Computer Associates Pays Off SCO 299
jford235 writes "Forbes reports that CA has paid the fee to SCO for their license. The deal went down in August but today CA has says that they have taken steps to "distance itself from SCO"."
One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.
Misleading Headline (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ugh... (Score:3, Informative)
Stupid CA (Score:3, Informative)
Isn't this a repeat? (Score:5, Informative)
BS (Score:2, Informative)
What a lame headline... (Score:5, Informative)
>>"(SCO) is grasping at straws to purport CA as a SCO supporter,"
>>"CA stands in stark disagreement with SCO's tactics, which are intended to intimidate and threaten customers."
CA sees it a little different (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, CA did NOT pay for these licenses (Score:5, Informative)
WRONG WRONG WRONG (Score:2, Informative)
CA's senior VP of product development Mark Barrenechea says here that the SCO claim is nonsense.
Re:Isn't this a repeat? (Score:1, Informative)
They key point is in the last paragraph (Score:3, Informative)
Computer Associates said its license for Linux is part of a legal settlement with Canopy Group, SCO's major shareholder. In August, Computer Associates signed the SCO license and paid $40 million to Canopy Group to settle breach-of-contract charges, but news of that deal surfaced only recently on Web sites.
I hope that the papers will at least get this right, after botching the job on the AutoZone lawsuit.
Update the Article! (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, this article is both misleading and old news. You can find this from CA on Newsforge [newsforge.com]:
You'll also find this on news.com.com.com.com [com.com]:
Basically Canopy threw in the licenses as part of a settlement with Canopy's Center7 company. I wonder if SCO broke any confidentiality agreements regarding the settlement by announcing that CA was a Linux IP Licensee. ;)
SEC may be investigating MicroSCOft (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.newsforge.com/trends/04/03/08/0457259.
who knew shit could be worth so much (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yeah, CA paid for them - $0.00 (Score:1, Informative)
Thanks for pushing SCO's FUD (Score:5, Informative)
The headline effectively states CA bought a SCO Linux license, when nothing of the sort happened.
Canopy put a SCO Linux "license" in with other stuff in the settlement of a breach of contract lawsuit.
And now SCO (and /., apparently) start spouting off hou that means CA bought a Linux "license".
Anyone now doubt that Canopy and SCO are intertwined? Or that they both have Bill Gates hand shoved up their asses like the ragged sock puppets they are?
Re:WRONG WRONG WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
Taco (Score:4, Informative)
Throw in Michaels antics and stuff like this and your surprised there's not that many subscribers?
Re:I don't use CA, but... (Score:2, Informative)
Way to fall for the FUD though.
Re:Taco (Score:3, Informative)
Bruce Perns fact based article.... (Score:2, Informative)
here [com.com]
NOT Forbes, but Reuters (Score:2, Informative)
It has NOTHING to do with Forbes and their editorial positions except they linked to a Reuters story.
Sheesh.
Re:Ironic thing - UC Berkeley (Score:3, Informative)
In this case, CA = Computer Associates, not California.
Re:What is it with Forbes and inaccuracy? (Score:2, Informative)
So the score is SCO 4 GPL 4,000,000.
I was wondering if anyone else noticed ..
Lindon, Utah-based SCO said at least four companies, including CA, have received the license to use Linux.
Microsoft Corp. .. and Sun Microsystems Inc. .., which are competing fiercely for market share in selling computer server operating systems, have license deals with SCO to use Unix.
So the four* so-called "Linux licenses" they have sold are to Microsoft, Sun**, CA, and EV1. Of those arguably only EV1 knew (or cared) they were getting any such thing. Yup, persuasive proof of "respecting the IP holder's claims". Riight.
* - Iirc quote was "less than fifty" so guess they didn't exactly lie
** - An in-the-trenches Sun tech claims "word is" that Sun was after drivers to use in x86, did not know about nor intentionally fund SCO's attack plans. Not displeased mind, but not exactly a willing accomplice either. (No evidence here to decide fact or spin.)
Re:Piercing the corporate viel (Score:5, Informative)
They only needed to pierce the veil as long as Canopy stayed behind the scenes. The limitation of liability afforded a corporation's shareholders only covers the shareholder from responsibility for the actions of the corporation; it does not in any way protect a shareholder from liability for his or her own actions.
With this deal, Canopy commited an overt act in furtherance of SCOX's campaign to mislead the public in SCOX's anti-linux campaign when they made the UnixWare license (with the linux indeminification attached) part of the CA lawsuit settlement. SCOX then used this deal to misleadingly imply that CA had entered into a voluntary deal to license linux. I'd say this falls under IBM's Lanham Act claims[See this [groklaw.net], start at 84.) IBM doesn't need to pierce the veil, Canopy pulled is aside themselves.
Cheers,
Craig
Re:Stupid CA (Score:1, Informative)
Seriously, when will these companies stop supplying SCO with more money for these legal challenges?
Read the fucking article. CA didn't pay them for the Linux licenses. CA was forced to buy Unixware licenses as part of a legal settlement, and SCO quietly attached the Linux licenses so they could claim CA as a licensee.
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1543091,00
"Sam Greenblatt, chief architect of the Linux technology group for CA, in Islandia. N.Y., told eWEEK that while CA "disagrees with SCO's tactics, which are intended to intimidate and threaten customers, CA's license for Linux technology is part of a larger settlement with the Canopy Group [Inc.]. It has nothing to do with SCO's strategy of intimidation."
With licensees like this, who needs enemies?
Steven
Re:Forgive them (Score:5, Informative)
Been here, done this (Score:4, Informative)
Here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org].
Not that I'm against ragging on SCO and their stupidity, but isn't this horse dead?
SCOX reaches lowest price in 6 months (Score:5, Informative)
1 year SCOX chart [msn.com]
5 days SCOX chars [msn.com]
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:4, Informative)
Headlines are usually written by the editors, not the journalists.
Incorrect information on the front page (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah... (Score:5, Informative)