Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Caldera The Almighty Buck

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More on Recent SCOings On

Comments Filter:
  • by nokilli ( 759129 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:07AM (#8474123)
    It's hard to see how they can continue to maintain that they were just "licensing" IP from SCO. As the memo appears to be genuine, it seems to me that Redmond has a lot of explaining to do. Especially to the Justice Department; I mean, if this isn't predatory behavior then I don't know what is.
    • by MooCows ( 718367 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:11AM (#8474149)
      As much as I hate to say this again, the justice system isn't going to do a thing against MS as long as they don't commit massive frauds or something similiar.

      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].
      • by dillon_rinker ( 17944 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:33AM (#8474277) Homepage
        The "government" is not a monolithic entity. To the court system, MS is a monopolist. To the executive branch, what's good for General Motors is good for America.
        • Since when is suing car companies is good for america?
        • by teromajusa ( 445906 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @09:25AM (#8474645)
          It would be nice if that seperation were as clean as you suggest. Unfortunately, the exectutive branch appoints the guy who's in charge of deciding which cases to prosecute, as well as the judges who will preside over them. Congress can block the judicial appointments, but thats only of limited effectiveness [msn.com].
          • by justanyone ( 308934 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @11:53AM (#8476308) Homepage Journal
            It would be nice if that seperation were as clean as you suggest. Unfortunately, the exectutive branch appoints the guy who's in charge of deciding which cases to prosecute...

            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
        • by spincycle1953 ( 721087 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @09:43AM (#8474800)
          And SCO being the stalking horse for M$, suing Daimler-Chrysler, is good for General Moteors. QED.
      • by 13Echo ( 209846 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @09:23AM (#8474628) Homepage Journal
        Perhaps... This is the evidence that shows that SCO is just Microsoft's "SCOpegoat" to aid them in their attempt to destroy something that they can't own. It must be frightening, actually, to be a company that's become so wealthy in a market in which you nearly have a monopoly, only to have someone's pet project turn in to a world-class operating system that gets better and better every day. What do you do when your traditional "embrace and extend" tactics don't work? It must be frightening to know that something is sneaking up on your market share, stealing a small bit of it every day... And you can't own it. Scare tactics are the only option. I know which companies and groups I would trust after all of this... And it certainly isn't Microsoft or SCO.

        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.
        • by harmless_mammal ( 543804 ) <jrzagar AT yahoo DOT com> on Friday March 05, 2004 @10:38AM (#8475423)
          Yes, but I find this statement to be more 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?
        • by rixstep ( 611236 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @12:15PM (#8476531) Homepage
          You've only made things worse for yourselves.

          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.
      • by Tough Love ( 215404 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @09:27AM (#8474660)
        As much as I hate to say this again, the justice system isn't going to do a thing against MS as long as they don't commit massive frauds or something similiar.

        What is not massive about this fraud?
      • by rickmci ( 757973 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @10:30AM (#8475327) Homepage
        Don't matter about what the justice department will or will not do. SCO is first to fall to Linux and Microsoft is on the short list of greedy monoplizing companies that will also fall to Linux. I am just glad the "Linux is unix" and "GPL" stuff will be settled in court soon. SCO will loose, IMB will have stomped them to dust. Then every vendor has the same starting point (GPL Linux). Let the compentition begin for the best support, add-ons and value added products. If that is not the best description of fair compention. I don't know what is.

        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.
        • by drooling-dog ( 189103 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @02:04PM (#8477698)
          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.

          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.

    • "I mean, if this isn't predatory behavior then I don't know what is."

      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."

    • by danamania ( 540950 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:42AM (#8474330)
      I just had a little spinetingling experience, which was serendipitously timed.

      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
      • by IPFreely ( 47576 ) <mark@mwiley.org> on Friday March 05, 2004 @10:09AM (#8475097) Homepage Journal
        Dispite the similarity in name, that was not the same SCO we are facing now.

        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.

        • Not quite right the sequence of events is more like the following:

          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.
    • by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:47AM (#8474347) Homepage Journal

      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!"

      • by redelm ( 54142 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @09:39AM (#8474773) Homepage
        BG might be able to get away with that argument for StarBucks.

        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.

  • "a few years"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:09AM (#8474134) Homepage Journal

    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)

      by indigeek ( 755687 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:24AM (#8474218)
      I'm just waiting for the markets to open.
      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)

        by akiaki007 ( 148804 )
        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 !!

        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)

          by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @09:49AM (#8474886) Homepage
          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.

          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:5, Interesting)

        by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @09:03AM (#8474456) Homepage
        If you follow the Yahoo SCOX forum (there is a lot of noise, but some people there who are REALLY well informed as well), you will note that it's pretty obvious that on low volume days "painting the tape" is going in.

        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.
      • These events happened yesterday, and this is the stock market we are talking about. It was more than 15 min ago, and the traders saw a shiny thing between now and then, it will have no bearing on today's trading.

        -Charlie
    • Re:"a few years"? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:52AM (#8474377) Homepage
      Assuming SCO wins they are STILL irrelevant the next day...

      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...
  • by AlabamaMike ( 657318 ) * on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:10AM (#8474145) Journal
    CA Says It Didn't Pay SCO No Stinking Linux Tax

    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.ht ml
  • This is rich (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John Harrison ( 223649 ) <johnharrison@gma ... inus threevowels> on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:12AM (#8474154) Homepage Journal
    SCO "sells" Linux licenses as part of a lawsuit settlement and includes an NDA so that the "customer" can't publically admit that they are (or are not) a customer.

    It smells pretty desperate when you won't let your "best" customers comment on what they've bought from you.

  • by glassesmonkey ( 684291 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:14AM (#8474166) Homepage Journal
    LA Times (free crappy reg) story [latimes.com]
    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.
    • by mabu ( 178417 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:30AM (#8474258)
      Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO Group Inc., says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him.

      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.
      • by dreamchaser ( 49529 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:41AM (#8474324) Homepage Journal
        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.

        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.
      • by resprung ( 410576 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @10:52AM (#8475582) Homepage
        In my opinion, the SCO lawsuit is one of the best things that could happen to Linux.

        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.

    • by Get Behind the Mule ( 61986 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:51AM (#8474370)
      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.


      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.
    • The tech worlds two most controversial gun nuts taking each other on!

      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)

    by T-Kir ( 597145 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:14AM (#8474167) Homepage

    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.

  • by Pelerin ( 33247 ) <rru.pelerin@net> on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:18AM (#8474184)
    The Motley Fool thinks so. Money quote:
    In addition to the horrific, self-inflicted damage to its reputation, the licensing-lawsuit strategy is delivering a one-two punch to SCO's bottom line. Efforts to license Linux cost SCO $3.4 million in the first quarter. That's right, one-third of total revenue was wiped out. The payback? Twenty thousand dollars. That's not a typo. I know guys who make that much mowing lawns for a summer. Moreover, the balance sheet already currently lists $8 million in liabilities to legal firms. That number is likely to increase with the company's new lawsuit against AutoZone

    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].

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:43AM (#8474335)
      It's a bit weirder than that. Roughly $9 million of their last year's income was Microsoft doing UNIX licensing. This was money they would not have gotten without the licensing, and basically adds up to Microsoft funding the lawyers.

      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.
    • Efforts to license Linux cost SCO $3.4 million in the first quarter. That's right, one-third of total revenue was wiped out. The payback? Twenty thousand dollars.

      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'
      • by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @09:12AM (#8474526) Homepage
        "The common Slashdot response is it is because they are stupid. I don't think so. If they are not stupid, then what could explain these apparently nonsensical actions? Well, if it was in someone else's interest that Linux had legal difficulties..."

        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.
    • by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @09:47AM (#8474861) Homepage Journal

      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?

  • by mabu ( 178417 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:18AM (#8474187)
    Well, if SCO says Microsoft isn't funding them, we should undoubtely put that truth in proper context with all the other truths SCO has been claiming.
  • by Trillan ( 597339 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:19AM (#8474190) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by glassesmonkey ( 684291 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:20AM (#8474195) Homepage Journal
    No. 1 is EV1Servers.net who announced SCO lied [thewhir.com] about how much they were paid (Microsoft is a fan of EV1)
    (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
    • by glassesmonkey ( 684291 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:29AM (#8474250) Homepage Journal
      Since the site is horribly slow and I haven't seen the news about Leggett & Platt anywhere else, here's the text:

      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.
    • by Kazymyr ( 190114 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @09:02AM (#8474446) Journal
      The actual wording is that EV1 didn't pay seven figures cash. My interpretation is that they may have given SCO something else beside cash to add up to seven figures.

      Hmm... what might SCO want from a hosting company... hmm, SCO has been recently DDOSed... hmm...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:21AM (#8474200)
    This article is more interesting:
    http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5170181.html?tag=n efd_top [com.com]
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:23AM (#8474211)
      Late Thursday, a Microsoft representative told CNET News.com that the company is not financially involved in the SCO-BayStar deal, saying its only financial relationship is its license of SCO's intellectual property.

      "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.

      • by LMCBoy ( 185365 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @09:44AM (#8474817) Homepage Journal
        Reminds me of the classic SNL skit:

        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."
  • by dubdays ( 410710 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:21AM (#8474202)
    Since they decided they really can't get a whole lot of people to buy their linux licenses, SCO have to give them to companies without their knowledge, and then call them "Linux IP licensees" and issue a statement as such just to try to weasel a few more bucks from other "uninformed" companies who then decide to buy the "licenses" after all. It's time for CA to lay the smack-down and discredit these punks.
  • 30 posts (Score:5, Funny)

    by m00nun1t ( 588082 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:22AM (#8474205) Homepage
    30 posts so far, not one from anyone saying "I was wrong about the comments I made about Microsoft in the previous thread".

    And I'm not expecting any.
  • by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06@NoSpAm.email.com> on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:24AM (#8474215)
    for Baystar to continue to deny that Microsoft had anything to do with the funding if in fact they did? I realize that Baystar is not under oath right now (right now), but patently false statements about publicly traded companies seems like it might be crossing a line.

    One can only hope.

  • by cozziewozzie ( 344246 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:24AM (#8474219)
    I mean, who could have thought of a worse, more stupid way to piss off the whole tech sector and drive yourself into bankruptcy. The more I think about it, the more this strange idea develops that SCO (Caldera) is actually doing all this rubbish to help the Linux community. OK, it is way out there, but in some perverted way, it makes sense.

    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.
  • CA is hardly a saint (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:25AM (#8474226)
    Before everybody jumps on the bandwagon of saying "good for CA to tell us what it could", remember that CA is probably the single most hulking software beauracracy in the Universe. It rivals the old IBM in terms of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) creation as a method of retaining customers. After CA jumps on your boat, they begin a cash-sucking operation and paralyze any new development. I'm not sure we want to side with CA.

    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.

    • by DLG ( 14172 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:52AM (#8474374)
      Interestingly enough, no one was or is jumping on said bandwagon. I have found it very interesting to read some of the ways that AC has been used to distract this discussion away from Microsoft/SCO.

      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.

  • by codepunk ( 167897 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:25AM (#8474228)
    So why on earth are the suing Autozone if they have
    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."
    • by Wyzard ( 110714 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:57AM (#8474409) Homepage

      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:28AM (#8474246)
    They buy companies and immediately layoff 20%. They ask the managers and rank everyone, and the bottom 20% get chopped off immediately.

    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.
  • by wongqc ( 555152 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:28AM (#8474247)
    Memo misunderstood? Is SCO now implying to the world at large that all of us had failed our english comprehension?

    Can everyone sue for personal attacks? :P

    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 :P

  • by drwtsn32 ( 674346 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:30AM (#8474256)
    and their $86M payment to SCO is just to cover the $699/each licensing fee.
  • by stuffduff ( 681819 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:32AM (#8474270) Journal
    I bet that any day now ESR will be modifying the jargon file to include several new derogatory for business practices, and other things; all along the lines of:

    SCO: (sKO) verb

    1. To deliberately mislead, usurp or inappropriately lay claim to intellectual property. To attempt to gain by deciet. He was SCOed.
    2. To be a pawn, manipulated by another for sinister purposes. They used him to SCO those other guys.
    3. To cast dispersions on the integrety of rightous code. They tried to SCO Linux.
  • by madprof ( 4723 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:33AM (#8474275)
    "By the way, CA doesn't have enough UnixWare licenses to cover all its Linux servers, Greenblatt said."

    Shame eh?
  • PJ has a point (Score:5, Interesting)

    by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06@NoSpAm.email.com> on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:33AM (#8474278)
    Reading over at Groklaw [groklaw.net], I saw that PJ has a great point: Now that the memo is noted as authentic, IBM can subpoena Microsoft and ask for their email and documents.

    Imagine the fun things they'll find!

  • by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:34AM (#8474284)
    I mean, SCO is such a beacon of truth, why not just take them at their word?

    Or better yet, why don't we ask M$ directly if they gave up the dough?
  • We all knew. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ljavelin ( 41345 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:34AM (#8474289)
    Most industry analyists knew that Microsoft was concerned about Linux.

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I assumed the spelling mistakes were due to OCR scanning of a printed page. If the party who sent it to ESR was rushed, s/he may have quickly printed the email and then scanned it later to send off. ESR would print it exactly how it was received, with OCR errors intact.

      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
  • by tilleyrw ( 56427 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:41AM (#8474321)

    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.

    • by Zathrus ( 232140 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @09:34AM (#8474724) Homepage
      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?


      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)

    by Ender Ryan ( 79406 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @08:44AM (#8474341) Journal
    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."

    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...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 05, 2004 @09:03AM (#8474454)
    The Halloween 3 document ( http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween3.php ), first posted by Eric on Nov 5. 1998, contains an interesting quote:

    "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. ...snip... }

    More clear sighted theory there than anyone would have thought, 5 years ago.
  • by ShadowRage ( 678728 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @09:10AM (#8474514) Homepage Journal
    of the iraqi minister of communications while reading this?

    *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?"
  • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @09:18AM (#8474586)
    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."

    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.

  • by El ( 94934 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @10:32AM (#8475361)
    Blake Stowell, knowing that we will never beleive a word he says, claims the memo is real to convince us that it was faked!
  • BS (Score:4, Funny)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Friday March 05, 2004 @02:11PM (#8477769)
    Blake Stowell, SCO Information Minister -- even his initials are BS!

egrep patterns are full regular expressions; it uses a fast deterministic algorithm that sometimes needs exponential space. -- unix manuals

Working...