SCO: Fortune 500 Company Buys License, IBM Retort 557
An anonymous reader writes "SCO announced today that an undisclosed Fortune 500 company purchased Linux licenses for each of their servers running in their business. SCO: 'This Fortune 500 company recognizes the importance of paying for SCO's intellectual property that is found in Linux and can now run Linux in their environment under a legitimate license from SCO. We anticipate this being the first of many licensees that will properly compensate SCO for our intellectual property.'" kanly writes "The full text of IBM's countersuit against SCO is now online at LWN." M : Our own Roblimo has a pretty good take on it. Keep in mind that SCO could sell a blanket license for $1, for the publicity value.
There is one word to describe these people: (Score:5, Funny)
mythical suckers (Score:5, Insightful)
So an undisclosed company has bought thier license because SCO claims an undisclosed segment of the linux kernel source is their IP. This sounds like crap to me, for reasons I won't disclose.
And did you read the article? Christ, it sounds liek an SCO commercial. I'm not sure how "The SCO Group helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday" when it seems all they do is tax them on free software.
Re:mythical suckers (Score:5, Funny)
Think about all the paralells to the claim of cloning a human that was done... They never did show us the kid, and have disappeared off the face of the earth as far as the global conciousness is concerned...
I suddenly have an idea for a parody site that I just don't have time to do, www.SCOlians.org! I now place this idea under a simple license, use of that domain or a similar domain is allowed by anyone as long as they actually use the site to mock SCO...
Raelians (Score:5, Funny)
Gosh, if only the Internet provided some way of looking things up....
Re:Raelians (Score:3, Funny)
Re:mythical suckers (Score:5, Funny)
Stupid Question... (Score:3, Interesting)
funnier still (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at how those numbers speak.
Re:But didnt they BSD their "IP"??? (Score:3, Informative)
It is the "UNIX System V" that is in question...
Re:There is one word to describe these people: (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO needed someone to admit paying up. So what if they got a company which has just the one or two linux servers to pay in exchange for SCO paying them back double.
Company is happy, SCO looks more credible and lawyers get their share.
Re:There is one word to describe these people: (Score:5, Insightful)
No... they are Microsoft.
Re:There is one word to describe these people: (Score:5, Interesting)
They are a fortune 500 company, have had business with SCO this year regarding this UNIX licensing fiasco, and have opened the Open Source Test Lab. I'm pretty sure they would benefit a lot by licensing all the linux in their Test Lab with SCO, that way they support the case and fuel SCO's FUD machine.
Re:There is one word to describe these people: (Score:5, Interesting)
"Undisclosed Fortune 500 company" my a$$.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There is one word to describe these people: (Score:3, Interesting)
It could be Disney. They have a lot of their own intellectual property to protect. Rumors of IP infringement spreading among non-technical folk would be much more damaging to them, even though the rumors would be false, than news of their foolishness (if it was them) spreading among the rest of us.
SCO Licensee (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, I think it's probably the Canopy Group that bought it. Or maybe one of their companies.
Are any of the Canopy Group companies in the Fortune 500?
Darl: Ralph, will you buy one of our licenses?
Ralph Yarro: Why? I don't run any your crappy operating systems.
Darl: No, Ralph, the Linux IP license.
Ralph: I don't run that either. We're all MS here.
Darl: For the suit, Ralph. Remember: The Suit?
I need to tell other companies that someone has bought a license.
Ralph: Oh. Oh, yeah. Right. OK, put me down for one. How much is it?
Darl: $699
Ralph: Corporate Discount?
Darl: OK. 50%.
Ralph: Done. Now get out of here. One of my wives is on the phone.
It is not Microsoft or Sun according to SCO. (Score:3, Informative)
The deal is not with Microsoft Corp [infoworld.com]. or Sun Microsystems Inc., two prominent companies that have already signed other licensing agreements with SCO to cover their commercial products, Stowell said.
Re:There is one word to describe these people: (Score:5, Informative)
An undisclosed Fortune 500 company paid an undisclosed amount for an undisclosed number of licenses for undisclosed code in the Linux kernel.
Is anyone else skeptical? Or is it just me?
Re:There is one word to describe these people: (Score:5, Informative)
SCO's stock price had been declining, for the most part, all day. But then the announcement of the license purchase seems to have helped them pull it back up a bit.
There was a rather interesting dip to $8.27 a share from around $9.00 a share just before they released the news.
See SCOX on finance [yahoo.com]
Re:There is one word to describe these people: (Score:3, Insightful)
Favorite quote... (Score:5, Funny)
My favorite quote from the article is that after selling just one license, Sontag of SCOsource states that "we are very pleased with the licensing interest to date". Apparently, they didn't expect anyone to fall for it.
However I do understand why the buyer wants to be anonymous. I would rather be caught buying penis enlargement pills from spammers than SCO licenses. Both prove that you are sucker, but at least with the pills you aren't the only one [slashdot.org].
-Fyodor
Concerned about your network security? Try the free Nmap Security Scanner [insecure.org]
Re:are they? (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with the spirit of what you are saying.
Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't hold anyway in the case of non-distribution. Therefore, the purchasers of the license are not under any legal liability from the GPL. Sure it's an abrogation of the spirit of the GPL, but not the lettter.
Of course, why anyone would *pay* to limit their rights to use the software, I have no idea. I know there are people who pay to have things reamed up their asses once in a while, but they seem to enjoy it. But I don't see how a corporation could find this licensing extortion fun at all.
Oh well, maybe I'm just naive. I mean, you should have seen the expression on my face the first time I heard about a Prince Albert.
IP!? Feh! (Score:4, Funny)
1) It can be used to mean too many things: Patents, Trade Secrets, Copyrights, Trademarks, mp3s, the transmissions from planet grrr that make it through you tinfoil hat...all of gets classified as "Intellectual Property"
2) the acronym is already taken. IP means "Internet Protocol". Always has. Always will.
From here on out, I decree it to be open season on any pointy-haired, legalese-spouting phucknugget who says "IP" and means "Intellectual Property".
You have the Lord's official permission to beat the living snot out anyone who says "IP" and doesn't predece it with "TCP".
I kinda doubt this story. (Score:2)
Down with SCO.
--
+1 karma for low User ID and not being fond of SCO
To the unnamed company (Score:5, Funny)
Re:To the unnamed company (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.ht
Fairly obscure, so I'm not too upset that I didn't know.
A cave in... (Score:5, Insightful)
sigh...
Re:A cave in... (Score:5, Insightful)
-
Re:A cave in... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hardly. Any random judge picked at random might be technically clueless, but I'm sure they all understand the logic behind hedging one's bets against litigation -- aside from seeing it every damn day of their working lives, they are all lawyers, after all.
Re:A cave in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at it this way, lets say I claim to own the rights to Windows and sell 1,000,000 licenses, it does n't validate any claim. 1,000,000 may have believed what I said but it does n't make my claims any more right.
In fact if anything this could be used by IBM as evidence of SCO strong-arm tactics.
Re:A cave in... (Score:5, Interesting)
Should the IP claims [inevitably] turn out to be invalid, this company now has certifiable legal grounds to sue SCO for all their licensing money back. And more lawsuits over this sort of thing will just hurt SCO's stock values more in the long run.
Just think of it as "insurance."
SCO Group to Shoot Babies! (Score:5, Funny)
Stock tanking (Score:2, Interesting)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=c&k=c1&a=v&
You can see where it was really headed down the tubes, and then this announcement came along at 'just the right moment', and propped things up a bit.
Undisclosed? (Score:5, Funny)
We can't name the company because they don't exi-- er, because of legal reasons.
Let's count the facts... (Score:5, Insightful)
oversight on press release (Score:5, Funny)
We're sorry. We meant to say a Fortune *500,000,000* company. It was actually a lemonade stand, and they were using old RedHat disks as coasters. We traded them a license for 2 cups of lemonade.
--Darl
Fortune 499, err... would you believe Fortune 498? (Score:3, Funny)
--Darl
undisclosed company? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:undisclosed company? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone else notice this? Since the
the obvious answers (Score:5, Funny)
How could Microsoft NOT be forced into buying these for its "new" Linux Lab (mentioned here several times in the past week.)?
"We've had more than 300 companies in the first four business days of this program contact SCO to inquire about SCO's Intellectual Property License for Linux," said Chris Sontag
Yeah, and 299 of them were trolls from pissed off slashdotters.
Re:It's not microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll take a guess (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure they'd love to further finance Caldera's extortion/FUD campaign.
Re:I'll take a guess (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a little food for thought.
MS has to walk a line. (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft (Score:2)
I am guessing (Score:4, Insightful)
At least, it satisfies my sense of irony and suspicion. It would be convenient for Microsoft to lend credibility to SCO's claim on Microsoft's biggest thrat, Linux. Microsoft says, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Re:I am guessing (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt it...
A) It's already common knowledge that MS has purchased some sort of unix license from SCO.
B) If it was MS they probably would have said "Fortune 100" or smaller in order to have an even larger PR impact.
Re:I am guessing (Score:3, Interesting)
Would it mean that they don't think SCO has a case or does it mean that they really don't give a flip about piracy?
But they prolly did register it. That sucks.
catch me if you can (Score:3, Insightful)
If you run Microsoft software, they may audit your organization to see if you are in full compliance. If you run Solaris, and only Solaris, Microsoft has no business auditing your systems. They will get a nice boot from the security guard and get charged with trespassing if they even try to get in the front door.
Without an audit - an audit o
Word count (Score:5, Interesting)
Sales pitch: 169 words
Im taking everything below "For more information on the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux, contact SCO..." as sales pitch
So what happens when we win? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does that fortune 500 company look like a complete fool? Do they get their money back?
Do they sue for extortion?
The company that did it is a fool. It's probably Microsoft... registering their 2 copies.
ChiefArcher
Sockpuppet support. (Score:2)
IMO, "an anonymous Fortune 500 company" is exactly as convincing an argument as "lots of unidentified source code".
I.e., a completely useless as a basis for argument, even if it happens to be true.
If SCO paid YOU...? (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO buys publicity, your company gets money.
Even though you know SCO is wrong... you couldn't feel bad about taking their money! They're going down in flames anyways, why not save some of their cash before it burns up?
(i guess wildly on the nature of the business deal)
Teh Slashdot has You (Score:2)
Must have been (Score:3, Funny)
Anti SCO T-Shirt [anti-tshirts.com] $1 donated to OSI Fund on each shirt.
And in other news (Score:5, Funny)
News at 11
one question (Score:4, Funny)
It's nothing for Linux users, but for IT Managers. (Score:2, Interesting)
However, in light of all this, the managers want us to switch to BSD/OS X.
I have been an avid Linux user since '99, and while all this means nothing to me, big companies get worried at all this talk and all these lawsuits. Understandably so. They don't care about the politics. From their view, Linux has some illegal code which SCO is claiming is theirs. The IT Managers don't w
Could it be... (Score:2, Interesting)
GPL goes to court (Score:5, Interesting)
The greatest strength of the GPL is that it's a social contract, one that makes the most powerful, who can buy the legal system, think twice before going to law. And that's pretty powerful.
But with IBM's counter suit against SCO explicitly defending its rights in terms of the GPL, it looks like The One Thing we Didn't Want To Happen will happen. We'll have a random judge poking holes in the GPL, on some perfectly defensible grounds that bear little relevance to the social obligations these imply. As if he's supposed to know the difference.
Sorry, but if that's the case it needs this trial (Score:5, Interesting)
If that's the case, maybe the social contract needs work. You certainly see the same in the legal system, people find new loopholes, legislators try to close them. Do you really expect every company under the sun to have a social integrity and uphold those social obligations on their own accord? They won't. And when they break them, the GPL had better have the necessary legal force to rein them in, because that is just about the only real countermeasure available. Any holes they manage to poke will only serve to be the foundation for a GPL 3.0
Kjella
Re:Sorry, but if that's the case it needs this tri (Score:3, Insightful)
But as Andrew wrote, this might just be one of the differences between Europe and USA. At least where I come from there's still room for civil disobedience, and I prefer that to the vast amount of American lawsuits that doesn't make sense (like spilling hot coffee on yourself). Now, I'm not saying the GPL
SCOX going down, let's hope the trend continues (Score:3, Informative)
Please Copy "Let's Put SCO Behind Bars (Score:5, Interesting)
-
http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html [goingware.com]
Here's the introduction: Also from the article: This page [goingware.com] provides the article in the UBB code that some message boards use, with plain text coming soon. I'm also starting to post examples of letters that others have sent to their Attorney's General.Thanks for your help.
Word for the wise... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, and by the way, one of the executives (ROBERT BENCH) unloaded 7,000 shares today just after the market opened. How strange.
Keep an eye out on who of loads their shares tomorrow!
Re:Word for the wise... (Score:5, Funny)
Ken Lay remarked, "amateur."
Re:Word for the wise... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, many people have commented on the timing of SCO's press releases, and how they always seem to happen at just the right moments to send the stock ticking back upward. It's pretty clear thi
Re:Word for the wise... (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it only undisclosed companies ... (Score:3, Funny)
The best bits from IBM... (Score:5, Informative)
No idea what most of this means, but it sounds very impressive :-)
First Defense
The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Second Defense
SCO's claims are barred because IBM has not engaged in any unlawful or unfair business practices, and IBM's conduct was privileged,performed in the exercise of an absolute right, proper and/or justified.
Third Defense
SCO lacks standing to pursue its claims against IBM.
Fourth Defense
SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitations.
Fifth Defense
SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the economic-loss doctrine or the dependent-duty doctrine.
Sixth Defense
SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of laches and delay.
Seventh Defense
SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and unclean hands.
Eighth Defense
SCO's claims are, in whole or in part, pre-empted by federal law.
Ninth Defense
SCO's claims are improperly venued in this district.
Tenth Defense
SCO has failed, in whole or in part, to mitigate its alleged damages.
Take that, SCO! ;-)
Re:The best bits from IBM... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) None of what they (SCO) said we (IBM) did is against the law.
2) No really, none of it was against the law, and here are the contracts we had that prove we didn't do anything wrong.
3) Piss off, you don't have any real reason to file this suit. (No, really, that's what a lack of standing defense means.)
4) Even if we (IBM) did do something wrong (which we didn't), then SCO didn't file in time to actually do anything about it.
5) Even if we (IBM) did do something wrong (which we didn't), then SCO didn't lose any money from it (mostly because their business sucked before any of this started).
6) When they 'found' what they say we (IBM) did (and, no we _really_ didn't do it) they waited too long after they found out about it to tell us there was an issue. [Not the same as #4.]
7) We (IBM) bought the stuff from the Original SCO (now Tarrentula), and the new SCO (dirtbags) can't sue us for stuff we legally liscenced from them.
8) Talk to the Feds. We (IBM) still didn't do anything wrong, and even if we did, Federal law says it wasn't wrong, it was legit.
9) They (SCO) are playing the ball in the wrong court. Come play in our backyard, and this arguement goes away.
10) Even when they (SCO) found what they say we (IBM) did wrong, they didn't try to stop it first, they just went straight to the lawyers.
Re:The best bits from IBM... (Score:5, Informative)
"10) Even when they (SCO) found what they say we (IBM) did wrong, they didn't try to stop it first, they just went straight to the lawyers."
Should be more like:
10) Even if we did something wrong (which we didn't) SCO isn't allowing anyone to remove its supposed code, so any damages they suffer they have brought upon themselves.
Actually, I am thinking of buying one. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am thinking of 3 little words
corporate veil piercing.
I wonder if I start calling on their 800 number How high I can go with this.
Re:Actually, I am thinking of buying one. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure they'll be happy to provide it. Because when SCO is bankrupt, and the SCO execs are convicted of fraud, your little paper won't matter at all. They'd be doing that as official reps of SCO, so you'd have nothing to claim. And if they don't get convicted, well free money fo
Re:Actually, I am thinking of buying one. (Score:3, Insightful)
Copy of newsforge text (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, they found someone gullible enough to bite. At least that's what they're claiming in a press release that's being spread all over the place, including on money.cnn.com. Naturally, SCO can't tell you who it is because of "confidentiality provisions," but the truth will certainly come out sooner or later.
Of course, if this anonymous Fortune 500 company later finds that SCO had no legitimate right to sell Linux licenses in the first place, they are going to be a bit upset, and since one characteristic shared by all Fortune 500 companies is the availability of nearly infinite numbers of inhouse lawyers and outside law firm attorneys, SCO is going to be in a world of hurt if it turns out, as IBM claims, that SCO released all the disputed Linux code under GPL.
Not that we care, since we don't own any SCO stock, and we don't use any SCO (proprietary) software products that are likely to become unsupported orphans if SCO gets trampled by the combined legal might of the growing number of companies their license blackmail scheme has offended.
Linux is worth big money!
We should look at this latest episode in the SCO soap opera as heartening news. Somewhere out there, one of the world's largest corporations has decided Linux is worth paying plenty of money to use, even if that money is going to the least-deserving party possible. This certainly gives the lie to any statement about how Linux has only gained corporate acceptance because it's free.
SCO's antics may cause a few potential (corporate) Linux converts to hold off deployment for a bit, but in the long run this may be the most positive PR boost Linux has ever gotten.
Call Now! (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder what a million phone calls and requests for written information would do for SCO? :) Perhaps all Linux users should at least request written (paper) documentation on all information from SCO.
License program "suspended until further notice" (Score:5, Interesting)
I explained that I had several linux systems, and that I understood there were some intellectual property issues, so I wanted to be sure to be covered.
The helpful and polite lady on the phone told me that the license program had been "suspended until further notice". She said she was pretty sure it had to do with the lawsuit.
May you should call too (800 726 8649) just to be sure.
Interestiiing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Soon we'll have McBride swearing there never were any kind of linux license(s) sold... That PR was just... an accident. Yes. Some secretary released it by mistake. Oh, yes.
Oh well, it's interesting to follow, I'll give you that. I've learned a lot about the stockmarket the last few days.
Patently illegal, isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, can't every single developer of Linux who has contributed code now sue SCO for a portion of that "extortion money" / and/or sue them for illegally charging for something that is supposed to be free?
In other words, now that there has been an exchange of money, isn't the "john" as guilty now as the "prostitute"?
Sale of stolen goods and all that nonsense? I mean, lets say for a minute that it is Microsoft that just paid to license linux.
By the legal system as I understand it, the recipient of the stolen goods is also liable. If you buy an illegal DVD on the street in Chinatown, can't you also be busted by the cops just as much as the seller?
So, this could be a double edged sword, even for those that want to appease their PHB's by forking over the money for the license, no?
The Breakast SCO (Score:3, Funny)
When have you ever sold a license?
SCO
I've sold, lotsa times!
SLASHDOT
Name one!
SCO
The company lives in Canada, met it at
Niagara Falls. You wouldn't know
it.
be fair to sco! (Score:5, Funny)
this page [sco.com] gives a phone number to call to discuss the linux license. people should ring up 1-800 726-8649 and hear sco out. and *please* remember to write down the details on all linux systems you have. it would be terribly annoying if you forgot a detail like the version of linux or the details for another machine and had to call back.
Prayer? (Score:5, Funny)
So I was skimming along when all of a sudden, they got all preachy on me:
Huh?? Pray for relief?? Well, okay. Here it goes:
IBM is my shepherd; I shall not want.
IBM maketh me to lie down in green tinted monitors: IBM leadeth me beside the still line printers.
IBM restoreth my deleted files: IBM leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for the heck of it.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of SCO, I will fear no eavil: for IBM art with me; their rod and their staff and their lawyers, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a legal brief before me in the presence of mine enemies: though anointest my code with gdb; my buffer does not runneth over.
Surely goodess and mercy shall follow me all the days I code: and I will dwell in the house of Stallman forever.
Isn't this distribution under the GPL? (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words... SCO can claim (*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*) that they had no idea their IP was in linux when they distributed it previously, but now that they have SPECIFICALLY given someone rights to their particular IP, in a product bundled with GPL'd code, aren't they now EXPLICITLY releasing their IP as GPL?
Re:Isn't this distribution under the GPL? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's precisely what the GPL prohibits. I cannot take proprietary code, link it with GPL code, and sell the resulting binary unless I put the entire thing under the GPL.
By their own admission, SCO is apparently now distributing a "properly licensed" version of linux containing their IP alongside the GPL'd "portions" of linux (according to them).
If you distribute anything that's linked with GPL stuff, you MUST provide source and allow modification/redistribution... that's the single-sentence summary of the entire GPL.
Undisclosed Company Buys Undisclosed IP Licence Fo (Score:4, Funny)
An undisclosed company buys a lincence to undisclosed IP for an undisclosed sum of money...
Hey guys, I have an undisclosed bridge in an undisclosed city I'd be happy to sell you! You know, you want to make sure you secure your water-crossing rights!
Blockwars [blockwars.com]: a realtime multiplayer game. Go play!
Mirror the UNIX Source Code (Score:5, Interesting)
I know who bought it.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Straight from yahoo.com
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/47/4393.html
Oemga Protein Corp..
Wilson, M Senior Vice President of SCO Group is also
Vice President of Omega Protein Corp..
Re:I know who bought it.. (Score:4, Informative)
math (Score:4, Funny)
So... SCO has been making noise about this for weeks and as of today one single Fortune 500 company has bought a license? And SCO thinks this is positive news that a whopping 0.2% of the major industrial powers of the world drank their Kool Aid? Funny, when I saw this it immediately leaped to mind that despite the threats of legal action, making major parts of IT departments effectively illegal, etc., 499 of 500 (i.e. 99.8%) bigtime companies decided that SCO was full of crap. Yeah, that's something I would tout to the media...
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Heh... (Score:3, Funny)
But it's all maybe part of a bigger scheme. (Conspiracy theorists wanted here!)
Amazingly perfect timing also (Score:3, Funny)
Still, miraculous timing.
How to shoot yourself in 500 other feet... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not?
SCO are clearly in breach of the GPL since they have imposed ...further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights... contrary to paragraph 6; and clearly they may not distribute Linux (or anything linked to any part of Linux) at all. But in accepting SCO's claim to have the right to charge these fees, in paying these fees, the unnamed company is effectively in breach of paragraph 6, and may not redistribute to itself...
In other words, the poor schmucks have got themselves in some very tortuous legal soup, and they end up losing out no matter who wins.
SCO Stock Price (Score:3, Informative)
Quite unfortunate that my broker didn't have any shares available for me to short.
Open violation of the GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Fortune 500 idiots (Score:3, Informative)
Insider trade this morning? (Score:3, Informative)
A note from Darl McBride (Score:3, Funny)
And sure, they didn't know what they were signing when we handed them the license. I suspect they think we're going to deliver 6,990 forged passports or somesuch...I don't recall.
But there is a funny side. Y'see, they're an MS shop
Re:which Fortune 500? I want to short it (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, maybe they're waiting for the courts to find that SCO damn well knew they were talking out of their asses. Then, said Fortune 500 company sues the CRAP out of them for lying about ownership, extortion, blah blah blah.