Slashdot Mirror
Today Is SCO's Deadline To Sue Linux User
herrvinny writes "As proprietor of SCO Countdown, I just wanted to remind people that today is the deadline for SCO to sue a Linux user. As everyone should know, SCO, 3 months ago, promised to sue a Linux user within three months. Well, that day has come. Who is SCO going to sue, if it is even going to sue?"
SCO has already said a lot of stupid things that they haven't proven. They've already sent notices out to companies who use linux (the first step in the process of suing a user) -- even though they still haven't got a ruling in the IBM case, and proven to anybody anywhere that they have a case at all. All this countdown shows the world is that SCO is consistent about one thing: much adu about nothing. - Eric
MakePassword.com Mp3 Blog
I don't think that will be such a bad thing if it happens, I've never met a man or woman, geek or not, who didn't love google.
Setec Astronomy
Does the failure of SCO to sue Google (or any major corporate Linux user) really surprise anyone?
First of all, SCO most likely chose that "90 days" to fall after the deadline to come up with some evidence in the IBM case. Darl et al no doubt figured that they'd either have an airtight case against Google, or have found new jobs by this point.
Second, how would such a suit proceed? I'd imagine Google's lawyers would start off by requesting a dismissal with prejudice, on the grounds that SCO can't sue for infringement on something they have no rights to. Failing in that, they'd just request putting off the case until a resolution of SCO vs IBM, which means basically the same thing, they'd just have to wait a bit longer.
Finally, assuming SCO did choose Google as their primary target, the fact that Google has put off its IPO no doubt weighs heavily in SCO's inaction - The deeper the pockets, the more you can get. With $25bn, Google would have some pretty deep pockets, on the short-term. With only a few tens of million above operating expenses, OTOH, SCO would have to consider itself lucky just to win the cost of their licenses, nevermind any penalties...
The "3 months ago article" states that
:
"The SCO Group Inc. said Tuesday it would sue a major user of Linux within 90 days..."
The article was published on November 18, 2003 (a Tuesday) so 90 days since November 18
12 remaining days in November +
31 days in December +
31 days in January +
16 days in February
---------------------
90 days
Deadline ended at 12AM February 17th.
1) The U.S. gov't. Why? Because embedded Linux is used in the radar systems of the FA-18 being sold on Ebay (reported recently on /. ) which the U.S. gov't probably didn't have a SCO license for and which would put an unlicensed copy of proprietory code (Linux... at least according to SCO) into the public domain. Then all the taxpayers could ante up the money. Surely the taxpayers can afford more than the 5 billion they're asking of IBM before damages... after all our national deficit is in the trillions.
2) Burlington. Why? Because they were the first, early Linux adoptee and led the way for all the others to follow. They set a trend and should be taught a lesson.
3) Germany. Why? Because they have the largest Linux role-out to date. And according to recent news their Linux roll-out cost more than sticking with Windows which means they have money to throw away anyway.
4) Google. Why? Isn't it obivious? Google is the largest and most popular search engine *AND* they use Linux. M$ wants a piece of the pie. M$ is already funding SCO, though not directly. If SCO sues Google, M$ can step in and have more market dominance. Sure they'll get sued again, but the judge will bend over for them again, and that's assuming they can even find a judge to pursue M$.
5) Lindows. Why? Because they're in everyone's faces. Sue them and you solve the M$ vs. Lindows problem, get money from Mr. MP3.com that the RIAA and MPAA couldn't get and give it back to M$ to fund more monopolistic practices and to pay all the new coders M$ will need to patch the vulnerabilities that are about to flood the internet.
Considering the lack of *technical* judges out there, this is an ideal time for M$ to start monopolizing more than ever. With technical judges busy with IBM vs. SCO, SCO vs. Novell, RedHat vs. SCO, M$ vs. Lindows, etc they'll be hard pressed to find a judge with enough competence to understand things. This is the ideal time for M$ to step up make the movie AntiTrust a reality.
"The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers
He'd never hit a 20. After all, he's standing pat on his total of 4 right now, and hoping for the dealer to bust, all while ignoring the face card the dealer has showing...
Agreed. Microsoft is sane and rational for the most part. That makes them more dangerous.
Insightful? That's the most hairbrained thing I've seen posted around this whole SCO debate so far, unless you were trying to be funny.
The RIAA got away with the "sue-a-kid" business model because the kid was, technically, breaking the law. Using Linux is not illegal. In fact, all the kid would have to do is show up in court and say "not guilty" and then watch Darl's brother proceed to hang himself before being laughed out of court.
Up to now, SCO has played their cards very carefully so as not to invoke the wrath of the courts (I'm sure they're trying the courts patience, but they're being very careful not to step over that fine line) so they can keep this charade up for as long as possible. Voluntarily bringing this to court would be nothing short of suicidal.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Are you idiots? No really, why are you posting this flamebait of a story? If you egg them on I can only imagine SCO -will- sue someone within a day or two.
As a BSD user I still feel for my Linux bretheren and imagine they would -NOT- want a lawsuit to contend with. Sure in the end, support would rally around Joe Linux and he'd have www.freejoelinux.com setup in his name, a pouring of donations... but who says Joe Linux WANTS this to happen?
I realize that tons of Slashdotters probably want it to occur as some movement, some political thing or this or that. But many Linux users I'd imagine want to steer clear of this BS and just avoid a lawsuit which costs them time, money and plenty of headaches. Sure they might get the money back but thats not the point.
Why egg SCO on?
Google and Lehman Brothers are obvious choices, but I'd hope that SCO lawyers are smarter than that. Big, rich companies can afford big defenses and smart lawyers.
If SCO was smart they'd sue a small company, chalk up a victory and with precedence behind them attack bigger fish. Of course, nothing SCO has done up to now says they're actually thinking ahead.
It ain't the first one baby, baby it won't be the last:
,"'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).
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 called cfront.
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
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 any "Linux licenses" being sold.
23) Lie: Invoices will be mailed to Linux users by October 15, 2003
Truth: No invoices were ever mailed.
24) Lie: SCO did not know of code additions.
Truth: SCO was participant in process and many additions were made by SCO employees.
25) Lie: SCO received the D&T Fast 500 recognition because of the strong UNIX market, IP enforcement and the Web services strategy
Truth: SCO made the list because of revenue growth due exclusively to
" SCO is just a Microsoft puppet being used to do the nasty things M$ can't do in public."
You know, it's funny really: Everybody bitches when the BBC says that the MyDoom virus was likely written by an Open Source Zealot, but it's okay to throw out these stupid accusations whose basis in reality is purely circumstantial, and then mod them up as +5 'Interesting'. Can't have it both ways, folks.
"Derp de derp."
Acting "sane and rational" about making profits quarter by quarter doesn't make a great policy for the long term. The idea that people like being treated like cattle has been tested time and time again. It always seems to work great for a while, then all of a sudden there is a commotion, and people are being lined up against the wall.
Scenario...
1. Company XYZ uses Linux.
2. Darl & Co sue XYZ
3. XYZ put up a really weak defense, maybe they are funded by a Redmond based company
4. Darl & Co win the case
5. There is now a LEGAL PRECEDENT
Oh cr*p! Now IBM, Red Hat, et. al. have major issues.
You want a signature? You can't handle a signature!!
When the BBC allows -1 Troll moderation of its news stories and editorials, I'll support its right to throw out unfounded accusations. Until then, I'll keep my Tin-Foil Hat (Media-Cynic version) handy.
Suing Munich would be a bit tricky, because they'd actually have to make some sort of claim. And, last I heard, Munich is in Germany, and there's an injunction against SCO making claims about Linux in Germany. Perhaps Darl will send Munich a blank threatening letter.
They dont *have* to sue.. its their choice legally. They can just wait until tomrrow.
Sure it makes them look even sillier by breaking their own promises, but.. its not really a 'deadline'....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
No precedent can be established if no judgment is passed.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.