Slashdot Mirror
Novell Claims Ownership of UNIX System V
Bruce Perens writes:
"We knew that SCO's attack on Linux was a lie. But we never dreamed of the big lie behind it.
"This morning, Novell announced some of the terms of the company's 1995 agreement to sell its Unix business to SCO. The shocking news is that Novell did not sell the Unix intellectual property to SCO. Instead, they sold SCO a license to develop, sell, and sub-license Unix. The title to Unix copyrights and patents remains with Novell. To back up this assertion, Novell refers to public records at the Library of Congress Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent Office.
"In their announcement, Novell refers to recent letters from SCO asking Novell to assign the Unix copyrights to SCO. So, apparently SCO's management team knew that they did not own Unix while pursuing their sham campaign against Linux.
"Along with this revelation, Novell is reiterating its support of the Linux and Open Source developer community, and its status as a partner in that community. Novell rejects SCO's accusations of plagiarism. Novell management says they do not intend to stand in the way of the development of the Linux kernel, its companion GNU system, and other Free Software.
"It would be an understatement to say that this leaves SCO in a bad position. The company has loudly and repeatedly asserted that they were the owner of the Unix intellectual property, all of the way back to AT&T's original development of the system 30 years ago. They've lied to their stockholders, their customers and partners, the 1500 companies that they threatened, the press, and the public. Their untruthful campaign caused the loss of sales and jobs, and damaged Linux companies and developers in a myriad of ways. And now, SCO will be the lawsuit target. SCO's quarterly earnings conference call is this morning, at 9 AM MST (11 AM EST, 8 AM PST). Call 800-406-5356, toll-free, to participate. You might even get to ask a question. It should be fun to watch them try to weasel out of this one.
"Microsoft executives also have egg on their faces. The company self-servingly rushed to buy an SCO license one business day after the threat letter, bringing a senior attorney to the office on a Sunday to tell the press how much Microsoft values intellectual property. Microsoft's management could have taken the time to analyze SCO's claims, if the company had wanted this license for practical and technical reasons. Their decision to buy when they did must have been motivated by a desire to add to SCO's fear campaign. Of course they'll grab any opportunity to spread fear about Linux, but this time Microsoft bought a pig in a poke.
"SCO management, if they insist on standing in the way of a train, could still claim that software they developed in the years since 1995 is being infringed by the Open Source developers. That claim, always a dubious one, will be difficult to take seriously now that their prevarication throughout this campaign has come to light. SCO would be well advised to drop their suit against IBM in exchange for IBM's agreement not to counter-sue. But IBM might not feel that charitable toward SCO.
"In contrast to SCO, Novell's made a friend among the Free Software developers. We're always happy to see people using our software. But a real partnership between an IT vendor and our community is an equal partnership, with the company donating services and new software in exchange for the value it receives. Novell has already placed important software under Open Source licenses. Today, the company has done us a tremendous service, by stomping upon an obnoxious parasite."
Oh my god, you /.'ed the conference call.... You bastards! ;-)
Will the real Unix owner, please stand up, please stand up...
*duh duh duh!!!!* (ASCII MP3)
Mmmm......sacrelicious.
For now, we demand that SCO either promptly state its Linux infringement allegations with specificity or recant the accusation made in your letter. Further, we demand that SCO retract its false and unsupported assertions of ownership in UNIX patents and copyrights or provide us with conclusive information regarding SCO's ownership claims.
Finally, SCO being put in its place. I just wonder why this took so long for Novell to bring up.
"Engineers do the work of man, Physicists do the work of God"
...and so does my wife!
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
I own the IP rights to UNIX System V
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Here is Novell's informative press release on the matter. A juicy excerpt:
"SCO continues to say that it owns the UNIX System V patents, yet it must know that it does not. A simple review of U.S. Patent Office records reveals that Novell owns those patents.
"Importantly, and contrary to SCO's assertions, SCO is not the owner of the UNIX copyrights. Not only would a quick check of U.S. Copyright Office records reveal this fact, but a review of the asset transfer agreement between Novell and SCO confirms it."
Of course, this doesn't address the "source code theft" issues, but hopefully this will shut SCO up about the UNIX IP issues.
the no
If what Novell claims is true then SCO has more than a few problems to handle. It will have to start with a global apology.
That's hilarious! Especially the part saying "you repeatedly asked us to transfer ownership over the past three months" (words are my own). If this is true, then it shows what SCO has been doing is extremely, extremely immoral. They knew they had no basis for suing IBM and for demanding that companies license SCO, but they did it anway to try to make some money. All I want to know is, who's idea was it - Microsoft's? ;)
Novell sues IBM over linux IP issues....
?
dave
How long before AT&T makes a statement of being the "real" owner of Unix?
Business Week has interviewed the CEO of SCO Darl McBride here. McBride gives some tips as to where IBM may have used their code. Specifically:
" In the last 18 months, we found that IBM had donated some very high-end enterprise-computing technologies into open-source. Some of it looked like it was our intellectual property and subject to our licensing agreements with IBM. Their actions were in direct violation of our agreements with them that they would not share this information, let alone donate it into open-source. We have examples of code being lifted verbatim.
And IBM took the same team that had been working on a Unix code project with us and moved them over to work on Linux code. If you look at the code we believe has been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an entire section -- and in some cases, an entire program. "
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
This could make an excellent soap opera. All we need now is a love triangle in this SCO/Novell/Linux/UNIX/IBM mess!
In light of this news, I wonder if the "SC" in "SCO" will stand for "Shit's Creek".
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
from firepot into the fire...
OR
from fire into firepot....whatever
I don't even want IBM to claim and get (legally) ownership of UNIX System V. Whats to prevent a future IBM CEO from claiming what SCO is claiming now.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
"SCO is not the owner of the UNIX copyrights. Not only would a quick check of U.S. Copyright Office records reveal this fact, but a review of the asset transfer agreement between Novell and SCO confirms it."
Well, this changes everything! Lmao, go Novel! Appears that the SCO webcast isn't working, but the stock has dropped since the open. This is really good news for the Linux communuty.
All I can say is.... this is getting really funny. it's like everyone is coming out of the woodwork with whatever sticks they have to beat the SCO beast into submission.
what's next in this saga?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This makes me proud to be a Novell admin! After all the years of abuse from *nix and even Windo$e admins I can stand proud behind a company that does the right thing. ;)
Proud Novell Admin, pimpin' to keep Bill in business.
"I'm just here to regulate funkyness." - James Gandolfini, as Winston in The Mexican
At this point, I'm not sure if I want it to be owned by everybody or by nobody, but at least being "owned" by two is better than by (a bad) one.
BWHAHAHAHA I hope all this is true... that would be real fun!
ROFLM~F~AO!
:))
Like everyone else I got all got all pissed off with Caldera/SCO for their petty, vindictive & malicious behaviour. But now look at 'em... the management team will never work again in corporate America, the company will be bust quicker than you can say "busted flush", and the shareholders (if there's any justice) will be left with nothing. How hilarious!
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
That Microsoft isn't going to give SCO money? tsk!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
That was quick:
The following statement is being issued by SCO (Nasdaq: SCOX - News):
SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor.
Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights.
SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights. SCO's complaint specifically alleges breach of contract, and SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees.
We formed SCOsource in January 2003 to enforce our UNIX rights and we intend to aggressively continue in this successful path of operation.
You have performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.
800-946-0719 for the Conference Call
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
I am the real owner of the Unix IP!
...exceedingly funny?
Everyone fighting for ownership of a standard, and fighting over something that, down the road, won't change much to the fight between Linux and MS... "Turns out after all these years, I own Unix!" "No, I do!" I know sometimes the implications of these lawsuits seem scary, but I can't help laughing.
So either SCO will be bought or sued out of existance. I bet SCO executives didn't count on that when they brought up all these charges against IBM. Thats poetic justice. Maybe now Novell will put up a bid on SCO.
the penguin will eat you.
In other news, it turns out that I am Sparticus!
I am Sparticus!
No, I am Sparticus!
I remember long ago, when Richard Strawlman warned that the LZW algorithm (used by compress) wasn't free. So he wrote zip, which was free. People laughed at him at the time, but when Unisys acquired the LZW patent and started charging fees, he was universially acknowledged as a genius.
Likewise, it's probably best to migrate away from Unix since Novell could still bring up infringement claims. HuRD or Minix are probably the best alternatives.
Finally we are starting to see the bigger picture... The truth always comes out in things like this, and the righteous always come out on top. Yay for free software!
Anyone else suprised?
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
So what did MS buy from SCO ?
And most importantly, how much did they buy it for ?
-Bill Gates claims to have the IP rights to the concept of desktop computing
etc. etc.
is there no end to the madness!!!??!
Machine9dotNet
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
A "pig in a poke" means a bag with a piglet in it, the traditional way of selling a piglet because it's a lot easier to carry that way.
"Letting the cat out of the bag" refers to the other traditional way of selling a "pig in a poke" that is really a cat. The purchaser isn't expected to look inside the bag until they've gotten home out of the risk the piglet will escape. When they do look, they find out the truth.
So...Microsoft DID NOT buy a pig in a poke.
0wned >D
Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
...If it weren't for these meddling kids!!!
Scooby Dooby Doo!!!
1) Oh, Shit....
2) Fight! Fight! Fight!
3) Microsoft's Lic. 6.0 vs Unix Sys V lic 0.6
4) Are Tux and the BSD Daemon safe from the pillage of The Mouse who buys Congress???
5) Iago from Aladdin: "WHY am I NOT Suprised!!"
.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
lmao
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
It's useless to call in and try to ask questions about this. I'm sure it'll be brought up by the financial analysts dialed in, and the SCO people will weasel out with something like "This just came to our attention today. We will be looking at the validity of the claims but are confident blah blah blah..."
You won't today be hearing a full-out apology to the OSS community, if ever at all. They might just quietly drop the whole thing while they figure out the next best lawsuit.
Colocated Linux Servers - From $60/mo
To see two companies circling the toilet bowl, desperately competing to grab hold of that white stream of paper. Give it up, guys!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
It will have to start with a global apology.
They are form the U.S, right? Sue the bastards!
Their only hope now is to be bought by Microsoft. Then all charges will be dropped, because Microsoft brings in so much export revenue. Bah.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Future NEWS: Novell sends "Letter to Linux Customers" stating that unnamed entities incorporated Novells intellectual property into Linux without its authorization.
My karma ran over your dogma
Some stupid-ass language selector JSP is stalled (who uses JSP to put up a press release?!) so here's the text:
Novell Challenges SCO Position, Reiterates Support for Linux
PROVO, Utah -- May 28, 2003 -- Defending its interests in developing services to operate on the Linux platform, Novell today issued a dual challenge to The SCO Group over its recent statements regarding its UNIX ownership and potential intellectual property rights claims over Linux.
First, Novell challenged SCO's assertion that it owns the copyrights and patents to UNIX System V, pointing out that the asset purchase agreement entered into between Novell and SCO in 1995 did not transfer these rights to SCO. Second, Novell sought from SCO facts to back up its assertion that certain UNIX System V code has been copied into Linux. Novell communicated these concerns to SCO via a letter (text below) from Novell® Chairman and CEO Jack Messman in response to SCO making these claims.
"To Novell's knowledge, the 1995 agreement governing SCO's purchase of UNIX from Novell does not convey to SCO the associated copyrights," Messman said in the letter. "We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights. Apparently you share this view, since over the last few months you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO, requests that Novell has rejected."
"SCO claims it has specific evidence supporting its allegations against the Linux community," Messman added. "It is time to substantiate that claim, or recant the sweeping and unsupported allegation made in your letter. Absent such action, it will be apparent to all that SCO's true intent is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Linux in order to extort payments from Linux distributors and users."
"Novell has answered the call of the open source community," said Bruce Perens, a leading proponent of open source. "We admire what they are doing. Based on recent announcements to support Linux with NetWare services and now this revelation...Novell has just won the hearts and minds of developers and corporations alike."
Text of the letter from Novell to SCO:
Mr. Darl McBride
President and CEO
The SCO Group
Re: SCO's "Letter to Linux Customers"
Dear Darl:
As you know, Novell recently announced some important Linux initiatives. These include an upcoming NetWare version based on the Linux kernel, as well as collaboration and resource management solutions for Linux.
Put simply, Novell is an ardent supporter of Linux and the open source development community. This support will increase over time.
It was in this context that we recently received your "Letter to Linux Customers." Many Novell business partners and customers apparently received the same letter. Your letter compels a response from Novell.
As we understand the letter, SCO alleges that unnamed entities incorporated SCO's intellectual property into Linux without its authorization. You apparently base this allegation on a belief that these unnamed entities copied some UNIX System V code into Linux. Beyond this limited understanding, we have been unable to glean any further information about your allegation because of your letter's vagueness.
In particular, the letter leaves certain critical questions unanswered. What specific code was copied from UNIX System V? Where can we find this code in Linux? Who copied this code? Why does this alleged copying infringe SCO's intellectual property? By failing to address these important questions, SCO has failed to put us on meaningful notice of any allegedly infringing Linux code, and thus has withheld from us the ability - and removed any corresponding obligation - to address your allegation.
As best we can determine, the vagueness about your allegation is intentional. In response to industry demands that you be more specific, you attempt to justify your vagueness by stating, "That's like saying, 'show us the
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Not only will IBM's land sharks bite SCO for claiming to own the rights, but didn't IBM buy a whole company on the basis of those claims to get licencing for AIX?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
i own linux.
and then maybe you own it.
and then somebody else gets a turn at owning linux.
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
How the heck did SCO buy "Unix" without buying the copyrights? Why have they been in discussion (dispute?) between SCO and Novell for the past several months? Novell's letter has qualifiers like "to our knowledge" when it says SCO doesn't own the copyrights. It sounds like the Novell-SCO agreement has been flawed all along and nobody knows what the real situation is.
I think there are yet more layers to this madness waiting to be unpeeled.
mplayer "http://web.servicebureau.net/conf/meta?i=11123830 11&c=2343&m=was&u=/w_ccbn.xsl&date_ticker=5_28_200 3_SCOX"
Heh, I submitted this seemingly seconds before it was posted by Michael.
The press release link at Novell in the story appears to have been replaced with a blank page, at least for now. This story at the Inquirer includes a copy of the letter that Novell's CEO sent to SCO's CEO Darl McBride. Good stuff.
What the hell is going on? When did the whole world go through the rabbit hole?
/usr/src/linux -r
Personally, I reckon:
$>grep '(C) SCO'
$>
should settle the whole case.
Down 4% since the market opened this morning, half of that in the last 20 minutes.
NASDAQ: SCOX
We formed SCOsource in January 2003 to enforce our UNIX rights and we intend to aggressively continue in this successful path of operation.
This is SCO's responce. And that's just why everyone hates them. Becuase the "formed" specifically to sue everyone they can get their hands on and not to do business.
This is just like the guy patenting "online aucitoning" and suing eBay. Its a load of shit. The sad thing is that its a growing industry.
"Engineers do the work of man, Physicists do the work of God"
This will be one of those saga's that become a part of computing history.
The plot twists and turns are making this into a very intersting story.
"Things that you own end up owning you" - Tyler Durden (via Diogenes of Sinope).
You know, where the bad guy (SCO) comes out and talks trash about the good guy (IBM). Then when the good guy comes out to attack him, he gets jumped by another bad guy (Microsoft). And then just as they're about to pummel the hell out of IBM, Novell comes out of the crowd brandishing a folding chair...
Next week they'll be a tag match to determine the UNIX championship...in the cage!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
But Thank God for Novell....
It's left blank because I have nothing to say to you punks!
tee hee
Based on SCO's response, claiming that no patent or copyright issues are involved, then Linux and Linux users are safe from any action by SCO EVEN IF SCO WINS AGAINST IBM. I certainly hope SCO doesn't win, but even if they do, since the entirety of their claims are contract based, and NOT copyright or patent based, the Linux code base can't be touched.
Wow, Back in March, SCO was 2 bucks a share, now they're up around 8. I guess no publicity is bad publicity...
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
It was in this context that we recently received your "Letter to Linux Customers." Many Novell business partners and customers apparently received the same letter. Your letter compels a response from Novell.
So who was the idiot at SCO that sent the "you're a bad Linux user" letter to Novell?
All your Unix are belong to us
And it's utterly pathetic how excited I am about reading it.
:)
I really need a life.
http://use.perl.org
This whole thing has really started to remind me of the eniac patent suit. As soon as some technology starts to take off (long after it has actually been created), some larger adversary comes out and tries to threaten the validity of the original claims.
The exact same thing happened when Sperry (the company that bough Eckert and Mauchly's company, which made UNIVAC) was sued for rights to the ENIAC patent (that Mauchly and Eckert at the time held). No one had contested that Eckert and Mauchly had designed the first electronic computer, but instead had hooked onto details in the patent file. Ironically, IBM was in a very similar position as it is with the SCO/Linux problem. IBM has cooperated with open source to a great degree, just as it had licensed Eckert and Mauchly's products and was seen as a supported of the "dark side" by SCO, just as they were seen by those trying to strip E & M of their patents.
History really has a funny way of repeating itself
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
Novells the champ I suppose here, it will win enormous support form the Linux community on this issue if it can really torpedo SCO, but the big fish is Microsoft. Their link to SCO absolutely must be revealed, I think IBM Suse Redhat Novell and others will have an easy time suing Microsoft back on this if the connection is properly revealed.
This issue must be shut ASAP, because it might be causing jitters among ignorant corporate decision makers and consultants. People like Linus should come out to the public after SCO's claims have been squashed, to get the word out that Linux's license is robust and will not drown the way some other UNIXen did.
And finally it would make Novell a hero to release the whole UNIX under an opensource license, preferably GPL, since they're contemplating moving to Linux anyway. These guys have been really innovative for the Internet and the practically invented the LAN for the masses, they should be supported. Their support in these tough times shows the principles behind the free software movement are not simply financially motivated, but are based on ideals that UNIX users and developers anywhere in the world can relate to. Microsoft couldnt fight that.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Without copyright or patents, they can't do anything against Linux, the distros or the end users. They could still go after IBM for breach of contract. They might also step out in front of a runaway tank, the chances were just as great before, now I think they'd prefer the tank.
And congrats from Novell, coming late but well. I imagine it took them this long to go "What the hell is SCO talking about? Did we royally screw up? Let our bloodhou^H^H^H^Hlawyers review all the contracts we made."
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
haha guess it's a bruce perens in all of us........
fuck it let's all stand up
+1 Bruce Perens
offtopic? Didn't you see what goatse man had written inside his hole? Mod up insightful.
Obviously they didn't RTFM!
Then Novell and IBM are walking to the ring, accompanied by Bruce Pearns.
IBM and SCO start out, with IBM teasing a test of strength, SCO begins, but gets scared and immediately tags in Microsoft.
Microsoft and IBM go at it, with Microsoft gaining the upperhand. IBM is almost down and out, when a diving tag in to Novell.
HOT TAG!
Novell clears house, and the crowd is going wild, SCO gets back up, and they start double teaming both until
CHAIRSHOT!
Bruce Pearns jumps out from the side, and knocks Novell out!
JIM ROSS: "OH MUH GOD! THEY'VE BEEN DOUBLE CROSSED!"
http://use.perl.org
This should be real run.
:)
I actualy have a crowd around my desk
There's all sorts of people just queueing up to take a whack at her (SCO).
If Novell's correct, SCO just had ANOTHER enormous hole blown in it's argument/case (as if the several dozen holes already in place weren't enough to hemmorage it to death).
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Did I hear that right? "Contract rights give us so much power over you you're better off dead" or words to that effect. Why have a contract with SCO? They will attack their customers first, because they are more likely to win.
They just handed us an argument *for* Linux. Thanks, SCO.
+1 Informative
Is not the Founder of Novell also the founder of SCO Group?
You would think he would have warned the SCO Group board about their own stupidity, no?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Interesting perspective. Anybody know if this statement is consistent with their recent claims?
The lawyers laugh their way to the bank! :-)
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Read the response here.
And by the way, I like gay anal sex.
From the page of SCOsource:
SCOsource is a new business division to manage its UNIX® System intellectual property. The charter of the new division is to create new and innovative licensing programs to meet the changing demands of today's market and to protect its intellectual property asset.
SCO is the owner of the UNIX Operating System Intellectual Property that dates all the way back 1969, when the UNIX System was created at Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the patents, copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX System. The SCO source division will continue to offer traditional UNIX System licenses to preserve, protect and enhance shareholder value.
So they do make these claims. Let's see how long it stays up like this.
SCOsource
It looks like SCO might have stolen code from Linux, according to this post on the linux kernel mailing list
RFC1925
Does anybody else wish that Bruce Perens would stop expounding conspiracy theories involving Redmond at every possible opportunity? It just makes him, and by extension us, look rather childish. The evidence is circumstantial at best, and that simply isn't good enough to go around making unsupportable claims.
ANNOUNCEMENT:
I hereby acknowledge that I had the thought "Hello World" when I was born, thus granting me intellectual rights on that phrase. Following that assertion to its logical conclusion, I demand full financial responsibility of all the programs, past, present, and future that use the phrase "Hello World" pay royalties to me, in the generous (on my part) amount of $.50 per iteration. Judging from a rough estimate of 30 years of use, and about 1 program per 10 seconds (on average), I estimate I am owed a total of $47,304,000, due in full immediately... or by payments of $2,000,000 per year for the next 30 years.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Novell not suicidal.
Going up against IBM in an IP suit means that you have nothing to lose. SCO is a rapidly sinking ship trying whatever they can to stay afloat, last I checked Novell still had something to actually lose.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The number you have dialed 800-406-5356 is not a valid number for the conference. The new number is
area code eight hundred, nine four six, zero seven one nine. Please make a note of the new number. Area code eight hundred, nine four sig, zero seven one nine.
signature pending slashdot approval
Their stock price is down today, so maybe The Street finally sees that the reality of the situation is that their operating systems division is failing. It is ironic that SCO made a profit selling licences to something that Novell now claims it 'owns' but I really cannot make sense of this mess any more. So maybe I just misundersand how SCO can sell licenses to something that Novell opwns the copyrights to.
SCO is the owner of the UNIX Operating System Intellectual Property that dates all the way back 1969, when the UNIX System was created at Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the patents, copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX System
I.e. they're fucked.
Many kudo's to Bruce Perens for his obvious behind the scenes lobbying and to Novell for trying to pamper the community (hope they succeed, they're a cute, insignificant little friendly, furry, huggable company and deserve a profitable niche in todays market).
Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights.
Wow, that sounds bitter, and thoroughly unprofessional in tone - who the hell wrote this? Is SCO so cash poor that they're having law students write their PR's on this, rather than lawyers?
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Did anyone notice this?! I wasn't paying attention.
SCO 's Stock Performance
I think it's high time that the SEC got involved here.
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
Novell management says they do not intend to stand in the way of the development of the Linux kernel, its companion GNU system, and other Free Software.
Thank GOD I don't have to go out and write a completely new language now...This is gonna save me a whole shitload of work! *WHEW*
Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time is enemy action.
IBM has a longstanding, established history of buying up computer companies that were once giants in their own right. For example Lotus, Informix, etc.
IBM needs to add a Network Operating System (NOS) to its product portfolio, don't you think so?
Yep, I just heard about it from a friend of mine at SCO.
As you can see, I think the solution is to change all "if" statements to a new C statement.
A new proposal for the "FOSif" statement has been made an new gcc binaries are available from your fav. mirrors !
What they're saying is that (supposedly) they own the rights to the contract IBM signed giving it the right to incorporate the SysV code into AIX. Thus, they assume the contractual relationship with IBM, and even if they don't own copyrights/patents over the code they may still enforce the contract terms. So, if IBM did copy SysV code into Linux (still doubtful), SCO would still have a case against them for violation of the contract.
The claim that Linux was ripping off SysV code *before* IBM started doing open-source development is now much shakier, because even if SCO is right about this, they have no legal rights to pursue it- as far as we know, they have no contractual relationship with any of the other Linux companies. Novell might, but they've shown where they stand on the issue. Therefore, SCO's letter to the 1500 companies could get them in huge trouble if they turned out to be lying about the code ownership, and would be construed by the courts as an attempt to extort licensing fees. (We all know this, but what matters is making a judge understand.)
Till now when I mention my past work-ex with Novell I would always cringe with a bit of shame, but now I feel proud ! Way to go Novell ! (and I never said this before for anything Novell did :-) )
DO NOT PANIC
SCO just can't make up their mind. The warn Linux vendors about intellectual property violations because IBM supposedly put copyrighted code into Linux, then they say that their dispute with IBM is only based on contractual agreements, not copyrights.
I think it is absolutely pointless to worry about this until SCO comes forward with specific accusations, not vague press releases. Like a spoiled child, SCO just wants attention, and all this coverage just encourages their bad behavior.
As for Novell, I wouldn't bet on them any more than on SCO. I'm afraid Novell is in for a rude awakening as well when their "new strategy" fails. And they may well turn into the next SCO then--lawyers and executives are the last to leave a failing company, and they will try hard to "monetize" whatever assets they think they have, which usually includes lawsuits over copyrights, patents, and trademarks.
When I read this headline I started laughing. All I can think is look what has come out of the woodwork now. This is quality stuff.
rm -rf sig
And in response to such alarming news, shares of Novell [NVOL] rose an impressive 3.00% to a whopping 3.09
Bookmark this baby, and watch them fall back down.
Hopefully.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
No, I am Bruce Perens.
Ha! Ha!
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
I don't buy the MS-SCO conspiracy theories... but even if I did: MS will probably want their recent license money back from SCO. Bill Gates is tight with his pennies, so I doubt that he'll be pleased with what he got for his money.
They probably paid
1. To avoid becoming a SCO target as well as IBM
and/or
2. To get the SCO Linux FUD some press.
If 1 - they might think they paid for defense against something when they really didn't need to worry it all
If 2 - they won't be happy with the kind of press this is going to get days after paying.
If you buy the conspiracy theory (like I said I don't, I think the license was purely defensive against possible suits from SCO and some marketing bod then saw the potential) --- but if you do buy the conspiracy theory --- another reason they'll want their money back is because they won't want to get bitch slapped for helping out SCO.
If what Novell claims is true then SCO has more than a few problems to handle. It will have to start with a global apology.
... Novel, unlike SCO, may not be thriving, but they aren't facing immenent bankrupcy either), then the fact that SCO lied to their shareholders is an SEC violation. It is fraud (among other things) and the perpetrators could be looking at a prison term (hopefully in a cockroach ridden, butt-slamming Pen, rather than Club Fed).
If this is true (and it almost certainly is
And, as others have pointed out, the civil damages and liability resulting from this fraudulant deception against SCO and those personally involved in the deception could well be quite staggaring. These people could well end up broke and in prison.
This, of course, assumes the government actually chooses to enforce the law this time. As we saw with the Microsoft Anti-Trust case, that is certainly not a given.
Regardless, however, it does vindicate GNU/Linux and free software in the extreme, and it does demonstrate the depths of depravity that Microsoft (who was quite transparently pushing this and financing it via a license they clearly weren't required to get) and its shills, such as SCO, will sink to.
The best revenge is living well, indeed, living better than those who have wronged you. Even if SCO were to get off scott free (unlikely), clearly, anyone running FreeBSD (which could theoretically have been targeted with a similiar FUD campaign) and GNU/Linux are living quite well (in the technical arena at least), certainly much better than the poor sops running Unixware and SCO, and arguably quite a bit better than those running the product of SCO's master in Redmond. We should take joy in that fact (but not let it slow down the counter suits and prosecutions from those who were more directly wronged by SCO's illegal and unconscionable behavior).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
W3 0wnz0r j00 b10tch3z...b3nd 0v3r!
I called in and was given a new phone number.
800-946-0719
they then ask for a code after a bit of a wait and will not connect without it.
Code is 728441
Enjoy the call!
...not to piss all over the place, but ah...Where were you on this thing a few months ago? Did you just remember that SysV is yours?
That's why Novell waited til now. SCO licensed IP it didn't own to MS which thereby tacitly acknowledged it neede to do so to not violate that IP. Novell owns the IP that MS says it needs and can now demand that MS pony up to Novell and pay for the IP they say they they are using. Novell's next letter:
Dear Bill,
You owe us a butload of money. Pay up or else.
Very truly yours,
Novell
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Reading SCO's response to Novell is highly amusing. We concede all of your points, but we're going to keep going the way we have been. These guys need a reality check. But then so does their market cap.
--
BitTorrent in C -- LibBT
http://www.sf.net/projects/libbt
SCO Statement on Novell's Recent Actions
Wednesday May 28, 10:15 am ET
LINDON, Utah, May 28
SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor.
Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights.
SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights. SCO's complaint specifically alleges breach of contract, and SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees.
We formed SCOsource in January 2003 to enforce our UNIX rights and we intend to aggressively continue in this successful path of operation.
-- My choice of computing platform is a symbol of my individuality and belief in personal freedom.
of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. While trying to extort money from IBM with a flyswatter.
http://ir.sco.com/conference.cfm
./'d
Because I'm sure the phone will be
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
So... SCO basically says in their response that "OK, so we don't own any IP rights, it's just that IBM breached a contract with us and that's why we're suing".
Well, fair enough. So they sue IBM. But what the fuck for were they mailing the top thousand largest Linux-using companies that they should stop using Linux because they own UNIX IP incorporated in Linux?
It is clear that SCO has no case; their purpose is simply to destabilize Open source community and make investors weary of future work/investment with Open Source and specifically with Linux. The big game players and not SCO are behind it.
Arent both of these companies now based in Utah? Seems like its the battle of the wards (Mormon churches).
There's no Freedom like UFP-dom
but I can't resist... :)
All YOUR BASE, all your base are belong to Novell!
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Wait a minute ....
The SCO claim is that:
" In the last 18 months, we found that IBM had donated some very high-end enterprise-computing technologies into open-source. Some of it looked like it was our intellectual property and subject to our licensing agreements with IBM. Their actions were in direct violation of our agreements with them that they would not share this information, let alone donate it into open-source. We have examples of code being lifted verbatim.
And IBM took the same team that had been working on a Unix code project with us and moved them over to work on Linux code. If you look at the code we believe has been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an entire section -- and in some cases, an entire program. "
They don't actually say they own the code (in this excerpt), but rather, that they have licensed it to IBM. As I'm sure you know, there are often agreements made that allow corporations to sublicense works; although Novell owns the code itself, if they granted SCO the right to license it (as they apparently have), and SCO licensed it to IBM (as they apparently have), IBM is still responsible for using it legally.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
they got bitch-slapped.
"An hour after Microsoft buys SCO, Novell revokes SCO's contract for Unix..."
*chuckle*
- Novell admin since 1989 -
Go Novell!
Have you hugged your penguin today?
Someone here posed the question: Then what did M$ buy from SCO? Answer: Two things, and Jack left town. Seriously, it is doubtful that M$ was unaware of the state of the SCO/Novell deal when it did its licensing deal w/ SCO last week. It was probably even aware of SCO's recent attempts to acquire Unix IP from Novell. So, why did M$ buy a meaningless license from SCO? Answer: pure FUD baby. Questions of 'bankrolling' aside, M$'s "signing on" to SCO position served to bolster the apparent credibility of SCO's FUD campaign, which is pure gold to M$. Novell's demonstration that SCO really didn't have much to license goes to show that the FUD must have been M$'s primary motivation for buying the license from SCO. Now, go ahead everyone, get mad.
Can't say I'll shed any tears over that one.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
New Conference Number
IBM has long established a history of scarfing up companies that formerly had glory days (Lotus, Informix). Don't you think its about time IBM needs to add a NOS (network o/s) to its product portfolio?
Just like the movie. Now who owns the property rights to the film? Is real life intellectual property? Can you patent a movie plot?
I'm in on the call - Robert Taylor of R James Taylor Consulting...just listening, though...
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
So:
Novell owns the rights to Unix as of 1995.
Novell exclusively licensed Unix to company X which in turn exclusively licensed Unix to SCO Group.
If SCO Group wants to claim infringement against anyone for pre 1995 Unix IP, thay have to ask Novell (via company X) to pursue the claim on SCOs behalf.
Novell sees $$ in Linux and wants to please the Linux community.
In order to convince Novell to pursue a claim of infringement, SCO Group will have to disclose the alleged infringements to Novell.
Novell's contract may include grounds under which they are not required to pursue a claim of infringement (presumably Novell isn't required to pursue a case of infringement if the alleged infringer is a direct or indirect SCO Group licensee [as would be the case for any Linux user since SCO Group distributed a version of Linux]).
Novell is thus in a position to make any suit by SCO Group on the basis of infringement (what we all worry about) spectacularly difficult.
Im asking this, cos microsoft have licences Unix from SCO. But if SCO only had a licence themeselves, can they licence that licence off?
If they can, surely they cant retain a licence themeselves, cos they paid for one, they cant then sell one to whoever, and still retain a licence. Thats like buy one, get one free! Does this mean that if MS buy or have bought (even better!) the licence, SCO no longer own ANY unix licence? This could really open a can of worms!!!
SERVE EM RIGHT!
The SCO Group Invites You to Join Its Second-Quarter 2003 Results Conference Call
.
LINDON, Utah, May 22, 2003 -- The SCO® Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX) will report financial results for its second quarter ended April 30, 2003 before the market open on Wednesday, May 28, 2003, followed by a teleconference regarding its results and outlook.
WHAT: The SCO Group, Inc. Second-Quarter Results Conference Call
WHEN: Wednesday, May 28, 2003, 9:00 a.m. Mountain Daylight Time (11:00 a.m. EDT)
HOW: If you would like to participate in the live call, you may dial 1.800.946.0719 or 1.719.457.2645; Passcode: 728447.
You may also join the call in listen only mode via web cast at http://ir.sco.com/conference.cfm or www.companyboardroom.com
These sites will host an archive of the call for a minimum of 30-days.
About SCO
Founded in 1979, The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX), helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries around the world grow their businesses everyday through the company's UNIX, Linux and Windows business solutions. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a network of more than 16,000 resellers and 8,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit http://www.sco.com
SCO and the associated SCO logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of Caldera International, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX and UnixWare, used under an exclusive license, are registered trademarks of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of, and are used to identify products or services of, their respective owners.
Anyone know how much revenue they derive from licensing the source code?
IAALS.
The IBM-SCO wrangling over UNIX code gets a new twist . .
The concerted effort of SCO with the conniving backend backing of Microsoft now gets a slap on its face from Novell
Anything new expected to get introduced on this saga of claims and couterclaims ???
I N T E R E S T I N G . . .
It's amusing and delightful, but the IBM suit isn't about patents or copyright, it's about an NDA. IBM signed a contract that said they woudn't disclose certain info, and (SCO claims) they did. It doesn't matter whether SCO owned it in the first place, although that may go into the damages equation. Any lawyers want to comment?
Behold the riant ape! Beware, his crooked thumbs!
j/k...
Anyway, to Ransom Love, I have this to say...
Mr. Love, you are a person of very, very poor quality. For years, you ran Caldera, pretending to be a member of the community, the whole time trying to undermine the GPL. Then after acquiring SCO, you immediately got your legal team working on finding a way to force the community to fork over cash. During this time, you promised several times that SCO was not going after Linux. Recently you yourself exposed this lie, now more of your lies have been exposed.
You are a leach, a parasite. You have committed egregious crimes against a community of hundreds of thousands. You are a terribly selfish person.
I wish ruin upon you.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I don't know where Bruce Perens is getting his number, but I'm getting my conference call number from an SCO press release, and I'm on the line with the call about to start.
Actually I'd rather that the real number did NOT get slashdotted by trolls. That would not hurt SCO any, just as the DOS of Caldera's web site did not hurt them any -- it just made their opposition look juvenile.
So if you find the live number, and you call it up, do us all a favor and just listen.
TSA
I suppose it makes sense for Novell to defend Linux (and UNIX) since many of the services provided by NetWare 7 will also be available for Linux!
Ouch! The truth hurts!
SCO's press release: "SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor. Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights. SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights. SCO's complaint specifically alleges breach of contract, and SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees. We formed SCOsource in January 2003 to enforce our UNIX rights and we intend to aggressively continue in this successful path of operation."
From talking to an lawyer friend & looking at the Novell claims, this completely undermines SCO's claims against the Linux community but NOT IBM.
Basically, SCO has the right to sue the snot out of any UNIX System V licensee that redistributes UNIX code without permission.
HOWEVER!!!!
Only Novell has the right to sue those who are infringing their copyrights and patents (i.e. users of the supposedly "polluted" forms of Linux) and they have proven today that they are not willing to do so.
Sometimes the good guys win!!
Have the executives been dumping while this plays out during the recent spike? Could be fun for the SEC.
Of course, they're probably just stupid rather than devious, but you never know...
Press release from SCO this morning:
"SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights."
So what the hell does it involve?
Where's the talk of IP infringement now?
It seems SCO's lawsuit and SCO itself are finished.
In addition to the conference call number, you can listen to the SCO conference call online.
They're Investor Relations Page says, you can listen here.
Here's a blurb from their page;
You may also join via listen-only web cast by clicking on the url located at http://ir.sco.com/conference.cfm or www.companyboardroom.com.
I just wanted to figure this thing out - when SCO claims its code was improperly lifted into linux, is this code written by SCO, or is this code written by someone before SCO contracted it from Novell ?
from www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html:
"SCO's history of non-performance in the enterprise market is not only consistent from long before the beginning of IBM's involvement with Linux in 1999-2000, it predates the 1991 origin of Linux itself. SCO/Caldera's claim that IBM's behavior with regard to improving Linux's enterprise scalability did it harm should be evaluated in the light of the failure of both incarnations of SCO, over more than a decade before that, to even seriously attempt to be competitive in the enterprise market."
So, the most specific reference they've made to the infringed code - "very high-end enterprise-computing technologies" is one of the easiest to refute.
got biv?
Claiming ownership of the Linux source is no longer Novell.
(Sorry, bad pun. But about a million kudos to Novell for the helping hand when needed. That kind of goodwill is a good way to build up your company to survive for a long time.)
BTW, I claim one of the aeron chairs when SCO folds!
The ______ Agenda
We have a bunch of pieces of an interesting puzzle. It seems that SCO has knowingly committed fraud. Doesn't that make it possible to turn the tables?
Since their letter slowed the Linux movement for many companies and individuals (at least theoretically) and forced many of us to waste valuable time explaning and defending our good decisions to our bosses, it thus caused loss of revenue. It was maliciously intended to do so, and it was known at time of writing to be a lie.
Isn't a class action lawsuit called for here?
If FUD were actionable, and precedent was set that corporations were held liable for such behavior, it might lessen the lies coming out of Redmond. Might.
But either way, it would generate huge amounts of good press to spend a few months pursuing SCO for redress. SCO's lawsuit against IBM could even succeed and not derail a class action suit against SCO which might cost them more than the IBM suit yields.
Slander? Fraud? Conspiracy? (Yet to be proven with Microsoft, but an internal memo might show up.) Are any of these actionable?
ROCKS!
*does the happy dance*
SCO: "Oh, no, we were NEVER suing for patent infringment - it was ALWAYS a contract dispute over the LICENSING of the code." So, Novell, how'd you like to make about a kajillion new fans? License the code to IBM for a buck. SCO is irrelevant, problem solved. P.S. Didn't I hear somewhere that NW7 is going to be a services based connectivity, authentication and management layer running on Linux? Samba? LDAP? NIS? ACLs? THAT would be cool.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Does this mean Microsoft got shafted by SCO on their license? Whatta boomerang that would be...
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
I know when IBM was pursuing propietary claims against other companies, it had to do more than prove that it (IBM) owned the information, IBM had to prove that it actively and dilligently protected that information both internally and externally. With the lack of and casualness of the current protections in place (when was the last time SCO audited IBM for compliance in proctecting Unix propietary information?) SCO has a very weak case.
Webcast underway - another mirror:
http://biz.yahoo.com/cc/0/30510.html
At least that is the advertising that I've seen.
Novell is de-coupling (is that the right term?) their regular services from the NetWare kernel and porting them to run on the Linux kernel.
I think this is great, if it gives NetWare better memory management (an area where NetWare has always been weak).
And a nice golden parachute. Don't forget the golden parachute. Even if you're the one responsible for the plane going down in flames, you'll come out smelling like a rose.
Shakedown Corporate Operations
WOW...last year a huge loss, this year a nice profit. Much of it from the "SCO Source Initiative"
the BSA would be proud.
and so's my wife!
By the way, there arn't any samaritans here are there?
this sig steers like a cow. and i can prove it
But the possibility that SCO was so brain-damaged by greed or desperation that they thought they could assert ownership over something they only licensed "reprint rights" for has me flabbergasted.
I'm listening to the conference call right now, and they just claimed that 1/3 of the total revenue for the next quarter would come from SCOsource (IE Suing people). Great.
__________
Love conquers all... except CANCER
Check out the SCOsource website
The page includes a FAQ and quotes from Stallman and Perens that "support" SCO's position.
I am sure the RIAA and the MPAA just dropped a load in their shorts over this statement. As did Microsoft, realizing that their EULA is a contract of sorts.
Of course, the statement is pretty much BS, that that doesn't mean that people won't believe it. And here I thought that a contract was an agreement between parties, not something you "use against parties". Guess that is why I never got an MBA.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
One question will get through while the crowd is yelling "-1, Troll".
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
I'm sure am a coward, but didn't i read that SCO has the right to sublicense the code? This isn't grounds to sue Microsoft, MS probably got a killer deal on it, a steal if you will.
SELL!!! SELL!! SELL!!!!!!
Maybe they had better things to do.
GO AHEAD... MAKE MY DAY!
Hey, they did go ahead. Well, you know what happens next!
Skiing? Check out The Independant Skiers Portal
D. McBride: "Microsoft owns the Windows IP, SCO owns the CONTRACTS RIGHTS to UNIX...
There is an interesting little discussion on Merriam Webster's site which encompasses both Fred's and Bruce's meanings:
http://www.m-w.com/wftw/02oct/102302.htm
FWIW, I found Bruce's metaphor apt.
We now return you to today's exciting developments!
"...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
McBride just claimed in the conference call that SCO "owns" the Unix asset.
61% of company revenue from Unix
8% from SCOX Unix rights
(That's a big piece of pie they are about to lose.)
Now discussing "You are a bad user letter"
SCOX is #3 mover on NASDAC thank to that letter.
Still claiming to own Unix
Claiming to own licensing rights
discussing how the shakdown has generated some good bucks
During the conference call SCO claimed that they own the intellectual property of UNIX. "When you think of UNIX you're thinking of the core code base that we own." Really.
D. McBride: "When you think of UNIX think of the core IP and source code which started so many years ago at AT&T and the many flavors...IBM has a flavor of UNIX it licensed from us, HP has a flavor it licensed from us, SUN has a flavor it licensed from us..."
Do you charge your customers extra for fire and rain?
Piglets were easily transported to market in bags ("pokes").
Certain individuals would put a cat in the bag, instead of a pig. Cats were easier to find than pigs.
Certain stupid people would not open the bag to check if it was really a pig. Hence, "buying a pig in a poke".
Certain smart people would open the bag and the cat would escape. Hence, "letting the cat out of the bag".
Go slashdot
No Text
Unix claimed ownership of the Novel 5.0
http://ebgp.net/ccc/
"Microsoft executives also have egg on their faces. The company self-servingly rushed to buy an SCO license one business day after the threat letter, bringing a senior attorney to the office on a Sunday to tell the press how much Microsoft values intellectual property. Microsoft's management could have taken the time to analyze SCO's claims, if the company had wanted this license for practical and technical reasons. Their decision to buy when they did must have been motivated by a desire to add to SCO's fear campaign. Of course they'll grab any opportunity to spread fear about Linux, but this time Microsoft bought a pig in a poke.
... evildoers!
Good job Bruce. I'm sure you've investigated this just as much as Microsoft investigated buying a license from SCO. Got an inside source at Microsoft now? Can you authoritatively state that Microsoft bought the license from SCO to spread FUD about Linux? No, you cannot. Look who's slinging the FUD now.
Alas, it's Microsoft and SCO related together in some story
It's no wonder you got canned at HP. You speak before you think.
Check this out!
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=1d
Who would bought those shares right at market opening and on the news that SCO is toast, seems kinda fishy to me? Then there is a dip that can reasonably be accounted for but then again (it's now about 11am on the stock chart) who is buying right now?
Another bit from the SCO con call, an unknown company has also licensed the IP to Unix, what a sham now that it turns out they (SCO) don't own it!
__________
Love conquers all... except CANCER
Check out their price - its gone down 12 points in the las 5 minutes! Let the suckers take the fall.
huh??
I'm listening to the conference call right now - the CEO just said there are 244 people listening in, up from 7 two quarters ago. I wonder why that is? ;-)
I had no trouble getting in, by identifying myself as an individual investor.
He claims "not just a line or two of code problems [in Linux], but significant code problems."
"Millions of lines of code showing up without anyone warrantying [sic] where the lines of code came from"
No mention of Novell yet.
A customer service representative will be with me shortly.
They just said that there were 244 people on the conference call vs 17 people last quarter (or was it two quarters ago? -- either way there's a lot more).
:) This ought to be fun. I'll kharma whore with another post on that as it comes...
They are talking about the MS SCO licensing deal. Not much info.
They're talking about the IBM lawsuit.. just that they sued them, didn't specify the amount. Said that in June they'd revoke the AIX UNIX license.
Talking about the Linux letter.. that they sent to everyong. Said they found code violations -- not saying what code. Said 3 teams came back with "significant code problems". Said they were legally advised to send letters to enterprise users of Linux to advise misappropriation of code.
Regarding Linux: "Millions of lines of code without knowing where they came from" -- almost a quote. Very close. Grrr.. pissing me off.
Q&A session coming soon...
claims made that there are significant code violations in Linux.
Millions of lines of code in Linux without anyone WARRANTYING where the code came from -- so it is in the end users hands (and thereby their responsibility for any use of violated code).
From his Speech, on the Conferance Call-
"Last year we had 7 callers for our earnings, this year we have over.. 240 callers on the line"
Behold the Power of Slashdot.
Slashdotting a Telephone.
-Colin
Colin Davis
Okay, Novell deserves to be rewarded for this!
Is there anything from Novell I can buy for $50 or so? Preferably something useful, but I'm willing to make that definition stretch.
Jim
This quote was interesting:
"Last time we had 7 listeners on the conference call, and this time we have 247 people.
I think this is due to the interest in our new licensing agreement which is creating
quite an interest in the industry"
How do executives (who have a clue) keep a straight face in such meetings ?
DO NOT PANIC
He just said that last time they had 7 people on the phones. This time he says they have well over 200 on the phone lines alone (I'm listening to the webcast). 20 bucks says his ass is sweating bullets right now...
It's a pig or a cat that MS bought.
This morning would be the best time to do so because SCO is already comitted to a press conference that they cannot cancel or delay.
lock, stock and two smoking barrels.
Oh, man I sooo want to source a class-action libel suit against SCO.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
There were only 244 people on the conference call! (compared with 7 on the last one, as Darl said).
Is this the BEST we can do? Come one, guys...
Just another proletarian malcontent.
While IANAL, I hold 12 patents and have been involved in a variety of legal wrangles involving patents.
It would be very interesting to see the letters that SCO sent out. If they weren't worded very carefully, and they include assertions of IP rights that SCO in fact doesn't own they could definitely trigger a rash of lawsuits.
When I was working in this field we were VERY careful when we went trolling for license fees. Something like:
Dear Sirs:
It has come to our attention that you may want to consider licensing the following patents (list numbers here).
Signed
XYX Patent Attorney.
No claims of infringement etc. Just a word to the wise. The recipient would then decide what sort of position they were in and respond with something like:
Dear XYX:
We are interested in #47, and would like to offer a license to our #53 in exchange.
(In other words, yeah, we might be doing #47, but we think you are doing #53)
-or-
We are not interested. (Prove it).
-or-
We invented that long before you patented it and here is a copy of our documentation of the fact.
And so on.
(Nelson laugh)Hah Hah
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Does he bill them double when he's posting to /. ?
Now, SCO is about to get their asses sued off by some very angry competitors, and what if they decide to squeal that the whole thing was Microsoft's idea in the first place?
Oh brother, this could get NASTY.
Even if Microsoft was just suckered in by the potential to do damage to Linux, SCO can make it very embarassing to Microsoft. This could be a lot more fun to watch than previous lawsuits.
Question: When do you intend to release specifics on violations?
Answer: A lot of companies have been coming back to us asking "what is going on here? Am I running LInux that is in fact compromised...who do I talk to?"
We have told people to get advice of counsel... We have invited people who may be running Linux and are concerned to come in... under NDA we will be glad to go through the things that we have found.
In the Novell case, they called last week and were concerned about the letter... we set up a time to meet with them at 11AM yesterday... they didn't show up and later on sent out a letter saying that SCO would not meet with them, demanding that we step up and show them the goods.
A customer service representative will be with me shortly.
Well, the way they see it, there are "only 2 operating systems", "Unix and Windows". And "a lot of people think Linux is going to be the future of servercentric operating systems; thats a dumb idea". A "dumb idea" indeed. Yessiree, we can see why Microsoft loves you, SCO.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
But only if you sign an NDA with them
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
SCO is contradicting itself like mad. As you pointed out, SCO is claiming that this whole mess doesn't have anything to do with owning UNIX or System V. Yet the SCOsource homepage directly contradicts the statement that SCO doesn't own the IP. Ooooops.
Even if this is the case; Novell can simply GPL the relevant code (IF there is any) or release it into the public domain.
It is probably of little (business) interest to them anyway.
Of course, SCO might still then have a case against IBM, but Linux would be safe.
McBride has said that three independent code teams have found more than a million lines of code in violation of SCO's intellectual property.
Or is their press release from the law offices of Tarzan, Frankenstein and Tonto?
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
A: IBM still in discussions...Novell...the 1500 letters response has been VERY SIGNIFICANT...how do I find out if Linux is illegal? First, go get your own opinion of counsel. Second, we've invited people with licenses with us to come in, under NDA, and we'll show the details. Novell didn't show for their meeting at 11 AM yesterday.
Only way to get the details is under NDA.
Q: How long will SCOSource be a revenue stream?
A: started last quarter...only two contracts [MS and who?]. Opportunity is significant.
Pipeline quantification? - broad; roughly a third of revenue from SCOSource.
I'm in the conference call at the moment. In the Q&A session, somebody asked this question at point blank range:
Q: When are you going to give out specifics grievances regarding the tainted code in the IBM code?
The answer was, essentially, "We'll tell you if you sign an NDA".
Another interesting point (and I don't know if this info was out there before this) is that unless IBM repents within 100 days of the filing of the initial lawsuit (on March 7, I believe), SCO is going to yank IBM's AIX license.
http://www.sco.com/company/execs/
A bunch of dot.bomb hucksters, with not one shred of Unix experience between them. Most Mormons I know are upstanding and ethical to a fault, but clearly there are exceptions. Shame.
---
>so I just gave the name of one of the media I've written for regularly.
:)
What happens when they figure out that CDR isn't a news agency?
Darl said that there were 7 people on the last call, and 244 people on this one.
Anyone notice the similiarity?
& s= scox&a=v&p=s&l=on&z=m&q=l
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=c&c=novl&k=c1&t=1d
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
Oh sure, we know it's supposedly SCO's "IP", but what the f*ck are they referring to? If someone said that "they stole company property", and everyone said what did they steal and the response was "company property from the office", just how seriously do you think they'd be taken at this point? SCO wouldn't be forfeiting trade secret status on an announcement of where the code is because the code it's inside of is already visible to the public!
Second of all, since it's a trade secret infringement claim, that places a distinct upper limit on the size of their claim based on the value of their company at what could be the most recent point in time before the trade secret was stolen. In SCO's case, this claim shouldn't be anywhere even close to a billion dollars and is therefore almost certain to be rejected immediately by a judge (possibly even causing SCO to lose the case completely on the grounds that their claim is unsubstantiated).
SCO may not have any legal obligation to publically reveal where the infringing code is, but it is not legally advantageous for them not to. The entire open source community is as curious as hell about what the f*ck these guys are talking about, so SCO _could_ have come out of this smelling pretty good and the OS community would have said "shame on you" to IBM, while SCO collected damages from IBM for trade secret misappropriation if SCO had just informed the community immediately about what the exact code was that IBM put in it. If the community were to change the code at this point to no longer include this code, the fact that the SCO's code could be made irrellevant so quickly would not reduce the amount that SCO could legally claim for trade secret misappropriation from IBM in the first place.
Of course, trade secrets are not offered the same protections as patents or copyrights, and if the infringing code didn't even *come* from IBM (the only probable source of misappropriated IP from SCO), they'll have no case at all, and could be subject to hordes of class action suits from Linux developers for making damaging remarks about their character and reputation [although SCO might be able to avoid this by a public retraction and sincere apology], as well as a countersuit big enough from IBM to render SCO worth about as much as a Rorshach ink blot.
SCO has a heckuva lot to lose by not revealing where "their secrets" are in Linux. They certainly don't have anything more to gain.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
We already know that there are/were multiple UNIX systems. But only one set of rights? Without being able to see the full agreement between Novell and SCO, I admit that this may be true. But Novell was never a stupid company, and they would be extremely unlikely to sell rights to another company in a manner that prevented them from reselling those rights elsewhere later.
Every time they get caught doing something immoral or illegal they just say they didn't mean to do that and they get away with it. Worst case they just get a slap on the wrist. The only thing I can think is that its shareholders must be among the most powerful people on the face of the planet. It has got to be an accidental consipracy of hundreds or thousands of people trying to protect their portfolios. When a company wields that much power, no government on the face of the planet can touch them. I don't think even the EU will have the balls to sanction Microsoft, even though they're our last, best hope.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
First they accuse you of code theft,
Then they accuse you of IP theft,
Then they accuse you of contract violations,
Then they fold.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Dammit, Jim, this is Bruce Perens we're talking about. Why didn't you say DVD+R?
They don't actually say they own the code (in this excerpt), but rather, that they have licensed it to IBM. As I'm sure you know, there are often agreements made that allow corporations to sublicense works; although Novell owns the code itself, if they granted SCO the right to license it (as they apparently have), and SCO licensed it to IBM (as they apparently have), IBM is still responsible for using it legally.
Good point. But this would also make it a pure license/contract issue between SCO and IBM - SCO does evidently not hold copyright or patent rights to the code, so they can't go after SuSE or any other GNU/Linux distributor, vendor or user.
If IBM broke the license, SCO can get damages. But unless I'm missing something it seems like they can not go after any other party for using or distributing said code. That makes the threat letter a bit puzzling, to say the least.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
..(actually they claim it never had anything to do with copyrights and patent violations. Yeah right. If it never did, why were they pretending companies other than IBM may be in the firing line and why were they milking a "licence our IP" scheme out of this?
there may not be any inconsistency here. the definition of IP (intellectual property) includes patents, trademarks and copyrights - and trade secrets. from what i can google, SCO appears to be claiming that:
IBM has contaminated the Linux Kernel, GNU/Linux, and/or Linux distribution source code with proprietary, SCO-owned Unix source code, and
IBM has misappropriated and misused proprietary, and/or confidential, SCO-Caldera methods, technology, and know-how to aid in Linux development.
if this is correct then IBM would be guilty of misappropriation of trade secrets.
in any case it appears that novell may be sitting on some valuable patents and copyrights. while slashdotters might be pleased with novell's support of linux, novell shareholders might question why the management apparently allows these properties (which they now claim to own) to be freely infringed by ibm, oracle, and many others.
The army of "Open Source" - a bit ragtag, and scattered, though very well-trained and dedicated to their cause are poorly armed.
Then SCO marches over the hill, led by gentlemen in white shirts and black ties - they lead an army of lawyers carrying broadswords and briefcases. They also lead some heavy artillry, catapults and such, but it's a little old and rusty looking. The lawyers though are all decked out, with armor that isn't entirely functional but definately flashy, and a bit superior to the "Open Source" army.
As the SCO army is just about to invade, IBM suddenly comes rushing down the hill mounted on charging destriers, with heavy bowmen, superior armor, and long pointed lances. SCO is split down the middle - over half their forces crushed by the IBM horse - and IBM rallies forth to join the OS team.
As IBM and OS join together, SCO tries to regroup, but their army is shattered, and most of their seige equipment is destroyed. They're desperately rallying to defend against the concerted defence and attack of both IBM and OS, but the cause is now almost hopeless.
Meanwhilst, the trolls are wandering around unchecked. Occasionally they pause to munch on the head of a fallen SCO knight, but when they approach the OS line they are shot down by OS marksmen (also known as moderators).
OK... maybe a bit overdone, but the image of IBM marching in unheralded and trampling all over SCO just seems to fit. It's somewhat of a pleasant image... now all we need is some boiling oil, a few stakes and perhaps an anthill to deal with the remaining SCO execs. Maybe somebody could make this into a flash movie, I was considering it but my flash skill isn't great (care to dig up some SCO exec faces to paste in?)
if only it was possible to moderate this story ...
#include "coucou.h"
yesterday (27 May 2003), SCO's stock closed at 6.66
very appropriate for what they are trying to do
If 76 Trombones really led the big parade, why did they have anyone else in it?
Good point. I could double my revenues...
JUDGE: Darl McBride, you are a bad man who has led a trite and meaningless existance.
DARL: [gulp]
JUDGE: I hereby sentence you to a term of not less than twenty years in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison!
I checked their web site first thing after the story appeared, didn't find a thing in that range B-)
The chain of ownership is apparently this: "AT&T sold the rights to the operating system to Novell, which later sold them to the Santa Cruz Operation. That company renamed itself Tarantella at the same time that it sold the Unix intellectual property to Linux seller Caldera International, which in turn changed its name to SCO Group." Maybe the rights that Novell sold to the old SCO are NOT the same as the rights that Tarantella sold to Caldera which is now the new SCO Group. Maybe someone misrepresented what Caldera was getting for their money.
Sitting in on this conference call I heard the following:
SCO claims IBM is in violation of their agreement and plans on "revoking their [IBM's] AIX license?"
Is it me or is that some serious crack they are smoking over their at SCO headquarters?
How does SCO take away IBM's intellectual property? That might be possible if IBM had been a garage shop in somebody's parent's house.
But for SCO to claim they "own" AIX, Solaris, et al is pure insanity!
The commerical content in this conference call is worth the free price of admission.
Their suit is seriously damaged but now yet destroyed. Although they don't own Unix, it doesn't negate their claim of theft of code. But it is now harder.
1) They do have to prove equivocably line for line each piece of code that was stolen,
2) They have to show how their code was not part of the original Unix code they licensed from Novell,
and
3) How the stolen code is now part of Linux.
Previously, they only had to worry about 1 and 3. But previously, they also muddled the line between their Unix and other Unix systems like AIX and Solaris by implying all underlying Unix systems used Novell's Unix (which they claimed was theirs).
Although we all of their arguments are hogwash, Novell's revelation makes it extremely difficult now since it seems that they have done little to update their Unix since they licensed it from Novell whereas Sun and IBM have taken their versions of Unix to the enterprise level.
So it remains to be seen if this cornered dog will bite or merely cower.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
James Taylor, the singer (Fire and Rain, Sweet Baby James, etc).
Waiting on the Q&A session...
/.'er) -- when are the violations going to be made public?
First question(sounds like a
Only under NDA because of ongoing litigation.
What about the Novell announcement this morning?
Novell called last week re: the letter. Time set up yesterday morning at 11am. They didn't show up for the meeting. Later sent the letter -- saying SCO should publish the offenses.
"Is my linux illegal?"
SCO says people should talk to their own lawyers.
Come June 13 if no resolution with IBM -- revoke AIX license.
Details are not being disclosed. Not saying they can't sell AIX -- no real answer.
Blah blah blah about uninteresting stuff.. web services strategy and stuff.. stuff about acquisitions. Blah blah..
They just said they used to be moving people from UNIX to Linux, but when they did that, they lost a lot of money, and they basically said the customer got the same thing in terms of services. So now they're switching them back for a lot more money. Wow. That's ballsy.
Haha. sorry. Little stuff I find funny.
They say they're sort of looking at buying companies in the 4-5 million dollar (up to maybe 10 million dollars) range. Apparently their stock is doing pretty well.
How much will it cost to go after infringers? Is that being budgeted for?
structure with legal council for staying power -- pursuing and defending claims. First quarter of activitiies -- came in below budgeted amount. Set up for the long haul. Feel good about the legal structure.
Is that legal structure related to contingency?
Yes
Does that include counter suits?
Strucutred so that depending on how those come int hat they may be included in it.
I have no idea what that means.
Novell said SCO execs had asked for UNIX copyrights. It was denied. Why was this denied?
Stuff with IBM isn't related to copyright or patent. Focused on contracts. "By an order of magnitude" more powerful than copyright or patent. Language in contract between novell and SCo was confusing -- as they looked at it and said "this doesn't make sense".. SCO thinks it's confusing -- they call 'em up cuz SCO knows 'em. "If SCO wants it, then we want it too." As SCO brings in attorneys, they do a review on it and read the contract in its entireity -- SCO says they own copyrights -- that they can enforce that and the patents. Talked to all parties in agreement -- two people in NOVELL, two in SCO -- CEOs and legals of each side. Says intent was everything was transferred to SCO. Maybe some little things that are common.. Feel confident that they have the copyright and patent rights.
Suspension of linux sales -- given small amoutn of money from linux sales -- do you forsee SCO returning to selling Linux?
We would only return to Linux once the issues were resolved with Linux and "the community". SCO seems to be getting further away from that path (of selling linux). Claims are very strong and valid and customers are saying "time out here" begfore we do this big linux implementation, we nee to understand what's goign on. Linux leadership -- we like a lot of stuff about open source.. blah blha -- our intellectual property was being abused. Having more problems with that. Fruther from going back to Linux than closer.
What woudl you recommend for previous caldera users looking for an upgrade path? What recomendations?
Linux is "UNIX on Intel" UnixWare, and openserver. UnixWare can go anywhere linux can go. Lost ground while chasing the linux dream?
I'm on now - and it has started.
.net.
8.3 million in revenue from SCO Source licencing.
6000 licences.
They intend to increase these licences as they "agressively protect our intellectual property rights"
1/3rd of their projected earnings is from licencing, the rest is from OS products.
Lots of rah-rah "our best quarter ever" "we have eliminated all long-term debt"
The core business is still selling SCO UNIX
(which as an aside, means that you really cannot afford a wave of consumer hostility, can you?)
Looking to provide "subscription-based" services.
They have cash in the bank.
Their prime focus is defending themselves against Linux.
A nod towards the Novell thing - "SCO owns the UNIX contract rights" not the UNIX trademarks or IP.
A list of customers is presented... British Army just bought an asset/lifecycle management system for helicopters based on SCO UNIX
"SCO Source" is their new shakedown unit. 2 big licencees - one is secret, the other is Microsoft. Microsoft bought a licence for "Microsoft services for UNIX" putting UNIX source into Windows (?)
IBM is NOT the secret licencee.
They claim 3 code teams found violations where their code was in Linux, independantly.
No mention of what code, where.
Ahhhh... something makes sense now. Their Linux sales were tanking hard - they were making more money off SCO UNIX. So they're out to go toe-to-toe with Linux (a big part of which is anti-Linux FUD)
Q&A now starting:
First question mentions Novell release and asks for explicit listing with the code violations. They claim IBM has them (?)
Claim Novell blew them off; that there was a meeting yesterday that Novell skipped.
They refuse to publish the violations publically.
Next question is about how long the SCO Source revenue stream is likely to be. So far, they claim two contracts. No way to quantify how many contracts are in the pipeline.
What is happening Jun 14th re IBM/AIX? They will revoke the AIX licence. Details will follow.
Next question is from a capital company, asking about aquisitions. They want to get into web services, interact with Java and
They claim 2.2 million SCO servers - original business plan was to migrate those to Linux, and they lost money doing that. So now they want to keep those people on SCOX (at $1500 a server)
Nothing about why those people should stay on SCO when they have Linux readily availible....
Mr Wall Street thinks SCO is going to gain some short-term cash.
They think that their stock price spike reflects market confidence in SCO vs Linux
Another venture capitalist.... wants to know if licence deals will drive SCOX product sales.
They used SCO Source to raise capital instead of going to veture capital.
Next question asks for an estimate on legal costs. So far they are below their legal budget, but they are in for the long haul and are ready for countersuits.
Next caller wants to know why SCO was asking for transfer of UNIX copyrights from Novell and why they were denied. SCO doesn't seem to know what they own. They claim they own the UNIX copyrights, based on a contract review of the Novell contracts. They feel they can go toe-to-toe with Novell and win that fight too.
Next question wants to know if SCO has abandoned Linux sales. They claim lots of people are putting Linux implementation on hold, and that Linux "leadership" is dismissive to SCO IP rights. SCO is probably done with Linux. Caldara upgrade path is SCO UNIX.
That's it.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Did Sco flip their story around after Novell stepped in? I don't remember reading about this?
...
SCO Statement on Novell's Recent Actions
Wednesday May 28, 10:15 am ET
SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights. SCO's complaint specifically alleges breach of contract, and SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees.
+++ David Watts 5495 0.0 0.5 1888 884
Comment removed based on user account deletion
http://netscape.com.com/2102-1104-992345.html
SCO exec sells stock after price surge
By Stephen Shankland
CNET News.com
March 13, 2003, 5:05 AM PT
URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-992394.html
SCO Group Chief Financial Officer Robert Bench sold 7,000 of his 245,000 SCO shares Monday, two business days after the Unix software company's stock price surged on news of a billion-dollar lawsuit against IBM, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
SCO's stock closed at $2.21 on Thursday, a few hours before the lawsuit alleging that IBM misappropriated SCO trade secrets was announced. On Friday, the stock surged 40 percent to close at $3.10, and Bench filed to sell shares Monday at $3.06. SCO's stock since then has slipped down to close at $2.40 on Tuesday. SCO formerly was named Caldera International but changed its name to reflect the fact that most of its revenue came from Unix products acquired in 2001
For years now, I've wondered just why anyone would choose to stick with SCO Unix when so many other versions existed, most of which are cheaper and/or more stable. When I heard that they were releasing their own Linux distro, I figured they had finally seen the end of the tunnel, and were migrating their apps to move into the application market... Of course, I didn't realize they were so bad off that trying to sue the next quarter's revenue was all they had left!
SCO should be given the same respect that they so clearly show the rest of the community. I hope IBM's 400-pound gorilla legal-team squashes them into jelly.
SCO's site still lists IBM as a SCO Alliance Partner.
pig? cat? hell I thought it was a turkey
XP is basicly 98 with a lot more extra features to hunt down and disable. --Dram
. . . And I heard nothing new.
SCO is still claiming they own Unix, while saying that they're not talking about copyrights and such. They're double-talking, and they know it.
Apparently, three teams compared Linux and SCO code. The three teams came back independently (of each other) with "significant code problems" (direct quote), "not just a few lines of code" (again, direct).
But they don't seem interested in telling the world what's wrong, unless you want to meet with SCO and sign an NDA. Useless to everyone but SCO.
SCO also seemed really jazzed about their first-ever revenue-positive quarter ever. Hopefully, it'll be their last.
The first question-asker-person sounded like a Slashdotter, honestly, and was asking about (see above) what specific code discrepancies existed, as well as SCO's response to the morning-new Novell situation.
Both questions were nicely B.S.'ed and walked around.
Asshats.
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
In corporate terminology, it's time for the Linux communinity to go proactive. Why doesn't Linus sue SCO for libel? Since Linus owns the copyright to Linux, and SCO is making false claims about his copyright, I'd sue the bastards. Additionally, by suing, Linus will probably get to see the code that SCO claims is stolen.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lost Sheep to Shepard, you got your ears on?
First Falcon-1 to orbit, then Falcon-9. Then I can die a happy man.
I also listened in on the conference call; wanted to ask a question but didn't get a chance.
The parent poster already said this, but given the size of the post and the fact that it was being written during the call (and thus somewhat stream-of-consciousness in style), I wanted to emphasize one thing: SCO's CEO McBride stated during the call that they're confident that they do own the copyrights (which would mean Novell's claim of ownership in the press release must therefore be false, if SCO were correct).
Are you guys listening to the conference call? The speaker was codemning Linux for having "millions of lines of code"...
... [short answer: no]
...
....
:) ] to pursue claims and defend claims. amount we spent [on legal fees] is less than amouut we budgeted.
... a four party group, 2 SCO, 2 Novell, concluded the contract says SCO has absolute rights to push this in marketplace... [emphasized it's not about copyrights, etc...]
I got in just before the Q/A session. I took rough notes. I'm not skilled in the art of dictation, so you should assume the following is a fictional drama loosely based on reality, which happens to be extremely dificult to read. The part about Novell doing a no show at a scheduled meeting yesterday is interesting... Apologies to non-native-English speakers-- I'm too busy to clean this up.
Questions denoted "Q:", answers denoted "A:".
By the way, SCO is pronounced as one syllable, "sko", with a long "o". Hence SCO X is pronounced "sko-ex" and SCOsource "sko-source". ick...
Q: About the IBM suit: when will you put out info regarding allegations?
A: there are two parts:
1) in discussing with IBM, they've been made aware, we continue to work path with IBM...
2: novell announcment, response from 1500 letters has been significant, lots of companies asking what is going on, "am i running compromised?, is it illegal , who do i talk to?" we have people get their own legal opinions, second, we have invited people that have licenses with us, who are concerned, to come in, under nda, to be glad to go thru things we found. in novell case, they called last week about letter, we said we can sit down with them. set to meet Novell yesterday at 11AM and Novell didn't show up, then they sent out a letter saying SCO won't meet with them, and issues the press release.
Q: the info wrt allegations will not be made public?
A: correct
Q: comment on visibility of SCO source revenue stream. How long expect it to be a contribution to revenue. others?
A: started last quarter, had 8.2 million in revenue. SCOsource 1/3 of this. signed 2 contracts so far...
Q: any way to quantify?
A; range is very broad. for the coming quarter roughly 1/3 of revenue from SCOsource...
Q: will you be able to disclose other contracted party in future?
A:
Q: what happens on June 14th with IBM? About their AIX license?
A: we will revoke their AIX license if no resolution. exact details, not ruling out, can't say definitively,
Q: do ou anticipate coming to a resolution before 6/14?
A; that question is for the other folks...
Q: Nice quarter guys... can you share [question doesn't sound interestng to Linux folk, but is about busines stategy]
A: [Answer is very long-winded-- speaker is happy to answer this one]
Q: [question from same person about business particulars]
A:
Q: [ditto]
A:
Q: [question about SCO X and SCOsource contract values in relation to new products]
A: [... he incidentaly mentions SCO is debt-free and has cash]
Q: [how much money set aside in defending IP claims?]
A: we have a lot of "staying power" [
Q: is legal structure based on contingency [A: yes] and does it include countersuits? [A: yes]
Q: Novell said this morning SCO asked Novell to transfer UNIX IP...
A: We haven't mentioned "copyright" or "patents". Everything we listed is about the contracs [with IBM]... that is our focus. There was confusing language with Novell/SCO agreement... this doesn't make any sense... how do you transfer IP without the copyright?... like selling a book w/o the words... some Novell people said this makes no sense... they concluded "if SCO wants this Novell wants it too"... legal people read contract in entirety... it's clear we [SCO] own the copyrights...
Q: Suspension o
SCO's response to Novell's Unix IP claims by saying that this is ,surprise, a contract violation, and not a copyright violation, although I could pull out half a dozen direct SCO quotes, right now, showing SCO's claim to "owning UNIX IP", which, in the version of the english language I speak, means that they're talking about IP copyrights.
Their current claim about contract breaches means that Linux is not part of their suite, which means that they are open to being sued in Europe for libel(sp?).
I would so dearly love to hear what the Lawyers are going to say about their claims that Contracts are stronger than copyrights, given that copyrights are a binding and do form a kind of contract.
Just finished listening to the confrence call and found out 0 new information. Even during the QA they mearly repeated the press releases. Come on!.
Side noote: 4 million in profit huh!?! well thats gonna get eatten up in legal fees real quik.
Ahh.. The mind what a wonderful trap!
Rock solid too.... :)
1. *I* own the UNIX System V!
2. IN SOVIET RUSSIA UNIX SYSTEM X OWNZ YOU!!!
3. UNIX System V sucks, f*ck y'all!
4. Read the real truth about who owns UNIX System X on my site: [http://www.goatse.cx/]
Fuck it, let's all stand up. :)
Will the real Bruce Perens Please Stand Up
Are you shure that SCO posted those letters? I would like to look at the envelopes. I'm just reminded how Micros~1 asked their sales people some time ago to find out who was using Linux. To find out the source of the addresses could lead to a deeper understanding of what is really going on.
They mentioned potential $3B in revenue from SCO/X, based apparently on everyone who owns a SCO server buying an equiavelent number of SCO/X boxes at $1500
This UNIX IP character is damaged goods. Its apparently been around the block a few...dozen...times. Let's just give up and call it community property.
Free love!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Somewhere in Hell there's a little SCO/Rambus room, where the people that enforce the GIF patent are tortured eternally.
"Sig free in '03!"
We see what we think are violations and although no one's given us the right or the direction to correct these horrible wrongs we'll just go out on our own and fix these things ourselves!
Afterall we have to preserve the way of the free world and all...
Does this sound familiar in any way??
McBride flatly admitted that SCO knew they didn't have ownership of the copyrights or patents at the time they sent "the letter" out, which specifically mentioned that SCO was defending their "intellectual property"!
I sure hope for the executive teams' sake that they haven't sold any stock since this thing started...
Who am I kidding, I hope they have!
"Here's your new cellmate - his name is Bubba."
"Um... Hi, Bubba..."
"Hello, bitch! Bend over and spread 'em!"
Just listened to the conference Q&A. Not as spicy as I expected it to be. Most questions were about things like how much are they going to spend on acusitions, ligitation, about their future product lines(SCO-X), upgarde plans for their Linux custemers, etc. The most interesting question was whether SCO asked Novell fo transfer them the copyrights. The answer was that the contract with Novell is a litle bit unclear - in one place it tells that the copyrights are transferred, in another part it says the opposite. There were 4 poeople involved in signing the contract - 2 from Novell, 2 from SCO and according to SCO all 4 of them agree that the intention was to transfer the copyrights to SCO. So because of that the SCO CEO called the Novell CEO and asked him to resolve the problem. So don't count on SCO dropping the copyright claims yet.
an IBM lawyer named "General Veers" say, "Maximum Firepower!" on counter-suing SCO.
I actually enjoyed the call.
One thing that may be interesting for those who missed it was the statement that "3 independent code teams" looked at the linux code and found "not just a line or 2, but significant code violations".
What is an insignificant violation? Also, if they felt the need to have 3 teams look at it, that seams to suggest that it's a pretty subjective statement to say there is infringement.
This is from SCO's original complaint off of the SCO website. It seems that they do think they own the code as they state in line item 18. If they don't actually own it they are being purposefully deceptive.
17. All commercial UNIX "flavors" in use today are based on the UNIX System V Technology ("System V Technology").
18. SCO is the present owner of all software code and licensing rights to System V Technology.
after he resigned the Office of The Vice President (of the US) in 1972 rather than stand trial for accepting bribes while in office.
Business has no ethics at all.
http://www.sco.com/images/mp3/earnings_call_2003_0 2_26.mp3
SCO revenue: $11.1 million in products, $2 million in services, $8 million from SCO Source. There were two SCO source customers. One is Microsoft, and the other is anonymous. McBride cited "contractual obligations" and refused to identify the other customer.
The product and service revenue breaks down geographically: $6.8 million in america, $4.6 million in europe, $1.7 million in asia and the pacific. So Germany is probably an important market. There were no comments or questions about the Linuxtag suit.
SCO is developing a web services framework called "SCO X" with rollout due in August. Not many people cared about SCO X.
Most of the Q&A was information that was already known to the public. McBride re-iterated that SCO will terminate IBM's AIX license on June 14 if IBM does not resolve the issue.
Of new interest: McBride said that SCO Source had revenues of $8 million last quarter and anticipated another $8 million this quarter but refused to make projections further out. He said that SCO Source is not a royalty stream. Rather, it was a way to shore up the balance sheet in a non-dilutive way. Last year SCO was thinking about issuing new stock, but now they don't have to.
McBride said that they scheduled a meeting with Novell yesterday morning at 11:00 am (no time zone specified) but that Novell "did not show up" !
The only way to see the claimed infringing code will be under NDA.
SCO is paying their lawyers at least partially on contigency (no big deal).
On the copyright/patent/trademark issue: quote from McBride: "the contracts are by an order of magnitude more powerful than copyrights or patents".
(Editorial: This fits in with SCO's response to Novell this morning. SCO's position is that they have a contract with IBM and the contract controls. Since SCO doesn't have a contract with most people, they will have a hard time going after other parties on a copyright or patent basis.)
Somebody asked if SCO would return to selling Linux. McBride said that the community had "polarized" and they were moving further away from ever selling Linux again. Then the followup question: what does McBride recommend for an upgrade path for current Caldera OpenSystems customers? Answer: "UnixWare or OpenServer".
If enough people decided to sue SCO simultaneously, it's conceivable that SCO could be litigated into bankruptcy, the way SonicBlue was. After all, we've got a good start with the threatened lawsuit from LinuxTag, Novell's legal threats, any possible countersuit by IBM and now, presumably, shareholder lawsuits.
I'd like to see the 1500 recipients of SCO's threat letter band together and file a class-action suit against SCO for any grounds they can find. IANAL, but I'm sure somebody could dig up some kind of grounds to sue SCO for something.
Seriously, that was the single most boring conference call I've ever had to listen to in my entire life. The usual stuff, most of it you've heard here already. What I did find interesting was the claim that Novell owns the copyright to Unix and, still, Word Perfect. We shall see, but it would be a startling new development if WP is now open sourced software. Makes me a little stiff in the pants almost. I'm glad to see that the movement is finally taking hold with backing from some major players. Finally we can cease being player haters.
Thanks,
Bruce
You're a bad user? Whoops, not the right one, but it's kind of close hmmm? ;^)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
The 1500 companies who have received the SCO letter sue SCO for slandering and spam.
bye bye SCO
http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml
SCO is now claiming that Novell is wrong. Check ou this article from Forbes.
0 5/ 28/rtr984048.html
http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2003/
Ok first off, sorry for posting as anonymous, I just don't want to spend the time to register, call me lazy if you will, I accept that :)
Second off, I am reading tons of posts saying MS bought nothing. I replied to on,e but I think everyone needs to see this. Novell stated that the license they made with SCO allowed them to sub-license UNIX. I don't know how this could be made more clear. SCO HAS the RIGHT to SUBLICENSE UNIX. Did that help?
Furthermore, all you conspiracy theory people, look at this motivation. There have been rumors flying from Redmond about MS making anohter UNIX based OS for quite some time now. Maybe unsubstantiated, I think this helps to prove that theory. Here's the strategy. SCO is in trouble now and needs some kind of legitimization to their claim. MS sees this, realizes SCO hasn't got a leg to stand on, but that they can sublicense UNIX. Either SCO approaches MS or more likely MS approaches SCO and makes a ludicrously low pricve offering to license UNIX stating that their licensing it would help their case. It is obvious that the management of SCO has no idea what they are doing, and I would guess this is their first attempt at "Enforcing Contracts" at least on this scale. MS has an easy time convincing SCO to license UNIX for a petty fee. MS laughs, as it now has a "closed source" UNIX license with which to delelop a UNIX based OS themselves. In the mean time, SCO goes under, MS's license is valid, they make out like bandits as usual. Maybe this is immoral for them to take advantage of SCO like that, but then, its also good business.
Buy some stock NOVL.
http://shop.novell.com/dr/v2/ec_dynamic.main?cat_i d=1&pn=16&sid=27477
Hints, horeshoes and hand granades are all useless in court. What wonders and marvels does he have that have yet to be expressed in any SCO product besides Caldera Linux? It's not there.
Why is it that they don't point to it explicitly? Surely it's not to protect publically publishes source code, nor can they care much about actual damages if they don't send specific cease and dissist orders. Anything they point to can be rewritten without trouble. The only reason is that it's not there.
It's not here, it's not there it's not anywhere. The whole case is some kind of weird sham for the M$ PR department.
Still want that $100 one time fee, McBitch? Yeah, that's what I thought. Why don't you go buy me a happy meal and we'll call it even.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Indeed, they are claiming the IBM suit is not about copyrights and patents (I refuse to use the term IP, since I don't believe it is a valid concept). If neither copyrights nor patents are involved, how can it affect GNU/Linux users and developers other than IBM?
What the CEO said in the conference call just confirmed to me that the attack on Linux is nothing more than FUD. He said that SCO saw they weren't making money distributing GNU/Linux, so they decided to discontinue it and focus on their own Unix products. My interpretation is that they need to encourage people to start using SCO products that cost lots of money; why would they switch from something that's free? When it was asked what current Caldera Linux users should do, the CEO said that SCO Unix products work nearly everywhere GNU/Linux ones do. He also pointed out how some people are delaying their use of GNU/Linux because of SCO's recent letter, so they're succeeding in the FUD campaign.
Microsoft's licensing agreement with SCO comes way too close to be a coincidence. They either saw a great opportunity to contribute to some Linux FUD and ran with it, or they were in on it from the start.
What do you bet that many of the SCO officers sold much of their stock yesterday upon arrival of that letter. How high can you go?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Novell is certinly doing a lot better than SCO as a company, but they are still pretty despondant. Now why does anyone think that they are immune from Novell pulling the same stunt to make more money? Safe from SCO does not mean safe from Novell. It's the same problem.
:(
Linux should still self-audit and remove all possible offending code and archetecture to prevent this from being a problem 5 years from now when Novell hits the skids. In fact we should hope this still goes to court so we can see exactly what they think does infringe!
Unfortunately the chances of a self-audit happening are "fat" to "none". This land-mine will persist for years to come.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
I smell a rat.
If SCO can make wild accusations and unsubstantiated claims of violations against Linux, what's to stop them from doing the same against *BSD or GNU software (remember, BSD people use GCC too)? SCO doesn't go after *BSD because they're not as well known and widely used as Linux (for whatever reason), not because they're any less infringing.
Some stupid-ass language selector JSP is stalled (who uses JSP to put up a press release?!)
.1* slushmoney_from_Redmond)"
Very smart of them to use JSP actually, so they can dynamically backpedal in real-time, using live updated content from their massive marketing database:
java.sql.ResultSet columns = statement.executeQuery(
"SELECT time, excuse_content, discount_on_fucking_lame_products_nobody_wants FROM backpedal-o-matic WHERE (discount_on_fucking_lame_products_nobody_wants <
);
Novel seems to think otherwise. If they are talking about a contract with IBM, they are out of their heads because they did not have the authority in the first place. That would be like me claiming to you can't distribute Winblows because I'm a licensor of Windblows. It's not their property.
Given the nature of their statements, claiming ownership of IP they don't own, we can simply disregard them as liars. They will get to court empty handed and leave in debt.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"SCO Source" is their new shakedown unit. 2 big licencees - one is secret, the other is Microsoft. Microsoft bought a licence for "Microsoft services for UNIX" putting UNIX source into Windows (?)
IBM is NOT the secret licencee.
Is he?
NOVL and SCO
& s= scox&a=v&p=s&l=on&z=m&q=l
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=c&c=novl&k=c1&t=1d
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
I'm glad to see SCO shown to be liars in public. Unfortunately, I don't think it has much bearing on the case. The core of SCO's allegation is that IBM violated nondisclosure agreements by copying secret enterprise scalability techniques from the Monterey project into Linux. This has nothing to do with the ancestral Unix code.
Maybe IBM can get the complaint dismissed since it contains incorrect statements. But maybe SCO can argue that the misstatements don't affect the core of their argument. My understanding is that if A sues B claiming 10 causes of action, and 9 of these are without merit, B could still be held liable for the 10th.
Read it here
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Well.. hopefully KARMA would catch up to SCO.
The world we be a happier place without SCO.
SCO is like a wounded animal backed into a corner.
Hopefully it will die from rabies.
Right now SCO is in it's rabbid phase, so hopefully
in about a year they will be dead.
It's time for all the Unix platforms to Unite!
IBM, HP, APPLE, SGI, Linux, we all need to get
together and nuke SCO off the planet with a lawsuit.
If SCO's suddenly backing off their claims that they ever claimed to own the code, how do they explain that they were threatening Linux end users?
Like SCO just said, this is all about contract law. And I sure don't remember signing a contract with SCO, do you guys?
Isn't there a possibility that the "relevant code" is a derivative work from the code licensed by SCO from Novell?
:-)
In that case, Novell would have no say in this matter. Unless, the terms of the deal said that Novell ALSO owned any IP from derivative work by SCO. In which case the SCO lawyers may very well be shoe-ins for the dumbass-incompetent attorney of the year award
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
If the truth is as it now appears that SCO really has very little IP interest in the original Unix core, and Novell actually owns what IP remains, then of course they can release any possible legal liabilities for Linux as it is and even release versions of their Sys V property under a free license. Novell would be very wise to do something like this because there isn't much commercial value remaining in this IP. I claim that the commercial value would actually increase after they released all the old stuff under GPL or compatible license. Anyone wanting to create a commercial derivative product still has to come back to the original owners for a commercial license, and the GPL branch will bring experimentation and resources to both.
First off, I was able to get in using the original number from Bruce. I had to give my full name, phone number, and company. For company, I said that I was a private citizen and had no problems getting in.
I came in a bit late, but I don't think I missed much, as the SCOSource bit wasn't discussed until later. Also, I got in on all of the questions. I was disappointed that Bruce Perens didn't get to ask a question.
From what they said in the beginning and from the answers to the questions (most of which were fairly typcial financial questions from financial analysts, btw) here is what I got out of it. Be advised that this is just one person's interpretation of what SCO is saying and that IANAL.
1. The suit against IBM doesn't depend upon IP ownership via copyright or patents, per se. It is a suit based on breach of contract between SCO and IBM. The original contract (license) between IBM and the then-owner of the rights included a stipulation against sharing this code or IP. Needless to say that any alleged releasing of this code under the GPL would qualify. SCO has the right to sue, because it purchased the license rights from Novell.
2. The language of the rights transfer from Novell to SCO seems to have been considered rather unclear by SCO about whether the actual IP ownership (copyright and patents) of UNIX(tm) had been transferred. After much research by SCO and it's counsel, they believe that they do, in fact, now own the copyrights and pertinent patents to UNIX(tm). Included in the research was discussions with lower-level contacts within Novell and with the principals of the earlier deal, many of whom no longer appear to be in power at Novell.
3. While it's true that the suit against IBM doesn't derive any legitiamcy from IP ownership (see 1), due to SCO's belief that it owns the IP of UNIX(tm) SCO believes that future lawsuits may be brought against anyone infringing on what SCO believes to be their IP, with or without a license agreement based on copyright or patent laws.
4. SCO now feels confident that a court proceeding to settle any dispute between SCO and Novell would be resolved in their favor.
My personal conclusions:
A. While Novell's stance certainly helps against SCO's activities (at least it buoys morale and adds a corporate voice against SCO), it is not the end of the IP issue. It seems that SCO is prepared to legally assert it's claims to the IP ownership, despite this morning's announcement by Novell.
B. Novell's announcement will marginally help against the FUD created by SCO's actions. However, I believe that only the most ardent and brave Linux supporters in corporate management will feel better enough to proceed if they were at all concerned. The rest will put off any decision to switch because there is still too much uncertainty and risk to their own stature and careers.
C. The FUD about Linux will continue until the alleged violations are made public enough to allow either a solid refutation or code replacement.
Was there ever one to begin with? Will they adopt the tone of their greasy client? "McBitch, billions and billions served warrents."
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Novell sends letters to 500 Linux companies demanding royalties.
No, it's the aliens, silly! In return for the secret of their anti-gravity super-luminal space-warp drive, the got a UNIX license from SCO.
Stick Men
Really? 'Cause that's not what you said before, you bunch of assholes. Last month, it was patents, copyrights, AND trade secrets. Then they got outted about the patents, and the fact they don't own any (Novell and Tarantella do I believe). Then it was copyrights and trade secrets, according to Darl. Now, they drop the copyright argument, after Novell decides to shame them, and evidently are down to trade secret.
Of course, if he's punting the copyright argument, that puts linux out of damage, or should.
Naturally, they're still lying, since they don't know how to do anything else. My favorite line from their press release today:
"SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor."
Really? They do? That little bitty circle-R there seems to imply a copyright. I wonder if the Open Group will bitchslap them the way Novell just did, since they own that trademark. Anyone can call any product Unix if Open Group says so, and SCO ain't got a thing to do with it. The only way to make the above sentence true is to substitute UNIX with OpenUnix. Now, the only thing they can hang on to is if IBM put some project Monterrey into linux. That's it, and good luck SCO.
I mean, I understand lying and all to get some cash through FUD, but they're losing their skill at it, because their latest is just bunk through and through.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Wouldn't it be VERY HARD to determine WHAT damages would be?
IBM may have violated the license by inserting proprietary code into an open source project. But SCO, knowingly (and still apparently legally in all scenarios (since they were authorized to sub-license)) and willingly published the code under GPL.
Any damages would be constrained between the time IBM released the "stolen code" and the time when SCO blessed the code by knowingly releasing it under GPL.
Even beyond that, the fact that SCO DID publish it knowingly and willingly under GPL could be interpreted as implicit or even explicit permission for the code to be there in the first place thus indemnifying IBM from fault and damages.
It looks like SCO MUST now reveal WHAT code is affected just to stay relevant. They must differentiate their stuff from both Linux AND the source they received (under license) from Novell.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
SCO proves that black is white and get hit by a bus at the next zebra crossing.
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
I must've imagined all those Linux Alpha boxen, iBooks running Linux, etc. that I've seen...
I know it's off topic to reply to a .sig, but the page you link to pre-assumes that there is only one Matrix, it doesn't prove it. One has to start somewhere, and the writeup may be a very good one, but one could come to a very different conclusion if one didn't begin with that assumption.
> When SCO is nothing but a bitter memory, Novell can contract those "exclusive rights" to IBM, ...
Probably not. We don't know the exact nature of the contract but let's assume it is a fairly typical one.
We're told Novell sold exclusive rights. Unless there are clauses that enable termination, SCO's death would simply have the asset pass to SCOs successors, whomever they may be. Novell will never regain the ability to sell those rights, unless they buy them back, one way or another.
Rarely does hurting one's own self interests end up as cause for terminating such an agreement. If SCO want's to devalue its own assets -- so be it.
Novell needs to protect its own interests, and may well have done so, quite nicely, by retaining ownership over the copyright itself. SCO can't harm the copyright, so the license is unliekly to be revokable.
SCO can likely be held accountable for misrepresenting the relationship to the detriment of Novell's business. Novell could, quite likely, sue SCO for interfering with its Linux business (in some 1500 letters) by misrepresenting the facts of the exclusive license that SCO owns. Even so, SCO act proably does not trigger any right in Novell to revoke the license.
> or say "the heck with it" and release the code into the wild under an open-source license.
Again, probably not. The code in question has been licensed to others for redistribution, for a fee. That means any action taken by Novell that would devalue the market for redistribution would be actionable.
Dumping the code into any license that would permit redistribution, that did not also carry a fee to Novell of similar business magnitude and terms similar to existing licenses, would likely trigger such an improper market devaluation.
That may be one intrepretation of Genesis, but it is entirely different from the any Christian one. I believe that Adam and Eve lost their freedom when they chose (notice the free will already in place) to rebel against God. God gave people a second chance to have freedom in his Son.
The wont is refered to by members of my family as, "giving you a facelift". It's also mean and stupid to put a cat in a bag to begin with, so you get what you deserve when it gets out. Seems about right here.
Nice work with Novel.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It would be more of a love hate relationship.
Since each of the mentioned above are only riding off the backs of something free and trying to make a profit from it. Open Source being screwed and screwed again. You think that SCO, Novell, IBM or any other "profit" business cares about the people who develop these free OS's? Not on your life. If they could buy it, package it and sell it they would in a heartbeat.
I like the idea of Open Source but hate the idea that greedy individuals profit off of the efforts without as much as a contribution. I know of several companies that run *BSD & Linux based servers and have never purchased the media for them. And if small business does it you can imagine how much big business is raping the effort.
::::Score: -1.....What are you king sh*t of turd mountain or something?
I hereby declare myself "the owner of the UNIX(tm) theme park"
(Unix(tm) is(tm) a trademark of the Open Group.)
(is(tm) is(tm) a trademark of William Clinton.)
(That was a reference to Eminem too, you know.)
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
I had felt that IBM could prove their "support for Linux" by promptly suing SCO into a smoking hole in the ground, but Novell beat them to the punch.
As an admin, I've always heard good things about Netware, but I've never gotten around to exploring it. This is a great reminder to check it out.
I'm already a fan of IBM. I like their traditional engineering bent. I appreciate their support for Linux. I don't begrudge them making good money at it. But, dear IBM, It's not too late for you to complete the humiliation of the criminal management at SCO. After all, they're threatening to terminate your AIX licenses.
Nice article Bruce. I must be a geek, if this was my first laugh of the day.
But especially: Thanks Novell!
An admin looking forward to NetWare 7.
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
Don't be so proud of this intellectual property fud you've constructed. The ability to distort the truth is insignificant next to the power of open source.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
GW Bush: Facing the threat of Islamic extremism head on Perhaps he is making up for his Cowardice during 'nam. Even Gore was more a man than he was.
With comments like:
Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights.
(emphasis added)
So, the entire point of a contract is to sue other people, and patents/copyrights are to protection you from "strangers"?
What? Is some shady guy in a van with candy going to take your patents away?
I don't think we'll be seeing these guys around for long.
The whole tone of that release leads me to believe that the people behind this company are as immature as are their actions.
Like I've always said, Novell is one of the good guys.
Novell can GPL the code and still collect licensing fees from companies that want to include their IP in their (proprietary, non-GPL-compatible) products. Sure, Novell loses some licensing fees as Linux replaces some proprietary UNIXes. But they gain a whole ton of goodwill from the Linux community, and that makes it easier to generate sales.
Finding God in a Dog
Give the Sco vs IBM position paper a read (http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html) it's quite informative. One of the main contentions is that the functionality in Linux far exceeds any matching functionality in SCO's code. That being the case you would wonder how they were able to borrow code from SCO?
(The best explanation so far [I believe from here on SlashDot]: IBM coders used cut and paste instead.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I'd like to see IBM acquire the wreckage of SCO and release all of SCO's products under the GPL. I'd like to see them put in place a migration strategy for all of the SCO Unix users out there to get them onto Linux. And I'd like to see them publish every embarrassing piece of paperwork they can find with the signatures of SCO executives and lawyers on it.
Oh. Not me, but James Taylor is my dad. He also my granddad and my great-granddad.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
If nothing else, the press release hurt those worthless executives right in the ball--umm, stock options.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
But aren't "uncertainty" and "doubt" synonyms?
Everyone can throw in $5 dollars and guess how many times they'll change their story between now and then.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
SCOX is only off 0.41 or 4.71%... doesn't look like Wall Street reacts as fast as we thought.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
If we didn't open fire till we looked 'em in the eyes.
Actually, the lyrics for those two lines are these:
Old Hick'ry said we could take 'em by surprise
If we didn't fire our muskets 'till we looked 'em in the eyes...
And then continues:
We held our fire till we see'd their faces well
Then we opened up our squirrel guns and really gave 'em - Well,
We fired our guns and the British kept a-comin'...
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
SCOX dropped by 5% since the end of the conference call.
NOVL risen by roughly the same amount over the same period of time.
IBM holding steady.
Source: Nasdaq.com
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
FiaSCO
SCO's rebuttal to Novell as of 11:02 EST:
1 .h tml
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030528/tech_sc0_novell_
as of my posting (1:49PM EST ) SCOX is down 4.59% on 762,000 shares traded..
Correction, SCOX down 4.71 on 780k traded at 1:51 PM EST
Duh, typo. ;) Yeah, guess that made my post pretty incomprehensible. Thanks. But was the link really necessary? ;)
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I remember that when Novell and Caldera made the deal, Caldera announced the availability of the source code for the original UNIX. Where it can be downloaded?
Didn't watching Star Trek reruns convince you travelling back in time to become your own father is not only creepy, it's recursively creepy?
"So on one hand, honey is an amazingly sophisticated and efficient food source. On the other hand it's bee backwash."
Go ahead man, darken the skies with lawyers, to the tune of "Ride of the Valkyries" (I have this vision of lawyers flying through the sky, like superman but in IBM style suits with briefcases and snap brim hats, and, oh well, you get the idea...)
MUWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
The GOOD guys do win and evil loses!
BOO and HISS to SCO and M$ !!
Linux forever!! YEA Novell!!
Yeah, Im a "Gleeful, Cheering Linux Zealot"
No, SCOX is only down 0.40 points, or 4.59%. I beleive is was _at_ 8.4 points, not _down_ 8.4 points. 52 week low is 0.60, 52 week high is 9.22... looks like a good time to short SCOX!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Does he bill them double when he's posting to /. ?
Only when posting to a dupe...
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
I don't know where the Torvalds family lives, but Linus seems to work in the state of California according to his home page, though it be hosted in Finland.
And SCO thought it was theirs. Get it?
UNIX owns YOU!
Ok, not to go in defense of SCO, I thought that the issue was over the code produced by Project Monterey, and the IP that they held in that project. Now in stating that, I could only see a few issues with IBM provided kernels and possibly a few actual IBM provided programs/modules. Since IBM dropped them for linux I guess they are now whinning about it.
Now in saying that it was over Project Monterey, I wonder how much source they leaked out in there own distro of linux.
Yes I am a coward
falling down.. SCOX quote -11.71% and down its seems to me, some one its lossing the kick money they were thinking to earn...
here ends what some neis
..that after all the whining they have done, they can still have this on their website:
United Linux
With claims like
"UnitedLinux provides the Linux business user with operating system platform that is focused on their needs and provides a greater choice of applications and hardware. The four geographically strong Linux partners, with headquarters in Asia, Europe, and South and North America, make it easier to provide local language support, training, and professional services. Customers now have a true international version of Linux. UnitedLinux enables more rapid adoption of Linux in the enterprise, which, in turn allows customers to reap the benefits of Linux with lower risk and cost."
it makes you wonder just how two faced they can be
SCOX is now off 10.22% to 7.82... looks like the sell orders are beginning to finally come in. We may yet have a winner for today's "Ten Most Declined" NASDAQ stocks!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
The Open Group was assigned the trademark rights to the UNIX(TM) name for purposes of standards compliance (you can't call your OS UNIX(TM) without them). What we've found out today, however, is Novell, not SCO, owns the UNIX System V code and its assocated copyrights and patents.
--Mythos
Just a thought, and most likely a stupid one, but can anyone see the day where a community buys a publicly held company (majority stock or something) and then turns it open source?
Now, the miniority owners would nix this idea, but it is an interesting one.
The BUY SCO bandwagon - paypal donations from all over the world to buy it, open source it, and take the loss?
back to sleep.
a man, a plan, a canal, panama
I doubt there would be grounds to sue Linus even if there was clear-cut evidence of patent infringement in the Linux kernel. Linus didn't put the supposedly offending code in there, but he's still liable? SCO seems to be really grasping at straws here; they know that the bluff has been called. I just hope they don't manage to do any more FUD-based harm to Linux before they die a merciful death.
I'm not a lawyer, so nobody use this as legal advice. If you want legal advice, go pay a lawyer.
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=v1 shows SCO (SCOX) is tanking BIG time. Down over 10% now. Suck it, SCO bitches! :-D
SELL! SELL! SELL!
Yeah, I meant trademark. I blame my secretary. I suppose that's me. ;)
SCO has been better lately of attributing the UNIX trademark to The Open Group
They may be better about using the circle-R, but to me it seems like it benefits them because now they're confusing the issue - nowhere in their rebuttal did they make any effort to imply that that circle-R *wasn't theirs,* or mention the Open Group at all. In fact, it seems to me that they were being deliberately deceptive, attempting to blur the line between a licensed Unix (generic) and SCO OpenLinux (specific). With the former, obviously, they have no claim, but it seemed to me they did everything they could to imply that they did.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
For up to date (well, 20 minute delayed) comparisions between the two, try http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?mode=stock&page =quick&symbol=SCOX&symbol=NOVL
(I presume that Nasdaq is able to withstand a mild slashdotting.)
It appears that investors weren't too pleased with what SCO could report, as SCOX is down more than 10% as of this posting, while Nasdaq itself is up.
but since we went there...
Most Mormons *I* know have so much emotional/religious baggage it's not even funny.
They're not dead. They're pining for the fjords...
You know you're bad off when it's considered an improvement if you start acting like the RIAA.
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
I should have a copy of the call in the next 20 minutes or so (takes SDP that long to grab it)... reply if anyone wants a copy of it for historcal purposes.....
Bugs Bunny was right.
It took the 2:00 bounce and is now heading south indicating that investors see no future for SCO.
SCOX 2:35pm 7.12 -1.59 -18.25% N/A N/A 7.12 7.29
Zoid.com
We are SCO. We are one hive mind running on newly licenced SCOX. Resistance is futile (and bad for inovation). You will be assimilated... or sued...
MANN! Would these guys be in trouble if Morgan Freeman gave ME all his powers!
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
Or rather, taking a deep plunge. An hour ago: down 5% - now down 12%. http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?page=charting&m ode=basics&intraday=on&timeframe=3m&charttype=line &splits=off&movingaverage=none&lowerstudy=volume&c omparison=off&index=&drilldown=off&symbol=SCOX&sel ected=SCOX
YESSS!!!
on the yahoo SCOX stock message boards, list SCOX as a "strong sell".
http://messages.yahoo.com/?action=q&board=SCOX
Many people who bought into SCOX in the last few days are now very angry.
It looks kinda poorly for SCO. This exact moment would be an excellent time to sell short.
=brian
it's down 15%. it's pretty funny. All i have to do is keep hitting F5 for SCO to go away....
Interestingly enough, SCO nor Caldera is on the list...
Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
I have been watching this site all day today, curious to see how much this news would hurt SCO. Apparently a lot since before lunch they were down ~4% and now they are down over 17% and falling more and more quickly. You can almost feel the panic setting in to dump SCO.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
SCO has continually put the trademark symbols around the UNIX name, but they have failed to state that they don't even own it! The open group does.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
Into the lawyer's pockets!
Lawyer1: hey dude, nice Prosh man, what are you doing this week?
Lawyer2: Oh, I talked some sucker failing software company into a frivolous IP lawsuit binge.
L1: Righteous!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Yep. Takes a lot to be a reporter like good ol' Gore.
the management team will never work again in corporate America
If only that were true. Unfortunately, private enterprise does a poor job of recognizing a loser manager when it sees one. Even if you take your company into the toilet, you've got experience and a bunch of connections to get that next job.
There is a saying among engineers - especially electrical engineers - to the effect that:
"Expertese is directly proportional to value of equipment destroyed."
The implication being that learning is an ongoing thing, and one of the most effective ways to learn what not to do because it smokes the expensive box is to smoke one.
Perhaps there is a similar saying relating to CEOs who crash companies?
(Interestingly, the saying appears to be largely false. Good engineers learn early to think ahead, and tend to stop smoking expensive boxes, or at least lower the occurrence rate of smoke generation events to near-nill - often before leaving junior high school. Meanwhile, flakes keep frying 'em as long as management lets them twiddle knobs and swap cables. Perhaps this ALSO applies to CEOs. B-) )
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Please please please put your massive legal department together, biggest corporate legal department in the world due to the potential breakup thru monopoly laws that they undured in the USA and funnily same law that casued BELL to be broken up. BUY NOVELL and then (and this is the part I'd pay money to see happen)
SUE SCO for breach of UNIX copyright
novell is actualy worth buying and has some nice tech that would complement the IBM portfolio and also lend yet more bloat/value to Websphere.
You could make alot of money streaming and pay-per-view on that court case as well, help SCO a bit in there settlement so they wont complain and would be nice showcase of IBM's internet prowess and offer a more modern way forthe public to attend and inspect the justice system in effect as they are entitled to do.
So to summarise - IBM buy Novell and counter-sue SCO.
PROVO, Utah -- May 28, 2003 -- Defending its interests in developing services to operate on the Linux platform, Novell today issued a dual challenge to The SCO Group over its recent statements regarding its UNIX ownership and potential intellectual property rights claims over Linux.
First, Novell challenged SCO's assertion that it owns the copyrights and patents to UNIX System V, pointing out that the asset purchase agreement entered into between Novell and SCO in 1995 did not transfer these rights to SCO. Second, Novell sought from SCO facts to back up its assertion that certain UNIX System V code has been copied into Linux. Novell communicated these concerns to SCO via a letter (text below) from Novell® Chairman and CEO Jack Messman in response to SCO making these claims.
"To Novell's knowledge, the 1995 agreement governing SCO's purchase of UNIX from Novell does not convey to SCO the associated copyrights," Messman said in the letter. "We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights. Apparently you share this view, since over the last few months you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO, requests that Novell has rejected."
"SCO claims it has specific evidence supporting its allegations against the Linux community," Messman added. "It is time to substantiate that claim, or recant the sweeping and unsupported allegation made in your letter. Absent such action, it will be apparent to all that SCO's true intent is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Linux in order to extort payments from Linux distributors and users."
"Novell has answered the call of the open source community," said Bruce Perens, a leading proponent of open source. "We admire what they are doing. Based on recent announcements to support Linux with NetWare services and now this revelation...Novell has just won the hearts and minds of developers and corporations alike."
Text of the letter from Novell to SCO:
Mr. Darl McBride
President and CEO
The SCO Group
Re: SCO's "Letter to Linux Customers"
Dear Darl:
As you know, Novell recently announced some important Linux initiatives. These include an upcoming NetWare version based on the Linux kernel, as well as collaboration and resource management solutions for Linux.
Put simply, Novell is an ardent supporter of Linux and the open source development community. This support will increase over time.
It was in this context that we recently received your "Letter to Linux Customers." Many Novell business partners and customers apparently received the same letter. Your letter compels a response from Novell.
As we understand the letter, SCO alleges that unnamed entities incorporated SCO's intellectual property into Linux without its authorization. You apparently base this allegation on a belief that these unnamed entities copied some UNIX System V code into Linux. Beyond this limited understanding, we have been unable to glean any further information about your allegation because of your letter's vagueness.
In particular, the letter leaves certain critical questions unanswered. What specific code was copied from UNIX System V? Where can we find this code in Linux? Who copied this code? Why does this alleged copying infringe SCO's intellectual property? By failing to address these important questions, SCO has failed to put us on meaningful notice of any allegedly infringing Linux code, and thus has withheld from us the ability - and removed any corresponding obligation - to address your allegation.
As best we can determine, the vagueness about your allegation is intentional. In
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
Assuming that this is really a trade secrets case, IBM would be the only party liable. Unlike the claims made in the DVDCCA suit in CA, other Linux vendors have no privity to trade secrets because they are not under any contract or under any legal requirement to know of or protect UNIX trade secrets.
Looks like SCO just screwed themselves.
Novell says they own it.
:(
SCO says Novell says they dont.
Either way one will prove ownership and sue the other.
damned money-monkeys.
Where was that retort when I needed it? :)
SCO intends to vigorously pursue a business model of greenmailing major players in the software industry in order to sue itself into otherwise-unattainable profitability.
I guess some dot-bombers never learn.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
According to a story on Marketwatch, SCO is intent on suing Linus Torvalds eventually. Now I know his reputation for avoiding political issues, but this one may be nipping at his rear whether he wants it or not:
McBride added that unless more companies start licensing SCO's property, he may also sue Linus Torvalds, who is credited with inventing the Linux operating system, for patent infringement.
lessee, where's sco's stock price, now that it's britches are now well and mightily shat?
oh dear, down a dollar eightyfour, oh well.
SCOX is down 20 % and pretty much in a free fall. This would be tataumant to Sco announcing chapter 11. I suspect that tomorrow, we will find out that the officers did some major stock sales (but so far, nothing is showing up at yahoo).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
SysV is *mine* !! ...
Seriously, another loser driving thru the desperation Hw
SCOX is now down 20.44%, making it the second biggest loser on the NASDAQ today... and rapidly closing on Cyberonics, which is off 21.17%! Show of hands... who wants to see SCOX make #1 on this list?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I wonder if taking bets on SCO going out of business by 5PM is not a good idea?
Man, suing IBM is one thing but threatening to cancel their AIX license is a freakin' death wish.
So SCO tells IBM that they cannot develop or market AIX anymore. IBM says "Fuck you" and carries on without the license. SCO sues again and a court rules that they have no IP claims over UNIX. Bye bye lucrative licensing business... hello Chapter 11.
SCO's problem here is they have only their word to back up their claim. Novell's press release says:
A simple review of U.S. Patent Office records reveals that Novell owns those patents.
And as for the copyrights:
SCO is not the owner of the UNIX copyrights. Not only would a quick check of U.S. Copyright Office records reveal this fact, but a review of the asset transfer agreement between Novell and SCO confirms it.
So maybe SCO thought they owned UNIX. But Novell has the paperwork to prove they do.
--Mythos
And anyway it's -22.04 now!
Listen to archived audio here:
http://biz.yahoo.com/cc/0/30510.html
Very amusing listening to Darl say they can't promise not to yank IBM's right to sell AIX!
-dave
Gore served overseas and did not lie about it. He did not shirk his oath or assigned duties.
Bush did not even show up, but has it on record, which is a slap at all military service that put their life on the line for our freedom.
It's official... SCOX has just advanced to the #1 position on the NASDAQ "Ten Most Declined" list... who says there's no justice? Any bets on it going back to 0.60/share within the next few weeks?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
...In the future, everyone will own *nix for 15 minutes.
If they are not claiming ownership, what does this mean (emphasis added):
Liberty uber alles.
'Project Monterey' jacks into Linux
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
"Ooh, sounds like a fiercely thickening plot!"
Max: "OK, Sam, let's get the hell out of here."
SCO has no patents, according to the US PTO site, and Caldera Systems only has one ("Method and apparatus for monitoring computer systems and alerting users of actual or potential system errors", filed on Feb. 29, 2000 and granted on March 4, 2003).
IANAL, nor am I a patent attorney, but it sure seems like SCO is blowing smoke at anyone and everyone.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?sou rce=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%7BC408959 E%2D005A%2D4E93%2D9006%2DB32DCD1FCA22%7D
The last sentence seems like SCO may now go after Linus because of patent infringement.
When will this end?
The true owners of UNIX are Dennis Ritchie & Ken Thompson.
with the principals of the earlier deal, many of whom no longer appear to be in power at Novell.
Forget Novell; SCO isn't even the SCO that bought UNIX (or whatever they actually bought). Today's SCO is Caldera that bought pieces of SCO and changed their name to SCO!
--Mythos
IOW, Novell claims SCO doesn't own the code they haven't disclosed.
.sig
SCO hasn't said what the code is.
They haven't said what the routines are in general.
They haven't even indicated the amount of code involved.
Wake me when SCO says something that can be [disproved|proved].
-- this is not a
EBay
Political language
...'cause there's an outbreak of Severe Acute Claim of Unix Ownership Syndrome in Utah.
Liberty uber alles.
The Boeing Company USA
The Federation Against Software Theft UK
The MITRE Corporation USA
The SCO Group USA ***** HERE IT IS
TimeSys Corporation USA
Toshiba Corporation Japan
Toyota InfoTechnology Center, Co., Ltd. Japan
It's under regular memberships. Use FIND next time rather than scanning it with your eyeballs. Note this is not in reference to The Santa Cruz Operation (SCOC) but rather The SCO Group.
SCO has absolutely nothing to lose by pretending that they still believe that they have a case. Heck, my guess is that those Yahoos have known all along that they don't have a case. For example, their executives didn't go on the talk show circuit when they were in court against Microsoft. The reason for this. They knew that what they said would be used against them in court. Contrast that with the media circus that the IBM suit has become.
My guess is that management is more concerned about the SCOX stock price, then the actual court case. They are just trying to make a buck on the implosion of their company.
If you call having bodyguards, playing basketball & smoking pot serving your country, then yes. But the only reason he was over in Nam was an election year stunt for his dad. Al Gore Sr wanted to show the patriotic voters of TN that his son was pulling his weight in the war too, so he pulled strings and got him a position where paper cuts were the biggest hazard to his life. As soon as the election was over (and daddy lost), junior was back in the states.
Bush did fly jets for the TX National Guard. If he's the retard that people on the left say he is, he would have literally crashed and burned decades ago.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
In other interviews SCO specifically mentioned doing a lot of license business with Sun.
What's he got to say in all of this? Two of his companies fighting? He should get on the phone and tell one of them to read their legal documents better in the future and STFU now.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
So we as shareholders can muscle in on the class action lawsuits against the company brass.
In this article
CBS MARKETWATCH
it mentions at the very bottom that McBride is thinking of sueing Linus for patent infringement if more linux vendors/users don't agree to licensing?
Anyone have any more data about this? Seems like an under reported issue (or maybe i missed slashdot that day)
Now down 26.75% to 6.38... wow! Lie and lose 25% of your market value in a single day... now THAT is justice!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
How long before AT&T makes a statement of being the "real" owner of Unix?
...can get Bagdad Bob a passport, visa & permission to come to the US and be their spokesman. He'll then make the announcement in Las Vegas.
I still don't think that excuses the nature of their "rebuttal," though, as if you don't see that *tiny* disclaimer you'll come away with a very different perspective.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Good point. Everything really hinges on the contract SCO has with Novell. If they can sublicense it, then the terms of their contract with IBM are the issue, but if they breached, in scope or content, their sublicensing contract with Novell, then SCO is screwed.
And here I was telling my friends you were "Bruce Almighty". :-) Still, glad to see Novell do this.
SCO Customers. Take note.
They did. Both of them.
The walking-wounded versus the half-dead...
This beats Timmy vs Jimmy!
CRIPPLE FIGHT!!!
Well, it seems that a few people ain't buying it.
Today's trading has their stock down almost 30%.
My guess is that all that bravada about being able to take on IBM's legal team in an extended fight, plus Novell as well, while making all your money selling alternatives to a FREE OS (that by your own admission is a drop-in replacement for your product) doesn't spell investor confidence.
Bye-bye SCO.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
In the "old days" computer stuff was not believed to be subject to copyright, or patent. It wasn't until "big money" convinced the Feds that low hanging fruit of the industry could be converted (stolen) into "bigger money", that these protections came into play. Prior, the only recourse available was to handle propriatary code as a "trade secret".
That's fine, but...
Copyrights and patents are available now. Trade secret enforcement is subject to rigourous rules. If Linux is found to contain valid trade secrets improperly released under NDA, further redistribution could be enjoined. Not very likely, but that would be "bad" and I'm sure SCO, um, just "thought they should know".
More likely, the loss would be converted to monetary damages against IBM and secrets would be gone.
But, The key is "what is a VALID trade secret"?
1) There is a reason why "The recipe to Coke is kept in secure storage, known in whole by only 2 people in the world." In short, a trade secret must be rigorously defended. Not reasonably, not sort of, not duely... but rigourously.
SCO publishing a body of linux containing their secrets falls way short of the test, even if they "didn't mean to".
Example. If an employee of a bottling plant under NDA sent Coke a recipe for "NuCola" which was, infact, the recipe for Coke, and Coke put it on their web site... End of game - no secret, no more.
SCO published. The complexity of the recipe is no defense. Stupidity is no defense. GPL has no bearing on the situation at all, the secret was released in a form other than NDA by SCO.
"But SCO didn't know"! Oh, yea, so SCO comes face to face with Linux, a thing that simply "could not exist" without knowledge of their "trade secrets" Yet, SCO fails to notice, and gives it all away.
Nope. Sorry. If it was a secret, it must not have been a very important or unique one.
2) A trade secret must show economic advantage that would be lost. Unlike copyright and patents, damages and relief are not prescribed in the law. You must show damages that derive directly from the release of the secret.
Coke can claim their recipe produces a unique product. So can SCO, but Linux to UNIX V is like comparing Pepsi to Coke. "Unix-ness", nor any of the various UNIX V functionallity, is no secret since it's been exhaustively discussed in massive volumes of public literature. No advantage in the secret, no damages possible, no damages, no case.
3) The secret cannot have been reverse engineered. It may be advantagous to know how UNIX V did the code to sem(). But, sem() functionallity is fully published, and any of a multitude of means can be used to implement.
In light of (2), if I can pick from any of a dozen schemes for doing sem(), then SCO must prove that my picking their's caused them some form of damage that would not otherwise have happened had I picked any of the others. Patents and copyrights are the only durable protections in a market of ubiquity.
This will be a day dear to the hearts in many geeks.
Unlike the "Where were you when JFK was shot?",geeks around the world will have happy memories of the day when we asked "Where were you when SCO crashed?"
Wednesday last week, after the "momentous" announcement by Microsoft about licensing that boosted their stock to a whopping $6.90, SCO does the big PR thing, claims they own UNIX, invites the world to their conference call ... stock jumps a couple of points Thursday to around $9 (max $9.22 for the last year) and hovers.
Today Novell says "All your UNIX are belong to us" and the stock price collapses back to where it was before the self-serving PR puff piece, and even below where the Microsoft announcement boosted it to. Closed at $6.60, although it was as low as $5.85.
Here's hoping you sold a couple thousand shares short at $9 and covered your shorts at $6.50
IBM should remember that telling people to "disengage SCO" buy shuting them out and telling SCO customers not to use them is an ANTI-TRUST actionable violation. I'm calling the Justice Department and my senator to investigate IBM for this unfair action.
What more proof do you need?
http://saveie6.com/
Your dictionary word for today is:
schadenfreude \SHAHD-n-froy-duh\, noun:
A malicious satisfaction in the misfortunes of others.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
SCO didn't release their own Linux distro, they were bought up by a Linux company , Caldera, which makes this whole thing all the more shameful.
Of course, the Caldera leadership has never shown itself to be particularly bright. They were, after all, the ones trying to sell Linux under a per-seat license a while back.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
here are novell's patents Link
...and what is it doing in this mess. - Not a native English speaker.
However, directly from their quarterly earnings page...
This looks like something the SEC should be looking into. Making false claims in a lawsuit is one thing - lawyers are expected to be liars in court. Making false declarations on financial statements is something else.
Information is not Knowledge
I must have slept a realy long time. Didn't know it was April 1st again....
I find the claim of 2.2 million SCO servers unlikely. 2.2 million SCO OpenServer machines, sure, but a good portion of those are, IIRC, retail point of sale systems, and little more than smart terminals, not servers.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Seems like Wall Street is getting the right idea about this company. They got savaged today. Expect more to come.
Shame I can't find a way to short it.
Small note. Pizza Hut runs SCO on the computers in all thier resturaunts, at least in the US. Probably in other contries as well.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
This has gotten waaaaay outta hand.
In light of your writing above (excerpted by the Slashdot crew) and today's disclosure by Novell, I thought you might be interested in this news report.
Specifically, the threat made by SCO's chief executive Darl McBride today:
McBride added that unless more companies start licensing SCO's property, he may also sue Linus Torvalds, who is credited with inventing the Linux operating system, for patent infringement.
Stunning. Simply stunning.
Quit saying SCO...start saying McBride...he is the single point of contact that should take first blame for the bs
"McBride added that unless more companies start licensing SCO's property, he may also sue Linus Torvalds, who is credited with inventing the Linux operating system, for patent infringement."
source:
Mike Tarsala is a San Francisco-based reporter for CBS.MarketWatch.com.
So, who gets to kick them into recievership to pay the fines for fraud and frivolous litigation?
Class action, anyone?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Are there not specific steps that should be taken by the Linux community to combat this issue and other similar issues. If there has been, should it not been publicized?
Has/Should the kernel team contacted IBM to attempt to identify the supposed infringement? I expect that there would be an issue with IBM revealing information about a law suit, but since the evidence has not been presented, it may be possible to do.
Has anyone attempted to independently identify the code in question? Doing so would present a few possibilities.
Is it time for Linux to have an orginized PR operation of it's own. One that can rebut the claims and letters. Is this LI? OSI? Where is the coordinated response? I'd love to see an ad in the Times and others w/ a large Tux that enumerates the benefits of linux or answers the charges in some way.
I do not want to over-hype this but we must grasp the reality that this could go on for a long time, and that our favorite distro might be in jeopardy. They deserve support and the issue deserves a response.
True friends are hard to come by... I need more money. - Calvin
I'd say there are some pineal glands pumping out a bit too much DMT at SCO headquarters.
Sco is dying
It is official. Netcraft has confirmed: Sco is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Sco community when IDC confirmed that Sco's market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Sco has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Sco is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Sco's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Sco faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Sco because Sco is dying. Things are looking very bad for Sco. As many of us are already aware, Sco continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Sco Open Server is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Sco Open Server developers only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Sco is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Sco leader Darl McBride states that there are 7000 users of Sco. How many users of Sco are there? Let's see. The number of Linux versus Unix posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Sco users. Sco Open Server posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Sco posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of Sco Open Server. A recent article put Sco Open Server at about 80 percent of the Sco market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Sco users. This is consistent with the number of Sco Open Server Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of The Sco Group, abysmal sales and so on, Sco went out of business and was taken over by IBM who sell another troubled OS. Now Sco is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that Sco has steadily declined in market share. Sco is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Sco is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. Sco continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Sco is dead.
Fact: Sco is dying
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
well, i was placing SCO in the position of honeywell. the reason they had any objection at all was because the patent's details had supposedly become so broad that they said they invented the first computer. yes, i am aware what the lawsuit established, although i would argue that a machine such as the ABC which does not have a conditional if...else is not really a computer in the modern sense of the word. but hey, it just wasn't their lucky day.
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
I think the evil bastards at SCO should change their number (linked from the contact us section on their pitiful excuse of a website) from
1-888-GO-LINUX to 1-888-NO-LINUX.
But, that's just me, and I'm dumb.
The older I get, the less I like everyone else.
I take offense with the above statement as issued by SCO. It is blatantly untrue, because there is NO "the" Unix operating system. They are talking about a concept that does not exist any longer, specifically a single unix operating system in which all IP was owned under the same roof. They are blurring the lines between a ubiquitous trademark that they do not even own with a specific operating system that they do.
Had they replaced UNIX® with OpenUnix® then that would be a perfectly acceptable statement, however that would not have accomplished their goal.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
All you Linux and Unix zealots out there should sit back and let this all play out. As a rule, you should never stop your enemy from self-destructing.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I distinctly remember reading that SCO was concerned about binary executable file compatibility in regard to what they feel was improperly placed in the Linux domain by IBM.
If you want them off our backs for good, please sponsor a contest for the first person who can independently write an open source program to convert SCO binaries into an open ABI format suitable for use under Linux and BSD. Then submit a patch to Linus checking for SCO binaries and converting them away from their proprietary ABI in-place (or on a merely temporary, as a kernel compile option) when encountered by any of the exec*(2) system calls.
Upon reflection, I believe this would be a prudent reaction if IBM had placed restricted code in the open inadvertently or not, without regard to whether the some sub-contractor claiming to own the code decides to proscecute.
Novell is good for something after all!
-R
(n/t)
Signature.
That was predictable..., because it had very high stochastic reading, almost 100 in weekly, so it was ready to tank this way or the other. Good play would be to wait now for it to rebound and then short it. Rebound could reach back to around 7.0
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
SCOX 6.60 -2.11 -24.23% Vol:1,978,948 4:00pm 05/28/03
After Hours 6.28 -0.32 -4.85% Vol:34,600 Last:4:46pm 05/28/03
Nice to see that people are impatient enough to get out of SCOX that it can't wait for tomorrow. I wonder what the people who are buying are thinking? The volume is low, maybe a handful of knuckleheads at the most. Hopefully, the price will continue down first thing in the morning after investors have had a night to sleep on it.
-HopeOS
If you really believe this then please file a complaint with the SEC yourself. They make it real easy, and you can even file directly on line: SEC complaint center. Note that the forms are directed towards investors, but the SEC will still take action if they recieve enough reports from concerned citizens.
Seems like SCO pulled out their press release on the earning report... possibly to change the wording on how they "Own UNIX"? Did anyone save the original copy?
According to their website, "SCO is the owner of the UNIX Operating System Intellectual Property that dates all the way back 1969, when the UNIX System was created at Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the patents, copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX System. The SCO source division will continue to offer traditional UNIX System licenses to preserve, protect and enhance shareholder value."
http://www.sco.com/scosource/
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
All those books lied that SCO owned the rights.
:-(
Damn it now i have to reorganize my thoughts on the history of UNIX!!! Wait there! Done! Reorganized.
Man i have no life
No joke, CBS marketwatch article quotes Mcbride
I posted my article submission in my journal
(imo) you are looking in the wrong place.
F -8 &threadm=bashsco%40dce.ie&rnum=4&prev=/groups%3Fq% 3DSecureWare%2BSCO%2Bfix%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3D UTF-8%26selm%3Dbashsco%2540dce.ie%26rnum%3D4
i seemed to remember a problem with sco's su and loaded a copy of sysv 3.2v2.0s to see if i could find the reference (been a long time).
when i came across the 10/4/88 secureware, inc. copyright, the lightbulb came on and you might want to take a look at this spetember 1990 thread.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UT
if this doesn't post the first time... i have no intention of re-doing it
Just thought I'd mention that nobody has bothered to register scosource (.com, .net or .org).
re: www.sco.com/scosource
A concerted effort to provide support for SCO/Caldera to Linux migration for companies would help solve the problem. SCO's attacks on the Linux community seems to be part of their effort to convert their Caldera Linux users to UNIX. An "open consulting" effort to migrate SCO Unix to Linux might get the point across.
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
1. If that company that now holds the SCO tradename (I refuse to call them SCO) is threatening to withdraw the AIX licence from IBM, isn't IBM going to have to make a choice?
a. Keep supporting Linux and dump AIX, or
b. Keep supporting AIX and dump Linux
In which of them does IBM have the most invested?
2. If it is found that Novell owns the Unix trademarks, what's to stop them from pulling the same "Hey Linux, you're stealing our IP" stunt as that other company? How much do we trust Novell (I honestly don't know them that well, so I can't say either way)?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
and i told them to buy WebSphere.e x.jsp?tab=products/appserv
You can reach customer service at 1-888-IBM-5800.
My Regards,
Mike
my letter:
Hello,
Today I heard on the SCO/Caldera conference call that you are using SCO/X web-services platform. Have you considered switching to another platform? The survival of SCO "the company" is not in doubt beyond the end of this summer as such perhaps it would be prudent to examine services offered by such companies as IBM. Consider, for example, the WebSpere e-business platform. http://www-3.ibm.com/software/info1/websphere/ind
Wrong. The Novell letter states that SCO's claims are unverifiable, and most likely invalid. It further tells SCO that their actions are grounds for legal action by the people whose interests are being hurt by SCO's claims. They go on to tell SCO that they need to either provide verifiable evidence of what they are claiming or shut the fuck up. Everything in the letter is legitimate and reasonable even if the code came from work done by SCO. If you are lookin for dumbass-incompetent attorney of the year candidated you might want to read throught the original filing by SCO against IBM.
...is rapidly becoming the Don King of the business world.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
... as you Americans would put it.
Check out SCO's sinking stock price (24% down when I posted).
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
SCO is pronounced as one syllable, "sko", with a long "o". ...which is the word "shoe" in Scandinavian.
So you have a firm which is:
called "sko";
trading as SCOX - anagram SOCX;
doesn't have a clue what IP is;
and wishes to destroy Linux.
Conclusion:
Now I know where Al Bundy is working.
BTW: He and Steve Ballmer would look a great team.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
>Isn't there a possibility that the "relevant code" is a derivative :-)
>work from the code licensed by SCO from Novell?
>In that case, Novell would have no say in this matter. Unless, the
>terms of the deal said that Novell ALSO owned any IP from derivative
>work by SCO. In which case the SCO lawyers may very well be shoe-ins
>for the dumbass-incompetent attorney of the year award
>
>
Look up the meaning of the term "License". If Novel licensed some code to SCO, that doesn't mean SCO *OWNS* it. Novell does. If what Novell is saying is true, then the SCO CEO crowd is looking at the prospect of some jail time. Knowingly defrauding people is a crime you know.
Regardless of the ultimate disposition of SCOs claims, is anyone looking into who may have already profited from the runup in SCO's stock? Sure, it lost 2 points after Novell's letter was publicized. But programmed trades can be set up well in advance to buy and sell. One could even create a pattern of trades which would make it look like dumb luck. I'm not alleging anything. I'm just wondering who is looking after these things.
Analyze it for reverse speech
:)
at around 11 minutes into it when
some dork is talking about the results
of the analysis of what was most valuable
that SCO owned.
It sounds to me like he's saying SCO found
out they didn't have anything of value anymore.
I haven't reversed it, but he's obviously
not comfortable talking about that section
and wants to get past that. I'd be interested
to see what, if anything, shows up
I take it that you're in the Chemistry department? Perhaps in a jar on the shelf? (Or maybe you're an alumnus (singular,) one of many alumni (plural).
I have a couple questions...
If SCO revokes IBM license what does that mean for the future of AIX?
How will this effect IBM's support for Linux?
Y'know, XINU is not Unix. In fact, Gnu's not Unix either. And Linus is not Unix savvy, appearances to the contrary.
Sigh, sorry about that. At least I understand the jokes now.
Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
Hypothetically speaking, what would a
Every time you call tech support, a little kitten dies.
UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.
Shares of SCO closed down $2.11, or more than 24 percent, at $6.60 on the Nasdaq. Novell gained 13 cents, or 4.3 percent, to $3.13.
>IBM executives ADMITTED they are moving AIX guys to linux. Linux
>losers launched a DOS attack against SCO, proving they are low life
>scum capable of theft.
>
>
What version of DOS was used in the attack? 5.0? 6.0/6.1/6.2? DOS 7?
Just how many DOS floppy-disks were stolen here?
so, as soon as SCO announces what code it is, Novell coule just grant the linux community a free license to it.
Given news and the resulting stock priced drop today (down 24%), I think what SCO meant to say was that they own the IP rights to several eunuchs - and that is about it.
.... don't have those chairs.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
according to Novell and SCO, SCO has the licence to develop and sub-license development of Unix V ( I paraphrase from Bruce Perens comments) - so isn't this what M$ bought - a sub-license to develop Unix V ? They didn't buy a licence for Linux as far as I am aware (which isn't a lot)
I know I have buckleys of a reply - I am comment 1108 -(
It's not the depth of the water thats the problem. It's the current that kills you.
To know that you have, singlehandedly:
1) Misled your shareholders.
2) Misled your customers.
3) Made your company a laughingstock with your stupid assertions and accusations.
Please enlighten us.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
It seems to me rather pointless for anyone to speculate on the legal ramifications of contracts none of us has seen. It is entirely possible that Novell has transferred to SCO all its enforcement rights in the intellectual property. This seems sensible as it has evidently transferred to SCO the right to license the same.
Some folks have speculated that Novell can just opensource the infromation and pull the run from under SCO. I doubt this since whatever agreement SCO has with Novel would be useless if this could be done. Think, what would SCO have purchased under this license if it could just be given away on the other end?
Finally, we have no idea what the contract between SCO and IBM says. We don't know what IBM is allowed to give away or use in opensource applications.
What I read on here boils down to "I love Linux, therefore SCO must be wrong. Facts? I don't need no stinkin' facts."
I couldn't care less about SCO or Linux, though the outcome of this rash of litigation may affect me since I am a MacOS X user.
Actually, Caldera bought SCO, they changed their name to Caldera. So SCO really DID release their own Linux distribution.
The below quote is from this Reuters article;a nyNewsArti cle.jhtml?storyID=2839994&ric=SCOX&infotype=news&c ompname=SCO+GROUP+INC
http://www.reuters.com/financeQuoteComp
I suppose this wraps it up for the day.
The market came down with a tough verdict on SCO.
"Shares of SCO closed down $2.11, or more than 24 percent, at $6.60 on the Nasdaq. Novell gained 13 cents, or 4.3 percent, to $3.13."
does that mean they can just get it back from Novell?
Although Novell claims they still own the copyright to Unix, this is not relevant to the IBM case. SCO claims IBM took AIX code codeveloped with SCO, and released it to Linux. Under their contract with SCO, IBM did not have the right to do this. An IBM exec saying they were going to dump AIX into Linux to destroy Unix at LinuxWorld didn't help IBM's case. If these assertions are true, SCO will still win in court over IBM, and also sue anyone using Linux versions containing the code in question.
Vote for Pedro
alum is colloquial shortened form.
Who are you and what are you doing posting AC?
This is one of the most brilliant comments I've seen in a long time.
Maybe MS settled with Caldera on condition they funnel the money to their proxy, SCO
LOL
not long ago
remember Caldera?
Nice. Now if only Novell would release all SysV code under a no-clause BSD license...
If the contract says "Novell grants SCO exclusive license to distribute UNIX code for the next 10 years" then yes, Novell has surrendered its distribution rights for the duration of the contract. If SCO is right, the fact that Novell retains copyright is irrelevant. Copyright lets Novell choose how to distribute their works, and they chose -- in the form of an exclusive license to another company (again, if SCO is right).
SCO asking for the copyright too is interesting. I think they were preparing to sue and thought they could go after the big bucks of willful copyright infringement by IBM rather than just a contract dispute.
As far as cancelling the contract due to abuse, again, we'd have to see the contract before we can say anything aside from just pure speculation.
- If SCO didn't buy the patents and copyrights associated with UNIX then what exactly did they buy?
- If they did buy the patents and copyrights and Novell is refusing to transfer them then why isn't SCO suing Novell for breach of contract? That would seem to be a necessary first step before suing IBM and threatening world+dog.
- Do we need to start a Linus Torvalds Legal Defense Fund? (as this slashdot article suggests)
- Can't Linus claim that by sending him a patch on the very public LKML that it is no longer secret. The suit alleges trade secret misappropriation not patent or copyright infringement.
- Is there any chance that we, the Linux community, can file a class action suit against SCO for all of this crap that they are putting us through? If we sue for damages we could tally all of the time that the community has spent investigating this situation.
- If we, the community, all started to sell SCO short (and buy some puts and sell some calls) wouldn't that give Darl something to think about as the market capitalization of SCO went shooting through the floor? I wonder if his salary/bonus is related to the performance of SCO's stock.
- How many simultaneous legal battles could SCO fight before going bankrupt? It would seem that every Linux vendor, support service provider, user of Linux, and especially the 1500 large companies that received a threatening letter from SCO now have a claim against SCO. And if everyone of those claimants filed in their own jurisdiction SCO would have to deploy more lawyers worldwide than Mico$haft!
- Shouldn't John 'KGB' Ashcroft be weighing in on the issue considering the massive deployment of GNU/Linux throughout the US government? The DOD, NSA, NASA, and many other parts of the government are heavily invested in Linux.
- If SCO were to go bankrupt then what would happen to whatever (see question #1) they did buy from Novell?
- Assuming they were to be sold through a bankruptcy court, would it be advantagous for the FSF, Linux International, or another Liberated software advocate to buy them?
- How adversely would SCO's bottom line be affected if all of its customers (mostly the fast food chains) were to receive a letter indicating the likelihood of SCO staying in business for another year if some of the counter claims that I have mentioned come to fruition? We shouldn't forget to include a blurb about the ease of moving over to Linux and the amount of money that they could save. Basically some of our own FUD!
- Using the same legal theories that the RIAA is using against Bertlesman for supporting Napster, is it possible to go after M$ for their obvious legal action by proxy?
- Since the SCO lawsuit is alleging breach of contract with IBM, is there any possibility that IBM could post the contract that it had with SCO for the development of the now defunct True64 version of UNIX?
- On that same note, is there any possibility that Novell would post their contract selling UNIX to Caldera (now SCO)?
- The media seems to suggest that SCO is trying to put pressure on IBM or some other company to acquire it. Who in their right mind would want to buy into this nightmare?
If there are any lawyers trolling slashdot then please post some possible answers to these questions. I promise not to hold you to those comments as legal advice as I'm not a party to this action in any way (other than being an avid gnu/Linux user).Proud to be an opinionated, elitist asshole ... I mean a member of the Slashdot community.
Restore America: Dr. Ron Paul for President!
What a mess. This is making SCO look like the Iraqi Information Minister.
Caldera bought SCO and then changed their name to SCO, and consequently the name of Caldera's Linux distribution changed as well. I really don't think that counts as SCO releasing their own Linux distro, especially considering that they started dissing Linux as soon as they changed their name.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
...but the communistic/socialistic anti-capitalistic pro-open source propaganda made people forget about what everyone knew and was written on computer magazines some years ago.
Surely Linux helped Microsoft a lot in destroying IBM with OS/2 and negating any option to see a real OS market competition thanks to a real commercial Unix with proper industry support instead of just a communistic Unix joke like Linux.
I would pay even $500 to buy Unix OSes with better customer support than Microsoft. I bought OS/2 till the last release and OS/2 was much better than what Microsoft offered.
The current IBM President is probably owned by Microsoft just like the Apple one since he started selling almost all the Company historical resources (storage division...they invented the HDU and they threw their divisions.. Geez! Pure suicide to make a Company collpase..that's so clear! And only Microsoft could be behind it).
The Open Source communistic minded guys then put such a pressure to make commercial Unix alternative for x86 desktops something impossible to achieve thanks to Linux and many of them were probably Microsoft sponsored to make a fuss about being against Microsoft itself while they only worked to make Microsoft OS monopoly worldwide domination stronger and stronger, thanks to an alternative Unix that's a joke and useful only for small servers applications, forget about any serious multimedia and any serious application other than rip-offs assembled by programmers in their spare time and surely not on par with industry standards available to MS OSes and high-end Unix systems.
All this stuff about SCO claiming they have evidences but cannot (doesn't want to) show them... Doesn't this make you think about something equivalent ? Did George W. Bush inspire Darl McBride ?
Well this is really frightening to me. Can anyone allege anything, act upon these allegations without first proving them ? Did the state departement provide any evidence of the presence of mass destructive weapons in Irak after the war ? Will SCO be able to provide any evidence during any trial ?
I really hope US justice system will be more effective than UNO was ! Otherwise, be prepare for judgment ! (anyone ready to copyright the "Good morning, how do you do ?" sentence ?)
Bill Gates don't have to open his code to sell service
Well I do, so fsck him and fsck you too
You think I give a scoff about your profits?
Half of you pundits can't even read C, you say I rip off it?
"But Tux, what if it's 'nix, wouldn't that be weird?"
Why, 'cause Darl McBride lied to get you here
So you can FUD me here next to Gates's queers
Shit, Steve "The Monkey" Ballmer oughtta switch me chairs
So I can sit next to Stacker and Digital Research
And hear them argue over which of them Bill raped worst
Little bitch laid the FUD on me on ZD
"Yeah, he's cute, but I think all his code belong to me!"
I oughtta download his OS code from P2P
And show the whole world what that he stole from BSD!
AAH! I'm sick of you little 'Doze and SCO groups
All you do is annoy me
So I have been sent here to destroy you
And there's a million of us just like me
Who hack like me
(Who just don't smoke crack like thee)
Who code like me, tell you to FOAD like me,
SCO might have been the Next Big Thing, but not with me!