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.

Comments

Extortion

[young_hacker_1991]

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.

Re:Low level talks:

[JordanH]

Don't hold your breath waiting for those Press Releases.

Google would be nuts to do this.

• Everyone would hate them for caving in.
• It would negatively affect their IPO as investors would not know what kind of liability Google was carrying in the form of periodic license renewals.
• IANAL, but wouldn't buying an SCO license for IP that they are already holding under GPL potentially negatively affect Google's future ability to release GPL'd code based on the same body of work. It would seem that buying the SCO license is an implicit admission to SCO's rights here.

No, Not Even.

[ackthpt]

SCO seems to have decided that they would prefer to put the final nail in their coffin from the inside.

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.

Re:STILL boggles my mind

[Frodo420024]

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?

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'??)

Re:They better not!

[lisany]

Google OWES Linux.

Hey did you hear that there is this GREAT search engine that lets you searth the web, USENET, Images, News stories and more -- For FREE?! Man, I tell you whoever provides that service -- at no cost to the end user -- is doing the world a great favour.

Anything Google "owes" to the community they have given back with more than most GPL-users can claim to have given back.

Re:STILL boggles my mind

[Frodo420024]

I still don't get it. They were the ones suing, shouldn't it be expected that they have their evidence ready to present when the case first started?

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.

Would be a bad move on Google's part to knuckle.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.