Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Responds To SCO: Business As Usual

Posted by timothy on from the long-walk-short-plank dept.

Newsforge is running a statement from IBM on its decision not to bow to SCO's demand that they stop shipping AIX. In a statement this short, there's not much room for weaselly language, but the even-shorter version is this: "IBM's Unix license is irrevocable, perpetual and fully paid up. It cannot be terminated."

6 of 828 comments (clear)

  1. SCO says IBM helping terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's even crazier than we think. SCO isn't claiming that it (or AT&T, Novell, etc.) necessarilly wrote the code that IBM allegedly put into Linux. Rather, SCO says that it has exclusive rights to any code that IBM distributed with AIX, even if the code is entirely IBM's own word! Essentially, all code in any form of Unix belongs to SCO.

    Accoding to an interview at Byte with Chris Sontag, SCO's VP, Linux is used by terrorists, and therefore IBM's Linux efforts are equivalent to selling arms to terrorists. Because of this, Sontag expects the US govt. to support his case against IBM and Linux as part of the war on terror. He also accuses Intel of using Linux as a way to flout US laws that ban weapons exports to North Korea.

    Unfortunately, this is not a troll or an attempt at humor.

  2. Re:Sorry were those YOUR cornflakes I was pissing by coupland · · Score: 5, Informative

    Fascinating, I always assumed "FUD" was invented to describe Microsoft tactics but now that you mention it, FUD is a much more accurate description of IBM's tactics in the late-eighties, early-nineties. To coin an old phrase "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". Fortunately they have learned a lot from the early-90's crash and although I'm still sure their only motivation is still profit, you have to admit that when you think "FUD" in 2003 it doesn't bring IBM to mind anymore.

  3. AT&T Not SCO owns Termination rights by bwt · · Score: 5, Informative

    The licences between AT&T and IBM that are posted on SCO's site as Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

    In section 3.03 of exhibit B it clearly states that "AT&T" may revoke the licence for non-compliance. Moreover paragraph 4 of the cover page contains a standard "no alterations unless signed in writing" clause. I see nothing that allows AT&T to sell this termination right without IBM's approval. There are similar sectoin in Exhibit A, section 6.03 and paragraph 4 of the cover page.

  4. Re:Question. by Voivod · · Score: 5, Informative

    What is stopping the people within SCO who started this case and subsequently destroyed SCO utterly from quietly selling all of their SCO stock sometime between now and the point SCO goes into court

    You mean, like if their VP of Engineering sold every bit of stock he had? Ha ha, yeah... wouldn't that be.... hmmm...

    Newsforge: SCO VP Opinder Bawa cashes out

  5. Re:Sorry were those YOUR cornflakes I was pissing by jpetts · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know it's silly but I always love when IBM uses the phrase "FUD" in corporate announcements

    The irony is delicious, especially when it was Gene Amdahl who coined the phrase "fear, uncertainty and doubt" to describe IBM's tactics towards his company after he quit IBM and founded Amdahl Computers (see one of the 1975 entries at http://www.academic.marist.edu/pennings/hyprhsty.h tm

    --
    Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
  6. Re:Question. by mcgroarty · · Score: 5, Informative
    What is stopping the people within SCO who started this case and subsequently destroyed SCO utterly from quietly selling all of their SCO stock sometime between now and the point SCO goes into court, thus making gobs of money in the span of time between SCO's stock price being temporarily knocked up by all the publicity around this case and SCO's stock price being knocked down once it becomes apparent SCO has nothing to back up their claims with?

    Well, apparently nothing.

    Notice the huge block of 26-34k shares sold off-market at 1/10th penny apiece to all the executives just before the 100-day-warning IBM volley in March? Notice how this isn't an annual reward program -- didn't happen last year? Notice that there's not been any insider buying since that point, but plenty of selling once the stock swung upward?

    This sort of thing is not going to go unnoticed by the SEC. At this point, if I were playing devil's advocate and suggesting this were a glorious pump-and-dump scheme, I'd say that McBride and friends were merely playing for the cameras at this point, trying to look genuinely quixotic to the end while they take their turns selling off their chunks at one million percent profit.

    A lot of people are going to walk away from this with very fat wallets, no matter what happens. Some anticipated the market's buy-in and have already entered and exited. :-)