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.
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
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
...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.
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.
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...
wrong.. SCO says 'hey google give us $1000 which is peanuts and sign this non-disclosure and we'll call it even' -- Google 'ok sounds good to me' -- SCO release many press releases saying Google the largest commercial linux user paid SCO licsensing fee. Soon the $699's start to trickle in from all over the Fortune 500
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
Seriously. Talk about rallying the troops of the other side. Go after Google? Every nerd's best friend?
Anyway, SCO's timing on this matter is very suspect, with its notice so close to a Google IPO. If SCO keeps making noise, I would expect a Google counter-suit claiming defamation, especially if the IPO doesn't go as well as planed.
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. All I know is I keep a daily eye on Groklaw
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
The problem with your plan is that there's still no incentive for people to part with their money. Those companies didn't get to be in the Fortune 500 by being stupid.
I think it's far more likely that if SCO asks people for money they'll decline, and if SCO demands money they'll be sued.
The likeliest scenario by far is that SCO is involved in a stock scam, requiring a constant stream of messages in the press. They needn't prevail in court nor need they actually receive any revenue.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
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.
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.
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
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
This is actually a quite common scam: send a large company an invoice for a small amount, and it's quite possibly going to be pais.
Linux got in the way of M$ World Domination(tm). Google also got in the way of M$WD. Strange, that SCO seems to prefer targets that are enemies of Microsoft?
Funny, but interestingly enough, hit #2 is the OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint.
It's kinda hard to keep up your FUD when the opposition papers fall right next to your website on a general search. Too bad Groklaw isn't up there at #3.
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
I don't suppose SCO wants a cut of Google's stock and/or options in exchange for a linux license? That could be major extortion from my POV:
SCO waits for any run-up in the Google stock and then bails. Voila--instant $$.
Money is the last thing I want to see SCO get its hands on.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
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....
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.
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.
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.
Fair enough.
As soon as share value drops SCO has not as much money for lawyers anymore.
Wrong, sorry. Their stock value doesn't influence their cash flow directly, nor the amount of cash in bank. There might be some indirect effects related to financing and stock options, but they're not running out of cash even if their stock goes back to penny status.
Of course investors fleeing will attract the interest of the press, in their vulture form :)
[Oops, posted prematurely before - feel free to mod that one down :]
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
Random thought. Most of the stuff that SCO are referring to is error code references. I wonder if SCO have copyright on the berkley sockets stuff that most of the internet is based apon. It would be interesting if software firms such as Miccys$ft have used the same return codes in their TCP/IP stack ?
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
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.
" 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.
... 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."
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/
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.
Oh, yeah? Then why does a google on "goatse" come classified under the "Society > Religion and Spirituality >
They also have about 1000 BSD servers.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Bunch of Assholes
Let's Bunch of Assholes
Try Bunch of Assholes
To Bunch of Assholes
Be Bunch of Assholes
Less Bunch of Assholes
Lame Bunch of Assholes
While Bunch of Assholes
Posting Bunch of Assholes
Easily Bunch of Assholes
Compressible Bunch of Assholes
Data
(ROFL, that worked! The lameness avoidance, that is. We'll have to wait and see if sending SCO to the top of the "Bunch of Assholes" search works... Right now they're not on the first page, either for no quotes or with quotes.)
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
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.
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.
hmm....but couldn't they easily put in a few "sponsered links" which point to slashdot pages talking about how bougus SCO's claims are? So when the uninformed get sco letters, and go to their trusty search engine, they are distracted by the pretty colors, click on links, read slashdot, tells sco to fuck off.