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"."
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.
oooh, this is grey area... (Score:4, Insightful)
In August when CA did this they weren't intimidating/threatening? CA didn't know any better because they weren't paying too much attention to SCO's bullshit and not enough to the people who actually have a clue?
Sucks when you are caught between a rock and a hard place I guess.
What is it with Forbes and inaccuracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't CA already explain the whole Canopy/SCO financial thing?
Here we go... (Score:1, Insightful)
Get your tin foil hats!
Yeah, CA paid for them - $0.00 (Score:5, Insightful)
Mike
Key legal ammunition? (Score:5, Insightful)
Misleading lede (Score:5, Insightful)
Forgive them (Score:3, Insightful)
But we have to look at it from the businesses point of view. Until the case with IBM is settled, and SCO is proven to be the litigous bastard Microsoft funded puppets that they are, many companies will unfortunately make a business decision - pay a little money now, rather then possibly a lot later in lawyer's fees. So I can't entirely blame them.
But given the article and the memo leak that it is in fact MS that paid SCO a significant amount of money in order to start their puppet suing with the explicit goal of creating FUD about Linux, why hasn't any federal prosecutor stepped up and done an investigation on Microsoft and SCO? File racketeering charges against these guys - they're no better then the Mafia.
Pressure... (Score:4, Insightful)
It is nerve wrecking for a person to be sued. For companies, if you turn out to be the target of a company attempting to make money out of litigation, you have very little course for action that will save you. You fight it and you lose money, while the trial is going on, you are dragged into the light.
You pay them off and there is a chance that the deal could bite you later.
There are no paths to getting out of this. CA just took the option that they thought would be better. Now they are tossing themselves back into the fight when SCO decides to release the details of the deal.
They should have not commented, put out a generic statement about how they do not endorse others, and let it ride.
SP --- Prays that we stop giving SCO attention.
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
So in the end CA bought licenses, but only because SCO wanted to put the licenses down as "sold", not because they would have sold them in any other way.
It's like giving away free stuff along with other things, then later claiming everybody bought your stuff when they just bought something else.
Re:What is it with Forbes and inaccuracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I particularly liked this part: "Generally, if an IP holder is able to demonstrate that others in the industry have taken a license, thereby respecting the IP holder's claims, that can be used as evidence that is persuasive to a jury,"
So the score is SCO 4 GPL 4,000,000.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO strong-armed CA into a deal (Score:2, Insightful)
It looks like SCO may have tacked on a Linux license rider clause to their much stronger case settlement - the breach-of-contract charge - to use as a publicity stunt such as this or just to extract a little more money from the CA coffers.
Slashrank [slashrank.org]
The only reason SCO is doing this (Score:4, Insightful)
To jury in closing args: "It must be our IP, and many others agree... we've already licensed it to several, large, well-respected technology companies."
Whether you agree with SCO or not (I don't), they're making a hell of an effort to control some key elements of open source software. We shouldn't laugh it off and expect them to go away... these guys are going for the kill... they're deadly serious. Their lawyers don't care whether they actually own any code or not. Wake up to this threat before it's too late.
Re:Key legal ammunition? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, I watch enough Peoples' Court to know about that one :)
Re:Action Item: Boycotts (Score:5, Insightful)
I honestly think that for every company that pays SCO for that 'license' should be boycotted by the user community
This would not be productive. CA's minor contribution to SCO is not going to make the difference between SCO winning and losing their case. It might, however, make the difference between CA continuing to use, and sell, free of distraction, linux products to customers who might not feel comfortable using them otherwise. Which of these is better for the linux community?
If someone offers you something for free (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is it with Forbes and inaccuracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Forbes have probably figured out by now that they get a huge amount of click-throughs from slashdot every time they write something good about SCO.
Good for advertising revenue!
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Misleading use of the word 'sued' also.
I've seen this a lot, especially with regard to SCO's actions. Wouldn't the correct usage be SCO filed suit against IBM [...] a year ago?
As stated in the Forbes article, it could be taken to mean that SCO successfully sued IBM... or maybe I'm not as hot at my native language as I thought.
Doesn't surprise me (Score:3, Insightful)
I really doesn't surprise me coming from such a shitty company as CA. I mean anyone who would peddle the crap they do would climb in bed with anyone.
I've never seen one instance where any of thier software didn't cause more problems than it solved. For instance I worked a few years ago at CSC and we installed TNG shit across 665 solaris platforms only to have nothing but troubles. We ended up backing off TNG shit and disabling it but we where still locked in to a contract.
The present company I work for just installed TNG across all of the platform against my advice. I laugh now everytime there is a problem, which is almost daily. Thier software is crap, they are crap, it doesn't suprise me.
interesting that they HAVEN'T (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
CA went to the store and bought a computer. Someone threw three AOL disks in the box while they weren't looking.
Now AOL's trying to claim they've been a customer for 135 days, because, after all, those were 45 day free trial CDs.
Actually, it's even sillier than that. CA got Unixware licenses. SCO has just gone around saying they won't sue anyone who purchases Unixware licenses to cover their Linux intallations. At no point did CA see 'Linux license' on anything, even if they had checked the box carefully thy would have ended up with them.
Re:Forgive them (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:CA should have known better than to allow this (Score:2, Insightful)
Then, after the fact, SCO decided to give all existing Unixware licensees Linux rights as well. If CA didn't even know they were getting Linux (as opposed to Unixware) licenses, that's a crucial distinction.
Re:CA should have known better than to allow this (Score:5, Insightful)
Reuters sucks so amazingly bad (Score:1, Insightful)
Second, they got the five-day-old news WRONG. CA has spent five days trying to make SCO look like idiots (and succeeding) for trying to cast every incoming dollar as payment for "Linux IP". CA may have it's own problems, but this story is pretty simple and obvious with about 20 seconds of research (hint to Reuters: read *multiple* old headlines before writing your stories)
Third, a big bravo to Forbes for printing a story by one of the crappiest news shops in existence *verbatim* without fact checking. Can't... contain... mediocrity... it's leaking out!!! Help!
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
The license is VERY restrictive though. I mean EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE.
I wonder whether CA by accepting that very license gave away their rights to do with Linux whatever they could do before.
That's even way worse than SCO just wanting to give an impression of legitimacy. They actually screwed CA big time. Or at least, you could see it that way.
And hence: Could CA now be sued by SCO for normal Linux "use" ?
Notrace.Nosig.
Re:Misleading lede (Score:5, Insightful)
That's it. That's the supposed "connection" between them. And half of it was WRONG.
And Forbes let Daniel Lyons publish that. Why? Because PJ chastized him for not bothering to do ANY research. And now we see how poor his researching skills really are. Hell, I could do better than that, and I'm just an amature. Yet, given what I know, if I had access to some of the databases PIs use, I could probably have PJs info in a few minutes. And I'm just some schmoe, not an "investigative reporter."
The lesson here? Forbes' "research" consists primarily of corporate PR documents. IBM hasn't put out any, SCO has, so Forbes prints SCO's story and never bothers to research after that.
At least, that's the most consistant interpretation I can give of it. In the mean time, guess which magazine I tell everyone NOT to bother reading or subscribing to? I would encourage the rest of you to do the same, unless you want to read rehashed press releases for some reason...
This is NOT a Forbes article (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes, CA did NOT pay for these licenses (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, CA was given a number of UNIXware licenses. SCO merely tacked on the SCOsource licenses. This would be akin to a grocery store clerk slipping an unpurchased product into a celebrity's shopping bag, so that the product manufacturer can claim that the celebrity endorses its product.