Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO: Fortune 500 Company Buys License, IBM Retort

Posted by simoniker on from the traditional-daily-roundup dept.

An anonymous reader writes "SCO announced today that an undisclosed Fortune 500 company purchased Linux licenses for each of their servers running in their business. SCO: 'This Fortune 500 company recognizes the importance of paying for SCO's intellectual property that is found in Linux and can now run Linux in their environment under a legitimate license from SCO. We anticipate this being the first of many licensees that will properly compensate SCO for our intellectual property.'" kanly writes "The full text of IBM's countersuit against SCO is now online at LWN." M : Our own Roblimo has a pretty good take on it. Keep in mind that SCO could sell a blanket license for $1, for the publicity value.

10 of 557 comments (clear)

  1. A cave in... by esconsult1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So finally some feckless lawyers caved in. On the one hand they might say it is prudent to hedge their bets, but in the larger scheme of things it just makes SCO's complaint look valid... exactly what they were looking for to bolster a court appearance.


    sigh...

    --

    Newsfollow.com

    1. Re:A cave in... by fredistheking · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I seriously doubt anyone caved in. At this point it would be silly to do so. IBM and Redhat are countersuing SCO. I think that any of the corporate types would realize that they can wait until these lawsuits progress before that have to pay anything. Most likely, the company got the licenses for next to nothing and it is in a position to benefit if SCO gets what it wants in the end.

      -

    2. Re:A cave in... by msgmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This wont mean anything in court because the act of selling something does n't mean you had the right to sell it in the first place.

      Look at it this way, lets say I claim to own the rights to Windows and sell 1,000,000 licenses, it does n't validate any claim. 1,000,000 may have believed what I said but it does n't make my claims any more right.

      In fact if anything this could be used by IBM as evidence of SCO strong-arm tactics.

  2. mythical suckers by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe they're suckers, or maybe they just don't exist.

    So an undisclosed company has bought thier license because SCO claims an undisclosed segment of the linux kernel source is their IP. This sounds like crap to me, for reasons I won't disclose.

    And did you read the article? Christ, it sounds liek an SCO commercial. I'm not sure how "The SCO Group helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday" when it seems all they do is tax them on free software.

    --
    "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
  3. Re:I am guessing by tshak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the "Undisclosed Fortune 500 Company" is none other than Microsoft

    I doubt it...

    A) It's already common knowledge that MS has purchased some sort of unix license from SCO.

    B) If it was MS they probably would have said "Fortune 100" or smaller in order to have an even larger PR impact.

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
  4. Actually, I am thinking of buying one. by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am thinking that I will buy one if they guarentee that it is required. I would like some legal letter from their CEO (and Ray Noorda) that will guarentee that this is necessary and that this is not a fraud to simply sell stock.
    I am thinking of 3 little words
    corporate veil piercing.

    I wonder if I start calling on their 800 number How high I can go with this.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  5. Patently illegal, isn't it? by tekrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am not a lawyer, but -- not that someone *has* indeed paid their extortion money, SCO is now officially guilty of fraud, no?

    I mean, can't every single developer of Linux who has contributed code now sue SCO for a portion of that "extortion money" / and/or sue them for illegally charging for something that is supposed to be free?

    In other words, now that there has been an exchange of money, isn't the "john" as guilty now as the "prostitute"?

    Sale of stolen goods and all that nonsense? I mean, lets say for a minute that it is Microsoft that just paid to license linux.

    By the legal system as I understand it, the recipient of the stolen goods is also liable. If you buy an illegal DVD on the street in Chinatown, can't you also be busted by the cops just as much as the seller?

    So, this could be a double edged sword, even for those that want to appease their PHB's by forking over the money for the license, no?

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  6. Re:There is one word to describe these people: by swordboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if they really are suckers.

    No... they are Microsoft.

    --

    Life is the leading cause of death in America.
  7. Let's count the facts... by NTmatter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, an undisclosed company has purchased an undisclosed amount of licenses for an undisclosed amount of undisclosed code for an undisclosed sum of money...and we call this news?

  8. Re:I'll take a guess by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it were Microsoft, I would think that Redmond would have played this up in the press for all it is worth. Despite the fact that many geeks hate Microsoft, many people in the business world are influenced by MS. If Gates and Co. were to come out and say that they bought a license from SCO so they wouldn't be using some pirate Linux, I'm sure many a PHB would read that and be afraid of using Linux.

    Just a little food for thought.