Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Caldera Government Software The Courts Your Rights Online Linux News

Today Is SCO's Deadline To Sue Linux User 398

herrvinny writes "As proprietor of SCO Countdown, I just wanted to remind people that today is the deadline for SCO to sue a Linux user. As everyone should know, SCO, 3 months ago, promised to sue a Linux user within three months. Well, that day has come. Who is SCO going to sue, if it is even going to sue?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Today Is SCO's Deadline To Sue Linux User

Comments Filter:
  • Sue ME!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by corebreech ( 469871 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @08:59PM (#8311520) Journal
    Oh please, please sue ME! I could use fifteen-minutes of fame! Not only that, I'm installing LFS [] on my Rev. A Bondi iMac [] even as I'm typing this post! I'm such an outlaw! Come and get me!!!
  • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @08:59PM (#8311522) Homepage Journal
    Probably someone big, someone rich, a victim of such magnitude the world can hardly not take notice, probably Munich [].

    At least, if I were pretending not to be backed by Microsoft, that's what I'd do.

    "Mein Gott! Herr McBride ist nicht gegetting keinen bier! Der kann amerikaner wasser beir getrinken und bei Holle gehen! Uf dienen lederhosen, Herr McBride!"

  • Actually, it's a no-brainer -- they will sue Google. And before you say "ahh yes, Google, a huge Linux user" you should instead think to yourself "ahh yes Google, the premiere search engine." Because when the suit comes, that's what it will really be about. SCO is just a Microsoft puppet being used to do the nasty things M$ can't do in public.

    What is Microsoft's next "big thing?" Web searching. And who have they set their sights on? Google. Fortunately for Microsoft, Google also happens to run Linux, so they can dispatch their little lap-dog on a smear campaign. Does it really matter if Google is vindicated or not if Microsoft can make businesses think "IP theft" when they think "Google?" You heard it here first...

  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:02PM (#8311558)
    Somebody's gotta take Darl to Vegas sometime and sit him down at a high stakes table. If he was willing to bet on having a user lawsuit today, who knows if we can talk him into calling "hit" on a 20 in BlackJack...
  • Clarity (Score:5, Informative)

    by Supp0rtLinux ( 594509 ) <> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:03PM (#8311560)
    It's worth pointing out that today isn't SCO's deadline to sue Linux users. Today's is the deadline imposed by SCO for all Linux users to ante up the money or face possible lawsuits from SCO. All things considered, I'd love to see them try. Considering the recent news of AT&T and Novell documents, I'd love for SCO to sue me, then lose their case(s) to Novell/IBM and let me sue back for extortion, loss of income, etc.

    Hey SCO. I use Linux. I install Linux for 100's of companies a year. I failed to pay for any SCO licenses. Please sue me! My email is

    "The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers []
    • Re:Clarity (Score:5, Funny)

      by Lehk228 ( 705449 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:08PM (#8311622) Journal
      I hope you have a good spam filter ;p
    • Re:Clarity (Score:5, Informative)

      by civilizedINTENSITY ( 45686 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:03PM (#8312007)
      Well actually they did:

      SCO Targets Major Linux User []
      November 18, 2003 (2:47 p.m. EST)
      By Antone Gonsalves [mailto], TechWeb News

      The SCO Group Inc. said Tuesday it would sue a major user of Linux within 90 days, as the company prepared to launch a new legal assault in its claims that the open-source operating system contains the computer maker's copyrighted code.

      The Lindon, Utah, company, which has a $3 billion lawsuit pending against IBM, told reporters and analysts in a teleconference that it would begin suing companies that use Linux, but refuse to pay licensing fees to SCO.

      "One of things that we will be looking to do is to identify a defendant that we believe will illustrate the nature of the problem," David Boies, managing partner of SCO's law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, said. "I don't want to try and identify that defendant on this call, for obvious reasons . . . but you will be seeing the identification of a significant user that has not paid license fees and is in fact using proprietary and copyrighted material. I think you'll certainly be seeing that within the next 90 days."

  • by cb8100 ( 682693 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:03PM (#8311564)
    Judging by all the flames the past SCO stories have generated, shouldn't this article itself be flagged as flamebait?

  • by ZiZ ( 564727 ) * on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:03PM (#8311567) Homepage
    Taken straight from sco's website []:

    We can't find ""

    You can try again by typing the URL in the address bar above.
    Or, search the Web:

    ...Rest of press release snipped for brevity

  • by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:03PM (#8311568)
    Imagine if they gave a frivolous lawsuit, and no-one came?

    (apologies to whomever came up with the original Vietnam War-time adage)
  • by dilvie ( 713915 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:05PM (#8311582) Homepage Journal
    SCO has already said a lot of stupid things that they haven't proven. They've already sent notices out to companies who use linux (the first step in the process of suing a user) -- even though they still haven't got a ruling in the IBM case, and proven to anybody anywhere that they have a case at all. All this countdown shows the world is that SCO is consistent about one thing: much adu about nothing. - Eric
  • They'll Sue a Friend (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Linus Sixpack ( 709619 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:05PM (#8311587) Journal
    At this point I think it would be too dangerous for them to sue anyone who would put up much of a fight. I imagine an unamed user, or one of their few remaining friends. Perhaps a Microsoft shell company.

    The suit can be filed. Vague statements can be made. Face can be saved. The recipient of the suit might not even contest it. More smoke and mirrors.

    I dont think even Darl McBride is foolish enough to risk a big name with the legal problems they're having.

  • by The Ancients ( 626689 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:06PM (#8311604) Homepage
    Err, the female one who does Pilates at 7am every morning, that is...

    Pretty Please?

  • by leoxx ( 992 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:06PM (#8311605) Homepage Journal
    Groklaw just posted [] a text version of the SCO response to IBM's discovery request. Here's a link to the original PDF [].

    This document describes SCO's case (or lack thereof) in more detail than any other piece of info so far. Lots of stuff for the Linux community to pick apart. Most especially a description of the "millions of lines of code" that they claim they own.

  • by Mr. Darl McBride ( 704524 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:07PM (#8311611)
    Chris and I have decided to sue each other. A pretty break even settlement, and we should have two victories under our collective belts.

    I'm taking ownership of, Chris is taking ownership of, and we're going after a billion dollars apiece.

    I am seriously going to sue myself until I go blind. I get wood just thinking about it.

  • by Crypto Gnome ( 651401 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:08PM (#8311625) Homepage Journal
    Perhaps this entry [] is relevant? (Red Hat News - Lehman Brothers Threatened by SCO)
  • by savagedome ( 742194 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:13PM (#8311669)
    today is the deadline for SCO to sue a Linux user

    I am sure its not gonna happen. As they say here "Don't worry too much about SCO suing anybody today 'coz its already tomorrow in Australia" :)

  • by Crypto Gnome ( 651401 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:14PM (#8311680) Homepage Journal
    Hints and other juicyness can be found here []

    Apparently a Feb 11 S-3 Filing by SCO includes the following

    "Additionally, we have begun notifying selected Linux end users in writing of violations we allege under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act related to our copyrights contained in Linux."
  • AT&T Trips Up SCO (Score:5, Informative)

    by Laptop Dancer ( 572075 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:16PM (#8311697)
    Computerworld [] has an interesting account of a recently discovered AT&T 1985 clarification of derivative works [], which suggests that SCO is SOL.

    But regardless of whether SCO has already sued a user or is just running a little behind schedule, winning any Linux lawsuits may have just gotten a lot harder for SCO.

    Who said so? AT&T -- in 1985.

    Check it out for the juce..

  • by BlueTrin ( 683373 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:18PM (#8311709) Homepage Journal
    just in the case it gets /.-ed.

    The page cannot be found
    The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
  • by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:18PM (#8311710) Homepage
    At least that's somewhat implied in some speculation at Groklaw []. According to that story, Lehman Brothers got a nasty-gram and promptly dispatched it to RedHat of servicing... RedHat attached it to some kind of motion or something (IANAL) suggesting that although SCO had promised the judged it was not threatening RedHat's business, threatening RedHat's customers was the same thing...
  • by terrencefw ( 605681 ) <slashdot AT jamesholden DOT net> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:19PM (#8311720) Homepage
    As we all suspect, this whole, baseless, possibly illegal charade is a desparate act by a desparate company. Look at the facts:

    • They admit they have no source of revenue except "leveraging intellectual property".
    • McBride fails to understand that the GPL just sits on top of existing copyright law, so even if it is defated in court (which it won't be) they will be in an even worse position.
    • That they don't see how their own position is weakened by them distributing Linux themselves. Surely their own developers aren't so stupid as to not spot their own code in the Linux kernel (to paraphrase PJ).
    • You don't argue with IBM. Full stop. Period.

    As an amusing aside, the other day I was visiting a friend of my wife's at her work. My 1 year old was with me, and, having wandered away for a second or so, my ears picked up the sound of SCSI hard discs spinning down. Fearing that I might be in the running for a few hours unpaid work bringing up some ancient Netware box (they're a bit low-tech where this gal works), I hastily powered the box back up. What had my 1 year old accidently powered off...? A SCO Unix box! Good on 'yer mate!

  • by BenSpinSpace ( 683543 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:25PM (#8311764)
    SCO is going to sue a Linux user. SCO is going to sue a Linux user. SCO is going to sue a Linux user. SCO is going to sue a Linux user. SCO is going to sue a Linux user. SCO is going to sue a Linux user. SCO is going to sue a Linux user. SCO is going to sue a Linux user.

    SCO doesn't sue a Linux user.

    Try this:

    Tomorrow, we log onto the Internet and witness a vicious battle going on. There's a flash video in which a streaming clip manifests Darl McBride in every home user's web browser. Why? It turns out that the hacker behind MyDoom is actually an evil corporation trying to destroy SCO, the promoter of Open Source software. Its first target was Goatse: by removing an object of internet culture that everyone has a love/hate relationship with, it destabalized the internet. SCO has been working around the clock to resolve the issue and restore the internet to its full power. SCO couldn't tell us its true intents only because that would ruin their plan. And thus we witness Darl McBride fighting against the MyDoom virus, incarnate, yet coded into a flash file.

    Suddenly, when it looks like Darl McBride might lose the valiant fight, brilliant hackers intercept the sattelite connection going to SCO and insert special weapons for Darl McBride.

    Whammo, Darl McBride wins the battle, and in a tremendous flash of colors, the creepy Peak Oil [] website literally explodes, covering Google [] in a hidden cache of virtual oil, which can be printed out by any inkjet printer into real oil.

    People even write offensive, politically volatile [] websites solely for the purpose of getting people to donate money so they can buy Dance Dance Revolution. is restored, to the detriment of Internet users everywhere but to the spirit of the Internet altogether.

    Darl McBride is hailed as a captain of the Internet, and he forms a team with Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates (who decides to make Windows open source) and Steve Jobs (who decides that maybe Mac programs, as good as they are, should have more than 2 options per program). They develop the ultimate flawless operating system, and Netscape, Opera, and IE combine all their best parts into a browser that has the ability to stretch one's computer screen to twice its physical dimensions while in use.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:25PM (#8311765)
    From Groklaw []

    I think there would be a large list of very negative outcomes for SCO and very
    little positive if SCO were to file a lawsuit against an end user.

    1. Getting involved in another lawsuit will cause attorney fees to drain their
    limited cash even faster
    2. The lawsuit will likely take years to even go to trial, much like the IBM
    suit. Since SCO must win the Novell lawsuit first (itself years away from
    beginning, much less ending) to secure undisputed System V copyrights, any end
    user lawsuit would probably have to be put on hold until the end of any appeals
    in the Novell suit.
    3. Unless an end user is distributing the Linux kernel, they are not guilty of
    copyright infringement. Copyright law governs copying and not use of code.
    Section 117 of copyright law also specifically excludes installing and running
    software from being infringement.
    4. The money that they can get from one company for unintentional copyright
    infringement is limited and likely less than their attorney fees in many if not
    most cases. Lack of registered copyrights limits awards to actual damages, which
    are likely to be minimal or negligible. Even with registered copyrights, damages
    for unintentional copying are severly limited.
    5. SCO's failure to mitigate damages since at least May 2003 limits or
    eliminates any damages they can collect
    6. SCO themselves distributing any infringing code in their own Linux products,
    especially under the GPL, limits or eliminated any damages they can collect
    7. In the event that there really is SCO-owned code in the Linux kernel, SCO
    will be forced to document any infringing code and prove their ownership, which
    will allow it to be removed or replaced
    8. It will increase ill will toward SCO from a greater number of companies and
    individuals, including their own customers, who will likely abandon SCO in
    significant numbers
    9. The act of filing a large number of frivolous lawsuits may be used against
    SCO and its executives in a shareholder lawsuit at a later date


    Darn, thought of some more after I submitted.

    10. In the event that SCO proves there is non-GPL code in the Linux kernel, they
    simultaneously prove themselves guilty of violating the GPL and willful
    copyright infringement. SCO has been distributing the kernel on their FTP site
    for years, even after they were aware of the allegedly infringing code.
    11. SCO and/or their attorneys may be fined for filing frivolous lawsuits.
    12. SCO potentially opens themselves to prosecution for fraud or extortion by
    state attorneys general, the FTC or other state or federal anti-fraud or
    consumer protection agencies.
    13. Any portions of Linux that SCO alleges are illegal may be covered by
    AT&T's failure to add copyright notices, or the code in BSD-Lite, or the
    ancient Unix code that Caldera previously released under a BSD-like license.
  • Big surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pla ( 258480 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:27PM (#8311780) Journal
    Does the failure of SCO to sue Google (or any major corporate Linux user) really surprise anyone?

    First of all, SCO most likely chose that "90 days" to fall after the deadline to come up with some evidence in the IBM case. Darl et al no doubt figured that they'd either have an airtight case against Google, or have found new jobs by this point.

    Second, how would such a suit proceed? I'd imagine Google's lawyers would start off by requesting a dismissal with prejudice, on the grounds that SCO can't sue for infringement on something they have no rights to. Failing in that, they'd just request putting off the case until a resolution of SCO vs IBM, which means basically the same thing, they'd just have to wait a bit longer.

    Finally, assuming SCO did choose Google as their primary target, the fact that Google has put off its IPO no doubt weighs heavily in SCO's inaction - The deeper the pockets, the more you can get. With $25bn, Google would have some pretty deep pockets, on the short-term. With only a few tens of million above operating expenses, OTOH, SCO would have to consider itself lucky just to win the cost of their licenses, nevermind any penalties...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:30PM (#8311796)
    The "3 months ago article" states that

    "The SCO Group Inc. said Tuesday it would sue a major user of Linux within 90 days..."

    The article was published on November 18, 2003 (a Tuesday) so 90 days since November 18 :

    12 remaining days in November +
    31 days in December +
    31 days in January +
    16 days in February
    90 days

    Deadline ended at 12AM February 17th.

  • by SST-206 ( 699646 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:31PM (#8311802) Homepage

    This online poll [] currently has a small but worrying percentage of people ready to buy SCO licences.

  • by k4_pacific ( 736911 ) <{k4_pacific} {at} {}> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:32PM (#8311804) Homepage Journal
    I think SCO is trying to create a circular dependency with their lawsuits. SCO vs IBM cannot go ahead until SCO vs. Novell is resolved. RedHat vs. SCO is waiting on the outcome of SCO vs IBM. They need to sue someone who uses RedHat, so that case is blocked by the RedHat case, yet also blocks the Novell case. AT&T comes to mind. Suppose AT&T uses RedHat. They could sue AT&T over that. Such a case would then be dependent on the outcome of the RedHat case. Since AT&T originated the code in System V, SCO vs. Novell would likely depend on the outcome of the AT&T case.

    So to recap:
    - SCO vs. AT&T cannot continue until SCO proves its not baselessly slandering RedHat's product.

    - SCO vs. RedHat cannot continue until SCO shows that IBM illegally copied code.

    - SCO vs. IBM cannot continue until SCO shows that that they and not Novell in fact own the code.

    - SCO vs. Novell cannot continue until SCO proves that AT&T is not allowed to violate what would be their own copyright if Linux in fact does contain System V code.

    Thus it will deadlock forever, SCO will make a bunch of wild claims, and the stock price will skyrocket.

    Of course, they won't gross dollar one.

  • by Supp0rtLinux ( 594509 ) <> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:32PM (#8311808)
    1) The U.S. gov't. Why? Because embedded Linux is used in the radar systems of the FA-18 being sold on Ebay (reported recently on /. ) which the U.S. gov't probably didn't have a SCO license for and which would put an unlicensed copy of proprietory code (Linux... at least according to SCO) into the public domain. Then all the taxpayers could ante up the money. Surely the taxpayers can afford more than the 5 billion they're asking of IBM before damages... after all our national deficit is in the trillions.

    2) Burlington. Why? Because they were the first, early Linux adoptee and led the way for all the others to follow. They set a trend and should be taught a lesson.

    3) Germany. Why? Because they have the largest Linux role-out to date. And according to recent news their Linux roll-out cost more than sticking with Windows which means they have money to throw away anyway.

    4) Google. Why? Isn't it obivious? Google is the largest and most popular search engine *AND* they use Linux. M$ wants a piece of the pie. M$ is already funding SCO, though not directly. If SCO sues Google, M$ can step in and have more market dominance. Sure they'll get sued again, but the judge will bend over for them again, and that's assuming they can even find a judge to pursue M$.

    5) Lindows. Why? Because they're in everyone's faces. Sue them and you solve the M$ vs. Lindows problem, get money from Mr. that the RIAA and MPAA couldn't get and give it back to M$ to fund more monopolistic practices and to pay all the new coders M$ will need to patch the vulnerabilities that are about to flood the internet.

    Considering the lack of *technical* judges out there, this is an ideal time for M$ to start monopolizing more than ever. With technical judges busy with IBM vs. SCO, SCO vs. Novell, RedHat vs. SCO, M$ vs. Lindows, etc they'll be hard pressed to find a judge with enough competence to understand things. This is the ideal time for M$ to step up make the movie AntiTrust a reality.

    "The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers []
  • by Thomas A. Anderson ( 114614 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:35PM (#8311823) Homepage
    I called SCO months ago and told them (truthfully) that I won and operate a 14 computer internet cafe all running linux. I asked them to send me a bill (which I would, of course, ignore).

    But then I let slip I was going to forward it to the California State Attorney General and ask them to sue SCO for attempted fraud.

    Guess that scared them - I never got a bill. :(
  • A poll (Score:3, Funny)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:36PM (#8311831) Homepage Journal
    Whom is SCO about to sue?

    * Google
    * IBM
    * German government
    * Linus
    * Microsoft
    * Me
    * I know but I won't tell
    * CowboyNeal

    Suggest your options
  • by El ( 94934 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:47PM (#8311903)
    You mean (gasp)... it's actually possible that SCO executives lied about something? I am shocked! Shocked and appalled that something so unexpected could happen right here in the good ol' USA, where corporate executives, especially corporate executives that also happen to be lawyers, are known to ALWAYS tell the truth -- even if it hurts!
  • Sue? (Score:3, Funny)

    by SystematicPsycho ( 456042 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:50PM (#8311921)
    Who is this Sue and does she work for SCO?
  • by Kris_J ( 10111 ) * on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:01PM (#8311992) Homepage Journal
    The RIAA is going after all the Kazaa (Windows) users. SCO is going after all the Linux users. Mac users must be feeling pretty unloved, who's going to sue them?
  • by antispamist ( 653732 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:07PM (#8312038) Homepage Journal
    All I have is debt SCO. I'm not a 14 year old like the RIAA likes to sue but I'm still a student. You can have 50% of my debt!

    Hell maybe I'll settle with you and you can have it all!
  • by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:18PM (#8312107)
    It ain't the first one baby, baby it won't be the last:

    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 called cfront.

    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 ,"'To clarify, the individuals reviewing the code had been involved with MIT labs in the past, but are not currently at MIT." ither SCO lied to the public (saying they existed) or SCO lied to the court (saying they didn't exist).

    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 any "Linux licenses" being sold.

    23) Lie: Invoices will be mailed to Linux users by October 15, 2003
    Truth: No invoices were ever mailed.

    24) Lie: SCO did not know of code additions.
    Truth: SCO was participant in process and many additions were made by SCO employees.

    25) Lie: SCO received the D&T Fast 500 recognition because of the strong UNIX market, IP enforcement and the Web services strategy
    Truth: SCO made the list because of revenue growth due exclusively to
  • by Prien715 ( 251944 ) <> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:30PM (#8312192) Journal
    But Linux does have weapons of mass distruction and Iraq stole source code from SCO!


    We don't need to see any evidence. Just listen to the official story.
  • by fishbowl ( 7759 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:51PM (#8312330)
    Some of the latest news in the RedHat case, is that Lehman Brothers came forward with an extortion letter which accuses them of copyright infringement.

    Now, if you'll notice the regular press, they pretty much publish SCO's press releases verbatim, and rarely is any mention made of the controversy surrounding their status.

    If you look at the financial press, you will see NOTHING about the controversy.

    RedHat and IBM are just tech stocks. Nothing there is going to get much attention from the press. I mean, it *is* IBM, but it's still just a tech stock to them, and the whole controversy is a mess. Maybe it's obvious to you and me and PJ, but, to them it's all speculation and rumor.

    The fact is, the stock has been climbing. So when the analysts said "strong buy", they were right. The lawsuits don't matter. The fact that they are going down in flames, perhaps even with the execs going to prison, doesn't matter until it happens. Right now it looks like we all should have been buying the stock when they said "buy" (and probably selling off about now!)

    But now, SCO has thrown down the gauntlet at the feet of Lehman Brothers. I think that is an even worse choice of adversary than IBM! Lehman Brothers, a financial house. The sort of place that will have SEC auditors on full-time staff, and Secret Service agents for security. NOW the financial press will be forced to pull their head out of the sand, or wherever it's stuck, and report that there might just be a problem here.

    Because Lehman Brothers isn't just a tech stock. This isn't something the financial trades can ignore, pretending the issues are too technical or whatever excuse they have, because it's getting on THEIR turf. Also, the brokerage house has the sort of connections that should easily start the press machine reporting on their side of the story.

    Threatening Lehman is absolutely the wackiest thing Darl &Co. have done to date. Even dumber than filing a lawsuit against IBM with no evidence. *WAY* dumber. Who are they gonna sue next? Charles Schwab? Are they TRYING to taunt the SEC into investigating? What could be a more foolish move, when you're doing a pump-n-dump scheme, than to make loud (possibly perjurous) threats in the face of the very people who have the ear of the SEC? A company that employs brokers who are the folks that make those "Strong Buy"/"Strong Sell" recommendations that the traders follow? What could possibly be more stupid or suicidal?

  • Why the countdown? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xihr ( 556141 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:59PM (#8312385) Homepage

    Just because they said they'd sue someone within three months doesn't create any legal obligation for them to meet that deadline, so counting down those three months is useless. They can sue anybody anytime they damn well please.

    Furthermore, if you actually read the Techweb article [] that's linked to in the headline, you'll see the clear implication that the estimate of 90 days was approximate ("I think you'll certainly be seeing that within the next 90 days").

    I mean, come on: Of all the things to call SCO on, this is one of the least constructive.

  • What about Pixar? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Random BedHead Ed ( 602081 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @11:09PM (#8312441) Homepage Journal
    Google is obviously a top choice for the litigious bastards [], but there are other plausible targets.

    One big one is Pixar, or another animation studio. They use a lot of Linux for rendering farms, and some also have used SGI and other UNIXes in the past. They're moving to Linux in a big way.

    And what about a large finance company on Wall Street? Most of them started experimenting with Linux years ago, and some have a lot of systems running it.

    I guess we'll find out by the day's end. It's a sure thing, since SCO would never let its PR face say something and then contradict it in its actions.

  • by vivek7006 ( 585218 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @11:40PM (#8312646) Homepage
    interesting none the less. SCO has posted top-5 [] reasons why people should choose SCO Unix over Linux
  • by Bull999999 ( 652264 ) on Wednesday February 18, 2004 @02:11AM (#8313399) Journal
    Come on SCO... I'm a Linux user... Sue me so that I can be on the Pepsi commerical.

The moon may be smaller than Earth, but it's further away.