Slashdot Mirror
SCO Invoices For Unix Licenses Get Closer
beggs writes "BusinessWeek, InfoWorld and the EE Times Online all have stories about SCO's plans to send out license invoices to Linux vendors for 'Unix license fees for Linux.' The experts advice: Wait and see what happens with the court cases before you pay." RowLowy points to ZDnet's story, which says that "SCO will pursue commercial Linux users who have discussed their Linux work publicly ... However, it won't take action until it's done more research on those businesses." JayR writes to say that Michael Dell recently told a gathering of Dell investors that Dell Computer will offer no protection from SCO lawsuits to customers who buy Linux-based systems from Dell. Keep score: an anonymous reader points out that SCO executives are still selling off their stock. Total proceeds in August of over $600,000. Senior Vice President Reginald Broughton tops the list with over $300,000."
Yay! Another SCO story. I was going into withdrawal here.
That said, is there anyone left out there who doesn't think that SCO executives were all along trying to pull a pump-n-dump of their own stock?
Isn't this somewhat like extortion?
I mean demanding money for things that you had no input in? It's like me asking everyone who uses Windows to pay me because I think Ms stole my code. Hmm I think I'd have more reason than SCO actually..I did sent Ms some beta bug reports...
In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
In Germany, SCO got fined $10,800 for one offense. If they send multiple extortion letters, they will be fined for each letter. Or alternately, I hope the US courts wake up and follow the lead of the German courts.
lots of companies don't pay invoices unless they quote a purchase order number which matches the invoiced amount to within 5%
Corporation have WAY too much control over the legal process and society. They're wielding their greed-drunk power without any thought for anything except their profit.
Remember "No Face" from Spirited Away? Think about it. Better to keep them out of the bath house.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Have a look at their total holdings, HUNSAKER, JEFF F. Vice President will be cashed out completely in 1-2 months at current rate. Even the larger holders at the current rate will be cashed out in a year.
James
...you can refer to when SCO start FUDing about "liability for Linux customers"?
If Audi stole Honda's copyrighted engine design, would Audi owners be sued because they their car contains a part that is the result of copyright infringement? No.
Isn't there some law, some precedence you can easily refer to and dismiss this as FUD? It'd do a lot to stop (corporate) Linux end-users from worrying.
Because, even if all of SCOs wild claims are right, I still don't see how there is any possible grounds for customer liability. But I've yet to see a piece of legislation that actually says so.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Finance Manager: Got this invoice from SCO for some linux licenses, but it doesn't reference a Purchase Order number.
Me: We never ordered anything from them
Finance Manager: Do we use this Linux thing?
Me: Yes, but we bought it through Redhat, here is the approved purchase orders and copies of our payment vouchers
Finance Manager: So we have no business relationship with this company, nor received any goods or services from them?
Me: No
Finance Manager: Thanks, I'll forward it to the state attorney general's office for investigation.
At the very least sending fraudulent invoices, and misrepresenting a disputed issue must be a criminal action ?
What does sco's staff consist of ? Every loser that the canopy group could find ? Do they all figure that knowingly participating in a criminal conspiracty won't have repercussions for them.
If you work at SCO and are reading this, ask yourself why isn't Microsoft willing to do its own dirty work and do you think they will come to your rescue if this hits the fan.
The probable truth is that SCO is getting free press every day, and /. is certainly no exception there. Didn't it ever occur to folks here that press is all they're looking for?
SCO bigwigs don't expect their company to pull through this, and they don't really care. All they're doing is keeping their company in the news and giving current and potential investors the impression that they are an aggressive, profit-driven company.
Once they have deemed that investors have thrown enough money their way (and driven the stock price high enough), they will bail. This will end with SCO a flaming wreck, and its executives rich, and that's ALL they want.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
From this I gathered that IBM is doing the bare minimum they need to, and are letting SCO burn itself out. I also postulated that Arnold Schwarzenegger was refusing to be in the California debates to distance himself from the pack of other contenders, and raise his importance/stature above that of the masses.
Just like IBM, to fit so much information in a very small space.
SCO says:
"We are going to send invoices to Linux users any time now"
"We are going to send invoices to Linux users any day now, and if they don't pay we will SUE them."
"We are going to send invoices to Linux users this month, and if they don't pay we will SUE them... and we MEAN IT."
"We are probably going to send invoices to Linux users before the end of this month and if they don't pay we will give them every opportunity to pay before we sue them."
Soon, with Apu's accent:
"We are going to nicely send invoices to Linux users before the end of the year and if they don't pay... we will nicely send them invoices again."
Just wake me up when there is news that somebody actually received one of these invoices, no need to make ten stories about them sending them RSN each time they threaten to send them.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
That would be wonderful, but is, of course purely speculative.
Many have said that SCO picked the wrong company to start this little fiaSCO with, and this might show exactly why.
Given the nature of the IBM legal team, it's possible that they're not just going to remove SCO from threatening Linux and AIX (and by extention a major slice of IBMs business future) but the people pulling SCOs strings.
BTW, that should be Ralph J. Yarro, I think. Do a google search on Ralph J. Yarro - the first page is almost all links to "insider trading" going on not only SCO, but Altiris as well.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Dell offers no protection for systems with Windows installed.
Microsoft does not offer protection for systems with Windows installed.
Apple offers no protection for people with OS/X installed.
Sun offers no protection for people with Solaris installed.
Do we see a patern here?
Heck if your new car's brakes fail and you crash into a bus of Nuns takinq orphans to a puppy farm do you think the car company will offer indemification? Heck no.
No large company on the face of this earth will indemify another company. Large companies understand this. It is just the press and normal people that do not. If a large customer of Dell's gets sued by SCO then they will try and entagle Dell in the suit or if they loose, sue Dell.
It is not Dells fault. SCO is using the scumbag tactic of going after the small fry hoping to scare them into giving them money. Even if SCO looses they will not refund their money! Why doesn't SCO sue Dell for selling Linux, or SuSE, or SUN... Wait Sun is going to release a version of Linux SCO says SUN in not indanger of a law suite since they have the rights to redistribute Unix. So if SUN which is safe releases a Linux Distro under GPL then...
1. All the Linux code that SUN releases is now SCO safe under GPL with SCO's blessing
OR
2. SUN is breaking their agreement with SCO and releasing SCO's IP under GPL with full knowlage that they are doing so. So they should be added to the law suite ASAP. In fact if SCO does not add them then they could be considered to be giving permison to release the code as GPL.
OR
3. Sun is breaking the GPL and needs to be sued.
This could be interesting.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Give credit where credit is due: This is the result of an overly complex, ambiguous, highly exploitable system of law. We are looking at a problem with government, not the corporations which are only playing the hand they've been dealt.
If we want to address the problem, we need to cure the disease. Attacking the symptoms won't do a damn thing to change the way things work.
Actually, it does matter. Because if you invoice over a good/service that you didn't provide, but you are claiming that you DID, that is fraud, which is a federal offence. If a judge rules that there is SCO code in Linux, AND that Linux users have to pay, then all is good for SCO. But if the judge determines that there ISN'T any code, or that users don't have to pay, then SCO could very well get charged with one count of fraud for every invoice they sent.
At least, that is MY understanding of fraud. IANALASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
They will have to act. Sending out blanket invoices to companies in hopes that some percentage of them paying, sounds like an illegal get rich scheme to me.
Otherwise, why don't we all just create invoices and just swamp the corporate world with $54 invoices for 1 box of Xerox paper?
Linux/GNU is "protected" under GPL.
SCO has tossed aside GPL as unenforceable.
SCO is charging users for IP it claims was originally generated at SCO.
SCO, under the name Caldera, distributed Linux/GNU software
Does the door swing both ways? Can individuals within the open source community turn around and sue SCO/Caldera for distributing its intellectual property?
I mean, if SCO is claiming the GPL isn't valid and only the original copyright holder can claim copy right, didn't they illegally distribute TONS of illegally copied software?
:wq
you're right, its probably not extortion, but it certainly may come under Federal Mail Fraud charges
OOOOOH! I hope they send some to Minnesota!! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!
I know Attorney General Mike Hatch is looking for another bich to slap
Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
I don't think SCO is stupid enough to actually send invoices. That could get them in legal hot water.
I doubt most companies are going to blindly roll over and pay them. If one shows up, they'll ask their Linux salesperson, or inhouse Linux geek, who will most likely tell them not to pay it.
As another poster pointed out, if you do actually receive one, send copies to the Postal inspector, and Attorney General.
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
Your comments on music CDs makes me think of past cases where a musician has been sued for copyright infringment. You didn't see the artist who was claiming his work was infringed upon trying to sue music buyers (or even the music stores that sold the item).
In my opinion, the real problem with SCO billing people and companies now, before a court has even ruled of the merits of SCO's claims, is that someone probably will pay them.
The SCO case demonstrates the desparate need for Tort Reform in this country.
SCO has no case. They are all smoke and mirrors. However, the money required to hire the lawyers to fight SCO will probably cost more than paying SCO. Second of all, SCO can do more damage to Linux companies than SCO is worth.
Also, SCO's strategy of suing the end users is pure extortion. Even if SCO was right and Linux did infringe on SCO's IP, there is absolutely no legal precedent for holding the end users liable, especially since SCO will not mention the infringing code. However, the cost of fighting the lawsuit is greater than the cost of paying SCO. Extortion, pure and simple.
The best tort reform (which would also be useful in the DirecTV case) would be to not allow the suit to be filed unless the plaintiff presented evidence of wrong doing and legal liability on the part of the defendant. Unless the plaintiff can show this, the courts shouldn't even give them the time of day.
para 106-122 of copyright law. I won't bore you with details here (its very long), but it boils down that there is nothing that says that having a copy of a work is a violation. It is all about reproduction and distribution.
Real world example time. I write a book and I sell First North American publishing rights to XYZ publisher. They publish a european edition of my book, which is a violation of my copyright, since I did not sell them those rights. Do I sue or invoice everyone with a copy of my book in europe or do I sue the publisher. The publisher of course since they are the infringing party.
The simple matter of this is that SCO should be suing the distributors and not the end users, since they have no right to do so!
Their legal thinking on this whole debacle has been laughable from the beginning. What is my opinion? I think they're trying to get a bunch of gullable folks to send them money. And, oh yeah, their claims are full of shit.
The one claim by SCO's legal group that really bothers me (as an unpublished author) is the whole "GPL contravene's federal law by allowing more than one copy" crap. That would be in reference to Para 117: Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs, section a. This is a limitation on me as a developer to say that I do not have the right to claim that someone making a copy in order to use or archive is infringing. This in no way can be construed to mean that I as the author of a program cannot give people additional rights. It just means that I have to give them AT LEAST the right to make those copies. Heise and Boies both should be disbarred for those statements. Ok rant over, I feel better.
I'm sure it goes without saying, but IANAL. Just someone who knows enough to read the law.
Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
The thing that makes this even harder to swallow is that there are 41 motions on that website that have been filed, and you know that each and every one of them has cost each side thousands of dollars just to have some guy read it and respond. Thats at least a half a mil on both sides (probably much more), just to deal with the paperwork.
/.
Thousands of dollars? Those are some insanely high priced lawyers. If you get a top flight lawyer at $500/hour and it takes an average of 2 hours to read and respond to each filing, then that's only $41,000. Sure, it's not chump change, but it's hardly the half a million you figured.
how many of the poor sumbitches getting invoices can?
Uh, an invoice is not a legal document. I can invoice you for $50. Are you going to pay it? If so, let me get you a real invoice out post haste.
Most likely you (and most companies) will ignore it because I sent you an invoice for something you didn't order. Better yet, it's an invoice from some company that you've never done business with. Most of the invoices will go in the trash. Some companies will note that legal action is threatened and they'll send it to a lawyer, probably on staff. Or to one that'll charge them There is nothing worse than legitmizing an illegal action because the illegal action would cost less than finding justice.
Is that worse than having to close up shop, fire all your employees, and declare bankruptcy for your business (and maybe yourself if you didn't incorporate, were too dependant on your business, or did a poor job of maintaining the corporate veil)? There are noble concepts and then there's reality.
IANAL, and even if I was you'd be a damn fool to take legal advice off of
Where is the SEC in all this? Doesn't anybody see that this is just a floundering company's feeble attempt to gain profit. This is clearly a case for the SEC. Look at the artificially inflated stock price. The executives are selling their crappy stock at huge gains by bringing up this trumped up lawsuit. The SEC should be having a field day with SCO. These guys are criminals and should be prosecuted for such blatant, slanderous tripe. Come on system! Work! It is just like Enron. Fake company and fake profits.
Essentially, sending a fraudulant invoice through the US mails is a crime
And no, ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. So even if SCO thought they were in the right sending these invoices, they can be busted for fraud. (Just like they're trying to bust Linux users who never intended on infringing SCO's alleged copyright).
$8.95/mo web hosting
The ocean parts and the meteors come down
Laid out in amber, baby.
I thought SCO are argueing that the GPL is invalid and that all GPL code is public domain ...
;) ), in suing someone for using code from public domain? That would also mean anything they do is also public domain. I seriously doubt that that is what they are intending by claiming GPL to be invalid. Probably more like all GPL code is copyrighted and thus NOT in public domain. I could be wrong.
o.O Then.. how would SCO have any reason, or hell validity (hold off the obviousness of that
.unsigged
You have to learn to read these scox press releases very carefully. For example: scox said they don't plan to sue linux users, then the same day scox said: just because we don't plan to, doesn't mean we won't.
>>the first batch of bills being sent to around 1,000 US users.
Note the wording? "around 1000" that could mean less than 5.
>>is likely to result in legal action, the company warned>"A large number of commercial Linux users could begin receiving [invoices] in the next month or two.
"could begin"
>>"I would say that a batch in the neighbourhood of 1,000 or so would go out." >"Sooner or later the invoicing will reach European companies I'm sure
"sooner or later" = never.
>>Companies that refuse to pay the invoice may need to have this resolved through the courts,
"may need"
Add it all up. Scox is saying exactly nothing. It's all hype. But isn't that the way fud works?
I have always believed that personal integrity is one of the biggest indicators of likely success. A few years ago that was an unfashionable position to take, today in the wake of Enron, Haliburton, Sunbeam etc. more people seem to take my point of view.
I remember back when the Cantor and Segal thing hit telling Laurence Canter that the Hi Tech industry was a small pond and that most of the people who got rich from it did so by being a part of the right circles, playing the inside game. Few people can have realized the potential of the internet as early as Canter and Segal did and ended up worse off than they started as a result.
I think it will turn out the same way for the SCO folk. It is not like they have skills that are exactly sought after in the Windows world. It is going to be interesting seeing these chuckleheads trying to get jobs at IBM and Red Hat in a years time.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/