More on Recent SCOings On 569
An anonymous reader writes "Blake Stowell, SCO's director of communications, acknowledged that the leaked memo is real." However, Stowell went on to say that the memo was misunderstood, and that Microsoft has not been funding SCO, as was previously alleged.
In addition, Computer Associates is now vehemently denying they ever licensed Linux from SCO. AlabamaMike writes "Being employed by Computer Associates myself, I had to admit I was terribly dismayed by the news that the company I work for had licensed SCO's dubious Linux IP. I sent some mail around to those I thought would have some info about what was going on with this very odd move, and the response that came back truly should be posted for the /. community. Basically this is a very creative spin on a settlement CA did with Canopy Group regarding a breach of contract settlement totally unrelated to Linux. Associated with that settlement was a set of UnixWare licenses to which SCO has taken the liberty of attaching these 'Linux IP' licenses."
More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Insightful)
To the government MS is simply a healthy company bringing in a boatload of cash, who cares if they don't play by the rules [of capitalism].
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:3, Funny)
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Funny)
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Interesting)
There's something called a 'writ of mandamus' (i am not a lawyer=IANAL).
This writ is used to call upon a judge to compel a prosecutor (executive branch) to prosecute a case (or do several other things).
This means any citizen can notice, "Hey, this guy's committing a crime and they're not prosecuting them!", file a writ of mandamus, and a court will tell the prosecutor, "You have to prosecute this guy." and they do under pain of contempt (I believe).
-- Kevin J. Rice
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Interesting)
The constitution provides that there shall be a judiciary consisting of a Supreme Court, and whatever other courts that the supreme court shall deem useful.
The supremes long ago divided up the U.S. into a set of federal districts. In each of these districts, there are a set of judges and an appelate division (for appeals).
I'm a little unclear about how the civil and criminal parts of this are set up...
Regardless, each of these district courts have an organization which is paid for out of the federal budget. I believe this is a block grant granted by congress to the Supreme Court's organization. The money goes to this organization and they decide how to spend it, thus preventing congress from preventing allocation of funds to district X in retribution for their ruling on case Y.
This subordinate organization, the 'clerk's office' of the court, accepts properly formatted (defined clearly in U.S. code) motions, etc. These official documents are processed by this judical branch office and funneled for review to a judge through the judge's office (set up I believe at their discretion).
The post above was: "Now who tells the court they have to tell the prosecutor to file?" This is the writ of Mandamus that I was referring to. It means that you, a private citizen, can file a motion with the clerk of the federal district court in which you ask for a writ. A judge will act on this motion (is this enforced by a law itself, that some action must be taken in response to a properly filed motion????). That action will be to create a writ of mandamus (or not - you may not convince the Judge to act on your motion if you're asking the prosecutor to prosecute "Men From Mars"(tm). This writ is a legal order to the prosecutor's office to do something.
If they don't do something, and probably they must do it to a judge's satisfaction, they will will be in contempt of a federal court order, in which case all sorts of bad things start happening from other divisions within the exective branch as well as the judicial branch, I think (someone, please correct me??)
I should make a point here about Federal Judges. Don't mess with them. Don't think of messing with them. Don't even think about thinking about it. By 'mess with' I mean 'gain the attention of in an unfavorable manner'. Judges can cite ordinary people, organizations, etc. with contempt charges and functionally put them away for a long, long time. Of course, there's the appeals process to remediate this, but in contempt cases I believe this is given wide latitude. Can some lawyers comment on this?
This should probably be in a Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] article but I coudn't find one that explained the organization of the courts.
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:4, Informative)
and whatever other courts that the supreme court shall deem useful.
It's whatever other courts that the CONGRESS shall deem useful:
Article III, Section 1: The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Funny)
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Good job, guys. You've only made things worse for yourselves. I guess it doesn't really matter if the justice system does anything about these questionable transactions, because these companies are ruining their reputations and business relationships without any help.
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Interesting)
- The will help us a lot and if we execute we could exit and Unix componients we have build potentially back to Microsoft or MCS.
Doesn't this look like SCO would be interested in selling it's Unix properties to Microsoft if they're actually successful in solidifying their position?Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be happy if you were right, and up until yesterday I would have thought you were, but to underestimate Bill Gates is to lose, and the man is an incredible schemer. I do not put it past him to have sketched this scenario for the past five years, since before ESR ever got the Halloween Documents. Five years is a long time to let grass grow between your toes, and MS would not let that happen.
They're playing poker. Something they've always been excellent at. They're not playing to win the hand by showing their cards; they're playing to out-bluff and intimidate all the other players until everyone folds.
Anyone else in business, up against the open source threat, would have given up, would have assessed the situation as hopeless.
But not our Bill.
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Funny)
What is not massive about this fraud?
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:4, Interesting)
Then Microsoft will have very little to fight Linux with. They can join the linux world or die like the rest of the greedy software companies.
We all know this is Microsoft game anyway. SCO is just the stoogies Microsoft has setup to take the fall. This is there only hope to stop Linux right now without the Justice department being all over them.
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just silly. There will continue to be a place for Windows, and it will continue to compete alongside Linux distributions that are no longer free themselves because of support and add-ons (and "greedy software companies"). Microsoft will have to make some concessions to hold on, though, and this process has already begun. They will simply do what they have to do, much of it even legal. Committed Windows-users can already thank Linux and the Open Source movement for making Microsoft a much easier beast to deal with than they otherwise would be.
It doesn't matter what MS has to say (Score:5, Interesting)
2) This potentially hugely damaging to MS. If the allegations are true (I'd put money on it), they're in breach of the settlements. Kollar-Kotelly, the judge of the punishment phase, will certainly want to take another look at the case. The various state Attorney Generals will want to reopen the case. There might also be new criminal charges filed, not to mention civil cases. At the very least, we should see some investigations. And I haven't even mentioned how this might play out internationally.
3) Regardless of how this plays out in the courts, MS is going to lose big in the court of public opinion. The MS defenders will not have a leg to stand on. (I never imagined Enderle with any legs. Instead, I've always imagined him as a giant farting ass, with no other body parts attached.) The FUD campaign has not only fallen apart, it has backfired.
4) Having failed to really slow Linux adoption or development, MS will continue to lose ground. Longhorn is two or more years out, folks are already suspicious about "XP Reloaded" (why name a product after a really bad sequel?), and Linux clearly has huge momentum.
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:3, Interesting)
It's pretty predatory to me. If there is no competition with different operating systems then microsoft can get away with releasing 3rd rate products. Unfortunately as unethical as this is. I do not think its illegal. But i'm pretty confident that SCO is digging themselves into a hole, and a judge is going to say "Get outa here, and write your own products instead of exploiting someone elses work."
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Interesting)
Watching an old "Computer Chronicles" [archive.org] video of Macworld 1989, a news short at the end of the main story states:
"...Microsoft nudged closer to the UNIX world last week, buying a 20% interest in the Santa Cruz Operation, a major UNIX software house. A recent market research study predicts a 29% annual growth rate for UNIX systems compared to a 12% growth rate for all other systems"
Likely completely irrelevant, but just one of those things that came up with lovely timing!
--dana
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:4, Interesting)
The old SCO sold their properties to Caldera and went bye-bye. Later, Caldera renamed themselves SCO and continued on with the old products. BTW, It was Caldera that licensed Unix from Novell, before the name change.
The name change is confusing, but don't let it spoil the original SCO company or products. The old Caldera is the litigeous beast, not the old SCO.
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Informative)
UNIX developed at AT&T Bell Labs
AT&T begins licensing UNIX commercially.
AT&T sells all intrest in UNIX to Novell.
Novell sells it's Unixware product and certain rights related to UNIX licensing to old-SCO. They also donate the UNIX trademark to The Open Group.
Old-SCO sells the rights it bought from Novell, Unixware, OpenServer, its reseller network, rights to the SCO name, and its Unix consulting business to Caldera.
Old-SCO changes its name to Tarantella.
Caldera changes its name to The SCO Group.
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, if this isn't predatory behavior then I don't know what is.
It might look that way to you, to me and to a lot of other folks.
But a well-paid lawyer is able to say with a straight face that it doesn't make sense for Microsoft to be hauled into court simply for making a bad investment decision.
"Bill Gates thought he'd give Warren Buffett's business model a crack after accumulating US$ 50 billion in cash, but due to his lack of experience he made an unwise investment in SCOX which has lost considerable value. It's a capital loss, your honor!"
More scrutiny for a monopolist (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the "unwise investment" defense could be given a workout. But do not forget that MS is an adjudged monopolist (upheld on appeal) and thus it's and BG's behaviour is held to a different standard.
Since SCO is in the "computer field", any transactions between it and MS/large shareholders is subject to anti-trust scrutiny.
Re:More interested in what MS has to say (Score:3, Informative)
Employees 64.7%
Borland 8.3%
Trolltech Foundation 5.2%
Orkla ASA 4.3%
Northzone Ventures 4.3%
Teknoinvest 4.3%
Canopy Group 4.1%
Previous employees 3.4%
SCO Group 1.6%
"a few years"? (Score:5, Insightful)
not only are SCO's IP ambitions doomed, but its Unix interests are a "trailing negative" on the road to dropping from 10% of the market to 3%-5% in a few years and then "SCO will be irrelevant," he said.
Assuming this court case is settled in Linux' favour, SCO will be irrelevant the next day. No company will want to deal with a firm that sues its own customers.
Re:"a few years"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yesterday the shares had begun to fall after ESR leaked the mail, before all the news sites started up with headlines saying SCO licenses have been bought.
Today is perfect, markets have not opened, CA has not bought a license and it is clear that SCO is a front for M$ from which no profits for shareholders are to be had. Moreover, there is the muzzle on SCO by the court.
I hope thatwe don't get an unnatural price rise due to this being a friday and everyone trying to cover their short positions before the week ends !!
Re:"a few years"? (Score:3, Interesting)
You won't. Because you can't short SCO. I order to short a stock there has to be stock out there to short. And companies with few shares out there aren't "shortable," therefore, if the price goes up, it's got nothing to do with people trying to cover their short positions or creating short positions. If you could short, I would've at 17$, or at least told the
Re:"a few years"? (Score:5, Interesting)
You can borrow stock in pretty much any company out there. The reason you should not borrow SCO stock is that all the borowable stock has been shorted longsince.
This creates a situation called a short interest trap. If the stock kicks up for any reason, or the amount of stock available to borrow suddenly decreases the shorts are forced to buy the stock back at market. This can lead to a stock bubble that is entirely due to the shorts being squeezed.
SCO does have one remaining asset of value, the rights to UNIX. Quite what those rights is will likely be significantly reduced as a result of the case, but the value will not reach zero. Of course in the meantime lawyers fees will probably outweigh the remaining assets.
Re:"a few years"? (Score:4, Funny)
And if anybody deserves to have their shorts squeezed, it's SCO...
Re:"a few years"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Little blocks of 100 shares keep changing hands at prices above what the last sell off was...
It's an illegal, but hard to prove practice.
But SCOX seems to consistently get "painted" upward daily after a big sell.
One problem with that theory (Score:5, Funny)
-Charlie
Re:"a few years"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux will be rewritten, and there are the BSD's. No one will do serious business with someone who sues their customers NO MATTER HOW GOOD their product is, if there is an alternative.
Even Microsoft is a better alternative than SCO, at least they don't sue customers over what they do. They just use the BSA to do it...
Re:"a few years"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which, despite all the hippy free-software advocacy around here, is their right under their EULA. It's not a nice EULA, and their SW mostly sucks, but that still doesn't justify illegal use."
They unleash the BSA to blackmail companies/schools, etc to UPGRADE when they don't want to. And their EULA makes it impossible for any organization with over 20 PC's to keep up with EVERYTHING without a full time MS compliance person.
In MS's EULA world, they can send in the BSA, you can have EVERY copy of EVERY piece of software, box, license, everything, and STILL be guilty of using "pirated software" if you don't have the receipts for every box!
Posession alone isn't proof! Of course, I'd like to see someone take MS to court on that... But MS is smart, they always make it so that upgrading is cheaper and less painful than fighting them in court, even when you know you can win.
Re:"a few years"? (Score:4, Insightful)
remember, the pop industry is all about stripping consumable income from the teen market, which is by definition naive, immature, and not generally capable of independent thought/analysis.
teenagers are the most important resource in all propaganda campaigns, and the RIAA (and its family of organizations) sure knows how to pitch to them like no other
until schools start teaching "Propaganda 101" as a basic curriculum requirement, Western States are going to continue to be little more than Sheep Factories.
Re:"a few years"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, it's true in every country on the planet earth: in order to stay in power you need to keep the masses aligned with your point of view. How do you do that? Make sure they grow up hearing your rehtoric. "Capitalism, good - communisim bad" vs. "Allah good, western world bad!"
Sorry, I just get a little peeved when somone implies that it's only western countries that are "brainwashing" people.
--LordKaT
CA's Response (URL changed) (Score:5, Informative)
The Linux faithful have been hammering Computer Associates as a heretic since the British publication Computer Weekly quoting the SCO Group's CFO Bob Bench identified CA Thursday as one of SCO's rare Linux licensees.
CA senior VP of product development Mark Barrenechea says that Bench's claim is nonsense. CA has not paid SCO any Linux taxes, he said.
Drawing up short of calling SCO a liar, Barrenechea claims that SCO has twisted a $40 million breach-of-contract settlement that CA paid last summer to the Canopy Group, SCO's biggest stockholder, and Center 7, another Canopy company, and has turned it into a purported Linux license.
As a "small part" of that settlement, Barrenechea said, CA got a bunch of UnixWare licenses that it needed to support its UnixWare customers. SCO, he said, had just attached a transparent Linux indemnification to all UnixWare licenses and that is how SCO comes off calling CA a Linux licensee.
But when CA agreed to that settlement, Barrenechea said, "It was not CA's intention to become a Linux licensee. It has nothing to do with CA's product direction or strategic direction," he said.
CA has absolutely no sympathy for what SCO is doing, Barrenechea said, and in fact, he said, reading from a formal statement, it stands in "stark disagreement with SCO's tactics and threats."
Barrenechea and CA's Linux chief Sam Greenblatt are worried that CA will be tarred with the SCO brush and that CA's considerable Linux ambitions will be damaged by a disaffected, if not hostile, open source community when in reality CA has "nothing to do with SCO's strategy and tactics," they said.
CA was the mystery company SCO was thinking of when it announced last August that an unidentified Fortune 500 company had supposedly become a Linux license. SCO privately described the deal as "significant."
CA couldn't disassociate itself from the rumors that identified it as that licensee because of an NDA that the Canopy side had insisted on hedging in the $40 million settlement with, Barrenechea and Greenblatt said.
Barrenechea said that SCO now regards that NDA as being off because of the legal discovery that's been going on in SCO's $5 billion suit against IBM.
See, SCO lawyer Mark Heisse in a letter dated February 4 to IBM lawyer David Marriott at Cravath Swain identified CA, Questar and Leggett & Platt as Linux taxpayers.
According to that letter, which is up on the Groklaw site, Heisse owed IBM a copy of the CA agreement on CD.
Barrenechea said that SCO was dropping CA's name to associate itself with the "third-largest software company in the world" and build support for its "lost cause."
But according to Barrenechea, not only are SCO's IP ambitions doomed, but its Unix interests are a "trailing negative" on the road to dropping from 10% of the market to 3%-5% in a few years and then "SCO will be irrelevant," he said.
By the way, CA doesn't have enough UnixWare licenses to cover all its Linux servers, Greenblatt said.
In answer to CA's contentions, SCO said its lawyers think that CA has a Linux license.
Meanwhile, Bench also told Computer Weekly, whose story was picked up by sister paper InfoWorld and maybe other properties in the IDG stable, that SCO had signed between 10 and 50 Linux licenses.
The new URL is: http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/archives/001770.hRe:CA's Response (URL changed) (Score:5, Insightful)
Best darn quote in the article!
This is rich (Score:5, Insightful)
It smells pretty desperate when you won't let your "best" customers comment on what they've bought from you.
Speak the truth brother Linus.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the highlights (emphasis added):
SCO Confronting Its Creation
Company's CEO is taking precautions as the head of the 'most despised' tech firm
From Bloomberg News
Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO Group Inc., says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed bodyguard protected him when he gave a speech last month at Harvard Law School.
Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux operating system, calls SCO "the most despised company in technology."
McBride and SCO are more hated than Microsoft, the world's largest software maker, and its Chairman Bill Gates, according to some Linux backers. That's because SCO, once a backer of Linux, has turned around and attacked the essence of the system: its free source code.
"SCO are just complete hypocrites," said Jeremy Allison, co-author of Samba, an open source software that runs a file and print service that SCO sells.
"The real reason why people don't like SCO, and Darl McBride in particular, is that he is so dishonest," Torvalds, 34, said in an e-mail.
Re:Speak the truth brother Linus.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If this isn't proof-positive that this guy is a few meg short of a gig, I don't know what is.
Nobody wants to kill McBride. He's doing a pretty good job of destroying himself.
SCO is like an infinte loop. We're just waiting for their resources to get eaten at which point we'll all roast marshmellows over their core dump.
McBride and SCO are more hated than Microsoft
Ok, let's not get carried away here. SCO's antics, while reprehensible and immoral, are nowhere near as threatening to the future of open source as Microsoft's. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not getting bombarded on a daily basis from worm-infected SCO machines. Microsoft has that dubious distinction and therefore deserves top honors.
Re:Speak the truth brother Linus.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Being the most hated doesn't make them the most feared. You're correct that MS is the biggest threat to Open Source. That isn't a reason to hate them, but to be wary of them. Granted, they have used some despicable tactics in the past and are masters of FUD, but nothing they've ever done rises to the level of what SCO has been attempting.
I think the assessment of SCO being the most hated is true. Your milage may vary.
Re:Speak the truth brother Linus.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why?
A lawsuit hitting Linux was inevitable - to quote Linus himself, any business larger than a lemonade stand is going to get sued.
Good fortune then that the current lawsuit, upon which future attacks on Linux will be judged, is weak and has been made into such a freakish spectacle.
The echo will linger for a long time after the SCO claims implode with a massive sucking noise.
Re:Speak the truth brother Linus.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we all know that Linux and open source advocates can get quite overheated in their advocacy, especially in email, so that it tends to damage the reputation of the whole community. It's quite common in Slashdot nowadays to see us reminding one another to keep cool and rational when we publicly criticize SCO and the other bad guys of the IT world.
But SCO has been trying to exploit this bad habit rather heavy-handedly lately, evidently to discredit their opponents and gain some sympathy. And now it's gotten to the point that SCO is unfairly exaggerating the tone of the criticism
Is there really any credible evidence of serious threats of violence against Darl McBride? To be sure, he's probably been suggested to more verbal abuse than even he deserves, but I think it's highly unlikely that there's been a threat of physical harm that should be taken seriously. It's awfully easy to blow your stack in email, but that's a long way away from actually doing something in the Real Universe. At any rate, Darl's levelling a very serious accusation that should not be made or taken lightly.
I suspect that Darl doesn't really think he needs a gun or an armed bodyguard. I think he thinks it's useful if other people think he needs a gun or an armed bodyguard.
ESR vs Darl, pistols at 20 paces (Score:4, Funny)
SCO could sponsor the duel and put it on pay-per-view. They could rent a boat and do it out at sea since, as I've learned from The Simpsons, "Anything is legal in international waters."
hypocriSCOy (Score:5, Insightful)
So on one hand the leaked memo was just 'misunderstood' or a piece of creative spin, yet on the other hand the same could be applied to the CA Linux 'licenses'....
Hmmm, this is just more proof that these guys really do have their heads jammed up their own asses.
HypocriSCOy? (Score:3, Funny)
Hypo-crisco-y. Hmmm.
I got it! It means a slick/greasy hypocrite.
Actually that fits. Good one, T-Kir.
Lawsuits dig a deeper financial hole for SCO? (Score:5, Informative)
Translation: every new lawsuit that SCO initiates costs SCO money in legal fees (and you know Boies doesn't work cheap) and other costs.
The whole article is here [fool.com].
Re:Lawsuits dig a deeper financial hole for SCO? (Score:4, Informative)
Add the $86 million from other Microsoft deals recently revealed on slashdot, and it amounts to Microsoft funding the lawsuits at a 10-1 profit ratio for SCO. As horrid as that is, so far it's an effective business plan for them.
Anti-competitive and illegal, but not the first time a corporate entity has attacked deadly enemies through funding lawsuits vicariously. Look at the destruction of Cult Awareness Network by the Church of Scientology funding fraudulent lawsuits for a more successful example of the approach.
Re:Lawsuits dig a deeper financial hole for SCO? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some things about all of this are very clear to me.
SCO was a relatively big company before, which they are now knowingly destroying. They are are following legal actions that don't make sense and are unlikely to return as much money as they cost. Why? That doesn't make sense.
The common Slashdot response is it is because they are stupid. I don'
Re:Lawsuits dig a deeper financial hole for SCO? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's obvious what they are getting out of it.
The board members and other execs are getting dollar stock options then dumping them at 10 times (or more) what they paid for them. The FUD does their funders (Microsoft) wants, AND pumps up the stock price so they can cash in as well.
NOT ONE of their insiders has excercised an option then stayed long... They have all dumped IMMEDIATELY. That says alot for what they think of the long term viability of Scaldera.
SCaldera ceased to be a company and became a scam when McBribe came in.
Re:Lawsuits dig a deeper financial hole for SCO? (Score:5, Interesting)
Boies doesn't work cheap
Events have twisted full circle.
If you go back [mit.edu] about 5 years, David Boies was an attorney for the Justice Department, where he did a bang-up job prosecuting Microsoft for anti-trust violations.
Of course, we all know how that turned out, with a settlement that doesn't seem to have visibly shaken Microsoft's business.
Then, about a year ago, the SCO debacle starts up with Boies leading the charge.
"How could Boies betry us?!?" cry the Linux zealots.
Ignore that and consider the implications of these recent revelations. Doesn't this evidence beg for a re-examination of the terms of the settlement or the opening of a new investigation?
We believe you (Score:5, Funny)
Well, that's one question answered. (Score:5, Insightful)
All along, I've been wondering if enough lies are floating around at SCO that they actually believe their horse crap.
It looks like this proves that's the case. They've lost any grip on reality now.
SCOsores hall-of-shame inductees (Score:5, Informative)
(little did the CEO know when he made the deal that SCO planned to 'worth' him out of seven figures)
No. 2 is CompterAssociates who announced SCO [idg.com.sg] lied [newsforge.com] about "linux licenses" which are really from an unrelated settlement
No. 3 is Leggett and Platt say SCO lies [techworld.com] and they don't have a license and "would not have an interest in doing so"
No. 4 is Questar Gas said they just wanted to get things over with and also runs Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) on Windows 2000 [netcraft.com]
Make sure *you* are Legally Unencumbered(tm) by getting a SCOsores license [sco.com]
and don't forget to head over and sign your Clean Slate [musicunited.org] contract with the RIAA
Techworld article on Leggett & Platt & CA (Score:5, Informative)
05 March 2004
Two of four SCO licensees deny their purchase Linux licence? What Linux licence?
By Robert McMillan, IDG News Service and Kieren McCarthy, Techworld
Two of the four companies that SCO has publicly named as having bought a licence from it to use Linux, have denied doing anything of the sort.
Both Computer Associates and Leggett & Platt have been held up by SCO as purchasing a $699 (384) licence to cover the alleged SCO copyrights in the open-source operating system. But both have publicly stated that they have done no such thing.
The chief architect of CA's Linux Technology Group, Sam Greenblatt, admitted the company had struck a deal with an investor in SCO over UnixWare licences and said that for each UnixWare licence bought, it was indemnified against a Linux box but he denied outright that the company had bought a licence specifically dealing with Linux.
Leggett & Platt was even clearer. "I have now talked to our people who handle our Linux systems and, at least at a corporate level, we have not bought such a licence from SCO Group," said the company's VP of human resources, John Hale. "To their knowledge they would not have an interest in doing so."
The denials come the same day that SCO was forced to admit an email appearing to demonstrate that Microsoft had helped fund the group to the tune of $86 million was real. But, the company claims, the email does not show what people claim it does.
This same misunderstanding approach was used by SCO to explain CA's statement. SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said that CA had indeed obtained an IP licence for Linux in an email. "UnixWare licences allow SCO customers to run UnixWare and the SCO Intellectual Property Licence allows Linux end users to run our Unix intellectual property in binary form in Linux. Today, CA has a licence in place to run our Unix IP in binary form in Linux without fear that they may be infringing on our intellectual property."
This hazy distinction angered CA's Greenblatt, who strongly objected to the portrayal of CA as a IP licensee for Linux. "To represent us as having supported the SCO thing is totally wrong," he said, before accusing the company's tactics as "intended to intimidate and threaten customers". "We totally disagree with [Darl McBride's, SCO CEO] approach, his tactics and the way he's going about this," Greenblatt added.
SCO claims to have copyrighted material within the Linux open-source operating system and has embarked on a dramatic legal battle to enforce them. Earlier this week, it expanded its lawsuits to include one of its own customers and a company using the Linux software and warned that it "will take and continue to take" legal action against Linux end users. The company sees itself as educating people about its rights in the same way that the RIAA - the US music industry body - has sued individuals in an attempt to prevent the free trade in copyrighted music.
However, one financial analyst said that the conditions surrounding the CA licence did not cast a favorable light on SCO. "I think it just speaks to the weakness of their case. Why could CA have not been convinced to take a licence without legal action," said Dion Cornett, managing director with Decatur Jones Equity Partners.
The other two companies that have been named as IP Licence for Linux customers are EV1 Servers.Net and Salt Questar. Both have confirmed that they did purchase SCO's licence.
Re:SCOsores hall-of-shame inductees (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmm... what might SCO want from a hosting company... hmm, SCO has been recently DDOSed... hmm...
SCO: Leaked e-mail a 'misunderstanding' (Score:5, Informative)
http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5170181.html?tag=
Re:SCO: Leaked e-mail a 'misunderstanding' (Score:4, Informative)
"The details of this agreement have been widely reported and this is the only financial relationship Microsoft has with SCO," the representative said in an e-mail interview. Microsoft "has no financial involvement in the SCO and BayStar agreement, and (Microsoft) has no financial relationship with BayStar."
When Microsoft was asked specifically whether it or any of its employees played a role in connecting SCO to BayStar, the company declined to comment.
Re:SCO: Leaked e-mail a 'misunderstanding' (Score:5, Funny)
President Carter, while visiting a nuclear power plant, attempts to avert a core meltdown and is transformed into a 12-foot tall glowing mutant.
Reporter: "Is it true that the president is now over 15 feet tall, and a glowing mutant?"
Press Secretary: "No! Of course not! That's ridiculous! Where do you guys come up with this stuff?"
Reporter: "Is the president over ten feet tall?"
Press Secretary: "No comment."
This is a new low for SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
30 posts (Score:5, Funny)
And I'm not expecting any.
Is it breaking the law ... (Score:5, Insightful)
One can only hope.
Re:Is it breaking the law ... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's normal in SCO-world.
-MDL
SCO's whole story is just TOO bizarre... (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, you have a Linux company (Caldera) who, despite their best efforts, has trouble staying afloat. At this time, there is no corporate support for Linux, the big vendors are running away from it, and the "GPL has never been tested in court" is touted as an argument all over the place. Big UNIX vendors only see Linux as a way to get people into their more proprietary solutions.
So, Caldera buys out a UNIX vendor and does the most ridiculous thing imaginable: sues everybody, proclaims that Linux is communist and all that bullshit. Fast forward to the current situation: IBM, HP, Novell and other big players are squarely behind Linux and protecting it. Microsoft is exposed as a greedy monopolist who uses underhand tactics (yet again). GPL gets tested in court and it is under such circumstances that guarantee a strong precedent in GPL's favour. The UNIX heritage is cleared once and for all. Linux wins, in a BSD fashion, and is free from corporate FUD. And who pays the bill? Greedy investors.
This could turn out the be the best thing for the corporate image of Linux ever.
Re:SCO's whole story is just TOO bizarre... (Score:5, Insightful)
Franky - unless he is sued personally over this matter, I don't think it will matter much.
Once anybody has a couple of million in the bank, they can simply sit back and coast on investments. They can afford insurance against anything imaginable, and work truly becomes fun since you can walk out any time you get bored or annoyed with your boss.
Sure, McBride won't get any invitations to programmer parties, but he's probably got enough money to not worry much about having another job...
CA is hardly a saint (Score:3, Interesting)
All this posted anonymously because my employer is continually having cash sucked out of it by CA as they suck all useful life out of its products.
Re:CA is hardly a saint (FUD ALERT) (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think the question here is CA or IBM (another AC posted on how CA is almost as bad as IBM at FUD, which is interesting when the discussion is really on Microsoft and SCO.) but it is certainly good to spread the mud around to make things less clear. I also saw the statement that this was no different than media saying that linux advocates were behind MYDOOM, and that none of the Halloween papers had every been objectively proven as real, despite the fact that both this latest one and many early ones WERE confirmed by Microsoft (and in this case SCO).
Just a warning to everyone, it seems like there is alot of counterattacks on Slashdot. This particular post might be legitimately from someone who has some grudge against CA and isn't really a press representative sent to sow some discord and confusion into a discussiont hat is already hard enough to follow.
Blake inserts foot into mouth (Score:5, Interesting)
a license to run the binary form in Linux. Isn't that the meat of their argument.
A little quote from Blake reguarding the CA vapor
license deal.
"UnixWare licences allow SCO customers to run UnixWare and the SCO Intellectual Property Licence allows Linux end users to run our Unix intellectual property in binary form in Linux. Today, CA has a licence in place to run our Unix IP in binary form in Linux without fear that they may be infringing on our intellectual property."
Re:Blake inserts foot into mouth (Score:5, Informative)
Because the AutoZone suit isn't over AutoZone's use of Linux. It's over AutoZone's (alleged) use of proprietary SCO libraries on a platform other than UnixWare (presumably in violation of a license agreement)
The fact that the "platform other than UnixWare" happens to be Linux is irrelevant -- as someone else around here put it, AutoZone could be using Commodore 64s and SCO would still sue them for using UnixWare libraries there. SCO wants you to think the suit is over Linux, but it's nothing of the sort, and if AutoZone had never done business with SCO in the first place, and just used Linux from the start, this lawsuit wouldn't have occurred.
Sorry, but CA is a ruthless software company... (Score:3, Interesting)
Then, they basically mothball all new development in these acquired companies, and after Indians have been trained on how to maintain the software, they fire everyone in North America/Europe.
This is their business strategy. They don't care about their employees and their customers.
Sorry, but I don't give one shit about CA. They could go belly up for all I care, and it would only be good for the software industry.
Yeah right.......the whole world misunderstood ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Can everyone sue for personal attacks?
Not only they don't know how to count...(million lines of code)... they have problems with their english language too! I am sure Darl's teachers won't be pleased
Re:Yeah right.......the whole world misunderstood (Score:4, Funny)
I need some clarification. By Darl's teachers, did you mean Stalin, or Lenin?
Re:Yeah right.......the whole world misunderstood (Score:3, Funny)
Right?
Maybe MS has 123,000 Linux boxes... (Score:5, Funny)
SCO in the vernacular (Score:5, Funny)
SCO: (sKO) verb
Superb quote from the article (Score:4, Interesting)
Shame eh?
PJ has a point (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine the fun things they'll find!
The Constitution (Score:4, Informative)
The United States Constitution guarantees that litigants will "have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" (Amendment VI). While Amendment VI is construed strictly towards criminal trials, the right to have a compulsory process to obtain witnesses has been construed to also apply to criminal trials.
A subpoena is the classic tool used to compel witnesses to testify. MS has no protection from subpoena just because it isn't a direct party to the lawsuit(s).
Well that's it then right? (Score:3, Funny)
Or better yet, why don't we ask M$ directly if they gave up the dough?
We all knew. (Score:5, Interesting)
But I for one never quite realized that Microsoft was in a panic.
I heard all the rumors - "maybe Microsoft is behind the SCO lawsuit"... but I didn't think Microsoft would actually be funding this entire effort. I mean, isn't Microsoft focusing on the Next Generation Great Thing that will put Linux to bed once and for all? Obviously, the answer we now have is "no".
I read the news yesterday, and it seemed pretty clear that the memo was a fabrication. I mean how could such a blatent memo be true? And with all the grammar and spelling errors? It just didn't add up. Mircosoft is smart, right? They hire smart people, right? They may be a monopoly, and they may make try to lock their customers into their products, but they're doing it to make globs of $. That's smart, right?
Well obviously I was mistaken. Microsoft was more-or-less caught trying to fuck up the entire Linux industry by buying what is looking more and more like secretly misusing the courts. On top of that, Microsoft is looking like it's releasing blatent lies about the Linux industry under the guise of Microsoft fabricated or controlled companies.
Microsoft, it's time to come clean. Don't you think it's time that you admit that you're funding these lawsuits?
Or is Microsoft so scared about Linux and the Law that it'll continue to shelter itself behind a quickly diminishing cloud of deception and covert control of companies like SCO?
OCR (Score:3, Interesting)
If you read the groklaw articles, you'll see that the initial posting of court documents are full of the same types of errors since they're scanned from the official court documents (usually in pdf format). The readers then proof it and PJ c
Begin Focusing on Destroying SCO (Score:3, Interesting)
In the stead of proclaiming that SCO is run by lying corporate scum bent on world domination,
I believe that discussion should focus on what can be done to destroy SCO.
A question for the more legally-knowledgeable among us: The gov't can do this, but is it possible
for a private citizen or public group to initiate proceedings for the revocation of a corporate charter?
A civil case resulting in the dissolution of SCOX would be a landmark in the demonstration of power-of-the-people.
Re:Begin Focusing on Destroying SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
for a private citizen or public group to initiate proceedings for the revocation of a corporate charter?
No idea. The more interesting question, however, is whether or not you could pierce the corporate veil. Particularly Canopy's veil. If there were (as alleged) some underhanded dealings regardin SCO, Canopy, and other Canopy holdings then you could easily pierce the corporate veil.
Once that's done you can pretty easily sue the directors of the companies involved (both SCO and Canopy) and take them to the cleaners. And there's nothing they can do about it -- their personal property would no longer be immune from lawsuits, and between civil and personal lawsuits you could pretty much guarantee that they'll die penniless paupers in prison.
Yes, vindictive. But seeing charlatans and crooks hide behind the corporate veil and get off scott free has gotten beyond tiresome. The various scumbags involved in this particular scheme could, possibly, act as a wake up call to a lot of other companies. Wouldn't that be nice?
Oh well.. it's a nice dream at least.
fraudsters (Score:5, Interesting)
That sounds like pretty good ammo for a fraud suit if you ask me. It's not in itself enough, but it certainly shows SCO in a lie that's so obvious and deceitful that it just can't be ignored or chalked up to misunderstanding, and it's not too technical for a *moron(ie. a U.S. judge) to understand.
* no, I don't really think all U.S. judges are morons, but sometimes you gotta wonder...
MS funding and the Halloween documents (Score:5, Interesting)
"Unless Linux violates IP rights, it will fail to deliver innovation over the long run."
The comment by Eric is even more interesting:
{ This final remark is worthy of an essay all by itself. It is the least logical -- and at the same time, most damning -- assertion in Ms. van den Berg's entire statement.
As propaganda, it has a superficial cleverness. It plants the idea that any MIS manager so foolish as to use Linux will find his operating system yanked out from under him by a future patent lawsuit -- perhaps one initiated by (whisper it) Microsoft itself. It's a perfect FUD tactic.
More clear sighted theory there than anyone would have thought, 5 years ago.
did anyone think during reading... (Score:5, Funny)
*que some sco guy getting a check from bill gates and a pat on the back*
"No! that isnt what you think it is! microsoft isnt giving us $86 million dollars and encouragement to take out IBM and linux.. so it isnt! no! we are the true owners of linux! linus is running a huge corporation that is taking over 95% of the desktop mark...er... what?"
Interesting settlement (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't this right out of the MS playbook? When MS agreed to settle with the Justice department, part of the original settlement proposed millions of dollars of vouchers for schools redeemable only for MS software. Later when it's competitors complained that this just extended their monopoly, it was changed to any software or hardware.
How fiendishly clever! (Score:5, Funny)
BS (Score:4, Funny)
Re:SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this so hard to understand? (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO are totally dishonest and they will repeat the "Linux is ours" routine until someone stops them.
TWW
Yah keep thinking that. (Score:4, Insightful)
And unlike linux BSD doesn't have any large backers. Who is going to pay your lawyers? No BSD better hope that linux wins this battle. If it looses all the other free software projects are next. SCO would be rich and have precedent.
That settlement would mean nothing to SCO. Truth doesn't. Why should a deal they never signed do?
Re:If Linux goes ... (Score:4, Insightful)
We're talking SCO here.
We're talking SCO here. Logic need not apply.
-MDL
Re:*bangs head on desk* (Score:3, Insightful)
How many more people have to moan about this!!!
you're an incredible idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
You have read some of IBM's arguments, no? A lot of it looks like it came right off Slashdot, just presented more professionally.
Maybe you want people to shut up so SCO has a better chance? Do you own SCO shares?
Re:*bangs head on desk* (Score:5, Insightful)
I know there seems to be an inordinate amount of interest with SCO, but you must realize that there are a LOT of developers who are putting Linux into commerical products, all legal within the GPL. I am involved in such a project. In addition, there are many major companies that are using Linux as enterprise server iron. Companies like RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc, are built upon selling a distribution of Linux.
As to my project, for me to have to flush Linux, and use embedded BSD, or VxWorks would be throwing away a year of development. Seeing the Linux distro companies die would be a tragedy.
The concept of free (as in freedom) software has brought rich rewards to all who embrace the concept, use, and contribute to it. The only viable threats to the Redmond monopoly is Apple, BSD, and what we call Linux.
Yes, I agree there is a lot of FUD and idle speculation running around. Much of it belongs in the "tin-foil hat" paranoid category. Ignore it, or laugh about it. But keep the interest going!
But the crucial point is this: If SCO were to pull this off it would cripple many corporations in an already weak, recovering economy. Products, such as TiVo, Linux-based PDA's, Linksys routers, just to name a few, would come under the fire of SCO's legal department, crippling many, and entirely flushing others. And dont think that BSD would escape unscathed. Even if SCO were unsuccessful against trying to challenge BSD, (and remember that Apple's OSX has BSD parts within it -- they could be dragged into the middle of it) more damage would be done.
In the end we would end up with essentially a monopoly in computer operating systems. No choice, just pay, pay, pay.
I know what I have said has been already been posted in various forms, and I'll probably get modded as redundant, but serious interest is warranted.
Think of it this way. A cockroach, like SCO, hates bright lights and avoids being seen. Keep the lights on and polish your magnifying glass, because the SCO headquarters needs a good dose of insecticide.
-dh