Slashdot Mirror
OSCON Panel: SCO Lawsuit About the Money
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.""
It's all about money? I thought it was about the cool evening wear of the mascot.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
If I were a CIO or CTO debating the TCO of *nix vs. Win2K3 to a CEO, would IBM vs. SCO be the TKO that stops the CEO from approving A/P to pay my PO for RH's LGX?
FWIW, even if OSS is FAIB, if the DOJ considers *nix IP with a TM, then it basically become's SCO's LIC, meaning our OSS becomes a CSS OS, which would RSTBO.
AIBO going w/ an ASP that manages our OS? BTA, we might end up w/ a BOFH giving us ZA, which WWAD PMS.
AFAIK, INMP if SCO wants to be ITM by enforcing its supposed IPR - *nix IP should be PD or GNU, like BSD just on GP, IYKWIM. I keep asking myself in this situation - WWLD?
Oh, BTW - IITYWIMWYBMAD?
In other news, it was discovered that the Earth is round and fire is hot. Film at 11.
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?
You mean Chris Sontag isn't serious about wanting Linux to grow and prosper? That greedy son of a bitch!
Trolling is a art,
When an animal dies its sphincter loosens up and a smelly mess is created. Ditto SCO.
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.
Corporate lawsuits often are--although in this case I would say there's a large, genuine streak of pseudo-evil vindictiveness behind the suit as well, just judging from all the public comments SCO has made thus far. They certainly have a bee in their bonnet about something, and god's death, they may even sincerely believe they're right (even if their claims are based on the wind).
The coolest voice ever.
When are people going to realize that first, parties with a vested interest in the matter, such as OSCON, will hold this or a biased opinion. Secondly, the only opinion that matters is that of a judge or a jury. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. Finally, a judge or jury is unlikely to render an opinion on the matter for another two to three years so, the constant rehashing of some OSS member's take is completely pointless.
Give it a rest. People need to focus on the positive aspects of Open Source and stop dwelling on this lawsuit. Regardless of the outcome, having this "news" constantly at the forefront is only going to damage Linux and Open Source due to the FUD factor.
And there is one reason for profit corporations exist-- to make money. This is a surprise why?
The real quote would be: And there is one reason for Courts to exist-- to help corporations make money. This is a surprise why?
That just sounds vaguely nasty.
Remember kids, don't share unprotected source with Microsoft, or you risk litigiously tramsmitted diseases.
I got a diagonal Buzzword-Bingo on CTO, TCO, BSD and ASP. What did I win?
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
sean
Our friends Charles Broughton (Sr VP Int'l Sales), Robert Bench (CFO) and Jeff Hunsaker (VP, Worldwide Marketing) are selling, selling and.. wait for it... selling.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
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.
The SCO group, and both Old SCO and Caldera before it, directly acknowledged and assisted IBM with the scalablity of Linux
In August 2000, just days after Caldera purchased the Old SCO server division, the then CEO of Caldera, Ransom Love, made a keynote speech at LinuxWorld 2000. A RealPlayer video stream of the event can be found at DrDobbs Journal's Technetcast
In the question and answer session at the end of the keynote, Love was asked about the possible conflict over Monterey and Linux IA-64
A mp3 capture of the following transcribed portion
I am not a lawyer, but even I can see that The SCO Group has put itself into an intractable situation, any judge will listen to evidence from the above and laugh the SCO group out of court.It's about time to reexamine the recent claims of The SCO group and call in the lawyers and maybe the authorities
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.
"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion." - Democritus
According to this they not only are the 2nd licensee from SCO but they also received a warrent to buy 210,000 shares of SCOX at 1.83 per share!
g =f d_top
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1024633.html?ta
Bastards.
Step 1. Run company into ground ...
Step 2. File frivolous lawsuits that enrage the entire computing community (even mac users).
Step 3.
Step 4. Profit!
"panelists agreed that SCO is targeting companies like IBM in an attempt to raise cash." ... in stark contrast to every other corporation in the world that is in existence to better humanity.
"Derp de derp."
This post is an AC's ripoff ot the original here.
Translation also appeared in that thread.