Slashdot Mirror
Did SCO Actually Buy What it Thought?
Int27h quotes The Age saying "Just before Christmas last year, Novell announced publicly that SCO had known for some time that it did not receive all rights and ownership to UNIX technologies, despite public statements to the contrary. Novell has made public correspondence between lawyers representing both Novell and SCO." Lots of links and commentary on what continues to be one of the strangest stories in the history of Linux.
I mean, other than the dolts that may actually be paying the licensing fees. But, I don't see any steep declines in RedHat, Suse, or Mandrake sales. People don't believe these guys and it will be a matter of time no before the press quits attending Darl and Co.'s press/phone conferences
Where this story was posted yesterday, of course.
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain
And of course Groklaw has had the full analysis for a while now, including the fact that SCOs filings missed mentioning this dispute, even going so far as to deny there was any ongoing dispute with third parties over Copyright...some pants combusting rather brightly over in Salt Lake City.
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
But SCO must know that they bought the farm. On this we can agree.
So if they knew, or should have known, that their rights were not as expansive as they represented, and they knowingly misrepresented the scale of those rights to the persons they offered licenses, and those persons bought those licenses based on those misrepresentations.....sounds like a big fat old prima facie fraud case to me.
SCO Group (NASDAQ SC:SCOX)
17.05 -0.95 / -5.28%
Casual Games/Downloads
SCO has gone to far now to simply back off, or admit they were wrong. They have invested their whole business in this, and have no option but to go forward and proceed with litigation. If they back of now they loose face and the business will probably crash. If they loose in court, they have the same situation, except they lost alot of money on lawyers instead.
:S
HOWEVER, if they win in the quirky US legal system, who knows. They might make alot of money, and keep on putting out super duper products
Novell's sudden assertion of their ownership of UNIX copyrights seemed to derail the SCO case in its early stages; it's nice to see that their explanation of this provides yet another nail in SCO's coffin. Way to go, Novell.
Let's just hope that they remain Linux-friendly.
SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
I don't think they thought they would be buying the World of Pain they are walking into...
Legal writing though very explicit and written typically in cover-all-bases fashion, is way too complicated to be understood by us mere mortals. (lawyers are not mortals, they are the undead). And SCO's boat was already sinking when they supposedly bought these rights, So the competency of their legal department is highly questionable. I bet they had some pro-bono lawyer working on this.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
I'd like to believe that SCO didn't exactly know what they were buying.
This would still leave me with some faith in major software corporations, whereas the view of SCO knowing what they were buying and subsequently stirring up all this crap makes me want to wince.
Then again, on second thought, why would I want to have faith in a company that can't read the fine writing? They try to get my to sign my life away each EULA I click by hiding things in the fine writing.
It's like trying to barrack for a winner between Carrot Top and Rosanne Barr. Oh the humanity!
Effectively, SCO is maintaining it's stance that it is on firm ground, with assets well in hand, for the alternative is disaster. Deny reality as long as possible, hope stock price rises as gullible investers throw away money and sell (which SCO execs did) before reality asserts itself. Nice ploy, when you got nothing else.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Naw, diversity is good. I don't really want a Linux, Inc. composed of all folks involved with Linux. Linux is too big for that.
May we never see th
Has anyone given thought that perhaps this M$/SCO/SUN campaign is doing more harm that it appears. This is probably around the 100th article I've read about this. Reading 100 articles == not writing 100s of lines of open source software code. Darl knows that everytime he craps a turd, it distracts thousands of linux programmers from their job. Let's stop paying attention to this crap. Reminds me of the simpsons episode where the giant marketing characters come to life.
Isn't tomorrow "put up or shut up" day for SCO?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I agree. In fact, a question has been on my mind for a while which I haven't seen addressed on Slashdot yet.
So, let's say SCO is right and Novell wrote a contract that says (simplified for the sake of argument), "SCO now owns everything having to do with Unix ever." Did Novell ever have the right to grant such to SCO?
Given the amount of code put into the public domain, and given the number of products descended in one way or another from System V, is it even legally feasible for a company to claim it has gained all rights to something one, two, three generations back from my current product, and therefore owns rights to my product?
I'm afraid this hasn't made any sense to me from the beginning.
Yes, this is being counted down on the following website: http://www.scocountdown.com/
However, this expires at midnight, so expect something the next morning.
The current SCO group is just a renamed Caldera, which bought the Unix group from the old SCO, so it is wrong to say that "SCO didn't know what they bought", as the current SCO isn't the company which bought anything in the first place.
Actually, the current SCO is probably just the 5th owner of the very diluted "Unix licencing rights" - AT&T first sold it to USL (Unix System Labs), which was bought by Novell, which resold the licencing rights to the old SCO, which sold off parts of the company to Caldera, which rebranded itself "The SCO Group".
Of course, the current SCO management tries to confuse this issue, probably as they would rather have everyone forget all their contractual obligations with the previous owners.
They can't drop it. If they drop it, their business will most certainly implode from the bad-will generated, false advertising, and probably a shareholder lawsuit. If they keep going, they might wear down somebody enough to make for a settlement or a partial court victory or something other than imploding.
Gentoo Sucks
of course, SCO has yet to show that the whole copyright claim isn't just a big bucket of warm spit in the first place.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
I've been reading a lot about SCO's stock, following a lot of interesting links on Groklaw.
From what I can see the vast bulk of SCO's stock appears to be owned by either SCO or people and business from the Canopy group so the small amount of dealing going on from people not in those groups is pretty small compared to the dealing going on by people in the groups.
This means that it's quite easy for Canopy and SCO to keep the stock price pretty high by simply trading it amongst themselves, specifically a lot of people have noticed that the stock begins to dive in the mornings but then before the close a number of trades will be made at very high prices leaving the stock with a high closing price.
Anyone interested should look for the links and commentary on Groklaw since my memory and understanding isn't perfect.
This has specific implications for anyone thinking of shorting the SCO stock because basically SCO and Canopy have pretty good control over what the stock does and that's bad news for people hoping that it will act as though it was largely owned by members of the public.
Further, copyrights are contained in the list of excluded assets, and that list is not modified in any way by Amendment 2.
Further, that copyrights can only be transferred, under title 17, in writing, and that a vauge assertion that there is an agreement to transfer certain copyrights in the event they are required does not constitute a transfer in writing.
What is your interpretation?
Why did CNN, Fox News and the other big "news" outlets fail to report the purchase of SCO last spring by Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems of New Jersey? See anything unusual in this list of SCO senior corporate officers, not to mention the fact that "SCO" itself stands for "Senior Corporate Officers?"
Darl McBride, President and CEO
Darl Bench, CFO
Darl Mott, Director
Darl Yarro III, Chairman of the Board
Darl Bawa, CTO
Darl Sontag, Sr VP, OS Group
Darl Broughton, Sr VP
Darl OConnor, Sr VP
Darl Bigbooty, Sr VP
Darl Parrot, Sr VP
Darl SmallBerries, Sr VP
Their social security numbers are consecutive, and were all issued on the same day. Coincidence?
Yeah, someone as stupid as that should not be allowed to advance any farther than US President.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
I spent a few years drafting exactly these kinds of agreements, and having read the SCO/Novell Asset Purchase Agreement, including the dreaded Amendment Number 2, I have to confess, I don't know what SCO's lawyers were thinking.
When you buy technology, you buy 2 classes of assets: (1) the tangible (which includes stored electrons) real-world implementations of the stuff, like copies of the software, units of hardware, copies of manuals, and so on; and (2) the intellectual property rights, including copyright and patent, embodied in the tangible stuff.
The way I'm reading the contract (which could be wrong -- I took a pretty quick pass through it) Novell sold SCO the "stuff" without any of the rights associated with the stuff. In other words, because the stuff was software, Novell sold them pretty much nothing.
When I've done these deals in the past, the purchaser either gets the associated IP rights as part of the deal, or a REALLY broad license to them. From the looks of things, SCO didn't even have the right to make copies of the stuff it bought. That's completely incoherent from a transactional point of view.
That argues for 2 things: (1) SCO's lawyers really pooched it in this deal, which is certainly possible -- I've seen some really dumb language come out of high-end firms, and/or (2) SCO is right, and the agreement couldn't possibly mean what Novell thinks it means, because that makes no sense. SCO might not be able to get that enforced without a court action to do what's called "reformation" of the contract, where the court goes in and rewrites the contract to make it coherent. This is a really rare remedy, BTW, for obvious reasons.
Please, someone who's read this document more closely, feel free to correct me.
-------
Point and Counterpoint: The Tick - "Spoon!" Neo - "There is no spoon."
Not to take anything away from your very interesting points on the connection between the Bush Administration and oil, but I think you forgot that your whole post was supposed to provide a link between the Bush Administration and the Internet/OSS. Not a single fact that you bring up even alludes to this. Try to make your opening statements a little more accurate next time.
10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
They knew this data existed (hello, the linux kernel and all of the CVS logs are open source, they can be read by anyone)
They have the same copies of the contracts as everyone else (Novel, Sun, ect)
They had to know that a judge was going to make them produce evidence and this "We can't show the conflicting code" thing wouldn't fly with a judge.
I worked for a dot-com that provided a service to Corporate Law Firms and I know that they go through a lot of trouble to do their homework. Some of these things would have not slipped their radar.
So is all if this (including us tearing up SCO's claims) just part of their plan? Are we missing the real target of McBride and SCO? I find it hard to belive that SCO and their legal team are, or have ever gone "Oh Shit" since this all started. More like they are saying "This is going exactly to plan".
Someone please shed some light
Open Letter to SCO
Dear Sirs:
It has come to my attention that you claim certain intellectual properties involved in the UNIX operating system and that you intend to prosecute those who violate those claims.
To be more specific you claim that Gnu/Linux is a derivative of your Unix IP and as such is your IP. After extensive research on my own part and reviewing the considered opinions of those in the field of IP litigation I have concluded to my own satisfaction that your position consists of bullpuckey.
As such I feel I should bring my company to your attention. My name is James Burgett and I am the executive director of a not for profit organization called Computer and Technology Resource Center (CATRC). We recycle unwanted equipment and give it to underprivileged people throughout the world.
What I feel should come to your attentions is this: We install Gnu/Linux on over 1200 machines a year and we fully intend to continue. We send said computers to schools, not for profits and underprivileged people throughout the world. We have been doing so for over 3 years and I can safely say that all of them could be classed as "servers". On the basis of your pricing (assuming that our inevitable litigation extends past your discount deadline), my organization owes you at least $ 5,036,400 (5+ million).
We also advocate the further distribution of your alleged IP by other agencies and governments at home and abroad and could quite possibly be held liable for a lot more. (I'm sure you can come up with a price for this.) We have also assembled many multi processor systems (By the way, what is your price for multiprocessor systems?)
So based on an assessment of our operations and your claims. I have concluded the following:
Your ownership of the IP is dubious at best (Novell copyrights, Unix system labs vs. UC Berkeley, distribution of all contested IP by you under the GPL while Caldera,.... etc.)
Your ability to enforce your claims is laughable at best (you would have to deal with Novell's copyrights before you can sue anybody, then demonstrate that you did not release said IP as your Linux distribution and last that you have the right to those copyrights at all as they seem to violate some of IBM's patents. This combined with the fact that your lead attorney seems to be under investigation in Florida that may lead to his disbarment leads me to the conclusion that you are not a credible threat.
Your only redeeming feature is your histrionic and ill-conceived rants, which admittedly have an enviable ability to generate press.
As you represent no threat and can only bring us press, I humbly request that you use us in your act of corporate self-destruction.
If you choose not to sue us I should inform you that I have been consulting with my attorneys about options for initiating lawsuits against you based on some of the fallacious claims made by you about operations such as ours that use Gnu/Linux. You have made direct accusations about Gnu/Linux and its users that could only be construed as accusations of theft.
As I am not a thief and find your accusations harmful from both a personal and corporate standpoint I demand that you immediately cease and desist from your unsubstantiated statements or face litigation.
In conclusion let me thank you for this wonderful opportunity to promote our message on your dime and fully expect to be giving away what you claim is your IP long after your company is dead and gone.
Yours sincerely:
James Burgett
Executive Director
Computer and Technology Resource Center
Primary website: www.accrc.org
email james@accrc.org
Given this limited right, why would SCO need ownership of the SVRx copyrights in order to exercise their rights under the agreement.
Hence SCO did not get the SVRx copyrights. What SCO bought was really the UnixWare business. Not UNIX!
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!