SCO Invoices For Unix Licenses Get Closer 588
beggs writes "BusinessWeek, InfoWorld and the EE Times Online all have stories about SCO's plans to send out license invoices to Linux vendors for 'Unix license fees for Linux.' The experts advice: Wait and see what happens with the court cases before you pay." RowLowy points to ZDnet's story, which says that "SCO will pursue commercial Linux users who have discussed their Linux work publicly ... However, it won't take action until it's done more research on those businesses." JayR writes to say that Michael Dell recently told a gathering of Dell investors that Dell Computer will offer no protection from SCO lawsuits to customers who buy Linux-based systems from Dell. Keep score: an anonymous reader points out that SCO executives are still selling off their stock. Total proceeds in August of over $600,000. Senior Vice President Reginald Broughton tops the list with over $300,000."
Krusty? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Krusty? (Score:5, Funny)
Krusty: "And if my banker is watching, let nothing STOP you from PAYMENT on this check."
Re:Krusty? (Score:3, Funny)
Worst Episode Ever!
Only in Slashdot... (Score:4, Funny)
by BigDumbAnimal (532071) on Wednesday September 03, @11:02AM (#6858949)
"and if my accountant is watching please STOP PAYMENT on this check"
by Anonymous Cowtard (573891) on Wednesday September 03, @11:06AM (#6858989)
Incorrect, it's:
Krusty: "And if my banker is watching, let nothing STOP you from PAYMENT on this check."
Re:Krusty? (Score:4, Funny)
Krusty/SCO: All right, here's the deal. Every time you use Linux, you must send us... [holds up a check] 199 dollars!
Announcer's Voice/Linux Users [fine print]: Checks will not be honored.
- from Krusty Gets Kancelled [snpp.com]
J
dirty work... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, is there anyone left out there who doesn't think that SCO executives were all along trying to pull a pump-n-dump of their own stock?
Re:Yes!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yes!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
>
>First [Martha Stewart] does a topless Christmass special. Now she is a love slave to McBride
Look, could we please just go back to posting goatse.cx links?
Re:Yes!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed, but the profit margins were insane.
most of the sales were planned sales.
Yes, but the whole set of events could be planned around this as well. It just happened to work in their favor that they predicted the market properly to favor their stock at the times when these press statements would be made.
Extortion? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean demanding money for things that you had no input in? It's like me asking everyone who uses Windows to pay me because I think Ms stole my code. Hmm I think I'd have more reason than SCO actually..I did sent Ms some beta bug reports...
Re:Extortion? (Score:3, Insightful)
but now that they are starting to actually do something(demand payments) maybe someone will drag them to court over it(hopefully) in usa too.
-
Re:Extortion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you see a pattern here?
Maybe not cretins (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why is the Stock Price still going up? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Extortion? (Score:5, Insightful)
-Rusty
Re:Extortion? (Score:5, Interesting)
it is illegal to do what they are doing, and they know it.
it's time people start suing McBribe directly attack his pockets.
Re:Extortion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Extortion? (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering what we know of SCO's "evidence" against Linux, it's more like fraud: trying to use false pretense to get money.
Re:Extortion? -- YES (Score:4, Informative)
from people you have no prior business relationship,
and without giving reasons why they legaly have
to pay you. I am sorry, "pay so I don't report
you to the authorities", or "pay so I don't
sue you" is illegal. It is simple extortion,
as plain as it can possibly be.
It's mail fraud and illegal (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/fraud/Mai
Essentially, sending a fraudulant invoice through the US mails is a crime:
"Extortion (18 USC 873, 876 & 877)
Postal Inspectors investigate extortion and blackmail when demands for ransoms or rewards are sent through the U.S. Mail. Inspectors also strictly enforce laws prohibiting mail that contains threats of kidnapping, physical injury, or injury to the property or reputations of others
Mail Fraud (18 USC 1341, 1342 & 1345; 39 USC 3005 & 3007)
The Postal Inspection Service is committed to protecting postal customers from misuse of the mail. Inspectors place special emphasis on mail fraud scams related to advance fees, boiler rooms, health care, insurance, investments, deceptive mailings and other consumer frauds, especially when they target the elderly or other susceptible groups."
The guys who investigate it are U.S. Postal Inspectors, who have very draconian powers, and have very wide-ranging jurisdiction.
Re:It's mail fraud and illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
And no, ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. So even if SCO thought they were in the right sending these invoices, they can be busted for fraud. (Just like they're trying to bust Linux users who never intended on infringing SCO's alleged copyright).
Re:Extortion? (Score:4, Funny)
Is prison rape still not funny as some Slashdotter so adamantly posted [slashdot.org] last week ?
Its Not extortion...ITS MAIL FRAUD (Score:3, Insightful)
OOOOOH! I hope they send some to Minnesota!! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!
I know Attorney General Mike Hatch is looking for another bich to slap
Re:Its Not extortion (Score:4, Interesting)
They can believe anything they want. Some people believe the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese. They still have to obey the law, including postal regulations.
If SCO believes that they have IP rights in Linux, then they need to point it out, and possibly prove it if challenged, prior to any payment.
Simply believing that you infringe some IP that I own, through no willful action of your own does not give me a legal right to bill you.
They are demanding a license fee to make you legal, or you are subject to a suit.
So, they can sue. In this case, they have to prove their claim. If they want money without a suit, they still have to prove their claim. What is the difficulty you have with this concept?
On a different tack, no liability attached to an end user in any event. They would have to sue who made the copies of the infringing code. Red Hat. SuSE. Etc.
Finally, even if SCO could prove their claims against IBM, then IBM would pay them $3 Billion. This is the full and complete restitution for their damages causes by IBM's bad conduct. (If they could prove it.) Still, no liability attaches to end users, nor distributers in this case. No judge allows you to collect damages multiple times. If IBM damaged SCO, then IBM will pay for it and then restitution has been made to SCO. End of story.
Hope they do it in Germany (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hope they do it in Germany (Score:3, Funny)
German man: Entschuldigen Sie, bitte, konnen Sie Deutsch sprechen?
Basil: I'm sorry, could you say that again?
German lady: You speak German?
Basil: Oh, German! I'm sorry, I thought there was something wrong with you. Of course, the Germans!
Re:Hope they do it in Germany (Score:5, Funny)
Are you kidding? We're still trying to figure out how they make their beer so damned good.
End in sight ? (Score:5, Interesting)
So will they relax a bit and stop hounding us when the last executive has sold his last share ?
Re:End in sight ? (Score:5, Insightful)
James
Actually, no (Score:5, Informative)
Look for another press release to boost the stock price next Monday, September 8, when some of the top execs will be selling again.
Re:End in sight ? (Score:5, Informative)
James
I am not paying anything without a PO number (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I am not paying anything without a PO number (Score:5, Interesting)
It's sad and funny to see a publically traded company resort to an ages-old scam [fraud.org] in order to get revenue. Anyone who gets an invoice should contact the National Fraud Information Center.
Re:I am not paying anything without a PO number (Score:3, Funny)
Note to self: overcharge my corporate customers by four percent every time.
It's Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporation have WAY too much control over the legal process and society. They're wielding their greed-drunk power without any thought for anything except their profit.
Remember "No Face" from Spirited Away? Think about it. Better to keep them out of the bath house.
Re:It's Obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
A society can only be ruled over with the consent of the people and the art of any "democratic" government is to perfume the shit they dump on people so no-one smells it's presence. Only when the whole population is up to their ears in it does it seem to spark them into action.
Whether or not anything can be done about it is down to the American people but I believe that Lincoln stated that (and I'm para-phrasing heavily here) If the
Not so obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
If we want to address the problem, we need to cure the disease. Attacking the symptoms won't do a damn thing to change the way things work.
Re:Not so obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
We are looking at a problem with government, not the corporations...
Exactly. And the problem with government is that it's been taken over by the corporations. "We the people" no longer run the government so corporations are getting out of control. Extremely bad behavior is being rewarded with extremely high profits (Microsoft) or increased stock prices (SCO).
Re:It's Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately most govt agencies are incompetant,...
Incompetence isn't the problem. The regulatory agencies have been captured by the corporations they're supposed to be regulating. The agencies are also under a starvation attack from lawmakers who love to cut the budgets of any agency that pisses off their corporate owners.
Not going to sue... (Score:5, Funny)
So I guess they weren't lying!
I hear that SCO invoices... (Score:5, Funny)
Although they may not flush well after use - better to send them back from whence they came, once you got your use out of it.
Please use a plastic-lined envelope - no need to punish the poor mail carrier for SCO's stupidity.
DG
SCO is awesome!! (Score:5, Funny)
it goes a little something like this: SCO is awesome because they guys are just so UTTERLY ridiculous. as idiotic as their thinking is, you have to respect the confidence they have to send out invoices. it is sort of like those poor flys and insects who are attracted to the bright lights of a bug zapper - as many times as they've seen their comrades electrocuted, they still have the wherewithal to fly directly to their deaths. well SCO, you haven't got long to live, so you might as well go out with a bang.
feel free to send me that invoice, by the way, i'm out of toilet paper
I'm sueing too. (Score:5, Funny)
BTW, Darl, I'm looking for a new job. Considering that I have no legal experience whatsoever, can think of loads of silly lawsuits in under 5 minutes (see above), I think I'll fit in perfectly with your legal team.
IBM vs Canopy development? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the most interesting thing I've seen so far today: "Docket Text: Return of service executed re: Subpoena served on Canopy Group c/o Ralph Yanno on 8/26/03" -- here [uscourts.gov].
Could this be IBM going for the neck of the hydra? That would be... wonderful.
Re:IBM vs Canopy development? Correction (Score:5, Interesting)
The guy's name is Ralph Yarro actually. I happen to have met him personally when the Canopy company I worked for held its last Christmas party and he's definitely your typical hateable VC investor.
Good for him if he gets into trouble. That'll make my company's 7 rounds of layoffs in 2 years easier to swallow.
Re:IBM vs Canopy development? (Score:5, Insightful)
Many have said that SCO picked the wrong company to start this little fiaSCO with, and this might show exactly why.
Given the nature of the IBM legal team, it's possible that they're not just going to remove SCO from threatening Linux and AIX (and by extention a major slice of IBMs business future) but the people pulling SCOs strings.
BTW, that should be Ralph J. Yarro, I think. Do a google search on Ralph J. Yarro - the first page is almost all links to "insider trading" going on not only SCO, but Altiris as well.
Soko
Re:IBM vs Canopy development? (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing that makes this even harder to swallow is that there are 41 motions on that website that have been filed, and you know that each and every one of them has cost each side thousands of dollars just to have some guy read it and respond. Thats at least a half a mil on both sides (probably much more), just to deal with the paperwork. And that doesn't include any of the time for discovery, depositions and other preliminary crap before the trial even begins to be considered
Isn't there some point in copyright law... (Score:4, Insightful)
If Audi stole Honda's copyrighted engine design, would Audi owners be sued because they their car contains a part that is the result of copyright infringement? No.
Isn't there some law, some precedence you can easily refer to and dismiss this as FUD? It'd do a lot to stop (corporate) Linux end-users from worrying.
Because, even if all of SCOs wild claims are right, I still don't see how there is any possible grounds for customer liability. But I've yet to see a piece of legislation that actually says so.
Kjella
Re:Isn't there some point in copyright law... (Score:5, Interesting)
If Audi stole Honda's copyrighted engine design, would Audi owners be sued because they their car contains a part that is the result of copyright infringement? No.
You can't copyright an engine design. Substitute "patent" and your comment makes sense.
I still don't see how there is any possible grounds for customer liability. But I've yet to see a piece of legislation that actually says so.
Doesn't matter. It's SCO's responsibility to find a law that says they can hold the customers liable, not our responsibility to find one that says they can't.
Re:Isn't there some point in copyright law... (Score:5, Interesting)
... This is a point that I think is very important and I don't see it mentioned here too often. Copyright law provides certain protection to the author of copyrighted works. The copyrighted works cannot be used beyond the normal "fair use" provided for by copyright law without the "express writtten permission" of the author.
The GPL provides this "express written permission" by the author and outlines the terms and conditions under which the permissions are granted. If the terms are not agreed to then the permissions are not granted. Any other use is in violation of the GPL "contract" and also copyright law!
Let's assume that Linux in fact DOES contain SCO code. There are two options. Remember that Linux existed and SCO code would have been added. SCO has two choices: 1) release their additions under the provisions of the GPL and be in compliance. 2) actively move to identify and remove the IP from the Linux code base and prosecute whoever was responsible for breaching SCO's intelectual property.
They cannot leave their IP in Linux and not release it under the GPL let alone try to license it. That is a violation of the GPL as well as a violation of the original author's (Linus's) copyright on Linux itself.
Re:Isn't there some point in copyright law... (Score:3)
I own a service that provides access to some information (stocks, sports scores, credit card tracking info, whatever)
Bob gets an account at my service, and writes a program that logs in under that account, and displays it with some fancy graphics, perhaps even does some significant analysis (or just displays the raw data, it doesn't really affect the argument)
Bob sells or gives this pr
Can't wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Finance Manager: Got this invoice from SCO for some linux licenses, but it doesn't reference a Purchase Order number.
Me: We never ordered anything from them
Finance Manager: Do we use this Linux thing?
Me: Yes, but we bought it through Redhat, here is the approved purchase orders and copies of our payment vouchers
Finance Manager: So we have no business relationship with this company, nor received any goods or services from them?
Me: No
Finance Manager: Thanks, I'll forward it to the state attorney general's office for investigation.
Re:Can't wait... (Score:3, Funny)
You're a state agency?
You smell like you might be the department of Agriculture?
Re:Can't wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Legality (Score:4, Insightful)
What does sco's staff consist of ? Every loser that the canopy group could find ? Do they all figure that knowingly participating in a criminal conspiracty won't have repercussions for them.
If you work at SCO and are reading this, ask yourself why isn't Microsoft willing to do its own dirty work and do you think they will come to your rescue if this hits the fan.
SCO Doesn't WANT to Win! (Score:5, Insightful)
The probable truth is that SCO is getting free press every day, and /. is certainly no exception there. Didn't it ever occur to folks here that press is all they're looking for?
SCO bigwigs don't expect their company to pull through this, and they don't really care. All they're doing is keeping their company in the news and giving current and potential investors the impression that they are an aggressive, profit-driven company.
Once they have deemed that investors have thrown enough money their way (and driven the stock price high enough), they will bail. This will end with SCO a flaming wreck, and its executives rich, and that's ALL they want.
I just happened to ask an IBMer (Score:3, Insightful)
From this I gathered that IBM is doing the bare minimum they need to, and are letting SCO burn itself out. I also postulated that Arnold Schwarzenegger was refusing to be in the California debates to distance himself from the pack of other contenders, and raise his importance/stature above that of the masses.
Just like IBM, to fit so much information in a very small space.
If they tried it in Europe... (Score:3, Interesting)
Brinkmanship, the word for SCO... (Score:3)
brinkmanship
Soon to be replaced by SCOmanship.
Suggested "invoice" response (Score:4, Interesting)
And that's even if an end-user could be found liable, as the often-mentioned reader-of-an-infringing-New-York-Times analogy addresses.
As it stands now, this is analogous to a company that sells classical music billing you because they've heard you have classical music in your CD collection, and it's absurd.
Re:Suggested "invoice" response (Score:3, Insightful)
In my opinion, the real problem with SCO billing people and companies now, before a court has even ruled of the merits of SCO's claims, is that someone probably will pay them.
Some advice from the Better Business Bearu. (Score:5, Informative)
PHONY INVOICE SCAMS
The anatomy of a typical phony invoice scheme is as follows:
The Call:
While there is no set formula for these invoice schemes, most involve the use of an initial telephone contact. The call helps the swindler obtain the names of key business contacts, as well as some important details about the operation of the business and its products or services. The persons making these calls are, for the most part, remarkably smooth operators. Often brazen and forward in their approach, they have been known to talk their way through a chain of receptionists, secretaries, assistant managers, supervisors, and vice presidents to gain access to heads of companies. In most cases, however, they need gain access to only lower-level employees.
The Invoice:
The con artist's next contact with the intended victim usually comes in the form of a phony invoice sent through the mail. The invoice, which includes names, figures, and other details that add to the appearance of legitimacy, may be paid unwittingly along with a number of other routine bills. In many cases, the amount of the invoice is just small enough to slip by the check writer's attention. The swindler has had considerable experience calculating the most effective dollar amount, depending on variables such as the size of the firm, and the control it seems to have over its management system. Thousands of mass-mailed invoices, each for a small sum, may prove more luc-rative for the con artist, than several large invoices.
The Scare Tactic:
Scare tactics sometimes are used to increase the odds of success. A phony invoice, or past-due notice, stamped "Pay This Bill Now" or "We Are About to Start Action" may intimidate the victim into rushing to make out a check without carefully investigating the supposedly delinquent charge.
SOLICITATIONS AS INVOICES
One of the most common variations of the phony invoice scheme are solicitations disguised as invoices. These documents, which are actually solicitations for the purchase of goods or services, are carefully designed to look like legitimate invoices for goods or services ordered and received. In some cases, the small print may identify the bogus bill as a solicitation. The deceptive solicitation may be received through the mail, or it may be presented in person by a con artist who visits a business office on the pretext of saving the company handling charges.
The business that pays a solicitation disguised as an invoice may receive the merchandise or service it was duped into ordering; more often, it will not, and efforts to trace the fraudulent firm that issued the "invoice" will prove futile.
USPS and FTC (Score:5, Informative)
I suspect the FTC wouldn't particularly like it either... Your state's Attorney General might be interested in the extortion issue, too.
Re:USPS and FTC (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, if they admit on paper that they want payment from you for unsubstantiated claims then they're toast. If they won't admit it, save the copies of that as well. It will make an excellent shield if they try to take you to court. Any refusal to elaborate also makes a good spear if they try to bring collection and credit reporting agencies into it. You'll have a libel case.
What you want is a packet of papers that makes the scam SCO is pulling clear. The "invoice" they send you in and of itself won't mean much without the background information. Mr. Postal Inspector and A.G. probably won't know the blow by blow the way you do. They won't necessarily take your word for it either.
Wake me up when they actually send invoices (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO says:
"We are going to send invoices to Linux users any time now"
"We are going to send invoices to Linux users any day now, and if they don't pay we will SUE them."
"We are going to send invoices to Linux users this month, and if they don't pay we will SUE them... and we MEAN IT."
"We are probably going to send invoices to Linux users before the end of this month and if they don't pay we will give them every opportunity to pay before we sue them."
Soon, with Apu's accent:
"We are going to nicely send invoices to Linux users before the end of the year and if they don't pay... we will nicely send them invoices again."
Just wake me up when there is news that somebody actually received one of these invoices, no need to make ten stories about them sending them RSN each time they threaten to send them.
Re:Wake me up when they actually send invoices (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone else mentioned this. How can anybody be obligated to pay anything without a PO? Is it standard operating procedure for companies just to cut checks for any invoice they get in the mail?
Sounds like mail fraud (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the mail fraud complaint form [usps.com].
Hint: Select "False Bill or Notice" when you fill this out.
SCO Sucks (Score:3, Informative)
Red Hat's strategy REVEALED! (Score:3, Funny)
My letter if I get an invoice (Score:3, Interesting)
To: SCO
From: Linux Company with many machines
Dear SCO,
I have here in front of me your invoice saying that I owe you a license fee. In your letter you do not say what exactly infringes upon your IP, thus making it impossible for us to remove it. Even more disturbing is that you have yet to prove that any violation of you IP has taken place in a court of law. You seem to have gotten the cart before the horse and there is no legal precedant for us to pay for any "alleged violations".
Upon advice of counsel this letter is being turned over to our local state's attorney with a complaint. It is our feeling that SCO is attempting to illegally extort money from our organization. SCO's recent press releases are so inflated and obvioulsy false that we are going to pursue a class action civil suit and also file a complaint with the SEC. It is my personal feeling that you are no different than a mobster asking for protection money.
Sincerely,
Joe Linux User
The thing that disturbs me is that some in our community think tha SCO has shown it's "best hand" at recent events. If you truly think that, then you are sadly mistaken. SCO is running a media showcase, and NOTHING is "leaked" or gets out that isn't meant to. Think along the lines of a magicians miss direction. SCO probably doesn't have a case, but it most certainly has better "code" snippets than has been shown to anyone outside of the legal and technical team bringing suit.
I hope they go to jail FOR A LONG TIME (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't this against the law in some way? They're harming everyone who invested money in sco and the employees by steering it directly at a train wreck. Not to mention the slanderous lies they are spewing around everyday.
But the high paid executives doing this don't care. They don't give one shit. They just want to get as much money out of the stock as possible in a short period of time. They're probably issuing each other multi-million dollar unsecured loans and stock options as we speak.
What a load of thieves. If anyone deserves to go to jail it's these fuckers. If they really believed their claims had any chance of being for real they would ALL hold on to ALL of their stock, not dump it.
And you wanna know what else makes me angry? The people who are buying their stock right now. They're the ones who make this scheme work, be it out of stupidity or whatever, by making the scox price higher. Fuck them too.
New Development: IBM subpoena (Score:4, Informative)
Filed: 08/28/03
Entered: 08/29/03
Return of service executed
Docket Text: Return of service executed re: Subpoena served on Canopy Group c/o Ralph Yanno on 8/26/03
If they can prove that SCO was not an independent corporation, it's all over for Big Brother and his holding company. This is not discovery - that would have been against SCO.
Visit Groklaw (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting comment from JF
Quote
Unless you are using the DMCA to get rubber-stamped subpoenas like the RIAA, a subpoena means you showed a judge enough evidence to convince them that you are probably right on a point related to the case.
The fact that IBM got a subpoena indicates that laid some pretty damning evidence in front of a judge. Any indication of which jurisdiction issued the subpoena?
If it was the courts there in Utah, that at least SQUARES the power of the evidence in my opinion given that SCO/Canopy has the hometown advantage. J.F. 9/3/03; 11:07:56 AM
Estoppel prevents SCO from asserting claims. (Score:4, Interesting)
A few definitions from Black's law.
"Estoppel" means that party is prevented by his own acts from claiming a right detriment of other party who was entitled to rely on such conduct and acted accordingly. Graham v. Asbury, 112 Ariz. 184, 540 P.2d 656, 658.
A principle that provides that an individual is barred from denying or alleging a certain fact or state of facts because of that individuals previous conduct, allegation, or denial. A doctrine which holds that an inconsistent position, attitude, or course of conduct may not be adopted to loss or injury of another. Brand v. Farmers Mut. Protective Ass'n or Texas, Tex,Civ.App., 95 S.W.2d 994, 997.
Thus by matter of record, SCO is Estopped from asserting any claims to the distribution or usage of GPL code which SCO has itself distributed. SCO is also prohibited by the doctrine of "Apparent authority" from asserting the claim that the distribution was not authorized.
Basically, an open and shut case. SCO loses. (Defendant should seek both costs and scantions on plaintiff)
7 more months of this fun? (Score:5, Informative)
10/1: Amending of Pleadings
10/22: Discovery Cutoff
11/10: Deadline for Filing motions
3/11/05: Attorney Conference
3/28/05: Final Pretrial Conference for 2:30
4/11/05: 5 Week Jury Trial
By the 22nd of next month, SCO will have to release to IBM the offending code as part of the discovery phase. The question is how fast it will be leaked.
And we get to watch this whole specatacle until May!
Re:7 more months of this fun? (Score:5, Informative)
And no, I won't be paying any SCO invoices in the meantime.
Re:7 more months of this fun? (Score:3, Funny)
Send em! (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt most companies are going to blindly roll over and pay them. If one shows up, they'll ask their Linux salesperson, or inhouse Linux geek, who will most likely tell them not to pay it.
As another poster pointed out, if you do actually receive one, send copies to the Postal inspector, and Attorney General.
Desparate need for Tort Reform (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO has no case. They are all smoke and mirrors. However, the money required to hire the lawyers to fight SCO will probably cost more than paying SCO. Second of all, SCO can do more damage to Linux companies than SCO is worth.
Also, SCO's strategy of suing the end users is pure extortion. Even if SCO was right and Linux did infringe on SCO's IP, there is absolutely no legal precedent for holding the end users liable, especially since SCO will not mention the infringing code. However, the cost of fighting the lawsuit is greater than the cost of paying SCO. Extortion, pure and simple.
The best tort reform (which would also be useful in the DirecTV case) would be to not allow the suit to be filed unless the plaintiff presented evidence of wrong doing and legal liability on the part of the defendant. Unless the plaintiff can show this, the courts shouldn't even give them the time of day.
Sorry for SCO, but... (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't Darl from Texas? (Score:5, Funny)
Come, Americans. You've got more guns than you have people. Surely you can take care of the SCO problem!
To: SCO, Re: My invoice for violating the GPL (Score:4, Interesting)
As you are violating the GPL by claiming some of the code you destributed is now covered by your copyright, And as I retain the copyright to a portion of the Linux code you now must license from me, I am submitting this invoice.
Please remit $50,000 for the license to use my code as soon as possible as interest charges will accrue.
-
Any other Linux developer want to join in some action to bill SCO for their non-GPL use of our IP?
SCO routine (Score:5, Funny)
Torvalds: You're smoking crack.
SCO: Would you believe one million?
Torvalds: No.
SCO: Would you believe 80 lines?
Torvalds: Doubtful.
SCO: How about two variables with the same names?
SCO legal Timeline (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO's 10Q is due Sep 15.
SCO's reply to IBM is due Sep 25.
This could be an interesting month.
SEC should not ignore this! (Score:4, Insightful)
my opportunity to get on board (Score:5, Funny)
I'm pretty sure that SCO is going to be a great stock to hold onto. I'm hoping very much to get a job there. I keep checking their jobs page eagerly every day, but so far only the disappointing phrase "There are currently no job openings at SCO". Because so many top quality engineers are champing at the bit to work there, I will just have to be patient. I feel like a kid waiting outside a candy store that's about to open...
Compare this with McBride's public statements... (Score:4, Interesting)
Taken from page 12 of SCO's Q2 FY2003 quarterly report [sec.gov]:
This is in a footnote to the company's financials. Yet, when the company's CEO speaks publicly about the matter (and the related actions the company is taking), none of these risk factors are mentioned. Intellectual property litigation is a high-risk proposition under any circumstances. Given the convoluted pedigree of the rights involved in this case, asserting that a favorable outcome is certain -- as Mr. McBride has done with every reporter he has talked to -- is speculation of the most pernicious order, and shows a reckless disregard of his duty to provide the investing public with an accurate statement of the company's affairs.
The conscientious exercise of that duty would seem especially important for a publicly-traded corporation where insiders or related parties own almost 50% of the outstanding stock, and millions of low-balled options are in the portfolios of executives and board members. Based on Mr. McBride's statements -- which are ultimately self-serving, since he has an interest in 800,000 options priced between $0.76 and $2.07 a share -- the price of SCOX has septupled in just six months. Whether its the product of fact or fiction remains to be seen, but there seems to be something very, very wrong with a CEO publicly contradicting the risks reported in a company's financial statement.
Time for another fine in Germany (Score:4, Informative)
This warning seems to be a clear breach of the German injunction.
For that matter, so is the material on SCO's main web page here [sco.com], which makes the unproven allegation "customers unknowingly received illegal copies of SCO property", among other things. I can't think of any reason why the injunction would be limited to material on the German-language page, which is, after all, also served from the U.S.
Re:Outrageous! (Score:4, Funny)
-
Re:Outrageous! (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft does not offer protection for systems with Windows installed.
Apple offers no protection for people with OS/X installed.
Sun offers no protection for people with Solaris installed.
Do we see a patern here?
Heck if your new car's brakes fail and you crash into a bus of Nuns takinq orphans to a puppy farm do you think the car company will offer indemification? Heck no.
No large company on the face of this earth will indemify another company. Large companies understand this. It is just the press and normal people that do not. If a large customer of Dell's gets sued by SCO then they will try and entagle Dell in the suit or if they loose, sue Dell.
It is not Dells fault. SCO is using the scumbag tactic of going after the small fry hoping to scare them into giving them money. Even if SCO looses they will not refund their money! Why doesn't SCO sue Dell for selling Linux, or SuSE, or SUN... Wait Sun is going to release a version of Linux SCO says SUN in not indanger of a law suite since they have the rights to redistribute Unix. So if SUN which is safe releases a Linux Distro under GPL then...
1. All the Linux code that SUN releases is now SCO safe under GPL with SCO's blessing
OR
2. SUN is breaking their agreement with SCO and releasing SCO's IP under GPL with full knowlage that they are doing so. So they should be added to the law suite ASAP. In fact if SCO does not add them then they could be considered to be giving permison to release the code as GPL.
OR
3. Sun is breaking the GPL and needs to be sued.
This could be interesting.
Re:lemme get this straight.. (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, they can. And it's perfectly legal for them too. Why? Invoices mean squat. They have no legal means to force you to pay. If you don't pay, the entity issuing an invoice could take legal action against you -- in this instance, SCO could sue you -- but the invoice itself means nothing.
Re:lemme get this straight.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it does matter. Because if you invoice over a good/service that you didn't provide, but you are claiming that you DID, that is fraud, which is a federal offence. If a judge rules that there is SCO code in Linux, AND that Linux users have to pay, then all is good for SCO. But if the judge determines that there ISN'T any code, or that users don't have to pay, then SCO could very well get charged with one count of fraud for every invoice they sent.
At least, that is MY understanding of fraud. IANALEven if there was code (Score:3)
Even in the best of cases for SCO, charging the end-user hardly sounds like a legitimate practice. In any software case I've heard of, it's the parent company/companies that
Re:People are so fucking stupid (Score:3, Funny)
My legal advice to SCO (Score:4, Funny)
I think it's very sound. As a matter of fact, I believe they are following it at the moment.
Daniel
Time to tell SCO employees... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have always believed that personal integrity is one of the biggest indicators of likely success. A few years ago that was an unfashionable position to take, today in the wake of Enron, Haliburton, Sunbeam etc. more people seem to take my point of view.
I remember back when the Cantor and Segal thing hit telling Laurence Canter that the Hi Tech industry was a small pond and that most of the people who got rich from it did so by being a part of the right circles, playing the inside game. Few people can have realized the potential of the internet as early as Canter and Segal did and ended up worse off than they started as a result.
I think it will turn out the same way for the SCO folk. It is not like they have skills that are exactly sought after in the Windows world. It is going to be interesting seeing these chuckleheads trying to get jobs at IBM and Red Hat in a years time.
Re:Time to tell SCO employees... (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly SCO is pulling a stock scam.