Slashdot Mirror
SCO Hints at *BSD Lawsuits Next Year, And More
osullish writes "The Financial Times reports that SCO is indicating it will sue an as-yet un-named Linux-using corporation within the next 90 days. Also mentioned in the article is possible action against Novell, which recently purchased Ximian and SUSE Linux."
Iaitos points to this rather stiffly-worded notice from Novell (on their site) regarding the non-compete agreement SCO claims would taint Novell's acquisition of SUSE:
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."
slavitos points to a ZDNet article covering the same ground, writing: "A characteristic SCO twist in the story: "McBride added that lawsuits likely will be preceded and possibly prevented by communications offering businesses an opportunity to get right with SCO. "We'll be communicating with users what our expectations are," he said.". Oh, that's helpful, Darl - and no, we didn't really expect you to be any more specific."
If your lips aren't yet too tired, ansak writes "PJ has done it again -- okay, "co-ordinated it" would be the better phrase. The transcript of SCOG's conference call is now available (and in danger of being slashdotted without slashdot's help, even!).
#include <std.thanks.to.volunteers.h>"
Another legal theory being thrown about is that SCO's lawsuit (the one against IBM, that is) all leads back to Sequent. Petrol writes "The Inquirer has a story about SCO's action against IBM. 'Sources close to the action describe a trail of code that might well be the target of SCO's ire against IBM and the Linux community.'"
When do SCOs actions, threats to sue linux customers, and harrassment of linux customers reach the point where they become some kind of illegal thing? I'm sure there's some kind of line between marketing to your competitors customers and harassing them.
If the harrassment/lawsuit threats are already covered under the lanham act suit redhat/ibm (?) is bringing, then what line does SCO have to cross before redhat/IBM can start asking for injunctions, as opposed to having to wait until their lawsuits start?
And doesn't the SCO case verbal arguments begin on december 6? Once that happens, how long will it take for SCO's ball of yarn to fall apart?
I guess the litany about suing Linux isn't working for them anymore.
So now they're declaring that they're broadening the cases.
So far, they've only filed one lawsuit.
Until they file another, this is just PR crap.
SCO hasn't put out a viable product in years, and frankly neither had Caldera. To me this just seems like SCO is using the legal system as it's new business model. Can't make a profit the ol' fashioned way? Now you can sue yourself to a profit. What a bunch of ass clowns.
Going after the BSD settlement, they hope to reverse it. If they can do that, then some of the laughable examples of infringing code may suddenly become legally enforcable. What it tells the rest of the world is that they are running out of claims, and need to work on finding something to back themselves up. I think it means they've realised that the racketeering isn't working. Noboby is going to buy them, marque coporations aren't going to buy their licenses. So they need to either implode or find a new angle.
One thing that SCO is obviously ignoring is one rather simple fact: You have to be absolutely, completely, utterly INSANE to sue a university; for any reason. I have yet to see anyone do it successfully. AT&T couldn't do it 9 years ago, so what makes SCO think they can do it now? AT&T had a MUCH better table to stand on.
There are plenty of examples of stupidity in suing a university.
How 'bout the 'copy-protection' that could be foiled by holding down the 'shift' key? (Sued a student of Princeton University; charges dropped after the University stepped in on the student's behalf)
There are THOUSANDS of cases a year where people sue medical students; just about every one ends up in the student's favor, because the university steps in. You can't get new doctors if you can't train new students; and part of the learning process is making mistakes.
And BSD is still techinically property of the Regents of the University of California.
Go ahead; sue them. Nobody looks kindly on a mad Chihuahua biting everyone that won't give it the world. Espescially when it starts nipping at schools. SCO has once again proven that they have nothing.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
How do you attack a settlement, exactly? Get one of the parties to the agreement to reneg?
A settlement isn't something that can be appealed, as far as I know; and even if it could be, I'd bet certainly not by an uninvolved party.
At least I hope this kinda of case does not go before a jury. Can you imagine the average smuck not smart enough to escape jury duty trying to make sense of all this? Worse trying to make sense of it while getting the info from two different camps?
If it is trial by jury we better hope for a really smart and level headed judge who can properly instruct the jury.
Can this even all go before a single court? If they are really going to sue IBM + Novell + Linux customer + BSD + Little fluffy kittens, we might end up with a dozen trials. That is not counting the appeals.
Oh well at least now with BSD in the firing line as well we will see an end to the posts claiming BSD is safe because of some previous case. When a mad man is loose with a gun, noone is safe.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
But they've overreached. In fact, they've managed to do what even Microsoft has been unable to do so far; they are directly threatening almost everyone in the *NIX world, which will only bring the disparate camps together. There's big money behind Linux, and there are a lot of companies interested in keeping BSD alive as well.
The mouse that roared is going to get stepped on eventually. Whether they can make enough money in the mean time in order to carry on after their legal shenanegans are put to a stop is the real question. If they can't, I expect SCO to die quite rapidly as soon as they lose in court.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Microsoft also had several BSD copyright notices in the past during boot-up. Reckon SCO will go after them, too?
In any event the BSD guys should be able to get the case dismissed immediately using the legal records from the original AT&T case. Hopefully they'd couter-sue for legal costs and time wasted.
Speaking of which, why haven't any Linux copyright holders sued SCO for copyright infringement yet? SCO obviously does not agree with the terms of the GPL and last time I checked they were still distributing the Linux kernel. It'd be great to see several hundred (or thousand) separate lawsuits filed in various states and countries...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This is more than a corporate-on-corporate war. At stake is the ability to for people to create content and to invent technologies on their own terms.
- JML
As a side benefit, the bigger and more grandious SCO's claims become, the less believable they become, and sooner or later the press will pick up on this.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
What going after BSD means is that SCO has no case unless they can blow up an agreement made between AT&T and BSD before SCO was even involved. Basically, they will need to meet the IBM/Red Hat motion that they provide offending code as a part of the discovery process. When that happens, IBM will move for dismissal because all the "IP" SCO claims will be found to be BSD covered in some way. Basically, this just confirms that the emperor has no clothes.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Doesn't taking aim at BSD put SCO into the position of aiming it's sights at Apple?
The thing to keep in mind through is that AT&T was appropriating BSD Unix code by removing the Regents of California copyright notice and using the code in their own Unix code. It may well be that major portions of System VR4 owes its existence to BSD.
No. MS is okay because SCO can't read their source code. Therefore they must be complying with copyright law.
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
When I was a kid, and explaining to my parents that I needed a modem to call BBSs, they asked me how much it would cost. When I said most BBSs were free, run by people for fun, they didn't believe me. They said that nothing is ever free.
Now, you have all these guys out there who are extremely suspecious of how Linux works. They just don't understand how you can get something for nothing.
Then SCO comes along and confidently says what they've been expecting all along.
"I knew it!" says average Joe, "Its SCO that's going to get the money for Linux! BUY BUY BUY!"
Now that more mainstream publications are exposing SCO for the con artists they are, they're losing that edge.
I'm sure Apple would think differently about it. Mostly what the SCO fiasco is going to do is make a lot of noise for the press, keep a lot of court clerks busy, and move a LOT of money from computer companies to lawyers, money that could be used for product development.
Noone wants to get involved in litigation, no matter how fun it looks from the outside. It's too damned expensive.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
As somebody else pointed out, SCO is USL's successor in interest to the SysV code, so they actually are an interested party in the BSD case. Beyond that, they wouldn't actually be attacking the settlement, per se. Instead they'd be attacking the behavior of the other settling party by claiming that they weren't living up to their side of the bargain.
This might actually be a vaguely clever move. The settlement in the BSD case is under seal, so an ordinary person won't actually know exactly what its terms are, and the other side isn't allowed to disclose the exact terms. That makes it a perfect FUD target. SCO is free to imply all sorts of things about the settlement so long as they don't say anthing specific. They can even say that they'd love to specify exactly what the BSDers are doing wrong but they're forbidden to by the secrecy around the settlement. Nobody can rebut them without actually spelling out the terms of the settlement, which would be illegal. It might even have been effective if SCO hadn't shown itself to be all bark and no bite by now.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
The problem with Boies is that he does just what his clients tell him to do. This is good lawyerly behavior, but if you don't choose the right clients, you're the one who ends up with egg on your face. Examples of this can be seen in each of the cited cases.
For one example, consider the Florida election. There was a legitimate dispute and a genuine recount needed to be made. But Boies and company didn't want a genuine recount, they only wanted a recount of selected counties. If they would have instead argued for a statewide recount, they would have gotten it with virtually no objection from the other side. And since the vote was so freaking close, statistics would have given them 50% odds of winning the election. But instead they argued over trivialities until the clock ran out.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Now, there are real clinical diagnoses that do fit McBride's behaviour, but there's not enough evidence to back these up as real.
The first is something called "Borderline Personality Disorder". It's hard to diagnose, very difficult to treat (so much so, many psychs won't even try) and from those people I know with it, seems to be related to random bursts of hostility and a very high level of denial.
The second is "schizo-effective disorder". This is not schizophrenia, although it is related. It describes a partial split with reality; being aware of what's going on, but simultaneously living in a world that exists only in the person's mind.
Three very common diagnoses for geeks are:
Bipolar disorder: There are 3 main types of bipolar, and 16 different subcategories. This has led some people to suspect that the people working on diagnostic tools have Obsessive Compulsive disorder. Bipolar people tend to work in bursts of high activity, with roughly equal periods of low/no activity. They also tend to drink heavily, as alchohol smooths the ride.
Higher Functioning Autism: Part of the (suspected, yet to be proved) Autism Spectrum. Typically, the person will be extremely brilliant at a very few things. They will be prone to information overload, and often learn quickly to focus on very specific things. They're oblivious to anything outside of that, or near enough. Because they are focussed, and often very passionate about those things they concentrate on, they're hard to get along with. They're often not good at reading body-language, or other subtle non-verbal communication. Likewise, they will often tread on the toes of those who don't comprehend HFA, because the non-verbal signals from an HFA person can be highly confused. Their brain doesn't recognise that type of communication.
Asperger's Syndrome: This is also believed (by some) to be on the Autistic Spectrum, and to be a milder form of HFA. Virtually everything that's true for an HFA is true for an Asperger sufferer, the difference is largely in the degree.
The national average for people with autism of some kind or other is about 1:100. The average in Silicon Valley is about 1:20, some say even 1:10.
I don't believe McBride is Autistic, to any degree. Nor do I believe he is bipolar. This matters only insofar as it means that he doesn't fit the common pattern for geeks or geniuses. In turn, this means he physically cannot comprehend the mindset of those in the industry.
If I am correct in believing him schizo-effective, then this may well explain his lawsuits. He doesn't understand the industry, and his split with reality makes it impossible for him to make rational decisions in response.
This is not an official diagnosis, by any means, but were he to be seen by a competent professional, then that's the conclusion I would expect. If I'm right, then Darl doesn't need to be running a company. Schizo-effective disorders can worsen with stress, so if I'm correct then his mental health will only worsen with the stress of the multitude of lawsuits, the price crash, the increasing suspicion of the media, and the perilously-low turnover.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
If SCO wins.. it puts the OSS camp out of commission for a year or so while the offending code is taken out. And years to undo the 'image' damage.
Microsoft has another year to gain market, and uses the bad image against us.
If SCO looses, it takes years to undo the 'image' damage, and Microsoft uses the bad image against us to gain market share...
---- Booth was a patriot ----