SCO "Disappointed" by Red Hat Lawsuit 778
schmidt349 writes "SCO has issued a preliminary response to Red Hat's lawsuit, in which President and CEO Darl McBride advises that SCO will prepare a "legal response" to Red Hat's requests for injunctive relief. In addition, he promises that the countersuit that SCO will file may include "counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy." His final statement-- that Red Hat's "decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux--" is chilling in light of the business strategy that SCO has adopted in its sales of UnixWare licenses to actual and potential users of the Linux kernel."
good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't seem to remember SCO giving IBM much of a chance for "good faith discussions"
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Interesting)
I still believe that Red Hat SHOUDLN'T have sued SCO. Red Hat is going to be drained of money for a loooong time in court. Or do you simply think that by suing, they would win in a few weeks.
Prepare for a long winded fight in which SCO will do ANYTHING in it's power to smear Red Hat.
In the long run, it's not who is right, it's who looks good in the end....
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case, countersuing looks better to the consumer than simply allowing SCO's original claims to go largely uncontested in the court of public opinion. It might cost cash, but so does advertising. And in this case, both expenses accomplish largely the same purpose. It's not about winning or losing, it's about making sure SCO can't make Linux look bad.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
<AOL> Me too! </AOL>
When SCO first started making these claims, everyone said "Why doesn't some big name come out and say 'You're full of shit'". And now RedHat has done that with this lawsuit. And the same folks are saying this is a bad thing.
*SIGH*
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
To take an obvious counterpoint, when Unisys pursued their GIF patent claims, they didn't issue press releases saying they would destroy Amazon and Ebay.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
That should be at least as much a worry for SCO, though. As numerous people have pointed out, RedHat has a lot more cash than SCO does, and their basic business is burning through that cash a lot more slowly, so that if the lawsuit comes down to being a battle of attrition than RedHat is likely to win. Just because SCO is acting like a big bully doesn't mean that they actually have the resources to back that up.
I strongly suspect that what RedHat is worried about is looking good now. It's quite possible, even likely, that SCO's FUD is making some of RedHat's customers worry about their legal position, and if that's true than RedHat really has to do something about it. A willingness to launch a lawsuit to protect their customers' interests is exactly the kind of thing that will reassure those customers.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
Shooting from the hip this makes sense, but I can also imagine some twisted nasty consequences -- such as it would more easily give Microsoft some ammo to say "See, we told you so. Linux *is* a threat to our business so we're not a monopoly."
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually it has already made Redhat at least a couple of bucks. My RHN demo account was expiring, and I could either renew it by spending a couple of bucks, or by filling out a long questionnaire. At the same time Redhat seemed to be disappearing from my radar having cancelled their desktop linux box set, leaving me in a bit of a quandary for what to do to find a replacement. Debian probably represents the best way of managing a distribution, but the end result is much too unpolished and BSD'ish for my tastes. SuSE might be an alternative although it doesn't have a huge presence in the USA.
Anyway, Redhat filing this lawsuit puts them enough in alignment with my own priorities that I've reconsidered, and signed up with RHN for a couple of Basic accounts. I don't really doubt that RH is primarily concerned about proving the legality of its Enterprise offering, so if the desktop distribution goes seriously out of whack then I'll be looking again, but I'm willing for a while to see what their new mode of operating will put out.
The sad part is that actually used to be a Caldera customer up until Caldera left customers who had purchased 1.0 without an upgrade path. SCO is suffering a terrible and sad loss of judgement.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:4, Insightful)
This is so much true, it's frightening.
Personally I don't care for RH's distro all that much, but, I'll stand up and stand by them on this one. They are doing the right thing. This can only help us, even if it goes sour, this shows that we do really believe that we are entitled to the product that we are pushing.
You sir deserve a "Score: 1000, Actually Thinking" score.
P.S. I know I used the word "we". I'm not a developer and haven't found a way to contribute to the comminity yet, but I love the ideals of all this. Have have for 5 or so years now.
Re:Why doesn't RedHat just buy them? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you were the number one player in a product category, and a competitor less than one tenth your size announced a frivolous claim that you were violating their patent / copyright, you would in fact damage your credibility if you purchased them.
Also, SCO has little or no real chance of retaining market share if their IP claims are dismissed. This is real reason they are suing. SCO's product is simply inferior to a lot of open source products.
I think anyone even speculating on [name of large company here] buying SCO is being particularly foolish, as any investor seeing that speculation may be mislead and actually help to drive SCOX's stock price up.
Re:Why doesn't RedHat just buy them? (Score:5, Informative)
Why doesn't RedHat just buy them?
People keep asking this question, so it seems like it deserves a "OK, once and for all, this is why" answer.
Your question is based on the (common) misconception that all of a company's shares (or even a majority of them) are necessarily publicly traded. A company, when it "goes public," may make 95% of all its shares available to the public, or it may make only 5% of those shares public.
If the case is the latter, you could go to the NYSE or NASDAQ and buy every share there that someone is selling, and you would still only own 5% of the company. Ownership percentage = the percentage of votes you can cast on shareholder questions like kicking out the board of directors, etc.
I don't have figures, but I believe that SCO is more than 51% privately held. So buying all the publicly traded shares of SCO still isn't going to let you dictate the course of the company, it would just give you a bunch of (hopefully soon worthless) shares. The only way to gain control of the company would be to buy out the private owners ... who, I'm guessing, will make that price VERY steep if they think they have any chance at winning.
Re:Why doesn't RedHat just buy them? (Score:5, Interesting)
Prelim Injunction doesn't take long (Score:5, Insightful)
If Redhat loses in its attempt, THEN you are talking about a longer lawsuit and then you are also more likely to see, as IIRC Bruce Perens was recently quoted as stating, the cases betwixt SCO, IBM and Redhat settling.
This prediction of settlement I thought was one of this week's weirdest twists, and it hasn't been much commented upon. Are the issues so murky that Bruce thinks obtaining an injunction v. SCO is unlikely, and so like in the majority of cases which result in long, drawn-out court battles, all sides would then be more likely to settle and end the bleeding?
Re:Prelim Injunction doesn't take long (Score:5, Interesting)
Since a quick win on the injunctions for Red Hat could be a big help to IBM, I wonder if IBM will help Red Hat prepare.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Interesting)
RedHat's lawsuit can probably get that information far faster than the IBM case would be able to. And as soon as RedHat has it without the NDA, they'll publish it up front and give IBM, Linus & Alan, and the community the time to remove the code if its really infringing and replace it.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO will have to prove in court that they have a right to make the claims they are making. When SUSE did this in Germany SCO backed down. Red Hat is making a similar move here.
There are only a few possible outcomes:
1. SCO shuts up, IBM trial goes on with out SCO's media parade.
2. SCO reveals their evidence
A. They have none, destroying the IBM suit and putting an end to all of this
B. They do have some but it's libelous, destroying the IBM suit and putting an end to all of this
C. They do have some, RedHat looks bad, IBM looks bad, Linux looks bad. SCO becomes blabbermouths in Germany again. Linus has a chance to remove offending code and we can all get on with our lives.
Nothing but good can come out of this move.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO is going to be spending money fighting IBM. IBM has plenty of money.
SCO is going to be spending money fighting Red Hat. Red Hat will have to spend money fighting SCO. (Red Hat is asking for attorney's fees in the lawsuit.) But if Red Hat wins the injunction early on, things are going to look awful bad for SCO before Red Hat has spent any really enormous amounts of money.
I wonder if SuSE is also going to file suit. Maybe they should. SCO's FUD applies to SuSE as well as Red Hat.
If SuSE were to file, than SCO would be spending money defending that action. Assuming that SuSE files in Germany, that would likely complicate things for SCO as well with a bunch more lawyers.
What I'm really curious about is Lindows. They apparently have the right to distribute Linux, but SCO's FUD is likely to be hurting them as well even though SCO seems to have indicated that Lindows is safe. If SCO were to win, I think Lindows would be driven out of existence in short order. I wonder if Lindows will file as well.
The other distributions as well could file suit.
The burn rate for SCO could go up quite a bit in spite of the fact that preparing for one lawsuit may help them against others.
There would still be lots of additional hours spent covering the different jurisdictions. Plus, you'd have to have more litigation teams in place to cover the different jurisdictions.
Lawywers don't like to take on cases that may leave them unpaid. I can't imagine that Boies lawfirm is doing this with the intention of being paid when it is over, especially considering the dubious claims of the case. From what I've seen of lawyers and major law firms, I would expect that Boies would have to be assured of being paid regularly throughout the lifetime of the case before they would accept the case.
One thing that some of the other distributions might want to consider is that when all is said and done, fighting SCO is likely to bring them much greater name recognition from everyone and much good will from current Linux users. Any major distributor of Linux who doesn't fight SCO may find it that much more difficult to survive.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the flow of money into Red Hat over the years huge amounts have come from IBM and no doubt will in this case as well if they need it.
This won't take much money anyway. SCO with a weak case/no case wants to stay as far from a court room as possible. Their battles to raise money are coming from media hype surrounding threats to go to court. They can't actually go to court on this stuff and win, they know this.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:4, Funny)
Well said.
Essentially, SCO's letter could alternately be read, "Waah! No fair! I'm the only one who can do that! You're not playing nice. I want my mom!"
Go Red Hat. I hope they tie up SCO in court for a nice long time and win their case. SCO seems to be playing the intimidation game and is being very smug -- the tune will change if they get a slap in the face in court. Too bad only Red Hat has had the nads to fight back up to this point.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Interesting)
That MS money won't last them forever...
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Funny)
What's even worse, is that you'd never know if they actually had them or not. Their story keeps changing.
First they say that they discovered stolen code in December ... no wait, it was March, wait... I think it was January. They said they decided to take legal action when we saw a presentation by IBM people saying that Unix was irrelevant .. no wait .. they decided when they did a code audit .. wait ... when they spoke with some Linux hacker in Keokuk Iowa .. yeh - that's it. Because of course, there is 80 lines of stolen code .. no wait... a couple hundred lines of code .. no, now they have discovered thousands of lines in hundreds of files. That's it. That's the ticket.
They're suing IBM for breach of contract - but don't worry Linux users. Wait, then they thought should sue Linus Torvalds too. They claim he didn't answer their emails about it .. but wait, then they said that they had spoken to him about it in December.
Now they want to go after *all* Linux users .. but wait.. if you buy a license, we won't touch you.
As I said, they may have decided to have good faith discussions with IBM, or Santa Claus, or whovever .. you'd never know it.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, SCO seems to forget that it has no claims that it can enter into any resolution over. There are only two ways this can play out.
Either SCO can show there is infringing code and it has to be removed (as code licensed under GPL, which would be the other 99.999 percent of the code, cannot be distributed together with SCO licensed code), in which case SCO cant sell anything.
Or SCO cannot show there is any infringing code because any similar code comes from the same public domain/BSD/whatever sources, or is in SCO Unix because SCO took it from Linux in which case SCO cant sell anything.
Any negotiation besides "This is our contended code, here's the proof, now remove it" or "Hey, sorry, we're morons and we like to be very open about it" on SCO's part is bad faith negotiation.
SCO has nothing they can sell to any Linux vendor.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider this a declaration that the Open Source Community does not negotiate with terrorists.
Be warned that this is probably just the beginning.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Funny)
I count this to their eternal credit. They know who's the David and who's the Goliath as well, so they're not even really taking much of a chance. The worst-case is that they just revive AIX.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Funny)
Hey
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Funny)
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Funny)
I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux
So, Darth McBride finds their lack of good faith discussions disturbing?
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Funny)
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Interesting)
The lawsuit seems more likely to affect the long term survival of SCO than Linux.
I have seen this type of situation before. For several years a company called ZixIt littigated a case against Visa. The case was announced on the last business day of the year, this was significant because earlier that year the CEO had said 'people should sell their shares if we have no partners for ZixCharge by the end of the year'. Well there were no partners, customers or revenues but the lawsuit was announced the day that folk had been told to sell their shares.
ZixIt shares went up and up in response to the lawsuit. The bulletin boards were full of people predicting 'huge damages' of hundreds of millions, billions of dollars. In the meantime ZixIt exited the payments business entirely after their payments gateway was hacked.
The lawsuit was over anonymous statements made on the Yahoo buletin board by a person who turned out to be Paul Guthrie, a security expert employed by Visa. Ironically in the light of later events one of Guthrie's allegedly defamatory statements about ZixCharge had been that it did not address the real security issue.
The true believers continued to claim that the lawsuit was a sure fire thing right up to the day that the judgement was entered. Posters gleefully wrote that Visa, a Californian company stood no chance of winning against a Texas company in a Texas court. Hmm, jury bias didn't seem to be a problem for Ophra, It seems rather odd to invest on the assumption that the Texas courts are corrupt.
The jury found for Visa. The stock crashed but still has an amazingly high valuation for the company given their revenues. Guthrie is no longer at Visa, I am told he charges $5,000 a day as an independent security consultant in the Bay area and has plenty of business at that rate.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:4, Funny)
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Funny)
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Funny)
Pot makes you sit around and eat chips all day.
SCO is on crack
*******
This is your brain. [Insert picture of a computer running Linux.]
This is your brain on crack. [Insert picture of computer running SCO Unixware.]
Any questions?
Fuck you, Darl. (Score:4, Funny)
What an arrogant little prick.
Re:Fuck you, Darl. (Score:4, Funny)
Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Interesting)
Conspiracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm of course speaking of Microsoft...
How could Redhat conspire with ANYONE?! Did they conspire with IBM to SCO to sue?
Certainly Redhat and IBM will work together in their own defenses (and offenses). They are partners with common interests.
Just as SCO works with (and takes money from) Microsoft and Sun, the two companies with the MOST to lose from Linux...
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lies about a product is called marketing.
Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
- Darl McBride, CEO, SCO Group
Again, end users are not at risk, if anyone is, but rather the distributors of the Linux kernel in question. Secondly, the code was released by SCO under the GPL, negating the claim. Third, by not asking the "infringers" (who would be IBM primarily and companies like Red Hat secondly) to remove the suspect the code and instead attack the customers of the "infringers", SCO has made no attempt to keep their trade secret a secret at all, which renders it's claim to secrecy invalid in legal terms.
SCO has buried itself. I can't believe that anyone is still buying their stock, all they are doing is making McBride richer.
"In any such meeting, we will provide example after example of infringement of our intellectual property found in Linux. Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.........If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request."
- Robert Bench, CFO, SCO Group
In other words, they still refuse to take action in defending their trade secrets and rectifying the problem. No moral judge is going to cut them any slack with this kind of behaviour.
"Of course, we will prepare our legal response as required by your complaint. Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy."
- Darl McBride, CEO, SCO Group
It is amazing that this crook has the audacity to suppose that Red Hat is engaged in some kind of a conspiracy, considering the disgusting actions of his company. This is truly laughable.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
McBride's reality checker is broken. We tried to send him replacement parts, but he keeps sending them back to us with a note saying that he doesn't need reality since he owns Unix. Poor bastard...
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
A moral judge isn't necessarily a warranted assumption. All SCO needs is a somewhat viable legal theory to hang their case on. That isn't to say a "amoral" judge wouldn't find SCO's legal theories wanting but morality needn't enter into it.
SCO Emergency Conference Call today (Score:5, Informative)
Where: Toll Free within North America: 1-800-238-9007
International: 719-457-2622
Password to enter call: 274040
When: Tuesday, Aug. 5, 2003
2:00 p.m. EDT, 11:00 a.m. PDT
Questions for Conf Call (Score:5, Insightful)
Note: Brazenly ripped off from a post on the SCOX Yahoo discussion board [yahoo.com]:
1. When you said there are thousands of files of "your" (ie SCO's) Intellectual Property in Linux, were you referring to IBM's copyrighted and patented code?
2. Isn't that a very liberal and deceptive use of the word "your"?
3. Were you intentionally trying to mislead investors, Linux users, and the general public by referring to it as "your" IP before your case with IBM even goes to trial?
4. Are you concerned that your deceptive use of the words "your" and "our(s)" will lead to class action lawsuits by investors?
5. Don't the clauses in ammendment X saying that IBM owns all work produced by IBM and that those works are not subject to the other restrictions in Ammendment X mean that IBM can donate its patented, copyrighted code to Linux?
6. If you and other SCO execs feel you have such a strong case, why have there been no executives cashing in options and holding them?
7. Assuming for the moment that IBM has violated your trade secrets, accourding to established IP law, wouldn't that simply mean that IBM was liable to you for damages, but that the 'secrets' are now out of the bag and there is no legal way to encumber Linux because of that?
8. Given the filing date on your copyright, isn't SCO enjoined from seeking statutory damages or fees and limited only to the much harder to prove actual damages in any copyright legal action against Linux?
9. How does SCO, a Unix company, expect to make use of Vultus, a web services company whose product works only in Internet Explorer for deployment on IIS servers as a slower than Java replacement for Java?
10. Sontag has publicly stated that JFS, RCU, and NUMA are copyrighted by IBM but that SCO has "control rights" over that code. Is that type of contract legal? Has the validity of such a contract ever been tested in court?
Compliments of martin_lvnv -
11. When was the last time you checked on the number of resellers and developers? Don't you think it might be time to update those figures?
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Informative)
This argument gets thrown around a lot but it can only be correct of SCO knowingly injected the code in question into Linux. However, that's not the argument. Even before SCO started selling distributions, the alleged code existed in the codebase. If this is true, than that code is not legitimately GPL'd.
For example: I write some commercial code. You get the code under a license for internal modification. Later I decided to create a distribution for a cool project on Sourceforge. However, you took some of the code I licensed to you and contributed it to that project without my knowledge. Because you don't have ownership of that code, you do not have the right to GPL it. I distribute that project with no knowledge that my commercial code exists within it. This does not mean that I explicitly GPL'd my commercial code. Therefore, no one with the right to GPL said code GPL'd the code.
Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that SCO's claims are valid, I'm simply pointing out the fallacy in this commonly used argument.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Interesting)
Clearly, the onus is not on an IP rights owner to keep their secrets to themselves. The onus is on potential thieves. But nevertheless, their ground becomes far shakier when their own business plan has used Linux extensively, long after they concluded that those rights were being violated. Had they immediately ceased distributing Linux in any form, and notified their customers of the problem, this would have safeguarded their position somewhat. This would be expected of any corporate entity -- to exercise oversight over the products they market, and ensure that they support the company's overall business strategy. Failure to do so, and then blaming outside entities for the consequent problems, is not likely to impress any judicial body.
The issue might come down to whether SCO's publication of the questionable code in their Linux products is equivalent to a willful exposure of their trade secrets. The terms of the GPL may not even enter into the discussion.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
If by 'truth', you mean the fact that SCO have successfully persuaded a bunch of gamblers that their attempts to blackmail IBM are worth a punt, then I agree, the market does reflect that.
The stock market is ALWAYS right - by definition.
What do you mean, right? An accurate reflection of the true value of a company, or a snapshot of what public opinion thinks it's worth at any given time. I suppose the latter is true, but whether it is also equivalent to the first is another question.
Whiney little bitches on a computer nerd website are NOT.
Clearly there's no reason to take any of your points seriously then.
Who should I believe, teams of informed and intelligent analysts who get paid to break down big business for the billionaire clients, or some geek in his mom's basement amped up on mountain dew?
Do you mean those same 'informed and intelligent analysts' who were hyping dot com stocks throughout the nineties? Absolutely, you should believe everything that they say without question.
I, on the other hand, will continue to recognize that they don't know all the answers, and when it comes to technology, they are often extremely poorly informed, or just don't get it.
As a consequence, I'll continue to listen to information from all sources, and assess and evaluate that information myself -- and if a slashdot geek living in his mom's basement and drinking mountain dew has useful insights, hopefully I'll be open minded enough to recognize them for what they are while you continue to get shafted by the analysts who make their living by taking advantages of suckers like you.
Wtf? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say this is the pot calling the kettle black...but that just doesn't come close...
Re:Wtf? (Score:5, Funny)
Is that too contrived?
Whua!? (Score:4, Funny)
Um...no you haven't. Nobody has seen this comparison but Darl McBride and his evil twin brother.
Re:Whua!? (Score:5, Funny)
Is that his other brother Darl?
Re:Whua!? (Score:5, Funny)
I have seen the code in question, it is a shameless copy, and occurs throughout the source. Here is just a brief snip of code that is seen copied throughout:
then there is some text that looks like linux coders put in to conceal the copied code, but it always ends exactly as the SCO code:
*/
SCO quote (Score:5, Interesting)
So, they're disappointed that other people are choosing litigation, which is exactly what they did. No surprise to me, though; I'm surprised that SCO is surprised.
Re:SCO quote (Score:5, Insightful)
The image that SCO is trying to put forward is that of course there isn't any problem that they're going after IBM (and threatening Linux end-users) because that group is in the wrong, but they're wounded that Red Hat is opportunistically and cynically using the court system to punish them for only trying to set things right.
It's not going to work, mind you, because this is the kind of crap long-term 'stable' investors will cut through, and the ones that are betting on SCO as a kind of crapshoot have probably already committed themselves, but if you're going to bluff (as I'm still suspecting is their activity) why go halfway?
Re:SCO quote (Score:4, Funny)
Well, no surprise, but I'm surprised that you're suprised that SCO is surprised.
I'm just... surprised.
This is why the Big Guys let Red Hat sue first (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying that Red Hat made the wrong decision - they were injured and are suing - but I think the more Linux players SCO can get involved with litigation, the happier they will be - if they can drag out the proceedings. Imagine the boost to the "Linux has IP problems" line if all the major Linux players are tied up in litigation over IP issues.
The best that can happen is that they lose quickly. But I bet they'll drag it out as long as they can.
Re:This is why the Big Guys let Red Hat sue first (Score:5, Insightful)
The more players that sue SCO, the more resources SCO has to devote to their litigation (lawyers are whores, but they ain't cheap), the LESS time left on their life support clock...
Linux is a multibillion dollar industry now. There are players who make money (Redhat), some make LOTS of money (IBM, HP), and others who have a dog in the fight (Linus, RMS).
SCO's market cap is tiny compared even to Redhat's... They are outnumbered, and the more suits get targeted at THEM, most preferably in a LOT of different locales (state courts where the case won't take years to get to trial), the faster this is brought to an END.
A lion can be brought down by a pack of hyenas. It's all the more easy when SCO isn't a lion, but a jackass... And tigers are pursuing them...
SCO already has taken money from MS and Sun. For MS and Sun to pump more into them would speak BLATANTLY of conspiracy. In MS's case, it could be a violation of their anti trust settmelent...
Re:This is why the Big Guys let Red Hat sue first (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not saying that Red Hat made the wrong decision - they were injured and are suing - but I think the more Linux players SCO can get involved with litigation, the happier they will be - if they can drag out the proceedings. Imagine the boost to the "Linux has IP problems" line if all the major Linux players are tied up in litigation over IP issues.
The best that can happen is that they lose quickly. But I bet they'll drag it out as long as they can.
Actually, I think Red Hat made the right move. By suing first, they got to pick the venue. If they waited until SCO filed suit, then that choice would go to SCO. I've seen discussions on other boards that indicate the Deleware Federal Court is less likely to put up with BS and wants to move things along quickly than other Federal courts. (Ever notice how many corporations are incorporated in Deleware?)
So, Red Hat picks the venue. They also force SCO to fight major lawsuits in 2 different courts.
Plus, there have been reports that SCO's lawyers on the IBM suit are on a contingency basis. This will not be the case for lawyers defending SCO in a lawsuit. So, the Red Hat suit begins draining cash that SCO probably wasn't going through in its earlier suit.
Also, many have speculated that the whole SCO lawsuit was a stock pump and dump scheme, but right now SCO is in between closing the quarter and announcing the results. The SEC generally frowns on insider sales during this period, so Red Hat has filed--an action likely to drive down the stock--at at time that the insiders are prevented from selling without drawing major SEC scrutiny.
All in all, I'd say it was a pretty brilliant move by Red Hat.
SCO "Disappointed" (Score:5, Funny)
SCO's "Disappointed"? Awe poor SCO.
Well SCO, I'm very disappointed in YOU!
Now go to your room and don't come out until you've thought about what you've done.
Translation for the uninitiated: (Score:5, Funny)
"We at the SCO..." (Score:5, Funny)
We are awaiting further instruction from out legal team, however this may be delayed as our current course of action provided by our lawyers lists only the phrase "2. ???" for our next step. We are awaiting clarification from them before continuing.
Re:"We at the SCO..." (Score:5, Funny)
Your sense of humor has cost me the second monitor this week. You will be hearing from my layers soon. I am however willing to settle this matter out of court for the cost of 2 Bounty paper towel squares and a bottle of windex to remove the Mountain Dew from my screen.
Respectfully,
J
What they mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Red Hat's decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of SCO.
Litigation culture (Score:4, Insightful)
If they all just got on with building software instead of legal wranglings, everyone would be better off. It just seems that almost anyone can kick up a fuss half expecting to be bought off, just because it's easier and cheaper than lititgation.
Bury them in Paperwork. (Score:4, Funny)
I liked Red Hat's letter to SCO. So much that it leaves me wondering what would happen if every Linux user coordinated sending a copy with their demands to SCO on the same day. We could all demand responses.
Instead of supporting their FUD campaign with license fees, we could create cost by forcing them to deal with a mountain of letters. Make sure you send it registered/certified so that someone has to sign for it.
Just picture the tractor trailer backing up full of letters...
Chilling (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever. If SCO proves their claims, then it won't be long before the Linux community re-writes those parts that IBM contributed and makes the Linux kernel "UNIX-free."
You'll pardon me if I'm not frightened.
Re:Chilling (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO's double standards (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO still has not formally charged someone with copyright violation... Their only (related) suit on record is a "contract breach" with IBM. That makes great grounds for libel and fraud, considering they continue to distribute Linux code over FTP months after proclaiming this a crime against themselves!
Please ask this at today's conference call! (Score:4, Insightful)
It was my understanding that the Microsoft EULA is the "use" license for Word--Linux customers have made no such agreement with SCO.
In addition, Stowell admits that IBM holds the copyrights to the code in question (emphasis mine):
Someone please ask SCO this:
Since IBM has the copyrights to the code in question, what recourse can SCO possibly have against end-users?
If the contracts forbid these "derivative works" from being contributed to open source, what recourse do you have against end-users now that they have been? You don't own the copyrights for such code, and end users are not party to your contract with IBM.
Or do you realize that you have no claim against end-users, and as such are inventing a new kind of intellectual property called "control rights"?
in other news... (Score:5, Funny)
SCO shares (Score:4, Informative)
burn sco group shares!
A quick translation for those not familliar (Score:5, Funny)
SCO has consistently stated that our UNIX System V source code and derivative UNIX code have been misappropriated into Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels
We just want to scare you into paying us money. Thats easier than actually producing a product that anyone wants.
We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.
We have been trying to extort money from you.
SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.
If we can get you to give us money, then we don't really have to prove anything. Our lawyers told us that.
Recent correspondence from SCO to Red Hat further explains SCO's position
Holy SH*T someone is calling our bluff, what? They have lawyers? Suing WHO? I can't belive it, threatenting to sue is the way to do business, can't we grease your palm with some of our liscence fee to make this go away?
SCO Teleconference Today at 2:00 p.m. EDT (Score:5, Informative)
International: 719-457-2622
Password to enter call: 274040
More info at: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030805/latu080_1.html [yahoo.com]
In case of slashdotting (Score:4, Informative)
Recent correspondence from SCO to Red Hat further explains SCO's position.
The first letter is from Bob Bench, CFO of The SCO Group, Inc., to Mark Webbink, Sr. Vice President and General Counsel of Red Hat, Inc., that SCO intended to send to Red Hat. After a conversation between Matthew Szulik and Darl McBride, Red Hat determined that SCO did not need to send this letter.
The second letter is one that was sent to Matthew Szulik today from Darl McBride after Red Hat's lawsuit was filed.
July 31, 2003
Mark Webbink, Esq.
Sr. Vice President and General Counsel
RED HAT, INC.
1801 Varsity Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
VIA FACSIMILE: (919) 754-3700
Dear Mr. Webbink:
This letter is in response to yours of July 18, 2003 to Darl McBride President and CEO of The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO").
Before responding to your request, it is important to place your letter in context. Your letter follows on the heels of Red Hat's S-3 filing of July 7, 2003, in which your company revised its risk disclosure statement.[1] In addition, SCO is currently engaged in litigation with International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") regarding its role in the development of the Linux operating system. At the time of your letter, we had expected the possibility of a global resolution of SCO's intellectual property claims against all Linux-related companies that would have likely included Red Hat. This effort has apparently stalled, through no fault of SCO.
Based on the posture of our litigation and your revised risk disclosures, it is unclear to us the purpose of your July 18, 2003 letter. If you desire to enter good faith discussions to address SCO's intellectual property claims against Linux, either on behalf of a wider consortium of Linux companies or solely on behalf of Red Hat, we are willing to meet with you for that purpose. In any such meeting, we will provide example after example of infringement of our intellectual property found in Linux. Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.
If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising
your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request. Therefore, please clarify in writing the purpose for your request. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Bench
Chief Financial Officer
The SCO Group, Inc.
[1] Red Hat states in the revised disclosure that it is "vulnerable to claims that [its] products infringe third-party intellectual property rights particularly because [its] products are comprised of distinct software components many of which are developed by independent parties." The revised risk disclosure continues: "[M]uch of the code in [Red Hat's] products is developed by independent parties over whom we exercise no supervision or control
SCO's new NEW business plan (with code!) (Score:5, Funny)
for (i=0,i<=inifinity,++i){
Sue();
GetCountersued();
CountersueCountersuer();
}
Profit!
I leave it to you to work out all the bugs for SCO and upload the source via CVS to the following ftp server: ftp://ftp.scogroup.com/evilbits/code/profitengine
Thanks!
Some choice quotes . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users.
I love the way this is phrased. It sounds like it's the first they've heard of the term FUD. They're literally adressing every word of the acronym.
We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.
The risk is that SCO will sue you, of course.
Linux includes source code that is a verbatim copy of UNIX and carries with it no warranty or indemnification. SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.
"Yep, the claims are true. Really true. See how true they are. And we'll show this truth at a later date. If we need to."
And no warranty and indemnification . .
In any such meeting, we will provide example after example of infringement of our intellectual property found in Linux. Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.
"So, we'll provide a ton of examples, then control how you can discuss them. Trust us. You have to sign the agreement of course before we provide them"
If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request.
This makes me wonder what kind of NDA would be required to see the code anyway. It sounds like "we can show you this stuff if it never gets involved in a lawsuit, but we can sue the bejesus out of you anytime."
To my surprise, I just discovered that your company filed legal action against The SCO Group earlier today.
A Linux company suing SCO. Will surprises never cease.
Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy.
"We're going to try and turn this lawsuit into a new revenue stream for us."
I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux.
Pure threat. Red Hat isn't the only Linux out there. This sounds like A) A general threat and B) more of a "bring it on" attitude towards Linux in general - posturing.
I don't think much has changed. This is the usual mix of threat and PR work.
My two cents.
new SCO business model? (Score:5, Funny)
Here's a suggestion that I am proposing for Darl McBride, which he is free to use without paying royalties to myself:
I would pay good money for that!Linux Bashed on Kudlow and Kramer! (Score:5, Interesting)
The enemies of freedom were at it again last night. On Kudlow and Kramer on CNBC some analyst hack mentioned Linux's "IP problems" in a Microsoft story. I am afraid that the SCO suit is having its intended affect by negatively influencing public opinion and support by business and analysts. By proxy with SCO, Microsoft is accomplishing what it could not do alone in creating Linux FUD.
By the way the /. crowd has ridiculed Stallman in the past about making contributors sign legal disclosure forms for FSF programs. What do you say now, fools? Had Linus and his open source buddies been half as vigilant about the source of code contibutions, this issue would not exist.
Re:Linux Bashed on Kudlow and Kramer! (Score:4, Funny)
"In future postings, please replace the word 'analyst' with the word 'chimpanzee'."
This article's pretty funny (Score:5, Funny)
"Linux geeks howled a bit, but then wrote off SCO as a bunch of sleazebags and went back to playing live-action roleplaying (LARP) games in their mothers' basements, or whatever it is they do when they're not writing device drivers and complaining about clueless end users."
Linux in good faith (Score:5, Insightful)
"Claims of infringement could require us to seek to obtain licenses from third parties in order to continue offering our products, to reengineer our products, or to discontinue the sale of our products in the event reengineering could not be accomplished on a timely basis."
So Red Hat requested to know what parts are infringement. The purpose is to either pay a fee to use, rewrite the stuff to eliminate infringement, or stop selling the stuff if they can't get it fixed quickly. They gave SCO 30 days to provide them with the kernel code, then decided to sue them since they were dragging their heels. This is smart. Red Hat depends on Linux (duh). They want to get this resolved. By stating clearly that they will simply rewrite the code in question, SCO balked and delayed. Red Hat's managers seem to have a good grip on how a business is run, and SCO just realized that once Red Hat makes a compliant kernel, the rest of the community will follow, and SCO will have no suit. This is the real reason they are hiding the code till trial. They won't have a case if it comes out sooner.
The IBM suit isn't due in court (Score:5, Interesting)
Until April 2005, as I recall. From my own limited experiences with the legal system, (My father involved in a complex dispute over the family farm, and a drawn out divorce) these things move at a speed akin to continental drift. The whole thing will unfold in slow motion, and like an aging wine cannot be hurried. No matter who wins the 2005 hearing, there are bound to be further rounds of settlement talks. (in the unlikely event SCO gains a partial victory) Legal action involving other Linux distributors and SCO will play out over an even longer timeframe, if there is anything left of the carcass, assuming IBM wins.
This will be both a cash drain and an unfortunate distraction for Red Hat, but it has the positive effect of casting a longer shadow over SCO, since they are now fighting a second front. If other Linux distributors follow suit, (or perhaps band together into a class action?) and sue SCO then it will put even greater pressure on them.
Don't worry (Score:4, Interesting)
Slashdot Interview? (Score:4, Insightful)
How would you translate that to text? *fffffffwwwwwwwwppppp!!!*
More than just copyright at stake (Score:5, Informative)
-- Robert Bench, Chief Financial Officer, The SCO Group, Inc.
Take notice, all you that still believe that this is just a simple contract dispute between SCO and IBM. SCO's CFO is clearly stating that they have IP claims against the Linux kernel!
There should be no doubt of their intents after this...
I'm waiting, every day ... (Score:5, Funny)
"OH GOD! YES! I DID IT! I COPIED V5 SOURCE CODE INTO THE LINUX KERNEL.
I'M SO SORRY! THE PRESSURE! I COULDN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE! AAAARGH! *sob*"
Whereupon we can all go "you know - you're a dick" and buy him a beer. Then everyone cleans up after him.
As to Dee McBride
Dude - *you're* disappointed? Well let me tell you how *we* feel
DMCA could be our friend here? (Score:4, Interesting)
BUT...A DMCA letter being a instant shutdown of their operation would require SCO to go to a court and validate the need for such a shutdown of Red Hat's business....No sane judge would allow a SCO to shut another down and refuse in court to tell why the offender is liable and refuse to allow the company C&D'd to become compliant. A DMCA C&D would be horrible, but it's something tangible that Red Hat can fight against rather than the "will be open to.." or "We may sue..." that SCO has been spewing lately.
I always Wonder. (Score:4, Interesting)
Last time I looked at a changelog there were several @hp.com addresses that were adding stuff to the kernal.
What's up with that?
SCO KNEW what they were distributing ! (Score:4, Informative)
Then they go on talking about what great stuff there is in this release (see page 2 of the newsletter):
* Kernel 2.4.19, KDE 3 etc
* Improvements in the memory manager for scalability and performance
etc.
I don't believe they did not know what they were distributing if they advertise with this stuff.
OK
SCO news releases and icons (Score:5, Funny)
I appreciated the link in the story to the SCO. It is always best to get the story straight from the horse's mouth. Or, in the case of SCO, the other end of the horse. However, would it be too much trouble to put a "goatse.cx" disclaimer on further links to SCO's website? They are clearly too closely related for my comfort.
On another issue, I understand that there has been conversation regarding changing the SCO icon from it's current Mickey Mouse looking thing to something resembling the goatse.cx picture. I, for one, cast a whole-hearted "no" vote on that potential change. I think that the current Mickey Mouse looking icon accurately reflects the nature of SCO's enterprise and that the proposed alteration might be traumatic for the younger readers of this "family" website.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
guacamolefoo
Re:Had to expect this from them (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO squish RH? Maybe the other way around...
Re:Just disappointed...? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was thinking earlier today how cool it would be if SuSe were to sue SCO in Germany, Novell (through Ximian) in Mexico, Chinese government in China &c. Screw them as much as possible in as many different legal systems as possible. Where possible get some sort of judgement against the directors as individuals as well as corporately against SCO. Destroy their stock price and make sure they can't travel out side the US (preferably inside as well) without getting arrested for contempt of court or something like that.
Even better! does anyone have photos of McBride playing golf with Bin Laden and Saddam?
Vindicitve? Moi?
Stephen
Re:Very smart move from Red Had (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking of logs.. (Score:4, Funny)
Monday:
Judge: Please state the files, lines, etc that are in question.
Sco: File xyz.c lines abc.c
Judge: This could be incrimenating, yes.
Tuesday:
Judge: Linux Distro X, do you have anything to say before we proceed?
Penguin: Only that we clean-roomed the files in question and rebuilt the kernel last night while you were sleeping. Any code SCO might lay claim to is no longer an issue.. We had offered to remove the offending material, but SCO never told us where it was... it is now gone. At the courts disgression, we can also remove the source logs of the offending files
Re:Someone break the NDA & post the code. (Score:5, Interesting)
Some time ago, a few people claimed to have been shown the code without signing the NDA. They said that the only significant part of the kernel that was an issue was the scheduler, which looked like it had been copied "line by line" from Unix sources (one presumes the copying wasn't in the other direction).
I'd guess the scheduler will undergo a significant rewrite before kernel 2.6 goes gold... ;-)
The other claimed "infringing" areas are things like JFS and NUMA support that IBM initially developed for AIX and then ported to Linux.
I think it very unlikely that these various subsystems will be found to infringe on SCO's IP.
Re:Know what would be really funny? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod me flamebait all you want.
I have moderator points, but there is no "un-informed" or "grossly incorrect" comment label, so I am commenting instead.
And its a definate possibility, considering the linux community has no respect for IP laws in general, and IBM has no respect for fair business practices.
The Linux community does not believe in IP laws, but that does not make them code thiefs. They belive in a licience that does not allow any one person or organization to own any code they write.
So far all the linux community can defend itself with is name-calling.
When the names are applicable and correct, it is'nt name calling, it's FUD busting.
When SCO won't even disclose the nature or specifics of the accused infringments, the community has very little to defend itself from.
Or, how about this scenario? IBM settles out of court, admitting guilt. They license - and now own for all intents and purposes - linux.
You obviously have no idea how sofware liciencing works. If IBM settled, all that would happen is that SCO would get an ammount of cash for each copy that IBM sold. This would give them permission to use the code and Linux would remain unchanged. In the worst case, the code would be removed from all commercial distributions, but the GPL would still apply to the remainder of the code.
Eventually, one way or another, linux will be declared some corporations property. It's guaranteed. The more valuable it becomes, the harder people will fight and the more tricks they will use to make sure it does not remain free.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Linux is explicitly licienced to be Open, Free and without ownership. It will never become the property of any one organization.