Slashdot Mirror
Forbes Examines SCO Subpoenas
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?""
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,
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.
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.