply sell licenses as the opportunity arose.


    Can anyone seriously say that they are really committed to victory in the courts if they have backpedaled that far on enforcing "their violated rights" down under?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:42AM (#10078772)
    "SCO doesn't exist"!
  • Indeed. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Burgundy Advocate (313960) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:42AM (#10078773) Homepage
    I've been thinking this same thing. It's all relative, really. Just coneceptual ideals and data floating around in the aether, aspiring to the ideal form of Unix.

    And for that matter, you guys don't exist when I close my eyes! Neener neener neener!
  • by SnapShot (171582) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:42AM (#10078778)
    Here's a question. IBM seems to be willing to go to the mat to defend open source and/or free software. Does this buy loyalty from you linux developers? Do you think they are getting more "good will" than they are spending in lawyers fees?
    • by kmankmankman2001 (567212) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:47AM (#10078863)
      Let's be clear - IBM isn't doing this out of any altruistic "we are the world" type of spirit. They are doing it because they believe it's good for their business and they will make money. That's what the business of business is and what their shareholders expect.
      • by mcc (14761) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Thursday August 26, 2004 @02:01PM (#10080598) Homepage
        is that, like any good capitalist system, it positively leverages greed by putting the public good in the self-interest of moneyed entities.

        IBM's doing what they're doing out of self-interest, but the entanglement created by the GPL means that in order to act in self-interest they must indirectly act in the interests of the community as well.
    • by Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:52AM (#10078936)
      Does IBM's actions buy loyalty?

      Yes.

      I don't think all of us will now put down our lives for IBM. If they ever tried to pull a fast one, I have no doubt everyone would turn on them real quick. But for the mean time they have proven themselves to be a friend. And many of us are in positions to make purchasing decisions. And while we may not all go out and buy Big Blue mainframes, when two comperable deals are on the table IBM now has a slight advantage.

      And that's not the only reason to support FOSS. IBM is doing several things that are good for its business. They sell hardware, and hardware needs software. Better/cheaper software makes for more profit on hardware.
      • by B'Trey (111263) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:02PM (#10079110)
        I don't think they've proven themselves to be a friend. They're currently allies, and hopefully will be for a long time to come, but alliances do not friendship make.
        • by Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:06PM (#10079149)
          If you ask me, IBM has gone beyond simply defending itself and its own interests. It has to do that now anyway. But it has extended its legal self beyond what it needs to in order to protect/promote FOSS. It has even run linux commercials and really helped put an end to the legitimacy concerns of some management.

          I say they're a comfortable ally, and moving into friend catagory.
          • I haven't seen IBM do one single thing that would adversely affect their bottom line.

            Now, if IBM would fund a drive to eliminate software patents in the US, THAT would show they were a friend.

            They are an "ally" only because they see Linux (and Open Source) as useful and profitable and an alternative to being second to Microsoft.
      • by Tsargon (752241) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:37PM (#10079575)
        What IBM is doing is good for business, but not to sell hardware. IBM primarily sells three things: hardware, software and services. They saw their profits begin to errode in hardware, so they began to move to software. They are starting to see their profits erode in software, so they are selling services, in particular consulting service, and that is where the money's at. Based on their '03 financial statement http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2003/noflash/fr_cf s_cse.shtml [ibm.com], their Global Services rose from $34.9 billion in '01 to $42.6 billion in '03 while hardware slid from $30.6 billion in '01 to $28.2 billion in '03. Hardware is still up their, but it is slowly declining.
    • by bmongar (230600) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:52AM (#10078952)
      I think they are getting 3 things.
      1) They don't have to pay the billions in damage SCO wants.
      2) Fear. It had previously been common computer world knowledge; "Don't mess with IBM's legal team". SCO is going in the face of the convention. I think IBM is reestablishing that.
      3) Yes, they are getting good will.
    • Well, considering that they were once the "bad guy" company, not unlike the Microsoft of today to many here, I'd say they've turned things around quite well.

      As long as they're defending open source with their lawyers, I can't imagine a sane person wanting to attack it--I've read the legal briefs, they don't miss a thing.
    • by ron_ivi (607351) <sdotnoNO@SPAMcheapcomplexdevices.com> on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:18PM (#10079307)
      "Does IBM's actions buy loyalty?"

      It sure beats HP's

      "ooh, scary, pay us protection-money for indemnification"
      and Sun's
      "come buy a legal linux from us because we paid SCO"
      IBM, of all the vendors, took by far the most productive aproach without trying to leverage and further hype SCO's fud. They're certainly my prefered Linux vendor, and probably will be unless/until their position changes radically.
  • by duslow (648755) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:42AM (#10078779)
    What in the world have I been running over the last few years. Was the penguin just a figment of my imagination? Slashdot doesn't actually exist either? And Google?
  • by ghettoboy22 (723339) <scott.a.johnson@gmail.com> on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:43AM (#10078789) Homepage
    SCO: Do not try and use Linux. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth.

    IBM: What truth?

    SCO: There is no Linux.

    IBM: There is no Linux?

    SCO: Then you'll see that it is not Linux that you're using, it is only SCO Unix Openserver v. 5. And that will be $699 per CPU please or else you'll be hearing from our lawyers.
    • by Speare (84249) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:11PM (#10079227) Homepage Journal
      They had a choice between the Red pill (Novell) and the Big Blue pill (IBM). Neither one will get them out of this rabbit hole now.
    • AND (Score:5, Funny)

      by Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:18PM (#10079308)
      The Darl: - Which brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed, and the anomaly revealed as both beginning, and end. There are two doors. The door to your right leads to the Unix, and the settlement of our lawsuit. The door to the left leads back to the Linux, and to the end of your cashflow. As you adequately put, the problem is choice. But we already know what you're going to do, don't we? Already I can see the chain reaction, the chemical precursors that signal the onset of emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic, and reason. An emotion that is already blinding you from the simple, and obvious truth: Linux is going to die, and there is nothing that you can do to stop it.

      The Darl: - Humph. /root, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.

      Tux: If I were you, I would hope that we don't meet again.

  • by Svet-Am (413146) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:43AM (#10078804)
    Hell, he did wonderful things for saddam ;-)

    Iraqi Information Minister [welovethei...nister.com]
  • This is brilliant (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thewalled (626165) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:44AM (#10078809)
    Starts to talk nonsense..
    "The only reason we are [pursuing a lawsuit against IBM] is to defend our Unix business; we are not a litigation company, we are about Unix on Intel," he said.

    Accelerates..
    "IBM has transformed Linux from a bicycle to a Rolls-Royce, making it almost an enterprise-class operating system.

    Goes into overdrive..
    "It took us 25 years to build our business and it took [IBM] four years simply by stealing code and then giving it away free."

    and ofcourse finally..
    "Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix,"

    I wish more people like this existed to make my day.
    • by tomoose (449824) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:51AM (#10078926)
      quote: "...almost an enterprise-class operating system."

      Almost? In the same way that I'm "almost" alive? It's surely more 'almost' than some of the stuff being produced by the merchents more usually known as Microsoft.

      Wow, this is almost a post.
    • by Antaeus Feldspar (118374) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @03:45PM (#10081669) Homepage
      IBM has transformed Linux from a bicycle to a Rolls-Royce, making it almost an enterprise-class operating system.
      I find it interesting that he's using a metaphor found in SCO's original complaint [sco.com] -- paragraph 84:
      84. Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment.
      He's also going back to the original portrayal of the case as being about "stolen" code, rather than about contract disputes. Unless he's taking SCO's interpretation of the contract disputes to such an extreme that he would indeed agree and assert that IBM "stole" code from SCO by the act of writing it themselves.
  • GNU (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WoodenRobot (726910) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:44AM (#10078815) Homepage
    Forgive my ignorance, but isn't Linux based on GNU? And isn't Gnu Not Unix?

    Also, if Linux doesn't exist, will my computer still work when I get home? I've got important stuff on there, and I'd like it to not be a figment of my imagination, as I haven't backed it up lately.

  • Wow ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by spellraiser (764337) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:45AM (#10078832) Journal

    That O'Shaughnessy bloke sure is one heck of a solipsist [wikipedia.org].

  • IBM's response (Score:3, Insightful)

    by savagedome (742194) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:45AM (#10078833)
    A philosophy professor walks in to give his class their final. Placing his chair on his desk the professor instructs the class, "Using every applicable thing you've learned in this course, prove to me that this chair DOES NOT EXIST."

    So, pencils are writing and erasers are erasing, students are preparing to embark on novels proving that this chair doesn't exist, except for one student. He spends thirty seconds writing his answer, then turns his final in to the astonishment of his peers.

    Time goes by, and the day comes when all the students get their final grades...and to the amazment of the class, the student who wrote for thirty seconds gets the highest grade in the class.

    His answer to the question: "What chair?"


    Well, to put this in context, since Kieren O'Shaughnessy says Linux doesn't exist, IBM lawyers should respond to all the lawsuits as 'What Linux?'
  • by TopShelf (92521) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:45AM (#10078838) Homepage Journal
    After saying that Linux doesn't exist, O'Shaughnessy then ran around the room with his fingers in his ears, yelling "lalalalalalalalalalalala... I can't hear you!"

    Afterwards, he went on to discuss SCO's legal strategy of, "I am rubber, you are glue, what bounces off me sticks to you".
  • by twfry (266215) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:45AM (#10078840)
    Seriously, go to groklaw [groklaw.net] and read the latest 4-5 files from IBM. Yes they are each ~100 pages but very interesting. Basically IBM has nailed SCO in a box that they can't get out of. In fact IBM is so confident that the language in their filings has gotten beyond the normal angry lawyer comments as they point out how insane SCO's arguements are.
  • Like a Child (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:46AM (#10078841)
    A lot of things SCO does reminds me of a child's behaviour, and this is one of them. Kids often dwell on things that please them, and act as if problems don't exist.

    When I was a little boy I came home from school and asked my mom if we could skip Thursday. She was puzzled and said "no". She later found out that I had gotten in trouble at school, and the teacher had scheduled a disciplinary meeting on Thursday afternoon.

    Thursday doesn't exist.
  • by Max von H. (19283) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:47AM (#10078862) Homepage
    If Linux doesn't exist, then Darl shouldn't object to the shoving of the aforementioned inexistent printed source code up his ass, right?
  • Lines of code... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by powerlinekid (442532) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:49AM (#10078889)
    So it was said to be in the hundreds of thousands...
    Then it was in the thousands... then the hundreds, then the dozens...

    Now all of a sudden its the whole damn thing? I would love to hear SCO explain how someone could have the complete code to an unlicensed version of Unix and have gotten away with it until now.

    Crack must be real cheap in Utah these days...
  • Credibility (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lukewarmfusion (726141) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:49AM (#10078897) Homepage Journal
    I know SCO doesn't have much (if any!) credibility with geeks on Slashdot, but when you want to win a court case you have to maintain credibility in your claims.

    Using terms like "hit list" is not a good way of gaining credibility with investors and with judges. Claiming that something doesn't exist and then trying to sue people for using it doesn't help your credibility with anyone.

    The legal system isn't deaf or blind to the media; SCO's ridiculous actions will affect the outcome of subsequent court cases. As we've seen with IBM's increasing success in court, SCO just hasn't learned these lessons.

    Not that I mind at all.
  • by Gallenod (84385) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:50AM (#10078901)
    I think, therefore I am.

    Linux computes, therefore it is.

    But if SCO falls in a forest of futile legal filings, did it really make a sound or was that just wind breaking?
  • by teamhasnoi (554944) <teamhasnoi@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:50AM (#10078912) Homepage Journal
    of that one Scooby Doo where the bad guy, freshly unmasked, exclaims, "But these are Confederate stock certificates! They're worth nothing!", and then is taken to jail?

    They certainly would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids [ibm.com]

    Me neither.

  • by fizban (58094) <fizban@umich.edu> on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:51AM (#10078924) Homepage
    Can... not... resist... Must... corrupt... HHGTTG quote...

    "I refuse that Linux exists," says SCO, "for Linux denies Copyrights, and without Copyrights I am nothing."

    "But," says Torvalds, "Open Source copyrights are a dead giveaway, aren't they? They could not have evolved by chance. In Linux they exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

    "Oh dear," says SCO, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

    "Oh, that was easy," says Torvalds, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.

    Most leading software developers claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, 'Well That About Wraps It Up for SCO.'
  • by ZeroConcept (196261) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:51AM (#10078931)

    Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix

    -1 Troll

  • by lawpoop (604919) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:52AM (#10078951) Homepage Journal
    'Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix'.

    Small correction: It's GNU/Linux. And GNU's Not Unix.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:53AM (#10078969)
    SCO concluded by saying the "moon doesn't even exist", "everybody knows it is just an unlicenced copy of the Earth" which SCO claim was stolen when a large Mars sized body crashed into Earth some years ago.
  • by GreenCrackBaby (203293) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:55AM (#10078990) Homepage
    We knew this would eventually happen. Hell, SCO knew they would end up in this type of hot water. The whole problem with this mess is that they don't care if they lose.

    The connection between themselves and Microsoft is firmly established now. I guess it is still open to debate if Microsoft was the company that came up with the idea of using SCO as a massive FUD machine against Linux, or if they simply started backing SCO once they realised what potential that would have. My personal guess would be that you could probably trace the very idea back to Redmond, but that's really irrelvant here.

    For all the time this has been going on, there has been a blanket of FUD over Linux. Most people here saw through it, but even on Slashdot you could find posts along the lines of "...but what if SCO is actually right and their IP is in Linux..." The business world, getting their news from sources like Forbes, had a far different perception. To them, Linux suddenly became a poison pill that no IT manager would touch. You may believe Linux's reputation will eventually recover, but SCO was able to plant seeds of doubt in so many minds in the mean time.

    The real trajedy here is that this type of tactic has made SCO management and board members rich, SCO employees unemployed, Linux tarnished in the eyes of the businessman, and most likely nothing will ever be done to punish those responsible for the lies.
  • What a scam... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nologin (256407) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:55AM (#10078993) Homepage
    If you thought that paying $699 per CPU license for a GPL'ed operating system was a rip off, they pull a bigger scam on us by saying we should pay the same amount for something that doesn't exist.

    Hmm, the stink of fraud is certainly filling up the room now...

    • Re:What a scam... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mateito (746185)
      ...saying we should pay ... for something that doesn't exist.

      That could land them in hot water in Australia, depending on how they choose to use it. ASIC doesn't take very lightly to those sort of tactics.

      In the end, though, SCO will run away from the "there is no linux" claim, by stating that it was taken out of context during a media interview or some shit like that.

      OT: Should the word "Linux" be capitalized or not? (thinking of the recent Internet/Web conversation)

  • by div_2n (525075) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:57AM (#10079016)
    This all started as a gamble for SCO. They thought for sure IBM would have just bought them to make them shut up.

    That didn't happen then SCO thought maybe they could extort lots of money from Linux users.

    That didn't happen so then they thought they could sue other companies to scare people into buying.

    That didn't happen and now they are walking the Mile. Expect lots of sound and fury but in the end it will signify nothing.
  • by glMatrixMode (631669) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:57AM (#10079019)
    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200408252 24344827 [groklaw.net]

    these last days, such redundancies have become quite frequent. My guess is that cowboyneal is on a vacation.
  • What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by raider_red (156642) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @11:57AM (#10079024) Journal
    If Linux doesn't actually exit, doesn't that pretty much negate their complaint?
  • Coherant is one. I have the software and the book for this non-existant OS that I bought in the early 90s. Minix is another but has been used to "prove" that the first Linux kernel couldn't have been written by one person. So perhaps Minix exists after all.

    Then there is Xenix. SCO sold that for years after Microsoft sent it their way. Bill Gates hasn't mentioned Xenix in a long time so it must not exist either.

    But if Linux doesn't exist, what was Caldera selling all those years (before it became SCO)?
  • by Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:02PM (#10079109)
    Not to be outdone by SCO, IBM quickly came back with

    I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.

    SCO lawyers:
    Yeah, well you're all stupid.

    IBM lawyers:
    I know you are... but what am I.

    SCO laywers(amongst themselves):
    Damn, that was good one. Do we have anything else? (shuffle through papers) How 'bout "Our dads can beat up your dads"? No. Try this.

    SCO laywers(to IBM):
    You're mom!
  • by identity0 (77976) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:05PM (#10079141) Journal
    Gosh, I was wondering where the Iraqi Information Minister went...

    "There is no Linux here!! It is LIES, from the mouth of the evil Stallman!! It is all a Zionist conspiracy against the brave people of Utah! The people are united undet the benevolent and loving rule of Darl McBride, who shall lead us to glorious victory against the heathen penguins!! The infidels shall commit suicide against the walls of our bullshit!!

    Every man and boy in Utah is ready to resist the invading horde of penguins with his life! We have held them off, and are slaughtering them like sheep on the shores of our Greeat Salt Lake! There are no Linuxes within Salt Lake City, as we defeat the avian aggressors and drive them from their homes! Our lawyers are mercilessly cutting them down as we speak, any reports of Novell or IBM winning are lies! LIES!!!

    SCO is great! Praise be to SCO! There is no UNIX but SCO!!"
  • man ioctl (Score:3, Funny)

    by ravingidiot (798346) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:10PM (#10079210) Homepage
    For Linus so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten kernel, that whosever beleiveth should not have kernel panics, but shall live in eternal uptime.

    ... or something like that.

  • by WormholeFiend (674934) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:11PM (#10079221)
    I think Darl read too much in Linus' announcement, a while ago, that Santa Claus invented Linux...

    If Santa Claus does not exist, he cannot have possibly invented Linux! I can't wait to submit this new evidence in court!
  • by wandazulu (265281) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:12PM (#10079237)
    When SCO talks about Unix, what, exactly, are they talking about? Is there a "Unix" anymore? I know of AIX, Solaris, and the BSDs as the last remaining operating systems that are, I believe, Unix-derived (some of the AT&T code, some of the BSD stuff). I don't think even SCO's own products (Unixware, SCO) are so close to SysV that they can truly say to be the true "Unix" operating system.

    So when they say Linux is an unauthorized Unix, what Unix are they talking about? Besides, doesn't the original email from Linux talk about how Linux is a "Minix" clone, which in turn is a much scaled down version of Unix? Why doesn't SCO go after Minix too while they're at it. Or Plan9...that's very Unix-like.

    Or Windows...oops, no, not that one. Besides, that's more VMS than Unix. :)
  • by Prince Vegeta SSJ4 (718736) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:13PM (#10079245)
    Windows XP security Flaws

    A need for more than 640k

    a Windows Monopoly

    HTTP 404 errors

  • Neitzche (Score:5, Funny)

    by GrouchoMarx (153170) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:27PM (#10079425) Homepage
    "Linux does not exist" --SCO
    "SCO's case does not exist" --IBM

    Coming soon...

    "SCO does not exist" --Wall Street
  • by ch-chuck (9622) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:29PM (#10079464) Homepage
    but I just can't shove my head up my butt that far.
  • Yes! (Score:5, Funny)

    by blackmonday (607916) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:39PM (#10079598) Homepage
    You know they're done when their last option is the Jedi Mind Trick.
    br
  • by jdavidb (449077) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @12:45PM (#10079675) Homepage Journal

    I think they're going to go out, not with a bang, but a whimper. Their ability to construct a case is just going to wither away and die. We'll quit hearing about them (thankfully); then, 20 years from now, we'll hear a "Whatever happened to SCO" retrospective?

    This is a little unfortunate. I was counting on their legal shenannigans to destroy them in a publicly enjoyable way.

  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @01:56PM (#10080546) Homepage
    SCOX is down to $3.66 today. Yesterday was a new 52-week low. From May to early August, the price hovered around $5. But now it's well below that point. Nothing SCO says or does seems to push the price up any more. Recall that at the peak of the litigation hype, it was around $20. The all-time high was over $100, but that was right after the IPO in 2000.

    The current price is roughly consistent with their cash position, now that they've paid off BayStar. There's an earnings call on August 31, and then we'll know how well, or badly, SCO did this quarter. SCO has lately been issuing press releases for many minor events, and none of them mention substantial revenue. So there probably isn't any new income.

    Meanwhile, many of the various motions in SCO vs IBM will be heard in September. If IBM wins any of them, SCO is toast. If IBM doesn't win any of them, IBM is no worse off.

  • by LWATCDR (28044) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @02:37PM (#10080972) Homepage Journal
    Anyone know what the laws in Australia are on slander?
    "IBM has transformed Linux from a bicycle to a Rolls-Royce, making it almost an enterprise-class operating system.

    It took us 25 years to build our business and it took [IBM] four years simply by stealing code and then giving it away free."

    This seems like a statement that could put one in jail. Claiming that someone stole from you without proof seems a risky move at best.

    Yes SCO everyone does hate you. No one will ever want to business with you ever again. Suing customers is not the way to make people want to do business with you. By your actions you have made IBM look like a warm, friendly, and even cool company and the hero of the IT world. Yes the former evil empire now looks like Santa Claus while SCO's image is that of the Iraq information minister. I would say that SCO hasn't reached the level of the Anti-Christ. Frankly most people would expect the Anti-Christ to not be as incompetent as SCO. No not even level of Hitler. SCOs level of evil is about at the level of a pimple faced Neo-Nazi skinhead publishing newsletter out of his bedroom. Full of lies, stupid ranting, and a false sense of injustice.

    Yes SCO you have sunk so low that you are not even really hated anymore. SCO you have sunk to the level of disgust. SCO has sunk to level of a guest on Jerry Springer.

  • by mi (197448) <slashdot-2012@virtual-estates.net> on Thursday August 26, 2004 @03:43PM (#10081643) Homepage
    Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix
    Somehow, this reminded of Saddam Hussein's recent courtroom statement, that "Everyone knows, Kuwait is part of Iraq"
  • by Proteus (1926) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @04:41PM (#10082214) Homepage Journal
    I've been reading one of IBM's recent filings [tuxrocks.com], and I found this gem on p. 19:
    Even as SCO describes the case -- by directly quoting (without attribution) a Westlaw headnote...
    So first, SCO accuses IBM of copyright infringement. Then, SCO demonstrably commits (admittedly minor) copyright infringment in its court filing for that same suit! And all IBM's lawyers do is mention it in a parenthetical. Well done, IBM!

    The calm, cool, confident, and respectful manner in which IBM is handling itself in court is admirable; IMHO, this puts them head-and-shoulders above SCO's legal team.
  • by AngryDill (740460) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @07:11PM (#10083393)
    Looks like he was on to something!

    We know from the FSF that Linux = GNU/Linux
    Multiplying both terms by Linux: Linux x Linux = Linux * GNU/Linux
    Simplifying: Linux^2 = GNU
    Since Linux is a kernel, it stands to reason: (Linux Kernel)^2 = GNU Kernel
    or: Linux Kernel = SQRT(GNU Kernel)

    Since the GNU Kernel is vaporware, the Linux Kernel cannot exist!

"There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them" - Heisenberg

Working...