SCO Postpones Lawsuit, Now Threatening Two

zzxc writes "In a surprise turn of events, SCO says that they need more time to prepare an announcement of who they are going to sue. According to SCO, the lawsuits will be announced tomorrow morning shortly before a phone-in conference in which will be outlining their financial report. You can call 1-800-818-5264 code 141144 Wednesday at 9:00am MST to join in with your questions, or listen to the webcast. They also have said that these first two lawsuits will be against companies that hold SCO Unix licenses. (EV1.net servers or Lindows?)"

Oh my God

What a surpise! Sheesh, this is never going to go anywhere.

No Surprise

Who really expected them to follow through? There continual refusals to provide proof of Linux infringing on SCO patents is ample evidence that their lawsuit has no basis. They (SCO executives) would be wise to not further expand their lawsuits, as each company they sue can countersue for defamation. Overall this seems like a big scam - intimidate businesses into giving SCO money for linux licenses,causing SCOX to rise, and enriching McBride & co at the expense of the clueless investors who continue to buy worthless stock.

Re:No Surprise

each company they sue can countersue for defamation

And so? What exactly do they have to loose in the process?

Re:No Surprise

So what, a company that is broke that gets counter sued is still broke.
SCO has nothing to lose, that's the main reason they are doing this.
They just found a loophole in our legal system and are abusing it. They didn't get that 50M infusion to piss it away trying to sell a product. They already proved they couldn't make money doing that.
But they can can take that 50M into court and cause a lot of problems and increase the FUD.

Re:No Surprise

Not necessarily.

For example, let's that about the time SCO announced this whole fiasco, I had gone out and bought some SCO stock (I didn't, ain't go no money, but let's say for the sake of argument that I had).

First, I have not invested in SCO per se. I have invested in stock, but SCO didn't get my money, the person I bought the stock from got it. Whatever money SCO got from that stock came the first time they sold it. They got nothing from any sale after that. Now, if my buy was part of a general pattern of buying, then that pushes the price up and Darl can sell some of his stock and make money, or SCO could issue some new stock (AFAIK the didn't), although that would tend to push the share price down (supply and demand).

So, here I sit with some SCO stock that I bought, but I have not really invested any money in SCO. The money is invested in the stock, but SCO doesn't get any of that money.

Now, am I crooked? Or do I just think that whatever SCO's chances, some fool is going to come a long later and be willing to pay a lot more per share for this stock than I did, allowing me to sell it at a profit before the trial is over and walk away. SCO later goes down in flames and the stock is worthless. I made my profit, and SCO benefited not at all from my ownership of their stock.

Is anything about that crooked, or even supportive of SCO? No, not at all. Is it a gamble? Yes. Perhaps less of one than sitting down at a table in Las Vegas, but a gamble nevertheless. I suspect that most of the holders of SCO stock are not particularly supporters of SCO, except to the extent that their hope of having the stock go up makes them hope that SCO prevails; most of them are probably simply people who believe (or at least hope) that the stock will go up and they will therefore profit.

Oh, and in the meanwhile, my owning stock would give me voting power in shareholders' meetings; a hostile takeover of SCO could have stopped this suit dead in its tracks. Imagine if Linux supporters had bought all available SCO shares :-) Of course, that's what an IBM buyout of SCO would have achieved, and what they may well have been privately hoping would happen.

Now, of course, it would be a bad time to buy. However, anyone who could and did buy SCO stock back when this first started to brew up made a shrewd move, and if they have since sold, a tidy profit. There's nothing wrong with that, and certainly no support of SCO in it. It's just buying a thing and later selling it for more than the purchase price. SCO gets nothing of either.

Re:No Surprise

The action of you buying the stock supports the price or even raises it.

SCO and their employees own the same stock.

Thus : you buying the stock helps SCO and can even make them money if you are one of many such buyers who push the price upwards by generating demand.

Re:No Surprise

SCO doesn't get any of that money.

Oh yes they do. Companies with an inflated market price can use issue new stock as payment for real assets. Witness AOL buying Time Warner.

SCO can use its new found wealth to buy next-to-worthless Canopy group assets theyreby rewarding Canopy in a method which passes muster at the SEC.

Re:No Surprise

Who really expected them to follow through?

I did, because SCO has a history of doing the dumbest thing possible, and suing another huge company is even dumber than not suing after they said they would.

Re:No Surprise

each company they sue can countersue for defamation

Unfortunately the worst enemy is one who has nothing to lose. SCO knows all their bases belong to IBM and if they lose (which they will) there will be nothing else left.

This example should have people questioning the protection that a corporation provides. When it comes to reckless and slanderous behavior the liability needs to extend to the perpetrators personally and the officers of the corporation.

If the board felt that their own fortunes could be threatened by Darl and crew's actions you would see some a very different course of events.

Re:No Surprise

Quoth the poster:

Unfortunately the worst enemy is one who has nothing to lose. SCO knows all their bases belong to IBM and if they lose (which they will) there will be nothing else left.

Excuse me, sir, but I must ask you for your geek card.

All their base are belong to IBM.

IBM to SCO: "You have no chance to survive make your time."

IP Confusion

someone accidentally said "patent" instead of "copyright..."

Given the way that SCO keeps changing its story

It's about trade secrets.

No, it's about copyrights.
There are millions and millions of lines.
Well, there's <errno.h>
We won't sue end users.
Yes we will.

I can't fault anyone for confabulating patents and copyrights in decribing what their contention du jour (de l'heure?) is.

Re:Confabulation

Well... Dictionary.com has the following for confabulate:

#1 To talk casually; chat.

#2 Psychology. To fill in gaps in one's memory with fabrications that one believes to be facts.

I'd say number 2 is without a doubt the correct use for the word. Also Sco can be realistically refered to by the euphemism number two

Re:Oh my God

When SCO does finally sue someone, it will not be for using a Linux distribution like they want you to think. When the court filings are examined, it will probably be a breach of contract suit for some silly violation, which means they will have to sue a current SCO Unix customer. But they will do their best to spin it to the press as a Linux IP infringement suit, and lots of dumbasses will eat it all up and buy more SCO stock.

We can only hope

That somehow it backfires such that when the press spins it, it comes out with headlines like "SCO begins suing own customers".

All this would take is the press paying any attention to anything not directly from SCO's mouth. But maybe that's wishful thinking.

Sounds exactly right

That sounds right. They might actually be able to make a semi-legitimate contract claim against a customer who was an SCO licensee. No way are they going to win against a Linux user on copyright grounds alone.

Since they scheduled the announcement for their earnings call, the numbers must be truly awful this quarter. If they had good numbers to report, they wouldn't need a distraction like this.

SCO won't Sue Lindows

Because originally SCO architected and did the preliminary work as a Service deal. Part of the contract that SCO delivered to Lindows stated that SCO would 'take care' of the GPL aspects of the code and would not provide anything that might get Lindows into trouble such as tainted source code etc etc etc.....

Lindows later went their own way and pursued a more debian focused route, however the contract still stands, though is ulimately open to interpretation

Re:Oh my God

Right. SCO lawyers use this formula:

S=(1+X)i

where

S= number of Lawsuits they're going to file
X= number of days following the original announcement
i= no explanation needed

Thus, S is always going to be an imaginary number.

I hope they sue those 2 Quiznoes monsters....

They freak me out.

Re:I hope they sue those 2 Quiznoes monsters....

These guys? [rathergood.com]

Re:I hope they sue those 2 Quiznoes monsters....

Wow... the first web cartoon to ever cause me to spontaneously grow three new limbs.

My parents were mystified as to where those guys came from when they saw the Quizno's commerials... me being the regular FARK guy I am these days of course I had the explanation for them in full.

"Yeah the guy who did those animals really is a weird guy."

End of story. :)

I'm scared hold me

I wonder if my SCO spoof [scumgroup.com] will be the target

Re:Ummm....

That's only in Germany and other smarter countries.

And im an American =\

Re:Ummm....

Google, which uses thousands of Linux servers to power its search engine, is not the target of the initial suits, Stowell added.

Nope. Not google. Then again they said they'd sue someone today, and they lied about that as well.

Re:Ummm....

Google is probably on the list.

Ahh the magic of the linked article:

Google, which uses thousands of Linux servers to power its search engine, is not the target of the initial suits, Stowell added.

Besides, I don't know what legal principle they can use to sue any Linux user. Copyright violation? No. Contract violation? No, most don't have any contracts with SCO. Patents? They've never said anything about those. Trade secrets? Nope.

So, what are they mumbling? Anyone they can sue has to have a contract with them, i.e. be a licensee, so they can allege a contract violation (like IBM). Maybe SGI? Novell? Sun? Who knows. They have exactly nothing to go after Linux users in general.

Re:Ummm.... SGI

Sgi is the only party that I can think of that Sco has any real beef with, if they're smart that's who they'll go after.

Then again when you assume you make an ass out of u and me, and assuming that Sco is smart is risky.

Re:Ummm....

Does anyone in the justice system have any common sense?

The whole thing that SCO is trying to "sell" is a binary runtime license(WTF-TM). Yet SCO will not distribute the binary to you, nor will it supply any support for the "product". Notwithstanding that there is no legal grounds to support SCO's ownership of said intellectual property (yet).

Is this a new business model or a non existant one?

Re:Ummm....

Is this a new business model or a non existant one?

It's a brilliant business model. They don't have to actually claim ownership of anyone else's product because they aren't distributing or granting anything related to that product. They don't have to follow the terms of the GPL, because they aren't actually using the GPL. They don't have to cease distributing GPLed products, because they aren't actually violating the GPL, just loudly and constantly threatening they will violate it.

They are selling you a license from SCO to use someone else's product. Can they do this? Well, yes, they aren't actually licensing you anything. It's just a piece of paper that says "SCO says it's okay for you to use Linux". And they can certainly give you a piece of paper that says SCO says you can use something. The trick is that they're then trying to create the impression you're required to have an SCO license to use linux but never actually *DIRECTLY* saying those words-- and seem to be pulling it off.

It is like McDonalds was selling licenses to eat Subway sandwiches and strongly implying it was illegal to eat at Subway without one of these licenses and doing absolutely everything possible to convey this impression without actually saying the exact words "it is illegal to eat at subway without one of these licenses" (which would open them up to a preliminary injunction).

Re:Ummm....

It is like McDonalds was selling licenses to eat Subway sandwiches and strongly implying it was illegal to eat at Subway without one of these licenses

I can see it now...

"McDonald's has proof that Subway sandwiches incorporate trade secret and copyrighted elements of the Secret Sauce(TM). Because it is a trade secret, we cannot divulge this proof. Consider this notice that consumption of Subway sandwiches is tantamount to theft of McDonald's intellectual property. By the way, because of Subway's use of the 'lose weight' advertising gimmick, all of their sandwiches are now public domain."

"McDonald's is now prepared to release information that will demonstrate incontrovertibly that Subway is in violation of our Secret Sauce(TM) copyright. We can demonstrate that Subway uses this particular pickle recipe in their sandwiches, which is clearly the same used in the Secret Sauce(TM)."

- Followed by announcement from Heinz Corp. that those pickles are their product, have always been their product, and predate the birth of Ray Kroc.

Wha?

They also have said that these first two lawsuits will be against companies that hold SCO Unix licenses. (EV1.net servers or Lindows?)"

Huh? That can't be right. How could they be suing EV1 when they've already paid their extort^K^K^K^Klicense money.

Re:Wha?

EV1 holds a linux license. Unix licensees are people who pay to use Unix, i.e. AIX, Solaris, etc.

Re:Wha?

The also said:

"We'll have at least one suit that's filed today before the end of the day," Stowell said Tuesday, with two suits more likely. "There is a high possibility we will be announcing two."

Now, where I learned to count (and you can correct me if I am wrong here) that would be three suits (?). But it does follow SCO logic... Look at the wookie....

Oblig Info Minister Comment

"We will sue TWO of them against the gates of the courtroom...IN ONE HOUR!"

Knunov

Re:Oblig Info Minister Comment

The open source zealots are committing suicide by the thousands in front of the borders of Utah!! No infidel penguinistas will ever devaluate our stock! Never!

Re:.. the aftermath..

Probably the same thing we did before SCO came onto the scene.

Masturbate furiously.

Huzzah!

Re:.. the aftermath..

Before??

Why do you think so many Slashdotters are aware of the one-handed Dvorak keyboard layout?

irresponsible

Somebody get on the call and ask them "If you have such a strong company and case, why do you feel the need to couple lawsuit announcements with your financial call?"

Re:irresponsible

Somebody get on the call and ask them "If you have such a strong company and case, why do you feel the need to couple lawsuit announcements with your financial call?"

I would LOVE to see the Slashdot effect at work on this conference call. I don't suppose we're so lucky as for SCO to have set this up on a system where they pay per user connected, are we? :-)

That and it would be great having 10,000 slashdotters heckling them :-)


Mechanik

Won't work

I can't find the Groklaw article now, but a summary from a Groklaw reader who "attended" one of their conference calls said that it was pretty obvious that SCO wasn't letting anybody ask questions that they didn't know (and therefore couldn't predict or spin to their advantage).

No sense in upsetting the investors with those questions they don't want to answer...

Jay (=

Re:Won't work

SCO pretty much has to do this. The last time I listened to a conference call my company's top brass gave, they had about a half-dozen callers basically ruin the party. Management stuck to their BS story, tried to brush off the queries, but it was obvious they were in a major bind because they simply couldn't handle having to answer those questions in such an environment.

SCO's conference call

Disclaimer: IANAL. I am, however, a teleconference operator.

Do you want to ask Darl McBride an embarrasing question or two in front of most of the financial world? Sure, we all do!

The problem, however, is this: In a financial results call, not just anyone is allowed to ask a question. The people presenting the call get to pick and choose who gets to speak. Usually, private investors, media, and anyone from a company that has generated bad press do not get called on. So what can we do to weasel our way to the front of the question queue?

Well, if SCO has set up their call intelligently, nothing. The access code, 141144, might be the public access code, with a different code (or even a different phone number) given to people who can be trusted to ask "good" questions. But if everyone is coming in on the same number, then we have a chance.

You'll know you have a shot at a question if, instead of being joined to the call immediately after entering your access code, you instead talk to an operator. The operator will most likely ask you your name, your company's name, and maybe your phone number. If this happens, lie to them. Make up a name and phone number, and tell them that you are with an investment firm. Just pick something: CIBC World Markets, Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse First Boston, Goldman Sachs, anything like that will do. Bonus points if you pick a company that has invested in SCO. Write down your information so that you can remember it! The trick is to make yourself look like you'll ask a safe question, so that they'll look at you in the queue and say, "Hey, let's take that Eddie Smith from CSFB next..."

If you do get called on for a question, remember:
1) Be polite. "OMG Darl SUXXORZ!!!" will just generate a "There are no further questions at this time" from the operator.
2) Ask a difficult question that Darl hasn't answered before. Let him hang himself, it'll sink in better with the investors that way.
3) Keep going until they cut you off. They're not likely to let many more unfamiliar names ask questions after this.
4) If anyone asks, you didn't get any of these ideas from Slashdot.

Here's hoping for a great conference tomorrow!

My bet.

EV1.net servers or Lindows?

Since SCO seems to be acting as SCO's catspaw and EV1.net seems to be in league with them both, I'm betting on Lindows. Another chance for SCO to do Microsoft's dirty work for them.

Re:My bet.

That seems unlikely.

Lindows is a technology company, and isn't in the Fortune 1000, which doesn't seem to match the profile of the targets announced yesterday.

Of course, SCO has said one thing and done another many, many times. If they did attack Lindows.com, then that would certainly dismiss any notion that they aren't shilling for Redmond. Given the potential multi-year delay in the MS trademark litigation, there are probably more than a few experienced IP lawyers on retainer by Lindows.com that are looking for someone else's leg to chew on. And certainly Robertson would love to squeeze more than a little PR out of such a suit.

I know I need to suspend logic with SCO...

Obviously logic hasn't played a big part in any of their actions, but why in the hell would they sue EV1, one of the few companies that bothered to buy an SCO license, not to mention the fact that they admitted it!

It's not exactly case of biting the hand that feeds you, but it certainly be a case of alienating an ally that probably doesn't need to be alienated.

Suing SCO licensees?

They also have said that these first two lawsuits will be against companies that hold SCO Unix licenses.

When a company or organisation starts suing its own customers, then it's a sure sign that its business model is completely fucked. Look at the RIAA: suing Joe Teenager, to try and offset the fact that their profits are dropping like a lead balloon.

Re:Suing SCO licensees?

You mis-quoted the article...

...it has targeted for lawsuits, but it has said the first two will be aimed at companies that hold Unix licenses.

There is no SCO before Unix in that sentance.

Further up the article you will see

SCO, which owns a disputed amount of Unix intellectual property, inherited the agreements by which inventor AT&T and its successors licensed the operating system to IBM, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard, Silicon Graphics, numerous universities and others.

It's a safe bet that who ever they are going after is in that list.

Re:Suing SCO licensees?

>> It's a safe bet that who ever they are going
>> after is in that list.

I'm not sure about that. Does the Vatican run Linux? That's about as close as we can get to: "SCO sues God" which seems to be the logical conclusion to all of this. ;-)

Re:Suing SCO licensees?

Well..

It appears, Yes..
Lets see what SCO does with this one...

sh-2.05a$ telnet www.vatican.va 80
Trying 212.77.1.243...
Connected to www.vatican.va.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET / HTTP/1.0

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 04:11:56 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.8.9 OpenSSL/0.9.6g PHP/4.2.2
Last-Modified: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 15:30:18 GMT

Re:Suing SCO licensees?

Connected to www.vatican.va.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET / HTTP/1.0

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 04:11:56 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.8.9 OpenSSL/0.9.6g PHP/4.2.2

Well, there it is, folks, final proof: God runs UNIX. You Windows folks had better repent, and right soon.

Re:Suing SCO licensees?

I was wondering when someone was going to catch that. I think the first 50 guesses on this thread could be modded off-topic.

My personal guess is SGI and HP. Sun already bought a license and SCO is already suing Novell and IBM. I doubt they would go after a university, they want a quick settlement to fuel their pump and dump scheme and a university might fight longer.

Anyone got odds?

Please, Let It Be McDonald's....

Could they, would they, please be incredibly stupid enough to sue McDonald's, whose German operations are moving to SuSE. Talk about being crushed....

Re:your sig...

Slashdot: where racism against Indians is OK...

I think this is an unfair generalization. Geronimo, Cochise, and Sitting Bull are some of my favorite figures in history.

It's as bad as saying we're totally US centric. Sheesh.

News?

All this play by play of SCO is really tiring. It's like a bunch of fleas issuing flyers every time the dog takes a walk. Yes, something's happening. No, it's not that important.

Re:News?

Actually, slashdot blew a perfect opportunity to post a dupe that wasn't a dupe (for once). "SCO says they'll sue an end user tomorrow" was a headline yesterday and could have been an equally valid headline today. :)

In any case, I'd explain how you can set your preferences so you don't have to waste your time on SCOldera stories if you don't find them interesting, but since you're "ObviousGuy", I don't have to point out something so obvious to you, do I? :p ;)

Hello, my name is George

And I'm addicted to SCO news stories.

Re:Hello, my name is George

Hello George.

My name is Anonymous Coward. I spend all my time on slashdot, groklaw and the yahoo SCOX board reading and writing about newSCO.

Unlike you, I'm not addicted. I can stop any time, it's just that I don't want to.

This makes me a better person than you. HTH.

slashdot the telecon?

I'd hate to pay the bill for that telecon. Considering it usually costs $1 per minute per participant, perhaps we can put a dent in their extortion fund!

Seriously though, I hope the company that is hosting the telecon has a lot of lines reserved.

Top 5 comments you'll hear.

If you listen carefully you'll most likely hear someone yelling:

5. "Darl McBride, -1 Troll!"
4. "New SCO docs at www.tubg...."
3. "Can someone help me fix a Perl script?"
2. "Bad news everyone, Stephen King is dead."

And the number one comment will be:
"Fuck you Darl!"

BTW, I'll be the one with the air horn.

The only logical choice....

is for SCO to sue SCO. They are not a tech company but they use Linux. (go check Netcraft....they have actually dabbled in BSD for a bit on www.sco.com)

Re:The only logical choice....

They could sue themselves for an infinite amout of money and settle out of court.

Basically

This is the second announcement about an upcoming announcement today by SCO, right?
Meanwhile PJ at Groklaw [groklaw.net] is busy tearing them a new one over mentioning her in one of their propaganda blasts. Good reading. Hate to have her as one of my enemies.

Re:Basically

That is good reading. My favorite part is where teh SCO PR guy says, "I find that there is so much misinformation on Groklaw that is misconstrued and twisted that it's probably one step above a lot of the ranting and dribble that takes place on Slashdot.'. . ." Isn't is drivel, not dribble?

I was afraid we wouldn't have more SCO Stories

I can't believe they are still around. Other countries take control and don't let them spread their junk. Why can't they be stopped here in the US too? I mean, it just urks me that after producing no evidence and spreading FUD, they haven't been required to stop, and in fact will file another backless lawsuit (or so the claim). Atleast its a good sign that they are taking so long. It shows that they're running out of juice

Re:I was afraid we wouldn't have more SCO Stories

No kidding.

Racketeering is alive and well here in the good old USA, and frankly I am about fed up.

I have no idea what the fuck our legal system is doing even entertaining these crooks..

Haha!

"They also have said that these first two lawsuits will be against companies that hold SCO Unix licenses." Wow. That's a great business plan. Alienate your few and diminishing customers.

Re:Why "may be EV1" ?

Suing EV1 less than 72 hours after they bought an SCO Linux IP License would be completely illogical, even for SCO. Everyone, including the Deutsch Bank anal-ists and Laura Didio, would then see the entire case as a big sham. They would completely lose the propaganda battle, which is the only battle they have a chance of winning in the first place. The entire scam would unravel as people realized there was no chance of SCO making money on Linux licenses, since nobody would buy one just to get sued 3 days later.

So?

The more bizarre and outlandish their statements are, the more their stock price goes up.

I bet if they announced they were suing EV1, their stock price would hit 40 before the call ended.

EV1.net or Lindows?

They also have said that these first two lawsuits will be against companies that hold SCO Unix licenses. (EV1.net servers or Lindows?)"

Since EV1.net is in the process of climbing into bed with Microsoft, and SCO has been warming itself under the same blankets for quite some time, I think it more likely that Lindows will be sent to the doghouse.

Then again, in a vain attempt to turn back the tide of hatred directed at it, SCO might turn around and sue Microsoft. What a twist that would be!

Re:EV1.net or Lindows?

If SCO sues Microsoft, who do we cheer for??

Mutually-Assured Destruction!!!

Still

Interestingly enough, although their stock (SCOX) ha s been in a decline for the past few months (it was 16+ the last time that I saw) it jumped quite a bit today. Up 1.15 to 13.42. Any reason why?

Bagholders Inc.

Yeah, they're known as "bagholders". These are the imbeciles that know nothing about the company, the case(s) or in fact anything, except a) that the PR says "We'll sue" and b) When companies announce that they'll sue, they go up. Also, there was the "We sold an IP license" thingy, you might remember? The one that noone know if it brought in any money for SCOX, but it sure made a lot of PR!

Anyhow; The bagholders are then sold into by insiders, which make a tidy profit.

The job of the bagholders then is to sit around and watch the stock slowly fall down again.

Typically they'll panic and sell at a big loss. Some bagholders are smarter and hang around for the second wave of bagholders and make it out at plus/minus zero.

It's like the source code all over again...

I think SCO is waiting for the media outlets to sign and return the NDA before they let them know who the lawsuits are against.

Prediction of tomorrow's announcement

We are going to postpone our suing of two companies but tomorrow we are going to sue THREE!

So the logic is...

...buy a SCO licence, have SCO slap a lawsuit on you anyway?? How do they expect to sell licences after this insanity?? Kinda a matter of shooting oneself in the foot.

Wired News 2004 Vaporware list...

The #1 spot for Wired News' Vaporware Awards in 2004 goes to:

SCO for their "still pending" lawsuit! Congratulations guys!

license didn't indemnify

If you had read the article the other day on Groklaw it stated that (I'm paraphrasing) that purchasing this license doesn't allow that user to actually USE SCO's intellectual property. All it really does is say "look, we know we're in the wrong here, so let's settle up".

Now because of the fact these people signed up for their license that shows they "admit guilt". So not only did they pay SCO the $799 (or whatever it is now) extortion fee, they also paid SCO to sue them. That's how the legal system works, my friends. EV1 and Lindows (if it's actually true) will get a first hand lesson now.

In a sense, buying a license under these methods and terms is basically the same as signing a confession to a crime that wasn't even committed.

SCO Unix != SCO IP

They also have said that these first two lawsuits will be against companies that hold SCO Unix licenses. (EV1.net servers or Lindows?)

Seems like they are saying they are going to sue someone who has already licensed Unixware or some other SCO-sold Unix OS, and *not* someone who has already licensed their "SCO IP," like EV1.

I bet they go after someone who has used SCO's OS in the past, but has been migrating to Linux. Nothing like a little retribution.

Of course, it's hard to tell with these bastards. They don't seem to be too.... stable. Mentally. Financially. Whatever.

SCO's Amended Complaint...

...also was recently posted at Groklaw. Their lawyers really did a decent job in making most Darl's rantings nice and legal like.

BSD users might find paragraph 84 interesting, since SCO basically claims it was impossible for Linux to achieve "complex multi-processor functionality" without SCO's UNIX code.

Meeting Notes

Darl: "Thanks everybody for listening in on this financial meeting. We've got some really good numbers to talk about today. Our core product, Turbo Litigation Plus, is doing very well right now. We've got more penetration in the court room market than any of our competitors and we feel that things are only going to get better from here on out."

Investor: "Can I just say that I love what this latest release had done to stock prices. I'm sleeping on a bed of money at home right now."

Darl: "That's great to hear. We're glad your happy, but please hold your comments until I'm finished speaking."

Investor: "..."

Darl: "Right now I'd like to announce a couple more features that we've added to Turbo Litigation Plus."

Listeners: A hush....Pent up excitement...Maniacal greed...

Darl: "First, we've decided to add Hasbro to our list of targets. We've discovered that the substance that give's Nerf(TM) toys their "Nerfiness", if you will, is actually part of the Intellectual Property of SCO in a very literal sense. It's what makes up 90% of our brains over here."

Investor: "Excellent!"

Darl: "Please man! *slaps the table* Let me speak!"

Investor: "..."

Darl: "Secondly, after a toss up between Ronco, the maker of the indespensible Door Saver(TM) which of course was actually invented by Billy over here, and McDonalds, maker of the McDarl, we've chosen to add, wait for it, ourselves!"

Listeners: Gasp!

Darl: "Yes folks, we're going to sue ourselves. I mean think about it, we own all our own Intellectial Property, we only have to pay half as much in lawyer fees, and I love to cross examine myself."

Listeners: Applause

Darl: "Thank you all for your time. SCO Rules!"

Advisor: "Darl..."

Darl: "Sorry."

AutoZone

I bet one of them is AutoZone. SCO is pissed that AutoZone switched from SCO Unix to Linux, and claims that couldn't have been done without violating their IP. The meat of their argument is on groklaw here [groklaw.net] (Supplemental #8), and if you scroll down you can see some AutoZone employees refute the argument. Search for the comment by 'jbgreer'.

Re:AutoZone

That's hilarious..

For autozone, the claim that IBM copied libraries from SCO Openserver, to allow their old apps to work in Linux. Okay, there is some logic there.. that could feasibly violate licensing terms.

But, they also claim that IBM violated their software licensing agreement with Sherwin Williams and Target, by inducing them to switch to Linux. What the hell kind of License do they have?? It forbids users from switching to competitive products? I kind of doubt it.

The hilarious part is that customers are fleeing from SCO as quickly as they can. And, SCO claims it is because of IBM's involvement - not the fact that SCO have abandoned any hopes of competing with their products and switched the whole company focus to litigation. You would have to think that any responsible organization currently using SCO is putting together plans or actively moving to another OS.

Not unheard off

Bioware released neverwinter nights for linux. Well kinda off. Their license with their windows installer supplier forbids them from using other installer software. Meaning someone else had to write an installer script. Not to difficult for the linux community but still prove that idiotic contracts keep getting signed.

Granted this was using two different products at the same time but close enough.

They missed a detail!

"There is a high possibility we will be announcing two!" said Blake Stowell Tuesday, while placing his pinky in front of his mouth as pictured here [freeserve.com]

In Other News, Calculus Teachers Thrilled

Although SCO's actions have attracted some negative attention from the Open Source Community, many High Scool teacers are exhuberant about the company's recent actions. Bob Frampton, High School calculus teacher at Frederick Davis High said of SCO's recent actions, "It's just great, they're literally changing the way we teach mathematics to our future leaders. It's only thanks to SCO that we can ask exciting new problems such as, 'If every day SCO doubles the number of lawsuits they claim to file the following day, how many days will it take before nobody cares?' or, 'If SCO doesn't play this thing out right, how long will it take before the Fed nails them with fraud? Extra Credit: how many board members will get caught? Support your answer by proof.'"

Not just math teachers are thrilled, though. Says Jane Yargood of another local High School, "Darl McBride really deserves a cookie, it's so great that we can teach students about logical fallacies through real world context!" With the end of this somewhat less than momentous case nowhere in sight, it's good to see that some of our educators can find the silver lining in any situation.

They said they'd announce on Tuesday...

But they never mentioned exactly *WHICH* tuesday they were referring to.

This reminds me of the "Free Ice Cream Tomorrow" sign that a guy had at his ice cream store in the early 1900's... when asked about why he wasn't giving ice cream away even though the sign had been up for over a day already, his response was always the same "because it's not tomorrow yet... it's still today".

Hotline

You can call 1-800-818-5264 code 141144 Wednesday at 9:00am MST to join in with your questions

And tomorrow we'll read that this damned open-source community has organized a DDoS attack on SCO hotline !!

Darl's an ass

He spent 2 years in Osaka trying to convert Buddhists to MORMANS and the most intellegent thing he can say about it is that he got free Japanese lessons?

And the reason why Darl is the way he is?

"I am absolutely driven by people saying I can't do something."

Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/business/ yourmon ey/29boss.html

Let's Dare Darl

I am absolutely driven by people saying I can't do something.

Remember that kid we all knew when we were growing up that would take any dare? It was fun at first but you had to watch what you said around him after a while. Who wanted to explain to the kid's mom that he dared him to jump in front of a train? Darl seems to be just that sort of easily manipulated hothead.

Darl is no little kid. He's a rather nasty adult. He's already walked up to the biggest bully on the block and punched him in the nose. What else can we goad him into doing?

I like another poster's suggestion.

Hey Darl! We know you read Slashdot. So I'm going to make a dare with you. McDonalds is your largest customer. They even have a contractual relationship with you. And we all know what SCO says contracts are for. McDonalds has also been piloting Linux POS terminals in Germany at least. ..quite possibly with an eye to migrating from SCO's products. Darl, there is no way in hell you would win a suit against McDonalds. Their legal department would burn the SCO pimple right off of Utah's ass. Go ahead Darl. Sue McDonalds. I double dog dare you. You can't sue McDonalds and win.

Suprise??? Really???

In a surprise turn of events, SCO says that they need more time to prepare an announcement of who they are going to sue.

I hope this is a joke, I mean a suprise??? The announcement did exactly what SCO et al intended, it turned around their falling stock price just prior to a quarterly finantial announcment. Just more FUD.

Slashdot the 800 number?

Don't toll-free 800 numbers cost the company money on a per-user basis? What would the financial impact of everyone with an interest in Linux dialing in to listen?

The slashdot-effect on an 800 number?

Free as in Beer

The "ever-pending" lawsuits remind me of the sign you see in some bars:

Free beer (tomorrow)

Good Management

SCO was unprofitable last quarter but would have been in the black if not for a $9 million payout to its attorneys, In most companies, wouldn't this be grounds for a shareholder lawsuit?

Interesting Darl interview video on news.com

Look for it on the right side of the front page.

Re:Interesting Darl interview video on news.com

Wow HUGE ..

Darl actually suggested that if Drug companies come up with a new formula for a drug on a linux machine they would have to license the formula under the GPL.

This guy clearly wins the "No Clue" award when it comes to licenses. Now at least we know that he most likely has misintepreted the Unix contracts

dvnull

SCO sues two more of their own customers

According to the news.com.com article, SCO is suing two more companies that have contracts with them... That makes 4 companies that they've sued in the last year -- all of whom have previous contracts with SCO (IBM, Novell and the two unnamed SCOldiers).

At the same time, they're claiming that the best way to avoid litigation with them is to sign a contract that acknowledges that they have more power over you (and Linux code) than most people believe they have any hope of proving in court.

Come into my parlour, said the spider to the fly.
You'll be so much much safer when I've baked you in my pie.

Blaze of Glory

From the rumor mill. Suicide CEO Darl McBribe sues Merill Lynch and Credit Suisse First Boston, announced at a financial press briefing for the embattled company. Sends Wall Street reeling!!! Analysts left scratching their heads.

I have visions of a lottery.

a big chamber with 1000 ping pong balls in it. These of course correspond to the top 1000 linux using companies in the US. Woohoo.

SCO worried, Geeks happy..

Here is a little lawsuit we wrote
You might want to read it code for code
SCO worried, Geeks happy..
In every court we have some trouble
When you got IBM on your back it's double
SCO worried, Geeks happy........

Ain't no way to take back what we said
We slept in it, now we have to make our bed
SCO worried, Geeks happy
The land lord say our rent is late
The irony is, he may have to litigate
SCO worried, Geeks happy
Look at me I'm unhappy
SCO worried, Geeks happy
The press got ahold of my phone number
Nonstop pissed off people call me
Makes Slashdot so, happy
SCO worried, Geeks happy
Ain't got no cash, ain't got no style
Ain't got no code, makes you smile
SCO worried, Geeks happy
We doing nothing but worry
Our stockholders faces all frown
And that will bring our stock price down
So don't worry, SCO's unhappy....

There is this little company summons we wrote
I hope you tear it apart code by code
Like good little Slashdotters
SCO worried, Geeks happy
Listen to what I say
In your life don't expect no trouble
But when a company drives you to worry
DDOS them on he double
SCO worried, Geeks happy......
Don't worry just do it, be happy
Put a smile on your face
Bring our website down like this
Don't worry, we're almost bankrupt and this nonsense will pass
SCO worried, Geeks happy
SCO worried, Geeks happy

Yo Grark

Justice, delayed, but not stopped

If you haven't been following the aftermath of Enron and WorldCom, here's how that's finally unwinding.

At Enron, Glisan was convicted and is in the pen. (He's inmate #20293-179 [bop.gov] at FDC Houston.) Fastow has pled guilty and is awaiting sentencing, which comes after he has "cooperated". He's cooperating. Skilling, the former CEO, has been indicted. Ken Lay is still unindicted, but that may yet happen.

At Worldcom, Sullivan just pled guilty, and Ebbers, the former CEO, has just been indicted.

It takes a while. But there is some justice left. Let's wait and see what happens with SCO.

I'm going to guess McDonalds

McDonalds is my guess. Someone else guessed AutoZone because they are also moving away from SCO Unix. But I think McDonalds will have better PR punch, so that's where I'm putting my money. I think it's also realistic to assume that they will also make the announcement during the "earnings" call itself so as to minimize the amount of time they have to spend discussing just how horrible their balance sheet was last quarter.

Who's up first?

I generally dont spend a lot of time reading parodies, but this one was good. I highly recommend it *after* watching the Darl interview video, posted on news.com [news.com] front page today. Look for it on the right side of the page.

Who's up first [groklaw.net]

Higly entertaining content.

" zzxc writes "In a surprise turn of events, ..."

OK, I give.

How do I feign surprise?

You just have to love SCO

I have more and more emphaty for this company, because they turn out to be just like me...

Boss, this new program I'm writing will have ten million innovative features!

Did I say ten million? What I really meant was ten thousand, but they are really great!

Those two hundred features I've been talking about are really awesome, you'll see when it's done!

For example, take a look at this brilliant idea of mine! I have hundreds more!

Ken Thompson? Of course! I didn't say that this particular idea was mine! I was only saying that my ideas are at least equally brilliant! It was only an example of innovative cutting edge idea! In the seventies? So you have to admit how innovative it must have been back then! Wow!

I only need some time and money... To finish the whole thing, you know.

It will be ready tomorrow, I promise!

No, not today, I said tomorrow!

Did I say it yesterday? No, I would have remembered that...

It might be ready the day after tomorrow. I only need more time to prepare an announcement of the features it's going to have.

Not yet, but Real Soon Now!

So, as I've said, I just have to love SCO, because they are just like me. In fact they are just like most of us working here on Duke Nukem Forever. We are working forever...

Did I read this right?

"They also have said that these first two lawsuits will be against companies that hold SCO Unix licenses"

So if I read this correctly, if you purchased a SCO license then SCO can sue you? huh? Pardon my ignorance but wasn't the whole reason these guys purchased licenses was to be protected from lawsuit?

Signed... really confused SCO hater.

SCO has narrowed down its list of possible targets

Actually, they will wait 10 days, then sue 1024 users.

Listen to the conference call online

You can listen to the call online here, once it starts:

http://biz.yahoo.com/cc/3/39693.html [yahoo.com]

Shit, I can't take part in phone conference

When I open the link, Epiphany pops up a Window telling me

You should only accept the security information if you trust "www.thescogroup.com" and "www.sco.com".

Convenience in lawsuits.

They also have said that these first two lawsuits will be against companies that hold SCO Unix licenses.

It must be a new trend for companies to sue their customers. Perhaps in fifty years, someone will look at this from an historical point of view...

The organization which invented the strategy of suing its own customers was the RIAA. Some time later, SCO began to sue its customers. This innovative business strategy grew increasingly popular through the first decade of the 2000's. Today, nearly all organizations sue their customers, and increasingly, customers demand to be sued upon completion of each transaction. Photograph 1.9 shows customers swiping their "So Sue Me!" cards at the checkstand of their local grocery store.

By 2015, the volume of lawsuits climbed to hundreds of millions occuring every hour. To handle this load efficiently, the U.S. government shut down court houses, where cases were tried before a human judge, and the plaintiff and defendant had to make an appearance, either personally or through a human attorney, in a physical courthouse. Cases could take days, weeks, or many months to resolve, depending on their complexity. Today, lawsuits are carried out by computer, where software programs carry out the legal motions of each party, and the results are decided automatically by a computer program. Photograph 1.10 shows a government data center. At this center, cases which could have taken weeks under the old system are opened and closed within a few microseconds.

Payment of damages has also become convenient with the advancement of technology. Before, the winning party of a lawsuit had to expend additional time and effort in enforcing a judgment. Today, however, damages are automatically debited to the losing party's bank account upon completion of the trial. If the defendant is unable to pay, all property owned by that defendant is immediately seized by the government. Computer programs automatically lock defendants out of their cars, houses, or other properties they may own. All of this occurs quickly and conveniently, without the intervention of either plaintiff or defendant.

Microsoft. Where do you want to go today?

All properties are the property of their respective owners.

The above document is an excerpt from a book not yet published, brought to you compliments of time travel.

The Mouse That Roared

... In Lindon, Utah.

It's incredible. I mean, there is no way, I repeat, no way, these guys can be expected to be taken seriously. Without serious (M)$ backing them, how can they go on?

Advice from a lawyer:Buy a bundle from SuSE/Novel

Hi, we have been in the discussion with being a high profile candidate for SCO (advertising our Linux Support for our customer's solutions)... Our Lawyer said simply : Buy a set of Linux CD Boxes and Support from SuSE, now Novell! The older, the better!
If SCO or their Lawyers show, up show them that you are using this system, and friendly point towards the case between Novell and SCO, and that once the issues have been resolved between those 2 parties, you would be willing to comply with whatever the outcome is.

The $64,000 Question...

"SCO: Who Do You Want To Sue Today?"

Re:How the lawsuits are going to go in court

Moderators found this interesting, but it's still off topic.

And how many times do you need to repeat [slashdot.org] this posting before everyone gets your point, Mr. Karma Whore?