SCO Says They'll Sue A Linux User Tomorrow 606
Xenographic writes "InfoWorld is reporting that SCO intends to sue a Linux using company. Ordinarily, this would not be newsworthy, as they have not followed through on past threats. However, this time, they have given themselves a concrete deadline--tomorrow. While they claim that it will be one of the "top 1,000" companies, they apparently have yet to decide which company to actually sue. Perhaps they need more practice playing darts?" Reader Fished links to CNET's coverage.
A little confusing... (Score:4, Interesting)
The SCO Group on Tuesday will launch its first lawsuit against a Linux user for alleged violations of SCO's intellectual property, SCO Chief Executive Officer Darl McBride said Monday.
and continues a little later:
After consulting with its law firm, Boies, Schiller and Flexner, SCO has narrowed down its list of possible targets to a "handful" of the world's 1,000 largest corporations, McBride said. "We're going to file it tomorrow. It's sort of come down to a couple of complaints we have prepared," he said.
So when they sue an "end user", is it going to be an Executive in a Fortune 1000 company? Or an employee? I assumed "end user" meant your average Joe. They're just asking for trouble (as the article points out) if they sue someone in a Fortune 1000 company.
Yup, (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps (Score:5, Interesting)
...this is why Google delayed it's IPO?
DISCLAIMER: Complete and total speculation.
earnings announcement (Score:5, Interesting)
This has gone on long enough (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A little confusing... (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't see anywhere where they said it involved SCO IP in Linux. Just a Linux user misusing SCO IP. Might be a minor distinction. Might not.
Re:Google (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, if Google did get sued, it wouldn't harm them that much, because of the IPO that they are releasing soon (hopefully).
*Looks at Anti-SCO shirt* Sure, I may be a flamebait, but I think it's for a good cause. I'm fed up with all of this SCO nonsense, and I'm pretty sure the open-source/Linux world is also. I just want to see what SCO can really pull off... no more of this standing-in-the-corner-pointing-fingers stuff. Bring it on SCO.
Walmart (Score:5, Interesting)
That's my best guess.
If it happens.
Hasn't yet.
Open source needs to find a hungry DA (Score:5, Interesting)
By suing a Linux end users, SCO is in effect trying to use courts to extort money. The definition of extort is "to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power". I cannot see the difference between SCO's actions, press releases and the running a criminal enterprise.
If they (SCO) truly wished to protect their IP, they would proceed with their case and quit stalling. The Linux community would respond, in defference to and in respect to an IP rights. I think that is the crux of SCO's problem, Linux would respond by respectfully removing any proven IP content. If they can extort money from people instead of actually proving their case, then the profit margin goes up. So what if extortion is illegal.
AngryPeoplePeopleRule [angrypeoplerule.com]
Re:Oh! Oh! I know who it will be ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh, good call SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it would have made more sense to sue someone like you if SCO was actually trying to win the lawsuit. However, you can't trick investors into thinking that you can extract $3 billion from "Skyshadow," but it is at least theoretically possible to extract $3 billion from IBM. With a little help from Microsoft and Sun (to add a bit of legitimacy to the claims), SCO had all the tools it needed to extract millions of dollars from the stock market.
The trick, of course, is to promise investors the moon to drive up the stock price, and then use the high stock price to either cash out or to purchase (at inflated prices) other companies that SCO backers have an interest in (like Vultus).
The reason that SCO is going to sue someone tomorrow is that on the 3rd they are supposed to post their quarterly earnings. My guess is that the financial reports are going to be very very bad and the new law suit is designed to draw attention away from the bottom line.
Re:What the hell do they think they're doing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A little premature? (Score:1, Interesting)
They aren't doing this to win the lawsuits, they know that's impossible because unlike the general public, lawyers and judges aren't as gullible as a 4 year old. They're doing this for publicity, bringing in another lawsuit to scare idiots into thinking "They're suing another big company, they HAVE to be right in this, no one would sue so many people when they knew they were going to lose."
Dupe more people into buying licenses from them, watch stocks rise, claim a higher quarterly profit, make off like bandits by suiciding their own company.
100% of the bottlecaps will go unused... (Score:3, Interesting)
Rackspace? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What would Howard Dean say? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe someone should to pass a law requiring SCO to do something annoying, like proving their case.
same 'ol same 'ol (Score:3, Interesting)
2) Scox has followed this pattern more times than I can remember: they claim there is some huge news coming up at a future date, they build it up and build it up, then they miss the deadline - building the contraversy even more. Finally OMFG they actually did it - but it turns out to be some totally watered down version of what they said they would do. When it turns out to be a joke, the pop-media will forget all about scox's previous hype.
It reminds me of a carnival side-show: STEP RIGHT UP SEE THE ABSOLUTELY AMAZING ASTONDING LAWSUIT OF THE CENTURY!!!
- AIX license revocation
- Showing the code in Las Vegas
- Several "code showings" for that matter
- The Vultus deal
- First time they sold an IP license to a fortune 1000 company (August?)
Re:Walmart (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe: Walmart is somewhat vulnerable, having been recently accused by the US DoJ of knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Also, they've taken a lot of heat in the press lately, due to the public perception that they're responsible for displacing local businesses (mom 'n' pop stores, the mainstays of "Main Street, USA"). Witness their recent ad campaign, an attempt to soften their image.
Maybe not: Walmart is huge. Mother huge. Makes IBM look like a candy store. 1.3 million employees huge. Consider that the US workforce is 139 million: this means that nearly 1 out of 100 working people in this country work for Walmart.
Also, getting money out of Wally World is like squeezing blood from a rock. I know this from experience; a relative of mine is one of their software vendors. Walmart doesn't pay until the invoice is marked "FINAL NOTICE - WE MEAN IT THIS TIME - YOU PAY NOW OR DIE!!!" in 72 point blood red type.
Sam Walton might be dead and buried, but his management style lives on at Wally World. Before he died, he was the richest man in the US (before Bill Gates, basically the Windows 1.0 era), but he drove an old pickup truck. To say he was stingy would be the ultimate understatement.
So, in the spirit of that parsimonious old fuck, I think Walmart would rather spend $10 million fighing SCO than settle for $1 million, just out of principle, since it would be a sign of weakness to settle out of court. And just for spite, they'd insist that all of their suppliers maintain a SCO-free shop or lose their shelf-space. It would be like Rome and Carthage all over again, with SCO razed and salted, their employees sold into slavery.
k.
DO IT, Fsckers!!!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
===========
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 96--RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
Sec. 1961. Definitions
As used in this chapter--
(1) ``racketeering activity'' means (A) any act or threat
involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery,
extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled
substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and
punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which
is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18,
United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224
(relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating
to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate
shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious,
section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare
funds), sections 891-894 (relating to extortionate credit
transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity
in connection with identification documents), section 1029 (relating
to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices),
section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information),
section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to
wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud),
section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or
nationalization unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to the
reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427
(relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship papers),
sections 1461-1465 (relating to obscene matter), section 1503
(relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to
obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to
the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512
(relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant),
section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or
an informant), section 1542 (relating to false statement in
application and use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery
or false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to misuse of
passport), section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas,
permits, and other documents), sections 1581-1588 (relating to
peonage and slavery), section 1951 (relating to interference with
commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to
racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate transportation
of wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful
welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of
illegal gambling businesses), section 1956 (relating to the
laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to
engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified
unlawful activity), section 1958 (relating to use of interstate
commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire), sections
2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2260 (relating to sexual exploitation of
children), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to interstate
transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 2314 and 2315
(relating to interstate transportation of stolen property), section
2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for
phonorecords, computer programs or computer program documentation or
packaging and copies of motion pictures or
Re:SCO HAS to sue someone else. (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO vs. RedHat [yahoo.com]
SCO vs. IBM [yahoo.com]
Notice a trend?
Suing oneself (Score:5, Interesting)
Suing a group that stands to gain by losing the lawsuit would be a shrewd move. It would give SCO greater ability to set the stage for a setting a precedent favorable to SCO.
However, the shrewdest move would be to sue a company holding the "information wants to be free" line religiously. It is often easy to win the court's favor when your opponent is holding an absurd ideal with religiour fervor. The worst thing would be to sue a well respected company with shrewd leadership, as they are likely to punch real legitimate holes in the SCO case.
Re:Perhaps (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A little confusing... (Score:0, Interesting)
Let me give you another stupid example. I buy the New York Times and read it over lunch. Subsequently, you claim the NYT published, without your permission, a piece in which you hold the copyright. You think you can sue me for reading the NYT? You think every time I read that story I owe you more money? This is not the law and never will be. It is pure fantasy to think it works this way.
Let me explain why your scenario will never exist.
1) Friend get my work published in periodical "without my permission"
2) I sue all readers of said periodical
3) Profit
4) Lather Rinse Repeat
5) Legal system collapses into chaos
6) Everyone lives in isolation chamber to protect against lawsuits
Re:Suing oneself (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are right then the concept of justice no longer exists in this country. If courts decide a case on what somebody believes or their religion then we are all fucked.
OTOH even if you are wrong just the fact you hold that belief is a harsh indictment of the courts.
Re:Suing oneself (Score:5, Interesting)
What I find interesting is that they are (apparently) planning to sue one of their own customers! How stupid would anyone have to be to sign a contract with them?
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5167829.html?tag=s t_lh [com.com]
The first target will be a company that has a Unix license from SCO already, giving SCO some contractual leverage in the case. McBride said. In addition, the suit will involve copyright infringement claims.
one word ... NOVELL (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder how much of this "license" money SCO will pay to Novell. Given the existing agreements where SCO pay Novell 95%, will novell see any of this money ?
If they dont, will they sue SCO for it ?
Given EV1 reportedly paid over 6 digits for their "pukka" licenses, this could get interesting if Novell file a claim for a share of the license money.
SCO seems to *have* to sue, else their share prices will drop.
I wonder if the FSF will sue sco for distributing GPL code, and then claiming license money.
I also wonder if Linux developers can sue SCO.
Re:Google (Score:2, Interesting)
Google or a firewall manufacturer (Score:5, Interesting)
Why ?
Microsoft has made big noises lately about moving into the search engine space, and also made noises about an impending firewall product.
SCO, taking orders from above, will target the competion in these areas, hoping to tie them up in court for ages, so that Microsoft can enter these markets with reduced competition.
You dont even need a tinfoil hat to see that one coming.
Re:Oh, good call SCO (Score:1, Interesting)
Their stock also hit quite a low on Thursday. [yahoo.com]
I have a good friend advised to short this for his class in college. Stick in there Matt, I swear this thing is going to the floor!
Could be true (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO Employees Use Linux (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe they should sue themselves first.
Why is it when SCO farts, it appears on slashdot. (Score:2, Interesting)
Evidence for Google (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO are in this for publicity - to fuel the share scam. What better publicity that to sue one of the most famous internet success stories, and one that publicly uses Linux at that.
Google expect to be sued, so they stopped the "Litigeous Barstard" googlebomb. It never looks good in court to be being rude about your opponent.
Maybe the delayed IPO is because they wouldn't get as much being sued as they would with no court-case. Delay the IPO = more money.
Re:Suing oneself (Score:3, Interesting)
You seem to believe that the US legal system is fair and objective. That they only consider the fact and are otherwise completely isolated from society / reality.
that this is not so should be obvious. It follows directly that the courts and the legal system are influenced by a companies previous behavior, history, "character" if you like.
it should be understood by everybody that the courts strive for maximum objectivity and impartial-ness, but it should also be understood that they can never attain that goal.
define TRUTH - that's the beginning of the problem. and it goes downhill from there: pretty soon you have he-said-she-said, doubtful evidence, questionable witnesses and the morass of opinions and beliefs that is called reality. this is where the courts operate.to answer the parent post: of course the courts will look at a companies ideology. of course that is a factor.
WWHDS? (Score:1, Interesting)
It is unfortunate we even need to look at this as how Republicans and Democrats view Free Software, Open Source Software, etc. All of Congress is what counts as far as getting laws past and it should be more of a question on the views of Congress, but Congress is devided.
I am not sure we should even should have Congress pass any laws that have anything to do with Free/Open Software although it seems more and more like a good idea when a large company tries to loby against Free/Open Software.
Has anyone asked Ralph Nader for his view on Free/Open Software?
### Begin Silly Political Humor ###
For anyone who would like to help George W. Bush win the next election please visit http://votenader.com/ and help get Nader on the Ballot. President Bush can use all the help you can give by giving the Democrats a third party canidate to help split the Democratic vote.
### End Silly Humor That Is Probably Going To Get Me Modded Down ###
Re:Suing oneself (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, it's true that anyone may sue anyone else in this country, whether they have a case or not. But what kind of judge would be sympathetic to a litigator who's claims depend entirely upon the outcome of pending litigation?