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.
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
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.
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.
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...
Cheers,
Craig
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Bunch of Assholes
SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
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".
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
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
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.
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
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
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 !