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?"
Sue ME!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sue ME!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sue ME!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sue ME!!! (Score:5, Funny)
unlikely. i have it on good authority that they will be using the same formula for choosing victims that the riaa used. so, that means they'll be suing either:
- a twelve year old girl
- a senior citizen who actually owns a mac
you should be safe.Re:Sue ME!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sue ME!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sue ME!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Searching Google "Windows Source Code"
Wow what's this?
windowssourcecode.tar downloaded sucessfully
Well form the looks of it, Microsoft might be the first to be sued by SCO!!! (not flamebait, joke)
Re:Sue ME!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sue ME!!! (Score:5, Funny)
In other words, Kazaa doesn't run on Linux...
Re:Sue ME!!! (Score:3, Funny)
(People should use KazaaLite, or a spyware free client!)
Re:Sue ME!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sue ME!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sue ME!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sue ME!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sue ME!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tatoo?!? (Score:4, Funny)
Whom indeed? (Score:5, Funny)
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!"
Re:Whom indeed? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Linux users begin to bow to SCO's claims of infringement as witnessed today by settling..."
It might prop the stock up for a little while.
Re:Whom indeed? (Score:5, Funny)
Meanwhile, industry wags are saying that God invented SCO to give people a company to hate more than Microsoft.
Re:Whom indeed? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Whom indeed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whom indeed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whom indeed? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Whom indeed? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Whom indeed? (Score:5, Funny)
Sue NASA!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Whom indeed? (Score:4, Insightful)
It will be Google but not for the reason you think (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:It will be Google but not for the reason you th (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It will be Google but not for the reason you th (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.lehman.com/
http://www.groklaw.net/
Not all 'major users of Linux' are Internet companies...
Re:It will be Google but not for the reason you th (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It will be Google but not for the reason you th (Score:5, Interesting)
please sue google! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:please sue google! (Score:4, Informative)
The reason that the Litigious Bastards [sco.com] are no-longer on top of their rightful google search is that:
http://www.sco.com/ is offline
I'm confident that once they're back (and googlebot realises they are) the searchgods will adjust their rankings accordingly.
Re:It will be Google but not for the reason you th (Score:5, Funny)
They could just sue themselves. I mean, they were a friggin Linux shop called Caldera not so long ago, and one of the most prominent, if not *the* most prominent linux distro makers somes years back. If that's not called a heavy Linux user, I don't know what is.
Besides, if they sue themselves, they'll save on stamps to send themselves subpoenas, and they'll be able to use the same lawyers to sue and defend themselves.
Re:It will be Google but not for the reason you th (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It will be Google but not for the reason you th (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It will be Google but not for the reason you th (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, it's funny really: Everybody bitches when the BBC says that the MyDoom virus was likely written by an Open Source Zealot, but it's okay to throw out these stupid accusations whose basis in reality is purely circumstantial, and then mod them up as +5 'Interesting'. Can't have it both ways, folks.
Re:It will be Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Insightful? That's the most hairbrained thing I've seen posted around this whole SCO debate so far, unless you were trying to be funny.
The RIAA got away with the "sue-a-kid" business model because the kid was, technically, breaking the law. Using Linux is not illegal. In fact, all the kid would have to do is show up in court and say "not guilty" and then watch Darl's brother proceed to hang himself before being laughed out of court.
Up to now, SCO has played their cards very carefully so as not to invoke the wrath of the courts (I'm sure they're trying the courts patience, but they're being very careful not to step over that fine line) so they can keep this charade up for as long as possible. Voluntarily bringing this to court would be nothing short of suicidal.
Re:It will be Google (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It will be Google (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, SCO only goes after the little guys like IBM.
Re:It will be Google (Score:4, Interesting)
If they tried to do this, IBM or some other large company with interests in Linux would pay his legal fees. I guess this might be what you meant by someone else paying, but I think that a company (e.g., IBM or Redhat) would step in right away, and it woudn't be a question of how much public sympathy there would be.
I also think that SCO understands this and will avoid this path accordingly.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It will be Google but not for the reason you th (Score:3, Funny)
I fullheartedly agree, old knob.
The solution to it all... (Score:5, Funny)
Clarity (Score:5, Informative)
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 andrew@nccomp.com.
"The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers [nccomp.com]
Re:Clarity (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Clarity (Score:5, Funny)
darl@sco.com
mcbride@sco.com
webmaster@sco.com
pr@sco.com
info@sco.com
Re:Clarity (Score:5, Funny)
fi@sco.com
Re:Clarity (Score:5, Informative)
SCO Targets Major Linux User [techweb.com]
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."
re:Today Is SCO's Deadline To Sue Linux User (Score:5, Funny)
i'm confused (Score:5, Funny)
Windows fAST (Score:5, Funny)
I've got the press release from SCO right here! (Score:5, Funny)
We can't find "www.sco.com"
You can try again by typing the URL in the address bar above.
Or, search the Web:
Re:I've got the press release from SCO right here! (Score:5, Interesting)
It never existed. The Almighty says it has no old record [google.com].
Actually, its interesting that Google cache reports "Content removed at the request of the site's publisher".
Re:I've got the press release from SCO right here! (Score:5, Funny)
Your browser refers to itself as a collective "we"?
Aren't we a pompous browser.
Re:I've got the press release from SCO right here! (Score:3, Funny)
Aren't we a pompous browser.
Imagine a beowolf cluster of browsers, you insensitive clod!
Imagine if they gave a frivolous lawsuit (Score:3, Funny)
(apologies to whomever came up with the original Vietnam War-time adage)
what does this prove? (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll Sue a Friend (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
LS
Sue the pants off of my neighbour (Score:5, Funny)
Pretty Please?
Other big news on SCO (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Darl here... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm taking ownership of www.sco.com, Chris is taking ownership of www.caldera.com, 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.
A sign of things to come? (Score:5, Informative)
Not happening (Score:5, Funny)
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"
The Good Word from GrokLaw (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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..
Re:AT&T Trips Up SCO (Score:5, Funny)
From the same Computerworld article [computerworld.com]:
And then Darl Vader sez: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it further.
Here is a copy of SCO homepage (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps it will be Lehman Brothers... (Score:5, Informative)
SCO will not sue anybody (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
The big crunch (Score:5, Funny)
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 [lifeaftertheoilcrash.net] website literally explodes, covering Google [google.com] 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 [friendopoly.com] websites solely for the purpose of getting people to donate money so they can buy Dance Dance Revolution.
Goatse.cx 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.
Re:The big crunch (Score:3, Funny)
Suicide for SCO to sue anybody else (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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...
The deadline has already passed... (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:The deadline has already passed... (Score:3, Funny)
SCO license for you, sir? (Score:5, Interesting)
This online poll [computerworld.com.au] currently has a small but worrying percentage of people ready to buy SCO licences.
Think if they sued AT&T (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Who Should They Sue? (Score:5, Insightful)
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. MP3.com 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 [nccomp.com]
I tried to be the one! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:I tried to be the one! (Score:4, Funny)
Hot damn! What kind of contests are you entering to win a whole dang internet cafe!? I would have loved to see a copy of that bill, tho
A poll (Score:3, Funny)
* Google
* IBM
* German government
* Linus
* Microsoft
* Me
* I know but I won't tell
* CowboyNeal
Suggest your options
I am shocked! (Score:5, Funny)
Sue? (Score:3, Funny)
--
Who will sue all the Mac users? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Who will sue all the Mac users? (Score:5, Funny)
What mine is yours SCO (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell maybe I'll settle with you and you can have it all!
Possibly, just another lie (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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
Your missing some lies there (Score:5, Funny)
Do I have to file a Motion to Compel Discovery on you?
But Linux does have WMD....er....wait (Score:3, Funny)
Really!
We don't need to see any evidence. Just listen to the official story.
Pissed off Lehman Brothers (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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 [techweb.com] 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)
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.
A bit offtopic but .... (Score:3, Funny)
15 minutes of fame... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uh oh! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I can't believe /. would even post this (Score:3, Informative)
I expect the excuse they will come up with is to say that IBM is a linux user and they are already suing them.
Re:Are you idiots? (Score:3, Funny)
But now that you mention it, we should bring this up to Fox, yet *another* reality show. It could be like the apprentice, but replace Trump with Darl McBride and replace 'you're fired' with 'you're being sued'. Excellent.