SCO Calls IBM Countersuit "Unsubstantiated Allegations" 972
dacarr writes "Yahoo currently hosts a press release from SCO that basically calls for IBM to "move away from the GPL"." Lycoris tries to dodge the flood of idiocy from Utah. Another non-programmer has seen SCO's presentation, and without attempting to verify the facts through his own research, reported on it. One reader buys a SCO license. SCO justifies their continuing illegal distribution of the Linux kernel.
-1 troll (Score:5, Insightful)
These guys have some serious nerve - I hope they get put behind bars for this crap.
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Interesting)
For a primer on the distinction, go talk to some former Enron employees. (Not senior management. Employees.)
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:-1 troll (Score:4, Informative)
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Funny)
Shareholders value (Score:4, Informative)
The biggest problem with Enron (as a business) was not that the employees lost their jobs, but that the shareholders lost their money, and the company went down (so they won't be getting their money back).
The biggest problem with the SCO business model is that it depends on flimsy claims of IP infringement, outrageous compensatory demands that have not been backed yet by evidence, and the hope someone will buy them out. It doesn't depend on any of their ACTUAL PRODUCTS, and it actually kills some of their product lines (the Linux side), antagonizes their users and the developer community, and not a few business partners.
Re:Shareholders value (Score:4, Insightful)
They are not working there as a personal investment and because of faith in the company, at least they shouldn't. If they are not properly compensated for their time and work, they should ask for proper compensation or look for greener pastures.
Consumers are not investing in your company. They are investing in their own demand. They are remunerating the company for meeting that demand, which brings money to your company, but their loyalty is (psychological manipulation aside) to satisfying their demand. Or should be.
Businesses need to deal with these three groups to be successful, but that doesn't make them all equal in nature. Nor would that make them all shareholders by any linguistic stretch of the imagination. I'd love to see what kind of etymological magic is behind that.
Let's get our facts straight:
- Businesses are for-profit entities created to make money for the owners (stockholders).
- Employees are people making money by selling their work/time (human resources) to the company. If anything they are business partners of the company, not shareholders.
- Consumers are people who demand something and are willing to pay for it to whatever business best meets the demand.
- Businesses are successful if they, on average and on the long term, make money for the owners. This can only be done if they don't screw over their employees (losing their resources) or their consumers (losing their clients).
Yet we don't say the goal of the company is to follow those rules anymore than the purpose of human life is to take a bath, use the toilet or eat frequently. Those are just things you have to do if you want to successfully do whatever it is you're doing with your life. It's the environment of the game. It's a given.
The people behind the Enron scandal did a lot of illegal things. Some of them were illegal because they bankrupted the company and defrauded investors. Others were illegal because of entirely different, non-business, reasons.
Screwing over employees is wrong, and often illegal. Screwing over consumers is also mora than plain stupid. There's no reason to justify the immorality of one with the language of the other.
Principal-Agent Problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Maximizing the shareholders' value is the the nominal goal of any publicly traded company. For the larger body of shareholders, this means producing reliably increasing returns as this provides them with safely growing assets. Ignoring the dot-com IPO craze, most shareholders are into a company for a long time, hoping that it will provide them with sensible return at at least the market average for the life of their time invested. This is the "will of the voters" for a company.
The problem comes in companies like Enron or SCO when the management has investments in the company, is thoroughly unethical (*cough* rationally-self-interested *cough*), and has made a series of mistakes that they and their stock holdings will eventually be held accountable for. Their goal becomes to deceive the market and the other stockholders to try to maximize the price of the stock in the short term and give themselves a window of opportunity to cash out before that shareholders' value come crash down on them. The executives of Enron, the Principals, damn well were charged with keeping their company running by the shareholders, the Agents, who invested their money in the company in hopes of it staying afloat. This little thing of keeping the company alive that you brush off as just "job security" was their job. Instead of properly owning up to what was wrong with their company, they participated in a "pump and dump" scam that made them filthy rich right before dropping the bomb that ruined the asset value of millions of shareholders, including other employees in the company and many retirement funds around the nation. Shareholders lost big. If they had known over the long term what kind of problems Enron had had for years, they could've shored up for the loss or pulled out safely. Instead, their shareholder value was destroyed through deceptive business practices that made Enron falsely seem far more valuable than it actually was.
SCO is essentially doing the same thing. Their business model has been an utter failure. Even as Caldera, they were outcompeted by better and cheaper Linux distros, so Caldera management bought SCO and decided to bet the company on a outside shot. I seriously disbelieve thanks to their own public comments that SCO's management think that they can win. They're bluffing, and the stock trading actions of SCO's executives seems to indicate that they're participating in a very loud and aggressive "pump and dump" scam. They're cashing out while the stock value is currently about 15 times what it was last year. Here's the best part. It doesn't matter if they cash out if they win. Considering that the company has very low overhead beyond its legal department, I'm sure that if they do win, SCO management will grant themselves quite a huge salary bonus from that windfall (with stock options to boot) with the blessing of all the new stockholders which have started flooding in since the change in company strategy. It's a win-win situation for management!
However, it's an extremely risky gamble for shareholders -- one which the entire company's future is leveraged on. If they lose the IBM case, or if they win against IBM but lose the battle to actually enforce fees on the Linux community, their business model is utterly empty of any future revenue sources on the level that the current stock price reflects. You see, SCOX has a dangerously high price to earnings ratio right now. Any stock analyst will tell you that companies with a high P/E are risky. Usually, a
the flaws (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Interesting)
Sanity: Guh?! Since when is the GPL license the problem - even if SCO's claims did prove to be true? And how exactly does IBM "move away" from the software license under which their primary operating system is distributed?
I don't think IBM considers linux their "primary" operating system at this point. At any rate, "move away" in SCO's terms I think really means to move away from Linux entirely and go back to solely distributing products based in AIX, to which IBM would have to continue to pay SCO for. Its a statement that's certainly not in IBMs best interests, but certainly is in SCO's.
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Interesting)
You sure about that? Considering AIX is being moved towards linux (the "L" in AIX 5L stands for Linux!), what else do they have left?
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Informative)
Umm AIX is being moved toward working better with Linux over the network, but it's not being phased out anytime soon. There are two other OS IBM won't be abandoning anytime soon either - z/OS and OS/390. That's the big iron stuff. AIX is mostly for the minis these days. Linux is for the micros.
They are putting a lot of work into making sure everything plays nicely together, but they are certainly NOT going towards using Linux exclusively.
Re:z/os is hardly big iron. (Score:4, Insightful)
It all depends on the benchmarks you choose.
They won't win any awards for processing power per dollar, that's for sure. Their I/O bandwidth is extraordinary, however, and their reliability puts even Suns biggest boxes to shame.
For what they are designed for, they're still the kings.
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Funny)
Which is funny in light of this:
Heh. My favorite Darl Mcbride quote.
By the way, I found the quote when I was compiling the SCO news archive [pinkfairies.org] on PinkFairies.Org [pinkfairies.org] - We're calling shenanigans on SCO.
Or, mabey we're all just pissed that they figured out step 2.
~Will
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Informative)
Re:-1 troll (Score:3, Informative)
You should know better :-). SCO's announcements ARE trolling - trolling for more pump-and-dump breathing space.
It's just getting more obvious to the rest of the world.
SCO is learning the hard way that "you can fool some of the people some of the time ... ", etc.
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Funny)
"You know whats funny, how sometimes when you do stuff, and then, then you say other people are doing that same stuff to you. Now thats funny."
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Insightful)
The value of GPL as a 'business model' has absolutely nothing to do with their legal claims against IBM. The fact that they state it as if it is part of the case betrays that this lawsuit itself is just the vehicle that gets them the attention they want so they can propogandize for their real cause. They know they can't prevail legally. They are just going for the negative publicity to scare people away from Open Source products, and whatever possible delays they can cause with legal entanglements before they get sued into oblivion. SCO is executing the corporate equivalent of a suicide bombing.
GPL Collapse? (Score:5, Insightful)
MS would love for Linux to go away. However, the power of OSS is that many minds can organize efficiently enough to create a workable product. After years of educationally-focused Unix-like software getting streamlined, studied, debugged and now ported, we've hit commercial grade server product. For free.
The GPL is the grease for that organization. It forces the trust to appear in the transactions working with this code. It also enables the rejection of people who won't play by the rules. We're simply watching a greed-based test of that right now with SCO. Sure MS is rooting for the SCO team, they need to sell against only SUN, HP and other moneymakers in the industry. They know how to undercut someone with production costs.
Linux's only production costs are in manhours donated. Come hither-dither, feast/famine, Linux has been at enterprise quality and will only improve as new theories and algorithms get tested and then put into the churning process for implmentation, testing, etc.
So if SCO's code is present in the current Linux, "derivative works" clauses be damned, we're going to end up with a free something as an OS. The machienery for creating such a beast is already well constructed. if we OSS'd the old BeOS, or the obscure other OS'es out there right now, it would quickly flower into a powerhouse. BSD isn't a derivative, so we're only a kernel away from another Nix flavor anyway.
That said, I believe this mess of a SCO press release per day (and all the FUD in it) and then the world's jabbering about it, will pass when the courtroom doors finally open. There just isn't any logic left in it anymore. Also, serious cases aren't tried in press releases. We're talking about simple sales numbers here. MS pays SCO, makes the next Munich sale. If this doesn't happen, the money well will dry up and the lawyers will pick the bones clean at SCO.
You can be sure, though, that this brain-numbing series of moves by SCO is not without support. 5 execs aren't doing this because they want their stock to simply go from 0.25 to 11.00 - this is an orchestrated effort to remove the trust/reliability and certainty in the Linux-is-an-option for corporate servers. Who benefits most? MS. By far. One could be very certain Balmer is getting an inside on the SCO moves word-by-word before we are. He's ready to play off of this.
If you need to check, ask for an MS sales rep to come by and give a little presentation for your next "long-range server upgrade" - for those in the $10mil and up range (they will check your company structure, sales and potential first). Those slides are hot off the press from that morning's sales meeting. And they say: "Linux is a liability because of the GPL." Almost verbatim SCO's press release.
mug
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Informative)
If the GPL goes away, you still have the free ability to use the software -- but no ability to redistribute the product or create derivative works.
SCO vs OJ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SCO vs OJ (Score:5, Informative)
I see this guy has already been modded Flamebait, but he is so right about this. What's really messed up though, is how ONLY people who read slashdot seem to know anything about it. I'm serious - I've tried to bring up SCO's situation a couple of times and no one knows what the hell I'm talking about. Even other programmers where I work have no clue that anything has happened at all.
This shit is trouble, mark my words. The guys at the top of companies don't read slashdot either - keep that in mind. I guarantee you that large companies that use Linux are pissing their fucking pants over this thing right now, considering the fact that the execs are going to have no fundamental grasp of the reality of the situation.
Re:SCO vs OJ (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why we have an obligation to spread the word. I've already told my non-geek friends about it. Granted, I don't include the gritty details, but they get pissed when I tell them it could affect the price of their Tivo or shiny new PDA.
The way I explain it is this. It's like trying to charge a licensing fee for certain hamburgers. SCO is trying to say that their IP is lettuce, which has been freely available for a long time. So they now want to charge fees for any restaurant that serves California burgers. Plus, they have designs on salads as well. Their suit against IBM is like they just sued McDonald's.
Details are, of course, omitted, but they get the gist of it.
Re:SCO vs OJ (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I would explain it more this way:
SCO has claimed IP rights to lettuce, so they are now threatening to sue anybody who has ever eaten a hamburger, regardless of whether that hamburger had lettuce in it or not (and it's likely that no hamburgers have ever had lettuce in them, but then the analogy breaks down). They're suing McDonalds (IBM), and Burger King (RedHat) is suing them.
Re:SCO vs OJ - juries (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SCO vs OJ (Score:3, Funny)
--
SCO sucks [scosucks.com]
*chuckle* (Score:3, Funny)
Oh boy. Monty Python couldn't keep you in stitches longer then McBride. This guy is one of the world's greatest comedians.
Re:*chuckle* (Score:4, Funny)
unsubstantiated allegation adj: 1. unsupported by evidence; 2. a claim made by a Republican U.S. Senator or by a UNIX vendor by the name of SCO, characterized by detailed fantasy, delusions and self-importance absent material foundation [syn: uncorroborated nonsense].
Dr StrangeSCOve (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dr StrangeSCOve (Score:4, Funny)
Of course, it doesn't hurt that one of Peter Sellars' characters is already named Mandrake [amazon.com] :-)
Re:Dr StrangeSCOve (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Dr StrangeSCOve (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Dr StrangeSCOve (Score:4, Funny)
[IBM] Who filed that? Who the fuck filed that? Who's the slimy little communist shit, tinkle-toed cocksucker down here who just filed his own death warrant? Nobody, huh?! The fairy fucking godmother filed the lawsuit! Out-fucking-standing! [SCO]I Filed that lawsuit sir! [IBM]Well, what have we got here? A fucking comedian, private SCO? Hell, I like you, you can come over and fuck my sister! {punches SCO in Gut, SCO drops to floor} [IBM]I've got your name! I've got your ass! You will not laugh, you will not cry, you will learn by the Courts, I will Countersue You!
the drill sargeant can be used for IBM with many other modified quotes:
[IBM]Sco, you had best unfuck yourself and start shitting me Tiffany cufflinks or I will definitely fuck you up!
[IBM]Private SCO, I'm gonna give you three seconds, exactly three fuckin' seconds, to wipe that stupid lookin' lawsuit off your face or I will gouge out your eyeballs and skull fuck you!
Re:You can't fight in here! This is the server roo (Score:3, Funny)
:-)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Money for Nothing - redux (Score:5, Funny)
Money For Nothing
Now look at them SCO-yo's that's not the way to do it
They say we're infringing on their IP.
It ain't workin' the way they try to do it
They're getting nowhere, lawsuits ain't free.
No it ain't workin', not the way they do it
Lemme tell ya them guys are dumb
They gots a lawsuit from them RedHat people
And a 'nuther from that IBM.
You gotta buy their UNIX license
Or else they gonna sue you guys
They gotta keep that FUD stream flowing
They gotta keep that stock price high.
See little Darl with the options and delusions
He's got no braincells under his hair
That little Darl wants his own jet airplane
Little Darl wants to be a millionaire
You gotta buy their UNIX license
Or else they gonna sue you guys
They gotta keep the FUD stream flowing
They gotta keep that stock price high.
I shoulda learned to play the market
I shoulda learned to pump and dump
Look at them, they got all those profits
Man I could have some fun
Darl's up there in Utah making lawyer noises
Bangin' out lawsuits like a chimpanzee
It ain't workin' the way they try to do it
They're getting nowhere, lawsuits ain't free.
Wha??? (Score:5, Funny)
My thoughts... (Score:5, Interesting)
And SCO has been supporting Linux for quite a number of years, and still has the 2.4.13 kernel sources available on their site. Amazingly enough, they haven't removed that from their site, allowing for Linux to be used free of SCO prior to and including version 2.4.13.
If IBM wants customers to accept the GPL risk...
It is now even more obvious that SCO feels that the GPL is too weak to stand up in court. I think that IBM has already planned for this and is prepared to prove that the GPL will hold up. I just find it extremely interesting that SCO supported the GPL up until 2.4.13 and no FANTASTIC strides have been made since that point in the code that *we think* they are trying to claim is their IP.
I guess that SCO is basically screwed unless they can some how force the GPL to break-down in court.
Just my worthless
Try again... (Score:5, Informative)
NcFTP 3.1.5 (Oct 13, 2002) by Mike Gleason (ncftp@ncftp.com).
ncftp> o ftp.sco.com
Connecting to 216.250.140.126...
ftp.caldera.com Ready.
Logging in...
Welcome to SCO's FTP site!
This site hosts UNIX software patches, device drivers and supplements
from SCO.
To access Skunkware and Supplemental Open Source Packages, please
connect to ftp2.caldera.com.
** Please read the following export notice **
Please note that the electronic transfer of this data to a destination
outside of the United States constitutes an export (as defined by the
U.S. Bureau of Export Administration) and is authorized ONLY to the end
user. Any subsequent re-exportation of this data requires that the end
user obtain an additional export license. Also note that it is illegal
to re-route Caldera product to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea,
Sudan or Syria and that you must file a special license if you intend
to re-route goods to the embargoed regions of Serbia or the Taliban
controlled areas of Afghanistan. Placement of this order constitutes
an agreement to comply with these stipulations.
Anonymous access granted, restrictions apply.
Logged in to ftp.sco.com.
ncftp / > cd
ncftp
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-106.nosrc.rpm
k
kernel-sou
kernel-source-2.4.1
ncftp
Which means that regardless of whether or not "SCO feels that the GPL is too weak to stand up in court," is moot. They have accepted and continue to accept it's terms by having this Linux kernel source code on their FTP server.
Any code in kernel 2.4.19 that is 'infringing' is actuall not, because SCO knows about so-called 'infringing' code in there, yet they continue to distribute it, meaning they have effectively GPLed whatever code is in there, regardless of who actually put it in there (most likely, according to various sources, a Caldera employee!)
Re:Try again... (Score:3, Insightful)
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-133.nosrc.rpm
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-152.nosrc.rpm
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm
They have accepted and continue to accept [th GPL's] terms by having this Linux kernel source code on their FTP server.
Please look at that listing again, and if you don't believe the "nosrc" part, unpack the SRPMS and see for yourself.
Re:Try again... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Try again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Try again... (Score:5, Insightful)
So they're guilty of 8 million counts of copyright infringement, one from each author whose copyrighted code they're illegally distributing without permission.
How does that help them?
Re:Try again... (Score:3, Insightful)
They're claiming 2.4.18 and later is infringeing...
Cool, we just all go back to RH7.2 then...
Al.Re:Try again... (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL is eminently enforceable because it doesn't take away any rights. It only grants rights.
An author licensing you his software under GPL is basically saying: "I'm giving you the right to distribute (and/or modify) my code (something you CAN'T do with ANY copyrighted material) under the condition that you make the source available and that you make the copies available under the same license I'm providing you with."
By distributing the code in ANY form, you, yes you, agree to the restrictions, because otherwise what you are doing is illegal. Period.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:My thoughts... (Score:3, Informative)
They are saying go get linux somewhere, they are giving the code away. Then, buy this license so you can use our proprietary code in your copy of linux.
They are not trying to license all of linux.
A simmilar situation would be, if Linux has no infringing code, but SCO does offer something you want to use, you can go get linux for free, license some stuff from SCO, and integrate it into your copy of linux. You are not allowed to redistribute this tho, because
GPL failure- Not a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a problem if the GPL is ruled invalid, then SCO is committing a copyright violation for commercial gain.
If they are selling someone elses work, for financial gain, knowing they do not have a license to do so they could be in a LOT of trouble.
Isn't that actually criminal copyright infringement? Do you think the SCO execs would rather go to jail then lose a lawsuit?
Re:My thoughts... (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, if they are going to continue allowing the 2.4.13 kernel code to be posted on their site which forces them to accept the GPL through 2.4.13 I can't see how they wouldn't have taken it down months ago. It seems like a rather large hole if the GPL stands up, why would they take that risk unless they "knew something we didn't"?
Re:My thoughts... (Score:3, Informative)
Unsubstantiated? (Score:5, Insightful)
Breaking News... (Score:5, Funny)
"It was just an unwarranted attack" said the Roast Pot. "We all know the truth here, and for the pot to be so stupid and call the kettle black, while itself is black, is just ridiculous.
The pot refused to answer any of our questions claiming temporary insanity due to undue financial stress. The kettle however smiled at our cameras and stated "now we realize who is living in the fantasy world!". We will bring you more of this developing story as it becomes available. For Koo-Koo kitchen News, this is Tea Spooner.
---
A tautology is a thing which is tautological.
No time restraint on patents (Score:5, Informative)
SCO has shipped these products for many years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these products."
IANAPA (Patent attorney), but as I understand it, the holder of patent can choose when to enfornce the patent. "Because we have been" is NOT a legal argument.
Re:No time restraint on patents (Score:3, Informative)
Your understanding is wrong. The only intellectual property you lose through non-enforcement is trademarks.
Re:No time restraint on patents (Score:3, Informative)
There's no such thing as intellectual property. There's copyright law, trademark law, and patent law. They're different. You seem to be thinking of trademark law; you have to vigorously defend a trademark in order to keep it.
GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
Picking random people? (Score:4, Funny)
Deutsche Bank Securities analyst Brian Skiba...
The guy likely uses a computer, so obviously he's an expert on kernel design.
In other news, St. Mary's Hospital caterer Edna Pratt reviewed the conditions of several patients, and declared them free of cancer.
This needs sorting out (Score:3, Interesting)
For all the predictably negative comments made by the Linux community, no one it seems, is preparing to challenge SCO and get this resolved. I will guarantee there are an endless stream of SCO jibes on this page now but not a single one of those jibes is something proactive or reactive to this seemingly large problem.
As far as I am aware, this has been ongoing for several months now and is including some very big companies that PHB's have heard of. Now, if a PHB knows that SCO is taking IBM to court and threatening Novell it would seem to suggest that using Linux in any form is likely to have implications at some time in the future, and therefore hold back Linux in the workplace.
Whilst this cloud is hanging over Linux, managers are going to be wary about rolling out Linux solutions and therefore other solutions such as MS ones are going to look increasingly safe choices, particularly with the new legal benefits.
Re:This needs sorting out (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently you haven't been reading the news this week (or, for that matter, TFA). Both Red Hat and IBM have "challenged" SCO in the form of lawsuits, and many companies have publicly stated their objections to SCO's tactics, including SuSE and Novell.
Grocklaw does it again! (Score:5, Informative)
The patents are at:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
After reading the actual countersuit filing, it looks like an even bigger, more comprehensive smackdown than even was speculated yesterday. IBM is fully ready to press SCO's GPL transgressions, talks at length about the failure of SCO's business, makes clear in several locactions the difference between Old SCO (Tarantella) and Caldera/New SCO, they even mention that some of SCO's claims have exceeded the statute of limitations. IBM has clearly been tracking SCO FUD and mentions specific quotes from SCO execs that are damaging. They also reiterate that IBM's UNIX license is perpetual and irrevokable, but they also say that even if that wern't the case SCO still can't revoke IBM's license because SCO has not followed the agreement on the procedure to revoke the license. SMACK, SMACK, SMACK!
Re:Grocklaw does it again! (Score:4, Informative)
Which is exactly why IBM has been silent this whole time. Saying anything during a suit can be damaging or give your opponent an advantage. What I'd really like to see would be the faces of IBMs legal department when they first got wind of this whole SCO joke. I'll bet in the history of law a lawyer has never contorted his face so much whilst laughing.
*knock knock* (Score:5, Funny)
Lycoris users can't be immune (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless Lycoris is referring to the GPL when they are talking about the "prior agreement", it is impossible for them to have another agreement with SCO: the GPL simply does not permit redistribution of code under side-agreements. Either everybody can redistribute or nobody can. That clause is in there precisely to keep companies from doing what SCO is doing.
hohohoho.. that is hilarious (Score:3, Funny)
*gaaah* I almost fell out of my chair..
That just killed me.. I gotta buy one with some monopoly money..
thought, I only have the simpson version and might need that money later for the "save the SCO" foundation for when they declare bankruptcy
Re:hohohoho.. that is hilarious (Score:3, Insightful)
Kidding aside, Microsoft did but an SCO license with 'monopoly' money just a few weeks ago.
And now SCO is attacking the GPL.
Now isen't that interesting.
Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I think, we get down to the heart of the matter. This isn't an attack on Linux per se. It isn't about IP or patents or copyrights. This is about trying to destroy the GPL. I think this statement, more than anything else, shows that MS really is behind this whole thing. What interest would SCO, a puny company who once distrubuted a Linux kernel in the GPL, have in invalidating the GPL? I just can't see why they would make themselves look like complete idiots to do that. On the other hand, who would jump for joy at the prospect of companies turning away from the GPL? Microsoft would be first and foremost on that list.
quote from InfoWorld article... (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly, IBM's business model is broken and they're trying to hide that fact. I mean, selling products and services is so 20th Century. Litigation is the way to make money these days. The countersuit just smacks of "me too"ism.
IBM issues cryptic response (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IBM issues cryptic response (Score:4, Funny)
(Darl is sitting with head in hands, wondering how this all happened)
IBM Legal Team: "hehe, noobs."
The MS link (Score:5, Interesting)
Why? Because if you look at SCOs actions and what they say, they are doing things to attack Linux and the GLP that don't really have anything to do with their legal battles or trying to boost their share price. For instance, in their response to IBM, they say
If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license.
Why this wording? This seems to be a general attack on Linux and the GPL. In what way does this wording favor SCO or its case?
I think it is clear that Microsoft has done a shady deal with SCO, and that SCO will just continue to do anything it can to damage the GPL and Linux even if it is detrimental to SCOs business or share price. In the last "halloween" document MS identified legal attacks as being the only effective way to fight Linux, and now this is happening. Coincidence? I think not.
SCO said:
As the stakes continue to rise in the Linux battles, it becomes increasingly clear that the core issue is bigger than SCO, Red Hat, or even IBM. The core issue is about the value of intellectual property in an Internet age.
Doesn't this ring as being a strange statement to anyone else? Is this really SCO talking, or is it really MS?
What the community should be doing is trying to find evidence of the deal between SCO and MS. I believe that is where the meat of this fiasco really lies, and if it could be found then MS could get in serious legal trouble too.
There must be employees within SCO that are unhappy about what is happening and have access to "interesting" information. The OSS community should set up a mechanism by which SCO employees can anonymously submit information, and we should be encoraging them to do so. A web site should be set up with contact details of SCO employees (Work contact details - email addresses, direct phone numbers) so we can contact them. If nothing else, if a concerted effort was made to do these things it would really f**k up SCO internally - imagine the paranoia if the SCO management know that there is a concerted effort to get SCO employees to snich.
I bl**dy hate SCO now, and I don't think people are being creative enough in thinking of ways that their life can be made difficult.
This just in.. (Score:5, Funny)
IBM soon realized what was going on, chased Mr. McDumbass to the monkey bars and beat the shit out of him.
More or less to tune of Clementine (Score:5, Funny)
Though they tweaked their business model, yet the bastard wouldn't go
Oh my Darl-ing, oh my Darl-ing, oh my Darl-ing Darl McBride
He'll be lost and gone for ever when the SEC comes for the ride.
So they fed the fire with lawsuits, fear uncertainty and doubt
Tried to set the stock a-pumping, hoped to dump and then move out
Oh my Darl-ing, oh my Darl-ing, oh my Darl-ing Darl McBride
He'll be floating down the river when the SEC gets into stride
Who would buy this stock for money? Not a broker with a brain
But God oft gives stacks of greenbacks to the certified insane
Oh my Darl-ing, oh my Darl-ing, oh my Darl-ing Darl McBride,
When the shit impacts the fanblades, you can run but you can't hide.
SCO is not an Enron, not a congressman will care
When the monster from East Fishfill has you dangling in the air
Oh my Darl-ing, oh my Darl-ing, oh my Darl-ing SCO,
For a while the joke was funny, but it's really time to go.
SCO insider trading... (Score:5, Informative)
Yahoo's SCO Page [yahoo.com] has the money SCO execs have made by pumping the share price and setting automatic sell limits. When you consider how low the stock was its amazing that they put limits of $12 or more for a sell.
Mass Small Claims Court (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
My suggestion would be to buy a boxed RH distribution and use that to force SCO to reveal code or get a "clean bill of health" from a US court, even a small court carries weight since it will be the first "ruling" on this issue.
Let's say 500 different claims get's filed SCO is pretty much unable to respond.
Why do you guys keep falling for this?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
This drives up their stock price, increases the FUD in the business community, and makes their claims seem more legitimage than they are.
Whenever someone pushes back, they either make even wilder claims, or reverse the allegation back on the claimant.. SCOX: "Your claims that our case is unsubstatiated FUD is a blatantly unsubstantiated claim."
The only effective measure for the Linux community is to IGNORE THESE MORONS.
Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Gee officer, you've been standing there with your gun all this time, but you didn't point it at me until I started snatching old ladies' purses...
They obviously have not read the GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Stowell admitted that his company was still providing Linux source code and security patches on its Web site in order to fulfill support contracts with customers, but he disputed Kuhn's claim. "If our IP [intellectual property] is being found in Linux and that's being done without our say, then I don't think that the GPL can force us not to collect license fees from someone who may be using our intellectual property," he said.
Um, yes it can. The GPL explicitly says so.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Jay (=
(Who is to say that Caldera-now-SCO didn't authorize it? Wasn't Ransom Love and his whole crew basically forced out in favor of the current Chief Sleazebag Officer and his ilk? I wonder what Love has to say about all of this; I smell an interview opportunity...)
Please Copy "Let's Put SCO Behind Bars" (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO are the good guys! (Score:5, Funny)
The only explanation I can find for SCO's lunacy is that they are setting themselves up to lose a court case against the GPL. Isn't this what we always wanted--a "test case" to set a precedent for the GPL?
Darl McBride is a hero, and I think we should all stop...
Damn, I nearly got through that with a straight face.
Vindication for Mr. Stallman (Score:5, Insightful)
Up to this point, MHO was that while Mr. Stallman had a lot of good ideas, he was being a bit too fanatical in implementation, which I think was a fairly common opinion.
I must say that events of this week are causing me to reconsider that opinion. SCO's direct assult on the GPL seems to justify both Mr. Stallman's position on free vs. non-free software and also his fanaticism in keeping free software "pure".
sPh
SCO counter counter sues IBM; says "Yuh Mutha" (Score:4, Funny)
IBM responded with yet more pointless stupid eServer commericals. The new initiative has a SCO exec bent over an eServer while an attractive and trendy eServer flack takes him from behind.
Re:Er, what IBM counterclaim? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Flood of idiocy from Utah? (Score:5, Funny)
No. There's a mountain range in the way. It tends to drift across the salt flats into Nevada, and south along the Colorado into Arizona.
Re:I've signed the NDA and seen the code in questi (Score:3, Insightful)
But what I don't see is how this proves SCO's case.
For example, does seeing the similarities prove that the code in question originated at SCO? No. It's more likely that both SCO and Linux copied code from a common source--quite possibly the author, who has the right to license the same code to two different groups user two different licenses.
Also, ass
Re:I've signed the NDA and seen the code in questi (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO v. IBM is *not* an IP battle.
Let me reiterate: SCO v. IBM is *not* an IP battle.
It is a contract law dispute (read the original complaint). So unless the NDA allowed you to read the contracts that governed the IBM purchase from AT&T, and then the Novell purchase from AT&T, and then the SCO purchase from Novell, along with all of the side letter agreements, and you understand how the concept of 'derivative works' applies to software, as well as the legal admissibility of both that definition as well as the definition contained in said contracts, I am unsure of your ability to make such an assertion.
This doesn't mean that I think you are wrong. I am just curious on grounds you base your assertion.
Matt.
Re:I've signed the NDA and seen the code in questi (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt very much that this is the case. Linus does not accept anonymous additions to the kernal! And everything is logged. So you're talking out your ass I'm afraid.
The only reason we can't identify where it came from is because SCO won't tell us what the code is!
Re:I've signed the NDA and seen the code in questi (Score:5, Informative)
what about your earlier response? The one you posted in the "Linux annoyances" article?
I quote:
Linus blatantly stole our IP and is, in essence, trying to distribute a warezed version of our UnixWare.
By the time this book is in print, you're biggest annoyance will be the thick black cock in your asses, as we'll see your entire IP theft ring behind bars.
Re:I've signed the NDA and seen the code in questi (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Deutsche Bank (that non-programmer) (Score:3, Insightful)
""Our review of source code and documents appears supportive of SCO claims, though we are not legal experts and IP matters are not always transparent," Deutsche Bank Securities analyst Brian Skiba said in a research note Thursday after visiting SCO's headquarters in Lindon, Utah, Wednesday.
So he saw the same code snip
SGI Maybe the Guilty Party? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not liking Lycoris anymore... (Score:3, Interesting)
The unfortunate upshot is that if you support Lycoris, you are ultimately supporting SCO. So it is with a heavy heart that I have to say that I will cease advising newbies to check out Lycoris. Instead, I will advise installation of
Re:SCO is to sue Novell over Unix rights (Score:5, Interesting)
The US Patent Office does not keep track of ownership of patents; they merely record inventors and who the patent is assigned to intially (from the application). Or does McBride think everybody registers all their patent-related contracts with the USPTO?
Well, this is good: McBride obviously has absolutely no clue about intellectual property, which just further supports the notion that SCO's claims are completely groundless. The lawyers are going to have a lot of fun with SCO in court.
Re:SCO is to sue Novell over Unix rights (Score:4, Informative)
Actually a change of ownership of the patent is usually registered with the Patent Office. I can't recall if it is a legal requirement.
But changes of ownership are actually pretty rare. Most times that a patent is 'sold' by a company that is still in business you instead keep ownership of the actual patent and sell the resale and enforcement rights.
Novell is almost certainly right in its claim it still 'owns' the patents, although AT&T may well still hold title. The issue is what rights have been transferred. Clearly SCO holds a very substantial interest but it is unlikely to affect IBM since IBM has a prior contract with the original owners of the patents.
IBM are pointing out a very basic principle of patent law. IBM signed a contract with AT&T. That cannot be affected by subsequent contracts signed with Novell and now SCO.
IBM is also pointing out a very basic fact of the computer industry, if you get into patent disputes with a company that sells the same stuff you do the guy with the longest patent portfolio wins. I was very surprised that the countersuit mentions only 4 patents, I had expected more like 40, or perhaps this is only the start.
Re:Beginning to look Valid (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, just as I can show you two pieces of identical code and you'll be able to see that they're identical.
What's more important is:
None of the analyst said it was shown historical proof that code belongs to them
Good thing I use Linux:)
Re:Beginning to look Valid (Score:5, Insightful)
None of these claims have any merit at all.
Two identical pieces of code can have a variety of explanations:
Until they disclose more information, it can be total BS. The reviewers could even be outright lying.
These kind of claims are called "unsubstantiated claims".