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.
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.
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.
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!
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
Actually, that was just one month. And it's up on Monday :)
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"?
The judge was to grant one or more of the 'Motions to compel discovery' (two by IBM, one by SCOX). IBM basically said in theirs "Get us evidence of wrongdoing". SCOX said "Show us your Unix that we may be able to find some of your wrongdoing."
The hudge easily gave IBM what they had asked for, and gave a time frame for that. One month to produce the evidence (over the holiday season - not much :), and a couple weeks for IBM to digest that. Dismissing the case was not an option at this point. Has nothing to do with the judge favoring SCOX - she was very obviously unimpressed by their behaviour. Read up on Groklaw if you need.
(How did that comment I'm replying to get rated 'Insightful'??)
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
Well, when you are filing a case, there are certain mechanisms for getting all relevant information out during the case, also stuff that's normally not available. In criminal cases you get search warrants and stuff, in civil cases you have subponaes to request additional information from various parties. In this manner you can get at relevant evidence that would usually be hidden in company vaults etc.
I could understand giving the defense time to gather evidence, but the plaintiff should be expected to have their evidence ready to present.
They should present enough evidence to prove the case has substance. SCOX had all along been pleading they'd show the evidence in court, and didn't yet. IBM asked them to quit stalling and play their cards, to produce all relevant evidence. The judge gave SCOX 30 days to do that with particularity, meaning they have to tell exactly what lines in what files are copied. SCOX had given IBM a huge stack of Unix code (which IBM already has from their Unix license), expecting IBM to figure out the exact problems in the code. That's not good enough in court.
SCOX had in return asked IBM to come up with all their various Unix code (all of it!) for examination. That one is still undecided on, but looks like a 'Fishing expedition', where SCOX hopes to stumble upon something to substantiate their case. That's not acceptable behaviour in court. If IBM has anything 'fishy' in their code (SCO Unix stuff copied to Linux), they might even be able to invoke the 5th Admendment and refuse to produce self-incriminating evidence. Don't think they would, though, would look pretty bad :)
Seems to me at least that a plaintiff showing up without their evidence is pretty good grounds for dismissal. Is it really generally acceptable to bring suit before you assemble your evidence?
Yes and no, as above. You should produce enough to make it believable that you have a case, but discovery is relevant to bring out the exact nature and full amount of the wrongdoing, if any. SCOX is being given the benefit of doubt, which is needed for a fair trial - but if they don't produce anything real soon, they'll be in LOTS of trouble.
Anyway, the IBM lawyers didn't even request a dismissal of the case at the first hearing. They're probably holding that one off until the game is so far advanced that it'll be an obvious thing to do, which is not the case right now. Since SCOX didn't show their 'evidence' yet, we still don't know if there is any substance, and potentially there could be. Now, if (when) they don't come up with anything, IBM will probably request the court to dismiss the case with prejustice. Which is much more likely to be granted when SCOX has had plenty chance to come up with evidence. IBM has good lawyers and is not in a hurry. It's more valuable for them to take the time to get prejustice (or even extreme prejustice) along with the dismissal, barring the gate for similar cases in the future. Speeding the case is not that important, it's better to win it with great force.
>> How did that comment I'm replying to get rated 'Insightful'??
Maybe because there wasn't a "+1 Good Question" modifier? I was ranting a bit, but I really was also seeking information.
Got it :) I always look in vain for the "-1 Wrong" modifier. Probably "+1 Interesting" would've be better anyway.
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
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