Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Caldera Government Software The Courts Linux News

SCO Says It Has No Plan To Sue Linux Companies 478

cadfael writes "SCO is reported in the Age as saying they 'Have no plans to sue Linux companies...' This seems to contradict the earlier statements of Chris Sontag. This story also points out how Canopy owns stakes in several other Linux companies, including Linux Networx wheich supplied the supercomputer for Lawrence Livermore Nat Lab. One begins to wonder if the reality of their situation has become clear to them?" Maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of the end of this mess.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Says It Has No Plan To Sue Linux Companies

Comments Filter:
  • Timeline of events? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JessLeah ( 625838 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:41AM (#6821311)
    I'd like to see a timeline of events in this whole SCO debacle. Should make for some interesting reading. Skimming back through a billion SlashDot stories would be a pain.
    • by User8201 ( 573530 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:46AM (#6821339)
      Basic timeline:

      1. Caldera goes bankrupt

      Now they're trying to change it to this:

      1. Caldera goes bankrupt.
      a. Sells out, changes name to SCO
      b. Threatens IBM
      c. Threatens Linux Users
      d. ...

      But in the end, they're done for.
      • by hdparm ( 575302 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @01:13AM (#6821456) Homepage
        Strangely enough, in this case there is an:

        e. Profit

        which Darl and other SCO executives made by inflating share value through FUD. I wonder if they'll be left alone to enjoy $$$ after this saga is over.

        • ... Clearly, they won't be allowed to remain in the US. Therefore, they're going to have to fly to some South Seas island with good internet connectivity. Then, when they get there, they're of course going to find that there are only two real tech jobs available to invest in... ... spam, and internet worms to DoS the blacklists.

          Well, you gotta invest money, don't you? You can't just have it sitting there... you have a right to make money, don't you? Isn't that what America is all about?

          I'd say
        • by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @03:24AM (#6821838) Homepage
          f. SEC Investigation g. federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison

        • So...does this mean we now have the solution for the infamous 2. ???? entry?
        • by Bohnanza ( 523456 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @07:57AM (#6822676)
          On TV the other night I watched in disbelief as a Stock Analyst recommend his viewers buy SCO stock. "There's a little problem with the ownership of the operating system," he said, "but we feel it will all be worked out soon enough".
    • by fanatic ( 86657 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:48AM (#6821350)
      • "There are some people -- press, open source companies, and opinion leaders, like Eric Raymond, in the industry who don't know what's going on."

        I'm sorry... did he just imply that ESR "Doesn't Get It"??
    • by Kevin Murakoshi ( 577282 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:51AM (#6821360)
      You can try the timelines at [] and one on linuxonline [] They don't contain all the news from slashdot, but they have a good deal of it between them.
    • SCO must die. (Score:2, Interesting)

      So, they're not going to sue any Linux companies, but they're still going to try and charge all companies that use Linux these absurd liscensing fees? Oh yea, that makes sense.

      If there is any justice in the world, they will be held accountable for all the crap they've said since the beginning.
    • by screenrc ( 670781 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @01:24AM (#6821506)
      For the legal timeline, go straight to
      the United States District Court, For the
      District of Utah. The dossier []
      is online.
    • by MuParadigm ( 687680 ) <> on Friday August 29, 2003 @02:17AM (#6821646) Homepage Journal
      "...asked whether SCO would sue the laboratory, the company spokesperson said: 'No. SCO has never made concrete plans to sue anyone.'"

      From the minutes of a SCO conference with counsel, 8/29/03, participants Darl McBride, Chris Sontag, Blake Stowell, David Boies, and Mark Heise:

      Darl: We sued IBM!?!?! How'd that happen?

      Chris: (looks down at conference table) Ummm...
      (glances over to...)

      Mark: Well... David said -

      Blake: Shut up, Scheisse.

      Mark: It's *Heise*, not scheisse.

      Blake: (snorts) Yeah, right.

      David: Cut it out, guys.

      Look. OK, my bad. Chris and I were having drinks at the bar, and talking
      about the Microsoft settlement. Anyway, Chris starts going on about how
      we should sue Microsoft again. You know, maybe there's some System V code
      in Windows and they misappropriated it. That led into a talk about how we
      might use it to show how SCO's business has been hurt by Microsoft, and,
      well, from there we started talking about how Linux was hurting the
      business. And, you know, we started talking about how all the other
      companies, like IBM, were helping Linux. And from there, well, somehow
      we ended up filing a suit against IBM.

      It's not like we planned on it, you know.

      It just sort of... (sighs) happened.

    • Timeline of events (Score:5, Informative)

      by xixax ( 44677 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @02:22AM (#6821663)
      You mean a time line like this []?


    • by Feztaa ( 633745 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @02:56AM (#6821753) Homepage
      We Love the SCO Information Minister! []

      They have a list of Deathless Quotes, dated, with references.

      Have fun! :)
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 29, 2003 @03:09AM (#6821795)
      They only said they had

      "No. SCO has never planned to sue Linux companies."

      in other words they expected everyone would just pay them given the threat of legal action.

      "No. SCO has never made concrete plans to sue anyone."

      "concrete plans"
      In other words they don't currently have the financial resources to take on more then one court case.

      They did not say anywhere "will not" or "has no intention of".
  • AKA (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:41AM (#6821313)
    We're poor and don't have the money to sue very many people, it's just a threat. Please buy us.
    • by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <<splisken06> <at> <>> on Friday August 29, 2003 @01:35AM (#6821542)
      Threaten to sue Linux companies. Yes!

      Threatening to sue other companies pumps up the stock price, allows Canopy to use the inflated stock price for asset shuffling (skimming big profits), allows senior management to sell shares at a big profit, builds up our press clippings book which is very impressive to PHBs.

      Actually suing involves bothersome discovery procedures where you have to actually show some sort of cause for you action. Where's the fun in that?

    • Re:AKA (Score:5, Informative)

      by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @04:01AM (#6821954) Homepage

      They were answering in Australia and there is an anticompetitive complaint there filed against them.

      They have provided the same answer in Germany where they have an injunction filed against them.

      They have not provided such answers and have stated exactly the opposite in every other country where they are not under anticompetive practices investigation (or injunction).

      I think that it is absolutely bleeding obvious what takes them to make the statement they have done in Australia.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:43AM (#6821316)
    SCO lies about everything; why wouldn't they lie about this?
  • Heh (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:43AM (#6821317)
    The weight of IBM's legal penis must be weighing heavily upon SCO's tongue

    Fucking tea bagging fag fucks

  • by StickMang ( 568987 ) * on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:44AM (#6821319)
    The Age is the only place i could find this story, and it contradicts everything that SCO has said so far. The only somewhat related story I could find is this one. [] Oh well, maybe I'm just paranoid, but I trust SCO about as much as a nigerian spammer on peyote, so I think they're up to something.

  • Loser pays (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tuxinatorium ( 463682 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:44AM (#6821320) Homepage
    Everybody knows SCO will lose all those cases if they actually go to court, but SCO is just trying to scare some companies into avoiding legal fees by paying up. The only way to avoid that kind of legal blackmail is to make the initiator of the lawsuit pay all the defendant's legal expenses if the lawsuit is found to be frivolous.
  • by nemo ( 2417 ) <slashdot&nemo,house,cx> on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:44AM (#6821321) Homepage
    ...they sent letters to USERS, not COMPANIES.

    They sue the users who can't afford legal costs and will settle just for the sake of avoiding legal hell, and SCO gets a nice precedent running and their stock improves yet further.

    Maybe I'm too cynical?
    • by Frymaster ( 171343 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:51AM (#6821364) Homepage Journal
      They sue the users who can't afford legal costs and will settle just for the sake of avoiding legal hell,

      tell me about it... i'm being sued for downloading linux over kazaa.


    • by kjj ( 32549 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @02:21AM (#6821658)
      Here is a little problem with that. Red Hat, SuSe and the major distro actually *gasp* use their own products. In fact there have been informal surveys of web sites to see who actually "eats their own dog food" and most sites do. In fact here [] and look at the answer to the 6th question. 95% of of 600 is 570 so is SCO going to file 570 individual lawsuits. Is Red Hat going to get a bill for $398,430 dollars? Now you could say that that SCO can pick and choose who it is going to sue but I don't know that this is entirely true. If two groups or individuals A and B are both in clear violation and you choose only to sue A and not B then you do damage to your can and I believe it could even be thrown out if you can't show why A and not B. If A is the worst violator and B is small time then a judge might go along, but if a judge sees a company going after the small infringer and avoiding a suit of a clearly much larger violator then he will not be amused.
  • SCO? Plans? (Score:2, Funny)

    by error502 ( 694533 )
    I think it's obvious from previous stories that SCO has no idea what they're doing.

    In future news, SCO sues Red Hat, Mandrake, others.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:45AM (#6821330)
    well crap. i was just about to send them my money. guess i'll hang onto it now to see how this all turns out.
  • Australia only? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fava ( 513118 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:45AM (#6821332)
    Or they could be refering to Australia only. since an Austrailian user group filed a "put up or shut up suit".
  • by banzai75 ( 310300 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:46AM (#6821335)
    Not how you think though... There whole plan was to sabotage open source all along. Not through suing companies, but by keeping all the developers commenting on SCO stories all day.

    Think about it. How many articles have there been and how many comments per article? Boy, when the juicy ones came out the number of responses jumped up into the hundreds even nearing a thousand sometimes. Now, imagine if this never happened and all those people got together to work towards one goal. I think with the hours that have been wasted on this story so far, we could've designed and build a mars mission already ;)

  • by tm2b ( 42473 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:46AM (#6821338) Journal
    I'd like to see a class action suit from shareholders of Linux companies against the SCO executives, for fraudulent stock manipulation.

    They went after Martha Stewart for a hell of a lot less than this.
    • As evil as McBride may be, he's got nothing on Martha Stewart. Think of it this way... Which of the following is your wife more likely to say to you?

      a)Honey, I think we need to spend $5,000 on a Feng Shui consultant to get the chi flowing in the living room...
      b)Honey, it's not stupid. I swear, Martha used sponges just like these to paint her wall and it looked great! It's not like you had anything better to do today.
      c)Honey, I think you should pay that Linux IP licensing fee to SCO for that web-server
  • Not suing companies (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:47AM (#6821341)
    Not enought Linux companies are making money so instead they are going to take a leaf from the RIAA handbook on how to win friends and influence people by hitting all Linux using students with massive lawsuits thus forcing the students to settle and hand over their first 10 years salary after graduation as a penalty
  • by Vooch ( 600495 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:48AM (#6821345)
    Sounds like the insiders have already sold their shares and they're leaving everyone else holding the bag. Afterall, if they're not gonna go after the Linux folks, I guess their pumping scheme is coming to an end. I knew that lawsuit was a bunch of bunk. You know what comes after pumping? Dumping! Management is now chillin' with a smooth 700% return this year. I guess it's time for the stock to tank now. Just my opinion.
  • by Chuck Chunder ( 21021 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:48AM (#6821346) Homepage Journal
    They don't seem to actually have a single consistant position on anything.

    Is SCO actually being run by a Perl script that periodically checks their stock price to see if it needs to emit some random statement?
  • So? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chester K ( 145560 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:49AM (#6821352) Homepage
    They also said they wouldn't sue Linux end users, then changed their tune later.

    See, if you say one thing then say the other instead of just saying what you mean first, that means you get to release two press releases and boost your stock twice!
    • Watch out for SCO's next move: in true postmodern fashion, they'll be emitting press releases examining the inconsistencies in their own press releases. Then they'll have press releases advertizing these new press releases, and press releases stating that all their press releases are equally valuable to individuals.
      • I forgot to add this:

        Darl McBallmeride: Press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases. Yay Gloria Estafan!

  • Wait.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slackingme ( 690217 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:49AM (#6821353) Homepage Journal
    Exactly who really tripped out about this shit anyway? It's always been a "You infringe! We have proof! Nobody can see our proof!" (non)shitstorm. I think if SCO had actually had a case we'd be taking a much more serious approach to the situation instead of the rampant SCO jokes. I mean, really, a few PHBs (that didn't want Linux anyway) pretended like this helped their case and the rest of the world kept putting those Slackware/Debian/Redhat/SuSE disks in the drive.
  • by JoeLinux ( 20366 ) <joelinux&gmail,com> on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:49AM (#6821355) Homepage
    Or does anyone else think that Ross Perot would make a GREAT leader of this company? "We're suing." "we're not" "no we are." "Well, just IBM." "everyone but IBM."
  • They worked? (Score:2, Interesting)

    Does that mean all the DoS attacks worked? After netcraft reported all those down times, it would be more than a coincidence if, for some reason, all the controversy just ended.
  • by foniksonik ( 573572 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:52AM (#6821369) Homepage Journal
    Looks like this is just more fodder to support the idea that SCO is playing a bait and switch on investors ...
  • ...this all just turns out to be some sort of snipe hunt masterminded by a closet Linux advocate.

    Think about it - bunch of hugely greedy execs that are tech-challenged.

    Techie sees opportunity and drops a hint that they're getting screwed by the Linux folks and could probably make a ton of money off of it.

    Greedy tech-challenged execs manage to convince themselves that techie is right; charge forward with their Swiss-cheese case and make complete fools of themselves -- while techie laughs his friggin' a$$
  • by anglebrackets ( 701199 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:53AM (#6821371)
    I think the lawsuit by Red Hat is what brought this news out. SCO was supposed to respond today (Thursday) but was granted a time extension. In other words - it was put up or shut up time. I think SCO plans on going ahead with it's pump and dump scheme, but is probably trying to get RH to drop the suit. This way they avoid having to show any real evidence. Notice that they did _not_ say their case was wrong. Only that they had no 'concrete plans to sue Linux companies'. I expect more shenanigans. SCO - Stupidity Causes Ossification.
  • I have noticing that their stock price has risen lately - eventhough their disclosed "violations" have proven to be a farce. Any theory's why that is? I don't buy the short squeeze theory.

    Could it be that certain players would more than eager to fund such a company since directly attacking Linux would have severe political ramifications? I can think of several companies that would love to see Linux just go away or at least get bogged down in legal proceedings.

    Another question are identities of purchase
  • by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:54AM (#6821378) Homepage Journal
    Linux software companies could also become SCO targets. "Do we have potential issues with Red Hat, SuSE and other commercial Linux distributors--yes, we might," Sontag said, adding that chances for negotiating with such companies appear to be slim.

    Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager of the company's SCOsource business, added: "There is no warranty for infringement of intellectual property [in the GPL], so all of the liability ends up with end users."

    Mark Heise, of law firm Boies Schiller and Flexner, representing SCO against IBM, believes SCO is entitled to pursue users based on its claims. "End users are improperly using this copyrighted material, and under copyright law SCO is entitled to damages and injunctive relief," he said.

    Chris Sontag, senior vice-president and general manager of SCOsource, which is trying to derive more income from the company's intellectual property, said today: "SCO is taking this important step because there are intellectual property issues with Linux.

    "When SCO's own UNIX software code is being illegally copied into Linux, we believe we have an obligation to educate commercial users of the potential liability that could rest with them for using such software to run their business. We feel so strongly about this issue that we are suspending sales and distribution of SCO Linux until these issues are resolved."

    asked whether SCO would sue the laboratory, the company spokesperson said: "No. SCO has never made concrete plans to sue anyone."

  • by ekuns ( 695444 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:54AM (#6821382) Journal
    These guys have to be smoking SOMETHING to explain the cognitive dissonance in their statements. I mean, "We're not talking about the kernel." "We're talking about the kernel." "We're not going to go after end users." "We're going to go after end users." "Well, we're only going to go after companies but not hobbiests." "We changed our minds again, we never intended to go after anybody."

    If only I had the spare ten hours I could go over the last years' press releases and make some "found poetry." Blank verse in this case, of course.
  • If SCO has no plans to sue redhat then redhat's claims for damages are weaker.

    • Sounds right to me. They're probably doing this so that the RedHat suit will get dismissed. The same thing happened with the college prof (Princeton?) who sued the RIAA (MPAA?) over thinly veiled DMCA threats, but the judge dismissed the case.
  • by twelveinchbrain ( 312326 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:59AM (#6821397)
    ... as you would one from a politician or lawyer. "No current plans" simply means that they are not writing up any complaints at this time. In no way should you be lulled into a sense of security. This wording is designed to allow them to later sue anybody they want, without having to admit they were lying.
  • by MrLint ( 519792 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @01:00AM (#6821407) Journal
    I think the small print here is perhaps the most frightening of all. Why is Canopy getting involved with other linux vendors? What are they doing with their 'own' linux? Is this a plot to co-opt the linux businesses from the inside? Does Canopy have the resources to gain so much control of the major linux vendors to shut them down and make SCO the only game left in town?

    Something smells very rotten here.
  • Proof. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by stames ( 692349 )
    To me this offers the most solid proof yet that this entire debacle was just a ploy to raise stock prices. Twenty bucks says Darl McBride buys a house in the Caymans in the next 6 months.
    • I'll match your 20 and say that he already owns tax haven real estate - Bermuda, Caymans, whatever.

      Incidentally the seven mile beach on Grand Cayman is just beautiful. I had the joy of spending 3 days there in 1999 - working mostly, but using the boss's condo about 15 feet from the beach.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 29, 2003 @01:06AM (#6821429)
    Version 1.12 - Note: Features/bugs listed may not apply to some SCO products/versions

    NOTE: This report hereby placed in public domain, use it as you wish, at your own risk!

    Additional suggestions, detailed specific recommendations, comments, requested.

    Obviously it is a concern to GPL software authors that they maintain compatibility with the SCO platforms, while SCO publicly abuses them, tries to get the GPL declared invalid, and while SCO profits from selling their software and integrating it into future releases of the SCO product line.

    Software authors will be aware that breaking SCO compatibility may cause problems for SCO users - (although strictly speaking that is SCO's problem, not the software author(s)', unless the author(s) have some contractual relationship with SCO or SCO customers).

    SCO needs support revenue (and new sales revenue) that may depend on GPL products, to fund their PR and litigation. Thus, software authors, who not obligated to support SCO, presumably might want to.

    Therefore here is a list of things NOT to do, if you don't want to break SCO compatibility.

    1. Don't refactor your code, rearrange files, move functions between files, and rename files more logically in the same release as one which contains accidentally contains one or more SCO incompatible changes.

    If you do this, it would make it harder for SCO or their partners to re-introduce any "lost" code that was necessary to support the SCO's platforms. Obviously you wouldn't want that.

    2. Don't accidentally remove SCO support in a series of stages, which overlap in time with a bunch of critical security or bug fixes, without making it clear at which stages you accidentally removed SCO support.

    3. Don't accidentally remove any special fixes or work rounds for SCO platforms.

    4. Don't depend on functions, which are not implemented or perform differently on SCO platforms. Especially don't depend on those functions in lots of different places in your product.

    In particular avoid these functions:

    (please help with this list - "list 4")

    Known bugs in SCO products:

    Unixware: accept() does not set the sa_family value correctly for the AF_UNIX family. See st/005630.html []
    Unixware: atan2() does returns pi instead of zero for atan2(0, x). See st/005630.html []

    5. Don't depend on compiler features that might not be available on SCO platforms. This is especially true if, as has been suggested may occur, new versions of GCC don't support SCO platforms.

    In particular don't depend on these compiler features:

    (please help with this list if and when GCC loses SCO support)

    6. Don't put in messages that display only on SCO's platforms.

    Avoid putting in code like (and especially not commenting):

    #if defined(_SCO_DS)
    /* SCO OpenServer */ darlsux() ;
    #elif defined(__UNIXWARE__)
    /* UnixWare gcc */ darlsux() ;
    #elif defined(__USLC__)
    #if defined( __STDC_VERSION__ ) && __STDC_VERSION__ == 199409
    /* Gemini I cc (SCO UnixWare 7 and UDK) */ darlsux() ;
    /* SCO UnixWare cc */ darlsux() ;
    #elif defined(M_UNIX)
    /* ODT 3 or earlier */
    /* Other platform */

    7. Don't remove support in your makefile for building the application on SCO's platforms.

    8. Don't rename your functions and variables with names that conflict with SCO-spe
  • Doing my part (Score:5, Informative)

    by MichaelCrawford ( 610140 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @01:11AM (#6821447) Homepage Journal
    My effort to get people to read and copy Let's Put SCO Behind Bars [] is going well.

    The copy on my own website has been served to about 5000 distinct hosts so far this month. A google search for "Let's Put SCO Behind Bars" [] turns up 2190 matches.

    Most of those are links. The article has a Creative Commons license, and I've been encouraging copying. By doing various searches, and checking my logs for referring pages, I've found a few dozen other copies on the web, many of them on message boards where they've had lots of readers.

    It turned out to be very helpful when Linux Universe [] asked me to submit my article there. They use UBB codes instead of HTML. I realized that lots of other message boards use UBB, so I saved a copy on my site in UBB format [] for people to copy to other message boards.

    I've been meaning to write a plain-ascii version suitable for email and usenet but haven't gotten to it yet.

    Both Richard Stallman and Eric Raymond enjoyed the article. Stallman said that if it weren't against his ethics to write proprietary code, he would have enjoyed working at the SCO of old as I described it.

    My first draft I posted at Advogato, followed soon after by InfoAnarchy and then Kuro5hin.

    However, I didn't succeed in getting Slashdot to feature it. One can only dream.

    I have been hesitant to allow copying of many of my articles before now, but when one's objective is to get a lot of people to read what one has written, and to do so in a short time, it works wonders.

  • by gmhowell ( 26755 ) <> on Friday August 29, 2003 @01:13AM (#6821453) Homepage Journal
    At best, this is only a partial truth:

    "No. SCO has never planned to sue Linux companies."

    It should say "SCO doesn't plan to sue any more Linux companies." They've already sued a Linux company. I'll give you a hint: the company's initials are IBM.
  • They say they have no plans to sue Linux Companies, but they don't say they have no rights. Who trust SCO? Be sure if they achieve on courts some results, then they will continue with Linux users...
    And if this a move to be more friendly with angry Linux users. Too late.... No one will wants nothing about SCO.
  • by rzbx ( 236929 ) <slashdot @ r z> on Friday August 29, 2003 @01:17AM (#6821483) Homepage
    Anyone else notice the poll on eweek?

    "Is Linux right that SCO is "smoking crack"?


    So far 97% say yes.
  • politics (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SpacePunk ( 17960 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @01:20AM (#6821493) Homepage
    and that's all it is. Politics is just a way of saying 'nice doggie' untill you can find a big stick.
  • by mm0mm ( 687212 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @01:24AM (#6821505)
    How could they NOT sue the distributors of the infamous IP infringing products, while they ARE more than willing to sue users of the same IP infringing products? It is like allowing pirate CD vendors on the street to do their job and going after those who bought pirate CDs from that vendor(s). Is it reasonable? At least RIAA is mean ass to everyone, not only to buyers.

    Hey McB, so you are now endorsing distribution of illegal product while you demand money from those who bought it? Give me a fsckin break, would you?
  • Selling SCOX short (Score:5, Informative)

    by tm2b ( 42473 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @01:35AM (#6821541) Journal
    In case anybody starts thinking about how they might profit from an imminent decline in the SCOX short, The Motley Fool [] has an FAQ on shorting stocks. []
  • by mec ( 14700 ) <> on Friday August 29, 2003 @01:44AM (#6821563) Journal
    Too bad I can't fit the whole quote into the subject.

    Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News story, SCO has not engaged Mr. Boies to take legal action against our fellow Linux vendors.
    SCO press release, January 13, 2003

    SCO says it has made no decision on Unix IP []

    So I don't believe SCO's statements about their future plans. They are practicing the adage: "diplomacy consists of saying 'nice doggy' while you are looking for a rock".
  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @01:55AM (#6821592)
    then it won't matter if they don't sue linux companies. I forget who pointed it out, but if IBM pays compensation for damage done, they can't very well demand more compensation the same damages. i.e. there are limits to what they are entitled to. And of course as soon as the cat's out of the bag on any code the courts say is theirs, it'll be cleaned out (remember they have no patents, so all it takes is a reimplementation). Even if they win, they aren't in a position to do much about it.
  • Think about it: They act crazy, they say the have awesome weapons that will destroy their enemies, but won't let anyone look at them, they make ridiculous threats against enemies several orders of magnitude more powerful than they are, then beg for money.

    The only difference is that North Korea might have nukes, and we all know that SCO has squat...

  • by AntiOrganic ( 650691 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @02:16AM (#6821644) Homepage
    I'm sure everyone on Slashdot remembers the debacle concerning Dmitry Sklyarov/Elcomsoft and Adobe. SCO right now is doing the same thing Adobe attempted; make a collective ass of your company publically with regard to IP policy, recant your charges and then come off looking like you're no longer the bad guy while the damage has already been done.

    So is this really anything new? Probably not.
  • by Vengie ( 533896 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @02:45AM (#6821721)
    Every time i open the page...opera crashes....anyone know why? =(
  • by hegemon17 ( 702622 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @04:07AM (#6821974)
    Of course SCO won't sue anyone. They are done, they have inflated their stock price, they have collected "insurance" money, they have managed to start the best FUD campaign against free software ever and they are getting away with it. They will profit on this for years to come and the Linux community will sit there like a bunch of fools thinking they have actually won by making SCO back off. Everything depends on if IBM will spend money to continue the fight. The copyright owners of the code SCO claimed was theirs should sue SCO to at least make them pay a small price for copyright violation (claiming that you own something that you don't own the copyright for is a copyright violation, at least in some countries), but as far as I know, only whoever wrote BPF would have a decent case with a chance of winning.
  • Translation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @04:15AM (#6821997) Homepage

    They have no intention of letting any of these suits run to conclusion in court, because they will lose, and lose badly, and that will be the end of their stock pumping.

    On even numbered days, they're reasonable guys with a great product, so buy their stock.

    On odd numbered days, they're stone cold corporate predators who own half the source code on the planet, so buy their stock.

    On Sundays, Darl consults his Magic 8 Ball (tm) to decide if it's time to cash in and skip to Brazil for the face change operation, or whether he should pump for another week.

  • by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @04:57AM (#6822090) Homepage Journal
    Their recent actions prove that! They don't have a plan to sue anyone for Linux! Completely! Not a sign of any plan, PURE IMPROVISATION from the beginning to end!!!
  • Track and kill (Score:3, Insightful)

    by capn_buzzcut ( 676680 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @09:19AM (#6823324)
    It doesn't matter if SCO completely reverses their position, retracts everything they've said, and withdraws the lawsuits tomorrow. They cannot be allowed to just slink away and lick their wounds. The questions raised by this whole episode simply MUST be answered, and all doubts about the purity of OSS must be put to rest. If not, then GNU/Linux will be forever tainted and these demons will eventually come back to haunt us. We've got to PROVE to the world clearly, once and for all, that GNU/Linux is everything we've said it is. How do we do that?
  • by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @09:28AM (#6823402)
    >>The SCO Group said today it had never planned to sue any Linux companies, had no concrete plans to sue anyone and also no current plans to take a commercial Linux customer to court.

    If you follow scox at all, you know that scox can choose their wording *very* carefully. So, maybe that statement isn't as clear as thought.

    For example: "no current plans to take a commercial Linux customer to court." That is not saying that scox is not going to sue linux end users. Scox could still be holding to their "give us protection money or risk a lawsuit" policy.
  • WTF? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jagasian ( 129329 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @12:33PM (#6825225)
    Here is a recent picture [] of closet Linux user, W Bush, after hearing this recent statement by SCO. I wouldn't be surprised if every Linux user out there has the same look on their face.

    SCO, is it a "yes" or a "no"? Just choose!
  • by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Friday August 29, 2003 @01:27PM (#6825783)
    1) Scox gets extension against redhat injunction.

    2) Scos web-server goes down (scox blames ibm backed linux community).

    3) Scox web-server is back up - but changed, lots of scox claims now missing.

    4) Archieved claims are missing - can't be found with serch engines.

    5) Scox is now saying: "we were never going to sue anybody."

    Desperate little scam. Will it work?

To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison