Slashdot Mirror
SCO Approaches Google About Linux Licenses
MSBob writes "Seems that SCO is seriously hinting that their next victim is going to be Google. SCO said that they held what SCO described as "low level talks" with Google executives with regards to licensing SCO's alleged intellectual property within the Linux kernel. The full article is on Forbes.com." The Reuters story is on Yahoo!, too.
for quite a while, I thought?
Is that you don't try to extort Google. They're willing to fight back.
Is it just me or is SCO going out of their mind? This is getting insane.
Well, it's obvious that Google is making it WAY too easy for people to find information on the Internet that flys in the face of SCOs story.
"Hay guys, we want money" - "no" "oh, ok thx bye"
after google, the next major companies would be hosting companies, akamai, and some of the big film studios. when will SCO learn though? if they take google to court about this, and loose, like i hope they will, hopefully they will learn then. but who do you think will be next?
Lotas T Smartman www.lotas-smartman.net
..more large-scale firms will just say foad to SCO, SCO's share value will drop because the shareholders will realize it's not that easy to get the money from the licenses. As soon as share value drops SCO has not as much money for lawyers anymore.
... would be to do anything other than tell SCO to take a hike.
----- sXe
I realy hope they told SCO to sod-off.
I SHALL RAIN DOWN MISSILES-IN-A-BUN ON YOUR PITIFUL CITY'S!
"Bunch of assholes."
You must think in Russian.
But Blake, Linux isn't Unix, it's a Unix clone. Oh, and one more day to put up or shut up.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Since on monday we are going to see some legal action, I suppose this is the usual some hot air to distract the attention.
I, however, wonder if this really can affect a judicial decision... I think it won't.
My journal. Mainly about freedom.
all of the searches for "extortion" and "blackmail" start bringing up the SCO homepage at the top of the results.
This is extortion, plain and simple. With an IPO around the corner, SCO knows that the mere hint of potential litigation can seriously hurt Google. Darl McBride is no more than a hoodlum. I hope he gets what he deserves, but history has shown that as long as they're incorporated, gangs can do what they please.
Greenmail prior to an IPO?
...that rather than any legitimate claims, SCO keeps trying to press the issue with companies who may be able to purchase them outright?
I really do wish I could see some justice being done regarding these clowns though. Aside from the blatant pump and dump fiascos, another issue with approaching Google now is the threat of what this type of issue could do to their IPO. Seriously, someone needs to slap SCO down for good as this circus has gone way beyond tolerable limits.
Google has an upcoming IPO. The think/hope that google will just settle so as to remove a 'cloud' from their IPO.
To not consider SCO's offer until the case with IBM is over. After all, its best not to do business with someone who is facing nationally recognized litigation.
SCO must stay in the positive public light to keep their stock up. So this is no shock.
When SCO dips, they hit a new hot target--this time it is google. What a shock they hit google right as they announce that they will IPO.
SCO should just die.
AC
Google may have one of the largest Linux bases around and they aren't going to play this crap.
I just feel it. If Google does fold, that will be a very bad thing for everyone. If google tells sco to go to hell then I would call it a major win in the many skirmishes that are still to come.
This could be the keystone case..
M$/SCO spy, KILL HIM!
I SHALL RAIN DOWN MISSILES-IN-A-BUN ON YOUR PITIFUL CITY'S!
But then SCO hasn't been showing a lot of examples of being bright, have they?
It's perhaps not the best move to try to extort money out of a company that can show that all you are capable of is extortion. I would suspect that if someone at Google wanted to, they could find a copy of the source to Unix online some place, and use a few spare cycles to compare the source code to the entire Linux source that they are using, and prove that SCO is full of hot air.
You never know...
But will they? Legal FUD, no matter how false, could hurt thier IPO plans.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
They're going after Google now because of Google's planned IPO. IE "Pay us off or we'll raise a stink and scare your investors." Pathetic.
I'd like to see the list of ~6000 sucke^H^H^H^H^Hclients who paid SCO.
Windows is not the answer.
Windows is the question.
The answer is "NO."
[ring, ring]
Google Receptionist: Hello?
SCO Flunky: You guys need to purchase 10,000 Linux Licenses from us at $699 each.
Google Receptionist: No. [hangs up]
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
Wrong on several counts.
* The Windows NT kernel upon which XP is based dates back to a early/mid-1980s collaboration with IBM.
* There are plenty of good reasons to use something else. Code Red is one.
Partial quote: ''Anytime the price dips too low for public consumption or a planned sale, they can make another outrageous announcement and pump it back up. ''
To understand SCO you need to stop taking their announcements seriously and look at them as a two-year-old misbehaving to get attention from its parents.
some one is a m$ whore if google pays sco i will quit googling thank you captain obvious!
When SCO is proven to be threatening people for
money under false circumstances, will SCO be
liable for criminal charges?
This is starting to look like that woman who
demanded the lottery prize in spite of the fact
she was unable to show any proof of ownership.
Darl's mommy: "DARL! turn that light off and go to bed!"
You can't say that for sure simply because Google is STILL the best search engine out there. The one strike against Google in their legal power is that they no longer have ties to Yahoo. Good thing they'll soon have rich shareholders to back them up (as if they need it).
And now, for a sig that's a complete copout.
IPO backers hate this kind of cloud just before the offereing. I am sure SCO wants to use this factor to get a payment quickly.
Any of these companies that publicly boasted about how many Linux servers probably are dialing down that kind of announcement now. I remember a video showing the nVidia data centre, many 1000's of linux servers. This is chum in the water for SCO's insatiable quest for lucre.
Google should just shine them on, make all the noises like they are going to play ball and then stiff them after the IPO.
Hedley
I'm sure google has enough "proof" in their cache to disprove any of SCO's claims..
i'm also pretty confident.. they have previous unix source from the AT&T settlement also in their cache..
lets hope Gooooooooooogle doesn't flop on the issue and become SCOooooooogle
Goolge is going for IPO, any bad news are bad news for the under-writers. And they care less about OSS or whatever in their way to make big bucks. The high level talk may actually coming and involve under-writers who don't mind to surrender a few bucks to keep the IPO going smoothly -- a piece of Google shares maybe.
As such, we are forced to protect our (insert random hyperbole here) and will be sending a cease-and-desist eail to that contact shortly!"
Hey, a mechanical Internet run by gears, pulleys, belts, chains, and cams, powered by one huge central steam engine in the mountains of New Mexico, would be better for the world anyway.
Whoever is in charge of SCO's public relations department should never have another job anywhere. Ever. Every linux geek on the planet already hates them with a passion, and now they attack every linux AND windows/mac geek's favorite tool? Maybe they should team up with whoever is doing the same at the RIAA and Microsoft, and just form one giant asshole of a company to make it easier for everyone to figure out who to bash on slashdot.
Google have over 10,000 linux servers in their cluster. That's a licensing fee of $7 million. It might be a lot easier for them just to write the cheque.
Assuming the Google execs will also have a significant share in the company, any reduction in the company value could hit them in the pocket personally.
So far (about 25 comments) no one picked up on it yet. Google is going public. The last thing they need is a shyster monkey wrench thrown into the mix just before a public offering.
This is perfect timing on the part of SCO. If Google bites.
And it may not be up to the Google founders. If the lawyers say to settle to salvage the public offering, the founders need to put up, and shut up.
Hopefully, Google will tell the shysters to go take a flying leap...
The biggest problem is not Google's ipo being screwed with. It's the fact that the SEC, Nasdaq, and other crooks are letting all this slide.
Personally SCO is really starting to irritate me. Either they think they can get someone to buy them out, or they are juts plain stupid. Linux one of the biggest and best server platforms available, because of its stability, scalability, and low price. SCO could never get their UNIX distributions to work correctly, so I wonder if they're just getting jealous. Also, a couple days ago, krill-labs.com recieved a "notice" from SCO saying they were going to sue. I'm guessing it was a hoax email, but either way I just deleted it.
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
what SCOX faield to mention is the fact that Google execs in fact rejected SCOX's claims..
The reason you have not heard he rebuttle from Goolge is because of the upcoming quite period per IPO rules..
SCOX stock is about to hit the bottom in less than 20 days
you doubt this? take a look at the difference between the bid and ask.. when that spread gets biug it menas that theere are shorts and puts drivng theprice anot real value..once the judgement against SCOX is made in januaury those players wil have no where to go with their stock..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I can't wait for them to be laughed out of court and for the execs to be put on trial themselves. They all should be bad men's boyfriends in prison.
Okay, first post as a member... make it good.... So you go to Google and type in "Miserable Failure" and press "Im Feeling Lucky" it will take you to George W. Bush's biography. To my understanding, a columnist encouraged people to change the rating on that page so that Google would pop that up. Being as ignorant as I am, I don't know how to do that, but would it be possible for us to make a webpage which is completely anti-SCO and then change its rating so it would pop up...? Lame idea? I'm just tired of SCO and I think this would be a mighty nice way to shoove it up their asses.
what does not having ties to Yahoo have to do with their legal power? I know it means they lost a decent sized customer, but its google, yahoo isnt the only thing they have going on
just curious
Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody is looking - H.L. Mencken
SCO's plan here is to show up to Googles IPO and fart ruining the 'record one day pop.' Nice threat. Here are a couple reasons it wont work.
1) This blows up in their face. They told the courts that they are not threatening redhat customers. Google is a Redhat customer.
2) Google is in a unique position. Unlike even the respectable IPO's of the dot gone days, google is being essentially forced to go public. They don't need the investment banking and other frills. They have to IPO for accounting reasons.
Another company that had to do this? Microsoft.
Just remember, Google was created by Sergey Brin and Larry Page, two Stanford compsci geeks like most /.ers. I'd bet the last thing they'd do is pay out licensing fees to SCO, no matter how miniscule the cost.
-tvh2k
1. Google fucks with their ranking algorithms, relevancy goes through the floor.
2. Yahoo announces plans to drop Google as a search provider.
3. SCO begins to extort money from Google.
4. Google plans an IPO to be priced at $4B at 33% float.
5. In the long term, *nobody* stays #1.
What does this mean?
If Google comes out on the market with a $12B market capitalization, and we assume the hype that they generate net income of $200M per year, this gives them a P/E ratio of 60 !
The only way a P/E ratio of 60 is even remotely sustainable is if there is an expectation of earnings growth that is THREE TIMES in excess of normal market returns.
With their recently-shitty results and the loss of major partners and extortion demands needing to be met, I would expect any sane person to short sell this IPO right out of the gate. No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, it's still a pig.
Wasn't this all covered in yesterday's SCO story?
As part of their pump-and-dump strategy based on the premise of a viable lawsuit, SCO will try to attach themselves to every week's top news story. In coming weeks:
SCO bills NASA! (suspects Linux installed on Mars Rover)
SCO sues to stop presidential election tally! (unlicensed linux used in vote-counting machines)
SCO demands 25 million dollar reward for capture of Saddam! (We withheld a linux license so he couldn't legally use that terrorist O/S)
SCO requests injunction to stop sales of Ipod (Darl says they "could be hacked to run Linux")
Remain calm! All is well!
Is there some bizarre "you don't have to show infringement" legal clause I'm unaware of? I know that the judge has required that SCO show proof (in a couple of months), but why did the judge give them a couple of months? What's wrong with: "show proof now, or I dismiss the case with prejudice"? Was the judge required to give SCO extortion time, or did the judge just think "gee, they seem honest, I'll give them a few months before requiring that they show proof"?
What really baffles me is that so much of the mainstream press coverage isn't even mentioning the "SCO won't say what's infringing" bit... I understand why SCO doesn't want to say what's infringing: they want Linux to infringe so they can collect royalties. I just don't understand why any sane judge would give them even a couple of months of blackmail time before requiring proof.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
I can this happening.
SCO approaches google with the following offer.
1) Google agrees to pay SCO for the license to use linux. But instead of a cash transaction google agrees to buy SCO stock at a discount or it buys SCO stock options. MS has done similar deals with Apple and Borland.
2) Google and SCO put out a joing press release saying that Google has agreed to pay SCO X million dollars for the licence to use Linux. Google also states that they looked into SCOs allegations and that they feel that SCO is the legitamate and de-facto owner of linux. Google urges other companies to get in compliance to avoid lawsuits.
3) SCO stock goes up tenfold overnight.
It's a win-win for SCO and Google. MS will most likely chip in to sweeten the pot by financing the google purchase of SCO stock. They could do this by buying a few percent of google (knowing full well that they will get the money back on the IPO).
Every body involved would make billions of dollars overnight so I definately think this is a likely scenario.
I can only think of one reason why the above scenario would not happen and that's if the owners of google are people who would put their ethics and morality above profits. But then again we live in America.
War is necrophilia.
This is about the most haunting soap opera I've been exposed to. Why does the SCO thing get posted again and again and again? It's a scam, period. Nothing to see here.
17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
I don't even use Linux and I'm worried I might get sued.
Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
Why is the parent modded as troll? Hopefully meta-mods catch this one.
Parent describes a perfectly credible tactic SCO might use: sign nominal but paltry deals with high-profile Linux user(s) and then bleat to the press about it (without disclosing the paltry terms). It would fit in perfectly with their modus operandi so far, eg remember how last year they had signed Unix licencing deals with 2 companies? One disclosed as Microsoft, the other undisclosed (believed to have been Sun).
Anyway, bad mods..
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
that Yahoo left Google some time ago. Just doesn't feel right.
I wonder about the timing of this, with big IPO talk surrounding Google. Scenario: SCO believes Google will settle on some sort of licensing to avoid a hassle before the upcoming IPO. If Google to sign a contract, SCO has a VERY BIG customer which they could point to in the court of public (or corporate) opinion. Lets face it, SCO really doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. There strategy may very well be to scare companies into licensing (obvious). Upper level management is not very IT savvy. If Google signs a deal with SCO, you might see many more corporate sheep following Google's lead. I don't believe Google will do this. They know it is BS like the rest of us.
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
Darl's mommy?
If that tramp had been smart enough to spell Daryl's name correctly, he probably would not be the miscreant he currently is.
BN
Reputable software companies such as Microsoft
Damn! Haven't you learned to use them newfangled search engines yet?
And it is available essentially for free, preloaded on hardware from all major manufacturers
Ditto above, try searching on "Microsoft tax".
The rest is not even worth refuting. Ya know, Microsoftie, you would be doing your company a helluva lot more good chasing down the next buffer overrun problem instead of astroturfing on Slash dot. Back to work!
I don't think Darl worked at Novell the same time Google's CEO did (as the CEO and Chairman of the Board of Novell), but it seems a little coincidental that one of his first targets for the licenses is a company now run by an ex-Novell executive.
Makes me wonder under what conditions he left Novell....
"Certainly if they're using 10,000 Linux servers that include our intellectual property as part of Unix, we would want them to license," said Blake Stowell, a SCO spokesman.
I'm sure that they would prefer to have you identify your 'intellectual property' so that they could insead remove that code from their copy of Linux (*IF* it really does belong to SCO), and and let the Linux developer community write alternate code, if Linux requires the function it provides.
But of course SCO doesnt want to give linux the opportunity of continuing on, sans whatever code they supposedly own. Their goal is to either force everyone to pay them for a license, or kill Linux. Of course, there can only be one puppeteer behind the scenes supporting that goal, and we all know who it is.
Personally, SCO (and the puppeteer) can kiss my ass. *I* run about 3 dozen linux servers where I work, and even tho I'm sure Im so far below their radar as to be just a bug on the widnsheild, if they ever did come collecting they'd be shown the door. Linux is copyright (either FSF, or Linus, Im sure), not SCO, and is released under GPL. Unless SCO actually provides ME directly with something, I owe them nothing. And that would still hold if I was 'running 10,000 servers'
The only thing i fear is that Google won't really pay any licenses but will enter into some deal where they merely say they are, and SCO will win a certain PR battle like, "we got Google to sign up! now everyone must!" Just one example, I guess, of how this could be bad.
The hint of litigation may be worse than the actual licensing charge.
Worse case: 10,000 servers * $700 per server is *only* $7,000,000. Big for you and me, but for a one time charge for a public company, not that big of a deal.
And as others have mentioned, since Google can fallback to BSD, there is no reason to think that servers 12,000 and up will be subject to any charge.
The Windows NT kernel upon which XP is based dates back to a early/mid-1980s collaboration with IBM.
uh, no. NT is actually VMS at its core. IBM had absolutly nothing to do with NT.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
[If the latest revalations regarding IBM's possible leakage of copyrighted Unix code into Linux have proven anything, it is that using any derivative of this outdated operating system is a legal disaster waiting to happen.] Alligations that they have shown no intention of proving. [Not only is Linux licensed under the anti-business GNU General Public License, but it turns out that commercial code may have been unlawfully added, making it illegal to use or distribute.] GPL is NOT anti-business. It is anti-proprietary which is an entirely different matter. And everything SCO has claimed so far, has been disproven within days. [And it is available essentially for free, preloaded on hardware from all major manufacturers.] WTF?!... Its certaintly not cheap, and the support is far from perfect. I've used both Windows XP and Linux, untill jeg flushed Windows off my computers at home. I'm not missing Windows one bit... [There is really no reason to use anything else, unless you need a truly high-performance computing system such as IBM's proprietary OS/390 or HP's OpenVMS.] Yes there is! Better support, more privacy, more security, more freedom at a fraction of the cost!.
If SCO DOES prove to "own" Linux, what about all the GPLed software and kernel parts that people put into it legitimately? SCO cannot own that because the GPL forbids it, and the designer complied with the GPL. So SCO would only truly "own" the pieces it would be responsible for, nothing else.
Thus, they would HAVE to point the pieces out because otherwise they'd be violating the GPL several hundred times over by claiming rights to others' work.
So even if they DID win, they'd have to tell us where the code was, and it would be promptly removed. Otherwise, they would be guilty of violation of the GPL.
Esoteric reference.
standard bully move -- threaten a lawsuit to a company known to be contemplating an ipo?
Of course, I think it's BS and IMHO the whole lot over at SCO are right up there with Enron. But I don't expect them to spend any significant time playing grab-ass in prison.
Without being arsed to look it up, I though the Guy that coded the VAX VMS system was bought in by M$ (bought not a typo to -> brought) to do the NT kernel...
There is the myth/fact WNT is one character up in the alphabet from VMS, ala HAL and IBM...
Nick
SCO will NOT take a large company (or even mid sized one) to court. They might hold 'low level' talks, which are pretty insignificant. What's a low level talk? It's probably SCO's telemarketers calling Google and trying to sell them UnixWare.
The only people that SCO will subponea or sue will be those who can't defend themselves. My JE says it all (link below) so I won't bother repeating it here.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
As much as I would like to see SCO go down in a legal ball of flames it might be nice if somebody would just purchase the company and put a BSD license on all of System V Unix.
Either that or it would be nice if Novell would go to court along with the and get a court ruling as to if SCO actually owns any of these rights anyway.
I am sick of hearing about this. NEXT TOPIC!
With Google looking to IPO and Microsoft looking for a way to move in to google's territory, I wouldn't be suprised if this action is part of Microsoft using SCO to do thier dirty work.
How hard would it be to switch to Darwin? That would make SJ happy, and it is after all, BSD based.
Hey I want in on this too! Yo SCO I use Linux! Please, please,please sue me too! Just going after the big guys isn't fair. I want a shot at being able to counter sue! I won't even ask for as much in damages as the big guys will... Trust me!!
Yes, this is stupid but it makes more sense than anything that SCO has dine lately.
This move certainly fits into what I call the "SCO/Microsoft Scam-a-thon" model.
Last year, it was published that Microsoft was interested in buying Google... or at least making a move onto Google's turf. It was reported that Google wasn't interested in Microsoft's offer. Some speculated that Microsoft would try to seriously damage Google.
It seems like this move by SCO fits in well with what Microsoft would like: Microsoft would like it's serious competitors, Google and Linux, to look bad.
This move by SCO makes both Linux and Google look bad in the mainstream press. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft is indirectly bankrolling the entire SCO effort.
Then they'd have to shell out what, billions of dollars in license fees?
$1,000 is pretty cheap insurance. (Of course, as mentioned elsewhere it's still a bad idea for Google for other reasons.)
By SCO spreading FUD about a possible threat to Google's bottom line, how could Google expect their IPO to be damaged in the event that they get litigated against?
Can Google claim damages from SCO if their value as a company is hurt?
I say this because if I was in charge of google, I'd laugh them out of my office.
I don't expect Google is even seriously considering paying $699 * ~10,000 = 6.9mil...
....move along....nothing to see here....
As copied from the Forbes article...
Linux, which can be copied and modified freely, has been a hit among businesses since it can be run on personal computer hardware and is based on the widely-used Unix platform.
Did they just accidentally mis-word the article, or are they on SCO's side? Just curious...
Hope be with ye,
Cyan
Article does say they reckon they've been there "at least 10 years" though.
By low level talks, I suspect they mean that Google's lawyers were rolling around on the floor, laughing.
Odd that the Reuters article doesn't even mention the controversy currently surrounding SCO's actions.
I wonder whether mainstream journalists are just asleep at the wheel on this one, or whether maybe this is just a case of press release plus one paragraph of "context" (that Google is maybe gonna IPO).
Either way, depressing.
This Like That - fun with words!
Microsoft expresses an interest in search engines and all of a sudden SCO is going after Google.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
This means that every company with the slightest interest in Linux needs to read up on the truth behind this tragical rubbish SCO serves us all! Start some proactive work by letting your managers read the OSI paper and whatever else they want from Groklaw and this list. Challenge anyone who claims this is the work of Linux zealots to come up with anything resembling proof coherent with the delusions of SCO.
Convince your managers before they get a letter!
I'm sure most of the biggies like Google and other mentioned companies know, but a mid-sized company with sufficient bueraucracy may be intimidated and pay before the trial is up, which will feed back into SCOs ugly propaganda machinery!
Let's show the world how Open Source cooperation is able to unveil the SCO scam and innoculate against it! When the trial is over we'll see who's still standing and who has to bleed cash...
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
cat
NT took many cues from VMS, yes, but it is definitely not VMS at its core. It took a lot of great features of VMS (MS hired a primary architect of VMS) but that doesn't mean it -is actually- VMS.
Is about 2/3 of the way down, right between the legs. Roshambo, anyone?
Okay, let's get together all the top kernel coders, and more besides, and rewrite all of the low level code that can't be traced back to a particular author. Anything written by Cox, Torvalds, or anyone high up in the free software world can stay. If we rewrite all of the muddy low level stuff that 'no one can remember who wrote what', then we'll know that not a single comma is stolen from SCO.
Drastic, I know.. and it'll never happen, because people would prefer to sit and let SCO take potshots at them, with no proof. When a problem comes up, you should solve it.
I do believe that SCO called Google a couple times to try to get them to license SCO products.
And I'm sure they had very low level talks. To me, low-level talks imply that SCO talked to some low level employees like an accounts payable clerk, or a couple of receptionists, or even a couple of Google sales people.
It will be interesting to hear from SCO regarding exactly what Google would be licensing from SCO. Maybe they just want to sell them new UnixWare licenses or something.
I think there is little chance that Google would swap their very reliable Linux-based infrastructure for an obsolete SCO-based infrastructure.
With SCO slowly losing the battle against IBM, it looks like SCO is looking for new, high-visibility, non-Microsoft targets.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Wouldn't any mention in the prospectus of a lawsuit mention that worse case it's only a $7,000,000 one time charge to settle?
Actually dave cutler did the initial design as VMS-TNG over at DEC. After the project was killed, gates looked him up (humoursly enough bill was not allowed in the building and had to send the chaufer to talk to dave) and convinced him to come on board. NT 3.51 was mostly VMS at its core (and would still be so if gates did not take back control after the 5 year agreement). DEC started a law suit against MS becuase of so much of code came from VMS-TNG, but dropped it upon a settlement.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
and buy SCOs sorry ass. Turn all UNIX IP over to the public domain, shut this stupid company down for good and make everyone happy. Oh yeah, and hang Daryl's sorry ass out to dry.
Obviously SCOX picked a company that they thought would do anything to avoid bad press or litigation. In the sensitive time before an IPO, this is the last thing they need. So, yes.. it's basically extortion.
These tactics may work, on companies that are vulnerable to FUD, Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.
This is why it's a bad move to pick Google.. They could hardly find a worse candidate. They are full of young, Linux savvy engineers, and their CEO is Eric Schmidt, who was top techie at Sun for many years, and then CEO at Novell - he definitely knows what's up both in Unix history and the SCOX licensing with Novell . The Uncertainty and Doubt areas are gone.. like most of us, they see the SCOX claims for the bullshit they are. The only question is whether the Fear about their successful IPO will win out. I could hardly blame them for settling quietly, but I hope they do not.
The fact that SCOX is now publicizing this suggests that Google is not going the 'settle quietly' route. If they were, we would be reading SCOX press releases about the great success of their licensing program.
So just ignore my reply which said all this...
There was an article a bit back saying that IBM (or someone of the nature) finally got the courts to force SCO to show the code they are talking about. Namely show off the Linux and Unix code that is the same. That was suposed to be done before 30 days was up. What ever happened to that? Was the code ever released?
snowulf.com
they held what SCO described as "low level talks"
Also known as 'sniffing each other's butts', these talks were brief and little was discussed in terms of who get the top bunk.
It's pretty funny, if you search "sco site:google.com," the first result is this: http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software /Operating_Systems/Unix/SCO/
And the category listing is as follows:
Boycott, Lawsuits (409)
Linux (3467)
UnitedLinux (11)
UnixWare (1)
Canadian Cynic, canadian politics is less boring than you
SCO Lawyer: "So, you come to our headquarters on this day. You drink our coffee, you eat our cookies. Now it's time you pay us $7,000,000 (SEVEN MILLION US DOLLARS!) for your Linux machines." Google Lawyer: "Umm, I don't think so." *mumblings among the SCO Lawyers* SCO Lawyer: "Let me get this straight. You sit here, in our chairs, in our headquarters, and refuse to pay us the money that is rightfully ours?" Google Lawyer: "Yeah, that sounds about right. Thanks for the coffee, add a little more sugar next time. See ya." *gets up and leaves* SCO Lawyer (YELLING): "You won't get away with this! We own0rz j00!"
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Hey Bill stop talking thru ur ass hole
Windoze is a suckie OS and u know it
Damnit! They're making it hard to decide between the RIAA or the SCO police jacket.
It has a history of standing up to lawsuits
Um, actually hasn't it buckled at almost every free speech/censorship like threat it's been faced with?
Come on, give SCO some credit. They're trying to get money while they still have enough to pay for lawyers and whatnot. It's better that they hit big corporations now than hitting soup kitchens in a year from now.
The guys who run Google aren't suits. They're techies. They're not going to
go for this. They're going to tell SCO, "Please hold while I transfer you to
our legal department".
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Low level talks probably meant that SCO was talking to google over the campfire while telling everyone to pay up $6.99 for each s'more they ate (the s'more ingredients belong to SCO after all...)
The executives at Google include geeks. These guys would not give SCO the time of day. I reckon the "low level talks" means Darl was talking to their janitor or phoned their lawyer and was told their communication would be given the consideration it deserved (i.e. none).
Until SCO gives complete documentation of the code, they can't get a dime. When they do, they sure as hell won't get a dime, because everyone can just rip the code out and replace it themselves. Clearly this is why SCO stalled for so long in releasing the code.
If they force people to break their license by not giving out the appropriate information, they have absolutely no right to seek damages. They can seek licenses, but the second the case hits court the code snippet's will be revealed and we can all just patch.
SCO is screwed, they can collect whatever they can convince people to give for now. NODOBY should give them a dime.
Boss, I'm all for being deliciously evil. But are you sure about the little girls and the puppies?
Your humble servant
-D
(humoursly enough bill was not allowed in the building and had to send the chaufer to talk to dave)
That doesn't sound very likely. Where wasn't he allowed and why did he send his chauffeur? Had his phone been disconnected or something?
If you mean he, as a prospective employer, tried to meet Dave Cutler at his current place of employment then I can understand his not being let in but why would his chauffeur have been allowed and why would he try something so stupid anyway?
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
google "google owns sco":
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,440. Search took 0.16 seconds
--- any post that takes longer than 20 seconds to write, isn't worth writing
Bunch of Assholes
SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
Isn't SCO supposed to reveal the infringing code
to IBM next week? I think this press release is
ment to bolster stock price against their lawsuit
blowing up in the their faces later this week.
But that could just be wishful thinking on my part.
Google should bow to SCO and redirect all *Nix queries to SCO.
Graham
Linux - Fast Pane Relief
Microsoft's money was well spent, wasn't it?
SCO sued International Business Machines Corp. last year and sent notice to thousands of companies to pay to use Linux. SCO said it now has Unix license agreements with more than 6,000 companies.
I think this part, while technically exact, is written in a way to make believe 6000 companies paid unix licence for the right to run linux, notably because of the use of now in the second sentence. Can someone enlighten me, please ?
1) As english is not my mother tongue, my paranoia about SCO surfaced, and in fact, the meaning I perceived is not perceptible by native english speaker.
or
2) Forbes want SCO to succeed (again all those commies who believe in free things (imagine free, as in : no market, and no need for economic journal ( and they are again IP, too, and we are producer of IP, so we must fight them (but of course, every OSS person knows that OSS exist because of IP, not against it (and my teacher always said you should not imbricate parenthesis when writing literary text, contrary to mathematics (but perhaps this text is not very literary)))))).
or
3) The Forbes journalist, as many many many other, just copied/pasted a press release without checking, perhaps even without understanding.
or
4) Some other reason I didn't think about.
So, what's your advice?
Google OWES Linux. They have profited greatly from having Linux available for their company. Now they have to stand up for the community, they have an ethical obligation not cave into the obvious bully tactics of sco.
If they sign some slimy deal for a $1 with sco then they are saying that Google is the sort of company that will sell out the OSS community just to save a few dollars. This sort of action would only lend support to sco's unproven, unsubstanciated, undisclosed ascertions of sco code in the kernel.
I don't think Google is that sort of company, and I don't think that the people that run Google are that sort of people. I expect that Google will soon release a public statement akin to "We will not be paying SCO license fees until they provide proof that there is sco code in the Linux kernel".
This seems like could have been predicted...
MS tries to elliminate everyone who would come close as a competitor... If they cant buy it, then SCO is unleashed...
Keep watching for companies who refuse to be bought by MS then SCO making announcements for "newly acquired IP" and do a full scale assault...
Remember MS having some IP issues about embeded objects in html pages? Remember SCO's announcement of new IP (with the buyout of a small company) and them "owning" the html?
SCO is MS's bully. And dont hope for ot to go away after the downfall of their linux scam... They will be back with wathever MS needs backing with...
Just wait and see, pal.
Cheers,
Craig
Blatently reused from the Y! mboard.
Riiiggghhtt... Because SCO says "Stop, this is no fair. Linux is mine but I'm not going to prove it" the people who have spent the last several years of their life building google are just going to unplug all of their servers.
Gates went to Mass and tried to walk in the front door of DEC. IIRC, this was in 1989/1990. He was not allowed past the front desk. Apparently they were quite rude to him at that time, so apparently gates sent his chauffer in to talk dave into coming out for a bite. At the time, Dave did not want to leave DEC and MS was still the great evil.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Has your CPU really been running at 70 degrees that long? What is it?
Translation:
Low-level -- they're not getting past the receptionist.
Intermittent -- Google keeps hanging up on them.
Hence their turning to the media instead, since Google won't take them seriously (and shouldn't).
SCO: We had low level talks with Google about a Linix license.
Google:
I mean where are the comments from Google? What sort of nonsense reporting is this?
Low level talks could be anything - including somebody leaving a voicemail.
SCO: "Pay up, 'or else..'"
Google: "Fuck off and die, shithead"
SCO: "Die? Now? Are you crazy?! We got atleast a year before that happens!"
--- any post that takes longer than 20 seconds to write, isn't worth writing
Laugh. This is pure blackmail. It's clearly aimed at the upcoming IPO of Google and the last thing a company facing before an IPO is a legal battle, hence they might just throw a bone to SCO to sweep the problem under the rug. Well planned move on SCO's part.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Novell has filed copyrights on the same code as SCO has (and a little more). There isn't a judge on the planet who would let SCO proceed until the competing copyrights are settled.
Also, Google's CEO used to work at Novell. Do you think, maybe, possibly, he still has some contacts there?
MS was still the great evil
MS was still the great evil???
... they STOLE the precious... he LIES... nasty tricksey Linux developers... but they're his friends... but they keeps the precious for themselves... but they love Linus... but they stole the precious....
When the scam is over, Darl McBride and Co. better be rotting in Federal prision for a long, long time, otherwise it will be a very bad preceedent. If they get away with what they're trying to do (jamming legal monkey wrenches in other companies in hopes of extorting money from them, while simultaneously boosting their stock price so insiders can sell) then it becomes a model way for OTHER unsavory characters to go around doing the same thing.
In other words, if EVERYONE at SCO isn't taken out to the back of the woodshed and dealt a fatal blow when it's all over, then every frigging sleazeball lawyer in the United States will start whispering into their CEO's ear... "Well, there is another option. Do you know much about Darl McBride and SCO?"
Conspiracy folks - please note. The source of this and other recent stories regarding SCO has been the Seattle office of Reuters!
Hmmmmmmmmmm
> SEATTLE (Reuters) - SCO Group Inc., the software
>company that is suing IBM and extracting royalties
>from other Linux users, said Friday that it had
>held "low-level talks" with Internet search engine
>Google about a license agreement. >
OpenOffice tips:richhillsoftware.com
My emphasis. The claim that Linux is 'based on' UNIX is, after all, what the current law suits are about.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
I can understand them not allowing him in, I just can't imagine what would possess him to do something so stupid. It seems likely that he'd be more likely to have actually got himself a new hireling if he'd handled it intelligently like phoning and suggesting a meeting. What would you think if a representative of a competitor decided to come round to your place of work to dicuss hiring you away? It's just an unbelievably stupid approach to the situation.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
if SCO's stock was going up at all I would be buying shorts.. i.e. dump everything into SCO short sells and watch my profits soar on their loss..
just an idea..
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
how is it that they can ask for SCO licenses when they have not prooved in court that "all ur linux are belong to sco?" thats not legal is it? thats like me claiming that i invented bread and going door to door asking for 25cents per loaf of bread, or something.
How can SCO prove that linux is infringing on unix when SCO does not own copyrights to unix?
i thought SCO might own system V but not unix as a whole... or am i missing something?
This statement gives the impression that SCO is company on relative par with Google.
I would say that the CEO position at SCO is equivalent to a Googgle entry level marketing manager.
How can this NOT be connected to Microsoft? Microsoft, earlier this year stated that they were going after Google in the search engine business. What better way to get your competition out of the way than to use your tool (SCO) that is already working against your other competition (Linux) that the competitor(Google) is using for it's service?
Can it be any more obvious than this? What will it take for peopple to really take notice? SCO targets everything that Microsoft speaks out against. SCO spun off from Microsoft's old Unix product Xenix. Hello??? Anyone awake yet?! McFly!???
SCO is atacking Linux (a big headache for Microsoft in the OS arena). SCO is attacking the GPL (a big headache in the software arena for Microsoft). SCO is now attacking Google (a headache for Microsoft in the search engine arens). Does it get any clearer people?!
Un-news
" Lindon, Utah-based SCO claims that parts of Linux were directly copied from Unix, which SCO owns."
SCO doesn't own UNIX. They own a tiny branch of the UNIX tree. As I recall, they don't even own the trademark on the name.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
Google gives in to this crap, then we are all doomed! SCO will be so full of themselves that they will make all of lives a hell-hole.
Google --> Ignore the bastards! The rest of us are. Just having "low-level-talks" gives some sort of validity to SCOs complaint. Escort the asshats out of your offices and warn them to never come back!!!
This thread is for giving your favorite acronym of SCO. Just put it right in the subject -- nobody wants to read your stupid shit prose.
Try to keep everything as a reply to this one, so we get a nice list going. If you want to discuss something, then reply to it, but if it's a new acronym, just post a reply to THIS message.
nt
n/t
1. Short as many shares of SCOX as you can. 2. Wait until after SCO's court date on Monday. 3. Profit!
extortion
fuck u sco
... be concerned. Be very concerned.
I've heard a lot of mumbling about how SCO doesn't have any evidence that the code exists, blah blah blah. Just want to remind you all that the OSS Community would be VERY quick to remove it if it were found. That means if SCO wins, suddenly everybody will have an updated distro, they won't be able to go after anybody for money.
If they can convince Google that they are in danger, I'd be worried that SCO showed them something that Google would be under NDA to discuss.
All I'm urging is caution.
"Derp de derp."
Probably how the conversation will go when SCO approaches the French arm of google, google.fr.
SCO: You owe us money for Linux licenses
Google: I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough water!
SCO: But we own the UNIX source code!
Google: I fart in your general direction.
SCO: We require $699 per CPU
Google: Your mother was a hamster, and your father
smells of elderberries
SCO: Is there someone else up there we could talk to?
Google:No, now go away before I taunt you a second time.
Google has lost it's search engine value, to me, at least. It's becoming harder and harder to find anything of use because of people google-bombing or otherwise falsly getting high ranking results. Sometimes, it's quite impossible to find anything usefule, just because of this reason.
I still use google is because I'm a loyal geek. It's not the only reason, mind you; directory, newsgroups and image search are all super useful things that I use daily. Froogle is quite neat too. I found the best price for my A/V receiver and speakers recently, using froogle.
But, there are other sites that do these things. Some of them do it better/are more acurate.
If google does anything other than say "fuck off" to SCO, or "come back after IMB crushes you into jelly", it's much more likely that I'll start using something else.
Also remember, that it's us geeks that have set the home page of all of their family's computers to google.com, instead of the alternatives.
SCO can wave their claims arround and splutter about vast damages but the fact is no judge is going to allow a penal award. Google have every reason to believe that they have the rights to the code they are using.
Google can probably even claim the cost off their insurance.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
It might be a good strategy for SCO, but it would contradict Google's "don't be evil" policy, and so hopefully Google won't go along with such shennanigans.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Actually, I think I detect a hint of sarcasm in the parent. At least, I hope I do. I have more faith in my fellow carbon-based lifeforms than this...
Maybe he should be modded "funny" instead, for the good of our self-esteem.
--==prods inquisitively with a 2x4==--
'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
Well, I run SCO countdown.com (see link in my sig) and I just wanted to remind everyone that the 90 day deadline SCO imposed on itself to sue a linux user is coming up. The deadline comes up February 17, so SCO better start unloading some serious lawyer firepower...
SCO just threatened to damage Google's IPO. They're essentially going to try blackmailing Google into making their case credible.
Google will pay, admit wrongdoing, or both. If SCO sues Google's IPO is entirely threatened.
What sick bastards.
wow although I've never touched forbes before I always thought it to be one of those respectable sites. The article was blatently absent of any details and misleads the reader into thinking that judgement day has come and passed in favor of SCO... Now to add "127.0.0.1 forbes.com www.forbes.com" to my hosts file... ick.
I think until IBM / Red Hat vs. SCO thing is resolved in court, most "enterprise" level companies will say nothing at all to SCO, they are really under no obligation to commit themselves either way unless SCO gets nasty with them is court.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Google Receives Request for Licensing SCO IP.
SCOX requests that Google pay up for using its secret Intellectual Property
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. - January 10th, 2004- Google Inc. today announced that the SCO Group, Inc. had requested talks regarding Google's use of the Linux operating systems on their 10,000 server farm.
"Google should really give us a bunch of money" said Darl McBride. president and CEO. "We really are starting to run low on funds - I mean, YOU go and try to sue IBM. They're a fucking tank, fer chrissake" said the embattled McBride.
Upon hearing the request, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin had one single thing to say:
"Ahahahahahahahahahaha ahahahahahahaahaha hahaaha hahahahahahaha ahahahahah ahahah aha ahahahahahahahahah ahahhahahahahahahahahah ahahah ahahahah ahaha haha aha ahahaha ahahhahaha ahah aha hah ahaha ah wheeeeee.... ". Added Brin "OK, that was funny. Now go away".
About SCO
The SCO Group Inc. are a bunch of money grabbing whores who will probably end up in jail before this is all over.
About Google
Google's innovative search technologies connect millions of people around the world with information every day. Founded in 1998 by Stanford Ph.D. students Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google today is a top web property in all major global markets. Google's targeted advertising program, which is the largest and fastest growing in the industry, provides businesses of all sizes with measurable results, while enhancing the overall web experience for users. Google is headquartered in Silicon Valley with offices throughout North America, Europe, and Asia. For more information, visit www.google.com.
###
Google is a trademark of Google Inc. All other company and product names may
be trademarks of the respective companies with which they are associated.
For further information:
Nathan Tyler
Google Inc.
+1 650-623-4311
nate@google.com
What a scummy tactic...at the stage Google is at...GOING PUBLIC IPO...anything that would rock the boat would...and relize this is the first big .com since the .com crash....SCO is just trying to use the timing to rush them to a quick endorsement...THAT's LOW and SAD and proves that SCO has nothing but HOT AIR !
Damn Darl..those that know you have seen this before .
If I were Google, I would not be talking too much to SCO. And if I were a Google Exec, I would merely wait for until SCO had left the meeting and then contact the FBI and discuss RECO and extortion charges. It is clear that SCO is planning on using the Google IPO to profit, and by talking to Google just before the IPO it could be construed as an attempt to extort money. I too hope that Google will sqush SCO.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
Nuf said. Suddenly it's news worthy.
Here is a copy of an email I sent to sco
You should be ashamed of yourselves. "Freeware","Shareware", and countless other forms of "Public domain" software/hardware/intellectual property has been around as long as there has been a computer industry. You see linux taking off and overpowering Microsoft and you can't stand it because your not along for the ride. The fact that you claim linux can be MORE secure by tieing it into VAS is indicative of your skewed thinking. I have used just about every OS that has ever come down the pike and am PROUD to say I am a linux user and will remain one. BUT I WILL NEVER pay you a single red cent for the usage of it. I will create whatever I choose to create to be used with it and if I decide to give it away thats my business. I took time to read your recent licensing document and quite frankly its a desperate plead. It's akin to stating that something written in "C" can't be resold because it was written in a proprietary language!! GET REAL!!! Are you going to tell me you wrote SysV in an entirely SOLELY owned language? I think not. Excuse yourself from this ludicrous path you have started down and perhaps the world will forgive you.... But I doubt it.
Makes them a good target for a bit of scaremongoring.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
And the one biggest reason why SCO will lose....
Nobody can defeat Nux Lee!
Pinging google.com [216.239.39.99] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=243
Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=215ms TTL=243
Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=243
Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=187ms TTL=243
Ping statistics for 216.239.39.99:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 187ms, Maximum = 238ms, Average = 210ms
YES! We have low level talks!
ntnt
i know this 1 sux sorry
In Soviet Russia, red dimes get you!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
google.fr ... Surrenders full payment
That would only work if SCO had the brains to go through Belgium.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
IBM or someone should take SCO up on their offer and go to court. Tie them up for decades until they suck every last dollar out of SCO, their employees all get fired, the excutives go broke, their kids get addicited to crack and they all fucking kill themselves.
This management by Mafia needs to stop and the only way to stop it is to fill a few ditches out in the desert with a few SCO executive bodies and those of their families.
or stop being communist and switch to microsoft.
That is what you have to remember; the PR doesn't match the action, They are trying to make trouble and stay out of court. They have not been very good at it.
SCO: Hey, you are using OSS software, which we own. Can you give us some money?
Google: Fuck off.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
I use Windows, and Windows supposedly has some FreeBSD code, and FreeBSD sounds like it could be one of those nasty Linux-like, UNIX-like, *nix-like operating systems (or something)...
Uh-oh. That ought to be close enough for SCO's legal team to take aim. I am calling my lawyer immediately for counsel.
Microsoft Windows is, fittingly, the official Desktop OS of Olig
I've asked it before and I am asking again -- how can SCO sue Google for copyright infringement when they, that is Google, are the end user of a product produced by someone else? Google did not produce the Linux software that resides on their servers.
It would be like Ford suing me because the GM trucks I bought for my fleet of delivery vehicles contain patented technology from Ford. Before anyone goes off about the difference between copyright and patents, I am simply trying to illustrate a point.
Anyway, I don't get it.
Didn't they deny this long ago? According to an eWeek article, they did.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1398337,00.a
If they had a change of heart, I wonder if it
would be as a result of one of their "backers?"
Who recently had a go with Google and was spurned?
I know...speculation...just some thoughts that seemed
strange at the time.
(SCO said it now has Unix license agreements with more than 6,000 companies.)
The way the press release reads, they are trying to give the impression that 6000 companies have signed up for their extortion attempt.
It should read SCO's 6000 licensee's flock to GNU/Linux due to extortion letter's.
Red eye's at night, Hackers delight. Red eye's in the morning, Professors Warning.
Apparently Dave was refusing Gate's phone calls. It was a very different era. Gates was the upcomer with the garbage OS who was taking over a spot that the others could take over at any time (yeah right, but that was the attitude at all the biggy such as IBM, HP, Sun, and DEC). So apparently, gates flew in to force his way in. From what I heard, he felt that if he could talk to dave he could convince him. He was right. While I have no respect for Gates on his technology, he has always been able to figure out what the future can hold and to persue it.
I know this is flamebait, but if you MS Trolls are going to spread your FUD here, you should at least know the history on your company.
So XP, is all based on technology developed in the 90's huh? Do you know who David Cutler is? Clearly you dont, click on the google search link and you'll find that NT is very much based on VMS, which Cutler worked on before he joined MS. So much, infact, that MS ended up PAYING DEC to avoid a lawsuit.
Google has a famous name, and anything they release to the press is going to get attention everywhere. All they need to do is refuse to comply, explain in a press release what SCO must do to bolster their claims before they will comply, and they will educate some of the public mind.
Google pretty much has to respond to this publicly, since they do have that IPO pending.
I think SCO has made their biggest mistake this time.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Why is my story marked as rejected even though slashdot decided to run it?
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Check this out
They have already gotten over $8 million from Microsoft. This has been a good way for MS to fight Linux without getting their hands dirty.
~ You may speak freely, If you have enough cash ~
So, the question for me is:
Should I put all my SCO MEMORABILIA on ebay now?
or should I wait??
RICO.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
How about we try that again ;)
SCO "Bunch of assholes"
If enough slashdotters link to SCO using the words Bunch of assholes we might be able to replicate the success of talentless hack or miserable failure or Weapons of Mass Destruction
No. Delicious as that might be, we want this over now. Corporations hate uncertainity, and the longer this continues, the longer the momentum Linux has in overtaking MS will be harmed. Remember, MS would love this to remain in contention for years.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
This is pure blackmail. It's clearly aimed at the upcoming IPO of Google and the last thing a company facing before an IPO is a legal battle, hence they might just throw a bone to SCO to sweep the problem under the rug. Well planned move on SCO's part.
Given the huge number of servers that Google is running, the huge size of its expected IPO, and the likely effect of a miniscule license fee on their future extortion attemps, I doubt the carnivores at SCO could manage to keep their demands down to a thrown bone.
The trick to pulling this off is to keep your demands to a minimum - like less than the lawyer time to look at them - and to be the only player in the game. Like the clutch of lawyers that bought up the patent on the XOR cursor, then for a decade or two systematically sued every computerish IPO in Silicon Valley over it (whether they had anything to do with graphics or not) and settled for something like $10k - effectively imposing an "incorporation tax".
When one extortionist is panhandling a bag of peanuts it might be expedient to throw one to him. If he's asking to become a large, permanent hemmorage in your cash stream (or if there are a large crowd of these ticks sucking your corporate blood), paying the danegeld is a bad move.
I suspect that that's what SCO thought it was doing to IBM - but they asked for too much, and/or got in the game too late and ran into an IBM policy of delousing rather than scratching the itch (due to IBM's long history and repeated experience with such extortion).
But given SCO's track record for lack of savvy on these issues (i.e. taking on the IBM 500 lb Gorilla followed by a series of other stupid moves), I see no reason for them to suddenly wise up and avoid opening yet another front in the Unix Second World War (AT&T vs. UCB being the first).
If they do, I'd bet that Google will fight - and probably ask the court to put it all on hold until the SCO/IBM case is resolved - or perhaps combine them, if the form of SCO's demands is such that this is an option.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
nice to see another 1940-related joke ! :)
If from experience, we'd ALL like to hear the details.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Why don't /.'ers start a boycott of McDonalds, Eckerds and the other companies which are mentioned on SCO's website as buying and using SCO's product?
He who said 1,000,000 monkeys on 1,000,000 typewriters would eventually type the great novel, never saw an AOL chat room
Did you mean: Nigerian Scam
No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.
Your search - SCO - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.
- Try fewer keywords.
Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with your search.
Google intially used Red Hat before converting to a house distribution.
... it would dissapear from my bookmarks.
As simple as that.
They would monumentaly stupid to enter in any dealings with this "company" before the legal status of their claims is fully clarified.
In other words I would publish an open letter saying: "Dear SCO, STFU and put up or die".
More less in those terms.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"over 6,000" is another particularly dodgy phrase that signals some creative twisting of language, deliberately formulated to be misleading and technically correct.
What "now" doesn't say is how many they had before beginning the crusade. I'd bet this statement was just as accurate then....
And Google would fight back by redirecting all searches about and links to SCO to goatse.cx.
(\(\
(=_=) Bani!
(")")
Eliminate all sense of justice and do exactly what SCO wanted when they started this bloody tirade. If Google did that, I'd recommend IBM buy google and cancel the sale just to send the message: You guys are manipulating the system and we're not going to stand for it.
I want to see SCO go down hard and fast. Only way to do this is to let the world see them with their pants down. You have to hit them hard enough that they don't want to get back up, and that nobody will ever stand for such blatant FUD. If SCO was bought, Darl gets heralded as the saviour of SCO, because it seems they weren't doing squat for decency and now they managed to get bought out at prices about 3 times higher than they were at prior to this whole debacle.
Buying SCO out gives no sense of justice whatsoever. I'd rather not let the bad guys win.
Karma: Non-Heinous
what makes any of you think that the executives at google give a damn what anyone on slashdot things?
slashdotters are a minority in society. One, two, three years ago, we were their main 'customers' - not so now. FFS, "J-Lo" used a googlism in one of her braindead movies, I hear. Google is very, very mainstream now. Mainstream doesn't give a fuck as to whether or not google pays a licensing fee - and mainstream is what will launch google's IPO into financial profitability, not a couple hundred thousand out-of-work tech workers, high schoolers, and college students.
They used us and now they do not care. We're not the only ones that hate popup ads, you know.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Seven icons for this article? Let's not forget the most obvious one... the humor foot.
Learn something new.
As far as I understand, linux has many copywrites in a file-by-file basis. For instance, kernel/fork.c is copywrited to Linus, but I'd imagine the people who built the original versions of the files and whatnot have probably copywrited the code to themselves.
A buddy of mine who's on the kernel contributors list was wondering if he'd send a bill to SCO since they use linux, distribute linux, and it contains his copywrited code. Doesn't work too well considering he's the one who knowingly placed the code under the GPL and as such it is allowed to be redistributed sans charge as much as whoever has the code wants to.
Theoretically, SCO has a threat. SGI even pointed it out for us when they noticed that they unknowingly put some code that was part of SysV (although apparently a lot of that stuff dated back to BSD and as such SCO has no authority over). However, nobody who runs linux can be held responsible for it. Only IBM can be, or anybody with any evidence that this infringement occurred. As no evidence has been introduced and SCO has done nothing to mitigate their losses, they can't expect people like Google or Red Hat or any of the Fortune 5000 companies they seem to be threatening to be at all liable to anything that IBM may have intentionally or inadvertantly done. To demand that they be held liable despite any mitigating is absurd. They can't order anything prior to the filing of the lawsuit with IBM because even they didn't know about it, and they can't order anything after it because they refused to offer any type of evidence that it actually happened. They merely said wait. And they're using that waiting time to commit as much extortion and drive up their stock price. This sounds suspiciously similar to the dot-com strategy. Screw how the company's actually doing, let's say something big is coming and people will invest!
I'm not too keen to believe that SCO is actually right and IBM did actually put proprietary code into linux, but it is possible. If it is true though, then SCO's behaviour makes absolutely no sense. Why go suing and demanding money from people who have absolutely nothing to do with this? Why all the contradicting statements? Why such reluctance to produce evidence? Why get annoyed with IBM and tell them to incriminate themselves for them? Why go after GOOGLE of all things? If anything, this screams "Last ditch try-to-get-bought effort" surrounded with extortion. I hope none of this gets settled anywhere other than in court because the tactics SCO has given are inexcusable.
Karma: Non-Heinous
Anyone want to bet when a SCO search at google will only result in bad news for the company? I'm guessing it might just happen in the next few days.
Well, from DEC's perspective, MS was in 1990 or so the great evil.
But DEC staked their future, and destroyed most of their business, on turning themselves into a MS reseller later on.
There's one thing to this whole SCO thing that I still don't understand.
They are asking for lincense payments from consumers. If I'm correct isn't it the manufacturer of the product that has to pay the license, not the consumer?
Let me illustrate, XBOX games can be bought all over the world without paying something to Microsoft. Some of the money will go to MS, a part of the sales price or the manufacturer will have LICENSED the right to create XBOX games. People making windows stuff will either have used MS development stuff or will have had some kind of deal with microsoft (ok, this is a bit vague). But it isn't because you are using windows or windows related soft that you have to pay MS separately.
It can't possible that because you use an OS offered by someone that SCO has the right to sue you just because you use it!
Please do correct me if I'm wrong.
You're right that Google might feel some pressure to try to make something like this go away, by settling with SCO. But the strategy of this situation is clear, and I'm sure Google knows it: the reason you don't negotiate with terrorists is that, even though it may give you a good short term result in a specific case, in the long run it leads to more terrorist behavior. That's why Google mustn't (and hopefully won't) negotiate with SCO.
They also have about 1000 BSD servers.
Need Mercedes parts ?
It's his way of appearing knowledgable about business. In reality, it's proof he's a wanker.
Check the Google logo next week (the 30 day deadline for SCO to put up or 'fess up) for Google's low level "response."
I would expect google to have some lawyers laying around... filing paperwork doesn't cost that much.
no text
I wonder what world this guy is living in. Certainly not mine. My history books are much different this. I wonder if this guy is from the cyberdine future.
Sorry my bullshit sensor overloaded.
Assuming that SCO is hoping to commit corporate suicide, they are certainly making wise choices in fighting the likes of Google and IBM.
This sig no verb.
Just switch to a REAL free OS, FreeBSD, it was created specificly to get around any and all posible licensing issues with the original Unix brand...
And since it is capable of translating linux kernel calls,shouldn't take very long to rehost the whole site (maybe a few weeks?)
I really doubt Google would offer any kind of a settlement, IPO or not. There could be a downside to a settlement as it would insinuate that they didn't understand the IP issues of the OS they built their business on. Not likely.
Besides, it's not like they're counting on the IPO for survival. They make a ton of money. They're getting near the size they'd have to start publishing quarterly reports anyway. Absent the IPO they'd have all the reporting requirements but none of the advantages of a publicly traded company.
If you're serious about reaching a settlement you don't leave the negotiations to the "low level" underlings. Although "low level" at a flat organization like Google is a little hard to pin down. Still, I'm guessing the word SCO is getting from Google would be more along the lines of corporate, "Go ahead, make my day."
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Google should not pay but declare their intent to move to a *bsd like OpenBSD or FreeBSD. This would protect their IPO and also derisk their IPO by mitigating any involvment with SCO.
The true colors of SCO are showing very well because whenever you see 'discussions with people At a low level' its a hostile way of using the press as your PR. Its not a nice way of doing business.
Google is a customer of redhat. Presently, scox is trying to get redhat's case against scox dismissed, on the ground that scox isn't doing anything to hurt redhat's customers.
Also, I think the CEO of Google is an ex-novell exec, just like the present CEO of scox. In fact, I think they were both at novell at the same time.
That gives me a thought: suggest to SCO that they go after all those linux servers Co$ must be running somewhere... (I have no idea if they are, but what the hell) ... and watch the fireworks!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Well... not the french server. The french server talks went like this:
SCO: You owe us money for linux licenses.
Google: Fuck off.
French Government: WE SURRENDER! RUN FOR THE HILLS!
Couldn't Google basically launch a denial-of-service attack of unimaginable proportions by putting a link to a Web site on the top of every Google search page?
I think Microsoft has much more money, and yes, they use Linux for their firewalls. And I doubt that MIcrosoft has cleaned their installed linux kernels from a stolen SCO code.
Less is more !
In six months, scox hasn't sold any "linux licenses" and scox hasn't sued any linux end users, in spite of numerous threats to do so "soon." Scox will not sell you a linux license if you beg them, many people - including me - have already called scox to them know that we're using linux.
,"'To clarify, the individuals reviewing the code had been involved with MIT labs in the past, but are not currently at MIT." ither SCO lied to the public (saying they existed) or SCO lied to the court (saying they didn't exist).
Scox has told so many outright lies, it's hard to keep track. Here is a partial list:
1) Lie: SCO will revoke IBM's rights to sell, distribute, or use UNIX.
Truth: SCO does not have the authority to revoke IBM's UNIX rights.
2) Lie: SCO will audit AIX users.
Truth: SCO never did such an audit, and has no rights to do such an audit.
3) Lie: SCO owns C++.
Truth: SCO may own a very old obsolete version.
4) Lie: The Berkeley Packet Filter code in Linux is "obfuscated" SCO code.
Truth: Jay Schulist, who never had access to SCO code, implemented it from scratch.
5) Lie: We've gone in, we've done a deep dive into Linux, we've compared the source code of Linux with UNIX every which way but Tuesday
Truth: Experts have shown that SCO used a simple, primitive text search based on a few keywords.
6) Lie: The IP protection legal team is on pure contingency
Truth: The legal team is billing at a 2/3 discounted rate with the possibility of contingent commissions
7) Lie: We will show rock solid evidence at SCOForum in Las Vegas
Truth: SCO was quickly shown to not have any ownership of the SCOForum evidence. The source code displayed at SCOForum might have been considered an honest mistake, if Sontag hadn't continued to dispute what was already irrefutably proven.
8) Lie: SCO's 2002 UNIX source release was "non-commercial" and excludes 32-bit code
Truth: "The text of the letter, sent January 23, 2002, by Bill Broderick, Director of Licensing Services for Caldera [now SCO], in fact makes no mention of "non-commercial use" restrictions, does not include the words "non-commercial use" anywhere and specifically mentions "32-bit 32V Unix" as well as the 16-bit versions."
9) Lie: non-compete clause in the Novell agreement.
Truth: no such clause.
10) Lie: SCO claims that Linux header files are "infringing code."
Truth: The header files are provably original and are noncopyrightable in any event.
11) Lie: We have been off meeting for the last several months with large corporate Linux end users. The pipeline is very healthy there.
Truth: The pipeline is empty. All inquiries have been to assess SCO's claims and liability exposure.
12) Lie: SCO's expert witnesses are "MIT Mathematicians".
Truth: Among various backpedaling statements, Paul Hatch, a SCO spokesman, wrote in a statement to The Tech
15) Lie: (To the Utah Judge on 12/5) SCO will make a copyright claim in two days, but no longer than a week
Truth: Many weeks later and a copyright claim has not yet been made.
16) Lie: Last August SCO claimed to have sold Linux licenses to a Fortune 500 company that was not MS or SUN.
Truth: According to SCO's SEC filings, that never happend.
17) Lie: "several" other Linux license sales SCO has claimed to have made since the first.
Truth: According to SCO's SEC filings, that never happend.
18) Lie: the introductory price for licenses that was to increase on Oct 15
Truth: Once again, SCO changed their minds.
19) Lie: SCO claimed it would file against RedHat for copyright infringment and conspiracy
Truth: No such charges were filed
20) Lie: SCO was going to appeal the fine imposed in Germany.
Truth: that never happend.
21) Lie: RedHat opposes software copyrights (Darl's open letter).
Truth: unlike SCO, RedHat respects copyrights.
22) Lie: entire sales force selling Linux "licenses."
Truth: no evidence of
A lot of people have been speculating of the damage SCO is trying to do to Google before their IPO. Look at it the other way around. Almost everyone uses and likes Google. They also have become one of the true valuable .com companies. If Google were to say STFU SCO, your claims are baseless, I think many executives would stop worrying about it.
Even posting a small cleverly worded notice on the front page could produce a strong public backlash against SCO.
It is very possible to be very successful, without being popular. The SCO PR team has done exactly what they were supposed to do, create a PR nightmare for Linux while still avoiding legal liability (at least so far).
SCO will never again produce a product, it will be nothing but IP battles and possibly licences. But that could be a successful exit strategy, if you think of it as an investor.
Reputation? Who gives a flying fuck, if you were an investor in a company long dead and gone? The company could be universally hated, as long as you got their dividends.
If I had known how SCOs stock price would skyrocket, I wouldn't have thought twice about buying stock. No matter how frivolous and groundless their lawsuit is, it would be good money.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I suspect that that's what SCO thought it was doing to IBM - but they asked for too much, and/or got in the game too late and ran into an IBM policy of delousing rather than scratching the itch (due to IBM's long history and repeated experience with such extortion).
Tip for all you future extortionists of IBM. I've seen how this stuff works from inside IBM, and I can tell you that IBM has a well-defined policy for how to handle this sort of extortion, complete with defined, documented dollar thresholds at which different actions take place.
Here's the scoop. If you want to suck money out of IBM by threatening the company with something, you have to keep your demand below $25,000. That's the magic number. If you ask for less than $25K, IBM figures it's cheaper to pay you than to have a lawyer look at it. If you'll sign an ironclad general release of liability, you'll almost certainly get your money*. Once. Since the release will make it virtually impossible for you to ever even utter the letters "I", "B", or "M" again without finding yourself in breach of contract.
When you ask for $1,000,000,000, however, since this *exceeds* the $25,000 threshold (see how simple this is?), a slightly *different* policy goes into effect. This one is a bit easier in that it doesn't require you to sign a release, but it does involve armies of high-powered lawyers armed with the largest patent portfolio in the world and typically ends with your ass being handed to you on silver platter.
That's all there is to it, folks! $25K, and you get paid. $1B (or $3B) and you don't!
*Actually, the $25K isn't a completely sure thing, either. IBM's policy is to randomly pick a subset of these cases and smash the plaintiff into a smooth, creamy paste, just to keep things from getting too routine and the lawyers from getting too bored.
Google OWES Linux. They have profited greatly from having Linux available for their company. Now they have to stand up for the community
It's much simpler than that. Google uses Linux, Google has an invested stake in Linux continuing to succeed as an operating system, so that they in turn can keep using it for free for their servers.
There are plenty of places carrying the same story and there has been an article on Groklaw about this for two days. So why links to the FUD-meisters at Forbes and give them ad revenue?
http://news.com.com/2100-1030-5119504.html I'm too tired to list the rest of the regulations, go look them up yourself.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Paraphrase: "If you aren't a witch, you won't float in the water -- you will drown. Prove to us that you aren't a witch or we will burn you at the stake!"
Can We Sue Someone For Filing Excessive Amounts Of Lawsuites And Making To Big Of A Deal About It
You forgot to use the sarcasm tags like most posts do. If movies have taught me anything its that the public is stupid (even /. users) and that if you are using semi complex rhetorical tactics (sarcasm, irony, ect.) you must blatantly tell them or they won't get it. Just laying on the sarcasm thickly (as you did) is not good enough anymore.
Open Source Sushi
Lying Whores
Bunch of Assholes
Lying Whores
Bunch of Assholes
Lying Whores
Bunch of Assholes
Lying Whore
Bunch of Assholes
Lying Whores
The Google Bot should enjoy that. I wonder if this will help me get that sysadmin job at google I applied for ?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
I thought Steve Jobs was our hero?
If they want to go get google for supposedly using phantom "Intellectual Property" in some way
Then clearly google shouldn't be providing them services like putting their official site above their critics in search results
"Hey, Google, so we hear you're planning an IPO. Gosh, it sure would suck if someone launched a massive lawsuit against you right beforehand, wouldn't it? Well, yes, of course it would be total bullshit, but the finance weenies on Wall Street wouldn't know that, would they? You know as well as we do that they're a bunch of clueless, mooing cattle who don't know the first thing about technology. Tell you what, just pay us a ton of money for no reason and we'll make sure it doesn't happen."
this cancer has gone untreated for too long.
it's time for surgery.
kill mcbride now.
Seriously.
Companies that depend solely, or even significantly on 'geek' support don't plan IPO's in the billions of dollars.
Surely it would be cheaper to reinstall everything gradually onto lots of freebsd boxes.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
In summary, it's the old saying: never try to extort more than it costs to have you killed.
was also in the first in 14, btw.
#include "coucou.h"
THAT'S SO WITTY I SHAT.
Is attacking google one last spank "on the monkey" to get a few more pennies out of SCO's artificially inflated stock before the judge puts an end to it?
The other slashdot article warned about being over confident is SCO's lack of a case
The SCO executives are supposedly doing all of this for the money......not to get a free ticket to jail.
Prosecuting them for knowingly making fallicious claims will be the thought of several big companies they have antagonized after the alleged lack of evidence is made public.
Could it really be that the SCO executives have something then? If not evidence, at least a plan to escape prosecution when the bubble pops?
Steve
Here.
SCO get bought by Google just to avoid the hassle... SCO Unix goes to meet the OS/2 and BeOS in the great corrupted disc in the sky.
Google produce "Google-Linux" placing Google search links EVERYWHERE that is sensible... Undercut MS by 50% or more and advertise it on their own web page.
Perhaps eventually turn all the GoogleLinux machines into part of their distributed search cluster.
"None of this shit works" -W.Shatner
Good to see that the moderation system on Slashdot is doing well at censoring opposing viewpoints and not encouraging actual discussion.
What about making a reply stating why you disagree with this person rather than censoring them? Is your argument so weak that your only option is to try to prevent others from seeing it?
I love it. An article about "low level, intermittent talks". What this could mean is:
Our secretary called theirs and tried to set an appointment.
Our sales rep called their purchasing department and tried to set an appointment.
Our employee ate lunch with their employee.
No news here. Next.
-- $G
Porn searches are crap, get the same site 10000 times
Uh even if IBM pays you 25K first, they may return later and take back double or more.
SCO vs IBM with the weapons of choice being "lawyers and licenses" always seemed like a watergun vs firehose battle. Plus SCO doesn't even seem to have filled their water gun. They just keep threatening to shoot it ( claiming that everyone else's water is in it or something stupid). It wouldn't have been stupid if they had started their Linux thing with Google or some other small/midsized company. But starting with IBM. D'oh.
IBM are the ones who have experience doing this sort of thing. They come up to you and say "We own the patent to drawing a line between two points on an x-y grid, your programs draw lines on x-y grids, pay up. You tell them "ah but we have this patent which you infringe". They then plonk on your table a huge stack listing patents ranging from: "System and method of using a plurality of sensors for determining an individual's level of productivity", "Error correction coding of data blocks with included parity bits", "Interactive computer network and method of operation", "Method for providing a service implementation for both EJB and non-EJB environments", "System and method for balancing binary search trees", "Dynamic web object row count in hyper text markup language", etc. And they say: "You infringe on 1104 other patents, probably more". Didn't they have one dealing with checking/displaying the status of washing machines?
(Results of Search in 1976 to present db for: AN/"international business machines": 35364 patents. Results of Search in 1976 to present db for: AN/IBM: 533 patents. Hits 1 through 50 out of 533).
You say Moo as they milk you.
I thought Darl's brother was lead attorney?
So at least if SCO looses, the billable hours stays within the family.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
I'm no legal expert, but how is it possible for SCO to make someone pay for something that the courts have yet to side with? I can claim that I started SCO and demand money from them. I can even take it to court. Does this mean that I can get the money from SCO before the court says yes or no?
Yes, Google owes the community zilch. The idea of GPL is that software released under it is free (as in freedom). To demand extra rights or obligations other than what is listed in the GPL is outright wrong.
The Original poster should get a clue, and moderators should not mod parent as "flamebait".
From article: SCO said it now has Unix license agreements with more than 6,000 companies.
Who would be stupid enough to pay royalties to SCO (or any company) when their entitlement to royalties has yet to be confirmed?
People, this case hasn't been RULED ON yet.
Now you owe Monty Python $700.
I meant that they have a moral obligation. They have no legal obligation. However, when you live in a comminity there are certain moral obligations that go beyond what is actually codified in the laws or agreements.
People who act to the letter of the law with no moral comapss are generally assholes, and in the end they act as a drag to the very community that supports them.
I hate to quote a politician, but when JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." I think he may have been getting at the idea that its not always possible to codify behavior for the benefit of society. At some point people have to put aside what is good for them to support the society. Assuming that they want the society to continue.
Its something that the generation that fought WW2 knows a lot about, even if it seems like an archaic idea now.
Google has benefitted from the OSS community. If this community faces extinction by FUD mavens like SCO then Google should step up to the plate. If I owned Google, that's what I would do, not because Google needs OSS to contine, but because it is important that OSS continues, and Google is in a position to help it continue.
I agree that open sores are a bad thing. Neosporin works wonders.
M$ first wants to buy Google, Google says "no," M$ tells SCOX to go after them?
So sayeth Netcraft: The site www.scientology.org is running Apache on Linux.
So when do we see that SCO lawyer guy and Helena Kobrin flinging mud at each other??? And who sells tickets?
I dunno, but it sounds like the arena is already built and the stands are ready for customers :)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Scientology is not a religion but a organized extortion scheme.
Saying it's a political thing it's much more than those criminals deserve.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.