One Company's Response to SCO

Here's what I'm wondering... by neilcSD · 2004-01-22 05:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why is it that no one has taken SCO to court to get an injunction filed against them, barring them from collecting money or sending 'extortion' letters until their case is proved in court? It makes no sense to me that they can send out these letters, making threats, on a legal matter that is nowhere close to being decided. How about if SCO loses? Do they have to refund everyone who was coerced into buying licenses? It's ridiculous that no one has tried to prevent them from talking out their asses yet. It makes sense to me, am I missing something?

Ugh by Tirinal · 2004-01-22 05:44 · Score: 0, Interesting

I wish we'd stop having a daily SCO story every time they do something despicable. All of this self-righteous indignation is completely irrelevent. SCO doesn't care if they're wrong. Considering how smart their lawyers are, they probably know they're wrong. What they are trying to achieve is progress based solely on the ponderosity of their own momentum, which we are helping to propagate with all this nonsensical rambling.

--
~Tirinal

Salt Lake Article by Dark+Paladin · 2004-01-22 05:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

That has to be the best damned article I've read on the "SCO" case. Granted, it was slanted against SCO - but it provided logical, point-by-point facts about the history of the case. No new arguments for the geek crowd - but that's one I'll print out and show to the non-geeks I work with who haven't understood what the big deal is.

While we're at it, Mr. Johnson's article should be printed out and mailed to every member of Congress, the Senate, and to Mr. Bush to stop any of the "anti-Open Source" lobbyists dead in their tracks.

I used to live in Salt Lake and remember how good the "City Weekly" was, but I had forgotten that every so often, those bastards could really write.

--
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel

Re:Salt Lake Article by hargettp · 2004-01-22 05:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

That the article was written in Darl McBride's own backyard (Utah) is particularly telling. Any company worth it's salt knows that you at least keep your local press on your side: that's who your employees, your suppliers, and your closetst customers and partners read.
Re:Salt Lake Article by Joseph+Vigneau · 2004-01-22 06:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Bush's interests are very much on the "for-profit" side of things.

Perhaps, but one of the big reasons companies use Linux is to reduce costs: ie, turn more profit. I think Bush would rather see companies like IBM profit than those like SCO.

Has Halliburton paid their SCO tax yet? How about the Pentagon?
Re:Salt Lake Article by gcaseye6677 · 2004-01-22 06:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

But Bush's interests also are on the side of defense contractors, who all use Linux extensively. TRW, for one, was a very early adopter of the Beowulf cluster. They will no doubt have their lobbyists counter the anti-open source advocates, and any defense contractor can spend more money on lobbyists than SCO is worth. So I wouldn't count on the SCO efforts getting very far. Besides, Bush got beat up on pretty badly after the steel tariffs, even by fellow Republicans, so the last thing he needs right now, before an election, is to be seen as protectionist.

Re:wasting your time? be professional! by ActionPlant · 2004-01-22 05:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have to agree...it wasn't very professional to end the letter that way. Of course he was justified in saying so.

What has me curious is if everyone were to follow suit, will this actually stop the SCO, or will it be more like a "Verizon vs. the RIAA" kind of thing? The SCO may stop picking on these guys temporarily, but that doesn't mean they'll stop altogether. Chances are they'll simply find another route. Folks with homebrew servers, beware!

Damon,

--
http://actionPlant.com

Re:My Concern by ActionPlant · 2004-01-22 05:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

The problem is the legal bit. If our system was less beaurocratic (consider what just happened when the SCO failed to come forward with any real backup to their claims in court) we really could sue them for extortion.

I'm all for standing up to the bully. The question is, how do we do it?

Damon,

--
http://actionPlant.com

RICO act Remedy? by HealYourChurchWebSit · 2004-01-22 05:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm sure this has been brought up before (though I can't find it right off), but isn't this type of arm-twisting by SCO illegal?

For example, and any input from you legal beagles out there would be greatly appreciated, couldn't a company such as Just Sports use the RICO act as a means of seeking relief?

--
--- have you healed your church website?

Re:RICO act Remedy? by enjo13 · 2004-01-22 06:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

IANAL:)

However, this has been brought up with our lawyers in response to SCO. According to our counsel, to really have any chance of winning we'd need to be able to show that SCO has direct knowledge that their claims are false. At this point, SCO is attempting to assert rights and claims that it BELEIVES it has (apparently). As such, until the courts decide one way or the other they can pretty much get away with this.

What would be gold would be a company memo, high ranking employee, or anything that could clearly show that this is all made up or based on very thin evidence.... which is pretty unlikely to turn up.

--
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
Re:RICO act Remedy? by Jeremiah+Blatz · 2004-01-22 06:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm sorry, but I believe that you're just wrong. Unless SCO knows FOR CERTAIN that their threatened lawsuit has ABSOLUTELY NO merit, they can threaten to sue, and sue, all they want. Perhaps RICO has some provision that if you can prove that SCO doesn't intend to actually sue, then you can bust them. But that's almost impossible, unless the SCO people are excruciatingly stupid. Basically, the US legal system is very much into letting the courts decide, and pretty much doesn't recognize that there are large costs to successfully defending a lawsuit. In some ways it sucks (example: SCO), but in other ways it's good, as it allows flexibility on a case-by-case basis. (As opposed to codifying everything strictly into law, which has many downsides.)

They can't find the code by LehiNephi · 2004-01-22 05:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

Here's the way I see it:

SCO can't find any code from SysV in Linux. If there were any SysV code in Linux, they would have been able to find it, since they have the source code to both. There would have been no need to ask IBM for Sequent/Dynix code, since they would have found 'their' (SCO's) code in both SysV and Linux.

In other words, no SysV code in Linux

So they asked IBM for all the code that IBM has written, trying to find out exactly what code from IBM made it into both Unix and Linux. This leads me to the conclusion that they consider all code written by IBM for Unix to belong to SCO as a 'derivative work'. However, they (and we) don't know whether IBM developed the code specifically for Unix (and later contributed it to Linux), or whether IBM wrote it for both Unix and Linux at the same time.

If IBM originally wrote the code for both, I can't see how SCO can claim ownership/copyright/patent/IP rights/whatever. However, even if IBM did write it for Unix and later contributed it to Linux, SCO still have to prove that the code IBM wrote belongs to them(SCO). I find that doubtful at best.

--
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde

Re:wasting your time? be professional! by hackstraw · 2004-01-22 06:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

Regarding the "wasting my time" and being "unprofessional", who cares. I use it, and its very effective in dealing with people that are, well, wasting my time.

I recently told this to a salesman, and now he gets all of his info together before he thinks of calling or mailing me. In a nutshell, he's not wasting as much of my time anymore. Give it a try sometime, trust me its very powerful.

Anyone read this part? by symbolic · 2004-01-22 06:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

I want to walk the Court through enough of our complaint to help the Court understand that IBM clearly did contribute a lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just don't know what it is...

This comment was made by McBride's lawyer/brother (birds of a feather?) with during pre-discovery, and sums up the whole mess in its entirety. If a court order were issued to "Figure out what it is or shut up," I think it's quite likely that we'd never hear from SCO again. SCO would still die, only quietly.

Wow, he IS insane by enjo13 · 2004-01-22 06:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Our customers that are buying [UNIX] from us today, we generally don't have a problem with," McBride said. "We have some former customers that have left that are running on Linux, and they are in the crosshairs."

So basically they are targetting former customers? Are they seriously trying to keep their few remaining licensees in line with these kind of scare tactics? It seems like they are saying 'stay with us or we'll sue'.

Unbeleivable.

--
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!

The "infringing" code by Aumaden · 2004-01-22 06:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've followed most of the SCO nonsense over the past year, but somehow in all of that I missed something....

In SCO's letter it is talking about the Unix ABIs. I had always assumed the issue involved actual code (e.g., the buffer management code). But they're talking about ABIs here.

For those that haven't dealt directly with ABIs, here's the skinny...

When you want to open a file you issue a command like:

int fd = open("/etc/motd", O_RDONLY); if (fd == -1 && errno == ENOENT) {
printf("File does not exist\n");
}

The ABI defines the value of O_RDONLY (0) and the value of ENOENT (2). Without an ABI, one vendor (vendorA) might use the values 0 and 2 while another (vendorB) might use the values 1 and 3. Thus while you would have source compatability (code using the macros O_RDONLY and ENOENT will compile anywhere), you would not have binary compatability (code compiled with vendorA's headers will not run in vendorB's environment).

What all this means is: SCO is basing their case on the values of #defines!

Re:Save us from ourselves.... by TwinkieStix · 2004-01-22 06:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

Don't forget the most "capitalistic" of them all:
I need a feature, so I'll pay somebody to do it (or if I can code do it myself).
In the long run, I can see this being the most popular way new featured are added. It's almost as if we cut out the middle man (sales, marketing, useless features to make a 2004 version of the 2003 version for extra cash flow, lawyers, CEOs) and software is directly created by companies and users, or people paid directly by them.

An additional side effect will be small consulting firms for companies to get specialized software. These firms will be local and supply only domestic work.

Re:wasting your time? be professional! by Progman3K · 2004-01-22 06:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

You know what? I disagree with your "just ignore SCO" policy.

It seems to me that Just Sports CALLED SCO'S BLUFF

And that's exactly the best way to get rid of the posturing buffoon SCO is.

Anything else lends them an air of credibility and permits Darl or whoever to issue more press releases stating that their claim is being addressed by their victims.

Remember silence is consent.

Stand to arms, FIRE! (at SCO's retreating backside)

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J

Re:Too bad we can't support this company by SyntheticTruth · 2004-01-22 06:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

I know you're just trying to be funny, and succeeded, but I can't help but think about the buff geeks I know.

My boss is one. He used to be the stereo-typical chubby, pony-tailed geek, but over the last few years, he's lost weight, gained tone and lost all the hair. (On purpose, mind.) He works out regularly and is for the most part, an icon of healthy living.

Second, my friend (female geek linux user!) who is a black-belt, works out quite often, and can give good advice on how to keep onself fit.

Lastly, myself. Now, I am no icon -- I love my chili dogs and burgers, but I practice tai chi regularly with my wife, rollerblade lots in the summer (I live in MI, and hate the snow, so no winter sports for me) and generally keep myself healthy.

Now, the most unhealthy person I know is not a geek, but a couch potato. How come us poor geeks always get maligned on the exercise, healthy living path. ;)

linus's comment. by sg_oneill · 2004-01-22 06:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

I note in the rather excelent salt lake article that Linus was asked if he wanted to pass on a message to Darl, which he declined.

I would of loved that oportunity. I'd ask Darl a question. Sorta like this;-
I'd ask "Darl, Are you happy? I mean *REALLY* happy?. Are you happy that you have made one of the most well loved unix brands into an almost universal object of loathing amongst IT professionals. Happy you are planning to capture and destroy the work of thousands of passionate individuals worth millions of manhours. Happy you are building an enterprise on a foundation of litigation of lies."
I'd ask "Darl. If indeed you are happy then, tell me, would you in all conscience recomend to your children that they act as you do?"
And finally I'd ask "Darl. Men live in this world only a short time. When your day of reckoning comes, just what *WILL* you say to your creator when he asks you if your prescence on this planet has made the world a better place."

Cos sure as heck, I'd like to know.

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.

Re:GAVIN'S POST IN PARENT by gavinroy · 2004-01-22 06:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

# 2004-01-20 20:09:27 On the receiving end of SCO threats (askslashdot,linuxbiz) (rejected)
# 2004-01-20 20:16:12 What to say to SCO? (askslashdot,linuxbiz) (rejected)

/. editors hate me, not an approved submission since the year 2000.

Besides his obvious problems with the GPL... by Trolling4Dollars · 2004-01-22 06:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

...do you suppose that one side effect of this could be a fork?

One of the claims that SCO makes is that the 2.4 kernel and above are the ones with "SCO's IP". So... is there any possibility that a small band of hackers would go back to the 2.2 trees and develop them further or base something new off of those? It could be detrimental, but interesting. This is, of course, assuming that SCO wins which seems highly unlikely at the moment.

I also read Darl's letter to the congress. It's totally insane. He seems to be operating under the delusion that the United States was built on the idea that profit motive is a good thing. While it *can* be useful, it's far from the only motivation. After all, if one has the ability to make something from nothing, why not do it and profit motive be damned? The guy who can mill his own wood and make his own furniture at home shouldn't be chased after by furniture makers because he didn't make them any money. That's just plain stupid, but it's exactly what Darl is trying to do. I think he has a mental illness that revolves around profit motive. In fact, I would say profit motive to the nth power IS the #1 mental illness in the United States. Get over it Darl. Money is not the reason we are here. Neither is personal gain or wealth. We are here to help each other and better our society through the sharing and exchange of knowledge. If you can't get with the program, then do us all a favor and drop out. Permanently.

--
Un-news

Re:Besides his obvious problems with the GPL... by flossie · 2004-01-22 08:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

...do you suppose that one side effect of this could be a fork?
No. If there is code in the kernel that shouldn't be there, it will be taken out and replaced in the main distribution. Linus isn't going to allow SCO to charge people to use his kernel.

--
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty

Not enough by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-22 07:02 · Score: 1, Interesting

He should have asked for:

The product, filenames, and line numbers containing copyrighted code.
A statement of whether SCO's ownership of these copyrights is in any unresolved legal dispute
A statement that SCO has not licensed these copyrighted materials to any third party under the GNU General Public License, because that is the license under which I received them (and redistribution is explicitly permitted under this license)

That should take care of it. Asking for just the first one is just asking for errno.h again.

Re:Nice to see that the SCO stock price... by Reziac · 2004-01-22 07:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

Even better, check out the 5-year graph.

I notice another interesting feature, while the stock was at rock-bottom:

Splits:14-Mar-02 [1:4]

Doesn't this seem a tad, um, coincidental to you?

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

SCO by chaoticset · 2004-01-22 07:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

Dave Barry once said that the federal government had to be viewed as a form of entertainment, and in that way I think he's correct. No sane American, fully understanding what happens in American politics, would consider the government money well spent.

SCO's circus is better entertainment because most of us aren't paying quite as much for it...

--

-----------------------
You are what you think.

Re:wasting your time? be professional! by maetenloch · 2004-01-22 07:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

The entire letter was "acceptable" until his closing paragraph where he told them to stop wasting his time and their time... If you want to sound professional you do not tell someone to stop wasting your time in a letter. Find another way to put it.

I don't see what was unprofessional about his closing paragraph. He didn't insult them or call them names. The fact that he responded with a thoughtful, detailed and unambiguous letter addressing their points was professional.
He also has a duty to see to it that his company's time and money is not wasted on vague (and almost assuredly baseless) legal claims. Sometimes being professional means giving direct and unambiguous communication priority over 'professional sounding' ear candy.

Re:Text of the .PDF response letter by Draoi · 2004-01-22 07:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

January 21, 2004 Mr. Philip Langer Regional Director, Intellectual Property Licensing SCO Group

Interestingly enough, where I come from, Langer has an interesting and totally appropriate meaning!

--
Alison

"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein

To the Sports Company. !!!Please Read!!! by eadint · 2004-01-22 07:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

Now that you have an actual Letter from SCO Please contact the SEC with this letter, inform them that SCO is attemting to extort money from you, send them a copy of this letter and also report this to the DA in your state This should be covered under the RICO act.

If any other company has recieved a letter like this plese report this to the SEC the DA and consider a class action suit against SCO for Extortion and Defamation.

What this means to you.
IF you win against SCO you can MAKE money from the law suit. a class action suit for 100M$ would not be too much for this kind of offence.
IANAL

Re:To the Sports Company. !!!Please Read!!! by gavinroy · 2004-01-22 08:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

I do, for quite some time :).

I also contacted the various people mentioned, which resulted in lack of interest and a brush off.

Community support for SCO targets by fnf · 2004-01-22 08:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

After reading the SCO letter and Gavin's response, I just couldn't sit around any longer and do nothing. Below is the text of the FAX I just sent Gavin:

Dear Mr. Roy,

I just read the article on slashdot.org about you receiving a demand letter from SCO regarding their yet-to-be-proven claims of IP infringement in linux. I also read your reply letter to Mr. Langer and would like to congratulate you for handling this matter in what I feel is the most appropriate response to these scoundrels.

Please consider this FAX to be a legally binding pledge in the amount of $1,000 to help defray any litigation costs should SCO file any sort of legal action against Just Sports. I sincerely hope you will resist any and all efforts by them to extract payment from linux users until such time as they have proven their claims in court.

excellent example of a SOGOTP letter by swschrad · 2004-01-22 08:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

as an old, burned-up, has-been reporter and not a lawyer, this is a nicely done version of what is known around the courthouse as a "shit or get off the pot" letter. quite well done.

much better done than the version I sent to the Nebraska Attorney General's office thirty years ago after they tried to dun me instead of my insurance company after a little traffic accident munged up a guard rail.

they preserve your rights, show willingness to negotiate specific questions of interest, and give nothing away, including any further time and effort without specific facts being raised.

Mr. Roy deserves some sort of award for excellence in handling seekers of deep pockets.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?

interesting quote... by zoloto · 2004-01-22 09:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission show that SCO posted hundreds of millions in losses from 1994 to 2002.

wouldn't this mean the direction as a company simply sucks? I mean look at mandrake, redhat, slackware! Even they have made money. Something tells me it's more than his opinion of open source/free software than he even grasps!

The value of SCO is completely illusional. by chris_sawtell · 2004-01-22 09:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

The value of SCO would be destroyed if a very large number of application code developers, code maintainers, and installers declared that they would have nothing to do with any SCO products. Getting the message out to the small investors and proprietors that the product was 'black' would pull the rug out from under Mr. Darl McBride and the rest of the associated SCOundrels. There is no point in dealing or trafficking in any product, software or otherwise, which is, in effect, unsupported, because nobody is going to buy it. Bye Bye SCO you've had your day in the sun. Somebody else's turn now.

Re:pgsql? why? by gavinroy · 2004-01-22 13:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

Because I've been looking at BSD as a viable alternative should there come a point where I need to switch from Linux due to licensing issues. I originally wanted to know which BSD varient is the favored flavor for high volume pgsql databases and high-end hardware.

Three critical legal tests by Felinoid · 2004-01-22 17:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

There will be three critical legal tests as a result of SCOs actions. I'm douptful Darl is aware of the ground breaking he is making or what is truely at stake now that he has chosen to go down this path.

1. Obveously SCO is trying to clame unilateral legal ownership of Unix.
There are countless smaller tests in this but it boils down to this.
If SCO dose not have full and unrestricted control over the Unix source the rest of the case crumbles.

2. The legal enforcability of the GPL.
SCO wishes to contend the GPL is not a legal or binding contract.

3. Suing before establishing ownership.
SCO is asking companys to pay a liccens fee for using Linux prior to establishing ownership of the Linux code.
As SCO has yet to establish any legal clame to Linux it seams to me suing the users is legally questionable at best.

Should any one of the three tests pass the computer world would be thrown into legal chaos.

--
I don't actually exist.

Slashdot Mirror

One Company's Response to SCO

36 of 705 comments (clear)