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.
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!
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?
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.
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?
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.
This isn't so far fetched... Remember that Microsoft made a sizeable investment in SCO a little while back. With a server farm the size of Google's, this could cause considerable harm to their operations. Consider what an injuction against Google during litigation might do. If they can't use their servers, they're out of business.
My question is this, tho: Whatever happened to barratry? In particular, what of the laws regarding making threat of litigation and not following through?
I think Google should call their bluff and get this taken care of once and for all. However, the threat of a lawsuit, and even filing one, is not much to get concerned over. Google probably gets threats all of the time (see: Scientology and Xenu).
Now, a verdict, on the other hand....
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
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.
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.
It is actually a supply and demand problem, law schools make money so we have lots of law schools and then we get to many lawyers and they end up trying to find targets to attack. It would be better if many of these lawyers just entered the business world as MBA armed with +3 vorpal law degrees. Most serious companies come to understand that courts are a last resort and not a biz strategy.
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I think this case is a perfect example of the mindset. (which, thankfully, was tossed out of court by the judge)
And yes, I AM an American, and this behavior just sickens me. It never seems to dawn on these people that they're making their own lives miserable through this behavior. Except they're ruining mine along with it.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
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
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 ?
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.
SCO is violating the law if, and only if, their claim against IBM is bogus. Therefore, the SEC would wait until after the IBM suit is decided.
If the court throws the case out (for example, if SCO fails to comply satisfactoraly with the motion to compel discovery), the SEC would move in.
If SCO does indeed own much of Linux, what they're doing is not extorsion. The SEC cannot rule on this - that's the court's job. Once that's done, it's SEC's job to prosecure the fraudsters.
So the SEC will act, eventually. Don't hold your breath, folks.