More Criticism of SCO's Claims To UNIX 400
inc_x writes "GROKLAW has a
compelling analysis that shows that SCO's claims that it owns the UNIX operating system are not very truthful. The Open Group confirms this position: "Statements that SCO "owns the UNIX operating system" or has "licensed UNIX to XYZ", are clearly inaccurate and misleading." It seems that SCO finds it increasingly difficult to distinguish facts from fiction. Last week SCO claimed 'This IP battle is only one part of SCO's business and is an add-on component. The core of SCO's business is profitable,' not bothered by the fact that they had claimed the opposite in their SEC filing: 'If we do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in future quarters and our revenue from the sale of our operating system platform products and services continues to decline, we will need to further reduce operating expenses in order to maintain profitability or generate positive cash flow.'"
In tomorrow's /. news... (Score:-1, Insightful)
Seriously, I think we've heard the same thing for quite a while now. 2) is okay to hear about, but 1) gets old real fast.
Who buys the stocks anyways? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who buys the stocks that SCO "dump"? Anyone in their right mind would back off from this company. I for one, wouldn't have bought a sinking ship.
Reducing operating expenses (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if I read this right, if no one pays any license extortion money to SCO then they will have to cut costs to remain in the black. One might suggest they start by dismissing their over-priced lawyers, dismissing their frivolous lawsuits, and trying to kick the collective crack habit they seem to have developed.
Then again, they are well on their way to becoming the poster child to show that taking drugs leads to criminal behaviour. I wonder if they could claim royalties on all the eventual "Don't do drugs or you'll turn into SCO" posters in schools and police stations... ;)
This is stupid (Score:0, Insightful)
99% of you probably already know this.
However, since SCO isn't suing anyone for trademark infringement, that fact is completely worthless. It does nothing to negatively affect SCO's claims.
The fact is that SCO *does* own what has been traditionally called "the UNIX Operating System" and they *do* licence it to vendors like IBM, HP, and SGI.
Re:Who buys the stocks anyways? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I feel that this won't last for too long but, it will likely last for as long as they can keep their name in the news. Once it finally goes to court, probably in 2004, it will all be over. But, for the next three to six months, SCOX is still a good buy.
SCO news a MUST read (or do you really care?) (Score:5, Insightful)
K, so you just don't care about Linux. Do you care about Open Source in general? It's not just a Linux problem, it's an open source problem. Sure, Linux is the blame stick here, but Linux is just the tip of the iceberg. Linux is just a proxy for the whole Open Source way of doing things. Where do you think the next 'lines of code' will be found? Who owns the copyrights for main()? Old Bell labs? K&R? SCO?
Yeah, you think that's silly question.
What this whole SCO thing is about is modern day robber barons. CEO-theives who think they can create a high level of fear and uncertainty from suits; enough that they will listen, enough that they will wonder, enough that they will pay.
Unfortunately, this is not the scary thing; the scary thing, sad though it sounds, is that they are doing this with legal means. We can bitch and moan about how wrong they are, but you don't see them in 'cuffs do you? This is the exact same sort of tactic (RIAA, Microsoft, and a cast of thousands) that is used to circumvent freedoms of ideas, ideals, and individuality.
Care or not care, but understand what you are doing, understand the implications, and understand that you or someone/something you care about may be next.
Stop the presses, a business is lying! (Score:5, Insightful)
While we are all in a foment over SCO lying about its extent of owning everything, should we even really be surprised?
Can you name one corporation that actually seems like it ALWAYS tells the truth? By truth I mean, through its communications never seeks to misrepresent the reality of a situation.
There are not any out there.
Re:Who buys the stocks anyways? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not many sensible investors looking for long-term profit would invest in SCO. But they aren't the only ones who buy stock. As an example, say some company or person wanted to reward the SCO execs for their litigious nonsense. This company could do so legally and largely unnoticeably by buying SCO stock. With the execs dumping stock which is really worthless, money is just going from the purchasers to the officers' pockets.
After all, SCO is being sued by IBM for patent infringement, and they will almost certainly lose. They are going down. It is merely a question of when.
Don't read the stories then... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't read them. Some of us want a daily SCO update. It's ok that you don't want daily stories, but you can read the other stories instead of filling up the place with complains.
It's just unnecessary.
Re:Don't read the stories then... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the Slash editors have done a great job of spacing these stories so that they aren't even beginning to overwhelm the site, and I hope they keep it up through to the case's conclusion. And if the ongoing high comment count for each SCO story are any indication, I'm not the only one who thinks this way.
Please, Slashdot, keep up the good work. Through everybody's efforts, we can win this, and UnixWare will once more come out on top.
-- Darl
You misunderstand the article (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of the article is that SCO asserts in their media appearances, press releases, and most importantly, their court filings, that (1) UNIX is a single operating system, (2) all based on the AT&T code, (3) SCO own the AT&T code
The artice demonstrates, that (1) and (2) are false, and SCO must know that.
(1) Is demonstrated to be false, by the very definition of UNIX,
(2) Is demonstrated to be false, by the existence of S/390 UNIX, and by the fact that Windows NT could become UNIX in future, etc.
The fact that SCO must know that is demonstrated by SCO's history with trademark licensing and attribution, UNIX certification of SCO products, etc.
Re:Reducing operating expenses (Score:4, Insightful)
They've made all kinds of random threats and press releases but only for the purpose of driving up the stock price. They don't intend to actually go to court.
Heck, they don't intend to even win their one lawsuit against IBM.
Re:Make UNIX Open SCOurce! (Score:1, Insightful)
An interesting observation.
It seems to me that all non-Microsoft operating systems are converging on Unix.
Just look at a list of the OSes and the companies: Linux, AIX, HPux, OS X, Solaris. IBM, HP, Apple, Sun, SGI.
This kind of reminds me of when IBM had lost control of the "pc architecture" to the clones, and tried to introduce the PS/2 with royalties attached. Everyone did what they were being told to do at the time and "just said no". IBM was left holding the non-industry standard. Eventually they started selling PC's again.
Of course, we may not want too many variants on unix. Linux seems to becomming the great unix unifier. Everyone (but sun) killing off their own unixen for Linux.
Of course this could end up being bad, since SCO is owner of the (important note: singular not plural) operating system Linux.
Re:Oh for chrissake (Score:3, Insightful)
In the last few days at work, from what I've heard from visiting execs -- and from some in my department (it's a big department, trust me) -- it became clear to me that some are buying Chris & Darl's party line. In fact, I'm starting to get the impression that a small majority of the decision makers/non-techies in North America is woefully (sp?) ignorant about the whole shebang and has gotten whatever "information" it "knows" about the SCO-IBM duel from sources like CNN and what they over-heard on the bus or on the plane.
Or from places like Gartner or EDS -- a company that has apparently wedged into whatever contracts they sign with their clients a clause that tells the clients they are their own if they need support for the "Linux kernel", because, according to EDS, the "Linux kernel" is not supported. (Now, what kind of logic is that?)
You should remember that not everyone reads Slashdot.
Illegal either way? (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way, what they've done is illegal. The question for us - the open-source community - is finding someone with legal standing to make an issue out of it. Find two parties, one who would have been injured by the allegedly incorrect 10K filings, and other who would be injured by price pumping (recent buyers of SCOX). If each party sues for $XX million, someone would win and SCO should loose a big chunk of their relatively small cash assets, either by damage awards, SEC fines, or legal fees. Either way, it puts them out of our collective misery.
Of course, IANAL. But it sounds good, doesn't it?
jury trial? (Score:3, Insightful)
"If the case is shit, you must aquit." Dayrl may not go to jail if he manages to get a "jury trial", but Linux and free software are not doomed.
Why hasn't Open Group sued SCO yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Reducing operating expenses (Score:4, Insightful)
C//
Linux customer list for invoices? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that Red Hat, SuSE, or any of the other Linux vendors are going to give SCO a list of people who have purchased Linux so that SCO can turn around and send out invoices.
Sure, SCO can assume that some Fortune 500 companies are using Linux in some way and send out invoices to those, but, I don't see how SCO will have any solid proof that any of them is using, say, Red Hat Linux unless someone tells SCO first that such and such company is using Red Hat.
So company X gets an invoice from SCO and ignores it. What is SCO going to do? Send someone out from SCO, unannounced, that just shows up and expects to be able to do a thourough audit of the companie's computer networks to find any trace of Linux? Even though SCO may have said that they'd do audits like this, do you really think that SCO is going to have the manpower and money to audit literally thousands of companies?
If you think SCO can do that, I'll show up at your company Monday morning and demand an on-site audit so that I can do a complete network audit and look for any Linux machines that might be running any code that I have personally written. I expect full cooperation. I'll send my bill to you the day before I get there.
The bottom line is that while SCO may send out invoices to customers for using Linux, SCO doesn't have much of an idea which of those customers are using Linux, unless Linux vendors have shared their customer list with SCO in the first place. That, or SCO is doing some sort of Internet scanning looking for Linux systems. And don't think for a minute that most companies will put up with SCO coming to do a audit of all their computers.
Its time that SCO puts up or shuts up. I'm getting tired of reading the SCO posts on /. and in the media, even for their entertainment value.
Re:Oh for chrissake (Score:1, Insightful)
Think of the classic opposition Linux has faced during it's rise to popularity:
1994: "Linux is too risky because it's developed by amateurs"
1997: "Linux is too risky because it's not as mature as Solaris"
1999: "Linux is too risky because you can't buy support"
2002: "OK. All that's changed! Linux isn't risky anymore!"
2003: "Oops, now Linux is too risky because we might get sued for using it!"
At worst, a two years setback in deployment.
I can see (Score:2, Insightful)
If I had to choose between a car thief and a lawyer I would choose the car thief at least I can keep a eye on my car. Lawyers steal everything and often just out of evil nature and spite.
King Henry, VI part II act IV
"The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers."
It's a joke about lawyers [spectacle.org] sure it is. There are to many lawyers. Do your part.
Differences between 2.2 & 2.4+ code? (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me if I'm missing something...
Re:Make UNIX Open SCOurce! (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO most certainly does not own Linux. At most they may have ownership of inappropriately included code. The vast majority of the Linux codebase is owned by individual and corporate contributes who have and had full rights to do so. Those copyright holders have every right to nail them for infringment. This is why they're spewing this "GPL is public domain." nonsense. They are even more guilty of copyright infringment than anyone who contributed inappropriate code to Linux. They're practicing "a good offense is better than a good defense".
Sooner or later, SCO will have to reveal their so-called evidence. The provenance of the code will be established and anything that doesn't belong will be removed. At that point they can go after the hapless idiots who contributed the 80 lines or so but that is it.
They can be said to own the Caldera variant but it was always a niche distro at best.
While we're on the subject, Linus Torvalds owns the Linux trademark. They won't be claiming that for their own either.
Re:Who buys the stocks anyways? (Score:3, Insightful)
I was under the impression that it was April 2005. So we should have at least another year of this commedy routine.
One +1 Insightful observation I'll make: Slashdot SHOULD CREATE AN SCO SECTION. This nonsense is going to go on for long enough that those of us who wait on the edge of our seats constantly checking slashdot for each new commedic bit of PR from SCO could check a special subsection like sco.slashdot.org.
Why, oh why, oh why hasn't SCO gotten the memo about what to say. They should be saying to the press: We do not comment on pending litigation. Instead SCO is trying to get as much PR as it can get. Why has IBM been so strangely silent?
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I don't think it will be that simple. The members of any jury will more than likely be forced to learn far more about backup schedules, verifcation of tapes, source-code control systems and the like than they would ever want to know about. Do really think IBM's lawyers will let SCO get away with the simple "here's two block of similar code - they must have stolen it" trick without raising a single question in cross-examination? SCO will have to provide excruciatingly detailed histories for every line of code they show (just for starters).
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
1) a contract dispute with IBM
2) alledged copying of UNIX code into Linux
When SCO refers a million lines of code they are talking about code that is copyright by IBM and other unix licencees that SCO beleives should not have been added to Linux. SCO does NOT own the copyright to that code, and has admitted it publically. Even in IBM is found guilty of innappropriatly copying the code into Linux, SCO still will not own the copyright to that code.
By repeating there allegation regarding a million lines of code they are trying to strengthen thier argument for users to pay for licences. Nobody outside of SCO knows how much code they are claiming is copied from unix into linux.
So it is unlikley that the copied code issue will even be put before the jury.
Re:It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO sued IBM in a Utah state court, carefully writing their lawsuit so that there were no federal issues in it. SCO can do this because both SCO and IBM are both corporate residents of the same state, Delaware.
Or so SCO's lawyers said in their lawsuit. IBM slapped the fuck out of them by pointing out that IBM is incorporated in New York, and here is a certified copy of IBM's Certificate of Incorporation, and here's a bunch of legal precedents which say that a court has to recognize the actual state that a defendant is really in, not the state that the clot-headed plaintiff incorrectly writes in the complaint. Hence, because IBM and SCO are corporate residents of different states, a lawsuit between them for an amount greater than $75,000 must be heard in federal court, not in state court.
It was really a boneheaded move on the part of SCO's lawyers. Boies spent 10 years of his career working for IBM and he doesn't know what state it's incorporated in?! And none of their high-priced paralegals can read the first page of a 10-Q or a 10-K, the part that says:
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
NEW YORK
(State of incorporation)
In fact it's such a stupid move that it makes me wonder about conspiracy theories, like SCO's lawyers filed in the wrong court on purpose in order to add additional delay.
As far as the federal judge assigned to the case, read the excellent Groklaw article on Judge Kimball.
Changing Times (Score:2, Insightful)