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.
SCO lies about everything; why wouldn't they lie about this?
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!
Or they could be refering to Australia only. since an Austrailian user group filed a "put up or shut up suit".
Basic timeline:
...
1. Caldera goes bankrupt
Now they're trying to change it to this:
1. Caldera goes bankrupt.
a. Sells out, changes name to SCO
b. Threatens IBM
c. Threatens Linux Users
d.
But in the end, they're done for.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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
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?
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?
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".
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
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.
Here is a little problem with that. Red Hat, SuSe and the major distro actually *gasp* use their own products. In fact there have been informal surveys of web sites to see who actually "eats their own dog food" and most sites do. In fact here and look at the answer to the 6th question. 95% of of 600 is 570 so is SCO going to file 570 individual lawsuits. Is Red Hat going to get a bill for $398,430 dollars? Now you could say that that SCO can pick and choose who it is going to sue but I don't know that this is entirely true. If two groups or individuals A and B are both in clear violation and you choose only to sue A and not B then you do damage to your can and I believe it could even be thrown out if you can't show why A and not B. If A is the worst violator and B is small time then a judge might go along, but if a judge sees a company going after the small infringer and avoiding a suit of a clearly much larger violator then he will not be amused.
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.
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".
One reason to buy SCO stock is to hedge against them winning.
Suppose SCO is demanding $100 per Linux server, and you have 10 such servers. Then if they win you will need to find $1000. If SCO's stock price currently reflects a 5% chance of them winning, then any stock you do buy will increase 19-fold in value if they win. Therefore you need to buy $1000/19 worth of SCO stock to hedge against the risk. Of course you'd do this only if you think the 5% estimation by the market is about right, or too low - or if you think it's a bit too high but you're risk-averse.
If SCO wins, your stock should appreciate in value enough to cover the protection money you have to pay. If SCO lose, you've wasted about $52 on their now-worthless stock.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
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.
So...does this mean we now have the solution for the infamous 2. ???? entry?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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!"