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"."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Computer Associates Pays Off SCO
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin
Misleading Headline (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Yeah... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:2)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:4, Informative)
Headlines are usually written by the editors, not the journalists.
Piercing the corporate viel (Score:5, Interesting)
Ironic thing - UC Berkeley (Score:2)
Re:Ironic thing - UC Berkeley (Score:3, Informative)
In this case, CA = Computer Associates, not California.
Re:Piercing the corporate viel (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Misleading Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, CA did NOT pay for these licenses (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes, CA did NOT pay for these licenses (Score:5, Interesting)
Why?
First, it creates no liability for CA. In a worst case situation, the licenses mean nothing.
Second, it costs nothing.
Having it in a settlement agreement is not comparable to purchasing the licenses, even for a penny.
The only slant you could put on this is that, as the lawyer for CA, you would not let them include meaningless content in the agreement even though it created no risk for CA. For example, I doubt CA would have allowed Canopy to include licenses or indemnification for Microsoft products.
Actually, maybe I am wrong about that. I think Canopy may be able to offer MS licenses considering they are a MS subsidiary.
Re:Yes, CA did NOT pay for these licenses (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds reasonable, but recent events have shown that it is dangerous to have any kind of legal agreement with SCO. SCO's legal actions have all been against companies with which it has a formal contract or license agreement. At this stage, I would want SCO to give me money to compensate for the risk involved in doing business with them.
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.
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:Misleading Headline (Score:5, Funny)
Ahhh, like AOL disks. Maybe that is the future business model for SCO. Get a free Linux license with your PC Magazine....
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, MY GOD!!!
Guy 1: Hey, what about that 100 grand you owe me!
Guy 2: Hey, did you know I own the Brookling Bridge? Let's just throw it in the deal, ok!
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. ;)
CA should have known better than to allow this (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a crucial piece of information. One that SCO will deliberately mishold or put endless spin on.
I'll probably be modded as flame for this, but I have to say I think that CA wasn't thinking when they allowed that "licensing" to be thrown in as part of the terms of any settlement. Now SCO will run around using this as ammunition for their continued litigation.
It's not like CA or anyone else doesn't know who or what they were dealing with...
How does that saying go? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?
.
Re:CA should have known better than to allow this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:5, Funny)
Ugh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ugh... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ugh... (Score:2, Interesting)
Diego Rey
Re:Ugh... (Score:2)
Re:Ugh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes.. if you look at the SCO "IP license" it is so insanely unspecific, you could be paying for anything and nothing. (which of course you are..)
But the statement in the article that it "may provide key legal ammunition" is just pure bullocks.
No court would view the fact that you've convinced third parties outside of the court room as evidence that you're right.
(BTW: This is a Reuters story, WTF are they linking to Forbes for? Given the amount of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:oooh, this is grey area... (Score:3, Interesting)
If someone offers you something for free (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If someone offers you something for free (Score:3, Interesting)
Stupid CA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stupid CA (Score:2)
So save money or save face? Which would your shareholders appreciate more?
What is it with Forbes and inaccuracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't CA already explain the whole Canopy/SCO financial thing?
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.
Re:What is it with Forbes and inaccuracy? (Score:4, Funny)
Money and "keeping score" (Score:4, Interesting)
I really like this, but I have to point out a subtle point that skews the 'scoring', and it is an important point, especially as it's what the Slashdot editors (WTH, Slashdot editors! WTH??) are getting wrong.
The reason that juries consider the existence and number of industry licensors to be significant is that it's assumed the licensors are "putting their money where their mouth is" -- they are investing their money in the licenses because they believe that they are paying the person who legally owns the intellectual property rights, in exchange for the freedom to use those rights safely and legally.
Of course, because juries make this consideration, it's becoming a less reliable consideration to make -- I think we can safely say that convicted software pirate [vnunet.com] Microsoft paid for its SCO licenses solely for the purpose of swaying public opinion and possible juries. And while we may decry their decision as foolish and/or cowardly, there is unfortunately a certain basic logic to EV1's decision to buy SCO's license; one can be entirely sure a claim is without merit and entirely unsure that a jury would recognize the lack of merit.
But fewer than 4,000,000 companies have put their money into Linux -- or if they have, the amounts have been orders of magnitude lower. Microsoft-funded "studies" on TCO aside, it is easier and cheaper to go with Linux, and in this specific arena, that works against us, because doing something that's easy and cheap doesn't make as much of a statement as something that's more costly and difficult. There is still a cost and effort to comply with the GPL -- companies like Cisco and Linksys have found that out -- but again, the 'investments' have been orders of magnitude lower.
And this is the central point that the Slashdot editors got wrong in the headline, stating that "Computer Associates Pays Off SCO" when the only party claiming that CA paid any amount of money for SCO's Linux licensing has been SCO. Why, again, would we take SCO's word for it? SCO could do this to anyone that pays them any money, for anything: throw in licenses for free and then claim that they weren't free, that they represent an investment of money and therefore an endorsement of SCO's claims.
Yes, Forbes published the egregiously wrong Dan Lyons "Linux's Hit Men" article. But in this case, Forbes published the correct and balanced information and it is Slashdot that grossly mischaracterized the events to the detriment of Linux.
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!
Isn't this a repeat? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Isn't this a repeat? (Score:3, Interesting)
If they have indeed sold or given away Linux licences, they have committed a criminal offence in most countries signatory to the Berne conventions. By "they" I mean of course SCO, not CA. It seems to me that receiving an illegally given licence is simply t
Re:Isn't this a repeat? (Score:3, Interesting)
Amen, brother! And at the top of the lazy journalism crowd is Taco with a headline that was virtually ripped from a SCO press release:
"Computer Associates Pays Off SCO"
Way to go, Taco!
-h-
BS (Score:2, Informative)
CA was tricked (Score:5, Interesting)
As a part of that settlment, SCO was required to purchase UnixWare licenses from SCO. SCO placed language in that license that also gave CA the right to SCO's Linux IP. Now SCO is using this to say that CA is a licensee.
The really interesting part is that this shows Canopy manuvering other companies it controls to benefit SCO. This may give IBM an opportunity to "pierce the corporate veil" and go after Canopy's assets in the counter-suit.
Yeah, CA paid for them - $0.00 (Score:5, Insightful)
Mike
Key legal ammunition? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Key legal ammunition? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, I watch enough Peoples' Court to know about that one :)
Re:Key legal ammunition? (Score:3, Funny)
But your honor, four people have bought my H.ERB@AL V.I.A.G.R.A, so how can this be quack? Clearly, the plaintiff has no case saying I am a snake oil merchant / con man!
sure? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:sure? (Score:5, Interesting)
They say this is not true http://business.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/03 /05/0249257&mode=thread
You are right and I think if you read deeply both articles are saying the same thing. From the forbes one:
And from News Forge:
It seems that SCO are once again desperately trying to twist the facts to sopport their case. In reality, SCO "just attached a transparent Linux indemnification to all UnixWare licenses"
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."
Misleading lede (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
CA sees it a little different (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Forgive them (Score:5, Informative)
Change the article title (Score:5, Interesting)
WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was under the impression that CA bought the licenses under a sealed settlement under completely unrelated suit. Unless I'm mistaken, CA bought licenses for UnixWare (or some other Old-SCO product), for which each automatically included a binary Linux license.
It sounds like SCO quitely tacked on the "free Linux binary license" in order to give the illusion of legitamacy within the indrustry to their Linux claims. It's a sneaky, bullshit move. I hope that the courts see this the same way I do. OTOH, the EV1 move was not trickery on SCO's part. That was just EV1 being stupid.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
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:Pressure... (Score:2)
What's wrong with exposing SCO's true actions here? It improves my opinion of CA's behavior in the matter, and perhaps it will bring about the demise of SCO just a little sooner.
I have a few other news updates. (Score:5, Funny)
2) The Beatles broke up.
3) The Berlin Wall is down.
4) The Soviet Union is no more.
5) Slashdot editors have poor memories or cannot search their own archives.
WRONG WRONG WRONG (Score:2, Informative)
CA's senior VP of product development Mark Barrenechea says here that the SCO claim is nonsense.
Re:WRONG WRONG WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
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 publi
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.
I have a nice bridge you might want (Score:4, Interesting)
So if I can convince one person to pay me toll, that proves to a jury I really do own the Brooklyn Bridge? This reduces reductio ad absurdum down to the absurdum.
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:The only reason SCO is doing this (Score:5, Funny)
I laughed and laughed...
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)
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?
The license fee was all of $19,000 (Score:5, Interesting)
Canopy again (Score:2)
They fucking wrote the cookbook here and it's time their MBA asses got dragged into this SCO soap much more prominently than has happened up until now. Expose them for what they are and stay as far
Well, what's new? (Score:3, Funny)
Tell me one area where SCO isn't grasping at straws lately.
You Have Purchased Linux Licenses From Me (Score:5, Funny)
Heh heh, now I can submit a press release claiming I sold Linux licenses to hundreds or thousands of Slashdot readers. Muahahahah!
(I feel compelled to add a disclaimer that this is satire and as far as I know I currently don't own any IP in Linux and therefore can't grant you any license. Geez, that's a joke kill.)
Taco (Score:4, Informative)
Throw in Michaels antics and stuff like this and your surprised there's not that many subscribers?
Re:Taco (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Taco (Score:2)
Bruce Perns fact based article.... (Score:2, Informative)
here [com.com]
CA should help the OSDL defence fund (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:CA should help the OSDL defence fund (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, because IBM is doing just a terrible job of defending this lawsuit. I mean, their lawyers just plain suck.
If SCO was suing corporations that were in dire financial trouble or in desperate aid of competent legal help that would be one thing--but as long as they sue corporations that are prepared to fi
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
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)
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?
Best not do business with SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
If it works this way, we could expect that SCO have given away their "we do not sue you, until we can figure out how" - insurance to a lot of companies and will have a lot of acceptance track record to show up in court. But lets hope they are too greedy to do that.
And by now it would be hard to pull this trick, as so far it has bin SCO customers that have bin dragged to court. People and companies using Linux without any SCO involvment seams to be at low risk.
Doing business with SCO could also trigger actions e.g. boycotts and lawsuits from the open source movement. They could expect denial of service attacs either from misled angry wannebe members of the open source community (hope it never happens) or instigated by the SCO/Microsoft combo trying to discredit the open source movement. In this war everything seams to be permitted. And the best way to stay out of it seams to be to avoid SCO at all costs.
By the way look at the SCO stock! Now below $11!
It seams that investors too, have lost faith in SCO. Time for a new hidden infusion from Microsoft?
SCOX reaches lowest price in 6 months (Score:5, Informative)
1 year SCOX chart [msn.com]
5 days SCOX chars [msn.com]
Personal Boycott (Score:3, Funny)
This is NOT a Forbes article (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Not Really Consumer Software Generally Speaking (Score:3, Interesting)
CA's customers are almost exclusively large, mostly publicly held, companies and governments.
That was my point, actually. Big companies are potentially afraid of using linux because SCO might actually sue them. That would affect their bottom line, and they don't want to have to deal with defending themselves from a nonsense lawsuit just because CA deployed some linux servers/software for them. Individuals (non-corporate) who might otherwise use linux are really not worried about SCO suing them.
I do
Re:I don't use CA, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO tries to get money from any company that supports Linux/Open Source in any way, then the Linux/Open Source supporters boycott that company.
Maybe that's why SCO is trying to make it look as if CA is a traitor.
Re:I don't use CA, but... (Score:2, Informative)
Way to fall for the FUD though.
Re:I don't use CA, but... (Score:2)
As for FUD, well, does CA acknowledge the licenses or did they wipe their asses with them?
If they acknowledge them as legit then they are guilty, if they use them for TP then they are OK..