SCO Wants $699 for Linux Systems

walterbyrd quotes: "'We believe it is necessary for Linux customers to properly license SCO's IP if they are running Linux 2.4 kernel and later versions for commercial purposes. The license insures that customers can continue their use of binary deployments of Linux without violating SCO's intellectual property rights.' SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003." Update: 08/05 18:24 GMT by M : After October 15, SCO says they'll want $1399. Better buy now!

Comments

We Need Money!

[Foofoobar]

In other words:

'Please help us bankroll our lawsuit against you'.

Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor?

[dook43]

Easy answer.

If they showed where the alleged code was, then it would take approximately 30 minutes for the contributor(s) to remove the affected code, re-release kernel version(s), etc.

How, then, would SCO be able to charge $699 for a license?

This is irrelevant, period!

[Lysol]

Unless there is proof, there is no need to pony up to SCO and fork out the dough.

And let's be reminded, that there is NO PROOF whatsoever. Only accusations, NDAs, press releases.

Honestly, I'm not worried one bit and all my half a dozen servers are Linux. If you are worried about this for your business, then by all means, switch. But you've not been served any papers stating you're breaking some law, so screw it.

Go live and do business stuff instead of worrying about all this bs.

Re:Too much crack!

[micromoog]

Don't under estimate the power and strength of capitalism.

I think you mean "don't underestimate the power of the abuse of capitalism".

Actually a smart move

[augustz]

What they are doing is setting up an enviroment where things look like a done deal. Folks shouldn't underestimate this.

Given the fact that IBM has been relatively silent if a judge looks at a future SCO case they have 600 people licensing software from them, that judge is simply going to have a harder time "giving it away for free" to the linux guys.

Now I hope to GOD people read these licenses with a very fine tooth comb. Their is an adge that you NEVER want to sign a contract with a company like SCO, because a contract gives them real power to make your life miserable. Realize that they initially went after their OWN licensees (AIX etc) and it was because those folks had signed contracts. Be careful!

What is capitalism?

[Phat_Tony]

I don't think this sort of badgery and legal abuse falls under "Capitalism."

There a many different definitions and conceptions of capitalism, but they usually involve things like investment in capital, competion, and freedom. Unless you consider investing in lawyers "capital," this is a pretty anti-capitalist, anti-free-market sort of manuever on SCO's part.

Using the courts (read: government) to try to extract money from people, rather than providing goods or services to be purchased on a voluntary basis, is not the ideal profit model for comapnies if you want to maintain a healthy capitalist system.

Re:What is capitalism?

[GenSolo]

Nobody was trying to extract money from Microsoft. Microsoft was attacked because they abused their monopoly status in an anti-capitalistic manner.

Re:What is capitalism?

[eryk]

Because if someone (i.e. Microsoft) acts illegaly it is a job for the goverment to punish him.

And the SCO case is about a dying company which tries to abuse the law to get some profit.

Can't you really see the difference?

Re:What is capitalism?

[cluckshot]

Yeah what is capitalism? From what I understand a simplified definition of capitalism would be a system where investors put money in and expect a return on investment. Skipping a few details this is about it. Funny how today every Government Hallucination is called Capitalism. NOT LIKELY to be Capitalism just called capitalism.

We see a lot of devices like the SCO team and many others today calling themselves "Capitalism" but bluntly they are thieft by device, the definition of fraud.

I sincerely doubt that the stock holders of SCO or whatever will even participate in the "benefits" if there are any. As such the company should be charged with violation of the "Blue Sky Laws" where they are selling the Blue sky and not any factual thing when they sell stock. They are inducing investors with the intend of never paying them their just return. Does anyone take note that Microsoft might just fit this category too?!

Re:What is capitalism?

[einhverfr]

Because if someone (i.e. Microsoft) acts illegaly it is a job for the goverment to punish him.

And the SCO case is about a dying company which tries to abuse the law to get some profit.

Can't you really see the difference?

Yes, there is a difference, but there is also a similarity. In the Microsoft case, we use laws in a way which is fundamentally anti-Capitalist in the purest sense of the term in order to protect the foundation of our capitalism (the free market).

The difference is one of right and wrong. Caldera was right to sue Microsoft based on my research and much third-party documentation, but they were wrong to buy DR DOS for little other reason than to sue Microsoft. It should have been left to someone who wanted to do something with the product. Or at least have it contributed to the FreeDOS project, etc.

The real problem is that Caldera saw a legal opportunity and took it (suing Microsoft) and as a result they were too distracted to see that their business model (selling Linux as if it was proprietary software) was becoming irrelevant. So even now they are holding to it and trying to extort money from all Linux users.

I expect SCO to lose because they have no third-party backing (except perhaps Microsoft, but they can't say too much or they could be sued for the same things that RedHat is suing SCO for). Furthermore, in pursuing this, SCO is trying to break their own contracts witht heir customers (the GPL) which they knowingly entered into even AFTER they sued IBM. Even if they win some counts of the IBM suit, they will I think, lose to RedHat.

Re:Competing with Microsoft

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Actually, another article linked states that the later fee will be $1,399 which is more in-line with their UnixWare licenses, which makes sense since they've been talking about "indemnifying us poor miscreants" with UnixWare licensing. The $699 is just a 50% off type deal.

An interesting link in the other SCO/Caldera article today (i wish I could find the link) stated something along the lines of "whenever anything threatens their stock price, the SCO/Caldera execs release some more bit of news to pump it up." After being hit slightly by the RedHat announcement, well, here you go. Some traders probably will see the number, make a back of the envelope calculation "well, there are millions of Linux boxes, they're gonna get $699 or $1399 for every one, I want a piece of that" and pump up their stock. The more McBride pulls stuff out of his ass like this, the more obvious that it's just a stock ploy becomes.

I'd be interested to know what the percentage of machines out there running Linux are less than the $1400 price point. Granted, SCO/Caldera is (currently) only talking about commercial licenses so it's likely the machines are better than the overall average box, but still likely to be cheaper than the license. If this is the cost of a UnixWare license, no wonder they went into the toilet.

BTW: I call it SCO/Caldera because McBride's company is really just SCO in name and IP rights only. The real SCO people are at Tarantella, where they are soldiering on, doing real work.

Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor?

[realdpk]

How can SCO get away with charging $699 for a license to code that they claim is on your computer, when they have offered no proof that it is on your computer?

Then again, if you paid the fee, they'd have to give you their part of the Linux kernel, outlining what you're paying for right? Like on the receipt or something.

Re:Too much crack!

[Quietust]

Since Linux is mostly used commercially for servers, this would be comparing Linux 699 for Microsoft's Windows Server (ver 2003 is currently 600 for full server). So the difference is rather small.

Yes, except for the fact that the Windows server you mentioned has support for up to FOUR processors, while the Linux 699 is for ONE processor - for 4 processors, SCO wants $2,499.

Pump-n-Dump

[siskbc]

In that sense, it makes perfect sense. Get your stock price up as high as you can, and then sell as much as you can before everyone else catches on. Claim that you own all the IP in the world, and as long as there are others dumb enough to believe you, they'll keep your stock price high.

Is there any doubt that this was the plan all along? Come on, this is just a large-scale Pump-n-Dump scheme. Let's see - an organization that owns a few companies (let's call it Canopy) buys a down-on-it's-luck company (let's call it Caldera) that has some worthless IP. They decide, wisely, to pay their executives (coincidently, themselves) in options.

Then, they make obscene claims and sue a big-name target (let's call it IBM) for a ton of cash. Then, instead of filing court documents in a timely fashion to win their suit with minimum expenditure, they FUD like crazy. They get interviews wherever they can, especially in the mass media like CNBC, which moron daytraders watch to get "stock tips." This drives up share price, making their options worth a ton of cash. Then, they sell out, literally and figuratively.

This is where we are now. The interesting part is, though, that after they sell out they may not even care about the result of the suit all that much.

Bottom line is this needs to be investigated as the pump-n-dump scheme that it is. Why is it illegal for some morons on a chat board to do it, but perfectly legal for a management team to do it? It's a scheme/scam either way.

OSS under attack, not linux

[guacamolefoo]

Ok. Let's all go back to RH 6.2 and rewrite. Guh.

The problem here is that this is the model for attacked OSS now. Refuse to disclose the "stolen" IP , and claim that IP has been stolen. Wait years for the case to be cleared up in the courts, and by then, the next batch of proprietary software will have FUDded the OSS alternative into oblivion.

People are saying "hey -- just go to BSD". Guess what? That will come under attack, too, as it is developed. A different process for controlling what code goes into OSS and where it comes from may be needed, but that is what SCO and the proprietary software business wants -- they want it to be more difficult to develop software outside of the traditional code it and hide methods.

This suit has nothing to do with the linux kernel. It has everything to do with the entire OSS model. McBride as much as said that community developed software is the target here, referring to RMS in the same breath as the "OSS wants don't ask, don't tell when it comes to the source of code". Again, this is about OSS, not linux.

GF.

Re:Too much crack!

[ccp]

I know, you're trolling, but anyway:

This is not capitalism. This is corporate war, using an outdated legal system as a weapon.
This is MS trying to use the courts (hiding behind its lapdog SCOum) in order to stop OSS.
Linux is killing them in the server market, so they'll try the law (and their bought lawmakers).
This is just the beginning.

This is the OPPOSITE of capitalism.

Re:Too much crack!

[Tackhead]

> If you had have bought SCO stock at the start of all this you would be around 500% better of now.

And if you buy the correct series of put options on SCO, you can be 500% better off when the judge tells SCO to go fuck itself sideways with a wire brush.

> Don't under estimate the power and strength of capitalism.

Amen to that. But it takes two (a buyer and a seller) to make a market.

Speaking of which, I hope the SEC is investigating the trades made by insiders in SCOX, particularly with regard to whether the lawsuits in question have any basis in fact whatsoever.

If something untwoward is happening at SCOX, it wuldn't be the first time in the securities industry that individuals of questionable ethical standards have done something to artifically inflate their company's stock price in order to sell at the top. But the word for that is fraud, not capitalism.

Re:Too much crack!

[WEFUNK]

I don't think this has anything to do with their lack of belief in Linux on the desktop. I think it's just further evidence that they have no interest in carrying on as a business entity and are entirely focused on litigation.

This certainly isn't a business decision - if it was they would continue to encourage the price advantage of Linux and offer much more reasonable fees, say $10 per seat, and maybe offer some support packages. Enough large businesses that already have Linux deployments would probably consider such a fee relatively incidental as an effective insurance policy. It might even encourage adoption at some companies who don't believe you can get anything for free. At anywhere between $5 and $50 per seat I bet they could do very well for themselves.

At $699 they very obviously don't expect anyone to pay (except maybe some allies like Microsoft who will very publicly purchase some token seats). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if you called their bluff and tried to purchase a seat that they're not even set up to sell them. This is only being done for legal reasons so they can easily quantify the damages they are seeking in court. I think they'll use these numbers (along with some comparable MSRP's for Windows and Unix seats) when trying to establish their "lost revenues" due to Linux.

Possibly they've hired the same "scienticians" as the RIAA. Hopefully the judge will see right through this ploy and nail them for flagrant abuse of the legal the system.

Re:Too much crack!

[kwiqsilver]

I prefer:
Capitalism is the uneven distribution of wealth. Communism is the even distribution of poverty.

who infringes

[chrismg2003]

those who purchased redhat were not the ones infringing on copyright laws, redhat was infringing on copyright laws, thus SCO is simply undermining its credibility when it chooses to go after the users rather than those who actualy violated copyright laws.

Also:: considering the fact that SCO wont actualy reveal what code in rh they own without a nondisclosure agreement I would say that they may not actualy have code and are simply trying to exploit those companies out there that are using rh and have the money to pay their fees.

my guess is that either SCO will be subpoena'd and unable to reveal the code or they will be taken to court on charges of extortion...and lose.