Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

SCO Postpones Lawsuit, Now Threatening Two 532

zzxc writes "In a surprise turn of events, SCO says that they need more time to prepare an announcement of who they are going to sue. According to SCO, the lawsuits will be announced tomorrow morning shortly before a phone-in conference in which will be outlining their financial report. You can call 1-800-818-5264 code 141144 Wednesday at 9:00am MST to join in with your questions, or listen to the webcast. They also have said that these first two lawsuits will be against companies that hold SCO Unix licenses. ( servers or Lindows?)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Postpones Lawsuit, Now Threatening Two

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Ummm.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by toltas ( 466545 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @09:32PM (#8447487)
    That's only in Germany and other smarter countries.

    And im an American =\

  • Re:Ummm.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by nmoog ( 701216 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @09:33PM (#8447501) Homepage Journal
    Google, which uses thousands of Linux servers to power its search engine, is not the target of the initial suits, Stowell added.
    Nope. Not google. Then again they said they'd sue someone today, and they lied about that as well.
  • Still (Score:3, Informative)

    by kaizenfury7 ( 322351 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @09:34PM (#8447509)
    Interestingly enough, although their stock (SCOX) ha s been in a decline for the past few months (it was 16+ the last time that I saw) it jumped quite a bit today. Up 1.15 to 13.42. Any reason why?
  • Re:Wha? (Score:4, Informative)

    by prat393 ( 757559 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @09:35PM (#8447515)
    EV1 holds a linux license. Unix licensees are people who pay to use Unix, i.e. AIX, Solaris, etc.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @09:40PM (#8447599)
    Because originally SCO architected and did the preliminary work as a Service deal. Part of the contract that SCO delivered to Lindows stated that SCO would 'take care' of the GPL aspects of the code and would not provide anything that might get Lindows into trouble such as tainted source code etc etc etc.....

    Lindows later went their own way and pursued a more debian focused route, however the contract still stands, though is ulimately open to interpretation
  • Re:Ummm.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by zurab ( 188064 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @09:47PM (#8447688)
    Google is probably on the list.

    Ahh the magic of the linked article:

    Google, which uses thousands of Linux servers to power its search engine, is not the target of the initial suits, Stowell added.

    Besides, I don't know what legal principle they can use to sue any Linux user. Copyright violation? No. Contract violation? No, most don't have any contracts with SCO. Patents? They've never said anything about those. Trade secrets? Nope.

    So, what are they mumbling? Anyone they can sue has to have a contract with them, i.e. be a licensee, so they can allege a contract violation (like IBM). Maybe SGI? Novell? Sun? Who knows. They have exactly nothing to go after Linux users in general.
  • by cynical kane ( 730682 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @09:48PM (#8447694)
    Haven't you posted this before?
  • Re:No Surprise (Score:0, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @09:51PM (#8447724)
    Holy crap. If you don't know what you're talking about, just shut the fuck up. Patents have nothing to do with anything except IBM's countersuit. I don't know who is worse, know-nothing posters who insist on displaying their ignorance or the moderaters who mod them "insightful".
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @09:57PM (#8447778)
    mod this whore down, he stole this from some other guy yesterday. mods, you deserve to have your genitals bitten off for that.
  • AutoZone (Score:5, Informative)

    by ceswiedler ( 165311 ) * <> on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @10:00PM (#8447807)
    I bet one of them is AutoZone. SCO is pissed that AutoZone switched from SCO Unix to Linux, and claims that couldn't have been done without violating their IP. The meat of their argument is on groklaw here [] (Supplemental #8), and if you scroll down you can see some AutoZone employees refute the argument. Search for the comment by 'jbgreer'.
  • Bagholders Inc. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @10:11PM (#8447878)

    Yeah, they're known as "bagholders". These are the imbeciles that know nothing about the company, the case(s) or in fact anything, except a) that the PR says "We'll sue" and b) When companies announce that they'll sue, they go up. Also, there was the "We sold an IP license" thingy, you might remember? The one that noone know if it brought in any money for SCOX, but it sure made a lot of PR!

    Anyhow; The bagholders are then sold into by insiders, which make a tidy profit.

    The job of the bagholders then is to sit around and watch the stock slowly fall down again.

    Typically they'll panic and sell at a big loss. Some bagholders are smarter and hang around for the second wave of bagholders and make it out at plus/minus zero.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @10:12PM (#8447886)
    He is becoming the laughing stock of everyone.
    What have we had -
    - lies
    - more lies
    - hilarious claims
    - court battles, ridiculous by any account
    - accusations that he will sue (lies again)

    Sigh... This guy is so strange. Is it something that can be traced back to mormonism? Does multi-wivery rot the brains?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @10:40PM (#8448123)
    Hmm. I think I'm going to get a head start on that, if that's ok with everyone.

    *loads up*

    -- Super Ugly Ultraman
  • by runswithd6s ( 65165 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @10:43PM (#8448152) Homepage

    I'm not an advocate of the "ignore the problem and maybe it will go away", but I can't help but feel that the highly public coverage of SCO's charade is nothing more than a method to inflate their stock. I honestly don't care any more.

    Perhaps I'm placing too much faith in IBM, Linus, Red Hat, Novell, and numerous parties in their fight against the cancerous SCO, but I honestly believe that SCO has absolutely no chance of winning. If they did, we may as well quit our jobs right now before the market crumbles under their letigious ambitions drive us into the ground.

    Let me reitterate. SCO, you have no chance of winning. Quit now and forever hold your peace.

  • by yog ( 19073 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @10:51PM (#8448205) Homepage Journal
    Moderators found this interesting, but it's still off topic.

    And how many times do you need to repeat [] this posting before everyone gets your point, Mr. Karma Whore?

  • by linuxguy ( 98493 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @11:05PM (#8448286) Homepage

    Look for it on the right side of the front page.
  • Re:Basically (Score:4, Informative)

    by Unoti ( 731964 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @11:18PM (#8448374) Journal
    That is good reading. My favorite part is where teh SCO PR guy says, "I find that there is so much misinformation on Groklaw that is misconstrued and twisted that it's probably one step above a lot of the ranting and dribble that takes place on Slashdot.'. . ." Isn't is drivel, not dribble?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @11:41PM (#8448524)
    Disclaimer: IANAL. I am, however, a teleconference operator.

    Do you want to ask Darl McBride an embarrasing question or two in front of most of the financial world? Sure, we all do!

    The problem, however, is this: In a financial results call, not just anyone is allowed to ask a question. The people presenting the call get to pick and choose who gets to speak. Usually, private investors, media, and anyone from a company that has generated bad press do not get called on. So what can we do to weasel our way to the front of the question queue?

    Well, if SCO has set up their call intelligently, nothing. The access code, 141144, might be the public access code, with a different code (or even a different phone number) given to people who can be trusted to ask "good" questions. But if everyone is coming in on the same number, then we have a chance.

    You'll know you have a shot at a question if, instead of being joined to the call immediately after entering your access code, you instead talk to an operator. The operator will most likely ask you your name, your company's name, and maybe your phone number. If this happens, lie to them. Make up a name and phone number, and tell them that you are with an investment firm. Just pick something: CIBC World Markets, Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse First Boston, Goldman Sachs, anything like that will do. Bonus points if you pick a company that has invested in SCO. Write down your information so that you can remember it! The trick is to make yourself look like you'll ask a safe question, so that they'll look at you in the queue and say, "Hey, let's take that Eddie Smith from CSFB next..."

    If you do get called on for a question, remember:
    1) Be polite. "OMG Darl SUXXORZ!!!" will just generate a "There are no further questions at this time" from the operator.
    2) Ask a difficult question that Darl hasn't answered before. Let him hang himself, it'll sink in better with the investors that way.
    3) Keep going until they cut you off. They're not likely to let many more unfamiliar names ask questions after this.
    4) If anyone asks, you didn't get any of these ideas from Slashdot.

    Here's hoping for a great conference tomorrow!

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday March 02, 2004 @11:50PM (#8448588) Homepage
    If you haven't been following the aftermath of Enron and WorldCom, here's how that's finally unwinding.

    At Enron, Glisan was convicted and is in the pen. (He's inmate #20293-179 [] at FDC Houston.) Fastow has pled guilty and is awaiting sentencing, which comes after he has "cooperated". He's cooperating. Skilling, the former CEO, has been indicted. Ken Lay is still unindicted, but that may yet happen.

    At Worldcom, Sullivan just pled guilty, and Ebbers, the former CEO, has just been indicted.

    It takes a while. But there is some justice left. Let's wait and see what happens with SCO.

  • by johnpaul191 ( 240105 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @12:00AM (#8448652) Homepage
    just remember caller-ID blocking does NOT work on 800 numbers in the USA.... i don't think it really matters but it's worth mentioning since people seem to forget that before they mouth off to Miss Cleo and wonder why she knows who they are.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @12:03AM (#8448677)
    They are going to sue a SCO UNIX license holder not Linux IP license.. but then again.... who can still keep track of all the happenings recently?
  • Who's up first? (Score:4, Informative)

    by linuxguy ( 98493 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @12:50AM (#8449020) Homepage
    I generally dont spend a lot of time reading parodies, but this one was good. I highly recommend it *after* watching the Darl interview video, posted on [] front page today. Look for it on the right side of the page.

    Who's up first []

    Higly entertaining content.
  • The correct term... (Score:3, Informative)

    by The Monster ( 227884 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @01:05AM (#8449093) Homepage
    Who really expected them to follow through?
    Someone over at Groklaw described this perfectly...
    Which, while theoretically redundant, captures the essence of what we're witnessing.
  • by SoLO ( 91992 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @02:16AM (#8449434)
    You can listen to the call online here, once it starts: []
  • by Uzull ( 16705 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @03:47AM (#8449838) Homepage
    Hi, we have been in the discussion with being a high profile candidate for SCO (advertising our Linux Support for our customer's solutions)... Our Lawyer said simply : Buy a set of Linux CD Boxes and Support from SuSE, now Novell! The older, the better!
    If SCO or their Lawyers show, up show them that you are using this system, and friendly point towards the case between Novell and SCO, and that once the issues have been resolved between those 2 parties, you would be willing to comply with whatever the outcome is.
  • Confabulation (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @03:53AM (#8449866)
    There are many synonyms for "to confuse", but "to confabulate" is not one of them. To confabulate means to fabricate a false memory based on your after-the-fact logical beliefs about what must have happened.
  • Re:No Surprise (Score:4, Informative)

    by gujo-odori ( 473191 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @04:06AM (#8449917)
    Not necessarily.

    For example, let's that about the time SCO announced this whole fiasco, I had gone out and bought some SCO stock (I didn't, ain't go no money, but let's say for the sake of argument that I had).

    First, I have not invested in SCO per se. I have invested in stock, but SCO didn't get my money, the person I bought the stock from got it. Whatever money SCO got from that stock came the first time they sold it. They got nothing from any sale after that. Now, if my buy was part of a general pattern of buying, then that pushes the price up and Darl can sell some of his stock and make money, or SCO could issue some new stock (AFAIK the didn't), although that would tend to push the share price down (supply and demand).

    So, here I sit with some SCO stock that I bought, but I have not really invested any money in SCO. The money is invested in the stock, but SCO doesn't get any of that money.

    Now, am I crooked? Or do I just think that whatever SCO's chances, some fool is going to come a long later and be willing to pay a lot more per share for this stock than I did, allowing me to sell it at a profit before the trial is over and walk away. SCO later goes down in flames and the stock is worthless. I made my profit, and SCO benefited not at all from my ownership of their stock.

    Is anything about that crooked, or even supportive of SCO? No, not at all. Is it a gamble? Yes. Perhaps less of one than sitting down at a table in Las Vegas, but a gamble nevertheless. I suspect that most of the holders of SCO stock are not particularly supporters of SCO, except to the extent that their hope of having the stock go up makes them hope that SCO prevails; most of them are probably simply people who believe (or at least hope) that the stock will go up and they will therefore profit.

    Oh, and in the meanwhile, my owning stock would give me voting power in shareholders' meetings; a hostile takeover of SCO could have stopped this suit dead in its tracks. Imagine if Linux supporters had bought all available SCO shares :-) Of course, that's what an IBM buyout of SCO would have achieved, and what they may well have been privately hoping would happen.

    Now, of course, it would be a bad time to buy. However, anyone who could and did buy SCO stock back when this first started to brew up made a shrewd move, and if they have since sold, a tidy profit. There's nothing wrong with that, and certainly no support of SCO in it. It's just buying a thing and later selling it for more than the purchase price. SCO gets nothing of either.
  • by choconutdancer ( 576542 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:59AM (#8450831)
    from the msgboard at []

    "In the video Darl makes an utterly rediculous claim about GPL, claiming that if drug companies come up with a new formula for a drug on a linux machine they would have to license the formula under the GPL."

    and this:

    Anyone who has an interest in this case should watch this video.

    The interviewer is well prepared and asks the hard questions. He makes Darl look like a bit of a clown.

    He brings up the hard stuff.

    Darl claims :
    - they own unix
    - that the contract covers copyright xfer & deriviative works
    - lawsuits, wont name company, but the company does not know.
    - seems to have a 'green eye' attitude to Redhats success.
    - says that SCO unix is the same as linux (ROFL LMAO)
    - continues to claim that the license is customer driven (yeah right)
    - mentions mydoom has connections to organisations that are funded by IBM ??? Groklaw is funded by IBM ??? Interviewer points out that SCO is basically funded by MSFT.
    - Darl brings up Eldred/Ashcroft and private ownership and profit motive. (what about Redhats profits Darl?).
    - Darl talks about GPL, mentions that GPL should == BSD. (Yeah so you can steal my work you thieving scumbucket).
    - Darl talks about Open source == terrorism because of source access. Interviewer brings up Usenix letter nixing this idea.
    - Darl confirms the NSA is NOT the target :-).
    - Darl agress they TOOK OUT trade secrets. Introduced copyrights in IBM case.
    - tomorrows lawsuit IS copyright related.

    Intervierwer mentions:
    - that sun & msft are making the big payments and alludes that MSFT is the puppetmaster, but does it in a way that its 'not possible' :-).
    - asks why should people pay when SCO themselves dont know if they own the system.
    - asks if I license now, do I get a special deal (Darl dodges)
    - mentions Linus's rat comment, Darls IBM puppetmaster comments, but mentions that IBM is quite whereas SCO carries on.
    - letter to congress. quotes from it. Darl goes on FSF/GPL rant.
    - interviewer goes onto GPL. Darl talks about the cisco case, but without details.
    - asks what it takes to get SCO respected. DM mentions Maccas, I responds thats a legacy from old SCO. Darl cries about Linux stealing his lunch (boo friggerty hoo - adapt or die).
    - mentions that SCO blew services.

    Darl comes across as personable, but clueless. The interviewer was super sharp, steering the interview the way he wanted it. However he WAS fair, giving Darl the chance to speak, and came across as willing to listen ,but a little sceptical.

  • by BJury ( 756346 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @09:06AM (#8450872)
    Hot of the news feed! SCO Files Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against AutoZone

    Lawsuit Alleges Copyright Act Violations for Infringing Uses of SCO's

    Copyright Protected UNIX System V Technology

    LAS VEGAS, March 3 The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX(R) operating system and a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions, today announced it has filed suit against AutoZone, Inc., for its alleged violations of SCO's UNIX copyrights through its use of Linux.
    SCO's lawsuit alleges the following:
    * AutoZone violated SCO's UNIX copyrights by running versions of the Linux operating system that contain code, structure, sequence and/or organization from SCO's proprietary UNIX System V code in violation of SCO's copyrights.

    The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Nevada, requests injunctive relief against AutoZone's further use or copying of any part of SCO's copyrighted materials and also requests damages as a result of AutoZone's infringement in an amount to be proven at trial.
  • by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @09:45AM (#8451069)
    This is important.

    Scox has stated that they have grounds to anybody for just *using* linux. For several months scox has been threatening to sue a company for using linux. Supposedly, this would prove scox has a case.

    But, in this case, the suit is about copying SCO owned libraries, it has nothing to do with using Linux. AutoZone has allegedly copied some SCO software onto an OS that happens to be Linux. AutoZone is *not* being sued for using Linux.

    This is classic scox-speak.

The other line moves faster.