Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OSCON Panel: SCO Lawsuit About the Money

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the well-there's-a-shocker dept.

viewstyle writes "Just when you had heard enough, the ongoing controversy about SCO vs. Linux has popped up over at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention (OSCON). According to Eweek's story, the panelists agreed that SCO is targeting companies like IBM in an attempt to raise cash. Most importantly: "if a company is not after money, suing is not the way to go.""

6 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. DUH by mlyle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are only two reasons you sue-- for injunctive relief of some kind, or to receive damages.

    And there is one reason for profit corporations exist-- to make money. This is a surprise why?

  2. So I guess I'm the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    who thinks the point of the lawsuit is to bleed money
    out of Caldera/SCO. Create a pointless lawsuit, and have the company
    pay a ton of money in legal bills to a lawfirm that the
    CEO is a part of. A nice way to bleed a company dry.
    When all done, McBride will move onto the next company
    with too much money and suck that one dry also.

  3. Tin foil hats on, please... by Pendersempai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the article:

    "[Microsoft's recent Unix license deal with SCO] proves that Microsoft and proprietary software vendors have a great deal to fear from intellectual property held by others. Maybe Microsoft felt it had something in its software to fear, and perhaps that's maybe why it took out that license."

    Or perhaps, maybe, dare I suggest, that Microsoft's public endorsement of SCO's products are meant to reward its loyalty in dealing OSS in general such a blow.

    MS leaked an internal memo a while ago that reported on some consumer focus groups they'd conducted to find which arguments against Linux were most effective. People largely ignored philosophical appeals about the nature of OSS, and they didn't really care about the so-called "viral nature of the GPL." The only thing that really worked was MS's suggestion that they could be legally liable for using OSS if -- unbeknownst to them -- it had been tainted by copyright infringement. That result was documented, and MS is well aware that legally-inspired terror is their best weapon against OSS.

    Lo and behold, a puppet dances onto the stage and engages in an outrageously publicized lawsuit against a company backing Linux. Maybe I'm crazy, maybe there's no connection, maybe SCO really is just in it for the money. Nevertheless, I think I'm catching glimpses of a four-color butterfly pulling SCO's strings.

  4. More SCO News by joncarwash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here is another story on SCO, from CNET, focusing on their recent licensing deals and the impact on its earnings.

    Also, in this story our "favorite" CEO claimed he was in Japan not to invade the Consumer Electronics Linux Forum but instead "just" to get more Japanese firms to license code from SCO.

    By the way, when is that code you always talk about going to show up in court? I'm still waiting to see something, anything... yeah...

    --
    A computer is a valuable tool, so use it and stop whining.
  5. Third reason: sock puppet license fees by mec · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Those are the classical two reasons to sue. SCO has developed an innovative third reason.

    Look at SCO's revenue and income for the past quarter. They recorded $13 million from sales of products and services and $8 million from SCO Source. SCO Source has two customers: one is Microsoft, and the other is an unnamed large Unix company (I think it's likely to be Sun).

    On the income side, SCO lost money on products and services, but made up for it by making money from SCO Source.

    SCO has found a way to monetize anti-Linux FUD. This is not just a sideline. It's the only profitable activity The SCO Group has ever had in its corporate existence.

    SCO doesn't need to win the lawsuit. They just need throw enough FUD so that Microsoft keeps cutting them checks. I think it's important that open source people understand this business model.

  6. Poison Pill Scenario by David+Hume · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This quotation from the article:

    The FSF's Kuhn advised free software writers to register their copyrights in the United States, even if they do not reside in the country.

    But Eric Raymond, co-founder and president of the OSI, cautioned that the industry should not respond to the SCO matter by trying to further regulate the open-source code and contribution process.

    The volume and quality of contributions to open source are very sensitive to the "overheads of submission and increasing these overheads to the development process could do long-term damage to the industry," he said.


    got me to thinking. Has anybody considered a poison pill scenario?

    Bad Company wants to slow down Linux, the GPL, open source software, etc. Bad Company uses Bad Agent to take secret, closed-source code owned by Bad Company and "contribute" it to Linux. Bad Company then waits six months, a year, two years....

    Bad Agent vanishes (with his $ millions....)

    Bad Company then asserts its copyright claims. "OMG! It seems our former employee, (Bad) Agent, contributed some of our copyrighted, closed-source (and for that matter, trade secret) code to Linux two years ago, and we didn't know about it! Everybody has to rip out the code... and pay us....

    While I understand Raymond's concerns, I think Kuhn is right. I'm not sure he goes far enough.

    --
    Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)