SCO Approaches Google About Linux Licenses 591
MSBob writes "Seems that SCO is seriously hinting that their next victim is going to be Google. SCO said that they held what SCO described as "low level talks" with Google executives with regards to licensing SCO's alleged intellectual property within the Linux kernel. The full article is on Forbes.com." The Reuters story is on Yahoo!, too.
This has been rumored (Score:3, Funny)
One thing I've learned (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One thing I've learned (Score:5, Funny)
No, Not Even. (Score:5, Insightful)
Laugh. This is pure blackmail. It's clearly aimed at the upcoming IPO of Google and the last thing a company facing before an IPO is a legal battle, hence they might just throw a bone to SCO to sweep the problem under the rug. Well planned move on SCO's part.
Low level talks? (Score:5, Funny)
SCO: Hey, you are using OSS software, which we own. Can you give us some money?
Google: Fuck off.
Would be a bad move on Google's part to knuckle. (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the huge number of servers that Google is running, the huge size of its expected IPO, and the likely effect of a miniscule license fee on their future extortion attemps, I doubt the carnivores at SCO could manage to keep their demands down to a thrown bone.
The trick to pulling this off is to keep your demands to a minimum - like less than the lawyer time to look at them - and to be the only player in the game. Like the clutch of lawyers that bought up the patent on the XOR cursor, then for a decade or two systematically sued every computerish IPO in Silicon Valley over it (whether they had anything to do with graphics or not) and settled for something like $10k - effectively imposing an "incorporation tax".
When one extortionist is panhandling a bag of peanuts it might be expedient to throw one to him. If he's asking to become a large, permanent hemmorage in your cash stream (or if there are a large crowd of these ticks sucking your corporate blood), paying the danegeld is a bad move.
I suspect that that's what SCO thought it was doing to IBM - but they asked for too much, and/or got in the game too late and ran into an IBM policy of delousing rather than scratching the itch (due to IBM's long history and repeated experience with such extortion).
But given SCO's track record for lack of savvy on these issues (i.e. taking on the IBM 500 lb Gorilla followed by a series of other stupid moves), I see no reason for them to suddenly wise up and avoid opening yet another front in the Unix Second World War (AT&T vs. UCB being the first).
If they do, I'd bet that Google will fight - and probably ask the court to put it all on hold until the SCO/IBM case is resolved - or perhaps combine them, if the form of SCO's demands is such that this is an option.
Keep in mind google beat the Scientology whackos (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Keep in mind google beat the Scientology whacko (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Would be a bad move on Google's part to knuckle (Score:5, Funny)
I suspect that that's what SCO thought it was doing to IBM - but they asked for too much, and/or got in the game too late and ran into an IBM policy of delousing rather than scratching the itch (due to IBM's long history and repeated experience with such extortion).
Tip for all you future extortionists of IBM. I've seen how this stuff works from inside IBM, and I can tell you that IBM has a well-defined policy for how to handle this sort of extortion, complete with defined, documented dollar thresholds at which different actions take place.
Here's the scoop. If you want to suck money out of IBM by threatening the company with something, you have to keep your demand below $25,000. That's the magic number. If you ask for less than $25K, IBM figures it's cheaper to pay you than to have a lawyer look at it. If you'll sign an ironclad general release of liability, you'll almost certainly get your money*. Once. Since the release will make it virtually impossible for you to ever even utter the letters "I", "B", or "M" again without finding yourself in breach of contract.
When you ask for $1,000,000,000, however, since this *exceeds* the $25,000 threshold (see how simple this is?), a slightly *different* policy goes into effect. This one is a bit easier in that it doesn't require you to sign a release, but it does involve armies of high-powered lawyers armed with the largest patent portfolio in the world and typically ends with your ass being handed to you on silver platter.
That's all there is to it, folks! $25K, and you get paid. $1B (or $3B) and you don't!
*Actually, the $25K isn't a completely sure thing, either. IBM's policy is to randomly pick a subset of these cases and smash the plaintiff into a smooth, creamy paste, just to keep things from getting too routine and the lawyers from getting too bored.
Not Likely (Score:4, Interesting)
I really doubt Google would offer any kind of a settlement, IPO or not. There could be a downside to a settlement as it would insinuate that they didn't understand the IP issues of the OS they built their business on. Not likely.
Besides, it's not like they're counting on the IPO for survival. They make a ton of money. They're getting near the size they'd have to start publishing quarterly reports anyway. Absent the IPO they'd have all the reporting requirements but none of the advantages of a publicly traded company.
If you're serious about reaching a settlement you don't leave the negotiations to the "low level" underlings. Although "low level" at a flat organization like Google is a little hard to pin down. Still, I'm guessing the word SCO is getting from Google would be more along the lines of corporate, "Go ahead, make my day."
Re:One thing I've learned (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One thing I've learned (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, yeah? Then why does a google on "goatse" come classified under the "Society > Religion and Spirituality >
Re:One thing I've learned (Score:5, Funny)
Google is strict about not allowing political causes, no matter how justified, to throw around their search results.
Maybe just this once Google could set up a special server just for requests coming from SCO's office IPs:
Travel agencies foreign [I'm feeling lucky] ==> Groklaw
RIAA music [I'm feeling lucky] ==> Groklaw
Garage Sale Utah [I'm feeling lucky] ==> Groklaw
Mac and cheese recipe [I'm feeling lucky] ==> Groklaw
And so on...
Obviously... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obviously... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Obviously... (Score:4, Funny)
Low level talks: (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Low level talks: (Score:5, Funny)
SCO: You owe us money for Linux licenses.
Google: Fuck off.
SCO: You're using our code and we can prove it!
Google: Go on then.
SCO: No.
Google: Fuck off then.
Repeat as necessary.
Re:Low level talks: (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think SCO is that straight forward. It'd be more like:
SCO: You owe us money for Linux licenses.
Google: Fuck off.
SCO: You're using our code! Show us where!
Google: Er, no.
SCO: <deer in headlights look>
Google: You can't see our servers and we don't have time for your nonsense. Go away.
SCO: ?
Google: Seriously. Go away.
SCO: ? <hangs head and goes away>
Re:Low level talks: Google.fr SCO talks (Score:5, Funny)
SCO: You owe us money for Linux licenses
Google: I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough water!
SCO: But we own the UNIX source code!
Google: I fart in your general direction.
SCO: We require $699 per CPU
Google: Your mother was a hamster, and your father
smells of elderberries
SCO: Is there someone else up there we could talk to?
Google:No, now go away before I taunt you a second time.
Re:Low level talks: Google.fr SCO talks (Score:5, Funny)
That would only work if SCO had the brains to go through Belgium.
-
Re:Low level talks: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Low level talks: (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's far more likely that if SCO asks people for money they'll decline, and if SCO demands money they'll be sued.
The likeliest scenario by far is that SCO is involved in a stock scam, requiring a constant stream of messages in the press. They needn't prevail in court nor need they actually receive any revenue.
thad
Re:Low level talks: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Low level talks: (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheers,
Craig
Re:Low level talks: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Low level talks: (Score:5, Insightful)
Google would be nuts to do this.
Re:Low level talks: (Score:4, Insightful)
What, exactly, does this have to do with Utah? Are all Washington state businesses evil? How about California businesses, since there's gotta be a bad apple in there somewhere?
They better not! (Score:5, Insightful)
If they sign some slimy deal for a $1 with sco then they are saying that Google is the sort of company that will sell out the OSS community just to save a few dollars. This sort of action would only lend support to sco's unproven, unsubstanciated, undisclosed ascertions of sco code in the kernel.
I don't think Google is that sort of company, and I don't think that the people that run Google are that sort of people. I expect that Google will soon release a public statement akin to "We will not be paying SCO license fees until they provide proof that there is sco code in the Linux kernel".
Re:They better not! (Score:5, Insightful)
Google OWES Linux.
Hey did you hear that there is this GREAT search engine that lets you searth the web, USENET, Images, News stories and more -- For FREE?! Man, I tell you whoever provides that service -- at no cost to the end user -- is doing the world a great favour.
Anything Google "owes" to the community they have given back with more than most GPL-users can claim to have given back.
Re:mod madness - why is parent modded "troll"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Low level talks: (Score:5, Funny)
whos next? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:whos next? (Score:5, Interesting)
Red Hat's in court against sco. Its as simple as that. Until that red hat case or ibm case is sorted out, no big company is going to shell out a penny.
There was some report about a fortune 500 company paying for sco licenses. Its probably only ms.
Do you think any company that is so dumb to be swayed by sco's threats is going to have any fortune to speak of? They would get eaten up alive by their competitors. Google knows better.
Google does not use Red Hat (anymore) (Score:4, Informative)
As soon as.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As soon as.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Fair enough.
As soon as share value drops SCO has not as much money for lawyers anymore.
Wrong, sorry. Their stock value doesn't influence their cash flow directly, nor the amount of cash in bank. There might be some indirect effects related to financing and stock options, but they're not running out of cash even if their stock goes back to penny status.
Of course investors fleeing will attract the interest of the press, in their vulture form :)
[Oops, posted prematurely before - feel free to mod that one down :]
Easy way for google to lose its 'geek' support... (Score:3, Insightful)
New Google search for SCO (Score:5, Funny)
"Bunch of assholes."
Re:New Google search for SCO (Score:4, Funny)
Searched the web for SCO.
Results 1 - 10 of about 11. Search took 0.28 seconds.
Did you mean: "Bunch of idiots"
Re:New Google search for SCO (Score:3, Interesting)
It's kinda hard to keep up your FUD when the opposition papers fall right next to your website on a general search. Too bad Groklaw isn't up there at #3.
Re:New Google search for SCO (Score:5, Funny)
I think you meant to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think you meant to say... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bunch of Assholes [sco.com]
Let's Bunch of Assholes [sco.com]
Try Bunch of Assholes [sco.com]
To Bunch of Assholes [sco.com]
Be Bunch of Assholes [sco.com]
Less Bunch of Assholes [sco.com]
Lame Bunch of Assholes [sco.com]
While Bunch of Assholes [sco.com]
Posting Bunch of Assholes [sco.com]
Easily Bunch of Assholes [sco.com]
Compressible Bunch of Assholes [sco.com]
Data
(ROFL, that worked! The lameness avoidance, that is. We'll have to wait and see if sending SCO to the top of the "Bunch of Assholes" search works... Right now they're not on the first page, either for no quotes [google.com] or with quotes.) [google.com]
Not Unix (Score:5, Interesting)
But Blake, Linux isn't Unix, it's a Unix clone. Oh, and one more day [scocountdown.com] to put up or shut up.
Obvious distraction... (Score:4, Insightful)
I, however, wonder if this really can affect a judicial decision... I think it won't.
It would be funny if all of a sudden.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It would be funny if all of a sudden.. (Score:5, Funny)
Blackmail [google.com]
Extortion [google.com]
Re:It would be funny if all of a sudden.. (Score:4, Funny)
Extortion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Extortion (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO waits for any run-up in the Google stock and then bails. Voila--instant $$.
Money is the last thing I want to see SCO get its hands on.
Re:Extortion (Score:5, Insightful)
They might have to put it into the prospectus as a contingent liability. This could easily drive the offering price down by far more than whatever it would take to buy SCO off.
Why does it seem... (Score:5, Interesting)
I really do wish I could see some justice being done regarding these clowns though. Aside from the blatant pump and dump fiascos, another issue with approaching Google now is the threat of what this type of issue could do to their IPO. Seriously, someone needs to slap SCO down for good as this circus has gone way beyond tolerable limits.
Re:Why does it seem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Traditional IP extortion wisdom holds that you go after the smaller fish first, build up a 'war chest' with your 'winnings', and then take on the jackpot companies.
SCO went after IBM first, probably in hopes they'd be bought. IBM didn't bite and called their bluff. Now they are going after companies whose core products rely on Linux. Red hat, and now Google. Since IBM and Red Hat are comfortable with the idea of duking it out with SCO in court, I doubt that Google is going to meekly pony up the license fees.
Re:Why does it seem... (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Not a Surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
When SCO dips, they hit a new hot target--this time it is google. What a shock they hit google right as they announce that they will IPO.
SCO should just die.
AC
Google will tell SCO to BLO off.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I just feel it. If Google does fold, that will be a very bad thing for everyone. If google tells sco to go to hell then I would call it a major win in the many skirmishes that are still to come.
This could be the keystone case..
Not exactly the brightest move.. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's perhaps not the best move to try to extort money out of a company that can show that all you are capable of is extortion. I would suspect that if someone at Google wanted to, they could find a copy of the source to Unix online some place, and use a few spare cycles to compare the source code to the entire Linux source that they are using, and prove that SCO is full of hot air.
Context (Score:5, Insightful)
Partial quote: ''Anytime the price dips too low for public consumption or a planned sale, they can make another outrageous announcement and pump it back up. ''
To understand SCO you need to stop taking their announcements seriously and look at them as a two-year-old misbehaving to get attention from its parents.
Shake them down pre-IPO (Score:3, Interesting)
Any of these companies that publicly boasted about how many Linux servers probably are dialing down that kind of announcement now. I remember a video showing the nVidia data centre, many 1000's of linux servers. This is chum in the water for SCO's insatiable quest for lucre.
Google should just shine them on, make all the noises like they are going to play ball and then stiff them after the IPO.
Hedley
SCO definition of "low-level" talks with Google. (Score:5, Funny)
As such, we are forced to protect our (insert random hyperbole here) and will be sending a cease-and-desist eail to that contact shortly!"
Public relations (Score:3, Insightful)
Will they cave in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google have over 10,000 [google.co.uk] linux servers in their cluster. That's a licensing fee of $7 million. It might be a lot easier for them just to write the cheque.
Assuming the Google execs will also have a significant share in the company, any reduction in the company value could hit them in the pocket personally.
Re:Will they cave in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm.. I don't think they'll pay up, for a couple of reasons.
First of all, the infamous Joe Sixpack has never heard of SCO, perhaps not even of Unix or Linux. He hasn't been paying any attention to this ridiculous lawsuit and never will. Google, on the other hand, is a household name. A lawsuit from a company with a dubious background (much like the SearchKing fiasco) is not going to make much of a difference in Google's IPO.
Secondly, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google's founders (and executives!), aren't your average dummy. These guys are know what BS SCO is making up and I'm confident that they'll react appropriately.
Re:Will they cave in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having said all that, I don't think Google will buckle. It has a history of standing up to lawsuits
No, this is great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Google pretty much has to respond to this publicly, since they do have that IPO pending.
I think SCO has made their biggest mistake this time.
What SCOX failed to Mention (Score:5, Informative)
The reason you have not heard he rebuttle from Goolge is because of the upcoming quite period per IPO rules..
SCOX stock is about to hit the bottom in less than 20 days
you doubt this? take a look at the difference between the bid and ask.. when that spread gets biug it menas that theere are shorts and puts drivng theprice anot real value..once the judgement against SCOX is made in januaury those players wil have no where to go with their stock..
Wont work (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO's plan here is to show up to Googles IPO and fart ruining the 'record one day pop.' Nice threat. Here are a couple reasons it wont work.
1) This blows up in their face. They told the courts that they are not threatening redhat customers. Google is a Redhat customer.
2) Google is in a unique position. Unlike even the respectable IPO's of the dot gone days, google is being essentially forced to go public. They don't need the investment banking and other frills. They have to IPO for accounting reasons.
Another company that had to do this? Microsoft.
whoring for publicitiy (Score:5, Funny)
SCO bills NASA! (suspects Linux installed on Mars Rover)
SCO sues to stop presidential election tally! (unlicensed linux used in vote-counting machines)
SCO demands 25 million dollar reward for capture of Saddam! (We withheld a linux license so he couldn't legally use that terrorist O/S)
SCO requests injunction to stop sales of Ipod (Darl says they "could be hacked to run Linux")
Re:whoring for publicitiy (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, why not go international and attempt to get licence money out of the Beagle 2 people - their workstation for sending/recieving data to/from Beagle 2 runs Linux... Hey, the workstation even runs Spacecraft Control Operating System (SCOS) - clearly taken from SCO's name!
/me awaits the trolls about how Linux can't cope with getting signals from outer space, so isn't ready for the desktop.
STILL boggles my mind (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there some bizarre "you don't have to show infringement" legal clause I'm unaware of? I know that the judge has required that SCO show proof (in a couple of months), but why did the judge give them a couple of months? What's wrong with: "show proof now, or I dismiss the case with prejudice"? Was the judge required to give SCO extortion time, or did the judge just think "gee, they seem honest, I'll give them a few months before requiring that they show proof"?
What really baffles me is that so much of the mainstream press coverage isn't even mentioning the "SCO won't say what's infringing" bit... I understand why SCO doesn't want to say what's infringing: they want Linux to infringe so they can collect royalties. I just don't understand why any sane judge would give them even a couple of months of blackmail time before requiring proof.
Re:STILL boggles my mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that was just one month. And it's up on Monday :)
What's wrong with: "show proof now, or I dismiss the case with prejudice"? Was the judge required to give SCO extortion time, or did the judge just think "gee, they seem honest, I'll give them a few months before requiring that they show proof"?
The judge was to grant one or more of the 'Motions to compel discovery' (two by IBM, one by SCOX). IBM basically said in theirs "Get us evidence of wrongdoing". SCOX said "Show us your Unix that we may be able to find some of your wrongdoing."
The hudge easily gave IBM what they had asked for, and gave a time frame for that. One month to produce the evidence (over the holiday season - not much :), and a couple weeks for IBM to digest that. Dismissing the case was not an option at this point. Has nothing to do with the judge favoring SCOX - she was very obviously unimpressed by their behaviour. Read up on Groklaw if you need.
(How did that comment I'm replying to get rated 'Insightful'??)
Re:STILL boggles my mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, when you are filing a case, there are certain mechanisms for getting all relevant information out during the case, also stuff that's normally not available. In criminal cases you get search warrants and stuff, in civil cases you have subponaes to request additional information from various parties. In this manner you can get at relevant evidence that would usually be hidden in company vaults etc.
I could understand giving the defense time to gather evidence, but the plaintiff should be expected to have their evidence ready to present.
They should present enough evidence to prove the case has substance. SCOX had all along been pleading they'd show the evidence in court, and didn't yet. IBM asked them to quit stalling and play their cards, to produce all relevant evidence. The judge gave SCOX 30 days to do that with particularity, meaning they have to tell exactly what lines in what files are copied. SCOX had given IBM a huge stack of Unix code (which IBM already has from their Unix license), expecting IBM to figure out the exact problems in the code. That's not good enough in court.
SCOX had in return asked IBM to come up with all their various Unix code (all of it!) for examination. That one is still undecided on, but looks like a 'Fishing expedition', where SCOX hopes to stumble upon something to substantiate their case. That's not acceptable behaviour in court. If IBM has anything 'fishy' in their code (SCO Unix stuff copied to Linux), they might even be able to invoke the 5th Admendment and refuse to produce self-incriminating evidence. Don't think they would, though, would look pretty bad :)
Seems to me at least that a plaintiff showing up without their evidence is pretty good grounds for dismissal. Is it really generally acceptable to bring suit before you assemble your evidence?
Yes and no, as above. You should produce enough to make it believable that you have a case, but discovery is relevant to bring out the exact nature and full amount of the wrongdoing, if any. SCOX is being given the benefit of doubt, which is needed for a fair trial - but if they don't produce anything real soon, they'll be in LOTS of trouble.
Anyway, the IBM lawyers didn't even request a dismissal of the case at the first hearing. They're probably holding that one off until the game is so far advanced that it'll be an obvious thing to do, which is not the case right now. Since SCOX didn't show their 'evidence' yet, we still don't know if there is any substance, and potentially there could be. Now, if (when) they don't come up with anything, IBM will probably request the court to dismiss the case with prejustice. Which is much more likely to be granted when SCOX has had plenty chance to come up with evidence. IBM has good lawyers and is not in a hurry. It's more valuable for them to take the time to get prejustice (or even extreme prejustice) along with the dismissal, barring the gate for similar cases in the future. Speeding the case is not that important, it's better to win it with great force.
>> How did that comment I'm replying to get rated 'Insightful'??
Maybe because there wasn't a "+1 Good Question" modifier? I was ranting a bit, but I really was also seeking information.
Got it :) I always look in vain for the "-1 Wrong" modifier. Probably "+1 Interesting" would've be better anyway.
One possible scenario. (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO approaches google with the following offer.
1) Google agrees to pay SCO for the license to use linux. But instead of a cash transaction google agrees to buy SCO stock at a discount or it buys SCO stock options. MS has done similar deals with Apple and Borland.
2) Google and SCO put out a joing press release saying that Google has agreed to pay SCO X million dollars for the licence to use Linux. Google also states that they looked into SCOs allegations and that they feel that SCO is the legitamate and de-facto owner of linux. Google urges other companies to get in compliance to avoid lawsuits.
3) SCO stock goes up tenfold overnight.
It's a win-win for SCO and Google. MS will most likely chip in to sweeten the pot by financing the google purchase of SCO stock. They could do this by buying a few percent of google (knowing full well that they will get the money back on the IPO).
Every body involved would make billions of dollars overnight so I definately think this is a likely scenario.
I can only think of one reason why the above scenario would not happen and that's if the owners of google are people who would put their ethics and morality above profits. But then again we live in America.
Is there anybody they won't sue? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't even use Linux and I'm worried I might get sued.
Timing is everything (Score:5, Interesting)
How will this affect their IPO? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can Google claim damages from SCO if their value as a company is hurt?
I say this because if I was in charge of google, I'd laugh them out of my office.
I don't expect Google is even seriously considering paying $699 * ~10,000 = 6.9mil...
Tactical Error by SCOX? (Score:4, Interesting)
These tactics may work, on companies that are vulnerable to FUD, Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.
This is why it's a bad move to pick Google.. They could hardly find a worse candidate. They are full of young, Linux savvy engineers, and their CEO is Eric Schmidt, who was top techie at Sun for many years, and then CEO at Novell - he definitely knows what's up both in Unix history and the SCOX licensing with Novell . The Uncertainty and Doubt areas are gone.. like most of us, they see the SCOX claims for the bullshit they are. The only question is whether the Fear about their successful IPO will win out. I could hardly blame them for settling quietly, but I hope they do not.
The fact that SCOX is now publicizing this suggests that Google is not going the 'settle quietly' route. If they were, we would be reading SCOX press releases about the great success of their licensing program.
Google could hurt SCO... (Score:3, Insightful)
Boycott, Lawsuits (409)
Linux (3467)
UnitedLinux (11)
UnixWare (1)
Open letter to Bill Gates (Score:3, Funny)
Boss, I'm all for being deliciously evil. But are you sure about the little girls and the puppies?
Your humble servant
-D
From the Forbes article: (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this part, while technically exact, is written in a way to make believe 6000 companies paid unix licence for the right to run linux, notably because of the use of now in the second sentence. Can someone enlighten me, please ?
1) As english is not my mother tongue, my paranoia about SCO surfaced, and in fact, the meaning I perceived is not perceptible by native english speaker.
or
2) Forbes want SCO to succeed (again all those commies who believe in free things (imagine free, as in : no market, and no need for economic journal ( and they are again IP, too, and we are producer of IP, so we must fight them (but of course, every OSS person knows that OSS exist because of IP, not against it (and my teacher always said you should not imbricate parenthesis when writing literary text, contrary to mathematics (but perhaps this text is not very literary)))))).
or
3) The Forbes journalist, as many many many other, just copied/pasted a press release without checking, perhaps even without understanding.
or
4) Some other reason I didn't think about.
So, what's your advice?
like (Score:4, Funny)
Google: "Fuck off and die, shithead"
SCO: "Die? Now? Are you crazy?! We got atleast a year before that happens!"
If Google pays them.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've heard a lot of mumbling about how SCO doesn't have any evidence that the code exists, blah blah blah. Just want to remind you all that the OSS Community would be VERY quick to remove it if it were found. That means if SCO wins, suddenly everybody will have an updated distro, they won't be able to go after anybody for money.
If they can convince Google that they are in danger, I'd be worried that SCO showed them something that Google would be under NDA to discuss.
All I'm urging is caution.
What floors me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why Google? Why not Microsoft? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just another outright lie? (Score:5, Interesting)
Scox has told so many outright lies, it's hard to keep track. Here is a partial list:
1) Lie: SCO will revoke IBM's rights to sell, distribute, or use UNIX.
Truth: SCO does not have the authority to revoke IBM's UNIX rights.
2) Lie: SCO will audit AIX users.
Truth: SCO never did such an audit, and has no rights to do such an audit.
3) Lie: SCO owns C++.
Truth: SCO may own a very old obsolete version.
4) Lie: The Berkeley Packet Filter code in Linux is "obfuscated" SCO code.
Truth: Jay Schulist, who never had access to SCO code, implemented it from scratch.
5) Lie: We've gone in, we've done a deep dive into Linux, we've compared the source code of Linux with UNIX every which way but Tuesday
Truth: Experts have shown that SCO used a simple, primitive text search based on a few keywords.
6) Lie: The IP protection legal team is on pure contingency
Truth: The legal team is billing at a 2/3 discounted rate with the possibility of contingent commissions
7) Lie: We will show rock solid evidence at SCOForum in Las Vegas
Truth: SCO was quickly shown to not have any ownership of the SCOForum evidence. The source code displayed at SCOForum might have been considered an honest mistake, if Sontag hadn't continued to dispute what was already irrefutably proven.
8) Lie: SCO's 2002 UNIX source release was "non-commercial" and excludes 32-bit code
Truth: "The text of the letter, sent January 23, 2002, by Bill Broderick, Director of Licensing Services for Caldera [now SCO], in fact makes no mention of "non-commercial use" restrictions, does not include the words "non-commercial use" anywhere and specifically mentions "32-bit 32V Unix" as well as the 16-bit versions."
9) Lie: non-compete clause in the Novell agreement.
Truth: no such clause.
10) Lie: SCO claims that Linux header files are "infringing code."
Truth: The header files are provably original and are noncopyrightable in any event.
11) Lie: We have been off meeting for the last several months with large corporate Linux end users. The pipeline is very healthy there.
Truth: The pipeline is empty. All inquiries have been to assess SCO's claims and liability exposure.
12) Lie: SCO's expert witnesses are "MIT Mathematicians".
Truth: Among various backpedaling statements, Paul Hatch, a SCO spokesman, wrote in a statement to The Tech
15) Lie: (To the Utah Judge on 12/5) SCO will make a copyright claim in two days, but no longer than a week
Truth: Many weeks later and a copyright claim has not yet been made.
16) Lie: Last August SCO claimed to have sold Linux licenses to a Fortune 500 company that was not MS or SUN.
Truth: According to SCO's SEC filings, that never happend.
17) Lie: "several" other Linux license sales SCO has claimed to have made since the first.
Truth: According to SCO's SEC filings, that never happend.
18) Lie: the introductory price for licenses that was to increase on Oct 15
Truth: Once again, SCO changed their minds.
19) Lie: SCO claimed it would file against RedHat for copyright infringment and conspiracy
Truth: No such charges were filed
20) Lie: SCO was going to appeal the fine imposed in Germany.
Truth: that never happend.
21) Lie: RedHat opposes software copyrights (Darl's open letter).
Truth: unlike SCO, RedHat respects copyrights.
22) Lie: entire sales force selling Linux "licenses."
Truth: no evidence of
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Google made a big mistake choosing Linux (Score:3, Informative)
uh, no. NT is actually VMS at its core. IBM had absolutly nothing to do with NT.
Re:Google made a big mistake choosing Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
NT took many cues from VMS, yes, but it is definitely not VMS at its core. It took a lot of great features of VMS (MS hired a primary architect of VMS) but that doesn't mean it -is actually- VMS.
Re:Google made a big mistake choosing Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Google made a big mistake choosing Linux (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good lord (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, SCO's timing on this matter is very suspect, with its notice so close to a Google IPO. If SCO keeps making noise, I would expect a Google counter-suit claiming defamation, especially if the IPO doesn't go as well as planed.
What the hell are we missing here? SCO hired the "best" lawyers in the country. There has to be some sort of strategy behind all of this. Or meybe the just want us to think that; keep everybody guessing. All I know is I keep a daily eye on Groklaw [groklaw.net]
Re:Good lord (Score:5, Insightful)
IPO is a red herring (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO can wave their claims arround and splutter about vast damages but the fact is no judge is going to allow a penal award. Google have every reason to believe that they have the rights to the code they are using.
Google can probably even claim the cost off their insurance.
Re:IPO is a red herring (Score:5, Funny)
In Google's case, SCO probably wants user licences. How many users does Google have? :^P
Re:Good lord (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, all shall bow and worship the Stag King. Those who fail to show obeisance shall be disemboweled with a new-fallen antler and trampled to bits in a dark, hoof-pounding ritual carried out under the light of a full moon.
Sorry... Just couldn't resist the image...
Re:Good lord (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good lord (Score:5, Funny)
It's just you. No one else at slashdot thinks SCO is going out of their mind.
Re:Good lord (Score:5, Informative)
All I can say is that I hope that SCO has forgotten that Google is not by any means an average US company. If it was, it would have long gone belly up.