SCO Volleys to Red Hat 469
ZeroVerteX noted that News.com is saying "The SCO Group fired back against Linux leader Red Hat on Monday, filing a motion to dismiss the Linux company's suit against SCO. In a motion filed late Monday in U.S. District Court in Delaware, SCO argues that Red Hat has no grounds to sue SCO, as SCO's actions against the open-source Linux operating system have not specifically targeted Red Hat." So it's ok to threaten a community, but not ok for a member of that same community to stand up?
The community should realize ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The community should realize ... (Score:5, Informative)
These are the same grounds on which the OFT dismissed mine (and quite a few other) complains against it in the UK.
It is a generally valid argument as far as anticompetitive practices are concerned. You are not allowed to complain unless you are directly affected. All that Red Hat needs to prove that it is directly affected with relation to one or more of the SCO actions it alleges to be illegal.
Re:The community should realize ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The community should realize ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"So it's ok to threaten a community, but not ok for a member of that same community to stand up?"
Actually, that's probably true, but also probably irrelevant in this case. Red Hat's initial filing included enough press quotes from SCO management specifically mentioning Red Hat, that I think Red Hat's controversy claim will hold up.
SCO is saying hear that we never attacked Red Hat in the press, just Linux. But the record shows otherwise, lots of references to Red Hat by Darl & Co., so I suspect SCO will simply come off looking like hypocrites to the judge.
I hope so, anyway. I really, really, want this Red Hat suit to succeed and shut down SCO's FUD machine.
Red Hat's claim of there being an "actual controversy" should also hold up because of SCO's statements that they intend to invoice corporate users of Linux. Clearly some, probably most, of those corporate users are using Red Hat.
Re:The community should realize ... (Score:5, Interesting)
On a side note, anyone who does business related to Linux can sue SCO, and probably win. I'm surprised a gag order hasn't been ordered. Usually, when a lawsuit is filed, both parties are very hush-hush because if they lose, any statements made before the judgement regarding the outcome can become a liability. On that note, SCO has racked up a hell of a lot of liability. Red Hat is very much within their right as SCO is interfering with the business operations of any company that relies on Linux. If(when?) SCO loses their lawsuit against IBM, every press release regarding the copyright violations of SysV code in Linux will become libelous, and the company will sink like a concrete shoed mobster, straight to the bottom. SCO's activity during the last six months may also land Darl in jail for mail fraud(Linux license sale offers or requests by mail). Darl should be careful what he says. Everyone in the Linux community was a little miffed at first because it appeared that IBM wasn't vocally supporting the community when in reality, they were in cautious mode.
Win or lose, right or wrong, I just don't care. Even if SCO wins(doubtful, SCO's actions are like a fireant biting a gorilla
Re:The community should realize ... (Score:5, Funny)
Keep him talking - he's our best defense :-) Besides, how else would we get our daily SCO NonsenseNews :-)
Re:The community should realize ... (Score:4, Funny)
Obviously you didn't read about the case. SCO bought the licence to Stupidity V2.4. The majority of Fortune 500 companies are using Stupidity V3.9. Unless SCO also inherits the rights to any derivative works of Stupidity V2.4, then they can not claim infringement by Stupidity V3.9.
But then again, if some Stupidity V2.4 were to be put in the Stupidity V3.9 release... Oh the horror! The world might have to revert to being sensable people, or face copyright lawsuits!
Mmm.. (Score:5, Informative)
"There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done." --Darl McBride, Apr 24 2003, here [crn.com]
Re:Mmm.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now their words have come back to bite them. Either they can sue IBM and keep their mouth shut or they can do a publicity stunt. Both together is a dangerous idea. The outcome I hope is that they lose their suit against IBM, AND also get punished for their dumping scheme.
Re:Mmm.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)
And what about buying another Canopy group company from the money they made from SCO shares?
Or what if the IBM case is dismissed and the court finds that Redhats case against SCO has merit, or that $699 scam was shown to be mail fraud? I think a lot of people will actually have to pay for what they have said. There are a lot of ways
What Darl's Getting out of This (Score:5, Insightful)
Darl gets a big fat payoff if he can deliver four straight profitable quarters. Most of it is in stock, which means he'll have to keep up the fiasco for another quarter or two to cash out.
At that point, I think we can expect him to leave SCO. If there is any SCO left to leave. Maybe the final legal showdown will be Darl v. Ralph, to be filed in late 2004 or early 2005. We all know how much Darl loves to sue his employers.
Anyway, this means the SCO v. IBM case is not likely to ever make it to court because there's *no* motivation for Darl to go that far.
In the meantime, he'll do whatever it takes to show profit on the next two or three 10-Q's. He'll slash personnel, support, anything, doesn't matter how it affects SCO's long term prospects, as long as he shows profits each quarter. He'll try to get people to pay for SCO IP in Linux licenses NOW, not after the case is resolved in court, because he doesn't care what happens that far down the line.
He needs the money on the books and in the 10-Q next quarter and the following one. He's got two profitable quarters in a row, though he probably wouldn't have made it this quarter without cutting personnel and associated costs. Two more to go, and he's golden.
If he hasn't done it already, we can expect some *extremely* creative accounting over the next two quarters. Or more money from MS. MS, according to the latest 10-Q (available at SEC), has apparently purchased those "expanded licensing options" that were mentioned in the April 30 10-Q.
Darl's biggest fear is that something will shut down SCO and/or it's FUD machine within those next two quarters. If he sounds irrational and afraid, well, that's because he is. He can't pull any more profits out of Germany. Australia, Austria, and Poland are lining up to gag him in their countries. Red Hat's trying to do the same in the U.S. Of course, none of this matters much as long as no court decisions are reached within the next 3 quarters. Which means delay, delay, and delay will be SCO's legal strategy going forward.
Mmm, again .. (Score:5, Interesting)
[emphasis mine]
I may not remember correctly, but didn't SCO say they had no ties left to Novell - or something along those lines - after Novell spoke up the last time?
zRe:Mmm, again .. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Mmm, again .. (Score:4, Interesting)
Linux liceneses, however, might be another story. Must SCO pay Novell for sales of a Linux run time license? I'd bet not. What an interesting idea: let the Linux community do all the heavy lifting of building an enterprise ready operating system and then sit back and just rake in $699 per copy. (GET RICH FAST!!!!) I think the term I'm looking for here is "freeloading." "Social loafer" also comes to mind.
(note to self: insert obligatory PROFIT joke here...)
Jared
Your right (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, on each sale 5% goes to SCO and 95% goes to Novell.
Quoting an e-week article here [eweek.com]:
Under that agency agreement, SCO collects all customer payments and remits 95 percent of the collected funds to Novell and retains 5 percent as an administrative fee. SCO records the 5 percent administrative fee as revenue in its consolidated statements of operations.
Re:Mmm, again .. (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, come on now, play fair. After all, he does take the time to ship them himself as opposed to leaving it to the mailroom. It's not many CEOs that are quite that hands-on.
The rats are jumping ship (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Mmm.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mmm.. We need to THANK SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
My word to all of you is to end the hostility toward SCO and embrace the service they are providing the open source community.
Do as I say, not as I do (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, who did not see this coming. It's a "do as I say not as I do" thing with SCO. They think that they can get away with unbiased defamination. I beleive the judge will throw this motion out.
Re:Do as I say, not as I do (Score:3, Interesting)
As is their existence.
Re:Do as I say, not as I do (Score:5, Funny)
Is that the act of becoming un-hungry without ever becoming subjective about the whole matter?
Every right to sue... (Score:5, Informative)
For all this 'talk' of community (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO has, in effect, called the 'team' that developed the Linux kernel thieves.
Why hasn't any of the 'team' stepped up to the plate and sued?
Re:For all this 'talk' of community (Score:5, Insightful)
OSS developers are liable to not be the best positioned to afford lawyers.
Now if OSS only paid their developers (and we were willing to pay for it to fund those payments !!!) maybe they would/could.
Re:For all this 'talk' of community (Score:5, Insightful)
As ESR said [catb.org] "willing allies are far better value than lackeys and sock puppets", it could be time that the community went out of it's way to create some allies in the legal proffession.
Re:For all this 'talk' of community (Score:3, Funny)
suing for defamation isn't lucrative enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Because suing over defamation doesn't allow you to extract enough money from the guilty party when you win.
Otherwise, there'd be plenty of lawyers queued up asking the major kernel hackers for permission to sue SCO on their behalf.
Oh, those kernel developers... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, you know those kernel developer types. They are probably off on their yachts in the south of France sipping Cristal and snorting coke off of a stripper's ass.
Re:Oh, those kernel developers... (Score:5, Funny)
suing for defamation (Score:5, Interesting)
While Linus et al surely have had their reputations dragged through the mud, it would be very difficult to prove actual damages, and SCO's defense would simply be, "We beleive we are correct."
"Put up or shut up" move (Score:5, Informative)
So, naturally for a libel suit there are generally three standards. 1) Did they say it? 2) Was it damaging? and 3) Is what they say factually incorrect?
Here, the first is a foregone conclusion, and the second nearly is. The third is effectively the IBM case.
But think about what that means. To prove that Linux DIDN'T steal from SCO, then either 1) SCO can actually turn over their allegations, for RedHat to refute, or 2) RedHat can subpoena the entire Sys V source code to show that any matches can be attributed to BSD or textbooks.
This is exactly what SCO is trying to avoid - you know, an actual lawsuit? So I think this is more of a "put up or shut up" move by Red Hat than anything else. Effectively, it's a way of letting teh Open Source camp control the pace of the lawsuit that SCO has no intention of actually following through with. They're trying to use it for their pump'n'dump scheme, and the Open Source camp (here, Red Hat) is attempting to take that away, to force their hand.
All in all, it's a damned good strategy.
Re:For all this 'talk' of community (Score:5, Informative)
First of all what was taken from freebsd? the idea or the code?
Second the ATA "copy" was in fact proved to be just some headders that the freebsd people had reverse engineered but that Andre had gone to the manufacturer for and gotten the actual documentation. So who coppied what?
As for the Virgin incedent I found no info on that at all other than how to install a new linux distro onto it and some comments about how the default OS is dog slow and installing either windows or Linux on it is a better idea.
Please check your facts next time.
Re:For all this 'talk' of community (Score:3, Informative)
There are only so many ways you can write data structures that speak to the hardware
Jreports vs GPL (Score:3, Informative)
SCO is not targetting Linux with a lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
-russ
Re:SCO is not targetting Linux with a lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
While this may be technically true, the main reason Red Hat filed suit aginst SCO is because of the damage SCO is doing to Red Hat's business, not because of the law suit, but because of the statements Darl McBride and the rest of the "gang of three" keep making to pump-up their stock price. All Red Hat wants is for SCO to either put-up or shut-up.
Also, as mentioned above, there were vague threats issued against Red Hat, SuSE and others by the SCO management several months ago.
Re:SCO is not targetting Linux with a lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO is tampering with their clients, on the basis of unsubstantiated claims and legal THREATS.
This motion is frivilous and will be tossed. It's a delaying tactic, nothing else.
The US court system rarely tosses even completely BOGUS lawsuits on motions to dismiss. I don't think this one will be.
Re:SCO is not targetting Linux with a lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
If they win that suit [against IBM], there are no consequences for anybody but IBM.
And how do you explain the need to license your kernel [sco.com] ?
Re:SCO is not targetting Linux with a lawsuit (Score:3, Insightful)
>And how do you explain the need to license your kernel ?
If you have a Linux kernel, then you already have received it under a license from the copyright owners.
If SCO wins, then IBM will pay their $3 Billion, and that will be the end of the matter. The purpose of the $1 Billion damages is to fully, totally and completely compensate SCO for what IBM allegedly did. The purpose of tripple damages ($3 Bi
Re:SCO is not targetting Linux with a lawsuit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO is not targetting Linux with a lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
If follow this kind of thing for a few years, you'll realize the motion to dismiss is pretty much a standard part of the pregame ritual. It's just lawyer trash talk. Spectators should get their beer and popcorn and take their seats.
Re:SCO is not targetting Linux with a lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)
You are correct, the only legal action INITIATED BY SCO is a contract dispute with IBM.
However, by making unsubstantiated claims and accusations in the press against Linux, they have harmed developers, distributors, and end-users of that operating system. Therefore, they have opened the door to legal action against SCO.
Again, you are correct, SCO is not targeting Linux with a lawsuit - they are targeting them with misinformation, FUD, unsubstantiated claims, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as lies adn half-truths - actions which ARE legally actionable by anyone who has been hurt by their actions - including RedHat.
Re:SCO is not targetting Linux with a lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
No, this is a pump and dump scheme. They're trying very hard to convince the stock market that their stock is worth more than $.75, which is what it was when they started this whole brouhaha. As a consequence, their claims become (and must become) more and more outrageous as time goes on. They have to keep up the press barrage, otherwise potential victims/investors will forget about them.
-russ
Does this sound familliar? (Score:5, Interesting)
[cut]
Second, Caldera's CSOF contains many misstatements. Many of Caldera's assertions simply are not supported by the cited references. In other instances, Caldera selectively quotes from exhibits, whose full text plainly gives a different meaning than ascribed by Caldera. In alleging certain events, Caldera omits known related facts that convey an entirely different understanding.
[cut]
Finally, although Caldera attempts to rewrite 15 years of computer history, it oddly never mentions that it was not even a bystander to these events. In a 1996 transaction that closed on the same day that Caldera filed this lawsuit, Caldera paid less than $400,0006 for DR DOS and the right to pursue claims against Microsoft that Caldera now says are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. This explains why the CSOF is not based on personal knowledge, and is not limited to admissible evidence.
taken from the following page:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/caldera
Re:Does this sound familliar? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does this sound familliar? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, to be fair, you can't take as evidence that that DR sold DR-DOS to Caldera for $400K to argue that the damage to DR could only have been that much. The value of an investment depends on risk. MS may have deprived DR-DOS of hundreds millions of dollars of revenue, but MS might never be forced to pay these damages; with luck MS might have managed to drag the thing out for so long it that Caldera ran out of money.
There's nothing wrong with a company picking up rights to a product with the intention of pursuing law suits related to that product. It's a way for wronged investors to recoup some of their loss and walk away from the whole situation. What is wrong is to pursue baseless litigation, especially as part of a pump-and-dump stock manipulation scheme.
Re:Does this sound familliar? (Score:5, Interesting)
For example... In paragraph 100, Caldera cites a presentation that Steve Ballmer gave to financial analysts on July 26, 1990 as evidence in support of its claim that Microsoft falsely preannounced MS-DOS 5.0. (See Exhibit 66.) Caldera asserts that Ballmer "specifically represented that MS-DOS 5.0 would 'launch this year throughout the world'" (emphasis in original). In fact, the referenced presentation says no such thing, and the page to which Caldera refers (Exhibit 66 at X565339) does not even mention MS-DOS. The presentation instead states that Microsoft planned to launch a "worldwide business" in 1990. (Id.) On the subject of MS-DOS 5.0, the presentation states on a different page that Microsoft anticipated releasing the product during "FY 1991", the fiscal year in which it was released. (Id. at X565315.)
For example...
I don't think it's so much... (Score:4, Interesting)
Destroy SCO through lawsuits (Score:3, Interesting)
First amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
Another company claiming the rights that an individual is entitled to. I say that since you can't jail a company or kill it, a company should not have the rights of an individual.
I think the old Nike case has not been settled yet. So SCO is in the wrong. IIRC, AFAIK and IANAL. But I know I hate this.
Re:First amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
Free speech protection? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well that's interesting, because it was recently ruled in a Californian court that a Nike publicity campaign was actually "commercial speech" [nytimes.com] and so unprotected by the First Amendment.
Personally, I think that companies claiming the rights of citizens can't be a good thing - after all, when did you hear of human rights abuses against corporations?
Re:Free speech protection? (Score:5, Funny)
I swear, if Darl keeps yappin, you just might see some...
Stock (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stock (Score:5, Funny)
I think I'd better buy some. That'll guarantee it'll drop like a rock...
Re:Stock (Score:3, Interesting)
Now that's some "creative" accounting!
Re:Stock (Score:3, Interesting)
Personal experience with RedHat vs. SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
Looking for logic..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, I saw an article in PC magazine (Ziff-Davis Trash) and the columnist was just gushing over some 'Proof' that chris sontag from SCO had shown him that yes Unix source was in linux. The guy wouldn't know a strcpy from an sprintf, but he thought this was 'powerful evidence'. If it was there, it was probably from SCO when they were caldera. Oh well theres Lies, damn lies, statistics and then the ranting of brain dead computer columnists....................
Class action (Score:3, Interesting)
From the, "Well, duh" files... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Red Hat's real motive for filing suit against SCO was to somehow vindicate the entire Linux industry," according to the SCO motion.
Well, what did you expect, Darl? You threaten the open-source community, actively call Linux customers and tell them they're liable for using Linux, and you don't expect somebody with some guts (and cash) to stand up to you?
It's like the school bully running to the principle after somebody he's pushed around pushed back.
SCO city to city tour (Score:5, Interesting)
[yahoo.com]
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030915/lam101_1.htm
Needless to say, a great opportunity to organize something with your local LUG to show up and politely make people aware that this is not a good company to be doing business with.
The tour supposedly visits:
-- October 7th, Toronto
-- October 8th, Newark
-- October 9th, Boston
-- October 14th, Minneapolis
-- October 15th, Chicago
-- October 16th, St. Louis
-- October 21st, Vancouver
-- October 22nd, Irvine
-- October 23rd, Dallas
-- October 28th, Atlanta
-- October 29th, Orlando
Re:SCO city to city tour (Score:3, Funny)
Re:SCO city to city tour (Score:3, Interesting)
So what? (Score:3, Informative)
It's often a long shot, but if granted, it will save SCO a lot of time and money.
Nothing to See Here, Folks, Move Along... (Score:5, Informative)
IAAL, and a motion to dismiss is something that is filed in nearly every lawsuit on the off chance that it will actually work and you can avoid having your client pay the expenses of litigation.
Leaving out any comment about the legal judgment involved in SCO filing the original lawsuit, if SCO's lawyers *hadn't* recommended filing this motion to dismiss Red Hat's suit, it would have constituted malpractice.
Re:Nothing to See Here, Folks, Move Along... (Score:5, Informative)
The key here is that Redhat filed a declaratory judgment action. Jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act is ALWAYS discretionary with the judge, even if the plaintiff is reasonably apprehensive that he's about to be sued. That gives SCO a better chance of succeeding than if Redhat were suing under a different jurisdictional basis.
Re:Nothing to See Here, Folks, Move Along... (Score:5, Interesting)
The basic point is this: SCO filing a motion to dismiss, particularly in a declaratory judgment action, was to be expected, and it won't be news if the motion fails, since the vast majority do fail. (See my reply in the "Consequences" thread.)
BTW: Back when I lived in the litigation world (9-10 yrs ago), filing a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule 11 or a state equivalent in response to a Motion to Dismiss would have been considered an act of Significant Nastiness (which is saying something when you're talking about lawyers) not entered into lightly, and unlikely to succeed. Have standards changed that much since then? Have you seen sanctions imposed under Rule 11 involving a Motion to Dismiss?
Re:Nothing to See Here, Folks, Move Along... (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL, but after SCO's continued remarks regarding the Linux community in general and Red Hat in particular, I'd be real surprised if acts of "Significant Nastiness" were not on the table as appropriate legal maneuvers.
By the way, while I know it's not really, I just love the idea of "acts of Significant Nastiness" as legal terminology. It's got a sort of Pratchett-like Discworld feel to it.
Not targetting Redhat... (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO legal item first thing in the morning? (Score:3, Funny)
I await with anticipation the M$ and RIAA stories soon forth coming.
GandhiCon (Score:5, Interesting)
- First we ignored SCO [slashdot.org].
- Then we laughed at SCO [slashdot.org].
- Then we fought SCO [slashdot.org].
- ...
Remind me what step four is?Re:GandhiCon (Score:4, Funny)
Or is it "???"
Re:GandhiCon (Score:5, Interesting)
Gandhi's point was that when you rise up against the minority British ruling elite (in this case, SCO and Microsoft), you will win your freedom if you are
* on the side of truth, ethics, and god ("righteous");
and
* are a mass of a hundred million oppressed Indian citizens ("a sleeping giant").
SCO is neither. In this case, unlike Gandhi's, SCO is greatly in the minority, they're in the wrong ethically, they're based on lies and deception, they're paid puppets of Microsoft waging a misinformation campaign, and the only thing oppressing them is their weak technology and bad attitudes. SCO is dead, and has been for some time. The voodoo king Gates resurrected them to do one last evil before they abscond with the shareholder's money. Don't let it be you. If they lose these lawsuits, AND THEY WILL, they will disappear off the face of the earth forever, leaving Evil Overlord Bill Gates smiling and with artificially clean hands.
And eventually, the Free Software Community will win. It will not get derailed, and it will keep getting better until there will be no reason for anyone to buy Microsoft products anymore for any purpose. Gandhi's on OUR side, not SCO's.
File a complaint with the FTC (Score:5, Informative)
I've posted this before, but instead of simply whining about their behavior here at /. we should be filing complaints with the FTC. Mention how they are trying to sell something that they do not own, and that if you don't pay them now (before they show what they own), they are saying that you'll owe them more later. Licenses start at $699 for a single processor during the promotional period.
SCO's Address:
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax
FTC Consumer Complaint Form [ftc.gov]
Take a stand and make a real difference.
--
Slash
Re:File a complaint with the FTC (Score:5, Insightful)
"I currently use Linux as an operating system to host the website and commerce engine for my small business. Linux uses code that has been in the public domain for over 15 years (much longer than SCO has been around). SCO is claiming ownership of the software code in Linux and is pursuing legal action against IBM, among others. SCO has not proved in a court of law that they own the software code, but has been trumpeting in open letters on the Internet that anyone who uses Linux needs to acquire a $649 license from them or face legal action. This amounts to blackmail -- 1.) SCO hasn't proved their ownership of the code, and 2.) their issue should be with the companies that have distributed Linux, not with the individuals who use it. Clearly, SCO is trying to scare/threaten me (and other Linux users) into shelling out $649 for a product that isn't even theirs to distribute/manage. The FTC needs to put an end to these practices immediately, and ought to be looking into SCO's artificial inflation of its stock price via these actions, as well (given that SCO execs have been selling off millions in their company's stock)."
SCO also filed their 10Q with the SEC yesterday... (Score:5, Interesting)
...a copy is here [yahoo.com].
Interesting points:
I'm still waiting for the invoice for my single-CPU Linux box...
Licensing breakdown (Score:4, Interesting)
In the second quarter this was $8,250,000 from the two licenses sold.
The other licensee was Sun.
We also find the following in the quarterly:
The SCOsource licensing revenue in the third quarter of fiscal year 2003 represents additional fees associated with two licenses executed during the April 30, 2003, quarter. Under the terms of our license agreement with Sun, we will receive an additional $2,500,000 by November 2003.
So basically, they haven't sold any more licenses since April.
Sun and MS are propping SCO up to hurt Linux.
(Excluding the licensing, SCO is bleeding badly.. this is the only thing bringing them into the black.)
Re:SCO also filed their 10Q with the SEC yesterday (Score:5, Interesting)
Well DUH! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Red Hat's real motive for filing suit against SCO was to somehow vindicate the entire Linux industry," according to the SCO motion.
Well DUH!! Isn't SCO attacking the entire Linux Industry?!? Someone has to stand up for the Linux community (in a court of law in this case).
I don't get it. SCO is allowed to spread FUD throughout any media organization that will listen, but the minute someone legally challenges SCO's accusations, SCO cries unfair?
Someone please tell SCO to grow up... oh wait!...
crazy news.com.com article (Score:5, Interesting)
Here are some choice inaccuracies/curious statements (interspersed with my comments):
"You license Java--we will indemnify you on Linux," is how Jonathan Schwartz, executive vice president of software at Sun, said the program, if initiated, might work
O.K. I don't see how Sun would think that they could do this but it's clear what they have in mind. Though what they mean by "license Java" is probably a detail that even they haven't worried about.
SCO's legal position has drawn the ire of open-source advocates, some of whom have hacked SCO's site.
As I understand, SCO's site hasn't been hacked, so he is refering to the DoS by an unknown person.
Microsoft signed a multimillion-dollar licensing agreement with SCO that revolves around Unix-Linux compatibility issues
Unix-Linux compatibility issues? Microsoft mentioned Unix-Windows compatibility, but surely noone would regurgitate that as the reason that Microsoft pay SCO.
Sun has publicly stated on several occasions that it will indemnify its Solaris customers against any liability
Is this true? Do Sun offer significantly greater protection that Microsoft (i.e. purchase price of the software)?
Schwartz did not comment on how Sun could insulate its Java customers from a lawsuit from SCO, but there are a number of possibilities.
So Sun are just posturing.
Sun could request that Java customers seeking indemnity switch from using Linux to Solaris.
Microsoft could request a similar thing!
Sun could also, conceivably, devise a Linux-like OS
I suppose I am capable of conceiving that, but it is a ridiculous idea.
Sun's license only extends to Solaris, said SCO spokesman Blake Stowell, not to Java related products
So the whole idea was obviously nonsense from the start and Michael only wrote about it because Sun said it so people will take notice.
- Brian
SCO letters to customer (Score:5, Informative)
-t
The first amendment the last time I checked (Score:5, Interesting)
It does not protect you if you make statements designed to damage someones elses business. SCO clearly has stated linux has pirated code in it.
Redhat's primary business is selling Linux products, whether Redhat was a primary target of that statement is irrelevant, it was an intended target. SCO has clearly intended through its statments and actions to target linux users and potential users who include Redhat customers and those who might become redhat customers. These statements were and are potentially misleading and deceptive.
This may be causing actual financial damage to redhat. Courts do not want to impose prior restraint, but if Redhat can establish they are losing customers because of false and misleading statements by SCO then courts can and do act.
All of these issues are for a jury to decide , so I dont think SCOs dismissal action will succeed
hate to break it, this isn't new (Score:3, Interesting)
Speculation on SCO Psychology (Score:5, Interesting)
I think expecting logic, decency, concern for the rule of law, etc. from SCO is doomed to fail. Of course, we pretty much knew that.
Looking at their behaviors, its purely marketing behaviors. There's not a single connection to reality (except hopes to get $$$ by getting bought, stock manipulation, etc.). It's a marketing campaign, period, and like any campaign of its kind it'll morph, change, alter, play to whomever they can play with, and so-on.
On the other hand, I don't think the SCOites truly realize what they're doing in their little world. They're annoying a huge amount of people and making themselves legal targets. I think they only see this great new ploy that's sure to work - it's marketing, and marketing is always to gullible schlubs anyway, right?
That is perpahs their greatest personal weakness. They're running a marketing campaign in a legal arena. They're assuming people will roll over in the face of their brilliance and threats. They don't realize they're in a different arena.
SCO motion addresses only 3 of 7 counts (Score:5, Informative)
SCO - A two bit Mickey Mouse operation?!! (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe it's just me... but everytime I look at that Caldera logo
I just see the corner of a giant Mickey Mouse head hovering
like a dark shadow across the globe.
Hey. Maybe Disney should sue.
An example of the kind of damage being done (Score:3, Informative)
Here is an interview with the MS rep in the persian gulf area. It may initially seem off topic, but if you read through it, he starts using the SCO lawsuit as an example of why how linux users don't respect IP. (Funny, no mention of the Eolas patents as an example of how MS respects the IP of others)
(This interview is worthy of a story submission in itself, but I have given up submitting stories to
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?Arti
Re:SCO is just doing what they need to do (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they don't believe that. If they believed that, they'd come forward with proof. All they believe is that they can get some money in the bank before their company folds.
Re:SCO is just doing what they need to do (Score:5, Insightful)
If SCO really believed this, then they would be trying to get the infringement stopped ASAP.
Instead, SCO's very actions are to make sure that the infringement continues forever without any way for anyone to stop it, so that they can extort money.
If SCO were to win over IBM, then IBM would pay their $3 Billion and that would be the end of the matter. The $1 Billion in damages is to fully, totally, and completely compensate SCO for their damages. End of story. Trippling the damages to $3 Billion is to punish IBM for their alleged misdeeds. In no event do end users pay anything, any more than if you have a book that ends up being shown to have plagarized someone's copyright work.
The fact that SCO goes around making threats that everyone needs to pay for a license demonstrated what it is that they actually believe. That they can make money from someone else's IP because they blame Linux for killing their failed business model.
Re:SCO is just doing what they need to do (Score:3, Interesting)
No, you're wrong - our legal team would do the same thing, but only because they don't understand IP in the software world. Only last year they wanted Sun Microsystems to assign all of their IP in 2 4800's we were about to buy to us... Lawyers are lawyers - they want to assure their continued existence by making life hard for us 'mere mortals' - meanwhile we have to continue to do business, which means sometimes you make compromises
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
And how is this, and the fact that they are demanding payment for something they are not willing to disclose, not a threat?
Re:Consequences. (Score:4, Informative)
Legally speaking, nah, that's not what failure of a motion to dismiss means.
A motion to dismiss says that *without considering any evidence*, and *taking everything you say as true*, you haven't managed to show anything wrong. Or in plain English, "Yeah, even if you're right, so what?"
So all that the failure of this motion to dismiss would mean is that Red Hat's lawyers know how to start a lawsuit, which presumably they do.
Re:Consequences. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So who's buying the SCO stock the execs are sel (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be like buying your ex-wife's car from her so you can trash it in revenge.
Re:This is not NPR (Score:3, Insightful)
In many cases (such as this one) It provides a "blow-by-blow" account of the news that is considered relevant to
As a result of watching the political process unfold NPR listeners get more informed/educated and in many cases, more involved.
As the tech law/rights/development/history process (/.) unfolds slashdotters get more inform
Re:How long... (Score:4, Insightful)
SCaldera has no revenue stream other than lawsuits, and "license fees" (dont' call it extortion or I'll have your legs broken).
They can get by with contingency fee lawyers while on the OFFENSIVE, ie: the IBM suit. On the DEFENSIVE, they have to pay the lawyers.
Once the RedHat suit gets rolling, I expect that there will be several other suits filed. To have any hope of winning any of them, SCaldera will have to pony up MILLIONS in legal fees.
The moral of the story: A company that doesn't have a revenue stream, that isn't a "going concern" shouldn't start fights that it can't win...
But then, looking at the action on SCOX stock (SucksCOX) I don't think they have any illusions about winning. The whole thing is a stock scam.
Too bad the SEC never steps in WHILE this shit is happening. They wait until later, after investors have been ruined by scams to take action.
In the case of SCO, I have no sympathy for anyone who gets burned. RESEARCH... Anyone who buys stock in a company that doesn't have a product, a revenue stream, etc is pissing money away.
Re:Could use some insight... (Score:5, Insightful)
A basic principle in US election campaigns is that negative advertising cannot be left unanswered. You might think that the best way to deal with negative acusations is to ignore them and let them fade into obscurity, but this only works in certain circumstances. If your acuser lacks all credibility then you can do this, but if your acuser has any credibility at all then you have to answer the acusations (and quickly) because they will quickly take hold in public opinion unless there is a competing position available.
Something similar is at work here. SCO is trying pump up its share price by creating an impression in the mind of the public (at least in the share buying part of the public) that SCO has a good shot at winning big in court. If they succeed then the flip side will be that the public will expect OSS companies like RedHat to lose big, and the share prices of those OSS companies will decline. The only way for OSS companies to defend their share price is to get a comnpeting story out there before public opinion sets.
I should note that IBM is in a different position. IBM is big enough and SCO is small enough that IBM can afford to shrug off this kind of story. No one thinks that IBM will die if OSS tanks.