Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Caldera Government Operating Systems Software The Courts Unix Your Rights Online News

SCO Says They'll Sue A Linux User Tomorrow 606

Xenographic writes "InfoWorld is reporting that SCO intends to sue a Linux using company. Ordinarily, this would not be newsworthy, as they have not followed through on past threats. However, this time, they have given themselves a concrete deadline--tomorrow. While they claim that it will be one of the "top 1,000" companies, they apparently have yet to decide which company to actually sue. Perhaps they need more practice playing darts?" Reader Fished links to CNET's coverage.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Says They'll Sue A Linux User Tomorrow

Comments Filter:
  • by whig ( 6869 ) * on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:00AM (#8436870) Homepage Journal
    I have three words for Darl McBride: Bring It On!
    • by c1ay ( 703047 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:16AM (#8437046) Homepage
      While they claim that it will be one of the "top 1,000" companies, they apparently have yet to decide which company to actually sue. Perhaps they need more practice playing darts?

      Me thinks they're probably having trouble with their random number generator in Unixware. Why doesn't someone drop Darl [mailto] a line and suggest he try Linux. While you're at it maybe you could suggest that they sue Canopy Group []. You could mention that they're the parent company that owns Caldera and that they're currently anticipating a $5 billion dollar influx from IBM. Since Darl is obviously looking for a big fish maybe he'll try this one.

      • Suing oneself (Score:5, Interesting)

        by yintercept ( 517362 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @02:07AM (#8437673) Homepage Journal
        While you're at it maybe you could suggest that they sue Canopy Group.

        Suing a group that stands to gain by losing the lawsuit would be a shrewd move. It would give SCO greater ability to set the stage for a setting a precedent favorable to SCO.

        However, the shrewdest move would be to sue a company holding the "information wants to be free" line religiously. It is often easy to win the court's favor when your opponent is holding an absurd ideal with religiour fervor. The worst thing would be to sue a well respected company with shrewd leadership, as they are likely to punch real legitimate holes in the SCO case.

    • by H4x0r Jim Duggan ( 757476 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:34AM (#8437187) Homepage Journal
    • by vwjeff ( 709903 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @01:01AM (#8437354)
      What will happen first? A lawsuit from SCO or a DDos against SCO?

      Thoughts anyone?
    • by Art Tatum ( 6890 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @01:27AM (#8437483)
      <monotone>Well, first I just want to say that I do, uhhhhhhh, believe that businesses have a right to protect their investments...</monotone>

      Interviewer begins to droop.

      <monotone>...and of course, President Bush has not shown the, uhhhhhhhhh, leadership that we expect from a Commander-In-Chief on this issue...</monotone>

      Interviewer nods off.

      <monotone>...and, uhhhhhhhh, obviously, SCO has not shown that they have a case and I think they're clearly wrong... </monotone>

      Audience nods off.

      <monotone>...but SCO has clearly shown the leadership to...</monotone>

      Both audience and interviewer have dangerously weak heartbeats.

      <monotone> record is clear in that I believe in the SCO case and, uhhhhhhh...</monotone>

      Most members of the audience are clinically dead. The interviewer is sprawled on the floor.

      <monotone>...those who would question my patriotism by implying that my position has changed on this matter...</monotone>

      Temperature reaches absolute zero as all atomic motion stops.

      <monotone>...which is, uhhhhhhh, why I think I will be your next President. My Vietnam war heroism makes it clear that, uhhhhhh...</monotone>

      • Brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tres ( 151637 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @06:28AM (#8438855) Homepage
        Oh what a tawdry, petty thing this democracy has become... I don't know whether you intended it or not, but your post is brilliantly ironic about the dismal state of our democracy.

        Where people more interested in the tone of voice than the ideas.
        Where people more interested in hair styles than Social Security.
        Where people who would rather feel as if they were just consuming another product they may judge by the pretty packaging and ad campaign.

    • by Walkiry ( 698192 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @06:31AM (#8438864) Homepage
      What Would Brian Boitano Do?

      What would Brian Boitano do
      If he was here right now?
      He'd make a plan, and he'd follow through,
      That's what Brian Boitano'd do!

      When Brian Boitano came
      and knocked at SCO's door
      he kicked Darl's stupid ass
      and with it he wiped the floor.

      Hi de lo de hi de lay!
      Brian Boitano's here!
      So round up all your lasses,
      And tell them to have no fear!
  • Google (Score:5, Funny)

    by TravisWatkins ( 746905 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:00AM (#8436877) Homepage
    Sorry Google, your free ride is over. And in other news, the Miami Dolphins actually won a superbowl!
    • Re:Google (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SphericalCrusher ( 739397 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:08AM (#8436972) Journal
      I think SCO would be afraid to go after Google. Even though deep down it's just two young nerds running it, I'm sure other companies would not want to see Google at risk of being harmed by some little showoff company who can't backup their own claims for copyright infringement.

      Besides, if Google did get sued, it wouldn't harm them that much, because of the IPO that they are releasing soon (hopefully).

      *Looks at Anti-SCO shirt* Sure, I may be a flamebait, but I think it's for a good cause. I'm fed up with all of this SCO nonsense, and I'm pretty sure the open-source/Linux world is also. I just want to see what SCO can really pull off... no more of this standing-in-the-corner-pointing-fingers stuff. Bring it on SCO.
      • Re:Google (Score:5, Funny)

        by Ryan Amos ( 16972 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @01:43AM (#8437568)
        Nah, Google would just route all queries for SCO to scat porn. Which makes sense cause the lawsuit would be a load of shit.
      • Re:Google (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hetairoi ( 63927 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @02:13AM (#8437700) Homepage
        Besides, if Google did get sued, it wouldn't harm them that much, because of the IPO that they are releasing soon (hopefully).

        Really? You don't think so? Why was it that Google delayed that IPO again? Something about bad timing wasn't it?

        Tomorrow, when SCO sues Google, I'm going to link back to this post*. How much longer can they keep this up? The whole story is starting to fall apart so why not have one last huge grandstand move and sue Google. Even your GrandMa has heard of Google, and what's that? MSNBC says some company is sueing them? Noone will ignore the press release, air will be gasped, monocles will pop out of eyes and ladies will swoon. But SCO stock will rise, and rich people will get richer and Darl will have to think of another more astonishing way to get peoples attention or we'll start to ignore him like we should. And SCO still won't have actually done anything.

        *And of course, if they don't, I'm going to ignore it and hope no one notices :)

    • Re:Google (Score:5, Funny)

      by unitron ( 5733 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @01:50AM (#8437608) Homepage Journal
      My faith in SCO's wisdom and perception is so great that I'm sure the first company they sue will be :-)
      • Re:Google (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jrumney ( 197329 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @04:20AM (#8438400)
        Well they were stupid enough to sign a contract for a BINARY ONLY LICENSE while at least some of their customers are busy customizing the kernels on EV1's machines they lease. EV1 can't stop their customers doing this under the GPL, so they've pretty much asked to be sued by somebody.
  • by bc90021 ( 43730 ) * <> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:00AM (#8436880) Homepage
    The article starts:

    The SCO Group on Tuesday will launch its first lawsuit against a Linux user for alleged violations of SCO's intellectual property, SCO Chief Executive Officer Darl McBride said Monday.

    and continues a little later:

    After consulting with its law firm, Boies, Schiller and Flexner, SCO has narrowed down its list of possible targets to a "handful" of the world's 1,000 largest corporations, McBride said. "We're going to file it tomorrow. It's sort of come down to a couple of complaints we have prepared," he said.

    So when they sue an "end user", is it going to be an Executive in a Fortune 1000 company? Or an employee? I assumed "end user" meant your average Joe. They're just asking for trouble (as the article points out) if they sue someone in a Fortune 1000 company.
    • by bored1 ( 758098 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:02AM (#8436896)
      Since when has anything SCO said made sense?
      • by Frymaster ( 171343 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:25AM (#8437126) Homepage Journal
        >>I assumed "end user" meant your average Joe.

        >Since when has anything SCO said made sense?

        hey, it's a valid question! the concept of end user isn't objective, it depends on who you are:

        • if you write commercial software, the end user is joe punter with a computer
        • if you write programming languages, the end user is the person who writes the software for joe punter
        • if you writing operating systems, the end user is everyone from the language writer to the programmer to joe punter. these people are often indistinguishable to os designers.
        • if you design hardware, the end user is the person who writes the operating system.

        of course if you just piss away your valuable dev time posting on slashdot, the end user is whoever has mod points...

      • by S.Lemmon ( 147743 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:41AM (#8437231) Homepage
        Oh, I think it makes perfect sense in a kind of stupid way. Since SCO's just riding on fumes, they need to throw something like this out every few weeks. It's the only way for them to keep up the pretense that they're anything more than a paper tapeworm.. er.. tiger. Reliably, and gullibly, the tech press eats it up giving them a few more days of pseudo-credibility.

        Really, the old on-line adage "don't feed the trolls" seems somehow appropriate.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Maybe they'll sue now that they have a prior business relationship? :P
    • by Daniel_Staal ( 609844 ) <> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:05AM (#8436929)
      And tomorrow we find out...

      They are suing IBM! The company they are already in a lawsuit with!
    • by kfg ( 145172 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:07AM (#8436955)
      They are going to sue the corporation, the legal entity that has person like status.

      And the corporation's lawyers will respond, "Sorry, we bought our Linux from (insert distributor here). You have take your claim to them, and you will receive any compensation you might be due directly from them for selling SCO IP without a valid license. Piss off."

      • by Sparr0 ( 451780 ) <> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:14AM (#8437032) Homepage Journal
        heh, good luck passing that off on the /. crowd. You and I might know that distribution, not use, of unlicensed IP is a crime, but its like banging your head against the wall to try to explain that to anyone.
      • by debrain ( 29228 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @01:51AM (#8437609) Journal
        And the corporation's lawyers will respond, "Sorry, we bought our Linux from (insert distributor here). You have take your claim to them, and you will receive any compensation you might be due directly from them for selling SCO IP without a valid license. Piss off."

        The deference argument might not work because of privity. In their mystery world, SCO has a relationship with the particular fortune 500 company, because it is violating SCO's copyright. SCO does not necessarily have a relationship with the distributor. SCO has a right to sue them, too, but Linux distributors are not deep pockets or headline grabbers. A property holder, and similarly in the case of constructive property like copyright, can claim any infringement against any violator, in intent or negligence.

        This permits people who copy movies to be as liable as people who possess bootlegs. It is the use (or presumed use) which is violated, and that use often flows from presence. In other words, SCO will say "look, that Acme Co. is violating our property rights by benefitting from their use of Linux." It is possible that it's more likely that you can distribute Linux than you can actually use it, but both are copyright infringements in the absence of permission (as explicitly set out in the GNU GPL), and the "use" of Linux is possibly an ancillary claim of "unjust enrichment" to the user in addition to restitution.

        A half-ass analogy would be a movie theatre that rents a DVD at blockbuster and puts it through a projector to make money off of it in public sales, directly contrary to the copyright stipulations on the movie that prohibit redistribution, sale, or profit without prior written authorization. The copyright holder/MPAA isn't going to go after Blockbuster, who legally (or illegally if it's bootlegged) distributed the copyright material, but rather the theatre which also violated the rights. The theatre has (a) potentially deeper pockets, (b) directly, and intentionally or negligently infringed the rights of the property holder, and (c) no means of indemnification through the distributor. The corollary is that there is no onus upon the distributor to validate a use of the purchaser.

        In other words, if the use of Linux is part of the claim, not just possession, the Fortune 500 company has no indemnification through the distributor. Unless there was an explicit indemnification clause in the distributor's license (GPL? BSD? etc.) or contract, it is unlikely, or I'd go so far as to say impossible, to pass the buck to them.

        The Fortune 500 company is almost certain to be a valid target of SCO's claim. Mind you, being a valid target does not validate the claim itself!
    • by TheLinuxSRC ( 683475 ) <> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:08AM (#8436966) Homepage
      The SCO Group on Tuesday will launch its first lawsuit against a Linux user for alleged violations of SCO's intellectual property, SCO Chief Executive Officer Darl McBride said Monday.

      I didn't see anywhere where they said it involved SCO IP in Linux. Just a Linux user misusing SCO IP. Might be a minor distinction. Might not.
    • by Dalcius ( 587481 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:08AM (#8436968)
      "They're just asking for trouble (as the article points out) if they sue someone in a Fortune 1000 company."

      I don't know if you can really get much worse than IBM. IBM's been around the block, they've been the bad dog, have more US patents than most nations have in their patent registry, and probably have more elite, fire-breathing IP layers than SCO has employees.

      And SCO is suing for three billion.

      Of course, more straw on the camel's back won't do them any good, but I fail to see how they could have picked a harder target than what they already have.

    • by wildcard023 ( 184139 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:21AM (#8437096) Homepage

      This is so exciting! I wonder if Dick Clark will come to my house to tell me if I win!

      Who ever does win this honor will be lavished with attention, job offers, pro bono lawyers and scads of cash from the counter suit.

      Where do I sign up?

    • by MrLint ( 519792 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:29AM (#8437154) Journal
      it hardly matters who they sue, there will be a nearly instantaneous filing of an injunction until the case against IBM is done. Everything SCO would be suing on is currently part of another lawsuit. I have a hard time seeing any judge letter a second suit go forward while the facts of ownership are in question.
  • Oh, good call SCO (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:01AM (#8436885) Homepage
    Yeah, good thinking there McBride. Sue a company with deep pockets and vicious lawyers. Good call.

    Personally, I woulda sued... Well... Me.

    • by CeleronXL ( 726844 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:09AM (#8436984) Homepage
      But by this point their goal isn't necessarily to win, or at least I wouldn't think. They know that they're going down, and they want to go down tearing Linux off its high perch along with them. Sueing a Fortune 1000 company is a good way to make a high profile case against Linux very popular, thus spreading further FUD everywhere.
      • That, or... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ieshan ( 409693 ) <`ieshan' `at' `'> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @01:02AM (#8437359) Homepage Journal
        That, or they could be trying the Kazaa trick.

        The idea is, they can't possibly win, but they can attract lots and lots of attention to themselves because they can drag out the trial ad infinitum. By suing someone really big who people expect would have a strong case instead of someone small, people will apply the false analogy that SCO has a strong case and can win lots of cash.

        I've heard many older folks repeatedly say that "trading music is okay now", because they've conflated the idea that Kazaa sued the RIAA with the idea that there happen to be legal places to buy music online. SCO is hoping that they can scum up the same type of conflation: "SCO is suing IBM for using that bad, bad linux thing (the one we saw on those IBM commercials), and Microsoft says Linux is bad..., and we use Windows at home... and..."
    • Re:Oh, good call SCO (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jason Earl ( 1894 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:20AM (#8437084) Homepage Journal

      Yes, it would have made more sense to sue someone like you if SCO was actually trying to win the lawsuit. However, you can't trick investors into thinking that you can extract $3 billion from "Skyshadow," but it is at least theoretically possible to extract $3 billion from IBM. With a little help from Microsoft and Sun (to add a bit of legitimacy to the claims), SCO had all the tools it needed to extract millions of dollars from the stock market.

      The trick, of course, is to promise investors the moon to drive up the stock price, and then use the high stock price to either cash out or to purchase (at inflated prices) other companies that SCO backers have an interest in (like Vultus).

      The reason that SCO is going to sue someone tomorrow is that on the 3rd they are supposed to post their quarterly earnings. My guess is that the financial reports are going to be very very bad and the new law suit is designed to draw attention away from the bottom line.

  • by Tsali ( 594389 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:01AM (#8436891)
    I pick Starbucks, for it is the hub of Dr. Evil's empire - and Scott (aka McBride) wants to get back at his father's transgression.

    Either that or RedHat.

  • That's it. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:02AM (#8436894)
    I'm not reading any more SCO stories. Really. I mean it. This is the last comment you will see from the fnkmaster in a SCO story. No more. Nada.

    Aaaaaah, fuck it, who am I kidding.

    It's like shoveling jelly beans into your mouth at the candy store - sure, it rots your teeth out and you end up with diabetes, but it tastes so damned good you can't help yourself.

  • by chrisopherpace ( 756918 ) <.ten.gsnh. .ta. .ecapc.> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:02AM (#8436895) Homepage
    this whole SCO mess is really out of hand and absurd. They will be suing a Linux user for what? Using software legally? They haven't won their case with IBM. This is all just absolutely outrageous! They're suing someone based on what someone else did (and they haven't even proved that much in court). I hope the "victim" of SCO's suit couter-sues their asses into tomorrow.
  • Yup, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by herrvinny ( 698679 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:02AM (#8436897)
  • by pavon ( 30274 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:02AM (#8436902)
    ... Themselves.

    Nevermind, thats a lawsuit they might actually win. Given their current record of idiocy and bad public relations, my guess is that it will be the the Pope []
  • by Fiona Winger ( 758088 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:03AM (#8436904) Journal
    I can just see the headlines: "12 year old girl sued by SCO for using Linux!"
  • Perhaps (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tokerat ( 150341 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:03AM (#8436906) Journal

    ...this is why Google delayed it's IPO?

    DISCLAIMER: Complete and total speculation.
  • by Dalcius ( 587481 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:03AM (#8436910)
    Dear Mr. McBride,

    This is March, not April. Please refrain from wasting all of our good material until that time.

    Thank you,
  • by agentZ ( 210674 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:04AM (#8436919)
    Did he fire six court briefs, or only five? Tell 'ya the truth, in all of this excitement I've sort of lost track myself. But given that this is Free and Open Source Software community, the most powerful group of advocates, coders, and corporate lawyers on the planet, and would blow your company's revenue clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well do 'ya, punk?
    • by dj245 ( 732906 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:57AM (#8437331) Homepage
      And the Lord spake, and he said that the number of the court briefs shall be three. Four shall the number of court briefs not be, neither shall the number of the court briefs be two, without directly proceeding to three forthwith. Five is right out. And when the number three, being the third number of court briefs being filed, be reached, I shall reach out with my most holiest of minor court officials and give unto you a card entitling thee to 1 free copy at the courthouse copy machine, whenever 10 copies have been made immediately preceeding it, 9 shall the number of copies not be.....
  • SCO will sue EV1! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZeeTeeKiwi ( 615374 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:04AM (#8436920)
    After all, "contracts are what you use against your customers".

    As other have pointed out, EV1 can't comply with SCO's linux license and still get Redhat patches, so there is actually a case that SCO can win against them now.

  • How about... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arsenick ( 115431 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:04AM (#8436923)
    actually DOING it instead of saying...
  • by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <<splisken06> <at> <>> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:06AM (#8436939)
    Darl, Dave and Co. have stuck to previous carved in stone, we mean it this time, bet the farm, we're not kidding, STOP LAUGHING AT US, deadlines before.

    I'll just be holding my breath over there, in the corner.

  • by mikeee ( 137160 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:06AM (#8436940)
    Gosh, I'm sure they're all broken up about the fact that this will distract from their quarterly earnings announcement the day after tomorrow.
  • by nmoog ( 701216 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:07AM (#8436946) Homepage Journal
    EV1Servers.Net has purchased site licenses from SCO for its two data centers for an undisclosed seven figure sum, according to SCO.
  • Big surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mehaiku ( 754091 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:07AM (#8436954) Homepage

    OK now let me make sure I have all of this straight. Wednesday is the day the SCO quarterly non-earnings report will be released, which most likely won't be good news. So, on Tuesday, the day before the report is released, SCO makes a stock, I mean lawsuit announcement. Do I detect a pattern here?
  • Walmart (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rjamestaylor ( 117847 ) <> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:10AM (#8436996) Journal
    Fortune 25 company, sells Linux on PCs (Lindows, Lycoris, Mandrake). Isn't an ISP or a tech company.

    That's my best guess.

    If it happens.

    Hasn't yet.

    • Re:Walmart (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ktakki ( 64573 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @01:38AM (#8437546) Homepage Journal
      Maybe, maybe not.

      Maybe: Walmart is somewhat vulnerable, having been recently accused by the US DoJ of knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Also, they've taken a lot of heat in the press lately, due to the public perception that they're responsible for displacing local businesses (mom 'n' pop stores, the mainstays of "Main Street, USA"). Witness their recent ad campaign, an attempt to soften their image.

      Maybe not: Walmart is huge. Mother huge. Makes IBM look like a candy store. 1.3 million employees huge. Consider that the US workforce is 139 million: this means that nearly 1 out of 100 working people in this country work for Walmart.

      Also, getting money out of Wally World is like squeezing blood from a rock. I know this from experience; a relative of mine is one of their software vendors. Walmart doesn't pay until the invoice is marked "FINAL NOTICE - WE MEAN IT THIS TIME - YOU PAY NOW OR DIE!!!" in 72 point blood red type.

      Sam Walton might be dead and buried, but his management style lives on at Wally World. Before he died, he was the richest man in the US (before Bill Gates, basically the Windows 1.0 era), but he drove an old pickup truck. To say he was stingy would be the ultimate understatement.

      So, in the spirit of that parsimonious old fuck, I think Walmart would rather spend $10 million fighing SCO than settle for $1 million, just out of principle, since it would be a sign of weakness to settle out of court. And just for spite, they'd insist that all of their suppliers maintain a SCO-free shop or lose their shelf-space. It would be like Rome and Carthage all over again, with SCO razed and salted, their employees sold into slavery.

  • by cluge ( 114877 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:11AM (#8437000) Homepage
    Someone needs to charge SCO with raqueteering and extortion. SCO has made several claims, but has yet to offer proof, and it's own case has changed so much that it barely resembles the original case presented almost a year ago.

    By suing a Linux end users, SCO is in effect trying to use courts to extort money. The definition of extort is "to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power". I cannot see the difference between SCO's actions, press releases and the running a criminal enterprise.

    If they (SCO) truly wished to protect their IP, they would proceed with their case and quit stalling. The Linux community would respond, in defference to and in respect to an IP rights. I think that is the crux of SCO's problem, Linux would respond by respectfully removing any proven IP content. If they can extort money from people instead of actually proving their case, then the profit margin goes up. So what if extortion is illegal.

    AngryPeoplePeopleRule []
  • by NZheretic ( 23872 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:13AM (#8437030) Homepage Journal
    Since 1994, both Caldera ( which only changed its name to The SCO Group in 2003 ) and the Santa Cruz Operation ( The original SCO which changed its name to Tarentella ) have accepted, profited from and redistributed copyrighted source code from hundreds of developers under the terms of the GPL license. []
    The SCO Group has failed to put forward ANY substantial legal theory why the SCO Group should not be obligated to abide by the terms of the GPL. .html []
    The SCO Group obligations under the GPL has been reiterated and reinforced in the legal positions of IBM, Redhat and Novell in their respective cases against the SCO Group.

    It is a criminal offense to claim, with fraudulent intent, that you have a copyright if you do not. The SCO Group does *NOT* hold the copyrights to the UNIX source code. Novell has *NOT* transfered the title for the works that the SCO Group fraudulently filed for copyright in 2003. The SCO Group do not have the right to sue anybody for violation of copyright works without the assent of the title holder.

    The SCO Group claims the right to sue for work in standard UNIX and POSIX interfaces that AT&T and Novell granted full rights to use royalty free in perpetuity for the ISO, ANSI and FIPS federal standards.

    The SCO Group's contract claims against IBM and others based upon the AT&T license in respect to rights of so called derivative works is in direct contradiction to evidence presented to the SCO Group by Novell.

    The SCO Group though the press and SEC filings, has bolstered the share price of the SCO Group based upon demonstrably false claims to the contrary of above points 1,2 and 3. The SCO Group CEOs and legal agents were notified by Novell and IBM *before* making these false claims and presenting them as fact. The actions of the SCO Group must be in violation of several SEC regulations.

    So how is the lawsuit going to go if it gets to court?
    Eben Moglen's Harvard Speech []

    The Transcript 03735733 []

    The McBrides, jointly -- I feel sometimes as though I'm in a Quentin Tarantino movie of some sort with them [laughter] -- the McBrides have failed to distinguish adequately between dicta and holding.

    I do not like Eldred against Ashcroft. I think it was wrongly decided. I filed a brief in it, amicus curiae, and I assisted my friend and colleague Larry Lessig in the presentation of the main arguments which did not, regrettably, succeed.

    Oddly enough, and I will take you through this just enough to show, oddly enough, it is the position that we were taking in Eldred against Ashcroft, which if you stick to holding rather than dicta, would be favorable to the position now being urged by Mr. McBride. What happened in Eldred against Ashcroft, as opposed to the window dressing of it, is actually bad for the argument that Mr. McBride has been presenting, whichever Mr. McBride it is. But they have not thought this through enough.

    Let me show you why. The grave difficulty that SCO has with free software isn't their attack; it's the inadequacy of their defense. In order to defend yourself in a case in which you are infringing the freedom of free software, you have to be prepared to meet a call that I make reasonably often with my colleagues at the Foundation who are here tonight. That telephone call goes like this. "Mr. Potential Defendant, you are distributing my client's copyrighted work without permission. Please stop. And if you want to continue to distribute it, we'll help you to get b

  • by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:27AM (#8437140)
    C'mon SCO gimme your best shot.
  • Weird. (Score:5, Funny)

    by ivern76 ( 665227 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:28AM (#8437143)
    Something must be wrong with my browser. I mean, it's obvious that there's words in the article but all I see is "Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!"
  • by daperdan ( 446613 ) * on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:29AM (#8437157)
    The company, Houston-based EV1Servers.Net has purchased site licenses from SCO for its two data centers for an undisclosed seven figure sum, according to SCO.

    This has to be bullshit. There's no way that EV1 is going to pay 7 figures for a license from these pricks. They operate on a razor thin margin at $99 bucks per month per server. This is a bargin basement hosting facility. I call bullshit on this this statement. The price was probably:
    $1,000,000 - License Fee
    - $999,900 - Early Bird license discount.

    I want to see the additional 7 figures in the quarterly report. 7 figures my ass.
  • by LittleGuy ( 267282 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:32AM (#8437180)

    They'll sue a user
    Bet your parity digit
    That tomorrow
    One'll be found!

    SCO will find
    Someone running Linux
    On their desktop
    And they'll frown!

    They've been stuck in a daze
    'Bout OpenSource
    Now they'll file their briefs
    Cry "Thiefs!'
    'Til Hoarse.....

    The suit will be filed
    Darl will have his kilo of geek
    Come tomorrow
    So he'll say......
    Tomorrow! Tomorrow!
    He'll sue them Tomorrow!
    It's always
    A day
    A way!
  • by LordK3nn3th ( 715352 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:33AM (#8437182)
    I'm waiting for someone to post that goddamn redundant Chewbacca defense again.
  • by rossz ( 67331 ) <`ogre' `at' `'> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:40AM (#8437223) Homepage Journal
    Really. I mean it. I have Linux running on two computers. I'm working a crappy low paying job so could really use the great publicity the lawsuit would bring.

    Come on. I dare you.

    I double dare you!

    You pussies.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @12:54AM (#8437314)
    SCO is either:

    a) Going to pass this by, probably with a lot of angry geeks and scared company CEOs. Watch as their target "bought a license at the last minute" and they don't even disclose who it is.

    b) Sue someone, get laughed out of court while trying to hold it as long as they can, and die anyway. Stealing people's money in the process for their license fees. Hopefully, the SEC will get off their ass and stop them.
  • by EzInKy ( 115248 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @01:00AM (#8437343) are already a SCOG customer. From the CNET article:

    "The first target will be a company that has a Unix license from SCO already, giving SCO some contractual leverage in the case. McBride said. In addition, the suit will involve copyright infringement claims."

    Darl continuies to make it obvious that the worse possible decision a company can make is do business with him.
  • Rackspace? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stox ( 131684 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @01:00AM (#8437344) Homepage
    Hmmm, and EV1's largest competitor would be? From SCO's perspective, it would mean hitting a few thousand birds with one stone. EV1 then swoops in, and tells potential clients that they are safe with them. Before the dust settles, EV1 might make a good return on their investment. Sleezy, but since when did that have anything to do with business?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @01:05AM (#8437380)
    Seriously. Their stock is dropping.

    SCO is not a software company. It's a publicly traded lawsuit. They've delayed and delayed and delayed too long with IBM and the truth is getting out. If they don't start another lawsuit their entire business model is threatened.
  • by Eric_Cartman_South_P ( 594330 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @01:10AM (#8437399)
    SCO will sue a user. There are 280,000,000 people in the US.

    That means... drum-roll please... we have a chance (1/280,000,000) it's the same plump 12 year old chick who got busted by the RIAA!

    Imagine seeing her next superbowl? "Hi, I'm totally fucked over and never touching a computer again. Choose Franklin Covey(R), the best choice in paper organizers."

  • by Facekhan ( 445017 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @01:20AM (#8437454)
    I would think that no disclaimer can get you out of trouble if it is found out that you sold someone something that was not yours to sell. If and when SCO loses their case against ibm and quite possibly loses to Novell as well then their claims on Linux will be false. (as if they were not already) If I go out and sell licenses on Microsoft software in addition to the ones companies already have and later it is proven that I have no right to sell such licenses then those companies have the right to get their money back or I am very likely in criminal law territory for fraud. No contract between two private parties can render a person or company immune from criminal liability and in the case of fraud such as selling something that is not yours to sell, the contract would be void anyways. IANAL but those half dozen big companies are big enough to convince the justice dept to send SCO's officers to prison for fraud when the time comes. Darl may very well end up where he belongs, well at least in club fed.

    "McBride said the arrangement with is perpetual and that SCO doesn't offer companies their money back if courts later find SCO's claims baseless. It will bring in revenue that will be material to SCO's financial results, he added."
  • by El ( 94934 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @02:54AM (#8438022)
    The only Linux using company that is not like to kick their ass in court is... SCO. I predict that tomorrow, in a brilliant PR move, SCO will SUE THEMSELVES for using Linux! A case in which they will almost certainly prevail!
  • by glassesmonkey ( 684291 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @03:43AM (#8438270) Homepage Journal
    I keep waiting for the poll to change to:

    Which Linux user is SCO going to sue next?




    Microsoft (oh the irony)

    State of California

    U.S. Government

    A 12 yr old girl


  • by Make ( 95577 ) <max.duempel@org> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @04:08AM (#8438349) Homepage
    (sorry, it's German - we Germans laugh best about SCO :p)

    Zehn kleine UNIX Zeilen
    Reicht man ein zur Klage.
    Die eine die auf griechisch war,
    War leider viel zu vage.

    Neun kleine UNIX Zeilen
    Sollten es begrunden.
    Die eine war trotz groBter Muh'
    In LINUX nicht zu finden.

    Acht kleine UNIX Zeilen
    Dienten zum Beweise.
    Die eine war aus BSD,
    Pech fur Anwalt Heise.

    Sieben kleine UNIX Zeilen,
    Kamen vor Gericht.
    Die eine war 'ne Fehlernummer,
    Die taugte dazu nicht.

    Sechs kleine UNIX Zeilen,
    Sollten es belegen.
    Doch eine kam zur GPL
    Durch SCO Kollegen.

    Funf kleine UNIX Zeilen
    Waren noch dabei.
    Die eine kam von einem Band
    Mit Aufschrift System Drei.

    Vier kleine UNIX Zeilen,
    Doch eine, sonderbar,
    Gehorte nicht zum dem Programm,
    Sie war ein Kommentar.

    Drei Kleine UNIX Zeilen,
    Waren das Problem.
    Eine war zwar System Five,
    Doch kam von IBM.

    Zwei kleine UNIX Zeilen,
    Waren noch geblieben.
    Die eine war schon reichlich alt
    Und kam von System Sieben.

    Eine kleine UNIX Zeile
    Wurde angefuhrt.
    Die hatte Linus Torvalds selbst
    Am Anfang programmiert.

    Ohne eine UNIX Zeile
    Kann SCO nichts machen.
    Doch eines muss man zugestehn:
    Wir hatten was zu lachen.

    Hier zeigt sehr schon ein Kinderlied,
    Warum McBride die Wahrheit mied.

    stolen from Heise forum []

    (now some foo to exploit the lameness filter - damn you slashcode!) # Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 14.1).

  • by steveoc ( 2661 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @04:10AM (#8438355)
    It will definately be either Google, or a firewall manufacturer.

    Why ?

    Microsoft has made big noises lately about moving into the search engine space, and also made noises about an impending firewall product.

    SCO, taking orders from above, will target the competion in these areas, hoping to tie them up in court for ages, so that Microsoft can enter these markets with reduced competition.

    You dont even need a tinfoil hat to see that one coming.

  • by Phil Wherry ( 122138 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @10:15AM (#8439842) Homepage
    I'm pretty sure they'll follow through on the threat this time. The reason? SCO has an earnings call on March 3 []. While their legal case is pretty clearly going nowhere, they do seem media-savvy enough to know that a loudly-trumpeted lawsuit against a high-profile company will distract the analyst/media community enough to help them avoid questions they'd rather not answer.

God help those who do not help themselves. -- Wilson Mizner