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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Darl's mommy: "DARL! turn that light off and go to bed!"
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
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!
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
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!
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
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.
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".
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
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.
... 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/
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.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.
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 $10k - effectively imposing an "incorporation tax".
When one extortionist is panhandling a bag of peanuts it might be expedient to throw one to him. If he's asking to become a large, permanent hemmorage in your cash stream (or if there are a large crowd of these ticks sucking your corporate blood), paying the danegeld is a bad move.
I suspect that that's what SCO thought it was doing to IBM - but they asked for too much, and/or got in the game too late and ran into an IBM policy of delousing rather than scratching the itch (due to IBM's long history and repeated experience with such extortion).
But given SCO's track record for lack of savvy on these issues (i.e. taking on the IBM 500 lb Gorilla followed by a series of other stupid moves), I see no reason for them to suddenly wise up and avoid opening yet another front in the Unix Second World War (AT&T vs. UCB being the first).
If they do, I'd bet that Google will fight - and probably ask the court to put it all on hold until the SCO/IBM case is resolved - or perhaps combine them, if the form of SCO's demands is such that this is an option.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Google intially used Red Hat before converting to a house distribution.
They also have about 1000 BSD servers.
Need Mercedes parts ?
That gives me a thought: suggest to SCO that they go after all those linux servers Co$ 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?
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
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.