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."
"and if my accountant is watching please STOP PAYMENT on this check"
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.
So will they relax a bit and stop hounding us when the last executive has sold his last share ?
lots of companies don't pay invoices unless they quote a purchase order number which matches the invoiced amount to within 5%
now when you all recieve your invoices, its time to make a class action lawsuit claiming damages!
:V
also put this under caldera news so i can block stupid SCO articles
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!
Sure, we won't sue linux companies. We are going to go straight to billing them!
So I guess they weren't lying!
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
So.....this means that SCO is (hypothetically) going to send me an invoice for $699 for each Linux box I'm running, having offered no actual proof that they own any of the code therein.
Cheeky bastards. I could just as reasonably send my clients an invoice for the use of the proprietary PHP code on my web page.
Don't Panic!
...make great toilet paper.
Although they may not flush well after use - better to send them back from whence they came, once you got your use out of it.
Please use a plastic-lined envelope - no need to punish the poor mail carrier for SCO's stupidity.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
before you flame me - hear me out. i was just talking to my workmate, and he exclaimed 'SCO is awesome'. i was a bit taken aback, but after he explained himself i agree.
:) ....
it goes a little something like this: SCO is awesome because they guys are just so UTTERLY ridiculous. as idiotic as their thinking is, you have to respect the confidence they have to send out invoices. it is sort of like those poor flys and insects who are attracted to the bright lights of a bug zapper - as many times as they've seen their comrades electrocuted, they still have the wherewithal to fly directly to their deaths. well SCO, you haven't got long to live, so you might as well go out with a bang.
feel free to send me that invoice, by the way, i'm out of toilet paper
smd4985
well it's maybe because dell isn't in the same business as sco is, selling 'protection' from 'something bad that might happen'.
-
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
BTW, Darl, I'm looking for a new job. Considering that I have no legal experience whatsoever, can think of loads of silly lawsuits in under 5 minutes (see above), I think I'll fit in perfectly with your legal team.
This is the most interesting thing I've seen so far today: "Docket Text: Return of service executed re: Subpoena served on Canopy Group c/o Ralph Yanno on 8/26/03" -- here.
Could this be IBM going for the neck of the hydra? That would be... wonderful.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
...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.
Docket Text: Return of service executed re: Subpoena served on Canopy Group c/o Ralph Yanno on 8/26/03
The guy's name is Ralph Yarro actually. I happen to have met him personally when the Canopy company I worked for held its last Christmas party and he's definitely your typical hateable VC investor.
Good for him if he gets into trouble. That'll make my company's 7 rounds of layoffs in 2 years easier to swallow.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
First off, SCO would have to pay value added tax (VAT) on every invoice it issued (in the UK this would amount to 17.5%) which is a pretty major disincentive to start sending out invoices you have little chance of collecting. There is also the question (which is open) as to whether they would be committing the criminal offence of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.
brinkmanship
Soon to be replaced by SCOmanship.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
Please note that to have any basis whatsoever to bill you, SCO needs to demonstrate not only that "Linux" infringes, but that your build of Linux infringes. They haven't remotely done the first, much less the second.
And that's even if an end-user could be found liable, as the often-mentioned reader-of-an-infringing-New-York-Times analogy addresses.
As it stands now, this is analogous to a company that sells classical music billing you because they've heard you have classical music in your CD collection, and it's absurd.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
PHONY INVOICE SCAMS
The anatomy of a typical phony invoice scheme is as follows:
The Call:
While there is no set formula for these invoice schemes, most involve the use of an initial telephone contact. The call helps the swindler obtain the names of key business contacts, as well as some important details about the operation of the business and its products or services. The persons making these calls are, for the most part, remarkably smooth operators. Often brazen and forward in their approach, they have been known to talk their way through a chain of receptionists, secretaries, assistant managers, supervisors, and vice presidents to gain access to heads of companies. In most cases, however, they need gain access to only lower-level employees.
The Invoice:
The con artist's next contact with the intended victim usually comes in the form of a phony invoice sent through the mail. The invoice, which includes names, figures, and other details that add to the appearance of legitimacy, may be paid unwittingly along with a number of other routine bills. In many cases, the amount of the invoice is just small enough to slip by the check writer's attention. The swindler has had considerable experience calculating the most effective dollar amount, depending on variables such as the size of the firm, and the control it seems to have over its management system. Thousands of mass-mailed invoices, each for a small sum, may prove more luc-rative for the con artist, than several large invoices.
The Scare Tactic:
Scare tactics sometimes are used to increase the odds of success. A phony invoice, or past-due notice, stamped "Pay This Bill Now" or "We Are About to Start Action" may intimidate the victim into rushing to make out a check without carefully investigating the supposedly delinquent charge.
SOLICITATIONS AS INVOICES
One of the most common variations of the phony invoice scheme are solicitations disguised as invoices. These documents, which are actually solicitations for the purchase of goods or services, are carefully designed to look like legitimate invoices for goods or services ordered and received. In some cases, the small print may identify the bogus bill as a solicitation. The deceptive solicitation may be received through the mail, or it may be presented in person by a con artist who visits a business office on the pretext of saving the company handling charges.
The business that pays a solicitation disguised as an invoice may receive the merchandise or service it was duped into ordering; more often, it will not, and efforts to trace the fraudulent firm that issued the "invoice" will prove futile.
If they're sending via USMail, and you live in the US and receive one, send a copy to the USPS Postal Inspector. That's mail fraud, and the USPS takes a dim view of such things.
I suspect the FTC wouldn't particularly like it either... Your state's Attorney General might be interested in the extortion issue, too.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
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,
Here's the mail fraud complaint form.
Hint: Select "False Bill or Notice" when you fill this out.
Show your hate for SCO. Get a cool t-shirt and donate to the Open Source Now Fund.
They're obviously not too scared of SCO - they're hiring a paralegal to take care of everything.
...you get your incorrect Simpsons-quote corrected within 5 minutes.
by BigDumbAnimal (532071) on Wednesday September 03, @11:02AM (#6858949)
"and if my accountant is watching please STOP PAYMENT on this check"
by Anonymous Cowtard (573891) on Wednesday September 03, @11:06AM (#6858989)
Incorrect, it's:
Krusty: "And if my banker is watching, let nothing STOP you from PAYMENT on this check."
To: SCO
From: Linux Company with many machines
Dear SCO,
I have here in front of me your invoice saying that I owe you a license fee. In your letter you do not say what exactly infringes upon your IP, thus making it impossible for us to remove it. Even more disturbing is that you have yet to prove that any violation of you IP has taken place in a court of law. You seem to have gotten the cart before the horse and there is no legal precedant for us to pay for any "alleged violations".
Upon advice of counsel this letter is being turned over to our local state's attorney with a complaint. It is our feeling that SCO is attempting to illegally extort money from our organization. SCO's recent press releases are so inflated and obvioulsy false that we are going to pursue a class action civil suit and also file a complaint with the SEC. It is my personal feeling that you are no different than a mobster asking for protection money.
Sincerely,
Joe Linux User
The thing that disturbs me is that some in our community think tha SCO has shown it's "best hand" at recent events. If you truly think that, then you are sadly mistaken. SCO is running a media showcase, and NOTHING is "leaked" or gets out that isn't meant to. Think along the lines of a magicians miss direction. SCO probably doesn't have a case, but it most certainly has better "code" snippets than has been shown to anyone outside of the legal and technical team bringing suit.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Isn't this against the law in some way? They're harming everyone who invested money in sco and the employees by steering it directly at a train wreck. Not to mention the slanderous lies they are spewing around everyday.
But the high paid executives doing this don't care. They don't give one shit. They just want to get as much money out of the stock as possible in a short period of time. They're probably issuing each other multi-million dollar unsecured loans and stock options as we speak.
What a load of thieves. If anyone deserves to go to jail it's these fuckers. If they really believed their claims had any chance of being for real they would ALL hold on to ALL of their stock, not dump it.
And you wanna know what else makes me angry? The people who are buying their stock right now. They're the ones who make this scheme work, be it out of stupidity or whatever, by making the scox price higher. Fuck them too.
Liberty.
Filed: 08/28/03
Entered: 08/29/03
Return of service executed
Docket Text: Return of service executed re: Subpoena served on Canopy Group c/o Ralph Yanno on 8/26/03
If they can prove that SCO was not an independent corporation, it's all over for Big Brother and his holding company. This is not discovery - that would have been against SCO.
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.
A few definitions from Black's law.
"Estoppel" means that party is prevented by his own acts from claiming a right detriment of other party who was entitled to rely on such conduct and acted accordingly. Graham v. Asbury, 112 Ariz. 184, 540 P.2d 656, 658.
A principle that provides that an individual is barred from denying or alleging a certain fact or state of facts because of that individuals previous conduct, allegation, or denial. A doctrine which holds that an inconsistent position, attitude, or course of conduct may not be adopted to loss or injury of another. Brand v. Farmers Mut. Protective Ass'n or Texas, Tex,Civ.App., 95 S.W.2d 994, 997.
Thus by matter of record, SCO is Estopped from asserting any claims to the distribution or usage of GPL code which SCO has itself distributed. SCO is also prohibited by the doctrine of "Apparent authority" from asserting the claim that the distribution was not authorized.
Basically, an open and shut case. SCO loses. (Defendant should seek both costs and scantions on plaintiff)
Looking through the history of 2:03cv00294/ SCO Grp v Intl Bus Mach Inc, I found the schedule for when things are going to happen.
10/1: Amending of Pleadings
10/22: Discovery Cutoff
11/10: Deadline for Filing motions
3/11/05: Attorney Conference
3/28/05: Final Pretrial Conference for 2:30
4/11/05: 5 Week Jury Trial
By the 22nd of next month, SCO will have to release to IBM the offending code as part of the discovery phase. The question is how fast it will be leaked.
And we get to watch this whole specatacle until May!
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.
Yes, it's dirty, but it obviously works for those selling otherwise moribund stock in SCO. The best thing the Linux distributors can do in this case is simply ignore SCO. Sooner or later they'll get bitchslapped in the courts by the big players whom they've taken the trouble to directly offend, and they'll crawl back into the compost whence they came.
The postage alone will kill you. :)
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
Come on, it's not like their hardware protection is worth a damn.
Me: The server is faulty
Dell support: It's a software problem
Me: One NIC works and the other's stopped
Dell support: It's a software problem
Me: There's smoke coming out of it
Dell support: It's a software problem
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.
"You can go f*ck yourselves."
I think it's very sound. As a matter of fact, I believe they are following it at the moment.
Daniel
Carpe Diem
If you get one of these letters, I suggest you go to this link:
l Fr audComplaint.htm
https://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/fraud/Mai
Essentially, sending a fraudulant invoice through the US mails is a crime:
"Extortion (18 USC 873, 876 & 877)
Postal Inspectors investigate extortion and blackmail when demands for ransoms or rewards are sent through the U.S. Mail. Inspectors also strictly enforce laws prohibiting mail that contains threats of kidnapping, physical injury, or injury to the property or reputations of others
Mail Fraud (18 USC 1341, 1342 & 1345; 39 USC 3005 & 3007)
The Postal Inspection Service is committed to protecting postal customers from misuse of the mail. Inspectors place special emphasis on mail fraud scams related to advance fees, boiler rooms, health care, insurance, investments, deceptive mailings and other consumer frauds, especially when they target the elderly or other susceptible groups."
The guys who investigate it are U.S. Postal Inspectors, who have very draconian powers, and have very wide-ranging jurisdiction.
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.
I've been swashdotted -- Elmer Fudd
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!
Achille Talon
Hop!
There's a big loophole in the insider trading laws and the SCO execs are taking advantage of it. There is a safe harbor if you have a plan to sell shares at predetermined points in time over a long enough period. The SCO execs have such a plan filed back in January at the same time that the lawsuit grumblings began to be heard.
Look for another press release to boost the stock price next Monday, September 8, when some of the top execs will be selling again.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
The gist of the case at this point seems to be that IBM allegedly released some code which was granted to SCO by a company IBM previously acquired. IBM's contract with SCO doesn't require them to give changes back to SCO, but Sequent's (and others') contracts did. This is ambiguous enough that no judge would award SCO damages unless SCO had worked in good faith to help IBM repair the damages and IBM hadn't then acted in good faith; from all appearances, SCO hasn't taken any steps in that direction. Instead, SCO have capitalized on the alleged mistake over and over again, already recovering the worth of the allegedly infringing code a thousand times over.
And doesn't Texas have some arcane law about how it's legal to shoot someone if they're too damn dumb to live?
Come, Americans. You've got more guns than you have people. Surely you can take care of the SCO problem!
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
In the great pattern of things, the end-user doesn't have responsibility to SCO but to the vendor. Now, I can go out and buy a playstation or whatever in a good-faith purchase. If company X suddenly discovered that the playstation core used their technology/code, they can't invoice me for the cost of the code - that goes to the vendor.
Even in the best of cases for SCO, charging the end-user hardly sounds like a legitimate practice. In any software case I've heard of, it's the parent company/companies that end of paying out
When SCO distributes it's "invoices" it will oficially be breaking the law. Without a legal buyer-seller agreeement, and without any court determination as to whether SCO's claims are legitimate, a counter-suit can be filed for extorsion. Get your legal department involved! Talk to your company's lawyers about filing a class-action suit.
SCO has already made it clear that any company getting this "invoice" is likely to be high on theie list to be sued. Companies should look at this as a threat and be pre-emptive. Further, a group of large companies filing a class action against SCO would be the best means of expediting the process and gaining closure.
By not having any buyer-seller agreement, and no legally recognized right to to the code they claim, SCO is no better than the neighborhood mafioso looking for protection money.
Mobster SCO: "I have no service to sell you, and I have no legal right to demand money by law, but I am billing you anyway. If you don't pay up...something "bad" will happen." Isn't this the classic definition of extorsion?
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
To whom it may concern:
As you are violating the GPL by claiming some of the code you destributed is now covered by your copyright, And as I retain the copyright to a portion of the Linux code you now must license from me, I am submitting this invoice.
Please remit $50,000 for the license to use my code as soon as possible as interest charges will accrue.
-
Any other Linux developer want to join in some action to bill SCO for their non-GPL use of our IP?
Extortion is when you use fear to extract money
from people you have no prior business relationship,
and without giving reasons why they legaly have
to pay you. I am sorry, "pay so I don't report
you to the authorities", or "pay so I don't
sue you" is illegal. It is simple extortion,
as plain as it can possibly be.
I'm expecting something that could better be described as "a rupture in a submarine's hull at crush depth".
:)
"leak" indeed
In other news, office products retailers across the USA noticed an overwhelming unpredicted demand for paper shredders.
SCO: The Linux kernel has millions of lines of infringing SCO code.
Torvalds: You're smoking crack.
SCO: Would you believe one million?
Torvalds: No.
SCO: Would you believe 80 lines?
Torvalds: Doubtful.
SCO: How about two variables with the same names?
SCO's 10Q is due Sep 15.
SCO's reply to IBM is due Sep 25.
This could be an interesting month.
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.
Microsoft is hosting a page called "Resources for Competing with Linux" with the news section pointing to all the best FUD stories. Does this add to the evidence that this whole thing is being encouraged by MS? Also on the same page under Microsoft's response to recent press there is a halloween style point by point rebuttal of a pro linux article, but I can't open it because it's protected by passport for some reason.
I'm pretty sure that SCO is going to be a great stock to hold onto. I'm hoping very much to get a job there. I keep checking their jobs page eagerly every day, but so far only the disappointing phrase "There are currently no job openings at SCO". Because so many top quality engineers are champing at the bit to work there, I will just have to be patient. I feel like a kid waiting outside a candy store that's about to open...
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Taken from page 12 of SCO's Q2 FY2003 quarterly report:
This is in a footnote to the company's financials. Yet, when the company's CEO speaks publicly about the matter (and the related actions the company is taking), none of these risk factors are mentioned. Intellectual property litigation is a high-risk proposition under any circumstances. Given the convoluted pedigree of the rights involved in this case, asserting that a favorable outcome is certain -- as Mr. McBride has done with every reporter he has talked to -- is speculation of the most pernicious order, and shows a reckless disregard of his duty to provide the investing public with an accurate statement of the company's affairs.
The conscientious exercise of that duty would seem especially important for a publicly-traded corporation where insiders or related parties own almost 50% of the outstanding stock, and millions of low-balled options are in the portfolios of executives and board members. Based on Mr. McBride's statements -- which are ultimately self-serving, since he has an interest in 800,000 options priced between $0.76 and $2.07 a share -- the price of SCOX has septupled in just six months. Whether its the product of fact or fiction remains to be seen, but there seems to be something very, very wrong with a CEO publicly contradicting the risks reported in a company's financial statement.
The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected. -- Will Rogers
From the National Fraud Information Center:
If the invoice/treath came by mail (in the United States), contact U. S. Postal Inspection Service instead. They are more likely to investigate if more people comlain.
Assignment:
Even before the invoice goes out, national media, especially financial media read by the "pointy haired bosses", should print a "fraud warning" against this invoice. It should be factual, and state that legal proceedings are pending.
All SCO could have done about this was to sue for libel but that case would be even weaker, and also easier to understand for judges and the general public.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
They believe they own the rights to said product.
They can believe anything they want. Some people believe the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese. They still have to obey the law, including postal regulations.
If SCO believes that they have IP rights in Linux, then they need to point it out, and possibly prove it if challenged, prior to any payment.
Simply believing that you infringe some IP that I own, through no willful action of your own does not give me a legal right to bill you.
They are demanding a license fee to make you legal, or you are subject to a suit.
So, they can sue. In this case, they have to prove their claim. If they want money without a suit, they still have to prove their claim. What is the difficulty you have with this concept?
On a different tack, no liability attached to an end user in any event. They would have to sue who made the copies of the infringing code. Red Hat. SuSE. Etc.
Finally, even if SCO could prove their claims against IBM, then IBM would pay them $3 Billion. This is the full and complete restitution for their damages causes by IBM's bad conduct. (If they could prove it.) Still, no liability attaches to end users, nor distributers in this case. No judge allows you to collect damages multiple times. If IBM damaged SCO, then IBM will pay for it and then restitution has been made to SCO. End of story.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Interesting comment from JF
Quote
Unless you are using the DMCA to get rubber-stamped subpoenas like the RIAA, a subpoena means you showed a judge enough evidence to convince them that you are probably right on a point related to the case.
The fact that IBM got a subpoena indicates that laid some pretty damning evidence in front of a judge. Any indication of which jurisdiction issued the subpoena?
If it was the courts there in Utah, that at least SQUARES the power of the evidence in my opinion given that SCO/Canopy has the hometown advantage. J.F. 9/3/03; 11:07:56 AM
Help fight continental drift.
The ocean parts and the meteors come down
Laid out in amber, baby.
Seems our foes at SCO are at it again. I emailed them to inquire about why they'd request license for my two desktops, two servers. They actually replied, requesting name, address and info about my Linux installations (distribution etc.). I've written a very, very detailed explanation about it (quoting LOTS of material showing how wacky they are. Just facts), and this has in turn been forwarded to another sales representative. Now two of them have read my description of their sillyness.
If, based on this, they send me an invoice, I'll take them to court for fraud (it's just like those fake phone dictionaries sending out masses of bills).
And if sufficient many of us keem them busy like this, they'll be too busy to get any work done.
The letter is a bit too long to post here, but I'll email it to anyone interested. Just please do not send them a copy of this! Use it as inspiration, write your own.
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
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
What timing! My SCO invoice showed up in my mailbox just about the same time I ran out of toilet paper!!
Thanks SCO! You saved my day!
Since we live in the West, the biggest issue is the unethical behavior of SCO and its managers. We have justifiably criticized them for trying to extort money via these ridiculous invoices. However, we need to go beyond criticizing only them. They actually work for someone: the shareholders.
Yes. The SCO shareholders own SCO and ultimately decide whether McBride keeps his job. The shareholders are the most guilty party in these pump-and-dump and extortion schemes hatched by SCO managers since the shareholders have the power to terminate the employment of McBride. The list at LionShares indicates the 15 financial institutions holding the largest number of shares of the SCO Group. Together, they hold 15% of the total outstanding shares. These financial institutions must immediately hold a special session of shareholders in order to terminate the employment of the managers (like McBride) at SCO group.
We, Slashdotters, should check our mutual funds immediately. If they own any shares of the SCO Group, then we should transfer the money out of those funds. Furthermore, there are several socially responsible mutual funds (SRMFs). We must bring the unethical behavior of the SCO group to the attention of the SRMF managers. They are bound, by the terms of their SRMFs, to sell all shares of the SCO Group.
TOP 15 Institution Name
Integral Capital Mgmt
Pequot Capital Mgmt
Barclays Global Investors Intl
Whitney Asset Management Llc
Royce & Associates
Weiss Peck & Greer
Oberweis Asset Mgmt
American Century Investments
Vanguard Group
Lehman Brothers Asset Mgmt
Northern Trust Co (chicago)
Zweig Dimenna Partners
Highland Capital Mgmt Corp
Fidelity Mgmt & Research Co
Deutsche Asset Mgmt (new York
zeke
Sure. But faith is not proof. It simply means someone believes in something. Faith can be misplaced. And it can be abused.
That's not to say one can't make a profit from faith. So who would be profiting? Tim Rushing has an interesting idea.
Just because you're able to spend money doesn't mean you actually know anything. I believe there is an entire industry roughly based on this concept out of Nevada... primarily Las Vegas.
Since they are pumping up the stock price with lots of big claims that it will probably be provable they knew were false, in order to sell their stock, will they be the next executives to go to prison?
If so, it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of &*%$@!
Here's hoping they enjoy having Ken Lay as a cellmate...
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
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?
Stowell added: "Sooner or later the invoicing will reach European companies I'm sure. We will not be limiting this to a US only market."
This warning seems to be a clear breach of the German injunction.
For that matter, so is the material on SCO's main web page here, which makes the unproven allegation "customers unknowingly received illegal copies of SCO property", among other things. I can't think of any reason why the injunction would be limited to material on the German-language page, which is, after all, also served from the U.S.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
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/
Tux Games and Linux Game Publishing are using Linux servers
SCO can bite me as they arent getting a penny from us. I'll spend every penny my companies have to defend our rights under the GPL and run my company into the ground doing it, before I let them have a penny of it.
I call on other Linux companies to make their claim to Linux. Tell SCO that you wont be bullied!
Tux Games. Your complete source for native Linux games.