My Visit to SCO

Ian Lance Taylor writes "I signed the SCO NDA and visited them to discuss their claims against Linux. My essay about it is on the Linux Journal web site. The short version is that SCO's claims are unproven, as indeed I expected would be the case before I went. The amount of information they were willing to show me was extremely limited, and did not by itself prove that their claims were true, nor that their claims were false." Other SCO-bits: Sun is doing their usual foot-in-mouth routine, thinking that two FUDs makes a Solaris purchase, or something like that. IBM is now joining the contact the customers bandwagon. Eric Raymond has been keeping himself busy - here's a story about him. SCO hates BSD, too, but they're not taking it lying down. And of course Cringley has his two cents.

Comments

Does anyone else think this plausible?

[Mostly a lurker]

I have been watching events with growing concern and would certainly claim the following is more credible than anything SCO has been saying recently. I have a conspiracy theory that I fervently hope is wrong. I have no proof for what I suggest below. I really do not know if it is happening, but I believe it is a possibility. My main reason for outlining this is my desire for someone to totally discredit it, so that I can relax.

I postulate that it is entirely possible that the driving force behind SCO v. IBM is the US Administration.

MOTIVE AND OPPORTUNITY

Would the current US authorities like to have the ability to infiltrate all computers at will, even destroy them? Yes: they have demonstrated amply that they want unfettered and absolute power.

Would they BE WILLING to subvert the US justice system to achieve this? Yes: they will do whatever it takes. They have already shown a willingness to manipulate the intelligence services for political ends; lying to Congress they regard as justified; the spirit and even the letter of the US constitution is being ignored -- they would certainly BE WILLING to include manipulation of the legal system.

Would they BE ABLE to subvert the US justice system at will? Unclear: I think the justice system was probably manipulated by the government in Justice v. Microsoft. I think there was a secret agreement whereby Microsoft agreed to help US authorities access computers in return for being allowed to continue operating as an abusive monopoly. That said, I am not sure they would BE ABLE to manipulate a case, to achieve the result they wanted, if one of the participants in the lawsuit was a powerful opponent of that result. What happened after the last presidential election in the US does not, however, inspire confidence that they could not.

So, to recap so far, the US authorities would like to have the ability to exert control over computers worldwide. They would have no compunction in breaking laws to achieve this. Whether they could actually manipulate the legal system to advance these aims is unclear.

How might this relate to SCO v. IBM? With open source operating systems, secret access into computers worldwide would probably be unattainable. The US authorities would consider a totally ridiculous court ruling that:
(a) would pass control of Linux, BSD etc. to SCO (under conditions where part of the source would become closed) or,
(b) better still virtually eliminate these products
as in their best interests. If, through interference, they could achieve such a ruling, most observers would probably not be unduly suspicious given the past record of judicial rulings in the US.

(Far fetched, but possible: could the recently announced SEC probe into IBM be part of an attempt to stitch IBM up? That could then be used to leverage IBM's acquiescence to a settlement the US authorities wanted.)

MICROSOFT

I believe Microsoft has already made secret agreements with the US authorities. An extension under which they get to destroy their open source competition in return for continuation of what they have already agreed is a no brainer. Their only slight concern might be whether this might someday be exposed. Ethics and laws are no real consideration.

SCO

They would go along with anything good for their "stockholders" (meaning Darl McBride and friends).

SCO's LEGAL REPRESENTATION

At the federal level, we have Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (including David Boies himself). As the firm that negotiated Microsoft's deal with the US Administration in Justice v. Microsoft, they would be the logical choice for this case if my conjectures are correct.

In Utah, SCO is represented by Brent O. Hatch and Mark F. James of the law firm Hatch, James & Dodge. Hatch is the son of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah (a strong administration insider).

THE OTHER MYSTERIOUS SCO FINANCIAL SUPPORTER