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." "
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
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"
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?
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...
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.
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
Actually they are working on a port for Office on Linux. I have a friend who was interviewed for a developer position for it.
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
[*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
... 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?
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)
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
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!
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."
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.
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.
From what I understand, Apple already has a license (someone please correct me if I'm wrong...) Also, SCO claims that IBM took SCO code and put it in the Linux kernel, which would not affect BSD at all. Of course, there is nothing stoping SCO from claiming that (for example) Apple did the same thing - releasing SCO IP back into the BSD tree.
The whole thing is just SO full of crap of course that no sane person believes anything SCO says anymore.
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 ?
It also contains interesting notes about due diligence to companies involved in open source development:
(Note 1) Due Diligence Options
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...
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
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.
Sorry for replying to my own post but as a little added information - the top 15 people that MS wanted all knew eachother from their old hacking days and got together and decided as a group to turn MS down. None of them wanted to work for, as my friend put it, "the beast."
-John
...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
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.
From what I understand, Apple already has a license (someone please correct me if I'm wrong...) Also, SCO claims that IBM took SCO code and put it in the Linux kernel, which would not affect BSD at all. Of course, there is nothing stoping SCO from claiming that (for example) Apple did the same thing - releasing SCO IP back into the BSD tree.
SCO's predecessors already tried this same thing with BSD a long time ago, and got smacked down HARD (although the details are sealed by court order for some reason.) BSD is totally immune in this action, no license (from SCO) required.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
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.
"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
"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
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!
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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.
That's gotta be some kind of bug. I prefer my helicopters to be helicopter shape.
Rich
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.