Slashdot Mirror


SCO Backing Off Linux Invoice Plan

rocketjam writes "CNet is reporting that the SCO Group is backing off plans to send invoices to corporate users in an effort to generate more takers of their Linux licensing plan. A spokesman said SCO executives were happy with current progress in the licensing program, and didn't feel they needed to send out invoices yet. SCO also extended the 'introductory' licensing price to the end of October, at which point the amount they are asking will double. Despite SCO's threats, 84 per cent of CIOs in a recent survey said it hasn't affected their plans to implement Linux."

283 comments

  1. "Backing off" deserved profits? by Empiric · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I doubt this has anything to do with SCO's "satisfaction" with the level of response, but rather with the advice of their lawyers.

    Generally, invoicing for other people's work is not held in high regard by the law.

    --
    ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    1. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by letxa2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yeah, and gotta love the quote from the article:

      • "
      • SCO's plan has been carefully unveiled, piece by piece, Weiss added. "This is not to me ad hoc or random. It is carefully designed to ratchet up the pressure on users to knuckle under," he said. "

      "Ratcheting up the pressure on users to knuckle under?" They're backing off invoicing and that's ratcheting up the pressure? Nice to see the SCO cheerleading section in full swing. :)

    2. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by BigFootApe · · Score: 1
      Generally, invoicing for other people's work is not held in high regard by the law.

      Nor is intimidating people to make them pay.
    3. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by Rajesh+Gupta · · Score: 2, Informative

      Regardless of law, SCO is making dents in sales all around the world. Here in India, SCO had a deal with our country's biggest life insurance company. All these success stories have in part been made possible by all the publicity SCO had lately.
      Remember Rael's cloning stuff ? Same thing here folks. Hopefully, Rael lives far enough from us :)

    4. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by Read+Icculus · · Score: 1

      In other news - The October 15th deadline to get the official Darl-tested, SCO-approved Linux license at the bargain basement price of just $699 has passed us by. Woe unto us all!

      --
      Anti-social? My code is just platform-specific.
    5. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by segment · · Score: 1

      I agree with your comment about heeding the advice of lawyers, however let me troll about the c/p'd statement you make: Generally, invoicing for other people's work is not held in high regard by the law. Assuming all is true, and they do hold patents for the work, then by law they're entitle to compensation for it no matter how much someone bitches about it. Ethical? No, Legal? Yes.

      I barely answer SCO posts unless I'm posting some trollish joke about SCO suing someone for using main() in their code, but I felt like dabbling with legalities today.

      So let's say that indeed no matter how obfuscated the situation is surrounding SCO, but let's say they do own the patents or copyrights or whatever to something someone else is using, then by law they do deserve what's theirs. However, ethically, they're making a big deal over anything, and it makes for good marketing in a sense that some CTO's may be scared into using nothing but Linux from SCO. Sucks to do things that way considering if they did so for (brought all these lawsuits etc) that reason, they could face more legal fees than they might have calculated if word gets out. Companies would pound them for frivolous lawsuits, etc. It would be a nightmare.

      To keep this post short though, if you're following the law to the letter, not what your ethical beliefs are, and indeed SCO does own the material, they have every right to compensation.

    6. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by Trepalium · · Score: 1

      Sending out unsoliticed invoices is illegal in many places (mail fraud). If you want to get paid for misappropriation of patents, then you either negotiate with them directly, or you sue. Of course, IANAL, and I'm not from the US, either. Maybe in your corner of the world, they let people send out all kinds of unsolicited invoices for products not purchased, but I'd doubt it.

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    7. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA

    8. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1

      Generally, invoicing for other people's work is not held in high regard by the law.

      Invoicing for someone else's work? Actually, that sounds like something a lawyer would do.

      -a

    9. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by bm_luethke · · Score: 1

      Well, you never know, they could know that thier claims are so ridiculous that a single taker is "satisfactory".

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    10. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by belmolis · · Score: 1
      if you're following the law to the letter, not what your ethical beliefs are, and indeed SCO does own the material, they have every right to compensation.

      This is true if the claim is based on patents, but not if it is based on copyright, and SCO's claims against Linux users are based on copyright. Copyright law provides a cause of action against the distributor (e.g. RedHat) but not against the end user. For example, suppose that, without a license, I copy The Art of Computer Programming and sell you a copy. Don Knuth or his publisher would then have a cause of action against me, but none against you. You don't need a license to read or own a copyrighted work, and it makes no difference whether your copy was produced under license or not.

      I am not a lawyer, but Eben Moglen is. See his discussion of this point.

    11. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Check out this.

      Some interesting quotes:

      As a "call option," an SCO investment would not be likely to expire before spring 2005, when the IBM case is scheduled to go to trial

      Spring 2005?! We have to put up with this for that long? Argh!

      Accordingly, Skiba advised investors not to discount a potential takeout of SCO, particularly if the firm is able to slow down the adoption of Linux. SCO management has indicated $1 billion would be an acceptable takeout price -- about one-third of the $3 billion plus potential punitive damages SCO is seeking from IBM.

      $1b? Hahaha!

      In addition, he argues that the idea of Linux being created by thousands of volunteer programmers is largely myth, given that companies like IBM, Hewlett-Packard (HPQ:NYSE - commentary - research) and others have paid thousands of employees to improve the operating system and build a business around it.
      Need I say more?
    12. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      not be likely to expire before spring 2005, when the IBM case is scheduled to go to trial

      It will never go to trial. These guys know how to run a stock scam, and they are following the mining stock model. The "prime directive" of running a successful mining scam is NEVER NEVER dig. Before you dig, the sky's the limit, and you can tout your glowing geologist reports to all your suck^h^h^h^h investors, but once you actually break ground then the true value can be determined. For SCO, going to court would be like digging the mine.

    13. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      I initially read it as 'racketing up', a more apt description of the process.

    14. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Copyright law provides a cause of action against the distributor (e.g. RedHat) but not against the end user.

      Actually copyright law, basally, provides a cause of action against anyone infringing the monopoly the copyright holder has of making copies of the work. However so much has been grafted onto that basic proposition (such as "access rights" under the DMCA) that a simple proposition about what copyright law is now, is liable to be wrong (or at least heavily hedged with caveats).

      For example, suppose that, without a license, I copy The Art of Computer Programming and sell you a copy. Don Knuth or his publisher would then have a cause of action against me, but none against you.

      You don't have to sell it to attact liability, merely making the copy (over and above what fair-use would permit) is enough. Giving it away is just as bad (note recent RIAA) actions, though strictly speaking even that is not necessary. But you are right the recipient should not be liable in copyright.

    15. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by Maxhrk · · Score: 0

      New Improved Iraqi Currency [politrix.org] This iraqi currency with bush on it is so funny. hahahaha

    16. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by inc_x · · Score: 1

      > Assuming all is true, and they do hold patents
      > for the work, then by law they're entitle to
      > compensation for it no matter how much
      > someone bitches about it. Ethical? No, Legal?
      > Yes.

      Use of Patents? Yes.
      Use of copyrighted work? No.

      And no, SCO doesn't own any relevant patents. So no, SCO does not have a legal basis to invoice end users.

    17. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by c1ay · · Score: 1
      $32 per embedded system? I wonder if Linksys is in Darl's sights yet...

      BTW, I noticed SCO OpenServer is sporting Samaba file services but couldn't find any source code. Anyone know where the scource code is :-)

      --

    18. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by Deusy · · Score: 1

      Generally, invoicing for other people's work is not held in high regard by the law.

      Well, they would be in for some real trouble - perhaps under criminal law - if they were to go ahead, invoice and get money out of people, then get crapped on in court and their claims over Linux to be thrown out. Hiding behind a plc would not then be enough to protect the instigators as all and sundry would be baying for their blood.

      In the highly unlikely event that SCO are proven to have been wronged against, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll be throwing around invoices and chasing compensation from everybody.

      But they know and we know they're in for a legal whooping from Big Blue and Little Red Riding Hood. And they know and we know that there's a limit to the amount of shit they can stir before they have to bathe in it; at the moment they still stand a chance of escaping having made enough money to retire on through selling their own inflated stock.

      --

      Free Gamer - Free games list and commentary

    19. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by MuParadigm · · Score: 1


      Do you have a copy of the OpenServer distribution?

      The reason I ask is that it's possible that they included the Samba source on the CD's of the product.

      They're not required under the GPL to post the source on the internet, just to make it available to people to whom they've distributed the product.

      Note: I'm not defending SCO here - I wouldn't be3 at all surprised if they abrogated the GPL again. I'm just suggesting that we make sure we've done the proper due diligence before accusing them of yet another GPL breach. It's certainly something the Samba dev team should look into.

    20. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by spitefulcrow · · Score: 1

      That IBM suit won't get anywhere near trial. Seems likely to me that IBM would just initiate a takeover and then shut SCO down once it has control. Devalues the stock so all the people who want big money don't get any, and IBM comes away from it with the rights to a whole bunch of stuff.

      --
      Sorry, my karma just ran over your dogma.
    21. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by MuParadigm · · Score: 1

      "...let's say they do own the patents or copyrights or whatever to something someone else is using, then by law they do deserve what's theirs."

      Well, no one has been able to find any patents possessed by SCO that would have any legal relationship to their claims or to Unix at all, so let's skip the patent question and go to copyrights.

      As far as copyright is concerned we have two issues:

      A) SCO hasn't filed any copyright claims in court (nor has it filed any patent claims, but that's already a moot point)

      B) In the extremely hypothetical event that SCO had enforceable copyright claims, the damges would need to be compensated for by the infringer of those claims (i.e., IBM, etc.) and not the end-user.

      So, if we're following the letter of the law and grant the dubious hyppothesis that their public pronouncements of copyright infringement have any merit - though they have not filed any claims of copyright infringement with the courts - SCO would still have no right to compensation from the end-users, but only from companies that contributed the infringing code.

    22. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by Doctor7 · · Score: 1
      Well, they would be in for some real trouble - perhaps under criminal law - if they were to go ahead, invoice and get money out of people, then get crapped on in court and their claims over Linux to be thrown out.

      Actually, probably not. If they had gone ahead with sending out licences, those licences would no doubt have covered a legitimate SCO product, with the linux part as an additonal term of the licence. As an unsolicited invoice, the receiver would be free to ignore it, but anyone stupid enough to pay it would have no comeback.

    23. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by MuParadigm · · Score: 1


      "...claims against Linux users are based on copyright."

      Actually, SCO's claims are, so far, based strictly on contract law. Their legal complaint says that IBM had no right to contribute the code without SCO's permission, since it is, SCO alleges, a "derivative work" of Unix.

      Despite all of SCO's press releases and interview statements claiming copyright infringement, they actually *haven't* charged anyone with copyright infringement in their court briefings. The copyright claims are just more FUD.

    24. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by c1ay · · Score: 1

      Somewhere I do have a copy of "Try before you buy" OpenServer. I'll have to see if I can find it. Then again, I've probably relegated it to coaster duty since it's about as valuable as an AOL CD so it might not be readable. Anyone else got a copy?

      --

    25. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      What is even more amazing is that the guy is *bragging* that their ambition is to make users "knuckle under". SCO: where good customer relations is defined as "fear and loathing". At this point I am convinced that nobody in SCO has any connection to reality anymore.

      Chris Mattern

    26. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, SCO's claims about the need for end users to license Linux from them are not based on either copyright or contract law, but rather pure fantasy.

      But you need to separate their claims in court filings in their case with IBM from their many, many claims in the media and on their web sites and in their emails that Linux users are violating copyright law. While the former claims have more weight in many ways, it is the latter claims that are resonsible for any license purchases. They are using the threat of legal action to extort money-- a protection racket essentially.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    27. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by blahlemon · · Score: 1
      That's right, haven't these people watched the Godfather trilogy? You never admit you did anything wrong, you never discuss business plans with people outside of the family, you never brag and you keep your buttonmen at an arm's length from the family.

      It's just good business practice.

      --
      It take more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in God
    28. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      Read it again. That's Gartner analyst George Weiss, not an SCO crony. I don't see it as cheerleading at all - he knows exactly what they're doing.

    29. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      he highly unlikely event that SCO are proven to have been wronged against, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll be throwing around invoices and chasing compensation from everybody.

      So let's say a year ago I downloaded a SCO distributed copy of Linux that I'm still using. When I downloaded it, SCO was essentially telling me it was free -they sold it to me for $0.

      So now SCO is going to send me an invoice saying they were wrong, it costs more?

      I'm pretty sure that once you've sold something to someone (even if the cost was $0), you can't go back to them later and say, "Sorry, the price has changed and you now need to pay more for what I sold you!".

    30. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by winse · · Score: 1

      i found
      this article on SCOX latest runnup to be telling. In particular:
      SCO management has indicated $1 billion would be an acceptable takeout price -- about one-third of the $3 billion plus potential punitive damages SCO is seeking from IBM
      hmmm a billion dollars? I think IBM would rather take this thing to court. In the mean time I'm not going to target $45 a share as the analyst pushed.

      --
      this sig is deprecated
    31. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah- its a stock scam, eh? Is that why they stock went up 30% yesterday after a Deutsche Securities analyst upgraded SCOX to buy on the same day that SCO was named one of the fastest growing North American technology firms? I suppose the analysts 12 month target for SCOX of $45/share is just part of the stock scam too?

      Moron.

    32. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      I took a quick look and did not see the source on my copy of the CD.

      If SCO did not make any changes to the source and it compiled out of the box, are they required to host the source or is just pointing back to their source, samba.org, sufficient?

    33. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Ah- its a stock scam, eh? Is that why they stock went up 30% yesterday after a Deutsche Securities analyst upgraded SCOX to buy

      If your evidence that it's not a scam is that the price is going up, well, by that logic every scam is legit, because they all go up at first.

      As for that "analyst," did you catch the part where it said

      "Mr. Skiba said he isn't attempting to predict the outcome of the legal case and doesn't know whether SCO Group's claims have merit."
      So this guy says it's a good play because of the law suit, then says he has no idea about the validity of the suit. That's some mighty fine cipherin' there, Jethro. If the guy is incapable of judging the merits of the case, and if the value of the play is based on the suit, then how can this guy plausibly set any kind of price "target"? How did he arrive at that number? Seems especially difficult for him, considering that it exceeds the number of fingers and toes one is normally allocated.
    34. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      Well, SCO has a problem with that "bragging" thing.

    35. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by phriedom · · Score: 1

      Thats a good article. The better quote to me was that "Skiba acknowledges that his call on SCO may be taken as heresy in the Linux community, but said it's important to separate the stock from the company." Separate the stock from the company sounds to me like separate the price from reality, or separate fools from their money. Even the analysts know it is all hot air, but they compete on being louder in the hype engine.

      The real gold is on page two though: Another analyst predicts $6 after they lose and notes 12% of the float is holding short positions. He says SCO might possibly convince a jury, but IBM will win on appeal because "I think it's a stretch to think that an appellate court is going to overturn 100 years of copyright law."

      --
      Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
    36. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by Casualposter · · Score: 1

      "Skiba acknowledges that his call on SCO may be taken as heresy in the Linux community, but said it's important to separate the stock from the company. In addition, he argues that the idea of Linux being created by thousands of volunteer programmers is largely myth, given that companies like IBM, Hewlett-Packard (HPQ:NYSE - commentary - research) and others have paid thousands of employees to improve the operating system and build a business around it. "

      I really like the part where he says "its important to separate the stock from the company." The stock is the company. Basic Finance. And this guy is an analyst? More like stupid marketing troll. I've heard better stock analysis as a sports bar.

      --
      Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
    37. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by haystor · · Score: 1

      There is an obligation to provide the source to the people you've provided the binary. This can be done through any method and a nominal fee may be charged for the separate distribution of the source.

      --
      t
    38. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally, invoicing for other people's work is not held in high regard by the law.

      In this case, I think the issue would be that they would be invoicing for IP use which hasn't been proven in court. Therefore the invoice would be bogus if they sent them out and this would qualify as mail fraud under US law most likely. IANAL but I did do some googling some time back and found information about fake invoices and the criminal penalties associated with them, from multiple sources. SCO would in such a case have argued that they had a good faith basis for believing their invoice to be legitimate, but they still would be at risk for hard time for some of the lawyers and perhaps executives of SCO.

    39. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by cluckshot · · Score: 1

      Generally Invoicing or billing for servies which cannot be validated constitutes under Federal Law:

      Wire Fraud or

      Mail Fraud

      Both of which tend to get the sender a long vacation at Club Fed. These are enforced pretty strongly too!

      W. Hubble (Clinton Admin.) got to take one of those vacations all expenses paid courtesy of the Taxpayers of the United States of America for just this! Maybe the SCO people didn't want to make the issue move into the Criminal Courts?

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    40. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by belmolis · · Score: 1
      Actually, SCO's claims are, so far, based strictly on contract law. Their legal complaint says that IBM had no right to contribute the code without SCO's permission, since it is, SCO alleges, a "derivative work" of Unix.

      SCO's case against IBM is a matter of contract law, but SCO's demand that Linux users obtain licenses is distinct from its suit against IBM. That has to be the case since Linux users have no contractual relationship with SCO. SCO's license demand is based on copyright, and copyright law provides no basis for this demand.

    41. Re:"Backing off" deserved profits? by MuParadigm · · Score: 1


      Absolutely correct. But kind of a moot point until SCO actually sues someone for a license fee, or until someone sues them over being invoiced for it.

      Perhaps my meaning would have been clearer, though, had I specified "legal claims" rather than just "claims".

  2. IOW... by Red+Warrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

    SCO doesn't like the fact that IBM and Red Hat are both fighting back. They decided it would be bad to have more companies filling suit at the same time.

    --
    "If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
    ~Epictetus
  3. 16%... 1 in 7 by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So one CIO in 7 has changed his plans to switch to Linux.

    That's not a paltry number, I'm sure.

    A more interesting article regarding kids and games today is here.

    1. Re:16%... 1 in 7 by tankdilla · · Score: 1

      1 in 7 also give up their wallets to the wallet inspector. Sure it's peculiar that it's a different inspector every time, but you gotta be in compliance with wallet standards these days right? Better to be safe than have a wallet that's too heavy or full.

      --

      -Look lively. LOOK LIVELY!!! --Mr. Shmallow

    2. Re:16%... 1 in 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm actualy going to be changing a couple of workstations here over to linux purely because of this lawsuit. Balance things out a bit :P

      And if i can convert some of the unwashed masses, all the better :)

    3. Re:16%... 1 in 7 by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      No, 1 in 7 have rethought their plans to switch to linux. Doesn't mean it changed they just thought about it again.

      Maybe half those people said "Well screw SCO I'm still installing linux" and maybe the other half said "Oh well let's wait for the lawsuit to blow over then we'll install linux." The statistic doesn't say they totally gave up on linux, they just thought about it again.

    4. Re:16%... 1 in 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot those that said "SCO is going down, we better switch from SCO-unix to Linux before they fold completely".

    5. Re:16%... 1 in 7 by sbunin · · Score: 1

      But the fact that they aren't switching to an SCO product is probably ticking someone off!

    6. Re:16%... 1 in 7 by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      And when this is all over... 1 in 7 will be suing SCO for falsely claiming IP and threatening lawsuits... I promise :D

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
  4. oh great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just didn't think i could really be at slashdot without seeing another sco post. wheee

    1. Re:oh great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the fuck what? If you don't want to read it than don't read it. Plain and simple.

  5. Do we really believe any of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They haven't sent out invoices because they're satisfied with the response on their Linux licensing program? Are you sure it isn't the fact that it would be illegal, and would get them into endless hot water? No, no, it's because they're getting loads and loads of money from 'concerned' companies.

  6. Tell me by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

    There cannot be a company/organization stupid or spineless enough to actually buy a "sco binary" linux license . If so lets see the list... so we know where to place future shorts.

    1. Re:Tell me by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 0

      I for one would never buy a SCO license.
      Who would want to hand SCO a stick to beat you with?
      Remember:
      Contract are used against you by SCO.

      --
      I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  7. People Are Buying These Things!? by crass751 · · Score: 1

    I'd be very interested to see how many people/companies have actually bought into the SCO FUD and bought a Linux license.

    1. Re:People Are Buying These Things!? by Drakon · · Score: 1

      SCO says they have an unnamed fortune 500 country.
      Probably Microsoft.

    2. Re:People Are Buying These Things!? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      At full price, not for free or other incentives. SCO doing so would be wonderful PR.

    3. Re:People Are Buying These Things!? by Bishop923 · · Score: 1

      SCO says they have an unnamed fortune 500 country.
      Probably Microsoft.


      Wow, Microsoft is a country now? Did they just wall off Redmond ala Vatican City, or did they just buy some developing nation?

    4. Re:People Are Buying These Things!? by Nerull · · Score: 1

      They bought Vatican City.
      Gates as seen shaking hands with the Pope, while giving a speach about their 'extend and embrace' policy toward Roman Catholics.

    5. Re:People Are Buying These Things!? by fgb · · Score: 1

      They bought Elbonia since most of their software development is done there anyway.

    6. Re:People Are Buying These Things!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, since you can't buy a licence from them even if you try, I'm guessing they only have their one phantom licencee

  8. Thank God! by ExCEPTION · · Score: 1, Funny

    I was so freaked out when I missed the introductory licensing dead line. Got to go to the bank now.

  9. Little Window Envelopes by DaedalusLogic · · Score: 1

    What did they think, that if you sent an invoice to someone's accounting department that they wouldn't notice and just pay the bill?!

    Hey... actually that idea isn't half bad.

    1. Re:Little Window Envelopes by BakaMark · · Score: 1

      That used to be a large problem in some very large companies years ago. An invoice arrived for a sum of money, and instead of investigating it, because the amount involved was small they would just pay the invoice.

      It does not happen as much now. It depends upon the structure of the company. I wish anyone luck in attempting this against, say a financial institution. A lot of company accountants will actually inquire as to what the invoice is for, and it usually involves some checking with the area that the work was done for. If there is internal accountability, then this send and pray method will definitely not work.

    2. Re:Little Window Envelopes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean Little Linux Envelopes?

    3. Re:Little Window Envelopes by Meridun · · Score: 1

      This is actually fairly common for medium to large companies with regards to things like copier service calls, since anyone who has worked in an office with a copier knows that seems like someone is out to service it every other week. Therefore, people have figured out that if you send invoices for copier service, they tend to get paid.

    4. Re:Little Window Envelopes by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 1
      A lot of company accountants will actually inquire as to what the invoice is for

      "Billing Fee", perhaps? This formed the plot of a Judge Dredd story in an issue of the venerable 2000 A.D. many moons ago.

      -- YLFI
      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
    5. Re:Little Window Envelopes by KillerHamster · · Score: 1

      At a manufacturing company where I had an internship (processing invoices, of all things), we got around 200 invoices a day. I doubt it would be all that hard for SCO to sneak one through. They might catch it after it was paid and they're trying to file it, but I doubt anyone would bother to see if they had actually bought anything from SCO before writing a check.

    6. Re:Little Window Envelopes by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      This urban legend won't stop, but the truth is, it's damned hard to get a corp. to pay LEGITIMATE invoices. The notion that crap gets paid out just because the bill arrives is preposterous.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    7. Re:Little Window Envelopes by 00420 · · Score: 1

      The notion that crap gets paid out just because the bill arrives is preposterous.

      Next time check your facts before posting.

    8. Re:Little Window Envelopes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen an invoice like this myself -- a real unprofessional typewritten invoice for "secretarial services" -- so it's no urban legend. I suppose if it ever worked 1 out 100 times, somebody will keep trying it.

      Along similar lines, I've heard about legitimate vendors who systematically overbill, send multiple invoices, etc.

    9. Re:Little Window Envelopes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean Little GNU/Linux Envelopes?

    10. Re:Little Window Envelopes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you'll get paid, but if the unless the amount goes under the radar (less than $500 or so), someone's cost center has to pay it, and since this is a computer/software bill it will pass across the IT manager/CIO's desk, and I'm sure they'll not be too happy to find that they have been invoiced from a company that they don't owe any money too. A quick call to the legal department, and a few angry letters later, you can see SCO in a courtroom for mail fraud real quick.

    11. Re:Little Window Envelopes by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Next time check your facts before posting.

      Right, when my AP department cuts a check for my last expense report, I'll be with you on that.

      Clearly you haven't worked in the corporate world.

      If you want your invoices paid, you have to do more than just send them. You have to hound the people who will eventually pay you.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  10. 16% damage from SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Despite SCO's threats, 84 per cent of CIOs in a recent survey said it hasn't affected their plans to implement Linux."

    This means that 16% of Linux implementations HAVE been affected by SCO's threats. I expect that this represents significant financial damage to Linux businesses as will be represented in the sure-to-ensue lawsuits that will follow SCO on its way down the toilet.

    1. Re:16% damage from SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The survey did not ask HOW it had affected CIOs' plans to implement Linux. It just asked if it had had an impact, for better or for worse.

    2. Re:16% damage from SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Despite SCO's threats, 84 per cent of CIOs in a recent survey said it hasn't affected their plans to implement Linux."
      >This means that 16% of Linux implementations HAVE been affected by SCO's threats. I expect that this represents significant financial damage to Linux businesses as will be represented in the sure-to-ensue lawsuits that will follow SCO on its way down the toilet.

      "Affected" doesn't imply negative. Take my company for example. Before, we didn't plan to roll out Linux until Q2 2004. Now, at the prospect of getting sued by SCO and making money off of them in countersuits, we moved up or Linux rollout to next week.

    3. Re:16% damage from SCO by jmorey · · Score: 1

      One would have to be careful in calculating the damages. I wonder if any of the CIOs in the 16% of affected implementations plans have actually stepped up their implementation schedule because they were replacing SCO and wanted to speedup getting it totally out of house or were just upset about the actions of SCO and wanted to rub it in their faces.

    4. Re:16% damage from SCO by SQLz · · Score: 1

      No, it means that 16% of people who took the poll have been affected by SCO's threats.

      Its so easy to trick the public with polls and percentages, maybe even a nice graph. I bet 1 and 10 people who took the poll were actually CIO.

    5. Re:16% damage from SCO by Michael_Burton · · Score: 1

      This means that 16% of Linux implementations HAVE been affected by SCO's threats.

      My guess is that at least some of that 16% had already decided, for whatever reason, that they didn't want to implement Linux. SCO's threats can be used to help rationalize a decision made for other reasons, so they say (falsely) that it has affected their plans.

      The decision frequently comes first, and carefully tailored fact-finding afterwards.

      --
      When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
    6. Re:16% damage from SCO by Vexar · · Score: 1
      I can see a portion of that 16% saying "hey, if we buy the Enterprise version (no relation to the Scott Bakula tv series) of Redhat Linux that comes with that service agreement, that means they will deal with SCO for us." I can see another portion saying: "let's not publicize what we are doing with Linux, all our lawyers say this is BS anyway." What I can't see is anyone other than a Microsoft whippingboy change their mind and pay for Microsoft; Solaris or AIX? Maybe.

    7. Re:16% damage from SCO by Ciggy · · Score: 1

      This means that 16% of Linux implementations HAVE been affected by SCO's threats.

      But in what way? There is nothing in the data to suggest that these 16 CIOs had changed from possibly implementing Linux to not doing so. In fact, perhaps because of the SCO debacle, it had brought Linux to the attention of some of these 16 CIOs to the point that they realise that (a) SCO is full of digested food and (b) Linux is actually good and cheap and so were actually going to now implement Linux.

      Similarly, of the 84 that said the SCO had made no effect on their plans, were all 84 originally going to be installing Linux? Or were 83 of them actually going to ditch Linux in favour of Mac and this SCO debacle has obviously made no change to their decision?

      The article does go on to say that 70 odd (73?) of them were planning to install Linux (I fink) which clearly states that possibly 11+ of those with no change of plan were planning to not install Linux anyway.

      --

      A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
      A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell
  11. To put it another way by Kris_J · · Score: 1
    Despite SCO's threats, 84 per cent of CIOs in a recent survey said it hasn't affected their plans to implement Linux.
    Or... SCO's abuse of the legal system, baseless threats and disinformation have affected 16 percent of Linux's customer base.

    If I reduced SCO's "income" by 16% they'd probably put a contract out on me.

    1. Re:To put it another way by Soko · · Score: 1

      If I reduced SCO's "income" by 16% they'd probably put a contract out on me.

      Ummmmm, not really, given thier business accumen (or lack thereof), and state of mind (insanity).

      They'd likely send the guy in the office down the hall an invoice for 160% of the profits, stating that "There's this guy who owes us money, so you do too!" Then they'd fax you a news relase of what they did with a threatening letter, release the news blurb to news.com.com with a few chioce comments by Sontag or McBride, and sell lots of stock on the ensuing rise in share price.

      The profits of thier company don't matter - thier share price does.

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    2. Re:To put it another way by Kris_J · · Score: 1
      The profits of thier company don't matter - thier share price does.
      Fair enough, replace "income" with "share price".
    3. Re:To put it another way by Micah · · Score: 1

      Indeed. This gives pretty good ammunition to Red Hat's suit, which SCO is trying to get thrown out.

      It would also give SuSE, Mandrake, et. al a good reason to join Red Hat.

  12. Anonymous SCOwards by orthogonal · · Score: 1

    Apparently SCO's bluff is working about as well as the threats from Anonymous Cowards to beat people up over their internet connections.

    "Just you wait! I'll extend the introductory price another month, and I'll get you then!"

    1. Re:Anonymous SCOwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      16% of /.rs thing that ACs are going to kick their asses over internet conections?

  13. 16% by michaelnz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does anyone else find it frightfully disturbing that 16% of CIO believed the SCO's claims to hold enough water that they've changed their implementation strategies? I understand why a company that wasn't already using Linux would see this as a reason not to swap. But to be using or implementing Linux and to change your mind against it because of this seems like a rather signifigant change in attitude.

    1. Re:16% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it far more frightening that 100% of CIOs were asked this question....

      What are the chances that they interviewed the people who gave the answer they were looking for?

    2. Re:16% by letxa2000 · · Score: 1
      What disturbs me is that SCO stock climbed by 32% to close at $20.50 today! WTF? I don't know whether to ignore it, cash in for awhile as it goes up, play it short, or just watch in amazement. Heck, I figured when it hit $12 a month or two ago that was as high as it was going. If I had bought then I'd have almost doubled my money in a few months.

      Just goes to show you'll never lose money by banking on the stupidity of investors. You'd think after the dot com bubble they'd have learned.

    3. Re:16% by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      Don't give that figure too much creedence. Most likely those 16% are people who had only vaguely thought about it, and have now vaguely discounted it. I can't imagine that many organizations have done a true about face over this.


      But it does make it harder to go take a risk and stick out your neck to recommend Linux when other execs in your company are reading confusing stories in the media about how everybody using Linux is getting sued. Doesn't make it sound very appealing, I admit. Some serious PR effort is needed here - no, good PR isn't that expensive, it just requires a dedicated voice in the middle of the spectrum (not RMS and the hippy brigade at the FSF, please God - look at the wretched quotes from them in that Forbes article the other day) to start pumping out press releases, and filing counter suits to generate some hype and create "reportable" events to generate favorable stories.


      It requires a lawyer and a few big mouths and a lot of time and effort. It would be nice if somebody like IBM would dump some money on some organization to do this job.

    4. Re:16% by Trepalium · · Score: 1

      Oh, they learned alright. What they learned is they can play the stock market like a lottery. They learned to ride the hype, and then try to dump it at as close to the peak as possible before everyone else does the same. Every time SCO releases one of these bullshit sessions, er, press releases or interviews, their stock takes a quick bump upwards. This all from a company that has proven nothing so far, has threatened Red Hat with a "day of reckoning", and then claimed they had no intention of suing RH, and has repeatedly contradicted themselves. Nothing will surprise me at this point...... Other than a full appology, and immediate termination of their lawsuits. The chances of that happening are probably pretty small.

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    5. Re:16% by gibodean · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else find it frightfully disturbing that 16% of CIO believed the SCO's claims to hold enough water that they've changed their implementation strategies? I understand why a company that wasn't already using Linux would see this as a reason not to swap. But to be using or implementing Linux and to change your mind against it because of this seems like a rather signifigant change in attitude.

      Who says that they changed their mind *against* linux ? They could just have easily changed their mind *towards* linux. The survey doesn't say. Perhaps those 16% are away from SCO, towards linux. Well, we can hope......

    6. Re:16% by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Does anyone else find it frightfully disturbing that 16% of CIO believed the SCO's claims to hold enough water that they've changed their implementation strategies?

      No, not frightfully disturbing but something of a concern. What it probably means, in most cases, is that they have temporarily shelved new Linux projects.

      Another concern is the effect on the 27% that currently have no Linux implementation plans. I suspect some of them may now make long term plans that will make Linux difficult to introduce later. Without this SCO circus, they would likely at least try to keep Linux options open.

    7. Re:16% by dswensen · · Score: 1

      Don't give that figure too much creedence.

      Gee, not even "Bad Moon Rising"? How about "Run Through the Jungle"?

      If it was Windows we were talking about I could crack a joke about "Looking Out My Back Door"... ...eh forget it.

    8. Re:16% by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Credence, Creedence - hey what's the difference? :) I'll chalk this one up to lack of sleep.

    9. Re:16% by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "I find it far more frightening that 100% of CIOs were asked this question...."

      The sample had enough members to allow 84%. The article says "100 CIO's were surveyed." But it's meaningless unless we can study the survey and the methods used to evaluate it.

      That could mean they picked 25 people to consider out of the 100 responses. Or they could be rounding or averaging the result, after asking 10 people. Maybe they surveyed eight people and got seven replies? Maybe the 84% represents an interpretation of a number of questions on some survey with biased wording? Or maybe it's just made up?

      We don't know, because we know nothing about the research methods used. so, in an academic sense, it's worthless information supported by no data, with no opportunity for review. It's not reproducible, and it's not credible.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    10. Re:16% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "rinse and repeat" means you rinse, and then repeat the procedure once. It doesn't tell you to repeat reading the instructions, leading to an endless loop. Only a moron like you would think otherwise.

      Or a programmer. And anyone who thinks like a programmer is hardly likely to rise to the exalted rank of CIO. Or are they? Hmmmm

    11. Re:16% by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1

      There are probably 16% of CIOs that already didn't really want to implement Linux and now have a great excuse to give to their management not to do it.

    12. Re:16% by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 1

      Maybe 15% think that the current case demonstrates that GNU/Linux users have little to fear from such actions, and encouraged their technical staff to migrate to GNU/Linux?

    13. Re:16% by goatan · · Score: 0
      I suspect some of them may now make long term plans that will make Linux difficult to introduce later

      More fool them it will be them that sufers in the long run no one else.

      --
      Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

    14. Re:16% by bstadil · · Score: 1
      Two other reasons.

      Maybe they are against FOSS for one reason or other and is just using this as an excuse.

      Maybe they are just filling in the box on the survey without too much concerns for accuracy or maybe deliberately making silly statements. I do that all the time.

      By the way next time you fill out questionaires that has your e-mail tell them you work for the press. Lots's of interesting offers comes your way.

      --
      Help fight continental drift.
    15. Re:16% by r_j_prahad · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else find it frightfully disturbing that 16% of CIO believed the SCO's claims to hold enough water that they've changed their implementation strategies?

      No, I actually find it most enheartening. My personal experience has left me believing that a vast majority of CIOs don't possess a clue, so this new statistic of only 16% CIO cluelessness gives me great hope for the future of IT in America.

    16. Re:16% by babyrat · · Score: 1

      Statistics, surveys and lies...

      Without seeing the actual survey questions I think that jumping to the conclusion that 16% of CIOs think that SCO's claims hold water.

      The article merely said that the case caused them to re-evaluate.

      Maybe those 16% re-evaluated and came to the conclusion they'd better implement NOW instead of waiting in case there is some sort of grandfather clause in the settlement stating that anyone who was using Linux before Oct. 31, 2003 wouldn't owe SCO anything.

      OK this situation is unlikely but if the question was simply:
      "Has the SCO lawsuit caused you to re-evaluate your linux position"
      and some the PHCEO said to the CIO - "Hey - I've heard about a lawsuit, we OK?" and then the CIO digs around the internet, maybe calls a lawyer and decides that Linux it is OK to go ahead and implement Linux, he has technically re-evaluated and would probably answer that way on the survey, yet it hasn't stopped him from implementing Linux.

    17. Re:16% by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      The 16% is people that have changed from "I'm not going to use Linux plans" to "I'm going to use Linux plans."

      There's always a positive spin to things.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
  14. Oh, dang! by Fjord+Prefect · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I, for one, would have welcomed our new Darl McBride overlord.

    1. Re:Oh, dang! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please stop it with these jokes. thanks.

  15. Able to purchase licenses yet? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I'm curious, because the last time I checked, people still were unable to call up and purchase a license from SCO. In fact, I remember someone posting how the rep they spoke to on the phone sounded shocked that they were asking to purchase the license. So can people even purchase this license now? Or will they only be able to do so at the doubled price?

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Able to purchase licenses yet? by Pogue+Mahone · · Score: 1
      Also, last time I checked (like: just now), you were able to download a copy of the supposedly offending kernel from SCO's own ftp server and use and/or distribute it under the GPL.

      --
      Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
    2. Re:Able to purchase licenses yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give you a thousand dollars never to mention that again.

  16. Target Price 45 by bloosqr · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Wow! I remember thinking it was madness it had shot up to $10 on this ludicrous war and $15-$16 was the peak of the insanity. Rational markets indeed :! (From article)

    "In other news, SCO's stock surged $4.97, or 32 percent, to close at $20.50 Wednesday, after Deutsche Bank analysts Brian Skiba and Matthew Kelly initiated coverage of the company with a "buy" rating and a $45 price target for the stock"

    1. Re:Target Price 45 by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 1

      Curiously, it looks like investors are taking any old reason to invest in SCO. Yes, I think if their claims had any merit (ie hundreds of thousands of lines of their unique, owned code in Linux) then they'd be worth a lot. Else, they're worth nothing. The deutsche bank analysts said much the same "They're worth a lot if their case has merit, they're not worth a lot if it doesn't"

      Guess investors are believing what they want to believe.

    2. Re:Target Price 45 by turbosk · · Score: 1

      what's the stock market thing where you buy the stock knowing that it will go down in value, but you still make money? if i could put my house up as collateral, i could make a LOT of money, cuz there ain't no way SCO is gonna survive on a billion dollar lawsuit against IBM.

    3. Re:Target Price 45 by realdpk · · Score: 1

      It's called short selling, or shorting. For more information on your house-collateral-shorting-plan, call this number: (213) 386-8789

    4. Re:Target Price 45 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shorting the stock. The one problem is the timing of the short. It is almost a sure thing that SCO will drop, the question is guessing correctly when. I am not sure what the short selling rules are but I am pretty sure it is less than or equal to 90 days. Also one is exposed to an infinite rate of loss. If you buy a stock in the normal way, you can at most lose the full value of the stock if it goes to $0.00. When one shorts say at $10 and the stock goes to $40, you lose 3x your investment.
      Yikes.

    5. Re:Target Price 45 by bigberk · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Wow! I remember thinking it was madness it had shot up to $10 on this ludicrous war and $15-$16 was the peak of the insanity.... In other news, SCO's stock surged $4.97, or 32 percent

      This is what happens when you have an economy run off the whims of idiots. Let's face it, most people are of average intelligence and fewer still know fuck all about anything technical. These dumb investors are going to shreek like the neighbor's little girls when the stock plummets and they walk away poor.

      I don't speak from ignorance here; I'm within earshot of the neighbor's kids and they never shut up. They would cry worse still if they learned that most investors know very little about the companies they are throwing their money at. All they see is, "wow... confidence! rising stock" and they're in. I'm sorry these people are going to get so incredibly screwed.

    6. Re:Target Price 45 by BigFootApe · · Score: 1

      It's called shorting a stock. Read this to find out more.

      Unfortunately, shorting requires that someone loan you the stock in the first place (on the assumption that it will increase in value). Unfortunately, noone seems to be doing so.

    7. Re:Target Price 45 by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Or, any number of things could go wrong with the plan, and you could end up losing your house. Even *if* SCO loses, *you* could still lose.

      Borrowing stock might work, but it could backfire bigtime.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    8. Re:Target Price 45 by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when you have an economy run off the whims of idiots.

      The economy is run by us. We're the consumers. We're the ones making the dollars and euros move around. And yes, a lot of us are indeed idiots.

      Chasing after stock prices is stupid. I thought we got over this silly obsession when the dot bombed. But I guess not. People tried to make a quick buck in the tulip futures market two hundred years ago. They're still trying to make a quick buck today on stocks. People need to get it through their heads that there is no quick buck out there. The value of a stock is a share in a company, not the price of the certificate.

      I don't want to own any stock in a company that doesn't produce any value to the economy. If they don't have a product or service, I'm taking my investment dollars elsewhere. I'm not a psychic, so I'm not putting my money in a company that could implode overnight while I sleep.

      SCO is going to implode. They don't offer a product. They don't offer a service. They don't add any value to the economy. They're going to lose this lawsuit and when they do their stock price is going to be two cents. But it's going to implode long before then. It will happen when the public realizes they're full of hot air.

      But in the meantime, people are trying to get rich. Good. That means they'll lose their shirts, and make way for the rest of us. The fact that you can't make a quick buck needs to be hammered into the public consciousness, and hammered repeatedly.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    9. Re:Target Price 45 by Spruce+Moose · · Score: 0
      Also one is exposed to an infinite rate of loss.

      Yeah stock prices often go to infinity. Look up stop loss orders and how they relate to shorts.

    10. Re:Target Price 45 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people that are buying this stock now are above average in intelligence and well connected. And they'll sell it just before it drops to the stock market fools to take their profits. Their is nothing fair and rational about the market ever. It is always irrational.

    11. Re:Target Price 45 by mandolin · · Score: 1
      The fact that you can't make a quick buck needs to be hammered into the public consciousness, and hammered repeatedly.

      Yeah, but then nobody would play the state lottery, and my taxes would go up even more.

    12. Re:Target Price 45 by Larsing · · Score: 1

      The economy is run by us. We're the consumers.

      Bullshit! The economy is run by global investment banks, like Deutsche, JP and Citi. The ordinary consumer doesnt' have a say on the stock market.

      BTW, I'm within earshot of the guys (and gals) lending the stock and can confirm the previous posters claims from this point of view as well...

      --
      Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
    13. Re:Target Price 45 by pershino · · Score: 1

      " These dumb investors are going to shreek like the neighbor's little girls when the stock plummets and they walk away poor. "

      You could suppose that these analysts had 'advised' their investor friends to buy SCO at $15-$16 price just before their issued their report... their friends could then sell at the new (higher) price for a nice little earner.

      Of course this is all just fantasy... and they would never do anything so dumb. Would they?

    14. Re:Target Price 45 by TopShelf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's a pretty good review of the Deutsche Bank analysis, along with a summary of the stock's position overall. They note that the $45 target is highly speculative, and basically hinges on whether IBM will settle or not. Given the stakes, I don't think that's likely. What is likely is that this issue will linger around for at least another 18 months, so get used to SCOX swinging wildly.

      As for myself, I couldn't help doing a little day trading yesterday. Got in at $19.40, jumped out at $20.90. I'll take that anyday!

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    15. Re:Target Price 45 by argmanah · · Score: 1
      "In other news, SCO's stock surged $4.97, or 32 percent, to close at $20.50 Wednesday, after Deutsche Bank analysts Brian Skiba and Matthew Kelly initiated coverage of the company with a "buy" rating and a $45 price target for the stock"
      Here's Mr. Skiba's analysis:

      "The IBM lawsuit and the potential for Linux licensing deals offer plenty to be excited about, while failure would render the shares worthless, in our view," Mr. Skiba wrote in a research note.

      Mr. Skiba said he isn't attempting to predict the outcome of the legal case and doesn't know whether SCO Group's claims have merit. He warned the "risks are numerous and the shares should be considered speculative."


      To paraphrase: If SCO wins, they will be worth more. If they lose, they will be worth crap. Other than that, I have no clue what I'm talking about. But, here's my guess anyways, based on a complete lack of technical and legal knowledge about the subject at hand.

      IMO, people in a position to influence the market like this have a responsibility to not be an idiot. He, obviously, has failed in this regard.
      --
      Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
    16. Re:Target Price 45 by mapmaker · · Score: 1
      I found the following on Yahoo's SCOX message board. If true, the legal fun is just beginning!

      Its a pump designed to help a mutual fund. Nobody rationally can justify a $45 price without illegal insider info - and info that runs counter to all previous information regarding SCO, IBM and RHAT, and counter to all Linux information as well.

      Collusion between an analyst and a fund is whats going on. And like the tech bubble collusion and the telecom bubble collusion, this one too will burst when the fundamentals about SCOX take hold.

      This used to happen all the time in telecom. Jack Grubman ring a bell to anyone here?

      Happened all the time in tech stocks too - anyone NOT remember Blodgett and all the fraud and maipuation he was part of?

      Its simply the "old boys" network doing things the way they always have. One of their own (Cohen) got stuck and need a price jump to get out. One of his buddies at DB helped him pump the price at no risk to DB (notice none of the DB entities are buying into this crap). Surprised it took them that long to get the scam going here.

      The fundamentals have not changed. Only the hype has. And hype will eventually burn away and the fundamentals will take over. And this will crash back to $2 where it belongs

      and...

      This is someone at DB helping out the fund that bought all that SCO and who now owns 10%. That mutual fund was having its ass handed to it, so they called out and got some help with a baseless buy recommendation from a big name. And that big block of shares that went after market? Well, lets just say that trade looks suspiciously like someone had insider info, and you can bet the SEC is looking at that trade in particular. Cohen may get caught with his hand in the cookie jar on this one.

      http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&actio n=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=5 2251&thr=52186&cur=52186&dir=d

    17. Re:Target Price 45 by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      > Skiba acknowledges that his call on SCO may be taken as heresy in the Linux community, but said
      > it's important to separate the stock from the company.

      Because, y'know, the actual company is completely irrelevant when you're evaluating the stock.

      Chris Mattern

    18. Re:Target Price 45 by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      In a surprising number of cases, that's absolutely true, although usually in the opposite case. There are a number of great companies out there which have horrible stocks (due to being overbought), but it is pretty rare to have a lousy company and a terrific stock...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    19. Re:Target Price 45 by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Brian Skiba was one of the first people who backed up SCO's claims about misappropriated code, and now he's talking up the share price.

      This guy's doing a lot of unpaid, favourable work for SCO.

    20. Re:Target Price 45 by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      They could and would, but if they got caught..

      If you go look at the data, there are a few observations you can make: 1)McBride is not even a top shareholder of this company, so what has he got to lose if things tank, but I bet he has some nice cash bonuses and options if the stock price stays above 20. 2) The officers of the company are selling stock like mad they have sold 136,000 shares in the last 180 days and have bought NONE (other than exercising $2/share options). Mr Olson, the Controller seems to be doing the most selling (bailing out soon?)recently moving over 30K shares. The insider trading over the last 180 days is 2.1% of the total volume, thats awfully high. 3) 46% of the company stock is held by insiders, another 15% by Institutions, and another 3% by well known mutual funds (but no big positions by these funds is shown in the data at Yahoo).

      This all says that the broad market does NOT beleive in SCO as someplace to put money and any movement in the stock will be due to the low float causing rapid price swings. The only folks who will be profitting from any SCO runup are the insiders and the institutions, most "speculators" might make some money here and there but not the big bucks like the insiders. This looks very fishy. The comments from Deutsche Bank look like nothing more than doing a favor and running up the stock so officers can dump more, and in the backroom negotiations DB will remind them of that favor and thus will get SCO's business. That too is illegal.
      I give this whole thing 3-6 months and we'll be reading about the arrests.

    21. Re:Target Price 45 by marz007 · · Score: 1

      These are the same investors who will be *SHOCKED* *SHOCKED* I tell you...that they lost *ALL* their money in SCOX when they wake up one morning and McBride and company are walking out in cuffs and they put a big lock on the door.

      It's truely amazing after the last Tech Crash we had that any one can run these kinds of transparent schemes for more than a month.

      These people and the folks that lost all that $$ in the .Bomb era just sitting on their money and not waching it..deserve what they get.

    22. Re:Target Price 45 by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry these people are going to get so incredibly screwed.

      I'm not. Darwin at work.

    23. Re:Target Price 45 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check on the number of insider sales since SCOX reared its ugly head above $2 per share. Then look to see if any insiders have purchased shares this year. HMM... (Scratch) (Scratch) time to get me some put options.

    24. Re:Target Price 45 by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      for at least another 18 months, so get used to SCOX swinging wildly.

      And then get used to them swinging slowly... in the wind.

    25. Re:Target Price 45 by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 1
      They note that the $45 target is highly speculative

      Exactly. And who is pushing the price up? Speculators!

      Folks, quit acting like a sock price is a truth quotient. It is not.

      But if you can afford to speculate, then by all means do: If you can spare $1k, and there's a 1:500 chance you'll get $1m (versus 480:500 you'll lose it all and 1:19 you'll break even), you should do it, if you can spare $1k. That's speculation. If you play the smart odds long enough, you will wind up ahead.

      --
      This is not my sandwich.
    26. Re:Target Price 45 by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Alternatively you could use hedging strategies.

      For example, you could sell a call option on SCO at $20. If the stock goes to $1 the option is worthless and you pocket whatever you sold the options for. But if it goes to $30 then you're buying at $30 and selling at $20 - bad news.

      On the other hand, you could sell a call option at $20, and buy a call option at $40 (which is cheaper). The $40 call option is just insurance - whatever you spend on it is ideally wasted money. If the stock goes to $1 you get whatever you sold the $20 options for minus whatever you wasted on the call option. On the other hand, if it goes up to $100 a share for some reason you aren't out $60 a share - you're only out $20 a share since you can exercise your $40 options to limit your loss. The downside to this choice is that you don't get as much upside since you had to pay for your $40 options as insurance.

      A broker would require collatoral on either of these choices since selling a call option obligates you to make good on it in the future.

      Another option is to buy a put option at $20. If the stock drops you can buy stock at the lower price, and sell it at $20, and keep the difference as profit. If the stock goes up, you just let the option expire and you are only out your initial investment. You don't need collatoral either - since you are under no obligation to complete the sale. The only risk would be if you couldn't acquire the stock at the lower price in order to turn around and resell it (not a problem for small trades, but if you have options on a million shares, then you might have trouble finding somebody willing to part with that much stock when it is so depressed in price).

      Stock investing involves risks, but if you understand how the market works you can mitigate them. You should NOT be using your primary home as collatoral in any case.

    27. Re:Target Price 45 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it seems that no one sells options for SCOX.

    28. Re:Target Price 45 by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I noticed this myself. That seems odd.

      An option is just a contract - in theory anybody can sell options, although there may not be enough demand for the markets to track the prices.

  17. 84 % hasn't ... by kervel · · Score: 1

    does that mean 16 % has ?? that looks like a lot already ...

  18. The Bible says, about Intelectual Property: by zealotasd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We all know SCO does not want to reveal they secrets they say is their property. It's already been revealed! If SCO wants to send a bill to people or artificial entities (corporations) to use their intelectual property, then they should've obyed the Patent Laws by registering the IP in question at the patent office as theirs. Then, after the conclusion of their monopoly to profit on their IP, the IP patent is dissolved and the knowledge becomes Public Domain. Yet, according to the Bible, if IP was a secret that was never published, then the following scripture would gracefully adapt to todays situation...

    Deuteronomy 29:29;
    The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

    This is agreeable, and so is Thomas Jefferson's intention of patents on IP. Anyone willing to second this motion for the Bible and Thomas Jefferson?

    Yea, Amen!

    --

    Secured Party, Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207: Creditor
    1. Re:The Bible says, about Intelectual Property: by brolewis · · Score: 1

      I'll second this motion. It's hard to argue with the Bible AND Thomas Jefferson! :-)

      --
      A little learning never hurt anyone.
    2. Re:The Bible says, about Intelectual Property: by Sir+Haxalot · · Score: 1

      by zealotasd (700001)
      Awww you were SO close to getting a really elite UID, unluckies.

      --
      I have over 70 freaks, do you?
    3. Re:The Bible says, about Intelectual Property: by BOFHelsinki · · Score: 0

      Pfft. Mine is bigger.

      What?

  19. Stocks by brolewis · · Score: 1

    What I don't understand is that while most professionals are telling companies not to purchase the license, SCO is receiving a "buy" rating for its stocks, and has surged by 32%. Why would a company that is in the middle of multiple lawsuits valued at billions of dollars, struggling to get customers, and having professionals tell potential clients not to buy the product receiving a buy rating and having a surge in stock?

    --
    A little learning never hurt anyone.
    1. Re:Stocks by codepunk · · Score: 1

      What you are not understanding is it does not matter what the actual value of the stock is. The only thing that matters is buying low and jumping when it is high. Think of them as a investment tool, some tidbit of news comes out so I buy before everyone else. The price gets driven up 30% in a single day, I make a ton of money. It has nothing to do with right or wrong just the almighty buck.

      --


      Got Code?
    2. Re:Stocks by brolewis · · Score: 1

      Actually, I do understand how the market works, but one thing I also understand is that a great deal of research goes into a "buy" rating and so I wonder why such a rating has been earned. Also, one of the reasons why stocks surge as much as 30% is because of a change in rating (mob mentality), so my commentary was more concerning the "buy" rating than the surge in stock.

      --
      A little learning never hurt anyone.
    3. Re:Stocks by codepunk · · Score: 1

      Well a buy rating could be just anticipation of the mob buying thus it is correct. In light of the continual buying and increasing value of this stock it may be a good gamble to buy some. Of course you are going to try and jump ship when it starts to tank.

      --


      Got Code?
    4. Re:Stocks by brolewis · · Score: 1

      Your point is well made. I think that I shall avoid this stock for the time being. My luck I'd be out of town when IBM wins the lawsuit and there goes my profit! :-)

      --
      A little learning never hurt anyone.
    5. Re:Stocks by Angry+Toad · · Score: 1

      a great deal of research goes into a "buy" rating

      Not so sure about that any more. I recall an awful lot of tales of buy ratings based upon nothing at all during the big bubble; of analysts recommending known dogs just to pump them up and so on. I've never been able to trust the "experts" since then...

  20. SCO's statement so far by tilrman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So basically SCO has changed their position from:

    You have to give us money. No, we won't tell you why.

    to:

    You have to give us money. Because lots of other people have. No, we won't tell you who.
    1. Re:SCO's statement so far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds remarkably similar to the justification for war in Iraq

    2. Re:SCO's statement so far by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Geez, even the mob has a better promotional method than that. They'll at least tell you who their customers are, or perhaps aren't: "Give us money. Lots of other people have. Remember Joe, the guy down the street with two broken legs??"

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  21. In other news by Joel+Carr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    84 per cent of the topics that were associated with this artical were probably unnecessary. Or is it just me who thinks that having 7 icons running down the side of an artical is a tad too many?

    ---

    --
    Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves. -- AE
    1. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Want some negative press Daryl?

      Utah is a white collar crime capital, hows that for starters.

      It is also the capital of a religious cult and if you're not a member of that religious cult, good luck starting a business there or even surviving there.

      Gov Mike Leavitt's brother the Prosecutor for Juab County wouldn't even prosecute Polygamist Thomas Green (five wives and 29 children) for "marrying" his 13 year old step daughter untill Mike Wallace of 60 minutes drop kicked his butt on TV.

      You guys are a bunch of fruit cakes.

    2. Re:in other news by Comatose51 · · Score: 1

      And other news, SCO is filing to make negative press an intangible asset...

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    3. Re:In other news by Skater · · Score: 1

      It's you...no one else looks at them! ;)

      --RJ

  22. mark -6 for redundant by netnerd.caffinated · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can't wait for this whole SCO thing to go away. Maybe it's a bit like that simpsons halloween episode where the billboard ads come to life. If you ignore them. They'll go away.
    SCO died because of Linux. They thought they were the only intel based Unix OS out there. They didn't innovate & they died.

    --


    You tried your best, & you failed miserably,
    The lesson is:
    Never Try
  23. Oh come on like they where ever going to send them by codepunk · · Score: 1

    No one even SCO, is retarded enough to send those invoices. The moment they send those invoices they step into federal law territory.

    Mail Fraud

    FTC

    SEC

    The list goes on and on ...

    I find it damn hard to believe that anyone is buying licenses.

    --


    Got Code?
  24. kewl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just saved myself $699 thanks to Slashdot.

  25. Poor SCO employees by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 1

    This whole SCO mess is probably wearing me out as much as anybody. Still I can't help feeling very sorry for the bulk of the people employed by SCO.

    Think about it: Your firm is ridiculed by the entire industry, your management is insane, your future uncertain and your resume marked for life.

    Ouch.

    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    1. Re:Poor SCO employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      and your resume marked for life

      Mark out the section "Caldera Internation/SCO Group 1996-2003" and replace with "living as a homeless, drug-dependent bum in the mountains of Utah". Make sure you take a stint in a drug rehab facility. If they complain that you're not addicted, tell 'em to shut up and take your money and tell any potential employers that "yes, s/he left her clean and we don't expect to see them again".

  26. Just be patient. by chrome · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As soon as they send out any invoices, companies that get them can choose not to pay.

    An invoice is a demand for payment, but you're not required to pay if you can prove that you didn't receive goods or services from the company making the invoice.

    So, the first time someone challenges it, SCO will lean on them and say "Don't make us MAKE you pay us", that company will say "Go on then." and SCO has a choice.

    1) Go to court
    2) Back off

    If they choose 1, then the the court proceeding might look like this:

    Defendent: We haven't received any goods or services from SCO, and are therefore not going to pay this invoice.
    SCO: Yes you have! You're using Linux! It has our code in it! Pay up!
    Defendent: Prove it.
    SCO: No! We don't have to!
    Judge: Case dismissed. Stop wasting the court's time, SCO

    IANAL, as you can plainly see, hehe! But, I really fail to see how SCO would be able to enforce payment on any outstanding invoices even if they did send them.

    No, the safest choice is by far to ignore this whole mess and keep doing what you were doing before SCO lost it's collective mind.

    1. Re:Just be patient. by keith.bronstrup.com · · Score: 0

      reading the blurb for this article, then your post, and realizing that SCO is full^H^H^H^Hoverflowing with BS -- already knew they were full of it -- I think I know what this is all about...

      SCO owns /. (Of course nobody will admit it!)

      News was slow one day

      /. heads said do SCO "Hey! Make us some news! Try to fuck over Linux! But don't actually DO anything -- we don't want to get sued into oblivion or anything!"

      And news has been plentiful ever since!

      --
      Error 666 - SCO source has been found in your Linux kernel. Please remove it.
      Formerly kdsolutions
  27. Also in other news by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    Deutsche Bank analysts Brian Skiba and Matthew Kelly today were arrested by officers from the SEC. They will be spending 8-10 year in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for market manipulation.

    1. Re:Also in other news by Larsing · · Score: 1

      Nope, they will be fined ~$15M by SEC and be given ~$30 severance pay by Deutsche.

      Just like Jack Grubman!

      Don't I just LOVE working for a global investment bank... '-)

      --
      Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
    2. Re:Also in other news by inc_x · · Score: 1
      Deutsch Bank has in fact recently been fined for $750.000 by the SEC for failure to disclose a conflict of interest.

      http://www.issproxy.com/articles/80.asp

  28. The stock market by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The most telling thing on the linked news site was this:-

    SCO Group Inc (The) SCOX 20.50 4.97 (32.00%)

    Red Hat Inc RHAT 12.85 -0.15 (-1.15%)

    International Business Machines Corporation IBM 92.74 0.02 (0.02%)

    Pump and dump time!

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
  29. in other news by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

    In other news, SCO is reportedly "happy with negative press". Darl McBride was quoted "We're happy with the extent of negative press SCO has garnered so far, and don't intend to change our strategy soon." Analysts had previously speculated that the days of wild accusations against everybody and his pet gerbil were numbered, due to the increased risk of lawsuits against executives. "Negative press is always hard to get, but we do our best and are pretty successful" said McBride. "Watch out for our new projects: suing the Israeli government for using our Hebrew intellectual property, and getting the Chinese government to pay up for our rocket launching technology."

  30. Future lawsuits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soooo.... If one does purchase (foolishly) a SCO license... and the courts rule that they are full of shit (correctly) - would that entitle you to sue SCO for your license fee back?
    Just some fuel for the fire...

    1. Re:Future lawsuits... by tktk · · Score: 1

      No...the law doesn't protect you from your own stupidity.

    2. Re:Future lawsuits... by OMEGA+Power · · Score: 1
      Soooo.... If one does purchase (foolishly) a SCO license... and the courts rule that they are full of shit (correctly) - would that entitle you to sue SCO for your license fee back?

      IANAL but I think it depends on the terms/wording of the license. If the license is to use SCO Linux (which they own and can license however they want, although they could be held liable for violating the license on any GPL'd code it contains.) you can't sue because they provided what they sold you (a license to use their version of Linux). However, if you can prove that they either represented themselves as owning all linux distros and/or licensed you to use something they don't own you might have a case for fraud or false advertising.

  31. Re:plans haven't changed by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 2, Informative
    Didn't plan to before, still don't plan to.

    Not according to the article:

    ... 84 percent of CIOs with Linux installation plans had not re-evaluated their plans in response to the SCO litigation. Of the respondents, 73 percent had Linux implementation plans, according to the survey
  32. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Informative and insightful.

  33. Didn't read the article? by dxkelly · · Score: 1

    How is that insightful? The article clearly states that the 84% refers to those CIO's with linux installation plans.

    1. Re:Didn't read the article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +4 insightful? It's a troll! As much as I hate the Linux bashers that populate /. now (why don't they go worship Bill Gates somewhere else?!) this made me laugh.

      At best it's +1 funny, not insightful (mods, please RTFA!) -- you're right dxkelly, mods are on crack right now.

  34. Don't feel too bad... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    At least for the ones' whose stock options have vested!

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  35. phew! by pergamon · · Score: 2, Funny

    boy, am i relieved! i was getting really worried there for a while.

    no... no wait... no, actually, my policy is still that they can kiss my ass. yeah, that's it. sometimes i forget my policy on that.

  36. The glass is half empty by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, I'd say that this is more reasonably taken from a pessimistic view. *16%* of all CIOs were negatively influenced (seems unlikely that it's a positive influence) toward Linux because of this one SCO money grab.

    1. Re:The glass is half empty by nosa · · Score: 1

      Excellent point. Stating that 84% of CIOs were uninfluenced by the SCO fiasco is a weak attempt at positive spin. If this survey is accurate, 1 in 6 CIOs are re-evaluating their linux installation plans. Scary.

    2. Re:The glass is half empty by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1

      *16%* of all CIOs were negatively influenced (seems unlikely that it's a positive influence) toward Linux because of this one SCO money grab.

      That's probably 16% that already weren't planning on implementing Linux and were just looking for an excuse for not doing it. That is, SCO lawsuit makes a great excuse for CIOs who aren't smart enough to implement Linux in the first place.

    3. Re:The glass is half empty by mandolin · · Score: 1
      *16%* of all CIOs were negatively influenced (seems unlikely that it's a positive influence) toward Linux because of this one SCO money grab.

      It might be positive, if some of those CIOs are (were) SCO customers. Of course, the numbers are probably negligible enough not to impact your argument significantly :)

  37. They did it for the effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What I mean was they said they'd invoice users for the press they got out of it. They most likely saw it as a way to pump up their stock price and deflect negative publicity.

    Point is, SCO is all bluff and no action. Does anyone really think they'd be stupid enough to really send those invoices and risk being bombarded with lawsuits? These guys want to be the ones filing the suits, not the ones being sued. They're trying as hard as they can to project the image that they're in control of the situation and confidently moving forward. At this point, bluster, hyperbole, and vague threats are all they have.

    Someone may point out that they actually followed through with their threat to sue IBM. True, but they had to do something to initially give themselves some credibility, and they probably figured Big Blue would buy them out to make them go away. Now they're stuck in a situation they can't control, with IBM countersuing.

    As for the decision to call off the invoices and extend the introductory prices for licenses, let's cut right through the bullshit and look at how businesses operate. If sales are going well, you don't back off of your strategy. If they feel that they're selling licenses to scared companies, they'd have no problem ratcheting up the pressure. They may have sold a few, and they may see sales trickle in, but they probably figure that raising the price will cause sales to decline by more than 50%, since they were going to double their prices for licenses. But my strongest suspicion is that they're stalling for time. They probably aren't selling a damn thing, and they've probably already decided that sending invoices won't help matters much.

    I still firmly believe that the way to deal with these clowns is for anyone who's contributed to Linux development to sue them for slander. For an individual, filing a suit can be difficult and expensive, but perhaps those who are interested could join forces under the umbrella of an organization such as the FSF.

    Look at it this way. SCO is like the cockroach in your kitchen that comes out at night to scavenge for food. Sure, it'll run and hide when the lights come on, but as soon as you leave and turn off the lights, it'll come back out. If it's one of the aggessive flying variety, it might even fly at you to frighten you, even though you're in no real danger. In any case, the only way to make the vermin go away for good is to kill it. SCO isn't going to go away until the Linux community picks up a shoe and splatters it all over the wall.

    1. Re:They did it for the effect by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Bombarded with lawsuits, hell -- more like with ambitious young Federal prosecutors, who have absolutely NO incentive to "settle out of court" (ie. do a plea-bargain).

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:They did it for the effect by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 1
      "Does anyone really think they'd be stupid enough to really send those invoices and risk being bombarded with lawsuits?"

      Does anyone really think that they'd be so stupid as to not realize that merely threatening to send invoices also violates the law and puts them at risk of lawsuits? Apparently, they are that stupid.

  38. Welcome to GNU GVideo GProfessor! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    "Don't fumble through boring man pages. Try my product!" - Richard M. Stallman, GNU Founder and CEO

    GNU GVideo GProfessor is the leader in computer learning. We have taught over 5 million people, and we can teach you GNU/Linux, GNU/Emacs, GNU/gcc, and more! GNU GVideo GProfessor was founded in 1983 to provide consumers with training on software for their personal computers. Since that time, millions have successfully used and learned from GNU GVideo GProfessor's fool-proof "What-You-See-Is-What-You-Do" teaching method. The first lesson, GNU /Emacs 1.0, was available only on video tape. Over the years, GNU GVideo GProfessor has produced hundreds of titles on video, CD-ROM, and online. GNU GVideo GProfessor is the fastest, easiest way to learn computers. We guarantee it!

    It's FAST! You'll be up and running in an hour! Don't waste time sifting through man pages, commuting to classes or seminars. Just pop in the CD-ROM and you're learning!

    It's EASY! It's as simple as 1-2-3! GNU GVideo GProfessor's straightforward "What-You -See-Is-What-You-Do" approach makes learning as easy as watching TV!

    It's CONVENIENT! We're ready to teach you day and night! With your busy schedule, you don't have time to waste at classes or seminars. Don't fumble through boring man pages. Whatever your schedule, we're ready when you are!

    It's COMPLETE! These aren't short teaser lessons. Each 60-minute lesson takes you from installing the software to more advanced skills. And they're not just for beginners! We'll surprise you with the knowledge you'll gain!

    Why Am I Making This Incredible Offer? I'm so confident that once you try my exceptional " What-You-See-Is-What-You-Do" learning method, you'll turn to us for all your computer learning needs.

    * How it works!

    The bonus gift and ANY TWO of the three computer learning CD-ROMs are yours free without further obligation, PERIOD. Take 10 days to decide if you want to keep the complete set of CDs. After your 10 day free trial, if you decide to keep the complete set, we'll conveniently bill your credit card just $69.95. Or simply contact our customer care number at rtfm@gnu.org if you decide to return any one of the lessons, and you will be charged nothing more!

    Every day hundreds of people just like you learn with GNU GVideo GProfessor this same fast and easy way. If you decide to keep all three lessons, every five weeks you will continue learning by automatically receiving other GNU GVideo GProfessor subjects you have an interest in, billed on the same exact terms as your first shipment. Or simply call and cancel. Everything is up to you! But most important, you are never under any obligation to purchase a subject that you don't keep. Best of all, the bonus gift, and your choice of any two of the three computer learning CD-ROMs are yours to keep FREE!

    f

  39. And 76% of all surveys are made up... by NaugaHunter · · Score: 1

    The article specifically says 84% of CIOs ignored SCO's licensing plans, not '16% of CIOs took the invoice threat seriously and had checks ready'. The reactions of the other 16% could include 'followed and got a good laugh', 'constantly bugged my IT staff and/or lawyers about what it means to us', or 'hedged our bets and put some projects on hold'.

    In other words, saying '84% of Slashdot readers ignored the last Country Music Awards' does NOT mean the other 16% followed it on pins and needles.

    --
    R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
    1. Re:And 76% of all surveys are made up... by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      wish I had some mod points....you are 100% correct (as in a total number of all possibilities) -Sera

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
  40. No kidding. by Martigan80 · · Score: 1

    in an effort to generate more takers of their Linux licensing plan.

    Basically they don't want to look too aggressive in order to have a chance. They have read all the reviewers remarks and realized that they are too pushy so they want to be the nice guys helping everyone else follow the law.

    --
    This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
  41. Somebody inform the FTC or something already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this pumping of stocks and then dumping them by the insiders of the company is not illegal... what is..?

  42. Re:plans haven't changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    "Don't fumble through boring man pages. Try my product!" - Richard M. Stallman, GNU Founder and CEO

    GNU GVideo GProfessor is the leader in computer learning. We have taught over 5 million people, and we can teach you GNU/Linux, GNU/Emacs, GNU/gcc, and more! GNU GVideo GProfessor was founded in 1983 to provide consumers with training on software for their personal computers. Since that time, millions have successfully used and learned from GNU GVideo GProfessor's fool-proof "What-You-See-Is-What-You-Do" teaching method. The first lesson, GNU /Emacs 1.0, was available only on video tape. Over the years, GNU GVideo GProfessor has produced hundreds of titles on video, CD-ROM, and online. GNU GVideo GProfessor is the fastest, easiest way to learn computers. We guarantee it!

    It's FAST! You'll be up and running in an hour! Don't waste time sifting through man pages, commuting to classes or seminars. Just pop in the CD-ROM and you're learning!

    It's EASY! It's as simple as 1-2-3! GNU GVideo GProfessor's straightforward "What-You -See-Is-What-You-Do" approach makes learning as easy as watching TV!

    It's CONVENIENT! We're ready to teach you day and night! With your busy schedule, you don't have time to waste at classes or seminars. Don't fumble through boring man pages. Whatever your schedule, we're ready when you are!

    It's COMPLETE! These aren't short teaser lessons. Each 60-minute lesson takes you from installing the software to more advanced skills. And they're not just for beginners! We'll surprise you with the knowledge you'll gain!

    Why Am I Making This Incredible Offer? I'm so confident that once you try my exceptional " What-You-See-Is-What-You-Do" learning method, you'll turn to us for all your computer learning needs.

    * How it works!

    The bonus gift and ANY TWO of the three computer learning CD-ROMs are yours free without further obligation, PERIOD. Take 10 days to decide if you want to keep the complete set of CDs. After your 10 day free trial, if you decide to keep the complete set, we'll conveniently bill your credit card just $69.95. Or simply contact our customer care number at rtfm@gnu.org if you decide to return any one of the lessons, and you will be charged nothing more!

    Every day hundreds of people just like you learn with GNU GVideo GProfessor this same fast and easy way. If you decide to keep all three lessons, every five weeks you will continue learning by automatically receiving other GNU GVideo GProfessor subjects you have an interest in, billed on the same exact terms as your first shipment. Or simply call and cancel. Everything is up to you! But most important, you are never under any obligation to purchase a subject that you don't keep. Best of all, the bonus gift, and your choice of any two of the three computer learning CD-ROMs are yours to keep FREE!

    Welcome to GNU GVideo GProfessor!

  43. I for one wish you'd stop ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... using that overused quote. You're not clever, you're not cute, and you're definitely not funny.

  44. Go ahead, SCO, hold your breath till... by Nybble's+Byte · · Score: 1

    ...your face turns blue. You're gonna die because nobody cares.

  45. Re:Also in other news, hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can just see it now in prison shower #3...

    Bubba (dropping soap): Hey there, Darl! I've got your pump and dump scheme right here!

  46. Quick Profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to short SCO stock! WOOPEE!

  47. Hmm by smack_attack · · Score: 1

    84 percent?

    Mod me down, I have too much karma.

    1. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, that is hella funny. I am so doing that.

    2. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod down? Fuck that, someone mod this up!

  48. Re:Also in other news, hehe by smack_attack · · Score: 1

    HA! Mod this up.

  49. 499 out of Fortune 500 say no? McSCOre? by PB8 · · Score: 2, Funny

    So basically we can say 499 out of 500 Fortune 500 companies don't feel any need to pay SCO for the use of Linux after all of SCO's PR work.

    People have guessed Microsoft as the Forture 500 company. There's an alternative option. SCO has a large customer that's no small fry.

    Some know that McDonald's uses SCO at their cash registers for POS. Perhaps SCO managed to sell them Linux licenses in exchange for other favorable treatments.

  50. So: by mcc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Pay up, we'll be sending out invoices"

    Then a few months later:

    "We won't be sending out invoices"

    If they'd actually sent out any of the invoices, they could have been prosecuted for wire fraud. Which is, of course, why they didn't. The phantom "invoices" were just a trick to get people to think that there was something to this, and trick people into coming to SCO preemptively.

    However, given that: Is SCO violating any kind of fraud/barratry laws by claiming they were going to send out these invoices, then not doing it? (At least given that the claim was clearly a way of tricking people into "voluntarily" giving up money?) Any at all? Just checking..

    1. Re:So: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phantom "invoices" were just a trick to get people to think that there was something to this...

      I'd say those "people" more than anything else includes the ones at the stock market. SCO has since March artificially (by FUD, lies, cheating, threats, one lawsuit and threat of others) inflating their stock price, part of their so called "pump'n'dump" strategy. I'm surprised the SEC hasn't yet frozen both SCO stock and any and all SCO assets.

      What? "How can I say such a dreadful thing about such a honorable corporation as SCO"? How can I even suspect such acts of breaking the law, not to mention the obvious premeditated sabotage against capitalism (the stock market) pump'n'dump is...

    2. Re:So: by Afty0r · · Score: 1
      If they'd actually sent out any of the invoices, they could have been prosecuted for wire fraud.


      Indeed. I'm a UK citizen, so I don't know which dept. of the US government is responsible for enforcing fraud cases like this, but would it be possible for someone to call SCOs "hotline" and say they are ready to pay for, say 16 processors worth of SCO Source licenses, and can SCO please send out the invoice for 16 units to "Blah Blah Fictitious Company, The Address Of The US Fraud Office, US".

      That way, their greed for 10,000 dollars might get the best of them, and get your fraud office a fraudulent invoice?
    3. Re:So: by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

      That would be more likely to get YOU into trouble for fraud, bad faith contract negotiations or something like that.

    4. Re:So: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Is SCO violating any kind of fraud/barratry laws by claiming they were going to send out these invoices, then not doing it?

      No. First, fraud and barratry are extremely different things. Barratry is, to boil it down, to repeatedly attack via court action without legal merit (it is more complicated than that, but you get what you pay for.) Fraud is a deliberate deception for gain. (again, more complicated, etc.) Neither is actionable for J. Random Linux User. For either to be actionable, either SCO would have to (a) sue you, or (b) Actually send you an invoice. Telling some reporters something is not legally offensive in and of itself (of course, one can make all sorts of other cases here. I'm only looking at "fraud/barratry".)

      I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Frogs don't actually boil well. And if anyone knows how scuttling a ship became equitable with legal attack, I'd be happy to know about it.

  51. or the alternative... by infonick · · Score: 1

    Defendant: We haven't received any goods or services from SCO, and are therefore not going to pay this invoice.
    SCO: Yes you have! You're using Linux! It has our code in it! Pay up!
    Defendant: Prove it.
    SCO: Okay, here. Will that be cash or check?
    Defendant: nothing. We're taking this evidence and will deeply examine it (ie: we will Slashdot it). We will know in a few days weather your case is valid.
    SCO: you cant do that!
    Defendant: are you denying us the right to cross-check your evidence?
    SCO: you have to sign a non-disclosure agreement! It's for our protection!
    Defendant: but after signing that, we could only cross-check the information to a limited point. Once again, are you going to deny us our right to cross check the evidence?


    one SCO executive whispers to another: do we have any valid evidence yet?
    one SCO executive replies to another: depends if they're using kernel 2.6-something-er-ather. it doesn't have our old shitty code in it.


    SCO: The prosecution would like to remove all charges your honor.

    --

    You are confusing me with someone who cares.
  52. Read the analyst's comments by Texas+Rose+on+Lava+L · · Score: 1

    http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/tech/ronnaabramson /10119639.html

    Deutsche Bank analyst Brian Skiba accompanied his buy rating with a $45 price target, but cautioned that investors should consider an investment in SCO "extremely high risk and volatile." Shares of SCO propelled $5.13, or 33%, to $20.66 in recent trading.

    Buying SCO is akin to buying a call option on the company's controversial lawsuit against IBM (IBM:NYSE - commentary - research), Skiba wrote in his research note. In its suit filed in March, SCO charged IBM with misappropriating SCO's UNIX source code in its Linux business. But the case is complicated because of how SCO ended up with rights to Unix and the code's relationship to Linux.


    The analyst doesn't try to hide the fact that this is an incredibly risky investment. You're basically betting that the lawsuit will be successful. Therefore, shorting this stock would seem like a way to get some easy money. Then again, I would have said the same thing about betting on the Cubs a few days ago.

    1. Re:Read the analyst's comments by brolewis · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the greater detail. I must admit that I didn't take the time to further research the rating and merely took the CNET article at face value. A little education never hurt anyone.

      --
      A little learning never hurt anyone.
  53. Re:plans haven't changed by Silvers · · Score: 1

    Mod the parent down for not reading the article. Something 4:Insightful is just ridiculous for that.

    "Of the respondents, 73 percent had Linux implementation plans, according to the survey."

  54. don't forget the real reason for the lawsuit by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 1
    In other news, SCO's stock surged $4.97, or 32 percent

    the point of this lawsuit is not to make $ off the licenses, it's to pump SCO stock so the execs can bail richer than they were before. it's working.

  55. Save that FUD for later... by TitanBL · · Score: 2, Informative

    "The executives have said we haven't had to do it yet," SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said of the invoice plan. They're happy with progress in the licensing program."

    Translation:

    Our stock is still soaring from our last round of FUD. The board is concerned we might have used too much of our FUD supply pumping our share price up and might not have enough left over to cover our asses when we start dumping our shares. Just good textbook FUD managment.

  56. reality to slashdot, over! by spectrokid · · Score: 1

    Yoohoo! Anybody there? You didn't think a guy as smart as McBride ever thought this would work, did you? He is stretching the game while his pump-and-dump operation is going fine. McBride still has a very large smile on his face, thank you.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:reality to slashdot, over! by MuParadigm · · Score: 1


      Really? Personally, I think he sounds kind of shrill and worried these days. I think he may be concerned that even if he achieves his four quarters of profits, and the associated bonus, he might not be able to keep the stock pumped long enough to cash out as profitable as he'd like.

      Plus, there's the problem that once Canopy cashes out, there's every reason for them to use him as a scapegoat for all of SCO's other faults and failures.

      No, I suspect at this point that if Darl is smiling at all, it's probably the tight little smile of suppressed fear.

  57. Ignore the trolls by -tji · · Score: 1


    Come on guys.. It works for the comments on slashdot articles. The only way to deal with trolls, like SCO, is to ignore them. If you keep reporting on, and getting excited about every ridiculous move they make, you're just doing them a favor.

    1. Re:Ignore the trolls by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1

      I disagree on this one. We've all seen the disarray the US IP (copyright/patent) system is in, and how little attention is actually paid to "common-sense" when handling IP issues.


      If nobody reacted, a company like SCO would possibly get away with being given a legal backbone for its bogus invoices.

      I'm not so concerned about their stock price (except a natural annoyance at seeing bastards earn money like this)--it doesn't really "hurt" me. I'd rather this be resolved through a hue and cry than there be some chance that SCO could slip this shit under the radar and get away with it. If a court were to ever say "these invoices are legit", you couldn't just ignore them and not pay them.

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  58. Target Prices... by MosesJones · · Score: 1


    Don't you love these banking boys, the people who said that all those .coms like "boo" would take over the world and destroy old style commerce.

    A wonder what Brian and Matt were predicting as "hot stocks" in 1999. As someone who worked in a company that IPO'ed in 1999 and had a target price of over $50 and was worth sub $2 in 12 months.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  59. SCO targeting Hollywood? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I've heard a rumor that SCO has decided to target Hollywood's large Linux installations. The rumor has it that Sontag has decided that attacking Hollywood will generate a lot of press, more than attacking any other industry group. Apparently they're not interested in actually collecting money, but rather they are just interested in getting press coverage to get the stock price even higher.

    DandyLion

    1. Re:SCO targeting Hollywood? by MuParadigm · · Score: 1


      "The rumor has it that Sontag has decided that attacking Hollywood will generate a lot of press..."

      Darl: Ok, anyone got any ideas for pushing the stock price up further?

      Chris: Yeah, let's go after those promiscuous, atheist, Linux-loving, Hollywood commies. It worked for Joe McCarthy.

      Darl: Hmm...

    2. Re:SCO targeting Hollywood? by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1


      I guess SCO wasn't so happy about having its mp3/DivX archive raided.

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
  60. Deutsche are a *big* AIX user by hughk · · Score: 1
    I have no idea what is happening here but Deutsche Bank is a major IBM user, both of mainframes as well as AIX systems. One of their main trading systems (Global Equities) runs on AIX (but they probably don't know it because all they have in the trading room is Winders with an X server).

    Personally I reckon the analyst made a typo - look on the numeric keypad, 4 and 1 are adjacent. I reckon he meant $15. However the recommendation went out and they must stick by it.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  61. make money now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey I WANT an SCO license. $699 seems to be a paltry price for what I plan to sell it for on ebay. After all the less they send out the more for my little piggy

  62. Re:The SCOund of Silence by kneels_bore · · Score: 1

    This is right on the mark. The single most effective weapon in the opensource community's armor right now is silence. Every posting which fails to point out the real nature of this lawsuit - a stock scam - gives it credibility and feeds the scam. Seasoned operators in the financial services community understand this, which is why the stock will continue to be pumped as long as the opensource community fails to switch off the SCO loudspeaker. In effect, Slashdot and sites like it are functioning as amplifiers for the SCO case, and are simply pawns in a game they don't understand.

  63. Re:499 out of Fortune 500 say no? McSCOre? by danro · · Score: 1

    Wanna bet that this Fortune 500 company did not pay very much for it's "license".

    SCO are desperate for some "customers" to make the look good.
    I wouldn't be surprised if it whent something like this.

    Darl: Hey, you're a big company.
    We will license linux to your entire organisation for $1, deal?

    Company: Yeah, sure, whatever, Darl. As long as you don't use our name and quit pestering us.
    now if you excuse me, I have some business to do. You know, with actual customers, and actual products.


    Or it was just Microsoft trying to give SCO some credibility and cash to keep them alive a little bit longer...

    --

    "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
  64. People are actually buying SCO stock by lee-irving · · Score: 2, Informative

    SCO Stock soars

    Another one

    Fastest Growing Company !!!

    If this is the advice given to investors then it is no wonder that the markets are in such a mess. In fact these experts think that $45 dollars will be a fair target.

    "Skiba calculated his $45 price target by forecasting earnings and revenue based on licensing agreements for Unix and other licensing opportunities."

    Do we know whether or not the licenses granted to Microsoft etc were perpetual or annual, because otherwise I cant see where they think the additional funds will come from ?

    From the article it also looks as though they are still angling for IBM to buy them for $1 BILLION. I think IBM will not buckle and will just crush them.

    1. Re:People are actually buying SCO stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the thing that bugs me about our stock markets. Because of the amazing brains of the average schmuck, "investing" has simply become a "pseudo-gambling" legal world-wide.

      Why "pseudo-gambling"? Well, think about it. How many companies pay dividends any more? And even though some companies DO pay dividends, the fact of the matter is that 98% of stock purchases aren't based on how much can be made in _dividends_, but how much can be made in _selling_ the stock to someone else (also unconcerned with dividends)!

      In other words, most stock purchases are _gambles_ on if how much companies will make! Kind of like betting on your favorite sports team, or a horse down at the track.

      My favorite example of this is Microsoft! They paid their first dividend EVER just a year ago. People were buying MS stock without any expectation of return (through dividends) just so they could sell it to some other shmuck who would also buy it without any expectation of return.

      Because Stock is no longer tied to dividends and sustainable revenues, perception becomes the driving force behind stock prices. That's why FUD works so well for SCO; never mind that they've recently laid of more of their development staff (there's very few developers left there), they have no business model, or anything else to drive future growth and financial success, they can make people think they will be successful in suing IBM and others.

      Keep in mind that for the average investor, if SCO was successful in the court room it would not improve their financial standing (i.e. the dividens would probably not cover the cost of investing) except to raise their stock prices to sell off.

      Sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but the stock market is no real reflection on reality. SCO is pretty darn good proof.

  65. The situation in Europe by panurge · · Score: 2, Informative
    Sending out invoices in Europe could be fraught with problems. This is because of the way European sales tax works.

    If a corporation issues an invoice to another business in the same country, then it is legally obliged to collect the sales tax (TVA, VAT, MWST)and pay it to the government. The tax has to be paid on a due date which may be before the invoice is paid. The other company pays the invoice including sales tax, then claims the sales tax back (yes, I agree, it's hard to think of a more stupid system but it is intended to combat fraud.)

    If SCO tries the scam of sending out invoices, it will incur a huge liability for tax. The tax liability is a big inducement not to send out fraudulent invoices. Eventually the invoices will appear as bad debts, and that won't look good on the balance sheet either.

    This leaves SCO with the option of sending out cross-border invoices. However, these are far less likely to be paid since even the most nervous accountant is unlikely to want to pay a US invoice for the claimed use of IP in a German product.

    And my conclusion? Even more R&D and backoffice business goes to Europe, China and India. It's safer to do business there.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:The situation in Europe by eurostar · · Score: 1

      In France, for licenses, the VAT is due when the invoice is issued.
      For services, it is due when the invoice it is paid (cash collected).
      So as most large companies pay between 30 and 90 days, very often the VAT has to be paid to the tax man before the cash is collected.

    2. Re:The situation in Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sending out invoices in Europe could be fraught with problems. This is because of the way European sales tax works.

      Sending out invoices in the U.S. is fraught with problems also. Sending out invoices for services that have not been contracted for nor received is called mail fraud and is a Federal offense.

    3. Re:The situation in Europe by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      If a corporation issues an invoice to another business in the same country, then it is legally obliged to collect the sales tax (TVA, VAT, MWST)and pay it to the government. The tax has to be paid on a due date which may be before the invoice is paid. The other company pays the invoice including sales tax, then claims the sales tax back (yes, I agree, it's hard to think of a more stupid system but it is intended to combat fraud.)

      The same is true in Canada with the Goods and Services Tax (very VAT-like). Its purpose is to provide revenue to the government, but a side-effect is protection against invoice fraud.

  66. Re:499 out of Fortune 500 say no? McSCOre? by JamesP · · Score: 1

    Some know that McDonald's uses SCO at their cash registers for POS. Perhaps SCO managed to sell them Linux licenses in exchange for other favorable treatments.

    Like a lifetime of Happy Meals for Daryl???

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  67. Pulling an AOL by AllenChristopher · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Today's conspiracy theory: Remember when AOL bought Time-Warner with junk bonds?

    SCO are just trying to get their stock price high enough to buy a better company.

    1. Re:Pulling an AOL by Thagg · · Score: 1

      AllenChristopher said: Today's conspiracy theory: Remember when AOL bought Time-Warner with junk bonds?
      SCO are just trying to get their stock price high enough to buy a better company.


      1) It wasn't junk bonds -- it was AOL stock.

      2) It can't happen, because no legitimate company would take SCOX stock in return for their company. SCOX stock really isn't like money, it is unlikely that you could really sell a huge amount of it for the current market price. The shareholders and board of the potential target company, in doing their due diligence, would recognize this and torpedo the deal.

      2a) SCOX did buy Vultus with SCOX stock, but that was not a legitimate transaction, both companies are owned by the Canopy Group. The SCOX/Vultus deal really does look like a stock scam, a way to make money from the rediculous valuation of SCOX stock.

      2b) What happened in the AOL case? The Time Warner board of directors wrestled with the case for quite some time, and demanded a relatively large premium over the AOL market value to account for the volatility of AOL stock -- but the BOD bought the 'new economy' story just like the rest of us. They believed that AOL really was worth the hundred billion or so the stock market said it was. The premium that they asked was (unfortunately for them) nowhere near the amount that AOL was actually overvalued.

      thad

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  68. Financial Musical Chairs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems the investing community is engaged in a high stakes version of "musical chairs." I just hope it's the "smart" ones that are left standing when the music stops.

  69. Re:plans haven't changed by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
    Of the respondents, 73 percent had Linux implementation plans, according to the survey

    Of the 27% that didn't have plans, how many of them had cancelled their plans/piots (in part) because of the SCO thing?

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  70. Another BAD bit of IT Journalism..... by ArtisteTerroriste · · Score: 1

    Once again, another bad piece of Journalism... I'm surprised they actually list an author on the headline. A machine could take a bunch of press statements and stick it together. This was an opportunity to ASK real questions regardinging the licensing issue and write about it. 'This is what sco says, but my investigation reveals...' would be a piece of actual journalism rather than this garbage. IT Press sucks again...

    1. Re:Another BAD bit of IT Journalism..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The IT press is just another example of "trade journalism". This is not real journalism in any sense. The IT press has a firm policy of not biting the hands which feed it. Even when confronted with a juicy story, these folks would have no killer instinct, and would have no idea about how to nuture one.

  71. Re:499 out of Fortune 500 say no? McSCOre? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is more likely is that some register company is using SCO. I know for a fact that NCR, the biggest register company, uses SCO for their OS. McDonald's would get the OS from the POS vendor with the POS equipment, not direct.

  72. Where's the code? by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Well we know that some GPL'ed code is in OpenServer due to samba being in there; kinda makes you wonder what would be found if some neutral third party went through the code with the same microscope that they are using on Linux.

    Might be interesting to go through OpenServer looking for copyright notices and find out how much is supposedly from SCO and how much is admited to be from third parties.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  73. closer to 1 in 6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know, nitpicky, but it's closer to 1 in 6 than 1 in 7.

  74. Re:plans haven't changed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you funny.

    we just finished deploying yeat ANOTHER linux server here... this one as a development server to create a set of web apps to be rolled out country wide in the company on linux servers (real servers like ML530's) to perform a critical task for us.

    that makes deploying another 30 servers country wide by the end of 3Q 2004.

    we also have a team testing linux on the destop working with an entire office of management and sales people in using the linux workstations and laptops. we also told one of our vendors that they need to port to linux or we will no longer buy their product... cince we are their #2 customer, they are writing a linux native version of the vertical app they sell us.

    Linux is gaining in corperate and companies as it always had... silently with one or two and then as it becomes the more more and more get rolled out.

    I'm betting we will be 95% linux based in 2007 about the time MS stop's support for W2Kpro. and all the rest will be Mac based. (video editing + graphics)

    and the whole thing came about because of corperate downsizing... they asked us what we can do to continue IT operations with 1/10th the workstaff that we are left with... we all answered "migrate to linux"

  75. usians.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    prison? several years? in europe? for anything less than a genocide?

  76. summing it all up... by Corrupter · · Score: 1

    This sums it all up for me: http://www.fucksco.com

  77. Re:Oh come on like they where ever going to send t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it nigh-impossible to believe that anyone would buy products advertised via info-mercial/email, but there they are, making lots and lots of money (if the articles in Wired, et. al., are to be believed).

    No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence and good taste of the American public.

  78. Re:499 out of Fortune 500 say no? McSCOre? by bluGill · · Score: 1

    Corrent, the POS OS comes from the vender. When I was at McDonalds (10 years ago) there was a buisness computer that talked to whichever POS was installed (PAR and Panasonic are the ones I worked with, but I presume there are others - each store is different, and they are not replaced often) in the back room, and that always ran SCO, with custom software. However as I left windows comptuers were starting to pop up here and there. I have no idea what the situation is now, and if I did I likely couldn't tell you.

  79. It *is* a type of insider scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An organization where I used to work had a problem like this involving a middle-management type who had the authority to write checks for approved invoices. Due to downsizing, the authority to approve invoices got reassigned to the same person who was writing the checks (not wise). The above person set up a scam where cohorts opened bank accounts with official-sounding names and started sending phony invoices that amounted to around 1% of the department's cash flow. Via pure serendipity, one of the phony accounts was discovered because the name was virtually identical to a legitimate organization, and the perpetrator was discovered, but not until ~$300K had been embezzled.

  80. To follow up on myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me follow up on myself here and try to clarify something I said.

    There's a good reason SCO won't go away unless they're destroyed. In short, trying to steal Linux is all they have left. Essentially, they've bet the future of the company on this strategy.

    SCO is like the desperate poker player who decides to bet all he has left on one last hand. In a situation like that, the player can't fold, or he loses everything and is out of the game. The only thing he can do is to try to put as much into the pot as he can scrape together, hoping the other players will believe he has a winning hand. And the only way to find out is to call his bluff.

    SCO has, for better or worse, decided that they're going to put all their eggs in one basket. In doing so, they've placed themselves in the position of having to win, no matter what tactics they must employ. To lose, or even to back down, means corporate death. I don't care how many articles, editorials, or legal analyses are published that cast doubt on SCO's claims, none of these will change their course of action.

  81. The statement about Mytical Developers! by Treacle+Treatment · · Score: 1

    "Skiba acknowledges that his call on SCO may be taken as heresy in the Linux community, but said it's important to separate the stock from the company. In addition, he argues that the idea of Linux being created by thousands of volunteer programmers is largely myth, given that companies like IBM, Hewlett-Packard (HPQ:NYSE - commentary - research) and others have paid thousands of employees to improve the operating system and build a business around it. "

    Can this possibly be true?

    --
    TT
  82. 84 percent of cio's by Fishstick · · Score: 1

    and what percent had linux plans (or even knew what it was) before this SCO business started making headlines in the trades?

    Our CTO didn't until she read about this and asked for a position paper.

    98% of CIO's can't find their own a-holes with both hands and a mirror.

    --

    There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
    Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

  83. Download Linux from SCO until at least January 04? by e5z8652 · · Score: 1

    At work one of the guys was showing around a copy of SCO/Caldera OpenLinux. I think it was version 3.2.

    What caught my attention was a statement saying that support would be available online until January, 2004. IIRC this was silkscreened right on the install CD.

    IANAL, but it seems to me that it will be at least January before the SCO ftp servers can take their Linux down without violating their own promises to buyers of OpenLinux. And possibly much later, depending on the drop dead date for the last version they shipped.

    --

    null sig

  84. The Code that Jack Wrote by isn't+my+name · · Score: 1

    This is the code that Jack wrote.

    This is the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.

    This the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.

    This is the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.

    This is SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.

    This is the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.

    This is the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.

    This is the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.

    This is the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.

    This is the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.

    This is the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.

    Here is the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.

    Here is the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.

    Here is the IBM countersuit that mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.

    Here are the SCOForum code samples referenced in the IBM countersuit that mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.

    Here is another NDA that once covered the SCOForum code samples referenced in the IBM countersuit that mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in the code that Jack wrote.

    Here are the clueless analysts who signed the NDA that once covered the SCOForum code samples referenced in the IBM countersuit that mentions the SCOX stock propped up by the SCO Press Release decrying the Red Hat lawsuit that discusses the confusion felt by the customer who searched the website that mentioned the NDA that protected the license offered by SCO that claimed the AIX that shipped with the RCU that called the function that lay in th

  85. SCO Group's Real Value by LightSail · · Score: 1

    Before you trash SCO and its cast of characters as totally worthless, Remember the value that they are adding daily to the technology community on a daily basis.

    Go ahead, think about it for a minute or two.

    Stumped? You cannot see a redeeming value it SCO continued existance?

    This is the best tech soap opera/drama/comedy since Al Gore invented the internet. It has staying power, from a summer replacement series, now held over into the Fall line up. A great cast of characters. We could enjoy a full blow trial or two during next season. The third season could be taken up by SEC actions and a fourth season can have those pesty criminal trials.

    I really think that Darl (Don't you love that stage name) should get some real recogition for his individual contribution. It must take special talent to play the serious straight man in this screw-ball comedy.

    Mark Heise also deserves special notice for the inventative attack on GPL. Who would have thought an attorney would come up with the most comical moment in the entire season?

    We should have several seasons of twists and turns if the producers of the SCO Comedy Group can avoid bankruptcy.

    I personally hope it lasts until "Doctor Who" returns to PBS. Hey, Darl could play the new Doctor Who!

  86. Deutsche Bank is corrupt by k98sven · · Score: 1

    According to this report on the matter:

    "Mr. Skiba doesn't own shares of SCO. Deutsche Bank may seek to provide investment banking services to the company."

    Well, look at that.. Deutsche Bank wants them as an investment banking customer, all while their 'analyst' gives their stock a 'target price' 3000% higher than it was at the start of the year.

  87. I'm still concerned by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    84 per cent of CIOs in a recent survey said it hasn't affected their plans to implement Linux.

    I'm still concerned that 16% of cios were gullible enough to fall for this, or at least be worried about it. That's probably enough to warrant a class-action suit by companies like mine against SCO after they lose big to IBM and RH.

  88. Checking my calendar... by red+floyd · · Score: 1

    Let me guess... SCO execs have another "pre-planned" round of stock sales coming up, don't they?

    --
    The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  89. The remaining 16 percent... by frkiii · · Score: 1

    answered that "We were so scared of SCO and its claims, that we stopped doing our jobs, and were promptly fired. We are all filing a class action suit vs. SCO for mental anguish and punitive damages." ;-)

    Regards,

    Fredrick

  90. Invoicing by KaiserZoze_860 · · Score: 1

    Truth be told...

    Some companies have lost some serious dough paying invoices even when they don't know where they came from or what they are for. It might be a viable business in and of itself... hmmm.

    -KS

  91. SCO and invoicing + jargon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Despite SCO's threats, 84 per cent of CIOs in a recent survey said it hasn't affected their plans to implement Linux.

    [from the /. Greatest Hits archive]

    If I were a CIO or CTO debating the TCO of *nix vs. Win2K3 to a CEO, would IBM vs. SCO be the TKO that stops the CEO or CFO from approving A/P to pay my PO for RHAT's LGX?

    FWIW, even if OSS is FAIB, if the DOJ considers *nix IP with a TM, then it basically becomes SCO's LIC, meaning our OSS becomes a CSS OS, which would RSTBO.

    AIBO going w/ an ASP that manages our OS? BTA, we might end up w/ a BOFH giving us ZA, which WWAD PMS.

    AFAIK, INMP if SCO wants to be ITM by enforcing its supposed IPR - *nix IP should be PD or GNU, like BSD just on GP, IYKWIM. I keep asking myself in this situation - WWLD?

    Oh, BTW - IITYWIMWYBMAD?

    [all stolen shamelessly from a prior poster in an early SCO story on /.]

  92. all wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually I think the posts have it all wrong.

    I think SCO is being honest for the first time in this whole mess by claiming they're satisfied.

    What I mean is if 1 in 7 major copanies using linux was buying a license from me for doing nothing...I'd be completely satisfied. This is why extortion and blackmail are so popular...very good ROI.

  93. SCO SW Engineer speaks out? by bstadil · · Score: 1
    Just found this comment from someone claiming to be a SCO engineer

    The guy mentions Morton directly so maybe it has some credibility.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  94. Symptoms of half-truths by kardar · · Score: 1

    I have to believe that when people start recieving these invoices someone will post one to the web. I am sure we will hear about it, or whatever. Furthermore, I think that we would probably hear about companies (or rumours about companies) that have signed up with the licensing plan.

    I have a feeling that no one has signed up for the licensing plan yet. Some were suggesting that DB was the "undisclosed" company that had bought licenses from SCO Group. Who knows? It's not important who the company is, but I am curious if ANY company is actually purchasing licenses from SCO.

    I would like to see evidence that proves:

    1. Someone has actually purchased an IP (Linux) license from SCO Group. Anyone.

    2. A picture of the invoice ( from someone who thinks it's a joke and won't pay it, etc... ) - if and when they claim they are sending out invoices.

    I just don't believe that anyone is purchasing these licenses. Remember, the SCO Group has been quoted as saying that this fight for new IP laws and precedents is more important than the long-term stability of the SCO Group. The SCO Group will fight to the death concerning these IP rights, that's how committed and serious they are about it. It's an interesting concept, but death is imminent. This has also been said before, but it's basically true... there is no way they can survive an IBM appeal. And that's exactly what's going to happen if SCO, by some miraculous miscarriage of justice, win the IBM case.

    Hey, there are lots of animals like that, too... willing to fight to the death. I bet my dog would be willing to fight to the death to protect my family, as well. It's not uncommon. But SCO may just be wrong about these IP concepts.

    Imagine a company that makes caps for pickup trucks. They make caps for Fords, Chevys, and Dodges. That's OK! You can make aftermarket parts for multiple manufacturers. If Dodge comes out and says that any manufacturer that makes caps for their pickup trucks can't make them for any other brands of pickup trucks, such as Chevy, Ford, or Toyota, then Dodge will probably find themselves without any companies making aftermarket parts for them. That's all that's really going on here... SCO is saying that if you make aftermarket software for UNIX, that you can't make it for Linux, because then people won't buy UNIX. It's absolutely absurd, and unheard of in the business world. They may as well be suing Oracle for making a database that runs on Linux, if they are going to be taking that approach.

  95. Statistical manipulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    84 per cent of CIOs in a recent survey said it hasn't affected their plans to implement Linux.

    What plans did you have to implement Linux before?
    None.
    What plans do you have to implement Linux now?
    None.
    So... the SCO case has had no effect on your plans to implement Linux? ...None.
    Great!

  96. No it doesn't by jesterzog · · Score: 1

    It means that we don't know what the other 16% answered. Without seeing the details of the survey, it's completely reasonable that 16% of CIO's either didn't respond to the survey or never had plans to implement Linux in the first place, which in my mind is much more likely.

  97. SCO Shrinking by frkiii · · Score: 1

    I remember seeing numbers at the bottom of all of SCO's press releases circa June 2003, where they stated they had a worldwide network of more than 16,000 resellers and 6,000 developers. I know the first number (16,000) is correct, but the last one was either 6,000 or 8,000.

    In the press release today regarding BayStar Capital's $50 M investment, the data on SCO states "...SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers".

    So by my calculations, they have lost over 31 percent of their resellers and between 33 to 50 percent of their developers.

    Either their figures on their press releases in June 2003 were very out-of-date (or grossly inflated) or they have, in actual fact, an extermely serious business situation that investors and others are not fully aware of.

    And, for me, if it is a matter of the figures being out-of-date or grossly inflated, it would still make SCO one of the last companies I would ever do business with, as they seem to be slip-shod at best with their record keeping, easily proved false statements in their press releases, etc.

    Regards,

    Fredrick

  98. They figured it out --bogart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux users don't pay for the linux they get from Redhat or any other vendor so why would the pay SCO?

    Free as in I bogarted it.

  99. How's that IBM patent lawsuit going??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'pump and dump, pump and dump, pump and dump . . . '

    Ah,

    How's that IBM patent lawsuit going???

  100. How man people avoided Microsoft? by JThundley · · Score: 1

    I'd be interested to know what percent of people changed their plans to continue to use Microsoft software after the great worm breakouts.