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.'"
"The more yarn you pull out the more you see," according to McBride.
Yup... Paranoia's like that.
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.
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.
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.
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
I find it very strange that Boies has reached this superstar status on the back of what is by any measure a lacklustre litigation record.
Boies first came to prominence in the Microsoft case. Athough the case was initially 'won' it was overturned on appeal. This has been Boies best result so far.
In the Florida recount case Boies lost what should have been a slam dunk case, demanding that the state perform a recount required by the election laws. Boies lost in this case because he was outmaneuvered by the Republican party lawyers who ran rings arround him.
Boies next took the Napster case, in this case he was successful in gaining a temporary stay of an injunction against Napster. But we later find this was only because one of the Appeals court judges was anxious that Napster survive long enough for the appeals court to be able to make a really important rulling in the copyright area...
I cannot think of a better council for SCO in this particular case. The court will require SCO to reveal the exact code fragments it claims are subject to copyright claims sooner rather than later. At this point the SCO case will quickly unravel since the fragments in question will be rewritten.
There are absolutely no grounds for supressing the specifics of the SCO claim. The whole point of the copyright bargain is disclosure in return for a limited term monoploy on exploitation.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
"Darl McBride now claims ownership of the new Finder in Panther, and Final Cut Pro."
In other news, SCO is planning on bringing suit with God next. "This God person," SCO CEO Darl McBride is quoted as saying, "has used stolen SCO code repleatedly in the design of Creation."
Since Darl likens Linux users to drug users, and Darl wants to license Linux to said users, what does that say about Darl? Druglord! I knew it!
--
www.nitemarecafe.com
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.
When Boies left the Cravath partnership, it was somewhat of a scandal in the legal community. No one walks away from a Cravath partnership (so goes conventional wisdom) -- the average annual salary for Cravath partners is somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.0 million.
IBM has long been one of Cravath's largest and most loyal clients -- in fact, I noticed that Cravath is representing IBM in the SCO matter. I can't help but wonder if one of the main reasons Boies agreed to represent SCO is to go head-to-head with his former parters at Cravath. It wouldn't surprise me if that is his main motivating factor. Boies does not need the money or any more notches in his belt.
The fact that Boies lost a couple prominent cases speaks more to his willingness to take on tough cases with unpredictable outcomes that he finds interesting or challenging.
But do not write off Boies or dismiss him. Don't get me wrong -- I hope he loses the SCO case big time. But he is to be feared.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." -- John Lennon
I think the bodyguards are just another PR stunt. Seriously, if the guys who ran Enron into the ground (and destroyed thousands of people's plans for the future) haven't been whacked yet, nobody's going to hit a SCO exec. ...unless it's an SCO sponsored hitman, so that SCO can sue the bodyguard company for failing to protect the client and then sue IBM claiming they were behind the hit.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.