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.
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.
"Bunch of assholes."
You must think in Russian.
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.
Perhaps it went something like this:
SCO: You owe us money for Linux licenses.
Google: Fuck off.
SCO: You're using our code and we can prove it!
Google: Go on then.
SCO: No.
Google: Fuck off then.
Repeat as necessary.
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
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!"
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.
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 would be nuts to do this.
Hey Darren, fancy meeting you here!
I don't think SCO is that straight forward. It'd be more like:
SCO: You owe us money for Linux licenses.
Google: Fuck off.
SCO: You're using our code! Show us where!
Google: Er, no.
SCO: <deer in headlights look>
Google: You can't see our servers and we don't have time for your nonsense. Go away.
SCO: ?
Google: Seriously. Go away.
SCO: ? <hangs head and goes away>
Sometimes the truth is arrived at by adding all the little lies together and deducting them from all that is known.
No no, the "level" of talks refers to how high up in the building they got. "Low level talks" means they weren't able to get past the ground floor receptionist before security kicked them out.
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.
Remember kids, you can't spell "fiasco" without SCO.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
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.
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.
In Google's case, SCO probably wants user licences. How many users does Google have? :^P
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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.
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
Oh, yeah? Then why does a google on "goatse" come classified under the "Society > Religion and Spirituality >
Google is strict about not allowing political causes, no matter how justified, to throw around their search results.
Maybe just this once Google could set up a special server just for requests coming from SCO's office IPs:
Travel agencies foreign [I'm feeling lucky] ==> Groklaw
RIAA music [I'm feeling lucky] ==> Groklaw
Garage Sale Utah [I'm feeling lucky] ==> Groklaw
Mac and cheese recipe [I'm feeling lucky] ==> Groklaw
And so on...
Email: slashdot3@FreeMars.org (Address will be abandoned when it gets spam.)
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.