Slashdot Mirror
SCO Will Pay You Not to Use Linux
Verteiron writes: "As if things weren't weird enough already, SCO is now planning to pay companies to migrate away from Linux.. even if it's not toward UNIX. According to the summary over at Groklaw, SCO will provide 'financial incentives and discounts' to users that switch to 'other operating systems that have a stronger IP basis than Linux.' This doubly amusing when considered together with the following statements straight from SCO's 8-K form filed with the SEC:
'...plans to expand SCO's intellectual property licensing program to allow for migration alternatives to end users... and continued efforts to protect SCO's UNIX intellectual property rights and SCO's belief that the private investment will enhance SCO's ability to pursue currently pending legal actions... SCO has a history of unprofitability and has only realized revenue from its SCOsource licensing initiative during the last two quarters...'"
Where do I sign up?
Karma: Meh (Mostly from meh.)
Ok, seriously, who thinks the underwear gnomes have a better bussiness plan?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Nice to see some confirmation finally that SCO is not in the business of selling software, and has only the destruction of Linux as its objective.
This should clear the air a bit and help wake up those poor souls who still think that the SCO Group is some sort of software company, and not a lawsuit factory with a worthless, deprecated UNIX implementation on hand that they're not even developing to any useful degree any more.
And on the speculative front, I'll refuse to be 100% sure that Microsoft and/or Sun are behind SCO's actions until I see some sort of paper trail, but this makes me sure enough.
Use *anything* other than Linux. Note the biggest discount is Windows.
So, pay SCO only $299.00 for Linux.
But stop using Linux. Hmmm, so why the $299? Move on.
Start using Windows.
And this helps SCO how? You're not using their products. Oh, but you paid $299 for a product (Linux) they claim infringes on something of theirs, but then stop using the allegedly infringing product.
HELP!
I wonder if they took into account the possibility of users switching away to another free *NIX.
Assuming they did, that makes it even more clear how much of their attack is focused on the GPL itself. BSD-licensed software may be free, but it can be added to any proprietary system with the sole provision that the copyrights are maintained and there is no warranty of fitness for any particular purpose. True "free software" is obviously what scares SCO and their puppet masters.
That's assuming they considered that possibility. Knowing how out-of-touch SCO's executives have proven themselves to be, there's a good chance they didn't.
RedHat's case rests on the allegation that SCO's actions are deliberately trying to damage RedHat's sales potential (as the #1 Linux distribution). This would seem to directly support that allegation.
The same could be said for IBM's counterclaim.
Here's an article from a UK source today, called Microsoft millions back SCO case. It also highlights Boies' et. al. backing of SCO. Just so there's no confusion about who it is that's scared of Linux.
Development would cease while al the Linux developers chatted on Slashdot about the impending anti-trust cases against Microsoft launched across the globe.
Seriously, there isn't the remotest possibility that Microsoft could buy SCO if it would actually have a measurable effect. Of course, that is all predicated on the notion that SCO and its "IP" does actually count for something. Personally, I don't think it would make the slightest difference. IBM/SGI/SUN/etc. already have the rights to the stuff that matters and any new owners of SCO would not be able to withdraw those rights on a whim.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Potential Investor: What's your business plan?
Guy with goatee: We'll be selling e-products over the e-web. Our e-services will include e-billing, e-shipping, and e-tracking. This will actually reduce our infrastructure and overhead costs to negative numbers, so we won't even need to actually sell anything.
PI: Here's all my money, and my 18 year old duaghter.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
Ah, no, this is definitely illegal. The Clayton Act, on agreement not to use goods of competitor
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
More like that one Daffy Duck short where he's on stage, struggling mightily to get ANY kind of audience reaction.
He sings, he dances, and the audience just yawns. Finally he uses his one remaining sure-fire act to get a reaction. He swills down a bottle of nitroglycerin and makes himself explode.
And the crowd goes wild, but meanwhile, nothing but of Daffy remains except for a black stain. That's what this whole thing is:
Daffy, until it explodes and there's nothing left.
Help fight continental drift.
SCO is offering _discounts_ on licenses.
Meaning if you switch over to another OS now you don't end up oweing SCO the full license for linux ($699 or something) that they're claiming you now owe. You'll probably just end up oweing a mere $500 (or whatever - even I couldn't stomach reading the details on that in the article).
I have a second sig, I call it sig#2.
ok. let's just say sco does have ip in linux. and let's say they can bypass the gpl and charge for it. neither are likely true, but just humour me here. now let's say that they expect scosource to be their future revenue stream.
just pretend all of that is true, factual and on the level. say it's possible and what sco is honestly planning on.
how in the fuck does this latest move make any sense even in that nightmare fairie tale?
"here, you folks have violated our ip, we plan on continuing to charge you and, oh, by the way, here's some money to buy our competitors products so you won't have to pay us anymore."
is it any wonder that sco never took the unix world by storm in over a decade?
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Paul Murphy at E Commerce Times
m l
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/31932.ht
has an absolutely insane article about this whole mess. Mind you, 98% of the article is completely nuts as it basically blames IBM, or anyone else, for not paying off SCO already. He does not understand that paying off the mob is bad social policy and that Linux is about social policy, but I digress.
Here is one interesting part:
- - -
# SCO is attacking the entire Linux community.
It is not. Responses from SuSE Latest News about SuSE and Red Hat to the contrary, the SCO demand for license fees from Linux users was classic legal fiction. Both key SCO executives -- Darl McBride and Chris Sontag -- have said repeatedly that they are trying to work through issues to achieve justice without putting "a hole in the head of the penguin."
Most people find these license claims outrageous, but think about the drivers behind the demand and you might yet see SCO as a victim of its own lawyers and the way the courts operate.
Fundamentally, the court eventually will require SCO to show a quantitative, market-based derivation for the value of damages claimed. Demanding license fees is one way of establishing that basis -- and one likely to appeal to lawyers acting on contingency because a few successful sales would suffice to establish an enormous fair-market value.
- - -
Terrifyingly, this almost makes sense. If SCO can set a "high" license value on their property, they can then multiply this by the number of Linux systems to get their damages. It only takes a couple of bozos (or co-conspirators) to create "license sales" that can then be multiplied out. This is not too disimilar from the RIAA / WebCasting royalty calculations. Take what Yahoo will pay during the bubble, and then try to get everyone else to empty their pockets. It is very likely that they are not trying to actually get licenses, but that they are trying to establish a "market value" that is to their favor.
If this is actually their plan, then it is not only SCO that needs taken down, but their lawyers as well.
Wasn't sure how to post the message as a link...
"A somewhat more realistic interpretation of "Migration path with
discounts" would go more like this:
1) You already owe SCO money for their IP that you are using in Linux, 2) SCO
knows this was unintentional and says "Hey, we know you didn't mean to
infringe our IP, but you did. Since it was accidental, we'll charge you LESS
if you stop infringing our IP quickly by converting to something that does not
infringe our IP"
Basically extend the licensing that they were already doing:
$699 - Binary license
$599 - License current and prior use of SCO owned Linux IP on one server and
migrate that server to xBSD within 6 months.
$499 - License current and prior use of SCO owned Linux IP on one server and
migrate that server to HP-UX within 6 months
$299 - License current and prior use of SCO owned Linux IP on one server and
migrate that server to Windows 200x within 6 months
The discount is to what you pay THEM, and does not affect what the other vendor
charges you for their OS."