Slashdot Mirror
SCO Volleys to Red Hat
ZeroVerteX noted that News.com is saying "The SCO Group fired back against Linux leader Red Hat on Monday, filing a motion to dismiss the Linux company's suit against SCO. In a motion filed late Monday in U.S. District Court in Delaware, SCO argues that Red Hat has no grounds to sue SCO, as SCO's actions against the open-source Linux operating system have not specifically targeted Red Hat." So it's ok to threaten a community, but not ok for a member of that same community to stand up?
Mmmmm coffee in hand and my morning SCO rant. WooHoo.....
Anyway, who did not see this coming. It's a "do as I say not as I do" thing with SCO. They think that they can get away with unbiased defamination. I beleive the judge will throw this motion out.
Y'know, in spite of all the press you see, understand that the only legal action SCO has entered into is a *contract* suit against IBM. If they win that suit, there are no consequences for anybody but IBM.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
No, they don't believe that. If they believed that, they'd come forward with proof. All they believe is that they can get some money in the bank before their company folds.
In its responding motion, SCO says its actions are protected by, among other rights, First Amendment protections of free speech.
Well that's interesting, because it was recently ruled in a Californian court that a Nike publicity campaign was actually "commercial speech" and so unprotected by the First Amendment.
Personally, I think that companies claiming the rights of citizens can't be a good thing - after all, when did you hear of human rights abuses against corporations?
Anytime you want to fund the lawsuit.....
OSS developers are liable to not be the best positioned to afford lawyers.
Now if OSS only paid their developers (and we were willing to pay for it to fund those payments !!!) maybe they would/could.
"Red Hat's real motive for filing suit against SCO was to somehow vindicate the entire Linux industry," according to the SCO motion.
Well, what did you expect, Darl? You threaten the open-source community, actively call Linux customers and tell them they're liable for using Linux, and you don't expect somebody with some guts (and cash) to stand up to you?
It's like the school bully running to the principle after somebody he's pushed around pushed back.
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
Because suing over defamation doesn't allow you to extract enough money from the guilty party when you win.
Otherwise, there'd be plenty of lawyers queued up asking the major kernel hackers for permission to sue SCO on their behalf.
From the Article:
"Red Hat's real motive for filing suit against SCO was to somehow vindicate the entire Linux industry," according to the SCO motion.
Well DUH!! Isn't SCO attacking the entire Linux Industry?!? Someone has to stand up for the Linux community (in a court of law in this case).
I don't get it. SCO is allowed to spread FUD throughout any media organization that will listen, but the minute someone legally challenges SCO's accusations, SCO cries unfair?
Someone please tell SCO to grow up... oh wait!...
It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
"We believe that Linux infringes on our Unix intellectual property and other rights," the letter said. "We intend to aggressively protect and enforce these rights. Legal liability that may arise from the Linux development process may also rest with the end user."
And how is this, and the fact that they are demanding payment for something they are not willing to disclose, not a threat?
"Terminate?"
"Terminate... with extreme prejudice"
Do you remember when SCO sent all those letters out to linux users. If just one of those users was running RedHat they have a good case for business interference.
They believe they had code stolen from them.
If SCO really believed this, then they would be trying to get the infringement stopped ASAP.
Instead, SCO's very actions are to make sure that the infringement continues forever without any way for anyone to stop it, so that they can extort money.
If SCO were to win over IBM, then IBM would pay their $3 Billion and that would be the end of the matter. The $1 Billion in damages is to fully, totally, and completely compensate SCO for their damages. End of story. Trippling the damages to $3 Billion is to punish IBM for their alleged misdeeds. In no event do end users pay anything, any more than if you have a book that ends up being shown to have plagarized someone's copyright work.
The fact that SCO goes around making threats that everyone needs to pay for a license demonstrated what it is that they actually believe. That they can make money from someone else's IP because they blame Linux for killing their failed business model.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
They won't be punished, if by 'they', you mean 'the people that work at SCO'. 'They' have already made off with their cash cow, and have decided that SCO can burn while they walk off with the plunders.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I have another idea which may work- find out what sort of specialist software lawyers require (there has to be something?) and create free packages to fill that need. With OSS/free software quality and a little publicity before too long the community would have a team of lawyers available to if not to equal the mega-corps then at least to frighten off jerks like SCO.
As ESR said "willing allies are far better value than lackeys and sock puppets", it could be time that the community went out of it's way to create some allies in the legal proffession.
--Murray Barton
IBM gets a 51% share... and completely & utterly fucks SCO over backwards, Darl included?
That would be like buying your ex-wife's car from her so you can trash it in revenge.
Thanks for the great link/info! Someone needs to mod you up ASAP. And because I'm in a sharing mood, here's the complaint I filed:
"I currently use Linux as an operating system to host the website and commerce engine for my small business. Linux uses code that has been in the public domain for over 15 years (much longer than SCO has been around). SCO is claiming ownership of the software code in Linux and is pursuing legal action against IBM, among others. SCO has not proved in a court of law that they own the software code, but has been trumpeting in open letters on the Internet that anyone who uses Linux needs to acquire a $649 license from them or face legal action. This amounts to blackmail -- 1.) SCO hasn't proved their ownership of the code, and 2.) their issue should be with the companies that have distributed Linux, not with the individuals who use it. Clearly, SCO is trying to scare/threaten me (and other Linux users) into shelling out $649 for a product that isn't even theirs to distribute/manage. The FTC needs to put an end to these practices immediately, and ought to be looking into SCO's artificial inflation of its stock price via these actions, as well (given that SCO execs have been selling off millions in their company's stock)."
blog |
IMO, you have missed the purpose of /. its mission is similar to that of NPR in that it does *precisely* what you are talking about:
/. ("news for nerds. stuff that matters").
,besides NPR, consider interesting) then dont bother with /.
In many cases (such as this one) It provides a "blow-by-blow" account of the news that is considered relevant to
As a result of watching the political process unfold NPR listeners get more informed/educated and in many cases, more involved.
As the tech law/rights/development/history process (/.) unfolds slashdotters get more informed, educated and (hopefully)involved.
IMO, blow by blow accounts of corporate legal battles are very interesting, especially when corporate entities behave like spoiled children. If you dont like this kind of coverage, (which many respectable news outlets
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Good point. Also keep in mind that by threatening individual Red Hat customers, Red Hat's business is impacted by SCO's actions. This would seem to just be a delaying tactic on SCO's part. The best case scenario for them is to have this drag out in court for years.
Its time we began to focus on the positive side of this. I am thankful for SCO v IBM. In order for enterprise adoption of GNU/Linux to happen the GPL must be tested in the courts around the globe? If the GPL cannot pass the test, corporations will not accept it. When the GPL is found legal, we will have SCO to thank.
My word to all of you is to end the hostility toward SCO and embrace the service they are providing the open source community.
Keep in mind the following:
Imagine if 300 companies simultaneously sued SCO. The grounds of each suit is unimportant. The legal cost of responding to 300 individual lawsuits scattered across the USA would bleed SCO dry in a heartbeat.
I think it only makes sense that since Red Hat's product is service oriented around the Open Source community, that what the SCO is doing is devaluing Red Hat's service by making claims which Red Hat considers to be unfounded, unfair, and/or untrue. Red Hat could make some headway if they focused on their law suit against the SCO as being a deliberate violation of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations, specifically the part dealing with Torts (deliberate misrepresentation of product or services for the purpose of devaluation). Unfortunately, I think the way that Red Hat's joined this process of litigation will work against them though considering the initial hype wasn't focused on devaluation of service, so much as a kind of "robin hood" complex... Just thinking aloud...
Not long. People aren't exactly lining up to buy their licenses. Their actions have cost them credibility, and they've flushed the business they DID have down the toilet.
SCaldera has no revenue stream other than lawsuits, and "license fees" (dont' call it extortion or I'll have your legs broken).
They can get by with contingency fee lawyers while on the OFFENSIVE, ie: the IBM suit. On the DEFENSIVE, they have to pay the lawyers.
Once the RedHat suit gets rolling, I expect that there will be several other suits filed. To have any hope of winning any of them, SCaldera will have to pony up MILLIONS in legal fees.
The moral of the story: A company that doesn't have a revenue stream, that isn't a "going concern" shouldn't start fights that it can't win...
But then, looking at the action on SCOX stock (SucksCOX) I don't think they have any illusions about winning. The whole thing is a stock scam.
Too bad the SEC never steps in WHILE this shit is happening. They wait until later, after investors have been ruined by scams to take action.
In the case of SCO, I have no sympathy for anyone who gets burned. RESEARCH... Anyone who buys stock in a company that doesn't have a product, a revenue stream, etc is pissing money away.
Corporatism != Free Market
because this sounds awfully similiar to Ashcroft's Patriot Act tour. Why would either of them need to go around the country tooting their own horn? [Your Sarcastic Response Here]
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Wouldn't it benefit the OSS more to not talk about the SCO debacle and let the lawsuits fad into obscurity than give them the attention they are so desperate to get?
A basic principle in US election campaigns is that negative advertising cannot be left unanswered. You might think that the best way to deal with negative acusations is to ignore them and let them fade into obscurity, but this only works in certain circumstances. If your acuser lacks all credibility then you can do this, but if your acuser has any credibility at all then you have to answer the acusations (and quickly) because they will quickly take hold in public opinion unless there is a competing position available.
Something similar is at work here. SCO is trying pump up its share price by creating an impression in the mind of the public (at least in the share buying part of the public) that SCO has a good shot at winning big in court. If they succeed then the flip side will be that the public will expect OSS companies like RedHat to lose big, and the share prices of those OSS companies will decline. The only way for OSS companies to defend their share price is to get a comnpeting story out there before public opinion sets.
I should note that IBM is in a different position. IBM is big enough and SCO is small enough that IBM can afford to shrug off this kind of story. No one thinks that IBM will die if OSS tanks.
Yes, we really do need a gag order. See, we know he's full of shit, but there are many people who don't. They believe whatever they see in a press release or a poorly-written news story. Remember, this isn't about a legal challenge for SCO. For them, it's about innuendo and intimidation. Take away the ability to spout bullshit, and they have to step forward and offer real proof, which is the last thing they want to do.
"So it's ok to threaten a community, but not ok for a member of that same community to stand up?"
Actually, that's probably true, but also probably irrelevant in this case. Red Hat's initial filing included enough press quotes from SCO management specifically mentioning Red Hat, that I think Red Hat's controversy claim will hold up.
SCO is saying hear that we never attacked Red Hat in the press, just Linux. But the record shows otherwise, lots of references to Red Hat by Darl & Co., so I suspect SCO will simply come off looking like hypocrites to the judge.
I hope so, anyway. I really, really, want this Red Hat suit to succeed and shut down SCO's FUD machine.
Red Hat's claim of there being an "actual controversy" should also hold up because of SCO's statements that they intend to invoice corporate users of Linux. Clearly some, probably most, of those corporate users are using Red Hat.
The same interview includes the following gem.
"System V is the basis for all operating systems outside of Redmond-AIX, HP UX, Solaris, Apple and Linux." --Darl McBride, Apr 24 2003.
So does Apple pay royalies to SCO? I thought that Apple MAC OS9 and earlier had nothing to do with Un*x and MAC OSX was based upon BSD which is a noticable exception to the list probably due to pervious legal precidents.
Looks like after IBM, we will see Apple in the firing line.
www.oshistory.net - Operating Systems History
what sort of specialist software lawyers require
It's called 'mail merge' and 'legal accounting' software. IOW, nothing you don't get with OpenOffice, in the first place[0], and, er, legal accounting (which, IMSC, is just DEBK).
[0] except maybe the forms themselves, but they're not terribly difficult to produce.
I know, cos I used to write the latter, and support the former under Word Perfect (4.2 if you're interested.. which ran on Unix - and not just Unix, but SCO! Oh the irony).
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
"There's nothing wrong with a company picking up rights to a product with the intention of pursuing law suits related to that product. "
I think there's a lot wrong with doing that. I'd love it if a court rejected a lawsuit on the basis that the buying company already knew about the issue and could have avoided it simply by not buying the company in the first place.
I hear this so much in our country: That we should hurt their pocketbooks or sue them to dispose of their company. It's not right. It's not justice that we or others should be hurt and then pay for legal action so that they are forced to cease their behavior.
They must GO TO JAIL. McBride and the other officers of their company must be charged with fraud, as they are certainly committing it, and reckless destruction of property, which they are certainly doing, and conspiracy, as they are working together (and with people outside of SCO, as we have seen) to pump up the stock, even as they sell off their shares.
They must defend themselves against a jury and we must have real justice. Where is the North Carolina Prosecutor, who should be charging the officers to protect their corporate citizen (Red Hat)? Where is the Federal Prosecutor, who should be protecting all of the American users of Linux?
People like the officers of SCO do the things they do because they know there will never be any consequences aside from making LESS money.
Where is the criminal system we pay taxes for?
Darl gets a big fat payoff if he can deliver four straight profitable quarters. Most of it is in stock, which means he'll have to keep up the fiasco for another quarter or two to cash out.
At that point, I think we can expect him to leave SCO. If there is any SCO left to leave. Maybe the final legal showdown will be Darl v. Ralph, to be filed in late 2004 or early 2005. We all know how much Darl loves to sue his employers.
Anyway, this means the SCO v. IBM case is not likely to ever make it to court because there's *no* motivation for Darl to go that far.
In the meantime, he'll do whatever it takes to show profit on the next two or three 10-Q's. He'll slash personnel, support, anything, doesn't matter how it affects SCO's long term prospects, as long as he shows profits each quarter. He'll try to get people to pay for SCO IP in Linux licenses NOW, not after the case is resolved in court, because he doesn't care what happens that far down the line.
He needs the money on the books and in the 10-Q next quarter and the following one. He's got two profitable quarters in a row, though he probably wouldn't have made it this quarter without cutting personnel and associated costs. Two more to go, and he's golden.
If he hasn't done it already, we can expect some *extremely* creative accounting over the next two quarters. Or more money from MS. MS, according to the latest 10-Q (available at SEC), has apparently purchased those "expanded licensing options" that were mentioned in the April 30 10-Q.
Darl's biggest fear is that something will shut down SCO and/or it's FUD machine within those next two quarters. If he sounds irrational and afraid, well, that's because he is. He can't pull any more profits out of Germany. Australia, Austria, and Poland are lining up to gag him in their countries. Red Hat's trying to do the same in the U.S. Of course, none of this matters much as long as no court decisions are reached within the next 3 quarters. Which means delay, delay, and delay will be SCO's legal strategy going forward.
I am a engineer/scientist for a major aerospace company. I am a user of various computer operating systems, including Mac OS X, OpenBSD, and GNU/Linux. It was brought to my attention that The SCO Group has declared that by using Linux, Mac OS X, or OpenBSD for my work/pleasure, that me and my company would be infringing on their IP.
c hives.asp?ArticleID=41480)
They have already licensed me to use GNU/Linux (I downloaded Linux from their website and was licensed under the General Public License). Apple has licensed me to use Mac OS X, and OpenBSD was licensed to me under the BSD License. But SCO claims that use of these is IP infringement. See http://www.sco.com/scosource/description.html . They claim that unless I use their "new" license, for a fee (see previous link), I will be held liable for IP infringement in the future.
My complaint is a) they already licensed me to use the code under the GPL (GNU/Linux). b) they claim that I am infringing on their copyrighted code both in software that they licensed to me (Linux) and software totally unrelated to SCO but refuse to explain which code is infringing.
All of the code I am using is open source, so it should be a simple matter for them to simply list infringing code. I am happy to remove all infringing code. I do not have a contract with them in any respect, nor do I desire to use their IP.
I have attempted to contact them, however, their phone number appears to be perpetually busy. I do not know if this is a stall tactic.
I do not know the legal term for this - but if they desire paymnt for something I don't even want to use (their IP) and provide no proof that I have any of it beyond press releases (http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyar
"System V is the basis for all operating systems outside of Redmond-AIX, HP UX, Solaris, Apple [Mac OS X] and Linux.", that seems to be a form of legal extortion or wrongful prosecution.
If they will provide to me what code is infringing, I will most certainly remove their code from my systems.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Except in a courtroom, where it belongs.
>> He does more damage to his company every time he opens his mouth
No, that's not exactly true either. He may be doing LONG-TERM damage to the company, but for the short term he's done a phenominal job for the shareholders (and parent company). Despite our objections to his methods and ethics, he's been successful if not narrow minded.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Enough already with the SCO fud. Give them what they want least, ignorance.
You do not have to prove that you lost business, only that SCO's statements damaged your business (e.g. caused a monetary loss). This can be in the form of more time having to be spent assuring your distraught customers that they don't have to abandon the Linux ship.