Slashdot Mirror
Skeptical Reactions To SCO From Around The Globe
IpsissimusMarr writes "The Inquirer reports that 'The biggest computer manufacturers in Japan that build systems running Linux will hold out against blustering by SCO to extract license fees based upon unsubstantiated infringement claims, it has emerged.' Its nice to see more support from the business world denouncing SCO's tactics."
janda writes "ComputerWorld is reporting that several companies, including Coastal Transportation, Burlington Coat Factory, and Boscov's Department Store are taking a wait-and-see attitude towards SCO and their new 'Linux license' arrangement.
Best quote from the article:
'I don't remember signing anything with SCO saying I owe them any kind of licensing fees.' (Tom Pratt, Coastal Transportation)
I find it refreshing that companies are starting to stand up to SCO's blackmail attempts."
An anonymous reader points to this story at Mozillaquest according to which IBM says that SCO does not have a viable claim to JFS, NUMA, RCU, etc., writing "IBM says it owns the AIX code it contributed to the Linux kernel despite SCO claims that it has registered its Unix System V copyrights. A big problem for IBM and the GNU/Linux community might be the inclusion of JFS, NUMA software, RCU, etc into the Linux kernel. SCO claims it owns them. However, IBM, SuSE, and kernel.org's Richard Gooch reject SCO-Caldera and Darl McBride's claims that GNU/Linux contains SCO-owned or SCO-copyrighted code. ... The Linux kernel code is copyrighted under the GNU GPL. IBM owns its AIX additions and copyrights to Unix System V code and its development of JFS, RCU, and NUMA software code."
arilian writes "According to this article from ARNnet, SCO's new license may leave them open to litigation by other contributers to the Linux kernel." Bruce Perens and intellectual property lawyer Jim LaBarre are quoted in this one.
Finally, Joe Barr writes "I just filed a complaint against The SCO Group with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was easy. I used their online complaint form at:
www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm.
The basis for my complaint is that SCO is using false and unsubstantiated claims of IP rights to UNIX and Linux in order to manipulate its stock price and force consumers to purchase SCO licenses.
Maybe someone else would like to do the same."
This whole situation is really a gauge of the 'apathy' factor. How many peopel will be outraged and yet do nothing? I am not a LINUX or UNIX user, my company does not use LINUX or UNIX... and I see through this scam like double pane window. We should act by complaining now....or else we will get what we deserve! I also used the online complaint form at: www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm.
One word: Insane.
One word: stupid.
as far as posting a link for people to complain to the SEC about SCO's actions and how they are just to increase stock value... Great, just what we need. The SEC getting annoyed because 10k geeks decided to spam their form with anti-SCO propaganda.
A few submissions are fine, a flood, no. I am sure that they are well aware of what SCO is doing and watching closely.
Do you think that they don't read the news?
Speaking of this, could someone make some sort of boilerplate for that form? I'd like to complain but I'm not sure exactly what to put in the fields.
Why not fork?
It's actually up to SCO to put out substantiating evidence. Nothing has come so far except FUD and wild, far-reaching claims.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
If you have used the FCC form, I assume you've done the research as to information they request, specifically all the contact info for SCO, etc. Could you be so kind as to post that info here so we don't all have to duplicate effort searching these people down?
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Otherwise, you're just going to piss the SEC off, and open yourself up for a lible suit.
thats just dumb. Has anyone grasped, that to get around sco's claims is to just use one of the 2.2.x kernels? they may not have some of the bells and whistles that the 2.4-2.6 kernels do, but still, they are damn stable, and reliable.
There are few machines that will not run just as well with the 2.2.x kernels as any of the recent kernels. In some cases even better according to some people.
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
Agreed. This isn't a freaking petition, or a web poll. If there's a legal case to be made, IBM probably has a lawyer or two on staff who can make the complaint more properly and direct it to the appropriate ears more directly than could be accomplished by thousands of shrieking Slashbots.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
If you've ever actually used some of SCO's products, you'd understand why nobody will buy them, even under threat of lawsuit.
The prices they charge for the crap they peddle are revolting, basically. It's UNIX all right - right out of '92.
Craig Ringer
Then that would be admitting that SCO has rights to the code.
And one about legos, and BSD, and hot grits, and... And even better, some way to filter out stupid posts modded "+5 Funny"
./ and am interested in seeing every aspect available.
Look fucktard, this is one of the most relevant stories regarding the future of Linux. This is the main reason I am currently coming to
You don't like it? Skip past it...
What exactly was the basis of your complaint? "I don't like it," is a little weak. Did you claim fraud? Antitrust? A little detail, please.
IANAL, and there is some debate as to whether what they are doing is illegal. This may be just another time that we have to wait-and-see. Damn, I hate that .
True friends are hard to come by... I need more money. - Calvin
(As if that were the case.) ...there needs to be some serious thought about what to say. You cannot just send complaints to the SEC or the FTC without hard, substantiated facts. In fact, the FTC doesn't want you to send complaints unless you have been directly affected. If you have been directly affected, you probably know what to do, so that leaves us with the SEC complaint form.
I am not exactly sure just how the SEC should be approached with these issues. I am a Linux user, but SCO has not yet attempted to extort money from me. So I cannot issue a complaint on that basis.
However, we are all aware of SCO's activities, and we find them ethically wrong and quite likely illegal. So what I am asking is does anybody have a generic, factual complaint summary that can be submitted the SEC?
Most of us do not have time to pour over all of the material in this situation. Even if we could, most of us are not lawyers. Could someone who has an measure of authority on the subject volunteer some time advise the rest of us on how best to alert the SEC (or not to) without sounding like a bunch of Slashbots?
I imagine a lot of people here are going to get themselves in trouble with the SEC by making silly accusations and libelous statements. A good write up would be appreciated or good reasons not to complain unless you've been approached by SCO to ensure that doesn't happen
Join Tor today!
Everyone who uses Linux is being threatened, or don't you read their outrageous claims? The threats being made are a protection racket scheme - that qualifies under RICO.
If these companies were smart they would use RICO - Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organiztions - act to sue. You CAN do that under civil litigation. It is the one leeway we all have when they start to threaten companies and individuals.
RICO would also bring in all of their officers, stockholders and investors under the same scrutiny. It would also bring in their partners under this one-act play that keeps being re-written, even their legal representation.
Let them write more threatening letters. There is an ultimate penalty for protection schemes and rackets on the books today.
All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
At least until you can do it for less than a penny a share, that would be a horribly stupid waste of money. They have liabilities out the ass, and no real assets. Their stock price is absurdly high. If we bought them out we'd just be making them rich and ourselves poor.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Usually money works as a decent incentive. :)
It's a publicly traded company, it's not hard to find stock for sale.
So is the SEC.
Considering the usage of Linux within the US Government, particularly in the intelligence area (see NSA SELinux), I wouldn't be half surprised if the government wasn't already up to something regarding SCO. With a good volume of slashdotters filing complaints with the SEC and FTC, something powerful could indeed be drawn from the woodwork.
"I am root. Bow before me." To this I say, "You are root, and you bear the sins of the world upon your shoulders."
It doesn't really matter if SCO is right or wrong. They have had ample opportunity to allow the Linux community to remediate the situation. They have chosen to not bother with such civilized options and would rather engage in fits of libel and expensive litigation.
You forget that YOU will be paying for SCO's inability to work or play well with others.
Or perhaps you don't pay any taxes.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
where does it tell you that only people with a REALLY GOOD REASON are allowed to fill out the form?
Where in my comment do I say anything to that effect? Yeah, exactly.
What I said was that we should not be spamming the SEC with 10,000 geeks complaining about what SCO is doing.
I said that the SEC is most likely quite aware of SCO's actions and is watching them closely.
Read, it helps (that includes the moderators that brought you up to a 5).
The minority share holders can sue if they feel the interests of the majority do not benefit the company or the shareholders in general. (This is called a minority shareholder proxy fight, IIRC)
Basically, as a share holder and a company, the shit SCO is doing (brain-dead, evil and pathetic as it is) is GOOD for the company. It's getting them press, increasing the stock price, and potentially generating revenue.
If you come in and put kibosh on all that, you're not acting in the company's best interest. And a court might actually stop you from doing what is probably the right (moral) thing.
Yes, that's right. Money != Morality. Might makes right. Welcome to the adult world. Don't get me wrong, I think the SCO executive team should be put in the stockade for being a public nuisance. But the only way to stop them is going to be through fiscal, legislative, regulatory or legal means.
I didn't fill out a form because someone told me to, but I can recognize a good suggestion when I see it, and that doesn't mean that I'm patting myself on the back either. I realize it is something of small value, but it is also of minimal cost, so why not?
The only reasonable criticisms have been that it may cause more harm, but I find that highly dubious. For example, if my congressman gets 500,000 letters from constituents, I do not think that he discounts them because some are written poorly.
BTW, I'm sorry I attacked you personally, but it irks me when people who want to contribute democratically, even in small ways, are called 'stupid'.
Time to put up or shut up. If the -public- (not just SCO shareholders) can't request the SEC look into the truthfulness and legality of a company's executive officers activities (which by there very nature effect the stock price, and therefore the stock market, and thereofore interest rates, and therefore the economy, tax revune, the Federal budget, military pay, etc.) then what good is the law or the government? Does being politicaly "Conservative" (capital C) mean simply, following the "golden rule (who has the gold makes the rules?) or is the law taken seriously and accounting hijinks treated as the crime against the market, and society, they are? The market only works when criminals are kept from hijacking the efforts of innovators - theft is hardly very original.
They said that ntfs doesn't need to be deframented either.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM