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.
for quite a while, I thought?
Is that you don't try to extort Google. They're willing to fight back.
Well, it's obvious that Google is making it WAY too easy for people to find information on the Internet that flys in the face of SCOs story.
"Hay guys, we want money" - "no" "oh, ok thx bye"
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
..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
"Bunch of assholes."
You must think in Russian.
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
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.
all of the searches for "extortion" and "blackmail" start bringing up the SCO homepage at the top of the results.
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.
...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.
Google has an upcoming IPO. The think/hope that google will just settle so as to remove a 'cloud' from their IPO.
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.
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..
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 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.
When SCO is proven to be threatening people for
money under false circumstances, will SCO be
liable for criminal charges?
This is starting to look like that woman who
demanded the lottery prize in spite of the fact
she was unable to show any proof of ownership.
Darl's mommy: "DARL! turn that light off and go to bed!"
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
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?
As such, we are forced to protect our (insert random hyperbole here) and will be sending a cease-and-desist eail to that contact shortly!"
Is it just me or is SCO going out of their mind? This is getting insane.
:)
It's just you. No one else at slashdot thinks SCO is going out of their mind.
-- Kircle
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!
what SCOX faield to mention is the fact that Google execs in fact rejected SCOX's claims..
The reason you have not heard he rebuttle from Goolge is because of the upcoming quite period per IPO rules..
SCOX stock is about to hit the bottom in less than 20 days
you doubt this? take a look at the difference between the bid and ask.. when that spread gets biug it menas that theere are shorts and puts drivng theprice anot real value..once the judgement against SCOX is made in januaury those players wil have no where to go with their stock..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
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.
As part of their pump-and-dump strategy based on the premise of a viable lawsuit, SCO will try to attach themselves to every week's top news story. In coming weeks:
SCO bills NASA! (suspects Linux installed on Mars Rover)
SCO sues to stop presidential election tally! (unlicensed linux used in vote-counting machines)
SCO demands 25 million dollar reward for capture of Saddam! (We withheld a linux license so he couldn't legally use that terrorist O/S)
SCO requests injunction to stop sales of Ipod (Darl says they "could be hacked to run Linux")
Remain calm! All is well!
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
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 don't even use Linux and I'm worried I might get sued.
Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
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
The Windows NT kernel upon which XP is based dates back to a early/mid-1980s collaboration with IBM.
uh, no. NT is actually VMS at its core. IBM had absolutly nothing to do with NT.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
[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!.
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
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?
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....
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.
By low level talks, I suspect they mean that Google's lawyers were rolling around on the floor, laughing.
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.
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
SCO Lawyer: "So, you come to our headquarters on this day. You drink our coffee, you eat our cookies. Now it's time you pay us $7,000,000 (SEVEN MILLION US DOLLARS!) for your Linux machines." Google Lawyer: "Umm, I don't think so." *mumblings among the SCO Lawyers* SCO Lawyer: "Let me get this straight. You sit here, in our chairs, in our headquarters, and refuse to pay us the money that is rightfully ours?" Google Lawyer: "Yeah, that sounds about right. Thanks for the coffee, add a little more sugar next time. See ya." *gets up and leaves* SCO Lawyer (YELLING): "You won't get away with this! We own0rz j00!"
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
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.
Boss, I'm all for being deliciously evil. But are you sure about the little girls and the puppies?
Your humble servant
-D
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.
Google should bow to SCO and redirect all *Nix queries to SCO.
Graham
Linux - Fast Pane Relief
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".
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
Translation:
Low-level -- they're not getting past the receptionist.
Intermittent -- Google keeps hanging up on them.
Hence their turning to the media instead, since Google won't take them seriously (and shouldn't).
SCO: "Pay up, 'or else..'"
Google: "Fuck off and die, shithead"
SCO: "Die? Now? Are you crazy?! We got atleast a year before that happens!"
--- any post that takes longer than 20 seconds to write, isn't worth writing
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
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.
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
" 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.
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!!!
... 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."
Probably how the conversation will go when SCO approaches the French arm of google, google.fr.
SCO: You owe us money for Linux licenses
Google: I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough water!
SCO: But we own the UNIX source code!
Google: I fart in your general direction.
SCO: We require $699 per CPU
Google: Your mother was a hamster, and your father
smells of elderberries
SCO: Is there someone else up there we could talk to?
Google:No, now go away before I taunt you a second time.
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/
No. Google is pre-IPO. The normal reaction for an american company under the circumstances is "always settle so that the IPO goes through".
All I can say is that I hope that SCO has forgotten that Google is not by any means an average US company. If it was, it would have long gone belly up.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
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.
"Is it just me or is SCO going out of their mind? This is getting insane."
Of all the things they've ever lost they miss their minds the most -- maybe.
As an aside, Google is a client of RedHat. I wonder how thats gonna play out in front of the judge in the RedHat v SCO trial. Should be rather interesting to see...
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
Well, I run SCO countdown.com (see link in my sig) and I just wanted to remind everyone that the 90 day deadline SCO imposed on itself to sue a linux user is coming up. The deadline comes up February 17, so SCO better start unloading some serious lawyer firepower...
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.
And the one biggest reason why SCO will lose....
Nobody can defeat Nux Lee!
Pinging google.com [216.239.39.99] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=238ms TTL=243
Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=215ms TTL=243
Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=243
Reply from 216.239.39.99: bytes=32 time=187ms TTL=243
Ping statistics for 216.239.39.99:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 187ms, Maximum = 238ms, Average = 210ms
YES! We have low level talks!
google.fr ... Surrenders full payment
That would only work if SCO had the brains to go through Belgium.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
SCO: Hey, you are using OSS software, which we own. Can you give us some money?
Google: Fuck off.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
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.
Yes, all shall bow and worship the Stag King. Those who fail to show obeisance shall be disemboweled with a new-fallen antler and trampled to bits in a dark, hoof-pounding ritual carried out under the light of a full moon.
Sorry... Just couldn't resist the image...
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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
So, the question for me is:
Should I put all my SCO MEMORABILIA on ebay now?
or should I wait??
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
Did you mean: Nigerian Scam
No standard web pages containing all your search terms were found.
Your search - SCO - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.
- Try fewer keywords.
Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with your search.
Google intially used Red Hat before converting to a house distribution.
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
Seven icons for this article? Let's not forget the most obvious one... the humor foot.
Learn something new.
Anyone want to bet when a SCO search at google will only result in bad news for the company? I'm guessing it might just happen in the next few days.
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.
They also have about 1000 BSD servers.
Need Mercedes parts ?
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.
Google is a customer of redhat. Presently, scox is trying to get redhat's case against scox dismissed, on the ground that scox isn't doing anything to hurt redhat's customers.
Also, I think the CEO of Google is an ex-novell exec, just like the present CEO of scox. In fact, I think they were both at novell at the same time.
That gives me a thought: suggest to SCO that they go after all those linux servers Co$ must be running somewhere... (I have no idea if they are, but what the hell) ... and watch the fireworks!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Couldn't Google basically launch a denial-of-service attack of unimaginable proportions by putting a link to a Web site on the top of every Google search page?
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 !
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.
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
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).
Tip for all you future extortionists of IBM. I've seen how this stuff works from inside IBM, and I can tell you that IBM has a well-defined policy for how to handle this sort of extortion, complete with defined, documented dollar thresholds at which different actions take place.
Here's the scoop. If you want to suck money out of IBM by threatening the company with something, you have to keep your demand below $25,000. That's the magic number. If you ask for less than $25K, IBM figures it's cheaper to pay you than to have a lawyer look at it. If you'll sign an ironclad general release of liability, you'll almost certainly get your money*. Once. Since the release will make it virtually impossible for you to ever even utter the letters "I", "B", or "M" again without finding yourself in breach of contract.
When you ask for $1,000,000,000, however, since this *exceeds* the $25,000 threshold (see how simple this is?), a slightly *different* policy goes into effect. This one is a bit easier in that it doesn't require you to sign a release, but it does involve armies of high-powered lawyers armed with the largest patent portfolio in the world and typically ends with your ass being handed to you on silver platter.
That's all there is to it, folks! $25K, and you get paid. $1B (or $3B) and you don't!
*Actually, the $25K isn't a completely sure thing, either. IBM's policy is to randomly pick a subset of these cases and smash the plaintiff into a smooth, creamy paste, just to keep things from getting too routine and the lawyers from getting too bored.
In summary, it's the old saying: never try to extort more than it costs to have you killed.