Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
The Courts Government Caldera IBM Software News Linux

SCO Says IBM Hurt Profits 174

AlanS2002 sends in a link from a local Utah newspaper covering the SCO-IBM trial. The Deseret News chose to emphasize SCO's claim that IBM hurt SCO's relationship with several high-tech powerhouses, causing SCO's market share and revenues to plummet. "[A]n attorney for Lindon-based SCO said IBM 'pressured' companies to cut off their relationships with SCO. And 'the effect on SCO was devastating and it was immediate'..." As usual Groklaw has chapter and verse on all the arguments in the motions for summary judgement.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Says IBM Hurt Profits

Comments Filter:
  • Hurt Profits? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sillygates ( 967271 ) on Sunday March 11, 2007 @04:23PM (#18309742) Homepage Journal
    Isn't that what competition is about? Taking business from competitors?
    • by omeg ( 907329 )
      Let me give a very short answer to that.

      Um. Yes?
    • Re:Hurt Profits? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nmb3000 ( 741169 ) <> on Sunday March 11, 2007 @06:29PM (#18310598) Journal
      Isn't that what competition is about? Taking business from competitors?

      Remember that next time Microsoft is brought up.

      There is more to a situation than just "that's what companies do". The reason Slashdotters get their panties in a twist when Microsoft is brought up is because their business practices are not always kosher.

      Your +5 Insightful proves, it seems, that Slashdot likes to forget that this can apply to any large company, and that includes IBM and Google.
      • by schon ( 31600 )

        Remember that next time Microsoft is brought up.
        Just as long as you remember that Microsoft is a fscking monopoly.

        Monopolies play by a different (stricter) set of rules.

      • by pembo13 ( 770295 )
        Is IBM a convicted monopolist?
        • Re:Hurt Profits? (Score:5, Informative)

          by GSloop ( 165220 ) <networkguru AT sloop DOT net> on Sunday March 11, 2007 @08:48PM (#18311464) Homepage
          IBM is NOT a convicted monopolist in any of the markets SCO is competing in. (If you can say SCO is competing in ANY market, other than frivolous litigation.)

          Further, IBM has persuaded, at least allegedly, it's competitors (BayStar Capital Management, Intel, Oracle, Computer Associates, Hewlett Packard and Novell) to put the hit on SCO. Monopoly (of which IBM isn't by far) simply won't fly here.

          SCO's claims are laughable.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by bonefry ( 979930 )
        Yeah ... when Microsoft got sued for the Eolas [] patent I remember a favorable reaction from the Slashdot crowd regarding Microsoft.

        Maybe companies should improve, innovate and respect their customers.
        Microsoft rarely does that.
        And SCO was the one that sued IBM, and its own customers, not the other way around ... from a moral point of view, it got what it deserves.

        So please stop bitching and moaning about how companies are supposed to make money.
        Companies should respect its customers, and because
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Volante3192 ( 953645 )
          So please stop bitching and moaning about how companies are supposed to make money.

          Well, that is the underlying concept behind a company: making money. That's why there's outsourcing and patent fights and the recall equation.

          The trick is making money while still respecting its customers.

          SCO is trying to make money suing IBM, ignoring their own target market (it is assumed for the purpose of this argument that SCO actually HAS a market). It should be no mystery why they're losing business, and it's not...
  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Sunday March 11, 2007 @04:23PM (#18309744) Homepage Journal
    Probably SCO should have thought about this before suing IBM for billions of dollars (with fake claims.)
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by hedwards ( 940851 )
      I don't know that the claims are fake, perhaps they are just really, really protective about showing the judge their evidence.
      • And what exactly are they protecting their evidence from? It's not like it is going to go up in a puff of smoke once someone sees it.

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Sunday March 11, 2007 @08:27PM (#18311360)

        just really, really protective about showing the judge their evidence

        In which case they should never be in court either and should be sulking in a corner if they have something they don't want to tell anyone. It is very late in the process - there is no evidence only expensive delaying tactics which would not be necessary if there was evidence in their favour.

        The fake website DOS attack, the MIT experts on the payroll that didn't exist, the millions of lines of stolen code, the magic briefcase that could hold a couple of hundred kilograms of paper with the complete linux source code legibly printed on it and still be carried in one hand out of an aircraft in Germany - all these things point to a lack of integrity. It is most likely a smokescreen to conceal what is ultimately a con job - and linux is just the vehicle since it is complex enough to fool some credulous investors. I'd be curious to see how much of the SCO legal expenses go directly in the CEO's brothers pocket. It really does look like claim salting in the wild west to me.

    • Probably SCO should have thought about this before suing IBM for billions of dollars

      When the whole thing started, I was wondering if anyone at SCO had any clue they lived in this big glass house. They must have been blinded by the bright shiny money MS offered. Were they thinking they were immune from returned stones?

      The RIAA is running into the same problem with customer relations but the sales drop off isn't that great yet.

  • by el cisne ( 135112 ) on Sunday March 11, 2007 @04:26PM (#18309770) Journal
    The theme "not our fault". When will these jokers die? Wasn't it SCO suing it's own customers that might have had something to do with their profit loss? Or their millions spent on flimsy legal activities? Might it have been... oh what's the point, it is all too ridiculous anymore. There's just about nothing that can be said that hasn't not been said ad infinitum already. This stuff almost doesn't rate as 'news' anymore, just another spewing forth from the absurd. The news will be when this is over and their corpse rotting.
    • by kimvette ( 919543 ) on Sunday March 11, 2007 @04:28PM (#18309786) Homepage Journal
      It is like watching a train wreck, you cannot help but watch.

      Except in the case of SCO, the train is heading for a compact car, and we're all rooting for the train.
      • Except in the case of SCO, the train is heading for a compact car, and we're all rooting for the train.

        Don't we always?

      • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Sunday March 11, 2007 @06:38PM (#18310678) Homepage
        Except in the case of SCO, the train is heading for a compact car, and we're all rooting for the train.

        Nah, a car isn't unsympatethic enough. At this point it's like a skunk that ran past the train station spraying all the passengers, then set off down the tracks. Right now the train is still steaming up but everyone knows it'll just be a small bloody smear left when it's over.
      • Not just any compact car. It's a Yugo.
    • The SCO story (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      As I recall at the beginning of this lawsuit SCO held almost daily press conferences where they slandered Linux, Open Source, Users, and anyone even remotely involved in Linux. SCO threatened to sue their competitors, the customers of their competitors, and even their own customers! It took them a couple months to issue a clarification that they didn't mean to sue their own customers (most of them anyway).

      Despite the daily press conferences, SCO never came up with any evidence to support their claims.

    • What is the general state of business honesty and governance in Utah? I'm in Australia and a bunch of scammers from Utah called iMergent have turned up again this week - last time they had to pay out close to a million for scamming small investors with a fake ecommerce scam, but for now law enforcement can only warn people to be wary that they may reoffend. Is the place really a business wild west complete with snake oil salesman or am I getting a very distorted view?
      • Apologies in advance to any Utahans that I offend here ... but my understanding, based on a lot of anecdotal evidence, is that Utah is (or at least, the people in power perceive it to be) seriously hurting for business, and are trying very hard to appear pro-business and inviting. They've looked on and seen the Silicon Valley boom in CA, and then the Pacific Northwest boom in Washington, and now all the growth in Texas led by Dell ... and realistic or not, they'd really like to be the next Place To Be. (Wel
  • Almost 5 Years... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by daigu ( 111684 ) on Sunday March 11, 2007 @04:28PM (#18309782) Journal
    Can we call this one a dead horse and move on?
  • They started it.
  • Source of the Hurt (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pashdown ( 124942 ) <> on Sunday March 11, 2007 @04:30PM (#18309800) Homepage
    SCO did plenty of hurt to their own selves when they fired letter-shots across the bow of companies using Linux.
    • by Gleng ( 537516 )
      Exactly. This is like saying:

      "You hurt my ability to eat corn-on-the-cob when you punched all my teeth out after I kicked you in the gonads!"

  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Sunday March 11, 2007 @04:30PM (#18309804) Journal
    After they're done with this suit, they will sue IBM for messing up their restrooms, for parking in the wrong spots, for eating greasy food while looking at their legal documents, for IBM laywers not wiping their feet before entering SCO on rainy days, for sneazing colds around, etc. etc. etc.
    • sides hurt. Seriously, you are probably right on the money.

      Their claims are such an act of desperation, it has turned this entire incident into a comic farce.

    • Does SCO still run an office somewhere? By now it must be in a dilapidated old trailer out in the desert. It would be quite satisfying to pay them a visit, use their restroom, and leave them an upper-decker.
      • by nuzak ( 959558 )
        Real estate is cheap in Lindon. SCO probably owns the building. Hell, it's probably their biggest asset.
  • by ximenes ( 10 )
    If it was any other company maybe I would care.
  • by ( 142825 ) on Sunday March 11, 2007 @04:42PM (#18309900) Homepage
    IBM hurt the relationship between SCO and other people by fighting SCO's copyright suit. By fighting the copyright suit, it pissed off many people who decided to move away from SCO lest they may be sued in a few years.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rsmoody ( 791160 )
      I have nothing to back this up, but I would put money on a large percentage of companies that were/are running SCO software were also running Linux somewhere. My bet is that when this started happening and the writing on the wall showed that SCO would be suing companies for running Linux if they could, they dumped any and all SCO software as fast as possible so that they would not pull some sort of "we are suing you for using Linux, and if you don't pay up instead of go to court, we are going to drop all s
    • All IBM ever has to do to hurt SCO's profits is to read SCO's own press releases out loud. It's not hard to say "if you're thinking of becoming a SCO customer, please Google them." SCO's being hurt the same way any con artist is hurt -- by being outed.

      But this is more petty bitching by a company that's going to end its life with thud and a brief squeak. Is it too late to market themselves as as a scrappy, loveable underdog instead of something about to be scraped off the bottom of a shoe?

  • Not their fault (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Edward Kmett ( 123105 ) on Sunday March 11, 2007 @04:43PM (#18309912) Homepage
    I'm sure the impact on their business had nothing to do with them frothing at the mouth and raving like a pack of lunatics since 2003 while threatening to sue their own customers over using Linux.

    Nope, not a bit.

    It, like Groklaw, must all be part of a Scientology-level conspiracy by IBM to discredit them and make them look bad.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cgenman ( 325138 )
      SCO is still around?

      I mean, this started out as gripping, then became fun to watch the train wreck. But it's over. Someone please let SCO know that they've lost.
    • It, like Groklaw, must all be part of a Scientology-level conspiracy by IBM to discredit them and make them look bad.

      Scientologists are harmless paragons of PR wisdom next to this clumsy attempt by M$ to "compete" with free software.

      Microsoft paid these jokers to do as they did and probably directed their actions. SCO deserves contempt, M$ deserves your hatred and the same kind of treatment.

      It was easy enough to hack off and replace SCO, eliminating Windoze is not much more difficult and brings much

    • It, like Groklaw, must all be part of a Scientology-level conspiracy by IBM to discredit them and make them look bad.

      Has anybody gotten any updates on Paula Jones? The conspiracy theory has not been laid to rest yet.

      I have been listening for an update.
  • Will this IBM/SCO deal every be completely over, with no more trials, hearings and news?

    It just seems like this has been going on longer than other trial I can remember.
    • No joke, the Simpson media circus was like a day in traffic court compared to this case. What gives?
    • I was thinking about this last night. When will such litigation end? Even though the fashion industry has its share of IP warriors, nobody ever seems to be in court for years over the stitching on the seams of a bra or underwear. Why is that? Is it just because nobody cares enough to report that, or is it because the media likes the hi-tech IP wars better, or is it because other industries are not so hell bent on destroying each other?

      I'd venture to say that people own roughly the same value or more worth o
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by phasm42 ( 588479 )
        Big businesses do not own massive climate controlled rooms filled with panties. We hope.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by fbjon ( 692006 )

          Big businesses do not own massive climate controlled rooms filled with panties. We hope.
          That is Google's second best perk, actually.
      • I dunno, SCO vs. IBM hasn't had much to do with actual patents and copyrights because SCO appears to have very little of either ... the issue is more a complete lack of business ethic, and a willingness to abuse the legal system for fun and profit. You can find that in any field, high-tech or not (take the recording industry) although I agree you're more likely to find such behavior in organizations that regularly deal with IP. IBM is also taking its sweet time because I think they want to establish some va
      • A large part of the reason that this law suit has dragged on so long is that the SCOG paid a law firm $31 million in advance to pursue it to the bitter end. A team of lawyers with buckets of money to spend can keep litigation going for years, whatever the merits of the case. There's wide speculation that the SCOG's original expectation was that IBM would buy them out for a huge sum of money, just to avoid this going to court. IBM declined, and the result is this protacted tit for tat legal battle.
    • Sure, once Microsoft stops pumping money into SCO.
      • by rm69990 ( 885744 )
        The last time I'm aware of Microsoft pumping money into SCO was their weird arrangement with Baystar in 2003. No one is pumping money into SCO anymore, which is why they're almost out of money (again).
  • I think common sense have more to do with companies to cutting off their relationships with SCO, than IBM pressure. Who would be stupid enough to do business with companies that are in the habit of suing their customers.
    • Um... Everyone who purchases music from any of the members of the RIAA for starters?
      • I rest my case, common sense seam to be quite scarce these days

      • by rm69990 ( 885744 )
        What about the people who haven't heard about the lawsuits? Whenever I mention these lawsuits to a non-geek, the general response is "Are you serious? That actually happens?"
  • by Talgrath ( 1061686 ) on Sunday March 11, 2007 @05:12PM (#18310066)
    The Deseret News is nothing but a rag, I've lived in Utah for years and I don't think I've ever seen them report anything well and timely. The Deseret News will support anything Mormon or Utah over other religions and states, don't bother reading.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually, if you had read the article it is fairly non biased. It points all the rebuttals from IBM's Lawyer and the whole second half is just what IBM's Lawyer said. For the record I am Mormon but I live in Pennsylvania. I also don't dispute that the Deseret News isn't the best paper, but this article seems to be well written with good information; It reports what happened and what it means to both sides.
  • SCO helped to make Linux headline news...

    And as they say, news, good bad or poor is better then none.
    • by Belial6 ( 794905 )
      Add to it, that whenever anyone starts throwing legalies FUD around concerning Linux infringing on 'IP', most people will now just think it is more 'SCO type Tactics'.
  • Well (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Sunday March 11, 2007 @05:18PM (#18310104) Journal
    Since when was IBM responsible for SCO's profits?

    SCO Xenix cough Openserver has the been the worst unix out on the market for almost 20 years and Caldera's Openlinux lite sucked goatballs. Old sco has the opportunity to make Openserver more like Solaris, AIX, and Linux for over 2 decades but decided to make it stagnant for decades.

    Worse SCO intentionally crippled its product by not having standard components like a TCP/IP stack unless of course you pay $1200 or something outrageous. No gnu tools, no debuggers, no well just about anything to troubleshoot a dying sco.

    But it seems IBM hurt SCO not by endoring Linux but SCO's crappy linux distro and lottery ticket. Darl McBride won over $26 million personally from the disk compression lawsuit from MS that was included with DOS 6. I think he wanted the same thing to happen with Linux and they were hoping old sco would provide. Bad move.

    SCO has itself to blame and they could have been the next redhat or maybe sun if old sco actually improved their os 20 years ago. Its time it died like other companies who made poor business decisions.
    • Re:Well (Score:4, Funny)

      by Andy_R ( 114137 ) on Sunday March 11, 2007 @05:46PM (#18310296) Homepage Journal
      "Since when was IBM responsible for SCO's profits?"

      Since the day SCO's business plan switched from 'sell stuff' to 'pretend we own patents on IBM's stuff'.
    • I tried a demo of UnixWare and it was just terrible. X11R5, not even R6, no drivers, outdated tools, and poor configuration options. It was painfully bad. That's why people don't buy it, its just a teriible Unix.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Caldera's Openlinux lite sucked goatballs.

      Hey, you got too far when you trash-talk Caldera OpenLinux. Ver 1.3 was the first Linux I installed and then actually USED; I had installed an earlier SuSE, but could not grok how to use any of the programs it installed. COL-1.3 had KDE-1.0; WordPerfect's free Linux word processor was my main app. (I'm a writer.) I used it for several years until Netscape started requiring glibc6 and I had to change to another distro (RH)

      OK, COL wouldn't compile even trivial pr

      • My first linux was openlinux lite 1.2. :-)

        As you can tell by my posting that I was not a big fan of it. Yes linux was very immature at the time but I was blown away by redhat 5.2 later on and it was lightyears ahead and it had cool things like kde and widow managers besides looking glass.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by dcollins ( 135727 )
      Clearly you must be a plant by IBM. Please forward your address to SCO so we can sue you for libel or something ASAP.
  • Just how it goes (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 26199 ( 577806 )

    First you fight them, then you laugh at them, then you ignore them, then you win.

    (With apologies to Gandhi).

  • So what? (Score:4, Funny)

    by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Sunday March 11, 2007 @05:44PM (#18310280)
    SCO Says IBM Hurt Profits

  • Sour grapes. Unless they're alleging IBM did something illegal, why should anyone care? And even if they're alleging IBM did something illegal, why should anyone believe them?
  • ...that tried to "persuade" companies like Daimler-Chrysler to not use Linux via potential law suits, thus trying to hurt Redhat's and Novell's profits? Granted, for a tort case to succeed there has to be damages, but still, it's like the pot calling the kettle black....
  • by rdieter ( 112462 ) <rdieter AT math DOT unl DOT edu> on Sunday March 11, 2007 @06:07PM (#18310418) Homepage Journal
    Sorry, I tuned out everything after "SCO says..."
  • What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by christurkel ( 520220 ) on Sunday March 11, 2007 @06:10PM (#18310454) Homepage Journal
    I thought it was because theysued their own customers.
  • by ZachPruckowski ( 918562 ) <> on Sunday March 11, 2007 @06:37PM (#18310662)
    Think of all the benefits of going to SCO for your Unix needs:
    • An OS that hasn't be updated in forever
    • Absolutely no native software
    • A decent chance of being sued by SCO for no real reason.
    • A decent chance of being sued by IBM or someone in the Linux world for using software that SCO distributed in violation of the GPL
    • An absolute lack of techies with experience in your platform
    • The 50% "conscience" bonus you need to pay your admins to work with SCO
    I'm moving my servers to SCO today!!
    • ...A decent chance of being sued by SCO for no real reason...

      Not if you're looking at it from the SCOG point of view.

      "Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with," Sontag said. "They end up being far stronger than anything you do could do with a patent." [1]

      Now, who would knowingly enter a contract with an entity with an entity like that. And anyone who has looked into SCOG claims know they make some very very strange cont

  • SCO is a bunch of whiny babies that can't get ahead on their own merit, so they want to take it from someone else.

    We'd all be better off if we follow the advice given on this website [].
  • Evil IBM "pressured" companies to dump SCO by offering better, more reliable, standards compliant software for less money. Curse you IBM!!!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 11, 2007 @07:16PM (#18310930)
    So, they started with:
    1. License Linux for $699 a-piece
    2. ???
    3. Profit!!!

    Then it turned into:
    1. ???
    2. ???
    3. Profit!!!

    And now, finally it's:
    1. ???
    2. ???
    3. ???
  • I hope IBM will be doing some more of that.
  • They miss the mark every single time. I mean it couldn't possibly be the fact that they chose to sue their own customers that alienated people from them.
  • IBM is not the only company to squeeze others for their profit. They killed Amdahl out of greed. They've done that in the software and hardware business many times over. It's not like IBM is an angel.

    For those of you who remember, it was not too long ago when Microsoft was the champion of freedom and IBM was the tyrannical oppressor.

    Microsoft is often bashed about this very same practice, squeezing PC makers to ship machines pre-installed with windows "otherwise....", however, don't forget the hundreds of o

Make it myself? But I'm a physical organic chemist!