OSDL Pays For Linus Torvalds' SCO Defense

geoff313 writes " For all of you who might be worried about what financial consequences Linus Torvalds might have to endure as a result of being subpoenaed by SCO, fear not: the Open Source Development Lab (OSDL) will pay for its law firm to represent him. the OSDL, who are Torvalds' employer, will announce on Friday that the "OSDL has agreed to fund legal representation for Torvalds and any other employees of the lab who may become involved in the litigation." Just in case you didn't you didn't know, the OSDL is funded by a variety of corporations including (but not limitied to) IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Sun Microsystems, Red Hat, Cisco, Computer Associates, Fujitsu, Hitachi, and Nokia. "

Comments

Bon Appetite!

[corebreech]

McBride is what is known in the poker world as a fish.

Which is to SCO's great misfortune because penguins literally eat fish for breakfast.

And Torvalds is the biggest, baddest penguin out there. One might even call him The Omega Penguin. The king of all penguins, indeed, of all penguin-kind. Their lord. The single template from which all other penguins were wrought.

I'm just sorry they're not selling tickets for this one.

Re:Bon Appetite!

[walt-sjc]

Funny comment, but misses the big picture.

SCO is not after Linus. They are after IBM. It makes total sense to subpena Linus as who else knows more about IBM's contribution to the kernel than Linus? He is the one that approves all submissions. He's the one that when the question is asked: "This this particular code come from IBM?" can give the most credible answer.

In totally separate but related cases, you have IBM and RedHat suing SCO for GPL infringment. Of course, the most relevant person to sue for Linux GPL copyright infringment is Linus too.

Fudning sources

[bluelip]

>>>Just in case you didn't you didn't know, the OSDL is funded by a variety of corporations including (but not limitied to) IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Sun Microsystems, Red Hat, Cisco, Computer Associates, Fujitsu, Hitachi, and Nokia. "

Just in case that was someone hiding beneath a rock, SCO is funded by Microsoft.

Re:Fudning sources

[gormanly]

Troll?

I suppose you wouldn't call $8,000,000 funding, then?

Re:Fudning sources

[Alsee]

I suppose you wouldn't call $8,000,000 funding, then?

$8 million? Chuckle. That is just ONE of the Microsoft payments to SCO. Look in the SEC filing you linked to:

" During the quarter ended April 30, 2003, SCO entered into a licensing agreement with Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"). The initial licensing agreement allowed Microsoft, at its election, to exercise two options to allow Microsoft to acquire expanded licensing rights with respect to SCO?s UNIX source code. During the quarter ended July 31, 2003, Microsoft exercised and paid for the first of these options. During SCO's current quarter, ending October 31, 2003, Microsoft exercised and paid $8,000,000 for the second option. "

The SECOND deal was for 8 million dollars. There was a filing last quarter about the first deal. That one was for 6 to 8 million dollars up front, plus an additional 5 million over the next three quarters. So the first deal totaled 11 to 13 million. Add the two deals and Microsoft is handing SCO about 20 million dollars. (And for all we know the second deal may include an additional 5 million over the next three quarters as well.)

Just prior to the Microsoft deal, SCO's market capitalization was about 10 million dollars. Now, would someone like to explain to me why the hell anyone would pay 20 million to buy a licence from SCO when all of SCO itself only carried a 10 million dollar price tag?

Not only that, but SCO had NEVER had a profitable quarter prior to the Microsoft deal. They were bleeding cash horribly and soon would have gone bankrupt.

In addition to those cash payments, SCO has also received a 50 million infusion from an investment group with ties to Microsoft. There isn't any evidence that Microsoft influenced this 50 million inventment, but it sure does look suspicious.

-

Do you need a lawyer?

[herrvinny]

Do you really need a lawyer for a subpoena? Even if Linus was a US citizen, he's not being investigated or anything. Just answer a few stupid questions from SCO, and you're scot free.

Re:Do you need a lawyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having been deposed before, and having watched others, he should have a lawyer. Their job is to train you for and protect you when the opposition tries to make you look like an ass. The SCO lawyer will try to twist anything and everything that Linus says to SCO's advantage. (That's why its called adversarial!)

Re:Do you need a lawyer?

[WhiteWolf666]

Microsoft has the most money?

Nonsense---you forget who they are fighting.

Microsoft is a 400 pound gorilla.

IBM is a 12-ton space monster that shoots laser beams out of its eyes.

IBM is a FAR bigger company, with a MUCH more experienced legal team.

And Microsoft isn't fighting IBM directly, they are doing it (if at all) through a proxy.

SCO is more like a 75-pound hyena. Mean bite, makes a lot of noise.

But IBM is scary. Really, really scary.

Quiet scary, you know? Creeping-up-and-splattering-you in one move scary.

I can see it now

[KU_Fletch]

I've got good money on SCO suing OSDL within the next week for "blatant copyright violations and big meanie stupid poo faces"

worried?

[happyfrogcow]

Since when has anyone really been worried about Linus? There was probably a line of people bidding to represent him. With his cool headed demeanor and knowledge, lawyers would drool over helping him to shoot down SCO.

Linus, your allright man. There are thousands of people who have got your back. Keep on hacking.

Re:worried?

[Bastian]

Don't be so quick to cast the radical big mouthed hippie aside. He is certainly an iconoclast, I hear he has an abrasive personality, and he annoys a whole lot of people by being one of those rare types who sticks firmly to idealism rather than pragmatism. Don't let all that get in the way of your realizing just how valuable he is.

If it weren't for the radical big-mouthed hippie and his radical big-mouthed hippie ideas, there would be no FSF, no GPL. Linux would have never caught on because with no glibc an' all that, nobody would have plugged all that stuff into Linux in order to make it useful. I doubt Linux would have even become a truly viable kernel for non-recreational hacking use without GNU.

His radical big-mouthed hippie way of thinking is the way of thinking that gave us something like the GPL, and I seriously doubt that the GPL could have come out of a mind that doesn't work like RMS's. Someone less idealist would have come up with a much weaker license, probably something more like a BSD or MIT license. Someone less abrasive and bull-headed never would have started the project to begin with.

So unless you're a long-time FreeBSD user or a hardcore Windows geek, grow up and quit whining about RMS. Linux wrote a great kernel, but GNU has done more to make Linux (GNU/Linux, whatever) a viable OS and getting this whole movement to go mainstream than any other body. RMS started gathering all the fuel, Linus is just the guy who lit the match.

Slick move, SCO

[cybermace5]

So, they try to pinch Linux where it hurts by going after the "little punks" who made it. I mean, what could some passive, nerdy, computer programmers have as a possible means of defense?

And so now, SCO stands in the middle of a jungle clearing, waving a stick and raving madly at the 800-pound gorilla of IBM. Suddenly, a rustle from the brush and SCO turns around to see a whole pack of 800-pound gorillas, all staring with steely eyes....

Re:Slick move, SCO

[advocate_one]

It's not a whole pack of 800lb Gorillas... it's worse... a flock of attack penguins backed with some loose Gnus...

Re:Slick move, SCO

[Haeleth]

it's worse... a flock of attack penguins backed with some loose Gnus...

I can see the headlines now: BAD GNUS FOR SCO

Anti-SCO License

[frostfreek]

I would like to know if the OSDL will pay to have their lawyers develop a version of a GPL that forbids downloading/use/repackaging of a software package by any computer that has ever had a SCO OS within 1km of it.
That's just about what I want for my next Open Source software release.

Subpoenas are for witnesses

[Oliver Klozoff]

I thought Linus was being subpoenaed. A subpoena is issued to force a witness to testify; why would Linus need to be defended against this?

Re:Subpoenas are for witnesses

[gclef]

First rule of litigation: never go into a lawsuit without a lawyer, even if you're a witness. Maybe you can use one of the lawyers already involved, but if you're being compelled to testify, and aren't one of the central characters, you should have a lawyer.

In a way, lawyers like firewalls: it's possible to be safe without them, but it takes knowledge and skill that some folks don't have the time to gather.

Yet more SCO fodder

[cadfael]

FWIW, you might want to read Motley Fool's Tom Taulli's take on this. th3m0nk

Won't SCO ultimately be the one that pays for his

[Bob Bitchen]

defense? The idea that OSDL or anyone else has to pay to defend themselves against a company that's gasping for air with some wild claims is wrong. What costs can be recovered once SCO is shown to be insignificant and wrong? All attorney's fees, travel fees, dining, babysitting, lost wages??

Re:One important company was left out of the list?

[SmallFurryCreature]

ehm no? The members. So unless Microsoft has some special hidden member status I very much doubt it. Sure joining your enemies to fight them from the inside is a smart move but this one nobody would fall for.

Also funded by...

[tomknight]

A lovely firm by the name if VALinux....

Tom.

Question

[mbrod]

Have they succeeded in subpoenoing (sp?) Torvalds or have they just issued a request to have him subpoened that a judge may deny? Isn't that how it works or do they just get to subpoena anyone they want?

Also another question to the legal wise out there. There is little doubt in my mind Microsoft funding and incentive is pulling the strings behind SCO. Isn't this extremely illegal for them to do based on the ruling of the previous judgements? Obviously they get out of a lot of legal holes by using SCO as a proxy attacker of Linux but it is nonetheless doing this for reasons of destroying a competitor.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

A subpoena is technically issued by the court. This does not mean, however, that a court actually approves it before it is served. Rather, attorneys are permitted, as officers of the court, to draft and serve subpoenas. If the subpoenaed party does not respond, or objects, than the issuer must go to court and file a motion to compel compliance with the subpoena. This is when the judge actually looks at the subpoena and passes on its validity.

If you're really interested in this, search for Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and look on any Federal Court's website for a blank subpoena.

Can we contribute?

[fferreres]

I know, our contributions wouldn't make a monetary difference, but they would surely make us feel nice, along with putting some pressure on SCO :-)

Reap what you sow, young geek

[csoto]

To support Linux, coders contribute code, and get... code in return!

Corporations (IBM, RedHat, Sun, etc.) contribute dollars and guess what they get for their support of Linux?

These corps. have a lot invested in Linux (and will continue to do so), simply because they stand to make boatloads of money using and growing it. It's in their interests to fight SCO.

Re:Won't SCO ultimately be the one that pays for h

[Fnkmaster]

Unfortunately, cost recovery usually comes after the main penalty phase in a civil case. It's definitely not guaranteed that the instigator of the suit bears the cost of the lawyers, though if they instigated a very weak, baseless case, it's much more likely they will have to bear the costs.

Unfortunately, in this case, it's clear that the SCO strategy is to draw out litigation long enough to give everybody an uncomfortable feeling in their rectal areas, until somebody snaps and decides to make a favorable acquisition offer. And if SCO loses, good luck getting a dime out of them, they'll fold the shop up in a way that lets them get out of everything, I'm quite sure, and still make off with a lot of money. This is definitely one of these cases where the malfeasance of corporate officers and attorneys is so blatant, I'd like to see the corporate veil pierced and have personal liability passed on to these fuckers for the financial losses and damaged reputations they have incurred on lots of other legitimate, hardworking people and companies.

Re:Community would have supported a defense fund

[Polly_was_a_cracker]

You mean who is going to defend SCO from Richard Stallman..
Even though they asked for it... This is like going trout fishing and catching a shark that eats your wife.

Re:Funding sources

[sulli]

they're called the Editors.

Linus is defending SCO

[shoppa]

What's the deal with the article title?

OSDL Pays for Linus Torvalds' SCO Defense

I'd be very surprised if Linus was going to defend SCO here. Although obviously SCO thought that it would be advantageous to pump him for *something*, I dunno what.

Linus's Theme Song

[Foofoobar]

I hope when Linus enters they either play the Ride of The Valkyries or Darth Vaders theme song so that SCO gets the full effect of the wrath they bring upon themselves.

Why this is truely good for OSS

[BubbaTheBarbarian]

while there seems to an outpouring of support for Linus, the idea of contributing to a defense fund would actually hurt him. As opposed to RMs, who as an idealist and catalyst of social change makes his way through life via his supporters, Linus "works" for a living. Having OSDL and the various companies that support it come to his support gives the man, and therefore his product, an air of legitimacy that would not be had if his defense was being funded by OSS supporters. In this case, both methods of paying for their defense works, as RMS is supported by the people and Linus is not (from a monetary POV people).

Secondly is the screaming by those asking why the hell he needs a defense. In the case of both RMS and Linus they both are responsible for the two major things that makes Linux what it is today, free and strongly coded. SCO is attacking both the freedom we have in distributing code and the underlying source of the strength of it's code, ergo it is imperative for them to prove to the court that both of these things are not permissible under the law.

This is not just a test of the GPL and Linux. This is a coordinated attack meant to gauge the underlying strength of the OSS community and those that (corporate and private) that support it. The bet was made with the thought that after a little law action, one of the players would pull out making the house of cards fall.

Oppps.

Now they are faced with something they never thought they would have, the beginnings or a tighter conglomerate of users and corps that are ready and willing to defend our right to code and not have it stolen, and our right to distribute that code without interference from companies hell bent on stealing for a living. I have said before that this is not the last of this ordeal, and I truly thing that we are in for a rough 2 to 4 years here in regards to challenges on the GPL and the community in general, but seeing things like this makes believe even more that good things are all that can come of this.

What about Stallman?

[jmichaelg]

Glad to hear Linus is covered. Who is covering Stallman's legal expenses?

Re:Motion to compel disovery /BRILLIANT

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

IBM cited a Judge who ruled in a 2001 securities case that fraud allegations "should not be a pretext for the discovery of unknown wrongs". That Judge, sharp-eyed posters of Groklaw have spotted, is the same Hon. Dale A Kimball who will hear the Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses, to which the filing is addressed.

Your honor, we have heard the courts say that "the fishing idea" is wrong and can not be done. What a brilliant point, excuse me...
Your honor (nice robe!) I had no idea you PERSONALLY said that. Absolutely amazing, poetic so Jeffersonian.
(turning to look at McBride, sticks tongue out and issues official IBM rasberry)

INAL but .....

[Usagi_yo]

If Linus is being subpoened by SCO and Linus isn't a named defendent, isn't SCO responsible for his travel and time off expenses?

While it's entirely Linus's option to have legal representation, shouldn't SCO have to foot the bill for that too? In essence SCO is subpoening Linus as an expert witness.

Re:SCO's side of the story

[WhiteWolf666]

No, no they don't.

SCO does not have genuine IP claims on code in Linux.

Not one iota.

Why do I say that?

I have no evidence to suggest that it is try, except SCO's word on it.

Everyone, and their mother, has asked SCO to reveal the evidence.

IBM is getting sued over it, and SCO will not even describe the infringement.

Beyond that, Caldera distributed the code under the GPL.

Read Groklaw, and you'll feel the same way about it.

If SCO had actual evidence of infringement, they would play it up big time.

Why? Because they would be able to easily drive IBM to settle---IBM has no business being in bullheaded lawsuits, they would license any IP that was actually stolen.

Remember, IBM has full access to ALL of SCO's source tree, and IBM has full access to AIX's source, and the Linux source.

IBM already knows what is in all three source trees.

As far as I am concered, SCO is not entitiled to have their side of the argument heard, because they are doing their best to spew BullShit(TM) in order to drive up their stock price.

If SCO want's their side of the argument to be heard, they need to put up, or shutup.....

Show us some code, SCO---Or die!