SCOoby Snacks

A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine, I know that's what you're thinking. Novell is asking the court to dismiss SCO's lawsuit against them. Groklaw has taken a look at what is necessary to prove a 'slander of title' claim. And finally, reader loonix_gangsta wrote in and pointed to SCO's humorous 5 reasons to choose UNIX over Linux webpage.

Comments

A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine

[Anonymous Coward]

To quote Garbage, I'm only happy when it rains.

Re:A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine

[AndroidCat]

From the looks of the weather, it will be a day without sunshine. I think I'll go back to bed and tell them that I've got SCO.

*5* Reasons?

[yttrbium]

I like how of the five reasons, only one of them even mentions Linux, and that's a questionable claim at best!

Re:*5* Reasons?

[thinkliberty]

I like this one. SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor. They were a Linux vendor, how well are they "backing" what they have sold in the past?

Re:*5* Reasons?

[KilobyteKnight]

And #5... wasn't Linux legally unencumbered until SCO filed the lawsuits?

I scanned through the messages to see if anyone else was focusing on #5.

SCO is very legally encumbered.

Novell has legal control over IP shared between Novell and SCO, which Novell is now taking action aginst SCO over.

IBM has already in forced SCO to drop their claims of owernship over some of what just a month ago SCO was threatening to sue every Linux user over.

And finally, SCO claims the GPL is invalid yet has distributed GPLed code. So either they are claiming that they have distributed code illegally (since they claim to have no valid license to do so), or the distribution was legal (because they accepted the GPL as valid) and are now attempting to illegally extort money.

It's hard to get more legally encumbered than SCO. Though Darl might find a way.

yeah right

[Dreadlord]

And finally, reader loonix_gangsta wrote in and pointed to SCO's humorous 5 reasons to choose UNIX over Linux webpage.

Yeah, this is exactly why their web server runs Linux.

McDonalds and SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

"The everyday business of a McDonald's restaurant requires a stable operating system that can give round-the-clock performance," said John Doty, Director of US Information Technology for McDonald's Corporation's Store Systems. "We are very pleased with the performance of SCO UNIX(R). SCO's platform has provided us with a very stable and reliable system. SCO UNIX(R) has been a dependable platform for thousands of McDonald's restaurants over the past 10 years and we're looking forward to migrating our restaurants to the current version."

Great, now we'll have obese people suing SCO!

Wait...that may not be a bad thing after all...

Re:McDonalds and SCO

[AndyCap]

Not because of this at least. A great post to usenet made in the early 90's sometime. I didn't find the original post, only a repost from 95.
Still, it is funny to see how their enterprise unix compared to linux back then.

Re:McDonalds and SCO

[DR SoB]

"where is McDonalds using UNIX? in the cash register systems? "

Of course not..

There cash registers run on Windows. They are talking about there US chain _ONLY_ and they are talking about the credit card processing server. All of there stores connect to a SCO Unix box in their HQ, and are then routed to the bank (there is only 1 US connection to the bank from MCd's, not from ever store.. This is true of 90% of _ALL_ retailers in North America and it's spreading to the UK fast.).

I happen to know FOR A FACT, that McDonalds Canada, does NOT use SCO Linux for there server, they are running 4 redundant Compaq server's in two locations (2 per location) each with redundant T1 lines to the bank. These server's are ALL running Windows 2000 Advanced Server. I also know this is a trial run, and if successful, all other McDonalds (World Wide) will be switching, starting with the EU, then the USA. So, they are getting rid of SCO for Microsoft.. Now, this should get some interesting reactions.. :)

Reason #6

[swoebser]

Because we're litigious bastards.

Unencumbered??!?

[sonoluminescence]

SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered +5 Funny

Re:Unencumbered??!?

[highwebl]

So their point is: You can trust us because we aren't taking legal action against ourselves. Yet.

Sure

[BenSpinSpace]

What I find humorous is that SCO consistently trumps up their services as the "good" side in a war of good vs. evil. Do hardened capatalists actually succeed when they try to convince the public that something free and welcoming to public scrutiny is a bad thing? Linux sure violates that Constitution... how dare they be kind to the public! This will be the end of America as we know it, surely!

Re:Sure

[RailGunner]

Actually hardened conservative capitalists like myself see Linux as the ultimate level playing field for software development - a playing field where the best applications win, not where one company has access to underlying OS features and can freeze out competitors using predatory behavior...

And as far as applications - let's face it - there's more then enough room for many, many similar applications that people can choose from. For example - web browsers. Some people (like myself) prefer Opera, others Mozilla, some Konqueror, some Galeon, some Firefox, some people still use Lynx, Mac folks seem to like Safari... and yes, there's some poor, poor fools still using Internet Exploder.

Take Word Processing - go back to the early days of Dos / Windows - some people wanted to use WordPerfect, others Wordstar, some people PFS Professional Write, and there was more then enough room for all those applications - it was which one you liked best, and most of them could write files to various formats for sharing information. Now, we have OpenOffice, KOffice, AbiWord, etc, and again - these all write to multiple file formats - just pick the one you like best. Competition and Capitalism at it's finest, if you ask me.. which is the opposite route SCO is going with their money grab and frivolous lawsuit.

Re:Sure

[JaredOfEuropa]

Do hardened capatalists actually succeed when they try to convince the public that something free and welcoming to public scrutiny is a bad thing?

No, but they don't have to: most of the public doesn't give a toss about the wider political issues around this case, or even about the case itself.

Something that is scary rather than humorous, is that they are convincing some politicians. It's the same line of reasoning used in many other cases: what is good for us is good for the economy!
1) "Free software is unfair competition against the products that we businesspeople offer" (or: "we need software patents to protect our inventions!", or insert your favorite cause here.)
2) "If you make legislation against [insert special interest issue], you are hurting our business. Not just our company, really, but the entire economy is at stake!!!111one"
3) "If the economy goes bad, voters will hate you"

You'll find this line of reasoning is used often when business, or indeed any special interest, lobbies with politicians

There appears to be a typographical error in #5

[mkettler]

5) SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered

Shouldn't this read "SCO UNIX (R) is Unencumbered by adherence to the law"?

Seriously though, looking at what SCO is attempting to do to IBM, how can one call this "unencumbered"? The only company that is unencumbered in SCO's vision of the world is SCO. Any of their partners are legaly encumbered by adhering to SCO's license arangement. Anything you add to SCO appears to become a part of SCO's IP if their claims are correct.

But wait, doesn't that make SCO just as bad as the GPL, even from SCO's own perspective?

Re:There appears to be a typographical error in #5

[Asprin]

You already know this, but I'd just like to point out to the newer readers that the best way to explain the value of free software to people is to remind them that before the Visicalc(*) folks had the guts to form a company that only produced software without any accompanying hardware, software was largely produced in the domain of shared (scientific?) research, and they should continue to look at it that way, as opposed to some sort of ridiculous anti-capitalistic anarchist movement.


(*) NOTE: I *think* Visicalc was the first to do this. If not, please correct me.

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[maisenhe]

Ah but the fact that they never owned the butter in the first place is the problem. It is like buying butter from the store and then claiming that all other butters sold from that store are theirs as well. Your theory and theirs does not hold water or a cake.

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone gave you the butter for the cake, and said "Here, use my butter" and then later, while everyone was eating the cake said "Hey, everyone likes this cake, so you owe me a $1 for my butter" wouldn't you be a bit upset? If they wanted money for the butter, they should've gotten it before the cake was baked and everyone was eating it.

speed

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been my experience justified lawusits happen quickly and those that drag out are a corruption of the legal system to either drain finances or encumber someone with the legal "albatross" around his neck

Or is this link to SCO just a masked DOS??

[DOCStoobie]

BRILLIANT!! /. ing SCO to create a DOS attack!!

Great. Another Linux Community DDoS

[Anonymous Coward]

Through the link to SCO's anemic webserver. Good job, Rob.

I like reason #4

[Stalke]

Reason number 4 is "SCO UNIX is secure" and they later explain "These security features guard against business interruption, denial of service attacks....". So the DOS attack that took out their website last week was normal business operation?

I love these case studies...

[Valar]

All of the dates mentioned in the case studies are early 90s and back. Zenez started with SCO in 1983! Gee, I wonder why they didn't consider Linux? Hmm...

A Day without SCO...

[weshart]

A day with SCO is like a day without sunshine...

And a day without sunshine is like...night.

SCO's 5 reason page

[Xpilot]

I skimmed over it, laughing out loud at the incredibly great and skillfully humourous page that someone took great lengths to make in parody of SCO... until I realized it was at scogroup.com, and it was:

1. done by SCO
2. not intended as humour.

5 Reasons??

[zulux]

I can tell SCO isen't serious about Unix or Linux:

Their list started at 1 for cryin' out loud.

No. 2

[rokzy]

since when is being "backed by a single... vendor" a good thing?

also, does anyone else read the slogan "SCO Grows Your Business" and immediately associate them with the "G3n3r1c Vi 4g ara!!!"-type of business?

just posted over at groklaw

[Samari711]

it appears Novell has just torpedoed SCO's newest acusations against IBM. here's the letter they sent SCO waiving the claim to any Sequent developed code that touched SysV. Since Novell already waived the claim to IBM code, there's not a lot left for SCO to stand on.

SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap

[rjamestaylor]

SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap

I guess "stagnant" is well-defined. SCO's recent investments in its technology core ($0) prove they are committed to stagnation, too.

How many people are thinking, "Whew, I'm glad my company isn't listed on that Hall of Shame page? I know I am!"

Unencumbered? Not Quite

[fjaffe]

SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered

Guess they forgot to update the page after receiving formal notice, in a lawsuit no less, of 4 patent infringement claims. And, of course, unlike copyright claims, the patent claims could be applied directly to SCOX customers.... Better check that indemnity clause.... oops no indemnity.....

ROTFLMAO

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[pesc]

You see, Linux is like a cake, with lots of ingredients contributed by different people. The SCO group claim that some of their butter was used to make the cake, perhaps to grease the baking tray the cake was baked on, perhaps it was ground into the flour mix by hand. Without the butter, the cake could not have been made. And it isn't possible to take the butter out of the cake now, the damage has been done. Q.E.D. the SCO company are perfectly justified in demanding recompense for their stolen butter.

But when IBM asks SCO exactly where in SySV this butter comes from, SCO answers that it it stupid to ask this question. And they can't tell exactly where the butter is from unless they get full access to all the fridges IBM have.

Their current theory seems to be that OK, there is no butter in SySV, but flour. IBM took flour from SySV, added its own special butter to bake an AIX cake. And IBM can't give the AIX cake to Linux because of the SCO flour. So it follows (they believe) that they can't use butter that have been used together with SCO flour in a Linux cake.

Sorry, but I think that SCO are nutcakes.

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[hcg50a]

First, butter is probably a bad analogy, because it loses its independent identity when it is mixed into the cake and cooked.

Contributions to Linux are discreet and each component can be uniquely identified and its heritage proved.

Second, stipulating that SCO did indeed own certain discreet elements which have gotten incorporated into Linux, then I agree.

Components that are provably owned by SCO can be removed.

The actual argument in court is about whether SCO did, in fact, own these things that got incorporated into Linux. SCO claims they do, IBM claims they don't.

Currently, IBM and the court are waiting for SCO to show what they owned, so that the ownership claim can be evaluated properly.

SCO hasn't shown it yet, and the little they have shown outside court has been proved not to be owned by them. But since that occurred outside court, it doesn't matter to the case.

I think SCO's basic problem is that they are pursuing this case under some presuppositions that are clearly false, and will be proved to be false in court. But that day is still a long way off, since the case is still in the discovery phase.

Daryl's take on POSIX standards

[GillBates0]

While some application programming interfaces ("API Code") have been made available over the years through POSIX and other open standards, the UNIX(R) ABI Code has only been made available under copyright restrictions. AT&T made these binary interfaces available in order to support application development to UNIX(R) operating systems and to assist UNIX(R) licensees in the development process. The UNIX(R) ABIs were never authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL in Linux(R). As the copyright holder, SCO has never granted such permission. Nevertheless, many of the ABIs contained in Linux(R), and improperly distributed under the GPL, are direct copies of our UNIX(R) copyrighted software code.

Most of the code that SCO came up with as evidence of stolen IP consisted of header files, which all of us concluded was part of the POSIX standard. That's Daryl's comeback from the 5 reasons link.

Essentially, what he's saying is that ABI code (including headers) is not part of the standard, but their IP. Atleast we know now what their defense will be if IBM lawyers argue that the headers are part of the POSIX standard, and not their IP.

Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter

[chiark]

Small but important point - SCO doesn't appear able to prove with specifity what has been misappropriated into Linux.

From the "millions of lines of code" that are apparently SCO's IPR that are in Linux, they're now down to disputing the contents of 17 files in AIX.

To continue your analogy, SCO are claiming that they provided the butter used. They originally tried to claim that the majority of the cake was theirs.

However, they do not own the rights to all butter and butter making mechanisms. They may not even own any - ask Novell.

It is also conceivable that another hard working independent dairy churned its own butter. Let's call the maid at that dairy "Linus" shall we? :-) . Some of the churning wasn't great, and has his own unique idioms in it showing its true origin...

SCO in my opinion do not have any basis to their legal claim, and will probably disappear up their own behind, perhaps with some players facing criminal charges. They no longer appear to have any product but are a litigation factory. They're making a grab for cash which may turn out to be illegal...

You are a troll, and I claim my $5.

Cheers,
Nick.

One lousy reason

[Unnngh!]

From the Five Reasons...

SCO is the owner of the UNIX(R) Operating System Intellectual Property that dates all the way back to 1969, when the UNIX(R) System was created at Bell Laboratories.

Yes, I remember that great day, when Darl reached out of his crib, played with some punch cards, and voila!, a multi-user operating system was born. He was years ahead of Gates' measly DOS, and I know that Linus reveres him deeply as the grandfather of his own IP.

Of course, none of this would have been possible without the hard work of his venerable company, SCO, who, since the 1830s has been an innovator in computer technology.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The Real Five Reasons

[Infonaut]

1) SCO UNIX(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform - just like our experienced, capable, and truly ferocious attorneys.

2) SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor - and Lord knows, vendor lock-in is a GOOD thing!

3) SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap - who cares if it's a highway to Hell.

4) SCO UNIX(R) is Secure - from legal attacks, unlike you, you friggin' thief! Give us your money! You owe us! Give it to us!

5) SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered - and we truly believe that IBM's counteroffensive will do nothing to harm us. Really! It's all sunshine here at SCO!

Trepanning

[burgburgburg]

Cutting a hole in one's skull is called trepanning. And it makes a lot more sense than SCO ever will.

Re:Trepanning

[the Man in Black]

My god man! Drilling holes in his head isn't the answer!

Translations

[Experiment 626]

1. SCO UNIX(R) is a Proven, Stable and Reliable Platform
Well, it worked when we bought it, and we're too busy suing people to update anything.

2. SCO UNIX(R) is backed by a single, experienced vendor
Vendor lock in, you know you want it!

3. SCO UNIX(R) has a Committed, Well-Defined Roadmap
Updates will only come when and if we feel like it.

4. SCO UNIX(R) is Secure
With market share like ours, who would bother to crack this platform?

5. SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered
We're the one company you know SCO won't be suing.

Derivative works

[tr0llb4rt0]

I think that this snippet from SCO's original purchase agreement with Novell is superb.

"(b) Buyer shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend, modify or waive any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior written consent of Seller. In addition, at Seller's sole discretion and direction, Buyer shall amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or shall assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by Seller. In the event that Buyer shall fail to take any such action concerning the SVRX Licenses as required herein, Seller shall be authorized, and hereby is granted, the rights to take any action on Buyer's own behalf."

Basically the original contract says "SCO all your base are belong to us! signed Novell."

Novell can instruct SCO to amend or invalidate any of their license agreements on demand and if SCO refuses then Novell can go ahead and amend them anyway.

"Well that just about wraps it up for SCO." -- Gag Halfrunt.

One Reason

[the_flatlander]

One reason to choose Linux over SCO-Unix:

In a year, there will likely still be Linux vendors.

The SCO Group? In a year? Are you kidding? With IBM gunning for them? They are history; just a stain on IBM's rug.

One reason to think again

[G3ckoG33k]

Apparently, some guy posting at Yahoo Finance has done some digging:

The SEC will be *VERY* interested in this. The SCO debacle is a big story, but SCO may simply be a pawn in a bigger scandal. The big story is about market manipulation and insider trading. It isn't just about pump and dump. It is about buy, then pump, then short, then dump, then cover using the money of Royce clients and some assistance from the Royal Bank of Canada. SCOX investors are being played for fools.

Here we go...

Jonathan Cohen is the CEO of JHC Capital and is an investment advisor to Royce & Associates. Cohen is the fund manager for the Royce Technology Value fund.
www.roycefunds.com/funds/technologyValue.ht ml
Under Cohen's direction, this fund has acquired 430,000 shares of SCOX.
www.roycefunds.com/funds/holdings_rtv.html
He is also the CEO and Director of Technology Investment Capital Corporation (TICC) and owns 139,100 shares:
www.ticc.com/management.html#cohen
www.s ec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1259429/0000947871 03002580/xslF345X02/form3_112603cohenex.xml

Charles M. Royce is President, Chief Investment Officer of Royce & Associates.
www.roycefunds.com/about/inside_royce .html
The Royce Low-Priced Stock Fund owns 943,600 shares of SCOX:
www.roycefunds.com/funds/holdings_rlp.html
However, Charles Royce is also a Director of TICC and personally owns 69,500 shares of TICC.
www.ticc.com/management.html#royce
www.sec .gov/Archives/edgar/data/1259429/0000947871 03002585/xslF345X02/form3_112603royceex.xml

Royce & Associates owns a total of 1.4M shares of SCOX.

Cohen went on a whirlwind publicity tour the second half of last year to pump SCO for the Royce Technology Value fund that he manages for Royce & Associates.
www.threenorth.com/sco/cohen.html
At the same time Cohen stopped talking about SCOX and Deutsche Bank takes over the PR duties, initiating coverage with highly suspect rationale and rating:
siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.p hp/309220 1

RBC Dain Rauscher is the U.S. wealth management subsidiary of Royal Bank of Canada.
www.rbcdain.com
RBC Dain Rauscher Inc. was an underwriter for the IPO of Technology Investment Capital Corporation (TICC), underwriting an initial share allotment of 1,304,348 shares of TICC.
www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1259429/000 0950136 03002896/file001.txt

Of course RBC initiates coverage of TICC with an "Outperform" rating.
10:22am 01/15/04 Tech Investment Capital started at 'outperform' by RBC - CBS MarketWatch.com

RBC also participated in the private placement for SCOX, accounting for 2.3M of the Series A shares. www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.200312 09.gtscodec9/BNStory/Technology/
"An RBC spokesman was reluctant to comment, saying the SEC filing was about how SCO operates its business. He said that RBC's "investment in SCO is passive, made to hedge an economic exposure resulting from client transactions."

Single vendor; that's a BAD thing

[jridley]

Backed by one vendor? And what if they go out of business, which is very likely, considering the desperate flailing legal moves they're trying?

Better to go to a solution that has MULTIPLE vendors so you're not screwed if one of them goes out of business.

Re:what?

[squiggleslash]

The virus is aimed at www.sco.com. SCO have removed that from their DNS tables and created the www.thescogroup.com domain instead. This is a pretty effective way of neutralising the DDoS attack.

That was until someone then announced that you can download the Unreal Tournament 2004 beta from www.thescogroup.com and now it's down again.

The SCO theroy

[deck]

SCO to Judge:

1. The derivitive work, AIX or DYNIX (containing SysV and IBM code), is to be treated as the original work per 2.01(OK by US copyright).
   
2. AIX or DYNIX contain RCU, NUMA, JFS, etc. Linux also contains these.
   
3. Here is source code (in C) from AIX, DYNIX, and Linux. See how they are similar in implementing these functions.
   
4. Since AIX and DYNIX are to be treated as the original work (No. 1), see Judge, how they have stolen OUR code.

My butter anology:

1. SCO makes butter churning equipment (Patented).
2. IBM bought SCO butter churning equipment design as a basis to make their own.
3. IBM added their own improvements (Patented by IBM) to this design and sells that equipment.
4. IBM discovered a free design for butter making equipment and found they could add their improvements to that design. But to use the free design they had to make their improvements available in that design for others to build from.
5. SCO claims that since the improvements were originally used with their design even though they don't own the improvements they are theirs anyway.
6. SCO sues IBM for adding the improvements to the free design. They also say they will sue the people who use butter from the free design equipment.

Some of the testimonials are very old

[DesScorp]

Cardkey's in particular. Note that the testimonial mentions choosing "SCO and Compaq". I know about this one because I work at an airport, and we're phasing out our old Cardkey access control system right now (which runs on the aformentioned SCO and Compaq platform).

First off, Cardkey doesn't exist anymore, really. They were bought out by Johnson Controls years ago. Secondly, Compaq became HP years ago. Thirdly, most vendors are moving to Windows 2000 based ACS, so I'd be very surprised if Johnson Controls was still using SCO for new installs. They have to support their older Pegasys systems, but I'd be willing to bet they've gone Wintel along with everyone else.

All this raises a good question: how many NEW installs is SCO doing? Who's buying OpenServer and UnixWare NOW?

5 reasons to choose to ignore SCO

[jrl2]

1. SCO have proven themselves unstable and can be relied on only to make random legal claims with no actual backing.
2. SCO have recent experience only in pissing off their entire potential customer base and making half assed threats.
3. SCO CEO, Darl McBride should be committed.
4. SCO can't even take simple steps to stop a DoS of their own webserver.
5. SCO are currently in a legal quagmire of their own devising.

SCO is right, Unix is often better than Linux

[killmeplease]

The Unix that is better than Linux

AIX - when you need to use 64-bit IBM hardware for DB2 databases or custom IBM software to run a website like Ebay.com. Very robust OS/Hardware combo with rock solid reliability, hot-swappable hardware, and scalability to run on huge systems.

Solaris - When you would like the 64-bit capability and scalability of Sun Hardware and all in one enterprise resource management. Solaris runs huge applications on 128 processor servers with terabytes of disk space capable and 64+ GB of RAM capabilities.

IRIX - If you are running graphics apps on an Silicon Graphis system, there is excellent software written for this OS and the hardware defined what you could do with computers for CGI.

HP-UX - I don't know why anyone wants to use HP-UX unless they have custom software that won't port to another UNIX.

SCO UNIX - If you want to run a 10-15 year old cash register software that already has a superior Linux or Windows counterpart, money is no option, or you were recently made retarded SCO Unix is the only viable option.

Linux - Use Linux anytime you want a low cost, reliable Unix-like workhorse for applications like as Network Server (Web, Email, DNS, News, et...), database server, development machine, low cost UNIX workstation, the list goes on.

Just my $0.02