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.'"
...of an unladen SCO bodyguard is?
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
"The more yarn you pull out the more you see," according to McBride.
Yup... Paranoia's like that.
We *know* you want to show everybody how big a pain in the ass you are and that someone should just buy you out. It's just not going to happen.
I'm also starting to hope that Boies will share the cell...
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Darl McBride now claims ownership of the new Finder in Panther, and Final Cut Pro.
Darl is like a blind man on the street, swinging a bat, hoping someone will pay him to stop. Hopefully, the cops will get him before he does any real damage.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
So does this include OS X? That should be an interesting fight.
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.
...because no way does SCO still exist in the second half.
Isn't it clear why? Linux peguin looks quite friendly and isn't harmful at all, BSD daemon on the other hand...
The IT section color scheme sucks.
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.
I hear that SCO has found gratuitous use of the letters S, C, and O in BSD source code! Obviously there must be payment rendered!
So does this mean that they intend to sue microsoft too?
Thought microsoft's TCP stack had a little of the *bsd stuff in it.
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
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.
Welcome to the club. Glad to have you aboard.
Where shall we meet to plan the complete and utter extermination of SCO?
Sincerely,
Tux
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
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.
You're forgetting that they live in Utah. They've probably already got a years supply of computers, power and water stored up.
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.
Its just going to take alittle while for the peabrain (Mcbride, boies et al) to get the message.
SCO's stock has gone from a high of 21 to 14 today, its no longer reacting to the press releases. Even Forbes is now referring to the canopy group as shakedown artists. McBride and company are increasingly running out of people who will buy their story or invest in their stock.
The last time sco had a teleconference they managed a 50 percent bump in share price. This time they got a 1.5 percent bump. This is despite the fact that they have now widened their suit to include contractual control over Novell and BSD.
The big worry will be what happens when sco does give up the ghost. Theres alot of people that depend on the software to run their businesses. They had nothing to do with the lawsuit and will be hurt when the message does at last get to the brain of the beast.
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.
They keep on multiplying, getting in the way and serving no apparent purpose.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
BSD might have stolen something from SCO, after all, it is dying.
t
Wasn't that case settled because of the fact that AT&T had copied a bunch of BSD code, and the realization had been made that both had screwed up and the easiest course of action was to say "From this day forth..." both were legal? that's always been my understanding of that settlement.
If SCO attacks it, don't they also open themselves back up to claims against AT&T (which SCO would now have to defend) of stealing code from BSD and putting it into their codebase (UNIX, SVWhatever)?
My question would be, can they really open up that can of worms again? And if they do, don't they open themselves up to accusations of IP infringement? Would they have to then clean up the UNIX codebase to remove any infringement that the settlement allowed?
Ryan Stultz
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
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?
To me, this is increasingly sounding like SCO desperately seeking a buyer. While I know that the /. crowd has often raised this flag especially in the early stages, but when it was clear that IBM wasn't biting the bait (drinking the koolaid) the tactic seemed to shift.
Now with the attack on BSD, I think they are trying to get APPLE to bite. I doubt very much that Apple will bite, because Apple knows apples and this one is poisoned.
No company in their right mind is going to purchase SCO at this point. McBride and Co, have tainted with so much vile crap that it will be impossible for SCO to ever come out smelling like a rose. (enough cheezy oneliners yet?)
Anyway, the BSD attack is directed at Apple, and Apple should understand this.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
lawyer farm in upstate NY where they breed them. Their typical yearly output in farm-fresh, free-range lawyers is 3 times the output of all of the "Law Schools" put together. And IBM raises them organically, not pumping them full of antibiotics and growth hormones like Hardvard, Yale, Columbia and such.
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.
Even if it could be appealed (and I forgot that it was a settlement, not a judicial ruling), we're long past the final date for filing an appeal.
As for an uninvolved party -- that's not true. AT&T sold all rights on the source code in question to Novell, who then sold it (with strings) to the company that is now SCO. So they are an involved party, albeit several purchases removed. Of course, that weakens their case -- they should damn well have known what they were and weren't purchasing, along with the legal entanglements involved. Failure to do so may very well be illegal, but in this case it would be the stockholders suing the company over failure of due diligence rather than the company suing anyone.
The more I read on this the more I wonder wtf is going on. It has long since passed the point of being rational. SCO may very well have a beef with IBM and contract violation, but it ends there. All the ranting and raving against Linux, BSD, and the rest of the industry is insane.
On an unrelated note, I'm glad to see IBM handling the case the way they are. I'm sincerely hoping that IBM is subpoening Canopus in order to pierce the corporate veil. This kind of intellectual property blackmail is exactly the kind of thing a large corporation doesn't want to see. It's very much in IBM's interest to burn the fields and salt the earth as a warning against anyone else who would try such spurious claims against them. They have to not only take down SCO, but also Canopus. And if the lawyers pull the same level of crap in the courtroom as they're pulling in the press then IBM will probably push to have them disbarred for conflict of interest, improper conduct, etc.
Anyone who has a legit complaint against IBM, Redhat, Linux, BSD, etc. should certainly pursue it in court. But so far SCO has failed to prove that they have any such complaint, and they appear to be throwing up a smokescreen to hide that.
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for slashdot.sig (129323052 bytes).
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.
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.
As far as I can remember but is too lazy to look up right now, the Microsoft case wasn't so much 'overturned' on appeal as it was remanded back to a district court for a new trial. Due to Judge Jackson's publicly stating that Bill Gates was a lying bastard (I'm paraphrasing) the Court of Appeal (cannot remember which one) felt that Microsoft may not have recieved a fair and unbiased trial. It therefore ordered a retrial. However, in the meantime George W. Bush had not only won the election but also been inaugurated. His administration decided to settle the case rather than pursue litigation. (Incidentally, during the Reagan/Bush I administrations the joke was that the Justice Department never met a business practice it didn't like. It may seem the Bush II Justice Dep. sought/seeks to operate along the same line.) This outcome may be seen as 'losing' the case. I suppose it's a matter of opinion. However, the outcome can hardly be blamed on Boies.
Parenthetically, I disagree with the Court of Appeal assessment of what might constitute an obstacle or impediment to a fair trial: if a judge conclude after hearing the testimony of a person, that said person is a lying bastard then that is a conclusion based on fact, as opposed to a judge 'concluding' before any testimony that a person is lying bastard, which would seem be based on prejudice (or possibly prior personal knowledge, in which case the judge should recuse him/herself). The latter case obviously imperils an unbiased trial, but the former case? I don't think so. Why should it? The judge has heard the evidence and drawn a conclusion. In that way it appears to me no different than any other conclusion, based on fact, that the judge has to make in a particular case. It may not be very flattering for the person in question, bu massaging of egos is not necessarily the prime objective of litigation.
The liver is evil and must be punished.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again...
Unless and until we all get off of our collective lazy butts and do something about this, there is absolutely nothing else that is going to stop it.
What this means is that US, the authors, movers and shakers in the Free Software community (not just us Linux folks, but you BSDers, too), have to attack back lest we risk loosing our hard work.
If we can not defend what is ours, then we will loose all rights to our work. How can this be put any more simpler. SCO is attacking our property and we are all waiting for "someone else" to defend it. This includes people like Linus and Andrew Tridgell (Samba) as well as the little folks like myself.
People, get this straight... if we do not attack back (using the courts), then we WILL loose our property and our community. We can't afford to wait for the IBM and/or RedHat cases to play out. We can't afford to let "someone else" deal with it. We MUST act today, now!
My proposed attack method is akin to a bee-sting. Except in rare cases (allergies), a bee-sting is not fatal, but 1000 bee-stings almost certainly will be. What we need to do is file 1000's of small claims against SCO in your local courts, alleging copyright violation. Seek the maximum allowed for your jurisdiction. Be prepared to show that your work was submitted to the Linux Kernel (or any other project that SCO is distributing like Samba) and that said project is indeed licensed under the GPL. Yes, you may need to consult a lawyer to be effective, but this is the price we MUST pay to attack SCO back, and be effective.
As long as our dislike of the legal system keeps us from using it, we WILL loose because of it.
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
Darl has taken trolldom to a higher level. Slashdot trolls can only stand agape and marvel at his trollish magnificence, hoping that one day they'll be 1/10th the troll he is.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If that's the case, I couldn't imagine a worse scenario for him - a client he can't control, and an opponent with unlimited resources and the resolve to smash him like a bug on the great IBM windshield.
I know /. seems to have a bit of groupthink going on here as regards SCO's success. That said, I really do think Boies best-case scenario is to drag things out long enough to get everybody on their side mucho dinero. But that's not going to impress the former partners.
Folding SCO's case everyone cashes out won't make him look good. Losing in court after the same will really make him look bad. Either way, it's a lose/lose situation in the prestige department - it's only in the rankings of "America's top ambulance chasers" that he'll increase his standing.
The only way I see him increasing his legal prestige is either winning in court or strongarming a great settlement. IBM has made it pretty clear that the chances of either of those is near nil. So while you may be spot-on regarding Boies' motives, I can't see what he's thinking. Or the whole thing could be coincidence.
Great post, btw.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
the so-called "open source" community
You don't see any one saying 'the so-called "gay" community' or 'the so-called "republican" party'. Why does this reporter feel the need to make open source developers look like a bunch of death threat sending hackers? And Darl McBride can hire all the mercenaries he wants, the sissy. All I have to say is 'recoiless rifle'. His undoing will be snide remarks like "There is no free lunch, or free Linux". At the rate he is losing customers, I doubt SCO will be around long enough to file suit against the BSDs.
TallGreen CMS hosting
Just opened news.google.com.
Under technology's top stories:
Novell slams latest SCO claims
SCO Hints at *BSD Lawsuits Next Year, And More
SCO CEO claims top spot on Forbes List of World's Most Hated Business Leaders
SCO doesn't have much longer to live. They've managed to get on not only techies' shit lists, but now the presses'
Man, do I need a life.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
There certainly has been no recount, formal or informal, would have given algore the electoral votes.
Not true.
The NORC study shows that under the state-wide recount oredered by the FL SC, Gore would have won.
Under other, partial, recounts Bush won. Ironically, under Gore's prefered recount method, Gore would have lost.
You probably saw this in the news as "Recount Shows Bush Would Have Won", with perhaps a footnote at the bottom about how actually Gore would have won, unless you used one of the recount methods that was never seriously considered.
I think this is strange.
The enemies of Democracy are
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 ----
For those of us who are most definitely bipolar, there are other things that help to smooth the ride.
1. Regular sleep. Absolutely vital. If it's past 11PM, you're reading this, and you're bipolar, save a bookmark on this and come back and read it after you've had 9 hours.
2. Healthy diet. Plan a trip to the grocery store once or twice a week to get lots of fruit and salad; try to cut caffeine AND alcohol out of your diet.
3. Regular exercise. Do something regularly that helps keep your average activity level high -- such as biking or walking to work -- and once or twice a week do something that actually involves strenuous exercise, such as playing tennis.
4. Express yourself. Bipolar folks are typically more creative than non-bipolar folks -- something having to do with being able to see both sides of the issue. Pick an art -- an instrument you play, writing, painting, anything -- and improvise on it regularly. You don't have to record it, you don't have to let anyone hear or see what you do, you just have to do it to let that expression get out.
OK, and a beer now and then doesn't hurt. Unless you're an alcoholic bipolar. Then it does.
Well, anyhow, this works for me. And when I don't do it, it doesn't work for me. Any time you can avoid the ups and downs without using drugs is good.