Slashdot Mirror
Computer Associates Pays Off SCO
jford235 writes "Forbes reports that CA has paid the fee to SCO for their license. The deal went down in August but today CA has says that they have taken steps to "distance itself from SCO"."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Articles say that the liscenses were thrown in as part of a seperate breach of contract settlement. They were not "purchased".
...is it even legal to do that when the court hasn't even made a decision yet?
"(SCO) is grasping at straws to purport CA as a SCO supporter," Computer Associates said in a statement. "CA stands in stark disagreement with SCO's tactics, which are intended to intimidate and threaten customers."
In August when CA did this they weren't intimidating/threatening? CA didn't know any better because they weren't paying too much attention to SCO's bullshit and not enough to the people who actually have a clue?
Sucks when you are caught between a rock and a hard place I guess.
they can sue for their money back after SCO looses the case..........
that or SCO promised to give the money back to them just so that it will make it look like they have a legitamit claim.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Seriously, when will these companies stop supplying SCO with more money for these legal challenges? I work with a company that sells software for both Linux & OpenServer, and let me tell you, about 1/2 to 2/3 of our major SCO Resellers have switched or are switching to Linux. Still havent had a single customer switch to SCO from linux.. If companies just sit tight and let SCO keep pursuing their death-wish, they will implode on their own.
Didn't CA already explain the whole Canopy/SCO financial thing?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Wasn't it already said that CA was buying a UNIX licenses and they added linux into the contract just for completeness?
According BBC those payments where not SCO Linux license (Sorry to lazy to dig a link, read it yesterday).
This just gives SCO the fuel they need in court. If more companies bow before SCO, they may just get enough momentum to pull this off.
Get your tin foil hats!
Prospective station wagon buyer: "I know what you say is true...but...er...I don't know how to maintain a tank!"
CA lost a lawsuit against another company controlled by Canopy (SCO's parent company.)
As a part of that settlment, SCO was required to purchase UnixWare licenses from SCO. SCO placed language in that license that also gave CA the right to SCO's Linux IP. Now SCO is using this to say that CA is a licensee.
The really interesting part is that this shows Canopy manuvering other companies it controls to benefit SCO. This may give IBM an opportunity to "pierce the corporate veil" and go after Canopy's assets in the counter-suit.
Mike
This article starts of with a complete untruth by stating that this "Purchase" is "key legal ammunition". It is no such thing has it will not have relevance in the court case so is more propaganda ammunition than anything.
They say this is not true http://business.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/03 /05/0249257&mode=thread
To run this story under that headline makes this site seem as desperate as Forbes. The real story is easy for anyone to see about 5p down
>>"(SCO) is grasping at straws to purport CA as a SCO supporter,"
>>"CA stands in stark disagreement with SCO's tactics, which are intended to intimidate and threaten customers."
"better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07
Here is the funny thing. CA is saying they did not pay off SCO. They were just buying unix liscense they were forced to by as the result of losing a lawsuit about unix liscenes. SCO threw they indemdification for one linux manchine for every unix liscense in there so they could claim CA was a linux liscense. CA keeps saying they want nothing to do with the linux liscense.
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." -- Mark Twain
Pathetic. Truly pathetic.
But we have to look at it from the businesses point of view. Until the case with IBM is settled, and SCO is proven to be the litigous bastard Microsoft funded puppets that they are, many companies will unfortunately make a business decision - pay a little money now, rather then possibly a lot later in lawyer's fees. So I can't entirely blame them.
But given the article and the memo leak that it is in fact MS that paid SCO a significant amount of money in order to start their puppet suing with the explicit goal of creating FUD about Linux, why hasn't any federal prosecutor stepped up and done an investigation on Microsoft and SCO? File racketeering charges against these guys - they're no better then the Mafia.
The least you could do was change the title, as it stands your spreading FUD, try editing it to something more in line with reality like: CA Settlement mis-represented, Canopy Groups twisted web. or CA says 'not willing participant in fiaSCO' or CA says '2 for 1 licenses' do not an enorsement make.
As you can see here CA was GIVEN these licenses as part of a settlement with Canopy Group, one of SCO's major investors. Canopy was looking to lighten the financial burden, and so they threw in the licenses like they were water.
I was under the impression that CA bought the licenses under a sealed settlement under completely unrelated suit. Unless I'm mistaken, CA bought licenses for UnixWare (or some other Old-SCO product), for which each automatically included a binary Linux license.
It sounds like SCO quitely tacked on the "free Linux binary license" in order to give the illusion of legitamacy within the indrustry to their Linux claims. It's a sneaky, bullshit move. I hope that the courts see this the same way I do. OTOH, the EV1 move was not trickery on SCO's part. That was just EV1 being stupid.
-Turkey
The damage has been done now.
It is nerve wrecking for a person to be sued. For companies, if you turn out to be the target of a company attempting to make money out of litigation, you have very little course for action that will save you. You fight it and you lose money, while the trial is going on, you are dragged into the light.
You pay them off and there is a chance that the deal could bite you later.
There are no paths to getting out of this. CA just took the option that they thought would be better. Now they are tossing themselves back into the fight when SCO decides to release the details of the deal.
They should have not commented, put out a generic statement about how they do not endorse others, and let it ride.
SP --- Prays that we stop giving SCO attention.
2) The Beatles broke up.
3) The Berlin Wall is down.
4) The Soviet Union is no more.
5) Slashdot editors have poor memories or cannot search their own archives.
Pedro: Man, what is in this shit, man?
Taco: Mostly Maui Waui man, but it's got some Labrador in it.
Pedro: What's Labrador?
Taco: It's dog shit.
Pedro: What?
Taco: Yeah, my dog ate my stash, man.
Pedro: Yeah?
Taco: I had it on the table and the little motherfucker ate it, man. Then I had to follow him around with a little baggie for three days, man, before I got it back. Really blew the dog's mind, ya know?
Pedro: You mean we're smokin' dog shit, man?
Taco: Gets ya high, don't it?
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
SCO's Claim re CA "Is Nonsense," Says Computer Associates
CA's senior VP of product development Mark Barrenechea says here that the SCO claim is nonsense.
Computer Associates said its license for Linux is part of a legal settlement with Canopy Group, SCO's major shareholder. In August, Computer Associates signed the SCO license and paid $40 million to Canopy Group to settle breach-of-contract charges, but news of that deal surfaced only recently on Web sites. (Additional reporting by Wei Gu in New York)
It looks like SCO may have tacked on a Linux license rider clause to their much stronger case settlement - the breach-of-contract charge - to use as a publicity stunt such as this or just to extract a little more money from the CA coffers.
Slashrank
The real story is easy for anyone to see about 5p down
I read
I have misplaced my pants.
The payment has nothing to do with whether Linux contains SCO code. It's part of a settlement for something entirely different. CA might just as significantly have agreed to license the use of the word "is". The very last paragraph of the article contains the key point:
Computer Associates said its license for Linux is part of a legal settlement with Canopy Group, SCO's major shareholder. In August, Computer Associates signed the SCO license and paid $40 million to Canopy Group to settle breach-of-contract charges, but news of that deal surfaced only recently on Web sites.
I hope that the papers will at least get this right, after botching the job on the AutoZone lawsuit.
Yes, this article is both misleading and old news. You can find this from CA on Newsforge:
You'll also find this on news.com.com.com.com:
Basically Canopy threw in the licenses as part of a settlement with Canopy's Center7 company. I wonder if SCO broke any confidentiality agreements regarding the settlement by announcing that CA was a Linux IP Licensee. ;)
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Intellectual property, or IP, experts said CA's license could help convince a jury that SCO has a justified claim on Linux.
So if I can convince one person to pay me toll, that proves to a jury I really do own the Brooklyn Bridge? This reduces reductio ad absurdum down to the absurdum.
"Generally, if an IP holder is able to demonstrate that others in the industry have taken a license, thereby respecting the IP holder's claims, that can be used as evidence that is persuasive to a jury..."
To jury in closing args: "It must be our IP, and many others agree... we've already licensed it to several, large, well-respected technology companies."
Whether you agree with SCO or not (I don't), they're making a hell of an effort to control some key elements of open source software. We shouldn't laugh it off and expect them to go away... these guys are going for the kill... they're deadly serious. Their lawyers don't care whether they actually own any code or not. Wake up to this threat before it's too late.
It seems as though this jig may be close to over. Lets hope this isnt just a rumor:
s html
http://www.newsforge.com/trends/04/03/08/0457259.
Come on Taco, cut the FUD out, have a look at groklaw
'Articles say that the liscenses were thrown in as part of a seperate breach of contract settlement. They were not "purchased".'
That's a crucial piece of information. One that SCO will deliberately mishold or put endless spin on.
I'll probably be modded as flame for this, but I have to say I think that CA wasn't thinking when they allowed that "licensing" to be thrown in as part of the terms of any settlement. Now SCO will run around using this as ammunition for their continued litigation.
It's not like CA or anyone else doesn't know who or what they were dealing with...
How does that saying go? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Why is this being posted? It's all fairly old news from last week.
Sometimes I feel like a nut... Ok so it's most of the time
I beginning to wonder if some chaps over at Forbes are in on this big "Let's FUD Linux into the ground" arrangement SCO and MS seem to have going on.
I was just waiting for the daily SCO story after reading this new BOFH.
you're all figments of my deranged imagination
I honestly think that for every company that pays SCO for that 'license' should be boycotted by the user community
This would not be productive. CA's minor contribution to SCO is not going to make the difference between SCO winning and losing their case. It might, however, make the difference between CA continuing to use, and sell, free of distraction, linux products to customers who might not feel comfortable using them otherwise. Which of these is better for the linux community?
I'm not a smorgasbord.
SCO: CA bought Linux "licenses" from us!
CA: No we didn't. You have them to us as part of a lawsuit settlement.
SCO: Yes you did!
CA: No I didn't.
SCO: Yes you did! Yes you did! Yes you did!
CA: No I didn't times infinity!
SCO: Yes you did times infinity plus 1!
CA: DO'H!
-B
The headline effectively states CA bought a SCO Linux license, when nothing of the sort happened.
Canopy put a SCO Linux "license" in with other stuff in the settlement of a breach of contract lawsuit.
And now SCO (and /., apparently) start spouting off hou that means CA bought a Linux "license".
Anyone now doubt that Canopy and SCO are intertwined? Or that they both have Bill Gates hand shoved up their asses like the ragged sock puppets they are?
CA's payment was only $19,000 - not bad to settle a $40 million lawsuit. I don't think CA's paying SCO $19,000 qualifies as a ringing endorsement.
Incredible how everyone talks about MS being (perhaps) the one pulling the ropes. Of course MS and IBM were and are arch enemies, but anyone who doesn't understand by now that Canopy's business is litigation (perhaps by proxy) might want to go live in a cave. They seem to be doing this kind of thing all the time.
... etc. I tell you: watch Canopy.
They fucking wrote the cookbook here and it's time their MBA asses got dragged into this SCO soap much more prominently than has happened up until now. Expose them for what they are and stay as far of their bed as you can (hello TrollTech). Once you're sound asleep they'll have a buddy screwing you over.
Small time criminals do the ground work for the bigger ones which do the groundwork for bigger ones,
I **used to** recomend them to my customers.
No longer..
Bad move CA, you'll feel the backlash of this really dumb move you made.
Once a traitor, always a traitor. There is no salvation, redemption or forgiveness for traitors.
Forgiveness is for those that are too weak to hold a grudge..
"(SCO) is grasping at straws to purport CA as a SCO supporter,"
Tell me one area where SCO isn't grasping at straws lately.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Why were SCO IP licenses involved at all? Wasn't the lawsuit between CA and Canopy? Could this be enough to pierce the corporate viel between SCO and Canopy?
Some things are more important than an animated rat
wouldn't you take it as a business? If you're in a contract negotiations, and the other guy says "ok, we're ready to sign the deal, and because we're such nice guys, here's a hundred licenses thrown in just in case you ever want to use it". Do you really think any rational company would ever say "Hey, don't give me something for free!"?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
For going through the trouble of reading the subject and/or body of this post, I hereby grant you license to IP I own in Linux.
Heh heh, now I can submit a press release claiming I sold Linux licenses to hundreds or thousands of Slashdot readers. Muahahahah!
(I feel compelled to add a disclaimer that this is satire and as far as I know I currently don't own any IP in Linux and therefore can't grant you any license. Geez, that's a joke kill.)
The crazy thing is that Berkeley has also decided to go with the license - the home of BSD!
Do you try to stay up with the SCO situation? RTFA, editor! CA is pissed that anyone even assumes they caved into SCO's demands.
Throw in Michaels antics and stuff like this and your surprised there's not that many subscribers?
This guy is way out there
Talk about almost everyone spreading Forbes FUD like SCO. RTFA, although the link is on the Forbes web page, it links to a Reuters' article. It is just like much of Yahoo or CNN, they pick up newswire stories and link to them.
It has NOTHING to do with Forbes and their editorial positions except they linked to a Reuters story.
Sheesh.
...picks up where Forbes fails, the truth.
here
Yep. If you think Yankee's anal-ysts are bad, consider how nicely they complement the half-truths and corporate pr mongering of Reuters alleged news reporting.
A good way for CA to distance themselves from SCO is to publically donate money to the OSDL defence fund. Issue press releases that you do so and that you don't approve of the SCO intimidation tactic.
)9TSS
Talk about almost everyone spreading Forbes FUD. RTFA, although the link is on the Forbes web page, it links to a Reuters' article. It is just like much of Yahoo or CNN, they pick up newswire stories and link to them with the headlines often in place.
It has NOTHING to do with Forbes and their editorial positions except they linked to a Reuters story.
Sheesh.
CA's senior VP of product development Mark Barrenechea says here that the SCO claim is nonsense.
So SCO is running around making nonsensical claims?
I'm dumbfounded.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
My Bad.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
That's the only reasonable explaination for the the early morning article redundancy.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
(No Microsoft Puppets were harmed in the making of this ad, funded by the Committee for the advancement of Microsoft Puppets.)
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
It's like if I had a news site and linked to some bozo crap like this.
We've known for five days now that CA only got the license because they were forced to in a settlement.
. as p
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1543091,00
"Sam Greenblatt, chief architect of the Linux technology group for CA, in Islandia. N.Y., told eWEEK that while CA "disagrees with SCO's tactics, which are intended to intimidate and threaten customers, CA's license for Linux technology is part of a larger settlement with the Canopy Group [Inc.]. It has nothing to do with SCO's strategy of intimidation."
With licensees like this, who needs enemies?
Steven
...I'm sure wfa misses him terribly, but what does that have to do with SCO or CA?
And, as has been pointed out above, it isn't Forbes, but Reuters. RTFA.
Give UPN some time. They'll come up with the SCOpranos.
Right after Homeboys in Outer Space.
"It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed" --William S. Bourroughs
And BSD would be the new Linux? Just Asking?
RTFA dumbass.
I wouldn't bet on BSD being free if they prevail against Linux. SCO has already made some noises about re-opening the AT&T vs Berkley suit and trying to collect licensing fees for "their" IP that's in BSD, too.
0 1 - just my two bits
I really doesn't surprise me coming from such a shitty company as CA. I mean anyone who would peddle the crap they do would climb in bed with anyone.
I've never seen one instance where any of thier software didn't cause more problems than it solved. For instance I worked a few years ago at CSC and we installed TNG shit across 665 solaris platforms only to have nothing but troubles. We ended up backing off TNG shit and disabling it but we where still locked in to a contract.
The present company I work for just installed TNG across all of the platform against my advice. I laugh now everytime there is a problem, which is almost daily. Thier software is crap, they are crap, it doesn't suprise me.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
. . . CA should throw them back if they had any balls.
*BSD is cool and all, but most of our clients are looking for solutions that won't be obsolete in two years.
Found in Business Week online, this article Rescuing Reuters: "Yankee and Tower are on the block." I believe Reuters stake in Yankee Group is 51%. A shame they're dumping it, considering how nicely Yankee complements the half-truths and corporate pr mongering of Reuters alleged news reporting.
CA has a history of being ruthless and disreputable, selling products that don't work without intense and costly customization which makes it difficult to support (CA Unicenter anyone?) and buying companies and either killing off products, or folding their functionality into something else and firing everyone they can come up with. A certain amount of trimming the fat is justified, but CA is a bunch of bastards. One wonders if their repudiation of the SCO rumors, in which they specifically state that they did not intentionally purchase any Linux licenses, is the beginning of an attempt to reinvent themselves as nice guys, or at least non-complete-bastards.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Given the amount of ./-baiting crap they've published earlier, why should ./ reward them with page hits for stories that they didn't even originate?
Dotslash?
Here and here.
Not that I'm against ragging on SCO and their stupidity, but isn't this horse dead?
or for that matter if you would rtfa, you'd know they didn't have an option as it was part of a unix liscence lawsuit the lost in which they were GIVEN the sco linux licences along with the unix ones
If we should believe the Forbes article, signing the licence would be just as bad as paying for. If it i s signed SCO could use that to show that other companies respect SCO rights to Linux.
If it works this way, we could expect that SCO have given away their "we do not sue you, until we can figure out how" - insurance to a lot of companies and will have a lot of acceptance track record to show up in court. But lets hope they are too greedy to do that.
And by now it would be hard to pull this trick, as so far it has bin SCO customers that have bin dragged to court. People and companies using Linux without any SCO involvment seams to be at low risk.
Doing business with SCO could also trigger actions e.g. boycotts and lawsuits from the open source movement. They could expect denial of service attacs either from misled angry wannebe members of the open source community (hope it never happens) or instigated by the SCO/Microsoft combo trying to discredit the open source movement. In this war everything seams to be permitted. And the best way to stay out of it seams to be to avoid SCO at all costs.
By the way look at the SCO stock! Now below $11!
It seams that investors too, have lost faith in SCO. Time for a new hidden infusion from Microsoft?
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
A least the investors got it right this time:
1 year SCOX chart
5 days SCOX chars
The headling for this article is blatantly incorrect and misleading. It's the kind of headline that only SCO could think up for a news site and is as irritating and infuriating as any other SCO headline ... or other baseless claims like the subject to this comment
Editors please correct the incorrect topic for this article and I'll retract my stupid subject to this comment
That cinches it for me. I'm immediately migrating my home away from UniCenter. From now on, I will keep my door propped open with a REDHAT box!
First, this story came out five days ago. For Reuters to report it as 'news' yesterday was ridiculous.
Second, they got the five-day-old news WRONG. CA has spent five days trying to make SCO look like idiots (and succeeding) for trying to cast every incoming dollar as payment for "Linux IP". CA may have it's own problems, but this story is pretty simple and obvious with about 20 seconds of research (hint to Reuters: read *multiple* old headlines before writing your stories)
Third, a big bravo to Forbes for printing a story by one of the crappiest news shops in existence *verbatim* without fact checking. Can't... contain... mediocrity... it's leaking out!!! Help!
As you know IBM has issued subpoena to Canopy about their involvement in the SCO suit.
If Canaopy can just issued SCO licences or get them for free then it is one and the same company. This means that when SCO goes bankrupt they can go after Canopy for whatever damages IBM / RH or Novell get's awarded and that the bankrupt SCO can't pay.
Help fight continental drift.
While reading my copy of IT Week (UK) that I get delivered I was quite astounded to read a quote from Blake Stowell (SCO's Director of Pulic Relations). You would have thought that SCO need all the 'good' publicity they can get right now.
But when asked the question, Will SCO also sue European firms, he replied and I quote "Not in the next few days"
How can this in any PR way look good? And a message for anyone in Europe. Look out SCO's looking at this side of the Atlantic... possibly.
Something like "SCO Linux IP License: Unwanted gift".
Basically, they'd be dumping SCO's license and making a statement that they don't believe SCO's claims.
why even re-publish Groklaw stories if you cannot even get them right?
They didn't pay SCO for these licenses. They settled a lawsuit with one of SCO's investors (Canopy). Canopy threw in a bunch of UnixWare licences as part of the deal. They weren't "Linux licenses" and CA didn't pay for them. So I guess that's actually two mistakes.
While it is true in the strict sense of the word ("the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" as defined by M-W) the word is commonly used only to refer to violent forms of terror, not litigative ones.
"CA stands in stark disagreement with SCO's tactics, which are intended to intimidate and threaten customers." That's OUR job, said the CA spokesperson!
"The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The message needs to be loud and clear. If your business in any way supports and encourages frivolous and harassing lawsuits by folding and paying off such criminals, then it, and its customers, and its customers' customers, will be considered to be equally culpable for the purpose of public response and reaction, such as boycotts.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The Matrix is real... but I'm only visiting!
A simple glance at the byline shows that it is a Reuters newswire article written by their tech columnist, Reed Stevenson, and bought/republished by Forbes. Thus I don't think it's an indication of any 'official' stance on Forbes' part. That being said, it's clear that the Reuters author didn't do his homework.
They didn't buy anything.
They settled a lawsuit with a DIFFERENT Canopy comapny, not SCO. As part of that settlement, they bought UNIXWare licences. Canopy (not SCO) attached one TRANSPARENT, FREE 'linux IP' licence to each of those UNIXWare licences.
These are licences that CA didnt want, dont currently want, and for whcih they didnt pay one single solitary cent.
AND CA is going out of their way to point out that they have more Linux machines than they have UNIXWare licences. Essentially, they are waving a flag in front of SCO/Canopy, saying "Naah, naah, we have unlicenced boxes, what are you going to do about it."
Did you read the article?
It explains what really happened.
Perhaps you might want to read the article.
Slashdot already reported this last week. How SCO was spinning the breach of contract money as a Linux license.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Then C.A. needs some killer PR that is going to dis-associate themselves with SCO. Right now, they are appearing to support the SCO Extortion Ring (tm), and the Microsoft Racketeering Foundation (tm) and it is going to be curtains for them if they don't take some action to suggest otherwise. Simply saying "uh.. we don't agree.. with..uh..SCO.. and umm... they, you know, really suck for what they are doing." As far as I'm concerned, C.A. is lathering itself up in SCO fecal matter, and trying to tell the world they don't smell like shit.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
WFA = "Weapons Factory Arena", an old (and prolly dead by now) Q3A MOD. There might be one or two servers still up for it, but I wouldn't hold out much hope.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
According BBC those payments where not SCO Linux license (Sorry to lazy to dig a link, read it yesterday).
And according to TFA which you failed to R, this is also mentioned.
What was it that CA agreed to take? My uinderstanding is that it was UnixWare licenses, to which SCO (possibly retroactively) added the "linux Iintellectual property extortion agreement".
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
I really like this, but I have to point out a subtle point that skews the 'scoring', and it is an important point, especially as it's what the Slashdot editors (WTH, Slashdot editors! WTH??) are getting wrong.
The reason that juries consider the existence and number of industry licensors to be significant is that it's assumed the licensors are "putting their money where their mouth is" -- they are investing their money in the licenses because they believe that they are paying the person who legally owns the intellectual property rights, in exchange for the freedom to use those rights safely and legally.
Of course, because juries make this consideration, it's becoming a less reliable consideration to make -- I think we can safely say that convicted software pirate Microsoft paid for its SCO licenses solely for the purpose of swaying public opinion and possible juries. And while we may decry their decision as foolish and/or cowardly, there is unfortunately a certain basic logic to EV1's decision to buy SCO's license; one can be entirely sure a claim is without merit and entirely unsure that a jury would recognize the lack of merit.
But fewer than 4,000,000 companies have put their money into Linux -- or if they have, the amounts have been orders of magnitude lower. Microsoft-funded "studies" on TCO aside, it is easier and cheaper to go with Linux, and in this specific arena, that works against us, because doing something that's easy and cheap doesn't make as much of a statement as something that's more costly and difficult. There is still a cost and effort to comply with the GPL -- companies like Cisco and Linksys have found that out -- but again, the 'investments' have been orders of magnitude lower.
And this is the central point that the Slashdot editors got wrong in the headline, stating that "Computer Associates Pays Off SCO" when the only party claiming that CA paid any amount of money for SCO's Linux licensing has been SCO. Why, again, would we take SCO's word for it? SCO could do this to anyone that pays them any money, for anything: throw in licenses for free and then claim that they weren't free, that they represent an investment of money and therefore an endorsement of SCO's claims.
Yes, Forbes published the egregiously wrong Dan Lyons "Linux's Hit Men" article. But in this case, Forbes published the correct and balanced information and it is Slashdot that grossly mischaracterized the events to the detriment of Linux.
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
CA's customers are almost exclusively large, mostly publicly held, companies and governments. For the most part their decision makers aren't really concerned with more than their bottom line. In addition CA has bought out most of their competition over the last 20 years. I don't know how many of you personally use metadata repository scanners or decision base implementation software, (at $30k per scanner, per license) but I'd bet they'll be okay without you.
"Well, SCO sues you, and all your customers flee."
"Okay. Remind me not to do that."
As SCO has so far only identfied CA as buyer of such a Unixware license I can only conclude that this is the ONLY batch of Unixware licenses sold in the last half year or so.
And CA did not even go shopping for these licenses...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
You know the background info that every news article has about the companies referenced in the article. I just read this on the nyse.com website in reference to SCO. This was from a linked article on the nyse.com site.
SCO Group is a software company whose products enable the
development, deployment and management of Linux specialized servers and
Internet access devices that simplify computing.
IBM makes computers, storage products and software.
-By Todd Goren; Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-1351; todd.goren@dowjones.com
Is it just me or is the SCO description a little more flowery than the IBM one. I am not sure if it is just me or if it really seems like he is trying to talk up SCO and minimize IBM.
Or am I just being paranoid?
I would like to see some proof. A transaction of such graniose proportions surely would make some news.
Piercing the corporate veil is a term used to describe holding individuals responsible for their actions rather than letting them hid behind a corporation. How the term might apply to Canopy is not clear to me. As far as I know, neither SCO nor Canopy are engaging in unlawful activities. SCO's lawsuits against IBM, AutoZone, Daimler-Chyrsler, etc. may be completely bogus and totally reprehensible, but they are not unlawful. As there is not any hint of unlawful activity in any area, including securities fraud, the SEC would be involved in the matter.
This is significant because this is Forbes that is re-spinning CA's situation as if CA had explicitly licensed Linux from SCO, and that they did so under legal duress. By spinning these details only, and conveniently omiting the fact that CA licensed Unixware, which just happens to cover Linux servers, Forbes is blatently using this to spew pro-sco propoganda. Note that they also omit CA's previous statement that the Unixware licenses that they did purchase as a result of the Canopy settlement do not cover all of their Linux servers
"When the going gets tough, the weak get screwed."
The settlement required CA to obtain UnixWare license, which cleverly SCO slipped in the Linux indemification. SCO tried to spin the settlement as licensing deal. It's a damned lie but probably not a crime. Again, no need to pierce anybody's veil. What's interesting about this is that Daimler-Chrysler, a publicly acknowledged Linux user, is being sued for not signing SCO's IP compliance statement. If it is a licensed UnixWare user, why shouldn't it also have Linux indemnification?
I would understand it (at least partially) if they were a small company that couldn't afford to "do the right thing" and stand up against the SCO bologna. However, CA is huge and should have stuck to it's guns (like IBM, Dell, etc. have). Don't get me wrong, I'm still happy that CA is as big an advocet for Linux as they are and look forward to their continued contributions to the community.. it's just sad to see them betray their friends for fear of legal action (legal action that is completely wrong, and CA affirms that fact).
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
But in this case, Forbes published the correct and balanced information and it is Slashdot that grossly mischaracterized the events to the detriment of Linux.
This was not a balanced or fair or accurate article. Here is my paragraph by paragraph analysis why. You should be ashamed to support this kind of yellow journalism. It is pathetic by any standard.
Quotes from article: Computer Associates International Inc. (nyse: CA - news - people) said on Monday it has licensed the freely available Linux operating system software from SCO -- a move that could become key legal ammunition for the SCO Group Inc.
Comment: Seems incorrect to me right off the bat. CA denied buying an IP license from SCO, much less a license for 'Linux'.
Quotes from article:SCO Group, which claims ownership over parts of Linux, is suing distributors and users of the software system in what has become a highly contentious legal battle among technology makers, and technology lawyers said each licensee SCO signs helps bolster its case.
Comment: what technology lawyers? Where are these mythical creatures? Are they the SCO laywers or the M$ lawyers. It doesn't sound like Eben Moglen said this?
Quotes from article:One of the world's largest software sellers, Computer Associates has championed an industry coalition supporting the open and free use of Linux.
Comment: I am not sure 'champion' is a proper discription of CA, it inflates CA's contribution. I don't see how they are in any way at the core of what is going on with Linux at the same level as say a Redhat.
Quotes from article:While Computer Associates confirmed it agreed to license the software last August, it took pains on Monday to distance itself from SCO, saying it had signed the licenses as part of a confidential legal settlement with a third party.
Comment: The software in question was Unixware, not Linux, that was licensed. This 2 second Google search turned up these stories which directly refutes the Forbes/Reuters story, take a look here. and here
Quotes from article:"(SCO) is grasping at straws to purport CA as a SCO supporter," Computer Associates said in a statement. "CA stands in stark disagreement with SCO's tactics, which are intended to intimidate and threaten customers."
Comment: A partial quote which fails to show the full CA position which is much more broadly a denial of SCO's claim.
Quotes from article:SCO has used the courts aggressively to assert ownership positions in Linux as well as software called Unix, whose code, SCO maintains, was utilized in the making of Linux.
Comment: SCO has not claimed to own any Linux code. They are in a contract dispute with IBM. The other lawsuits are with former SCO customers and virtually nothing is known about the substance of those charges.
Quotes from article:The SCO Group last week expanded its legal battle over Linux by suing AutoZone Inc. and DaimlerChrysler AG
Comment: SCO has certainly stepped up their legal attacks.
Quotes from article:Intellectual property, or IP, experts said CA's license could help convince a jury that SCO has a justified claim on Linux.
Comment: What intelectual property lawyer says that? Does he have a name? David Bois pwerhaps? Or is the aurthor of the article an expert on this?
Quotes from article:"Generally, if an IP holder is able to demonstrate that others in the industry have taken a license, thereby respecting the IP holder's claims, that can be used as evidence that is persuasive to a jury," said Brian Ferguson, a partner in a Washington, D.C. law firm that handles IP cases. Ferguson has no stake in the SCO case.
Comment: Who is Brian Fergeson? WTF? That is a 2 bit quo
... not sure how this would work in legal terms, but why doesn't Computer Associates just come out and say "Hey, SCO, we don't want your licenses, and we're considering the licenses terminated. You wanna sue us, you know where to find us."
It's awfully easy for CA to say that the SCO case is bogus, since they've already got licenses, and there's nothing on the line for them. If they really think SCO doesn't have a case (and I don't have any reason to doubt that this is what they think), why not prove it by tossing the licenses?
The title should read,
"Computer Associates CEO Sucks Off
SCOX CEO Darl McBride For a $1."
That is about the price of SCOX
will be in 10 months.
Toodles
Whatever the conditions in the contracts, beware.
Now, taking over CA assets is risky for any potential suitor. Legal headaches, are not free.
I just found this very interesting help-wanted ad on Monster.com. You can read all of it here.
Job Description: SCO Unix Contractor
Qualified candidate will need to recover root passwords and change them, plus store securely for future use if need be.
Candidate needs to be able to understand file structure & applications running on machine(s) & determine if it is possible for the contractor to support the systems until June of this year.
I wonder what the story is behind this one... it looks like SCO is about to be thrown off of a site.
What is "CA"?
Have you read my journal today?
Cheers,
Craig
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Moody's Cuts Computer Associates to Junks /2004/03/11/moodys_cuts_computer_associates_to_jun k/
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/article
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Moody's Investors Service cut Computer Associates International's debt ratings by one notch to junk on Thursday, citing government investigations into the software company's accounting, maturing debt, and intensifying competition.
Downgrades to junk often raise a company's borrowing costs substantially, because many investors are not permitted to buy
non-investment-grade rated companies' debt. But Computer Associates' stock fell less than 2 percent as investors believe the company, despite being more leveraged than its peers, has enough cash to cover its operations.
"I don't think the downgrade is meaningful to equities investors because the company is paying down debt as opposed to borrowing more money," said Janney Montgomery Scott analyst Richard Sherman.
In the next few months, this cut will likely have little impact on the company, said Philip Olesen, bond analyst at UBS in Stamford, Connecticut.
Computer Associates has no short-term debt to refinance, and had about $1.4 billion of cash and marketable securities on its balance sheet as of December, Olesen said.
The cut may hinder big acquisitions, but the company, which has not done a big deal in the past four years, is in no rush to resume launching large acquisitions. Computer Associates bought a 30-employee software company on Thursday in all cash deal for an undisclosed amount.
The downgrade came two months after CA received a formal notice from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which indicates the government may take civil enforcement actions soon.
Moody's cited uncertainty surrounding the long-running probe by the SEC and Department of Justice associated with a $1 billion accounting scandal which reflects "a history of corporate governance concerns."
The rating agency said the uncertainty could hamper the company's refinancing of upcoming maturing debt, including $825 million of senior notes maturing in April 2005.
Free cash flow of $1.1 billion in the last 12 months represents a 5 percent year-over-year decline. Moody's also said its partner, systems integrator Electronic Data Systems Corp., is suffering from a drastic fall in contract signings, which could also impact CA's future sales.
Moody's cut Computer Associates senior unsecured debt ratings to Ba1, the highest junk rating, from Baa3, the lowest investment-grade rating. It reduced the company's short-term rating to "Not-prime" from "Prime-3." The outlook is stable, as Computer Associates has a substantial amount of backlogs and improved its corporate governance, Moody's said.
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services rates the company's senior unsecured debt "BBB-plus," three notches above junk, although S&P has said it may cut the rating.
Computer Associates has about $2.3 billion of outstanding debt securities. Its notes with a 6.5 percent coupon, maturing in 2008, fell to 108.5 cents on the dollar, a decline of 1.5 cents on the dollar.
The company's shares fell 41 cents, or 1.53 percent, to $26.36 in early afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
I have to say that this seems like a tall order to prove. Afterall, CA agreed to the settlement and AFAIK, there is no standard which could supercede the settlement agreed upon between opposing parties. Should Canopy have just asked for a cash only settlement instead of specific performance?
None of this would even be an issue if SCO hadn't slipped in their vaguely worded IP usage amendment and then started proclaiming CA as a licensee.