SCO Sues IBM for Sharing Secrets with Unix and Linux

bstadil writes "The information is still sparse but the expected lawsuits from SCO over Unix/Linux patent infringements has been filed." SCO is asking for a billion dollars. News.com and Forbes are also covering the story.

Comments

The solution is very very simple.

[Soko]

SCO has a market cap of $25.68 Million. IBM could buy them for $100Million and save %90. Or RedHat maybe.

Actually, someone with a clue should buy them now before, ummm, someone with an interest in seeing Free Software set significantly back figures out that the UNIX IP is pretty much a sitting duck...

Soko

A better use for a billion.

[Angry White Guy]

Buy Caldera outright, and drop the lawsuit.
Currently SCO's shares are trading below $3.

Change -0.05 (-2.21%)
2.26 Open
2.33 Volume
43,850

more info

[Anonymous Coward]

see this mozillaquest article

"During a LinuxWorld Expo discussion, SCO-Caldera's Blake Stowell told MozillaQuest Magazine that he was not aware of any current Linux distributions that contain the SCO-Caldera IP libraries."

also:


Are Linux or C++ on SCO-Caldera's IP Hit List?
SCO-Caldera & the GNU/Linux Community: Part 2, Under the Iceberg's Tip

Re:IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM probably has more technology patents than any other company on Earth

IBM has been awarded the most number of patents in the US, each year, for a while now. Something like 10x the number two company.

Re:Wrong thread,

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to steal a whole lot of Linux software, and sell it as my own. What are the programers going to do about it? NOTHING!

Well, if they find out, they and/or the FSF can sue you.

And there are lots of ways to find out. There have been a number of cases of people noticing strangely similar functionality in commercial products to GPLed software, and doing some simple analysis to find out, hey, this binary contains suspiciously similar output to that of this GPLed program compiled with obfuscation... ...at which point they probably have enough evidence they can subpeona you, ask to look at your source code, and sue your pants off when they discover you stole their code.

Sure, you could do that, but isn't the risk kind of great?

Re:IBM out litigated the federal government

[SN74S181]

Microsoft had this product called Xenix on the market (the first UNIX port to the Intel 8086 processor) before IBM ever approached them to produce a DOS. They were not a mere piddly BASIC vendor.

Surprise, surprise, when they left the Unix market they split their Xenix group off to become.... the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO).

Still personally don't see that as a "flaw"

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm.. i'm looking at that license. What it looks like is that by releasing code under the IBM license, you agree to license all your applicable patents to all comers.

Whereas the GPL says "you are not allowed to release under this license unless you license all your applicable patents to all comers".

So under IBM, if you discover you have accidentally release software that contains a patent you hold, you now have accidentally licensed that patent to all comers eternally. Under GPL, if you accidentally release software that contains a patent you hold, you have either the option of eternally licensing that patent to all comers eternally, or ceasing distribution of the GPLed program.

Which do you think companies really want?

Anyway, you miss one of the biggest advantages of the GPL. The GPL is just a copyright license. It doesn't depend on contract law, which is complicated, or anything else. Under the GPL, restrictions are enforced with the might of, "you have to follow these terms or else NOTHING gives you the right to use or release GPLed code". The IBM thing looks to me like you're entering into a contract of some sort-- you agree to do X just by releasing the code? Where's the signature, or whatever? I mean, maybe that's legally binding, but probably no more than a shrinkwrap license. To be honest, I seriously doubt it would be very difficult to legally weasel out of the obligations that releasing under the IBM license would entail.. thus bringing you back to the same place under the GPL, you can't distribute under the IBM license but neither can anyone else, and other people are holding code with your submarine patent. I don't know, i don't study law. Is this a reasonable doubt for me to hold?

This still makes lying to people and saying code is patent free when it is not no easier under the GPL as opposed to BSD or proprietary code licenses. This still is not much of a "flaw" in the GPL itself, just a general worry with licensing code of any sort.

This still does no good against the more threatening problem, which is people owning submarine patents and suing other people who implement that patent. Remember, you don't have to have implemented yourself the code which infringes on the patent in order to collect damages.

Is any of this innacurate?

The Lawsuit

[big_groo]

(kind of ontopic) In addition to the groups organized to freely redistribute systems built around the Networking Release 2 tape, a company, Berkeley Software Design, Incorporated (BSDI), was formed to develop and distribute a commercially supported version of the code. (More information about BSDI can be found at http://www.bsdi.com.) Like the other groups, they started by adding the six missing files that Bill Jolitz had written for his 386/BSD release. BSDI began selling their system including both source and binaries in January 1992 for $995. They began running advertisements touting their 99% discount over the price charged for System V source plus binary systems. Interested readers were told to call 1-800-ITS-Unix. Shortly after BSDI began their sales campaign, they received a letter from Unix System Laboratories (USL) (a mostly-owned subsidiary of AT&T spun off to develop and sell Unix). The letter demanded that they stop promoting their product as Unix and in particular that they stop using the deceptive phone number. Although the phone number was promptly dropped and the advertisements changed to explain that the product was not Unix, USL was still unhappy and filed suit to enjoin BSDI from selling their product. The suit alleged that the BSDI product contained proprietary USL code and trade secrets. USL sought to get an injunction to halt BSDI's sales until the lawsuit was resolved, claiming that they would suffer irreparable harm from the loss of their trade secrets if the BSDI distributions continued. At the preliminary hearing for the injunction, BSDI contended that they were simply using the sources being freely distributed by the University of California plus six additional files. They were willing to discuss the content of any of the six added files, but did not believe that they should be held responsible for the files being distributed by the University of California. The judge agreed with BSDI's argument and told USL that they would have to restate their complaint based solely on the six files or he would dismiss it. Recognizing that they would have a hard time making a case from just the six files, USL decided to refile the suit against both BSDI and the University of California. As before, USL requested an injunction on the shipping of Networking Release 2 from the University and on the BSDI products. With the impending injunction hearing just a few short weeks away, preparation began in earnest. All the members of the CSRG were deposed as were nearly everyone employed at BSDI. Briefs, counter-briefs, and counter-counter-briefs flew back and forth between the lawyers. Keith Bostic and I personally had to write several hundred pages of material that found its way into various briefs. In December 1992, Dickinson R. Debevoise, a United States District Judge in New Jersey, heard the arguments for the injunction. Although judges usually rule on injunction requests immediately, he decided to take it under advisement. On a Friday about six weeks later, he issued a forty-page opinion in which he denied the injunction and threw out all but two of the complaints. The remaining two complaints were narrowed to recent copyrights and the possibility of the loss of trade secrets. He also suggested that the matter should be heard in a state court system before being heard in the federal court system. The University of California took the hint and rushed into California state court the following Monday morning with a counter-suit against USL. By filing first in California, the University had established the locale of any further state court action. Constitutional law requires all state filing to be done in a single state to prevent a litigant with deep pockets from bleeding an opponent dry by filing fifty cases against them in every state. The result was that if USL wanted to take any action against the University in state courts, they would be forced to do so in California rather than in their home state of New Jersey. The University's suit claimed that USL had failed in their obligation to provide due credit to the University for the use of BSD code in System V as required by the license that they had signed with the University. If the claim were found to be valid, the University asked that USL be forced to reprint all their documentation with the appropriate due credit added, to notify all their licensees of their oversight, and to run full-page advertisements in major publications such as The Wall Street Journal and Fortune magazine notifying the business world of their inadvertent oversight. Soon after the filing in state court, USL was bought from AT&T by Novell. The CEO of Novell, Ray Noorda, stated publicly that he would rather compete in the marketplace than in court. By the summer of 1993, settlement talks had started. Unfortunately, the two sides had dug in so deep that the talks proceed slowly. With some further prodding by Ray Noorda on the USL side, many of the sticking points were removed and a settlement was finally reached in January 1994. The result was that three files were removed from the 18,000 that made up Networking Release 2, and a number of minor changes were made to other files. In addition, the University agreed to add USL copyrights to about 70 files, although those files continued to be freely redistributed. 4.4BSD The newly blessed release was called 4.4BSD-Lite and was released in June 1994 under terms identical to those used for the Networking releases. Specifically, the terms allow free redistribution in source and binary form subject only to the constraint that the University copyrights remain intact and that the University receive credit when others use the code. Simultaneously, the complete system was released as 4.4BSD-Encumbered, which still required recipients to have a USL source license. The lawsuit settlement also stipulated that USL would not sue any organization using 4.4BSD-Lite as the base for their system. So, all the BSD groups that were doing releases at that time, BSDI, NetBSD, and FreeBSD, had to restart their code base with the 4.4BSD-Lite sources into which they then merged their enhancements and improvements. While this reintegration caused a short-term delay in the development of the various BSD systems, it was a blessing in disguise since it forced all the divergent groups to resynchronize with the three years of development that had occurred at the CSRG since the release of Networking Release 2.

Re:IBM -- cross-license or die

[fw3]

That was my 2nd thought "what are they thinking? the counter suit could bury them"

My first thougth was "what idiot suit at SCO thinks they can make a case for AIX being SYSV-derived?"

The logic(sic) they are asserting seems to be: AIX is based on SYSV that SCO acquired from AT&T, and that IBM's moved those ideas into Linux.

Nice fantasy. AIX is based on the Mach microkernel from CMU, which in turn is BSD-derived. Even at that it is very much re-implemented, using such intersting magic as an O-O system configuration database, and the first widely available journalling filesystem for a *nix.

People think of AIX as being SYSV because it implements a SYSV *interface*. IBM is all about standards and AIX achieved System-V (and later versions) standard compliance *and* BSD compliance wherever that did not conflict.

So no, SCO hasn't got a leg to stand on on this aspect. I wish them luck they are toing to need it.

Unix and colleges

[Bruce Perens]

On the NDA issue: ATT licensed the source code of Unix to colleges from the early 1970's through the late 1980's, and I think this practice has been continued until the present. The source was available for perusal by software researchers at universities, and to very many students.

Bruce

Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure.

[geomon]

What's really surprising is that it appears SCO believes IBM is run by a pack of idiots. Granted, they have made some rather major strategic mistakes in the past, but I can't think of a time when they ran afoul with intellectual property. As has been amply noted in earlier, IBM is one, if not the leader, of computer technology intellectual property. They have been for decades.

Taking that as a fact, who at IBM, and in the right mind, would allow someone to openly walk out of the corporate front doors with IP and give it away to a bunch of libertarian code monkeys? I work for a company whose second line of business is IP, and I can tell you that I would not have been able to publicly disseminate corporate business secrets without repercussions. My rogue initiative would have lasted maybe two or three weeks until the company got wind of what I was doing and then I would have been shut down, fired, and sued into oblivion.

Why would IBM's IP lawyers let their engineers disclose anyone's secrets, let alone their own, without getting the forms filled out correctly? That behavior just doesn't make sense for a company so steeped in a bureaucratic corporate culture.

Re:But it's open source, information wants to be f

[Tomble]

How can they sue anyone if they willingly throw thier[sic] code into public domain?

Why would a company break the GPL just to put something into the public domain, even if they were able to? What would that get them?

...Or are you meaning both "they"s in your comment are the authors of GPL software? Get a clue, GPL software is licensed, copyrighted software. The public domain specifically refers to stuff that is unrestricted by copyrights and patents, it isn't just a synonym for "doesn't cost anything", etc.

Family History

[anonymous cupboard]

Um, bot only Unix, but also BSD was floating around the unis.

Having done a *lot* of work on AIX back in the early days, I can say that it borrowed some bits from BSD (who didn't then), but didn't from S5 Unix and their kernel was theirs. I didn't have their source code, but I was always cursing them for their incompatabilities which is why I can say they were different.

Also, AIX had a PS/2 distribution in the eary days, so they certianly had x86 architecture since way back when.

Re:Family History

[Bruce Perens]

But we have already had the ATT vs. University of California court case, back in the early 90's, and thus we know this claim doesn't apply to the BSD code base as of the end of that trial.

Bruce

Re:Family History

[DuBois]

AIX 1.3 on an Intel PS/2-386 was the first AIX I laid hands on. Worked better on a 486, but then IBM dropped the Intel port altogether until supposedly AIX 5.0 was going to run on Itanic, which it did for maybe, oh, 5 seconds.

Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure.

[refactored]

Thanks Bruce, you have given us direction for our, umm, intense dislike. Canopy Group.

Ah, so friend Google, who are the the Canopy Group? Aha. Ray Noorda. http://www.canopy.com

Ok, so here is some "blah" from their web site....

Canopy Group Overview :: Canopy Group has been categorized as a technology accelerator and a dynamic operating company. Funding and influencing emerging technologies and then providing shareable management resources across its portfolio of companies is what Canopy Group does best. Originally founded in 1995, Canopy Group continues to operate by founder Ray Noorda's vision of "co-opetition," where synergies across the portfolio are optimized at the same time that each company develops independent market success.

ie. Hit any in the Canopy Group and you hit'em all. ie. If SCO makes a sucess of this, the rest will share the "management resource".

So who is in the Canopy Group?

• Altiris--Intuitive Manageability. A complete line of web-enabled IT solutions used in managing the corporate IT resource lifecycle.
• AvenueMe--Personal Desktop Shopping. Select and deliver special offers and gift ideas tailored to your interests and gift-giving needs with Desktop Personal Shopper.
• Axiom Press--CultureGrams and More. CultureGrams and other publications focused on serving the needs of elementary, secondary, and collegiate educators and their students.
• Center 7--Host, Manage, Succeed. Managed hosting solutions and painless enterprise management with rapid-deployment solutions.
• Cerberian--Powering Internet-Enabled Products and Services. Internet management solutions that help businesses improve productivity, free up bandwidth, and control Internet access.
• ClearstoneHealth--Improving Healthcare. Technologies to improve healthcare through e-training.
• Cogito--Harness the Power of Your Knowledge. Making knowledge management the essential productivity tool in organizations with complex information systems.
• Communitect--Intelligent Mobile Messaging. Meeting the needs of an increasingly mobile population with simple-yet-powerful mobile management that delivers personal enterprise data to any mobile device
• DataCyrstal--Rapid Indexing of Video Content. Providing flexible solutions for advanced video analysis.
• DeviceLogics--Providing DOS-based solutions.
• Digital Harbor--Correlate, Collaborate, Cross Boundaries. Business front office integration that puts the focus on people, not infrastructure.
• DirectPointe--Managing Your Technology. Enabling businesses to leverage technology by making it simple, manageable, and affordable and allowing you to focus on managing your business.
• EBIZ--We're About Solutions. Providing multi-faceted computing solutions to customers nationwide.
• FatPipe--Low Cost, Highly Redundant Internet Access. Leading-edge technology that provides highly redundant, reliable, and high-speed Internet access for deploying mission critical applications over wide area networks.
• Geolux Communications-Enlightening The World. Geolux provides both enriching content and the learning platform to deliver it.
• Global Mechanical Monitoring
• Helius--Satellite Powered IP Networks.Efficient, secure, and reliable delivery of broadband IP over satellites and local area networks.
• HomePipeline
• iArchives--A New Page in Information Retrieval. The software application that makes finding the valuable details in your data almost effortless.
• Industrial Training Zone--Interactive Industrial Training. Content designed specifically for apprentices and technicians who lack the specialized training required to troubleshoot complex systems utilizing motion control devices.
• JanusLogix--Elevate, Integrate, Generate. Generating a new game by building a web services nanosystem that allows any application service to integrate, elevate, or generate application functionality.
• Linux Networx--Powerful Cluster Technology. Simplied cluster computing, with an end-to-end approach that makes cluster technology more powerful and easy to use for commercial and scientific high performance computing
• Luxul--The Wireless Wave. Patented solutions for indoor, outdoor, fixed, and mobile wireless computing.
• MaxStream--Smart, Wireless Connections. Wireless OEM modules and stand-alone radio modems that provide long range, low power, and advanced networking capabilities
• Mixerz, First Thursday is a national network of member entreprenuers, executives and investors. The organization provides a regular forum for the exchange of ideas, the formation of strategic partnerships, and the fostering of business relationships.
• Mi-Co--Handwritten forms for Mobile Professionals. Innovative end-to-end solutions enabling the wireless capture, storage, communication, and use of forms-based and free-form handwritten data.
• MTI--Innovations in Enterprise Storage. Reliable, integrated, enterprise-wide online storage and backup solutions for customers requiring mission-critical, high-performance storage.
• MyFamily.com--Connecting Families and Generations. The leading network and largest of its kind for connecting families and generations on the Web.
• North Face Learning--We provide students with a high aptitude for computer science a better, faster, and cheaper way to earn a degree.
• Perimeter Labs--Secure Data Solutions. Inventing and bringing to market information security technologies
• Planet Earth Tools--Compact, Versatile, and Powerful. Award-winning, patented handheld tool technologies.
• Power Innovations--The Standard for Perfect, Dependable Power. Committed to total power independence with alternative means of generation, energy storage, conversion, and management of perfect power
• SCO--Smarter. Better. Faster. Providing software solutions for small- to medium-sized businesses and replicated branch offices
• Smart Chip Technologies--Loyalty Program Management. Patent protected loyalty application for use in the smart card and wireless environment.
• SurfChina--Enabling eBusiness. Developing business solutions that help Chinese companies participate in global eBusiness.
• TrollTech--Software that Makes Sense. Enabling professional, efficient, portable and maintainable GUI applications quickly and easily.
• Tuglet--Marketing Powertools. Providing useful web-based communication tools for corporate marketing professionals and home based or small business people.
• Vultus--The Look of Web Services. Delivering web apps that are feature-rich, cost effective and platform independent
• WrenchHead--Automotive Operations Solutions. Providing innovative technology and services to the Automotive Market to further lower operating costs, enhance profitability, and accelerate growth

Oooh looky looky, Trolltech! So when are they going to be forced to sue for $1bn?

Re:SCO's Microsoft Past

[josh crawley]

YOu dont seem to get it. After doing the interpeter stuff for Apple, Microsoft created an 8086 Unix clone called Xenix. They decided to split IP into 2 seperate companies. Xenix mangaers went to create Santa Cruz Operations (SCO). SCO WAS a part of MS, and for a while, they owned 11% of the company. They might even now..

Re:Progress

[nn43]

Wrong, it is Progress. www.progress.com

I have been using it for over half a decade now - it seems to run fine for me. Been on systems with 300 users to less than 10 users.

Worked it on OpenServer, HPUX, NCR MP-RAS, AIX, and finally - finally - Red Hat Linux.

These guys might have a clue for you:

http://I.webring.com/hub?ring=prodev&id=38&hub

Try http://www.amduus.com - lots of code and stuff - not much DBA though.

Not all Progress based applications are smooth though.

Re:SCO's Microsoft Past

[IntlHarvester]

Your history is off -- SCO existed before Xenix as a small independent Unix-oriented consulting group.

Microsoft (a tiny company back then) purchased the AT&T license and then contracted with SCO to develop XENIX. Microsoft attempted to sell licence it to IBM but ended up getting involved in OS/2 instead.

Xenix was then "sold" back to SCO in a deal that gave MS ownership, access to the books, and a per-copy royalty. Eventually SCO wiggled out of that.

Re:All IP is conflict of interest

[frp001]

But there is an attitude among free software people that can be summarized as "I freely choose to make no money from my software work, therefore everyone else must be denied the right to make money from software". That's the thinking behind the GPL. It might work from the ivory tower of a MacArthur Foundation grant at MIT, but it isn't viable in the real world.

This is an untrue statement. I suggest you read the GNU.org pages. :
The word ``free'' above pertains to freedom, not price. You may or may not pay a price to get GNU software. Either way, once you have the software you have three specific freedoms in using it.
A lot more can be found on this site regarding free software and money.

You can also consider Redhat and check out their webstore to find out if they do not make money on software

Or take a look at OSI's point of view (Payoff for Entrepreneurs).

To sum up my point of view:

I freely choose to make no money from my software work
"No they do not."

therefore everyone else must be denied the right to make money from software
I have never heard about Oracle being sued for including freesofware in their products?

Everyone has the right to make money from their work, in my understanding/opinion the GPL strongly hints anotherway of doing so. If others want to do it the traditional way, fair enough but others may opt for different techniques.

A last point : SCO is suing IBM, this does by no ways mean that IBM is guilty, at least until the trial is over.

Tell them what you think.

[minkwe]

They have an anonymous web survey at:

http://websurveyor.net/wsb.dll/9929/websatisfact io n20021210.htm

Re:I agree . The patent laws are another example.

[chthon]

Well, HE was beheaded in the French Revolution because a jealous colleague found that there was nothing to invent anymore in chemistry.

Antoine Lavoisier, 1743-1794

Linux is GPL, not public domain

[kenneth_martens]

According to the article: Linux is a variant of Unix and isn't copyrighted.

This is, as we all know, utterly false. Linux is most certainly copyrighted--that's what prevents you from stealing Linux code to use in your proprietary system. Linux may be GPLed Free Software, but it is certainly copyrighted.

Re:Takeover

[Opusthepenguin]

No. Only 30% - 40% of SCO stock is publicly held, there would be no way for IBM to execute a hostile take over.

Re:billion dollars?

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Well the hardware problems were basically

Get license for SCO Intel.

Try to install on the same generic platform we test other Intel Unices on.

Discover that even Solaris/Intel detects hardware better.

Hunt around for hardware on the "supported" list.

Finally get a working system.

Perform testing.

Repeat the whole thing next time we actually need to test on SCO, because the original test hardware has been repurposed or retired (no reason to keep a SCO installation intact after testing. there's generally 12-18 months between times we need it)

That's the only Intel Unix we had problems with.

We'll probably look at it agian if a customer asks us too, but I'm not expecting one to, to be honest.

Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure.

[hald]

According to http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/investors.html
TrollTech is 5.8% owned by Canopy Group

Re:Where are the filings?

[d^2b]

Dear Bruce; B

the complaint and some exhibits ( A B C D E can be found on SCO web site

There is a press release on the same page, in case you wondered who writes the ZDNet articles :-)

Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Canopy group have a 5.8% investment in Trolltech. Trolltech has no responsibility for Canopy's actions. They are mainly employee-owned: see trolltechs "investors list", and stop pushing anti-KDE propaganda.

Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bruce,

Don't repeat nonsense from the Canopy web site. Canopy have a mere 5.8% investment in Trolltech, according to troll tech.

The "Canopy group" appears to just be a listing of Ray Noorda's portfolio, not a group of companies owned by him. There is no evidence that TrollTech have anything to do with (or to gain from) SCO's IP claims.

Probably most of these companies, unlike SCO, just have some minority Canopy investment.

Attacking these companies seems like McCarthyism (guilt by association), by the usual crowd of KDE-baiters.

Re:Anyone here considered that SCO might be right?

[Mendax Veritas]

You obviously haven't read SCO's complaint. It makes no sense. It lacks specifics and is full of vague handwaving. It even gets simple historical facts wrong. It's truly pathetic.

Re:The Canopy Group is not the problem.

[Bruce Perens]

You've got everything backwards. Caldera was a Noorda holding from the start, and was founded by Novell folks. Caldera bought SCO. This suit is Canopy's exit strategy from both Caldera and SCO.

Bruce

Re:You're being unreasonable

[Bruce Perens]

Now that we know that Canopy holds less than 6% of Troll, I agree that Troll isn't a target. I still think that Canopy is the real force behind this suit. They have a "distributed management" policy, in which they act as management for the companies they invest in.

Bruce

This is nothing to do with Canopy

[joshsnow]

This whole Canopy thing is a Red Herring. Ray Noorda, the former Novell supremo, owns this venture capitalist co. As we all know, Caldera sprung from Novell, so it's not unreasonable to assume that Noorda funded Caldera through Canopy. Caldera merged with SCO, thus diluting the Canopy shareholding.
As we also know, following the .com bust, SCO execs made a power play inside Caldera and effectively took over management of the company, removing Ransome Love. These same execs are the ones who have been fighting a desperate rearguard action against Linux on Intel for the past 5 years. First they ridiculed it, then they tried to co-opt it with the Linux Kernel Personality for OpenServer. That didn't work and now find themselves in a corner and this is the final roll of the dice to save the SCO business - not the Caldera Linux business.
And as someone has pointed out above, Canopy own only 5.3% of Trolltech, as an investment partner - they're not pulling anymore strings at Troll than they are at SCO.
I wish Perens would get his facts straight before diving in feet first.

Also under the Canopy

[Simon Brooke]

• Linux Networx
• Luxul
• Altiris
• Cerberian
• Cogito
• Communitect
• Data Crystal
• Digital Harbor
• Perimeter Labs
• Mi Co

And, of course, the Trolls.

What do all these companies have in common? They're geek companies. They employ geeks, and they sell to geeks. What geeks think of them matters to them and can hurt them. If you're doing business with any of these companies, tell the people you're dealing with that you're not happy with SCO's behaviour, and that your unhappiness is sufficient to start you re-evaluating their competitors.

It's also worth pointing out that several of these companies are making use of the Linux[tm] brand, including one of them using it in it's name. The owner of the Linux[tm] brand has it within his power to have a quiet word with them, although, of course, that's entirely up to him.