Darl McBride Interview 463
mpsmps writes "vnunet.com has a long interview with SCO CEO Darl McBride devoted entirely to the SCO/IBM suit. McBride radiates confidence, describing SCO's contracts as "bullet-proof." He says he thinks IBM is desperate to buy SCO because "the last thing [IBM wants] to hear is the testimony that is going to come out," but that SCO isn't interested in being acquired. Read the interview for much more on these and other topics." See also part 2 and part 3 of the interview.
SCO -5; Nuisance (Score:5, Insightful)
All these and more SCO statements have been competely reversed now. Why should we listen to this never-ending story of lies from SCO. If they can't say something and stick to it, they do not deserve attention, only contempt.
In fact I fail to u'stand Slashdot's motives in continuing this sequence of non-articles about SCO. News for nerds? Gossip, maybe. Stuff that matters? Matters to whom? No one but SCO.
Interestingly, far away from all the court cases, the Gartner group is pumping more nonsense urging the masses to eschew Linux for mission-critical uses. These are the real evil-doers who need to be exposed. Have any of Gartner's predictions proved accurate? Did they predict the success of Linux, apache or PHP? Except sending out the odd report slamming IIS, they've done lots of damage to the OSS.We should watch out for more of these Gartners and less of SCO.
No evidence of... (Score:2, Insightful)
There has been no evidence provided of this copying. Those who have independently seen both copies of the code have no evidence that it was copied from System V to Linux, that the code was originally in System V and not in BSD or Linux itself.
The innocent have nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard for me to look at SCO's CEO as anything but a cock-jerker. He himself knows for a fact that making such allegations puts a question mark on alot of things..And alot of good work...Honest work that honest people did.
The world is filled with assholes, and this guy apparently has no problem counting himself among the ranks. Thats the most disturbing part of all.
This is new information how? (Score:5, Insightful)
There have been good submissions over the last several days containing new information and perspectives on the SCO case. This is not one of them. This is SCO trying to stay in the news and Slashdot editors resurrecting his interview again a number of days after the interview. In terms of SCO news, this is very tired and old.
Re:SCO: The new 'Military Intelligence' (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I don't think it's gonna happen. SCO has made itself a pariah, and no company is stupid enough to fall for the scam. That goes for IBM, Sun, Microsoft, you name it -- At the end of the day, no one needs SCO.
Nice legacy. Heh.
Re:Bottom Line (Score:5, Insightful)
Dunno. Boies is not paid by the hour, but by a portion of their hypothetical winnings from this case. They can stretch it forever, and the money pumped in by MSFT and (possibly) Sun isn't hurting.
If there is any justice in the world:
1) SCO will be no more after this is over
2) McBride and Sonntag will be serving jail time in a maximum security penitentiary. (ah, well, one can always dream)
This is a CEO (Score:3, Insightful)
So if he looses the lawsuit he would receive $$$$$$. If he wins, he gets $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Now he is posturing, showing a good face. Reporting that the company is healthy. What would you do if offered $$$$$$$$$$$$$$?
No news here....Please move along and post more comments on how windows sucks...
I Call Sillies!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhhh, yeah....
1.) As if the $$$ it would cost IBM to buy SCO wouldn't be pocket change.
2.) As if SCO shareholders wouldn't JUMP at the prospect of trading their stock for IBM.
It sounds like to me this should read
"We're really just trying to get someone to buy us. This whole OS thing has been a fUx0r since the Caldera/SCO merger, neither OS sells very well at all. For the life of me, I can't figure out why IBM won't just put down a little cash and buy us to shut us up."
Re:Bottom Line (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, consider the possibility that Microsoft is the one sponsoring this case. Whom would they sue? HPaq is already at their mercy - besides after Compaq's Digital takeover, the alpha series was consigned to oblivion. SGI was enslaved by MS for a while (they made some MIPS workstations running NT with Cobalt chipsets - remember), and only recently moved towards Linux.
Dell doesn't have a Unix/Linux strategy worth talking about. Sun (even if SCO had a case against them) doesn't compete in the PC game. Their 'Java PC' talk was just that - talk. That leaves only IBM - since IBM has a Unix AND a Linux strategy with their Lotus Notes and Websphere; IBM could be the juicy target to go after.
Now, I doubt SCO really intends to follow-thru on their hollow claims. Their main objective seems to build some sort of credibility and nuisance-value with their suit against IBM, and help MS attack the Corporates with threatening letters, Gartner reports, FUD etc.
It would thus appear SCO isn't keen on making any money from the IBM case directly, their only interest is to bad-mouth all and sundry in the Open Source game - Linus, RMS, RedHat, LUGs, users, Corporates etc. This alone can explain their strange crazy idiotic conduct over the past few months.
SfCuOd (Score:5, Insightful)
But some of the things in the interview just threw up some 'red alert' flags. Some select tidbits:
Although I obtain *all* of my legal knowledge from slashdot :grin:, I don't believe that IBM's lack of filing a summary judgement is a sign that they believe thier case is in trouble. SCO has time and time again denied to release exactly what code was infringing, saying that it will only relesase that at trial. My view of the situation says that IBM is trying to get to the discovery phase as soon as possible. Due to the nature of the case, a summary judgement will probably be denied, which SCO is undoubtably waiting for so they can spin into a huge storm about how IBM lost its first legal battle over the code. IBM isn't letting them have that victory. SCO will have to go to trial and have thier bluf called.
Oh, this is good. IBM develops faster/better/cheaper hardware that runs AIX. IBM improves AIX specifically for that hardware. SCO calls the hardware a derivative work and claims it as its own? God, I'd pay to be on this jury.
Yeah, IBM is soooo slowing this process down. Not filing for that summary judgement must have delayed this case by -1 or -2 months. Bastards.
Just what I want from a company. Although its happened before where a company has gone in and audited software, it has always resulted immediately in backlash against that company. See Microsoft and some western school districts. What is interesting is that SCO could/will be auditing IBM's customers. I'm glad that no entity has any right to barge into my business and conduct random audits. If I plunked down half a dozen 0's for some big iron I'll be damned if any SCOpunk is going to get within 200m of any of my equipment. I'll consider it a test of my internal security measures and tell the guards to shoot on site.
But really, if SCO tried that it would be a act of desperation. Public opinion is already against them. A stunt like this will end all the credibility they have left. Plus, it will also blacken IBM's eye. I'm pretty certain that IBM will fight this one to SCO's death. Which is probably what SCO is betting on.
Darl, the tough guy act and road rage (Score:5, Insightful)
While one should perhaps send UUNet an email questioning their journalistic integrity in asking only innocuous questions and failing to point out SCO's self contradictions, it is interesting to note the increase from Darl, the man's man, as time goes by and absolutely nothing happens or is heard from by IBM.
Darl very neatly contradicted himself in this interview claiming that "IBM is desperate to buy us out", when he can be quoted in nurmerous sources as having said a few weeks ago that "If a solution involves IBM buying us out then that's fine by us".
Another clue is provided by his incredible machismo in his statement that "IBM threw Novell out into the traffic and Novell got run over by the bus".
After reading these statements (The Novell one borders on libel I would think but IANAL) I think the picture is slowly starting to come into focus:
It is indeed a scam intended to raise SCO's ratings on the stock market. A scam that relies on day traders and the usual absolute cluelessness of analysts in general. SCO needs the publicity in order to keep pumping those stocks. The reason Darl is becoming more and more shrill and profane in every interview is obviously because the guy is terrified by the fact that IBM is simply ignoring him for the most part. Claiming to know what IBM is "desperate" to buy or not would require insider information that I'm pretty sure he doesn't have. Not only this but while SCO's stock is very high compared to it's real worth at the moment, eventually SCO is going to run out of things to say that don't cross the border into libel cases, When that happens SCO's stock is going to start sinking. He as much as acknowledges this in saying that a court case is not going to happen tomorrow and IBM can afford to wait and let SCO run out of money as the case slowly rumbles on towards an actual case in court.
I would say that if anyone is desperate, it's SCO, not IBM.
Re:As someone who used SCO in 1993... (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO was less poised to make money with SCO Unix than Sun were with Solaris for Intel. In the areas I worked in 2000 SCO was just not an option. Too many people had had bad experiences with it over the previous decade and it wasn't really considered.
The Unix on Intel market has been pretty much made by Linux because it was free (or relatively low cost). Without Linux this market wouldn't exists Unix would still primarily be on custom hardware.
Re:Once again (Score:1, Insightful)
"our case is so strong, but we won't give details so it can be rectified"
"we dont want to be bought out, but we will threaten IBMs customers"
""We dont want people pissed off at us, but we may sew every linux vendor out there"
Linux is going to come out of this much stronger and known than when SCO started.
What SCO Really Should Be Concerned With. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes, you just get tired of something. You get tired of thinking about it, you get tired of dealing with it, and you get tired of having it done to you. Thats about how I feel when it comes to SCO, and i'll tell you why. It comes down to shame, and how SCO should be f*&@^$ing ashamed of themselves for what they're doing to us AND themselves.
SCO has actively and intentionally put some very dark clouds over a group of people who would have gladly extended a hand to help them. A group of people who have absolutely no vested interest in asserting "ownership" over what they make--However, SCO does....and they will continue to do so, even at our expense. They will cast a shadow over the Linux community for the sake of pumping cash into their organization, for as long as they can. Shameful.
The Linux community is largely made up of people who could care less about the concept of "market share" and "trade secrets". We build because it's fun. It's fun to build. It's fun to make stuff work. Yet, SCO wants to derail that, and take part of that away from us. They want to throw a wrench in the gears of open cooperation and the open exchange of ideas. They want to stifle the process that benefits all, and stifle it in a way that only THEY will benefit from. Shameful.
We, as a community, don't go out of our way to step on people's toes, yet, SCO steps on our toes.
By their actions, they have shown their true colors, namely,their contempt for the process, for us, and for Linux in all that it represents. This isn't an accident on their part. It's an intentional tug at the carpet underneath the feet of the Linux community. An attempt to beat up on something that has never raised a hand in anger--Not to SCO, or to anyone. Shameful.
Well, SCO can tug all they want, the carpet isn't going to move an inch. They can cast as many clouds as they want, hell, they can make it rain if they want to. Thats fine. We'll just build umbrellas. Openly. And freely. The process of building won't stop, and the process of cooperating won't fail.
That being said, it's important to note that SCO's real enemy isn't a person, or a big blue company full of big blue ideas, or even Linux -- SCO's enemy is itself. By doing what they've done, they have shamed themselves, and the shamed the people who support SCO. They have even shamed their own product, and the people who put in the years of work needed to build it.
In nature, given time, problems like that tend to "fix" themselves. I'm not worried, and you shouldn't be either. SCO is cartwheeling out of control, and they have no one to blame but themselves. It's not our fault, or IBM's fault, or SGI's fault, or anyone's fault.. Their fate as a company was sealed the instant they decided to fight change rather than embrace it.
It's just a shame they can't figure that out, and a shame they never will.
Re:Bottom Line (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SCO -5; Nuisance (Score:3, Insightful)
Executives do not know how to evaluate SCO's legal claims. A potential lawsuit will cause them to steer clear of Linux until they know there is no threat.
Re:What if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just my personal opinion:
IBM hasn't filed for dismissal, a stay, and the rest for one simple reason: They want this to go to court.
Why would they want this? Because it will set precedent, and finish the thing off now, (or maybe after a couple of years, in the appeals process). If they got a dismissal of these charges, all SCO would have to do is claim that IBM has done something else, and they could file another lawsuit.
Re:Not interested in being acquired? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the most telling remark of all. McBride:
Ah. So now we begin to see what this is all about. Linux ate their lunch and they want revenge, but they can't attack Linux directly because "Linux" doesn't own any cash for them to rob.
Then he volunteers the idea that IBM want to buy them out, and then immediately denies that SCO would have any interest in such a deal.
Really, what would he be expected to say if a buyout was exactly what he *was* after? He would pump up the notion that a buyout was desirable to IBM and then play hard to get so as to negotiate a good price. Which is exactly what he did.
This is just so blatantly obvious I'm having a hard time deciding whether McBride is truly stupid or if this is some kind of feint intended to divert everybody from his real intentions.
Re:SCO: The new 'Military Intelligence' (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not interested in being acquired? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now to be fair to SCO, I haven't looked at their more recent offerings. But since they badly fumbled the ball there has been no need to either. Linux (and the BSDs) have long provided everything that any Intel developer would ever want, for a low costs, with no withering licence fees or odious licence issues attached.
Enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Take back your industry.
Scott Adams once said in the right corporation it was more important to wear the right clothes than produce results. He citied an example of a man who had sent his suit to be dry cleaned and wound up directly reporting to it.
McBride, Sontag, et all are suits wearing men. Read their histories they are nothings, less than nothings and never will be's. The very act of paying attention to them lends them greater crednce than they could ever gain through merit or labor.
It is painfully obvious that SCO wants to be acquired. It is also quite aparent that these people hold the rest of the universe in contempt, in that they dont even come within shooting distance of truth in their statements.
Take This for example "Sco's contracts are bulletproof". SCO's contracts are over 30 years old have entanglements with 3rd parties and legal decisions, precedents and acquiesences that have rendered them far from bulletproof. If you take a look at the law covering software in the 70's and recall that at the time the legality of copyrighting software object code was up in the air, and patenting it was a complete impossibility, the speciousness of mr McBrides statements is obvious.
P.S. Just a note that the fact you couldnt copyright software object code or patent it at the time really didnt stop anyone from making some really great software.
Side effects to SCO's FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
What SCO has done (and is doing) is not completely bad for OSS and IBM, and I wish to point out some of the benefits to come of this.
First and foremost, a horrible company is in its death throws and will succomb to them eventually. Even with M$ life support it is only a matter of time before the parasitic bug that is SCO keels over and dies.
Secondly, and more importantly, no publicity is bad publicity. Darl McBride and the SCO Groups manical ranting is drawing a lot of attention to Linux and OSS. Eventually the bad PR will be proven for what it is. It is also showing exactly how strongly IBM stands behind and supports OSS, adding even more credibility to the community and software. I expect to see nothing less than Big Blue going toe to toe with SCO and most efficiently wiping the floor with their faces (kind of gives me a warm feeling to think about). Beyond the pleasure it will be to see this, the very public statement it will make should be a (wet)dream come true for OSS advocates. You cannot buy that kind of publicity, you cannot get a message like that across with just words, the *action* of the largest computer and technology company in the world laying themselves on the line is priceless. You can't more easily have people become aware of what a true contender Linux and OSS is to have IBM "risk life and limb, their very existence" to support it. IBM isn't risking anything, you know that, I know that, but the average person who may hear about this does not. All they know is IBM is "risking" 3 billion dollars and every bit of IBM "IP" SCO claims to own. Having a few CEO's thinking IBM is willing to "die" defending Linux is a pretty good thing in my opinion, and this FUD smear campaign will eventually do nothing more than gain Linux additional credibility and support.
I lastly want to appeal to the comments I have come across hypothesizing (and sometimes fearing) a SCO victory. Yes, it is possible no matter how unlikely that SCO could win. Justice is blind and our justice system is very flawed and makes many mistakes. Yet a SCO victory is still a moot point. It would only be the victory of a battle, their war is hopeless. Whether through appeal, counter patent suits, or even a big rock to Darl McBride's forehead, IBM will use one of a million contingency plans available if the near impossible happens and the suit is lost to SCO.
For anyone still concerned about SCO legally proving they owns rights to uhm, just about everything on the planet, I promise I will personally deliver a rock to not only McBride's ugly cranium, but every single one of the members of that company, their umbrella company, and moron who bought their stock. The only problem is, I'm afraid I'd have to get in a very long to carry out the task. For libel I would've actually considered noting that was sarcasm, but since SCO owns the IP of everything it's their joke so they can't sue me. *whew*
Yet another insider trade? (Score:4, Insightful)
Our friend Reginald Charles [slashdot.org] (VP of International Sales, SCO) seems to have sold off another 5K set of shares [sec.gov].
He sold one set 2003-06-20, and this set 2003-06-25.
Only 155K to go Charles!
How is this suit not frivolous? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite ancient history (Score:4, Insightful)
The Amendment purports to cede some copyrights to a predecessor of TSG. Even if the document hasn't been drawn up very recently and artifically aged, the copyright transfer has not been registered with the USPTO so it isn't (yet) valid. They don't yet actually own any related copyrights.
Dollars to doughnuts this is the mysterious transfer of copyrights that they were polling Novell about (and denied so doing) just before they whipped Percival out and shoved him into the legal meat grinder.
They have no patents at all, and no claim to any patents.
Also, if Amendment 2 turns out to be a forgery, the only share trading D'ohl will be doing is trading shares of his posterior for the opportunity to stay alive and relatively unhurt in a Federal penitentiary. Given his arrogance so far, he may not survive long enough to be offered even that.
Demosthenes put it well (Score:2, Insightful)
"Nothing is so easy as to deceive one's self; for what we wish, we readily believe." -- Demosthenes
Re:Bottom Line (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporate law is practiced on a pay-as-you-go basis.
On that basis, SCO does not have enough money in the bank to have this stretch out indefinitely.
That may be one reason IBM is letting this stretch out. McBride's bluster is costing his firm mucho dollars.
If someone (not me) wanted to be really sneaky, they would buy a share of SCO (that's the cheap part) and then hire a good lawyer (EXPENSIVE, let's say high 5 figures to start) and initiate a lawsuit against McBride and SCO and the board of directors for some corporate executivemal feasance against shareholders (hence the need to own a share of SCO). Then you too can have fun with the "discovery process" and go over SCO with a "fine-toothed comb"!
Think of the fun of delivering a subpoena to Lindon, Utah. Think of the excitement of getting to have YOUR VERY OWN SHYSTER get his meaty hooks on SCO corporate documents. HIRE YOUR FRIENDS as expert witnesses that must look over the SCO proprietary source without signing an NDA. You don't need an NDA, because you've got your very own legal shark swimming his way up SCO backside.
Sounds fun, doesn't it?
Maybe Commander Taco would do it if all those VA Linux stock certificates weren't only useful as toilet paper and he wasn't a FORMER dot.com millionaire.
I just wish someone would fight back legally at SCO. They are fucking with Linux and a case can be made that they are doing so wrongly and maliciously. Won't somebody please take the fuckers to court?
Do you really trust IBM to look out for your interests? They're not into Linux for the goodness of it.
Re:Bottom Line (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO will be extremely lucky if they manage to survive long enough to benefit from any semi-positive outcome (for them) of this case.
Re:Could IBM sell out Linux? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like the guys that picked on me in school (Score:2, Insightful)
His commentary was very professional until that little remark...
Re:How hard is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, sorry, that's not how copyright law works. To sue someone for copyright infringement, the very very very very first thing you're doing is notify them what is infringing so they can stop reproducing it and infringing your copyright. Don't take all my 'very's as hyperbole, it happens before the lawsuit, before the discovery, before anything. It happens in the very first letter from the copyright holder.
The fact they still haven't done it implies there is no such code.
Re:Not interested in being acquired? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a chicken-and-egg predicament. As long as Unix-on-Intel meant "SCO", it was perpetually going to be a nitch product. Those guys were always dodgy and expensive.
But, back in 1995, Novell announced they were going to merge UNIXWare with NetWare to form something called "SuperNOS" and compete directly with Windows NT in the "mixed use" server market. At this time, Novell had > 50% marketshare and would have had incredible leverage to push UNIX on corporate customers and line-up hardware and political support. With the Internet boom, the timing would have been perfect.
But instead Novell went for this insanely stupid WordPerfect-based client strategy and scotched UnixWare. The rest is history -- Novell's now a minor league vendor and they are crawling back to SuperNOS, except this time with Linux and 8 years too late. And Microsoft pretty much owns the low-end corporate server market.
This was a huge missed opportunity that set Unix adoption back by probably 5 years. Unix-on-Intel never had a real "push" until the late 90s with Linux. Sure, the liberal licencing helps, but so does the support network and the hardware and vendor support that SCO and Sun never had.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
IBM will still string it out (Score:5, Insightful)
Good link - that being publically known, though, I still don't know if it changes IBM's strategy. Basically it means that Boies has a vested interest in settling as soon as possible, to get as much cash per time spent as possible. It's kind of like when you have a real estate agent - they get a fixed percentage of the sale price, and underpriced houses sell faster - so it's in their best interest to sell your house at 5% under value if they can sell it twice as fast. Same with Boies.
So if I'm IBM, the first thing I intimate to Boies is that there is NO settlement. What does he do then? Best get this thing to trial and try to get whatever he can, huh? I would say then that the more IBM stalls the more desperate Boies gets to not spend years on this thing when they may get nothing in return except losing a high-profile case, wasting time and killing his mystique. I believe he isn't anxious to try that on.
The other reason Boies has to hurry is that the investors who stupidly drove this thing up to $11/share are going to get restless eventually - I would bet that if this thing gets badly dragged out, share price goes down, shrinking the cash pie that is shared among Boies, Darl, etc.
Ultimately, I don't think Boies is a moron, so I bet a lot of this is starting to sink in. I'm sure he's also apprised Darl of the situation, and that's why Darl is sounding crazier than ever - and from the sound of things, trying to convince shareholders of value more than anything. He knows their share price is a bubble, and if it pops, the company comes apart.
I can't wait. Might just pop a beer and watch MSNBC all day when it goes down. ;)
Re:Bottom Line (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:McBride is doing what a CEO is supposed to do (Score:2, Insightful)
SCO was more than happy to let the community help them. They made money selling the community's work, and SCO Unix (especially Open Server) was only made marginally useful with the inclusion of massive amounts of free software. They then sit, at McBride's own admission, on the discovery of this code until Linux is even more popular. It just seems they are perfectly willing to take, but want to sue anyone who may even potentially take the other direction.
Another issue is what they claim has been taken. If real, useful code was stolen outright, then yes, he is doing his duty. That does not seem to be the case. From a lot of his interviews, it looks to either be an attempt at _massively_ redefining the concept of derivitave works, or a claim that it uses "unix methods" dating from the 1970's. There may be a legal right to claim things from then, but there is not much moral claim to something written in 1970, currently with its 5th or 6th owner. Before SCO bought that "IP", they were doing the same thing they are now suing everyone else over. To the redefining of certain terms, I do not think that it is a moral act of them to attempt to redifine a term that, while it will make them money now, will cause huge amounts of lawsuits and destruction of large industry segments.
As to the solution, McBride does not seem to have any interest in an amicable solution at all. Their own Unix products, quite frankly, are worthless, and most ISV's I work with are forcing customers off of SCO, and have been for a couple of years, because it is a horrible platform and very difficult to support. They are trying to use litigation to suppress their main competitor in a market they couldn't win with their vastly inferior products. Every interview I have seen has no reference to reaching a good solution, and many references to massive legal actions.
There are some situations under which they may have a fully legitimate claim, but most seem to depend on strange redefinitions of legal terms or invoking obscure 30+ year old contract rights, purchased 5 parties ago. That may provide a small chance of legal victory, but I do not believe this attempt to be ethical in the least if it can only stand on those terms.