Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Says They'll Sue A Linux User Tomorrow

Posted by timothy on from the good-cons-take-gusto dept.

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.

36 of 606 comments (clear)

  1. A little confusing... by bc90021 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article starts:

    The SCO Group on Tuesday will launch its first lawsuit against a Linux user for alleged violations of SCO's intellectual property, SCO Chief Executive Officer Darl McBride said Monday.

    and continues a little later:

    After consulting with its law firm, Boies, Schiller and Flexner, SCO has narrowed down its list of possible targets to a "handful" of the world's 1,000 largest corporations, McBride said. "We're going to file it tomorrow. It's sort of come down to a couple of complaints we have prepared," he said.

    So when they sue an "end user", is it going to be an Executive in a Fortune 1000 company? Or an employee? I assumed "end user" meant your average Joe. They're just asking for trouble (as the article points out) if they sue someone in a Fortune 1000 company.

    --
    libertarianswag.com
    1. Re:A little confusing... by TheLinuxSRC · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The SCO Group on Tuesday will launch its first lawsuit against a Linux user for alleged violations of SCO's intellectual property, SCO Chief Executive Officer Darl McBride said Monday.

      I didn't see anywhere where they said it involved SCO IP in Linux. Just a Linux user misusing SCO IP. Might be a minor distinction. Might not.

    2. Re:A little confusing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      It is a copyright not useright. You are just wrong period. Your analogy is flawed because public performance is written into copyright law.

      Let me give you another stupid example. I buy the New York Times and read it over lunch. Subsequently, you claim the NYT published, without your permission, a piece in which you hold the copyright. You think you can sue me for reading the NYT? You think every time I read that story I owe you more money? This is not the law and never will be. It is pure fantasy to think it works this way.

      Let me explain why your scenario will never exist.

      1) Friend get my work published in periodical "without my permission"
      2) I sue all readers of said periodical
      3) Profit
      4) Lather Rinse Repeat
      5) Legal system collapses into chaos
      6) Everyone lives in isolation chamber to protect against lawsuits

  2. Yup, by herrvinny · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is Oh, shit time for Google...

  3. Perhaps by Tokerat · · Score: 5, Interesting


    ...this is why Google delayed it's IPO?

    DISCLAIMER: Complete and total speculation.

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    1. Re:Perhaps by FatRatBastard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My vote goes with either a financial company or a media/effects company. Personally I think they'll go after the latter first, as, while the former have lots more money, they are usually pitbulls with a lot of legal firepower. An effects team *might* be able to be bled of enough cash to call it a day and roll.

  4. earnings announcement by mikeee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Gosh, I'm sure they're all broken up about the fact that this will distract from their quarterly earnings announcement the day after tomorrow.

  5. This has gone on long enough by NeoTheOne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe, finally, SCO's claims will be exposed for the crock they are. Hopefully, doubtfully, this will expose the crock lawsuits that seem to pervade our country. But I'm not holding my breath. It seems far to many people forgot that this country was built on WORK, not sucking the blood of others. (But that invokes comments on many other subjects as well...mp3 traders, riaa, mpaa, corporate mentality)

  6. Re:Google by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think SCO would be afraid to go after Google. Even though deep down it's just two young nerds running it, I'm sure other companies would not want to see Google at risk of being harmed by some little showoff company who can't backup their own claims for copyright infringement.

    Besides, if Google did get sued, it wouldn't harm them that much, because of the IPO that they are releasing soon (hopefully).

    *Looks at Anti-SCO shirt* Sure, I may be a flamebait, but I think it's for a good cause. I'm fed up with all of this SCO nonsense, and I'm pretty sure the open-source/Linux world is also. I just want to see what SCO can really pull off... no more of this standing-in-the-corner-pointing-fingers stuff. Bring it on SCO.

    --
    "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
  7. Walmart by rjamestaylor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Fortune 25 company, sells Linux on PCs (Lindows, Lycoris, Mandrake). Isn't an ISP or a tech company.

    That's my best guess.

    If it happens.

    Hasn't yet.

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    1. Re:Walmart by ktakki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Maybe, maybe not.

      Maybe: Walmart is somewhat vulnerable, having been recently accused by the US DoJ of knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Also, they've taken a lot of heat in the press lately, due to the public perception that they're responsible for displacing local businesses (mom 'n' pop stores, the mainstays of "Main Street, USA"). Witness their recent ad campaign, an attempt to soften their image.

      Maybe not: Walmart is huge. Mother huge. Makes IBM look like a candy store. 1.3 million employees huge. Consider that the US workforce is 139 million: this means that nearly 1 out of 100 working people in this country work for Walmart.

      Also, getting money out of Wally World is like squeezing blood from a rock. I know this from experience; a relative of mine is one of their software vendors. Walmart doesn't pay until the invoice is marked "FINAL NOTICE - WE MEAN IT THIS TIME - YOU PAY NOW OR DIE!!!" in 72 point blood red type.

      Sam Walton might be dead and buried, but his management style lives on at Wally World. Before he died, he was the richest man in the US (before Bill Gates, basically the Windows 1.0 era), but he drove an old pickup truck. To say he was stingy would be the ultimate understatement.

      So, in the spirit of that parsimonious old fuck, I think Walmart would rather spend $10 million fighing SCO than settle for $1 million, just out of principle, since it would be a sign of weakness to settle out of court. And just for spite, they'd insist that all of their suppliers maintain a SCO-free shop or lose their shelf-space. It would be like Rome and Carthage all over again, with SCO razed and salted, their employees sold into slavery.

      k.

      --
      "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
  8. Open source needs to find a hungry DA by cluge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Someone needs to charge SCO with raqueteering and extortion. SCO has made several claims, but has yet to offer proof, and it's own case has changed so much that it barely resembles the original case presented almost a year ago.

    By suing a Linux end users, SCO is in effect trying to use courts to extort money. The definition of extort is "to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power". I cannot see the difference between SCO's actions, press releases and the running a criminal enterprise.

    If they (SCO) truly wished to protect their IP, they would proceed with their case and quit stalling. The Linux community would respond, in defference to and in respect to an IP rights. I think that is the crux of SCO's problem, Linux would respond by respectfully removing any proven IP content. If they can extort money from people instead of actually proving their case, then the profit margin goes up. So what if extortion is illegal.

    AngryPeoplePeopleRule

    --
    "Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
  9. Re:Oh! Oh! I know who it will be ... by hkfczrqj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hey, the Pope lives in Vatican City, and BTW they use Tru64, i.e. Alpha!!! wow! I knew this pope was cool!

  10. Re:Oh, good call SCO by Jason+Earl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, it would have made more sense to sue someone like you if SCO was actually trying to win the lawsuit. However, you can't trick investors into thinking that you can extract $3 billion from "Skyshadow," but it is at least theoretically possible to extract $3 billion from IBM. With a little help from Microsoft and Sun (to add a bit of legitimacy to the claims), SCO had all the tools it needed to extract millions of dollars from the stock market.

    The trick, of course, is to promise investors the moon to drive up the stock price, and then use the high stock price to either cash out or to purchase (at inflated prices) other companies that SCO backers have an interest in (like Vultus).

    The reason that SCO is going to sue someone tomorrow is that on the 3rd they are supposed to post their quarterly earnings. My guess is that the financial reports are going to be very very bad and the new law suit is designed to draw attention away from the bottom line.

  11. Re:What the hell do they think they're doing? by DroopyStonx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sorry, I know it's lame to reply to your own post (posted too soon), but forgot to add that they should also have charges brought against them for manipulating the stock market, because, after all, that's all they are doing with these asinine announcements.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  12. Re:A little premature? by Adriax · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Think about the entire SCO vs Linux debacle.
    They aren't doing this to win the lawsuits, they know that's impossible because unlike the general public, lawyers and judges aren't as gullible as a 4 year old. They're doing this for publicity, bringing in another lawsuit to scare idiots into thinking "They're suing another big company, they HAVE to be right in this, no one would sue so many people when they knew they were going to lose."
    Dupe more people into buying licenses from them, watch stocks rise, claim a higher quarterly profit, make off like bandits by suiciding their own company.

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  13. 100% of the bottlecaps will go unused... by dcavanaugh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Because you don't need a SCO license to use a product they already released under GPL.

  14. Rackspace? by stox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hmmm, and EV1's largest competitor would be? From SCO's perspective, it would mean hitting a few thousand birds with one stone. EV1 then swoops in, and tells potential clients that they are safe with them. Before the dust settles, EV1 might make a good return on their investment. Sleezy, but since when did that have anything to do with business?

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
  15. Re:What would Howard Dean say? by pingveno · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hmmmm, and he actually does/did use Linux for his website. Same with John Kerry and the Democratic Party. That's one of the many reasons SCO might have trouble if they try the Congress route. That and their arguments are hypocritic.
    Maybe someone should to pass a law requiring SCO to do something annoying, like proving their case.

    --
    "it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
  16. same 'ol same 'ol by walterbyrd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1) Scox has set a concrete deadline at least three times before.

    2) Scox has followed this pattern more times than I can remember: they claim there is some huge news coming up at a future date, they build it up and build it up, then they miss the deadline - building the contraversy even more. Finally OMFG they actually did it - but it turns out to be some totally watered down version of what they said they would do. When it turns out to be a joke, the pop-media will forget all about scox's previous hype.

    It reminds me of a carnival side-show: STEP RIGHT UP SEE THE ABSOLUTELY AMAZING ASTONDING LAWSUIT OF THE CENTURY!!!

    - AIX license revocation
    - Showing the code in Las Vegas
    - Several "code showings" for that matter
    - The Vultus deal
    - First time they sold an IP license to a fortune 1000 company (August?)

  17. DO IT, Fsckers!!!!! by Picass0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You've already used the mail, Darl. You qualify for the RICO ACT. Enjoy your stay in the federal "Pound-me-in-ass" prison.

    ===========

    Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
    TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

    PART I--CRIMES

    CHAPTER 96--RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS

    Sec. 1961. Definitions

    As used in this chapter--
    (1) ``racketeering activity'' means (A) any act or threat
    involving murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery,
    extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled
    substance or listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the
    Controlled Substances Act), which is chargeable under State law and
    punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which
    is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18,
    United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224
    (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating
    to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate
    shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious,
    section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare
    funds), sections 891-894 (relating to extortionate credit
    transactions), section 1028 (relating to fraud and related activity
    in connection with identification documents), section 1029 (relating
    to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices),
    section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information),
    section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to
    wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud),
    section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or
    nationalization unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to the
    reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427
    (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship papers),
    sections 1461-1465 (relating to obscene matter), section 1503
    (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to
    obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to
    the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512
    (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant),
    section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or
    an informant), section 1542 (relating to false statement in
    application and use of passport), section 1543 (relating to forgery
    or false use of passport), section 1544 (relating to misuse of
    passport), section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas,
    permits, and other documents), sections 1581-1588 (relating to
    peonage and slavery), section 1951 (relating to interference with
    commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to
    racketeering), section 1953 (relating to interstate transportation
    of wagering paraphernalia), section 1954 (relating to unlawful
    welfare fund payments), section 1955 (relating to the prohibition of
    illegal gambling businesses), section 1956 (relating to the
    laundering of monetary instruments), section 1957 (relating to
    engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified
    unlawful activity), section 1958 (relating to use of interstate
    commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire), sections
    2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2260 (relating to sexual exploitation of
    children), sections 2312 and 2313 (relating to interstate
    transportation of stolen motor vehicles), sections 2314 and 2315
    (relating to interstate transportation of stolen property), section
    2318 (relating to trafficking in counterfeit labels for
    phonorecords, computer programs or computer program documentation or
    packaging and copies of motion pictures or

  18. Re:SCO HAS to sue someone else. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here are two interesting graphs.

    SCO vs. RedHat

    SCO vs. IBM

    Notice a trend?

  19. Suing oneself by yintercept · · Score: 5, Interesting
    While you're at it maybe you could suggest that they sue Canopy Group.

    Suing a group that stands to gain by losing the lawsuit would be a shrewd move. It would give SCO greater ability to set the stage for a setting a precedent favorable to SCO.

    However, the shrewdest move would be to sue a company holding the "information wants to be free" line religiously. It is often easy to win the court's favor when your opponent is holding an absurd ideal with religiour fervor. The worst thing would be to sue a well respected company with shrewd leadership, as they are likely to punch real legitimate holes in the SCO case.

    1. Re:Suing oneself by k_head · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's a sad commentary on the US legal system when the perception exists that courts will look more at a companies ideology then the evidence presented.

      If you are right then the concept of justice no longer exists in this country. If courts decide a case on what somebody believes or their religion then we are all fucked.

      OTOH even if you are wrong just the fact you hold that belief is a harsh indictment of the courts.

      --
      The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
    2. Re:Suing oneself by jimmyharris · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What I find interesting is that they are (apparently) planning to sue one of their own customers! How stupid would anyone have to be to sign a contract with them?

      http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5167829.html?tag=s t_lh

      The first target will be a company that has a Unix license from SCO already, giving SCO some contractual leverage in the case. McBride said. In addition, the suit will involve copyright infringement claims.

    3. Re:Suing oneself by nikster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You seem to believe that the US legal system is fair and objective. That they only consider the fact and are otherwise completely isolated from society / reality.

      that this is not so should be obvious. It follows directly that the courts and the legal system are influenced by a companies previous behavior, history, "character" if you like.

      it should be understood by everybody that the courts strive for maximum objectivity and impartial-ness, but it should also be understood that they can never attain that goal.

      define TRUTH - that's the beginning of the problem. and it goes downhill from there: pretty soon you have he-said-she-said, doubtful evidence, questionable witnesses and the morass of opinions and beliefs that is called reality. this is where the courts operate.

      to answer the parent post: of course the courts will look at a companies ideology. of course that is a factor.
    4. Re:Suing oneself by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, it's true that anyone may sue anyone else in this country, whether they have a case or not. But what kind of judge would be sympathetic to a litigator who's claims depend entirely upon the outcome of pending litigation?

  20. one word ... NOVELL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just some thoughts..

    I wonder how much of this "license" money SCO will pay to Novell. Given the existing agreements where SCO pay Novell 95%, will novell see any of this money ?

    If they dont, will they sue SCO for it ?

    Given EV1 reportedly paid over 6 digits for their "pukka" licenses, this could get interesting if Novell file a claim for a share of the license money.

    SCO seems to *have* to sue, else their share prices will drop.

    I wonder if the FSF will sue sco for distributing GPL code, and then claiming license money.

    I also wonder if Linux developers can sue SCO.

  21. Re:Google by veldstra · · Score: 2, Interesting

    NIce to see McBride brag about this license being perpetual... IIRC, IBM had one of those perpetual licenses as well...

  22. Google or a firewall manufacturer by steveoc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It will definately be either Google, or a firewall manufacturer.

    Why ?

    Microsoft has made big noises lately about moving into the search engine space, and also made noises about an impending firewall product.

    SCO, taking orders from above, will target the competion in these areas, hoping to tie them up in court for ages, so that Microsoft can enter these markets with reduced competition.

    You dont even need a tinfoil hat to see that one coming.

  23. Re:Oh, good call SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Good points indeed.

    Their stock also hit quite a low on Thursday.

    I have a good friend advised to short this for his class in college. Stick in there Matt, I swear this thing is going to the floor!

  24. Could be true by RoLi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Actually if the rumors are true that EV1Servers.net has signed a "lucrative" deal with Microsoft, the 7 figures could be true and just another way to channel money from Microsoft to SCO.

  25. SCO Employees Use Linux by avishal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I personally know some SCO Employees (New Delhi, INDIA), who use linux as their main OS.

    Maybe they should sue themselves first.

    --
    v==hal if /wal/; #if (Perl) = agar (Hindi)
  26. Why is it when SCO farts, it appears on slashdot. by insanegadgets.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't this constant barrage of news just exactly what SCO wants?

  27. Evidence for Google by joe_fish · · Score: 2, Interesting

    SCO are in this for publicity - to fuel the share scam. What better publicity that to sue one of the most famous internet success stories, and one that publicly uses Linux at that.

    Google expect to be sued, so they stopped the "Litigeous Barstard" googlebomb. It never looks good in court to be being rude about your opponent.

    Maybe the delayed IPO is because they wouldn't get as much being sued as they would with no court-case. Delay the IPO = more money.

    --
    DWR is Ajax for Java
  28. WWHDS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    WWHDS? (What would Howard Dean Say?)

    It is unfortunate we even need to look at this as how Republicans and Democrats view Free Software, Open Source Software, etc. All of Congress is what counts as far as getting laws past and it should be more of a question on the views of Congress, but Congress is devided.

    I am not sure we should even should have Congress pass any laws that have anything to do with Free/Open Software although it seems more and more like a good idea when a large company tries to loby against Free/Open Software.

    Has anyone asked Ralph Nader for his view on Free/Open Software?

    ### Begin Silly Political Humor ###

    For anyone who would like to help George W. Bush win the next election please visit http://votenader.com/ and help get Nader on the Ballot. President Bush can use all the help you can give by giving the Democrats a third party canidate to help split the Democratic vote.

    ### End Silly Humor That Is Probably Going To Get Me Modded Down ###