Slashdot Mirror
SCO Postpones Lawsuit, Now Threatening Two
zzxc writes "In a surprise turn of events, SCO says that they need more time to prepare an announcement of who they are going to sue. According to SCO, the lawsuits will be announced tomorrow morning shortly before a phone-in conference in which will be outlining their financial report. You can call 1-800-818-5264 code 141144 Wednesday at 9:00am MST to join in with your questions, or listen to the webcast. They also have said that these first two lawsuits will be against companies that hold SCO Unix licenses. (EV1.net servers or Lindows?)"
What a surpise! Sheesh, this is never going to go anywhere.
Buckethead
Somebody get on the call and ask them "If you have such a strong company and case, why do you feel the need to couple lawsuit announcements with your financial call?"
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
They also have said that these first two lawsuits will be against companies that hold SCO Unix licenses.
When a company or organisation starts suing its own customers, then it's a sure sign that its business model is completely fucked. Look at the RIAA: suing Joe Teenager, to try and offset the fact that their profits are dropping like a lead balloon.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Who really expected them to follow through? There continual refusals to provide proof of Linux infringing on SCO patents is ample evidence that their lawsuit has no basis. They (SCO executives) would be wise to not further expand their lawsuits, as each company they sue can countersue for defamation. Overall this seems like a big scam - intimidate businesses into giving SCO money for linux licenses,causing SCOX to rise, and enriching McBride & co at the expense of the clueless investors who continue to buy worthless stock.
...buy a SCO licence, have SCO slap a lawsuit on you anyway?? How do they expect to sell licences after this insanity?? Kinda a matter of shooting oneself in the foot.
The probability that someone is watching you is directly proportional to the stupidity of your actions.
If you had read the article the other day on Groklaw it stated that (I'm paraphrasing) that purchasing this license doesn't allow that user to actually USE SCO's intellectual property. All it really does is say "look, we know we're in the wrong here, so let's settle up".
Now because of the fact these people signed up for their license that shows they "admit guilt". So not only did they pay SCO the $799 (or whatever it is now) extortion fee, they also paid SCO to sue them. That's how the legal system works, my friends. EV1 and Lindows (if it's actually true) will get a first hand lesson now.
In a sense, buying a license under these methods and terms is basically the same as signing a confession to a crime that wasn't even committed.
No kidding.
Racketeering is alive and well here in the good old USA, and frankly I am about fed up.
I have no idea what the fuck our legal system is doing even entertaining these crooks..
Suing EV1 less than 72 hours after they bought an SCO Linux IP License would be completely illogical, even for SCO. Everyone, including the Deutsch Bank anal-ists and Laura Didio, would then see the entire case as a big sham. They would completely lose the propaganda battle, which is the only battle they have a chance of winning in the first place. The entire scam would unravel as people realized there was no chance of SCO making money on Linux licenses, since nobody would buy one just to get sued 3 days later.
That somehow it backfires such that when the press spins it, it comes out with headlines like "SCO begins suing own customers".
All this would take is the press paying any attention to anything not directly from SCO's mouth. But maybe that's wishful thinking.
I bet if they announced they were suing EV1, their stock price would hit 40 before the call ended.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Is this a new business model or a non existant one?
It's a brilliant business model. They don't have to actually claim ownership of anyone else's product because they aren't distributing or granting anything related to that product. They don't have to follow the terms of the GPL, because they aren't actually using the GPL. They don't have to cease distributing GPLed products, because they aren't actually violating the GPL, just loudly and constantly threatening they will violate it.
They are selling you a license from SCO to use someone else's product. Can they do this? Well, yes, they aren't actually licensing you anything. It's just a piece of paper that says "SCO says it's okay for you to use Linux". And they can certainly give you a piece of paper that says SCO says you can use something. The trick is that they're then trying to create the impression you're required to have an SCO license to use linux but never actually *DIRECTLY* saying those words-- and seem to be pulling it off.
It is like McDonalds was selling licenses to eat Subway sandwiches and strongly implying it was illegal to eat at Subway without one of these licenses and doing absolutely everything possible to convey this impression without actually saying the exact words "it is illegal to eat at subway without one of these licenses" (which would open them up to a preliminary injunction).
That's hilarious..
For autozone, the claim that IBM copied libraries from SCO Openserver, to allow their old apps to work in Linux. Okay, there is some logic there.. that could feasibly violate licensing terms.
But, they also claim that IBM violated their software licensing agreement with Sherwin Williams and Target, by inducing them to switch to Linux. What the hell kind of License do they have?? It forbids users from switching to competitive products? I kind of doubt it.
The hilarious part is that customers are fleeing from SCO as quickly as they can. And, SCO claims it is because of IBM's involvement - not the fact that SCO have abandoned any hopes of competing with their products and switched the whole company focus to litigation. You would have to think that any responsible organization currently using SCO is putting together plans or actively moving to another OS.
Since they scheduled the announcement for their earnings call, the numbers must be truly awful this quarter. If they had good numbers to report, they wouldn't need a distraction like this.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
It is like McDonalds was selling licenses to eat Subway sandwiches and strongly implying it was illegal to eat at Subway without one of these licenses
I can see it now...
"McDonald's has proof that Subway sandwiches incorporate trade secret and copyrighted elements of the Secret Sauce(TM). Because it is a trade secret, we cannot divulge this proof. Consider this notice that consumption of Subway sandwiches is tantamount to theft of McDonald's intellectual property. By the way, because of Subway's use of the 'lose weight' advertising gimmick, all of their sandwiches are now public domain."
"McDonald's is now prepared to release information that will demonstrate incontrovertibly that Subway is in violation of our Secret Sauce(TM) copyright. We can demonstrate that Subway uses this particular pickle recipe in their sandwiches, which is clearly the same used in the Secret Sauce(TM)."
- Followed by announcement from Heinz Corp. that those pickles are their product, have always been their product, and predate the birth of Ray Kroc.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Well... Dictionary.com has the following for confabulate:
#1 To talk casually; chat.
#2 Psychology. To fill in gaps in one's memory with fabrications that one believes to be facts.
I'd say number 2 is without a doubt the correct use for the word. Also Sco can be realistically refered to by the euphemism number two
Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69