Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Not Underwriting SCO's Legal Fees?
An anonymous reader wrote in to say "Linux Business Week carries this morning a claim that Microsoft only bought a Unix license from SCO Group because there's been a prior development project underway at Redmond that warranted it. "The license was not seen as a way to underwrite SCO's legal fees," says a source within the company. "The idea of getting a SCO license had been under consideration prior to the IBM lawsuit." "
Cut to the chase already!
It's not so and Microsoft is out to destroy the world...
There is no way of either truly confirming or denying this. Microsoft won't, i am prepared to bet, actually say what they are working on, and Very few people trust M$ to be telling the truth. End discussion, really.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
They wouldn't do a thing like that. Now would they?
Maybe SCO won't engage in ultra-frivolous lawsuits now since they can't get funding for them? This is good for Linux: Microsoft is rejecting a part that would lead them directly against Linux. Kind of makes you wonder what Microsoft is thinking, though. Did they drop the ball on this one? Or are they trying to survive longer by not appearing to be a monopoly (which they would if they used legal means against Linux)?
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
Always remember these two words:
"Plausible Deniability"
Get it before SCO does! Linux is open source, if SCO wasn't after the money, it would of sent patches by now!
Linux 2.6.0-test4. Get it before SCO does!
Riiiiiiiiiight
Developers: We can use your help.
"The idea of getting a SCO license had been under consideration prior to the IBM lawsuit."
Exactly. They thought of it (the lawsuit), then implemented it.
That doesn't disprove the allegations. It could only mean they were aware of what SCO was going to do before they did it.
shall we end this discussion now?
of course Mickey$oft would claim that, what else would you expect them to say? 'Hey we are out to destroy linux'? That evil company is more cunning than that, look at how they thwarted the DOJ.
The fact that the license would make it easier to enhance future versions of Services for Unix was a deciding factor.
I guess we'll have to wait and see if Services for Unix remains a half-assed endeavour...
Microsoft is out to control the world, not destroy it.
There's been a development project underway for some time, he said, that would have required a SCO license to go forward.
Shucks, and the conspiracy theory looks so good in print.
Anybody buying this?
That's possible, why not ? after all, I doubt Microsoft developed Passport to run on top of Windows, since it's mission-critical.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
For one, do you really expect Microsoft to admit publicly to any underhand tactics - unless you count halloween documents.
For two, it's been a reasonably popular view that SCO are a Microsoft Puppet for some time. I can't say whether it's true or not - I don't know. All I can say is that it seems to fit the evidence quite well.
Dateline OZ.... As reported earlier the Wicked Witch and her consortium of mean little monkeys has licensed rights to the Ruby Slippers from Glenda the Good Witch. Glenda, who is suffering financial problems, and was unable to leverage her IP against the Dorothy Corp (NYSE-DC) and with little opportunities elswhere in the Good Witch market it was assumed that the Good Witch franchise (NYSE-GWF) would soon collapse under the weight of farm houses. Timing IS everything!
Microsoft is starting to remind me of the pyromaniac character in the Movie backdraft. (Donald Sutherland)
"Tell me Ronald, what you would you do with the world if you could do anything you wanted?"
*trembling, eager voice*
"I would burn it! Burn it all!"
or
"Develop them! Develop them all!"
Let's say this is true. Hey, it may well be.
There's still something to be learned from all of this - namely Microsoft's problem with people not trusting them is very real.
In short, Microsoft is not a company that a lot of people would give the benefit of a doubt.
After so much FUD, how can we trust them?
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Well yes and no.
Microsoft would need to buy a Unix license from SCO. The IBM lawsuit isn't about who owns the Unix code, as far as I can tell this is beyond doubt, SCO owns the rights to it.
The lawsuit is about the Unix code being improperly used within Linux.
So, MS isn't 'legitimising' SCO's claims. Each case goes on it's own merit and from what I can gather, there's no way IBM can use the MS issue as leverage, the two aren't connected in any way, apart from being deals with the same company, one licensing one product, the other saying code from said product was used elsewhere.
Translation: SCO was looking to f*** over Linux and IBM, and we liked that. Most of the other software vendors, traitorous bastards that they are, have been all too happy to port their stuff over to Linux.
He's right! SCO ARE just in it for the money. Linus would remove the offending code in a flash if they just disclosed the code. But they wont PURLEY because they want TO EXTORT from people. Some companies are underhandedly evil and will destroy the world for profit.
Nero-burning ROM for Linux!
Anytime Maureen O'Gara says something about Linux is is typically to dis Linux somehow. She is nothing but a Microsoft shill. Avoid her words at all costs.
Coming soon to a Reatailer near you . . . MS Windows X?
What bothers me is not the lie, but the pervasiveness of this sort of attitude. They don't want to admit their true motives, so they lie and the mass media doesn't call them on it.
My question is simple: why are they bothering? They have financial interest in seeing Linux, and MacOS, failing. If Linux's market share expands, theirs contracts. Nothing difficult to understand here.
Unfortunately, that their pathetic lie being allowed to go un-challenged means that otheres will keep right on lying in ever more pathetic manners. Let's have some artistry here, if someone wants to lie to me I expect it to be plausable, not rediculous.
Its rather like the political "doner's" lie: "Oh, no, I'd never bribe a politician. This particular politician just wants to give me special favors because its part of his political philosophy, I'm just giving him money to express my support of that philosophy."
Since that excuse works so well in politics why not everywhere else: "Oh no officer, I wasn't paying that woman for sex, she simply has a philosophy of giving oral sex to strangers, I'm merely expressing my support for that philosophy."
Really, MS, politicians, their lies are just too transparent to be amusing. We need a better class of lies damnit. Either that or some honesty, that would be original too...
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
And penguins might fly outta my butt.
"I didn't mean to give that gun and 10,000$ cash to the murderer just before he killed my *&*(&$# cheating POS ex-wife. It was pure coincidence."
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
seeing Linux publicly disgraced by finding this mysterious code within the kernel space. I doubt very seriously that they will find anything, but if they do, said code will be re-written in a matter of hours, not days, and then things will be back to normal.
Of course the money doesn't have anything to do with the case. If it did then they could get in trouble for monopolistic practices. And they certainly wouldn't want that now would they?
[*sarcasm*]I'm sure everyone believes that. But even if it isn't true, Microsoft could be "licensing" SCO to uphold their own position on intellectual property, which is that you must obtain a license and pay for everything. It fits in perfectly with their business model, and should hardly come as a surprise: we always knew where they stood. That this could be a little "down payment" on what they hope to get out of the litigation against IBM is a bonus.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
They don't need SCO code for any UNIX emulation.m l and I guess they will get actually better support for what they probably want to do
1. They can take (F,N,O)BSD code and get a perfect UNIX(ish) layer.
2. If they want to pay somebody, they can go to http://www.windriver.com/products/bsd_os/index.ht
Just tell me what is the benefit of SCO code from the MS point. I'll tel you - they know SCO was going to do something and now they are covering their traces with smoke.
If it smells like a duck and craps like on..then most problably it is a DUCK!
.. the only way they can get it is through license fees.. :)
Side Note: The Bank loan secured by the Founder listeed in the financials pays for monthly cash flow needed to keep afloat..its due in October with a promise by founder to keep SCO Group afloat through end of Novemeber..thus they do not have the monye for a legal fund
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Hmmmm... mabye I should find a good Unix spell checker and license it from SCO?
"The idea of getting a SCO license had been under consideration prior to the IBM lawsuit."
That just tells us M$ and $<0 have planed all this (and much more) long ago.
You people make me sick. Why does everything have to be a conspiracy?
Why would it be in MS best interests for an ailing company to try and lawyer a much larger company to death cos we know it's not going to happen. Just look at the DOJ vs MS
she simply has a philosophy of giving oral sex to strangers
You got a phone no for this girl ?
... Bob in MS's UK accounting office said, "I really like SCOnes for breakfast". Coincidence? We think not! What did he mean by that? What is MS planning now?
That makes no sense to me, but you should know that they have the British Army on their side:
The firm said today that the British Army will adopt SCO's Unix platform, server solutions and services to keep its helicopters trim and ship shape. The project is worth £3.5 million with a rollout finished by the end of next year.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
The license was not seen as a way to underwrite SCO's legal fees ...
... but to damage Linux reputation ... but to be good citizens ... but underwrite Cowboy McNeal's PR services
a)
b)
c)
Why did you throw MacOS in there? MS has been pretty supportive of Apple, in porting Office and IE etc to work on the Mac when they really have no need to. MS appreciates Mac b/c it gives them an easy adversary.
Go! Get out of my store!
I have a friend who works at Microsoft and about two months back, he invited me to discuss about "Linux people and IP infringement". Although the discussion didn't actually work out, after seeing this SCO vs. IBM lawsuit, I can imagine what he was planning to talk about.
Whether MS is directly supporting SCO on this or not, we can be sure that that Microsoft has its eyes laid on writing off Linux as an "Intellectual Property Issue". Look at the statements made by the MS executive in the story on XBox we discussed two days back:
Q. Folks have even built a Linux-Xbox computer. How can you control this?
A. Electronic hobbyists will do what they want to do...the numbers are not really that big. It's not a commercial as much as it is an intellectual property issue and we always pursue those. If someone finds a way to cheat, we close it down and do an update so people can't anymore.
Towards the beginning of the browser wars, Bill Gates wanted Microsoft to be synonymous with "Internet" and I feel what Bill wants now is to make Linux synonymous with "IP issues". Not sure how well the FUD strategy works, but we have a few problems ahead. What if this SCO thing is just a beginning ? With 2 or 3 more of these suits, MS can possibly keep Linux out of expanding. What can we do if some company X complains about IP infringement in Linux in the future ?
getSexySig();
"A Microsoftie fresh back from vacation decided to try to find out the real story behind Microsoft's controversial SCO license. (If you don't know what we're talking about see story below.) This is the explanation he came back with. Note that it is second-hand. "
Look, I know Microsoft has it's NDA agreements, but too many of her stories are uncited, unsubstantiated, and just plain dumb.
Is this really Microsoft's attempt to extend Windows Services for Unix? 3 years ago Microsoft announced that Windows Services for Unix works with all Unix variants including SunSoft Solaris and Red Hat Linux 5.0, so why bother buying SCO licensing now? Did they pay Redhat as well (GPL yah yah I know), did they pay anyone else?
The timining of this is too coincidental, but c'mon no more Maureen O'Gara stories. Let me know if more get published, I know some tinfoil manufacturers that I need to invest in. -B
that Microsoft only bought a Unix license from SCO Group because there's been a prior development project underway at Redmond that warranted it
I know what project they're referring to... it is the "Kill Linux" project! *grin*
wolf31o2 Developer, Gentoo Linux Games Team
Well, this all comes as a real shocker, to me. It was my understanding (based on a conversation about a decade ago) that Micro$oft owns SCO outright.
The exact quote (iirc) from the 2nd-hand conversation circa 1993 was something like "...well, doesn't Microsoft still own SCO Unix, anyway?" -- the context was something around Xenix(tm) -- anybody remember where that came from? It was an SCO-derivative, wasn't it?
"The Internet is made of cats."
I still Believe that this is more of a Cover your @$$ issue than it is a IP Rights Issue or a Bash Linux Issue.
I mean they've been sued once by SCO already and lost because of DRDOS and SCO is now suing IBM Over Unix. Guess who's next in line that has a big pile of money sitting in a corner of a room that has Unix IP. Most likely Microsoft Lawyer XP(TM) is advising Bill that paying the Royalities is cheaper than going through yet another reputation damaging lawsuit over Unix.
MS is taking the bullseye off of it's back to allow them to work on their Unix Stuff without worry and forces SCO to go after other companies such as Sun.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
I am a little confused by this case, and have not really followed the details, but what could be the effect, if any, on BSD and therefore OSX? Are SCO saying they own unix? Isn't BSD a form of Unix, and also both free and Open Source? Will they come after Apple too?
I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
Microsoft was planning long before the SCO lawsuit to respond to the popularity of Apache web servers with Apache helicopters.
At first, I think "Okay, they could legitimately need a license for either of SCO's Unix products". Then, I realized something: Both of SCO's Unix product lines are completely inferior to every other form of Unix on the market. SCO's one strong point--uniproccessor speed--is surpassed by the BSD-licensed BSDs, which Microsoft has been legally borrowing code from for nearly a decade.
A far more believable reason to license this code is to make a political statement: that you support IP as a barterable asset instead of a development/creation incentive. MS made their fortune under a distribution network that mimics the idea of IP-as-asset.
This perspective is profitable but on extremely shaky ground right now As quoted, "[s]ince other software vendors who depend on software licenses haven't been exactly falling all over themselves to support our position, seeing something that supported it was welcome." In other words, this lawsuit is their first good opportunity to throw their support with another party to support this idea. Unfortunately for MS, it's also a pretty pathetic opportunity.
The best part about this is that MS didn't have to buy the license at all. They tried it, then they bought it to support a company they (conditionally) respect. Bloody pirates.
I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.
The lawsuit was seen as indirect supporting our position on the value of IP. Since other software vendors who depend on software licenses haven't been exactly falling all over themselves to support our position, seeing something that supported it was welcome.
Microsoft have pushed themselves onto this very high moral ground, and when they looked round to see if everyone had followed them, they were strangely alone....
Digital rights management, and self destructing emails are all to cover Microsofts own backside rather than getting on with the important task of giving the users what they actually want.
Linux offers this, and they are scared - rightly so.
liqbase
Last week I received this months copy of SysAdmin magazine in the mail. What happened to accompany my magazine in the shrink wrap? None other than Microsoft's Services for UNIX 3.0 which used to be Interix Services. It's possible that this product has the potential to contain code that could be obtained from other sources.
I don't remember much about Interix before Microsoft bought them, but I do remember using a demo copy of the Interix Services package and what it did do was pretty cool. It gave a UNIX functionality layer to the NT system. You could log in via SSH and perform all command line functions that you would find on any *BSD, *Linux box. Including cross compile. I seem to remember the demo package including GCC that had been compiled specifically for this package.
Unfortunately I don't have a single MS box in my current possession to install this on to play with. One of my poor, ailing, FreeBSD boxes might get wiped to play with this for a few weeks.
Since everyone else is throwing out conspiracy theories, I suppose I'll throw my own into the arena. CAUTION the following is frivolous bullshit that has no way to be proven except in my own mind. But isn't that true of most of these theories people have?
Interix starts out as a company to build a UNIX compatibility layer for the NT kernel. What better way than to look at the source that is freely available to decide what road to take. Looking at *BSD and *Linux they find that with a little effort they can write a compatibility layer and run pure *NIX apps right on top of NT. (They even have a XR11 port for this layer) All fun, all native, all fast.
Since this is starting out as an exercise in theoretical mechanics of getting UNIX to operate directly on NT, they borrow some "free" code to figure out how exactly to get it all to fit together. Purely with the intention of yanking all "borrowed" code later should this prove to work as they can afford to.
Their compatibility layer works better than expected, apps can easily cross compile to their pseudo-kernel and anyone that isn't directly in front of the box doesn't know they aren't talking to UNIX. This causes Uncle Bill to take notice. He likes what they are doing, and since his own Services for UNIX is pretty piss poor he does what he does best. Buys the company. (I'm not just an Interix client, I liked them so much I bought the company.)
So now, instead of ripping out all the "borrowed" code that is working so well, the new team, who is partnered with pieces of the old team, continue to develop along side each other, integrating the MS UNIX codebase that was Services for UNIX into the Interix codebase to build SFU 3.0.
SCO comes along and starts the whole lawsuit procedure but isn't giving any examples of code. Uncle Bill, preferring to stay quiet and in control, doesn't know if they need to scrap the project or not. Easiest solution? Buy the rights to the problem. License the technology you've already stolen and improved upon, gaining the legal right to use it, before the originating company realizes what you are doing and comes after you.
MS may have deep pockets, but they aren't bottomless, and I believe the legal battles with Apple taught them one very important lesson. End it quick and as painless as possible, keep the government out of it, because they have a tendency to side with people who may be my enemy (MS almost lost the anti-trust suit before Clinton left office?) So make it go away quietly so as not to draw attention to us.
End Rant ..... just my two cents.
"Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
What if *gasp* They actually USE some of what they license, or do in SCO's eyes? Does that make it such that they have to continue to pay SCO's royalties from now until whenever they decide to be sued by SCO, if SCO were to somehow actually win against IBM/SuSE/RedHat/World?
As much as I want to see SCO stomped into the ground, I'll admit that if SCO wins, This would be a nice form of poetic justice...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
What bothers me is not the lie, but the pervasiveness of this sort of attitude.
Actually the problem here really has nothing to do with Microsoft.
The problem here is the pervasiveness of the attitude that every action done by Microsoft or any other company is a move to destroy Linux. This attitude is further problematic in that every reasonable explanation is accused of being a lie.
It makes the "Linux Community" look like a bunch of 2 year old children.
A lawyer friend predicted this about three years ago. We made sure to check our licences and, as a result, have stayed proprietary-only. We hated some aspects of Microsoft's new licencing regime but, at least, have no fear of being sued by an IP-owning company such as SCO.
We knew it would happen, and are glad not to have the nightmare of compensation for stolen code (accidental or deliberate) ruining our core business. Sorry, open-source advocates, but that's what it comes down to: business versus play.
A neighbour in this block is trying to get the standard BT ADSL modem to work with Linux. He's wasted a day, and still says he can't connect. We put the CD-ROM in the drive and were working again in about two minutes. Business versus play
If this is a lie, and they really did back SCO, then can you blame them? This kind of stuff happens in all other sorts of business all the time. This doesn't mean it's right, but I get the feeling that people expect Microsoft not to play the dirty business game. Well they are playing dirty pool, but from my limited legal background, I don't see it being illegal.
Let's all get a reality check and wake up to one simple fact... Microsoft needs to preserve its business. Linux is a threat. It will fund companies who may have a legal claim to sue Linux backers through ligitimate channels.
What would you all think of SCO's claim if it WERE true? Would you blame Microsoft? Probably, but the guy who broke the law would end up paying for it.
Cringely's current article has his take on SCO. He mentioned that he wouldn't be surprised to find Microsoft bankrolling the legal,even though he wasn't predicting it either.
In the end though, he concedes he doesn't know what is going on, and neither do other people in the field. Me? I'm guessing it will end up being a totally ill-informed upper managemnet decision that is going to roll heads.
Etc, etc, ad nauseam, and so on and so forth.
Microsoft claims it's not underwriting SCO's Legal Fees.
Microsoft claimed in its anti-trust case that divulging its source code could undermine national security. Then it proceeded to give the source code to India, China, and to former Soviet nations.
Also in the anti-trust case, Microsoft claimed again and again that Windows could not run without Internet Explorer. Until the government showed how simple it was.
Microsoft claimed that there was no DOS in Windows 95, I clearly remember the "DOS is dead" signs from the launch. But yet, Windows 95 simply ran on DOS.
Microsoft claimed, like Apple, that it too found a person who had switched, only in this instance from the Mac to the Wintel platform. Unfortunately, that person never existed and was made up by marketing.
Microsoft claimed in an advertisement in South Africa that Windows XP was so secure that it would eliminate hackers. However, the governmental agency in charge of truth in advertising there forced Microsoft to pull the ad.
I could go on and on. Why would ANYONE ever believe Microsoft?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
The Iraq invasion wasn't really about oil, or even about euros.
The Supreme Court didn't really prevent Florida from counting its votes for fear that the candidate it had chosen to appoint wouldn't get in.
That big tax cut really is meant, and expected, to stimulate the economy.
That face on Mars really was carved by space monkeys.
Everyone go down to the courthouse and spend the few bucks necessary to file a small claims suit for lost revenue (if you install or support linux systems) or defamation of character if you use it at work or just write software for it. In my state the max value is 5000 dollars, sounds like a good deal for a no show quick buck.
So are they now buying back the farm?
This makes some business sense.
Hasn't anyone noticed how overly priced Office is for Windows or Mac? Office is Microsoft's biggest revenue generator. What better way to generate more revenue and keep businesses locked into a particular file format than release a version for Linux on an x86 hardware?
Of course, all this is speculation, and I'm too tired and sleepy to search around on the WWW for articles to support my claims.
On the other hand, there has also been speculation of Microsoft moving to an Application Server type model with Office. If this is so, then this gives Microsoft even more leverage to get into the big iron market.
I dunno, two hours of sleep and still having to go to work, I don't even know if this makes sense at all. :P
This CNET article hints that Microsoft bought them at SCO's request. From the article:
A Microsoft representative said that the deal was simply in response to SCO's request. "Microsoft respects legitimate licenses, and Microsoft took that license (from SCO). That's it," the representative said.
getSexySig();
fanbois
Anyone who misspells the word "boy" in that fashion is clearly an Avril Lavin loving raging homosexual.
Don't know if this has been asked before but what is this licence from SCO they are buying? What do they get?
I would just add that by Microsoft (or anyone) who pays money to SCO keeps them alive and helps them. And while they are alive they'll probably continue pursuing this suit against IBM and Linux. So in a way Microsoft is helping SCO. I wonder how hard they bargained on the price.
The license was not seen as a way to underwrite SCO's legal fees," says a source within the company. "
Is it the Microsoft Information Minister ?
Maybe the license is for Interix, which "provides a UNIX environment that runs on top the Windows kernel, enabling UNIX application and scripts to run natively on the Windows platform alongside Windows applications"?
It also contains interesting notes about due diligence to companies involved in open source development:
(Note 1) Due Diligence Options
And Bill Clinton did _not_ have sexual relations with that woman.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
every reasonable explanation is accused of being a lie.
The newspeak accusation works both ways. The best way to disarm your enemies when you're actually doing something nefarious is to accuse them of lying about *you*, putting them on the defensive instead.
So who do you trust, baby? Microsoft or the "Linux Community"? Who has a reputation for openness, and who for secrecy? Who has been caught in lie after lie, scheme after scheme, extinguishment after extension?
It makes Microsoft look like a bunch of petulant three year olds. I actually think the only reason anyone tolerates them is that their behavior is so unbelievably bad that no one actually thinks it could possibly all be true.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
>>I wonder how hard they bargained on the price
Just enough to keep the lawyers ticking.
-------- Cluster bombing from B-52s is very, very accurate -- the bombs always hit the ground.
SCO needs money to pursue legal case. Microsoft has money and wants to cover their ass. SCO also wants a high profile license to help bludgeon IBM. It makes sense for all involved, especially if Microsoft was considering it for a while.
.5X and 1.5X in legal fees, AND a 20% chance that we pay 10X in royalties and between .5X and 2.5X in legal fees. Therefore, it is cheaper to pay now.
They probably got a license on the cheap. Should SCO beat IBM, the license fees would go up. I'm pretty certain that the bean counters made this decision.
If we pay now, we pay X. If we don't pay now, there is an 80% chance that we pay 0 in royalties, but pay between
I don't think that it was the lawyers, I think that it was the accountants. Besides, accountants HATE uncertainties. This way they get off the hook and can focus on their business, instead of another legal case.
Alex
"The idea of getting a SCO license had been under consideration prior to the IBM lawsuit."
This just means they were on board even before the lawsuit started. Besides, the "source within the company" could just be wrong or not know enough.
"The idea of persuading SCO to launch a lawsuit against IBM had been under consideration prior to the idea of getting a SCO license"
Just my opinion.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
So, SCO is parroting everything M$ wants. That's what a whore is good for. If there's a technical basis for the suit, SCO has yet to present it. All they've said is stupid and untrue stuff about the accountability of free software and innovation being a corporate exclusive. Sounds like the same old M$ bullshit people never believed in the first place, but now they can think badly of SCO instead of M$. Woops, statements like this remind us how's in charge.
What more could M$ want? About a year of FUD to delay free software deployment until Paladium is in place. It's not working.
They also said:
But if we didn't have any actual use for the license, it absolutely would not have happened.
I'd like to know what use that was, beyond the admitted desired statement. How long have they been using Services for Unix? Uh-hun, and now they think they need a license from someone else? Yeah right.
Microsoft, you suck.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
... the cigar that had the sex, not Bill.
What I want to know is, did he smoke it afterwards?
I bet the purchase of the Unix license went to fund SCO's battle. It's the best way to funnel money to them. We should have SCO's books audited.
There's a lot of FUD being spread around this but, in reality, Microsoft is merely one of around 30,000 Unix source code licensees and is using the opportunity associated with the current SCOsource initiative on renewals to throw a little FUD at the Linux community.
The history here is interesting. When SCO first started, its target was the Tandy line of MC68000 add-in boards and similar computers while Paul Allen (developer of MS BASIC) was arguing with his marketing guy that they should port Unix to the Apple II.
When IBM asked for an OS demo from Microsoft, they specified a piece of hardware based on a chip, the i8088, that simply lacked the power to run Unix. It had, after all, been produced as a downgrade from the 8086 (which wasn't selling well against the MC68000) to enable compatibility with older 8bit devices and could barely handle CP/M.
To get a real OS as a later follow-on to PC-DOS, Microsoft licensed AT&T Unix source and did a partnership deal with SCO that resulted in Xenix for the 8086 before that plan got pushed aside by the astonishing commercial success of the PC.
SCO, however, was left paying Microsoft royalties on its contributions to the intel port - a situation that continued until SCO cleared the last Microsoft code out of OpenServer in the mid ninties.
That worm turned when SCO bought the USL properties from Novel and eventually discovered that they now held the source licenses for most of the material Microsoft had been licensing to them - and on which Microsoft has just renewed its license.
So, with apologies to the conspiracy theorists, the MS rebewal doesn't signal anything beyond normal business practices - with the bonus of being able to sow a little free fear and confusion among the Linux troops; itself, of course, another normal business practice for MS.
means they probably just need a license...
"See, you not only have to be a good coder to create a system like Linux, you have to be a sneaky bastard, too." (Linus Torvalds)
Why isn't this on SCO's quotes page yet?
I don't think you can put Linux and MacOS in the same boat here. MS develops software for the Mac, they are not really direct competitors in the OS world. You can't take a Windows box and install MacOS on it. If you could, you would definitely see MS's attitude change towards them as a competitor. They currently don't really exist in the same market, because of the hardware issue. You want a Mac? You have to shell out the $$ to buy one, and effectively switch platforms. Microsoft knows not everyone will do this, and Apple does too. They are comfortable in their arrangement. They need MacOS around to prove that they have competition in the market.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I'm not sure which is more comical, M$'s "Unix Stuff" or that M$ was ever scared of being sued by SCO. "Unix Stuff", is that the "Unix killer", New Technology (NT) by any chance? Well, yes it was. Gee, we all need a license for common unix commands, after all if we are not paying someone we must be stealing! M$ has shown such respect for other firms in the past, including the US Government, that we all know how careful they are when stealing other people's IP. Not at all.
Microsoft Lawyer XP(TM) is advising Bill that paying the Royalities is cheaper than going through yet another reputation damaging lawsuit over Unix.
That sounds like a M$ program, brain dead. What's more expensive than a defending yourself in court? Defending yourself in court and paying for the case someone else is going to make against you. There's no technical merrit to this case so if it flies, everyone is ruined, Microsoft included. But that's not going to happen.
I hope they prommise big bucks. It will all go to IBM when they get through scraping SCO off their shoes.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Hmmm.....DOJ *does not* break up MSFT. They plan to build-in DRM and other measures in to the next iteration of the OS -- which makes *me* a bit paranoid due to their monopoly on desktop computing -- but I guess I'm not alone.
Since there are so many advantages to trusted computing (yes...the sarcasm is intended) that governments outside the U.S. (vs. the U.S. Government itself) are obviously extremely distrustful of any moves by MSFT and MSFT is extremely concerned about Linux since it so obviously provides an alternative that is growing increasingly viable.
So aligning with SCO makes perfect sense for MSFT...what a perfect way to spew FUD! When my buddies and I sit around talking about MSFT, the DOJ and the scary possibilities of such things as media consolidation, DRM, shrinkage of ISP's (which, BTW, makes government surveillance *much* easier)...this MSFT/SCO connection is just one more glaring example of the fact that our pals in Redmond asked us a long time ago to bend over...and are trying really hard to hand us that jar of Vaseline they're holding to make total insertion all that much easier.
Is it just me...or are MSFT's moves to kill Linux laughingly obvious to you too? Are you gonna grab *your* ankles and lube up?
"The idea of getting a SCO license had been under consideration prior to the IBM lawsuit...."
It's just a happy coincidence that we decided to do it NOW, before SCO Group folds in December due to lack of funds. If a simple purchase of a "UNIX" license will let two of our competitors duke it out, with one or both of them dropping out of the market because of it, then it's a small price to pay.
Plus, of SCO wins over IBM, then they can go after Redhat, and Suse, and all those other companies that don't hold the MS principles dearly.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
Not....really. SCO owns the OLD codebase, as in so old as to be obsolete. They also own their changes. But the history of Unix is really incested, as there are massive cominglings of open-source and closed (supposedly) dating back 15 years ago and prior. Bottom line is that ATT already tried that suit and lost, and it is now perfectly fine to make your own Unix clone and pay no one. See Sun, SGI, etc for proof of this - none of them pay SCO a dime, and they release products they call unix.
The only people you would ever need to pay is if you wanted to call it unix. Then you would need to license it ($$$) from the Open Group. But that's the name, not the code. MS really had no reason to license anything from SCO unless they really liked SCO's implementation. And trust me, no one likes SCO's unix except fast-food restaurants, for some strange reason, as SCO's unix (like all their products - Calderalinuxyuck!) suck.
The lawsuit is about the Unix code being improperly used within Linux.
snip...
So, MS isn't 'legitimising' SCO's claims. Each case goes on it's own merit and from what I can gather, there's no way IBM can use the MS issue as leverage, the two aren't connected in any way, apart from being deals with the same company, one licensing one product, the other saying code from said product was used elsewhere.
Well, assuming I'm correct about above (always a reach, but give me some leeway;> ), then there are two questions: 1. Why did MS actually need to license unix? and 2. Why did MS license SCO's unix?
Dealing with these in order, I can't see any reason why MS needed to license anything, for reasons above. The only thing I can think of is that MS doesn't understand the concept of actually getting something for free. But they seem to like stealing, so I don't think that's it. And they ahve BSD licensed things in the past.
Second, why SCO? From the linked article, if it's legit, they do talk themselves back in a circle when they talk about SCO as one of the few companies other than them who "value IP." This is not a stretch to interpret as "fight open source." I think they've unapologetically made that translation in the past, actually. And the article claims they say that this was a factor in them going ahead with the SCO deal. They say they wouldn't have licensed it for nothing, but they'd have to say that, wouldn't they? And since when do they have a history of EVER licensing something voluntarily before they've exhausted their...ah...other methods?
This tells me that a big reason MS licensed unix from SCO, and probably why they licensed unix at all, is to have somebody else fighting open source, and by extension, IBM.
I'm not ready to claim that MS put SCO up to suing IBM and threatening the linux community, but I think they definitely saw the SCO legal fund as an investment. And I wouldn't be surprised if we found that MS was behind the shift in SCO's language away from its IBM focus to more of a linux focus. It just makes sense for them, as there's no other reason to license SCO.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
This will only server to unite Open Source and Linux proponents alike. IBM will fight this lawsuit. IBM will win this law suit.
It's like the old high school sports team approach where the coach is a mean SOB that works his players to death. They may hate him, but they are united as a team against him, which forges strong bonds between the players.
When all is said and done, this legal battle will prove to be M$'s Waterloo (not to be confused with the i-Loo)
All your base are belong to us!
You're either with us or you're with the code terrorists.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"The lawsuit was seen as indirect supporting our position on the value of IP" ......
"The license was not seen as a way to underwrite SCO's legal fees"
Just a wee contradiction here. Perhaps that 'not' slipped into the second sentence by accident!!
Skiing? Check out The Independant Skiers Portal
N/T
When I buy a license for a product that I'll be using for a project, I don't put out a press release. I can only assume that Microsoft doesn't either. What are the chances that the MS PR department even knows that there is a SCO project underway, and if they did, why would they think it worthy of telling the world?
The only thing I can conclude is that at the very least, MS is trying give the SCO claim some validity (due to the timing). At worst, they are actively funding this effort.
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
This really isn't about SCO lawsuit - SCO has enough cash in the bank to pursue it.
Microsoft recently came the realization that one of their products "Services for Unix" wasn't licensed according to their new aggressive IP stance - ie, anything that is Open Source exposes you to liability and needs to be avoided.
Purportedly, the product derives code from BSD. Rewriting the code would remove the copyright issues, but not the underlying IP issues that Microsoft is sowing FUD about.
So the only solution is to push their liability onto someone else - ie, SCO. SCO now claims ownership for Unix's IP and gives Microsoft cover. Microsoft can now use IP issues to attack mainframe *Nix -> Linux/BSD migration and pose Windows Server as a fully IP safe alternative. The SCO lawsuit is just icing on the cake.
+--------------------- You idiot! I told you we were facing the wrong way!
The pervasiveness of the attitude that every action done by Microsoft (though not every other company - you made that part up yourself) is done to harm linux does not exist but the attitude that anything Microsoft does in the Unix market, whether it be purchasing a product, funding someone who is doing something ridiculous in the market, or otherwise pouring fuel on the Linux pyre (which of course never stays lit for long, as Linux is reasonably fireproof or at least resistant; the fire does though, before someone flames me, ha ha) is clearly well-founded.
And there are no reasonable explanations, and hence the so-called "reasonable" explanatations are clearly a lie of some sort. Okay, so they might not be trying to damage Linux this time, though I for one am not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when they're giving money to someone who is trying to destroy or at least damage Linux through litigation. They are surely lying to us in some way, and if not now, then their current actions put the lie to their previous words. Microsoft has been running around decrying Unix and Linux left and right, so why do they want pieces of it now?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Rambus tried to sue everyone a few years back, they didn't benefit and neither will SCO. Regardless of how "dispassionate" business is supposed to be, people remember how you treat other people, a litigious company is not someone you want to do business with bcause they might just turn around and bite you too.
This time hopefully SCO will not survive the bad publicity. Just don't buy any of their products and they will shut up or shut down. Leaving Microsoft to do their own dirty work.
There certainly is a lot of FUD. My advice would be to ignore Microsoft's attempts at stirring things up by ignoring it and not mentioning it to other non-interested parties. Let large companies try and sue each other, it won't bother Linux or it's profound growth in the slightest.
:)
Microsoft survives on word of mouth sales. How about we pretend they don't exist?
SCO and Nintendo are forming a partnership? Funky.
Maybe this goes for this whole debacle as well. Some challenges to the GPL were certain to surface sooner or later, so if you accept this precept what better partner to have than IBM.
No money is being drained from Linux efforts from within IBM or from RH, SuSE et al., and the code is being scrutinized and scrubbed for any dubious portions that probably has found it's way into it.
Not SCO related but just bit and pieces that "somehow" got included.
Help fight continental drift.
1. Bertlesmann, Napster, etc.
2. There was a libel case in the UK. Some guy was supported by many donors to sue a newspaper for libel. After he lost (and could not pay the judgement against him), the paper went after the major donors and I think actually collected some money from them.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
not that this will help that much but I think we should refer to the whole lot of them as "fuddites" from now on.
// Empires come and go we live forever
> The Supreme Court didn't really prevent Florida
> from counting its votes for fear that the
> candidate it had chosen to appoint wouldn't get in.
You lose. Next contestant.
At least they are offering the vaseline!
You might laugh, but what's even more obvious?
Could M$ be secretly developing their own Linux distro? All they would have to do is close any software that would interact with Windoze and they would wrap up the whole Linux business market...
Could this be far from the truth? This would certainly seem to lend some credibility to the theory...
...only bought a Unix license from SCO Group because there's been a prior development project underway...
As a microsoft worker, I happen to be able to verify this statement. Project DestroyLin^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H UnixEvaluation has been going on for years now.
The GPL is a non-issue for Microsoft too. After all, Microsoft complies with GPL requirements for the code they sell. Note the Licensing and Purchasing page for the aforementioned Unix compatability product. You'll notice a grey box on the right-hand side that specifically deals with the GPL'd applications included in the product. You can even purchase a CD or download sources directly from Microsoft's FTP servers... including the GPL itself.
Lets say I own a company that makes X. Now, I own the patent on X, but another company wants to make a product Y that is a lot like X. I sell them a license, they start making Y. I make money off of the license. Everyone's happy. I sue someone for infringing on my patent (they might be they might not be lets leave it to the courts). The court battle is going to cost money, where do I get this money from? From selling X and the money I make from sell the license.
If we audit the books of course its going to show that money paying for the court case, its their money they can do whatever they feel like.
I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
I'll make this short and sweet...
Grow up already.
"Who has been caught in lie after lie"
The Linux community by far has been guilty of more FUD, more lies, more false claims than any business I have ever had the displeasure of doing business with.
It's all justified by claiming they are the underdog, but is there really any excuse for this childish behavior?
... I just want to mention, for those who have asked, that absolutely nothing what ...
so ever happened today in sector 83x9x12. I repeat, nothing happened.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
Key words: ... says a source within the company.
Signature.
In the old days, one of the goofies on the NT resource kit was something called Posix services for N, exploiting and promoting the NT Posix API. The applications provided as part of this package were sometimes BSD, but often GNU. Microsoft even provided the source code to maintain compliance. GCC was there too.
See my journal, I write things there
Money is fungible.
It's clear that Microsoft sees Linux as a serious threat. Likely as not they are probably considering multiple strategies in dealing with the problem, several of which may be in development stages. We've seen in the past that IBM has had different divisions creating solutions to the same problem, and then chose which of the results were preferrable at the time and canceled the redundant projects. Microsoft is fiercely competitive and has considerable resources, so it's reasonable to assume that they could be working on parallel strategies as well.
When we consider some of the most obvious ones:
1. Funnel some money to SCO to help in the IBM lawsuit and undermine open source/Linux.
2. Produce a Microsoft "MS-Nix" that is Linux compatible (i.e., will run Linux apps) in conjunction with MS Office apps that will ONLY run on MS-Nix and not Linux. Microsoft may therefore find a need to license Unix source from SCO. Microsoft's success in the desktop, despite popular opinion, was NOT due to the production of a wonderful OS (I'm being charitable here, of course), but due to the production of solid workhorse apps. Noone except techie nerds buy a computer for what OS it runs, most buyers buy a computer for what apps it runs, and the MS Office suite are solid core applications. And if the Office suites depend on kernel functionality that is owned by SCO (perhaps even patented?) all the more difficult for Linux to aquire the necessary compatibility to run the apps.
3. Microsoft is attempting to add some additional Unix compatibility to XP or .NET and finds the need to update their license from SCO.
4. Microsoft doesn't want to be caught with their pants down if Linux ends up becoming a significant desktop presence-- and thereby losing out to some other companies office suite. The office suite is what made their fortune, NOT their OS, and that's one market they won't want to lose, and right now that is a market ripe for plucking on Linux platforms. One solution-- port the office suite to Linux. SCO Unix licensing could have a potential part in such a strategy, one problem they will be concerned about is how to keep control over the use of their programs on Unix platforms so that some dent can be made in the piracy problem.
Which seems more interesting to you? I'd put #1 on the BOTTOM of the list, not the top. Don't underestimate Microsoft, just because they make a mickeymouse OS...
The idea that Microsoft would underwrite SCOs legal fees is parnoid. Microsoft is not about to stick its hand into a legal mess in light of the recent antitrust lawsuit. The idea that MS would do so is paranoid and wishful thinking from the Linux crowd, who cannot imagine that any company other than MS might have a problem with Linux, for one reason or another.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
for using the unbalanced parentheses in *&*(&$#
OK, let's review what SCO has accomplished so far. They have: 1) pissed off the OSS community, 2) disturbed a litigating 900-pound gorilla (i.e. IBM), 3) alienated 1300+ Fortune 2000 CEOs, 4) shut down a legitimate revenue source, and 5) raised everyone's suspicions by cuddling up to Microsoft.
The litigation clearly is a ploy by SCO to force a buy-out by IBM, HP, Oracle, or some combination of heavy-hitters. What other long-term gains could there be?
Microsoft is just supporting the FUD. My fear is that Microsoft may buy SCO and ownership of the UNIX trademark. The SEC likely would kill such a move, but it still is a scary thought.
Another possible outcome, if the right party buys SCO, is that UNIX may end up in the public domain allowing Linux finally to be UNIX. It could happen...
Got to agree with you here. The "big lie" idea is real and pervasive, and it works backwards as well.
MS behaves so outragiously, lies so often, so obviously, buys fake "reviews", etc that people become jaded. They can't believe that its all true.
We have the pre-existing idea that corporations are responsible (why we'd have this I have no idea), and behavior that doesn't match that idea tends to slide past un-noticed.
It doesn't hurt that our "news media" is so profit focused that they don't bother with the expense of fact checking. Statements made at a press conference are often quoted as gospel, despite the fact that they're often totally false. Fact checking costs money, mindlessly quoting press releases is free...
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Granted. Still, if Apple went out of business the Mac users would have to switch, and MS wouldn't be sheding any tears. OTOH, you do have a point. MS is developing for Mac, and the fact that hardware differences keep direct competition to a minimum do keep MS from being as violently anti-Mac as they are anti-Linux.
Still, they do have a financial interest in Mac failing too, just not as direct and immediate.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"The license was not seen as a way to underwrite SCO's legal fees," says a source within the company.
So that's where the Iraqi information minister ended up!
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/catalog/catal og.shtml
When did they divest?
Did they "really" divest?
Microsoft "Sleeper Cell" still at SCO?
If the S.C.O. - M$ pact causes the the world to lose use of one of the greatest contributions to mankind, it will be regrettable. However, if it does happen, we can all switch to BSD, continue to use Linux underground, or in many cases, try going back to paper pushing (yuck!). There many ways to circumvent OS fingerprinting sofware, and I would highly recommend people looking into this option. For those who live in free'er countries, one may be able to continue to use Linux without worring about the O.S. Gestapo (S.C.O. B.S.A. or M$) knocking at your door. I hope and pray that this lawsuit ends up being dismissed. I think Linus Torvalds deservers a Nobel Prize.
The Linux is Freedom Endeavor http://www.freelink.cx
Yeah. Some of the Linux community are children.
Where is all my cheap gas then?
Old News. The New York Times counted ALL the ballots. Bush won
Only a fucking moron thinks I make enough money to not need a tax break. Now Today. A great big one. If I got a devidend that wasn't double taxed I might even invest in a bit of stock. Otherwise I wouldn't wipe my ass with it.
Grow up and leave us alone.
War on poverty
War on drugs
you see where I am going..
War on terror.
pretty much 100% failures or will be.