SCO Group Hires Boies After All 479
pitr256 writes "So it seems the SCO Group has decided to
hire infamous Anti-Microsoft lawyer David
Boies after all. This comes upon reversal of the SCO Group statement
according to Chief Executive Darl McBride of having not engaged Mr. Boies
to take legal action against our fellow Linux vendors. Now, CNet
News is reporting that not only is SCO Group investigating the Linux vendors
but that it is also going to investigate Windows, Mac OS X, and the BSD derivatives. So if your technology can't win on price
and performance, break out the lawyers and sue everyone. Does anyone else see
this as the end of SCO (Caldera) like I do? I certainly will never use anything from them ever again."
Of course they hire boies (Score:4, Funny)
Possible outcomes (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Possible outcomes (Score:2)
Re:Possible outcomes (Score:5, Interesting)
That, my fellow
The way I see it, if Caldera sues over any of their proprietary IP that they contributed to the kernel, etc., the terms of the GPL will govern (I hope
I suspect so. Caldera's active voluntary participation in development of various parts of the system, in its entirety, would probably preclude an attempt at enforcing copyrights that have become "tainted by the GPL." Here again, any IP infringement that was a direct result of Caldera's participation would carry an implied license under whatever license covered the particular system component that contained the IP.
Now, all bets, above, are off if they are going to seek enforcement of IP governing a part of the system in which Caldera did not participate. If the contested IP is merely copyrighted by Caldera and the developers can show that they did a true "clean room" reverse-engineering job, then Caldera will get nothing but legal bills and a LOT of bad press in the community. However, if the "independently-developed" infringing IP is covered by a PATENT, there is NO protection for the developers unless they can prove Caldera/SCO contributed that IP to the project.
Either way, I don't see how Caldera can POSSIBLY gain from this exercise. Many members of the OSS community are also in "buying official" positions out in the "meat world." Anyone want to let them know that if they pee in our Post Toasties(TM), we might just be inclined to return the favor by buying our respective companies' server software, etc, from their competition?
Re:Possible outcomes (Score:4, Interesting)
I personally won't buy a thing from them, again. I'm done with them. This is wrong.
This coming from a company that not only contributed to the Linux kernel, but the same company that OPEN SOURCED SCO!!! Where's the lawsuit against them?
Fortunately, this will bankrupt them, soon. I just hope it doesn't end up killing off Linux in its wake.
<really_think="on">
How can they sit on their "moral high horse" and actually have been a vendor of Linux as an OPEN SOURCE PRODUCT?!?!?!? It's pure hypocrisy, IMHO.
I think there should be a counter-suit in the form of a class-action suit from the other vendors, plus a FUD campaign against them for this.
I hope this doesn't do more for Microsoft against The Competition(tm) of Linux and Unix than M$ could ever do. What an opportunity for M$ to sieze upon!
They're nuts, this late in the game. What, no finding of fact or cease-and-desist order?!?!? I hope their lawyer continues to be the loser in all of this....
To me, this is an outrage!
</really think>
Well, good (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure they are all broken up over the fact that you won't be installing any more warez copies of SCO anymore.
Indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
The Old Days (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't this entire SCO suing [insert vendor name here] for using the UNIX IP remind anyone of the days when AT&T was getting in Berkley's face over using the UNIX IP - then Berkley rewrote the entire BSD so there was no AT&T UNIX code in there?
I don't know about Windows or MacOS, but I don't believe Linux or Open/Free/NetBSD use any copywritten UNIX IP code in their kernels. Do they?
Re:The Old Days (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but I believe the issue is with software patents, not copywrites. If they have software patents over processes that are used in other OS, it doesn't matter if the exact code was used, just the process that is patented.
Re:The Old Days (Score:2)
Re:The Old Days (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not entirely sure what you can do if, after your patent expires, you find out that someone was violating your patent while it was still valid.
Not if Marybono has her way (Score:4, Informative)
patents only last for 17 years from issuance of patent, or 20 years from application for patent, whichever expires first.
Actually, it's whichever expires last according to 35 USC 154(c)(1) [cornell.edu].
But if Rep. Mary Bono has her way, she'll probably introduce a bill like this [kuro5hin.org] to "harmonize" patent terms with copyright terms.
Re:Not if Marybono has her way (Score:3, Informative)
This was done over 3 yrs ago, so for any new patent application, the term of protection is 20 yrs from application.
Re:Not if Marybono has her way (Score:3, Insightful)
If Lord Kelvin was alive today he might say something like:
From what I gather... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:From what I gather... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm unsure of what exactly SCO's patents cover, but many of the fundamental characteristics of unix look and feel are more than 20 years old, e.g. the patents would be expired by now.
We might have to worry about some things, like System V-style shared memory, possibly being infringing. But it's not really possible to get a patent on the concept of a "unix-like" OS.
Re:From what I gather... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Old Days (Score:3, Insightful)
In order to enforce those copyrights that were originally owned by Unix Systems Laboratories, I believe SCO will have to show that they were granted an EXCLUSIVE license to the IP involved. In addition, they are going to have to show that the alleged infringing software (Linux and OS X are the only systems we've seen mentioned so far) COPIED their code.
I have not reviewed every single copyright notice in, for instance, Debian's code base, but I'm reasonably sure that there's NO AT&T code in it. Most of it is GPL/LGPL, a little bit is the Artistic License and the bulk of that which is not GPL/LGPL is BSD licensed, none of which could apply to the original AT&T (Unix Systems Laboratories) code.
Re:The Old Days (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Old Days (Score:4, Informative)
Note entirely true. 4.3BSD NET2 had some USL code in it. That's what the 1995 lawsuit was about. The various BSD projects replaced their 4.3NET2 based code with 4.4LITE code which was explicitly covered by the AT&T/UCB agreements. Part of that agreement was that a certain number of files that were alleged to contain USL code were explicitly released under the BSD license.
Chances are good that someone saw these copyright notices and failed to read them far enough:
Notice the "reproduced herein with the permission of" in there.
Re:The Old Days (Score:3, Informative)
NetBSD and OpenBSD may also have the same code or code derivatives in their base system's source.
I believe it was 4.4Lite that was the result of the BSD vs. AT&T court case, which in itself was a re-write to be "clean" of any AT&T source code... or at least clean enough for AT&T to allow it's distribution. I could be wrong though...
System V init (Score:5, Informative)
Re:System V init (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:System V init (Score:4, Informative)
<PEDANTIC>Linux is just the kernel. Linux does not use the System V init; though various distrubtions do.</PEDANTIC> In particular, Slackware does not use the SysV init, though it has a compatibility program available.
Also, OS X does not use SysV init; it has its own method which I presume was inherited from NeXT, and is much closer to the old Mac OS startup, with the SysV-style start/stop parameter added.
Re:The Old Days (Score:4, Interesting)
My prediction: all the big dogs will cross license with each other (because if you dig deep enough I'm sure SCO/Caldera is infringing on some Apple/MS/IBM/Sun patent). The only thing I worry about is Linux and *BSD since the don't have any IP to hold over SCOs head to force them to cross license (maybe IBM will bitch slap them into not persuing the free unicies)
Re:The Old Days (Score:4, Interesting)
The issue is *NOT* Patents. It's all about copyright and licensing. Unix dates back to 1969 (see http://www.levenez.com/unix ), and software patents only go back to 1981.
So, the question is whether any software written by SCO (or really, anything that SCO now owns the rights to, since it was mostly written by Ma Bell) is ending up in software that somebody else sells. If the answer to that is 'yes', and that somebody else didn't pay SCO for the right to use that software *AND* their use isn't considered 'fair use,' then SCO probably has a cause of action.
I think this will eventually amount to not much. They're not going to go after redhat or Linus or Stallman or.... They may go after somebody who grabbed SCO source code, recompiled it for Windows and is running their app there without paying SCO for the right to copy the code. Or somebody who did the same thing for Linux.
IANAL (yet)
Re:The Old Days (Score:3, Informative)
Not true. As was pointed out in a previous post, patents expire 20 years after application or 17 years after issuance of the patent, whichever comes last.
So you can have applied for a patent way back in 1969, but if you delay issuance of the patent until, say 2000, you can hold the patent until 2017.
It is not uncommon to apply for a patent, and hold up the issuance by deliberately slowing down the process (lots of legal wrangling, etc.) until your methods become widely adopted, and then suddenly move to get your patent issued. This is called a "submarine patent", because the application is hidden from the general public until issuance, so your methods can become a standard since people don't know they are patented!
One of the many problems with current U.S. patent law.
(IANAL, but submarine patents have been discussed extensively on Slashdot before.)
Unix software patents considered harmful (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, there are patents open on *nix: the famous example is patent no. 4,135,240, the setuid patent (this link [uspto.gov] may work), filed 1973, granted 1979.
I don't know if there were any post-assignation grants of ownership to the patent, or if Lucent (nee Bell Labs) still owns it.
A press release [sco.com] from SCO states that Boies, Schiller and Flexner has been retained in an advisory capacity, which isn't unusual when a company is trying to determine an IP strategy. We often forget that lawyers are often used for things other than suing people (such as, uh, determining under what statutes one may sue, who one may sue, contracts to enforce terms over which one may sue ... I'm not helping my case here, am I?). The press release (and this story [practical-tech.com]) indicates that the UnixWare and OpenServer libraries are affected. Unfortunately, their "Intellectual Property Pedigree Chart [sco.com]" is one of the least useful displays possible, since it appears simply to be the "History of UNIX" chart with some colored lines added. Hopefully, a full clarification by SCO will be forthcoming.
Re:The Old Days (Score:3, Informative)
My Personal opinion is that this is a tempest in a teapot by someone who doesn't know history or the agreements that they purchased along with the IP from SCO.
Parent needs a mod-up... (Score:5, Informative)
...Since it makes a lot of things clear.
From the CNET article: "If you pull down (Mac) OS X you'll see a lot of copyright postings that point back to Unix Systems Laboratories, which is what we hold."
From the O'Reilly link in the parent post: Soon after the filing in state court, USL was bought from AT&T by Novell. The CEO of Novell, Ray Noorda, stated publicly that he would rather compete in the marketplace than in court. By the summer of 1993, settlement talks had started. Unfortunately, the two sides had dug in so deep that the talks proceed slowly. With some further prodding by Ray Noorda on the USL side, many of the sticking points were removed and a settlement was finally reached in January 1994. The result was that three files were removed from the 18,000 that made up Networking Release 2, and a number of minor changes were made to other files. In addition, the University agreed to add USL copyrights to about 70 files, although those files continued to be freely redistributed.
Meaning: The reason why those USL copyrights are in OS X is because the code was taken from FreeBSD, which took the code from 4.4BSD-Lite, which had permission to do so from Novell, the owner at the time of the copyrights. That settlement is still legally binding, even if the ownership of the USL code is now SCO. Looks like SCO has no case against the BSDs (nor against MS or Apple, who use BSD code in accordance with the BSD license.) Linux, I wouldn't be sure about, but I always thought Linux never had any AT&T/USL code.
dyslexic (Score:4, Funny)
"Instead of if you can't beat them, join them"
"They view it as if you can't join them, beat them"
question (Score:4, Funny)
Does that include Linux?
Which Patents? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Which Patents? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's likely just plain-old-ordinary copyright and licensing issues. It seems that the argument would go that some people are using SCO software outside of the bounds of the license agreement that they originally agreed to.
I've heard some people assert that this means that SCO is asserting that they own 'ls', for example, and that nobody can use 'ls' without a license from SCO. That's only partially correct -- nobody can use *their version* without permission. But, that doesn't prevent the GNU people from writing 'ls' by themselves in a manner that behaves exactly like the SCO S/W.
I suspect that what they're really trying to target is people who use certain SCO software outside of SCO unix and aren't paying for the right to use it.
That being said, though, you gotta worry if a big chunk of SCO's revenue comes from lawsuits and not from new technology. It's 2003, for crying out loud -- how long can you milk 30-year-old technology?
Re:Revenue (Score:2, Informative)
Join the SCOx program now and start taking advantage of the Xtreme Rewards Option:
- Join the SCOx partner program.
- Become authorized to sell SCOx products and services.
- Begin selling SCOx products and services. Reach your revenue objectives.
- Sell your SCOx business to SCO.
- Have a great time with your money!
Methinks they've been reading to many slashdot Profit! postings. They callit SCOx. Their SCOx Sux. Just shows that they can't think of anything new to bring to the table.Re:Which Patents? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask Disney.
Note to readers: Don't bother trying to show off by informing me of the differences between media and technology.
What about BE OS and Apple ][e? (Score:2, Funny)
(/sarcasm)
Dolemite
_____________________
Aren't *BSDs 4.4BSD Lite-derived? (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems to me that OpenBSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD are derived from 4.4BSD Lite -- which I believe is covered by the original BSD license. It would seem to me that trying to pursue something like that legally would simply be a great waste of time and money.
That being said, it does sound a bit like SCO has given up trying to make money the honest way and brought in the land sharks...
Re:Aren't *BSDs 4.4BSD Lite-derived? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Aren't *BSDs 4.4BSD Lite-derived? (Score:2)
What does Chevy Chase have to do with this?
BSD includes an implicit patent guarantee (Score:2)
which I believe is covered by the original BSD license.
Good news: The three-clause BSD license [opensource.org] may include an implicit guarantee of license under applicable patents licenseable by the copyright owner: "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met" (my emphasis).
Re:Aren't *BSDs 4.4BSD Lite-derived? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only rational explanation for SCO's behavior is the existance of patents heretofore unknown to the public.
Danger of "defensive" legal costs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Danger of "defensive" legal costs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Danger of "defensive" legal costs (Score:5, Interesting)
Quote from their site: SCO Linux 4.0 powered by UnitedLinux is the next generation enterprise class Linux operating system.
So, what's to keep Linus from asserting his copyright over the term "Linux" and not allowing SCO to use it?
Re:Danger of "defensive" legal costs (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting point. Actually, there's copyright, and there's trademark; trademark is a right that you have to exercise in order to protect it. I wonder if Linus has ever enforced the trademark, and if he hasn't, maybe he ought to give it some thought.
Re:Danger of "defensive" legal costs (Score:2)
Re:Danger of "defensive" legal costs (Score:2)
Re:Danger of "defensive" legal costs (Score:4, Interesting)
Linux Journal [linuxjournal.com] Monterey, California, August 20, 1997--A long standing dispute over ownership of the Linux operating system trademark has just been resolved. As a result of litigation brought by a group of five Linux companies and individuals against William R. Della Croce, Jr. of Boston, Massachusetts, Della Croce has assigned ownership for the registered mark to Linux Torvalds, the original author of Linux, as part of the a settlement agreement.
Or here Linux Explains Linux Trademark Issues [slashdot.org]
And yes, you CAN trademark a single word - Kleenex, Xerox, Coke, Pepsi, Palmolive, Dove, Ivory, Sunlight, Jello, Zest, Lexus, Honda, Isuzu, Nissan, Datsun, Kawasaki, Suzuki, Saturn - these are all protected trademarks when used to refer to a specific product, and cannot be used to refer to other products of the same general type or nature ...
Re:Danger of "defensive" legal costs (Score:2, Funny)
Re: Danger of "defensive" legal costs (Score:5, Insightful)
You have that exactly right. SCO is poisoning the market for Unix derivatives and the only winner here will be Microsoft. I can almost see the ads now, featuring Steve Ballmer pacing around a boardroom table like a caged tiger, grimly intoning, "Who knows how much Linux costs? With Windows XP, you don't have to worry about being sued."
What SCO is doing is exactly like the guy who shoots his ex-wife because, "If I can't have her, no one can."
OTOH, I doubt it will actually get out of hand, considering our friend IBM's ability to bury annoying IP pranksters like SCO under a ton of patent infringement suits. Moreover, if my organization used SCO products, I would take this as a dire warning to find other, more scrupulous vendors to deal with.
Re:Danger of "defensive" legal costs (Score:2)
Patents can strike proprietary solutions just as easily as open source solutions. The difference is that with the open source solution you can say, "oh my, you're right... we infringe on that very patent!" and hire someone to replace the offending code. With a proprietary solution you may not even be able to get your vendor to confirm that the software does or does not infringe without taking them to court!
Astalavista SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
The very fact that SCO flat out lied, yes lied, in last week's announcement will seriously impact the level of trust that any vendor or customer might have had in SCO.
The CNet article did not discuss the audience's reaction to this announcement but, I doubt very much that it was well received. Would anyone that witnessed the announcement and the audience's reaction care to report on it?
Does he ever win? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does he ever win? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does he ever win? (Score:2)
I wonder who they'll try to scare first. (Score:2)
GPL, Linux and software patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GPL, Linux and software patents. (Score:3, Interesting)
Another thing that got me was the article's mention of "older versions of Windows" having BSD code. If I am not mistake, isn't the current NT/XP software still running off of some BSD-based network code?
In other news: (Score:2, Funny)
David Boies of course loses the case.
we're still not sure WHAT that means though... film at 11
Sue everybody on the way down.... (Score:5, Funny)
You could call it "Plan Be."
Didn't Caldera already sue Microsoft and lose?
Re:Sue everybody on the way down.... (Score:3, Informative)
Er... half-right. Caldera sued MS and won: back in the days when you had a choice of which DOS to run Windows under, Microsoft put a lot of effort into making Windows MS-DOS specific, in order to wipe out the competition. Since doing that is illegal, Caldera got a big pile of MS cash in an out-of-court settlement.
Having said that, Caldera split in two - one half was 'UNIX' things (their Linux distro, the bits of SCO, etc) and the other was DOS/embedded, so it seems the part doing the suing this time is not the half that beat MS previously... (Which, incidentally, seems to have disappeared; DR DOS has been sold to these guys [drdos.com].
I am sick of the idiots on this board. (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you ever considered legally licensing SCO's IP if you are going to use it? That's what the issue is all about.
Why am I not hearing outrage from the crowds because Microsoft still dares license their software? Shouldn't I be able to copy Windows at will? Of course not.
So let's adhere to SCO's licensing agreements and everything will be fine. Otherwise if you steal from SCO, I don't feel any more sorry for you then if you have stole from Microsoft.
-BrentRe:I am sick of the idiots on this board. (Score:2, Interesting)
Most people don't like the idea of what you are saying. Someone made something to make money!!!OMG!
Just because you have been getting it for free does not make it yours to take. Apply that to mp3, software, or patents.
God forbid your boss walk up to you and say "you know I should not pay you for your work."
Think about all the overtime you work, do you think you should be paid for it? There ya go, someone is stealing from you and you let it happen does that make it right? Should you try to find a way to get your due money? Is that wrong?
Sorry, I don't have a problem with them doing this.
Re:I am sick of the idiots on this board. (Score:2)
Until that happens, lawsuits like this will continue to stifle innovation, prevent competition and hurt the economy as a result.
What we need is a broad coalition of software developers (big names and small) to start lobbying congress to deal with this longstanding problem before it gets any worse.
Re:I am sick of the idiots on this board. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Let's also remember that they seem to be wanting to charge a rediculously high fee for these patents. A per processor cost of > $100 is hardly reasonable.)
Re:I am sick of the idiots on this board. (Score:2)
Actually, it even funnier. SCO is stealing from all the Linux contributors by distributing copyrighted software (Linux) while breaking the license (GPL, article 7).
Re:I am sick of the idiots on this board. (Score:4, Insightful)
Get a patent on a business model/method... don't act on that patent until it's widely used in the industry. Then have your lawyers pop out and sue everyone.
Exactly what choice is provided here? Most vendors wouldn't have even known about the patent, since people in the industry would assume that it's common practice and unpatented (for a variety of reasons).
At that point you can either cease use of the patented technology (which may still leave you open to licensing fees for prior sales, depending on how a judge rules - you're not supposed to be liable, but lawyers can make IP law dance a jig), pay the extortion money, or attempt to get the patent invalidated. Good luck on the latter - if they're doing it toward the end of the patent life then you'll have a hard time getting facts for prior work 15 years ago, and you'll probably wind up paying more in lawyer fees than you would have paid in extortion.
And yes, I do mean extortion. Submarine patents are nothing but that. It's one thing to raise a patent claim when you didn't know it was being violated. It's another thing to intentionally lie low until it's too late. IP law rarely acknowledges the difference with regards to this though.
Of course, there is one other option, and probably one that we'll see used if SCO is stupid enough to press their case. If someone tries to blackmail you, there's always the possibility of blackmailing them back. IBM has enough software patents to make SCO (or anyone else) wonder if they actually invented anything themselves.
Re:I am sick of the idiots on this board. (Score:3, Insightful)
100% enforceable. It doesn't matter if you bring the violation up on the last day of the patent and it's been infringed for the previous 16 years and 364 days. A patent does not require active enforcement to protect it, unlike trademarks. Copyright is a bit murkier - generally all you can do is force them to not continue infringing (but the copyright is still in force).
There are exceptions -- if you enter into an agreement that requires you to disclose all relevant patents that are applicable to a standard being developed and fail to do so then your patent can be rendered unenforceable. This happened to Dell a few years back, and RAMBUS more recently (not sure if that one has been played out entirely yet).
"never use anything from them ever again" (Score:2)
If you are really against this then continue using what's best suited for your needs.
Cheers everyone.
Whats To Worry About? (Score:5, Funny)
Defending Napster: Failure
Representing Al-Gore: Failure
Anti-trust Against Microsoft: Failure
I'm shaking in my boots
Steve.
Re:Whats To Worry About? (Score:2)
Face it (Score:5, Insightful)
We all view UNIX as being freely copyable in its design, because traditionally it has been. Linux shares no code with the original UNIX, but it does share both design and interfaces such as syscalls. This is not a copyright issue, it is a patent issue. If the patents are valid, then it's possible Linux is infringing by its very existence. The BSDs are in a different camp, because of their heritage and the previous agreements between Berkely and AT&T, but possibly they're infringing as well.
Of course, it's also possible that there is no actual patent infringement going on. But that depends on what AT&T decided to do back in the day regarding patenting UNIX. I know that IBM's standard policy is to patent *everything*.
(cue Gary Oldman at the end of The Professional: "EVERYTHING!" )
Re:Face it (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently the problem is the copyright on some libraries used for the SCO Xenix/Unix emulation. Which are no longer present in most Linux distributions.
These libraries might have been used in Windows NT. But even if they were, MS had probably had the right to do so, since they owned Xenix and licensed it to SCO.
I suspect that the real agenda here is to manipulate their stock price by convincing investors that they're going to get a bunch of licensing revenue. The fact that the licensing revenue will never actually be recognized is irrelevant to such a plan.
But wait... (Score:2)
If they are right and they win, then you are already using their stuff.
BSD's safe (Score:2, Informative)
My very first PC based *NIX was SCO.... (Score:2)
Re:My very first PC based *NIX was SCO.... (Score:2)
I had a 10MHz AST 286 (with a whopping 8MB RAM) running Xenix SysV/286 (2.3.2). Served a small workgroup of about 8 people.
Later, we used ODT 2.0, ODT 3.0 and OSR5. The ODT2 system ran for 7 years straight with a single reboot (hardware upgrade -- added a second internal SCSI drive).
So much for those memories... Of course, I think that the SCO that we knew died when it was bought by Caldera.
It's Like Recycling (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of the internet as a big dump filled with potential, er, recycling materials. A lot of it is trash but there is some good stuff there. Anyone can go out and pick up stuff and build stuff with it. Only, digital copying and transmission technology means that if someone happens to throw away a split-level ranch house we can all live in nice houses.
So how do you keep this from happening if you are in the business of selling houses? (1) control the real estate market [hardware] so you can have a nice house but no place to put it; (2) cut off access to the dump; (3) make recycling illegal; (4) claim you own the stuff in the dump.
So SCO wants #4 today. What else is new. They'll all be tried. They're all a problem.
The real problem is not today's battle on thus-and-such a front. It's that there are a *lot* of people out there who have it out for recycling of *anything* that people can live in.
=googol=
I wouldn't be too worried.. (Score:2, Interesting)
For such a hugely hyped lawyer, he manages to make swiss cheese of the most open-and-shut cases. Now if they had hired Johnny Cochran, I'd be concerned...
So, what should we be boycotting? (Score:3, Interesting)
Caldera is the owner, right? And what about it's subsidiaries? Don't they have an embedded Linux biz, Lineo or something?
What these guys are doing is way worse then Amazon, and we (well, some people, not me personally) are boycotting them.
What a lying sack of SHIT! (Score:2)
Buy them. (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that this is an opportunity for us open-source geeks to put our money where our mouths are.
Re:Buy them. (Score:3, Informative)
According to Yahoo Finance, SCOX has a market cap of 16.4M. Can't the FSF try to buy them and then release the IP to the community?
Unfortunately, it doesn't necessarily work that way. Market capitalization (cap) is what it would cost at present values to purchase every share of the company that is publicly traded. In a perfect world, you would just buy up all those shares at that price. You then own the company, call for a new election of board members, vote your shares (your vote's weight = your percentage of ownership) for new board members who then order the CEO to change what he's doing or get fired.
However, there are a couple of snags to that plan. One is that once people know that you're trying to buy up the whole thing, they start demanding more money for their shares because they know you want them badly. That's why takeover attempts are always launched quoting a price higher than current market value.
More important is that the # of shares on publicly traded markets doesn't necessarily equal the number of shares in the company. A company can make some small minority of the company's total shares (say, 25% publicly traded) in their IPO and keep the rest in the hands of private investors (or owned by the company itself). So if this is the case, you can buy up every public share of the company, but you still don't control it. You'd have to examine the company's SEC filings to get the answer, but I'm guessing only a minority of SCO's shares are public.
It seems to me that this is an opportunity for us open-source geeks to put our money where our mouths are.
I think we open-source geeks are, in general, badly in need of a few "gut-checks" to see if we are willing to put our money where our Slashdot flames are. ;-) Sadly, this doesn't appear to be a good opportunity.
It is only about 2 libraries. (Score:5, Informative)
SCO is not going after every Linux vendor, only those distributing the two libraries without SCO's permission.
To me, this is all just FUD, and is being blown WAY out of proportion.
Great... (Score:2)
Bill: Steve, Guess what?
Steve: What Bill...
Bill: Guess who SCO is suing now?
Steve: Let me guess... Us?
Bill: Nope!
Steve: Wow, somebody not suing us, that's odd..
Bill: Yeah, I guess their going to sue a whole bunch of linux companies
Steve: Hmmm, that seems odd... On what pretense?
Bill: I guess their contending that everybody stole their IP...
Steve: HAHAHA, this'll be good... for profits...
How very ironic. (Score:5, Funny)
From the CNET story:
From Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix [oreilly.com] by Marshall Kirk McKusick:
- The University's suit claimed that USL had failed in their obligation to provide due credit to the University for the use of BSD code in System V as required by the license that they had signed with the University. If the claim were found to be valid, the University asked that USL be forced to reprint all their documentation with the appropriate due credit added, to notify all their licensees of their oversight, and to run full-page advertisements in major publications such as The Wall Street Journal and Fortune magazine notifying the business world of their inadvertent oversight.
So, in other words, Mr. McBride - PPPPHHHTTTT!!...
The result was that three files were removed from the 18,000 that made up [BSD 4.4] Networking Release 2, and a number of minor changes were made to other files. In addition, the University agreed to add USL copyrights to about 70 files, although those files continued to be freely redistributed.
...
The lawsuit settlement also stipulated that USL would not sue any organization using 4.4BSD-Lite as the base for their system.
Oh, and might want to make sure you are providing due credit to the University of California at Berkeley before you cast the first stone, eh?
Infamous? (Score:3, Insightful)
Famous perhaps, but why "infamous"?
Is it because he is not on Our Side this time?
Paul.
The real story (Score:3, Interesting)
If you read O'Gara's article carefully she says that she presumed that SCO was going to go after Linux users. She only talked to one person at SCO who thought the idea was retarded. He said going after Linux users would be "suicide." After that most people would probably decide they had presumed incorrectly but O'Gara likes to go with the most damaging thing she can presume even if it's wrong.
The day after the article SCO said: "SCO has no desire to take legal action against fellow Linux vendors."
But the rumour had already spread. Stupid reporters took O'Gara's speculations and said, "It was reported that SCO was planning to sue Linux users."
Here is a factual article:
http://www.practical-tech.com/business/b01162003.
I know this Darl McBride guy (Score:5, Interesting)
I knew this guy when he "worked" for Franklin Covey (see bio here: http://www.sco.com/company/execs/dmcbride.html ). He ran the e-Planning group, trying develop things from online planners to FC's desktop planning software.
I should say, "ran into the ground." Everything he did sounded nice on the long project plans that he and other around him made, and were full of COMPLETE FREAKING BULLSHIT, every time.
Darl McBride is a total symbol of all that is wrong with the tech world, especially during the dot-bomb era.
He knows dick-all, but sounds real good and smooth to other suits.
He was really hot on WAP (if that tells you anything!) and thought that people would pay to be able to check www.franklinplanner.com (FC's online planner - seemingly now not working) via their cell phones.
Dumb!
By the way, he also bought that technology (for the online planner) from two guys who were basically Cold Fusion script kiddies for $10,000,000 ... I spent some time talking to the guys who had to rewrite all the crappy code (non-componentized, no db abstraction, etc. etc. non-optimized). Those script kiddies must have laughed all the way to the bank.
I mean, can you believe it - buying an online planner! A good coder can whip up a basic one in a week solo!
Then they spent $250,000 - a cool quarter of a mill US - turning it into a Flash planner ... so it would feel like a desktop app on the web.
Maybe not such a stupid idea, but they executed it as a total one-off, again with no componentization, etc., so that their strategy (to customize this calendar for big corporate clients) was totally impossible.
Then his big plan was an app that aggregates all your data (mail, web, documents, contacts, etc.) into one big portal-on-the-desktop application. I forget the name of the company that he did this with, but again it was a total freaking failure.
FC stock, which had been trading at about $30 in the '98, '99 years, dropped like a stone ... not just because of Darl, of course, but almost certain contributed to by his total freaking cluelessness about anything technical that could actually make (as opposed to burn) money.
The one group of people that did get rich while Darl was at FC was the lawyers ... they had an insane contract with some top firm, running at something like $15,000 monthly retainer.
For what is anyone's guess.
But this really makes sense when I see he's now running SCO. Those dolts are so far gone their exit strategy is to sue the whole world. Maybe they invented the if statement or something, too.
Rest assured: with Darl McBride at the head of SCO they won't make anything innovative, new, good, or money-making.
But I supposed the lawyers are still going to be fine.
Unbelievable ... I never expected him to turn up there.
On the bar or drinking at it? (Score:4, Funny)
With a track record like that, we don't have a thing to worry about...
Re:I love the irony and the smell of doo-doo (Score:2, Insightful)
Ahh, the standard techique of misquoting and then using that as a basis for an argument. See, on a fair and level playing field, such as the Linux market, everyone should be able to compete on their own merits. However, when one company can leverage their monopoly power to maintain it illegally, it is a different story. That isn't fair, moral, or legal. You are simply showing your ignorance of the business model, and comparing apples to turds.
Where's my knife, I need to cut through the irony.
It is probably stuck in the backs of all the companies that Microsoft stole their "intellectual property" from, or ran out of business, or sabotaged. It amazes me that some people still defend their actions.
Re:I love the irony. (Score:2)
The point is, just because a person does good things in the past doesn't make up for turning around and doing something bad now.
Re:I love the irony. (Score:2)
Microsoft is a monopolist who has been convicted of abusing the market, using their position for leverage. Anyone who filed against them before that was an official court ruling was just ahead of the game, which is not surprising, since anti-trust actions tend to be very slow. Taking someone to court over their behavior is the only accepted way most businesses have of dealing with this kind of abuse.
Launching an attack against all other operating systems over ancient (in computer terms) intellectual property, especially when you are a small, financially troubled unix/linux vendor, is another thing completely. This is a form of abuse of the legal system. If you pay me money, you aren't taking the chance that I will sue you over something you probably can't prove you haven't done (which does not mean you did it). Doesn't this sound like the classic protection racket? Either pay me now, or I tie you up in court. The fact that they are going with this option shows that it is time for them to get out of the business.
Duurrrr (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I love the irony. (Score:2)
He may be an ass, but he's got a point. Boies was at one point the hero, now he's the goat.
Re:I love the irony. (Score:2)
He was the hero until he took on a case which obviously is a bad thing. So its quite fair to call him down for it.
Re:Sig File Patent Infringement (Score:3, Funny)
Mr. Burns: "Release the hounds."
Check info first (Score:3, Interesting)
And as lame as we might think this move is, I don't think (yet) that they really intend to try to collect direct payments. I think they'll use this as leverage in future negotiations with other software companies. If it stands up in court, you can't deny that it's a nice carrot AND stick to have when dealing with partners.....and competitors.
That said, if they really DO try to collect revenue, then yes, there should be some kind of market retaliation against the company. And parts of Linux would simply have to be re-written (using different concepts) to replace the infringing IP.
Re:Ways to Shoot Yourself in the Foot (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot poster: You, sirs, have soiled the UNIX world with your money grubbing!
SCO: one million, one million one hundred, one million two hundred, oh sorry did you say something?
Slashdot poster: I SAID--
SCO: One second. Bob! You want to bring those bags over here, the ones with the dollar signs on the front? Alright, go on.
Slashdot poster: Your business will suffer because of the bad will in the open source community!
SCO: Are you a SCO user?
Slashdot poster: Well, no, I use linux.
SCO: So the court decision means you won't buy an operating system that you weren't going to buy in the first place?
Slashdot poster: But previously I would never buy SCO. After your court action, however, I'l never EVER buy SCO.
SCO: Riiight. I hope you'll excuse me, I have to stop at the Mercedes dealership before they close. That nice security guard over there will show you out.