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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
... 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
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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".
I guess they're hoping to acquire^h^h^h^h^h^h^hextort enough from their suit against IBM to pay for suing everyone else. I think if you're going to do the frivolous lawsuit thing that the RIAA has a better plan: screw the small fish who can't afford to fight it. IBM ain't gonna settle this one the way an average linux user might, simply because they have orders of magnitude more money. SCO bit off more than they can chew just taking on IBM, let alone with what appears to be a baseless case.
What I want to see is IBM win, then go after SCO's assets (what few will be left) and press for criminal charges against its execs.
Whatever happens, after reading ESR's Haloween 9 yesterday, I don't think anybody should want to keep the OpenServer cruft...win it and then put it out of everyone's misery.
What is your Slash Rating?
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/
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.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
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
In post-Soviet Russia, gangster extortionists are a constant hazard of doing business.
SCO would fit in pretty well over there.
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.
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
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!"