Slashdot Mirror
SCO Says They'll Sue A Linux User Tomorrow
Xenographic writes "InfoWorld is reporting that SCO intends to sue a Linux using company. Ordinarily, this would not be newsworthy, as they have not followed through on past threats. However, this time, they have given themselves a concrete deadline--tomorrow. While they claim that it will be one of the "top 1,000" companies, they apparently have yet to decide which company to actually sue. Perhaps they need more practice playing darts?" Reader Fished links to CNET's coverage.
this whole SCO mess is really out of hand and absurd. They will be suing a Linux user for what? Using software legally? They haven't won their case with IBM. This is all just absolutely outrageous! They're suing someone based on what someone else did (and they haven't even proved that much in court). I hope the "victim" of SCO's suit couter-sues their asses into tomorrow.
Bored? Why not join a decent mess
Since when has anything SCO said made sense?
As other have pointed out, EV1 can't comply with SCO's linux license and still get Redhat patches, so there is actually a case that SCO can win against them now.
actually DOING it instead of saying...
OK now let me make sure I have all of this straight. Wednesday is the day the SCO quarterly non-earnings report will be released, which most likely won't be good news. So, on Tuesday, the day before the report is released, SCO makes a stock, I mean lawsuit announcement. Do I detect a pattern here?
They are going to sue the corporation, the legal entity that has person like status.
And the corporation's lawyers will respond, "Sorry, we bought our Linux from (insert distributor here). You have take your claim to them, and you will receive any compensation you might be due directly from them for selling SCO IP without a valid license. Piss off."
KFG
"They're just asking for trouble (as the article points out) if they sue someone in a Fortune 1000 company."
I don't know if you can really get much worse than IBM. IBM's been around the block, they've been the bad dog, have more US patents than most nations have in their patent registry, and probably have more elite, fire-breathing IP layers than SCO has employees.
And SCO is suing for three billion.
Of course, more straw on the camel's back won't do them any good, but I fail to see how they could have picked a harder target than what they already have.
Cheers
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
But by this point their goal isn't necessarily to win, or at least I wouldn't think. They know that they're going down, and they want to go down tearing Linux off its high perch along with them. Sueing a Fortune 1000 company is a good way to make a high profile case against Linux very popular, thus spreading further FUD everywhere.
heh, good luck passing that off on the /. crowd. You and I might know that distribution, not use, of unlicensed IP is a crime, but its like banging your head against the wall to try to explain that to anyone.
>Since when has anything SCO said made sense?
hey, it's a valid question! the concept of end user isn't objective, it depends on who you are:
of course if you just piss away your valuable dev time posting on slashdot, the end user is whoever has mod points...
2 1337 4 u!
The company, Houston-based EV1Servers.Net has purchased site licenses from SCO for its two data centers for an undisclosed seven figure sum, according to SCO.
This has to be bullshit. There's no way that EV1 is going to pay 7 figures for a license from these pricks. They operate on a razor thin margin at $99 bucks per month per server. This is a bargin basement hosting facility. I call bullshit on this this statement. The price was probably:
$1,000,000 - License Fee
- $999,900 - Early Bird license discount.
___________
I want to see the additional 7 figures in the quarterly report. 7 figures my ass.
Oh, I think it makes perfect sense in a kind of stupid way. Since SCO's just riding on fumes, they need to throw something like this out every few weeks. It's the only way for them to keep up the pretense that they're anything more than a paper tapeworm.. er.. tiger. Reliably, and gullibly, the tech press eats it up giving them a few more days of pseudo-credibility.
Really, the old on-line adage "don't feed the trolls" seems somehow appropriate.
SCO is either:
a) Going to pass this by, probably with a lot of angry geeks and scared company CEOs. Watch as their target "bought a license at the last minute" and they don't even disclose who it is.
b) Sue someone, get laughed out of court while trying to hold it as long as they can, and die anyway. Stealing people's money in the process for their license fees. Hopefully, the SEC will get off their ass and stop them.
Seriously. Their stock is dropping.
http://financyahoo.e.com/q?s=SCOX
SCO is not a software company. It's a publicly traded lawsuit. They've delayed and delayed and delayed too long with IBM and the truth is getting out. If they don't start another lawsuit their entire business model is threatened.
The 7-figure sum was bothering me for a while. What idiot would give SCO more than a million dollars for a worthless license? It could just be a lie, of course, but one way for it to be "true" is if EV1 signed a long-term contract that's worth a total of $1 million over the life of the contract. After all, that's how football players' contracts are publicized -- it makes them sound bigger and more exciting.
EV1 might have agreed to pay SCO $1/year for the next million years, for all we know.
Besides, if Google did get sued, it wouldn't harm them that much, because of the IPO that they are releasing soon (hopefully).
:)
Really? You don't think so? Why was it that Google delayed that IPO again? Something about bad timing wasn't it?
Tomorrow, when SCO sues Google, I'm going to link back to this post*. How much longer can they keep this up? The whole story is starting to fall apart so why not have one last huge grandstand move and sue Google. Even your GrandMa has heard of Google, and what's that? MSNBC says some company is sueing them? Noone will ignore the press release, air will be gasped, monocles will pop out of eyes and ladies will swoon. But SCO stock will rise, and rich people will get richer and Darl will have to think of another more astonishing way to get peoples attention or we'll start to ignore him like we should. And SCO still won't have actually done anything.
*And of course, if they don't, I'm going to ignore it and hope no one notices
you're all figments of my deranged imagination
Maybe. All depends on the judge. If it's a moron behind the bench, who somehow equates downloading Linux with downloading mp3s, then it's bad. If the judge has a lick of common sense, then it's good.
Actually, the better response would be "Your honour, the actual ownership of the IP in question has not been resolved yet, therefore we believe that this suit is premature, and ask for it to be held in abeyance until such time as SCO actually proves it owns what it is suing us for."
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
I don't think the SCO vs IBM case have much to do with this. The only copyright stuff in that case is about IBM continued to distribute AIX after SCO revoked their licence. The rest is breach of contract stuff, and unless the end user isn't a SCO customer there would be no such things for SCO to sue over. So once again the lesson to learn, don't do business with SCO.
The Novell case is much more interesting here as it deals with wether SCO really have any copyrights to Linux.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER