Slashdot Mirror
IBM Subpoenas SCO Investors, Analysts
Bigfishbowl writes "Forbes has an interesting article about IBM sending subpoenas to large SCO investors in an effort to compel discovery. An IBM spokesman says IBM is frustrated by SCO's reluctance to produce proof of its allegations. '"It is time for SCO to produce something meaningful. They have been dragging their feet and it is not clear there is any incentive for SCO to try this in court," he says.'"
This is just like poker... And IBM finally called... now SCO is gonna have to lay down the cards or fold... Either way... we all win! :)
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Pretty cool, if you think about it.
IBM, Big Blue, batting in Linux's court. This will likely be the case that stands as precedence for or against the GPL, and with such a giant behind Linux, I don't think SCO will win.
If they had a chance, they would have pressed their fist into using the law to compel licensing, instead of sending "invoices" and pressuring companies to provide 'insurance' against their lawsuits.
With the right leverage (such as the kind that IBM has) this could easially compel strong legal backing for the GPL, something it could definately use.
SCO claims to have shown "the code" to investors and such. IBM says, "okay, SCO won't show us the code, so we'll make your investors do so." Both intimidates the investors and calls SCO's bluff. Brilliant!
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
You want this to be properly resolved. We don't need any more of the bullshit coming from the courts where it's decided that the case is not strong enough to set a precedent, so it's dropped instead of getting resolved. Then they wait until another situation comes up that is more favorable. The future of freedom can not wait.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Big companies like IBM, Microsoft, et al don't act in a single-minded way like we individuals tend to. You can't run a big company with a "you're my enemy so I won't do business with you" mentality.
There are many, many examples where IBM competes or cooperates with Microsoft and others. An even more extreme example is Sony, where, one half of the business is frantically taking on file swappers and copiers, and the other half is making bucks from selling devices used to copy and swap files.
[x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful
No. We don't want SCO "laughed out of court". We don't want them out of court at all. We want them _in_ court, unsuccessfully defending themselves against IBM's counterclaims after the judge grants summary judgement in favor of IBM on all of SCO's claims.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Going after the analysts is a great idea. If they are forced to respond to the subpoenas, they can say:
a) I just used public information and personal judgement to predict the stock will double in price. This would imply extreme naivety on the part of the analyst, and, given the current lawsuits against analysts pumping stocks, probably gets a Spitzer-style lawsuit against him and his firm.
b) SCO told me X, Y, and Z, and that is the basis for my estimate. If public info, see above. Else: Woohoo, material information given to analysts yet not publically disclosed.
c) SCO hinted privately at Microsoft (or other firms) involvement. Great evidence of dirty hands in the case, and maybe a bit of case b).
In short, I'd hate to be an analyst forced to defend my "strong buy" rating on a stock while also claiming to be an expert in its market sector.
Note also that the Forbes' article also used the phrase "pump and dump." It's never a good sign when the major media starts propagating such theories!
I don't think that Microsoft is directly behind this action, but I sure as hell wouldn't put it past them to do so. They've done some pretty weird stuff in the past such as the famous dead people mailing initiative and their famous round of hideous anti-linux FUD in 2001 where Ballmer, Mundie and just about every honcho at MS were telling strange tales of viral cancer etc.
Given that they discovered that such direct FUD backfired but are reportedly gearing up for the next round of FUD with respect to security would you be willing to state with 100% certainty that MS is not behind this action?
I wouldn't.
If it is discovered through IBM's process of subpoenas that MS is in fact behind this I wonder what will happen then. I assume that MS will be facing a court action for trying to willfully harm a competitor's business that will make the $3 billion SCO claim look tame, and I think that there will be a number of anti-trust questions raised.
From SCO's supplemental responses:
I've been wondering when someone was going to try this for quite a while. "Dumping", selling a product below cost in order to force your competitors out of business, is illegal for good reasons. It seems like a motivated attorney could pretty easily make a case that any company who is putting substantial investment into software that is distributed for free is dumping, and trying to kill a competitor.
This doesn't just apply to IBM and Linux, it also applies to Sun and OpenOffice, and perhaps others as well. Now it looks like SCO is trying this argument out for real.
I had hoped the argument wouldn't get brought up for a while, until a history of such corporate open source efforts was well established. And it seemed reasonable that it might not be brought up, since the "damaged" party in both the Linux and OpenOffice cases is Microsoft, and as a convicted anti-competitive monopolist with a massive market share they're not in a very good position to complain.
It seems like Microsoft has found a way to get the idea in front of a judge after all...
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I think the precedent is the fact that SCO claims GPL is not enforceable. If the court agreed that GPL is a legal license, that will make any challenge in the future against GPL hard or impossible. Which gives open source softwares some legal backings.
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
SCO's lawsuit against IBM is over a breach of contract. It doesn't mention the GPL at all. However, IBM's countersuit does bring up the GPL several times. SCO's lawsuit can be laughed out of court without affecting IBM's countersuit. From what I've heard, IBM would like a court ruling backing the GPL as much as the rest of the open source community. The chances of IBM dropping their countersuit is really small. If IBM is sending subpoenas to investors, then it sounds like IBM would like to make an example out of SCO and everyone that has helped them.
SCO made the mistake of attacking something very core to IBM's business, its reputation.
By claiming that IBM willfully and flagrantly breached its contracts with SCO and disregarded confidentiality agreements, SCO is jeprodizing IBM's business with almost every one of their customers including banks, government, and nearly every large corporation.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
Many readers (like the two reading over my shoulder) are taking this as a cop-out on Barny Franks part. I for one really wish more of our elected leaders understood the seperation of powers. If they did, we would have far fewer problems with the law than we do today.
I definitely understand the tendency to ignore all the paranoid ravings you hear on /., because I do too. That said, there are some legit reasons to give this one consideration. First, Forbes is typically quite the conservative mag, and I doubt they'd even have printed that had it not passed the laugh test to outsiders. Second, this scheme is simliar to what canopy has done before by Canopy. I'm generally skeptical, and I will bank on this being a pump-n-dump or similar scheme by SCO/Canopy. This is their MO.
The Microsoft angle is more farfetched, but not completely implausible. MS paid a *lot* of money for SCO licenses that were somewhere between unnecessary and worthless to MS. Also, lately, SCO has been making strange offers about discounts to people who make the switch to any non-linux system, and saying it in a way that all but screams "Windows."
Bottom line, I'd bet on Canopy running this scam. I'd wait for some more bookkeeping before I listened to the MS angle.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat