Slashdot Mirror
More on Recent SCOings On
An anonymous reader writes "Blake Stowell, SCO's director of communications, acknowledged that the leaked memo is real." However, Stowell went on to say that the memo was misunderstood, and that Microsoft has not been funding SCO, as was previously alleged.
In addition, Computer Associates is now vehemently denying they ever licensed Linux from SCO. AlabamaMike writes "Being employed by Computer Associates myself, I had to admit I was terribly dismayed by the news that the company I work for had licensed SCO's dubious Linux IP. I sent some mail around to those I thought would have some info about what was going on with this very odd move, and the response that came back truly should be posted for the /. community. Basically this is a very creative spin on a settlement CA did with Canopy Group regarding a breach of contract settlement totally unrelated to Linux. Associated with that settlement was a set of UnixWare licenses to which SCO has taken the liberty of attaching these 'Linux IP' licenses."
It's hard to see how they can continue to maintain that they were just "licensing" IP from SCO. As the memo appears to be genuine, it seems to me that Redmond has a lot of explaining to do. Especially to the Justice Department; I mean, if this isn't predatory behavior then I don't know what is.
LA Times (free crappy reg) story
Here's the highlights (emphasis added):
SCO Confronting Its Creation
Company's CEO is taking precautions as the head of the 'most despised' tech firm
From Bloomberg News
Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO Group Inc., says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed bodyguard protected him when he gave a speech last month at Harvard Law School.
Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux operating system, calls SCO "the most despised company in technology."
McBride and SCO are more hated than Microsoft, the world's largest software maker, and its Chairman Bill Gates, according to some Linux backers. That's because SCO, once a backer of Linux, has turned around and attacked the essence of the system: its free source code.
"SCO are just complete hypocrites," said Jeremy Allison, co-author of Samba, an open source software that runs a file and print service that SCO sells.
"The real reason why people don't like SCO, and Darl McBride in particular, is that he is so dishonest," Torvalds, 34, said in an e-mail.
I'm just waiting for the markets to open.
Yesterday the shares had begun to fall after ESR leaked the mail, before all the news sites started up with headlines saying SCO licenses have been bought.
Today is perfect, markets have not opened, CA has not bought a license and it is clear that SCO is a front for M$ from which no profits for shareholders are to be had. Moreover, there is the muzzle on SCO by the court.
I hope thatwe don't get an unnatural price rise due to this being a friday and everyone trying to cover their short positions before the week ends !!
I mean, who could have thought of a worse, more stupid way to piss off the whole tech sector and drive yourself into bankruptcy. The more I think about it, the more this strange idea develops that SCO (Caldera) is actually doing all this rubbish to help the Linux community. OK, it is way out there, but in some perverted way, it makes sense.
First of all, you have a Linux company (Caldera) who, despite their best efforts, has trouble staying afloat. At this time, there is no corporate support for Linux, the big vendors are running away from it, and the "GPL has never been tested in court" is touted as an argument all over the place. Big UNIX vendors only see Linux as a way to get people into their more proprietary solutions.
So, Caldera buys out a UNIX vendor and does the most ridiculous thing imaginable: sues everybody, proclaims that Linux is communist and all that bullshit. Fast forward to the current situation: IBM, HP, Novell and other big players are squarely behind Linux and protecting it. Microsoft is exposed as a greedy monopolist who uses underhand tactics (yet again). GPL gets tested in court and it is under such circumstances that guarantee a strong precedent in GPL's favour. The UNIX heritage is cleared once and for all. Linux wins, in a BSD fashion, and is free from corporate FUD. And who pays the bill? Greedy investors.
This could turn out the be the best thing for the corporate image of Linux ever.
So why on earth are the suing Autozone if they have
a license to run the binary form in Linux. Isn't that the meat of their argument.
A little quote from Blake reguarding the CA vapor
license deal.
"UnixWare licences allow SCO customers to run UnixWare and the SCO Intellectual Property Licence allows Linux end users to run our Unix intellectual property in binary form in Linux. Today, CA has a licence in place to run our Unix IP in binary form in Linux without fear that they may be infringing on our intellectual property."
Got Code?
Imagine the fun things they'll find!
Most industry analyists knew that Microsoft was concerned about Linux.
But I for one never quite realized that Microsoft was in a panic.
I heard all the rumors - "maybe Microsoft is behind the SCO lawsuit"... but I didn't think Microsoft would actually be funding this entire effort. I mean, isn't Microsoft focusing on the Next Generation Great Thing that will put Linux to bed once and for all? Obviously, the answer we now have is "no".
I read the news yesterday, and it seemed pretty clear that the memo was a fabrication. I mean how could such a blatent memo be true? And with all the grammar and spelling errors? It just didn't add up. Mircosoft is smart, right? They hire smart people, right? They may be a monopoly, and they may make try to lock their customers into their products, but they're doing it to make globs of $. That's smart, right?
Well obviously I was mistaken. Microsoft was more-or-less caught trying to fuck up the entire Linux industry by buying what is looking more and more like secretly misusing the courts. On top of that, Microsoft is looking like it's releasing blatent lies about the Linux industry under the guise of Microsoft fabricated or controlled companies.
Microsoft, it's time to come clean. Don't you think it's time that you admit that you're funding these lawsuits?
Or is Microsoft so scared about Linux and the Law that it'll continue to shelter itself behind a quickly diminishing cloud of deception and covert control of companies like SCO?
That sounds like pretty good ammo for a fraud suit if you ask me. It's not in itself enough, but it certainly shows SCO in a lie that's so obvious and deceitful that it just can't be ignored or chalked up to misunderstanding, and it's not too technical for a *moron(ie. a U.S. judge) to understand.
* no, I don't really think all U.S. judges are morons, but sometimes you gotta wonder...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Interestingly enough, no one was or is jumping on said bandwagon. I have found it very interesting to read some of the ways that AC has been used to distract this discussion away from Microsoft/SCO.
I don't think the question here is CA or IBM (another AC posted on how CA is almost as bad as IBM at FUD, which is interesting when the discussion is really on Microsoft and SCO.) but it is certainly good to spread the mud around to make things less clear. I also saw the statement that this was no different than media saying that linux advocates were behind MYDOOM, and that none of the Halloween papers had every been objectively proven as real, despite the fact that both this latest one and many early ones WERE confirmed by Microsoft (and in this case SCO).
Just a warning to everyone, it seems like there is alot of counterattacks on Slashdot. This particular post might be legitimately from someone who has some grudge against CA and isn't really a press representative sent to sow some discord and confusion into a discussiont hat is already hard enough to follow.
The Halloween 3 document ( http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween3.php ), first posted by Eric on Nov 5. 1998, contains an interesting quote:
...snip... }
"Unless Linux violates IP rights, it will fail to deliver innovation over the long run."
The comment by Eric is even more interesting:
{ This final remark is worthy of an essay all by itself. It is the least logical -- and at the same time, most damning -- assertion in Ms. van den Berg's entire statement.
As propaganda, it has a superficial cleverness. It plants the idea that any MIS manager so foolish as to use Linux will find his operating system yanked out from under him by a future patent lawsuit -- perhaps one initiated by (whisper it) Microsoft itself. It's a perfect FUD tactic.
More clear sighted theory there than anyone would have thought, 5 years ago.
If you follow the Yahoo SCOX forum (there is a lot of noise, but some people there who are REALLY well informed as well), you will note that it's pretty obvious that on low volume days "painting the tape" is going in.
Little blocks of 100 shares keep changing hands at prices above what the last sell off was...
It's an illegal, but hard to prove practice.
But SCOX seems to consistently get "painted" upward daily after a big sell.
Corporatism != Free Market
SCO are totally dishonest and they will repeat the "Linux is ours" routine until someone stops them.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Isn't this right out of the MS playbook? When MS agreed to settle with the Justice department, part of the original settlement proposed millions of dollars of vouchers for schools redeemable only for MS software. Later when it's competitors complained that this just extended their monopoly, it was changed to any software or hardware.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The gov't can do this, but is it possible
for a private citizen or public group to initiate proceedings for the revocation of a corporate charter?
No idea. The more interesting question, however, is whether or not you could pierce the corporate veil. Particularly Canopy's veil. If there were (as alleged) some underhanded dealings regardin SCO, Canopy, and other Canopy holdings then you could easily pierce the corporate veil.
Once that's done you can pretty easily sue the directors of the companies involved (both SCO and Canopy) and take them to the cleaners. And there's nothing they can do about it -- their personal property would no longer be immune from lawsuits, and between civil and personal lawsuits you could pretty much guarantee that they'll die penniless paupers in prison.
Yes, vindictive. But seeing charlatans and crooks hide behind the corporate veil and get off scott free has gotten beyond tiresome. The various scumbags involved in this particular scheme could, possibly, act as a wake up call to a lot of other companies. Wouldn't that be nice?
Oh well.. it's a nice dream at least.
Boies doesn't work cheap
Events have twisted full circle.
If you go back about 5 years, David Boies was an attorney for the Justice Department, where he did a bang-up job prosecuting Microsoft for anti-trust violations.
Of course, we all know how that turned out, with a settlement that doesn't seem to have visibly shaken Microsoft's business.
Then, about a year ago, the SCO debacle starts up with Boies leading the charge.
"How could Boies betry us?!?" cry the Linux zealots.
Ignore that and consider the implications of these recent revelations. Doesn't this evidence beg for a re-examination of the terms of the settlement or the opening of a new investigation?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
You can borrow stock in pretty much any company out there. The reason you should not borrow SCO stock is that all the borowable stock has been shorted longsince.
This creates a situation called a short interest trap. If the stock kicks up for any reason, or the amount of stock available to borrow suddenly decreases the shorts are forced to buy the stock back at market. This can lead to a stock bubble that is entirely due to the shorts being squeezed.
SCO does have one remaining asset of value, the rights to UNIX. Quite what those rights is will likely be significantly reduced as a result of the case, but the value will not reach zero. Of course in the meantime lawyers fees will probably outweigh the remaining assets.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
1) When all is said and done, I don't think that SCO will have really done much damage to Linux (or by extension, the GPL). When all this started, the more far-sighted among us said this would be a great test case for the GPL. As SCO's smoke and mirrors have been pierced and as the various cases have developed, however, this has not been about the GPL. It's all been FUD. Most of us have known this for a while, but now EVERYONE knows it. If anything, Linux has gained strength, if this is the best that it's enemies can do.
2) This potentially hugely damaging to MS. If the allegations are true (I'd put money on it), they're in breach of the settlements. Kollar-Kotelly, the judge of the punishment phase, will certainly want to take another look at the case. The various state Attorney Generals will want to reopen the case. There might also be new criminal charges filed, not to mention civil cases. At the very least, we should see some investigations. And I haven't even mentioned how this might play out internationally.
3) Regardless of how this plays out in the courts, MS is going to lose big in the court of public opinion. The MS defenders will not have a leg to stand on. (I never imagined Enderle with any legs. Instead, I've always imagined him as a giant farting ass, with no other body parts attached.) The FUD campaign has not only fallen apart, it has backfired.
4) Having failed to really slow Linux adoption or development, MS will continue to lose ground. Longhorn is two or more years out, folks are already suspicious about "XP Reloaded" (why name a product after a really bad sequel?), and Linux clearly has huge momentum.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.