Could Google Be SCO's Next Big Target?

An anonymous reader writes "Well, Darl and co. may have decided which company to sue next: Google. Sources say Google will be sued for not paying their Linux taxes. The story quotes 'Industry wags are saying that God invented SCO to give people a company to hate more than Microsoft.'" This is all speculation until such a suit is filed, though.

Yes...uh huh

and Google could just "accidentally" link all SCO investor sites to certain websites specializing in goat mating signals.

self-fulfilling prophecies?

Better than Linux sites (Linux World, Slashdot) linking to each other with speculations that create self fulfilling prophecies.

Not if we can slashdot the hell out of those sites! SCO won't be able to find the scoop on melted heaps of webserver...

Re:self-fulfilling prophecies?

"Not if we can slashdot the hell out of those sites!..."

Why do you guys always think small potatoes?

"The idea behind the suit is obviously to make all major Linux users tractable and make them reach for their checkbooks."

Absolutely. Everybody on that short list and everyone else within range of these cretins should get together, pull out their checkbooks, and sue the bejesus out of SCO. Charge them with extortion and anything else their smartest lawyers can think of. SCO wants to live by lawsuits, let them die by lawsuits. What do you think the Wall Street analysts will think when they find out a hundred companies big and small have gotten together and started the process toward nailing these bastards to the wall? Can you say "penny stock"? Can you say "dead on arrival"?

SCO Denying That They've Targeted Google

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1398341,00.as p [eweek.com]

Note: Blake Stowell doesn't say they won't sue Google, just that they haven't decided on a target yet. He does admit that Google is one of the Fortune 1000 they sent letters to.

This is, of course, just another way for SCO to pump up the stock action. Not really denying the story spreads the rumor, without courting the kind of suit Red Hat slapped them with.

Re:Better than...

That sounds like my older relatives who think we shouldn't see reports on the news about potential terrorist threats, because "it might give the bad guys ideas." As unpopular as SCO might be right now, they certainly would know who the big Linux users are out there...

Re:Better than...

At least Slashdot and Linux World gave them the idea to do it now.

Oh, absolutely. There's no way that SCO's lawyers would have ever thought of doing that by themselves.

Just as all of the most insightful financial analysts come to Slashdot for their investment advice ("Short SCO now!"), so the most expensive lawyers come here to identify a strategy for their multi-million dollar cases.

And doesn't it give you a warm glow to think that all these expensive experts are out there, clinging to your every word, no matter how idiotic or banal?

Hey, perhaps if we tell SCO to stop the lawsuits, they'll do that as well

(OK, OK. I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but *somebody* modded this insightful. That's a hell of a lot lower...)

Re:Better than...

Actually, I personally don't see them doing it. They've already sued one high-profile name, what's the point? They've got enough publicity already. It's the small "mom-and-pop" setups that are likelier to keel over and pay up - [1-5]*US$699 is more cough-up-able than for someone running a server farm the size of Google's. (It's a little like how they say, if a bank lends you $1, they own you, but if they lend you $1bn, you own the bank?)

Google's involvement with linux is so extensive it makes no sense for Google to just keel over and pay it - Google WILL fight (can you imagine the licensing cost for all those machines they have? UNLESS maybe SCO walks up to google and offers them a "cut rate" license fee ("for ONE dollar you'll be in the clear!!"), in which case if Google pays up, it'll be a major coup for SCO which they'll use against others. But in that case it makes sense for Google to say - "we'll pay AFTER you win against IBM" first.

Are there any actual lawyers here who can tell us if Google can ask for a stay in court proceedings, assuming SCO sues them, until after the outcome of the IBM lawsuit? They'd be relitigating the same case otherwise, no?)

Re:Better than...

If SCO wasn't thinking of suing Google before, then they're even stupider than I take them for, and that's pretty stupid to begin with.

Everyone who gave it two seconds thought had to suspect that Google would be on SCO's radar. I mean, c'mon... with a well-publicized render farm of over 6000 Linux PC's who would be a more public target than Google. Since we all know this is a stock scam at this point, SCO is best off going after one of the biggest targets they can find to hype up the the amount of money they'll have coming in, you know, someday when they've won all their lawsuits.

Re:Yes...uh huh

Okay, who's called dibbs on scoatse.cx?

So what?

Isn't it obvious? They are going to sue every major company that uses Linux until:
1.) They get to court
2.) The company simply settles outside of court.

We all know they are full of garbage, yet its still popular and their stocks are still ok... why?

BECAUSE OF MEDIA COVERAGE!

If you guys would just let them slowly drain their money trying to pay lawyers to face off against blue chip companies like IBM, they'd slowly die off. But by giving them attention, they can stay alive.

Re:So what?

I'm not saying 'ignore them' but every major news story about them shows 'some' stock brokers that this is the next big thing... the company that could topple IBM.

So the stock rises. Go check the 1 year on SCO (stock symbol SCOX). Hell, here's yahoo's chart for SCO [yahoo.com].

IBM and all other 'victims' need to make sure they are torn apart, but all the publicity (whether it bad or good) is helping SCO more than any of the companies its suing.

Re:So what?

What I want to know is this... as far as I know, SCO hasn't established (legally) that it has any of its IP in the Linux kernel. How can they even attempt to charge license fees for this software, let alone sue people for using it? Wouldn't this just get laughed out of court?

Re:So what?

Absolutely, notice that they have yet to move beyond mere threats and actually sue any Linux users. If Google gets sued, they could *easily* have the case delayed until the IBM trial is settled, after which there will be no SCO to do any suing anyhow. Regardless, it's not going to happen. I'm sure SCO will come up with a very good reason in February why they have yet to sue anybody. A lot of talk, very little walk.

Re:So what?

I figure it this way:

• At the end of the day, Linux is still going to be there and nothing SCO has is going to take it away.
• Slashdot gets a ton of hits out of tossing SCO red meat to the crowd every day, and it's not as if it'll cost them anything.
• The mob loves feeling like they're The Community heroically fighting for their cause, and it's not like it'll cost them anything.
• The only people who stand to lose anything are the investors putting money into the pockets of SCO execs in exchange for a stock that's going to crater.

So, no harm done and fun for all. (Except investors, but they should know better.) But I definitely think the fuss from the Linux media fuels SCO's stock inflation by giving them credibility and attention, and I'd be surprised if that weren't part of their calculation from the begining. Why do you think McBride responds with an open letter to every attack? Do you see other CEOs who feel compelled to treat Groklaw like it's the Wall Street Journal?

Like I said, it's all good fun but at least know when you're being trolled...

Re:So what?

But I definitely think the fuss from the Linux media fuels SCO's stock inflation by giving them credibility and attention, and I'd be surprised if that weren't part of their calculation from the begining.

I don't know how someone can *be* more wrong. (Though the moderators have managed it yet again.)

SCO's FUD is aimed at investors, and CEO's, not geeks living in their mother's basement.

And so SCO's target audience is in magazines like Forbes and the Wall Street Journal and the various financial wire services. All of those media outlets have been reporting the SCO story largely uncritically, without any real investigation into the detail of the story.

Sites like Slashdot and Groklaw have been providing the story behind the story, and as such, they've been doing a good job of countering the SCO FUD. If investors *had* been reading those sites, there would be very little chance that they'd be having a bet on the longshot that SCO can win their case, because they'd have more insight into the nature of SCO's case.

As it is, they read the analysts and reporters who have been say 'SCO has showed us the evidence and there appears to be a huge payday a little way down the line.' Deutche Bank have a target price on SCO of something like $45 dollars a share, and it's only the Linux press that is saying precisely why that price target is unlikely to be realized.

Eventually, someone in the mainstream financial press will get the whole picture and confidence in SCO will take a tumble. The Linux media is playing an essential part in that process by doing the analysis and amassing the evidence that the non-tech press seems to be incapable of doing.

Why do you think McBride responds with an open letter to every attack? Do you see other CEOs who feel compelled to treat Groklaw like it's the Wall Street Journal?

McBride's comments *are* aimed at the WSJ, not Groklaw. I can't find any comments from McBride or any SCO executive to PJ. If anything, PJ's assiduous coverage and analysis of this story puts the mainstream media to shame and shows the way that Blogging as a form of collaborative open journalism actually *can* cover specialist stories in more depth and with greater critical analysis than the rest of the media have been capable of so far.

Nice troll though. Congratulations.

Re:So what?

SCO isn't getting anywhere with geeks in basements and isn't trying to.

I don't believe I suggested they were. Quite the contrary, in fact. It was you suggesting that they were taking Groklaw seriously. Personally, I think that the only way they take it seriously is as a threat to their FUD.

The problem is that both those media outlets and stupid investors come to Slashdot, see all the hysteria being kicked up every day (remember, they don't realize that all those screeching posters are 14 year old Windows users, not Linux insiders) and figure that there must be something plausible underlying all that fuss.

I don't believe those people come to Slashdot and read the comments. They'd have to be as retarded as we are. Seriously, they just don't have the time. If they do read Slashdot, then they'd come read the top stories as a pointer to breaking news from the other media, but I really don't believe serious journalists/analysts/investors spend time wading through tripe about Natalie Portman and Hot grits in an attempt to get at the few insightful nuggets that you get here. It's a very poor use of their valuable time.

I guarantee Slashdot is increasing SCO's credibility in the rest of the media, not diminishing it.

And you guarantee this based upon what? As someone who spent a few years working as a freelance journalist, and who still has friends working in the media, I can guarantee that no journalist that I've ever met would even bother to read more than the first half dozen comments that you get here, before then dismissing it as meaningless tripe and a waste of their time.

If you were a specialist IT reporter and were researching the story and you read the Slashdot comments for anything, it would be in the hopes of identifying someone who wasn't an Anonymous Coward who has insightful views and expertise in a related area and so might give you a quote (though you'd have to have a lot of time on your hands because there are far, far easier ways of doing that), or possibly to get some sense of what the unwashed Linux-using masses were saying/thinking about the issue. Although it doesn't seem that way sometimes, most people who are intelligent enough to sustain a career in the media - a highly competitive field -- tend to be pretty good at evaluating evidence and I can't think of anything that would come lower on their agenda than a bunch of Anonymous Coward posts to Slashdot.

At any rate, you don't see other CEOs publically slugging it out with unknown web sites, do you? McBride issues those statements for one reason: to yank the Linux crowd's chain and generate more publicity and FUD.

OK, I see what you're saying, but I believe that he's less interested in yanking the Linux crowd's chain, than he is in generating the publicity, because it's the publicity that results in the rise in the stock price -- which is his real goal. I think the chain yanking is an accidental spin-off that I'm sure he finds entertaining, because he's clearly an aggressive, competitive guy who is waging a war for public opinion.

But if Linux advocates were to simply ignore these statements, he'd be turning around to the media saying 'Look, I'm right. That lot haven't got any arguments to counter our claims.' As it is though, his claims are widely reported in the Linux press in order to allow people to make some contribution to contesting the FUD.

I do take your point about the way Slashdot tends to be something of a rumour mill though, reporting vague opinion and speculation. I much prefer to read Groklaw for my SCO news, partly because the coverage there is much more detailed and substantive, but mostly because the quality of discussion there is so much higher.

Finally, I accept that you weren't trolling, but I still think you're dead wrong about this.

Re:So what?

"If you guys would just let them slowly drain their money trying to pay lawyers to face off against blue chip companies like IBM, they'd slowly die off. But by giving them attention, they can stay alive. "

I disagree. If Slashdot and other sites weren't openly critical of SCO, there would still be a number of 'analysts' like Rob Enderle who continue to spin SCO's BS into gold.

This issue won't die as long as Microsoft and Sun are paying millions of dollars for...um..."licenses."

Ever herd of a Pyramid scheme ?

It works like this. I get 3 people to put in $10 each on condition that they will receive $20 in 1 week. We then have 7 days to get 9 new people in, to provide the funding for that payout plus some profit. The next week it's 27 recruits required.

It works because the stupid people will see the exponential growth and actually believe it's sustainable and treat it like an investment. The slightly smarter people treat it as gambling and try to cash out as close as possible to the collapse of the fantasy.

SCO right now has both types of investors in it. The disadvantage they have relative to other pyramid schemes is that the collapse won't necessarily come when you run out of new recruits. It might come when the case collapses or appears to collapse and your old investors all come with pitchforks and flame to collect money that's not there. I.e. Trying to sell for $20 a stock that's not worth the paper it's printed on to someone who has that same impression of it's "value".

The reluctance of SCO to actually identify any of the "offending code" in the manner normally used for such cases should be a clue. Yes, companies routinely sue former partners for breach of copyright and IP theft. There are established norms and standards of evidence.

Coincidence?

Didn't MS try to BUY google but google refused? Then MS said that they would compete with google.

I guess we are seeing how MS intends to compete with google . . .

Re:Coincidence?

*moderates +5 aluminium hat*

Aluminium?!

"*moderates +5 aluminium hat*"

That's Tin Foil you fool! Aluminium won't do any good against Alien Mind Control rays, Microsoft Mind Control Rays(tm), Government Mind Control Rays, or the like. You must use tin!

Re:Aluminium?!

That's Tin Foil you fool! Aluminium won't do any good against Alien Mind Control rays,

Hmmm. You know, I never thought of it before, but as tin foil has been replaced in the market by aluminum foil, there does seem to be a lot more people wandering around under the influence of Alien Mind Control rays.

Re:Aluminium?!

Shit, I've been using aluminum foil all this time. I must have looked like an idiot.

Re:Coincidence?

This isn't so far fetched... Remember that Microsoft made a sizeable investment in SCO a little while back. With a server farm the size of Google's, this could cause considerable harm to their operations. Consider what an injuction against Google during litigation might do. If they can't use their servers, they're out of business.

My question is this, tho: Whatever happened to barratry [reference.com]? In particular, what of the laws regarding making threat of litigation and not following through?

I think Google should call their bluff and get this taken care of once and for all. However, the threat of a lawsuit, and even filing one, is not much to get concerned over. Google probably gets threats all of the time (see: Scientology and Xenu).

Now, a verdict, on the other hand....

Re:Coincidence?

SCO also is the current owner of XENIX after Caldera bought them from the original SCO. XENIX as you may recall was Microsofts venture into the Unix arena and interestingly enough, part of the contract that SCO currently owns states that if Microsoft EVER decides to build another UNIX based OS, that SCO has exclusive rights on building that OS.

At least that's the way the original contract read and that's the contract that Caldera bought from the original SCO.

Re:Coincidence?

Well, it is.

Apple has its niche and hasn't shown signs of growing out of it a VERY long time.

Google on the other hand, is a direct threat to Microsoft's own search engine. The search results prove they can't match Google's ability to give useful results, and I don't think the gimmicks Microsoft has bandied (Image search using face recognition code, searching your local files) about will get people to leave Google.

Yes, Google. is a bigger threat to Microsoft than Apple. In the short term I'd say it's more of a threat than Linux, at least to Microsoft's dreams of owning the Internet.

That said, I doubt Microsoft really has that much to do with SCO's actions beyond investing in them. They funded a company that's going after Linux, and that's all they need to do.

SCO is all about headlines, and in order for suing a Linux using company to boost their stock price, it had to be someone with a lot of boxes (So the damages will be a nice big number), name recognition would preferably be someone who doesn't have a contract with one of the big Linux firms like IBM, Red Hat and Suse.

Google is the most logical choice by this criteria.

One of the best known names on the Internet.

Thousands of boxes.

May or may not have all those boxes through another firm that could come to their aid.

And they have the bonus of an approaching IPO, which in the minds of typical SCO lawyers should make Google terrified of bad press.

Google is the most logical choice for a Linux form that SCO can sue.

Actually, yes.

Apple is exactly where Microsoft wants them: They are contained. They are in a niche market with clearly defined bounds (the "higher end" end user) and they show no indication that they have any path whatsoever from there to touching Microsoft's core target market (the person who just wants 'a cheap PC', the business market). Microsoft is not concerned with contained threats. This is why MS has been pretty much ignoring Mac OS X, but they're jockeying violently against the iTunes Music Store.

Google is very very much an unknown, uncontained threat. They have a lot of leverage, they have energy, mindshare, and are actively expanding, and worst of all, Microsoft has no way to control them in any way. If Google decides they want to put up a link on their front page that says "hey, if you click here, it will install Quicktime and play the Return of the King trailer", there will be a whole lot of people installing Quicktime that day.

Worse, google is actively moving in ways that indicate direct potential threats to things Microsoft cares about. It's only a tiny step from the Google Toolbar to the Google Webbrowser. It's not much of a step at all for Google News to expand into something that could dwarf MSN.

Remember how much effort and money MS put into knocking tiny little Netscape out of the market, even though they got nothing in return? Microsoft cares deeply about potential threats. And potentially, Google can be very scary to Microsoft.

Re:Coincidence? (Quote regarding acquisition)

"Didn't MS try to BUY google but google refused? Then MS said that they would compete with google."

• According to Bill Gates, as reported in USA Today, Microsoft was never in talks with Google about an acquisition.
• 
  
  link [usatoday.com]
  

Re:Ah, SCO is a flash in the pan.

Give it a year or so, the SCO debacle will be over, and people will be back to having MS on the top of their hate lists.

No doubt. SCO is like the Brittany Spears of music - comes out of Goddamn nowhere, blows up bigger than life itself, and then fades into oblivion almost as quickly. All that's left in the end is a smoking crater of fake tits.

MS, on the other hand, has real skill. They're like Michael Bolton - who will outlast every one of us!

WTF?

Don't they have to PROVE!!!?!?! they own what they are trying to collect fees for?

Haven't they done everything but?

If SCO does do anything like that, they will go down for FRAUD!!!!

Re:WTF?

SCO can bill whomever they want.

I know you're just being fecitious, but unless they can prove that they have rights to bill for it, then sending a bill is fraud. Doing so would open them up to criminal prosecution.

Re:WTF?

That's certainly a point to consider, but don't forget that copyright infringement damages aren't repaired by the unwitting consumers. SCO would have to prove that the people being billed knew that SCO was the legitimate copyright holder prior to their deployment. If a newspaper publishes copyrighted content in an infringing fahsion, the readers are not liable for damages caused to the copyright holder, only the newspaper is. I think in this case, "hey we didn't know, but since bringing it to our attention, we've gotten rid of it" would be a perfectly sound legal defense. Either that or "this vendor sold it to us without telling us, please see them for damages," which would most likely in turn become "IBM/SUSE/Red Hat/whomever didn't tell us, sue them."

I wonder

how you can sue someone for violating your IP rights without legal backing saying your own that IP in the first place.

Is it legal to send a big F-U in response?

Re:I wonder

how you can sue someone for violating your IP rights

The thing is, you can't sue someone for 'violating IP rights' (well, you can sue for anything, but you can't win)

If SCO is going to sue, they'll have to say what 'IP' it is that Google is infringing WRT Linux - is Google infringing copyright (Hmm, they're not distributing Linux), Trademark (SCO doesn't own the Linux trademark), or Trade Secret (that would be a tough one to prove.)

As Eben Moglen has said, you can't bring a copyright infringement suit against someone for using something, only for copying it. They would have to go after whoever Google got their software from (or the case would be thrown out.)

They have a better shot at going after Google for contributory infringement (linking to Linux download sites) - but even that has a snowball's chance in hell.

Re:I wonder

thus when you recieve software, you get a license to copy it with certain restrictions on your rights to copy the software

Actually, because the 'copying' happens during the normal course of use, it's included under fair use. No license is required.

and after them...

After google, they are planning on suing the vatican, I mean why mess with these little penny ante companies when you can sue your way into heaven?

Or better yet

Or better yet, while Darl's smoking his crack pipe and hallucinating, whisper into his ear that suing the Church of Scientology would be a an open-and-shut legal case.

Sheeesh.

This is just what SCO wanted, they probably planted this "leak" to get more attention and a new batch of Greater Fools to buy stock.

All "wolf! wolf! wolf" and lots of crying. No "bite! bite! bite"

Well go figure.

Google is big but not that big, they use Linux, and what is more important they have an impending IPO so they might just pay up to get SCO to shut up. I'm just suprised they weren't sued first.

Linuxworld is already slow

Source Claims SCO Will Sue Google

Industry wags are saying that God invented SCO to give people a company to hate more than Microsoft, November 26, 2003

Summary
A source claiming to be in the know says that the SCO Group is going to sue Google for not paying its Linux taxes.

By Maureen O'Gara

A source claiming to be in the know says that the SCO Group is going to sue Google for not paying its Linux taxes.

Last week SCO threatened to make an example of a big-time Linux user that hadn't paid SCO the license fees it's demanding and take it to court for copyright infringement.

SCO has not disclosed the identity of its mark and SCO CEO Darl McBride claimed Tuesday that a decision on what company to target wasn't final yet. He said SCO and its lawyers were working with "a short list" of "seven or eight" names.

McBride declined to say whether Google's name was on it, but another knowledgeable source said it was.

SCO said last week that it would sue within 90 days. The Linux community thinks SCO's bluffing and won't make its self-imposed February 17 deadline. McBride said he'd like to play that number in Vegas.

The idea behind the suit is obviously to make all major Linux users tractable and make them reach for their checkbooks.

If it turns out to be Google, it's a provocative choice.

It's a household name.

It's said to have a Linux server farm of some 10,000 of servers, worth, oh, $7 million to SCO as long as SCO's current cut-rate license fees maintain.

It's reportedly putting together a positively glorious IPO that could supposedly be worth $15 billion-$25 billion, a feat unmatched in the last two decades despite Tulipmania.

And Microsoft, which has been accused of conniving with SCO in its march against Linux, is slated to enter the search market and compete against Google. The widgetry, which is supposed to retrieve all kinds of file types, both structured and unstructured, and all kinds of storage systems, beginning with the user's own drive, will be integrated into its operating systems like the anticipated Longhorn.

Meanwhile, industry wags are saying that God invented SCO to give people a company to hate more than Microsoft.

Good Choice

As much as I can remember, Google has a pretty good history of litigating rather than paying off those who have challenged them in the past (think SearchKing v. Google, if I remember the name right). So I guess this falls into place in SCO's plan of attacking those who are bigger and mightier first, rather than doing the smart (though equally evil) thing of suing small guys to raise money and set precedent before going after the big guys. So, yeah. To sum it all up, SCO are idiots.

Re:Does anyone remember when SCO was not evil?

The absolute worst administration nightmare I have ever had, was a customer box in the mid-90's that ran SCO. It's filesystem ran out of inodes. The consequences were horrendous. I convinced the client to literally toss the machine and replace it with a BSD server. Unfortunately, the client chose BSDI, but at least it was better than SCO.

Re:I may be wrong but...

Yes -- you're pretty much right on target. Our children are generally taught the basics of tort law starting at about 10 years of age or so, and are expected to have passed the state bar by 14. Included in most curricula is a vigorous spelling program, wherein students are required to be able to spell a number of words correctly, such as the ever-tricky flourish, prior to graduating.

Re:I may be wrong but...

It is actually a supply and demand problem, law schools make money so we have lots of law schools and then we get to many lawyers and they end up trying to find targets to attack. It would be better if many of these lawyers just entered the business world as MBA armed with +3 vorpal law degrees. Most serious companies come to understand that courts are a last resort and not a biz strategy.

Re:I may be wrong but...

I wouldn't've modded that "Funny." You're pretty much right. Most Americans live in little bubbles where they have no personal responsibility in their lives at all, there are no coincidental accidents, and whenever anything bad happens to them, it must be traced to someone else, usually richer than them, on whose shoulders the blame can be placed. And whenever they aren't suing someone when something goes wrong, they're willingly handing over their rights to the government.

I think this case [yorknewstimes.com] is a perfect example of the mindset. (which, thankfully, was tossed out of court by the judge)

And yes, I AM an American, and this behavior just sickens me. It never seems to dawn on these people that they're making their own lives miserable through this behavior. Except they're ruining mine along with it.

This is pretty sensational...

and I mean that in the yellow journalism sense. At best this is making complete guesses; at worst, its feeding the SCO publicity mill.

There's nothing concrete to back this up other than unnamed sources; that's pretty weak.

Does God Hate SCO?

"The story quotes 'Industry wags are saying that God invented SCO to give people a company to

hate more than Microsoft.'" This is all speculation until such a suit is filed, though."

All speculation? Huh -- the part about part about God and hating SCO sounds pretty convincing to me ....

-kgj

Re:Does God Hate SCO?

You can only spend so many millenia making bad things happen to the Jews before it gets boring. Linux users are now the new "Chosen People".

/me starts learning Egyptian.

When speculation becomes news

A source claiming to be in the know says that the SCO Group is going to sue Google for not paying its Linux taxes.

An unnamed source who claims to know this?

Could this article be more speculative? How does something like this even get considered news?

Let's analyse this seriously

The scene: a smoky downtown office lit by one bare lightbulb. Mr D is sitting at his desk, studying his computer screen.

"Damn", he says, and picks up the phone. "Get your ass in here!", he shouts, and puts the receiver down again.

A sweaty figure stumbles into the room, sneezes, and puts his coke tin and bottle of JDs on the table. "Whazzup, boss?"

"Our stock fell by two points. We need to sue someone. Who's left?"

"Uh, I think we sued them all, boss. Uh, wait, how about Microsoft?"

"MORON!! They're the nice gentlemen we met this morning!"

"Sorry, boss, it's the coke, it's making me forget shit."

"Look, we need a name, and we need it fast."

"Boss, why not try Google?"

"BRILLIANT!!! WE'LL SUE GOOGLE!!!"

"Uh, I meant just try the search... oh, shit."

"Get on the line to our hacks. This is going to be so big. We can ask for $699 per search result. Per web page. Per pagerank. Whatever, so long as we get into twelve figures."

"OK, Boss, you're the boss..." (picks up JD, stumbles out)

sniff... sniff... SNEEZE! ... silence

I think SCO is dead

Their actions speak of desperation. They are biting off way more than they can chew. If anyone was unsure if they were going to be able to survive a loss in the IBM suit, this makes it certian that they have bet more than they can pay.

Let me get this straigt again. Its trying to prove it owns part of linux in the case with IBM. And now its going to use sue Google because they are using linux which they have yet to prove they own parts of. Great. Isn't that like using a loan for collateral for another loan?

Google is not exactly a vanilla Linux install...

I know from a brief amount of technical work (no, I never signed a non-compete) that Google's Linux server installations are far from "vanilla" kernel.org setups. Yes, at one point, they started with a vanilla kernel, but it's grown from there greatly. And they almost certainly have excised big blocks of stuff they don't care about. Unlike a RedHat distro kernel, which has modules to deal with about every PC that's ever existed, I'm sure the Google kernels are lean mean indexing machines.

How much might SCO try to extort from a linux user that doesn't use the feature under litigation?

The worst part is that unlike IBM, Google may not have the vast army of lawyers to devote to their defense. Now they're not poor, and they do have lawyers, but nothing like the fancy-pants ones that IBM has on tap.

Googling for 'SCO' in the future

Let'em try it. Google has the power to 'erase' all memory of SCO from the internet...

An imagined future google session:
enter 'SCO', hit the 'I'm feeling lucky' button...

1. Southern College of Optometry (SCO)

2. Small Corporate Operation (SCO)

3. SCOffer's anonymous

4. Small Company the Offed itself (SCO)

5. Stupid Company Operation (SCO)

6. Some Company or Other (SCO)

The Microsoft Angle ...

Balmer (to Google): Google, we'd like to buy you
Google: Well thanks, but we're not interested.
Balmer: Think about it, there will be consequences!
Google: Thought about it ... still no.

Balmer (to SCO): Darl
Darl (bowing): Yes Master
Balmer: You know what to do, dont you?
Darl (salivating): Yes Master ... Yes Yes Yes ..... fade

... and the saga continues ...

Re:The Microsoft Angle ...

You're not seriously suggesting that in the face of fighting Linux, SCO will eventually turn on MS and throw them into a reactor shaft, are you? If so, then wouldn't that make slashdot readers the Ewoks when we start celebrating?

Whoa. Now I feel unclean. To make up, here's a nitpick - why didn't the Empire have guard rails anywhere? It's obviously a design choice - I don't think more then one contractor would try to tack in on latter to run up costs. Other than the one on the bridge where Luke lost his hand, I don't recall any.

How it will unfold

Google Employee 1: Hey Tom, did you move my coffee cup?

Google Employee 2: Geeze Mike... I didn't expect a sort of Spanish Inquisition...

Darl McBride, David Boies, and Chris Sontag burst through the door

Grand Inquisitor McBride: Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Slashdot:

Speculation for Nerds. Stuff that could matter, maybe.

SCO is clearly violating the law, but....

They aren't being pursued by any US government authority for it. Why? SCO makes money by charging licenses to companies who use linux on the condition that:

1. Linux is owned by SCO because they own Unix and Linux contains Unix code(this hasn't been proven yet).

2. Paying the license fee will protect a company from being sued by SCO for not paying for said linux licenses and therefore violating the unproven Intellectual Property claim above (refer to number 1)

This seems to be a clear cut case of extortion. At the very least the SEC should be investigating for stock fraud.

This is blantently criminal activity that is going unpunished (no case from the government has been filed against SCO yet) and rewarded(SCO's stock prices continue to climb).

Re:SCO is clearly violating the law, but....

One problem here, is that it's merely your opinion that SCO is "clearly violating the law."

Fortunately or unfortunately, it's really not at all clear that they have broken any law at all.

The SEC and the US Attorney General have indeed been notified of the suspicion, but the fact is they haven't actually done anything illegal (apparently). They are maybe just barely on the legal side of the hockey, but, until they actually cross it, there's not going to be any grounds for the criminal prosecution that you're hoping for.

They're properly going to the court to decide their case. There's not extortion, and there's no stock fraud. There is a lot of ugly business being done, but it's apparently all legal. Just on the side of legal, but that's good enough.

The indemnity offer is not extortion, it's not a protection racket, and shame on you if you pay it. (If it was a racket, you'd become an accomplice when you pay the protection money.)

This will cause Google big IPO problems

This could reduce Google's valuation for their IPO. Google will have to put "pending litigation" with a big dollar value in their prospectus. This affects the valuation. Perhaps by billions.

What an extortion racket.

On Monday, December 5, the discovery motions in the IBM/SCO case go before the judge. That's the first "put up or shut up" event in the case.

this would be fantastic for Linux

What site is most universally beloved by the non-technical public? I'd say it's google: people know it works and see it as an altruistic enterprise since it doesn't make its money off of them. If you need evidence, look no further than its verbed formulation: "to google" is now synonymous with "to search" for a lot of people.

If Google gets attacked, people will notice. Hopefully, they'll start associating Linux with it as a result. If Linux can absorb even a little bit of Google's golden-boy glow it'll go a long way to creating a realistic entry point for consumer desktop Linux.

Why is this news?

I am amazed that Slashdot continues to take the bait on this stuff. Who has SCO sued? IBM, over a specific contract dispute. Since the exact contracts are not available for public inspection we can not know what whether SCO actually has a leg to stand on.

Sure SCO has made all kinds of wild claims in public and there has been even more uninformed speculation.

But they have not actually done anything else.

They have not presented their "invoices" for Linux licenses.

They have not made any specific copyright claims of anybody.

They have not demanded that any of the kernel archives be taken down.

They have not done anything but generate a lot of smoke.

Untill SCO actually puts up, there is no news here. If they actually sued somebody. If they actually made some specific copyright claims. If they actually did anything besides make noise, then that would be a newsworthy item.

I want a SCOg for a pet.

It's half SCO and half dog. It is its only friend. :P

This tends to prove Microsoft is behind it all:

Funny how everyone that SCO goes after is a group that frustrated Microsoft...

Microsoft is trying to raise a zombie army to attack its opponents so that investors won`t perceive MS as being dishonest.

Don't be surprised if more shell companies either get bought up or formed and have the single goal of attacking Microsoft's "enemies".

And the side bonus is MS being able to say "See? We're not the only ones who think Linux/Google/Whatever is bad!"

Another great bonus is that if any of these entities has to pay for its transgressions by being forced out of business by law or some such, Microsoft can just stand back and laugh that the repriesal didn't touch them.

How long....

Before I can go to google and type the words "Kiss my ass", click the "I'm feeling lucky" button and arrive at the Sco home page?

Borrowing a page from Microsoft;s manual...

Somewhat OT, sorry...

Microsoft is notorious for leveraging their dominance in one market in order to force their way into another.

It strikes me that Google can do the same - and do it in a way that could potentially hurt Microsoft a lot.

I know there will be those who will not react favorably to this idea...

Google should create YALD (Yet Another Linux Distribution). Call it "Google Weblinux" (tm...)

Base it on Knoppix-Debian-Muskox/Linux. Add a much more user-friendly HD install (with *lots* of warning about overwriting hard disk partitions, and what this means). Add everything internet-related that they can - especially commercial, well-known stuff like Flash (sorry)
Realmedial (sorry), Acrobat Reader, lotsa Java-related toys, ez-firewall stuff, ez-internet sharing. Add a super-easy, customized synaptic (or synaptic replacement) with (optional) auto-updating. Put in every plugin known to Linuxkind. Make sure everything just works, just like that.

Tie it all together through the google homepage.
Naturally the default homepage will be Google, and the default list of links will include the fine commercial and non-commercial folks Google has made deals with in the process of creating the CD.

Perhaps they could mirror apt-get repositories or add their own for updates.

Advertise Google WebLinux on their homepage, with
links to more info.

If they wanted to the Google folks could become sort of a focal point for mindshare for all of Microsoft's commercial competitors - every commercial business who has to compete with Microsoft's own bundled applications - especially if Google manages to convince everybody that they won't try to get into competing with Macromedia/Sun Java/Adobe/Real.

Would that be an effective counterfud/return fire against Microsoft?

SCO mug shot!

Found this creative little mug shot [bmgen.com] by Lee Brian. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words

Please, please sue google

Could they be any more stupid? I'd pick a nice Fortune 500 company with very few Linux installs. Settling would be tempting and cheap. SCO would have an easy victory and some much needed credibility. Google would be a terrible target because they wouldn't roll over for several reasons. First, Linux is central to their core business proposition. Second, they can evaluate for themselves the validity of SCO's claims. Third, they are no doubt very aware of the story so far (IBM counter suit, RedHat suit, the German ruling). And last, they will be familiar enough with IP law to know SCO has no legal basis for suing end-users for copyright infringement. And even if they did, until the IBM case is decided they can't prove infrigement at all.

I can see how such a move could be compelling to our stupid friends, however. Big well known company, high-profile Linux user, huge potential liability if SCO were able to claim punitive damages from end- users, vulnerable because IPO coming up and of course the impossibly fabulous power that would come from getting Google to knuckle under. Oh please, please. please sue Google. I think you'd see a counter suit that would make IBM's and RedHat's look like velvet by comparison.

That brings up the other point worth mentioning. If SCO actually sues someone, and that someone does not negotiate a settlement on the spot, this game will change dramatically in short order. RedHat's suit would no longer be theoretical. Their desire for an injunction would become urgent. And any other company that sells, supports or makes money in any way from Linux would also have a powerful motivation to seek their own unjunctions. If SCO sues, I think its quite likely that within 60 days of their filing, they will be on the receiving end of dozens of lawsuits. If any are successful, SCO would have to shut up for the duration of the IBM trial. Then the balance changes. SCO's interest would be in hurrying up the case, not dragging it out. That 2005 court date would all of a sudden seem a very, very long time away.

SCOs next hot air baloon...

Take a quick poke through all the companies they've threatened officially or inofficially in various press releases, press leaks, SCO insiders and whatnot. Who have they sued? NOBODY. Except IBM, over some contract. That's it. Red Hat has countersued, SuSe and more have gag orders in effect, what has SCO done? SCO has not filed one single IP suit, no matter how you define IP, be it copyright, trademark, patent or otherwise. They only threaten to do so without actually doing it.

This is yet another stock inflation tactic. They aren't going to sue Google, or a "unspecified Fortune 500" or Linux endusers or anything at all. They only pretend to, and then pull out another rabbit out of their hat. Like some new licence issue (BSD), subpoenaing Linux "celebrities" or a IBM poke shot or similar. They're quite skilled illusionists, if you fail to see the big picture.

Because nobody seems to be asking the question: What happened to all those claims you made last week? Oh, they're still just claims. You haven't made any action whatsoever to follow up on those claims. If you're slow on the take, you might think that these are now actually being handled, and that these are more and more valid claims SCO is pulling out of their ass. I just hope the courts will bitchslap them swiftly, once it gets that far...

Kjella

Why are people taking this seriously?

It makes sense to report on this; it shows where SCO's PR efforts are heading.

But why do people seem to be seriously considering the possibility that SCO might sue google?

Pay attention to what's been happening since January, and you'll notice a pattern. Over, and over, and over, SCO says they're going to sue someone. They threaten lawsuits, say they have plans for lawsuits, announce a new lawsuit target every week. But they never sue anyone. They still haven't sued anyone except IBM, and the IBM suit concerns NOTHING but a contractual dispute between SCO and IBM.

If SCO says they're going to sue someone, that does not in the tinest way indicate they are going to sue that person. It's all just making noise to keep the press spotlight on them.

More than Just speculation -

Suing Google first is illogical (even in terms of existing SCO "logic"). With upwards of 10,000 servers, at 699$ a pop, Google has an obvious incentive to fight it in court. If SCO wanted to start sueing over liscences, they would start with someone who would only owe a few thousand, and claim the result as a precident before going after a bigger firm. Even if SCO was more interested in damaging Google's reputation or profitability than actually taking it to court and winning, they would still go for a quick, easy win on a small case if only to make their complaint more believable. No matter how crazy or not SCO's actions may seem, this leaves only two possibilities.

1. SCO has no intention of actually sueing anyone else. They have a plan that involves skirting the law, but not technically crossing the line. They are sticking to that plan and not getting drawn "offsides". This plan has (or had) a good chance of making the SCO execs money, even if it ruins the company. It has (or had) a good chance that legal penalties will be avoidable or worth it from the point of view of the initiators, even if legal penalties are possibly savage on some of the followers. It may go wrong, and stick everyone involved in prison, but the odds look acceptable or better (or they looked that way when the plan began). Simply, isn't a crazy plan even if it sometimes looks so from our outsiders perspectives.
2. SCO is nuts. They are so nuts that they are going to deliberately avoid taking an easy action that would greatly improve their chances of overall success. They have no rational goals at all, just totally delusional ones. Somehow, a hundred or so people have built this totally delusional structure and are getting by with it for at least a few more months before it all comes crashing down.

This makes a great test. IF SCO actually sues Google without going after a precident first, then #2, else #1. Matters have progressed to where we can stop considering #3 (SCO is just a little bit nuts - they started with a rational plan, but when it didn't work, they hung in there way too long instead of cutting their losses). I'm betting that SCO won't just suddenly announce a suit against Google, and in time this alone will prove #1 is true.

The Dark Lord - evil and clever

Jeez,

Y'know, I really dislike Microsoft. I mean, _really_ dislike. But sometimes you have to admire how smart they are...

Linux is doing well - encroaching on Balmer's own 'my precious'. What's the Dark Lord done in the past? "Buy them and sink them!". AARGHH, can't do that here. Right, what do we do? Aha, the SCOrks - the perfect solution. Snivelling, pathetic, low life failures; set them up to do the dirty work. OK, that's going well - lots of FUD and chief ork McBride's taking all the flack. Back to the dark tower to continue the quest.

What's next? Ah yes, the next great phase in the plan for total domination - the Winternet. Hmm, nasty Google upstarts are doing better than our own little number. But they're a company - ha ha! Let's buy em. WHHAAT? How dare they reject the Dark Lord's advances. Right, deal with them, but how?

Ahh, the trusty SCOrks. Let them deal with the obstinate upstarts. Fits nicely into the battle plan we commanded them to follow anyway. And all the time, everyone says "the SCOrks are bad! Booo! Down with the SCOrcs! And none of the fools realises the SCOrks are simply my entirely expendable pawns. "Sometimes, my dark genius impresses even me!"

Federal Mail Charges?

It is a FELONY in the United States to send an incorrect or fraudlent invoice in the mail knowningly. If SCO so much as mails a notice requesting ONE PENNY from Google, et al, then the United States Postal Inspectors can get involved. And since SCO has the burden of proof, then SCO will have to prove to the Postal Inspectors in court that there is copyright infringment and Google owes SCO. Further, if SCO is killed in the law suit and found to have violated the GPL knowingly it is further proof for felony convictions.

Now wouldn't that be a great reputation for the Post Office -- the FBI could not get Al Copone, but the IRS could, the FBI did not go after SCO, but the Post Office did....

If you have recieved an invoice or a letter from SCO via snail mail you can report it to the USPS HERE [usps.com]. Then you can scroll down to subject of complain and select "False bill or invoice."

Rember, sometimes unorthidox means need to be used to take out the bad guys. What does the Postal Service have to loose by taking out SCO?

Too busy reading the article?

Maybe this will be a Slashdot first -- read the article then post!

After reading the article, I still do not understand how Google could be sued for copyright infringement when they are the end user of a product produced by someone else; does copyright law not specify this? It would be like Eolas suing me for patent infringement after I installed an IE plugin.

I will go back into my little hole now.

Re:Enough please.

Click here [slashdot.org] and disable the YRO section if you don't like it.

It's not like one more SCO story means one less story about something else.