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.'"
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.
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. "
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
GROKLAW articles probably won't make too much sense unless you follow the site over time. Its whole purpose is to dissect the details, to sift the reality from the PR. In this case, it all goes back to the complaint SCO filed against IBM. Much of SCO's argument hinges on the assumption that the reader will buy the idea that "UNIX" as a generic term is the same thing as "UNIX" the SCO-owned code base, hence the analysis that attempts to squash that notion from any conceivable angle.
Nice spin, but in the 10-Q filing you can read that without the 8.25 million SCOsource revenue (kindly donated by SUN and Microsoft) SCO would not have been profittable that quarter but would have made a 3.68 million loss. This has been the first quarter they have been profittable and the only reason for that profitability is the SUN/Microsoft sponsoring. You can also read that Microsoft has promised them another 5 million to be spread over the next three quarters.