SCO: Fortune 500 Company Buys License, IBM Retort

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.

Comments

There is one word to describe these people:

[Neophytus]

SUCKERS. I really want to put some sort of useful comment in this post but that word just keeps repeating.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[brejc8]

I wonder if they really are suckers.
SCO needed someone to admit paying up. So what if they got a company which has just the one or two linux servers to pay in exchange for SCO paying them back double.
Company is happy, SCO looks more credible and lawyers get their share.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[bigjocker]

The word that keeps comming to my mind is: Microsoft.

They are a fortune 500 company, have had business with SCO this year regarding this UNIX licensing fiasco, and have opened the Open Source Test Lab. I'm pretty sure they would benefit a lot by licensing all the linux in their Test Lab with SCO, that way they support the case and fuel SCO's FUD machine.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[MuParadigm]

An undisclosed Fortune 500 company paid an undisclosed amount for an undisclosed number of licenses for undisclosed code in the Linux kernel.

Is anyone else skeptical? Or is it just me?

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[swordboy]

I wonder if they really are suckers.

No... they are Microsoft.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[RLW]

Make that two words: Spineless suckers.

Unless it's M$FT. Then the two words are: Silent partner.

--Given the boom in world population the rate has to be every 28 seconds by now.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[eric76]

SCO's stock price had been declining, for the most part, all day. But then the announcement of the license purchase seems to have helped them pull it back up a bit.

There was a rather interesting dip to $8.27 a share from around $9.00 a share just before they released the news.

See SCOX on finance

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[NecroPuppy]

The 'truth' will come out if more companies start paying.

Please note, I'm not saying that SCO didn't get somebody to pay, but we only have 500 Fortune 500 companies.

How hard would to ask each of them if they have paid? Any that say "no" we can cross off, any that say "no comment" we leave on the list.

If SCO's next announcement (my guess, late Wednesday or early Thursday) is that more Fortune 500 companies have paid, it will be even easier to find out who is 'paying'.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[DaveAtFraud]

If it was anybody else they wouldn't have a reason for keeping it a secret. SCO has a huge incentive for being able to publicize any big names besides Micro$oft who pony up. I would think they would be more than willing to cut a deal on the licensing fees just to be able to publicize whoever paid... but that assumes its a company who has a significant number of Linux boxes and who doesn't mind telling the world that they use Linux.

"Undisclosed Fortune 500 company" my a$$.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[AKnightCowboy]

SUCKERS. I really want to put some sort of useful comment in this post but that word just keeps repeating.

I would imagine this "Fortune 500 Company" has a CIO that buys penis pills via spammers as well. There's a sucker born every minute. For god's sake, at least wait 5 or 6 years until the court decides whether SCO even had a case before you go throwing away your money. Don't forget to send your bank account info to that nice Nigerian gentlemen to recoup your licensing costs. The money you make on helping him smuggle his millions out of there will more than cover them.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[finkployd]

While that does make sense, remember that the company itself (Microsoft or not) likely requested that SCO not publicise who they are. They may just be dumb enough to buy the license, but smart enough to know the rest of the computing world will hate them for doing so :)

Finkployd

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[vsprintf]

Is anyone else skeptical? Or is it just me?

I wonder if the licensee wasn't that guy sending in the Monopoly money. And as for the other "300 companies" that Sontag spoke of, I, er . . . witnessed -- that's it,witnessed -- a slashdotting of their response form a few days ago, and some of the people involved were claiming to represent companies. They'll get a lot of takers from those inquiries! :)

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[schon]

An undisclosed Fortune 500 company paid an undisclosed amount for an undisclosed number of licenses for undisclosed code in the Linux kernel.

Is anyone else skeptical? Or is it just me?

Sorry, I'm not allowed to disclose that.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[EasyTarget]

There was a rather interesting dip to $8.27 a share from around $9.00 a share just before they released the news.

I was interested to note that despite that they're still near their 2-yr high level. So I guess that answers the 'where's the money' question about why they're doing this.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[terrymr]

It's interesting that the announcement came right after (like 3 minutes) a very steep decline in the stock price which had been gradually declining all day.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[MuParadigm]

That's so immature. It warms the cockles of my black, bitter, and evil heart.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[wavecoder]

It's gotta be Microsoft - how much could licensing the test lab machines run, anyway? The FUD factor is easily worth much more, even if Bill has to foot the bill, personally. Besides, only at Microsoft would anybody actually believe this nonsense has a chance of holding in court...

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[pavera]

They may just be dumb enough to buy the license, but smart enough to know the rest of the computing world will hate them for doing so :)
Sun might fit this bill?

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[Anonymous Coward]

Is SCO a Fortune 500 company? Maybe one of their departments bought licenses from the Linux licensing department.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[mschuyler]

I don't think so. It is already known that Microsoft cut a deal with them, so it couldn't be new news. If SCO is really touting their MS agreement AGAIN, then we know for certain no one else has ante'd up.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[shaitand]

Nobody is admitting paying up anything. This "fortune 500 company" is vaporware just like all the other support SCO's position. Nobody paid a dime, if anything this is just a coverup for more financing from microsoft. Their filings will show anything that's come in.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[Greyfox]

I'm hoping whichever fortune 500 company it was isn't in my stock portfolo. I'd hate to think a company I was invested in would waste my money on such a frivolous expense. I would have to have some hard questions for them at the next shareholder's meeting. I suspect that it was Microsoft.

This news doesn't seem to have gone too far to alleviate the recent case of heebie-jeebies that SCO's investors are feeling. They're back down into the low-nine-bucks-a-share realm.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[b17bmbr]

Is anyone else skeptical? Or is it just me?

yes, an undisclosed number of us are.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[PeteQC]

Yeah, actually Microsoft bought a license from SCO a couple of months ago... Remember?

Anyway, if Microsoft bought SCO's Linux License, how many Linux Computers do you think they have? Maybe 2 or 3 for the programmers to look up and to try to understand why it's so good!

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[IWannaBeAnAC]

I dunno, if it is Sun, then it is a desperate last-ditch bid to kill Linux, and maybe kill themselves in the process. If they are financing SCO (which is what this licencing amounts to: Sun more than most companies must know the worthlessness of SCO's claims), then their reputation is going to go down pretty fast once it becomes public.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[ReelOddeeo]

Microsoft needs to do this to hurry up and inject cash into SCO.

Very soon, SCO may be required to stop this licensing charade.

Also very soon, IBM's four patent claims, which I believe cover every single SCO product, may get a preliminary injunction which will cut off all SCO revenue.

In short: SCO will have no money comming in whatsoever.

Patent lawsuits are expensive to defend. You must (1) proove you don't infringe, or (2) proove the patent invalie. Either one requires lots of expensive patent research.

Microsoft probably recognizes that they need to pump some cash into SCO if they are to stick around well past April 2005. If SCO goes away, then the FUD would stop. Even if SCO is required to stop the FUD, it leaves a big question mark hanging around for almost two years that Microsoft can exploit.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[stevew]

My theory is the "Fortune 500" company is really Microsoft. They're double counting the money they got for MS?

Think about it.

We KNOW that MS has a few Linux boxes in their competitive analysis lab...so they put a few more hundred dollars on the table, and give SCO another PR bonanza!

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[dtfinch]

Sun just struck a big deal with SuSE so I doubt it's them.

It could be Disney. They have a lot of their own intellectual property to protect. Rumors of IP infringement spreading among non-technical folk would be much more damaging to them, even though the rumors would be false, than news of their foolishness (if it was them) spreading among the rest of us.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[Lord_Dweomer]

I can't help but picture Darl sitting in his Dr. Evil-rotating-chair watching a stock ticker, and when it drops him yelling out:

"TELL THE MONKEYS TO BEGIN TYPING, I COMMAND IT!!!!!!"

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[screenrc]

Given that SCO is *offering* to companies
stock options and other inducements (like they
did to Sun Microsystems), I will also be happy
to "purchace" a SCO license when the net
result of the deal is detrimental to SCO . Why not?

Joke of the day: In it's press release SCO
said that IBM had a failed business linux model.
SCO is out of its senses; beyond help.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[screenrc]

SCO does not corcern itself with credibility,
the only thing the care is to follow intructions
from those who give it money: Microsoft. Anything
else of little of no importance, including how
the look to the public.

The number 1 objective is not to collect money from IT managers or IBM
(they already know their limits). Their #1 goal
should be determined by their actions which
has little to do with the lawsuit and more
to do with a FUD campain agains Linux and the GPL.
After all, why should Microsoft should fight
IBM in public when their case is not yet over in Europe.
It is far better to hire SCO for the job. And
that is what they did. Anybody who thinks is
is fighting IBM alone in court with such
silly arguments is still dreaming.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[whorfin]

It's unlikely at a fortune 500 company did this for a menial cash kickback. More likely, they decided that even spending $100k would be cheaper than doing a proper legal analysis in response to SCO's letter, so they paid to make SCO go away. The cash was trivial, and the risk is gone (both legal and future expense). They win.

They probably included the 'no mention of company' just so that they wouldn't have to waste any more IR or executive time on this waste of an issue (their position, not yours).

If, as has been suggested, this is a complete fabrication, expect some jailtime for fraud, and the company to come apart. They claim that one of a specific set of 500 companies paid them. That's pretty easy to verify, which makes me suspect that SCO wouldn't lie about it...Remember, they're greasy lawyers, and they know where the lines are.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[DaveAtFraud]

The latest Robert X. Cringely impersonator at InfoWorld agrees with me. Although that isn't to say that there couldn't be someone else who wants to curry favor with the ambulance chasers at SCO and has a vested interest in stopping Linux. Sun in particular comes to mind as does HP. A free Unix definitely is hard to compete with and Linux has definitely cut into the margins for Solaris and HP-UX. Does HP even still offer a HP-UX solution?

I just see Microsquish as having the spare pocket change and I don't remember whether Sun or HP is still a Fortune 500 company. Also, Sun seems to have been fairly successful at utilizing Linux as an introductory product that gets customers into the *nix world and then they can sell them Solaris.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[TopShelf]

Plus, take a look at the stock chart for SCO today - this PR broke around 2 p.m., and after some initial volatility, it basically ended up the same as before the PR, down over 10% on the day.

In short, this was a non-event.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[uberdood]

I have one word.

OVERRATED

Fortune 500 has an important goal - protect the investors. The SCO fee is a drop in the bucket for the insurance that if SCO by some miracle wins, they (the F-500) are covered and the investors are protected. If SCO loses, the F-500 is out less than what an executive would have spent on a dinner with clients.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[BigFire]

Who do you think is bankrolling this SCO excercise in the art of pump 'n dump?

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[pmz]

...Microsoft

Microsoft is a Fortune 500 company, right?

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[Zeriel]

I dunno, "I command it" just doesn't seem like enough of an abuse of good English for Darl...

I theorize all Darl's edicts actually end with "THIS I COMMAND!" a la Serpentor (I think) from G.I. Joe.

Re:There is one word to describe these people:

[ngyahloon]

Definitely micro$oft. I mean, based on this article in Linux Journal, even micro$uck, i mean micro$oft uses Linux for critical stuff like DNS. Point made.

I kinda doubt this story.

[draziw]

Though if it is true, I'd think though misc financial disclosures that one could find out which company supposedly paid SCO (for generating carbon dioxide, which plants need to live).

Down with SCO. :)

--
+1 karma for low User ID and not being fond of SCO

Re:I kinda doubt this story.

[Megaslow]

Microsoft, of course!

SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO, why won't you tell us the name of this "Fortune 500" company?

Re:SCO

[mgpeter]

If the fortune 500 company was known it could find itself in a lawsuit with over 10,000 Linux Developers for a breach in the GPL contract.

Anyone who buys a license from SCO is in breach of the GPL.

Re:SCO

[broken.data]

'Cause they lose all respect when people find out they were just licensing their own servers.

Re:SCO

[OECD]

SCO, why won't you tell us the name of this "Fortune 500" company?

Sheesh, if I found a pigeon like that, I wouldn't tell you who they were, either. I'd be selling them bridges and Florida real estate.

Re:SCO

[Tongo]

I may be wrong (god knows it happens often enough), but isn't the SCO license only for the portion of the code that has allegedly infringed on their IP claims, and not for the entire kernel.

This brings up another point made last week. Whoever was to buy this license wouldn't get to find out exactly what the license was for until the code that has been supposedly stolen was released in court.

To the unnamed company

[Mikey-San]

P.T. Barnum called. He wants his cliche back.

Re:To the unnamed company

[Mikey-San]

Ah, indeed, I'm incorrect:

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.htm l

Fairly obscure, so I'm not too upset that I didn't know. ;-)

Re:To the unnamed company

[Blue Lozenge]

Ah, indeed, I'm incorrect:

Unless, of course, you were referring to "The show must go on." :)

Re:To the unnamed company

[EvilTwinSkippy]

"The way to the Egres", that was his. He had it plastered all over his freak show to keep people moving.

Re:To the unnamed company

[belroth]

I may well be sad, but it's egress and not egres .

Re:To the unnamed company

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Sad it is.

Re:To the unnamed company

[wagemonkey]

It's funny but my compiler cares a lot more about spelling than I do.
So does my Perl interpreter, which is truly amazing considering what it will accept in the way of code :-D

Why can't Linus charge SCO for using HIS IP?

[ealbers]

Or anyone else who contributed to Linux, isn't SCO liable for the same infringement?

Re:Why can't Linus charge SCO for using HIS IP?

[venom600]

Because Linus and all of the other people who contributed to Linux released their code under the GPL. This is one of the main arguments with SCO....whether or not they actually released the code under GPL, which (if they DID) would prevent them from claiming IP rights on it.

Re:Why can't Linus charge SCO for using HIS IP?

[JohnwheeleR]

No, Linux is under the GPL. That's the point

Re:Why can't Linus charge SCO for using HIS IP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the way I think I understand it, they can get away with it, as long as they do not attempt to charge any users who use the SCO-branded linux versions, since that would be a blatant violation of the GPL, and Linus could swing the hammer of justice down on them.

Now if SCO licenses it's "Proprietary IP", but gives free rights to the SCO-branded version, then they are covered, I think.

Either way, it's a fine test of the GPL, if the courts don't summarily dismiss the case or IBM and RedHat don't pummel them into the ground.

Re:Why can't Linus charge SCO for using HIS IP?

[bobibleyboo]

Have you ever read the GPL?

Re:Why can't Linus charge SCO for using HIS IP?

[Zelatrix]

I have read the GPL. Many times. I'm not saying I understand it all, especially in the context of the US legal system, but ealbers' question is perfectly legitimate:

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.


Seems clear enough to me. Exactly why do SCO feel they are allowed to distribute a GPL-d work with these onerous licensing conditions, that do not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program, slapped on top? They should be refraining entirely.

Re:Why can't Linus charge SCO for using HIS IP?

[Lord Custos]

Because Linus and all of the other people who contributed to Linux released their code under the GPL.
Well, why can't he claim that there are 80 lines in the kernel that he didn't mean to release under the GPL...and SCO used it without asking Linus (or ABC Sports or Major League Baseball) for permission first. ...but Linus doesn't have to tell Darl McBride which 80 lines of code he means.
But Darl Still has to pay Linus some cash anyway.
And cook him a delicious turkey dinner.
(No, Not kidding, it's paragraph 66c of the LSPL -- the Linus Specific Phucknugget License -- that those 80 lines were licensed under. No really, look it up.)

A cave in...

[esconsult1]

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...

Re:A cave in...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had (for example) a $1,000,000 custom application running on top of a $500,000 Oracle/BEA installation running on top of some Linux boxes that generated revenue you'd certainly hedge your bets as well.

Re:A cave in...

[fredistheking]

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.

-

Re:A cave in...

[Angst Badger]

in the larger scheme of things it just makes SCO's complaint look valid

Hardly. Any random judge picked at random might be technically clueless, but I'm sure they all understand the logic behind hedging one's bets against litigation -- aside from seeing it every damn day of their working lives, they are all lawyers, after all.

Re:A cave in...

[msgmonkey]

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.

Re:A cave in...

[AntiOrganic]

It doesn't really matter if they paid for it or not.

Should the IP claims [inevitably] turn out to be invalid, this company now has certifiable legal grounds to sue SCO for all their licensing money back. And more lawsuits over this sort of thing will just hurt SCO's stock values more in the long run.

Just think of it as "insurance."

Re:A cave in...

[MuParadigm]

Do they? I hope so, but I'm not sure.

Is there a copy of the Server license anywhere on the net? I haven't found one, though there is a copy of the workstation license at LWN.

Re:A cave in...

[rssrss]

" I claim to own the rights to Windows and sell 1,000,000 licenses, it doesn't validate any claim." No. But, you have committed fraud. Go directly to Jail, Do not collect $200 for passing Go.

Re:A cave in...

[wkitchen]

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.

I suspect the announcement was more about influencing other companies to pay the license fee rather than helping their case in court.

SCO Group to Shoot Babies!

[sICE]

The article is here...

Stock tanking

[DavidNWelton]

If you look at their stock chart for Monday:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=c&k=c1&a=v&p =s &t=1d&l=on&z=m&q=l

You can see where it was really headed down the tubes, and then this announcement came along at 'just the right moment', and propped things up a bit.

Re:Stock tanking

[mrpuffypants]

of course! Because now they're on the road to legit profits!

wait.....no.

Re:Stock tanking

[fredistheking]

I hope when this mess if finished the SEC will take a good look at who is profiting heavily off SCO stock. I doubt their execs would be above doing so if they thought they could concel it or, more likely, if they simply thought they wouldn't get any jail time.

-

Undisclosed?

[mopslik]

...an undisclosed Fortune 500 company...

We can't name the company because they don't exi-- er, because of legal reasons.

Re:Undisclosed?

[tntguy]

I wanna know! Gimme the NDA papers and a pen!

Re:Undisclosed?

[Mesozoic44]

This is just a linguistic trick - an "undisclosed Fortune 500 company" is an oxymoron. All 500 of them have already been disclosed numerous times.

If SCO was really serious maybe they could show the top management of Undisclosed, Inc. with bags over their heads? Nah - that might look too much like a perp walk.

Re:Undisclosed?

[Mattsson]

Yeah... And we won't tell you in what part of the kernel our intellectual property are.
That way you can't remove it. Mouahahahaha! >=)

Really... They don't seem to want to say much of anything, except "Give us money! MONEY! Give! It's mine!"

Re:Undisclosed?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Nah. They are probably another party that would like to see Linux twisting in the blazing Sun.

Re:Undisclosed?

[spamchang]

see if any company just lost x amount of dollars in a multiple of $699 =P

Re:Undisclosed?

[earthforce_1]

Hmm, an undisclosed fortune 500 company with only a very small number of linux servers, with a vested interest in helping SCO win this one.

M*CR*S*FT

Anybody want to buy a vowel?

Re:Undisclosed?

[mopslik]

Anybody want to buy a vowel?

That crafty Mocrosoft...

undisclosed company?

[riotstarter]

Just like the infringing code...I bet both don't exist.

Re:undisclosed company?

[bstadil]

No it exist. This will come up in court and if they send out totally false press releases they will go to jail

Hopefully they will get jailtime anyway, but they can't be so stupid as to make this up.

Re:undisclosed company?

[innosent]

From the IBM response: 55. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 55, except admits that IBM and The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. (a California corporation now known as Tarantella, Inc., which is not affiliated with SCO), entered into an agreement to develop a UNIX operating system for a 64-bit processing platform that was being developed by Intel and that the project was known as Project Monterey.

Anyone else notice this? Since the majority of SCO's case (aside from the Sequent stuff) centered on things developed for Monterey, isn't it important that it's not the same company? Same name (sort of), sure, but it's not the same corporation. Old SCO != New SCO, therefore New SCO can't sue based on something that may or may not have been done to Old SCO.

the obvious answers

[rot26]

The SCO(R) Group (SCO) today announced the signing of its first Intellectual Property Compliance License for SCO UNIX Rights.

How could Microsoft NOT be forced into buying these for its "new" Linux Lab (mentioned here several times in the past week.)?


"We've had more than 300 companies in the first four business days of this program contact SCO to inquire about SCO's Intellectual Property License for Linux," said Chris Sontag

Yeah, and 299 of them were trolls from pissed off slashdotters.

Re:the obvious answers

[molarmass192]

Yep, I wouldn't bet against you on this one.

Re:the obvious answers

[ediron2]

So, if I contacted them and still haven't heard back, is that one of the 300 or not... the SCO/Heisenberg principle at work.

Re:the obvious answers

[Newsome]

Yeah, and 299 of them were trolls from pissed off slashdotters.

And I called at least 200 of those times.

Re:the obvious answers

[daveo0331]

"We've had more than 300 companies in the first four business days of this program contact SCO to inquire about SCO's Intellectual Property License for Linux," said Chris Sontag

What kind of questions? What kind of companies, for that matter? Could have been reporters looking for information for their news stories for all we know.

Re:the obvious answers

[16K Ram Pack]

Yeah, and 299 of them were trolls from pissed off slashdotters.

I'm wondering if anyone managed to get a SCO salesman to come out and waste half a day of their time.

I wonder...

[elluzion]

Is SCO a Fortune 500 company? That would explain this.

Re:I wonder...

[LauraW]

>Is SCO a Fortune 500 company?

No. They're a Fortune 500,000,000 company. Does that count?

Re:I wonder...

[DA-MAN]

No, but Microsoft is. They just set up a new Linux Lab right?

I'll take a guess

[Trogre]

With their new 'testing labs', what's the bet that it's Microsoft?

I'm sure they'd love to further finance Caldera's extortion/FUD campaign.

Re:I'll take a guess

[macrealist]

yes. Why else not disclose the company name?

(well, ok there probably are a million reasons a company would not want to be named, but a microsoft link is so much more fun to discuss)

Re:I'll take a guess

[MalleusEBHC]

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.

Microsoft

[Lord_Dweomer]

Heh, I wonder, does M$ own any other companies that might be a Fortune 500 company which they had purchase licenses? (Goes back to sleep in his tin-foil bed)

I am guessing

[Soong]

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

At least, it satisfies my sense of irony and suspicion. It would be convenient for Microsoft to lend credibility to SCO's claim on Microsoft's biggest thrat, Linux. Microsoft says, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Re:I am guessing

[tshak]

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.

Re:I am guessing

[mrpuffypants]

Well, this brings up an interesting point: for all that MS makes of software piracy and compansating uber-huge conglomerates what if they DON'T register all their new copies of Linux?

Would it mean that they don't think SCO has a case or does it mean that they really don't give a flip about piracy?

But they prolly did register it. That sucks.

Re:I am guessing

[dringess]

And this would seem to substantiate your guess.

Re:I am guessing

[dillon_rinker]

"Fortune 500" has greater cachet than "Fortune 100." It is more commonly used among the Great Unwashed Masses (which, make no mistakes, includes most business decision-makers). Furthermore, "Fortune 500" includes a larger number of companies than any smaller group. More companies can identify with Fortune 500 status (about 400 more, not counting ambitious dreamers).

Re:I am guessing

[fedork]

I have never heard of "Fortune 100", even if it exists "Fortune 500" is much better known. IANAL but the lisense they got was something different and would not apply.

Besides agreeing that it _must_ be MS who bought this license, I am also pretty sure that MS is behind this whole SCO thing from the very start, possibly by pushing SCO execs into it by whatever means (money, blackmail etc...)

Re:I am guessing

[thisgooroo]

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

that was a license to use in their their unix compatibility pack (or whatever it is called), probably other relevant development work for their products as well. i doubt it would give them the SCO defined right to run linux

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

maybe, but since they used MS as licensing partner to boost their ridiculous claims once already, this might too much give the appearance of a conspiracy and they might see a good reason not to let the identity slip out

Re:I am guessing

[raboofje]

it means they do what everyone does, and wait for SCO to *prove* that we need to pay them for continuing to use linux

(interesting point, btw, that in the hypothetical situation where SCO indeed proves there's non-GPL SCO code in linux, a user could buy the SCO license and use linux legally, but a distributor could *not* buy such a license and distribute this sco-'enhanced' linux legally.

Of course, once the offending code has been removed everything will be back to normal again.)

Re:I am guessing

[dbialac]

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.

This whole thing is them. The Unix License is the method Microsoft is using to funnel money into SCO for the lawsuit. The purchase of licenses gives SCO this form of ammunation to the public.

Remember: Microsoft has a lot to gain either way. If SCO wins, Linux is no longer free. If they lose, then Microsoft has ammunition for their claim that the GPL takes away intellectual property. I mentioned this in a previous post, but it failed to create much discussion as I posted it late in the discussion (much like this post) :(

Word count

[brejc8]

Article length: 184 words
Sales pitch: 169 words
Im taking everything below "For more information on the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux, contact SCO..." as sales pitch

Re:Word count

[vsprintf]

Im taking everything below "For more information on the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux, contact SCO..." as sales pitch

So that would be a (go ahead, try to pronounce it) SCOIPL, as in a surgical implement for removing your money? :)

So what happens when we win?

[ChiefArcher]

What happens when we win?
Does that fortune 500 company look like a complete fool? Do they get their money back?
Do they sue for extortion?

The company that did it is a fool. It's probably Microsoft... registering their 2 copies.

ChiefArcher

Re:So what happens when we win?

[gl4ss]

well, the license(ip-rights license sco is selling) basically says they're just fu***d if something like that happens, they don't get money back but the sco can still audit them at will & etc.

but yeah, i wouldn't be surprised if it was ms, but i suppose in that case they would have touted as to be in top ten fortune 500 or so.

Re:So what happens when we win?

[Lonath]

What happens when we win?

Dunno. After all of the SCO assets are divided up, someone gets hold of those confidential documents and sues this company for copyright infringement since by buying an SCO license.

After all, they are showing that they don't accept that Linux is under the GPL, which means that copying Linux to "each of the Linux servers running their business" is rather illegal.

We can only hope.

Re:So what happens when we win?

[Darth]

the company that bought the license has not committed copyright infringement. SCO has.

Re:So what happens when we win?

[Sigma 7]

well, the license(ip-rights license sco is selling) basically says they're just fu***d if something like that happens, they don't get money back but the sco can still audit them at will & etc.

If the "Fortune 500" company smartened up and replaced its lawyers, they can suddenly declare the alleged "license" to be null and void as the promised IP was never delivered in the first place (i.e. SCO was claiming to own unknown code falsly).

This strongly depends on the exact laws governing the company, as well as other laws in the state.

I strongly doubt it will happen, since a company buckling into that sort of extorsion is probably too dumb to research basic laws.

Re:So what happens when we win?

[Shmew]

More anti-SCO t-shirts:
http://www.cafeshops.com/politinerd

Fight Sco!

Re:So what happens when we win?

[BobTheLawyer]

in theory the company could then sue SCO for misrepresentation

in practice, SCO will have gone bust by this point, and a claim against it will be worthless

Re:So what happens when we win?

[Zelatrix]

Does that fortune 500 company look like a complete fool?

No, because they're anonymous.

Oddly enough, this story hit at exactly three minutes past two, just as SCO stock was tanking heavily. No mention of the company's name ... or how many licenses they bought ... or how much they paid for them.

Microsoft made plenty of noise about opening a Linux test laboratory. Obviously they need to acquire whatever licenses may be required to make those Linux installations legal. We're supposed to make the connection. It just gives them "plausible deniability" when the SCO ship finally goes down. Because when it does, MS won't want to be the last rat off, looking, as you say, like a complete fool. All those sneery articles in the trade press - no thanks.

Come on. It's a scam and we all know it. And so does this enigmatic "Fortune 500" company. Think that they employ idiots?

I must switch to a thicker grade of tinfoil.

Re:So what happens when we win?

[Lonath]

But, if you download or buy a single copy of Linux, the ONLY reason you can copy it to all 2000 of your internal machines is that you accept the GPL right?

I know they can claim that they think it's under the GPL and they were just playing CYA, but the company is copying illegally if they do it internally without accepting the GPL. Unless I don't understand the GPL, but it seems clear to me.

Re:So what happens when we win?

[Zelatrix]

But does the company that bought the license obtain all the usual rights under the GPL, should they wish to distribute further? I mean, the GPL states that if you can't distribute so as to satisfy both the GPL and any other license encumbrances that apply, you can't distribute at all. On the other hand, this license may well be a steaming pile that doesn't actually impose any (legal) encumbrances. Do you receive the usual license from the original copyright holder or not under these circumstances?

Though if it is the Beast, I doubt they'll be doing much redistribution anyway.

Re:So what happens when we win?

[Darth]

But, if you download or buy a single copy of Linux, the ONLY reason you can copy it to all 2000 of your internal machines is that you accept the GPL right?

distribution inside your organisation does not require you to agree to the GPL.

Re:So what happens when we win?

[JoeBuck]

It would appear that a company that buys a license, accepts its terms, and then engages in any copying of Linux code violates the GPL and forfeits its license to copy or modify the Linux kernel. That's because it is engaging in sublicensing in a way that is directly forbidden by the GPL.

Re:So what happens when we win?

[Darth]

But does the company that bought the license obtain all the usual rights under the GPL, should they wish to distribute further?

unless SCO's license allows them to distribute the supposedly infringed code with a license for it, they would not be able to legally distribute the linux kernel anyway. They would be violating their SCO license, even if they weren't violating the GPL.

I think SCO has already said that their license only allows for binary-only use of a linux kernel. They dont allow source or distribution.

Personally, i'm glad their whole case is frivolous and legally absurd (well, at least in the eyes of several copyright lawyers).

Re:So what happens when we win?

[Michael Hunt]

Yes, but without the GPL, you have only 'standard' copyright permitting the use of the code in question.

Standard interpretation of copyright frowns upon duplication except for 'fair use' and other similar purposes.

Re:So what happens when we win?

[MuParadigm]

No, the corporate entity counts as a single licensee and is allowed to distribute within the entity. Only external distribution would cause the GPL to kick in.

Unfortunately, I'm looking through the GPL now, and I don't see any language explicitly defining a corporate entity as the same as a single licensee. However, that is the stand that the FSF and Eben Moglen have taken in the articles and interviews I've read. This is important because it allows corporations to modify the code without making it generally available if they choose not to do so.

Re:So what happens when we win?

[Darth]

Yes, but without the GPL, you have only 'standard' copyright permitting the use of the code in question

true, but the GPL itself specifically allows modification without releasing the derivative work as long as you do not distribute the work. Use internal to a company is specifically listed as not being distribution under the GPL terms.

So they are actually still compliant with the GPL in the case described in the parent post.

Sockpuppet support.

[Black Parrot]

IMO, "an anonymous Fortune 500 company" is exactly as convincing an argument as "lots of unidentified source code".

I.e., a completely useless as a basis for argument, even if it happens to be true.

Re:Sockpuppet support.

[vsprintf]

IMO, "an anonymous Fortune 500 company" is exactly as convincing an argument as "lots of unidentified source code".

While I agree with the sentiment, don't forget SCO's previous secret licensee was Sun. It could be just another company ashamed to admit their involvement.

Re:True or FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Beacuse the company is either Microsoft or doesn't exist

If SCO paid YOU...?

[PeteyG]

What if SCO paid your company $2 for every $1 of license that you bought from them? Would you be wrong to do that?

SCO buys publicity, your company gets money.

Even though you know SCO is wrong... you couldn't feel bad about taking their money! They're going down in flames anyways, why not save some of their cash before it burns up?

(i guess wildly on the nature of the business deal)

Re:If SCO paid YOU...?

[Arker]

It would still be stupid. It would be accepting a contract which they could then sue you for violating later. It would also terminate your legal ability to modify or distributed any GPL Software.

Re:If SCO paid YOU...?

[all_new_turambar386]

Don't you know? SCO doesn't pay cash for anything. They pay for everything they need with shares, right down to paper clips and pencils. This worked well when their FUD got their price up to $13, but with the share price dropping like crazy, it won't work anymore.

Teh Slashdot has You

[niko9]

Agent Cowboy Neal: Tell me McBride, what good are your licenses if your servers can't even speak?

Must have been

[ttyp0]

company #500

Anti SCO T-Shirt $1 donated to OSI Fund on each shirt.

Re:Must have been

[DaveJ2001]

After spending all their money on SCO licenses, they probably aren't anymore...

Re:Must have been

[vsprintf]

Anti SCO T-Shirt $1 donated to OSI Fund on each shirt.

While I would certainly like to add one of those shirts to my collection, I'm not getting a warm fuzzy feeling about giving out my credit card number. The "about us" links don't seem very deep. Care to lend some extra assurance? Happy customers? Any out there?

And in other news

[MerlynEmrys67]

Microsoft (MSFT) announces that they are fully compliant with the Licencing for their one Linux server on there network.

News at 11

Re:And in other news

[Durin_Deathless]

Noting that MSFT(M$'s ticker symbol), is Misfit without the vowels....

Re:And in other news

[Llywelyn]

Well, MS *has* recently decided to do some testing on Linux... http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.j html?articleID=12803689

one question

[b17bmbr]

did the deed to the brooklyn bridge come with the license as well?

It's nothing for Linux users, but for IT Managers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the place I work. A financial firm in downtown New York. A few months ago, we started to shift all the NT servers to Linux.

However, in light of all this, the managers want us to switch to BSD/OS X.

I have been an avid Linux user since '99, and while all this means nothing to me, big companies get worried at all this talk and all these lawsuits. Understandably so. They don't care about the politics. From their view, Linux has some illegal code which SCO is claiming is theirs. The IT Managers don't want to get fired or blamed, if the worst case comes to be that we indeed do have to pay license fees, when all this is resolved.

Such a shame....

Could it be...

[Negative Response]

Microsoft? They opened a linux test lab recently, right? They have the money to pay the fee, they are in the fortune 500, and they are willing to pay the fee even though they don't have to. Not to mention SCO did not say which company it is.

undisclosed

[Camel Pilot]

So an "undisclosed" Fortune 500 company purchased Linux licenses paying for "undisclosed" intellectual property ... real smart.

I think the company surely wishes to remained undisclosed as I for one would short their stock for being stupid.

To bad SCO is not a Fortune 500 company or we would know who bought the licence.

Dupes......."here, let me give you a check too..."

[Dr_Marvin_Monroe]

....I really DO like being shaken down by scum....

Perhaps they did it themselves? I guess this is kinda like seeding the tip jar with some change in order to generate more income....

I wonder if this will be refundable if SCO's claims are proven worthless?

SCO: Preparing Invoices

[bstadil]

Apparently we can all expect an Invoice from SCO. Hopefully it's considered racketering in most states, (Countries?)

Good news is SCOX closed down 14% today.

Re:SCO: Preparing Invoices

[incabulos]

Its the oddest thing.. if any individual put up a website that supposedly sells Windows or Adobe software licenses ( or licenses to any other software that they dont own the copyright to, just as SCO are doing with Linux ), and if that person sent threatening letters to not just companies, but Microsoft/Adobe employees, then said individual would be arrested fairly promptly.

Now that SCO have trumpeted their fraud to the world at large in a very public and high profile way, I think this harms rather than helps their cause. Profiting from copyright infringement is a far more serious offense than merely distributing material free of charge or obligation. I think Darl is digging himself and SCO into one hell of a deep dark hole, how long can he maintain the charade of legitimacy? You can be damn sure that IBM have taken careful note of the half-baked drivel that he has been spewing recently, those statements will came back to haunt him with a vengence during the trial.

GPL goes to court

[k-hell]

I read this interesting article over at The Register by Andrew Orlowski about taking GPL to court. My favorite quote:

The greatest strength of the GPL is that it's a social contract, one that makes the most powerful, who can buy the legal system, think twice before going to law. And that's pretty powerful.

But with IBM's counter suit against SCO explicitly defending its rights in terms of the GPL, it looks like The One Thing we Didn't Want To Happen will happen. We'll have a random judge poking holes in the GPL, on some perfectly defensible grounds that bear little relevance to the social obligations these imply. As if he's supposed to know the difference.

Re:GPL goes to court

[Jellybob]

We'll have a random judge poking holes in the GPL, on some perfectly defensible grounds that bear little relevance to the social obligations these imply. As if he's supposed to know the difference.

But isn't the whole idea of the GPL that the "social obligations" have some teeth... it's like lending large ammounts of money to a friend, you're almost certain you'll get it back, but you'd still be a sucker not to ask them to sign a contract saying they'll pay you back, so that if it *does* go sour, you can take them to court.

Re:GPL goes to court

[k-hell]

Yeah, I agree with you. But I guess I also share the author's concern that now when GPL will be dragged to court, the "social obligations" of GPL will become less important compared to the "raw and cold" presedence the ruling in a court of law will make.

Re:GPL goes to court

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

I read that same article, found it very interesting.

The thing to remember is that IBM is not breaking the social contract, SCO/Caldera did. SCO/Caldera not only violated the GPL, but when they realized their business plan wasn't going to work, sued the very people that made one of the products that they sell, violating "hey, don't be a dick" social contracts well beyond the GPL. IBM is trying to right these somewhat. What percentage of their zeal is "to be right" and what percentage is a dollars and cents reaction to the lawsuit, well my guess is as bad as anyone's.

I think one of the best social contracts in America is the library system. Here are all these free books, free for you to use whenever you want, just don't steal them. Even this social contract, one of the most benign, needs enforcement. I think the author of that piece isn't pining for a world he knew as much as for a world he wanted and got thrust back to reality.

The company that purchased the licenses

[wowbagger]

The company that purchased the licenses wouldn't happen to have it's corporate headquarters just outside of Seattle, WA, USA, would it?

Now who would want SCO to win...

[yeti-graf]

(church lady voice)
Now who could want SCO to sound legitimate?
Could it be MICROSOFT!?

SCOX going down, let's hope the trend continues

[Maimun]

I posted this link under Linux Gaining Ground in India but it is worth repeating.

Truism

[Space cowboy]

Corporate stupidity does not veracity make. Mendacity, now, ...

Simon.

mythical suckers

[feed_me_cereal]

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.

Re:mythical suckers

[dJCL]

SCO Exec's = Railians (HTF do you spell that name?)

Think about all the paralells to the claim of cloning a human that was done... They never did show us the kid, and have disappeared off the face of the earth as far as the global conciousness is concerned...

I suddenly have an idea for a parody site that I just don't have time to do, www.SCOlians.org! I now place this idea under a simple license, use of that domain or a similar domain is allowed by anyone as long as they actually use the site to mock SCO...

Re:mythical suckers

[GTRacer]

SCO Exec's = Railians (HTF do you spell that name?)

Like so... Raelians

GTRacer
- Not an alien

Re:mythical suckers

[cait56]

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.

You forgot to mention that it was for an undisclosed price.

Re:mythical suckers

[IdleTime]

I have over the past few days spoken to all of the Fortune 500 companies and 499 of them told me they would not, not now nor ever buy a license from SCO. Of course I can't reveal the name of the last company since SCO would sue me for telling that the last company only laughed at me when I asked them the question!

Re:mythical suckers

[happyhippy]

Modest mouse! Cool bastard :)

Re:mythical suckers

[Chemicalscum]

I don't think that they are suckers but I do think they exist.

Microsoft just anounced that it had a Linux test lab. I am sure MS has just bought a license for every processor in that lab and more. Remember that the "license" it has already paid for is for its Unix Services not Linux.

Just another way to funnel the FUD money. And to enable SCO not to have to outright lie in its press release. As if they wouldn't lie - they are just "economical with the truth"

Re:mythical suckers

[sharkey]

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.

Sounds like Microsoft's "Software for the Agile Business", when all it seems to do is get bigger and more resource hungry.

Re:mythical suckers

[innosent]

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

Or, maybe it's Microsoft. Remember, Microsoft has Linux running, and they'd love to let SCO continue with this, and if some extra press is available for about $7,000 (assuming 10 of the $699 licenses), then why wouldn't they. Microsoft won't miss the money, but it makes the anti-Linux story seem more credible. Why else would the name be undisclosed?

Re:mythical suckers

[AftanGustur]

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.

Or
"In a undisclosed country an undisclosed division of a undisclosed fortune 500 company paid an undisclosed amount of undisclosed currency (not necessary money), for nothing."

I can only feel sorry for the poor suckers because they had no clue.

Re:mythical suckers

[perdelucena]

In related news an undisclosed someone told me that someonelse he knows that works is a Fortune 500 Company thinks that Sco Sucks

Re:mythical suckers

[azzy]

An undisclosed member of SCO told me that the SCO claims are all lies. ;)

Re:mythical suckers

[Grendel Frost]

"Maybe they're suckers, or maybe they just don't exist." Not necessarily so. Let me just put on my tin foil hat and I'll get to my point. MS is a fortune 500 company I would assume. And they certainly do exist. Why not get themselves a couple of linux boxes and then license them from SCO just to add credibility to SCO's claim. If not MS then perhaps another company that is interested in the keeping the FUD going.

Re:mythical suckers

[frkiii]

"The SCO Group helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday" Uh, are they now counting all of the "Linux" and other operating systems that now supposedly contain their "IP"? I bet if they gave the real numbers, it would be like this: Black Sonostag of The SCO Group commented "The SCO Group extorts money from 1 to maybe 3 customers, but that doesn't include the sweet deal we got from Microsoft... oops, did I say that out loud?" Regards, Fredrick

Re:mythical suckers

[yourruinreverse]

Microsoft renewed its "generic UNIX license" with SCO a couple of weeks (months already?) ago, so it shouldn't have to pay Tux Tax now, should it? I assumed that was obvious.

Re:mythical suckers

[innosent]

Yeah, they don't have to, but for some good press, they might do it anyway. For as few systems as they probably have, paying "license fees" for all of them probably wouldn't even be enough to show up on their daily operating costs.

Uh, I want my refund please...

[frkiii]

So, after its all said and done, and SCO is found to be full of the crap that is spewing from their mouth, how many of their new "Licensees" will be lining up requesting a refund for the "license" for "absolutely nothing at all"?

The sad part is, once RedHat and IBM are done with SCO, there won't be enough of SCO left for even roaches to snack on.

Regards,

Fredrick

Crap

[wowbagger]

s/it's/its/g

It's been too long a day....

FUD

[Sesse]

From the countersuit text:

"36. Rather than particularize its allegations of misconduct by IBM and others, SCO has obfuscated and altered its claims to foster fear, uncertainty and doubt about its rights and the righte others."

Not only "obfuscate", but also "FUD"... Not bad =)

/* Steinar */

Well..

[Gherald]

When is SCO going to disclose something? Everything they've said so far is unsubstantiated, and now they won't even tell us which company bought licenses.

I can understand them wanting to protect their own code with an NDA, but why won't they just tell us which lines of the kernel contain their code?

They don't have to reveal anything that hasn't somehow already made public. We just need to know which parts to rewrite...

Please Copy "Let's Put SCO Behind Bars

[MichaelCrawford]

Please copy my article "Let's Put SCO Behind Bars" to your own website. I released it under a Creative Commons license. I designed the page to be very easy to copy, with only very simple, valid markup, and no external dependencies like images or stylesheets. It even looks good in lynx!

• http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html

Here's the introduction:

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

Also from the article:

Stockholders in any of the affected companies - either SCO or its competitors - may wish to avail themselves of the Security and Exchange Commission's Investor Complaint Form to ask that something be done about this. You may not even be aware that you have standing to complain: if you invest in any mutual funds that hold shares in SCO, IBM, Red Hat or any other company that offers Linux products or services, then you have a right to ask the SEC to investigate. Check with your mutual fund to fund out which securities are in its portfolio.

This page provides the article in the UBB code that some message boards use, with plain text coming soon. I'm also starting to post examples of letters that others have sent to their Attorney's General.

Thanks for your help.

Re:Please Copy "Let's Put SCO Behind Bars

[jurros]

I had skipped over your post the first time I saw it. However, after some reflection, I came back and read it. You make many good points. I believe that any number of them could be valid cases. However, I believe you've missed one of the most simple ones. (Simple to understand and difficult to defend.)

You state:
SCO's license is actually no license at all, and it is fraud for SCO to be claiming it has a right to offer a binary-only license. If anyone tries to add additional restrictions to code that is covered by the GPL, they lose the privileges the GPL granted them.

If this is the case (and I believe that it is), then SCO is violating the copyrights of thousands of developers around the world who have code (contributed under the GPL) in Caldera's current version of their OpenLinux. Caldera no longer has premission to copy the software and they still are: (From ftp.caldera.com: The Linux rpms available on SCO's ftp site are offered for download to existing customers of SCO Linux, Caldera OpenLinux or SCO UnixWare with LKP, in order to honor SCO's support obligations to such customers.).

This makes it a simple Copyright Infringement case, which everyone understands.

As an added benefit, if the pressure actually forces SCO to pull the Linux distribution from their site, it seems that they will be in violation of service contracts with existing customers. This would provide a nice basis of a class action suit from thier customers. Since all this was started over contract violations, this seems a fitting end to the farse.

-J

I wonder

[Starji]

When the SCO suit is proven to be total BS, will all the companies who bought licenses sue SCO for extortion or something like that? Seems to me that if SCO loses the suit they're going to have a lot of civil (and almost as likely criminal) suits on their hands.

Re:I wonder

[jjohnson]

How do you recover damages from a bankrupt company?

Wanna sue SCO, take a number here.

[Dav3K]

My guess is that this company will be the third in line (behind IBM and RedHat) to sue the ass off SCO once this starts to unravel a bit. Selling a bogus license to a fortune 500 company has got to have some serious repurcussions to it.

Word for the wise...

[stephenry]

Just so that everyone knows. This "news" became public around the same time as SCO's stock was in free-fall. In fact, the stock was trading 2 dollars lower than its opening price and falling. I found this rather a coincidence because since the news came out, the stock actually regained an entire dollar to its value.

Oh, and by the way, one of the executives (ROBERT BENCH) unloaded 7,000 shares today just after the market opened. How strange.

Keep an eye out on who of loads their shares tomorrow!

Re:Word for the wise...

[mrpuffypants]

in other news....

Ken Lay remarked, "amateur."

Re:Word for the wise...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's where to look.

This like needs to be put here more often. There's even XML data available. . .

--
me

Re:Word for the wise...

[OscarGunther]

...short SCOX now!

Re:Word for the wise...

[TheFrood]

Just so that everyone knows. This "news" became public around the same time as SCO's stock was in free-fall. In fact, the stock was trading 2 dollars lower than its opening price and falling. I found this rather a coincidence because since the news came out, the stock actually regained an entire dollar to its value.

Yes, many people have commented on the timing of SCO's press releases, and how they always seem to happen at just the right moments to send the stock ticking back upward. It's pretty clear this is a pump-and-dump operation.

So, the question is, how many more stock-boosting announcements does SCO have lined up? And how many more do they need to give the rest of their management team time to unload their otherwise-worthless stock?

TheFrood

Re:Word for the wise...

[BiggerIsBetter]

The real question is, how long will it be tolerated by the market and by SEC?. This is bullshit and they should be shutdown for pulling this crap.

Re:Word for the wise...

[tokul]

Oh, and by the way, one of the executives (ROBERT BENCH) unloaded 7,000 shares today just after the market opened. How strange.

It is not strange. This CFO sells his shares every month. Every time in the beginning of month. Between 5th and 15th. 5000 shares or more.

SCO stock value plummeting

[DRWHOISME]

SCO stock tanking

I wonder..

[Curtman]

If I am one of the 300 companies that have contacted them?

Is it only undisclosed companies ...

[Corporate Drone]

that license undisclosed IP?

Re:Is it only undisclosed companies ...

[Alsee]

Is it only undisclosed companies that license undisclosed IP?

I'd gladly answer your question, but I'm under NDA.

-

Re:Is it only undisclosed companies ...

[Ashtead]

Absence of evidence != evidence of absence.

Still, the amount of things undisclosed here, by itself, oughtta wake up someone. There's starting to be too much of it.

My bet is on pump&&dump...

Funny note:

[xyvimur]

From the article:
``About SCO

The SCO Group (SCOX - news) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday.''

Hahahaahahahahahahahahahah

Re:Funny note:

[Penguinshit]

There are plenty of people around here in Santa Cruz who grow their own businesses.

But that has nothing to do with computers....

Re:Funny note:

[xyvimur]

Must be blind and did not see it in the comments above. Or liked the phrase too much.
Time to sleep.

The best bits from IBM...

[26199]

No idea what most of this means, but it sounds very impressive :-)

First Defense

The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Second Defense

SCO's claims are barred because IBM has not engaged in any unlawful or unfair business practices, and IBM's conduct was privileged,performed in the exercise of an absolute right, proper and/or justified.

Third Defense

SCO lacks standing to pursue its claims against IBM.

Fourth Defense

SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitations.

Fifth Defense

SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the economic-loss doctrine or the dependent-duty doctrine.

Sixth Defense

SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of laches and delay.

Seventh Defense

SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and unclean hands.

Eighth Defense

SCO's claims are, in whole or in part, pre-empted by federal law.

Ninth Defense

SCO's claims are improperly venued in this district.

Tenth Defense

SCO has failed, in whole or in part, to mitigate its alleged damages.

Take that, SCO! ;-)

Re:The best bits from IBM...

[JohnG307]

The ten defenses, hmm? I believe this can only mean one thing: IBM is Moses, in some form. What an interesting turn of events...

Re:The best bits from IBM...

[NecroPuppy]

Pretty simple, but if I mess something up too badly, someone who is a lawyer can correct me.

1) None of what they (SCO) said we (IBM) did is against the law.

2) No really, none of it was against the law, and here are the contracts we had that prove we didn't do anything wrong.

3) Piss off, you don't have any real reason to file this suit. (No, really, that's what a lack of standing defense means.)

4) Even if we (IBM) did do something wrong (which we didn't), then SCO didn't file in time to actually do anything about it.

5) Even if we (IBM) did do something wrong (which we didn't), then SCO didn't lose any money from it (mostly because their business sucked before any of this started).

6) When they 'found' what they say we (IBM) did (and, no we _really_ didn't do it) they waited too long after they found out about it to tell us there was an issue. [Not the same as #4.]

7) We (IBM) bought the stuff from the Original SCO (now Tarrentula), and the new SCO (dirtbags) can't sue us for stuff we legally liscenced from them.

8) Talk to the Feds. We (IBM) still didn't do anything wrong, and even if we did, Federal law says it wasn't wrong, it was legit.

9) They (SCO) are playing the ball in the wrong court. Come play in our backyard, and this arguement goes away.

10) Even when they (SCO) found what they say we (IBM) did wrong, they didn't try to stop it first, they just went straight to the lawyers.

Re:The best bits from IBM...

[anesq.]

Excellent interpretation, except for the last one.

"10) Even when they (SCO) found what they say we (IBM) did wrong, they didn't try to stop it first, they just went straight to the lawyers."

Should be more like:

10) Even if we did something wrong (which we didn't) SCO isn't allowing anyone to remove its supposed code, so any damages they suffer they have brought upon themselves.

Re:The best bits from IBM...

[podperson]

There's an explanation of these terms by a paralegal with an interest in the case (and no great love of SCO) here:

weblogs.com

My summary

First Defense -- everyone claims this. "We did nothing wrong so there's nothing we need to fix."

Second Defense -- "We did nothing wrong AND we had the absolute right to do the things we did do that SCO is complaining about"

Third Defense -- SCO hasn't met the requirements for this to be heard in Federal court. It's a contract dispute so it should be in a state court.

Fourth Defense -- The stuff SCO is complaining about happened too long ago.

Fifth Defense -- SCO is claiming breach of contract, which means that it can't use tort law and must use remedies as per the contract it claims has been breached.

Sixth Defense -- SCO waited an unreasonably long time before taking action (like statute of limitations but based on fairness rather than some specific legal limit).

Seventh Defense -- Estoppel: this is the argument that the rights have been given away and can't be taken back; Unclean hands: this is the argument that SCO is not without sin.

Eighth Defense -- the writer doesn't know why this is there, but gives copyright as an example of Federal law that can't be resolved in a State court.

Ninth Defense -- IBM doesn't want to fight the case in Utah and appears to be in good shape here. The AT&T contracts claim to operate under NY law. Other documents cite CA law. And IBM's HQ is not in Utah.

Tenth Defense -- no comment.

Re:The best bits from IBM...

[rakeswell]

Groklaw has a breakdown of each of these defenses as well.

Most interesting was the bit about the "unclean hands" affirmative defence:

Unclean hands is basically saying you don't deserve to get any relief because you have been bad yourself. Here is dictionary.com's definition:

"a legal doctrine which is a defense to a complaint, which states that a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical in relation to the subject of the lawsuit. Thus, if a defendant can show the plaintiff had "unclean hands," the plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed or the plaintiff will be denied judgment. Unclean hands is a common "affirmative defense" pleaded by defendants and must be proved by the defendant. Example: Hank Hardnose sues Grace Goodenough for breach of contract for failure to pay the full amount for construction of an addition to her house. Goodenough proves that Hardnose had shown her faked estimates from subcontractors to justify his original bid to Goodenough."

Re:The best bits from IBM...

[ThyTurkeyIsDone]

5) Even if we (IBM) did do something wrong (which we didn't), then SCO didn't lose any money from it (mostly because their business sucked before any of this started).

No, this one is wrong, sorry. The economic-loss doctrine (and much of the rest of IBM's affirmative defenses) is explained very well here.

Re:The best bits from IBM...

[rgmoore]

No idea what most of this means, but it sounds very impressive :-)

What this really means is that IBM's lawyers are being properly dilligent. These are a bunch of standard counterarguments that you can easily tack on to your response. Many of them are probably bogus and/or contradict others, but now IBM has properly established a right to mount any or all of these defenses without SCO having the right to claim that they were sandbagged. Equally important is that IBM can force SCO's lawyers to consider each one of these and waste time and money fighting them.

By far my favorite quote from IBM's response, though, was this:

36. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 36, except admits that IBM POWER chips are currently more powerful than the Intel chips described in these averments.

Yeah, if you twist their arms hard enough, IBM will admit that their chips are faster than Intel's. Oh, the agony!

Re:The best bits from IBM...

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

"The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Translation: your entire case is not even salable as toilet paper

Even better is what IBM admits to:

admits that Sequent was formerly an Oregon corporation which was subsequently merged into IBM
Admits IBM does business in Utah and maintains offices there
admits that UNIX operating systems are used by corporations.
admits that AT&T Licensed cretain software to IBM and Sequent
admits that IBM develops, manufactures and markets a UNIX product
admits that IBM markets a UNIX product under the the trade name AIX
admits that Sequent marketed a UNIX product under the trade name DYNIX/ptx
states that IBM develops, manufactures and markets a UNIX product under the the trade name AIX
admits that IBM POWER chips are currently more powerful than the Intel chips described in the averments
admits that Unix-ware ran on Intel-based processors

admits that IBM and the Santa Cruz Ooperation, Inc. started Project Monterey (they carefully point out that this entity is now Tarantella, and has nothing to do with the SCO who is suing them)

Admits that the Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. provided information concerning UnixWare and certain software

Admits that AT&T licensed certain operating system software code to IBM (refers to the license agreement)

Admits that IBM has increased its IBM Global Services Staff
"admits that IBM lawfully uses certain software products and source code"
admits that IBM is subject to the laws of the United States

Actually, I am thinking of buying one.

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:Actually, I am thinking of buying one.

[quantaman]

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

SCO response: "You have linux, if you don't buy a license we'll sue you right now! How's that for a guarentee? MUWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"

Re:Actually, I am thinking of buying one.

[amcnabb]

I don't think that's very bright. What is SCO's "Official Guarantee" going to get you? A right to get your money back if they end up losing in court?

Something tells me SCO isn't going to have too much money to pay you back with once IBM is through with them.

Re:Actually, I am thinking of buying one.

[Kjella]

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'm sure they'll be happy to provide it. Because when SCO is bankrupt, and the SCO execs are convicted of fraud, your little paper won't matter at all. They'd be doing that as official reps of SCO, so you'd have nothing to claim. And if they don't get convicted, well free money for SCO.

Kjella

Re:Actually, I am thinking of buying one.

[WindBourne]

What is SCO's "Official Guarantee" going to get you?
A class action suit against Noorda and McBride. I am interested in getting these 2 into piercing the corporate veil. If they really believe that they have a case, then they should have no problem with offering up a personal guarentee of no fraud. I doubt that the guarentee will be forthcoming though. But I am thinking of calling and recording the coversation. Might make for an interesting article.

Re:Actually, I am thinking of buying one.

[realdpk]

"I'll buy it. Where do I send the check? OK, and when can I expect the CD with the source in question? Oh, okay - well, can you tell me where exactly on my machine the source is? No? What am I paying for?"

Timeline?

[spoonist]

Does anyone have a freakin' timeline on all of this?

There's "The SCO Group", there's "Original SCO", there's "The Santa Cruz Operation", there's "Tarantella", there's "Caldera", on and on...

I'm so confused.

The Santa Cruz Operation had that God-aweful operating system of years ago. But that OS dropped off the radar eons ago. What happened in between? I missed it. Where do these other companies fit in? Who bought whom? Who bought what? Who started what?

Thanks

Re:Timeline?

[Lonath]

There's "The SCO Group", there's "Original SCO", there's "The Santa Cruz Operation", there's "Tarantella", there's "Caldera", on and on...

I'm so confused.

I think that's part of the plan. :) I enjoy it

Look at this page.

Note the different statements:

The SCO(R) Group (SCO) (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX operating system, announced today that it has filed legal action against IBM

In 1995, SCO purchased the rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare that had been originally owned by AT&T.

SCO became the successor in interest to the UNIX software licenses originally licensed by AT&T Bell Laboratories to all UNIX distributors,

--------- Split----------

As a result of IBM's unfair competition and the marketplace injury sustained by SCO, SCO is requesting damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

"SCO is in the enviable position of owning the UNIX operating system," said Darl McBride, president and CEO, SCO.

Before the split, SCO == "Old SCO" that became Tarantella.

After the split, SCO == "New SCO" that was Caldera.

So, besides all the other, umm, "interesting" claims and other crap going on, they're playing games with their names to obfuscate the origins of their company and how they got the licenses.

If you look at the press release, they're very upfront about how "Old SCO" bought the rights to UNIX from Novell in 1995 (since transferring those rights from company to company is a big deal).

But they don't say anything about how Old SCO transferred the rights to Caldera, which then changed its name from Caldera to SCO. The second transfer is JUST as important as the first, and I wonder why they didn't mention it. And the name change could not have been done in good faith, or if it had been done in good faith, they would have made it clearer in the press release. I think they're trolling for easy money from people who don't want to investigate this closely.

So, that's the way it worked:

1. Novell sold some rights to Old SCO/Tarantella.

2. Old SCO Tarantella sold its rights to Calders/SCO

3. Calders changed its name to SCO.

It's a shell game. :)

And it also means that they were probably planning this shit as far back as when Calders bought the licenses from Old SCO and they changed their name to SCO.

Re:Timeline?

[Royster]

The SCO v IBM Twicky.

Re:Microsoft

[MoronGames]

Why would Microsoft have to pay? As far as I know, Microsoft already has rights to the Unix source code because Microsoft had their own Unix operating system called Xenix at one point.

Assuming....

[devphaeton]

...that SCO isn't still lying thier heads off...

What's the chance that they offered [undisclosed Fortune 500 Company] a smokin' deal like $150 per cpu, or $1 per cpu, or whathaveyou?

Put the fear of litigation into a company, then give em a way out through an offer they can't refuse.

All part of the plan to extort money.

Just sick man... real sick.

Pulp Fiction

[blackmonday]

I'm sorry but all I can imagine after reading this is Vincent and Julius in the apartment.

Julius: Please allow me to retort...

insert machine gun fire.

I found the company that bought the licenses.

[LilMikey]

It's SCO!

Re:I found the company that bought the licenses.

[Sri Lumpa]

If SCO is really a fortune 500 compan then America's economy is really down the crapper.

Re:I found the company that bought the licenses.

[Newsome]

No. It was IBM! They have begun to see the light!

Is it Sun Micro?

[andy1307]

Could the unnamed company be sun micro?

SCO's stock down again

[dacarr]

Current close: US$9.289, down $1.461 from Friday's close. Opened at $10.45.

Re:SCO's stock down again

[MuParadigm]

It was down to about $8.50 at 2:00pm. Someone keeps tape painting the stock at the end of the day. I'm serious. You always see a rise in the stock after 4:00pm. I wish we could find out who's doing it. I guess I'd like to know why too. It seems kind of pointless, but maybe I'm missing something.

Re:SCO's stock down again

[dacarr]

If I could, I'd mod you +1 insightful. =) It could be nothing more than people just following standard economics.

Pay more attention to the general trend, though. Generally down. It's lower than Friday's close, and took a sharper drop than Friday anyway.

Why is the news media not checking out

[DRWHOISME]

the insider trading allegations with sco execs?

Copy of newsforge text

[dacarr]

Roblimo's text follows from newsforge.

Yes, they found someone gullible enough to bite. At least that's what they're claiming in a press release that's being spread all over the place, including on money.cnn.com. Naturally, SCO can't tell you who it is because of "confidentiality provisions," but the truth will certainly come out sooner or later.

Of course, if this anonymous Fortune 500 company later finds that SCO had no legitimate right to sell Linux licenses in the first place, they are going to be a bit upset, and since one characteristic shared by all Fortune 500 companies is the availability of nearly infinite numbers of inhouse lawyers and outside law firm attorneys, SCO is going to be in a world of hurt if it turns out, as IBM claims, that SCO released all the disputed Linux code under GPL.

Not that we care, since we don't own any SCO stock, and we don't use any SCO (proprietary) software products that are likely to become unsupported orphans if SCO gets trampled by the combined legal might of the growing number of companies their license blackmail scheme has offended.

Linux is worth big money!

We should look at this latest episode in the SCO soap opera as heartening news. Somewhere out there, one of the world's largest corporations has decided Linux is worth paying plenty of money to use, even if that money is going to the least-deserving party possible. This certainly gives the lie to any statement about how Linux has only gained corporate acceptance because it's free.

SCO's antics may cause a few potential (corporate) Linux converts to hold off deployment for a bit, but in the long run this may be the most positive PR boost Linux has ever gotten.

And that Fortune 500 company is...

[ChaoticPup]

Microsoft!

But then, we already knew that.

It's old news, folks. Nothing new here, move along...

-- CP

SCO revealed the buyer!

[Hoi Polloi]

"SCO revealed today that the mystery license purchaser was SCO."

Call Now!

[blunte]

Chuckle...

For more information on the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux, contact SCO by calling (800) 726-8649

I wonder what a million phone calls and requests for written information would do for SCO? :) Perhaps all Linux users should at least request written (paper) documentation on all information from SCO.

Re:Call Now!

[Txiasaeia]

Hooray! The result of the first lo-tech slashdotting effect!

Suppose it were MS

[Bananenrepublik]

... then SCO would have made zero bucks. Time to invest, folks!

Seriously, this announcement means nothing. Even if this fortune 500 company were one which has several thousand copies of Linux deployed, SCO could still have handed over the license for like 50$, gratefully driving home the publicity.

Patently illegal, isn't it?

[tekrat]

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?

Re:Patently illegal, isn't it?

[LordKaT]

By the legal system as I understand it, the recipient of the stolen goods is also liable

Er, it's not that simple.

First you need to prove that the person who purchased the stolen items know they were stolen. If he didn't, he's not guilty; but he is out X ammount of dollars because he'll have the return the product. For example, a while back my uncle, who owned a small video game store, had one of his Playstation rental units stolen. Three weeks later it was found in a pawn shop. The owner noticed the "rental" tag and called the police. Eventually my uncle got the playstation back. The person who hocked the Playstation, however, did not know it was stolen (he had bought it from his friend). The person who bought it is not libable for the stolen goods in that situation because this was, in his mind, a legitimate sale, although they are short the ammount of money they put down, until he can take his ex-friend to court and get the money back.

Also, with copyright, as is the case with SCO, if somone is illegaly licensing something, as SCO appears to be doing so, the person/entity who buys the license is not libable for SCO's actions; however, SCO is fully liable on all monies claimed plus damages, etc ... The reason this undisclosed company is not liable is that nothing has been proven in court.

--LordKaT

Re:Patently illegal, isn't it?

[cactopus]

Why can't all the important kernel developers get together and try to get an injunction barring SCO from shipping their binary-only kernel until the portions they wrote are removed from the kernel... conveniently providing all the lines of code, dates, etc... (just because they are bad citizens doesn't mean we have to be). What SCO will be left with will be their code more or less and less than useless.

At the same time all the kernel developers can grab 2.4.17 and continue right on as before.

A minor setback and a great death blow to SCO.... even better if damages are claimed.

Re:Patently illegal, isn't it?

[magnwa]

Why can't all the important kernel developers get together and try to get an injunction barring SCO from shipping their binary-only kernel until the portions they wrote are removed from the kernel... conveniently providing all the lines of code, dates, etc... (just because they are bad citizens doesn't mean we have to be). What SCO will be left with will be their code more or less and less than useless.

Mostly because if they did that, it means they are invalidating the GPL. The GPL says that SCO has every right to sell binary kernels so long as the source is made available. And, also, you cannot just remove lines of code from one licensee under the GPL. They'd have to remove it from all or none. Equal protection. Jarrod

Re:Patently illegal, isn't it?

[Cyno]

What I want to know is can I sue SCO for fraudulent claims against my Linux installations? And how much can I sue them for? Should I attempt in small claims court? When? *grin*

Re:Patently illegal, isn't it?

[Silburn_Luke]

I'm not a lawyer either, but I think the anonymous licensee is in the clear. By selling a license SCO has breached the terms of the GPL which gets its (so far untested) legal muscle from copyright law.

My understanding is that provided the licensee doesn't onwardly distribute their 'licensed' code or anything that could be classed as a derived work, then they aren't guilty of an infringement. SCO are guilty of an infringement of course and so could be sued by anyone who holds copyright to any part of the kernel for breaching the terms laid out in the GPL under which SCO was given permission to distribute, modify and create derived works from the kernel. But we knew this already.

Regards
Luke

What happens when you mix...

[thepacketmaster]

a large company with a huge gap between technology workers and management, a few lawyers on retainer worrying about being singled out by SCO for a lawsuit, and a little runt of a IP company that hasn't had anyone seriously stand up to its schoolyard bully tactics? That's probably what is going on here.

While I think the IBM and RedHat countersuits are good, there could be one thing better: A fortune 500 company (or any large company for that matter) standing up to SCO and saying "Show me the code!" (With all due respect to Jerry Mcguire)

Stock...

[c0dedude]

Hey, if you own SCO stock, couldn't you find out? I don't really understand how you would go about it, as IANAL, but you partially own the company, and you could force them to disclose financial records right?

The Breakast SCO

[Mikey-San]

SLASHDOT (to SCO)
When have you ever sold a license?

SCO
I've sold, lotsa times!

SLASHDOT
Name one!

SCO
The company lives in Canada, met it at
Niagara Falls. You wouldn't know
it.

Re:The Breakast SCO

[Mikey-San]

Oh, sonofabitch. A typo in the freakin' subject. I previewed and everything!

be fair to sco!

[kevin lyda]

people should be fair to sco.

this page gives a phone number to call to discuss the linux license. people should ring up 1-800 726-8649 and hear sco out. and *please* remember to write down the details on all linux systems you have. it would be terribly annoying if you forgot a detail like the version of linux or the details for another machine and had to call back.

The Real News

[4of12]

is not that an unnamed Fortune 500 company bought "protection" from SCO.

Rather, it is that an unnamed Fortune 500 company has a significant Linux deployment.

That makes at least 2, assuming that IBM is not buying an SCO lie-sense.

If Fortune 500 companies have this kind of Linux effort, then maybe it's time for your company to look into Linux, too.

Sorry, but if that's the case it needs this trial

[Kjella]

But with IBM's counter suit against SCO explicitly defending its rights in terms of the GPL, it looks like The One Thing we Didn't Want To Happen will happen. We'll have a random judge poking holes in the GPL, on some perfectly defensible grounds that bear little relevance to the social obligations these imply.

If that's the case, maybe the social contract needs work. You certainly see the same in the legal system, people find new loopholes, legislators try to close them. Do you really expect every company under the sun to have a social integrity and uphold those social obligations on their own accord? They won't. And when they break them, the GPL had better have the necessary legal force to rein them in, because that is just about the only real countermeasure available. Any holes they manage to poke will only serve to be the foundation for a GPL 3.0

Kjella

IBM's counterclaims

[Jearil]

After reading through a good deal of IBM's counterclaims, I think the best part that made me nearly giddy was this part:

NATURE OF COUNTERCLAIMS

1. These counterclaims arise from SCO's efforts wrongly to assert
proprietary rights over important, widely-used technology and to impede
the use of that technology by the open-source community. SCO has misused,
and is misusing, its purported rights to the UNIX operating system
developed originally by Bell Laboratories, then a research and development
arm of AT&T Corp., to threaten destruction of the competing operating
systems known as AIX and Linux, and to extract windfall profits for its
unjust enrichment.

2. IBM's counterclaims also arise from SCO's infringement of
IBM patents. Although SCO purports to respect the intellectual property
rights of others -- and has instituted

---- page ----

litigation against IBM for alleged failures with respect to SCO's
purported rights -- SCO itself is infringing no fewer than four IBM
patents.

Ah yes, thank you IBM for leveraging your awesome might by throwing it right back in their face.

Fortune 500

[xpccx]

This guy doesn't own a fortune 500 company, does he?

Prayer?

[spoonist]

So I was skimming along when all of a sudden, they got all preachy on me:

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, counterclaim-plaintiff IBM prays that this Court enter judgment on-the counterclaims in favor of IBM and against SCO:

Huh?? Pray for relief?? Well, okay. Here it goes:

IBM is my shepherd; I shall not want.

IBM maketh me to lie down in green tinted monitors: IBM leadeth me beside the still line printers.

IBM restoreth my deleted files: IBM leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for the heck of it.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of SCO, I will fear no eavil: for IBM art with me; their rod and their staff and their lawyers, they comfort me.

Thou preparest a legal brief before me in the presence of mine enemies: though anointest my code with gdb; my buffer does not runneth over.

Surely goodess and mercy shall follow me all the days I code: and I will dwell in the house of Stallman forever.

Re:Prayer?

[hankaholic]

Don't forget,

IBM shall take up the keyboard of mighty heft, and strike mine enemies until they are smitten.

Re:Prayer?

[Richie Magoo]

Amen!!!

Isn't this distribution under the GPL?

[notyou2]

Okay, so SCO just licensed a product containing (according to them) their proprietary source code combined with GPL'd source code. By the very act of bundling the two, doesn't this now give the licensee the right to modify and/or redistribute said work?

In other words... SCO can claim (*cough*BULLSHIT*cough*) that they had no idea their IP was in linux when they distributed it previously, but now that they have SPECIFICALLY given someone rights to their particular IP, in a product bundled with GPL'd code, aren't they now EXPLICITLY releasing their IP as GPL?

Re:Isn't this distribution under the GPL?

[einhverfr]

IANAL, but iirc, contracts usually require informed agreement. If SCO can truly claim that they had no idea that the code was there....

However, the fact that they have been distributing it since their suit means that either:
1: They are violating the rights of the authors or
2: They are granting GPL rights to the code in question.

Re:Isn't this distribution under the GPL?

[rjkm]

No, they only sell the rights to use it in binary form. So, they are not releasing their IP under the GPL, but they are explicitly infringing on the copyrights of all other Linux contributors. Can I sue them for this here in Germany?

On the other hand, since here is no SCO IP in Linux which does not already fall under the GPL (as contributed by the old SCO/Caldera), they could later argue they did not violate the GPL or other copyrights but rather sold those suckers hot air. After all, they sell you the rights to use "the SCO IP" in binary form. If there isn't any, you just paid them for nothing but the GPL was no violated. This could of course still be called fraud.

Re:Isn't this distribution under the GPL?

[orkysoft]

Can I sue them for this here in Germany?

Yes, if you're a kernel developer, SCO is pirating your work.

Re:Isn't this distribution under the GPL?

[ihummel]

How do we know that there isn't any SCO IP in the binaries that they are selling. They could have slipped it in just to make their sale more legally defensible when their court case fails.

Re:Isn't this distribution under the GPL?

[notyou2]

No, they only sell the rights to use it in binary form.

That's precisely what the GPL prohibits. I cannot take proprietary code, link it with GPL code, and sell the resulting binary unless I put the entire thing under the GPL.

By their own admission, SCO is apparently now distributing a "properly licensed" version of linux containing their IP alongside the GPL'd "portions" of linux (according to them).

If you distribute anything that's linked with GPL stuff, you MUST provide source and allow modification/redistribution... that's the single-sentence summary of the entire GPL.

Re:Isn't this distribution under the GPL?

[Scarblac]

That's precisely what the GPL prohibits. I cannot take proprietary code, link it with GPL code, and sell the resulting binary unless I put the entire thing under the GPL.

Unless you're the copyright holder. And SCO is claiming ownership of all Linux code because it's a "Unix derivative" and they claim the rights to all that.

Re:Isn't this distribution under the GPL?

[raboofje]

The GPL isn't about use: it's about distribution. It's perfectly fine to link proprietary code with GPL code, as long as you don't distribute it.

Let's suppose there is SCO non-GPL code in linux. (keep in mind that they claim they didn't put it there, someone else did). It'd be perfectly legal for them to enforce their IP rights, and ask you to pay for using their code.

They could *not*, however, distribute linux: that would be distributing mixed GPL and non-GPL code, and the GPL indeed forbids that.

(Note that this also goes for everyone else: even if Red Hat paid SCO, they couldn't distribute linux versions that include the non-GPL SCO code).

download sco

[name773]

heres the link to the download locations for sco's distro on linux.org some of the foreign ones work. lol

This is like some part of the Ghadi story

[Saint Stephen]

Y'all always like to quote Ghandi about Linux v. Microsoft etc:

"First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you when" or however it goes.

Well, this is like the part of the movie where the English lined up everybody in the Football stadium and Machine-gunned them from the tank. The analogy being a company collecting $699 from YOUR hard work.

It's time to put your philosophy into action. In the movie, this is where you have to take the high road, the high road here being let 'em collect all their blood $$$ and don't stoop to their level. After that comes the winning part :-)

SCO Fortune 50.000 at best

[bstadil]

The way these clown are going it will be NoFortune 500 soon

are they?

[jankinz]

now, are they really suckers? how would you or i know? say this company did their own internal investigation into SCO's claims... had a team of techies and lawyers sign the NDA, and sit down to examine SCO's findings. say this team came back to the high ups and was convinced that SCO would win this legal battle and the high ups decided it was better to pay the $699 now rather than the $1399 (or possible more if SCO wins) later.

in my mind, paying SCO right now is utter nonsense. they are hand-waiving to the fullest. but my mind is neither corporate nor legal. maybe for those who are "in the know" buying up the licenses now is not such a bad move.

only time will tell...

Re:are they?

[canajin56]

But SCO doesn't own ALL Of the code in the kernel, so they cannot licence it all. By agreeing to the SCO licence, the GPL no longer holds. So Linus and all of the other people who have non SCO-claimed code in the kernel can sue. In addition, IBM has patented code that was licenced for free to the kernel team, but NOT to SCO.
Of course, it is really SCO that should be sued over these violations, since THEY are the ones selling it. But that didn't stop SCO from threatening all of the companies who USE Linux.

Re:are they?

[vsprintf]

say this company did their own internal investigation into SCO's claims... had a team of techies and lawyers sign the NDA, and sit down to examine SCO's findings. say this team came back to the high ups and was convinced that SCO would win this legal battle . . .

Since IBM obviously doesn't believe there is any merit in the claims, and they know more about the facts in question than anybody except SCO, I'd say it was a company with money to waste. So why not waste it on SCO licenses as well as teams of investigative nerds and sharks?

maybe for those who are "in the know" buying up the licenses now is not such a bad move.

The companies "in the know" aren't interested in buying SCO licenses or in buying SCO. Companies that give in to SCO's extortion are just helping to spread the FUD that SCO is preaching, and hopefully such bad decisions will be remembered at the stockholder meetings.

Re:are they?

[MuParadigm]

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying.

Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't hold anyway in the case of non-distribution. Therefore, the purchasers of the license are not under any legal liability from the GPL. Sure it's an abrogation of the spirit of the GPL, but not the lettter.

Of course, why anyone would *pay* to limit their rights to use the software, I have no idea. I know there are people who pay to have things reamed up their asses once in a while, but they seem to enjoy it. But I don't see how a corporation could find this licensing extortion fun at all.

Oh well, maybe I'm just naive. I mean, you should have seen the expression on my face the first time I heard about a Prince Albert.

Re:are they?

[MuParadigm]

Clarification: SCO, on the other hand, *can* be sued for copyright violation in abrogation of the GPL. Just not the licensees.

Re:are they?

[Arker]

As long as they are just using binaries, you may be right. The moment they modify or distribute anything they'll be in violation both of the contract they signed with SCO, and of the GPL. They're setting themselves up for lawsuits they would not otherwise be vulnerable to. It's a very stupid move.

Re:are they?

[MuParadigm]

They're also setting themselves up for random audits by SCO. That's part of the new SCO "license". So I agree, it's a *very* stupid move.

Undisclosed Company Buys Undisclosed IP Licence Fo

[Myriad]

Ok, let me get this straight...

An undisclosed company buys a lincence to undisclosed IP for an undisclosed sum of money...

Hey guys, I have an undisclosed bridge in an undisclosed city I'd be happy to sell you! You know, you want to make sure you secure your water-crossing rights!

Blockwars: a realtime multiplayer game. Go play!

The license MS bought was for API's not code...

[Svartalf]

So they COULD have bought a license all the same.

Fortune 500?

[spoonist]

Well, here's The List of Fortune 500 companies.

One of these companies is a HUGE SUCKER.

Which one is it?

Let's count the facts...

[NTmatter]

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?

Re:Let's count the facts...

[mwtown]

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?

No, SCO is calling it news...

oversight on press release

[siskbc]

...an undisclosed Fortune 500 company...

We're sorry. We meant to say a Fortune *500,000,000* company. It was actually a lemonade stand, and they were using old RedHat disks as coasters. We traded them a license for 2 cups of lemonade.

--Darl

Re:oversight on press release

[fo0bar]

We're sorry. We meant to say a Fortune *500,000,000* company. It was actually a lemonade stand, and they were using old RedHat disks as coasters. We traded them a license for 2 cups of lemonade.

Does the lemonade stand get free licenses if they switch to Caldera Openlinux coasters?

Raelians

[Anonymous Coward]

Railians (HTF do you spell that name?)

Gosh, if only the Internet provided some way of looking things up....

Re:Raelians

[Anonymous Coward]

It does! Say something wrong on Slashdot and wait to be corrected!

Yet another pumping action

[unoengborg]

When IBM let their lawyers lose, the SCO stock was in free fall. SCO simply had to put out a press release to control the damages. Even after the press release the stock is still below $10. It looks like
McBride et al is running out of ammo.

The pressrelease doesn't tell who the poor victim is, but if there is one at all, I guess it is Microsoft. They wouldn't mind paying to support SCO in their battle against Linux

In other news it seams that SCO is not doing much other than pressreleases to defend themselves see
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5061548.html

Re:Yet another pumping action

[jonathan_ingram]

"When IBM let their lawyers lose"

It's *loose*, for fuck's sake -- *loose*. 'Lose' in this context gives a completely different meaning.

Re:Yet another pumping action

[Eric Ass Raymond]

'Lose' in this context gives a completely different meaning.

I'd like the variation: "When IBM's lawyers let loose".

I'm In

[Jack Comics]

I'm buying the $200 license from SCO next week. I personally don't agree with GNU, in fact I agree with Microsoft that it's viral, however I don't particularly care for Microsoft either. While I like the BSDs (and support them by having a subscription to various BSD CD sets), I also like auto-setup, so I currently use and own a Linux distribution that automatically sets everything up upon install using some proprietary software, making it nice and easy. And just as I rewarded the makers of the Linux distribution I use by my purchasing the distribution and every version that has followed, I also want to reward SCO for any of its hard work that might, and probably did, wind up inside Linux. In the meantime, I get to learn how to work around UNIX-like operating systems which will come in very handy. If it means I spend $200 to reward SCO's hard work and another $60 a year supporting the Linux distribution , so be it.

LAME!

[imsmith]

Sitting around all day like a housewife jonesing for her soaps, and I'll I get is this limp SCO news release about a 'Fortune 500 company'.

So disheartening.

Where are my bon bons? :(

Now we see why IBM did not say anything for awhile

[wafflemonger]

They decided that since the claims were baseless that SCO would say more and more outlandish things as time went on. Looking at the complaint, you can see several specific instances of SCO execs making these public claims, and IBM using them almost as testimony. IBM waited until SCO had made so many claims that some of them are likely to be very bad for SCO.

Mirror the UNIX Source Code

[armypuke]

As mentioned on GROKLAW, SCO seems to have forgotten that Caldera released the old UNIX source code under a BSD-style license. The source code that was released is still available. When SCO finds out that their "intellectual property" is freely available on the internet, I don't think they are going to be too happy. We all need to start making copies of the old UNIX source code before SCO tries to do something about it.

Re:Mirror the UNIX Source Code

[Licensed2Hack]

From the .pdf you linked to:

The source code for which Caldera International, Inc. grants rights are limited to the following Unix Operating Systems that operate on the 16-Bit PDP-11 CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit Unix Operating System, with specific exclusion of Unix System III and Unix System V and successor operating systems: ...

This is the very old codebase, just when 32-bit CPUs started showing up. And they specifically exclude Sys III and Sys V, which are the modern incantations of Unix.

Fools

[Slur]

SCO will come out looking the fool when it turns out the undisclosed company is a big backer of SCO.

Favorite quote...

[fv]

My favorite quote from the article is that after selling just one license, Sontag of SCOsource states that "we are very pleased with the licensing interest to date". Apparently, they didn't expect anyone to fall for it.

However I do understand why the buyer wants to be anonymous. I would rather be caught buying penis enlargement pills from spammers than SCO licenses. Both prove that you are sucker, but at least with the pills you aren't the only one.

-Fyodor
Concerned about your network security? Try the free Nmap Security Scanner

In related SCO news...

[nakedbonzai]

The SCO group has decided to shoot 1% of all U.S. babies.

Grammar Correction

[jcsehak]

Microsoft ... for their one Linux server on there network

I'm sure you meant "for their one Linux server on that there network."

IBM?

[veldmon]

What is the purpose of IBM responding to such clear taunting by Darl McBird? It's better to own the courtroom than the public arena of FUD exchange.

I propose that IBM just drop its' countersuit in favor of backing the effort that Red Hat is making with its' suit. This is one of the few areas where IBM should learn from M$. Just stay in the background, secretly directing your pro-Linux policy (as opposed to M$'s anti-linux agenda).

bif deal

[bryam]

One for the TiVO and another for the Zaurus of the CEO. 64$ deal! ;-)

i hope for SCO execs that...

[guile*fr]

they have a clause in their licence that say:

"you will not run chase us with heavy battle axes if
our claim on linux IP rights are dismissed"

That's really not why I keep posting this

[MichaelCrawford]

Do you really thing I'd be organizing a campaign to send several men to prison just so I can get karma?

That would just be wrong. I wouldn't do that even to be a /. moderator.

No, I'm doing this because I think it's the right thing to do.

It's not like I'm trying to keep it any kind of secret that I have posted this in the past.

May I should post as A-C so no one can claim I'm whoring.

Re:That's really not why I keep posting this

[2short]

If you're looking for suggestions, maybe you should just keep the link in your .sig, and post other interesting things.
Thus you get the word out and add to discussions instead of just repeating the same thing in every one.

I know who bought it..

[linuxislandsucks]

I know who bought the license..

Straight from yahoo.com

http://biz.yahoo.com/t/47/4393.html

Oemga Protein Corp..

Wilson, M Senior Vice President of SCO Group is also
Vice President of Omega Protein Corp..

Existing Customer most likely, McDonald?

[bstadil]

I bet the license was "bought" as part of normal license renewal for a major customer. McDonald as far as I know uses OpenServer in fairly large numbers. They probably gave then a significant discount on the OpenServer deal and mentione that for a nominal fee they could get a "Linux" License as well. Why wouldn't they take it just to avoid hassle, and they most likely have some linux servers up and running so it's not such a assinine thing to do.

math

[theMightyE]

"SCO announced today that an undisclosed Fortune 500 company purchased Linux licenses for each of their servers..."

So... SCO has been making noise about this for weeks and as of today one single Fortune 500 company has bought a license? And SCO thinks this is positive news that a whopping 0.2% of the major industrial powers of the world drank their Kool Aid? Funny, when I saw this it immediately leaped to mind that despite the threats of legal action, making major parts of IT departments effectively illegal, etc., 499 of 500 (i.e. 99.8%) bigtime companies decided that SCO was full of crap. Yeah, that's something I would tout to the media...

catch me if you can

[kardar]

Here is what I don't understand. How can SCO prove that a company is running Linux? I doubt that evidence from netcraft.com is going to hold very much weight in court.

If you run Microsoft software, they may audit your organization to see if you are in full compliance. If you run Solaris, and only Solaris, Microsoft has no business auditing your systems. They will get a nice boot from the security guard and get charged with trespassing if they even try to get in the front door.

Without an audit - an audit of the source code that was used to compile the kernel - SCO has no case against any of these Fortune 500 companies. All any company has to do is create their own "custom" kernel, compile it, declare there is no IP violations in their own custom kernel, and they are off the hook. The best part is that the Fortune 500 company doesn't have to prove anything. It would become SCO's responsibility to prove that the kernel that is being used to run Linux within that Fortune 500 company was compiled with source code that infringes their IP.

If a company's legal department makes sure there is no offending code in their own custom kernel that they compiled for themselves, I really don't see how SCO, or anyone, can prove in court that their IP is being violated without some sort of criminal trespass.

So if you sign that SCO license, then they can audit you for the rest of forever - DON'T sign anything with SCO. They can't "bust" you anyway.

It would take an insider, an employee "turning in" their employer to get the evidence, if that would even work, because that person would have to have access to the source code that those custom kernels were compiled from. So with a security measure that locks up that kernel source, and prevents employees from getting at that source unless they actually are compiling a kernel, combined with a 24 hour security guard and a strict policy that all hardware and software representatives must have appointments, and even perhaps have someone come to the door to meet them.

SCO is not going to get anywhere without an audit, if you sign the contract with them they will audit you until kingdom come. If you don't sign with them, they can't really catch you anyway. With Kazaa, for instance, when someone is sharing copyrighted material against the wishes of the organization that protects that copyright, there is evidence that can be presented in court that this infringement took place. Nothing of the sort can happen in the SCO-Linux situation unless SCO can get their hands on the actual source code that was used to compile the kernel that is running.

Sure, SCO lawyers can say 2.4 kernel or 2.5 kernel is this or that, but the nice thing about Linux is that an organization can have its IT staff go in there and change the source code - that's the nice thing about Linux - you can change the source - and then compile. Now the responsibility shifts to SCO's side to prove that your kernel violates their IP. Maybe a "stock" 2.4 kernel does violate, but it doesn't matter, the Fortune 500 company is under no obligation to prove anything to anyone. SCO has to prove that the Fortune 500 company violated the IP, and there is no way of doing that short of auditing every hard drive and hunting down every bit of source code that organization has in its possession, and how do they propose to do that? It's called trespassing -- they can't. Or unauthorized access to the Fortune 500 company's network, which could mean criminal consequences for any individual who wants to attempt that.

Maybe the best way to look at this is that there is no way in hell that SCO can "bust" you for using Linux if you run a tight ship. If any employee can browse your source code that you use for your Linux deployment, you may be having some problems. If hardware and software vendors come and go freely, and your staff don't have a clue as to who these people are, what vendor they are from, and what they are doing, you will have problems anyway, sooner or later.

Suckers didn't buy this..Microsoft did.

[Martin Marvinski]

The reason is simple. To give SCO money to continue it's battle against Linux. Why did they want licenses for linux? Simple, they have a Linux lab at MS.

http://www.linux.org/news/2000/09/01/0001.html

I guess now we know how it is going to be used to combat linux.

And the unnamed "Fortune 500 Company" is....

[BlabberMouth]

Microsoft!

sucker is right

[p51d007]

I wonder if this fortune 500 company is either: Global Crossing, WorldCom, AOLTimeWarner,Martha Stewart Inc, Tyco, Ikon....et al..... LOL

Re:Sorry, but if that's the case it needs this tri

[k-hell]

Well, I may live in a bubble where I value integrity maybe most, and where I believe many companies indeed have and display social and ethical obligations that goes beyond our current laws and regulations.

But as Andrew wrote, this might just be one of the differences between Europe and USA. At least where I come from there's still room for civil disobedience, and I prefer that to the vast amount of American lawsuits that doesn't make sense (like spilling hot coffee on yourself). Now, I'm not saying the GPL lawsuit "doesn't make sense", I'm just concerned that the "harsh and cold" technicalities of a court ruling will overshadow GPL's "social obligations" in the future.

7000 shares down-

[Mu*puppy]

-and only 221,043 to go! That's a lot of worthless paper for when SCO really tanks, as he can only unload so much at one time/during a certain length of time without drawing the SEC's scrutiny.

Though, I hafta admit, $76K (minus various fees) ain't bad in one day, for tossing around FUD and threats of lawyers... Bastard......

Re:7000 shares down-

[Sri Lumpa]

Think of it this way:

With a share price ten times what it was before all the FUD slinging selling 7000 shares now is equivalent to selling 70 000 then so he oly needs selling 22 105 more shares at around $10 to get as much value out of his stock as if he had sold everything at $1 and he still has more than 195 000 shares to sell then.

Enuf rope to hang oneself

[cdn-programmer]

Third counterclaim para 59 & 60 talk about misappropriation and confusion in the market place due to SCO's campaign of FUD.

A fortune 500 company being extorted like this would seem to support these claims. So clearly it would seem that IBM's case is building.

OTOH, by the time this gets to court there will be no money in the SCO treasury and the A**holes behind this will have long since dumped their shares and left for more pleasant climes. So where is the justice?

IMHO it will become necessary for the US legal system to mature to the point where the perpetrators of this crap are actually held personally responsible. But I'll not hold my breath for that development because I see absolutely no sign there there is anything in the way of "accountability" on the horizon.

In other news...

[chiph]

SCO announces a record profit for the year!

Re:In other news...

[EvanTaylor]

think you mean revenue...

Re:In other news...

[burns210]

SCO has recorded pretty huge losses for the past 5 straight years or so... breaking even would be a HUGE improvement, and they aren't on track to even do that.

There is one word to describe these people: MSFT

[Merk]

They probably don't have many servers, or won't admit to having many, and it is in their business interests...

Heh...

[MoobY]

... that's like buying the enlargment pills you learned about in a spam mail. They'll quickly figure out that money went into /dev/null.

But it's all maybe part of a bigger scheme. (Conspiracy theorists wanted here!)

22-KB IBM answer and counterclaim d/l available

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a small, 22-KB gzip version of the entire IBM answer and counterclaimon mozillaquest.com in their IBM counterclaim story. The first part of IBM's filing with the answers is just boring boiler-plate. If you scroll right on down (about half-way) to the counterclaim stuff it is very informative. Download that file and read what IBM has to say in IBM's own words

Re:It's not microsoft

[molarmass192]

Good point! Are any other of the pissant Canopy group companies in the Fortune 500? What better way to weasel out a press release than by having your sister company buy a worthless license from you.

SCO Licensee

[MuParadigm]

Actually, I think it's probably the Canopy Group that bought it. Or maybe one of their companies.

Are any of the Canopy Group companies in the Fortune 500?

Darl: Ralph, will you buy one of our licenses?

Ralph Yarro: Why? I don't run any your crappy operating systems.

Darl: No, Ralph, the Linux IP license.

Ralph: I don't run that either. We're all MS here.

Darl: For the suit, Ralph. Remember: The Suit?
I need to tell other companies that someone has bought a license.

Ralph: Oh. Oh, yeah. Right. OK, put me down for one. How much is it?

Darl: $699

Ralph: Corporate Discount?

Darl: OK. 50%.

Ralph: Done. Now get out of here. One of my wives is on the phone.

my favorite os meets my favorite movie:

[theflea]

"That's the way it is with a wiseguy partner. He gets his money no matter what. You got no business? Fuck you, pay me. You had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. The place got hit by lightning and World War Three started in the lounge? Fuck you, pay me." - Henry Hill.

I'd love to find out who this chickenshit company is.

Is the company Microsoft?

[vk2tds]

Question: Is the company Microsoft?
Answer: Could be...
Reason: Well, how many LINUX computers are being used to run MICROSOFT, or at least how many do they publically state that they are using to run the business.

Lets face it, if they pay $6000 for a server license, and the publicity convinces 50 people to buy Windows Server 2003 licenses, they have a fantastic return on investment...

Additional Question: Was it the full organisation, or one part of it?

Comment: Well, most of these organisations are large, so just imagine if one division spent $50,000 on licenses and only for that division. Would this press release still be true... probably :-)

Amazingly perfect timing also

[walterbyrd]

SCOX was tanking hard today. Down over 24%. Then out of blue this PR was issued, and sco partially recovered to close down about 14%.

Still, miraculous timing.

There is no way that it is microsoft

[metalhed77]

Hasn't ms allready bought unix stuff from SCO for their unix services for windows software? If that's the case, that probably allows them to use Linux.

Re:I know who bought it..

[maxume]

Right. Check out the revenues for Omega Protein Corp. 25.1 Million probably isn't going to get them into the Fortune 500.

Is omega protein a fortune 500 company? eom.

[walterbyrd]

eom.

I think your missing something

[hypocritical tortois]

Linux obviosly has none of sco's ip in it. if it did IBM would have at the very least released a clean version of linux which they could easily do since they obviously have the code which they supposedly put in linux. What worries me is the ease with which a dishonest company "cough" microsoft "cough" could plant their own code into linux so that they could then claim their ip was stolen and how easily they could change the comments on their own pieces of code to make them the same their linux equivilents. These would appear to be evidence that code was illegaly copied into it when the competing companies "cough" microsoft "cough" are simply trying to slow down work on it and sow fud.

Re:It's not microsoft

[iabervon]

I don't think the market would take MS buying SCO licenses for Linux as particularly encouraging for SCO. And it would be too obvious if they talked about a 100 or 50. How many companies in the Fortune 50 are using Linux but not relying on IBM to provide them with a complete solution and take care of everything? It's much more plausible that a company in the 100-500 range would be doing their own Linux deployment and might get sufficiently worried about SCO to buy a license.

Wow

[JacobD]

I didn't know SCO could consider themselves a Fortune 500 company.

More spin from the SCO publicity machine...I guess it's better than announcing layoffs.

An odd thought...

[masque12]

Here's a thought I've had. What if this whole thing was actually engineered by IBM? They get SCO to sue them (IBM), spreading all kinds of anti-Linux noise in the process. The benefit to the SCO people is all the money they've been making on their stock since the lawsuit was filed. Microsoft, taking any opportunity to discredit Linux it can jumps on board by purchasing "licenses" to SCO's UNIX property. IBM then countersues SCO, bitchslapping them with patent violations. Microsoft eventually is revealed as the only company stupid enough to buy SCO's license (announced today). IBM eventually wins its countersuit, legitimizing both Linux and the GPL. Microsoft's support of SCO makes them look foolish, causing them to lose credibility. Linux starts getting bigger and bigger marketshare, driving Microsoft out of business, and IBM gets vengeance on M$ for stealing IBM's business back in the day! What, it's better than the other conspiracy theories going around...

How to shoot yourself in 500 other feet...

[Simon Brooke]

So this unnamed Fortune 500 company now has a license from SCO to use Linux. However, that doesn't mean they can legally use Linux; on the contrary, it means they can't legally use Linux, at least not on any machine on which it is not already loaded.

Why not?

SCO are clearly in breach of the GPL since they have imposed ...further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights... contrary to paragraph 6; and clearly they may not distribute Linux (or anything linked to any part of Linux) at all. But in accepting SCO's claim to have the right to charge these fees, in paying these fees, the unnamed company is effectively in breach of paragraph 6, and may not redistribute to itself...

In other words, the poor schmucks have got themselves in some very tortuous legal soup, and they end up losing out no matter who wins.

Re:How to shoot yourself in 500 other feet...

[StormReaver]

"But in accepting SCO's claim to have the right to charge these fees, in paying these fees, the unnamed company is effectively in breach of paragraph 6, and may not redistribute to itself..."

This is not true. The GPL clearly states that the recipient of GPL'd software retains all the rights originally granted to the original distributor, even though the original distributor is now barred (or even if the distributor had been previously barred) from distributing the same. As long as the recipient adheres to the GPL, then it retains the full rights granted by the GPL for that software.

A recipient is not in violation of the GPL by receiving covered software from someone not allowed to distribute the software. The GPL does not cover receiving software; only modification, distribution (giving, not receiving [except to tell what what the given must provide to you]), and copying.

Re:I know who bought it..

[ChaoticPup]

Interesting info, but Omega Protein is not a Fortune 500 company.

-- CP

Strategy for SCO-Linux licensees

[PhilTR]

As long as SCO-Linux licensees keep their licenses stacked up near the crapper and don't include same in any distros, they should be OK.

The Power of the Schwartz!

[dagnabit]

No wonder the Fortune 500 companies are caving in - check the name of SCO's PR firm on the press release!

Re:The Power of the Schwartz!

[Mooncaller]

Talk about synchronicity. I just got through watching Spaceballs three hours ago! The last time I had seen it was when it was first released ( over a decade ago). BTW, I'm unemployed and very bored. Watching Spaceballs indicates that I am getting to the bottom of my movie collection!

License program "suspended until further notice"

[MichaelCrawford]

I called just now. They said at first that they wanted my name and number so someone could call me back, and I gave it to them. Then they asked if I already had a license that I wanted to renew, so I said no.

I explained that I had several linux systems, and that I understood there were some intellectual property issues, so I wanted to be sure to be covered.

The helpful and polite lady on the phone told me that the license program had been "suspended until further notice". She said she was pretty sure it had to do with the lawsuit.

May you should call too (800 726 8649) just to be sure.

Linux Lab

[AstroDrabb]

Didn't MS just start some Linux lab? Well, now we know who that fortune 500 company is. The money is a drop in the bucket for MS and then get to help the SCO FUD campaign.

a little more on the 7th defense

[abe ferlman]

Seventh Defense

SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and unclean hands.

I think the unclean hands part is the "they made new victims by continuing to distribute the software under the GPL" argument.

Re:I know who bought it..

[haggar]

But that's not a Fortune 500 company.

I do try to change from time to time

[MichaelCrawford]

I think my next few posts will just emphasize complaining to the SEC. After that, it will be the federal trade commission.

Re:SCO and the GPL

[MuParadigm]

No, it's not true and you are right. SCO can be sued for selling the license and thereby violating the copyright terms of the other contributors.

The licensees (if any) are not violating the GPL; they are just being stupid.

Screwed themselves... ?

[outanowhere]

Whomever bought the license from SCO seems to have screwed themselves as far as the GPL if they ever intend to distribute any part of their GPL's software.

Since they have made an agreement with SCO by buying a license, they now seem to be subject to the restrictions in section 7 of the GPL and are apparently now obligated to not distribute.

But this also could be yet another big fat lie by SCO. And the more brazen and outrageous the lie, the easier it is believed.

So far it seems as if SCO is all bluff and FUD.

Seems like IBM is going to nail certain balls to a certain wall. They do seem to have substantive facts, while SCO has evidently presented none. So IBM is likely gonna rip through them like a skilsaw through a jock strap.

Fortune 499, err... would you believe Fortune 498?

[xixax]

We had Enron lined up too, because they had the sort of ethics and businness acumen we can really relate to.

--Darl

In summary...

[Global-Lightning]

An undisclosed company bought an undisclosed number of licenses for an undisclosed amount of money, protecting it from undisclosed intellectual property claims.

Yep, I'm convinced!
It's unbelievable how far SCO has taken this without presenting a single shred of evidence that can independently verify their claims.

If they weren't suckers

[gotr00t]

Then why do they wish not to be disclosed? They probably just got paid off by SCO in order to buy token licenses for like $1.

Even IF, in the unlikely case that SCO code DID make it into Linux, it is NOT WORTH the $699 licensing fee that SCO is trying to extort.

Think about it, the entire suit makes no sense. This is like a publishing company that's suing another publishing company because it alledgedly steals one quote from a book of the former, then that company threatens all users who have bought the book, and makes them pay full price for that one quote, without even saying which quote it really is, or giving any evidence at all.

Every day, I keep wondering if this is a SERIOUS LAWSUIT involving SANE PEOPLE, or an experiment to see how impressionable and ignorant some people are, or how fast people are to jump to conclusions.

Re:If they weren't suckers

[MuParadigm]

I think it's an experiment to see how far SCO can push "IP" as a legal concept. Even if they lose, other companies might win if SCO manages to set a precedent for any novel interpretions regarding Intellectual Property.

Give me a freaking break already...

[pair-a-noyd]

"SCO announced today that an undisclosed Fortune 500 company purchased Linux licenses"

For gods sake, SCO go stick your fud and your lies up your ass. Disclose something, anything, or shut the hell up.

You talk a lot of shit but you've done N-O-T-H-I-N-G...

Shit or get off the pot.

And when are the counter suits going to kick in and shut these bastards up?
I've been beating the Linux drum but now people are hearing this FUD and are afraid of the "big bad wolf" now. They say they would rather stick with windows than get sued for stealing something. This is really pissing me off.

heh vaporware like all sco's other claims

[shaitand]

just like there is some mythical vaporware code in linux that belongs to sco and some mythical copyright or patent of theirs violated. They've never managed to point out a single line of code, never managed to name a licensee, and never managed to come up with any technology they had first to begin with in thier claims. If anybody has purchased a license it might be microsoft for all the linux boxes they run in house.

SCO: they violated our patents! yeah our patents!

NOVELL: Those are our patents, you don't have any.

SCO: your wrong, but umm, it's our copyrights they violated, yeah that's it, our copyrights!

NOVELL: So your saying they used your code?

SCO: code? err umm... *confers with tech* yeah that's it, it's our code umm hmm they stole our cookies err code!

Novell: Well lets have a lo...

SCO: NO! It's MY code, mine mine mine, nobody can see it, is MMMMMMMYYYY code!!!!

SCO: Linux is bad, bad ,bad, give me money, you stole it, it's MINE!!

IBM: *picks up fly swatter and starts to slowly take aim*

REDHAT: *picks up baseball bat and glares*

SCO: hey guys, guess what? guess what?

combined: what the hell is it now?

SCO: somebody paid me, they did, na na na na sombody paid me!

combined: *yawn* who?

SCO: errr ummm who, yeah who, I dunno but somebody! and they have lots of money and they paid me, yeah that's it!!!

ghandi

[stud9920]

First they ignore you (1991-1998 ?) Then they laugh at you (1998-2002 ?) Then they fight you (2003-????) Then you win.

Re:Who wants to join class action lawsuit against

[pair-a-noyd]

count me in. My email is spammesilly@gt.rr.com
(yes, it's a real email address...)

I'm sick of this SCO shit. If someone will file a REAL lawsuit against these assholes, I'll put my name on the list. I've already emailed SCO and informed them of the 7 Linux machines I have in my house....

If they win, they can come collect at my home. I'll pay them in lead. Hot, flying lead..

HA.

[ShadowRage]

what idiots, I bet if they put a license on oxygen, people would pay it.. people are so stupid. linux is like air, it's freely available. this is just like people putting prices on water.. water is freely available everywhere.. but you still have to pay for it in some way or form. and technically, we need gnu/linux and opensource.. without these movements we'd still be stuck with technology from 10, 15 years ago.

OT: Anti-SCO shirt

[cactopus]

I'd so want an anti-SCO shirt if they either had a big IBM labelled St. Bernard or a Penguin tipping over and peeing on the SCO Tree logo.

Lets gets some cool Shirts dammit.

it's ironic

[deepayan]

that IBM, of all people, is accusing that "SCO undertook to create fear,
uncertainty and doubt in the marketplace..."

BillG is cashing in Stock

[Avihson]

Gates just sold about 13 million shares since July 23, so he may have had some pocket change laying around to drop on Linux licenses. Better than leaving it in the ashtray of his car.

I wonder if he is donating to Arnold's campaign...

Specific GPL violation counterclaim

[p_trekkie]

Way down in IBM's official response, it dedicates a complete counter claim (#6) to "Breach of GNU General Public License"


76. SCO has taken source code made available by IBM under the GPL, included that code in SCO's Linux products, and distributed significant portions of those products under the GPL. By so doing, SCO accepted the terms of the GPL (pursuant to GPL 5), both with respect to source code made available by IBM under the GPL and with respect to SCO's own Linux distributions.


78. SCO has breached the GPL by, among other things, (1) claiming ownership rights over Linux code, including IBM contributions; (2) seeking to collect and collecting license fees with respect to Linux code, including IBM contributions; (3) copying, modifying, sublicensing or distributing Linux, including IBM contributions, on terms other than those set out in the GPL and after its rights under the GPL terminated; and (4) seeking to impose additional restrictions on the recipients of Linux code, including IBM contributions, distributed by SCO.


If this goes all the way through court, there is no way to avoid a judicial test of the GPL.

So many violations to catch SCO on... you'd think IBM read slashdot....

MS has to walk a line.

[dmaxwell]

On one hand, MS wants this to continue damaging Linux as long as possible. On the other hand their lawyers are no dummies. I'm sure some IBM execs are still hacked off about OS/2 and would like some payback. IBM's countersuit is as devastating as it gets. I doubt MS want to be anywhere near SCO when their chickens come home to roost. This could be a way for MS to feed them more money under the table to keep the lawsuit/fud machine going. Basically, MS will keep feeding them money as long as McBride and Sontag can at least keep quiet about at least one thing.

SCO Stock Price

[(eternal_software)]

All of this is doing wonders for SCO's stock price.

Quite unfortunate that my broker didn't have any shares available for me to short.

Undisclosed eh? Could it be M$?

[incom]

nt

So now can developers yank their code?

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

"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. Anyone wanna bet it's Microsoft?

I'm a bit fuzzy on the GPL, but as SCO has claimed to have successfully charged an unspecified user an unspecified amount of money for the use of Linux, and done so under terms which (if they used the license they were talking about) do not give the user access to the source code, just "run time binaries", can the kernel developers formally inform SCO that the "SCO license" does not include the use of any modules that those developers have copyrighted because SCO just violated the GPL in a big way?

I suppose you could subpoena SCO for the name of the company with the license so you can tell that company that they have to use SCO UNIX because SCO's has no legal right to license Linux.

Re:It's not microsoft

[Mooncaller]

No they would'nt. "Fortune 500" is not only the standard metric (Fortune 50 is not), it has all ( or maybe more) propaganda impact as "Fortune 50". Most people translate "Fortune 50" as "the top 50 of the Fortune 500". From a marketing ( related to propagandist) perspective, this is undesirable as it causes the reader to hold more concepts in their head then needed and it might cause the reader to think too much. The last thing a propagandist wants is for the target to think. The other reason they would not do this is that in narrows the field way too much, e.i. Fortune 100 companies who are using Linux and are not associated with IBM.

MS will have payed for SCOs Linux licenses as part of their Linux lab set up. They are using Linux AND they support SCO. Both are public record. MS can not use Linux without the SCO Linux license. So of the set of all companies that have bought the SCO Linux License, one is MS. As that set has only one member, that member has to be MS.QED

But didnt they BSD their "IP"???

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if SCO realizes that Caldera released Unix versions 1-7 (incl 32V) under a BSD license back in '02. Doesn't that still apply or were they "unsure"? Is it the same version they are suing over?

the link: http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf

Re:But didnt they BSD their "IP"???

[stoborrobots]

No, it's not... the licence is "limited to the following UNIX Operating Systems that operate on the 16-Bit PDP-11 CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit UNIX Operating System, with specific exclusion of UNIX System III and UNIX System V and successor operating systems"

It is the "UNIX System V" that is in question...

Re:Sorry, but if that's the case it needs this tri

[Monkeybaister]

The coffee was over 200 degrees farenheit

Couldn't been much over it, since it'd be boiling.

But besides that, I don't know about the rest of the American population, but coffee is supposed to be hot! Thank god the Starbucks cups remind me of this blatent fact.

Of course we are talking 1 out of how many?

[msimm]

A single sale to an undisclosed/able company regularly isn't anything to brag about. I guess if your selling lawsuits..

Interestiiing.

[eddy]

Soon we'll have McBride swearing there never were any kind of linux license(s) sold... That PR was just... an accident. Yes. Some secretary released it by mistake. Oh, yes.

Oh well, it's interesting to follow, I'll give you that. I've learned a lot about the stockmarket the last few days.

Re:Interestiiing.

[scharkalvin]

"Soon we'll have McBride swearing there never were any kind of linux license(s) sold... That PR was just... an accident. Yes. Some secretary released it by mistake. Oh, yes." Would that be the same secretary that used to work for President Nixon?

Open violation of the GPL

[Usagi_yo]

I dont' know why SCO is bragging about violating the GPL license, they've just lost their license to redistribute Linux.

Indulgences

[panxerox]

Reminds me of when the Catholic church sold "indulgences" (I.E. get of hell free cards) and nobody told the Devil.

SNL

[kardar]

SCO's Not Linux is SNL, which is also Saturday Night Live.

hmmmm.... there has to be a deeper meaning to this somehow

Maybe

[T40 Dude]

IBM bought couple of licenses ? Makes sense to me.

It is not Microsoft or Sun according to SCO.

[eddy]

The deal is not with Microsoft Corp. or Sun Microsystems Inc., two prominent companies that have already signed other licensing agreements with SCO to cover their commercial products, Stowell said.

Is it not time for the government to step in?

[Geek-I-Am]

Is it not time for the government to step in and go after SCO for anti-trust and trying to monopolize the market... They did it with M$!

Not necessarily Microsoft...

[jfw25]

When SCO tries to use these sales as evidence in their next round of lawsuits (should they stay in business that long, which is doubtful), it will presumably come out who bought those licenses. If it is Microsoft, not only is the credibility of SCO's figures immediately called into question (due to the likelihood it wasn't really an arm's-length transaction), but Microsoft's trustworthiness as a company which can be trusted with the largely voluntary sanctions they got from the anti-trust suit also comes into question. Instead, I'll lay odds it's either a big customer of Microsoft (which will get a break on a few hundred copies of Windows $LATEST if they spring for a half dozen SCO Linux licenses), or a big software developer which is dependant on Microsoft's largesse (who'll get one free MSDN subscription for each Linux license they buy, up to six -- any more and the rug gets yanked RIGHT out from under them...). Alternatively, it could be a company whose board of directors contains one of the SCO board, and they negotiated a sweetheart deal whereby company X would buy N SCO licenses in exchange for SCO buying Nx$699 worth of pens or something like that.

Re:I know who bought it..

[khallow]

Well, they're sure to become one by 2010. Honest. So what's your problem? ;-)

Stupid Question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it may be a stupid question, but ... Isn't Microsoft a fortune 500 company? And wouldn't that also explain immediately why it is an undisclosed company that paid SCO?

Re:Stupid Question...

[Lodragandraoidh]

Absolutely. This is Microsoft's scheme to bankroll SCO's lawsuit...film at 11.

Re:Stupid Question...

[brandonY]

Actually...that's a pretty darn smart point. Now I feel stupid for not realizing that one myself.

Something else to keep in mind

[davmoo]

Keep in mind also that, since SCO did not name the supposed Fortune 500 sucke^H^H^H^H^Hcompany, they could simply being lying out their ass, spreading even more FUD than they currently are. SCO has been so full of fecal matter thus far, I refuse to believe anything they have to say until such time as they present proof of their claims in the form of a release of infringing source code (and I mean enough to prove their point, not 80 fucking lines) with no NDA attached. I will now continue to ignore SCO, and continue running Linux any damned way I please. And if SCO doesn't like it, they can kiss my ass.

And you believe them because

[rssrss]

.....?

Am I the Only One

[mhlandrydotnet]

... who is skeptical about whether a Fortune 500 company _actually_ purchased a license?

Re:Not necessarily Microsoft...but who.....

[Lord Custos]

The only way to find out who is really behind SCO. It's a four step process.

• 
  
• 1) Wait for the SEC to indict Darl McBrat.
  
• 2) Watch him be convicted and go to jail.
  
• 3) Wait for him to finish his jail term.
  
• 4) Watch to see who gives him a cushy job and a huge flipping wodge of cash (read: his "thirty pieces of silver")

It's common in the world of organized crime for someone small to take the fall, and such a sacrificial victim is protected while serving their term and is richly rewarded when they leave jail. Same thing will happen with Darl McBrat. Just you wait and see.

Fortune 500 idiots

[ReelOddeeo]

Only an idiot buys "blue sky". Something they can't see, feel or touch; is intangible, and very likely does not even exist, or at least has not been prooven to exist.

IP!? Feh!

[Lord Custos]

I hate that acronym. For Two Rreasons:
1) It can be used to mean too many things: Patents, Trade Secrets, Copyrights, Trademarks, mp3s, the transmissions from planet grrr that make it through you tinfoil hat...all of gets classified as "Intellectual Property"
2) the acronym is already taken. IP means "Internet Protocol". Always has. Always will.

From here on out, I decree it to be open season on any pointy-haired, legalese-spouting phucknugget who says "IP" and means "Intellectual Property".
You have the Lord's official permission to beat the living snot out anyone who says "IP" and doesn't predece it with "TCP".

• LET THE WAR BEGIN HERE!

Re:IP!? Feh!

[krist0]

but what if i am on a cisco and i try something like

"ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Null0"

do i have to beat the snot out of myself? :)

A note from Darl McBride

[Lord Custos]

Okay, Okay...we admit it...it was a savings and loan company called First Intercontintental Elbonian (ticker symbol FIE!); And sure, they're not reeaaallly a Fortune 500 Company, but their CEO once served a cheese Danish to Lee Iacoca, and we think that should count for something.
And sure, they didn't know what they were signing when we handed them the license. I suspect they think we're going to deliver 6,990 forged passports or somesuch...I don't recall.
But there is a funny side. Y'see, they're an MS shop. Running DOS 3.0, I think. But hey, their money is still green, and we happily accept it.

Signed, Love and Kisses
(To everybody but those smelly Linux Hippies)

Darl McBride, CEO SCO YHBT HAND

What about Dell?

[qoquaq]

The fortune 500 company could be Dell. Why not help M$ and SCO spread the FUD. They don't want to see IBM eat into their server market anymore.

M$??

[gpinkham]

I believe that M$ would qualify as a fortune 500 company.. They already licensed SCO Linux.. Why not buy SCO Linux licenses for the Linux Lab that they are setting up.. Makes sense to me....

its obvious...

[jtilak]

its microsoft. they dont want to say its microsoft for obvious reasons.

Yes, buy a license and breach the GPL contract.

[mgpeter]

Yes, (well according to Bruce Perens) if you buy a license from SCO, you are in breach of the GPL.

Here is an except from his Open Source "State of the Union Address (from newsforge)

SCO has recently announced a so-called "license" for Linux. The absurdity of this should be obvious, but let's touch upon a legal aspect. Every party who enters into this license will be in violation of the GPL, and in infringement of the collective copyrights of the Linux and GNU system authors. As a customer, if you purchase the SCO license, you can be sued by every copyright holder who has contributed to the Linux kernel and other components of the system. You can be sued by IBM, by Red Hat, by me, by tens of thousands of people and companies. Of course, nobody's going to buy an license for software that SCO doesn't own anyway, so it's just hollow posturing.

Re:Yes, buy a license and breach the GPL contract.

[MuParadigm]

Sorry, but I think Bruce is wrong on this one. When I hear it from Eben, then I'll believe it.

In the meantime, here is the beginning of section 5:

". You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works."

My reading of this is that: if the corporate entity has GPL'd software, the issue of whether it has agreed to the license doesn't come up unless they are externally distributing it. So as long as they are not distributing the GPL'd code and even if they buy the SCO license, they can't be in breach of the GPL because the conditions requiring its acceptance never arose.

SCO on the other hand is clearly in breach. But not the licensee.

What has SCO got to loose?

[mykepredko]

Personally, I see this as a strategic legal move as part of betting the company.

In court this one company (regardless of how much they paid and who it is) will be touted as a company that agreed with SCO and acknowledged their right to ownership.

If SCO wins, then the buying company probably got a deal on the license while the rest of the world gets screwed.

If SCO looses, then there isn't going to be anything left as assets except for a couple of chairs and a desk. Any creditors or successful plaintiffs will all be fighting over pennies on the dollar.

myke

Keep going

[maynard]

Post that bad boy as often as it takes. What SCO is doing almost certainly breaks several securities laws and the officers deserve the full weight of criminal punishment coming their way. IMO, keep it up and thanks. --M

funnier still

[Austerity Empowers]

I bet all fortune 500 companies have at least ONE linux box somewhere, by someone. Only 1 of them has actualyl decided to pay for it.

Look at how those numbers speak.

Bad company.

[shadoi]

Anyone notice that Ximian and SCO share the same PR Company? I know it would probably make me feel dirty.

http://schwartz-pr.com/company/clients.htm

Re:Bad company.

[pr0c]

Considering Novell owns Ximian I really wouldn't worry about it ;P

ha-ha

[mnmn]

IBM could do us all a favor and name that company.

We will blockade their products like Unixware till they understand the damage from their side for buying SCO's thing.

The simpsons will feature that company with ALL the kids riding bikes around going 'ha-ha'.

Insider trade this morning?

[Picass0]

CFO Robert K Bench sold 7000 shares this morning. Fortunately because of the big press release that SCO sold a license nobody noticed :)

"Undisclosed fortune 500 customer"

[jmors]

I too doubt the existance of such a customer. BUT if they really do exist would you blame them for not wanting their name divulged? Can you hear the meetings and parties between execs of some of the fortune 500 companies.... "Hey, I got a bridge I'll seel you a license to!" If they do exist, I sure would like to know who they are, I need to stay away from their stock!

What about Sun?

[tuxtomas]

They sway back and forth with Linux. They would love for the world to back away from Linux. They have been locking up good contracts and are the silent player to watch. It wouldn't surprise me to hear Sun announce you should purchase an SCO license or Solaris.

Risk Managment

[smylingsam]

Hmm. Perhaps some fortune 500 lawyer reasoned as follows:

1) IF SCO is right then said companies risks are covered and an infrastructure change is not needed. The Cost is probably a "Cost of Doing Business" as far as accounting and tax goes.
2) If SCO is proven wrong, then said company could sue SCO for it's money (and interest back) for selling the company false goods (or words to the effect).

My US$0.02 (FWIW and IIRM)

Microsoft would buy a license!!

[Netlink]

Microsoft would buy a license very quickly to help SCO justify their claim against Linux. SCO would clearly not want to make public that their first license was sold to Microsoft.

Oh yeah?

[trippyd]

Well I have this girlfriend in Niagra Falls...

Who cares?

[Izago909]

It will still go through court because I can't see IBM settling with SCO, something it wouldn't even do for the government. If SCO somehow manages to pull one over on IBM, the infringing code will be replaced by the kernel community quickly. Then those worried executives can just upgrade to the next kernel, or patch the old one, to get back to GNU code. If IBM wins, these people will get their money back, at the very least. Then SCO can get smacked in civil court by at least one class action. Either way, they are going to be out of a source of income until they can raise some more accusations.

Caldera/SCO's plans from year 2000

[G3ckoG33k]

Caldera/SCO's plans from year 2000 were described in an October 2000 article at LinuxToday:

Drew Spencer, Caldera's chief technology officer, and the supplier's legal department were now looking at the ramifications of licensing the Unix kernel and UnixWare personality under a GNU General Public Licence - one of several ways to license open source software.

This means that the source code would be made available to the open source community for free to allow them to tinker with it, but that any changes would have to be handed back so that others can benefit from them.

As a result, the aim is to encourage kernel and application developers to work on the code and to "give them added insight into the way the OS works".

Original equipment manufactures, such as IBM and Hewlett Packard, would still have to pay a fee to license the SVR5 Unix kernel source code, however, if they wish it to remain the basis of their own commercial iterations of Unix."

Make sure you see the accompanying newsgroup talkbacks at comp.unix.unixware.misc via this juicy link.

Exciting reading as it vividly predicts what is actually happening today. Some remarks seem unexpected in hindsight and indicated that "only one of the kernels would remain within the next 18 months.":

"It will not be a two kernel situation into the future. As the Linux kernel develops and the Unix kernel is open sourced, the solution will be whichever works the best. It will be the survival of the fittest. People are not doing a lot of development on the Unix kernel these days because people see Linux as exciting and the future."

Edgie Donakey, Caldera's vice president and chief of staff

I do not wonder how IBM could take such public claims as a go-ahead from Caldera/SCO; these remarks seem very clear to me, as they come from the vice president.

Class-Action Lawsuit Against SCO

[salmonz]

Hi, I was reading the counterclaim of IBM and I just laughed at every section. SCO is so royalling f**ked. If SCO is profiting by distributing and selling licences that include code from GPL code which is the work of other contributors, then I smell a class-action lawsuit against SCO from the millions of linux developers under the GPL. SCO should be sued for punitive damages, charged with stock fraud, and for every cent they received from their 'Fortune 1500' customer list. If SCO tells me to pay for a linux licence, I will immediately call my lawyer to get the courts to charge SCO with fraud. Linux code, AIX code, etc, etc is not SCO's code. Simply packaging your code with GPL code does not make you have the rights to the code you did not develop. What SCO is doing is like telling Microsoft that you own their source code and demand licencing fees. SCO - another WorldCom, Enron, Martha, etc, etc. Best quote, "IBM has more patent litigation lawyers than SCO has employees." If it's less costly for IBM to buy-out SCO instead of incurring legal fees, then I think IBM should swallow up SCO. Case over.

Re:Class-Action Lawsuit Against SCO

[smash]

I don't think they'll buy SCO.

It would be FAR more effective in terms of PR to drive SCO into the ground over this one.

SCO clearly has nothing of any use to IBM (SCO's products are, to put it bluntly, a joke), but IBM has a huge opportunity here to come out as the "good guys" by proving the GPL in court, standing up for their customers, etc...

Nope, I think SCO is fucked, bigtime :)

I for one am glad about it too - way back in 1996 I remember SCO's FUD about linux - sending out emails to Linux users about trying out a "real" os :) (openserver *laugh*)

smash.

MS

[1s44c]

Was it perhaps microsoft that brought this worthless licence?

I'll bet they have a few thousand linux machines. They most likely licenced 20 or 30 thousand just in case they get a few more.

And now

[Delifisek]

The Fortune 500 company isssssssss

Microsoft

Oh YEA

Re:Want to find out if the claims are genuine?

[AntiOrganic]

Somehow I get the feeling that if you pissed SCO off enough by doing that, they would subpoena your computer under a provision of the DMCA. You are, after all, running "their" unlicensed and copyrighted IP.

Ough

[stevenp]

I guess that the company name begins with "M" and ends with "icrosoft"?
They don't want to admit openly that they use Linux so they stay "undisclosed".

Re:It's nothing for Linux users, but for IT Manage

[91degrees]

However, in light of all this, the managers want us to switch to BSD/OS X.

BSD is a perfectly adequate kernel. If it supports your hardware, then it should be quite simple to just switch over.

Sco takes feedback

[sijucm]

They are concerned about our feelings. Here is a link to give them some feedback http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/index.html

Hahahaha...

[smash]

Read the countersuit by IBM - particularly from "First Defense" onwards.

SCO is so fucked.

In particular, with regards to IBM's claims of patent infringement - IBM suggests that so long as SCO continues to sell any of their products, they're now knowingly infringing on IBM's patents (which I believe entitles them to punitive damages).

So, if the legal wrangling doesn't fuck them, the lack of any products to sell will.

:)

smash.

Re:Favourite quote...

[aug24]

I liked: "We've had more than 300 companies in the first four business days of this program contact SCO to inquire about SCO's Intellectual Property License for Linux,"

I had no idea so many /.ers would be bothered to phone that free number and leave details... ;-)

J.

Re:Favourite quote...

[aug24]

...and "more than 82 countries"

So, err, 83 then ;-)

Morons on the board, morons writing the copy.

J.

Re:License program "suspended until further notice

[peterprior]

Their office was open when you called ? Isn't it like.. 5 - 6 am there at the moment ?
Can anyone else confirm this...?

Looks like this parent pade it to the Inquirer as well...

IBM unviels it's powerful collection of patents...

[Eunuchswear]

From the IBM countersuit:

SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM

Patent Infringement

...
81. IBM is the lawful owner, by assignment, of the entire right, title
and interest in United States Patent No. 4,814,746 ("the '746 Patent"),
duly and legally issued on March 21, 1989 to Miller et al., entitled
"Data Compression Method".

82. Upon information and belief, SCO has been and is infringing the
'746 Patent within this judicial district and elsewhere by making,
using, selling and/or offering to sell products, including UnixWare and
Open Server, that practice one or more claims of the '746 Patent and
therefore infringe that patent to the extent such infringing acts have
occurred or occur during the effective period of that patent.

But the "'746" patent is LZW, also patented by Unisys (patent 4,558,302).

So IBM want to sue SCO for compress. Of course SCO have a license from Unisys. Of course the patent should never have been issued to Unisys, 'cos IBM patented the same thing first.

This case is opening up some of the real horrors of the whole "IP" mess.

Yeah

[CmdrGravy]

until he's the enemy again

Why the secrecy ?

[RichLooker]

If this company was Boeing or General Motors, don't you think SCO would be quite eager to tell ? And why would such a company wish not to go public about this ? I wouldn't be the least surprised if this company was Microsoft - think of it, they probably have a few Linux boxen (if they didn't have any before, they could easily deploy a couple of installations just for this trick), and they wouldn't mind at all paying a few bucks to try to give SCO's claims more credibility. Going public about it would of course nullify this.

Microsoft

[Beatbyte]

Isn't Microsoft a Fortune 500 company?

...but Microsoft would have NOTHING to do with this right?
;-)

Re:which Fortune 500? I want to short it

[SuiteSisterMary]

Well, maybe they're waiting for the courts to find that SCO damn well knew they were talking out of their asses. Then, said Fortune 500 company sues the CRAP out of them for lying about ownership, extortion, blah blah blah.

Own A Souvinier

[tilleyrw]

For sale at the low, low price of $50.00 you can now own a share of the company that starred in the greatest economic debacle since the Enron scandal -- SCO. I have one (1) share that I acquired simply to give me a legal base if I wanted to sue.

All owners of SCO (I know the stock is 'SCOX') need to gather and sue because of corporate mismanagement due to illegal manipulation of stock price. Or something. IANAL.

Seriously, if someone would like to buy one share of this stock as a reminder before it is delisted, I am open to sale.

Chickens come home to roost?

[leonbrooks]

Don't you mean, "When the meteor comes home to roost?"

Re:License program "suspended until further notice

[MuParadigm]

I just tried calling and was told that the licensing program is still ongoing. Then they asked my company name. I told them I was an end-user. They just asked for my name and phone at that point and said a sales rep. would get back to me.

I feel kind of used and soiled. I just know they are going to come out with a statistic now about how over 500 end-users have called "expressing interest" in the licensing agreement, and my call will be part of that statistic.

I think I'll go shower.

Re:License program "suspended until further notice

[drohno]

For what it's worth, I have just called the US and European sales offices. They deny any knowledge of the licencing program being halted, and a report on itweek says Chris Sontag also denies this report is true.

Re:worse -- they are Mormons!

[dJCL]

So I guess it would be a bad thing to mention that accorting to the family history( I have not bothered to verify this ) I am rather close on the family tree to the founder of their church?

Ah well, every family has a couple of those... ours just are sometimes a little extreem...

( That and the relation, I've seen the tree for this one, to the actor that plaid Big Bird and Oscar )

Re:worse -- they are Mormons!

[K_J_Raine]

Considering that the founder of the Mormon church is Joseph Smith Jr and that Smith is a very common name, I would guess the odds of you being related to him are, between slim and non-existant. Or, are you thinking Brigham Young thethe founder of Salt Lake City... even there, Young is a very common last name, and the chances that you are related to either are very slim.

Re:worse -- they are Mormons!

[dJCL]

It's the young side of the equation, and the tree is verified.

Re:worse -- they are Mormons!

[dJCL]

actually, I don't consider that something special, and I don't really care about the connection... It is just something that was found on the tree at some point, things like that the a connection to clan fraser(I'm registered as a family connection to that too, so?) As for the great geek world? Not really, I have geek friends, and non-geek friends, they accept me, to the best of my knowledge, and so it don't matter to me. Thou I do fail to see how being related to someone, who is decidedly non-geek, has anything to do with that.

As for the proof, I don't keep a copy of the family tree around, I think I mentioned that it is not my interest, just information that comes from direct family members research. If you area really anal about it, e-mail me and I'll see about getting you a copy, but I don't have it right now.

Anyway