Slashdot Mirror
SCO's Plan Examined
kevin@ank.com writes "In the best expose I've read since the original Halloween documents, Groklaw has links and analysis of Renaissance Ventures' rationale for investing in The SCO Group. Among other misrepresentations, SCO convinced Ren that SCO owned the root of the entire UNIX tree, and that Linux was just one branch of that tree. Linux gets a SCO tax... forever; or worst case, if Linux gets killed in the process, then so be it. Renaissance also estimated that IBM would have settled with SCO last April under the strength of SCO's claims, and the threat of terminating their UNIX license. Oops."
-jls
Techno-pagan
We have a vested interest to ensure that SCO does not win in its attempts of litigation. We have created a shadow company that hosts our Linux servers. So if someone gets sued by SCO it will be the newly-formed company which will simply fold and we as the customer will be able to get to our data and purchase UNIX or Windows servers to continue the work.
Which is nice.
SCO convinced Ren
Ren was always easy, it was Stimpy that was always a stickler for details.
Sorry.
Intelligent Life on Earth
... where a couple of scientists are looking at a blackboard. The left and right sides have formulae. The center part says "Then a miracle happens".
One scientist says to the other, "that middle step seems a little fuzzy."
(Okay, that was paraphrased from memory, but the sentiment fits).
When SCO CEO Darl McBride wrote his open letter last week, he seemed to indicate a hope there could be a viable future partnership between his company and Linux. There is more than a hint as to what that partnership might be like in two research papers prepared back in March and April by Renaissance Ventures, a VC firm that invested in SCO.
The first document is an explanation of Renaissance's reasons for thinking SCO was a good investment. I know you've been wondering what in the world those folks in the stock market have been thinking. The second is an analysis of the SCO v. IBM lawsuit. They are both so blazingly wrong in both facts and conclusions that I fully grasp for the first time how some people may have invested in SCO, based on such misinformation.
First, the investment document. It is based on SCO's telephone conference call in February of 2003. You can listen to it yourself on mp3 here. Renaissance thought it sounded like SCO's bottom line was about to get "prettier" because they believed what SCO reportedly told them in that phone call, namely that most companies were reacting to the new SCOsource licensing program in a positive way.
Renaissance also bought the story -- hook, line and sinker -- that SCO owned the UNIX tree trunk, so to speak, and that all other versions of Unix were branches, or derivatives, off of their tree, including, so they imagined, Linux. (I'm using their language, by the way. They actually mean GNU/Linux, the kernel plus the applications, not Linux the kernel.) They planned on hijacking the GNU/Linux applications and if that meant the death of Linux, so what?
That's their business proposition? And GNU/Linux gets what out of this, other than ripped off and ruined?
Their original strategy was based on the fantasy that the world was clamoring for the ability to stay with UNIX and yet run GNU/Linux applications, and there they'd be, like a troll hiding under the bridge, ready to exact a toll on all those wanting to cross.
SCO, in their daydream, thought they could be the gatekeeper making it possible for companies already on UNIX to sort of transition to Linux, which they knew everyone wanted to do, without leaving their UNIX environment behind. Next step? Backcharge for UNIX shared libraries they believed had been used inappropriately and start scooping the money up in royalties for UNIX code.
Why they imagined companies would rather follow that convoluted, expensive route instead of just running Linux itself is one of those mysteries the tech community can never solve, because it's not based on technical realities but on financial yearning. The tech makes no sense at all. But the ka-ching started ringing in Renaissance's ears, and you know how compelling that can be, like when your telephone starts ringing and you think you have to answer it. But the whole structure is based on a lack of technical knowledge and not enough true facts and a grievous miscalculation about the market. If ever there was a situation illustrating the importance of CEOs and financial analysts comprehending tech, this story is it. Money got invested in a dream that isn't coming true.
Let me let you read it for yourselves, because it's beyond my descriptive abilities to capture all the repulsive nuances, not that this is a subtle document. They begin by describing the conference call and then explain the math potential as they see it:
"We believe management's forecasted $10 million of SCOsource revenue in 2Q represents near-term settlement of possible license violations in arrears (related to heretofore unlicensed use of the SCOsource shared libraries) from one or more large vendors of Linux solutions, but we are unable to glean more specifics at this time. . . . SCO management also stated . . . that the vast majority of interactions with customers and other software vendors with respect to the SCOsource initiative were positive. Our view is that lumpy, and possibly large, bookings of SCOsource license fees will continue for several quarter
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
3. Raise the stock value.
4.Dump the stocks and escape from the sinking ship.
SCO is trying evry trick to make some money.
Tha's all this lawsuit is about.Cashing in on other people's hardwork
I do hope SCO's claims get trashed.
Any sensible person with a moderately fair background in Unix/Linux can see through SCO's claims
Maybe someone from SCO is a /. subscriber. Since they would get to see the story earlier than the rest of us, they could DDoS any site they didn't want us to see.
I want to believe.
I was not touched there by an angel.
...when the SCO buble finally "bursts" and angry investors go back to institutions like Ren, Ren can say "we were deceived", and maybe we will yet get the fraud trial that the executives of SCO deserve to live through.
It's also been discovered that our favourite clueless "analyst", Didio, has known McBride and Stowell for some fifteen years. Yeah, not like that could affect her "analysis" or anything.
''Pass the hookah please!''
Belief is the currency of delusion.
The litigious nature of this society is drawing it into a very frightening pattern of litigating for profit. What happened to the idea that people must take responsibilty for their own actions? Could this be the start of a "my company is failing . . . I need to find someone to sue FAST!" campaign?
StyleChief
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! -M. Python
Serious, as much fun as SCO is, is anybody else feeling their faith in humanity drain away, little by little, day by day, because of morals like these?
No, not all of humanity just corporate executives... but they're species has always been questionable anyway.
There Stock price was less than $4.00 before this crap, and now it's over $17.00. I guess there BS is worth something more than the effort of all the Open Source Programmers who actually wrote code. Another shinning example of the Amerikan dream. Not too mention Michael P Olson(VP) has filed for a proposed sale of more than half his outstanding ownership(30K) shares on 11/11/2003. Wow when is somebody going to prosecute these people for fraud. IMNSHO --Greg
When work feels overwhelming, remember that you're going to die.
Renaissance thought it sounded like SCO's bottom line was about to get "prettier" because they believed what SCO reportedly told them in that phone call, namely that most companies were reacting to the new SCOsource licensing program in a positive way.
And according to recent SEC filings, wasn't it revealed that the only SCOsource licensing revenue they got last quarter was from Sun & Microsoft? Hardly a raving endorsement from the marketplace...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
You'd think that venture capitalists would have gotten smarter (and pickier) about where they throw their money. This sounds like giving the neighborhood bully some money so he can invest in a nice aluminum bat to make it easier to collect from the rest of the kids.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Crap, forgot to paste in the link.
I know people seem to be sick of reading SCO stories all the time, but I think it's exciting to be witnessing the unfolding of such an epic unix war.
It's just like the old days that I missed except now it involves linux and it's therefore even more exciting.
Maybe we should go back to the tactics of the old unix wars: We should catapult a plague-ridden cow into SCO's castle. Hmm. I think that's how it went.
graspe
Notice that IBM doesn't feel compelled to publicize every exchange between SCO and Groklaw as if it's the discovery of life on Mars....
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
http://www.livejournal.com/users/groklaw/40692.htm l
> su - /dev/flood > /dev/earth
Password:
# cat
# rdev noah+beasts
# dd if=noah+beasts of=/dev/earth
May I use your sig please?
Idiots.
They didn't bother to check any of the information presented.
They did do any research into the market or Linux or SCO. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch. They took SCO's press releases as gospel.
They're idiots and anyone who invests based upon their advice is also an idiot.
The orignal tree.
As others have noted, this tree really means nothing in terms of actual code.
For instance, Linux appears to be an offspring of Minix, which in turn is an offshoot of the original Unix.
Now, anyone who's read the preface to Andy Tanenbaum's book (where the entire Minix code is listed) knows that Minix is a clean re-implementation of unix, and contains no UNIX code whatsoever.
Linus, in turn, used some Minix code to get started with Linux, but this was quickly replaced. Linux hasn't contained any Minix code for years.
So this chart, although correct with respect to 'influence' or 'inspiration'
has nothing to do with actual code. Naturally, it doesn't provide any real support to SCO's claims.
That would be something like Digital Research suddenly claiming ownership of Windows, since it's based on DOS, which in turn was based on QDOS, which was a CP/M clone.
Yeah, I see a few of these posts from ACs.
I'll bet these posts are planted by people hoping to make a buck out of SCOX stock or something.
There's a no way a serious company would spend an incredible amount of time and money migrating away from Linux based on SCO's threats.
What a co-incidence! I am the CEO of a ginormous fortune 1 company that is doing exactly that! Joe, is that you? Don't even think of showing up to work on monday!
Assuming this anecdote is true:
-- It will expose them for what they are and it's going to end in a PR disaster.
-- They won't be able to use apache or sendmail and such in SCO's Unix which would make it worthless. So it would imply an MS only environment. If anything, it would be the ultimate argument to go fully non MS instead.
So I'd say, good, let 'em bring it on.
The BBB is great if you want to check out a plumber, HVAC company, or other small business. It is totally worthless for large corporations. Why? Because it is funded by corporations, therefore it is biased. Besides, the BBB has no legal ability to sanction, criminally charge, or otherwise take to task a company that receives negative comments. The best it can do is tell a requestor how many and complaints a company has received and how severe they are. That's great if you need a sound bite for the evening news, but totally useless for policing corrupt businesses.
No, I'm New Here
SCO's position on this is... well, it seems to go something like this:
The original UNIX licenses most companies signed with AT&T stated that modifications to the UNIX codebase would be treated as derivatives of UNIX, and is owned by the UNIX copyright holder (now SCO).
Therefore, anything any UNIX licensee installs in their UNIX instantly becomes a derivative of UNIX, and owned by SCO.
Therefore, any code contributed by any UNIX licensee from their UNIX codebase to Linux is therefore SCO's property.
Therefore, by including this code in Linux, Linux becomes a derivative of UNIX, and becomes owned by SCO.
Now, this is really... creative reasoning at just about every step of the way. But it does seem to explain SCO's statements about millions of lines of code that they own in Linux. Basically, they are claiming that any code that comes from a UNIX licensee is their intellectual property, because it is a derivative of the AT&T-licensed UNIX code.
Or at least, I think that's the story this week.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
You are assuming that a JUDGE can see through SCO's claims. Keep in mind, on the Federal bench, we have "great minds" like:
The 9th "Circus" in San Francisco, with it's stupid pledge ruling, and initial ruling that they had the power to STOP AN ELECTION FROM TAKING PLACE, before reversing themselves
Judge Lewis Kaplan of Time Warner (he worked for a firm that represented them prior to being placed on the bench by Clinton), responsible for the deCSS decision, and added the ability to BAN HYPERLINKS to the DMCA...
Judge Lee West, who seems to think that telemarketers have the right of free speech on the property of others, against their explicit will...
I'd not be CERTAIN about anything our fucked up legal system does, until it's DONE...
What is more certain than anything is that SCO will likely run out of money before the IBM suit goes to trial, if enough counter suits are filed against them.
Corporatism != Free Market
While I agree there are some real idiots sitting on the bench, some of the examples you site are complete BS. In the case of Lee West, his ruling was simply that there was nothing stated in the enforcing agency's charter that would give it the power to enforce a do not call list. You may not agree with the ruling in this particular case, but limiting government agencies to their actual rules and charters is a damn good idea. Congress just added it to the charter, problem solved.
Now as far as the pledge of allegiance is concerned, hell yeah it should be changed. What part of separation of church and state do you not understand? Kids are required to be at school, and required in many schools to say the pledge. If they say the pledge they are acknolodging a god, and dont forget, freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. The pledge as originally written did not even include the words "under god" in it, and the family of the original writer protested its addition during the cold war.
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
You're completely backwards there. The Pledge of Allegance, teacher-led in a classroom, cannot be considered a "free" act -- it is coerced. Even though technically a student may opt out of it, peer pressure makes this impossible most of the time. As such, the 9th circut's ruling was a blow for the free exercise of relilgion.
You have to remember that the term "religion" means more than just judeo/christian/muslim beliefs. It also encompasses beleif systems in which God is thought not to exist, or at least is not to be worshipped.
"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell