Slashdot Mirror
Darl McBride Interview
mpsmps writes "vnunet.com has a long interview with SCO CEO Darl McBride devoted entirely to the SCO/IBM suit. McBride radiates confidence, describing SCO's contracts as "bullet-proof." He says he thinks IBM is desperate to buy SCO because "the last thing [IBM wants] to hear is the testimony that is going to come out," but that SCO isn't interested in being acquired. Read the interview for much more on these and other topics." See also part 2 and part 3 of the interview.
... that is to say, they're a living oxymoron.
If SCO isn't interested in being acquired, then why are they sure acting like they are? All this posturing is pointing to wanting to be bought out to make them shut up.
i am a soviet space shuttle
Vote McBride for minister of information!
You've been living in a dreamworld, Mr. McBride.
Have you ever read some code, Darl, that you were so sure was yours? What if you were unable to prove it? How would you know the difference between your code and GNU's code?
What is yours? How do you define yours? If you're talking about your opinion, how you feel, taste, smell, or see, then all you're talking about are conjectures - mere electrical signals that are likely misinterpreted by your brain.
...do you believe in OSS, Darl?
Is it so hard to believe? The code is different; The open relays in the binaries and daemons are gone. Look at the time & date management; they weren't Y2K compliant a moment ago.
Darl: No! I don't believe it. I don't believe it...
SCO's investors He's gonna pop...
Not long ago, SCO said that buyout by IBM was an option. They'd said that trade secrets were violated when IBM sent code to Linux. A mysterious contract amendment with Novel was discovered, with just the right wording to bolster SCO's case.
All these and more SCO statements have been competely reversed now. Why should we listen to this never-ending story of lies from SCO. If they can't say something and stick to it, they do not deserve attention, only contempt.
In fact I fail to u'stand Slashdot's motives in continuing this sequence of non-articles about SCO. News for nerds? Gossip, maybe. Stuff that matters? Matters to whom? No one but SCO.
Interestingly, far away from all the court cases, the Gartner group is pumping more nonsense urging the masses to eschew Linux for mission-critical uses. These are the real evil-doers who need to be exposed. Have any of Gartner's predictions proved accurate? Did they predict the success of Linux, apache or PHP? Except sending out the odd report slamming IIS, they've done lots of damage to the OSS.We should watch out for more of these Gartners and less of SCO.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Surely he can't believe that all of AIX would be moved over ? Maybe that's why he believes his contracts are cast-iron.. perhaps because he is CEO, nobody dares tell him "Hey Darl, our code is crap, and the linux community wouldn't want it anyways"
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
...But the guilty have everything to hide.
It's hard for me to look at SCO's CEO as anything but a cock-jerker. He himself knows for a fact that making such allegations puts a question mark on alot of things..And alot of good work...Honest work that honest people did.
The world is filled with assholes, and this guy apparently has no problem counting himself among the ranks. Thats the most disturbing part of all.
Bowie J. Poag
SCO - Source code's ours!
IBM - I'm being mugged.
Linux - Let's ignore the nuisance use of extortion.
MS - Monopoly secured. Money stashed. Mess sidestepped.
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
I'm more interested in what The SCO Group had to say about Novell's letter to them. There seems to be not much talk about it. The last I heard Novell was going to challenge SCO on Unix ownership.
> Besides, I hear no rumours on the street (what a marvellous phrase, unattributable yet pseudo-meaningful...) that IBM are interested.
I think he misunderstood it when he heard someone say "1BM is going ot 0wn SC0 before this is over."
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"In some respects, going after IBM first is unwise."
OTOH, consider the possibility that Microsoft is the one sponsoring this case. Whom would they sue? HPaq is already at their mercy - besides after Compaq's Digital takeover, the alpha series was consigned to oblivion. SGI was enslaved by MS for a while (they made some MIPS workstations running NT with Cobalt chipsets - remember), and only recently moved towards Linux.
Dell doesn't have a Unix/Linux strategy worth talking about. Sun (even if SCO had a case against them) doesn't compete in the PC game. Their 'Java PC' talk was just that - talk. That leaves only IBM - since IBM has a Unix AND a Linux strategy with their Lotus Notes and Websphere; IBM could be the juicy target to go after.
Now, I doubt SCO really intends to follow-thru on their hollow claims. Their main objective seems to build some sort of credibility and nuisance-value with their suit against IBM, and help MS attack the Corporates with threatening letters, Gartner reports, FUD etc.
It would thus appear SCO isn't keen on making any money from the IBM case directly, their only interest is to bad-mouth all and sundry in the Open Source game - Linus, RMS, RedHat, LUGs, users, Corporates etc. This alone can explain their strange crazy idiotic conduct over the past few months.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
But some of the things in the interview just threw up some 'red alert' flags. Some select tidbits:
Although I obtain *all* of my legal knowledge from slashdot :grin:, I don't believe that IBM's lack of filing a summary judgement is a sign that they believe thier case is in trouble. SCO has time and time again denied to release exactly what code was infringing, saying that it will only relesase that at trial. My view of the situation says that IBM is trying to get to the discovery phase as soon as possible. Due to the nature of the case, a summary judgement will probably be denied, which SCO is undoubtably waiting for so they can spin into a huge storm about how IBM lost its first legal battle over the code. IBM isn't letting them have that victory. SCO will have to go to trial and have thier bluf called.
Oh, this is good. IBM develops faster/better/cheaper hardware that runs AIX. IBM improves AIX specifically for that hardware. SCO calls the hardware a derivative work and claims it as its own? God, I'd pay to be on this jury.
Yeah, IBM is soooo slowing this process down. Not filing for that summary judgement must have delayed this case by -1 or -2 months. Bastards.
Just what I want from a company. Although its happened before where a company has gone in and audited software, it has always resulted immediately in backlash against that company. See Microsoft and some western school districts. What is interesting is that SCO could/will be auditing IBM's customers. I'm glad that no entity has any right to barge into my business and conduct random audits. If I plunked down half a dozen 0's for some big iron I'll be damned if any SCOpunk is going to get within 200m of any of my equipment. I'll consider it a test of my internal security measures and tell the guards to shoot on site.
But really, if SCO tried that it would be a act of desperation. Public opinion is already against them. A stunt like this will end all the credibility they have left. Plus, it will also blacken IBM's eye. I'm pretty certain that IBM will fight this one to SCO's death. Which is probably what SCO is betting on.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
Lets think about the notion of shame for a moment.
Sometimes, you just get tired of something. You get tired of thinking about it, you get tired of dealing with it, and you get tired of having it done to you. Thats about how I feel when it comes to SCO, and i'll tell you why. It comes down to shame, and how SCO should be f*&@^$ing ashamed of themselves for what they're doing to us AND themselves.
SCO has actively and intentionally put some very dark clouds over a group of people who would have gladly extended a hand to help them. A group of people who have absolutely no vested interest in asserting "ownership" over what they make--However, SCO does....and they will continue to do so, even at our expense. They will cast a shadow over the Linux community for the sake of pumping cash into their organization, for as long as they can. Shameful.
The Linux community is largely made up of people who could care less about the concept of "market share" and "trade secrets". We build because it's fun. It's fun to build. It's fun to make stuff work. Yet, SCO wants to derail that, and take part of that away from us. They want to throw a wrench in the gears of open cooperation and the open exchange of ideas. They want to stifle the process that benefits all, and stifle it in a way that only THEY will benefit from. Shameful.
We, as a community, don't go out of our way to step on people's toes, yet, SCO steps on our toes.
By their actions, they have shown their true colors, namely,their contempt for the process, for us, and for Linux in all that it represents. This isn't an accident on their part. It's an intentional tug at the carpet underneath the feet of the Linux community. An attempt to beat up on something that has never raised a hand in anger--Not to SCO, or to anyone. Shameful.
Well, SCO can tug all they want, the carpet isn't going to move an inch. They can cast as many clouds as they want, hell, they can make it rain if they want to. Thats fine. We'll just build umbrellas. Openly. And freely. The process of building won't stop, and the process of cooperating won't fail.
That being said, it's important to note that SCO's real enemy isn't a person, or a big blue company full of big blue ideas, or even Linux -- SCO's enemy is itself. By doing what they've done, they have shamed themselves, and the shamed the people who support SCO. They have even shamed their own product, and the people who put in the years of work needed to build it.
In nature, given time, problems like that tend to "fix" themselves. I'm not worried, and you shouldn't be either. SCO is cartwheeling out of control, and they have no one to blame but themselves. It's not our fault, or IBM's fault, or SGI's fault, or anyone's fault.. Their fate as a company was sealed the instant they decided to fight change rather than embrace it.
It's just a shame they can't figure that out, and a shame they never will.
Bowie J. Poag
What if IBM is guilty? What if they did misappropriate some proprietary code, on purpose or other wise? Sure the kernel folks will replace it and life will move on, but that will be very damaging to Linux. While we are all throwing stones at SCO maybe we shouldn't completely turn our backs on IBM. Their "support" of Linux may end up doing a lot of harm. Plus they may already be cooking up something they intended to replace AIX and Linux in the next five years or so. Before there was MS there was IBM.
- vphl
SCO is doing this to try and inflate, and keep inflated, a share price based on an extremely thin balloon. To keep that going, they have to keep shouting. If IBM makes specific replies, then SCO has something to use in the next press release. If they don't, it all has to come from within SCO. The longer it goes on, the greater the chance of SCO coming up with manifest contradictions, allegations that can easily be shown to be untrue in court, actual libel. SCO cannot afford to shut up and cannot afford simply to repeat themselves over and over, as with no new content the press will lose interest.
My personal interest in this is that 20 years ago we were involved with someone whose public utterances were very like those of Mr. McBride. He came up with so many allegations that our attorney started to believe that we were the liars, on the basis that no-one would make so many claims if they weren't true. But then it came to court...the originals of documents were mysteriously not to hand (faked photocopies). Witnesses were mysteriously unavailable. Foreign Chambers of Commerce had never heard of the companies he claimed we were in collusion with, who also seemed never to have occupied the claimed addresses. The guy fired his own lawyers. And suddenly he lost the case, a judge was telling him that he was considering whether there was a possibility of perjury, and he had huge legal bills to pay for both sides. I seriously believe that this man was so out of his tree that even as he faked documents, he actually believed he was reproducing something that "really" existed in the perfect world he lived in. Never underestimate the power of human self-delusion.
Not, of course, that I am suggesting for one moment that Mr. McBride is engaging in any improper activities, deluding himself, or seeking to rig the share price of a junk stock. I am sure that he is a totally ethical businessman and the merits of his case will soon become apparent.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
"You go back to SCO's brand in the 1990s and it was Unix on Intel. SCO was primed to seize the multibillion-dollar server market of Unix on Intel that hit in the early 2000s that has in fact shifted over to Red Hat."
He's falling for a logical fallacy here. 'Unix on Intel' caught on largely because of Linux and its liberal licensing. No proprietary Unix vendor ever made substantial in roads in this area, and I doubt any would have. When ever asked about the benefits of Unix-on-Intel, the answers people give for it are the general openness of the platform and it being less expensive than a proprietary solution. This is not compatable with a license-fee-extorion scheme.
Its no different than saying "We just sold a million foobars for a dollar each. If only we had charged a million dollars each, we'd be gazillion-ares!
To paraphrase Heinlein
Take back your industry.
Scott Adams once said in the right corporation it was more important to wear the right clothes than produce results. He citied an example of a man who had sent his suit to be dry cleaned and wound up directly reporting to it.
McBride, Sontag, et all are suits wearing men. Read their histories they are nothings, less than nothings and never will be's. The very act of paying attention to them lends them greater crednce than they could ever gain through merit or labor.
It is painfully obvious that SCO wants to be acquired. It is also quite aparent that these people hold the rest of the universe in contempt, in that they dont even come within shooting distance of truth in their statements.
Take This for example "Sco's contracts are bulletproof". SCO's contracts are over 30 years old have entanglements with 3rd parties and legal decisions, precedents and acquiesences that have rendered them far from bulletproof. If you take a look at the law covering software in the 70's and recall that at the time the legality of copyrighting software object code was up in the air, and patenting it was a complete impossibility, the speciousness of mr McBrides statements is obvious.
P.S. Just a note that the fact you couldnt copyright software object code or patent it at the time really didnt stop anyone from making some really great software.
It's very unlikely that Boies' law firm is taking this case on a contingency basis. That kind of business arrangement tends to be for individual tort. There wouldn't be any sense in taking a case like this on a contingency basis, since a good outcome for the client may be somthing very different than a paid settlement. How would Boies collect on a buyout, to take one example?
Corporate law is practiced on a pay-as-you-go basis.
On that basis, SCO does not have enough money in the bank to have this stretch out indefinitely.
That may be one reason IBM is letting this stretch out. McBride's bluster is costing his firm mucho dollars.
If someone (not me) wanted to be really sneaky, they would buy a share of SCO (that's the cheap part) and then hire a good lawyer (EXPENSIVE, let's say high 5 figures to start) and initiate a lawsuit against McBride and SCO and the board of directors for some corporate executivemal feasance against shareholders (hence the need to own a share of SCO). Then you too can have fun with the "discovery process" and go over SCO with a "fine-toothed comb"!
Think of the fun of delivering a subpoena to Lindon, Utah. Think of the excitement of getting to have YOUR VERY OWN SHYSTER get his meaty hooks on SCO corporate documents. HIRE YOUR FRIENDS as expert witnesses that must look over the SCO proprietary source without signing an NDA. You don't need an NDA, because you've got your very own legal shark swimming his way up SCO backside.
Sounds fun, doesn't it?
Maybe Commander Taco would do it if all those VA Linux stock certificates weren't only useful as toilet paper and he wasn't a FORMER dot.com millionaire.
I just wish someone would fight back legally at SCO. They are fucking with Linux and a case can be made that they are doing so wrongly and maliciously. Won't somebody please take the fuckers to court?
Do you really trust IBM to look out for your interests? They're not into Linux for the goodness of it.
evanchik.net
I don't have much direct experience with SCO, but perhaps a couple of interesting anecdotes at least.
My first brush with it was the same time as my introduction to Linux, early 90sish I don't remember the year right off. A guy I knew, a friend's step-dad, was an old unix guy and after getting sacked from Honeywell where he had worked for decades he was trying to make a business on his own around Unix on Intel. He had a SCO dealership for a couple of months. He was constantly bitching about it, poor performance, crazy to set up, crashing for no reason, damnable intrusive copy protection system built in, and the price was pretty high too. We were experimenting with slackware at the time and showed it to him... a month later he threw SCO out the window and never went back.
Much later, only a couple of years ago, I worked a bit for a place that used SCO to drive a couple hundred dumb terminals. That was just a temp job while I found real work, and I wasn't in on the Admin side of it, but I know that the guys that were started cursing whenever you mentioned SCO. They were working on moving the system to Redhat instead, but of course it was proprietary no-source stuff, and while they had it running it was still freezing and doing odd things occasionally and they hadn't figured out why yet, so it was just in testing still. They were planning to junk SCO as soon as they could get it working stable too, and gritted their teeth and screaming a lot about exactly the same things my friends stepdad had been bitching about nearly 10 years earlier it seemed to me.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.