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?
that SCO holds the copyright on stupid lawsuit. (sarcasm intended).
"There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done." --Darl McBride, Apr 24 2003, here
Belief is the currency of delusion.
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.
By SCO using fraudulent claims to deminish the marketability of RedHat's own products (as well as that of the Linux marketplace as a whole), RedHat has every right to sue.
Why havn't any of the 'Linux contributors' - aka the people who have code in the kernel stepped up and sued SCO over defimation?
SCO has, in effect, called the 'team' that developed the Linux kernel thieves.
Why hasn't any of the 'team' stepped up to the plate and sued?
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
First, the CSOF contains literally dozens of paragraphs relying exclusively upon indisputably inadmissible material -- hearsay statements taken from books, magazine articles, letters and purported testimony of third parties who are not witnesses in this action
/ 05-05re sponse.asp
[cut]
Second, Caldera's CSOF contains many misstatements. Many of Caldera's assertions simply are not supported by the cited references. In other instances, Caldera selectively quotes from exhibits, whose full text plainly gives a different meaning than ascribed by Caldera. In alleging certain events, Caldera omits known related facts that convey an entirely different understanding.
[cut]
Finally, although Caldera attempts to rewrite 15 years of computer history, it oddly never mentions that it was not even a bystander to these events. In a 1996 transaction that closed on the same day that Caldera filed this lawsuit, Caldera paid less than $400,0006 for DR DOS and the right to pursue claims against Microsoft that Caldera now says are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. This explains why the CSOF is not based on personal knowledge, and is not limited to admissible evidence.
taken from the following page:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/caldera
- I choked on the red pill and now I'm stuck in limbo
that SCO doesn't want part of the community to stand up for itself. Its that they don't want a part of the community with money and/or lawyers to stand up for itself.
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.
Hope every Linux vendor in the world sues SCO.. Linux users should start suing SCO too. When lawyers from IBM, Redhat, 100s of Linux users, etc start overwhelming SCO with lawsuits, maybe they'll run out of money and cease to exist. They will not be missed
In its responding motion, SCO says its actions are protected by, among other rights, First Amendment protections of free speech. "Any governmental interest served under the Lanham Act (one of the foundations of U.S. intellectual property law) is heavily outweighed by fundamental governmental interests in protecting copyright interests, ensuring full and free access to courts, providing litigation immunity, promoting judicial economy and fairness in litigation, and safeguarding freedom of speech and the press," according to SCO's motion
Another company claiming the rights that an individual is entitled to. I say that since you can't jail a company or kill it, a company should not have the rights of an individual.
I think the old Nike case has not been settled yet. So SCO is in the wrong. IIRC, AFAIK and IANAL. But I know I hate this.
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
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?
Wow! SCO's stock is at 19.17 WTF!!!
It is of course a pure coincidence, but my company has decided a mere month ago to get rid of SCO Unix in the embedded systems environment and replace it with RedHat. The reason for this move has nothing to do with the ongoing juridicial battle, but has been made simply "because Linux in general is considered state-of-the-art". Cute.
I think if we as a group are trying to read some great plan into what SCO does we'll all go nuts. They are grasping a straws, hoping to find something, anything that will help them. It this get thrown out, they'll come up with some other stupid petition for the court until the judge tells them to stop.
Sadly, I saw an article in PC magazine (Ziff-Davis Trash) and the columnist was just gushing over some 'Proof' that chris sontag from SCO had shown him that yes Unix source was in linux. The guy wouldn't know a strcpy from an sprintf, but he thought this was 'powerful evidence'. If it was there, it was probably from SCO when they were caldera. Oh well theres Lies, damn lies, statistics and then the ranting of brain dead computer columnists....................
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
"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.
Apparently they will also be doing a 'city to city tour' showcasing their fabulous technology:
l
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030915/lam101_1.htm
Needless to say, a great opportunity to organize something with your local LUG to show up and politely make people aware that this is not a good company to be doing business with.
The tour supposedly visits:
-- October 7th, Toronto
-- October 8th, Newark
-- October 9th, Boston
-- October 14th, Minneapolis
-- October 15th, Chicago
-- October 16th, St. Louis
-- October 21st, Vancouver
-- October 22nd, Irvine
-- October 23rd, Dallas
-- October 28th, Atlanta
-- October 29th, Orlando
http://www.welton.it/davidw/
I mean, of course they have. A motion to dismiss is just part of the dance. It's typically the first reaction of a legal team to a legal threat. I'm pretty certain its the first thing that IBM did as well.
It's often a long shot, but if granted, it will save SCO a lot of time and money.
IAAL, and a motion to dismiss is something that is filed in nearly every lawsuit on the off chance that it will actually work and you can avoid having your client pay the expenses of litigation.
Leaving out any comment about the legal judgment involved in SCO filing the original lawsuit, if SCO's lawyers *hadn't* recommended filing this motion to dismiss Red Hat's suit, it would have constituted malpractice.
SCO sent 1500 letters to large Linux-using companies intimating legal action if those companies did not pay SCO's extortion demands. If any of those companies are using Redhat Linux, then it seems to me that Redhat has been pulled into standing by SCO's interference with Redhat's business relationship with those companies.
- First we ignored SCO.
- Then we laughed at SCO.
- Then we fought SCO.
- ...
Remind me what step four is?Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
[emphasis mine]
I may not remember correctly, but didn't SCO say they had no ties left to Novell - or something along those lines - after Novell spoke up the last time?
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
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.
I've posted this before, but instead of simply whining about their behavior here at /. we should be filing complaints with the FTC. Mention how they are trying to sell something that they do not own, and that if you don't pay them now (before they show what they own), they are saying that you'll owe them more later. Licenses start at $699 for a single processor during the promotional period.
SCO's Address:
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax
FTC Consumer Complaint Form
Take a stand and make a real difference.
--
Slash
...a copy is here.
Interesting points:
I'm still waiting for the invoice for my single-CPU Linux box...
Just another wannabe fantasy novelist...
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"
In related news, there's an article on news.com.com that just seems crazy and doesn't do Sun any favours.The main problems with this article are not Sun's strange ideas (which constitute some of the shallowest media manipulation that I've recently seen), but author Michael Kanellos' jumbled up logic that only presents one side of the issue because he ignores the possibility that SCO are insane.
Here are some choice inaccuracies/curious statements (interspersed with my comments):
"You license Java--we will indemnify you on Linux," is how Jonathan Schwartz, executive vice president of software at Sun, said the program, if initiated, might work
O.K. I don't see how Sun would think that they could do this but it's clear what they have in mind. Though what they mean by "license Java" is probably a detail that even they haven't worried about.
SCO's legal position has drawn the ire of open-source advocates, some of whom have hacked SCO's site.
As I understand, SCO's site hasn't been hacked, so he is refering to the DoS by an unknown person.
Microsoft signed a multimillion-dollar licensing agreement with SCO that revolves around Unix-Linux compatibility issues
Unix-Linux compatibility issues? Microsoft mentioned Unix-Windows compatibility, but surely noone would regurgitate that as the reason that Microsoft pay SCO.
Sun has publicly stated on several occasions that it will indemnify its Solaris customers against any liability
Is this true? Do Sun offer significantly greater protection that Microsoft (i.e. purchase price of the software)?
Schwartz did not comment on how Sun could insulate its Java customers from a lawsuit from SCO, but there are a number of possibilities.
So Sun are just posturing.
Sun could request that Java customers seeking indemnity switch from using Linux to Solaris.
Microsoft could request a similar thing!
Sun could also, conceivably, devise a Linux-like OS
I suppose I am capable of conceiving that, but it is a ridiculous idea.
Sun's license only extends to Solaris, said SCO spokesman Blake Stowell, not to Java related products
So the whole idea was obviously nonsense from the start and Michael only wrote about it because Sun said it so people will take notice.
- Brian
A day of reckoning indeed. Lots of SCO insiders have been selling shares during the past few months. None of them are buying. These aren't just anybody. We're talking Robert K. Bench, Chief Financial Officier ; Reginald C. Broughton, Senior Executive VP ; Michael P. Olson, Controller ; Michael Sean Wilson, Senior VP ; Jeff F. Hunsaker, VP . These are people who should have some idea of the health of the company.
Legally speaking, nah, that's not what failure of a motion to dismiss means.
A motion to dismiss says that *without considering any evidence*, and *taking everything you say as true*, you haven't managed to show anything wrong. Or in plain English, "Yeah, even if you're right, so what?"
So all that the failure of this motion to dismiss would mean is that Red Hat's lawyers know how to start a lawsuit, which presumably they do.
Oh, you know those kernel developer types. They are probably off on their yachts in the south of France sipping Cristal and snorting coke off of a stripper's ass.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
SCO is sending out letters about liability to licensing fees to GNU/Linux users, including RedHat's customers. That should be all the standing they need in court.
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
While Linus et al surely have had their reputations dragged through the mud, it would be very difficult to prove actual damages, and SCO's defense would simply be, "We beleive we are correct."
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
It does not protect you if you make statements designed to damage someones elses business. SCO clearly has stated linux has pirated code in it.
Redhat's primary business is selling Linux products, whether Redhat was a primary target of that statement is irrelevant, it was an intended target. SCO has clearly intended through its statments and actions to target linux users and potential users who include Redhat customers and those who might become redhat customers. These statements were and are potentially misleading and deceptive.
This may be causing actual financial damage to redhat. Courts do not want to impose prior restraint, but if Redhat can establish they are losing customers because of false and misleading statements by SCO then courts can and do act.
All of these issues are for a jury to decide , so I dont think SCOs dismissal action will succeed
Looking over the latest, which appears to be the usual SCO Linguistic Acrobatics ("We can say anything we want, it's free speech . . . for the corporation!"), I was wondering about the mentality inside SCO. Far inside, since they seem to be in their own world.
I think expecting logic, decency, concern for the rule of law, etc. from SCO is doomed to fail. Of course, we pretty much knew that.
Looking at their behaviors, its purely marketing behaviors. There's not a single connection to reality (except hopes to get $$$ by getting bought, stock manipulation, etc.). It's a marketing campaign, period, and like any campaign of its kind it'll morph, change, alter, play to whomever they can play with, and so-on.
On the other hand, I don't think the SCOites truly realize what they're doing in their little world. They're annoying a huge amount of people and making themselves legal targets. I think they only see this great new ploy that's sure to work - it's marketing, and marketing is always to gullible schlubs anyway, right?
That is perpahs their greatest personal weakness. They're running a marketing campaign in a legal arena. They're assuming people will roll over in the face of their brilliance and threats. They don't realize they're in a different arena.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
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!
SCOsource initiative has already resulted in revenue of $15,530,000 during the last two quarters
In the second quarter this was $8,250,000 from the two licenses sold.
The other licensee was Sun.
We also find the following in the quarterly:
The SCOsource licensing revenue in the third quarter of fiscal year 2003 represents additional fees associated with two licenses executed during the April 30, 2003, quarter. Under the terms of our license agreement with Sun, we will receive an additional $2,500,000 by November 2003.
So basically, they haven't sold any more licenses since April.
Sun and MS are propping SCO up to hurt Linux.
(Excluding the licensing, SCO is bleeding badly.. this is the only thing bringing them into the black.)
No. SCO must pass along most (I believe) of the money to Novell. They're like a debt-collecting agency, collecting for Novell.
Yes, on each sale 5% goes to SCO and 95% goes to Novell.
Quoting an e-week article here:
Under that agency agreement, SCO collects all customer payments and remits 95 percent of the collected funds to Novell and retains 5 percent as an administrative fee. SCO records the 5 percent administrative fee as revenue in its consolidated statements of operations.
Right, and in this case really it is just a question of jurisdiction. Federal courts can only hear actual cases and controversies, they are not allowed to give what amounts to an advisory opinion under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. SCO is simply arguing (based on the press report of its motion to dismiss) that there is no such controversy here since SCO has made no direct threat of imminent litigation towards Red Hat specifically. So SCO is arguing that Red Hat's claim is not proper under the declaratory judgment act. Basically this motion has nothing to do with the merits or substance of either sides claims regarding the software/code/copyrights etc. It is a mere jurisidictional issue. Even if SCO wins this motion and Red Hat's claims are dismissed, if SCO later sends a demand letter or something to that effect to Red Hat, Red Hat could bring this same action... But not that Red Hat has shown its willingness to litigate, SCO probably would file a suit before sending such a letter so that they could pick the forum for the litigation....
--Kobayashi--
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
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.
everyone forgets the fact that liabel and slander are expressly forbidden in the first ammendment as well, consider that if what SCO says isn't true (they havn't proven it yet) Redhat may be owed damages by SCO for the "defacment of their valuable name" or some BS like that. At the very least, it'll force SCO to break out the code. After this suit RH needs to sue SCO for slander, own them and end this whole affair with the death of SCO. That is, after devaluing their stock hopefully before the execs can dump it.
Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
Maybe it's just me... but everytime I look at that Caldera logo
I just see the corner of a giant Mickey Mouse head hovering
like a dark shadow across the globe.
Hey. Maybe Disney should sue.
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
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.
So, naturally for a libel suit there are generally three standards. 1) Did they say it? 2) Was it damaging? and 3) Is what they say factually incorrect?
Here, the first is a foregone conclusion, and the second nearly is. The third is effectively the IBM case.
But think about what that means. To prove that Linux DIDN'T steal from SCO, then either 1) SCO can actually turn over their allegations, for RedHat to refute, or 2) RedHat can subpoena the entire Sys V source code to show that any matches can be attributed to BSD or textbooks.
This is exactly what SCO is trying to avoid - you know, an actual lawsuit? So I think this is more of a "put up or shut up" move by Red Hat than anything else. Effectively, it's a way of letting teh Open Source camp control the pace of the lawsuit that SCO has no intention of actually following through with. They're trying to use it for their pump'n'dump scheme, and the Open Source camp (here, Red Hat) is attempting to take that away, to force their hand.
All in all, it's a damned good strategy.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
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.