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?"
Oh please, please sue ME! I could use fifteen-minutes of fame! Not only that, I'm installing LFS on my Rev. A Bondi iMac even as I'm typing this post! I'm such an outlaw! Come and get me!!!
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
At least, if I were pretending not to be backed by Microsoft, that's what I'd do.
"Mein Gott! Herr McBride ist nicht gegetting keinen bier! Der kann amerikaner wasser beir getrinken und bei Holle gehen! Uf dienen lederhosen, Herr McBride!"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Actually, it's a no-brainer -- they will sue Google. And before you say "ahh yes, Google, a huge Linux user" you should instead think to yourself "ahh yes Google, the premiere search engine." Because when the suit comes, that's what it will really be about. SCO is just a Microsoft puppet being used to do the nasty things M$ can't do in public.
What is Microsoft's next "big thing?" Web searching. And who have they set their sights on? Google. Fortunately for Microsoft, Google also happens to run Linux, so they can dispatch their little lap-dog on a smear campaign. Does it really matter if Google is vindicated or not if Microsoft can make businesses think "IP theft" when they think "Google?" You heard it here first...
Somebody's gotta take Darl to Vegas sometime and sit him down at a high stakes table. If he was willing to bet on having a user lawsuit today, who knows if we can talk him into calling "hit" on a 20 in BlackJack...
It's worth pointing out that today isn't SCO's deadline to sue Linux users. Today's is the deadline imposed by SCO for all Linux users to ante up the money or face possible lawsuits from SCO. All things considered, I'd love to see them try. Considering the recent news of AT&T and Novell documents, I'd love for SCO to sue me, then lose their case(s) to Novell/IBM and let me sue back for extortion, loss of income, etc.
Hey SCO. I use Linux. I install Linux for 100's of companies a year. I failed to pay for any SCO licenses. Please sue me! My email is andrew@nccomp.com.
"The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers
Judging by all the flames the past SCO stories have generated, shouldn't this article itself be flagged as flamebait?
My lack of God, it's Trotsky!
We can't find "www.sco.com"
You can try again by typing the URL in the address bar above.
Or, search the Web:
This flies in the face of science.
Imagine if they gave a frivolous lawsuit, and no-one came?
(apologies to whomever came up with the original Vietnam War-time adage)
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
How about this... Google is the biggest major user of Linux who is still profitable post-bubble. We don't know exactly how profitable because they're not public yet, but we know they have to be looking good to be thinking about an IPO.
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
At this point I think it would be too dangerous for them to sue anyone who would put up much of a fight. I imagine an unamed user, or one of their few remaining friends. Perhaps a Microsoft shell company.
The suit can be filed. Vague statements can be made. Face can be saved. The recipient of the suit might not even contest it. More smoke and mirrors.
I dont think even Darl McBride is foolish enough to risk a big name with the legal problems they're having.
LS
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
Pretty Please?
The Mothership
This document describes SCO's case (or lack thereof) in more detail than any other piece of info so far. Lots of stuff for the Linux community to pick apart. Most especially a description of the "millions of lines of code" that they claim they own.
I'm taking ownership of www.sco.com, Chris is taking ownership of www.caldera.com, and we're going after a billion dollars apiece.
I am seriously going to sue myself until I go blind. I get wood just thinking about it.
Perhaps this entry is relevant? (Red Hat News - Lehman Brothers Threatened by SCO)
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Really? Is Google bigger than Lehman Brothers, whom SCO just recently threatened on this issue?
a rticle.php?story=200402171 13800806
http://www.lehman.com/
http://www.groklaw.net/
Not all 'major users of Linux' are Internet companies...
Yes! Please! Sue Google! I want them to put back in SCO on top of the litigious bastard search!
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
Actually, it's a no-brainer -- they will sue Google
They could just sue themselves. I mean, they were a friggin Linux shop called Caldera not so long ago, and one of the most prominent, if not *the* most prominent linux distro makers somes years back. If that's not called a heavy Linux user, I don't know what is.
Besides, if they sue themselves, they'll save on stamps to send themselves subpoenas, and they'll be able to use the same lawyers to sue and defend themselves.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
today is the deadline for SCO to sue a Linux user
:)
I am sure its not gonna happen. As they say here "Don't worry too much about SCO suing anybody today 'coz its already tomorrow in Australia"
Free XBox, PS2
Hints and other juicyness can be found here
Apparently a Feb 11 S-3 Filing by SCO includes the following
"Additionally, we have begun notifying selected Linux end users in writing of violations we allege under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act related to our copyrights contained in Linux."
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
But regardless of whether SCO has already sued a user or is just running a little behind schedule, winning any Linux lawsuits may have just gotten a lot harder for SCO.
Who said so? AT&T -- in 1985.
Check it out for the juce..
Even better, after they sue themselves and lose they have set legal precedent. :-)
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
At least that's somewhat implied in some speculation at Groklaw. According to that story, Lehman Brothers got a nasty-gram and promptly dispatched it to RedHat of servicing... RedHat attached it to some kind of motion or something (IANAL) suggesting that although SCO had promised the judged it was not threatening RedHat's business, threatening RedHat's customers was the same thing...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
As an amusing aside, the other day I was visiting a friend of my wife's at her work. My 1 year old was with me, and, having wandered away for a second or so, my ears picked up the sound of SCSI hard discs spinning down. Fearing that I might be in the running for a few hours unpaid work bringing up some ancient Netware box (they're a bit low-tech where this gal works), I hastily powered the box back up. What had my 1 year old accidently powered off...? A SCO Unix box! Good on 'yer mate!
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
SCO is going to sue a Linux user. SCO is going to sue a Linux user. SCO is going to sue a Linux user. SCO is going to sue a Linux user. SCO is going to sue a Linux user. SCO is going to sue a Linux user. SCO is going to sue a Linux user. SCO is going to sue a Linux user.
SCO doesn't sue a Linux user.
Try this:
Tomorrow, we log onto the Internet and witness a vicious battle going on. There's a flash video in which a streaming clip manifests Darl McBride in every home user's web browser. Why? It turns out that the hacker behind MyDoom is actually an evil corporation trying to destroy SCO, the promoter of Open Source software. Its first target was Goatse: by removing an object of internet culture that everyone has a love/hate relationship with, it destabalized the internet. SCO has been working around the clock to resolve the issue and restore the internet to its full power. SCO couldn't tell us its true intents only because that would ruin their plan. And thus we witness Darl McBride fighting against the MyDoom virus, incarnate, yet coded into a flash file.
Suddenly, when it looks like Darl McBride might lose the valiant fight, brilliant hackers intercept the sattelite connection going to SCO and insert special weapons for Darl McBride.
Whammo, Darl McBride wins the battle, and in a tremendous flash of colors, the creepy Peak Oil website literally explodes, covering Google in a hidden cache of virtual oil, which can be printed out by any inkjet printer into real oil.
People even write offensive, politically volatile websites solely for the purpose of getting people to donate money so they can buy Dance Dance Revolution.
Goatse.cx is restored, to the detriment of Internet users everywhere but to the spirit of the Internet altogether.
Darl McBride is hailed as a captain of the Internet, and he forms a team with Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates (who decides to make Windows open source) and Steve Jobs (who decides that maybe Mac programs, as good as they are, should have more than 2 options per program). They develop the ultimate flawless operating system, and Netscape, Opera, and IE combine all their best parts into a browser that has the ability to stretch one's computer screen to twice its physical dimensions while in use.
From Groklaw
I think there would be a large list of very negative outcomes for SCO and very
little positive if SCO were to file a lawsuit against an end user.
1. Getting involved in another lawsuit will cause attorney fees to drain their
limited cash even faster
2. The lawsuit will likely take years to even go to trial, much like the IBM
suit. Since SCO must win the Novell lawsuit first (itself years away from
beginning, much less ending) to secure undisputed System V copyrights, any end
user lawsuit would probably have to be put on hold until the end of any appeals
in the Novell suit.
3. Unless an end user is distributing the Linux kernel, they are not guilty of
copyright infringement. Copyright law governs copying and not use of code.
Section 117 of copyright law also specifically excludes installing and running
software from being infringement.
4. The money that they can get from one company for unintentional copyright
infringement is limited and likely less than their attorney fees in many if not
most cases. Lack of registered copyrights limits awards to actual damages, which
are likely to be minimal or negligible. Even with registered copyrights, damages
for unintentional copying are severly limited.
5. SCO's failure to mitigate damages since at least May 2003 limits or
eliminates any damages they can collect
6. SCO themselves distributing any infringing code in their own Linux products,
especially under the GPL, limits or eliminated any damages they can collect
7. In the event that there really is SCO-owned code in the Linux kernel, SCO
will be forced to document any infringing code and prove their ownership, which
will allow it to be removed or replaced
8. It will increase ill will toward SCO from a greater number of companies and
individuals, including their own customers, who will likely abandon SCO in
significant numbers
9. The act of filing a large number of frivolous lawsuits may be used against
SCO and its executives in a shareholder lawsuit at a later date
---
Darn, thought of some more after I submitted.
10. In the event that SCO proves there is non-GPL code in the Linux kernel, they
simultaneously prove themselves guilty of violating the GPL and willful
copyright infringement. SCO has been distributing the kernel on their FTP site
for years, even after they were aware of the allegedly infringing code.
11. SCO and/or their attorneys may be fined for filing frivolous lawsuits.
12. SCO potentially opens themselves to prosecution for fraud or extortion by
state attorneys general, the FTC or other state or federal anti-fraud or
consumer protection agencies.
13. Any portions of Linux that SCO alleges are illegal may be covered by
AT&T's failure to add copyright notices, or the code in BSD-Lite, or the
ancient Unix code that Caldera previously released under a BSD-like license.
You are already a Sladhdotter. You will be a Slashdotee once your website gets Slashdotted
actually I heard it here first...
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...
Now I have to pay for Linux? I better switch to the new free open source version of Windows Fast!!
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
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.
This online poll currently has a small but worrying percentage of people ready to buy SCO licences.
Co-operation beats competition
I think SCO is trying to create a circular dependency with their lawsuits. SCO vs IBM cannot go ahead until SCO vs. Novell is resolved. RedHat vs. SCO is waiting on the outcome of SCO vs IBM. They need to sue someone who uses RedHat, so that case is blocked by the RedHat case, yet also blocks the Novell case. AT&T comes to mind. Suppose AT&T uses RedHat. They could sue AT&T over that. Such a case would then be dependent on the outcome of the RedHat case. Since AT&T originated the code in System V, SCO vs. Novell would likely depend on the outcome of the AT&T case.
So to recap:
- SCO vs. AT&T cannot continue until SCO proves its not baselessly slandering RedHat's product.
- SCO vs. RedHat cannot continue until SCO shows that IBM illegally copied code.
- SCO vs. IBM cannot continue until SCO shows that that they and not Novell in fact own the code.
- SCO vs. Novell cannot continue until SCO proves that AT&T is not allowed to violate what would be their own copyright if Linux in fact does contain System V code.
Thus it will deadlock forever, SCO will make a bunch of wild claims, and the stock price will skyrocket.
Of course, they won't gross dollar one.
Unknown host pong.
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
-- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
I called SCO months ago and told them (truthfully) that I won and operate a 14 computer internet cafe all running linux. I asked them to send me a bill (which I would, of course, ignore).
:(
But then I let slip I was going to forward it to the California State Attorney General and ask them to sue SCO for attempted fraud.
Guess that scared them - I never got a bill.
Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
Whom is SCO about to sue?
* Google
* IBM
* German government
* Linus
* Microsoft
* Me
* I know but I won't tell
* CowboyNeal
Suggest your options
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
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!
You mean (gasp)... it's actually possible that SCO executives lied about something? I am shocked! Shocked and appalled that something so unexpected could happen right here in the good ol' USA, where corporate executives, especially corporate executives that also happen to be lawyers, are known to ALWAYS tell the truth -- even if it hurts!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
> I don't think it will be Google because they've got the resources to
> counter-sue.
I'd just love to see Google remove all links to a company which had pissed it off! Perhaps if it redirected you via a page containing a frame containing abuse towards the site.
Those rogues pretty much flaunt that they use Linux with zero regard for SCO's intellectual property rights. SCO vs. The United States Government. Who would win? I'm on the edge of my seat.
Who is this Sue and does she work for SCO?
--
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
Actually, Lehman was just one of the 1500 companies they sent threats to a while back. Red Hat just picked them as an example.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Followed by a Pepsi promotion where they give away SCO Linux licenses inside Pepsi bottle caps, featuring commercials with the 13 year old kid saying "And I'm here to tell you we're still going to run Linux... legally!"
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
He made this promise after MyDoom was out there, and in fact in the very same speech in which he talked about MyDoom.
I expect the excuse they will come up with is to say that IBM is a linux user and they are already suing them.
After looking over the article at Groklaw I'm slightly worried. IANALP (Linux Programmer) but they do look like they're presenting a lot of substantial evidence. Is anyone else here worried?
However, their identities cannot be revealed because all parties signed confidentiality agreements.
The RIAA is going after all the Kazaa (Windows) users. SCO is going after all the Linux users. Mac users must be feeling pretty unloved, who's going to sue them?
As everyone should know, SCO, 3 months ago, promised to sue a Linux user within three months
I feel left out, where is the, "In 3 months we [SCO] will promise to sue all OS X users." I mean i want a neat count down timer that i can add to my site.
*cries*
oh well I guess i'll go install linux via virtual pc and get in this round of ppl that sco wants to sue.
-- Ben --
>Seriously, anyone with an IQ equal to a doorknob would but easily spot the puppetmastering done by M$ in this particular case...
I fullheartedly agree, old knob.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
All I have is debt SCO. I'm not a 14 year old like the RIAA likes to sue but I'm still a student. You can have 50% of my debt!
Hell maybe I'll settle with you and you can have it all!
--Thei Antispamist A useless endevor that will cer
It would be interesting to see who's the first linux user they sue.Most of the biggest users of linux are much bigger than SCO themselves leaving aside a few million single users who downloaded a copy n installed it on their home desktops or whatever.Sco vs Google would be real nice.
Lord of the Binges.
So let me get this straight:
They are suing an unknown party, whose name they will not release.
And they are suing for an undisclosed violation of Intellectual Property.
Anway, you mystery user, who knows not how you infringe, please step forward to be sued.
HAND
Patent: from Latin patere, to be open
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
I don't think it will be Google because they've got the resources to counter-sue.
Yeah, SCO only goes after the little guys like IBM.
" 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."
But Linux does have weapons of mass distruction and Iraq stole source code from SCO!
Really!
We don't need to see any evidence. Just listen to the official story.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Any change a Linux user/using company could sue SCO for slander?
"Windows for All Stupid Types" was renamed. During market research, they asked the target audience for a better name, and everybody raised their hands and yelled, "Me!"
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
Some of the latest news in the RedHat case, is that Lehman Brothers came forward with an extortion letter which accuses them of copyright infringement.
Now, if you'll notice the regular press, they pretty much publish SCO's press releases verbatim, and rarely is any mention made of the controversy surrounding their status.
If you look at the financial press, you will see NOTHING about the controversy.
RedHat and IBM are just tech stocks. Nothing there is going to get much attention from the press. I mean, it *is* IBM, but it's still just a tech stock to them, and the whole controversy is a mess. Maybe it's obvious to you and me and PJ, but, to them it's all speculation and rumor.
The fact is, the stock has been climbing. So when the analysts said "strong buy", they were right. The lawsuits don't matter. The fact that they are going down in flames, perhaps even with the execs going to prison, doesn't matter until it happens. Right now it looks like we all should have been buying the stock when they said "buy" (and probably selling off about now!)
But now, SCO has thrown down the gauntlet at the feet of Lehman Brothers. I think that is an even worse choice of adversary than IBM! Lehman Brothers, a financial house. The sort of place that will have SEC auditors on full-time staff, and Secret Service agents for security. NOW the financial press will be forced to pull their head out of the sand, or wherever it's stuck, and report that there might just be a problem here.
Because Lehman Brothers isn't just a tech stock. This isn't something the financial trades can ignore, pretending the issues are too technical or whatever excuse they have, because it's getting on THEIR turf. Also, the brokerage house has the sort of connections that should easily start the press machine reporting on their side of the story.
Threatening Lehman is absolutely the wackiest thing Darl &Co. have done to date. Even dumber than filing a lawsuit against IBM with no evidence. *WAY* dumber. Who are they gonna sue next? Charles Schwab? Are they TRYING to taunt the SEC into investigating? What could be a more foolish move, when you're doing a pump-n-dump scheme, than to make loud (possibly perjurous) threats in the face of the very people who have the ear of the SEC? A company that employs brokers who are the folks that make those "Strong Buy"/"Strong Sell" recommendations that the traders follow? What could possibly be more stupid or suicidal?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Or pages on the Mating Rituals of Goats - just like the Church of Scientology!
Dealer: Nineteen
Darl: Hit me
Dealer: Twenty
Darl: Hit Me
Dealer: Twenty-one
Darl: Hit me
Dealer: Twenty-two
Darl: SC'oh!
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
Just because they said they'd sue someone within three months doesn't create any legal obligation for them to meet that deadline, so counting down those three months is useless. They can sue anybody anytime they damn well please.
Furthermore, if you actually read the Techweb article that's linked to in the headline, you'll see the clear implication that the estimate of 90 days was approximate ("I think you'll certainly be seeing that within the next 90 days").
I mean, come on: Of all the things to call SCO on, this is one of the least constructive.
OOOOOH, I wish I had mod points for you! Can you settle for me quickly scribbling NUMA on my knuckles??
For those who describe their systems as 'boxen', do you order multiple 'boxen' of corn flakes also?
There's more than Google. How about Amazon ? They're profitable as of the last year, and publicly traded as well.
One big one is Pixar, or another animation studio. They use a lot of Linux for rendering farms, and some also have used SGI and other UNIXes in the past. They're moving to Linux in a big way.
And what about a large finance company on Wall Street? Most of them started experimenting with Linux years ago, and some have a lot of systems running it.
I guess we'll find out by the day's end. It's a sure thing, since SCO would never let its PR face say something and then contradict it in its actions.
If they tried to do this, IBM or some other large company with interests in Linux would pay his legal fees. I guess this might be what you meant by someone else paying, but I think that a company (e.g., IBM or Redhat) would step in right away, and it woudn't be a question of how much public sympathy there would be.
I also think that SCO understands this and will avoid this path accordingly.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
interesting none the less. SCO has posted top-5 reasons why people should choose SCO Unix over Linux
Lies 13, 14, 15, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31 are missing.
Do I have to file a Motion to Compel Discovery on you?
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.
Come on SCO... I'm a Linux user... Sue me so that I can be on the Pepsi commerical.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Actually, SCO was talking about the likes of Google, Governments, essentially a large corporate entity user of linux, not a common user.
But now that you mention it, we should bring this up to Fox, yet *another* reality show. It could be like the apprentice, but replace Trump with Darl McBride and replace 'you're fired' with 'you're being sued'. Excellent.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.