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.
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!
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.
"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. "
I disagree. If Slashdot and other sites weren't openly critical of SCO, there would still be a number of 'analysts' like Rob Enderle who continue to spin SCO's BS into gold.
This issue won't die as long as Microsoft and Sun are paying millions of dollars for...um..."licenses."
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.
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
"Not if we can slashdot the hell out of those sites!..."
Why do you guys always think small potatoes?
"The idea behind the suit is obviously to make all major Linux users tractable and make them reach for their checkbooks."
Absolutely. Everybody on that short list and everyone else within range of these cretins should get together, pull out their checkbooks, and sue the bejesus out of SCO. Charge them with extortion and anything else their smartest lawyers can think of. SCO wants to live by lawsuits, let them die by lawsuits. What do you think the Wall Street analysts will think when they find out a hundred companies big and small have gotten together and started the process toward nailing these bastards to the wall? Can you say "penny stock"? Can you say "dead on arrival"?
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
SCO isn't getting anywhere with geeks in basements and isn't trying to.
I don't believe I suggested they were. Quite the contrary, in fact. It was you suggesting that they were taking Groklaw seriously. Personally, I think that the only way they take it seriously is as a threat to their FUD.
The problem is that both those media outlets and stupid investors come to Slashdot, see all the hysteria being kicked up every day (remember, they don't realize that all those screeching posters are 14 year old Windows users, not Linux insiders) and figure that there must be something plausible underlying all that fuss.
I don't believe those people come to Slashdot and read the comments. They'd have to be as retarded as we are. Seriously, they just don't have the time. If they do read Slashdot, then they'd come read the top stories as a pointer to breaking news from the other media, but I really don't believe serious journalists/analysts/investors spend time wading through tripe about Natalie Portman and Hot grits in an attempt to get at the few insightful nuggets that you get here. It's a very poor use of their valuable time.
I guarantee Slashdot is increasing SCO's credibility in the rest of the media, not diminishing it.
And you guarantee this based upon what? As someone who spent a few years working as a freelance journalist, and who still has friends working in the media, I can guarantee that no journalist that I've ever met would even bother to read more than the first half dozen comments that you get here, before then dismissing it as meaningless tripe and a waste of their time.
If you were a specialist IT reporter and were researching the story and you read the Slashdot comments for anything, it would be in the hopes of identifying someone who wasn't an Anonymous Coward who has insightful views and expertise in a related area and so might give you a quote (though you'd have to have a lot of time on your hands because there are far, far easier ways of doing that), or possibly to get some sense of what the unwashed Linux-using masses were saying/thinking about the issue. Although it doesn't seem that way sometimes, most people who are intelligent enough to sustain a career in the media - a highly competitive field -- tend to be pretty good at evaluating evidence and I can't think of anything that would come lower on their agenda than a bunch of Anonymous Coward posts to Slashdot.
At any rate, you don't see other CEOs publically slugging it out with unknown web sites, do you? McBride issues those statements for one reason: to yank the Linux crowd's chain and generate more publicity and FUD.
OK, I see what you're saying, but I believe that he's less interested in yanking the Linux crowd's chain, than he is in generating the publicity, because it's the publicity that results in the rise in the stock price -- which is his real goal. I think the chain yanking is an accidental spin-off that I'm sure he finds entertaining, because he's clearly an aggressive, competitive guy who is waging a war for public opinion.
But if Linux advocates were to simply ignore these statements, he'd be turning around to the media saying 'Look, I'm right. That lot haven't got any arguments to counter our claims.' As it is though, his claims are widely reported in the Linux press in order to allow people to make some contribution to contesting the FUD.
I do take your point about the way Slashdot tends to be something of a rumour mill though, reporting vague opinion and speculation. I much prefer to read Groklaw for my SCO news, partly because the coverage there is much more detailed and substantive, but mostly because the quality of discussion there is so much higher.
Finally, I accept that you weren't trolling, but I still think you're dead wrong about this.