Slashdot Mirror
SCO News Roundup
Bootsy Collins managed to combine all of today's SCO stories. He writes "The firm of David Boies, SCO's attorney in charge of their Linux IP cases, has
announced their compensation
(so far) from SCO: $1 million USD in cash, and $8 million in SCO stock. Keeping that stock price high until they can sell is clearly of some importance to
Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP. Given the cost of
selling a $50 million convertible note to fund their legal actions, the actual cost to SCO is more like $17 million USD. Meanwhile, SCO CEO Darl McBride is saying that Novell's purchase of SuSE
violates a non-competition agreement reached when SCO bought the Unix source, and thus is legally actionable by SCO. Over at the Register, they've noticed that SCO's latest SEC filings indicate how firmly they're putting all their eggs in the legal basket: the filings effectively say that
'SCO has already lost business from its loyal customer base, and it expects to lose more.'
And finally, in response to a poor response to SCO's attempts to get Fortune 1000 companies to pay $699/server for 'Linux licenses' before the fee jumped to $1399, SCO has announced
that the $699 discount rate will apply to the end of 2003. Hurry before time runs out again."
Git along, little stories, git along!!!
You are not the customer.
Great to see a small company like SCO stand up to huge billion-dollar Goliath as Novell is, and remind them that an agreement is an agreement, and if you sign it, you better stick to it.
Hope the lawsuit is successful and mormons from Novell are not allowed to outsource programming job to that German outfit.
If SCO gets Novell to cash out, that's great news for Caldera Linux users and at least one vendor found a sustainable business model.
Sounds like that's what they are doing to their bottom line.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
Does anyone else have a Beavis 'n Butthead moment whn seeing the ticker symbol "SCOX"?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I think Darl is going to have to prove that if he wants to enforce that no-compete clause in the contract.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Well 17 million $ / $699 = 24,321 (rounding up remainders), can SCO find 24,321 users to pay for the Linux license? Chances are that there are 24,321 corporate workstations that will be paid for should SCO win, so unfortunately SCO wins at this point.
But really, their image? Their likelihood of getting future products bought that they offer? Anyone in the Linux community buying SCO after this? Tangibly this much money still makes sense, but intangibly I'd be concerned about the long term effect on SCO.
...in bed
I just took a break from coding, and thought, "Gee, I haven't checked /. in a while. I wonder what's new with SCO today."
THANKS for being my source of SCO drama!
Attention all SCO jokes posters, get ready to update your jokes by the end of the year, thank you.
The IT section color scheme sucks.
Holy crap! Funkalicious bass lines and journalistic know-how? Bootsy, I hardly knew ye...
Now that you can purchase the license until the end of '03, we have the perfect x-mas/kwanza/Chanukah/XXXXX-holiday gift for that linux nerd in your family Get one for mom, dad, the dog... Great stocking stuffer! plaque it up next to that resume before its too late and costs $1400!
Down, down, down. The Red knight's goin' down.
The air must be getting stuffy in Darl's bunker. Apparently, he'll be suing Sun and China next!
Although if you think about it, a potential 1 billion users popping for Linux licenses at $699 apiece (but only if they act NOW!)... Gotta get me somma that SCOX!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
This must be one of the most long-running Slashdot stories I've ever seen, and one of the most vehement :-) I wonder what a plot of stories/posts over time would look like...
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Authored by: radicimo on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:40 PM EST
Conference call just ended. I had a *1 for questions, but they just cut off the conference before things got too hairy, with a "We have no more callers". LIARS. Also, interesting how Dion Cornett was unable to ask his question. Makes me wonder out loud.
1. They referred to SCOsource licensing as one of the contingencies that created the payment for Boies (really cagey about it too). However they also said that Microsoft in no way was funding the lawsuit. That is a patently untrue then, as MSFT has funded the SCOsource licensing.
I think this one is really important to note. IF there ever is a securities fraud investigation of TSG, some of their comments in the call are patently self-contradictory, and if I was "allowed" to ask my questions these would have come out.
2. Still seems that there are no other licensees besides MSFT and SUNW. I was going to force them to get specific about this and find out when Sun payment will be recorded, and if there were any future contingencies which would lead to additional payments by either.
3. I wanted Boies to explain how the USL v. BSDI lawsuit gave them any legal standing. It doesn't, and seems to weaken it (IANAL).
4. Compete versus non-compete wrt Novell. First UNIX is not Linux, so how are they competing with the letter of the agreement? Second, SCO legacy revenue is decreasing whereas this new partnership (word they used again and again) with a law firm suggests that their core business is now lawsuits. How is Novell competing with that (tongue in cheek)?
5. Has OSDL contacted them about their use of the trademark UNIX, and why do they continue to use this trademark without proper attribution?
The reason why SCO is able to perpetrate the FUD they do is because the press and financial community are not doing their research and asking the hardball questions. Things only got a bit tight when they got called to task on the issue of Boies payment and whether it was a contingency based on past or future actions."
Should be interesting. After all, Novell could argue simply that "Since we are buying a GNU/Linux company, and GNU means 'Gnu's Not Unix', blah, blah, blah".
The burden of proof should (notice the "should", because the law may say different) be on SCO to prove that Linux *is* UNIX.
If it is according to the law, then there could be problems. If it is not, then Novell's scott free.
Just my $0.02.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
The legal action is also causing them to have problems hiring. I was called up by one recuriter/pimp and asked if I would be intrested in working in their call center. To this I gave a firm but polite no. HE then let slip that everyone he had spoken to had said pretty much the same thing.
Oh well
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
IANAL, but I suspect now might be a good time to join in RedHat's suit against Darl and his crack smoking band of pirates.
Put it this way: SCOX stock had been in free-fall for days (opened today around $13.5); after a phone-in, that was announced at 10:30pm last night, they declare that they will sue Novell; stock rises (now over $14.5).
And this has been going on for months.
Strange.
From Groklaw...The firm will be enforcing and defending SCO's intellectual property rights, including the protection of our UNIX System V source code and our copyrights that were reaffirmed as a result of the BSDI settlement agreement.'" Does SCO now think that they also own BSDi rights?
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
The attractive feature of this software product is that it is bundled with a blue-suited lawyer-in-a-box.
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.
SCO has announced that the $699 discount rate will apply to the end of 2003.
Hey, the $699 troll was right, you cocksmoking teabaggers!
Reminder:
SCO is not suing IBM for infringing it's alleged IP. It's suing them for BREACHING A CONTRACT>
Right now, most Linux users don't have any contractual relationship with SCO. But if you pay the $699 for their blessing to use Linux on ONE machine, they can sue YOU for failing to pay $1399 (or whatever price they pull out of their hat next year, or next century) for ANY ADDITIONAL machines you ever run Linux on. (Which could get problematic with Linux in settop boxes, PDAs, car disk players, etc.)
It's REALLY NOT SMART to PAY them $699 to give them a license to SUE you.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
CRN in a grand exhibition of both lack of research and insight has Darl McBride listed as one of the top 25 CEOs this year. My favorite quote is about us Open Source Communists:
"It's like back on the farm where we had to break a new colt and try and tame them," McBride says.
Now you know why Wall Street loves this guy. This is a glowing review of the man and his mission for Team Capitalism.
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
"Gotta get me somma that SCOX!!" (tm) :)
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Recent Press Release from, SCOX
/PRNewswire-FirstCall via Comtex/ -- The SCO(R) Group (SCO) , the owner of the UNIX operating system, today announced that Chief Executive Officer Darl McBride, will deliver a keynote address at the Enterprise IT Week/Computer Digital Expo (CDXPO) conference in Las Vegas on Tuesday, November 18 at 5:00 p.m. The conference and keynote will take place at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center.
LINDON, Utah, Nov 05, 2003
In his address titled "There's No Free Lunch -- Or Free Linux," McBride will present his perspectives on the prospects of free industries, SCO's suit against IBM, and why intellectual property must be protected in a digital age.
"The Internet created -- and creatively destroyed -- great wealth. It also created a culture legitimizing intellectual property theft," said McBride. "When you defend intellectual property, you speak an unpleasant truth. People don't like to hear unpleasant truths. The alternative to this fight, however, is the death of an industry and thousands of jobs lost."
McBride will also explore how the information technology industry - software, hardware, networking and services -- depends on money passing from one hand to another, asserting that the livelihood of engineers and developers rests on paid models, even as those developers donate time to free projects such as Linux. McBride will lay out his assertion that without paid software, there would be little or no free software. At the conclusion of his keynote, McBride will be available for media questions.
McBride's keynote will be followed by a Town Hall discussion moderated by Jack Powers, conference chairman of Enterprise IT Week and director of the International Informatics Institute...
What is the "Enterprise IT Week/Computer Digital Expo (CDXPO) conference"? Is it important?
Why would they invite McBride to give him a platform from which to hurl his dispatches
from the surreal and serial random threats? Comic relief?
The non-compete, I'm guessing, would have been regarding the unix source code that was licensed (not sold) to SCO... which would make good sense right? Why would SCO buy the completel rights to it if Novell could turn around and compete with them using it?
Of course, that has nothing to do with OTHER operating systems.. Novell has always been in the networked OS market, and using linux is hardly any differnet than using Novell's old stuff in that respect. Linux is not unix, as everyone except SCO is fond of saying.
...is the status of IBM's filings to compel discovery not just from SCO, but with companies investing in SCO.
This could get particularly sticky if SCO's legal team has a strong financial stake in SCO and the outcome.
Attorney/client privilege is pretty strong, but can it be pried apart if there is evidence of, oh, say fraud?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
SCO and IBM fight for years. Eventaully, SCO wins a few battles but by then most of the linux community has moved to kernel 3.0 which removed any offending code years ago. IBM has merged the AIX stuff to Linux without any offending code (of course, they're still running old 2.8 stuff). SCO lingers with a few large companies paying the lisc demanded of them (typical scare tatics apply). Eventually, SCO stock dips to penny stock levels and the lawyers cash out for nickles on the dollar and the lawyers start asking for "real money" instead of stock. SCO goes bankrupt (re-org). Flownders around for a few years trying to re-organize until they finally give up the ghost. SCO will eventually die but perhaps take half the computing industry with it. Windows becomes the unquestioned king of desktop AND server operating systems. Bill Gates declares himself God of IT and all systems must authenticate with the Master Server in Redmond. The world is cursed with rampant hacking, script kiddies, worms, viruses, and the like (someone thought trust-based security was a good idea). This all leads to a massive breakdown in society and the end of the world as we know it.
SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.
The operative principle is a well understood one, that once you lose a customer (for any reason) it is very difficult to get them back. I don't think the folks over at SCO will change their tune, since it is apparent that they've put all their eggs in the legal basket. But, I really don't think I want to support SCO's customers with my money either.
Incidentally, I'm also pushing at my work to discontinue supporting older versions of our application which run on SCO, and provide those customers a free upgrade path to the Linux based versions. This may be successful, for more than purely ideological reasons as well. I don't think it is a coincidence that when we ported the original SCO version to Linux over 80% of our support issues disappeared overnight on those deployments. This certainly helps my case, and is a non-scientific indicator of what garbage their product actually is, source owner or not,
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
The first time my parents care about my real hobbies and what do I get? A SCO license for $699.
What can I do to reverse this? I don't wan't to hurt my parents.
What will happen now since SCO knows my address? I don't wan't to get sued either.
Guys,
You are watching history in the making. SCO might look like an annoying pest, a cynical manipulator of the stock market, a bucket of shit without the bucket, but think about how future generations will view this.
First, this is the first serious industry-wide debate about the legitimacy of Linux, as an open source concept, as a child of the GPL, and as an operating system. The simple fact that people are prepared to go to war (and this is war) over Linux raises it from a curiosity to a treasure.
Second, this is of course about much more than SCO vs. The World, and future generations will place it in its correct context. Mainly, this is about Microsoft trying to ward off the oncoming Linux mammoth, unable to attack Linux head-on for many reasons, but unable to watch as it demolishes their market with an apparently unstoppable force.
Thirdly, this is about the Old versus the New, on the one side the forces of "software is a product" and on the other, the forces of "software is a commodity technology". The period 1998-2003 saw software evolve from a rare and precious thing to something that is so cheap we simply can't build harddisks large enough any more. SCO and Microsoft are firmly in the "Old" camp, IBM and most of the rest of the world are in the "New" camp. You don't need to be a genius to see the inexorable grip that the technology cycle has on software, and the consequences of this.
SCO lost before they started, that is clear. But this battle defines the line that must be crossed to move into the future. Stick with proprietary platforms, die. Move to commodity platforms, live and prosper.
It would be a good time to sell your Microsoft shares too: $51 billion can disappear remarkably quickly when the money stops rolling in.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
It doesn't cover either. The relevant line in the contract (as posted on Groklaw if anyone wants to read the whole thing) is:
In other words, SCO doesn't just have to prove that Linux competes with their Unices (which is probably true, at least on those computers which don't rely on new-fangled things like "USB" that SCO is still working on support for), they have to prove that the source code they bought from Novell constitutes a primary portion of the value of SuSE Linux!
This is just more BS intended to prop up their stock price; don't bother paying attention until they actually start trying to pull this stuff on a judge, instead of their current backpedaling official stance of "We only have a contract dispute with IBM, and we've never threatened Red Hat with anything more."
Rollin', Rolling', Rollin',
Rollin', Rolling', Rollin',
Rollin', Rolling', Rollin',
SCOhide!
Rollin' Rollin' Rollin'
Keep the stock price swollen,
Keep them lawsuits rollin',
SCOhide!
Ignorance and Hubris together, Hell bent for treasure, Wishin' IBM was on my side.
All the things I'm missin, Source code, money and lawsuit dissmissin', Are waitin at the end of my ride.
Move em' on, Head em' up, Move em' on,SCOhide!
Cut em' out, Paste em' in, Greek em' out, Show em' off, SCOhide!
Keep movin', movin', movin'
Though their dissaprovin', Keep them Unix users groanin', SCOhide!
Don't try to understand them, Just Subpoena, sue and charge em', Soon we'll be livin' high and wide. My heart's calculatin', My new Rolls Royce will be waitin', Be waitin' at the end of my ride.
Move em' on, Sue em' up, Move em' on, SCOhide!
Cut em' out, Paste em' in, Greek em' out, Show em' off, SCOhide!
Move em' on, Sue em' up, Move em' on, SCOhide!
Drown em' out, Subpoena em' in, Cash em' out, Sue em' ALLLLLLL!!!, SCOhide!
Rollin', Rolling', Rollin', Rollin', Rolling', Rollin', SCOhide!
SCOhide!
"At the conclusion of his keynote, McBride will be available for media questions."
Every time he opens his mouth to the media, IBM collects more ammunition.
I, for one, welcome SCO's new neck-shitting overlords...
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Taking stock in the company you are representing as payment? Is it just me, or does that seem wrong?
UNIX/Linux Consulting
NY tech stuff
Last time I checked, Novell was in the business of making a profit by selling and supporting products they own to customers.
Therefore SCO and Novell are not anywhere near the same business space and the non-compete clause doesn't apply.
Yes, IBM's lawyers are doing a great job so far in this litigation, but remember that it is NOT a foregone conclusion that SCO will lose. This is not the kind of issue I would want to be ignorant of and I feel it is our responsibility to keep reporting SCO's tripe and to consistently call it out for what it is, if only for a solid counterpoint to the analysts who continue to push SCO as a 'buy.'
This is an important case because it is one that we MUST win. Suppose we lose, and a new Open Source operating system gets written to replace the IP'd linux. How long will it take SCO et al to pursue it with similar litigation? How ready will coders be to place themselves in the line of legal-fire? We have companies like IBM and Red Hat doing the heavy lifting for us now - how likely are they to continue down this path should they lose this case?
Pretty bleak, and admittedly unlikely outcome. Yet pretty important stuff to most of us here. Hell, I know people who would walk away from computers in disgust should SCO win. Of course this is news, and of course it is reported on Slashdot! THIS is news that matters.
SCO is a malignant cancer. It needs to be surgically removed, irradiated, poisoned with Chemo.
I don't think so. Here's why.
If SCO gets smashed in court and can't prove that their rights were actually violated, they have nothing to say about any GNU/Linux code. All GNU/Linux code would be proven to be the "property" of whoever wrote it. In fact, they have been selling a product they don't own at all. I think that's considered to be a very bad case of copyright infringement, much worse than downloading a crappy Eminem cd of Kazaa...
Alright, I know that SCO asks its 699? paying foolish customers to agree with a EULA that states SCO to be the owner of of GNU/Linux code...So what? That doesn't prove anything at all... If I steal an box containing 20 cell phones and start selling them around, I can't come up in court with the argument: "Gee, all my 20 customers were convinced that I was the owner of the cell phones, so I guess that makes me the rightful owner."
"Hell hath no fury like a hippo with a machine gun."
If you remember back to the 1500's there used to be stock markets where pirate ships could get funding to go out and plunder other countries' merchant ships. The risks were high, but the payoff was huge. Is this any different? The only difference is that instead of the stocks being taken out for biker gangs that take on big rigs, you've got one corperation trying to exercise it's ability to legally wrangle other corperations for money through an entirely different system much like a bully, but at this point it's at the pirate. SCO is the first legal-pirate (tempting to call them lepirates, ;) ) corperation; a corperation that adds nothing to society that uses strongarm tactics, extortion, blackmail, ect all given a hint of legality by their lawers lies and a couple patents and copyrights that are getting old.
Microsoft will turn into one when they start going downhill, so will the RIAA, etc. If the RIAA can't make money by competition they'll just go back through the past 100 years of copyrights they have and start releasing them. Microsoft will pull all kinds of BS on the linux community if htey have to. Same with the MPAA, and any other monopoly that has sufficient stake in the legal system of the country they are located in that they can effectivly control it and a market.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Hopefully, with the election less than a year away, David Boies will be getting really busy soon trying to sell his "contested-recount-prepaid-legal services" plan to the candidates and find somebody else's time to waste. You'd think with all his gum-flapping last time, he'd be in the forefront of the fight against electronic voting (let's be honest: the hanging-chad is big business for him).
SCO vs. IBM Nintendo game? Of course not! It'll be a fighting game from Namco based on the Soulcalibur engine. All platforms will feature Boies (Finishing Move: Briefcase Bash), McBribe (Finishing Moves: Lying Bastard, Pump-And-Dump), Gates (Moves include: Trustworthy Backstab, The Monopolizer), McNeely (The Rising Sun, Big-Iron Swing), Szulik (Fedora Drop), and all the prominent players in the real game. Of course you'll have distro mascots in there, too, from Suse (Lizard Tongue), Mandrake (Resurrection Club), and even some agent-like dude with a red hat (Enterprise-Only Chop).
Then there are the special characters exclusive to each platform:
PS2: Linus (The Kernel Hack) and Tove (Royal Ass-Kicking)
X-Box: Stallman (The Hacker Song) and ESR (Bazaar Twist)
Cube: A Gnome (Foot Stomp) and the Ximian Monkey dude (The Evolutioner).
And then maybe on a non-US release version, Alan Cox (DMCA Twister) can show up as an unlockable.
It is of course circumstantial, but here is the evidence that I have observed:
1. Means: Microsoft's financial support, via 'licensing'.
2. SCO's specific attacks that fall widely outside their original complaint against IBM, namely attacks against Torvalds, Stallman, and the GPL
3. (Most damning) SCO's denial that MS helped them in any way
4. Motive: MS are one of the few (only?) companies who stand to benefit from FUD surrounding Linux, GPL
5. Timing: as soon as SCO's attacks began, Microsoft stopped theirs. Later, when the SCO case reached a plateau, Microsoft started again.
If SCO were seriously interested in making money from Linux licenses, they would not (could not!) attack its very legitimacy. Instead, they would promote the system at the same time as they tried to claim ownership over it.
It is true that SCO executives appear to also be involved in a "pump and dump" scheme but I seriously doubt this was the original or principal plan, it is far too risky. The inflated SCO shares are a bonus but not the motive.
And Occam's Razor demands that one seeks the simplest explanation that fits a set of observations. Indeed, it would be very curious if Microsoft did not support SCO, morally and financially.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Novell sold UnixWare to real SCO. Sales Contract stated that Novell and real SCO compete and that Novell would not use retained SysV rights to complete with real SCO. Novell was expected to compete with other products as long as they are not primarily based on SysV. SCOX is again blowing smoke, but what do you expect from Smoking Crack Outfit.
Essentially, they say SCO is smoking the good stuff and not sharing;
_ br ief/archive/2003/11/pr03042.html
From the press release:
"There is no non-compete provision in those contracts, and the pending acquisition of SUSE LINUX does not violate any agreement between Novell and SCO."
They also mention that SCO hasn't bothered to call THEM.
http://www.novell.com/news/press/pressroom/news
flames > dev/null
What is the purpose of licensing "model" that inflicts more cost onto users than an "equivilant" M$ license. Microsoft is the known competitor to linux. (not that there aren't others, but this is what I get from October memos/Constant M$ bashing across the geek spectrum) as I suppose is BSD in all it's iterations.
Why would SCO present a model that would force a company to either A) move to M$, or B) move to BSD?
For one reason, for most companies who made the decision to move to linux, the overwhelming reason was going to be license cost. (Stability, Security, and Professional development on the part of the IT staff probably played a role as well, but nothing beats saving hundreds of thousands of dollars in OS licensing to a CFO.) Now, nobody in their right mind would pay for what they already recieved for free, and in their minds LEGALLY for free.
So, why is SCO doing this? There is only one reason, they started this whole legal BS to perpetuate a lawsuit for 2 years. Who actually purchased the Linux licenses from SCO? No one with any brains, that's for sure. They have made themselves a target, and gone after a cash cow. Hopefully the cash cow known as IBM won't be dropping them any change, as this is ALL they can be after. They certainly are no longer after DEVELOPING linux, so they sure as hell don't deserve ANY reimbursement in my mind. Besides, what do you get with that 700-1400 dollar license. Support? No. Regular updates? No. This business model is all about the benjamins, and they care nothing about the Linux users.
from thestreet.com: >> attorney-for-all-seasons David Boies to lead its (SCO) efforts to defend the company's patent portfolio
Anyone taken the author to task for this little bit 'o misinformation yet?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Richard Painter, a Professor at the University of Illinois who was an early proponent of the legal reforms now included in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, wrote to the SEC recently. He stated that they should examine "conflicts created by unorthodox methods of compensating lawyers (particularly receipt of stock in lieu of legal fees and contingent fee arrangements such as the fee of over $30 million reported to have been earned by Time Warner's counsel in that company's merger with AOL)."
Hopefully these types of arrangements will be put to an end soon. While I don't see an end to contingency fees (because that's how many people are able to afford lawyers), I can certainly see practice of using stock options as payment coming to an end.
Frylock: That's not a toy!
Master Shake: You say that about everything you own. You should own toys. They're fun.
Can you get a version of "Danny Boy" that we can sing at SCO's wake?
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
Hurry before time runs out again.
I'm holding out for the "Buy 1 licence get 9 free - Noncompliance Blowout Sale"
-Karma neutral, but you'd better stop looking at me..
ADDENDUM:
... stupid, silly. All I ask is check yourself. Do not in fact repeat their lies. In fact, I can actually say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that the infringers of our intellectual property have started to commit suicide under the walls of Lindon, Utah. We will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly. We have up to this date also received a total of 500 billion dollars in Linux licensing fees, and the revenue generated from our Linux Sales Departement is still increasing exponentially as we speak. Although our arguments are rock-solid, we can efficiently use this revenue in our ongoing battle with the big bully IBM. If IBM's lawyers are still planning to continue their lie and want to take us to court, I have only one thing to say: They are most welcome. We will butcher them."
In an interview with Darl McBride later this day, the well-respected CEO of SCO also stated the following:
The arguments of IBM in this conflict are clearly pathetic. I have detailed information about the situation...which completely proves that what the IBM lawyers allege are illusions... They lie every day. The IBM lawyers, they always depend on a method what I call
When asked for his opinion about the non-paying individual users of Linux, he replied: "My feelings - as usual - we will sue them all..."
"Hell hath no fury like a hippo with a machine gun."
You must've typed that up on a Windows box.. you, uh, cock-smoking uh teabagger.. whatever that means.
If you liked licking my balls, add me to your foes list!
C'mon Jeff, you did an entire spoof piece called "SCOhide" and not once did you use "McBride" in the rhymes? Do over! :)
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Instead of a random vulnerability every couple days - round them up and release once a month. SCO Tuesdays anyone?
We don't know enough facts about the non-compete agreement to make a real judgement about the validity of this claim. Here are some factors that we need to consider.
First, Novell continued to sell its NetWare product, so we know right off the bat that the non-compete did not apply to any OS on x86.
Second, control of the definition of UNIX was transferred to the Open Group at around the same time. We do need to take into account that Linux is not UNIX. It is a system based on extremely similar principles and conventions, but does not conform to the UNIX standard.
Third, Linux was just starting to make an impact beyond the dorm room in 1995. BSD was already established. It was probably forseeable that BSD and/or Linux would impact the market for SysV on x86.
Lacking further information, we are left with impression that the agreement was likely ambiguous. Typically, when an ambiguity is discovered in a contract, that ambiguity is interpretted against the side that drafted the ambiguous clause. I would guess that SCO drafted that clause. Novell has no interest in it being there, so that would mean the clause would be interpretted as narrowly as possible.
There are a lot of leaps here. We'll see how this actually works out.
I think you are missing Darl McBride's point because you are not in his frame of mind. Since he alleges Linux contains lots of SystemV code, it is clear that Novell buying Suse and distributing Linux violates the noncompete clause.
Not that I agree with the premise, but it does make sense from his point of view.
http://barrapunto.com/ - News for nerds, en español
It actually goes like this:
After Bill Gates declares himself "God of IT," the Master Authentication Server starts to consume all other pc's without anyone knowing. Those PC's become dumb terminals to the Master Authentication System. This continues on until one man write a small security program that checks all other programs for things like buffer overflows. This program becomes a part of the system, as the MAS consumes this last man's machine.
The MAS, realizing that it has run out of pc's to consume, then starts consuming humans by turning them into batteries. These humans believe that they are in some kind of virtual world, where they play games like 'lightbikes,' and 'catch the glowing ball while trying not to fall off of the very thin floating discs.' Eventually, all but a small portion of mankind is enslaved.
As time goes on, a new instance small security program is created, but it thinks that it is human. This small program then proceeds to attack the system through the massive numbers of buffer overflows, making it appear that this program has Godlike powers. He moves incredibly fast, flies around, and makes his lightbike break that stupid blueish wall boundry.
The humans notice him, and start thinking that their dreams feel more real than when they're awake. They start to question the system, all the while the MAS is sending out security programs to try and stop these people from the realization. People start to drop out of the system, and fall back into reality.
The reality that they see is rather bland, it is a lot more colorful than the virtual world was, and they notice that it's texture and bump-mapped too. There's a whole bunch of boxes around where they're sitting, and some sort of headset with goggles attached. Some people put the headset on and get trapped back in the system, but then immediately pop out of the system. They start to develop traits like the security program that freed them, but not as great.
These people then go to the MAS headquarters in Remond, Microsoftdom. The constitution of the ancient land of the United States appears to have been used as wallpaper, but then painted over multiple times in varying hues of bright orange, blue, and red. They notice that the MAS computer itself has a plug, it didn't have the physical capabilities of producing anything. They pull the plug, and immediately the rest of the world pops out of the system.
Some of the people die of shock, they were really pissed off because they were just one ring away from beating the computer in 'catch the glowing ball while trying not to fall off of the very thin floating discs.' Most of the people rejoice at the enhanced graphics of this world, and start to understand the nature of copulation again.
In the end, the sky is blue, the grass is green, people are laying around naked, and the world is free of SCO and Microsoft forever.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
I saw an article recently about McDonalds exploring moving to Linux for their point of sale systems. Of all places, the trial will be at franchise units in Germany. Now what was the name of that German Linux distro?
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
A first step toward a boycott would be to contact those distributors and let them know how you feel -- that you will not be doing business with them and will encourage your business associates to avoid them as well.
To that end SCO provides a list of their distributors. Here are their US distributors:
Avnet (formely Savoir)
(Offices located in Phoenix, Az; Campbell, CA; and Atlanta, GA area)
3950 Johns Creek Court, Suite 200
Suwanee, GA 30024
Phone: (800) 541-9801
URL: www.avnet.com
Email: Anne.Skelton@avnet.com
All SCO Lines Available
DTR Business Systems
1160 Centre Drive, Suite A
Walnut, CA 91789
Phone: 800-598-5721 or 909-598-5721
URL: www.dtrbus.com
Email: sales@dtrbus.com
All SCO Lines Available
Seneca Data
7401 Round Pond Road
North Syracuse, NY 13212
Phone: (800) 227-3432
URL: www.senecadata.com
Sales Contact: sales@senecadata.com
All SCO Lines Available
Tech Data
5350 Tech Data Drive
Clearwater, FL 33760
800-237-8931, 75289 option 1
URL: www.techdata.com
Email:eengel@techdata.com
All SCO Lines Available
Terian Solutions
7040 Empire Central Dr.
Houston, TX 77040-3214
Phone: 800-876-8649
URL: www.terian.com
Email:sales@terian.com
All SCO Lines Available
For those of you outside the US, you may find the distributors in your area by using SCO's list.
Go get em!
if all else fails, we still have a hird of unix replacing deamons as a backup ;)
Anyone know where we could find the top 100 web sites running SCO so we can write to them and ask them to please consider an alternative or bid our business goodbye?
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
I guess since I threw the idea out there, I needed to take the next step.
As an aside, searching SCO for customers does a pretty good job of listing some of the higher profile case studies, which are of course the best targets.
Targets for what you may ask? try: Current SCO Customers Petition
I'll also submit this as a new story, but just in case..."Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
Yes....In this case, the court is exactly the way we want this to go.
IBM will splatter SCO. No doubt about it. Doesn't matter who the judge is, or how many appeals.
IBM has more money, IBM has better lawyers, and IBM has had all the cards for the past 15 years (They have ALWAYS had access to the SCO source, the AIX source, and Linux source).
No chance of a SCO victory---none whatsoever.
And this BS they are pulling about discovery? If they keep up these shennangians, the Judge is going to be mighty pissed at them.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I am worried that SCO's lawyers are going to be out of luck, poor guys only get 1,000,000 dollars and a capital gains loss when SCO tanks. How will they ever survive on that. They might not be able to get that new 5 series BMW.
Actually SuSE successfully sued SCO.
SCO Targets Major Linux User
The SCO Group Inc. said Tuesday it would sue a major user of Linux within 90 days, as the company prepared to launch a new legal assault in its claims that the open-source operating system contains the computer maker's copyrighted code.
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
Let's expand - this is wrong. Remember all those dot-bombs that offered stock options as compensation, and promptly died in the late 1990s? Now we have something similar. Payment with stock options.
SCOX is currently hovering around $15-17/share, but now they're filing lawsuits like McCarthy threw accusations of communism around. And at the rate they're going, they're going to discredit themselves and self-destruct, probably filing Chapter 11 in the process.
Chapter 11.
Funny thing that, Ch. 11. It's used for companies who can prove they have less assets than their debts. That's what bankruptcy is, you have more debt than assets, you'll never be able to pay it off, bang, discharged. But waitasec, SCO had that US$50M gift/grant/bribe/whateveritwas. They can afford it. Dismissed. Maybe. I dunno, I'm with everyone else here, SCO is dead where they stand, they're just buying themselves time so they can pay off the lawyers with the pump-and-dump schemes they're running.
This sig no verb.
This is a common misconception, but it's not quite true. SCO hasn't refused to show the code to everyone. They have refused to show the code unless people viewing the code sign a Non Disclosure Agreement. SCO offered to show the code to Linus, and several other people who are involved, but they refused to sign the NDA so they didn't get to see it. I'm not on SCO's side of this, what they are doing with all this mess is immoral, but I can see both sides of the code disclosure issue. Linus says "If I sign an NDA, then you could sue me next time I try to right UNIXy code!", and SCO says, "But if you don't sign an NDA, there is nothing stopping you from giving away our code, or putting it into Linux." Thus the two parties are at in impasse. Of course there is still the issue that SCO doesn't want Linus or others to read the code. I have not read the terms of the NDA, but I expect they were ridiculously restrictive so that SCO knew that Linux would never sign.
SCO.com uses Linux
That's section 186 of the Restatement of the Law (Second), Contracts (a summary of U.S. contract law). In order to enforce it's noncompete agreement with Novell, SCO would have to show that there was direct competition, that the competition was of the type comtemplated by the noncompete agreement, and that their rights outweighed all the nasty effects of the agreement (harm to the public, etc.). Considering that SCO is hardly in the software business at all anymore and the agreement concerned Unix (not Linux, no matter how the IBM suit ends up), this is just more SCO FUD.
Yes, Darl, maybe Linux was intended to compete with your core products. But so what? Novell agreed not to compete with SCO's Unix business. What effect will Novell's buying SuSE have on SCO's Unix business? None.
But I do have to applaud Darl and crew for keeping so many attorneys gainfully employed. As long as there are businesses out there as short-sighted and unethical as SCO, I've got job security baby! Now if only I could get my hands on some of those millions in attorney's fees . . .
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
Did anyone else have this flash before their mind's eye while reading the parent post?
For those who aren't Monty Python fans, he Crimson Permanent Assurance was a 20-minute skit that opened their film, the Meaning of Life, in which an office building hoists sail and sets off to wage piracy on the corporate landscape.
Peace and love, y'all
I can't wait to see Darl McBride in one of those "if you've had a personal injury" commercials.
My Blog
... or elsewhere, as far as I can see, is McBride's announcement of plans to identify a large Linux end user and sue them if they don't pay the licensing fee within the next 90 days (http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle. jhtml?articleID=16101193).
~~~ thoughts ~~~
They'll sue an unnamed defendant for violating an unidentified intellectual property. Or so they say. The mouse realizes its roar isn't much of one?
IANAL, but I have worked with an FBI agent with respect to online communicaitons. His take:
A threat is considered an assault in every state.
A threat of legal action in no way makes the threat legal.
If phrased in terms of "If you do/do not X, then I will Y" it's extortion.
If transmitted via the net, or by phone and can shown to be transmitted in part between different states, it's extortion by wire, interstate, and is a federal offence.
I hope someone out there is watching what SCO does and is planning on going after their methods, other than those named by SCO as targets. Otherwise the only people claiming SCO was doing something wrong in the process of carrying out their tirade will be those defending themselves from it. That won't carry near as much weight.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Novell Statement on SCO claims regarding a non-compete clause in Novell-SCO contracts
PROVO, Utah Nov. 18, 2003 Novell has seen the November 18 InfoWorld article in which SCO CEO Darl McBride refers to a supposed non-compete agreement between Novell and SCO. Mr. McBride's characterization of the agreements between Novell and SCO is inaccurate. There is no non-compete provision in those contracts, and the pending acquisition of SUSE LINUX does not violate any agreement between Novell and SCO.
Novell has received no formal communication from SCO on this particular issue. Novell understands its rights under the contracts very well, and will respond in due course should SCO choose to formally pursue this issue.
Something like this, you mean?
Oh Darly Boy,
The pipe, the crack pipe's calling,
As once again, our stock is on the slide,
It once was high, But now the price is falling,
So pack a case because its time to take a ride.
Oh IBM,
They looked like easy targets,
We thought they'd fold,
And pay us just to go,
And then their lawyers tore us all to pieces,
And now this single crack rock's all that's left of SCO.
So light your pipe,
And recollect the good old days,
When whorish analysts hung on every word,
Because at last, your business rep is ruined,
And everybody knows,
You're just a stinking turd.
Long Darl McBride and Chris Sontag Interview dated 7:36 PM EST Tues., Nov. 18, 2003