NRF Calls SCO's Claims 'Meritless' 326
Xenographic writes "The National Retail Federation has just put out a press release in which their CIO concludes that SCO's IP claims are "meritless," and that Novell is the last company which can show a clear title to the code in question. That SCO's claims are meritless is hardly news to anyone who has been following this, but what is interesting is that the NRF was prompted to release this because of legal threats to their membership, specifically SCO's threats to sue "major retailers." So the businesses being menaced by SCO are banding together, making it that much less likely that SCO will be able to generate easy money from mere threats of litigation. SCO's stock, meanwhile, appears to have taken a small dive from this news. Also, you can find further details and analysis on Groklaw."
Running out of time but not hot air (Score:5, Insightful)
Happy Trails!
Erick
Re:Running out of time but not hot air (Score:3, Funny)
SCO is really scrambling now
Personally I never believe any company is dying until Netcraft confirms it.
Re:Running out of time but not hot air (Score:3, Funny)
On affordable hardware?
Re:Running out of time but not hot air (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Running out of time but not hot air (Score:3, Insightful)
At the end... (Score:5, Funny)
hehe he
he
he?
gulp.
-m
Re:At the end... (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL to the rescue (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'd worry more about "submarine" software patents that someone will suddenly complain are being infringed ala PanIP, RAMBUS, et al. You will note how easily IBM was able to find four patents for their counter-suit against SCO.
(You can go back to worrying now)
Re:GPL to the rescue (Score:5, Insightful)
That never stopped SCO.
-m
Re:GPL to the rescue (Score:2)
Re:GPL to the rescue (Score:5, Insightful)
But Novell still has customers, intends to keep them, and even get more customers.
There are reasons that enterprise-class customers will pay good money for the same bits that hackers download for free, plus a scrap of paper that vaguely mentions something about support. If it breaks, the hackers expect to fix it themselves, whereas the enterprise-class customers expect someone else to fix it without being told to Read The Fine Manual.
Re:GPL to the rescue (Score:5, Insightful)
I fully expect this to be Microsoft's next volley. Some little company will start tossing patent infringement claims at the Linux and BSD kernels. These will be latched onto by the mainstream media. When it finally comes to trial, the patents will be found to be invalid and the sock puppet will be wiped out messily... An event that will largely be ignored by the media.
Unfortunately, there's little chance of getting a President next term who might push the Justice Dept to stop this scam...
Yes, that would be awfully funny (Score:5, Insightful)
The neat thing about the GPL is its seemingly foolproof method of making sure everyone plays fair: they make it in everyone's interests to play fair, by making everyone not just borrow from everyone else, but depend on everyone else.
For example, let's say a company releases a piece of software [nullsoft.com] under the GPL, then the next day decides to recant and announces that no, we changed our mind, it wasn't GPLed after all. If the company never sold anyone a copy, just put it up for download on a website, well then, who's to disagree with them? If someone had given them money for it that could be construed as having some sort of contractual validity, and the license that they included when they originally distributed the license irrevocable. But if it was just a free download, and the license included with the download as a written offer... well that's kind of fuzzier, isn't it? It would seem the company couldn't "go back" on their license offer, but the company could claim all kinds of things. They could claim the release was "unauthorized", or not intended for public release outside the company, or there were mitigating copyright and contractual cirucmstances the company was not aware of at the time doctrine of mutual mistake blah blah blah. And if this were the BSD license, that's where things would end.
But the GPL, among doing other things, adds an interesting wrinkle to things by legally intertwining to a certain extent everyone who cooperates using it. If someone releases some code they own under the GPL, they still own it and can do whatever they like with that code outside the context of the GPLed product However if someone is distributing or redistributing a product containing someone else's GPL code-- anyone's-- then they suddenly find themselves with a small and reasonable, but important, set of obligations.
So, here's another hypothetical example. Let's say Novell announces they own lines 5000-5435 of the linux kernel; that those lines were stolen from NetWare by a disgruntled employee who then submitted them to Linux as his own work at some point; that they have indisputable proof of this; and they further announce that anyone who wants to sell linux owes them $699 a copy for Novell's 435 lines of code there.
The problem here is that they can't do that; the instant Novell points out those 435 lines of code are unlicensed, distributing Linux becomes illegal, period. The reason for this is that the GPL says that in order to distribute under the GPL, you must be able to offer to anyone who you distribute it to an unlimited GPL license themselves, which includes the right to freely redistribute and modify. If you don't have the rights to distribute Linux under the GPL, you certainly don't have the right to distribute Linux by any other mechanism. And if you have to pay $699 to distribute the Linux kernel, then you don't have the right to distribute it under the GPL. The rest of Linux, everything except those 435 lines, is still GPLed and freely distributable; but the whole package, or any package that contains those 435 non-Free lines linked against GPL code, is something nobody-- including Novell-- has the right to distribute at all until those lines are removed or replaced.
So, Novell currently lacks the ability to attack Linux in this fashion without losing the right to sell Linux in the process-- which would be a major problem for them since they currently have a decent amount riding on their Linux-based products. And the really fun thing is, if Novell does as SCO did after raising their apparently fraudulent claims against Linux, and continues to distribute Linux even after they make the public claim that they own code in Linux that they never gave Linux a license to, then one of
Re:Yes, that would be awfully funny (Score:3, Funny)
Re:At the end... (Score:3, Interesting)
Code in question? (Score:5, Insightful)
What code would this be, exactly?
Re:Code in question? (Score:5, Funny)
}
}
}
}
}
Re:Code in question? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Code in question? (Score:4, Funny)
It might not look like much, but it was infringed thousands of times: (this is as far into each line of code that the SCO lawyers bothered to look -- because if the first eight or nine characters match, that's enough to be infringing, right?)
Interesting (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Interesting (Score:2, Funny)
Next lawsuit ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get these guys. How soulless do you have to be to outright lie about what you own, when you bought it, and the terms of an otherwise perfectly clear license?
Ooops, now SCO will sue me, too.
P.S. If you thought GPL was "viral," listen to SCO sometime: anyone who has ever seen the SysV source code can never work on an OS again, because that makes it a "non-literal derivative." Jeez.
-paul
Re:Next lawsuit ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would agree that patented/proprietary code is far more viral than GPL code could possibly be, since your right to use it is generally tied to contracts which can be cancelled. Having worked in "the industry" for 10 years, I have no conscious idea how I solved problems back then 4 companies ago. However, I have no doubt that if presented with a similar problem now I'd solve it in a similar way. In theory, virtually everything I've written from my second company on might have vestiges of supposedly 'proprietary' code.
About the only defense to this is it's almost universal - anyone who's moved around a lot is likely to be in this position. The next software hurdle will be MS's sudden patent rush, and fighting the 'obvious' patents. Hopefully we can get the Patent Office/system overhauled or at least looked at before Longhorn comes out.
How many people of come out against this?? (Score:5, Insightful)
National Retail Federation
IBM
Linus
Autozone
There are more I am sure, but I mean come on. Noone agrees with SCO (at least I have not heard of anyone). When is a judge just going to toss this crap out of court?
Re:How many people of come out against this?? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's up to the lawyer to push for a quick decision, and it isn't in the lawyer's self interest to encourage a decision in reasonable time. The longer the lawsuit, the more the lawyer can bleed the client.
Do you think any individual could get away with refusing to provide evidence demanded by the courts, and not end up in jail for contempt? The entire SCO management team should be seeing fraud charges and jail time when this debacle is finally ended, but instead we'll just see a few lawyers walk off with another porsche or two, Darl will whine about how they mislead him, and the only ones who'll really pay will be the people and businesses impacted by the fraud.
It's the New American Way to "manage" the law. Companies like Microsoft and SCO build their very existence on treating the fines and penalties as the cost of doing business. It's not going to change until the lawyers, CEOs, and other corpororate officers are held personally responsible for their fraud and mismanagement, and jailed accordingly.
Re:How many people of come out against this?? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How many people of come out against this?? (Score:2)
Re:How many people of come out against this?? (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps you mean Laura Didio?
Re:How many people of come out against this?? (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe I did. Maybe I didn't.
one 'leet trader (Score:5, Funny)
(look at the bottom of the 'bid orders' section)
Re:one 'leet trader (Score:2, Funny)
Re:one 'leet trader (Score:5, Funny)
Re:one 'leet trader (Score:2, Funny)
Hopefully, those 31337 shares, can all be conveniently printed on a roll of 1-share per sheet high quality tissue paper. That way, you can conveniently tear off a few of those 31337 single share stock certificates from the roll as you need them.
Still, that's an expensive roll for $313.37.
Nooo! (Score:3, Funny)
If SCO doesn't have any more real claims in court, how will we as a society get by?
The last time a major company fell apart, we had to hire Sally Struthers to start up "CEO charity foundations".
We can't have these people walking the streets. Keeping them in upper management positions is the only way to protect the rest of us from serious harm. At least in the boardroom, secluded from the rest of society, they can do the least damage.
The NRF is a heavy mover (Score:5, Informative)
(from their Mission Statement [nrf.com])
Yikes. One in five American workers and $3.8 trillion in Sales can't be wrong!
Or can they?
No.
Wal-Mart Called... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The NRF is a heavy mover (Score:3, Interesting)
Yikes. One in five American workers and $3.8 trillion in Sales can't be wrong!
Or can they?
No.
They could be wrong. The size of the claimant does not indicate the validity of the claim.
In my opinion, at least it seems that the NRF has done some homework. Even if SCO was right, I'd think that they would still fight it unless it was a totally lost cause. They give up if thought that the cost of paying up would be lower than the legal costs, but I doubt that because SCO has diminishing funds to file la
Right (Score:3, Insightful)
I was referring more to the kind of clout an organization like this has, than their truth-handling ability.
When this sluggish market-force monster rears its ugly head and blasts SCO with this strength, there is even less chance that any white knight will come to the rescue of SCO (the princess in the tower? nah, the warty witch).
SCO should have let this sleeping dragon lie.
..it is almost as if ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Almost as if?!? I realize that lawyers include modifiers like that to lessen the chance of successfully actionable lawsuits, but come on. SCO is suing former clients, it's going through money like it's still dot.com days. For the corporation, the ONLY revenue stream is through litigation.
Of course, for the principals, the primary revenue stream is through stock manipulation, shifting assets between Canopy elements and taking everything not explicitly nailed down. But that's personal, not business.
SCO group layoffs (Score:5, Informative)
Read the story and Mod Up (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SCO group layoffs (Score:3, Informative)
The relevant part... (Score:5, Insightful)
With a market cap of around 90 million now, this one has been a real dog for the investors. And this is a company with $65 million in cash in the bank, supposedly - that means the price-to-book ratio is getting mighty low. And their P/E is pushing down towards 20.
For those not familiar with this stuff, that means the premium people were putting on this stock reflecting the possibility of a big (i.e. 5 billion dollar) win against IBM has basically dropped to near-zero. I wouldn't be surprised to see the whole executive team get rotated out soon or something else drastic happen to SCO. The legal battle may drag out for ages, but the market has spoken.
Re:The relevant part... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyhow, the more important part is that more people are taking note of this (outside of slashdot types) and so SCO is unlikely to get any more large cash infusions, barring someone with a vested interest in this funding them...
As another poster mentioned, SCO's POS[1] deployments are primarily in retai
Money already made... (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing is for sure, this whole fiasco made more good publicity to FOSS. More people know about linux and more importantly what open source is.
Re:Money already made... (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as I can tell, Canopy hasn't sold any of their stock. However, they suckered Baystar into putting 50 million in cash into this beast to prop up the value of their stock (Canopy's filings with the SEC indicate they own about 35 million dollars in SCOX, in other words about 40 percent of t
Re:Money already made... (Score:3, Insightful)
The people who bought into this turkey and didn't get out after it started declining from $20 deserve to lose their money. Maybe they'll think twice the next time they hear about a dying company rolling the "IP Litigation" dice.
One thing is for sure, this whole fiasco made more good publicity to FOSS.
More importantly, if SCO doesn't implode before reaching trial, the case will result in the vindic
That is no small dive, grasshopper (Score:4, Informative)
Besides, the downward trend has been going for some time - they were hovering around $7 last week, now they've dropped a dollar since. So one day's stock variations is not going to make or break somebody in the general sense.
Take a closer look... This is bigger than it seems (Score:5, Interesting)
No, no. Not the NRF part. Sure that's significant and interesting and all..
Look at the Groklaw link. It seems to be saying that SCO has dropped all claims that IBM did anything illegal with Linux kernel code. They're only pusrsuing the claim that IBM shouldn't be selling AIX and Dynix anymore (which is a pretty laughable claim, anyway).
Has SCO backed off of all Linux claims?!?
Reason for "termination" (Score:3, Funny)
Go figure!
What "NRF CIO" means (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, the NRF has a handful of people given the same titles as typical top retail executives, including CIO and VP of this and that. Each of these has about one person reporting to them - the title is more so that when they organize conferences in their areas they'll have equivalent rank to the top attendees. Most of the have actual backgrounds elsewhere in the departments they're posing as head of, but they're all basically retired from that and in a second career with the trade association.
So this is not a lawyer saying this, and not even a real, current CIO. The NRF has on retainer some of the biggest names in American law. Might make you wonder why they didn't have one of them make the statement (although it's a sure bet one of them put these words in the CIO's mouth). All a bit odd....
This is nothing... (Score:4, Funny)
(emphasis added to enhance tonality)
Some Interesting NRF Members (Score:5, Informative)
Verisign, Inc.
Kmart Corporation
GO Software
Hewlett-Packard Company
LexisNexis - PeopleWise
South Dakota State University
Washington State University
Southern New Hampshire University
for more see here [dotgeek.org]
SCO Groups "business model" (Score:2)
In my opinion, it is almost as if The SCO Group's business model is to generate a revenue stream through litigation.
Hasn't SCO said this? I don't think it's "opinion" or "almost if". I believe SCO said this, but if they didn't, their invester BayStar certainly did.
Damn, damn and triple damn! (Score:3, Funny)
Gee, I wonder why. (Score:2, Interesting)
$_from_members_using_Linux > $_to_fight_SCO
If it were the other way around, the NRF would probably be pushing members to abandon Linux as we speak.
Keeping memebers and avoiding legal battles is all NRF cares about. That's not a bad thing, but it does make them a little biased when evaluating the S
Significance of NRF against SCOX (Score:5, Interesting)
But now, these companies, the last customers SCOX has, have turned against them. With their previously existing relationship, SCOX could have been in a good position to sell them Linux, but they have ruined that opportunity now. What tiny market SCO Unix had is gone, and any hope SCOX had of continuing to be a software company just went with it.
On the other hand, their litigation isn't going well either. Better say goodbye, folks, because SCOX is not long for this world.
Re:Significance of NRF against SCOX (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, SCO's stock is flat this week (Score:5, Informative)
The market is losing interest in SCOX. It's clear now that there's no big near-term win there.
It's hard to get excited about a press release from a lobbyist from a trade association, especially when it doesn't announce any action. But it's good to have statements like that, because it discourages Congressional action. Recall that SCO was lobbying Congress at one point. With IBM, Damlier-Chrysler, Utah's Novell, Goldman Sachs, and the National Retail Federation against SCO, Congress isn't going to do anything stupid.
The real action is in the SCO vs IBM lawsuit, where SCO is not doing well. SCO has narrowed their copyright claim [groklaw.net]. SCO had a deadline coming up on the discovery front, where they have to disclose the "infringing code". They're close to the "put up or shut up" point in that case. They've stalled and stalled, but it didn't work. One motion at a time, IBM has whittled away at SCO's claims. The trade secret claim is gone. The copyright claims are steadily shrinking. The claim that the GPL is "unconstitutional" is gone. Meanwhile, IBM's claims against SCO threaten SCO's remaining cash.
Re:Actually, SCO's stock is flat this week (Score:3, Interesting)
NRF calls SCO's claims... (Score:5, Funny)
The hidden agenda in all this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The hidden agenda in all this (Score:3, Insightful)
More importantly in this regard, the case triggered off "The Groklaw Effect": The results of an online community working to debunk bogus legal claims. Will the next IP-fraudster think twice about attacking F/OSS?
Re:The hidden agenda in all this (Score:3, Funny)
I think I speak for most everyone here when I say that Darl should be made Ambassador to Bubba. A two or four year appointment will not be enough of a reward, either. A Lifetime appointment sounds just about right to me.
Let's not forget his partners, either. Sontag et al having been his advisors, they can just continue to advise him...
SB
SCO's stock (Score:5, Informative)
Today, SCOX price has risen slightly again, on a day when their perceived value should have dropped due to bad news. I have no doubt that the stock manipulation is still going on.
Note: This is all stuff I've read in the Yahoo! SCOX forum, nothing I deserve credit for researching myself.
Re:SCO's stock (Score:3, Informative)
The SCOX stock price has been hovering at the $6.00 mark for the last couple days, always closing just above. It could be that a bunch of people have set things up so that they automatically purchase SCOX when it's less than $6.00. This isn't necessarily manipulation at all.
See, We Still Have A Technical Staff... (Score:3)
If laying of a "few" people can turn SCO "profitable", man, that's one sad company. I think the most interesting part will be to see exactly what departments got the ax. We all know they don't need any programmers there anymore except as "token", as in "See, we still have a technical staff" bullshit.
comparison (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Old News (Score:5, Funny)
Now if the courts will do it and slap them with a $699 fine for every false claim they've ever made, I'll die a happy puppy.
Re:Old News (Score:3, Interesting)
It expresses a sentiment I think most of us feel. SCO. Meritless. Litigious Bastards.
We... Don't... Care... Anymore!
When an actual court gives Darl a backhand, then we can all chat about how we knew it would happen all along. But updates on every stupid little "Group X says this" or "SCO added another company to their suits" really stopped impressing most of us months ago.
Please, people, stop submitting this crap to Slashdot. Go make a blog site
Re:Old News (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, you mean GrokLaw [groklaw.net]?
Re:Old News (Score:5, Informative)
It's called Groklaw [groklaw.net], and I couldn't agree more - they don't need Slashdot's help.
Re:Old News (Score:5, Insightful)
Nevertheless, looking at your article history, you don't seem to be a troll. So, one tip: Go to your preferences, and exclude Caldera from the homepage. Voila, you won't see those articles any more. Others, who want to see them because they don't have the time to read Groklaw, can leave that flag on.
See, best of both worlds for all of us.
Re:Oh really? (Score:2, Informative)
Kierthos
Re:Oh really? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's right, and the minute the stock started tanking, a Microsoft shell corporation immediately took some of the 80 million Microsoft has allotted for just such an occasion and started buying to bring the price of the stock back up.
I'm NOT kidding; I'm certain that since MS KNOWS that the average investor knows nothing about any of this, they figure they can artificially maintain SCO's credibility f
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Funny)
Today 6.92/share
They are approaching life support levels.
Re:Oh really? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Informative)
Kierthos
Re:Oh really? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh really? (Score:2)
Dropped from under $3 to over $6! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Oh really? (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO cuts jobs to reach product profit [com.com]
Investors seem to always assume job cuts will lead to profitability.
Re:SCO's stock (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if they go bankrupt, the stock will still trade for a while at a very low price like $0.00001/share. I had stock in a company that went bankrupt two years ago. At the end of last year, I sold it so I could take the loss on my taxes. The final insult in that one was paying a $65 trade fee to sell 1000 shares that were worth less than 1 cent total. I had no choice. If I wanted to claim it on my taxes I had to sell them.
Re:SCO's stock (Score:3, Informative)
I am not a CPA, but during tax season, an "tax expert" on CNN mentioned that you can claim stock losses without having to sell the stock. The scenario he specifically mentioned was if you had some old dotcom stock in now defunct companies that you paid good money way back when.
Re:SCO's stock (Score:3, Interesting)
Stock exchange systems make the process of locating a buying pretty invisible, but you still can't sell if there isn't someone who wants to buy.
Are there just people out there willing to take the gamble that it'll be worth something someday?
Re:SCO's stock (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SCO's stock (Score:2, Funny)
Re:SCO's stock (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO's stock (Score:4, Informative)
(TA - TL) / S
This number will go up if the company earns money and will go down if it loses money. The stock market price of a share takes into account how much money the company is expected to earn or lose over the short term. If a company is expected to earn X amount over the next quarter, then their value at the end of the quarter compared with the previous quarter would be:
(TA - TL) + X
and their value per share:
((TA - TL) + X) / S
So, if you think the company will earn money, you pay more for the stock because next quarter it will be shown to be worth it. If you think the company will lose money, you pay less for the stock because next quarter you will be able to buy the stock for less. The things that influence your determination of the price at the end of the quarter change constantly. However, even if the company goes out of business, you still get your shares' value of the company. If SCOX owns a building worth a million dollars, and has a loan on that building for $250,000 and they lose $500,000 over the next quarter and decide to go out of business, you still get your portion of the remaining $250,000:
((1,000,000 - 250,000) - 500,000) / S
In order for a stock to be zero for a company, they would have to find someone willing to loan them money equal to the amount of holdings they have and at the same time lose money. This would be like you trying to borrow all of the money to buy a house without having a job (or at best a job that didn't cover your expenses plus the price of the house). Nobody has credit that good, and neither do corporations.
Re:SCO's stock (Score:3, Informative)
For a corporation which has issued only one type of stock, this is true. However, in the real world, most companies issue several classes of stock, and some classes have preference attached. Preference essentially means that those shares are entitled to be paid first in the event of liquidation. There are also shares which are convertible to notes, shares which are redeemable for cash, shares which have o
NPV of future cash flows (Score:4, Insightful)
As to daily fluctuations, studies going back nearly half a century show that short-term movements can be explained as well by the Random Walk theory as anything else.
To see what "The Street" really thinks about SCOX, take a look at the 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year price history.
Re:Good ol Groklaw (Score:5, Informative)
So yes, in theory, if a particular site could get every page on the internet to have a hyperlink to it, then it would appear #1 on every search that contained a word that was on that page, even if the page held no gramatical structure or information.
So, no, Groklaw is not the top Anti-Sco site on the net, nor is it the 5th ranked one. It just happens to contain the 5th most relavent source of info on SCO as perceived by other webmasters regardless of whether the content if pro, anti, or just a neutral view.
Re:Good ol Groklaw (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't the paralegal's words that are taken as gospel. Those words are just opinion.
The credibility of that opinion, and the opinion of people commenting in the discussion rests on the mountains of information that Groklaw compiles in one convenient place.
SCO press releases. All manner of court filings. All relevant press coverage. Transcripts of court hearings. (And there is an important one comming up on May 11.) SEC filings.
All of that information is verifiable. Just follow the collected links back to their original sources. Download scanned PDF's of court documents. Or better go to the courthouse and get your own copies of originals from the court clerk.
Groklaw is credible because the collected facts of what SCO says in court, says to the SEC, and then says in the press paints a picture that any reasonable person can see. Too bad it is embarrasing for poor SCO to have all this information conveniently collected and available for comparison in one place.
Lie management software package (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe Microsoft could write them one?
You know what they say about telling lies leads to the need to tell bigger lies. Sheesh, didn't Darl learn that as a kid?
Re:That should do it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
* Assuming this business still exists for them and that anyone would be foolish enough to buy one of their systems, of course.
Re:More evidence that... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Uh... neat! (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure that a person with an ID as low as yours is aware of the following options:
Re:Uh... neat! (Score:2, Interesting)
However, it says very little about whether they hold any sort of capitalizable political power, or whether there's anything I missed giving the NRF direct releva
Re:Uh... neat! (Score:3, Informative)