Slashdot Mirror
Could Google Be SCO's Next Big Target?
An anonymous reader writes "Well, Darl and co. may have decided which company to sue next: Google. Sources say Google will be sued for not paying their Linux taxes. The story quotes 'Industry wags are saying that God invented SCO to give people a company to hate more than Microsoft.'" This is all speculation until such a suit is filed, though.
and Google could just "accidentally" link all SCO investor sites to certain websites specializing in goat mating signals.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Isn't it obvious? They are going to sue every major company that uses Linux until:
1.) They get to court
2.) The company simply settles outside of court.
We all know they are full of garbage, yet its still popular and their stocks are still ok... why?
BECAUSE OF MEDIA COVERAGE!
If you guys would just let them slowly drain their money trying to pay lawyers to face off against blue chip companies like IBM, they'd slowly die off. But by giving them attention, they can stay alive.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Learn to distinguish between the slashdot added stuff and the stuff provider by the submitter.
Well, maybe this is going to be their first scalp, all I can say is I hope any court case would be swift and nullify the upcomming IBM case
Didn't MS try to BUY google but google refused? Then MS said that they would compete with google.
.
I guess we are seeing how MS intends to compete with google . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Give it a year or so, the SCO debacle will be over, and people will be back to having MS on the top of their hate lists.
- ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
Don't they have to PROVE!!!?!?! they own what they are trying to collect fees for?
Haven't they done everything but?
If SCO does do anything like that, they will go down for FRAUD!!!!
how you can sue someone for violating your IP rights without legal backing saying your own that IP in the first place.
Is it legal to send a big F-U in response?
Maybe Google should make SCO happy, and change to Windows Server 2003?
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
After google, they are planning on suing the vatican, I mean why mess with these little penny ante companies when you can sue your way into heaven?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
This is just what SCO wanted, they probably planted this "leak" to get more attention and a new batch of Greater Fools to buy stock.
All "wolf! wolf! wolf" and lots of crying. No "bite! bite! bite"
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Google is big but not that big, they use Linux, and what is more important they have an impending IPO so they might just pay up to get SCO to shut up. I'm just suprised they weren't sued first.
I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
While I'm sure they have rules about impartiality, accuracy, etc, couldn't Google fairly easiliy make SCO "invisible"?
Just a thought....\
=U= "Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"
Source Claims SCO Will Sue Google
Industry wags are saying that God invented SCO to give people a company to hate more than Microsoft, November 26, 2003
Summary
A source claiming to be in the know says that the SCO Group is going to sue Google for not paying its Linux taxes.
By Maureen O'Gara
A source claiming to be in the know says that the SCO Group is going to sue Google for not paying its Linux taxes.
Last week SCO threatened to make an example of a big-time Linux user that hadn't paid SCO the license fees it's demanding and take it to court for copyright infringement.
SCO has not disclosed the identity of its mark and SCO CEO Darl McBride claimed Tuesday that a decision on what company to target wasn't final yet. He said SCO and its lawyers were working with "a short list" of "seven or eight" names.
McBride declined to say whether Google's name was on it, but another knowledgeable source said it was.
SCO said last week that it would sue within 90 days. The Linux community thinks SCO's bluffing and won't make its self-imposed February 17 deadline. McBride said he'd like to play that number in Vegas.
The idea behind the suit is obviously to make all major Linux users tractable and make them reach for their checkbooks.
If it turns out to be Google, it's a provocative choice.
It's a household name.
It's said to have a Linux server farm of some 10,000 of servers, worth, oh, $7 million to SCO as long as SCO's current cut-rate license fees maintain.
It's reportedly putting together a positively glorious IPO that could supposedly be worth $15 billion-$25 billion, a feat unmatched in the last two decades despite Tulipmania.
And Microsoft, which has been accused of conniving with SCO in its march against Linux, is slated to enter the search market and compete against Google. The widgetry, which is supposed to retrieve all kinds of file types, both structured and unstructured, and all kinds of storage systems, beginning with the user's own drive, will be integrated into its operating systems like the anticipated Longhorn.
Meanwhile, industry wags are saying that God invented SCO to give people a company to hate more than Microsoft.
Come on guys, give it a rest . . .
Pretty Pictures!
That's it... I'm taking SCO off my front page. I'm scared they're going to sue me because I used Linux about six years ago, and gave up on it because I really didn't have a good enough system for it.
On the other hand, I doubt they'll see christmas...
Whew...I really thought the entire SCO legal team would be brought to bear on me, Anonymous Coward.
Good to have them distracted for a bit.
Ok, we know Google uses a large farm of linux boxes for their engine, etc, but how can they sue them not knowing which version of the kernel they are using? Sure, Google may be using RedHat, etc, but what if they are using a 1.xx version of the kernel, with a really old version of Redhat?
I know it sounds doubtful, but SCO suing companies they know use linux sounds pretty far fetched considering they don't know if said company is using the offending versions of the kernel.
One wonders if Google might decide to retaliate in any way.
Or maybe they'll just make a new logo satirizng it..
Twenties Retirement
SCO's just cranky because they're no longer the highest match for linux.
I think it is great when SCO goes on their suing rampage. Its just a matter of time when all the big companies SCO threatens team up together in a concerted effort to shut SCO's doors down for good.
As much as I can remember, Google has a pretty good history of litigating rather than paying off those who have challenged them in the past (think SearchKing v. Google, if I remember the name right). So I guess this falls into place in SCO's plan of attacking those who are bigger and mightier first, rather than doing the smart (though equally evil) thing of suing small guys to raise money and set precedent before going after the big guys. So, yeah. To sum it all up, SCO are idiots.
Seems like back in the mid 90s everyone swore by SCO that they had a very tight OS. I know a lot of manufacturing type places thought SCO WAS God, not that God invented them.
I'm a canadian, so I may be way off base here, but doesn't everyone sue everyone else in the US? Really, how is this any different? Even if this ends up being true and SCO sues Google, who really cares, it's a pointless lawsuit, just like the other 10 million filed everyday by the average American... Isn't it? It'll get thrown out just like every other lawsuit, the lawyers will become richer and the American dream will continue to flurish (which if I'm not mistaken is to sue someone and get rich...)
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
and I mean that in the yellow journalism sense. At best this is making complete guesses; at worst, its feeding the SCO publicity mill.
There's nothing concrete to back this up other than unnamed sources; that's pretty weak.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Not to start a flamewar, but have you ever taken a look at the pile of shit we also call world that the omnipotent God, at least according to your scriptures, created? Compared to the world, SCO's peanuts.
The owls are not what they seem
How can they sue for something that isn't even known to be illegal yet? Why would google pay a fee when a court hasn't even decided whether there is infringemnt or not?
There was a post on the other Google news about this...
Better this than SCO attacking little ISPs, webshops, small biz, etc.
Google has the money to go toe-to-toe with them and deliver a proper beatdown to this silliness.
Share and Enjoy!
... when every search result for sco.com gets redirected to goatse.cx or tubgirl.com.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Funny thing is right now, SCO is just trying to keep their stock afloat, but this will bite them down the road. To win this, SCO would have to establish copyright on parts of the Linux kernel that is being used by Google. SCO simply has no case until they prove they have copyrights.
I could go on for pages about the ciclical nature of this dispute but seriously, Google might as well ignore this bullying and wait for SCO to go under.
Considering recent Google news, I was wondering if Google was evil. Well, SCO is undoubtedly evil. If SCO hates Google, then Google must be good.
Boy, I feel relieved now.
My neighbor's
-kgj
-kgj
... of having a company strategy of "sue highly-visible companies" is that highly-visible companies are often deep-pocketed companies far larger than yourself...
:-( I guess SCO may have some sort of a case in the USA for that as well, though IANAL.
I for one would just love Google to remove all references to SCO from their search engine. Unfortunately I think they're above that
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Sorry - I think I did sound a bit like a religious zealout there - didn't I.
Stay tuned for new sig...
Or thoes that can't spell...
The quicker SCO starts suing means the quicker they will get shot down in the courts, and the quicker this will all be over with. Oh well, there's my SCO fix for the day.
I find it interesting that shortly after Google turned Microsoft down on a buy offer, the SCO dogs come a running. It's looking more and more like Microsoft owns these dogs.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
A source claiming to be in the know says that the SCO Group is going to sue Google for not paying its Linux taxes.
An unnamed source who claims to know this?
Could this article be more speculative? How does something like this even get considered news?
Let SCO sue Google for not paying the "Linux Tax". All Google has to say is show me legal proof I owe you this money. Until SCO has that proof (as in if they go to court and win the ip fight) Google has nothing to worry about. I think any company that pays SCO any money before they have this proof is making a very large mistake.
man
No manual entry for
Maybe instead of "God invented SCO to give people a company to hate more than Microsoft," it should be "Microsoft invested in SCO to divert attention from their Evil(tm) ways."
. there used to be a sig here.....
The scene: a smoky downtown office lit by one bare lightbulb. Mr D is sitting at his desk, studying his computer screen.
... silence
"Damn", he says, and picks up the phone. "Get your ass in here!", he shouts, and puts the receiver down again.
A sweaty figure stumbles into the room, sneezes, and puts his coke tin and bottle of JDs on the table. "Whazzup, boss?"
"Our stock fell by two points. We need to sue someone. Who's left?"
"Uh, I think we sued them all, boss. Uh, wait, how about Microsoft?"
"MORON!! They're the nice gentlemen we met this morning!"
"Sorry, boss, it's the coke, it's making me forget shit."
"Look, we need a name, and we need it fast."
"Boss, why not try Google?"
"BRILLIANT!!! WE'LL SUE GOOGLE!!!"
"Uh, I meant just try the search... oh, shit."
"Get on the line to our hacks. This is going to be so big. We can ask for $699 per search result. Per web page. Per pagerank. Whatever, so long as we get into twelve figures."
"OK, Boss, you're the boss..." (picks up JD, stumbles out)
sniff... sniff... SNEEZE!
Ceci n'est pas une signature
A) Satan doesn't create. He corrupts.
B) God created Satan.
if they weren't planning on going after google, this story has just given them some ideas, and a new excuse.
People's views on Microsoft are colored by a lot more than its financial/legal activities. SCO is being chided for what it hasn't done, while MS is criticized for ... well, lots of things, but especially the insecurity of some of its products. A whole other ballgame.
Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
Their actions speak of desperation. They are biting off way more than they can chew. If anyone was unsure if they were going to be able to survive a loss in the IBM suit, this makes it certian that they have bet more than they can pay.
Let me get this straigt again. Its trying to prove it owns part of linux in the case with IBM. And now its going to use sue Google because they are using linux which they have yet to prove they own parts of. Great. Isn't that like using a loan for collateral for another loan?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
When I was in law class in University, the one rule the teachers always hammered into our heads was "Go for the deep pockets". Suing Joe Average will net you nothing but ill will, and is more trouble than it's worth. Suing Google may net you a bit of cash AND the mandatory ill will. I guess SCO's thinking "at least we will be rich and hated"... Of course, they're forgetting that IBM will soon take everything away from them and leave them a pathetic grovelling scabby pile of homeless losers whining that they "innovated" and weren't respected for it. Them's the breaks. Carpe Diem.
I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."
How much might SCO try to extort from a linux user that doesn't use the feature under litigation?
The worst part is that unlike IBM, Google may not have the vast army of lawyers to devote to their defense. Now they're not poor, and they do have lawyers, but nothing like the fancy-pants ones that IBM has on tap.
What does Google and Linux have in common? The hatred of Microsoft. Maybe there is something to the conspiracy theories after all.
Let'em try it. Google has the power to 'erase' all memory of SCO from the internet...
An imagined future google session:
enter 'SCO', hit the 'I'm feeling lucky' button...
1. Southern College of Optometry (SCO)
2. Small Corporate Operation (SCO)
3. SCOffer's anonymous
4. Small Company the Offed itself (SCO)
5. Stupid Company Operation (SCO)
6. Some Company or Other (SCO)
...couldn't Google sue (or counter-sue) SCO for defamation?
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
Because.... because....
nevermind go back to your SCO bashing.
How much litigation can you have on your plate at a time? I think their strategy is good, keeping everybody on the defensive, but at some point they're taking the risk of overextending themselves. I used to think a business could only handle one substantial lawsuit at a time, but I suppose that's a myth akin to the one about chopsticks originating in Asia, when the recently uncovered truth of the matter is that they were designed by immigrants cooking in American mining communities in the 1800s and later returned to Asia, when in actual fact you can run as many suits as you've got lawyers to handle them (and staff resources to produce what the lawyers need). I don't know how wise the current strategy is, but I suppose that's why I'm not running a corporation.
Still, I'm surprised investors are still in at this point. If I had some extra cash I'd put some in just to see what happens, but I wouldn't be serious about it.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Maybe this will be a Slashdot first -- read the article then post!
After reading the article, I still do not understand how Google could be sued for copyright infringement when they are the end user of a product produced by someone else; does copyright law not specify this? It would be like Eolas suing me for patent infringement after I installed an IE plugin.
I will go back into my little hole now.
It would probably be pretty easy for them to switch to, say, Solaris, practically overnight, free of charge.
What is the licensing on the "free" edition of Solaris? Do they let you use it in a commercial setting?
Google: Well thanks, but we're not interested.
Balmer: Think about it, there will be consequences!
Google: Thought about it
Balmer (to SCO): Darl ... Yes Yes Yes ..... fade
Darl (bowing): Yes Master
Balmer: You know what to do, dont you?
Darl (salivating): Yes Master
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
Article text follows:
Source Claims SCO Will Sue Google
Industry wags are saying that God invented SCO to give people a company to hate more than Microsoft
November 26, 2003
Summary
A source claiming to be in the know says that the SCO Group is going to sue Google for not paying its Linux taxes.
By Maureen O'Gara
Page 1 of 1
A source claiming to be in the know says that the SCO Group is going to sue Google for not paying its Linux taxes.
Last week SCO threatened to make an example of a big-time Linux user that hadn't paid SCO the license fees it's demanding and take it to court for copyright infringement.
SCO has not disclosed the identity of its mark and SCO CEO Darl McBride claimed Tuesday that a decision on what company to target wasn't final yet. He said SCO and its lawyers were working with "a short list" of "seven or eight" names.
McBride declined to say whether Google's name was on it, but another knowledgeable source said it was.
SCO said last week that it would sue within 90 days. The Linux community thinks SCO's bluffing and won't make its self-imposed February 17 deadline. McBride said he'd like to play that number in Vegas.
The idea behind the suit is obviously to make all major Linux users tractable and make them reach for their checkbooks.
If it turns out to be Google, it's a provocative choice.
It's a household name.
It's said to have a Linux server farm of some 10,000 of servers, worth, oh, $7 million to SCO as long as SCO's current cut-rate license fees maintain.
It's reportedly putting together a positively glorious IPO that could supposedly be worth $15 billion-$25 billion, a feat unmatched in the last two decades despite Tulipmania.
And Microsoft, which has been accused of conniving with SCO in its march against Linux, is slated to enter the search market and compete against Google. The widgetry, which is supposed to retrieve all kinds of file types, both structured and unstructured, and all kinds of storage systems, beginning with the user's own drive, will be integrated into its operating systems like the anticipated Longhorn.
Meanwhile, industry wags are saying that God invented SCO to give people a company to hate more than Microsoft.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Nah, Satan would never create something like SCO. SCO would annoy Satan too much. But doesnt your god love doing things you dont understand? And pissing off people that dont deserve it? Yep. They're an angel from heaven.
-> A better answer...
Google Employee 1: Hey Tom, did you move my coffee cup?
Google Employee 2: Geeze Mike... I didn't expect a sort of Spanish Inquisition...
Darl McBride, David Boies, and Chris Sontag burst through the door
Grand Inquisitor McBride: Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
$699 per processor on one of the most humongous server farms in the world. It is a big deal.
Not to continue a flamewar, but if you think the world is a big pile of shit, perhaps you should stop reading Slashdot for a few hours. God-created or not (and personally, I find "not" a great deal more impressive), there's some good stuff out there. The trick is looking away from the monitor for a bit. Once you've gotten the hang of that, go watch some birds, or go camping, or something.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
According to the Xtian stories, satan doesn't create stuff. Place the blame where it belongs - on whatever you refer to as "God", or don't blame either one, since they are both completely fictional characters from a time long ago, when any sort of writing was assumed to be both god-like and factual.
Speculation for Nerds. Stuff that could matter, maybe.
paintball
They aren't being pursued by any US government authority for it. Why? SCO makes money by charging licenses to companies who use linux on the condition that:
1. Linux is owned by SCO because they own Unix and Linux contains Unix code(this hasn't been proven yet).
2. Paying the license fee will protect a company from being sued by SCO for not paying for said linux licenses and therefore violating the unproven Intellectual Property claim above (refer to number 1)
This seems to be a clear cut case of extortion. At the very least the SEC should be investigating for stock fraud.
This is blantently criminal activity that is going unpunished (no case from the government has been filed against SCO yet) and rewarded(SCO's stock prices continue to climb).
If I were SCO, I wouldn't sue the Vatican... the Vatican has their own military force for crying out loud!
.... he's cooking up something..." - Pope (Family Guy)
"You have made a fool out of the Pope! God! Smite them! (Looks up at heaven and waits)
"There is no spoon." - The Matrix
And on a tangent...OSDL to Answer SCO with Linux Campaign.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Its very foolish for SCOX to do this, if indeed they due sue Google. Google is a private company with a ton of cash and no real shareholders to answer (at least not as many/as much as a public company.) That, combined with Google's willingness to litigate, may be the first chance to get this madness in court.
Might as well tag along with this one.
because if this comes to pass, there WILL be murders. This isn't some corporation vs. corporation fight. SCO is trying to take over something that people have invested lots of blood and sweat into and now they're trying to penalize the (possibly) most used search engine out there for not paying them any attention. They might as well go over to England and tell them that rugby sucks if they have that much of a death wish.
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
But $699 * the number of machines Google uses is.
I believe the number is somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 machines, most of which are running Linux. You do the math.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
But google doesn't run on one server.
$699 times the thousands of servers they have is a lot.
link
i dont want to see this anywhere near this.
the unholy combination of the two would surely rend our universe asunder.
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
It's simple... SCO are fast running out of money. They thought IBM would buy them out but they didn't, so they're just going to keep the lawsuits flying until somebody does.
If you haven't understood it yet, let me spell it out for you: SCO is a Microsoft proxy company. Sort of like modern-day corporate black ops.
And I'd like any major Microsoft shareholders to take a small break and think about what shady shit their company is doing. Usually these kind of things tend to backfire on you, big time.
"SCO said last week that it would sue within 90 days. The Linux community thinks SCO's bluffing and won't make its self-imposed February 17 deadline. McBride said he'd like to play that number in Vegas."
put a big red mark on your calender everyone! if a suit *ever* happens, it's time for developers, the REAL copyrights holders to stand up and show Darl what "protecting IP" under copyrights law means. "misappropriation of IP" will not feed them; it will hunt them down. too bad darl has no ammo (he never have) to scare everyone off. he only has a handful of empty shells.
If SCO sues google, maybe google could ip block SCO so they can't uses google. "Do on to others as they do onto you."
Erm. It's per server (10000*699 = $6,990,000)
But that's okay because a trained monkey could file better documents than what we've seen out of SCO.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
What an extortion racket.
On Monday, December 5, the discovery motions in the IBM/SCO case go before the judge. That's the first "put up or shut up" event in the case.
Interesting milestone number one will be when some of the other operators of large linux clusters (like, say Nvidia, the various National Labs and other arms of the US Government like the NIH and NASA, and lots of other Public and Private entities) realize this is going on and that they are logical targets.
Interesting milestone number two will occur when a group of these folks with Something to Lose(tm) grow a collective set, band together and class-action SCO into non-existance.
BTW, who is forming the class of individual linux users threatened en masse by SCO? Where do I and others sign up?
SCO is going to sue somebody?
"This is all speculation until such a suit is filed, though."
Sadly its Speculation even after a suite is filed.
They put the _P_oint _O_f _S_ale in POSture and POSpone.
ls
We'll sue Canadians too. Just send me your name and address and I should be able to file in the next week or so. If you let me know which state(s) you would prefer to be sued in I can also make sure to avoid those.
paintball
If Google gets attacked, people will notice. Hopefully, they'll start associating Linux with it as a result. If Linux can absorb even a little bit of Google's golden-boy glow it'll go a long way to creating a realistic entry point for consumer desktop Linux.
thankyou /. thank you. i was really tired and not wanting to do anything today than low and behold an sco story gets posted, my blood begins to circulate and i get all nice and frothy. nothing like the smell of SCO in the morning smells like ..... Victory. makes you want to get yer rifle and deal some justice to Utah. well maybe write a video game for that. /. is feeding you information on what McBride is doing now. your job is to terminate McBride with extream prejudice. hey game developers get to work.......
hey thats it the SCO video game.
make it like medal of honer and Apocalypse now. your on an inner tube assigned by the oss to hunt down the crazy colonel McBride. your on a boat going up the colorado and
Is this even possible?
:-)
If we each buy $1K of SCO stock would we collectivly become the largest SCO shareholder?
Could we then just use that power and vote all of our shares in one large block?
I'd love to see the SCO CEO dance naked at the demands of the board.
Oh yeah, and end this sillyness.
Fight evil with science.
;-)
Just kidding
Will SCO be dumb enough to send a bill first? Preferably through the US Mail?
Then they're dead for Mail fraud.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Better than Linux sites (Linux World, Slashdot) linking to each other with speculations that create self fulfilling prophecies.
Not if we can slashdot the hell out of those sites! SCO won't be able to find the scoop on melted heaps of webserver...
Oh shit! Google is going to kick my ass.
I'm offended by you.
MS was spurned. this is payback for not assimilating.
Dear editors (and those who are going to mod me down),
Are you really telling me out of all the submissions slashdot gets daily that one of the ten to twnety articles posted has to be about SCO? Is the submission queue really filled with such trash that SCO mentions deserve to go up on the front page everyday? Look I enjoy ragging on stupid companies just as much if not more than anyone else but this is simply played out. We passed the point where ridicule became stale weeks ago.
A more cynical me would just assume you keep putting them up because of the high number of comments and therefore page views, er, AD views the generate.
I come to slashdot to read nerdy news, instead an increasing percentage of articles posted are about "our rights online." I understand that sites grow and change but slashdot is really betraying its technical roots with all this pansy ""rights" stuff and honestly most slashdot posters don't read articles, muchless vote so all these articles do is allow everyone to rehash the same comments from the previous story about how we are losing every right we had, the world is ending, blah blah blah
Er uh okay so I got sidetracker, but c'mon please enough with the SCO at least.
--- I do not moderate.
that's not the point...
<end/>
I am amazed that Slashdot continues to take the bait on this stuff. Who has SCO sued? IBM, over a specific contract dispute. Since the exact contracts are not available for public inspection we can not know what whether SCO actually has a leg to stand on.
Sure SCO has made all kinds of wild claims in public and there has been even more uninformed speculation.
But they have not actually done anything else.
They have not presented their "invoices" for Linux licenses.
They have not made any specific copyright claims of anybody.
They have not demanded that any of the kernel archives be taken down.
They have not done anything but generate a lot of smoke.
Untill SCO actually puts up, there is no news here. If they actually sued somebody. If they actually made some specific copyright claims. If they actually did anything besides make noise, then that would be a newsworthy item.
I've got a better suggestion for the codename of the next Linux kernel: Greased Darl
Google, being a private company, would they have received one of the original 1500 letters? Not that any of SCOX threats make sense or anything....
I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
"*moderates +5 aluminium hat*"
That's Tin Foil you fool! Aluminium won't do any good against Alien Mind Control rays, Microsoft Mind Control Rays(tm), Government Mind Control Rays, or the like. You must use tin!
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I suspect Google like IBM will not cave to this type of extortion.
HPC for Primates. Read Cluster Monkey
It's half SCO and half dog. It is its only friend. :P
Sources tell us Darl McBride has been named in a class-action lawsuit, agisnt himself, and the SCO Group. Evidently the PC industry has decided that the collective SCO suing ensemble have been over-exposing themsleves to the public as major dickheads. The suit is for an unspecified amount of damages for visual damages to the PC community from their obvious indecent exposure. (Film of the dickheads at 11pm)
According to Bill Gates, Microsoft is not a monopoly.
According to Bill Gates, the Internet is irrelevant (circa 1995).
According to Bill Gates, a web browsers is an integral part of an operating system.
etc, etc, ad nauseum
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
They might run 2.2.x. God do I hate SCO.
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
I've had great fun reading how either "This is trouble for Google's IPO" or "Google will trample SCO" but isn't this all a bit early? The article says that SCO sueing Google is "claimed by an unnamed source". Perhaps we should all wait until this is either confirmed or not, before we run around discussing the outcome? I mean if I remember correctly all Linux users should have received invoices or should have been sued in summer.
'cause google owns it all http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=sco+can't+sue+us+because+they're+pussies+and+ we'll+filter+their+search+results+for+stolen+versi ons+of+bpf.c!
vodka, straight up, thank you!
Funny how everyone that SCO goes after is a group that frustrated Microsoft...
Microsoft is trying to raise a zombie army to attack its opponents so that investors won`t perceive MS as being dishonest.
Don't be surprised if more shell companies either get bought up or formed and have the single goal of attacking Microsoft's "enemies".
And the side bonus is MS being able to say "See? We're not the only ones who think Linux/Google/Whatever is bad!"
Another great bonus is that if any of these entities has to pay for its transgressions by being forced out of business by law or some such, Microsoft can just stand back and laugh that the repriesal didn't touch them.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
This sounds like a crazy idea, but Google could slap themselves with a DMCA takedown (al la Kazaa Lite) regarding SCO... I mean they wouldn't be the only company using the DMCA is a frivolous way????
;-)
Also, this post is meant to be a bit like the SCO share prices: half funny, half interesting and half stupid
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
Nah, Satan's busy getting people to implant RFID tags in their hands
Right ... but people jump at the chance to contest all of those arguments. Do you have a quote from Google contesting his statement? Unless they're bound by a NDA (which I doubt they are since Gates made a statement regarding the relationship between the two companies) I would think they'd contradict a statement he made if it wasn't an accurate representation of the relationship between their two companies.
That sounds like my older relatives who think we shouldn't see reports on the news about potential terrorist threats, because "it might give the bad guys ideas." As unpopular as SCO might be right now, they certainly would know who the big Linux users are out there...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Speculation for nerds. Stuff that might matter.
Before I can go to google and type the words "Kiss my ass", click the "I'm feeling lucky" button and arrive at the Sco home page?
Can't we start calling him Darth McBride now?
Why is it that when I search google for "Butthole UNIX Company," SCO isn't at the top of the list? I think we should do something about that (And here on /. we should have the collective web clout to pull it off!)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
SCO is making a lot of noise yet not saying anything of any substance. They could have chosen ONE compelling example to trot out when this all started and have yet to do so.
The only thing ill-informed around here are your unsupported fantasies.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
THE STORY LINE ./ "shit now new stories" and I'M still at work when I'M at work all I want to do is read /. When I'M at home all I want to do is play MOOHAA, I might just have to do something like work" terrible shudders run though your spine. " Then all of assuden two privates show up at your door, mister ****** OSS wants to talk to you. They clean you up and take you to a trailer where RMS gives you tofu and tells you that if you eat it you'll never have to prove yourself to anyone again Linus and the CEO for google are sitting at the table looking awkward and the ceo for IBM starts asking you funny questions. Have you ever heard of colonel McBride? Then you start frothing and want to break something. You have to stop him the mad is out there mouthing off like a madman and suing everyone he can, " he has obviously gone insane" your mission is to go to Utah and terminate the colonels position the CEO of google pipes up " terminate with extreme prejudice. Then you on a boat going up the Colorado river having to fight off stock traders and drugged out MS junkies.
You wake up at you office to the sound of browser refresh on
In other news...
Apple is suing all OS X users who haven't paid there mac tax. They are starting with the G5 cluster at the university of Vermont (or was it VA?). That is why they call it FeeBSD!
If Gates were "S@t@n," wouldn't that make McBride the "@ntichrist?"
In terms of Warcraft III - If Gates were "Ner'zhul," wouldn't that make McBride "Arthas?"
Okay, who's called dibbs on scoatse.cx?
Evidently...
...does.
Doesn't seem to be live though.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
That statement can be true and untrue at the same time, like alot of buisness-speak. Perhaps Google was informally approached, or approached through a third party. I'm not saying thats the case, of course, but Bill G could have been telling the truth, but MS could still have been looking at buying Google. In any case, Google is notoriously closed mouth (they don't have a stock price to pump via press releases, after all), so I don't know that they'd bother to contradict something like that.
There are many different channels and levels in the acquisition process, especially in the beginning, as you explore things. Perhaps MS kept everything very low-key and back-channel. No MS representative may have ever officially discussed acquisition with Google.
In that case, it's easy for Gates to squash the rumors with a carefully crafted statement ("We were never in talks about it with them."). Spin, spin, spin...
Somewhat OT, sorry...
Microsoft is notorious for leveraging their dominance in one market in order to force their way into another.
It strikes me that Google can do the same - and do it in a way that could potentially hurt Microsoft a lot.
I know there will be those who will not react favorably to this idea...
Google should create YALD (Yet Another Linux Distribution). Call it "Google Weblinux" (tm...)
Base it on Knoppix-Debian-Muskox/Linux. Add a much more user-friendly HD install (with *lots* of warning about overwriting hard disk partitions, and what this means). Add everything internet-related that they can - especially commercial, well-known stuff like Flash (sorry)
Realmedial (sorry), Acrobat Reader, lotsa Java-related toys, ez-firewall stuff, ez-internet sharing. Add a super-easy, customized synaptic (or synaptic replacement) with (optional) auto-updating. Put in every plugin known to Linuxkind. Make sure everything just works, just like that.
Tie it all together through the google homepage.
Naturally the default homepage will be Google, and the default list of links will include the fine commercial and non-commercial folks Google has made deals with in the process of creating the CD.
Perhaps they could mirror apt-get repositories or add their own for updates.
Advertise Google WebLinux on their homepage, with
links to more info.
If they wanted to the Google folks could become sort of a focal point for mindshare for all of Microsoft's commercial competitors - every commercial business who has to compete with Microsoft's own bundled applications - especially if Google manages to convince everybody that they won't try to get into competing with Macromedia/Sun Java/Adobe/Real.
Would that be an effective counterfud/return fire against Microsoft?
Found this creative little mug shot by Lee Brian. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words
Well, there is one thing which makes me nervous. /. has been covering this SCO-"thing" for a while and the huge mass of audience has been able to forecast every step of SCO ever since.
/.-articles about "What might SCO do next".
If I were SCO (hopefully not) or someone in the Boies law firm, I would read all the +5 insightful/interesting comments on
This is exactly the opposite side of the "parallel debugging" phenomenon from the Open Source movement. Even if 99% of all the comments were crap, there were more suggestions for SCO/Boies what do to next.
Actually, we are doing their work.
No, we need lots more. We need to stay up to date with the SCO saga. Why? Because SCO is threatening the very life of Linux. Is this a pro open source site or not? SCO is threatening the very blood of open source, the GPL, and you people want to have less SCO? Bad! We should have daily SCO stupidity stories. I've even taken the liberty of registering a few good domains to tick SCO off :-)
"The story quotes 'Industry wags are saying that God invented SCO to give people a company to hate more than Microsoft.'"
Well, considering that SCO is being supported by MS's money, this doesnt surprise me a whole hell of a lot. If my business aproval rating hovered arround loathing, I'd be keen on finding something that didnt make me look like the worst tech company in the universe.
We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
Maybe they are not really trying to maximize profits from litigation?
.). We can only help to gain circumstantial evidence and, since making conclusions from circumstantial evidence is normally not required, our conclusions based on circumstantial evidence will be labeled paranoid by the public.
Maybe they just seem stupid because we make simple assumptions like SCO wants to maximize their earnings for investors. Maybe management at SCO is simply not acting in the best interest of its investors anymore and is motivated to do something else.
Unfortunately, since they are no longer playing by the rules that are established in the market place, it is very difficult for us to actually pin-point what their agenda is, or who is supporting it (don't expect to find anything in their SEC filings . .
This is a fundamental breakdown in the free-market system, the same break-down that resulted in the great depression. This is the primary reason that the SEC, GAAP, and all the laws that protect investors were created. Yet it appears these measures were not enough . . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
In other news, scientists in New Mexico discovered the fictional world of the Matrix, may quite possibly be real. However, unlike the description given in the movie, the matrix is actually a computer program which has been running for several years at an unknown location. He was happy to say the Matrix runs on Linux, and not windows, so a system crash is "unlikely". SCO has decided to sue the creaters of the matrix, whom he calls "God", for royaltees on free software.
SCO, schmo. Does the following passage sound incredibly scary to anyone else?
And Microsoft, which has been accused of conniving with SCO in its march against Linux, is slated to enter the search market and compete against Google. The widgetry, which is supposed to retrieve all kinds of file types, both structured and unstructured, and all kinds of storage systems, beginning with the user's own drive, will be integrated into its operating systems like the anticipated Longhorn.
Given M$'s habit in the past of looking around the hard dirve and downloading what they find, the last thing we need is to blur the line between local searches and web searches so users become completely oblivious. In this horor film you don't find out the the call is comming from inside the house but that the operating system is the spyware.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is.
... as they sue big, big companies with enough money for lawyers.
Or enough money to buy SCO, which I hope won't happen: the sooner SCO=TOAST, the better.
Claiming to know? It is the reporter's job to investigate to make certain her source was in a position to know?
I mean, if the person works for SCO or their law firm and holds a position where they could conceivably hold this information, that is one thing. If, on the other hand, they heard it from the neighbor of a friend who has a cousin whose son is dating the daughter of someone who overheard two people who sounded like SCO attorneys in a noisy nightclub...
OK, this story might turn out to be true, but using a source who is self-validating as opposed to being validated by the reporter AND fact checkers is shoddy journalism.
In response to Red Hat's lawsuit, SCO said that Red Hat was just confused and had misunderstood SCO's statements. SCO had no intention of suing any Red Hat users.
Doesn't Google run Red Hat? Was this previously discussed?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
That should have been "scoatse.cx" and "219.88.106.80" respectively. Guess I'm so used to typing "goatse.cx"...I mean...nevermind.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
The worst part is that unlike IBM, Google may not have the vast army of lawyers to devote to their defense. Now they're not poor
They probably have as much or more cash on hand than SCO that they could throw to a lawyer, but more importantly, they also have a viable business model that is bringing in more and more cash. SCO cannot afford to deal with another lawsuit right now, which is why I suppose they're leaking this instead of Darl saying it.
So Google might be worth $7M to them in licensing fees if they paid. It would take far less than that to pay a lawyer to make SCO go away (unless you're going for the IBM-style nuclear ass-whoopin'). Reminds me of the old proverb: don't try to blackmail someone for more money than it would take to have you killed.
Do you have ESP?
Just point all return hits to SCO. They wanted to be in the spotlight. They thought /.ing and denial of service from geeks was bad. Just wait until the entire world is pointing their browsers at their web servers.
This is all speculation until such a suit is filed, though.
But it's lots of ad banners for slashdot now. : )
This was entitled 'SCO's Las Vegas Code All Show'
now it's curiously unavailable though it was posted 7 hours ago... hmmm....
Let's hear it conspiracy theorists...
So, you don't think that people who believe in the ideal of free (not just open; there's a critical difference!) source and resent SCO's grotesque attack on our most cherised values should not take any action in the face of this aggression?
Well, we've seen appeasers like you before when the future of the human kind has been on the stake. We'll survive you too.
The owls are not what they seem
...Are those investors dumb or what? Seems there's quite a few people who actually believe SCO is not a sinking boat. I wonder why.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Some of us "out here" are Catholics and take offense at such comments, whether in jest or not. Enough ripping on the whole Catholic Church based on what a very small percentage of its priests have done, ok? The vast majority of them are honest, decent people who spend their lives helping others.
. . . if their stock price falls, then the terrorists have won!
...and I'm a Canadian who has lived in both the US and Canada for long periods of time (i.e. years). The two things different are the huge damage awards and the fact that defendants can more easily recover their legal costs from baseless claims. Lots of lawsuits still do happen both in Canada and in the US.
"Maybe this will be a Slashdot first -- read the article then post!"
I can't read the article because you seem to have slashdotted it!
(no, I never signed a non-compete)
How about an NDA?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
It works like this. I get 3 people to put in $10 each on condition that they will receive $20 in 1 week. We then have 7 days to get 9 new people in, to provide the funding for that payout plus some profit. The next week it's 27 recruits required.
It works because the stupid people will see the exponential growth and actually believe it's sustainable and treat it like an investment. The slightly smarter people treat it as gambling and try to cash out as close as possible to the collapse of the fantasy.
SCO right now has both types of investors in it. The disadvantage they have relative to other pyramid schemes is that the collapse won't necessarily come when you run out of new recruits. It might come when the case collapses or appears to collapse and your old investors all come with pitchforks and flame to collect money that's not there. I.e. Trying to sell for $20 a stock that's not worth the paper it's printed on to someone who has that same impression of it's "value".
The reluctance of SCO to actually identify any of the "offending code" in the manner normally used for such cases should be a clue. Yes, companies routinely sue former partners for breach of copyright and IP theft. There are established norms and standards of evidence.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
This is all speculation until such a suit is filed, though. People keep saying SCO is a litigious company. But apart from threats to sue Novell, linux users, Google, my cat, in order to fuel speculation (stock price), have they actually carried through with any of it apart from the original IBM case? SCO's buisness model appears more to bark than to bite. Wake me when court documents are actually filed.
At least Slashdot and Linux World gave them the idea to do it now.
Oh, absolutely. There's no way that SCO's lawyers would have ever thought of doing that by themselves.
Just as all of the most insightful financial analysts come to Slashdot for their investment advice ("Short SCO now!"), so the most expensive lawyers come here to identify a strategy for their multi-million dollar cases.
And doesn't it give you a warm glow to think that all these expensive experts are out there, clinging to your every word, no matter how idiotic or banal?
Hey, perhaps if we tell SCO to stop the lawsuits, they'll do that as well
(OK, OK. I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but *somebody* modded this insightful. That's a hell of a lot lower...)
SCO could offer to "settle" out of court with Google stock at a guaranteed price prior to the IPO. They would then have a serious amount of cash they could use to go after less fortunate companies.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
> so it's not as simple.
Under copyright law...
1) It is the person or entity that produces the copy that commits the infringement. Thus Red Hat, Debian, or Suse.
2) The end-user can be held for contributing if, and only if, they knew or should have known the copy was infringing. (You can't buy Playstation backup disks, without owning a copy first. You should have known better.) Thus, by ordering same over the net you are contributing.
3) Copyright infringement is a criminal matter. The fact the law includes a number of affirmative defenses that defeat the criminal sanction does not change the fact ONE CANNOT CONTRACT AWAY CRIMINAL BEHAVIORS. Thus the GPL's "no warranties" clause can only apply to the like of the software destorying your known universe. It cannot disclaim infringement by passing it onto the end-user.
Regarding patents...
1) End-users have always been held responsible for proper execution of patents.
Regarding trade secrets...
1) Generally, the party that released the secret is responsible for damages caused in the breach of their contract. Others can be held accountable too, if they knew a contract was being broken by their having been given the info.
2) In some rare situations, a trade secret can be "reclaimed". The recipient must be shown to knew, or should have known, the secret was had throught the breach of a contract. Distribution must have been limited to that select group, and innocent parties must not be harmed. (Basically, your secret is only as safe as the depth of the pockets you tell it too.)
2 surely does not apply to Linux - in any form.
Regarding end-users...
One affirmative defense against copyright infringement is a non-professional standing. The likes of Red Hat are EXPECTED to know the law, and the extent of their right to PROFIT from the reproduction of IP they know they don't own.
Mear mortals are held to a lower standard. We are not expected to have the resources to validate IP status of every item we encounter. We are allowed to rely, if in good faith, on a bonified professional's assertion of acceptablility implied by their production of copies.
So, if you modify Linux and give it to a friend (or a thousand) in good faith, and not as an ongoing concern where IP is central to your business, you're pretty much OK.
I think anyone who googles "lost touch with reality" and clicks "I Feel Lucky" should end up on the SCO page.
Hmmmmm, let's see. Microsoft has announced they want to get into the search engine business. Microsoft TRIES and fails to buy Google. Next step, Microsoft looks at competitors, and then hits Google with it's hammer...SCO.
Sorry, but the assurances of Darl and Microsoft that they aren't in this together are getting pretty lame. Does anti-trust by proxy violate their agreement with the feds? Seems to me Monoposoft has just found a new way of eliminating the next sexy part of the internet. They personally slayed Netscape. Now that they aren't allowed to do it mano-a-mano, they are going to try a new method. I'm taking bets now that the next M$ release has a built-in search engine on the desktop. Any takers?
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
If Microsoft wants to develop a Unix-like language, they have to use SCO? There are holes in that "promise."
There's nothing to stop them from buying another company with a Unix-like product.
"Ooops... it looks like we won't need to develop a Unix-like product with you."
In fact, I'd bet that Microsoft could develop Xenix 2.0, thumbing their nose at SCO. Any lawsuit by SCO might be dismissed due to SCO's shaky financial situation. Many contracts have stipulations that require demonstrable financial stability or the contract is void.
If SCO is on shaky ground, then MS might be off the hook. Financial "shakiness" is a matter of interpretation.
For that matter, SCO could sue MS and say that XP or Windows 2003 are "Unix-like.".
-- No sig for you!
Everyone is Microsoft's enemy.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Could they be any more stupid? I'd pick a nice Fortune 500 company with very few Linux installs. Settling would be tempting and cheap. SCO would have an easy victory and some much needed credibility. Google would be a terrible target because they wouldn't roll over for several reasons. First, Linux is central to their core business proposition. Second, they can evaluate for themselves the validity of SCO's claims. Third, they are no doubt very aware of the story so far (IBM counter suit, RedHat suit, the German ruling). And last, they will be familiar enough with IP law to know SCO has no legal basis for suing end-users for copyright infringement. And even if they did, until the IBM case is decided they can't prove infrigement at all.
I can see how such a move could be compelling to our stupid friends, however. Big well known company, high-profile Linux user, huge potential liability if SCO were able to claim punitive damages from end- users, vulnerable because IPO coming up and of course the impossibly fabulous power that would come from getting Google to knuckle under. Oh please, please. please sue Google. I think you'd see a counter suit that would make IBM's and RedHat's look like velvet by comparison.
That brings up the other point worth mentioning. If SCO actually sues someone, and that someone does not negotiate a settlement on the spot, this game will change dramatically in short order. RedHat's suit would no longer be theoretical. Their desire for an injunction would become urgent. And any other company that sells, supports or makes money in any way from Linux would also have a powerful motivation to seek their own unjunctions. If SCO sues, I think its quite likely that within 60 days of their filing, they will be on the receiving end of dozens of lawsuits. If any are successful, SCO would have to shut up for the duration of the IBM trial. Then the balance changes. SCO's interest would be in hurrying up the case, not dragging it out. That 2005 court date would all of a sudden seem a very, very long time away.
Microsoft recently had talks go sour with Google, regarding the Google IPO and licensing the search technology. Google essentially walked away from Microsoft, including possibly talks of an outright purchase - and instead went ahead with plans to let Wall Street make them rich.
Microsoft, left without a legit strategy for developing web searches, directs their puppet McBride to go after Google. McBribe is promised another % point or two to keep making warlike noises, and ratchet the rhetoric up.
Google is also an outspoken user of Linux, and would therefore have additional reason to piss the Redmond apes off.
I hate to fan the MS conspiracy flames, but it is getting coincidental how SCO goes after what could be construed as MS targets. That and the whole speculation about giving rebates to companies who switch to closed-source (read: MS), makes it suspicious.
Should be fun to watch.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
SCO would sue Google because Microsoft failed to purchase Google recently. SCO is just a covert cell of the Microsoft Legal-Marketing department.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
The more people, corps, organizations that they threaten, sue, or attack the sillier they look and the more likely they are to be dismissed by the media and the law.
No, people are just idiots. SCO has no case.
Yahoo Finance has a nice listing of all of the SCO insiders selling off their stock. Darl hasn't been selling, and the ones that are haven't sold enough to prove that this is a pump-and-dump. However, it does illustrate that no one at the company is showing any real confidence in their long-term financial health.
The widgetry, which is supposed to retrieve all kinds of file types, both structured and unstructured, and all kinds of storage systems, beginning with the user's own drive, will be integrated into its operating systems like the anticipated Longhorn.
Does anyone know where to find a list of "features" that will be incorporated into the wonderful Winblows Operating System? Wasn't the court settlement supposed to prevent MS from this kind of anticompetitive behavior? Is there someone that I can complain to? Before I get sick?
The Death Penalty: Killing people to show others that killing people is wrong.
Actually, I personally don't see them doing it. They've already sued one high-profile name, what's the point? They've got enough publicity already. It's the small "mom-and-pop" setups that are likelier to keel over and pay up - [1-5]*US$699 is more cough-up-able than for someone running a server farm the size of Google's. (It's a little like how they say, if a bank lends you $1, they own you, but if they lend you $1bn, you own the bank?)
Google's involvement with linux is so extensive it makes no sense for Google to just keel over and pay it - Google WILL fight (can you imagine the licensing cost for all those machines they have? UNLESS maybe SCO walks up to google and offers them a "cut rate" license fee ("for ONE dollar you'll be in the clear!!"), in which case if Google pays up, it'll be a major coup for SCO which they'll use against others. But in that case it makes sense for Google to say - "we'll pay AFTER you win against IBM" first.
Are there any actual lawyers here who can tell us if Google can ask for a stay in court proceedings, assuming SCO sues them, until after the outcome of the IBM lawsuit? They'd be relitigating the same case otherwise, no?)
If SCO wasn't thinking of suing Google before, then they're even stupider than I take them for, and that's pretty stupid to begin with.
Everyone who gave it two seconds thought had to suspect that Google would be on SCO's radar. I mean, c'mon... with a well-publicized render farm of over 6000 Linux PC's who would be a more public target than Google. Since we all know this is a stock scam at this point, SCO is best off going after one of the biggest targets they can find to hype up the the amount of money they'll have coming in, you know, someday when they've won all their lawsuits.
(OK, OK. I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, )
:)
nope.. that would be a pun...
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
SCO annouced SCO-L will be SCO legal representation. later that day SCO filed suit against SCO-L for software licsence violations. Both SCO and SCO-L filed for Chapter 11 bankrupcy. The legal firm of Dewey Cheatum and Howe are representing both SCO and SCO-L in banckrupcy proceedings.
Also if Google is doing an IPO there will be a quiet period where Google will be unable to issue press releases or otherwise counteract the SCO fud-storm.
--Rob
[H]ave you ever taken a look at the pile of shit we also call world that the omnipotent God, at least according to your scriptures, created?
"Free will. Ain't it a bitch?" -- John Milton, Devil's Advocate
It's not that God created a shit pile, it's just that he's let shit heads have at his Creation. Don't worry, though, he'll straighten everything out soon enough.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
I see it as a rather good thing. The more organizations SCO is tied up in lawsuits with, the more taxed their lawyers are, and the fewer the resources they'll have.
If I recall my middle school history class properly, that's how Napoleon failed. And I wouldn't count Dear Darl as intelligent as Napoleon.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
i just start using a wire cage that once belonged to my hamster as a hat, the perfect "one man Faraday cage".
Comeon get me you damn mind control overloards!!!
If SCO sends you an invoice via FedEx, reject it.
Force them to send it to you through US Postal Service. That way, than can be charged with mail fraud.
That's a good point. However, I was thinking the opposite: Frank Sorenson's analysis seems to show that SCO believes that SMP, JFS, RCU, and NUMA belong to them. One would imagine that by it's very nature, Google might possibly be making extensive use of SMP, RCU and NUMA, at least.
This isn't extortion yet.
Look at the argument
1) They assert that they have IP rights over Linux.
2) Given those asserted IP rights it would be criminal for Darl McBride not to take action against Linux users (because he has a duty to maximise profit). Clearly this duty only exists, however, if assertion 1) is reasonable.
However, so long as they include the IP assertion in every suit they file, they are effectively launching mini-I(C)BM suits at each company. That isn't extortion.
Clearly, if Darl McBride believes the assertion (i.e. believes Boies, one of the top lawyers in the country), he has the duty to sue.
Though in making Darl believe that assertion, Boies may be negligent himself. It's what they call a lawyer's feast.
Exercise your right not to vote. thinkoutside.org
My prediction for the next SCO target is "water".
"Everyone who gave it two seconds thought had to suspect that Google would be on SCO's radar."
You people sound like the Japanese farmers in The Seven Samurai Film. Radar? You want radar? Everybody even remotely vulnerable to this kind of extortion needs to get together and preemptively hit the bastards with such a barrage of lawsuits their heads will spin. "Licenses? We don't need no stinkin' licenses. You need a good corporate psychiatrist!" See what Wall Street thinks of them apples.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
(I should point out that I'm NOT supporting SCO by any means, just pointing out that they may have somehow convinced themselves that this is a case they can win)
Just disable topic "Caldera"
/. editors could upgrade that topic title to be "SCO"
FWIW,
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
Arent they supposed to release their derivative kernel back under the GPL?
You answered your own question right there. The majority of people here are interested in the developing SCO saga. That is, people who view this situation as you do are in the minority. And more than that, you even have the option to disable the Caldera topic, if that's what you want.
I mean, really, I also come here for nerdy news, not the whinings of morons like you. And which idiot wasted a mod point giving you an "insightful"? More like "-1, Whiner".
And here's your final clue for today : if you don't like it, stop reading it. Don't like me calling you a "whiner"? - then don't respond to my comment. It's amazing that someone with an id as low as yours has to have this pointed out.
If you'll recall from the Rambus fiasco, they signed settlements that actually had clauses ending the royalty payments if anyone successfully challenged the patent in court. A settlement means nothing more than "it would cost us more to fight this" and everyone knows it.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
What is that man, Darl McBride, doing to his anus???
This is a job for Crime Scene Investigation. Somebody send for Gil Grissom.
"If you study the ass-lips in the photograph closely, you can see that he's not just posing for holiday snaps. That's a surveillance camera aimed at that ruined sphincter. We had it installed around at Michael Jackson's place looking for kiddy stuff and then one day this guy shows up.
If you look carefully, you can see that the asshole is actually talking. I've recently completed an advanced course in ass-lip reading, to try and compensate for my congenital deafness, so I might be able to make this out for myself..."
"OK, here goes" (He turns on tape and starts speaking)
"This is Gil Grissom speaking, examining an image found on a SCO-owned website, concealed by an off-shore server and hosted at http:// goatse.cx. The image is reported as being a key clue into the conspiracy to extort several billion dollars from major US IT interests. According to my interpretation, this talking asshole is saying the following words. 'Linux contains our intellectual property. Pbrrrrphthhhssp. IBM owes us three billion dollars. Brrrrrrrrrrraasssp. Pass me the crack pipe, Boies, and then you can fist me once again. Brrirrrirrripppppth.'
Shaking her head in disbelief at this vile a conspiracy, suddenly Grissom's co-investigator, Sara Sidle spots something her chief had missed...
"It isn't just your hearing that's going, Grissom, it's your eyesight as well. Look closely. Right above the perinium. Can you see it? I believe that's the distinct mark of a nose-print. We'll have to wait until Greg gets the analysis back from Quantico to be absolutely certain, but I'd be happy to lay you twenty dollars that that pert little shit-streaked button belongs to Yankee Group 'anal-yst' Laura Dildo.
Grissom: "Well, it could be Didio, but on the other hand, it could be the nose of Rob 'Bell' Enderle. Have Greg break out the Mikrosil and take an impression of that ass-print so that we can match it up against a range of analysts noses. And tell him that while he's at it, bring out the Electronic Polymer Sensor Proboscis. I want him to run that against the noses of the various market analysts to make sure that the shit on the nose matches that of McBride's ass."
Sara Sidel: "And then bingo! We'll have nailed the bloodsucking bastards..."
Grissom: "Well, after looking at that gaping ringpiece, I'd say that he's been nailed once too often in the past. But you know what I always say about such matters..."
Sidel: "Yeah, the evidence speaks for itself..."
I agree. That's exactly what it means.
The SEC Complaint Center: http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml
Ask them why exactly they are allowing SCO to inflate their stock price by making phony charges against Linux users. This is no longer an annoyance. It is criminal activity and needs to be handled as such.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
It became the core practice of a huge number of lawyers, frankly -- mostly in the corporate law practice, but also in personal injury. Legal positioning has become part of the risk management strategies of most corporate business models now. Rarely is is the core of the business model, however (as appears to be the case with SCO).
Never at a loss for words... because of the voices.
Napolean sued too many Linux using companies? I thought he was the guy who started some war in France or something...Oh well. My brain is officially off for Thanksgiving break anyways.
-Lizard Man
^I'm with stupid.^
1) Frivolous lawsuit against IBM
2) Frivolous lawsuit against Novell
3) Frivolous lawsuit against Google
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
Well considering all the suits that are going to and from SCO, anyone with a clue would request an immediate injunction until the the issues that they were being sued over were resolved in court.
Seems like SCO announcing they are going to sue anyone else while all the other crap is up in the air is merely part of the pump and dump scheme.
Or better yet, while Darl's smoking his crack pipe and hallucinating, whisper into his ear that suing the Church of Scientology would be a an open-and-shut legal case.
I sincerely hope that SCO would go for a maneuver like this. Think how many people see the google front page each day, if there was a link about how they were being sued by this moronic company, and link to information proving it's illegitimacy, the game would be over for SCO. Perhaps even replace the inevitable Turkey picture we'll be seeing that links to information about Thanksgiving with an image that has anti SCO circles taking the place of the usual OO's in Google.
You're just mad because the voices in your head talk to me.
Take a quick poke through all the companies they've threatened officially or inofficially in various press releases, press leaks, SCO insiders and whatnot. Who have they sued? NOBODY. Except IBM, over some contract. That's it. Red Hat has countersued, SuSe and more have gag orders in effect, what has SCO done? SCO has not filed one single IP suit, no matter how you define IP, be it copyright, trademark, patent or otherwise. They only threaten to do so without actually doing it.
This is yet another stock inflation tactic. They aren't going to sue Google, or a "unspecified Fortune 500" or Linux endusers or anything at all. They only pretend to, and then pull out another rabbit out of their hat. Like some new licence issue (BSD), subpoenaing Linux "celebrities" or a IBM poke shot or similar. They're quite skilled illusionists, if you fail to see the big picture.
Because nobody seems to be asking the question: What happened to all those claims you made last week? Oh, they're still just claims. You haven't made any action whatsoever to follow up on those claims. If you're slow on the take, you might think that these are now actually being handled, and that these are more and more valid claims SCO is pulling out of their ass. I just hope the courts will bitchslap them swiftly, once it gets that far...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Everytime I try to google for information about SCO investor data, I just get a bunch of links to this site. Obviously some techical problem...
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
"God invented SCO to give people a company to hate more than Microsoft"
I'd rather say : Microsoft invented SCO so people would not place MS as the topmost hated companies
...that this is the first planned and executed suicide of a software company apart from the .com era...
Well that's probably what they hope anyway :-).
Engineering is the art of compromise.
that SCO (Microsoft's Bitch) would target yet another company that competes in an area that Microsoft has decided to control.
Expect more "licensing payments" from Microsoft to SCO soon.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
A pun is the lowest form of wit only because sarcasm is not witty.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Apple are using a bsd core for OS X, not linux. Thus they are safe.
Bill gates of course would never ever lie. He is a man of impeccable ethics and morals.
War is necrophilia.
sarcasm is not witty
Particularly when you're the butt of it...
Good start slashdot!
It makes sense to report on this; it shows where SCO's PR efforts are heading.
But why do people seem to be seriously considering the possibility that SCO might sue google?
Pay attention to what's been happening since January, and you'll notice a pattern. Over, and over, and over, SCO says they're going to sue someone. They threaten lawsuits, say they have plans for lawsuits, announce a new lawsuit target every week. But they never sue anyone. They still haven't sued anyone except IBM, and the IBM suit concerns NOTHING but a contractual dispute between SCO and IBM.
If SCO says they're going to sue someone, that does not in the tinest way indicate they are going to sue that person. It's all just making noise to keep the press spotlight on them.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Of all the companies that SCO could go after Google does not appear to be a good choice money wise. Google isn't that big of a company. They are a high profile company though. This would support the theory that SCO doesn't care if it wins but how much exposure they get. Exposeure can bump of the stock price for all the executive offers owning stock.
Sue Companies Often
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Apple are using a bsd core for OS X, not linux. Thus they are safe.
And I thought BSD was next. Silly me.
God forbid, but what would happen if they had Slashdot in their sights. Nobody thought of that... did they ?
nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Apple is exactly where Microsoft wants them: They are contained. They are in a niche market with clearly defined bounds (the "higher end" end user) and they show no indication that they have any path whatsoever from there to touching Microsoft's core target market (the person who just wants 'a cheap PC', the business market). Microsoft is not concerned with contained threats. This is why MS has been pretty much ignoring Mac OS X, but they're jockeying violently against the iTunes Music Store.
Google is very very much an unknown, uncontained threat. They have a lot of leverage, they have energy, mindshare, and are actively expanding, and worst of all, Microsoft has no way to control them in any way. If Google decides they want to put up a link on their front page that says "hey, if you click here, it will install Quicktime and play the Return of the King trailer", there will be a whole lot of people installing Quicktime that day.
Worse, google is actively moving in ways that indicate direct potential threats to things Microsoft cares about. It's only a tiny step from the Google Toolbar to the Google Webbrowser. It's not much of a step at all for Google News to expand into something that could dwarf MSN.
Remember how much effort and money MS put into knocking tiny little Netscape out of the market, even though they got nothing in return? Microsoft cares deeply about potential threats. And potentially, Google can be very scary to Microsoft.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Windows is secure.
Don't believe everything you hear.
Once again, we have evidence of what is wrong with America.
Whoever wins this, however they win it, who do you think will be the real winners? The lawyers!
There are too many lawyers and too much law in America, not enough justice!
"They didn't actually sue anybody except IBM"
Uhmm. Its not actually "over" yet. Plus, they have supenaed Transmeta, and Linus. Never said they were going to sue them.
This story just broke today and you're going to go on record as saying that they *didn't* sue Google?!? If you are in fact a time traveler from the future, Please stay the heck away from my grandson's grandfather.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
to not be in the runnings for the most hated company like microsoft. but to also destroy their future. SCO will not survive these rounds of attack and law suits. they are amounting a nice army of enemies. besides, their method of requiring paying without proof certainly looks like extortion to me. hopefully the government and other law makers see it that way. .v
my sig: you are too lame to read it.
The next Stella award could be given to these jackholes.
This sig no verb.
Suing Google first is illogical (even in terms of existing SCO "logic"). With upwards of 10,000 servers, at 699$ a pop, Google has an obvious incentive to fight it in court. If SCO wanted to start sueing over liscences, they would start with someone who would only owe a few thousand, and claim the result as a precident before going after a bigger firm. Even if SCO was more interested in damaging Google's reputation or profitability than actually taking it to court and winning, they would still go for a quick, easy win on a small case if only to make their complaint more believable. No matter how crazy or not SCO's actions may seem, this leaves only two possibilities.
1. SCO has no intention of actually sueing anyone else. They have a plan that involves skirting the law, but not technically crossing the line. They are sticking to that plan and not getting drawn "offsides". This plan has (or had) a good chance of making the SCO execs money, even if it ruins the company. It has (or had) a good chance that legal penalties will be avoidable or worth it from the point of view of the initiators, even if legal penalties are possibly savage on some of the followers. It may go wrong, and stick everyone involved in prison, but the odds look acceptable or better (or they looked that way when the plan began). Simply, isn't a crazy plan even if it sometimes looks so from our outsiders perspectives.
2. SCO is nuts. They are so nuts that they are going to deliberately avoid taking an easy action that would greatly improve their chances of overall success. They have no rational goals at all, just totally delusional ones. Somehow, a hundred or so people have built this totally delusional structure and are getting by with it for at least a few more months before it all comes crashing down.
This makes a great test. IF SCO actually sues Google without going after a precident first, then #2, else #1. Matters have progressed to where we can stop considering #3 (SCO is just a little bit nuts - they started with a rational plan, but when it didn't work, they hung in there way too long instead of cutting their losses). I'm betting that SCO won't just suddenly announce a suit against Google, and in time this alone will prove #1 is true.
Who is John Cabal?
If you really believe SCO valuation is too high and based on wrong facts and a strategy that is bound to fail, I guess it is time to short the stock...
:-)
(That's how you make money on a decline in price...... you borrow X units of stock with an agreement to return X units of stock... if they go down in value, you profit from the loss in value... and if they go up, you lose.)
I'm not an investor... but for all you folks who REALLY believe that this isn't going to work because SCO is wrong on the facts.... well, here's a great way to make a tidy profit!
Of course "wrong on the facts" doesn't mean that SCO is going to lose... this is a bet on what will happen, not who is right and who is wrong.
Keep suing people till someone decides to buy them and put them out of our misery?? If IBM won't buy, I bet google will fight them in court as well. Most of these companies have the cash for along fight, SCO doesn't. This may be the last great surge before the bow of the SCO ship sinks forever under the waters of bankruptcy, or at least we can hope.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
> The readers are not guilty of copyright infringement since copyright does not prohibit the reading or possession of materials copied or distributed in an infringing manner.
Actually, readers are not guilty becuse they are allowed to rely, in good faith, on the assumption the newspaper is not a criminal.
Copyright does prohibit aquisition, and thus possesion, of materials in which you have reason, or should have reason, to know infringes. You cannot knowingly play ANY part in an infringement.
Try this...
Possesion and use of money is not illegal but robbing a bank is. If you get caught robbing the bank, you go to jail. If you are in possesion of the money that came from the bank, you go to jail - maybe.
If you should have known the money came from a robbery - you go to jail too.
If you are an ordinary joe, cashed your paycheck at the bank, and someone happens to match a serial number, you don't go to jail.
Play all the intellectual games you want. Infringement is a criminal issue, and everyone involved, with unclean hands, is subject to some serious legal abuse.
Sounds like Daryl and Co. are marching head on into a buzzsaw.
So far they didn't sue anybody for using Linux, they only sued IBM for IP-infringement.
Correction : They sued IBM for contract violations.
You're such a whiny bitch...
To get a preliminary injunction there are four requirements:
* "clean hands" (because a preliminary injunction is an equitable remedy, and you cannot come to equity if you yourself have not acted fairly in the situation)
* Show that you are reasonably likely to win the case
* Show that you are bound to suffer irreparable harm, which outweighs the harm inflicted upon the defendant by an injunction
* Show that an injunction is in the public interest.
The clean hands issue probably shouldn't be asked on Slashdot... though it would probably go in SCO's favor, because SCO and Google have had no prior relationship that I know of. However, one might argue that SCO has unclean hands because it is violating the copyrights of Linux developers (by claiming proprietary interest in GPLed software).
But SCO cannot show that it is likely to win unless it can show that Google is using a version of Linux that contains SCO code.
Unlike Napster (the old version), Google isn't causing widespread copyright infringement. Even if SCO is right that Google is in violation of SCO copyrights, allowing Google to continue operating until SCO has proved its case would not damage SCO. On the other hand, it would cause severe damage to Google if SCO were to get an injunction.
The public interest question is obvious. I would guess that 90% of judges have used Google before. It is the only worthwhile search engine on the net today.
SCO ain't gettin' no preliminary injunction.
Regarding the barratry question, I don't believe there is any rule that once you threaten suit you must follow through. If you have no intention to sue when you make the threat, and you do it in order to induce a settlement, you could be guilty of fraud.
Rule 11 (the Federal rule that prohibits filings made to harass) only applies when something is actually filed with a court. It wouldn't have any sway on statements made out of court.
Jeez,
Y'know, I really dislike Microsoft. I mean, _really_ dislike. But sometimes you have to admire how smart they are...
Linux is doing well - encroaching on Balmer's own 'my precious'. What's the Dark Lord done in the past? "Buy them and sink them!". AARGHH, can't do that here. Right, what do we do? Aha, the SCOrks - the perfect solution. Snivelling, pathetic, low life failures; set them up to do the dirty work. OK, that's going well - lots of FUD and chief ork McBride's taking all the flack. Back to the dark tower to continue the quest.
What's next? Ah yes, the next great phase in the plan for total domination - the Winternet. Hmm, nasty Google upstarts are doing better than our own little number. But they're a company - ha ha! Let's buy em. WHHAAT? How dare they reject the Dark Lord's advances. Right, deal with them, but how?
Ahh, the trusty SCOrks. Let them deal with the obstinate upstarts. Fits nicely into the battle plan we commanded them to follow anyway. And all the time, everyone says "the SCOrks are bad! Booo! Down with the SCOrcs! And none of the fools realises the SCOrks are simply my entirely expendable pawns. "Sometimes, my dark genius impresses even me!"
Given SCO's history of straight-shooting legal maneuvers, I'm thinking that in their sights, might be one of the safest locations on this planet. (expensive, but safe).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Do you realize that Google today is the foremost source of information for largest part of the industrialized world?
Just imagine Google having an editorial "Special" on Linux on their startpage - in all languages of the world.
Microsoft's worst nightmare coming true. Thank you, SCO.
Isn't there any way to sue yourself for IP-infridgement? Not necassary on SCOs behalf, but you get the picture.
Just get the case done, and out of here you know... I know it probably can't be done, but I'm just dreaming here.
Only next, SCO might be suing me for ruining their frivilious lawsuit :)
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
So that would be a Buttcasm?
Insert obligatory goatse link here...
Only then do I think I can pound some sense into all this futile litigation.
And yes, I post AC in the fervent hope that if I do get the honor of ramming SCO, this post won't come back to haunt me.
Google is the perfect candidate to sue. They aren't using a Red Hat kernel -- that would get their suit consolidated with Red Hat's in DE in a second. They are probably using several of the technologies that SCO is targeting.
Plus they are their own distributor. They take the kernel.org source, mix in their own custom patches and compile a kernel and distribute it among lots of machines. There's no Red Hat or Suse or Debian that they can point their finger at.
In another sense, this plays into SCO's FUD machine. Google is not a typical "end-user". Google has a potential liability precisely because they modify and copy the kernel. A company which pays Red Hat a per CPU fee for Linux and support and uses the RH supplied binary kernels does not have the same kind of potential liability. In that case, SCO's claim is only against Red Hat and not a true end-user.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Isn't the US govt (esp. the military) a bigger user than google?
It is interesting that SCO's latest target is always whoever tops Microsoft's enemies list.
SCO is nothing more than Microsoft's attack dog.
Is there anyway this could have legal reprocusions for Microsoft or are they insulated?
This is all speculation until such a suit is filed, though.
Speculation on Slashdot? Say it aint so!
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
SCO takes charge to pay lawyers
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
If it is true, then it really makes one ponder
the recent "attempt" to purchase Google by
Microsoft as well as the money that was given
SCO as "licensing" fees from the same.
All this is speculation and conjecture of course
but we do love conspiracy theories here at
It's a fucking joke.
dave --> tech stuff
render farm of over 6000 Linux PC's
I didn't realize Google was doing 3-D graphics.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Slashdot is a corporate-owned website in the business of generating page hits for banner ads and subscriptions.
This is a long shot by far, but, hey, this is Salshdot.
1) SCO sues Google.
2) SCO gets a preliminary injuction against Google.
3) Google replaces their search engine page with links describing the stupidity of the case.
What kind of impact do you think that would have on SCO investors?
the_crowbar
Have you read the Moderator Guidelines
According to Bill Gates, as reported in USA Today, Microsoft was never in talks with Google about an acquisition.
And there are no US troops in Baghdad.
D'oh. Should be "server farm". Although, to get linguistic, one could use "render" in the sense of rendering responses to queries, rather than just the specialized technical sense of rendering images.
Well, they gotta make those special logos for holidays and such don't they?
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1398341,00.as p
Note: Blake Stowell doesn't say they won't sue Google, just that they haven't decided on a target yet. He does admit that Google is one of the Fortune 1000 they sent letters to.
This is, of course, just another way for SCO to pump up the stock action. Not really denying the story spreads the rumor, without courting the kind of suit Red Hat slapped them with.
And to all you conspiracy theorists, I'll just say that everyone knows there's absolutely no link between SCO and Microsoft.
SCO Denies Rumor that Google is Next Legal Target
I refuse to pay my SCO tax.
best defense:
We will see you in court!
Remember recently Google scoffed at microsoft purchase rumours. Next SCO, funded by Microsoft, goes after Google for this license bullshit.
Probably nothing there but, we're all paranoid, so why not mention it anyway.
That'll be because SCO is using the untrained variety
If this is true (about Google rm'ing parts of the kernel source they don't use), then are they still really using Linux? How much of the linux kernel do you have to change/erase before it isn't linux anymore?
The worst part is that unlike IBM, Google may not have the vast army of lawyers to devote to their defense. Now they're not poor, and they do have lawyers, but nothing like the fancy-pants ones that IBM has on tap.
I can't find a link to the source article anymore, but Google's general outside counsel is Wilson Sonsini in Silicon Valley, considered the top tech law firm and generally one of the top corporate law firms in the country; Google also uses some of the top IP firms in the country for some of their IP needs. Wilson Sonsini or any of the IP firms they use are easily as "fancy-pants" as IBM's lawyers, and definitely can handle anything thrown their way.
and whenever anything bad happens to them, it must be traced to someone else,
...and...
Except they're ruining mine along with it.
Yes, one could use "render" in that sense, but far too many people try to recover from such linguistic blunders by using flimsy logic and by referring to seldom-used definitions. Best to let it be.
My guess is that SCO is Microsoft's hit man...
My prediction from one week ago: I predict that they will choose Google as the recipient of the first suit. Once they have crushed them then Microsoft will step in and pick up the pieces of Google which they were after in the first place.
1) M$ Tries to buy Google to increase market share for IIS
2) Google tells M$ where to shove it
3) M$ gets pissed off and sicks their little lapdog, SCO, on Google
4) ???
5) Profit!
Hitler also denied that Germany had any aggressive aspirations against the rest of Europe.... that is, until the morning they invaded Poland...
Shorting a stock is very risky business. There is no limit to the amount of money you can lose when shorting a stock, however, there IS a limited amount of money you can gain. Think about that before you short the stock. Remember, there are 300,000,000 people in the US, of which about 280,000,000 are completely stupid and are willing to put their money into SCO.
I am not a financial advisor and nothing herein shall be construed as advice, an offer, contract, or any other type of useful information.
isn't it odd that sco would target companies capable of clobbering them with legal resources? sort of contrary to the usual attempts at establishing precedence, don't you think? perhaps they are just looking for a purchase since ibm most definitely is not caving. the clock is ticking! somebody has to buy before the cards are layed down! jokers. damn it!
It is a FELONY in the United States to send an incorrect or fraudlent invoice in the mail knowningly. If SCO so much as mails a notice requesting ONE PENNY from Google, et al, then the United States Postal Inspectors can get involved. And since SCO has the burden of proof, then SCO will have to prove to the Postal Inspectors in court that there is copyright infringment and Google owes SCO. Further, if SCO is killed in the law suit and found to have violated the GPL knowingly it is further proof for felony convictions.
Now wouldn't that be a great reputation for the Post Office -- the FBI could not get Al Copone, but the IRS could, the FBI did not go after SCO, but the Post Office did....
If you have recieved an invoice or a letter from SCO via snail mail you can report it to the USPS HERE. Then you can scroll down to subject of complain and select "False bill or invoice."
Rember, sometimes unorthidox means need to be used to take out the bad guys. What does the Postal Service have to loose by taking out SCO?
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
Didn't SCO say previously only Fortune 1000 companies could obtain a "license"?
The story seems to say they're going to sue someone who did not purchase their license....If so, how could this be google? They are not on any Fortune 1000 lists that I can find.
I'm on the SCO bandwagon.
Gonna give them a call at 800-726-8649 and ask to buy my Linux License.
I figure i'll need like 7 considering my Tivo, My PDA, my ps2, my xbox and my 3 computers all run linux. I'm just hoping that since my computers run cups and ssh they don't charge me like i'm a server.
god send them?
no, this is an marketing idea of microsoft.
how to get an better image?
throwing in a company, which people will hate more than ms.
greez
If you owe the bank $100,000 ( not $1 ) you've got a
problem.
If you owe the bank $1 billion, the bank has the problem.
Owing anyone $1 is not usually a problem unless you are in 2nd grade.
OK, I know this is getting somewhat off-topic, but if you enjoy reading about STUPID lawsuits, check out this.
IANAL. But.... SCO has to show reason why they are legally entitled to sue Google before they can hope to succeed in such a suit. Google will easily get any such court cased tossed on that basis. All they have to do is argue that they are end users, and that thus, there is no good reason to sue them as SCO has not established legally that they have any rights at all to the kernal or other parts of Linux.
And that thus, the case should be tossed until SCO has so established that fact. Which cannot be established suing Google who is a mere user and has no responsibility for Linux, the kernal or any parts of Linux that SCO has been publically complaining about. No judge not on crack would dare allow such a suit to proceed. They'd be told, come back when you have established you have any right to demand anything from Linux end users, much less sue them. Legally speaking, until SCO establishes they have any rights to the kernal or any major part of Linux, this suit would have no chance of succeeding before a jury, grounds to toss this suit quickly and succinctly. Its a truely stupid suit. I would not be surprised to see the SCO lawyers sanctioned for daring to try such a shyster type move. And often in such a case, a judge would frown on goofballs that do not establish contact with the people they wish to sue and try to solve their problems there first. If SCO had a right to demand money from Google, they should at least send a bill first and try to get paid like any normal license holder. Then sue if they have a right to demand money and do not receive it, as I point out, not established yet. This might make a judge unhappy with luck.
Sometimes, judges faced with several seperate similar suits mike combine suits.
Doubt Google would be tossed in with IBM though. Its not similar really.
"How much might SCO try to extort from a linux user that doesn't use the feature under litigation?"
Of course they're using such a feature. Which feature you ask? Sorry, that can't be revealed, trade secret and all that.
It's nothing new in their 'strategy' if they sue Google.
It's just their evil plan B . Another lawsuit for <pinky to mouth>one billion dollars</pinky to mouth>.
So IBM didn't fall for it, and didn't buy the remains of SCO for enough money to make McBride, Noorda, Canopy and the rest of the gang rich from their SCOX stock sales. Now they will try to intimidate somebody else with lawyers.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
well, what can be said? .. Seems the perfect free OS is getting an anal ramming. I say, the linux users deserve to pay .. (for once).
Google turns down MS and gets FUDded by SCO?
Is it just me or does there seem to be a pretty strong coincidence to me that google first refuses to sell out to microsoft and now, a week later, sco is going after them. Perhaps Microsoft made some sort of a deal with SCO and is now going to "come clean" in order to get google... google is worth a lot of money, and if they can control google, they control a big time search engine. After all, webster tried to insert the term "googling" a couple of years back. If SCO wins, google starts to go under and off it goes to microsoft. If SCO loses, google owes their survival to microsoft for proving that the technology is stolen. Either way, google is behest to microsoft...
The Anonymous Coward
1) Anyone with a brain knows MS is funding SCO
2) Google says to MS "Keep your stinking money"
3) SCO is going to slap Google now?
4) Hello Mcfly!
Will SCO sue me for DMCA violation, claiming my mare's DNA contains their copyrighted code?
SCO Chief Sues Hospital (C|Net)
SCO CEO Daryl McBride added Our Lady's Hospital of the Imaculate Inspection to the long list of littigants in SCO's ongoing littigation aggainst Linux users.
McBride was taken to the hospital after sustaining injuries while attempting to serve a writ on the penguin enclosure at the Bronx zoo.
While receiving emergency care Mr McBride noticed that the life support machine being used by the hospital was running the Linux operating system. "Its incredible", McBride exclaimed to a C}Net correspondent, "these people think they have the right to save lives using stolen software".
McBride was not available for further comment after falling into a coma. However his lawyers issued a statement confirming that an injunction had been obtained requiring the hospital to immediately cease use of the machines in question and that it would be served "as a matter of utmost urgency".
It is not known at this time how the elephant came to be in the penguin enclosure.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Akamai runs their 13,000+ node network on Linux as well... seems like an obvious target.
They'll sue some Canopy lackey that will rollover
and play dead for them.
This whole drawn-out drama is pure FUD, and nothing but FUD, from the latest of Microsoft's minions. Call it a delaying tactic, a rearguard action, a smokescreen, call it what you will. As long they can keep you stirred up about this, they are achieving their goal. Which is, *anything* to slow the growing tide of disgusted people breaking away from MS and moving toward independence.
SCO knows they can't win in court - it's public perceptions they're playing to.
So simply ignore it, stay focused, and move toward independence anyway. Speak the truth quietly, and move on. Move toward Linux, or move toward Unix, or (even nicer) move toward OS X. Move toward open file formats and cooperative networking standards. Move toward a community of equals and a marketplace of open and honest competition. Well, OK, at least toward a level playing field.
Darl Mcbride is merely the current paymaster and PR man for the current set of lawyers. Simply ignore him, and them. IBM will demolish them soon. MS will just have to bring another FUDbuddy in from the bullpen that much sooner..
Actually, both SCOX and M$ need to shut down
Google; M$ needs to shut down Google to prevent
discovery of company e-mails that can be used
against it in the 2005 to 2010 time period,
where as SCOX needs to shut down Google quickly
to limit "discovery" evidence in the ongoing
pretrial hearings. Also, both Bill and Darl
need to shut down Google in order that their
college sexual conquests (Male) never get out
of the closets and force them out of their
perfered closet.
What a taudry affair it is.
Toodles
SCOX is Hard To Borrow (unshortable) on Ameritrade as well as E*Trade.
The SEC does not require brokerages to loan shares for short sale, even if there is supply availible. During the 03/2000 crash many scam companies were HTB. Perhaps the brokerage was doing a bit of proprietary trading of its own, shorting stock owned by its customers and thus eliminating supply for any customer shorts. Or maybe they were postponing retail shorting until they and all their friends closed long positions. Both acts are technically "legal".
Remember: retail investors are at the bottom of the food chain. Wall St is a rigged game and the boys in control do not lose.
If by "God" they mean "Bill Gates", then yes, I agree. Nobody benefits from this more than Microsoft.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I'm not sure which is a scarier adversary.
The U.S. Govt and all their weapons or IBM's man-eating lawyers.
They sure know how to pick 'em though...
Are you an open source warrior?
... I'm sure it is risky... I don't do anything more risk than mutual funds... but I believe that in shorting you can't lose more than the stock can gain in value, so there is a reasonable limit, unless you think the upside potential is "infinite", which even for SCO seems unlikely.
I'm not a financial advisor but I urge you to follow my advice exactly and invest lots of money based on what I say...
That's interesting. Thanks.
been to www.SCO.com
... ... ... ... ... ... ..." ..."
...
w ww.suse.deo soft.com
:))
this came to my attention:
will be there
coming soon
forum
newsletter
partner
solution
"In less than a month, SCO will announce..."
"Here at SCO we are pleased to report that
the response to the new SCOx partner program
"Our goal at SCO is to provide more
and more opportunities for our partners
no acctual product?
da whole thing looks like one big
snowball
read around a bit then go here:
www.madrake.com
-and-
www.redhat.com
-and-
-and-
www.apple.com
-and-
www.micr
if you have one of doese high-res
screens you might want to
tile da windows for easier
comparasion...
notice a difference?
SCO promised invoices and hasn't delivered. Why will these litigation threats be different? The most important thing to note is that SCO had to get a denial out quick since they claim in court filings to have no controversy with Red Hat. Google is a Red Hat Case Study.
Google has many means of striking back:
Attacking Google is like attacking the Press. It is always a mistake. But Google is more powerful than the Press (at least as long as they are the favorite search engine)! Their results are considered authoritative by most casual surfers, and CEOs, investors and the Press surf the web too.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
on the cover it could have the punisher shoving the barrell of a m16 down darl's mouth.
didnt the punisher do a comic on insider trading?
Who does Microsoft want SCO to sue today?
Whoever they are, they'll be next...
Well, since all of SCO's claims are false anyway, the truth is no one on the planet are using the features under litigation. So, from that, one can conclude Google is as good of a target as anyone else.
I can't afford a sig!
People seem to forget that Microsoft is bankrolling this who FUD campaign.
But Officer, I DID read the f**king article!
to the retard AC who called it a fuckng joke:
it's fucking flaimbait.
WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
... the guy is nothing but a criminal!
Apple are using a bsd core for OS X, not linux. Thus they are safe.
Check netcraft before you post. They run Linux.
Did Glenn Beck rape and kill a girl in 1990? gb1990.com
Netcraft shows Apple running MacOSX and an unknown, both with Apache as the Web server. The link provided is for what Google runs.
Should there be a Law?
As a major invester in HP Deutch Bank was also backing the merger of Compaq and HP.
Should there be a Law?
actually DMAC got rid of Fair Use for digital media.
Should there be a Law?