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.
Is that you don't try to extort Google. They're willing to fight back.
..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
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.
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.
Google has an upcoming IPO. The think/hope that google will just settle so as to remove a 'cloud' from their IPO.
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..
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.
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.
What else would they do if they're not going to retract their claims on Linux?
Of course they'll have to go after the big names.
The owls are not what they seem
Never mind Google's IPO, what's even closer is SCO's show and tell in the IBM case on Monday. I suspect that SCO's clarification that the rumours about Google are true is just to give them a positive spin going into the markets on Monday morning so that soften the fall that's going to come later in the day...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
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
Google would be nuts to do this.
Right. Those Fortune 500 companies aren't stupid. That's why they would rather pay the relatively paltry sum than waste the lawyer's and executive's time with something whose best outcome is saving the company $1000.
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!
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.
That's why they would rather pay the relatively paltry sum than waste the lawyer's and executive's time with something whose best outcome is saving the company $1000.
Sure, so you do it and let us know how it works out. Call Google, or large company of your choice, explain to them that it's much cheaper to give you $1,000 than to waste the lawyer's and executive's time and see how it works out. Best of luck.
[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!.
Assuming a company did decide to pay SCO a 'go away fee', I would think they would force SCO to agree to a non-disclosure as well. A reputable company would not want to be considered part of the SCO scam, which they would be if they were identified as a licensee. Look at what people have been saying about Microsoft and Sun for obtaining an 'SCO IP license'. They don't seem to care about the perception that they are in on it with SCO, but many companies catering to Linux enthusiasts would care.
Why? Because they want to be bought outright, perhaps :)
Traditional IP extortion wisdom holds that you go after the smaller fish first, build up a 'war chest' with your 'winnings', and then take on the jackpot companies.
SCO went after IBM first, probably in hopes they'd be bought. IBM didn't bite and called their bluff. Now they are going after companies whose core products rely on Linux. Red hat, and now Google. Since IBM and Red Hat are comfortable with the idea of duking it out with SCO in court, I doubt that Google is going to meekly pony up the license fees.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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
Cheers,
Craig
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
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
Soften the fall, SCO has a pile of enemies that want nothing more than its death. Even if they do prove that they own some of the Linux code, people will throw money and time at having those portions of code rewitten and everybody will just move to SCO Free(tm) versions of Linux.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
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.
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...
The point is that $1,000 is a lot less than what Google would have to pay in the ("Bob"-willing) unlikely event of a SCO victory in court.
No, the point is $1,000 is a lot less than what Google would have to pay in the likely event of a Google victory. Such a victory would cost not only many thousands in legal fees but could cost millions if it scares investors away from Google's impending IPO.
cat * >> sig
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
My point exactly. How can anyone demand money for something they have yet to establish ownership of in the court of law? Isn't there a clause or statute regarding such a situation in the legal system?
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
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!!!
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.'
"What the hell are we missing here? SCO hired the "best" lawyers in the country. There has to be some sort of strategy behind all of this. Or meybe the just want us to think that; keep everybody guessing."
Are you kidding? David Boies is the biggest high profile LOSER in the legal profession!
Not to mention, SCO pretty much lied when they implied that Boies and co were on contingency. They aren't, they are taking only 1/3rd of their fees on contingency.
This is a shameless pump of their stock, using the publicity of Google's IPO and nothing else. If SCO's stock price collapses to a level more representative of their actual going business (say around $.01 per share) they have NOTHING to pay lawyers with and thus, lose by default.
MS and allies aren't going to be able to get away with many more blatant funding of this campaign either...
What needs to happen is for EVERYONE with standing to file as many lawsuits against SCO as possible, in as many locales as possible. That will destroy them. They will either go bankrupt defending themselves, or they will lose default judgements.
Corporatism != Free Market
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.
This is not extortion. It is unlikely that anyone at SCO has any faith that they will receive any sort of compensation from Google. It is even more unlikely that anyone at Google would even begin to consider compensating SCO for their frivolous claims, regardless of Google's impending IPO. SCO, in an effort to manipulate their own stock price, is simply trying to ride the coattails of Google's good press and perceived value. I doubt that anyone at SCO really expects any of their legal pursuits to be successful. Their obvious intention is to get their stock price and then sell at a profit, which they've already done successfully. This current item is just further proof that they're going to milk this opportunity for all it's worth.
Lowest common denominator business practices courtesy of Utah.
What, exactly, does this have to do with Utah? Are all Washington state businesses evil? How about California businesses, since there's gotta be a bad apple in there somewhere?
Tweet, tweet.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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 !
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
First they're not going to ask for $1000. They are going to ask for around $1000 per cpu. That's about $15000000. Second, and what many people have missed is that settling with SCO will weaken their IPO. One of Google's strengths is that they are beholden to no-one for software. As soon as they pay SCO one thin dime that gives the bloodsuckers an opporunity to latch on and not let go until the corpse is sucked dry. This possiblity (whether you consider it realistic or not) would probably knock a good third off the IPO price: an amount in the billions.
I believe that, in this circumstance, Google is better off to not pay, say "see ya in court" and then to countersue SCO. That may mean that they have to delay the IPO but I don't see the IPO capital as being nearly as important to Google's business as control of their core infrastructure.