Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Forbes Examines SCO Subpoenas

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the what-does-it-all-mean dept.

z4ce writes "It seems that Daniel Lyons of Forbes just wrote yet another article on the IBM vs. SCO law suit. Now, Daniel seems to seeing SCO for the liars they are. One of the choice quotes include, "What's the point of hassling people who make chips and set-top boxes? Don't ask SCO's top execs. They don't know anything about this stuff, remember?""

22 of 416 comments (clear)

  1. The tides, they are a-changin' by Space+cowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Excellent - it seems I'm reading more and more critical-of-SCO stuff these days. Just desserts, and all that :-)

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:The tides, they are a-changin' by orcrist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Eggplant62 said: A blatant attempt by some big money corporate thugs to take over the finest collaborative work this world has ever seen.

      Then you said: I'm partial to the Bill of Rights, myself.

      I agree the Bill of Rights trumps Linux overall (though it could be argued that Linux enjoys more support than the former, unfortunately) and is a fine piece of work, but collaborative?:

      The Bill of Rights: A BRIEF HISTORY:
      The American Bill of Rights, inspired by Jefferson and drafted by James Madison, was adopted, and in 1791 the Constitution's first ten amendments became the law of the land.
      Additionally, James Madison used "The Virginia Declaration of Rights" as a basis, but he essentially wrote it alone.

      I think it could be argued -- independently of the individual projects' merits -- that many open-source projects are without precedent at least in their collaborative aspects.

      -chris

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
  2. Congrats, Forbes by grub · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Stallman's GNU/Linux operating system is not the target of SCO's suit. Linux, the program SCO is targeting, is not an operating system, but only the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system, which could run using a different kernel.

    It's refreshing to see mainstream media getting it right.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Congrats, Forbes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Besides, I've thought about it, and I think it's more likely that the GNU stuff will be around longer than the kernel;

      We may change kernels for technical reasons, but the bulk of the way we interact with the computer (configure it, use it to build software, etc.) is more directly tied to the GNU tools.

      I'd say that GNU/Linux without GNU is something else entirely, GNU/Hurd would signify a subtle (and perhaps completely abstracted and thus not even noticeable) change.

      My line of thinking is that just about everything we call Linux should really just be called GNU (even GNU/Linux I think is generous on the part of Stallman -- I realize that just about everyone here doesn't agree, so I guess I don't understand the prevalent sentiment).

      Am I off base in assuming that it's more likely that people will be using GCC or vi (or emacs) a long time from now than still using Linux as the kernel that (in a hidden, abstracted, and thus readily interchangeable way) powers the innards?

      PS

      I have to disagree, there is no obsession with GNU, just the opposite. I think there is much obsession (to the point of giving credit for an OS where credit for a kernel is due -- I know Torvalds is a great, likeable guy, but he did not create an OS from thin air! He "just" created an kernel from thin air! -- I realize it takes an engineer of umcommon talent to up and decide to write his own kernel -- in all fairness, though, I have to imagine the same is true of a compiler).

      Maybe it's philosophical (how I view these things), since I think it's the GNU foundation that enabled all of this to happen (from software to the license to the radically new software development model), and not the other way around.

      No Stallman, nothing happens.

      No Torvalds, same stuff happens, maybe a week, month, day, year (who knows) later.

      Am I completely off base here?

  3. Daniel Lyons ? by Jesrad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You actually mean Daniel "FSF-are-hitmen and Linux-users-are-religious-fanatics" Lyons ?

    Quite a change in tone ! Oh, well, maybe he's grown as tired of the SCO-IBM case as I am...

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
    1. Re:Daniel Lyons ? by javaxman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm going to guess two things after reading this latest article by Mr. Lyons :

      1) Daniel had to face some of the criticism generated by his previous articles, and recognize that criticism as legitimate. Maybe one of his editors caught wind of what was going on and had to have a talk with him. While the top brass at Forbes are obviously pro-business, they don't want to be seen as biased or ( worse ) unable to comprehend current technology issues.

      2) He's woken up to the fact that SCO has used him as a mouthpiece in the past, and realized they're trying to do so again. Perhaps he is understandably bitter about that. Good. Maybe he'll be more careful in the future.

      To me, he'll always be the idiot who wrote an article about the FSF's lawyers being hit-men without having actually bothered to understand the GPL or research what the FSF's lawyers do. It's nice to see he can learn, though...

  4. This isnt a desperation move, not to SCOs thinking by j0keralpha · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It would seem to an outside observer that SCO is getting desperate and seeking discovery from anyone they can get their hands on(this is alluded to in the article). Im not sure thats how they are thinking. SCOs logic trail seems to follow two basic paths:

    1. We know there is UNIX code in linux, and we need to bring in as many people as possible to show how fragmented and uncontrolled Linux Development is. This will make the court favor us, as we can show a lack of true orginization on the defendants part (the defendant being Linux, not the legal defendant e.g. IBM).

    2. We have gone on record disclosing that our revenue model is largely based around SCOSource, which is largely based around people paying us for our IP. Ergo, we have to show people that we can win(otherwise we have no IP to charge people for), and to do this we must undermine Linux's Credibility.

    The practical upshot is that the 'buckshot' discovery model is aimed partially at garnering as much information possible (relevant or not) and partially to illustrate to the court that there is no one authoritative 'source' to the problem (thereby undermining the general credibility of linux with the court, making the court more inclined to see it as a dangerous conglomeration of not-necessarily-IP-abiding individuals.)

    I know this is supposition, but like many of the other theories about why SCO is doing what they are doing it fits well in the facts.

  5. preaching to the choir by steelerguy · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Is this really even news anymore? /. must generate more SCO publicity than any other entity out there right now, which is only good for SCO.

    How about /. create a sco.slashdot.org and post all the SCO crap there, so all of us who know they are full of crap and have become completely desensitized to the issue can stop beating the long dead horse. Those who enjoy beating a rotting carcass can continue to do so.

  6. Linux hitmen by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    His previous article was called the Linux Hitmen and painted the EFF in a really ugly light almost like they were the extortionists not SCO. So its quite a aturn around. or maybe he just hates everyone.

    The article is written in a very casual almost unbussiness-like tone of voice--odd for forbes. I bet it does not make it into the dead-tree edition of forbes read by real bussiness types, so it wont have much impact

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  7. The RMS Connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Interesting that after having been in contact with RMS, the reporter sees to be 'getting it' and even seems to be understanding the importance of freedom (not just low cost) in 'free software'. Way to go.

  8. Re:How will SCO respond? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    >Reporters who get pissed off by disinformation >tend not to be kind
    Yeah..ok...sure...whatever you say. That must have been in your journalism 101 course, right?

    If that was the case, you'd have more reporters going postal.

    Lies to reporters are called business as usual in our CNN world.

    zack

  9. Lyons just trying to _appear_ balanced, maybe? by wa1hco · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not sure David gets it, yet.

    Groklaw.net (IBM's Subpoenas to Analysts and Investors: Why? Why? Why?) points out that IBM's going after the network of analyists and investors, possibly because this whole SCO/Linux thing looks strikingly similar to a pump and dump scheme the Feds have already found.

    Does Lyons need to appear balanced to avoid getting entangled with IBM Subpoenas?

    Notice that this article spends more time than necessary on the differences between Free and Open software. If I was a SCO lawyer with MS interests at heart, I play RMS to really divide the community. It won't work, but will generate useful FUD.

    1. Re:Lyons just trying to _appear_ balanced, maybe? by macrealist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, a kind of win the battle, lose the war thing. SCO self destructs, but in the process spreads FUD, starts open/free religous wars, distracts the public enough that MS can launch a (PR) attack on Linux security, and show the business world that a very few linux supporters go too far in their support.

      Each SCO move may seem ludicrous, but don't celebrate their demise too much. So far this thing has been awful for Linux at a time when it should be gaining on Windows (security issues).

      --
      I am living proof of the Peter Principle
  10. Re:Confusion ... by ntsucks · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This sums it up. SCO is suing IBM for breach of contract, nothing more, nothing less. What dows Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman et al have to do with this contract? did they sign it?

    Civil litigation is not always about achieving equitible settlement. Its very often about intimidation, marketing, public relations, bragging rights, money, etc. To achieve these goals lawyers regularly entangle as many related entities as possible. Its FUD and intimidation.

    A few years ago I changed jobs. My old employer sued me, my new employer, and a corporate officer of my new employer. They sued with an overly broad interpretation of violating a non-compete clause I had signed with them. (They claimed any other job in computer programming was competing.) They knew they would not win the case and they sued my new employer who did not sign the non-compete contract. In the end the judge rendered summary judgement and dismissed their case. BUT-- Guess what? Mission accomplished. I had to hire a lawyer and go to court. So did my new employer and its officer. Ever try to buy a house when you are being sued? Banks don't like to lend money to people being sued. Now other employees of my old company were scared to leave and my new employer had financial incentive not to hire any more of my former co-workers.

    SCO is undertaking a similar but grander plan. They are doing some discovery, I am sure, but they also want to intimidate Linux developers, waste their time, and cause them to run up legal bills. They want to do the same for Linux companies.
    Thus, providing incentives to "see it there way". It also serves to muddy the public reputation of GNU/Linux itself, its developers, and Linux companies. The later provides a clear marketing reason to pay SCO license fees. All of this also drags out the case, keeping the Linux FUD out there for people to see for a longer period of time. Which of course provides reasons to settle or license up.

    SCO's tatics here are the norm, I would expect more of the same in the future.

    --
    Those who can do. Those who can't sue.
  11. LinuxWorld editor features in the Forbest article by softwareJoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    LinuxWorld today notes that one of its editors, Brian E. Ferguson, features prominently in the Forbes story. Ferguson authored the savvy analytical article SCO's IP Gamble in the current issue, which, as Forbes notes, concludes that "SCO's case a long shot."

  12. Re:This isnt a desperation move, not to SCOs think by bs_02_06_02 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I think SCO has very little to do with the day to day activity in this lawsuit. They aren't smart enough. The lawyers are running the show.
    Remember, SCO was hurting for cash? They consulted a lawyer and went after the biggest target with the most cash, IBM.

    I'll guess that SCO's law team is going to show specific pieces of code to Linus and ask, "How did this code get there?" They're going to look for an answer that points to IBM. If Linus says he doesn't know, then they'll ask who would know? They'll ask for the documents that show who wrote pieces of code, and when. They'll also ask questions about Linus' intentions when creating Linux.

    Then, SCO's lawyers will subpoena other code writers that worked on the kernel. They'll keep digging until one of them points the finger at IBM.

    They will use RMS to set the stage for damages. They'll ask him how important the kernel is to the entire package. He'll say that no OS will run without a kernel, which is the obvious answer. That sets the stage for damages, as long as they can point fingers at IBM.

    SCO's legal team will increasingly release questionable PR. They will spin everything. They will put out information that is tough to refute. Vague statements. When the trial starts, they'll hammer away at specific pieces of code. Linus or RMS will be asked how important various pieces of code are to the whole kernel. If IBM refutes the blame by pointing to other references (in the public domain) to those same pieces of code, then SCO will add those sources to their lawsuit.
    Also, SCO will be trying for a non-technical jury in a liberal court. They'll look for poor people, or retired people living on a pension. The SCO legal team will try to play the little struggling company against the big, evil IBM.

    That's assuming that this whole spiel makes it trial.

    --
    -- No sig for you!
  13. Top Story by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Check it out. If you go to forbes.com, this is the story at the top of the page, as opposed to being burried in some tech news link.

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    1. Re:Top Story by fferreres · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe IBM got a bit upset, and made some calls. After all, they are official sponsors of Forbes "Executive Connection", as anyone visiting forbes can notice (front page) :-)

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
  14. Re:objective reporting at its finest by herrvinny · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Which part is wrong?

    1. Nope, not the clueless end users. Lots of stuff about that here.

    2. Nope, not the geeks. According to the /. motto, we're all nerds, so it just stands to reason we're geeks too.

    3. SCO is a bunch of sleazebags? Nope, no problem there. We've debated that point endlessly here.

    4. Writing device drivers? I have to say, I haven't written a device driver in some time, but I have one or two stuck in the ol' code library. Next!

    5. LARP games? Nope. Nerds and geeks (I'm repeating myself; see #2) play those.

    6. Basements? Well, I'm on the second floor, if you must know, but it's close enough.

    Final Analysis? Yup, the author's cool with me.

  15. Re:Confusion ... by Eggplant62 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Even that Forbes reporter could (kind of) tell the difference between GNU/Linux the OS and Linux the kernel ... how come Caldera, a former distributor, can't?


    Because the entity that was Caldera spun off and became Tarantella, then Canopy stepped in and bought out the rest of the business, the Linux distribution, the Unix software, and all the successive rights. The clowns at Canopy probably looked at the failing bottom line of what was left of the business, said to themselves, "We gotta stop this hemorrhaging.. *FAST*!!"

    "But how we donna do dat, boss?" I can hear in reply in my mind.

    "We'll call ourselves SCO again, so that people will associate us with all that was good in the Unix world -- BIG BUSINESS!! Then they hired Darl and his pals Sonntag, et alia, and put them to work to come up with a bright idea to salvage some stockholder value outta the whole mess.

    The most creative thing they could think of was a stock pump-and-dump deal and an attempt to rape the world for the software that they created.
  16. Re:Is this about right? --A taste of reality--. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    america is the biggest contributor right now

    Evidence ?

  17. Linus and RMS reply to SCO by octalman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    SCO
    Linden, UT

    Re: subpoenas in re Linux and/or GNU software

    Dear SCO-folks,

    All Linux and GNU code, including comments, is freely available to you and anyone else who wishes to see it, and always has been. Every release and every tiny change is there. Likewise, our communications with our fellow developers with respect to these programs has been freely available for years.

    So, what is it you want? You already have access to everything we have on the subject. Just download it like everybody else does.

    And then show us exactly what you claim has been misapproprated from your code.

    Now, go away so we can write some more first class programs.

    Sincerely,
    Tux and The Gnu