Slashdot Mirror
More Criticism of SCO's Claims To UNIX
inc_x writes "GROKLAW has a
compelling analysis that shows that SCO's claims that it owns the UNIX operating system are not very truthful. The Open Group confirms this position: "Statements that SCO "owns the UNIX operating system" or has "licensed UNIX to XYZ", are clearly inaccurate and misleading." It seems that SCO finds it increasingly difficult to distinguish facts from fiction. Last week SCO claimed 'This IP battle is only one part of SCO's business and is an add-on component. The core of SCO's business is profitable,' not bothered by the fact that they had claimed the opposite in their SEC filing: 'If we do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in future quarters and our revenue from the sale of our operating system platform products and services continues to decline, we will need to further reduce operating expenses in order to maintain profitability or generate positive cash flow.'"
Please allow a user option which toggles SCO stories, I really don't give a shit anymore! Stop posting this crap to the front page. Make a section for this; sco.slashdot.org
There is no god
Perhaps they're finally running out of material...if they're stepping on their own words. How much more spin can you put on something like this without feeding it? E.g. where's the public display of the source in question...
who takes it seriously? We only read it for the entertainment value because we all know that their allegations would only hurt themselves. And they have proved that time and time again
I guess they've succeeded because now I see them as this
I think the Open SCOurce developer community would greatly benefit of having full access to the code for the greatly-acclaimed UNIX operating system. It would enable academics all over the world (especially in cold Scandinavian countries) to release their low-cost operating systems that are similar to UNIX. Some kernel components such as memory management could be enhanced instead of using 30-year old algorithms that may be misinterpreted by certain corporations as being propriatery.
We must encourage the grass-roots developers to add to the global intellectual property by releasing great variants of UNIX-based operating systems so that we can topple the dichotomy that Microsoft presents to computer science progress.
Only when we liberate the high memory block in the Expanded memory pool can we launch the necessary TSRs for MSCDEX support.
Which is nice.
Wearing pants should always be optional.
Since at least August, SCO have been floating the idea of sending invoices to Linux users. It's even been reported, seemingly incorrectly, back in August, that SCO was beginning to send invoices. The invoice story has been taken up with a vengence in the last few days, for example, here, here and here.
SCO Australia says the invoicing plan doesn't "ring true" and contradicts very recent strategy discussions. Unfortunately, SCO USA's Blake Stowell, doesn't seem to have yet responded to SCO Australia's request for clarification. SCO Australia also says that they're unsure about the question of invoices being sent in the US even though there are reports on the web [examples: here, here and here] about just such a thing being planned.
No, it's stuff that matters :)
karma capped
A little offtopic:
Who buys the stocks that SCO "dump"? Anyone in their right mind would back off from this company. I for one, wouldn't have bought a sinking ship.
always lying and back pedalling while damage continues to happen..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
They could become an entertainment company: a source of drama and amusement for the tech industry. There's a big gapping hole in the market for tech-industry oriented soap operas.
Start by offering low-bandwidth real media clips of goings on, move up to high-bandwidth, premium, see-it-before-anyone-else scubscriptions. Maybe for extra cash, even be able to influence the plot or participate in being threatened interactively!
Tweet, tweet.
So, if I read this right, if no one pays any license extortion money to SCO then they will have to cut costs to remain in the black. One might suggest they start by dismissing their over-priced lawyers, dismissing their frivolous lawsuits, and trying to kick the collective crack habit they seem to have developed.
Then again, they are well on their way to becoming the poster child to show that taking drugs leads to criminal behaviour. I wonder if they could claim royalties on all the eventual "Don't do drugs or you'll turn into SCO" posters in schools and police stations... ;)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
The whole point of this article is that SCO owns the Unix System V codebase and other IP, but they do not own the trademark to "UNIX".
99% of you probably already know this.
However, since SCO isn't suing anyone for trademark infringement, that fact is completely worthless. It does nothing to negatively affect SCO's claims.
The fact is that SCO *does* own what has been traditionally called "the UNIX Operating System" and they *do* licence it to vendors like IBM, HP, and SGI.
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am Mr. Darl McBride currently serving as the president and chief executive officer of the SCO group, formerly known as caldera systems international, in Lindon, Utah, united states of America. I know this letter might surprise your because we have had no previous communications or business dealings before now. My associates have recently made claim to computer software worth an estimated $1 billion U.S. dollars.
I am writing to you in confidence because we urgently require your assistance to obtain these funds. In the early 1970s the American telephone and telegraph corporation developed at great expense the computer operating system software known as Unix. Unfortunately the laws of my country prohibited them from selling these softwares and so their valuable source codes remained privately held. Under a special arrangement some programmers from the California university of Berkeley did add more codes to this operating system, increasing its value, but not in any way to dilute or disparage our full and rightful ownership of these codes, despite any agreement between American telephone and telegraph and the California university of Berkeley, which agreement we deny and disavow. In the year 1984 a change of regime in my country allowed the American telephone and telegraph corporation to make profits from these softwares. In the year 1990 ownership of these softwares was transferred to the corporation Unix system laboratories. In the year 1993 this corporation was sold to the corporation Novell. In the year 1994 some employees of Novell formed the corporation caldera systems international, which began to distribute an upstart operating system known as Linux. In the year 1995 Novell sold the Unix software codes to SCO. In the year 2001 occurred a separation of SCO, and the SCO brand name and Unix codes were acquired by the caldera systems international, and in the following year the caldera systems international was renamed SCO group, of which i currently serve as chief executive officer. My associates and I of the SCO group are therefore the full and rightful owners of the operating system softwares known as Unix. Our engineers have discovered that no fewer than seventy (70) lines of our valuable and proprietary source codes have appeared in the upstart operating system Linux. As you can plainly see, this gives us a claim on the millions of lines of valuable software codes which comprise this Linux and which has been sold at great profit to very many business enterprises. Our legal experts have advised us that our contribution to these codes is worth an estimated one (1) billion u.s. dollars. Unfortunately we are having difficulty extracting our funds from these computer softwares. To this effect i have been given the mandate by my colleagues to contact you and ask for your assistance. We are prepared to sell you a share in this enterprise, which will soon be very profitable, that will grant you the rights to use these valuable softwares in your business enterprise. Unfortunately we are not able at this time to set a price on these rights. Therefore it is our respectful suggestion, that you may be immediately a party to this enterprise, before others accept these lucrative terms, that you send us the number of a banking account where we can withdraw funds of a suitable amount to guarantee your participation in this enterprise. As an alternative you may send us the number and expiration date of your major credit card, or you may send to us a signed check from your banking account payable to "SCO group" and with the amount left blank for us to conveniently supply. Kindly treat this request as very important and strictly confidential. I honestly assure you that this transaction is 100% legal and risk-free. SCO CEO McBride
http://saveie6.com/
If SCO setup an entertainment program, I would be more than willing to chip in a few bucks.
I mean, you just can't make this stuff up.
Well, unless you are SCO, I mean.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
SCO GROUP INC (NasdaqNM:SCOX) Quote data by Reuters After Hours (RTM/ECN): 15.861 0.179 (1.12%)
I agree, this stuff is getting old. SCO this, Darl that. Sick of it. SCO is going to burn and their rep is in shambles. This is like beating a tied-up retarded man. Fun for a while, but after a while you start feeling sorry for him.
``Okay, okay! Why are we dancing around the obvious? I know it, you know it. SCO are wrong, okay? Wrong as a post! Think they're happy about it?''
With Slashdot's already extensive coverage of the SCO "affair", it's quite obvious that (1) it's a classic case of stock pumping and illegal insider's trading, (2) Most of the industry is not impressed, (3) they'll be squashed by IBM and (4) this whole thing is ridiculously overblown.
...
So, unless there's some really new development, why do we have to see SCO articles here over and over and over again?
This reminds me of the CueCat thing a while ago: Slashdot seems to regularly latch on some geek-attracting subject, use and reuse it shouting blasphemy against the great opensource and free speech gods, then suddenly drop the whole thing and fall back to the usual background noise of Microsoft bashing. It's really pathetic
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Darl here, and I'm afraid this is one shortcoming we've got to own up to. The explanation for our warped perception is pretty straightforward, however -- You see, we here at SCO have started reading Slashdot.
Yes, that SEC filing was pretty interesting. Here is a quote:
"Due to a lack of historical experience and the uncertainties related to SCOsource licensing revenue, we are unable to estimate the amount and timing of future licensing revenue, if any. If we do receive revenue from this source, it may be sporadic and fluctuate from quarter to quarter. SCOsource licensing revenue is unlikely to produce stable, predictable revenue for the foreseeable future. "
"Ladies and gentlemen, uh, we've just lost the picture, but what we've seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has apparently been taken over- 'conquered' if you will- by a master race of giant SCO attorneys. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive Linux users or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the SCO boys will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new litigous overlords. I'd like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sourcecode caves." -- Kent Brockman
Cash incentive for open source community from SCO? (Wednesday August 26, 1998 @07:45PM)
yea..that's reeeal intuitive. And Slashdot complains about Microsoft's UI
Blocking Caldera stories removes this from the front page.
Do your homework, man.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Look, SCO news is a must read. Why should you care? Simple: even if you are burned out on SCO you need to know enough to be able to defend against it.
K, so you just don't care about Linux. Do you care about Open Source in general? It's not just a Linux problem, it's an open source problem. Sure, Linux is the blame stick here, but Linux is just the tip of the iceberg. Linux is just a proxy for the whole Open Source way of doing things. Where do you think the next 'lines of code' will be found? Who owns the copyrights for main()? Old Bell labs? K&R? SCO?
Yeah, you think that's silly question.
What this whole SCO thing is about is modern day robber barons. CEO-theives who think they can create a high level of fear and uncertainty from suits; enough that they will listen, enough that they will wonder, enough that they will pay.
Unfortunately, this is not the scary thing; the scary thing, sad though it sounds, is that they are doing this with legal means. We can bitch and moan about how wrong they are, but you don't see them in 'cuffs do you? This is the exact same sort of tactic (RIAA, Microsoft, and a cast of thousands) that is used to circumvent freedoms of ideas, ideals, and individuality.
Care or not care, but understand what you are doing, understand the implications, and understand that you or someone/something you care about may be next.
Isnt it clear by now that SCO is nothing more than another enron? No, Enron actually produced some products people wanted to buy.
Get a real distro.
I disagree but only previsionally.
There should only be 1 "SCO is wrong" story for every "SCO dose it again" story.
I don't actually exist.
"No, Enron actually produced some products people wanted to buy. "
You mean those t-shirts and pencils and the glowing crooked E they sold at bankrupty auction?
Can be found here:
Lamlaw.com
The guy keeps an ongoing watch for the news articles and makes legal commentary wrt what's happening. He tends to be very insightful and makes good points.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
Hey now, let's not be so cynical there. This Slashdot article contains some very insightful editorial commentary, such as "It seems that SCO finds it increasingly difficult to distinguish facts from fiction."
is it useful? See, the lawsuit is about a contract breach, i.e. whether it's legal for IBM (and possibly SGI?) to put UNIX Sys V code in Linux, not the name. It would be more useful to discuss the facts such as: the code was written by Sequent - now part of IBM; UNIX Sys V source came with a retarded license; etc. Exactly who owns the name "UNIX" is completely irrelevant.
I think this sums up the situation nicely...
http://www.awtrey.com/vanilla-ice/
While we are all in a foment over SCO lying about its extent of owning everything, should we even really be surprised?
Can you name one corporation that actually seems like it ALWAYS tells the truth? By truth I mean, through its communications never seeks to misrepresent the reality of a situation.
There are not any out there.
This is my sig.
Seems to be the usual overload of people bitching about too many SCO stories. Here is a simple answer:
Don't read them. Some of us want a daily SCO update. It's ok that you don't want daily stories, but you can read the other stories instead of filling up the place with complains.
It's just unnecessary.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Maybe we should build an exclamation pyramid!!
more important, its easy to not care when you don't have any karma to begin with
When you see roadkill on the road, don't you feel tempted to poke it with a pointy stick? Well, it's the same with the SCO stories. It disgusts us, but we cannot help ourselves from jabbering about it.
Wearing pants should always be optional.
No, I actually have Good karma.
which means you post at 1, same as anyone logged in.
We can't let him get away with this abuse of the moderation system!!!
Yeah, but even if I posted at 2, I still wouldn't care.
It's not even a matter of open source or unix in general, but about the audacity that one company can hold an entire community of people hostage for such a long time, simply to raise their profit margin. As much as I hate the socialist laws of cross-atlantic democracies, I do think inflamed claims such as SCO should be fined as it does damage to the business of companies such as Red Hat or IBM, damage to the reputation of a given product, and damage to the _free_, open community surrounding open source.
but thats the original point. duh. you can't post at 2, so karma doesn't mean anything.
OK, whatever.
(Wow, sorry for the acronyms...)
I feel that. Maybe you can help me here. I keep seeing this SCO thing everywhere, but I can't figure our what it stands for. Could you tell me? Tell me what SCO stands for?
k thx.
Since IBM has the bucks anyway and will end up with a few more after they spank the SCO monkey in court, I say IBM should throw a HUGE freedom for Linux celebration and everyone is invited.
Risks Related to the Business
We do not have a history of profitable operations.
The quarter ended April 30, 2003, was our first quarter of profitability. If we do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in future quarters and our revenue from the sale of our operating system platform products and services continues to decline, we will need to further reduce operating expenses in order to maintain profitability or generate positive cash flow. If we are unable to generate positive cash flow from operations, we will not be able to implement our business plan without additional funding, which may not be available to us.
-----
According to their SEC filing, they are or were profitable for at least one quarter. I assume you could safely replace "implement our business plan" to "continue to pay our legal team".
www.clarke.ca
I'm just guessing, but from the looks of the recent mods to your posts, you may not have such good karma. I figured I would troll you until I see you post at 0. Then I will know my job is done.
Marketing is 100% lies, while SEC filings must be near-reality truth.
What does a honest man has to do to have a rightful business in modern society?
Please mod parent down.
Well, we should at least discuss something interesting. Any suggestions? Actually, forget it. I'm going to take a nap. 'Nite.
If they are making blatantly untrue statements, shouldn't the SEC get involved? How should we file a complaint?
The obvious solution is to install Windows ME, duh.
Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)
Kind of like how SCO execs claim they have taken advantage of the penis upgrade, but wont let anyone see the source unless they sign an NDA.
Speaking at Defcon 12 - Credit Card Networks Revisted: Pen
Mod parent down, and try reading the article.
The point of the article is that SCO asserts in their media appearances, press releases, and most importantly, their court filings, that (1) UNIX is a single operating system, (2) all based on the AT&T code, (3) SCO own the AT&T code
The artice demonstrates, that (1) and (2) are false, and SCO must know that.
(1) Is demonstrated to be false, by the very definition of UNIX,
(2) Is demonstrated to be false, by the existence of S/390 UNIX, and by the fact that Windows NT could become UNIX in future, etc.
The fact that SCO must know that is demonstrated by SCO's history with trademark licensing and attribution, UNIX certification of SCO products, etc.
I agree totally - you need to know the facts, or far less informed people may believe the FUD and influence how your company works with Open Source software. I was in an email discussion recently where an idiot BusDev (business development/OEM) person tried to scare a software engineer about using Open Source. It was quite satisfying to see the software guy rip the BusDev guy a new one. :-)
"The core of SCO's business is profitable,' not bothered by the fact that they had claimed the opposite in their SEC filing: 'If we do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in future quarters and our revenue from the sale of our operating system platform products and services continues to decline, we will need to further reduce operating expenses in order to maintain profitability or generate positive cash flow.'"
This is not an incorrect statement by SCO. They are saying IF they do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in FUTURE (not now or past) quarters and their revenue CONTINUES TO DECLINE [in the future, not now or past quarters] then they will be unprofitable. There is nothing in that statement that says that the core business is unprofitable now or previously.
See kids? Thats why education (university) and reading comprehension is important in life.
Sorry if I seem cynical, but democracy only works if more than half the population makes intelligent decisions.
...just my 2 gil.
Wow, this is one of my better trolls. Then again, I don't usually troll, so I'm kinda new at it. I guess you're just an easy mark. Good luck on the karma thing, hope it works out for you.
A SCO story "k-factor". :-)
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Would the Monty Python guys sue me if I sarted referring to McBride and friends as The Black Knights?
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
If we could just kill every third lawyer we could rid our culture of 99% of all the total bullshit that passes for justice and the "need" for all new laws. The only time you are safe is when congress is in recess and the only time you will hear the truth is when lawyers have their mouths shut.
King Henry, VI part II act IV
"The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers."
It's a joke about lawyers sure it is. There are to many lawyers. Do your part.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Link to an article I found which pretty much tells it like it is:= News&file=article&sid=410
http://madpenguin.org/modules.php?op=modload&name
These guys really need to get a grip. The whole world is laughing at them, and it's time they come clean with the code they claim they have. Torvalds stated that he would personally REMOVE/REPLACE the offending code IF it was found.... so what's the issue? $$$$$
This headlines are getting boring. I have some sugestions:
SCO to Sue God
Darl McBride Caught in Bizarre Love Triangle With Bill Gates, Penguin
Darl McBride to Rename Self Darth McBride, Builds Death Star
SCO Accidentally Sues Self For 10 Billion
Local Man Wonders What Is This SCO Shit
SCO Enters Partnership With Gorzo the Mighty (subtitle: New Corporate Motto: "Seize Him!")
Infinite Number of Monkeys Write UNIX, Sued by SCO
The CEO of Novell, the company that "sold" Unix to SCO, was recently quoted as saying, "they're confused about what they actually own."
If SCO truly has claims, then they should send out the rabid pitbull of the software industry, the BSA. I'm sure they'd love to sink their teeth into some of these infringers.
I'm personally betting diamonds to dollars that the BSA will never touch anything SCO related, now or in the future.
So either SCO was untruthful in its 10K filings, violating SEC regulations and its obligations to its stockholders and the financial community in large. Or....SCO is publically overstating its profitablity and assets (consequently boosting their stock price) while its executives dump all their holdings.
Either way, what they've done is illegal. The question for us - the open-source community - is finding someone with legal standing to make an issue out of it. Find two parties, one who would have been injured by the allegedly incorrect 10K filings, and other who would be injured by price pumping (recent buyers of SCOX). If each party sues for $XX million, someone would win and SCO should loose a big chunk of their relatively small cash assets, either by damage awards, SEC fines, or legal fees. Either way, it puts them out of our collective misery.
Of course, IANAL. But it sounds good, doesn't it?
"If the case is shit, you must aquit." Dayrl may not go to jail if he manages to get a "jury trial", but Linux and free software are not doomed.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It's obvious that they're deliberately misleading people in their press releases/conferences and even in their legal filings. They're damaging the trademark, and Open Group needs to respond a lot more strongly. Threatening to remove SCO's ability to use "UNIX" would be a nice first step.
Get off my launchpad!
inc_x writes "GROKLAW has a compelling analysis that shows that SCO's claims that it owns the UNIX operating system are not very truthful. The Open Group confirms this position
why was this modded down? It was the first to say what we all think and I thought the red flag reference was surely worth something?
nothing to do with Free Software, which
includes BSD-type licenses.
Microsoft and SCO don't have a problem with
BSD licenses: they are happy when you code
for them without pay.
I'm still a bit baffled by why these IP lawsuits are still going on. I mean, surely IBM is using DNS for all important operations. Can't they just give SCO its IP back and purchase a new C block on ebay like everybody else? Seems safer than letting a $3 billion claim go to court, and a whole lot cheaper too.
So does this mean that UNIX has become like Kleenex?
Are they unable to trademark the name therefore is the code also untrademarkable? I can not see this happening but it would be interesting.
I've been searchin for the chord I can't hear Ive been searchin for years Its somewhere inside But its well disguised
In this article "SCO's next target: SGI?"h tml), we find this gem:
(http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5072061.
In his August presentation, [SCO senior vice president Chris ] Sontag
said XFS in Linux includes 173 files and 119,130 lines of code that
infringe the company's intellectual property.
Oh reaaaaly?
Hm, how many lines are in Linux XFS?
[nobody@penguin xfs-kern-2.6.0]$ find . -name \*.[c,h] | xargs wc --lines
133482 total
Yay! SGI still owns 14,352 lines I guess.
Wait, but they said lines of code... strip comments & blank lines:
[nobody@penguin xfs-kern-2.6.0]$ find . -name \*.[c,h] | xargs stripcmt | grep -v ^$ | wc --lines
92618
So, they claim to own 26,512 more lines of code in Linux XFS than -actually exist- in the codebase.
Darl McBride
SCO GROUP INC
355 South 520 West, Suite 100
Lindon, UT 84042
My Dear Friend,
I hope this letter finds you in good health. This is the letter of the Unix past. It will bring you great fortune. All you have to do is pay the party mentioned above, a small sum ff $699. Then immediately send this letter to six other friends. If you do so, you will have great luck.
Mr. Scott McNealy of Santa Clara, CA immediately paid the above mentioned money and sent the letter to his friends. Great luck came to him. The sun will always shine in his little kingdom
William Gates of Redmond, WA paid the sum immediately. All his legal troubles melted away. He became extremely rich and powerful.
Samuel Palmisano of Armonk, NY ignored this letter. Great ill luck be fell him. His rights were aixed. The great plague of Boise swooped down on him. He lost everything.
So please don't ignore this letter. Immediately do as directed and have the Lady Luck of Unix smile upon you.
Desi Noise, Live!
I don't think that Red Hat, SuSE, or any of the other Linux vendors are going to give SCO a list of people who have purchased Linux so that SCO can turn around and send out invoices.
Sure, SCO can assume that some Fortune 500 companies are using Linux in some way and send out invoices to those, but, I don't see how SCO will have any solid proof that any of them is using, say, Red Hat Linux unless someone tells SCO first that such and such company is using Red Hat.
So company X gets an invoice from SCO and ignores it. What is SCO going to do? Send someone out from SCO, unannounced, that just shows up and expects to be able to do a thourough audit of the companie's computer networks to find any trace of Linux? Even though SCO may have said that they'd do audits like this, do you really think that SCO is going to have the manpower and money to audit literally thousands of companies?
If you think SCO can do that, I'll show up at your company Monday morning and demand an on-site audit so that I can do a complete network audit and look for any Linux machines that might be running any code that I have personally written. I expect full cooperation. I'll send my bill to you the day before I get there.
The bottom line is that while SCO may send out invoices to customers for using Linux, SCO doesn't have much of an idea which of those customers are using Linux, unless Linux vendors have shared their customer list with SCO in the first place. That, or SCO is doing some sort of Internet scanning looking for Linux systems. And don't think for a minute that most companies will put up with SCO coming to do a audit of all their computers.
Its time that SCO puts up or shuts up. I'm getting tired of reading the SCO posts on /. and in the media, even for their entertainment value.
Wow. Another article saying how "SCO's claims are untruthful."
How many times have we been told this? We know already. This should have been in a Slashback.
"Sufferin' succotash."
J. Edgar Hoover thought nice, clean god fearing mormon lawyers were good hires. The FBI has a high percentage of mormons in it's employ. They are over represented in management as well. Wonder why the FBI can never do wrong even when it kills a bunch of kids and shoots women holding babies? It's not allowed. It makes the Mormon church look bad. The people responsible get retired at full pension after being not held to account in front of one of mister Orrin Hatchs hearings where the victims are made out to be nasty racists or terrorists so murdering them in cold blood is ok.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
What this whole SCO thing is about is modern day robber barons. CEO-theives who think they can create a high level of fear and uncertainty from suits; enough that they will listen, enough that they will wonder, enough that they will pay.
Exactly. It's not just Linux, IBM, Open Source, or IT. It's everything from ball-bearings to matchsticks. It's about what the 21st century should be as opposed to what the 19th century was.
Lawyers have no sense of humor, One has already modded the parent as a troll because they can't stand to have some one read it. Too bad it's the truth lawyers are the sole cause of 99% of all the difficulties in the US. Who is driving this law suit? Lawyers. Who is allowing the spread of all this FUD? Lawyers. Who is trying to make sure anything done is "legal" but could care less if it's moral or ehtical? Lawyers. Anyone who would trade with SCO is scum but lawyers are a lower life from than that.
If I had to choose between a car thief and a lawyer I would choose the car thief at least I can keep a eye on my car. Lawyers steal everything and often just out of evil nature and spite.
King Henry, VI part II act IV
"The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers."
It's a joke about lawyers sure it is. There are to many lawyers. Do your part.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
The thing that makes the RIAA and Microsoft troubling and SCO not troubling is that there is no legal basis for SCO's claims and SCO has insufficient funds to create one. SCO doesn't have the revenue to survive long enough to bring a case to trial, and they don't have any foreseeable future income, having stopped selling products and lacking a process for receiving licensing fees. There's really nothing to SCO except PR (legal means? They're almost certain to lose all of their suits against others and the suits by others against them. They're not even writing threatening letters).
SCO is merely a distraction from the real issues. SCO isn't respected in the business community, and certainly not in comparison to IBM. The only thing to SCO is stock manipulation.
Everybody and their sibling is chiming in and it's fairly clear to me that it certainly seems SCO is on shakey ground. It's equally clear to me that we all think SCO is a collection of complete buttwipes, but frankly, most of this sidelines kibitzing really is pointless till the actual LAWYERS begin manuvering.
Factually speaking anyone who has ever watched a lawsuit proceed knows that the lawyers involved often select highly technical legal arguments to defend against a lawsuit or to persue one. The IBM/SCO battle might well dissolve into some obscure debate on obtuse matters of the contracts between the two companies that leaves the base question that WE users want resolved (SCO's rights, if any to LINUX) still floating in Limbo. It's nice to see the amount of supporting arguments evolving, but until the lawyers lay out their respective legal strategies IN COURT, and not in press releases, we really are spinning our wheels. Frankly I really only have one line of questions. Does anyone really know when this stupid lawsuit is due to go to court? Are the parties still in discovery phase? Have ANY relevent trial or presentation dates been set? Where can I see SCO's complaint, IBM's answer to that complaint, IBM's countersuit complaint, SCO's answer to that countersuit, etc??? THESE are the documents that will govern the progress of the trial and the arguments the two sides intend to advance, not our frustrated and outraged desires and inputs. So what are the dates? Where can I see the documents? These and updates to them are the real NEWS on this.
Isn't it funny that no one is able to even throw money at SCO for a "Linux License?" I emailed scoinfo@scosales.com and asked about these magical mystery linux licenses and got no answer but an offer to buy "SCO Unix" and threat to be billed for asking so many questions.
NO ONE has actually been sent an actual invoice; SCO has merely made threats in the press to do so.
I do not think they have any intention to actually send any real "invoices"; that would be fraud. They just want to make headlines and grab fast cash.
With the The Open Group, who even Darth McBribe ackowledges hold the trademrak to "UNIX", I do not know what wild claim is left for SCO to make. They will probably claim next that their IP claims to Unix trumps the Open Group's Unix trademark. Because of course, SCO claims always trump all other claims.
I am a former Microsoft guy who is in the process of converting to Open Source, and I will enjoy watching SCO die a horrible death at the hands of the Open Source/Free Software community.
So, SCO claims 2 million lines of code to be infringing, which, without conversion to elephant intestines, looks like a mighty large figure. Instead of calculating the total code in supposedly infringing sections (as some have done), why not just take 2.2 and 2.4+ side by side and enumerate the differences? This might give us a better idea of just how much crack SCO is smoking.
Excuse me if I'm missing something...
than just SCO... the GPL itself is likely to get tested if this ever goes to court too. I think that is something that we all WANT to happen to build some case law in support of the GPL.
So, although we all think that SCO is a joke and not worth paying attention to, the issues that are raised in the process are VITAL to the survival of open source software.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
[ McClane and Zeus are speeding through Central Park]
Zeus: Are you aiming for these people?
John McClane: No.
[Pauses]
John McClane: Well, maybe that mime.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
Never trust a Mormon clan. These guys - the SCO mafia - are all, save one Englishman, from either BYU or Utah State. Talk about conspiracy...
Yes, yes, this is the conspiracy theorist in me sure, but read this and make up your own mind.
" We initiated the SCOsource effort to review the status of these licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify others in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter. The first of these licenses was with a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code which is a major participant in the UNIX industry and was a "clean-up" license to cover items that were outside the scope of the initial license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") and covers Microsoft's UNIX compatibility products, subject to certain specified limitations. These license agreements are typical of those we expect to enter into with developers, manufacturers, and distributors of operating systems in that they are non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source code, including the right to sublicense that code.
The amount that we receive from any such licensee will generally depend on the license rights that the licensee previously held and the amount and level of our intellectual property the licensee desires to license. The two licensing agreements signed by us to date resulted in revenue of $8,250,000 during the quarter ended April 30, 2003, and provide for an aggregate of an additional $5,000,000 to be paid to us over the next three quarters. These contracts do not provide for any payments beyond 2003, except that Microsoft was granted the option to acquire expanded licensing rights, at its election, that would result in additional payments to us if exercised. In connection with the execution of the first license agreement, we granted a warrant to the licensee to purchase up to 210,000 shares of our common stock, for a period of five years, at a price of $1.83 per share. This warrant has been valued, using the Black-Scholes valuation method, at $500,000. Because the warrant was issued for no consideration, $500,000 of the license proceeds have been recorded as warrant outstanding and the license revenue associated with this arrangement has been reduced for the fair value of the warrant. "
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
...their second quarter 10Q reported a $4.5 million profit on the basis of $6.1 million in net licensing revenue. Pull out the net licensing revenue, and SCO had a $1.6 million loss for the quarter.
What the SCOspeak in the filing cited in the article means is that if licensing revenues don't increase, then the mounting losses from their core business are going to drag the company's bottom line into the red.
And, yes, that means their core business is currently unprofitable and, as their Q2 financial shows, has been in the past. In fact, the only profitable quarters in the company's history have been the last two quarters of the current fiscal year. The profits for both of those quarters are exclusively attributable to "licensing revenues".
In short, SCO's "core business" -- whatever that is or was -- has always been unprofitable.
See, kids? That's why knowing how to read a financial statement is more important than anything you learn in school.
The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected. -- Will Rogers
Slapping hands on head and making the raspberry sound at SCO....
In a heavy Hollywood style French accent: "Now go away or we shall taunt you a second time..."
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I've heard on /. that no one is loaning SCO shares to sell short. Also, Unlike buying positive stock, you can lose an unlimited amount of money on the stock. If it whent up to $100 for some reason, you'd be out thousands of dollars. If it when to zero, you'd only double your money.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
At least now we finally know what SCO really got in the 'secret settlement' of their last lawsuit (against M$)... ...Bill's well-worn, dog-eared copy of FUD for Dummies
create a high level of fear and uncertainty
You forgot doubt
Not surprisingly so. It would be interesting to see a company based solemnly on profits from lawsuits -that company- against -rest of the world-. Let me suggest a business plan without the tricky '???' part.
1. Start a company, without any real production but with bunch of lawyers.
2. Patent whatever you can, most common daily use items recommended.
3. Sue EVERYONE!!!
4. PROFIT!!!
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
If HP makes HP-UX the odds that HP lawyers are aware of the Open Group License are good! Since they are UNIX95 Registered, Then the obvious reason why they said they are safe is safe against SCO is that they could probably defend that point.
So who is the suspect? Is it just a wording twist saying Microsoft is behind it again? Microsoft is after all a Fortune 500 too.
is it legal for SCO to demand licensing fees for code which they are unwilling to disclose? Obviously, such a demand would be unenforceable in these circumstances. The question is does this behaviour rise to the level of tortious interference with contractual obligations?
See kids? Thats why education (university) and reading comprehension is important in life.
Didn't they teach you how to write at your university?You must have meant: That's why education (university) and reading comprehension are important in life.
See kids, when you're bragging about your college education, it's important to know how to write.
Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
Start here:
Income Statement for SCO Group Inc
There are a lot of numbers here. I'll summarize the ones that I usually look at: total revenue and net income.
Quarter ended 2002-07-31: revenue $15,384,000 income ($4,511,000)
Quarter ended 2003-10-31: revenue $15,468,000 income ($2,729,000)
Quarter ended 2003-01-31: revenue $13,540,000 income ($724,000)
Quarter ended 2003-04-30: revenue $21,369,000 income $4,500,000
Numbers in parentheses are negative.
Notice there are no numbers for 2003-07-31 yet. SCO hasn't filed those numbers officially with the SEC yet. But they have announced these numbers to the press.
Quarter ended 2003-07-31: revenue $20,100,000, net income $3,100,000
It looks like the management has really turned SCO around in the past two quarters.
The change is due to SCO's new "SCO Source" program. By digging into SCO's press releases and 10-Q's, I found that SCO Source had $8.25 million in revenue and $6 million in gross margin for 2003-04-30, and $7.3 million in revenue and $5.6 million in gross margin for 2003-07-31.
So let me restate those numbers above for SCO's two lines of business:
SCO Products and Services
Quarter ended 2002-07-31: revenue $15,384,000 income ($4,511,000)
Quarter ended 2002-10-31: revenue $15,468,000 income ($2,729,000)
Quarter ended 2003-01-31: revenue $13,540,000 income ($724,000)
Quarter ended 2003-04-30: revenue $13,119,000 income ($1,500,000)
Quarter ended 2003-07-31: revenue $12,800,000 income ($2,500,000)
SCO Source (customers: Microsoft and Sun)
Quarter ended 2003-04-30: revenue $8,250,000 income $6,000,000
Quarter ended 2003-07-31: revenue $7,300,000 income $5,600,000
Darl McBride says that SCO's core business is the products and services. You can see that the products and services are unprofitabe -- in fact, they have been unprofitable for every quarter of SCO's existence ever since they started business as Caldera. Even worse for SCO, the gross revenue from products and services is dropping.
Why does this matter? It matters because Kieran O'Shaugnessy, SCO's "man in Australia", said this (according to Groklaw):
"This IP battle is only one part of SCO's business and is an add-on component. The core of SCO's business is profitable."
Well, the core of SCO's business is not profitable, and SCO's core revenues are declining too. In fact, SCO Source is the only profitable division at SCO.
Pay particular attention to what Muhammed Ali says at the end? Is this a stab at SCO?
SCO's 10-Q for April 30 states that they have only two customers for SCO Source (for that quarter). I think that's what Burrito Warrior was talking about.
That plus the fact that everything in SCO besides SCO Source is unprofitable.
The best comment in the bunch, and it's posted anonymously.
I for one welcome our new SCO masters. :-)
-1, redundant
The point of the lawsuit isn't about what SCO calls UNIX(R). That SCO's PR, or even their filings with the court or SEC, uses the term UNIX(R) incorrectly is slightly amusing, but irrelevant.
The point of the lawsuit is that SCO claims that
- SCO owns copyrights to some code, transferred to it by some contract(s), which are not public, so we know nothing about them;
- SCO has licensed IBM to use that code for certain purposes by some contract, which is not public, so we know nothing about it;
- SCO's license to IBM gives SCO certain rights to some or all code created by IBM in some way related to the SCO code licensed to IBM by SCO, all under a contract (wait for it...) which is not public, so we know nothing about it;
- Some code was created by IBM subject to this contract and SCO therefore has certain rights to that code;
- That code was disclosed by IBM in violation of a contract (which is not public, so we don't know what was in it).
SCO offers as proof of the final assertion a further assertion that a portion or portions of the code shows up in Linux.The article sheds no new light on this.
There's nothing going on here, people. Move on.
I know that you have a constitutional requirement to respect the laws of other states, but believe it or not people, the American imperium does not actually cover most of the world's Linux users.
Most of us, right now, are in Europe and we couldn't give a stuff what some Utah court rules.
From maybe next year the majority of the world's Linux users are going to be in Asia and do you think the inheritors of Mao Zedong are going to bow down before the hegemony of a Utah state court? Ha ha ha ha ha.
Exxon oil spills are accidents, caused by sloppy management.
..Arnt Karlsen
The SCO Group thing is intentional, and caused by sloppy criminals, good ones would have built a credible cover story.
greeting beneath your level readers,
. html ...or actually, better yet, i wrote a routine in 360/20 asm (1967), that was later converted to C, while working for ibm... nobody mentioned asm.
1987 - Mitnick invades system at Santa Cruz Operation. Santa Cruz police travel to Los Angeles to search apartment where call coming into SCO originates. It belongs to Mitnick's girlfriend. Mitnick and girlfriend subsequently arrested and charged with unauthorized access to a computer. Charges against girlfriend dropped. Mitnick's representation bargains felony charge down to misdemeanor. Sentence: three years probation.
Source: http://www.takedown.com/coverage/mitnick-timeline
You watch, SCO is getting ready to sue itself. Does Darl know you've found his stash? Who wants to be a Darl McBride? It's like saying gential warts is sexy.
This Comment was generated with the Comment-O-Matic for SCO Stories.
StickMan
www.rageagainst.net
...then why isn't there a licensing line item on any of their balance sheets before the second quarter of fiscal year 2003?
Again, their Q2 10Q provides the truth:
"Licensing. Licensing revenue was $8,250,000 for the second quarter and first two quarters of fiscal year 2003 as compared to no revenue for the second quarter and first two quarters of fiscal year 2002. This revenue is the result of our intellectual property licensing program, SCOsource, launched in January 2003." For the record, their licensing revenue for the first quarter of fiscal year 2003 was zero.
I don't know why you're belaboring this point, because you're wrong. The only profits SCO/Caldera have ever generated are the result of Linux shakedown cash.
The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected. -- Will Rogers
What do you mean dumberer? Al Gore invented the Internet. He said so himself. Politicians do not lie.
Touche!!! I did commit a grammar error. Not being a native English speaker causes me a lot of pain.
I never went to university though. I wish I had!
Shares outstanding: 13,334,886
Securities offered: 305,274
- SCOX SEC filing, 2003.07.08
P/E: 134.50
Last volume: 304,136
- Yahoo Finance, 2003.09.07
Ah... that's interesting... It wouldn't take much to move volume this stock up or down, and it's not backing up share price with actual earnings.
I agree with everyone else in this is a pump and dump that's being feuled by interested parties, so that's my tinfoil hat take but I won't even get started as to why I believe that. =)
Well taken! Didn't mean to be snide.
Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
The artical points out something SCO never really denied and that is that SCO dose not hold or own the Unix spec or name. They only clame to own the code from where that spec and name came from.
SCO called the code "Unix" becouse that is what it is known as to spite the fact that the name has actually been sold to annother entity.
So please know that SCO is refering to "The code formerly known as Unix" as Unix.
However Novel clames they in fact did not sell the Unix code to SCO but mearly liccensed it.
SCOs clames are based on violation of code not of name and spec. Basicly SCO is saying IBM put SCOs intelectual property into Linux and nobody is clamming IBM called Linux a Unix system and the specs IBM added to Linux are more closely related to OS/2.
Basicly this artical clames SCO dose not own the rights to the name of the code SCO clames to own. The artical clames however that SCO owns the code and that code is the key not the codes name.
Potato potahto. It's that Novel clames they never sold SCO the code. They clame to have only liccensed it.
I don't actually exist.
Who all, here, have seen the movie, The Boondock Saints? Before you mod this as off-topic, watch the movie and find the relevance.....forget the law and police.
IMHO, had SCO pulled this stunt 15 years ago or so, they might have gotten away with it. Here is why- the internet in its present form did not exist. Large-scale dissemination of unfiltered information worldwide was simply not possible. We relied on our media filters- publications like ZD and ComputerWorld and newsletters from industry analysts like Gartner for our information. And our media filters were not very reliable- look at the current situation, where "respected analysts and journalists" from Dvorak to DiDiot are so far off base on their reporting of this matter. Not just off-base, plain incorrect. Before the net, a savvy player could use these journalists and analysts to disseminate FUD, and have a real impact. But today, the net has given us unfiltered opinion from a variety of sources- and many of these sources know much more about the issues than the IT journalists. Not only that, the net allows us to see how other countries are handling the matter. Take the LinuxTag suit against SCO, and its consequences- this was hardly reported in the US IT media. What the net is doing is giving us much freer and more reliable access to information. Don't believe all that the journalists say when they start spouting off about the necessary job of filtering the news. These are the same people who have reported on the SCO lawsuit so dismally until very recently. They are the same people who gave us "news" made up by Jayson Blair. And most importantly, they are the same companies who depend on advertising dollars from the big players like M$ to keep themselves in business.
Which in fact is why in fact the U.S. was supposed to be a republic, not a democracy. It should be noted at this time that in fact most so-called democracies are really republics (almost all of Europe, in fact), and that in this case, their legal systems are doing a far better job of stopping SCO's rampage in its tracks.
The U.S. has slowly been turned into a democracy against the wishes of the founding fathers; judge for yourself if this is really a good thing.
we all know that their allegations would only hurt themselves
A lot of nerds think this, but it's not true - SCO owners have profited greatly from their allegations. The stock price has risen from about $3 to about $15, at which level some officers of the corporation have been selling stock. They haven't hurt themselves at all - on the contrary, they've profited hugely.
If you think these people are "stupid", "only hurting themselves", etc then you don't know which way is up.
I thought she was the mind behind Microsoft Bob? :P
"Our core business has been profitable in the pas."
Okay, I'll bite (and politely, too). What business is "our core business", and during what time period has it been profitable?
"It would be interesting to see a company based solemnly on profits from lawsuits -that company- against -rest of the world"
Your business plan is the exact description of Pan IP LLC, barring that they only go after the little guy who can't afford a team of lawyers. SCO was dumb enough to take on IBM.
As I said in an earlier post about the Hatch p2p is pr0n article.
Can anyone deny now that these Mormons need to be dealt with. They control the FBI (Ever wonder why the FBI so fucked up and inept?) Mormons are the people behind SCO. Now Hatch is going to try and push this through while we still don't have secure borders and are being taken over by illegal aliens out here in California. I hate to sound bigoted but this shit has got to stop. Fuck these dammed religous zealots and their rich friends.
Go ahead mormon boy mod me down and I'll just repost. You can't stand have anything that might make you all look bad. I know you will because you did this last time I pointed out how out of control you people seem to be. You are entitled to your religon but not entitled to make me a second class citizen or infringe my rights so you can look good to your elders and get rich and give tons of money to your stake.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
SCO may "own" whatever the hell it damn well pleases.
But the open source movement controls it.
As Leto Atreides said, "He who can destroy a thing controls that thing."
We can continue to distribute Linux anywhere and everywhere and can continue to use it in violation of any and all intellectual property law. And I'm sure the Chinese will, too.
So while SCO may make Linux persona non grata in the business world, we will continue to use it as if they did not exist. And it will continue to evolve as if they did not exist.
And eventually, they will not exist.
And we will remain.
Have a nice day, Darl.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Methinks you missed the point. It has nothing to do with software licenses and everything to do with using legal means to torpedo something/someone that has done nothing wrong (as far as we can tell) and profit from it. If SCO thought they could make a buck by jumping BSD they would. If Microsoft thought they could make a buck by jumping Free Software they . . . oh wait, they already did. See what I mean? It's about the money. (Yeah yeah, stop saying, "Duh.") Not about Linux, SCO, code, printf(), or any other of the supposed issues in the case. What's wrong with being about the money? Nothing. At least, nothing until you start stepping on people and or institutions who have done no wrong. Worse, it's by legal means! E-T-H-I-C-S seems hard to spell. "It's a tissue of lies," say some, "Silly silly claims" say others. Like the post said, "you may be next." and frankly, when they jump your case and you are busy treading water whether or not there is truth in the accusation doesn't help you -- it just makes you madder that anyone could believe them. Oh, and no wonder the poster was anonymous, a little 'Big Brother' paranoia is normal these days, don't you think:)
-[joke removed for your safety]-
Ok, I've waited and waited, but no one has suggested it yet. I can't keep quiet any longer.
I think "Darl Vader" rolls much more smoothly off the tongue than "Darth McBride".
My sincerest apologies to Mr. Lucas.
Darl & co. don't answer straight questions. It takes a guy like this, whether he's just trolling or genuine, to show just how hopeless SCO's case is.
Look at the possibilitiesTime to put the underpants on the head and say "wibble"
They're virtual lines, kinda like the virtual particles. They only exist in a vacuum, and the only vacuum they can exist in, happens to be between Sontag's ears. Simple when you grasp the basic physical principles of executive mechanics!!!
My posting was not offtopic, a troll who replied first to the original news topic was boasting obscenities and mentioned being a jew.