OSDL Pays For Linus Torvalds' SCO Defense 347
geoff313 writes "
For all of you who might be worried about what financial consequences
Linus Torvalds might have to endure as a result of being subpoenaed by SCO, fear not: the Open Source Development Lab (OSDL)
will pay for its law firm to represent him.
the OSDL, who are Torvalds' employer, will announce on Friday that the
"OSDL has agreed to fund legal representation for Torvalds and any
other employees of the lab who may become involved in the litigation."
Just in case you didn't you didn't know, the OSDL is funded by a
variety of corporations including (but not limitied to) IBM, Hewlett-Packard,
Dell, Sun
Microsystems, Red Hat, Cisco, Computer
Associates, Fujitsu, Hitachi, and Nokia. "
Bon Appetite! (Score:5, Funny)
Which is to SCO's great misfortune because penguins literally eat fish for breakfast.
And Torvalds is the biggest, baddest penguin out there. One might even call him The Omega Penguin [penny-arcade.com]. The king of all penguins, indeed, of all penguin-kind. Their lord. The single template from which all other penguins were wrought.
I'm just sorry they're not selling tickets for this one.
Re:Bon Appetite! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bon Appetite! (Score:2)
Surely he should be the Alpha Penguin, being the first Linux developer.
Re:Bon Appetite! (Score:5, Informative)
SCO is not after Linus. They are after IBM. It makes total sense to subpena Linus as who else knows more about IBM's contribution to the kernel than Linus? He is the one that approves all submissions. He's the one that when the question is asked: "This this particular code come from IBM?" can give the most credible answer.
In totally separate but related cases, you have IBM and RedHat suing SCO for GPL infringment. Of course, the most relevant person to sue for Linux GPL copyright infringment is Linus too.
Re:What have we learned today, class? (Score:3, Funny)
Fudning sources (Score:5, Funny)
Just in case that was someone hiding beneath a rock, SCO is funded by Microsoft.
Re:Fudning sources (Score:5, Informative)
I suppose you wouldn't call $8,000,000 [sec.gov] funding, then?
Re:Fudning sources (Score:2)
Re:Funding sources (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fudning sources (Score:2)
google for the lazy (Score:3, Interesting)
See? was that so hard?
Re:google for the lazy (Score:2)
Re:google for the lazy (Score:2)
Another open-source player, who asked not to be identified, told eWEEK that the $50 million investment into SCO was surprising to him as "SCO is not a good growth company and is in fact on life-support. A solid company that's been in business as long as SCO has should be making it's money from product/services and not donations and lawsuits.
"I had to look at BayStar to see why they would do this and the only thing that makes sense is the PIPE program. Someone has a vested
And baystar got the money from... (Score:2)
"There are only two investors in this deal: BayStar Capital and the Royal Bank of Canada."
Baystar's own website claims Paul Allen, Microsoft, etc. in their list of top ten investors. IIRC, four of the top ten were Microsoft or close friends of Microsoft.
-- MarkusQ
Re:Fudning sources (Score:5, Informative)
$8 million? Chuckle. That is just ONE of the Microsoft payments to SCO. Look in the SEC filing you linked to:
" During the quarter ended April 30, 2003, SCO entered into a licensing agreement with Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"). The initial licensing agreement allowed Microsoft, at its election, to exercise two options to allow Microsoft to acquire expanded licensing rights with respect to SCO?s UNIX source code. During the quarter ended July 31, 2003, Microsoft exercised and paid for the first of these options. During SCO's current quarter, ending October 31, 2003, Microsoft exercised and paid $8,000,000 for the second option. [sec.gov] "
The SECOND deal was for 8 million dollars. There was a filing last quarter about the first deal. That one was for 6 to 8 million dollars up front, plus an additional 5 million over the next three quarters. So the first deal totaled 11 to 13 million. Add the two deals and Microsoft is handing SCO about 20 million dollars. (And for all we know the second deal may include an additional 5 million over the next three quarters as well.)
Just prior to the Microsoft deal, SCO's market capitalization was about 10 million dollars. Now, would someone like to explain to me why the hell anyone would pay 20 million to buy a licence from SCO when all of SCO itself only carried a 10 million dollar price tag?
Not only that, but SCO had NEVER had a profitable quarter prior to the Microsoft deal. They were bleeding cash horribly and soon would have gone bankrupt.
In addition to those cash payments, SCO has also received a 50 million infusion from an investment group with ties to Microsoft. There isn't any evidence that Microsoft influenced this 50 million inventment, but it sure does look suspicious.
-
Re:Fudning sources (Score:2)
True, but the OSDL companies represent huge markets that Microsoft has yet to break into successfully. Microsoft is sort of walled off from the world, in the business sense.
Re:Fudning sources (Score:3, Funny)
It just occurred to me that a good reason why Microsoft gets off so easy is that the judges and lawyers in the Justice Department don't want to face having to upgrade their Windows computers if Microsoft goes away. They are in a position of conflict of interest being a customer of the defendant.
It gladdens the heart (Score:3, Insightful)
And, of course, it's less leg for SCO to stand on (I'm guessing they'd have to have been a millipede at this rate
Simon.
Re:It gladdens the heart (Score:2, Interesting)
Community would have supported a defense fund (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Community would have supported a defense fund (Score:2)
That said, I wonder who's funding the defense of the other guys? I don't think Stallmann could have made [i]that much[/i] off emacs sales...
Re:Community would have supported a defense fund (Score:5, Funny)
Even though they asked for it... This is like going trout fishing and catching a shark that eats your wife.
Do you need a lawyer? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Do you need a lawyer? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Do you need a lawyer? (not a troll) (Score:2)
People seem to be modding the parent down as a troll -- which is hardly fair, because it's a reasonable question. It was certainly my first throught when I saw the post where Linus said he'd need to get a lawyer.
(Of course, my second throught was that if I were in his shoes, I'd want to talk to a lawyer about it.)
N
Re:Do you need a lawyer? (not a troll) (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Do you need a lawyer? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Do you need a lawyer? (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, OK. Thanks for reminding me about this.
Actually, I've been caught by that 'feature' in the past myself. I'd modded one comment on the page, but somehow, the scroll wheel on my mouse managed to switch focus from the scroll bar to one of the drop down boxes and I accidentally randomly moderate a post that I had no desire to make any judgements about. As a result, when I clicked 'moderate', a ra
Re:Do you need a lawyer? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Do you need a lawyer? (Score:4, Informative)
Technically, no. Linus is not charged with anything, just needs to answer a few questions.
Realistically? I think anyone who's ever had any sort of serious dealings with the US (or really any) legal system would agree that at least talking to a lawyer in this situation is a really, really good idea.
Re:Do you need a lawyer? (Score:3, Funny)
Does Linus need a lawyer?
IANAL, but [insert opinion]. Remember to talk to a lawyer, though.
But does Linus need t
Re:Do you need a lawyer? (Score:5, Informative)
Just guessing how SCO is going to spin it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Anything Linux answers to those FUD-fishing questions will have great importance, not so much for the merits of the case but for Linus and Linux's reputation as well as SCOs FUD campaign. That's why he should have a lawyer.
Kje
Re:Do you need a lawyer? (Score:3, Funny)
Lawyer: So, Mr. Torvald, when DID you stop beating your wife?
Linus: My wife is a world karate champion.
Lawyer: Um, er,...uh, let's take a break.
Re:Do you need a lawyer? (Score:5, Funny)
Nonsense---you forget who they are fighting.
Microsoft is a 400 pound gorilla.
IBM is a 12-ton space monster that shoots laser beams out of its eyes.
IBM is a FAR bigger company, with a MUCH more experienced legal team.
And Microsoft isn't fighting IBM directly, they are doing it (if at all) through a proxy.
SCO is more like a 75-pound hyena. Mean bite, makes a lot of noise.
But IBM is scary. Really, really scary.
Quiet scary, you know? Creeping-up-and-splattering-you in one move scary.
Re:Do you need a lawyer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Travel expenses? At least in Germany, a witness gets reasonable travel expenses from the court and is also compensated for the time lost. Costs are part of the total court cost (and in Germany are paid by the loser).
I assumed that to be so in most western countries. Why on earth should a witness be put at a disadvantage for the fact that he or she helps the court finding a sound judgement?
I can see it now (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I can see it now (Score:2)
worried? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linus, your allright man. There are thousands of people who have got your back. Keep on hacking.
Re:worried? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it weren't for the radical big-mouthed hippie and his radical big-mouthed hippie ideas, there would be no FSF, no GPL. Linux would have never caught on because with no glibc an' all that, nobody would have plugged all that stuff into Linux in order to make it useful. I doubt Linux would have even become a truly viable kernel for non-recreational hacking use without GNU.
His radical big-mouthed hippie way of thinking is the way of thinking that gave us something like the GPL, and I seriously doubt that the GPL could have come out of a mind that doesn't work like RMS's. Someone less idealist would have come up with a much weaker license, probably something more like a BSD or MIT license. Someone less abrasive and bull-headed never would have started the project to begin with.
So unless you're a long-time FreeBSD user or a hardcore Windows geek, grow up and quit whining about RMS. Linux wrote a great kernel, but GNU has done more to make Linux (GNU/Linux, whatever) a viable OS and getting this whole movement to go mainstream than any other body. RMS started gathering all the fuel, Linus is just the guy who lit the match.
Slick move, SCO (Score:5, Funny)
And so now, SCO stands in the middle of a jungle clearing, waving a stick and raving madly at the 800-pound gorilla of IBM. Suddenly, a rustle from the brush and SCO turns around to see a whole pack of 800-pound gorillas, all staring with steely eyes....
Re:Slick move, SCO (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slick move, SCO (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Slick move, SCO (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds like SCO is having a bad game of Jumanji.
Re:Slick move, SCO (Score:5, Funny)
I can see the headlines now: BAD GNUS FOR SCO
Don't blame this on a gorillas! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Don't blame this on a gorillas! (Score:2)
Anti-SCO License (Score:5, Funny)
That's just about what I want for my next Open Source software release.
Re:Anti-SCO License (Score:2)
If SCO uses our code, we win. If SCO benefits from our code we win. If SCO modifies our code, we win. If we deny SCO our code, we lose.
To quote Babylon 5: "If we deny the other, we deny ourselves." -Citizen G'Kar, "Point of No Return [midwinter.com]"
Re:Anti-SCO License (Score:4, Funny)
Subpoenas are for witnesses (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Subpoenas are for witnesses (Score:5, Informative)
In a way, lawyers like firewalls: it's possible to be safe without them, but it takes knowledge and skill that some folks don't have the time to gather.
Re:Subpoenas are for witnesses (Score:4, Insightful)
OSDL's counsel may prove to be just fine, but there's always the chance that in some way OSDL and Torvalds' interests may actually not be truly in sync, in which case OSDL's counsel may decide to drop Torvalds due to conflict of interest or have him do something not in his best interest, but in the best interest of OSDL.
This is the reason there's such huge legal teams around high-profile cases; each counsel represents a specific entity, such as a business, a person, etc. They may agree on the goal, but there are times where sacrificing someone on your team for your advantage can be appealing, and without your OWN counsel, you might end up being the sacrificial lamb.
Re:Subpoenas are for witnesses (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't EVER EVER go into ANY legal proceeding without YOUR OWN LAWYER in tow.
Also, subpoenas are not automatic. If SCaldera failed to show sufficient cause as to why Linus, et all SHOULD be compelled to appear or testify, or give a deposition, whatever, then an attorney can quash the subpoena.
And I think they could do that in this case, as the Scaldera vs IBM case is a case of alleged BREECH OF CONTRACT on the part of IBM, which has nothing to do with Linus Torvalds OR Linux...
Take that McBride (Score:2)
Yet more SCO fodder (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yet more SCO fodder (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this statement from Tom Taulli's article pretty much sums up what the average investor can make out what this lawsuit is about. There is no genuine reason for SCO to be suing IBM, so they make up their own (wrong) speculation.
Re:Yet more SCO fodder (Score:2)
Won't SCO ultimately be the one that pays for his (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Won't SCO ultimately be the one that pays for h (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, in this case, it's clear that the SCO strategy is to draw out litigation long enough to give everybody an uncomfortable feeling in their rectal areas, until somebody snaps and decides to make a favorable acquisition offer. And if SCO loses, good luck getting a dime out of them, they'll fold the shop up in a way that lets them get out of everything, I'm quite sure, and still make off with a lot of money. This is definitely one of these cases where the malfeasance of corporate officers and attorneys is so blatant, I'd like to see the corporate veil pierced and have personal liability passed on to these fuckers for the financial losses and damaged reputations they have incurred on lots of other legitimate, hardworking people and companies.
Re:Won't SCO ultimately be the one that pays for h (Score:3, Interesting)
There needs to be a "loser pays" provision added to civil lawsuit law. If the loser is the initiator, and is a corporation (individuals should be exempt) they should have to pay ALL such legal expenses.
If the legal
Also funded by... (Score:5, Informative)
Tom.
Re:Also funded by... (Score:2)
hah, but (since i'm using dd a lot lately) the first thing I thought of was dd if=valinux of=something.
god, tired.
Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Also another question to the legal wise out there. There is little doubt in my mind Microsoft funding and incentive is pulling the strings behind SCO. Isn't this extremely illegal for them to do based on the ruling of the previous judgements? Obviously they get out of a lot of legal holes by using SCO as a proxy attacker of Linux but it is nonetheless doing this for reasons of destroying a competitor.
Re:Question (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:5, Informative)
If you're really interested in this, search for Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and look on any Federal Court's website for a blank subpoena.
Re:Question (Score:3, Funny)
Hah! try again kido.
Re:Question (Score:2)
He was allegedely served during Dinner on Wednessday.
Re:Question (Score:2)
2) My guess is that Microsoft isn't so much pulling the strings as they are pouring a little more fuel on the fire but no, it's not as if any of the antitrust rulings require them to perpetually sit in the corner and
Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)
Many people seem confused about the process right now. I suggest A Litigation Crash Course [edcross.com]. Note that the SCO trial is in phase 2 presently. And here is more detailed information about depositions [findlaw.com].
The key here is that this is a "discovery deposition" - not trial testimony. Discovery depositions do not involve judges. They can happen anywhere - living rooms, kitchens, in a field. Usually though, they happen at the office of the lawyer who called for the deposition.
In answer to your question, the subpo
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
That should be IBM's next counter claim in discovery... Get a court order that _ALL_ documents related t
Can we contribute? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can we contribute? (Score:2)
Someone want to give Linus a heads up (Score:3, Insightful)
IS OSDN picking Linus' lawyer(s)?
Huge conflict of interest, even if the lawyers won't admit to it in their salivation over the impending legal fees.
Linus, if you're reading this, you need to take the legal funding offered by OSDN, and find your own lawyer, one that hasn't done work for IBM or SCO (or SCO's principals) in the past, and one that doesn't expect to. At a minimum. Then have them put it in writing. Then have them check their records for others they may have done work for that are involved in this annoyance.
This is a big conflict of interest, yet the lawyers will do all kinds of twists and contortions to try and minimize any conflicts of interest.
OSDN funding legal fees is great. As long as it is for your benefit, and not for their benefit to your detriment.
Don't make a serious mistake at this juncture. What's said on the outside doesn't matter. What makes it into court (or doesn't make it in) is all that matters. And what makes it, or doesn't make it is what can save your skin, or skin you alive at a later date.
Ignore Subpoena's (Score:2)
I would think that there is a better principle for which Linus etc can stand and that is to use all these lawyers lining up to pro bono them (ooh er vicar) to defend them against completely ignoring these specious subpoena's and fighting the for the fact that they should never have been issued in the first place.
The act of issuing the subpoena in the way that SCO has is verging on vexatious and the problem is that when they get slaughtered, and they will, th
Linus is defending SCO (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Linus is defending SCO (Score:2)
I think SCO is trying to pull a "Perry Mason" type move where a hard line of questioning forces Linus/RMS/whoever to break down in front of the court with an admission that they stole EVERYTHING from SCO and they did it FOR IBM. It's gonna backfire on them *so bad*.
Linus's Theme Song (Score:5, Funny)
Why this is truely good for OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly is the screaming by those asking why the hell he needs a defense. In the case of both RMS and Linus they both are responsible for the two major things that makes Linux what it is today, free and strongly coded. SCO is attacking both the freedom we have in distributing code and the underlying source of the strength of it's code, ergo it is imperative for them to prove to the court that both of these things are not permissible under the law.
This is not just a test of the GPL and Linux. This is a coordinated attack meant to gauge the underlying strength of the OSS community and those that (corporate and private) that support it. The bet was made with the thought that after a little law action, one of the players would pull out making the house of cards fall.
Oppps.
Now they are faced with something they never thought they would have, the beginnings or a tighter conglomerate of users and corps that are ready and willing to defend our right to code and not have it stolen, and our right to distribute that code without interference from companies hell bent on stealing for a living. I have said before that this is not the last of this ordeal, and I truly thing that we are in for a rough 2 to 4 years here in regards to challenges on the GPL and the community in general, but seeing things like this makes believe even more that good things are all that can come of this.
Re:Your spelling error (Score:3, Funny)
Just a note to SCO.... (Score:2)
Ha, ha. Eww....what did you just step in...
SCO funding anti_SCO campaign? (Score:2)
I really thought SCO was going to be on that list!
SCO. Squashed. Like a bug. (Score:3, Funny)
One day all that old SCO merchandise [cgi.ebay.ca] is going to worth a lot to geeky collectors on eBay.
I'm holding out for a frisbee or baseball cap, myself.
What about Stallman? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about Stallman? (Score:3, Informative)
I'd imagine the FSF is. Stallman's only involved because SCO's attacking the GPL, and defending the GPL is the FSF's raison d'etre.
Does Linus, Stallman, Etc. Take Paypal? (Score:2)
Linus and Stallman have made my a lot easier, it certainly is worth a click and a donation to make theirs go just a bit smoother.
INAL but ..... (Score:4, Interesting)
While it's entirely Linus's option to have legal representation, shouldn't SCO have to foot the bill for that too? In essence SCO is subpoening Linus as an expert witness.
Re:One important company was left out of the list? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One important company was left out of the list? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:One important company was left out of the list? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OK, so which is it? (Score:2)
Re:OK, so which is it? (Score:3, Offtopic)
You're right about Taco being inconsistent, but in the British vernacular (encompassing not just the British Isles, but also such far-flung places as Australia and South Africa), it's neither stilted nor unpopular. That's just how they say it. Americans say that the committee meets, the British say that the committee meet.
The difference between British and American English is mostly just a matter of pronunciatio
Re:OK, so which is it? (Score:2)
Perhaps if more americans realised that corporations and other organisations were collections of people, the world would be a better place.
Informative? Ah, no. The logic here is that "committee" is a singular noun, as is "corporation."
Perhaps if more Anonymous Cowards realized that political trolling doesn't enter into grammar, Slashdot would be a better place.
Re:OK, so which is it? (Score:3, Funny)
Reap what you sow, young geek (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations (IBM, RedHat, Sun, etc.) contribute dollars and guess what they get for their support of Linux?
These corps. have a lot invested in Linux (and will continue to do so), simply because they stand to make boatloads of money using and growing it. It's in their interests to fight SCO.
Re:you know (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Motion to compel disovery /BRILLIANT (Score:5, Funny)
Your honor, we have heard the courts say that "the fishing idea" is wrong and can not be done. What a brilliant point, excuse me...
Your honor (nice robe!) I had no idea you PERSONALLY said that. Absolutely amazing, poetic so Jeffersonian.
(turning to look at McBride, sticks tongue out and issues official IBM rasberry)
Re:Does he have to go? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:OSDL stands for (Score:3, Funny)
Re:SCO's side of the story (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO does not have genuine IP claims on code in Linux.
Not one iota.
Why do I say that?
I have no evidence to suggest that it is try, except SCO's word on it.
Everyone, and their mother, has asked SCO to reveal the evidence.
IBM is getting sued over it, and SCO will not even describe the infringement.
Beyond that, Caldera distributed the code under the GPL.
Read Groklaw, and you'll feel the same way about it.
If SCO had actual evidence of infringement, they would play it up big time.
Why? Because they would be able to easily drive IBM to settle---IBM has no business being in bullheaded lawsuits, they would license any IP that was actually stolen.
Remember, IBM has full access to ALL of SCO's source tree, and IBM has full access to AIX's source, and the Linux source.
IBM already knows what is in all three source trees.
As far as I am concered, SCO is not entitiled to have their side of the argument heard, because they are doing their best to spew BullShit(TM) in order to drive up their stock price.
If SCO want's their side of the argument to be heard, they need to put up, or shutup.....
Show us some code, SCO---Or die!