Skeptical Reactions To SCO From Around The Globe

Besides the recent action in Australia, lots of others are choosing to make affirmative statements denying SCO's claims to own the name and code of all things *nix. Read below for a wrap-up of some recent public reactions to the SCO claims from a wide range of potential litigants (if the SCO case gets that far): Japanese conglomerates, American department stores, Bruce Perens, kernel developer Richard Gooch via Mozillaquest, and Joe ("Citizen") Barr.

IpsissimusMarr writes "The Inquirer reports that 'The biggest computer manufacturers in Japan that build systems running Linux will hold out against blustering by SCO to extract license fees based upon unsubstantiated infringement claims, it has emerged.' Its nice to see more support from the business world denouncing SCO's tactics."

janda writes "ComputerWorld is reporting that several companies, including Coastal Transportation, Burlington Coat Factory, and Boscov's Department Store are taking a wait-and-see attitude towards SCO and their new 'Linux license' arrangement.

Best quote from the article:

'I don't remember signing anything with SCO saying I owe them any kind of licensing fees.' (Tom Pratt, Coastal Transportation)

I find it refreshing that companies are starting to stand up to SCO's blackmail attempts."

An anonymous reader points to this story at Mozillaquest according to which IBM says that SCO does not have a viable claim to JFS, NUMA, RCU, etc., writing "IBM says it owns the AIX code it contributed to the Linux kernel despite SCO claims that it has registered its Unix System V copyrights. A big problem for IBM and the GNU/Linux community might be the inclusion of JFS, NUMA software, RCU, etc into the Linux kernel. SCO claims it owns them. However, IBM, SuSE, and kernel.org's Richard Gooch reject SCO-Caldera and Darl McBride's claims that GNU/Linux contains SCO-owned or SCO-copyrighted code. ... The Linux kernel code is copyrighted under the GNU GPL. IBM owns its AIX additions and copyrights to Unix System V code and its development of JFS, RCU, and NUMA software code."

arilian writes "According to this article from ARNnet, SCO's new license may leave them open to litigation by other contributers to the Linux kernel." Bruce Perens and intellectual property lawyer Jim LaBarre are quoted in this one.

Finally, Joe Barr writes "I just filed a complaint against The SCO Group with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was easy. I used their online complaint form at:

www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm.

The basis for my complaint is that SCO is using false and unsubstantiated claims of IP rights to UNIX and Linux in order to manipulate its stock price and force consumers to purchase SCO licenses.

Maybe someone else would like to do the same."

Apathy

This whole situation is really a gauge of the 'apathy' factor. How many peopel will be outraged and yet do nothing? I am not a LINUX or UNIX user, my company does not use LINUX or UNIX... and I see through this scam like double pane window. We should act by complaining now....or else we will get what we deserve! I also used the online complaint form at: www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm.

SEC Form

If you have used the FCC form, I assume you've done the research as to information they request, specifically all the contact info for SCO, etc. Could you be so kind as to post that info here so we don't all have to duplicate effort searching these people down?

Re:SEC Form

The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax

Re:Apathy

How many PHB's are both ignorant and apathetic?

I don't know, and I don't care.

Re:Apathy

Unfortunately, although a ruling in favour of SCO in the United States would also affect me, I do not live in the United States. I'm not sure if that means I can sue them, if the ruling would apply to me, and so on. Added to that, I can't afford legal consultation at the moment.

I would imagine one of the few questions I have above apply to many people out there, who are indeed very concerned about what this all means.

Yeah, that'll work

The problem with this is that SCO's story keeps changing. First it was just a contract beef with IBM. Then SCO owned by proxy every modern operating system. Then it was a small amount of code in the Linux kernel: less than 80 lines. Then it was hundreds of thousands of lines and hundreds of files. Then SCO starting making noises that the BSD's weren't safe either.

The bottom line is that nothing SCO says can be trusted. They are a lawsuit company now and will use any pretext to harass developers and users and pump their stock price. I fully expect that if everyone did revert to 2.2 kernels that SCO would find something to extort with there as well.

Re:Yeah, that'll work

I fully expect that if everyone did revert to 2.2 kernels that SCO would find something to extort with there as well.

You do realize that taint, like water, runs downhill, don't you. I'm just waiting for a warning letter from SCO about my Atari 600XL in the basement.

SCO is questioning the legaility of those patents

That's why. You could patent my work, and if I never challenge it, then you can say it's yours all you want.

SCO is stating that any code which IBM develops becomes property of SCO, due to a licensing agreement. So looking up patents is a moot point.

Aside from stating that IBM's license for AIX is perpetual and irrevocable, they have stayed quiet. If they were to come out and say "We own RCU. We own NUMA. This is why...", IBM could kill a lot of the FUD flying around in one swat.

Of course, to IBM, this would be tipping their hand too early.

Re:SCO is questioning the legaility of those paten

This is exactly what IBM is saying [mozillaquest.com].

Please read the article for IBM's denial of SCO's claims. Near the top of page three for this link:

Trink Guarino, Director of IBM Media Relations told MozillaQuest Magazine yesterday:

"SCO has not shown us any code contributed to Linux by IBM that violates SCO copyrights. SCO needs to openly show the Linux community any copyrighted Unix Code, which they claim is in Linux. SCO seems to be asking customers to pay for a license based on allegations, not facts."

"IBM owns the copyrights for the work we've done in AIX, JFS, RCU and the code that takes advantage of NUMA hardware. AIX is the fastest growing UNIX operating system in the industry, and we intend to continue and accelerate that growth."

Student scared off Linux in .AU

A friend of mine studies in Australia, and was instructed to not base the idea in one of his comp.sci papers on Linux. Because of the SCO scare. The professor told him to go with Windows 2003 server systems, so the (imaginary) system would not be unusable in case of an SCO win.

One word: Insane.

Re:Student scared off Linux in .AU

One word: Insane.

One word: stupid.

as far as posting a link for people to complain to the SEC about SCO's actions and how they are just to increase stock value... Great, just what we need. The SEC getting annoyed because 10k geeks decided to spam their form with anti-SCO propaganda.

A few submissions are fine, a flood, no. I am sure that they are well aware of what SCO is doing and watching closely.

Do you think that they don't read the news?

Re:Student scared off Linux in .AU

as far as posting a link for people to complain to the SEC about SCO's actions and how they are just to increase stock value... Great, just what we need. The SEC getting annoyed because 10k geeks decided to spam their form with anti-SCO propaganda.

Agreed. This isn't a freaking petition, or a web poll. If there's a legal case to be made, IBM probably has a lawyer or two on staff who can make the complaint more properly and direct it to the appropriate ears more directly than could be accomplished by thousands of shrieking Slashbots.

Re:Student scared off Linux in .AU

Last time I checked, it wasn't "against the rules" for anyone to file an SEC complaint. They're a government agency, they're here to work for US! These things are taken seriously. If they notice that a lot of people are having issues, it will get more man-hours than some tool getting ripped off by a boiler room.

Look on the page, where does it tell you that only people with a REALLY GOOD REASON are allowed to fill out the form?

Re:Apathetic Ass

"Your can't-do attitude is probably also the reason you're a 35 year old virgin living in your parents' basement."

It's not a 'cant-do' attitude, it's a "Don't throw your energy into something futile" attitude. What he's really saying is "find a better solution."

Re:Student scared off Linux in .AU

Er...federal agencies only investigate when there are complaints. A large number of complaints gets more attention, to an extent. You are sure they are investigating SCO? Do you work for the SEC? And if you do, why did you just comment on a matter under investigation?

Re:Student scared off Linux in .AU

"we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system"

That is like saying I replaced my old car with a new one, and I can't find the engine crank. Linux Ext filesystems dont need to be defragmented my friend, and with ext3, no more scanDisk/fsck crap. Defreagging and scanDisk are outdated obsolete processes, replaced by superior technology. [linux.org]

As for token-ring support, its there, I've never used it, but I know Linux has it.

My favorite...

www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm. The basis for my complaint is that SCO is using false and unsubstantiated claims of IP rights to UNIX and Linux in order to manipulate its stock price and force consumers to purchase SCO licenses.

I hope they don't just ignore the barrage of complaints they start receiving at 12:17PM, PST...

Today's mail

Uh oh... we just got this in the mail, apparently from SCO. Anyone else receive one of these?

FROM: CHRIS SONTAG

Do not be surprised at receiving this important mail. An influential top government functionaire gave me your name and assured me of your transparancy. The trama, humiliation and deprivation which I and my family have suffered since the death of Novell has kept me in focus on searching out the possibilities of safe guarding the colosal sums of money Ray Noorda left behind.

Presently my elder business partner Darl McBride cannot be reached because he is under the detention by the ruthless Secret Order of the Penguin, a devious band of open source terrorists. At the moment, I have thirty three million US dollars ($33,000,000) currently deposited in a friendly Utah Senator's personal account. I will be sending somebody there for both of you to work together in due course. With the present disposition of this Senator, all monies kept by Mr. Noorda are attempted to be recovered by the current administration. On this note I desire your urgent attention to assist me secure the aformentioned sum in any bank account you may furnish me with.

We would avail ourselves of a total loss of the whole sum depending upon the promptness to furnish me with this required information which will permit me to facilitate instructions and signal the Senator for expedient transfer of this funds for your account.

For you providing me with this account and well partaking in this transaction I will oblige you what ever SCO UNIX license ever you desire on request or to be more specific I will oblige you unlimited personal license and one compiler license for server edition.

The urgency of this matter desires shall be treated with all promptness as any day that passes poses a bigger threat. You must understeand that this transaction should be treated with all secrecy. Under no means should you use a Linux computer to communicate with me as the Penguin Order is watching vigilently. Please contact me through email [e-mail] as soon as you receive this letter on your preparedness to assist me.

Regards,

C. Sontag

yea! a sco post

it has been a while since I read anything on slashdot about sco! I think it's time for a
sco section.

Strange bedfellows

Japanese conglomerates, American department stores, Bruce Perens

<BillMurrayVoice>... dogs and cats, living together... </BillMurrayVoice>

Let us overwhelm them

"I just filed a complaint against The SCO Group with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was easy. I used their online complaint form... ...
Maybe someone else would like to do the same."

If a lot of people file complaints, perhaps that will cause the SEC, or the government in general, to take some serious notice of this serious problem.

Re: Let us overwhelm them

> If a lot of people file complaints, perhaps that will cause the SEC, or the government in general, to take some serious notice of this serious problem.

Think carefully before you file, because a big pile of perceived frivolous complaints isn't likely to help.

However, my gut feel is that this is worth having the SEC look in to. All those stock specials for the board members a few weeks before the FUD started really raise the suspicion of some insider arrangements on a stock scam.

It would be nice if the FTC would look in to the FUD and extortion, too.

Don't forget to mention Vultus

If a lot of people file complaints, perhaps that will cause the SEC, or the government in general, to take some serious notice of this serious problem.

If you do decide to file, don't forget to mention the recent Vultus purchase. Vultus is owned by The Canopy Group, the same people who own a large portion of SCO. Both SCO and Vultus are in the same Lindon, Utah building owned by The Canopy Group. Seems to me that an argument could be made for an Enron like shuffling of companies.

Make specious claims about SCO IP. Run up the stock price. Sell some of that and use the funds to purchase other companies in the portfolio. Book the profit.

Re:Don't forget to mention Vultus

So has anyone put together one of those FBI-style crime-family trees that details all of the various bits and pieces of the Canopy operation? I'd like to know how many pieces we have to find and kill before SCO dies...

Ooops....

"Damnit, we keep threatening to sue these people, and the fuckers still won't buy our products."

Seriously though, I'm waiting for Big Blue to bitchslap SCO, and jar them something fierce. It's like National Geographic right before the shark devours the minnow: You know what's going to happen, you are just waiting for it.

Personally, I'd like to see SCO get bought out by the Linux community, who then votes to oust the CEOs without a golden parachute.

Hmm...

Who would we elect as our representative? Me, I'd think it wildly ironic if the linux community buys out 51% of SCO, then all elect Eric Raymond as their representative.

Can't you imagine it?

ESR walks in, points to the CEOs, and goes, "Fired, Fired, Fired, Fired, and doubly Fired."

Then he files for chapter 11 so he doesn't have to pay the asshats their pension, sells it to Red Hat for a dollar, yanks the code, and walks out whistling.

Re:Too bad you'd lose to a proxy fight

But what they're doing in only in the company's intrests short-term. It could be easily argued that their actions are damaging the long-term viability of SCO and are therefore BAD for the company.

Ya know, I was initially disappointed that Monterey got canceled, but seeing SCO's true colors, I think that a successful project would've enabled them to be in stronger position when they would have inevitably pulled this Linux-hijacking attempt.

Re:Too bad you'd lose to a proxy fight

Yes, that's right. Money != Morality. Might makes right. Welcome to the adult world. Don't get me wrong, I think the SCO executive team should be put in the stockade for being a public nuisance. But the only way to stop them is going to be through fiscal, legislative, regulatory or legal means.

You know what, I am tired of people/firms/governments assuming that you can unhitch business and moral/social responsibility without repercussions. It's not possible, it's a zero sum game ultimately. It seems like American business people (flame off, I'm American) are willing to be socially irresponsible if not downright morally reprehensible if it means good news for the "bottom line". I left corporate America for this very reason, despite taking a substantial hit financially as a consequence.

Fill out the SEC form, talk to peers about the issue, do what you can to focus on the socially irresponsible aspects of SCO's misbehavior. Ok, so they didn't create capitalism as it's practiced in America, but they are reinforcing the very worst parts of it.

Oh wait, I'm wasting my breath. This is America, land where 40% of our Senators are millionaires.

Ever /used/ OpenServer or UNIXWare?

If you've ever actually used some of SCO's products, you'd understand why nobody will buy them, even under threat of lawsuit.

The prices they charge for the crap they peddle are revolting, basically. It's UNIX all right - right out of '92.

Craig Ringer

Do NOT buy them.

Kill them. Kill them a lot. Kill them slowly and painfully with a death by 1000 lawyers. Drain their monetary life's blood a dollar at a time in such a way that they see it going and know they can't get it back.

Publicly humiliate every SCO executive who had anything to do with this. Make them such social piriahs within the community that they won't even be able to get jobs working a tech support desk. Turn the shareholders into a pack of sharks hungry to feed on their flesh, perhaps by suing them each personally for their losses.

Do not do anything that could be construed as setting a precedent for the viability of SCO's tactics.

Millions for defence. Not one damned cent for tribute.

Then when they are dead, with a silver bullet and a stake in their miserable little whatever it is that passes for a heart in them, pick the corpse for UNIX rights. . . and give them away to the community.

KFG

Re:Ooops....

Personally, I'd like to see SCO get bought out by the Linux community, who then votes to oust the CEOs without a golden parachute.

At least until you can do it for less than a penny a share, that would be a horribly stupid waste of money. They have liabilities out the ass, and no real assets. Their stock price is absurdly high. If we bought them out we'd just be making them rich and ourselves poor.

File FTC complaint against SCO!

You can find the online complaint form here [ftc.gov].

To fill out the form, here is SCO's information:

The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax

Anyone who uses Linux is threatened by SCO and should file a complaint. I just filed mine, you should file yours too!

Oh great, how you're going to /. the SEC

Now we'll all be branded as terrorists for launching a DDOS attack on a government web site.

Curious

How valid is it to complain (via the online form mentioned) when one is not an affected or threatened party in this matter?

You can complain..

You can complain about all the SCO articles, but really, people have to realize that this has a HUGE impact on software in general, not just *nix. The decision here will set a precedent to possibly be used for decades, if not a century

But, here's my gripe, which you can skip by not reading further. I would like to see more home-jobby builds, not necessarily case mods (though, i would like to get a layout of how to build an ATX wood case. heh). We like to see the simplest webservers, the cheapest way to do things on a college shoestring budget. I'd like to have an automatic CD-burner. I want to see what random Linux distros and programs can do for me, though i may never use them. More of the fodder! That is all. /rant

Am I the only one that has used SCO's UNIX here?

It has hardly been updated in a decade! We're talking X11R5, no support for pthreads without installing extensions, etc.

In this world, your OS can't be "just as good as" Windows to survive. Linux, Solaris, AIX, and Mac OS X are each doing well because they are substantially better at what they do than the competition.

On the upside, they are allowing free use of Unix Version 7 [trailing-edge.com]. Well, sorta free. apt-get install simh and boot the sucker up if you want to see the somewhat humble beginnings of UNIX.

Suggestion

Why don't we just create an SCO topic, or even better, sco.slashdot.org. That way, those of us who don't like the bi-hourly updates don't have to see them.

Complaints are good...

Complaints are good, but you want to have a _serious basis_ for them, not just geek conjecture.

Otherwise, you're just going to piss the SEC off, and open yourself up for a lible suit.

Re:Complaints are good...

Complaints are good, but you want to have a _serious basis_ for them, not just geek conjecture.

Otherwise, you're just going to piss the SEC off, and open yourself up for a lible suit.

There is some interesting evidence that this whole lawsuit is part of an insider trader scam. Look in the discussion from yesterday's SCO story, and you'll find some links to stuff on Nasdaq.com, and SEC filings, showing SCO executives purchasing SCO stock at bargain basement prices right before filing the lawsuit against IBM, and then you see those same executives selling may shares at dramatically inflated prices, in the last few weeks.

If you want to find the links quickly, take a lot at my recent postings, one of them is from yesterday, and it's where I posted exactly what I sent to the SEC.

SCO can't sue for attorney fees or punitive damage

A recent posting on the Groklaw blog [weblogs.com] (see "SCO Can't Go After Statutory Damages or Atty's Fees" heading in the 7/22/03 section) states the US Copyright Office claims that SCO cannot go after statutory damages or attorney fees for any copyright infringement based on the most recent filing. They can only go after actual damages, which are very hard to prove in court.

What are SCO's actual damages from someone using Linux who would never have bought any SCO product in the first place? I mean, if I downloaded my ISO and burned it myself to install on 5 machines, it seems hard to argue that had Linux not included SCO IP, I would have purchased 5 copies of SCO UnixWare. No, if there had been no Linux, I'd have gone for one of the *BSD's. So even if SCO is correct, what are the actual damanges.

Doing some more copyright law searching.

Found these points at Bromberg and Sunstein LLP [bromsun.com]

Benefits of Federal Copyright Registration

Required for Infringement Suit. Generally speaking, unless the copyrighted work has been registered (or the Copyright Office has refused registration although the required deposit, application and fee were properly filed), a court action for infringement of the copyright will be dismissed.

Required for Statutory Damages. If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits.

Now, you can go to the Library of Congress Copyright site (www.copyright.gov) and search for the newly awarded SCO copyright: TX-5-705-356.

Notice that the SCO copyright lists publication date as 27Jun91, but registration date of 30Jun03. Combine that with "If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits." from above and it does seem like SCO will have a tough case to make in any litigation relating to copyright.

Presumption of Validity. In any judicial proceeding, a certificate of registration issued within five years of the first publication of the work confers a legal presumption that the copyright is valid and that all facts stated in the copyright registration certificate are true.

Also note that the 5 year presumption of validity time limit has expired.

Protection Against Importation of Infringing Copies. A copyright owner can record the registration with the U.S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing works.

Wonder how much of the alleged infringing work was done overseas? Wasn't some of it supposed to have been done by a German Caldera employee? Wonder if SCO has taken this step yet?

Red Hat Response...

Also worth adding.. Red Hat offered a response to this just a few days ago, and that can be found here [redhat.com] - quite short, but an interesting read, and a good effort at making their customers feel a little more relaxed.

A Good Start

It is good to see, that people are realizing that this is mostly smoke and bluster. In the end, however, it doesn't matter. What matters, the only thing that will really matter, is when the US government either says "You're right, here's your blank check" or "You're wrong, now shut the hell up." And compensation for all the trouble they've caused would be nice, too.

It amazes me that a company can do as much dammage as SCO, even if it is at the time being only damage to a reputation, without having to offer some sort of proof. The government is supposed to hold people blameless until they can prove otherwise, but corporations can throw accusations around all they please. We can learn a lot from Germany and australia in this regard.

Calling LUGs in the Netherlands

Although SCO has been shut down in Germany, their Benelux offices [caldera-benelux.com] in Amsterdam still seem open for business,
which probably means one can file complaints against them under Dutch law as well.

Although I'm no expert on the dutch system, they presumably have the same level of consumer-protection as the rest of Europe, meaning that action against them here would probably be fruitful.

Re:If Linux 2.4.x has copyrighted material...

People keep saying this, but the people who say it aren't reading what SCO is saying.

SCO has said publicly that it no specific section of Linux can be removed or re-written to make it "clean". Their argument is that once SCO's IP was copied into the Linux kernel, later versions of Linux-- all of it-- became a "derivative work" and thus the entire kernel is now "SCO IP".

The only way they feel you could "clean" Linux is to revert to kernel 2.2 and restart development from there, but none of the existing developers or even Linux users could work on development because they've already been tainted-- all current Linux users have already seen the secret SCO IP in Linux kernels they're using. Any code created by current Linux developers or users would therefore be written with knowledge of SCO's super-duper technology, so SCO says that any code written by current Linux developers or users would therefore be "SCO IP" from the day it is born because it is a derivative work. And so they would still have to sue you for licensing fees over it, even though you just wrote it five minutes ago.

So, SCO says, we're letting you all off the hook. Since the only way to "clean" Linux development would eventually kill it completely (since no existing Linux developers or Linux users could work on a clean version), we'll be generous and let Linux live, and just charge license fees instead.

Now I've seen other /. posters say "So what if SCO doesn't believe it's clean, if we remove the offending code, it will be clean and then they'll have no claim."

But they don't have any claim now; by most peoples' standards, they're making fraudulent claims to manipulate their stock price.Why does everyone think that if we remove some code from Linux and send a nice card to SCO saying that's what we've done, SCO will sit down and say "Okay, you're clean now. Thanks, Linux people!" and then withdraw their case?

And in fact, they've said they won't.

Re:If Linux 2.4.x has copyrighted material...

Ahh, but the problem there is that the whole 'ownership of derivative work' thing only works when there is a contract in place. If I copy a chapter of a book and put it in my book, that's copyright infringement, but it doesn't make my book now owned by the plagarized author. Same with trade secrets and any other form of IP "protection".

There is no contract between SCO and "Linux", so the derivative work angle will not work. It also wouldn't work even if IBM did do something wrong, since they don't own the rights to the rest of Linux either so nothing they could have done could change the ownership of any of that copyright or any other IP besides that which they added.

You know what's obscene about all this?

This. [yahoo.com]

Before anybody files any complaints...

(As if that were the case.) ...there needs to be some serious thought about what to say. You cannot just send complaints to the SEC or the FTC without hard, substantiated facts. In fact, the FTC doesn't want you to send complaints unless you have been directly affected. If you have been directly affected, you probably know what to do, so that leaves us with the SEC complaint form.

I am not exactly sure just how the SEC should be approached with these issues. I am a Linux user, but SCO has not yet attempted to extort money from me. So I cannot issue a complaint on that basis.

However, we are all aware of SCO's activities, and we find them ethically wrong and quite likely illegal. So what I am asking is does anybody have a generic, factual complaint summary that can be submitted the SEC?

Most of us do not have time to pour over all of the material in this situation. Even if we could, most of us are not lawyers. Could someone who has an measure of authority on the subject volunteer some time advise the rest of us on how best to alert the SEC (or not to) without sounding like a bunch of Slashbots?

I imagine a lot of people here are going to get themselves in trouble with the SEC by making silly accusations and libelous statements. A good write up would be appreciated or good reasons not to complain unless you've been approached by SCO to ensure that doesn't happen

A good response, perhaps?

I noticed a comment a few moments ago that hasn't yet been moderated above the default threshold. Please go take a look [slashdot.org]. Would anyone who knows better please care to comment on whether or not this complaint [vodkatea.com] is reasonable, valid, and safe to submit without aggrivating the SEC?

SEC or FTC?

Finally, Joe Barr writes "I just filed a complaint against The SCO Group with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was easy. I used their online complaint form at:

www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm.

The basis for my complaint is that SCO is using false and unsubstantiated claims of IP rights to UNIX and Linux in order to manipulate its stock price and force consumers to purchase SCO licenses.

I believe that "manipulate stock price" would rightly be reported to the SEC. But complaints concerning consumers being "forced to purchase SCO licenses" would, if one believed that such forcing was being done in an illegal manner, best be addressed to the FTC or the Justice Dept.

sPh

I had just thought it was moronic until...

I had just thought it was moronic until I read the "warning to linux shops" ( http://sco.com/scosource/gartner_warning.html ) and afterwards have since filed every complaint form I can find about that company..

yea, they are all bluster and think they *have* something.. but look what happened with the .gif thing, they are just shooting themselves in the stomach to slowly bleed to death..

I will *never* allow this company or any others I work for to have any dealings with them now, and further I will urge any customer of mine to drop any dealings with them. That is power of Linux users I bet they never thought they would see..

I have purchasing power and you SCO will never see it. (I hope your stockholders read this)

Re:SCO is still using Linux!

So is the SEC. [netcraft.com]

Considering the usage of Linux within the US Government, particularly in the intelligence area (see NSA SELinux), I wouldn't be half surprised if the government wasn't already up to something regarding SCO. With a good volume of slashdotters filing complaints with the SEC and FTC, something powerful could indeed be drawn from the woodwork.

Some SCO N E W S

For my money, the most interesting actual SCO news in weeks is SCO Expands Web Services Strategy With Vultus Technology and Asset Acquisition [yahoo.com]. I cannot begin to understand how this makes sense.

In other news, as of 15:07EST, this thread is one of the top stories on Google news.

Pre-filled SEC form to use to complain

This form allows you to send your comments to the SEC without having to fill in all the boring details:

http://www.vodkatea.com/sec.html

IANAL...

I'm curious... could a group of Linux developers who contributed to the Linux Kernel file a class action libel suit against SCO? Perhaps in Britain...

I am getting SCO licences

Printed onto a toilet paper roll. Just the thing any self respecting geek would want in their bathroom!

What if a public company licenses Linux from SCO?

The executives of a public company have certain fiduciary duties to their shareholders.

If the company is a heavy user of Linux, the costs of the SCO licenses could be extremely expensive.

If the executives of the company purchase the SCO license, they could possibly be opening themselves up to shareholder lawsuits accusing them of not performing their fiduciary duties to their stockholders.

For exmaple, if a company only has one or two Linux systems, the executives might find it worthwhile to go ahead and purchase the license. However, if the license fee is $700 per CPU and they have 5,000 CPUS, that would be $3,500,000 dollars in license fees -- easily enough to draw the wrath of their shareholders.

In other words, if a company has very many Linux systems, it might be a very good idea to discuss the issues with their lawyers before agreeing to pay SCO a penny.

Linux JFS isn't from AIX.

Linux's JFS support doesn't come from AIX -- it comes from OS/2, to which SCO holds no copyright nor any other IP rights.

The OS/2 implementation of JFS was a ground-up rewrite, based on the JFS specification, which is owned completely by IBM. SCO might claim that they have copyrights to the original AIX JFS sources (a dubious claim), but they can't claim they own the JFS _specification_. That's owned by IBM.

As mentioned above, the OS/2 implementation was a ground-up rewrite based on this spec. The OS/2 version of the code was then ported and integrated into Linux by IBM.

Thus I can't see how SCO could have any sort of claim on JFS in Linux. SCO has no contracts with IBM pertaining to OS/2 technologies.

Score one for the good guys...

Yaz.

Ok all you "Conservatives"

Time to put up or shut up. If the -public- (not just SCO shareholders) can't request the SEC look into the truthfulness and legality of a company's executive officers activities (which by there very nature effect the stock price, and therefore the stock market, and thereofore interest rates, and therefore the economy, tax revune, the Federal budget, military pay, etc.) then what good is the law or the government? Does being politicaly "Conservative" (capital C) mean simply, following the "golden rule (who has the gold makes the rules?) or is the law taken seriously and accounting hijinks treated as the crime against the market, and society, they are? The market only works when criminals are kept from hijacking the efforts of innovators - theft is hardly very original.

Confession

The Santa Cruz Operation was founded by some friends of mine. I don't think that they have been involved with it for a very very long time. One of them still has my copy of The Feynman Lectures, which he hasn't returned. If he's still connected to SCO, I'll be sure to sue him.

!!!New plan!!!

Everyone buy ONE, thats right one stock. Wait for the next shareholder meating(this will work because the lawsuit is going to drag on forever anyway) then force the arses on the board to drop the lawsuit and or off the board of directors.

hey it might work

Linux IP rights vs. SCO?

Why hasn't any Linux company -- or Torvalds himself -- sued SCO for a) tortious interference with a contractual relationship, b) trademark infringement, or c) fraud? If I tried to sue J.K. Rowling for stealing a sentence from me and started sending letters to buyers in an attempt to claim royalties for the all Harry Potter books sold, you could be sure she'd countersue my ass into oblivion.

So what's up, Linus?

Re:The die is cast

It needs to be pointed out, smartypants, that the BCF was one of the first companies to mass-migrate their internal manufacturing systems to Linux. They didn't stop there, though. They also migrated their office infrastructure as well as their POS systems. Impressive, seeing as Burlington is a massive organisation.

Link here [bryanconsulting.com]

Here is a scary thought.....

What if SCO runs out of money and then allows itself to be acquired by Microsoft. Microsoft buys all of SCO's assets and continues the legal battle with Microsot's huge reserve of money and full-time lawyers.....

Re:Why not disclose the stuff?

In order to see the disputed code, SCO makes one sign a NDA. Fine. What's to prevent him from passing the data to someone else who then posts it?

Umm, the NDA?

If you think it can't hurt you, why don't you sign it?

And if you still think it's a good idea, read this [linuxjournal.com].