Slashdot Mirror
SCO Says It Has No Plan To Sue Linux Companies
cadfael writes "SCO is reported in the Age as saying they 'Have no plans to sue Linux companies...' This seems to contradict the earlier statements of Chris Sontag. This story also points out how Canopy owns stakes in several other Linux companies, including Linux Networx wheich supplied the supercomputer for Lawrence Livermore Nat Lab. One begins to wonder if the reality of their situation has become clear to them?" Maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of the end of this mess.
I'd like to see a timeline of events in this whole SCO debacle. Should make for some interesting reading. Skimming back through a billion SlashDot stories would be a pain.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
We're poor and don't have the money to sue very many people, it's just a threat. Please buy us.
SCO lies about everything; why wouldn't they lie about this?
Fucking tea bagging fag fucks
The Age is the only place i could find this story, and it contradicts everything that SCO has said so far. The only somewhat related story I could find is this one. Oh well, maybe I'm just paranoid, but I trust SCO about as much as a nigerian spammer on peyote, so I think they're up to something.
StickMan
www.rageagainst.net
Everybody knows SCO will lose all those cases if they actually go to court, but SCO is just trying to scare some companies into avoiding legal fees by paying up. The only way to avoid that kind of legal blackmail is to make the initiator of the lawsuit pay all the defendant's legal expenses if the lawsuit is found to be frivolous.
Repeal the DMCA!
...they sent letters to USERS, not COMPANIES.
They sue the users who can't afford legal costs and will settle just for the sake of avoiding legal hell, and SCO gets a nice precedent running and their stock improves yet further.
Maybe I'm too cynical?
I think it's obvious from previous stories that SCO has no idea what they're doing.
In future news, SCO sues Red Hat, Mandrake, others.
well crap. i was just about to send them my money. guess i'll hang onto it now to see how this all turns out.
... wonder what this is going to do to the stock price tomorrow morning. Knowing sco, they'll contradict themselves at some point during the day and spin it into an increase.
Or they could be refering to Australia only. since an Austrailian user group filed a "put up or shut up suit".
Not how you think though... There whole plan was to sabotage open source all along. Not through suing companies, but by keeping all the developers commenting on SCO stories all day.
;)
Think about it. How many articles have there been and how many comments per article? Boy, when the juicy ones came out the number of responses jumped up into the hundreds even nearing a thousand sometimes. Now, imagine if this never happened and all those people got together to work towards one goal. I think with the hours that have been wasted on this story so far, we could've designed and build a mars mission already
I'd like to see a class action suit from shareholders of Linux companies against the SCO executives, for fraudulent stock manipulation.
They went after Martha Stewart for a hell of a lot less than this.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Not enought Linux companies are making money so instead they are going to take a leaf from the RIAA handbook on how to win friends and influence people by hitting all Linux using students with massive lawsuits thus forcing the students to settle and hand over their first 10 years salary after graduation as a penalty
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
i guess it's time to start dumping all that sco stock i've been buying up...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
Sounds like the insiders have already sold their shares and they're leaving everyone else holding the bag. Afterall, if they're not gonna go after the Linux folks, I guess their pumping scheme is coming to an end. I knew that lawsuit was a bunch of bunk. You know what comes after pumping? Dumping! Management is now chillin' with a smooth 700% return this year. I guess it's time for the stock to tank now. Just my opinion.
They don't seem to actually have a single consistant position on anything.
Is SCO actually being run by a Perl script that periodically checks their stock price to see if it needs to emit some random statement?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
They also said they wouldn't sue Linux end users, then changed their tune later.
See, if you say one thing then say the other instead of just saying what you mean first, that means you get to release two press releases and boost your stock twice!
NO CARRIER
Exactly who really tripped out about this shit anyway? It's always been a "You infringe! We have proof! Nobody can see our proof!" (non)shitstorm. I think if SCO had actually had a case we'd be taking a much more serious approach to the situation instead of the rampant SCO jokes. I mean, really, a few PHBs (that didn't want Linux anyway) pretended like this helped their case and the rest of the world kept putting those Slackware/Debian/Redhat/SuSE disks in the drive.
Or does anyone else think that Ross Perot would make a GREAT leader of this company? "We're suing." "we're not" "no we are." "Well, just IBM." "everyone but IBM."
Does that mean all the DoS attacks worked? After netcraft reported all those down times, it would be more than a coincidence if, for some reason, all the controversy just ended.
-----.----.-------
I'll
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO FUD community when Darl McBride confirmed that SCO FUD media share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all news stories. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost internet connections repeatedly,without a DDOS. SCO claims it was sabatoge by IBM, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along Darls on crack. SCO FUD is now collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by being caught lying at the last SCO Forum in the recent Linux stole this code fiasco.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict Darl McBrides future. TUX is reaming him: Darl faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Darl McBride because SCO FUD is dying. Things are looking very bad for Darl. As millions of Linux users are already pissed, SCO continues to spout crap. Red Hat is now going for the throat AND gonads.
Darl McBride is the most endangered of them all, 96% of people questioned think he is on crack. The sudden and unpleasant departures of his sanity only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: SCO is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Open Source leader Linus states that there are SCO execs on crack. How many users of Unixware are on crack? Let's see. The number of crack versus sane posts in the media is roughly in ratio of 9 to 1. We beleive there are crack users in the SCO office. The number of SCO/OS favorable posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of MS Bob posts. SCO claims there are about 6000 users of SCO/OS. A recent article put Openserver at about 80 percent of the SCO installed base. Therefore there are more Openserver users than Unixware users. This is inconsistent with any one of a number of SCO press releases.
Due to the FUD troubles of Lindon, Utah, abysmal sales and crack prices rising, Caldera went out of business and was taken over by Canopy who changed Caldera's name to SCO, another troubled OS. Now Canopy is also going to get creamed, its IP corpse turned over to yet another company called IBM.
All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. Darl is a very sick puppy and his long term survival prospects are very dim. If Darl is to survive at all it will only be among amazon aborigines. SCO stock continues to Enron. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Looks like this is just more fodder to support the idea that SCO is playing a bait and switch on investors ...
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
...this all just turns out to be some sort of snipe hunt masterminded by a closet Linux advocate.
:-)
Think about it - bunch of hugely greedy execs that are tech-challenged.
Techie sees opportunity and drops a hint that they're getting screwed by the Linux folks and could probably make a ton of money off of it.
Greedy tech-challenged execs manage to convince themselves that techie is right; charge forward with their Swiss-cheese case and make complete fools of themselves -- while techie laughs his friggin' a$$ off.
What an evil idea.
Wish I had thought of it...
-- CP
I think the lawsuit by Red Hat is what brought this news out. SCO was supposed to respond today (Thursday) but was granted a time extension. In other words - it was put up or shut up time. I think SCO plans on going ahead with it's pump and dump scheme, but is probably trying to get RH to drop the suit. This way they avoid having to show any real evidence. Notice that they did _not_ say their case was wrong. Only that they had no 'concrete plans to sue Linux companies'. I expect more shenanigans. SCO - Stupidity Causes Ossification.
SCO is trying to get a hold of intellectual property that covers non binary logic. They are trying to go beyond the reasoning behind 1 and 0 as true and false. When new trinary computers come out, SCO will own everything produced on them.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
\if they make at different times contradictory claims saying they ARE and then AREN'T going to sue you, or a group you are in... after they do this enough timesl, at what point does it become barratry, and actionable?
I have noticing that their stock price has risen lately - eventhough their disclosed "violations" have proven to be a farce. Any theory's why that is? I don't buy the short squeeze theory.
Could it be that certain players would more than eager to fund such a company since directly attacking Linux would have severe political ramifications? I can think of several companies that would love to see Linux just go away or at least get bogged down in legal proceedings.
Another question are identities of purchasers of stock public record?
Linux software companies could also become SCO targets. "Do we have potential issues with Red Hat, SuSE and other commercial Linux distributors--yes, we might," Sontag said, adding that chances for negotiating with such companies appear to be slim.
Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager of the company's SCOsource business, added: "There is no warranty for infringement of intellectual property [in the GPL], so all of the liability ends up with end users."
Mark Heise, of law firm Boies Schiller and Flexner, representing SCO against IBM, believes SCO is entitled to pursue users based on its claims. "End users are improperly using this copyrighted material, and under copyright law SCO is entitled to damages and injunctive relief," he said.
Chris Sontag, senior vice-president and general manager of SCOsource, which is trying to derive more income from the company's intellectual property, said today: "SCO is taking this important step because there are intellectual property issues with Linux.
"When SCO's own UNIX software code is being illegally copied into Linux, we believe we have an obligation to educate commercial users of the potential liability that could rest with them for using such software to run their business. We feel so strongly about this issue that we are suspending sales and distribution of SCO Linux until these issues are resolved."
asked whether SCO would sue the laboratory, the company spokesperson said: "No. SCO has never made concrete plans to sue anyone."
You can't handle the truth.
These guys have to be smoking SOMETHING to explain the cognitive dissonance in their statements. I mean, "We're not talking about the kernel." "We're talking about the kernel." "We're not going to go after end users." "We're going to go after end users." "Well, we're only going to go after companies but not hobbiests." "We changed our minds again, we never intended to go after anybody."
If only I had the spare ten hours I could go over the last years' press releases and make some "found poetry." Blank verse in this case, of course.
"won't", or aren't above doing it.
I seriously doubt that tis is the "beginning of the end". The stock is still well north of $14.
There HAS to be a catch somewhere...they threaten to sue the end users, yet not the companies that are actually SELLING their IP? Maybe this is the beginning of the end, but I doubt it...
Blake
http://saveie6.com/
The last time Caldera was profitable was when they sued Microsoft. This time, methinks that this lawsuit mill bit off more than they can chew.
BTW, this brings to mind an issue I've wanted to see raised forever...
It is hypocritical for Linux gurus to support frivolous IP shakedowns against Microsoft while condeming the SCO lawsuits. Either you're for IP extortion or you're against it. Supporting some IP shakedowns while condemning others is hypocrisy.
... as you would one from a politician or lawyer. "No current plans" simply means that they are not writing up any complaints at this time. In no way should you be lulled into a sense of security. This wording is designed to allow them to later sue anybody they want, without having to admit they were lying.
Not Found
The requested URL
"Online fraud is a serious and growing problem, one that cost merchants an estimated $1 Billion in the past year. Fortunately, you can take steps to significantly limit your risk as an online merchant. Click here to get a copy of the guide "What Every Merchant Should Know About Internet Fraud." "
Coincidence? I think not...
I think the small print here is perhaps the most frightening of all. Why is Canopy getting involved with other linux vendors? What are they doing with their 'own' linux? Is this a plot to co-opt the linux businesses from the inside? Does Canopy have the resources to gain so much control of the major linux vendors to shut them down and make SCO the only game left in town?
Something smells very rotten here.
To me this offers the most solid proof yet that this entire debacle was just a ploy to raise stock prices. Twenty bucks says Darl McBride buys a house in the Caymans in the next 6 months.
+priceofscofunny
They have already damaged the Linux ecosystem and they have already opened themselves up to class action lawsuits.
If I had a rich company, I would not even consider a buyout of SCO because of all the legal cans of worms they opened up.
This doesn't make a lot of sense. (Of course, none of this whole saga has.) Why should they be telling this only to a publication in Australia?
Maybe they're going to backpedal on their backpedal and state in another couple days that they meant only that they're not going to sue anyone *IN AUSTRALIA*. I wonder...does anyone know if the laws concerning barratry are more stringent there? Otherwise, it seems they're just laying themselves wide open for charges of that, along with securities fraud and a few other things, everywhere else.
So, they're not going to sue any Linux companies, but they're still going to try and charge all companies that use Linux these absurd liscensing fees? Oh yea, that makes sense.
If there is any justice in the world, they will be held accountable for all the crap they've said since the beginning.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I recall reading somewhere where SCO said they had $10M stashed away as a fighting fund for this action. I can't believe they said that - $10M isn't going to get them very far, surely ?
I'd bet you'd need a f%^# load more than that. Imagine SCO trying to sue 10 million linux users - just see their dollar and raise another 50 cents and they're toast!
Version 1.12 - Note: Features/bugs listed may not apply to some SCO products/versions
/* SCO OpenServer */ darlsux() ;
/* UnixWare gcc */ darlsux() ;
/* Gemini I cc (SCO UnixWare 7 and UDK) */ darlsux() ;
/* SCO UnixWare cc */ darlsux() ;
/* ODT 3 or earlier */
/* Other platform */
NOTE: This report hereby placed in public domain, use it as you wish, at your own risk!
Additional suggestions, detailed specific recommendations, comments, requested.
Obviously it is a concern to GPL software authors that they maintain compatibility with the SCO platforms, while SCO publicly abuses them, tries to get the GPL declared invalid, and while SCO profits from selling their software and integrating it into future releases of the SCO product line.
Software authors will be aware that breaking SCO compatibility may cause problems for SCO users - (although strictly speaking that is SCO's problem, not the software author(s)', unless the author(s) have some contractual relationship with SCO or SCO customers).
SCO needs support revenue (and new sales revenue) that may depend on GPL products, to fund their PR and litigation. Thus, software authors, who not obligated to support SCO, presumably might want to.
Therefore here is a list of things NOT to do, if you don't want to break SCO compatibility.
1. Don't refactor your code, rearrange files, move functions between files, and rename files more logically in the same release as one which contains accidentally contains one or more SCO incompatible changes.
If you do this, it would make it harder for SCO or their partners to re-introduce any "lost" code that was necessary to support the SCO's platforms. Obviously you wouldn't want that.
2. Don't accidentally remove SCO support in a series of stages, which overlap in time with a bunch of critical security or bug fixes, without making it clear at which stages you accidentally removed SCO support.
3. Don't accidentally remove any special fixes or work rounds for SCO platforms.
4. Don't depend on functions, which are not implemented or perform differently on SCO platforms. Especially don't depend on those functions in lots of different places in your product.
In particular avoid these functions:
(please help with this list - "list 4")
Known bugs in SCO products:
Unixware: accept() does not set the sa_family value correctly for the AF_UNIX family. See http://mail.python.org/pipermail/patches/2001-Augu st/005630.html
Unixware: atan2() does returns pi instead of zero for atan2(0, x). See http://mail.python.org/pipermail/patches/2001-Augu st/005630.html
5. Don't depend on compiler features that might not be available on SCO platforms. This is especially true if, as has been suggested may occur, new versions of GCC don't support SCO platforms.
In particular don't depend on these compiler features:
(please help with this list if and when GCC loses SCO support)
6. Don't put in messages that display only on SCO's platforms.
Avoid putting in code like (and especially not commenting):
#if defined(_SCO_DS)
#elif defined(__UNIXWARE__)
#elif defined(__USLC__)
#if defined( __STDC_VERSION__ ) && __STDC_VERSION__ == 199409
#else
#endif
#elif defined(M_UNIX)
#else
#endif
7. Don't remove support in your makefile for building the application on SCO's platforms.
8. Don't rename your functions and variables with names that conflict with SCO-spe
The copy on my own website has been served to about 5000 distinct hosts so far this month. A google search for "Let's Put SCO Behind Bars" turns up 2190 matches.
Most of those are links. The article has a Creative Commons license, and I've been encouraging copying. By doing various searches, and checking my logs for referring pages, I've found a few dozen other copies on the web, many of them on message boards where they've had lots of readers.
It turned out to be very helpful when Linux Universe asked me to submit my article there. They use UBB codes instead of HTML. I realized that lots of other message boards use UBB, so I saved a copy on my site in UBB format for people to copy to other message boards.
I've been meaning to write a plain-ascii version suitable for email and usenet but haven't gotten to it yet.
Both Richard Stallman and Eric Raymond enjoyed the article. Stallman said that if it weren't against his ethics to write proprietary code, he would have enjoyed working at the SCO of old as I described it.
My first draft I posted at Advogato, followed soon after by InfoAnarchy and then Kuro5hin.
However, I didn't succeed in getting Slashdot to feature it. One can only dream.
I have been hesitant to allow copying of many of my articles before now, but when one's objective is to get a lot of people to read what one has written, and to do so in a short time, it works wonders.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
OK. whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? what did I pay the $699 for? Wasn't it to see my competitors using Linux getting fried? Now you say there will be no showdown? Can I get a refund? No? Ok, I'll be reasonable and take SCO stock options as a refund. What you'll give me a licence for SCO UNIX for a refund? No I dont want that, how about a duel with Mr. McBride, can I have that? Yes!! Yippee...
At best, this is only a partial truth:
"No. SCO has never planned to sue Linux companies."
It should say "SCO doesn't plan to sue any more Linux companies." They've already sued a Linux company. I'll give you a hint: the company's initials are IBM.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Twenty bucks says Darl McBride buys a house in the Caymans in the next 6 months.
... he should look at that much bigger island in the Carribean that does not have an extradition treaty with the USA. He'd fit in well there.
They say they have no plans to sue Linux Companies, but they don't say they have no rights. Who trust SCO? Be sure if they achieve on courts some results, then they will continue with Linux users...
And if this a move to be more friendly with angry Linux users. Too late.... No one will wants nothing about SCO.
Damia
Anyone else notice the poll on eweek?
"Is Linux right that SCO is "smoking crack"?
Yes
No
"
So far 97% say yes.
Question everything.
and that's all it is. Politics is just a way of saying 'nice doggie' untill you can find a big stick.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Watch out for SCO's next move: in true postmodern fashion, they'll be emitting press releases examining the inconsistencies in their own press releases. Then they'll have press releases advertizing these new press releases, and press releases stating that all their press releases are equally valuable to individuals.
How could they NOT sue the distributors of the infamous IP infringing products, while they ARE more than willing to sue users of the same IP infringing products? It is like allowing pirate CD vendors on the street to do their job and going after those who bought pirate CDs from that vendor(s). Is it reasonable? At least RIAA is mean ass to everyone, not only to buyers.
Hey McB, so you are now endorsing distribution of illegal product while you demand money from those who bought it? Give me a fsckin break, would you?
Darl McBallmeride: Press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases, press releases. Yay Gloria Estafan!
This whole debacle is nothing more than an overly extended episode of stupid pet lawyer tricks. Yes, that's it! Merely "prole feed" on some obscure digital cable channel, way up above ch1900 or so....
Brand me as Troll-boy if you must, I guess I deserve it. But at least make me up a word that is analogeous (How to spell?) to being and athiest of Karma ;-) Thanks, Late...
Im reading this at 10:30p .. this should be 10:30a So I can wake up, get coffee, check my logs, and get my morning sco story..
There's no Freedom like UFP-dom
In case anybody starts thinking about how they might profit from an imminent decline in the SCOX short, The Motley Fool has an FAQ on shorting stocks.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Threatening to sue other companies pumps up the stock price, allows Canopy to use the inflated stock price for asset shuffling (skimming big profits), allows senior management to sell shares at a big profit, builds up our press clippings book which is very impressive to PHBs.
Actually suing involves bothersome discovery procedures where you have to actually show some sort of cause for you action. Where's the fun in that?
... Clearly, they won't be allowed to remain in the US. Therefore, they're going to have to fly to some South Seas island with good internet connectivity. Then, when they get there, they're of course going to find that there are only two real tech jobs available to invest in... ... spam, and internet worms to DoS the blacklists.
Well, you gotta invest money, don't you? You can't just have it sitting there... you have a right to make money, don't you? Isn't that what America is all about?
I'd say the internet is about done for.
There -- I've managed to compress three recent stories (well, four or five, really) into one.
And all, without mentioning how they do it in Soviet Russia. Because in Soviet Russia, they have a different method of dealing with companies like SCO, and it ain't pretty, and it ain't good either.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Too bad I can't fit the whole quote into the subject.
Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News story, SCO has not engaged Mr. Boies to take legal action against our fellow Linux vendors.
SCO press release, January 13, 2003
SCO says it has made no decision on Unix IP
So I don't believe SCO's statements about their future plans. They are practicing the adage: "diplomacy consists of saying 'nice doggy' while you are looking for a rock".
We sue
Or we don't
Our stocks rise
...and I don't have a plan for world domination!
The space unintentionally left unblank.
The original post can be found at groklaw
I just wrote to Mr. Varghese about who SCO's statements apply to and got a reply. He states that:
"All their statements - plus the interviews which I did with their US officials - have come through the same source so it represents the company's stance.
See this and this for earlier material.
I have reported their statements and also provided earlier statements as one should in a news story. The reader can draw his/her own conclusions about the seeming contradictions.
Cheers, Sam"
Not terribly helpful I'm afraid. As to Mr. Varghese's attitude toward SCO, he seems reasonable. At the very least he was willing to print a very long letter I sent detailing their misbehavior and the letter stayed on theage.com for a long time. He's on my list of friendlies.
Alex
then it won't matter if they don't sue linux companies. I forget who pointed it out, but if IBM pays compensation for damage done, they can't very well demand more compensation the same damages. i.e. there are limits to what they are entitled to. And of course as soon as the cat's out of the bag on any code the courts say is theirs, it'll be cleaned out (remember they have no patents, so all it takes is a reimplementation). Even if they win, they aren't in a position to do much about it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
SCO would have 1500 letters to write, and a license to tear up before anything out of their mouths is even half believeable.
And that is never going to happen....
From the article:
'As the Canopy Group, which has a stake in SCO, also has interests in several other Linux companies, SCO was asked whether it planned to sue all these companies. The answer was "No. SCO has never planned to sue Linux companies."'
Translation: "SCO has been told it had better not have ever planned to sue companies in which Canopy is involved."
'Among the companies in which Canopy is involved is Linux Networx, which has supplied a supercomputer to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; asked whether SCO would sue the laboratory, the company spokesperson said: "No. SCO has never made concrete plans to sue anyone."'
Translation: "Waitasec, it's a Canopy group company, right? Nope, not suing them then."
Note it's "never planned to sue Linux companies", not any Linux companies. I bet my leftie that with "Linux companies" they mean some subset of Linux companies in general.
Also, not having concrete plans probably only means they've not dared put anything on paper yet.
I'm paranoid? Ah, you're with them aren't you?
"...as long as they don't object to a licensing fee, in the form of a small annual subscription to access SCO's intellectual property. Oh yeah, and for their convenience, SCO Financing can set cash-strapped Linux providers and users up with an easy-to-pay monthly installment plan."
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I guess that means we have to sue them. Before IBM are awarded a $3E9 judgement against them for barratry.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Think about it: They act crazy, they say the have awesome weapons that will destroy their enemies, but won't let anyone look at them, they make ridiculous threats against enemies several orders of magnitude more powerful than they are, then beg for money.
The only difference is that North Korea might have nukes, and we all know that SCO has squat...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Right now the investors think there is about 7% chance that SCO can pull this off and get $3b or some other huge sum in settlements. There is about 1% chance per $2.18 of their stock price. If the stock falls to $11, then they will think the chance went down to 5%. Its very easy.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
I think this post deserves a higher score and should be labelled as funny.
...those fabulous editors have rejected all of my attempts to.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
That company is full of shit.
Either it's true because the planning stage is complete, or it's true because it's The SCO Group ANZ speaking and not The SCO Group head office. If SCO-ANZ sued anybody in Oz, they'd be toast on Day One. They may well be toast even if they don't sue anyone.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...but I say, SCREW YOU! You 'opened this ball' - as ESR put it, and now it's time to deal. We should not back down on these people until the threat is completely gone. I don't know what that means, but it's sure as hell going to take a lot more than some obscure magazine interview to, as Darl(ing) puts it, 'come clean'. I want this sort of thing in writing folks.
;)
This is just like Russia telling us that they are no longer targeting their missles directly at the United States. Whew! What a relief! Now at least we'll have an additional 15 minutes to ponder our final destination.
No. Give them no quarter. The line is drawn here, NO further! (Obligatory Star Trek referrence added)
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I'm sure everyone on Slashdot remembers the debacle concerning Dmitry Sklyarov/Elcomsoft and Adobe. SCO right now is doing the same thing Adobe attempted; make a collective ass of your company publically with regard to IP policy, recant your charges and then come off looking like you're no longer the bad guy while the damage has already been done.
So is this really anything new? Probably not.
After reading so much about SCO, I had one conclusion: It is long time since there been such a great investment opportunity! With SCO's stock at 14.5, shorting SCOX looks like a great idea.
Surely SCO's shares behave in a strange way. According to Yahoo's finance, the only analyst covering SCO have a "strong sell" prosition on their stock, but for some reason, inverstors in SCO seem to follow press releases instead
How do I short a stock? Is it something any person can do? Could a non-US citizen do this? I'm quite puzzled about it
In the June 16th article linked above
Given what has been made public since, surely that "Major" hardware vendor is SGI, and the "inserted code" is that ancient malloc() routine that was in the IA64 tree for a while and which SCO presented as irrefutable evidence of code copying from proprietary Unix to Linux?
That's what the RIAA said about suing individual users many many months ago...
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
I finally see what their plan is! I have proof! If you want to see it you'll just have to sign this little thing here, called a NDA.
- EBH
Linux than anyone else. Are they going to
drop the suit agains IBM, or is IBM not
included in the "Linux companies"?>
The basic issue remains. SCO should close
the mouth until they show proof. Angthing else
they say, like who we will sue and who we will not,
is just a distraction from not showing proof.
So far SCO said the showed proof under NDA to
some people who were not allowed to examine what they saw.
Whe got to examine the 6 ppt slides of SCO last week, that
leaked without NDA, SCO said they examples of future
proof, not the proof itself!
SCO must first show at least one line out of
the "millions of stolen lines", before they are
allowed to talk. Sorry, who SCO may or may not
sue, is not yet a relevant issue.
The stock market was at an all time high just before it crashed in 1929.
It might not be the "beginning of the end", yet, but your reasoning is flawed. SCO's stock will probably be pretty high when it comes crashing down. Wouldn't be a "crash" otherwise.
humm bring it on sco. its gpl code and you can spew all the bs you wish gpl will be valid in court. linux is built on gpl for this very reasion so little piss on companys like sco cant pull these kind of tricks why you think there avoiding court couse sco has no way to win. even if gpl didnt work in court the code is removed from the kernels aruldy couse it sucked anyways. not to metion 90% of the users dont even use this so called infrighing code couse its only for dual prosser systems. being i dont have a dual prosser they can try to sue me but i would win just on the gpl liance and the fact im not even using the so called infriging code. personaly i think its a bunch of lies w a very anti linux company giving them money to make up these bullshit storys (microsoft).
Can anyone reach SCO website?
Every time i open the page...opera crashes....anyone know why? =(
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
And because of the license (good ole GPL) even if they did another dozen vendors would spring up.
But I'm sure Redhat would lodge like a bone in their throat. I'd love to watch them choke.
Quack, quack.
"and if you don't stop trying to destroy Linux and everything else we've worked for I guarantee you won't like what our alliance is cooking up next."
Is he talking about ReactOS =)
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
Wheich just mebby the benign off then end of literacy? All hale Slashdottiness!
I swear this bunch of idiots is starting to sound like Baghdad Bob.
Either they are flipping coins and drawing fortune cookie slips or they hired my ex-wife as information minister.
I think this is just a simple case of the left hand not knowing whose mouth the right foot is in.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
in other words they expected everyone would just pay them given the threat of legal action.
"concrete plans"
In other words they don't currently have the financial resources to take on more then one court case.
They did not say anywhere "will not" or "has no intention of".
I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that MS has contracted with Akamai to run their domain on some 15,000 servers (ok cache servers, but still...) because of all of the virus attacks.
I think SCO should stick to their guns. They wouldn't have to sue IBM if they made MS pay the $699 for each server that is hosting their domain. %-)
It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
The denial is attributed to Australian PR people rather than direct quotes from SCO sources (e.g., McBride and Sontag). It would seem to be an attempt at damage control -- to acquiesce members of the open source community, perhaps?
This is even more like the RIAA: go right up to /to date/. Common but dirty tactics. Threaten your opponent, but do not give them legal standing by actually suing.
the very edge of suing, but don't, as in the
threats to Felten et al. When Felten asked a judge
to say his activities were OK, the RIAA said, "oh
we never planned to sue him." And the judge said
OK, I believe you, Felten has no standing, no case.
Just like Bruce pointed out that all IBM and HP will
say when you point-blank ask them if they would go
after open source programmers, is that have never
sued such programmers
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams
Yeah, and give me 699 a processor as well.
> Maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of the end of this mess. While I certainly hope so, I wouldn't trust it. Rather I think we should remain warry. One possibility is that this was always in the plan. Another is that they may just be trying to get the Linux community off their back, seeing how much the community has been probing every aspect of the case debunking everything they can get their hands on. I personally will be hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst.
Blatant self-promotion: Jerek.net
I can't be arsed to log in, but that's what I see on Pacer.
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov
Create an account (takes paper mail, takes about a week), go to the Delaware court, search for "Red Hat".
Judging from the latest press release maybe somebody should check to see if Sontang and McBride are running for Governor in California
"We will not sue anyone, we'll sue _everyone_," admits the SCO spin-doctors.
"We believe in the american way. We will spew FUD, sue the innocent and lie our way to success. It is our right."
I suspect that SCO is thinking about pulling SGI's Unix license the same way they pulled the licenses for AIX and Dynix ... but a cash infusion from SGI would prevent this unfortunate scenario from eventuating.
The only evidence for this is that SCO has soft-pedaled SGI's role in this. SCO hasn't mentioned SGI's name once, as far as I can see.
Just one.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Of course SCO won't sue anyone. They are done, they have inflated their stock price, they have collected "insurance" money, they have managed to start the best FUD campaign against free software ever and they are getting away with it. They will profit on this for years to come and the Linux community will sit there like a bunch of fools thinking they have actually won by making SCO back off. Everything depends on if IBM will spend money to continue the fight. The copyright owners of the code SCO claimed was theirs should sue SCO to at least make them pay a small price for copyright violation (claiming that you own something that you don't own the copyright for is a copyright violation, at least in some countries), but as far as I know, only whoever wrote BPF would have a decent case with a chance of winning.
They have no intention of letting any of these suits run to conclusion in court, because they will lose, and lose badly, and that will be the end of their stock pumping.
On even numbered days, they're reasonable guys with a great product, so buy their stock.
On odd numbered days, they're stone cold corporate predators who own half the source code on the planet, so buy their stock.
On Sundays, Darl consults his Magic 8 Ball (tm) to decide if it's time to cash in and skip to Brazil for the face change operation, or whether he should pump for another week.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, SCO's Press Officer denied that the billion pound judgement against the company, awarded to IBM, will in any way affect the company's pursuit of Linux Licensing Fees from other companies. As Mr al-Sahaf explained... 'We have not lost to IBM. We have in fact had a great and astounding victory. Tonight we shall dance around in the piles of money that we have been awarded. We have more joyous news in that all Linux users have agreed to pay us for developing Linux completely on our own, and with no help from outsiders.'
August 16, 2003 - Saturday 8:15 AM PDT - SCO 10q and just how much has Microsoft agreed to pay SCO?
Bring up the above link and look for the heading "Recent Developments". "The amount that we receive from any such licensee will generally depend on the license rights that the licensee previously held and the amount and level of our intellectual property the licensee desires to license. The two licensing agreements signed by us to date resulted in revenue of $8,250,000 during the April 30, 2003 quarter and provide for an aggregate of an additional $5,000,000 to be paid to us over the next three quarters. These contracts do not provide for any payments beyond 2003, except that Microsoft was granted the option to acquire expanded licensing rights, at its election, that would result in additional payments to us if exercised. In connection with the execution of the first license agreement, we granted a warrant to the licensee to purchase up to 210,000 shares of our common stock, for a period of five years, at a price of $1.83 per share. This warrant has been valued, using the Black-Scholes valuation method, at $500,000. Because the warrant was issued for no consideration, $500,000 of the license proceeds have been recorded as warrant outstanding and the license revenue reduced accordingly." What does this all mean? Well. It appears that whatever portion of the $8 million that came from Microsoft is not clear. But, it does appear that it only covers 2003. So when 2004 comes around and SCO needs to cover a few more legal bills, Microsoft will have at least the option to pay more money to SCO for their dirty work. Also interesting is the grant of a warrant for up to 210,000 shares of common stock of SCO. Of course, that means that Microsoft wants to benefit from owning a piece of SCO. No surprise there. Microsoft has plenty of money to fuel the ill conceived effort by SCO to harm the Linux marketplace. And, as I have pointed out, Microsoft benefits from the up side should that occur. And, Microsoft is shielded from the down side should SCO's illegal activities result in extensive liabilities to IBM, Red Hat, SuSE, others and Linux contributors. In other words, Microsoft is directly involved in using its money to harm Linux. It may be shielded from legal liability. But, there is no question that Microsoft thinks its monopoly is better off engaging in this activity. And, it appears that Microsoft taking a license has nothing to do with a need to license Unix. That is a non-issue. This is all about causing harm to Linux and IBM in particular. And, it can not be about the respect for IP or contracts rights because SCO plans to breach its Linux contracts (the GPL) and steal all intellectual property in Linux and claim it as it's exclusive property. That is clearly not respecting the IP rights of others. And, Microsoft has the ability now to add more cash to the fire if the illegal effort is going well and competitors are being harmed by SCO efforts or limit its losses if it is not. But, it is absolutely clear that Microsoft is behind the effort to directly harm Linux and it is NOT related to a needed Unix license. If Microsoft even thought it needed a Unix license it would not have waited until now to get one NOR would it expire this year. This is simply a sham to use illegal means against a competitor. Let SCO do the dirty and illegal work but fund them as long as money fuels it. In other words, fund the contract to go after Linux using illegal means. [Thanks to GrokLaw for permitting a link to be placed on this site referring to SCO documents as they accumulate and for providing some direction to the above information.]
I was all set to admit you were right and I wrong until I read through the whole of the LamLaw reference. The quote from the 10-Q was:
"In connection with the execution of the first license agreement, we granted a warrant to the licensee to purchase up to 210,000 shares of our common stock, for a period of five years, at a price of $1.83 per share."
Lamlaw interpreted it as being Microsoft, since they were the only licensee mentioned by name in the 10-Q. Turns out the "first licensee" is Sun, not Microsoft. Sorry, but I Lamlaw got it wrong, not me.
...asking under what circumstances I'd need an SCO IP Linux licence. Got the standard email received reply, then when someone tried to tell me under what circumstances I'd need the licence I got this email: Our virus checker detected a virus in an email to you from: Please contact your system administrator for details. The email message was quarantined on our server Where it can be found in the file /home/vscan/msg17371.1061477734 .
Well I tried to find out about buying a license, but strangely SCO's email server has been down for over 72 hours now so they can't even be contacted...
Their recent actions prove that! They don't have a plan to sue anyone for Linux! Completely! Not a sign of any plan, PURE IMPROVISATION from the beginning to end!!!
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Sorry, screwed up the link
I've seen several comments to the effect of SCO is not consistent in their actions.
I'm sorry to say that yes they are very consistant. Their statements consistently look like the ramblings of a bunch of inbred morons who have no concept of what is right or the truth. They also consistently lie to their stock holders in order to inflate the price of their otherwise worthless company. SCO Unix was irrelevant when it was the original SCO. It is even less relevant now. My two dogs taking a dump contribute more to Linux, free software, and the General Good of the World than SCO Unix ever will. Instead of "Santa Cruz Operation", SCO should change its name to something more realistic and honest, like maybe "Some Crummy Obsolete Unix". If Darl McButtmonkey and his fellow retards (I started to call them stooges, but that is insulting to all the other stooges in the world) would spend some time actually working on a decent product they would not have to turn to lies and baseless threats to pump up their stock values.
Hey McButtmonkey, I use Linux commercially, and I've got a hundred bucks that says you don't have the balls to sue me for it...especially since eunuchs like you don't have balls.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
how about donating to the SCO "soap on a rope" fund? to help those blood orange poop hole execs in their time of future need. aww bless.
--Mods giveth, Mods taketh away--
SCO has no plan ...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
As evil as McBride may be, he's got nothing on Martha Stewart. Think of it this way... Which of the following is your wife more likely to say to you?
a)Honey, I think we need to spend $5,000 on a Feng Shui consultant to get the chi flowing in the living room...
b)Honey, it's not stupid. I swear, Martha used sponges just like these to paint her wall and it looked great! It's not like you had anything better to do today.
c)Honey, I think you should pay that Linux IP licensing fee to SCO for that web-server you have in the basement.
so many corporate organizations have ditched Linux because of this BS.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
..You'd gather up your friends, mount your horses, and ride through SCO's holdings, laying waste to every living creature you saw, putting the executives to the sword, and then burning it all down.
Oh, and salting the ground afterwards. We mustn't forget that.
There are days when civlization doesn't seem like a very large bit of progress.
You can't trust these guys. Shut SCO down. Boycott Canopy Group as well they are really pulling the strings here.
There have been many disgusting statements made recently concerning allegations of improper conduct on our part. These statements about us are totally false.
As we have maintained from the very beginning, we are hoping for a speedy end to the horrifying, horrifying experience to which we have been subjected. We shall not in this statement talk about the false allegations that have been made against us, since our lawyers have advised us that this is not the proper forum in which to do that. We will say that we are particularly upset at the handling of this matter by the incredible, terrible mass media. At every opportunity, the media has dissected and manipulated these allegations to reach their own conclusions. We ask all of you to wait to hear the truth before you label or condemn us. Don't treat us like a criminal, 'cause we are innocent.
We have been forced to submit to a dehumanizing and humiliating examination by the Slashdot website and other malicious websites earlier this week. They analyed our slide show, which involved viewing and photographing our penis, our buttocks, our lower torso, thighs, and any other area that they wanted. They were supposed to be looking for any discoloration, spotting, blemishes or any other evidence of a pathological compulsive lying disorder that I have previously spoken about.
It was the most humiliating ordeal of our lives, one that no company should ever have to suffer. Even after experiencing the indignity of this search, the parties involved were still not satisfied. They wanted to take even more pictures. It was a nightmare, a horrifying nightmare, but if this is what we have to endure to prove our innocence, our complete innocence, so be it.
see darl mcbride
I B M fills all his holes
with lawyer penis
I was comming back on Slashdot to post this becouse it only just occured to me...
(About 3 hours ago...)
Wow SCOs getting better at this. It was taking 3 seconds before I figured them out now it's 3 whole hours.
Keep it up guys and maybe you'll fool people for 3 days.
But sereously folks it hit me... SCO..
When SCO names features Linux got from SCO code Linus easly discovers the true authors and in some cases it's Linus himself.
SCO lists example code turns out to be code the corts declared public domain.
And it's code that has nothing to do with the features in question.
And It's not in Linux anymore.
SCO says they have no plans to sue Linux companys.
Well I guess when you actually think about it, in a convoluted way it's true.
SCO won't be suing a single company Linus ownes....
I don't actually exist.
"SCO Says It Has No Plan!"
(Proposed Mod: -1, Redundant)
They still don't expect to go to court, even though a buyout now looks unlikely they probably believe they can fold the company and just walk away with the pump&dump profits.
No 'concrete plans' means 'we're not paying a lawyer'. No court appearance means no chance of winning costs, so why incur any? PR threats are cheap, legal advice isn't.
Looks like sco servers are down again
( as of 06:46 AM EDT 08/29/2003 )
We do not have a history of profitable operations. Our future SCOsource licensing revenue is uncertain.
Hey McB, so you are now endorsing distribution of illegal product while you demand money from those who bought it?
What do you expect from these guys?
Until very recently they themselves were distributing this "illegal" product. This includes after they determined it was "illegal".
Seriously, something seems to be malfunctioning in the US legal system.
These people should, in any sane system, have gotten the same treatments they got from the courts in Germany.
That is: "Put up, or shut up!".
Not so unreasonable, is it?
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
As far as I recall, The original SCO complaint revoked IBMs license to use and distribute AIX as well (before aiming at Linux also). What has happened since then? SCO
filed for an injunction, are they close to getting it? Having worked in the ATC industry I know of atleast two countries who use AIX for their main Air traffic control systems.
I can see several governments being rather "annoyed" if SCO actually managed to succeed in their injunction against IBM and AIX.
If SCO actually did manage to revoke AIX, that would mean a large european country and most of the US's Airspace going down. nice one.
Just to help with their web servers load right now (ahem) this is the original AIX complaint
Interestingly, if IBM prevails (as most of the OSS community predicts) and is awarded huge damages, IBM may wind up owning the SysV code base after liquidation of SCO.
Can IBM use this power to make life difficult for the other vendors? Could IBM, for instance, drive HP off of HP-UX and SGI off of Irix? If so, where do they go? Do they join IBM in Linux or do they give IBM the finger and release a *BSD variant?
While the aftershocks of U.S. aggression continue to wreak havoc on the people of Iraq, another war has been waged on the people of the U.S. It's a war against democracy waged by the military industrial complex. Power has been taken from the hands of the people and given to a small group of corporations, aka, the walking dead.
predicted sentence for ALLEGED worm writer:
probation, & a box of worth less sco stock. although painful/embarrassing, that hardly qualifies as 'a world of hurt'.
remember the hurricane?
as for sco, as they are obvious FraUDs & stock markup felons/grand larceners, they'll likely get to keep all the monIE they've stolen so far, without any reprecussions.
lookout bullow. this continuance of the georgewellian fuddite corepirate nazi execrable/unprecedented evile, will be addressed as part of the planet/population rescue initiative.
as for va lairIE/robbIE's fauxking whoreabully infactdead PostBlock(tm) devise, byte me.
Maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of the end of this mess.
I certainly hope not. I want to see the end of this mess in a goddam trial, with discovery processes, evidence, and verdicts. I want to see the board of SCO strung up by their thumbnails on a scaffold built outside the NYSE. I don't want to see this end in a wimpy SCO backdown.
Seriously though, the best ending will be anything which results in the utter humiliation and bankrupcy of SCO. We (the software making and using community) need them to suffer some punishment (legal or market driven, I don't care which) which will deter others from running a similar scam.
"IBM lawyers, ATTACK!"
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
- - cut here - - /* hello.c
|
| A basic C language demo
|
| Copyright (C) Santa Criz Orginization. All Rights Reserved
| This program and all derivative programs are property of Santa Cruz Orginization.
*/
#include
int main()
{
printf("Hello, World!\n");
}
- - cut here - -
Here's the same code in perl...
- - cut here - -
#!/usr/bin/perl
# hello.pl
#
# A basic perl language demo
#
# Copyright (C) Santa Criz Orginization. All Rights Reserved
# This program and all derivative programs are property of Santa Cruz Orginization.
#
print "Hello, World!\n";
----------------cut here----------------
Since 'hello world' is the first program that most programmers write, all computer programs are derivitve of 'hello world'.
Of course SCO is not going to go after Linux companies. Most Linux companies can afford a decent defense. SCO would rather threaten and scare the individual users that cannot afford a good legal defense. They get quick money out of the users, or turn them away from linux, which hurts the Linux companies indirectly. SCO may not know how to write good software anymore, but they really know how to move the stock price, which is the primary business concern.
In no way do I think that I am God but I do try to keep God's light in my heart. I am totally innocent of any wrongdoing and I know these terrible allegations will all be proven false. Again, to my friends and fans, thank you very much for all of your support. Together, we will see this through to the very end. I love you very much and may God bless you all. I love you. Good-bye.
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html
Look at how many SCO execs have been exercising options in the 60 cents to US$2 range and then immediately dumping it at the current market price. I hope some of these fucks go to prison for stock manipulation when this is all over.
They're not running for the exits, they're taking the Concorde....
Yeah, they say they don't 'plan' to sue Linux companies. their 'plan' is to have everyone just agree with them and just start handing over money. dumb SCO. :-p
Yeah, I'm city livin' chillin' but I'm country at heart...
"Maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of the end of this mess"
O dear god no, what well I have to read with my coffiee in the morning on slashdat
O wate, maby real important news
Its going to be rough for the SCO employees when the end comes. I think they'll be out of buisness before long and just think of how many IT managers and hiring professionals are pro open source. Its gonna be rough to get a job when you say your from SCO!
Its going to be rough for the SCO employees when the end comes. I think they'll be out of buisness before long and just think of how many IT managers and hiring professionals are pro open source. Its gonna be rough to get a job when you say your from SCO!
Presumably this means if you don't want to cough up $699/cpu to SCO, all you have to do is become a Linux Company!
For sale: Linux CD's (Debian 2.1 CD1 only). 10 delivery included, anywhere in Central Luton. Outside Central Luton, please email webmaster@127.0.0.1 for extortionate postal rates.
You could have read it right here.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=76491&
Don't know why Taco rejected my original submission...
Looks like they finally got competent legal representation, who informed them their chance of winning this was akin to being hit on the head with a Soviet satellite.
Now the question is whether or not IBM and Red Hat will let them off the hook, or continue with their countersuits.
My rights don't need management.
SCO and its leagal team would like to say...
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
and thank-you for your support.
we are all retiring to a tropical nation with no extradition laws.
Just don't mention Trolltech!
You'll get scored "Troll".
Slashdot.... you know what...the real winner of this SCO vs IBM lawsuit is really slashdot because everytime when there's news about SCO, no matter how insignificant or unimportant, it will generate lots and lots of comments. So i'm beginning to suspect if SCO is owned by slashdot. Hell, I'm smoking crack too :P
Carpe Diem: Seize The Day!
Oh hahahah, yeah, homophobia is fu-nny!
IAMNAL but,
I think Linux companies may have reason to fight back,
SCO's remarks, if untrue - may result in lost profits for Linux companies.
A Class Action lawsuit would organize the various Linux Companies and allow them to pool their resources together - for the best case possible....
hope SEC is watching.
I don't believe it for a second. That's just their story this morning. This afternoon, they'll have a different story.
Bastard.
You just forced me to conjure up a picture of a naked Stallman firghtening the suits.
I'm going to have to erase it with at least a quart of bourbon...
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
They act crazy, they say the have awesome weapons that will destroy their enemies,
And when they acquired the technology behind those weapons they swore it was only going to be used for peaceful purposes.
It doesn't matter if SCO completely reverses their position, retracts everything they've said, and withdraws the lawsuits tomorrow. They cannot be allowed to just slink away and lick their wounds. The questions raised by this whole episode simply MUST be answered, and all doubts about the purity of OSS must be put to rest. If not, then GNU/Linux will be forever tainted and these demons will eventually come back to haunt us. We've got to PROVE to the world clearly, once and for all, that GNU/Linux is everything we've said it is. How do we do that?
"And now, Frank N. Furter, your time has come. Say 'goodbye' to all of this, and 'hello'... to oblivion!"
Wouldn't IBM be happy to invest into companies like Trolltech and LinuxNetworx? Beeing in the same boat as Canopy Group makes your mouth smell unpleasant.
...their obvious aim being, after all, to generate revenue. They can go after a larger number of less knowledgeable people.
>>The SCO Group said today it had never planned to sue any Linux companies, had no concrete plans to sue anyone and also no current plans to take a commercial Linux customer to court.
If you follow scox at all, you know that scox can choose their wording *very* carefully. So, maybe that statement isn't as clear as thought.
For example: "no current plans to take a commercial Linux customer to court." That is not saying that scox is not going to sue linux end users. Scox could still be holding to their "give us protection money or risk a lawsuit" policy.
They wouldn'thave sued IBM if IBM paid up the $3 billion. They won't sue Linux companies if they pay them either.....duh....
We have no plans on suing you right now, but pay us so won't sue you!
Considering that nearly every writer (except those who work for Forbes) realizes that the entire fiasco is about the manipulation of stock prices, that every bit of evidence they've provided has been utterly contradicted, including a major lie and backpedaling regarding the MIT researchers, I think the SCO case is on its way out.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
SCO 10q and just how much has Microsoft agreed to pay SCO?
Take name "MICROSOFT" and rearrange the letters and you get "SCO FROM IT"
hmmmmmmmmmmmm
#!/
"A gun is a tool, Marian. No better, no worse than any other tool. An axe, a shovel, or anything." Shane (1953)
Here's a link to the Canopy Group. This is hardly an overwhelming collection of companies.
My favorite is Planet Earth Tools. Oops! Make that SaberTooth Tools.
The idea that this collection of dopey companies is capable of mustering the resources for any anti-Linux conspiracy seems laughable.
evanchik.net
- points as I see it:
-
This is SCO Australia. i.e. they have no current plans in Australia.
- No current and/or concrete plans is diplomacy speak for "we're not ready to announce it yet".
- This is very different than SCO US sending letters to the 1500 customers they threatened a couple of months ago announcing that they've abandoned all plans to sue customers in the US.
In this SCO vs Linux thing, SCO has been acting like a cross between a drug-crazed waif babbling incoherently and a sociopathic liar saying different things to differnt people expecting that nobody is going to remember what was said elsewhere.In other words, there's really nothing serious to listen to here.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
SCaldera seems to be THREATENING to sue a lot. And trying to collect licenses.
But other than the original suit against IBM, I don't see them filing any.
This, despite the fact that they claim ALL Linux users, home, commercial, educational _NEED_ to buy their license, and they are sending out threat letters.
It'd seem to me that given that the world has basically given them the finger, they need to start actually _FILING_ such suits, or else they are guilty of extortion.
But they are afraid of countersuits in all 50 states and 100 countries. Which would be expensive. And they couldn't get contingency fee lawyers to do it for free.
Not to mention, that once they ACTUALLY sue a Linux user, they have opened the door for a class action suit.
Which is why I don't think SCO will actually file any such suit. They will threaten, and spin, and spew FUD, and of course, take the money anyone who falls for it offers them...
Corporatism != Free Market
My favorite quote from one of the timelines:
"We're fighting for the right in the industry to be able to make a living with software"
They consider profit an entitlement. As far as I know, there is no right to make a living with software, just an opportunity.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Of course, if Ralph Yarrow, head of Canopy Group, is sitting on your board of directors, what can you do?
But all of this could change if they hired Jovan Philyaw/Pulitzer. If anyone can save SCO, it would be the chief marketer of the Cue Cat. Then again, if you get too many people from SCO and M$ in the same room, the negative energy may turn the entire planet into a black hole.
Try federal "play ping pong with ImClone CEO" prison.
if we think it will bump up our stock price.
BTW, I see that Darl's grandmother is on Ebay...
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
SCO says they 'Have no plans to sue Linux companies...'
translation: 'Linux companies are going to sued next and soon'
I really wish that SCO would just say what they mean.
They have no "plans," no "concrete plans," etc. This is all worded this way for a reason. They don't want to pull their teeth here, since they are attempting to exact licensing fees on Linux users. You can bet if some 5,000 seat company said "Hey, SCO, go pound sand up your ass on this license crap!" they would likely start "re-thinking" their lawsuit strategy in regards to Linux users and companies. And keep in mind, they may eventually just put this under the umbrella of the BSA. I would think, though, they would have to win in court to do this, but I'm not sure. Here's to hoping they get a reality check way before then! JAV
Microsoft buys SCO. Microsoft sues Linux companies, end users.
The newly appointed North Korean information minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf has announced that the SCO Group's CEO, Darl McBride has
resigned his position to become the new Nuclear Arms Advisor for that country.
TT
And a few months later, he'll sell the house claiming that the deep blue water is another attempt by IBM to taunt him.
"To save the planet, I had to go to the worst spot on Earth, and that was Philadelphia." -- Sun Ra
SCO has apparently removed their
letter to Linux users from their web site.
The SCO Group said today it had never planned to sue any Linux companies, had no concrete plans to sue anyone and also no current plans to take a commercial Linux customer to court.
Kinda leaves us users out in the lurch, methinks. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
This sig no verb.
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing cirucmstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor coroprations have any righ to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
- Robert A. Heinlein, Life Line
Linux Networx is supplying the supercomputer to Los Alamos, not Livermore.
Our courts tend to award legal costs to the winner, so any action SCO brings could be very expensive, given the lack of supporting evidence they have provided so far.
What are the two biggest lies in Poland?
''The check is in your mouth'' and ''I won't come in the mail.''
Ok, let's get real here. This is SCO. SCO as of about a year ago can't even tell the truth!
Just watch!!
It takes a lot of money and effort to set up a distribution network for a software company. RedHat, SuSE, etc. are providing this service for FREE. Each additional copy of Linux (not GNU/Linux, because SCO only claims rights on the kernel) is another potential $700 for SCO. The more that are passed around, the more potential money SCO can make. Heck, SCO should be paying the Linux distributors for the additional revenue stream. The downside is that only a small fraction of the users will actually pay the money.
main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16| (31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
LN2 is cool!
Stock manipulation's a crime, so it would have to be the DA (ie, criminal court). Class-actions are civil. You can't do anything but sit on your ass and bitch about it, just like me. ;)
You're not the attorney general of, say, Utah, are you?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
"no more plans to sue anybody"
and
"maybe they're understanding the truth behind thier falsity and this is the beginning of the end of this mess"
Nope nope nope. Even if they stop everything tomorrow i don't feel they are "off the hook".
You don't go bullying people around, breaking the law with barratry, assaulting people with zealous lawsuits, making threats and all the fanfare in the press...... and then one day just saying "ok, nevermind" and expect everything to return to normal.
If SCO execs do this, i still say they should stand trial for everything they have done up until that point.
do() || do_not();
OH! Wait! We did another audit and we discovered we own all the Eunochs Source Code as well.
So anyone without male gonads owes us money.
$699.99 per Eunoch in your household.
Also, if anyone in your family lacks male gonads, you owe us a license fee or we will repossess your daughters.
Lesseeee...(gets out notepad) the license fee breakdown should go...(starts scribbling)...We'll charge
$699.99 for a daughter under the age of 14. $1200.99 for a daughter between the ages of 15 and 25.
$1500.99 if she's between 15 and 25 and is hottt and naughty.
$1350.99 for wives
$650.99 for mothers and sisters
$399.99 for grandmothers
$300.99 for each Aunt or female Cousin
also, ex-girlfriends are $32.50 each, as we (using our logic) consider them to be embedded devices.
Pay up now, because in 2004 four, not only are the prices going up, but we will add spayed and neutered housepets to the amount owed.
Actually not a bad idea. Of course, I do believe it's covered under my "sit on your ass and bitch." You're sitting in a chair (on your ass) at a desk, writing a letter (bitching). I'll probably end up whining at by cat's though. I think I'll rename the cat's ass "SCO."
On a more serious note, can one write to the SEC?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Yes, but that option is only open to SCO shareholders, not the general linux community who would rather burn in hell than own SCO stock.
I *suppose* you could get 50,000 linux users to all buy a share, but you wouldn't have any actual *damages* until SCO's stock tanks, by which time the whole point of the suit is moot because the war would have been won.
See the problem? It's hard to sue in civil court for manipulation when you're currently benefiting from it.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
1) They're all lawyers, and 2) they claim they own all the Unix patents... so, can you really beleive anything they say? Especially when they've already demonstrated their willingness to do practically anything to turn a quick buck?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of the end of this mess.
Or maybe it's just them trying to make what they are doing more legitimate in a court of law...
had no concrete plans to sue anyone and also no current plans to take a commercial Linux customer to court....
Yes, this could be the end to this mess. It could however be that they are still going to try to sue, and they're stance on the issue is going to be 'well, we gave you the option to buy a license... you didn't, so now we're going to sue you...' It could be that 'at this time' they don't have any plans to sue anybody, however, those who don't purchase one of their licenses will be sued...
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
My two dogs taking a dump contribute more to Linux, free software, and the General Good of the World than SCO Unix ever will.
I'm sorry, but I beg to differ with you on this... your two dogs contribute approximately as much as SCO/Caldera does, not more than they do... let's try to use only facts here, ok?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Imagine :
SCO wins against the GPL
All open source software dies
Utah National guard is called out to protect SCO HQ
6 million open source users decend on Lindon, Utah
Some of the Utah National Guard are (ex)Linux users.
Utah Guard does not fire on unarmed civilions.
Darl is torn limb from limb in the SCO lobby.
Canopy group last seen heading for amazon rain forest.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Does anyone know if there's significant shorting of SCO's stock going on?
If any company would be a prime candidate for a short sale, it would have to be SCO now.
Would it get reported if SCO insiders were shorting their own stock?
Here is a recent picture of closet Linux user, W Bush, after hearing this recent statement by SCO. I wouldn't be surprised if every Linux user out there has the same look on their face.
SCO, is it a "yes" or a "no"? Just choose!
Canopy owns stakes in several other Linux companies, including Linux Networx wheich supplied the supercomputer for Lawrence Livermore Nat Lab.
Is SCO going to charge Lawrence Livermore their licence scam fee? Could this have been planned from the start? Have one group you own sell a system, which you can then have another group charge for a scam licence fee for.
1. Sell a big multiprocessor system using one company.
1a. Profit!
2. Charge a licensing fee from another unrelated company.
2b. Profit!
3. ???? What other companies do they have ????
3a. Profit!
4. ????
5. Profit!
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Since they measure the importance of their company in number of press releases/year, we measure the ludicrousness of their claims in number of "SCO is smoking crack"-comments...
Notice who does the most and says the least? IBM. Suse and a few other companies don't care with SCO either, they filed a "put up or shut up" injunction and SCO shut up, at least locally. And once they've raved on long enough, we can start showing their inconsistancies, making them look stupid. IMO we're already at that stage...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I wonder if this statement by SCO is a 'white flag' response to the DOS attacks they've been under?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
FYI, I was able to borrow SCOX shares from Scottrade this morning. I had to call up to do it.
"If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald "The SCO Group said today it had never planned to sue any Linux companies, had no concrete plans to sue anyone and also no current plans to take a commercial Linux customer to court."
At GROKLAW there is speculation that this is the start of an attempted defense to the Red Hat suit.
It's certainly an odd move, as only days ago, SCO said "We are in the process of contacting them about coming into compliance and taking a UnixWare license from us. If they refuse to do so, we will sue them directly and see them in court", and apparently claimed to have three groups working on identifying and approaching Linux users, plus were preparing to take a Linux user to court.
As this really does seem like the beginning of an attempted defense to Red Hat's law suit. It would seem like a good idea for the community to collect as many examples of SCO's legal threats as possible - especially to Linux companies and Red Hat in particular - and post them - as well as make Red Hat aware of SCO's latest PR spin, and all the contradictory evidence in their prior actions.
We've gone to red alert, people! Major threat to the entire population of Earth! Someone on Slashdot has predicted the immenent death of the net.
Help us build a better map!
Memo to slashdotters: Of course SCO won't sue Linux companies, that's why in the 6 months since they filed suit against IBM they didn't also file against Red Hat, SuSE, TurboLinux, Debian, Mandrake and any others. They certainly are willing to sue end users though. Wait and see.
These people need to go to jail.
It looks like SCO may be showing a glimmer of sanity at last. I was starting to look forward to continual, hillarious insanity from SCO for months to come (until they finally get crushed).
If they keep making sane statements like this, they might actually pose a threat or something.
Come on, SCO! Let's get back to the inane tirades of yesterdays! They were very amusing.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
1) Scox gets extension against redhat injunction.
2) Scos web-server goes down (scox blames ibm backed linux community).
3) Scox web-server is back up - but changed, lots of scox claims now missing.
4) Archieved claims are missing - can't be found with serch engines.
5) Scox is now saying: "we were never going to sue anybody."
Desperate little scam. Will it work?
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html
Shows that insider stock trades are rapidly approaching the two million dollar mark since June.
From u the inquirer
Blake Stowell, director of public relations at SCO, told the INQUIRER late today: "Just because we aren't "planning" to sue Linux companies doesn't mean we won't. [...]
Also, just because we are saying that we won't sue Linux companies doesn't mean that we won't sue Linux customers".
My conjecture is that at this time they can't afford the retainer to Boise et al to undertake any new litigation.
An alternate theory is based on the fact that their "letter to Linux users" has indeed disappeared from www.sco.*: perhaps the pseudo-softening of their position is the result of a cease-and-desist order.
A dumb CEO named McBride,
....Now he's cuffed and he's jailed,
....Because freedom prevailed,
Made his stock price go up when he lied,
Said his cellmate, "You're in for a ride."
* * *
For Immediate Release
August 24, 2003
The terrorist organization SCO (NASDAQ: SCOX) today announced that it has placed two Lincoln Continentals in Linus Torvald's driveway. "We hope to convince Mr. Torvalds that he is breaking the law by helping to create software that may be used to compete with SCO," said a spokesperson for The SCO Group. SCO alleges that Linux source code violates SCO copyrights by having been illegally copied into UNIX System V.
Blake Stowell, Director of Public Relations for The SCO Group, publically announced:
Later, in an interview, SCO CEO Baghdad McBride cried, "There are no Americans in Iraq, er, I mean, Linux programmers are commiting suicide by the hundreds outside the Gates of SCO! We have them surrounded and there is no escape! The sword: Take the sword without any fear," he said. "Let them be witness to that. Take out the sword on the enemies against you! Long live the Jihad against free software!"Further, SCO alleges that the GPL, under which Linux is licensed, is invalid in the United States because the following clause is prohibited by former USSR Copyright Law:
Baghdad McBride said, "In Soviet Russia, documents make copies of you!"Like a cocaine addict, SCO stock soared to new highs after today's announcement.
(Moderators: Please score the limerick... The remainder of this post is what comes after the "but wait, there's more!")
* * * (Please, help me finish this limerick... I'm drawing a blank.) There was a dumb CEO named McBride,
.
.
.
And this was the scandal he tried:
HEY, LINUX! WORK HARD AND YOU WILL BE SCO'D
w hi te_paper.pdf
e l) we find
The "new SCO" (formerly Caldera) is not the only member of the Canopy
group (http://www.canopy.com) still distributing the Linux kernel.
Canopy group member Linux Networx, depite the name incorporating
alleged software pirate Linus Torvald's notorious trademark, has
distributed the latest Linux kernel but one, even after SCO made
its allegations, aggregates the kernel with the work of others,
and continues distributing the source and binaries for
that derived work today.
Now you might think that as a member of the Canopy Portfolio, Linux
Networx would respect the claimed intellectual property of another
Canopy Portfolio member. However, not even the Canopy group itself takes
SCO/Caldera's claims seriously. As recently as May 1st, 2003, Linux
Networx was uploading Linux source and binaries to the FTP site,
ftp://ftp.lnxi.com. Linux is still distributed from that venue today.
Their customers are referred to this site in the white paper for their
Linux BIOS product,
http://www.linuxnetworx.com/products/linuxbios_
There, under the linuxbios directory
(ftp://ftp.lnxi.com/pub/linuxbios/kern
linux-2.4.20.tgz 5/1/2003 3:24:00 PM
Suprisingly, however, this file is not actually the Linux 2.4.20
kernel.
4ef3a43d8fa4d8166a8bdcadd4285f80 *linux-2.4.20.tgz
It turns out to be based on linux-2.4.20.tar.gz, a pristine kernel as
downloaded from the kernel.org distribution site, with two patches
applied. Both patches are included in the toplevel directory of the
new aggregate distribution being distributed by Linux Networx. They
are:
patch-2.4.21-pre4
and
linux-2.4.21-pre4.mtd-thayne_rc1.patch
Both patches seem to be commonly available on the net.
In addition, it contains the vmlinux binary and many build artifacts,
mostly ".o" files.
Linux 2.4.21 pre4 puts this kernel on the development branch
immediately preceding today's stable Linux kernel, 2.4.22. In
addition, by aggregating this allegedly infringing kernel with two
other derivative works, created by others, Linux Networx is itself
creating and distributing a derivative work, both binary and source.
They are doing this, however, without any notation of the changes they
have made in so doing as required by the GPL--though it is easy enough
to infer from the included patch files. They are (1) calling their
aggregate distribution Linux, and (2) distributing it under the same
version as a commonly available Linux kernel.
Now, naming and distributing a Linux 2.4.21pre4 kernel with the title
"2.4.20" is a bit sloppy. It also violates the GPL provision that
your changes must be noted and clearly labelled. So, in addition to
using Linus Torvald's trademark, violating the GPL, *and* tresspassing
egregiously on SCO's alleged copyright claims, all at the same time,
Canopy group members are distributing falsely labelled kernels.
As a respected and active member of the Linux community, the Canopy
group should disavow all association with SCO's actions. Or, if they
prefer not to be respected, they should unlink alleged software pirates
like TrollTech and Linux Networx from their own homepage. Or maybe they
should just go and f^Hsue themselves.
I know this is a late comment, but one should note that under SCO in the news on www.sco.com they have a link to story entitiled 'Unix users warned on SCO legal action subtitled "take nothing for granted". I guess you should also note that their header "SCO | SCO Grows your business" makes absolutely no sense...that's like saying Water grows plants..unless they are intimating that my business will pop completely out of a seed they sowed like a farmer grows plants (which makes no sense if I have a business), I think they mean "causes your business to grow"
The part where I get lost is about SCO shooting off "legal cloud over Linux" letters. It's one thing if that refers to "users of IBM's distro". If that refers to users of other distros, the mere mention of The Finn could blow the suit out of the water.
I should probably step back a notch on that statement. It should probably have been "a detailed explanation of the development processes behind Linux proper would negate SCO's FUDmail to corporate clients of Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, et al."
A decade back, the Santa Cruz Operation was synonymous with one of the attempts to port Unix to the i386. I learned this from a Solaris ad of that point in time, one component thereof reading, "Just say no to SCO." (Back then, the search for profit meant building a better mousetrap.)
I can't help but wonder when somebody's going to use the term "fraud" in this matter, in the context of "fraud upon the court" or "fraud against customers"--dig deep in CNet's article of May 14. Some posts on this topic have already suggested stock fraud.
If I haven't already broken wind on the proverbial lit match, check this out.
If a beginning of an end does appear in sight (now or in the future), should the Linux community provide SCO an easy way out and a stern warning, or should we obliterate them?
Both approaches have significant pros and cons, and should be considered now if not already.
A careful analysis of the SCO debacle can only lead one to the conclusion that they have no expectation of winning any lawsuit; for that is not their objective. They have been paid by M$ to create FUD (via a phony license deal).
Related to this is the patent suit that M$ has supposedly lost. Again, the idea is to create FUD for GPL software as the end user could be sued for using patented software. M$ could have won this suit. They will now say, "because of this laws suit, we have to make changes to IE incorporating priority protocols making it even less compliant with open standards.
In the mean time, our 'bureau of standards' has not come out with a standard for a federal file format for text documents (or spread sheets) that lets M$ keep their monopoly in place.
I can't wait for the time when Darl McBride is some Mexican/Colombian guy's new girlfriend in prison...
Trian
I'm no longer fed up with MS Windows: I go rid of them
In other news, NASA officials have reported that their latest multispectral Earth Observation Satellite in geosynchronous orbit over the Pacific has detected a line of mysterious brown spots that apparently "appeared overnight".
NASA officials reported that the line extended from Sydney to what appeared to be "a real steaming pile of it" in Redmond, Washington.
NASA went on to point out that this line is oddly similar to another line detected by its LandSAT satellite-- extending from Redmond, WA to "somewhere in Utah".
Duh.
"No plans to sue Linux companies"
Translated:
means tomorrows headlines will read "SCO is sueing Linux Companies"
It's like...... beyond being predictable but rathetr an expectation.
Looks like the SCO website has gone down again
2:16 am GMT 30/8/03 (hey, thats a palindrome!)
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Updated Inquirer story:
Blake Stowell, director of public relations at SCO, told the INQUIRER late today: "Just because we aren't "planning" to sue Linux companies doesn't mean we won't. We tried to avoid suing Red Hat, but they seemed to bring the litigation upon us, not us upon them. Also, just because we are saying that we won't sue Linux companies doesn't mean that we won't sue Linux customers".
Whilst reading the one over at linuxonline, I had a Thought:
Red Hat and a couple others are countersuing SCO for negatively impacting their market (or whatever the legal terms they used were), right? So...
What if everyone who uses linux in a business environment were to file for similar damages against SCO, even if it were only in small claims court? Remember that in small claims court, if you don't show up to defend yourself, typically you lose by default. And it's likely to come before the judge a lot sooner than would a major lawsuit.
Thoughts from anyone who IAL??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
She's not only guilty, but she also gave campaign money to the Democrats instead of the GOP.
The filthy whore.
The moment at which I realise the reason for SCO's recent behaviour, that one blinding flash of inspiration that reveals quite clearly that.... THE FUCKERS HAVE GONE NUTS!!
That's it! No other reason, no conspiracy they've just gone stark staring ape shit mental!
I'm just waiting for the headline SCO declare black to be white to prove it
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Copied from GROKLAW comment, with some spelling corrections only
i 091.htm
. htm#bre-x
SCOX = BRE-X
BRE-X if you remember was a struggling small town Canadian mining company.
Midland Walsh, one of the principals (founder?), was famous for suing a former employer and getting a settlement for an undisclosed sum.
BRE-X suddenly said they found these incredibly huge gold deposits in a mine in Indonesia.
BRE-X said they had their own secret teams of experts, whose identities they couldn't reveal, supporting their claims (assaying of core samples for gold).
Industry experts criticized the techniques for assaying which were unorthodox, didn't follow industry standard practises.
The company's reports (with incredible claims) were criticized by industry experts for the same reasons. The industry experts were ignored.
Despite this media and stock analysts preferred the company's version to that of the industry experts. Some analysts really pushed the stock hard.
As more and more discrepencies in the companies story came to light, the company produced a series of increasingly unsatisfactory explanations, which were debunked by industry experts too.
The stock prise rose and rose on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Massive relatively uncritical media coverage.
Insiders cashed out millions of stock. I think it was a tiny fraction of the total company, but still a lot of money to them.
Eventually it turned out the samples from the mine had been faked. All was revealed. The stock price crashed so badly in a single day that it broke the software for the Toronto Stock Exchange.
Links to BRE-X story:
Short summary: http://www.goodreports.net/bregoo.htm
Long version of story: http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/Research/1999/SRIBR/99sr
The tech stuff: http://minerals.state.nv.us/programs/min_fraudami
Could this tin-foil hat theory be true?
For #1: Lots of people report difficulty (impossiblity) of buying SCO Linux IP licenses. They don't seem to be actively trying to actually sell their new product - or actively pursue their riches by litigation strategy.
For #2: So many secrets - the code gold, the code analysts, the Linux IP customer, etc
How to disprove: SCO to provide, or some enterprising reporter to find and properly verify any of the SCO secrets
I noticed that after the "source" was leaked and then reviewed by linus torvalds, who basically stated that SCO is full of shit, and stated that anything resembling that code is gone now.. sco backed off quickly, they know they're gonna lose that battle, so now it's random major corporation attack time, this time, SGI. also, did anyone else ever notice that if you focus on the blue part of the caldera icon, that it looks like mickey mouse? WOW! come on disney! pull an sco already and sue them for using a design that might be your property! bleh. I ran out of ideas a while ago.