Slashdot Mirror


SCO SCO SCO!

Still more links on SCO's assorted allegations of copyright infringement. They say they're going to sue Novell. Software analysts refuse to be part of the hoax - also some good quotes from Linus here. SCO and UNIX: a Comedy of Errors. Salon has a story on SCO too, but sadly it's not available to read freely. And Wired has an old story which I think sums up the SCO claims pretty well.

15 of 687 comments (clear)

  1. shareholders.. by Suppafly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm suprised some of the SCO shareholders haven't sued the directors for essentially making SCO stock worthless. It may have seen a temporary increase when this mess started, but its been on the downslide lately, and announcing ignorant lawsuits isn't going to help.

    1. Re:shareholders.. by SYFer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, although we assume this will be the end result (devalued stock), the chart currently says otherwise. The stock has done well over the last several weeks and poorly over the last couple of sessions--frankly, I surprised its held up as well as it has since the Novell announcement.

      This possible SCO "suicide" is happening in real time over the last few days and I'm sure the shareholder suits will duly follow.

      --
      "...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
    2. Re:shareholders.. by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They should have done that long ago then and not now. If anything they took a worthless stock and made it slightly more valuable for them to ditch. Looking at the value since inception, it's been all downhill. Yahoo makes it look like they were worth around $125/share. Last summer they were down to $.60 a share. It takes real management talent to make a company worth .5%..especially since the "own" Unix.

    3. Re:shareholders.. by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Insightful
      so, a stock that drops from $125 to $.60 means horribly incompetent management?

      Ok, the how imcompetent is the management of a company that goes from $300 to $.60 a share?

      That is what happened to VA Linux/Research/Systems... the company that owns slashdot, the company that had ESR on the board of directors.

      Score: -1, can't handle the truth.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  2. NDA is FUD by krisp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't understand why they would force analysists to sign an NDA, when the whole basis for their lawsuit is that their code is already in the public domain. Nothing new can be revealed if it is indeed already part of the Linux code. Perhaps they are going to tell analysists that its all one big hoax and they don't want them to write about it.

    1. Re:NDA is FUD by jamesc · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Please remember that GPLed code is not public domain. It is still under copyright, just with the GPL copyleft twist.

      However, your point is valid. There's no point in a NDA when the disputed code is already on dozens of mirrors worldwide and on CDs pressed by many distros over the last N years.

      Let's face it -- SCO probably wants the NDA to keep the reviewers from announcing that they found stolen Linux and/or *BSD code in SCO's source tree. ;^)

      --
      "You've crossed my Line of Death!" "What? No! Where is it?" "Here in the fine print...."
  3. Judges reviewing code? by PetWolverine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the second link:

    Overly said a review of the code by anyone other than a judge "means absolutely, positively nothing" in determining the merit of SCO's claims.

    Is it just me, or is there something scary about a judge, who may or may not use his/her computer for anything other than e-mail and word processing, trying to interpret two snippets of source code to determine if one uses the other in an illegal way?

    --
    I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
    1. Re:Judges reviewing code? by isn't+my+name · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is it just me, or is there something scary about a judge, who may or may not use his/her computer for anything other than e-mail and word processing, trying to interpret two snippets of source code to determine if one uses the other in an illegal way?

      I thought the same thing, but I just got done looking at the some of the legal documents from the Original AT&T/BSD case.

      In particular, the final opinion in that case shows that the judge did take the time to understand everything.

      I also find it rather enlightening to see just how poorly a copyright/trade secret suit was to prove when it was AT&T funding the fight. Makes me believe even less in SCO's chances.

  4. Re:SCO still packs a punch? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Caldera (now SCO) will not exist two years from now when the lawsuit with IBM comes to trial unless something can be done to stop the onslaught of Linux on their proprietary UNIX marketshare. In short, SCO has very little to lose.

    In fact, SCO's current scheme is sheer genius. They field lie after lie and watch their stock price shoot through the roof. Even after the colossal smackdown that Novell put on SCO SCOX stock is still priced at over $6.00 a share. That's basically a five-fold increase over where the stock was before they declared the lawsuit against IBM. Even better SCO management has managed to keep their story in the spotlight with their wide array of wacky allegations. This not only helps keep their stock price high, but it probably is even helping their commercial UNIX business. I would bet that several SCO customers that were looking at a migration to Linux will now choose to stay pat with UnixWare or OpenServer.

    Don't be fooled. SCO isn't trying to win a court case. If they were, they would be using the same tactics that IBM is currently using. Their legal counsel is pretty sharp. He undoubtedly has told the SCO management team that their responses to the press are evidence. If SCO really thought that they had a chance at winning their court case they wouldn't be giving press conferences every five minutes.

    SCO's management almost certainly plans to hype the stock to the moon, and then quietly sell their stake in SCOX. Since they have several years before their case goes to court, they have plenty of time to slowly get rid of their holdings.

  5. Re:This will be resolved in the courts by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By the same token, say you're doing some programming for IBM. YOu go reading through the sources for AIX, you understand it, you learn how it works. Now you're put on another project, say the volume manager for Linux. Sure things are a lot different, but because you've been playing around with AIX for a while, you got some really neat tricks to add scalability and stability. You change a routine here, add a better algorithm there, and you got that sucker screaming.
    Now whose ideas did you use, and more importantly, who cares? Sure stealing is wrong, it says so in our lawbooks. But what exactly have you stolen? Does AIX not have a LVM because you used some ideas from it in Linux? Should a Ford not have Antilock brakes because GM put them on their cars before Ford?
    We have broken the system to the point where it is illegal to learn anything, because somebody learned it before us. We are not stealing somebody's hard work. We are expanding on it, and with Linux, they can do the same thing back to their own product. Has there been a lawsuit because Microsoft has taken on some of the same projects that Linux has? Used ideas from one and placed them into the other? No, and by rights there shouldn't be. If Linus had compiled SCO and called it Linux, then there would be a case. If Linus used the knowledge he learned in university that the original Unix guys learned, should he be crucified? No.

    and oh yeah, fuck SCO. You can sue me too you worthless piles of festering pestilence.

    --
    You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
  6. Re:SCO still packs a punch? by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It makes me take pause when I witness a company that appearently has no ammo keep entering into so many skirmishes against esteemed and battle proven foes. It almost makes me question the analysts that keep stating that SCO's claims lack bite. Would the team at SCO really keep pushing a lie, even though they know that by doing so they will face unspeakable countersuits after the trial(s)? I think that SCO is cleverly hiding an ace-in-the-hole, and it's going to hurt Linux and IBM badly. This is unprecedented: no company would ever commit suicide so blatantly and openly. I fear the worst is yet to come.

    Anyone remember a company called Ashton-Tate and a product called Dbase III? Dbase was a not-too-horribly-bad database design package for DOS PC's ages ago, sadly, rather than put decent effort into revamping their increasingly encumbering software they elected to sue the hell out of those who took the same ideas and gave them fresh blood. The rest, as they say, is history.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  7. Re:SCO still packs a punch? by surprise_audit · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Following a link from the linked article, I came across this gem:
    If IBM wants to buy The SCO Group Inc. and end SCO's ongoing Unix licensing assault on Linux, CEO Darl McBride is apparently all ears.

    Is it stretching the imagination too much to suppose that SCO are simply pissing people off in order to get themselves bought out in a settlement?

  8. Maybe SCO is infringing? by minion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who's to say that SCO didn't copy code from the Linux source, put it in their code, and claim they did it first? After all, we can all freely look at GPL'ed code, but we can't look at SCO code. We have no way to know if SCO put that code into their source tree or vice versa.

    Another reason all intelligent societies should reject any software patents.

    --

    -- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
  9. Re:SCO still packs a punch? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, for someone who has no idea how business works, you have a great idea. The only unfortunate part is that this would reward the people who did this.

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  10. IBM's perspective by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think it is helpful to evalute this from IBM's perspective.


    As I see it, there are three possibilities.

    A. IBM screwed up. They released stuff from their SCO license into Linux. Oops.

    B. IBM didn't screw up. They have all the evidence (remember, they have BOTH SCO's source, and Linux's source). They don't care what SCO says, because they already HAVE all the evidence. They can't release the evidence, because that would then violate their licensing agreement with SCO, but they can sure as hell prepare they legal briefs now.

    C. IBM didn't screw up. They are in cahoots with SCO, and are doing this to screw linux.

    Given IBM's investment in Linux, and its contribution to the kernel, and other software, I'm guessing that C is highly unlikely.

    I dunno, A seems unlikely to me too. If A were the case, an IBM had a big problem on their hands, I think that as soon as SCO threaten them, they would have rapidly been able to determine that SCO's claim has some legitimacy, and bought them out immediately. After all, they have plenty of cash.

    That leaves B. Someone in the IBM legal department is of the opinion that they have a REALLY strong case. Someone on the board of directors decided it would be better for their credibility if they blow SCO out of the water.

    Remember, IBM can see both sides of the table here. They hold all the cards. They don't need to get SCO to show them the evidence, so they didn't even have to ask.

    They knew they would win from day one. You can't bluff when the other guy sees your cards.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell