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%
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
...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
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.
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.
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."
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.
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
"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.
I've been swashdotted -- Elmer Fudd
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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!
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/