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)
"(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.
Didn't CA already explain the whole Canopy/SCO financial thing?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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!"
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.
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 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.
They were purchased in the sense that CA had some business with Canopy. Canopy then figured "Hey, let's mention that this stuff also includes Linux licenses blah blah" and the CA people said: "Well if it's not going to increase the price, why not?"
So in the end CA bought licenses, but only because SCO wanted to put the licenses down as "sold", not because they would have sold them in any other way.
It's like giving away free stuff along with other things, then later claiming everybody bought your stuff when they just bought something else.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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
"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.
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.
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.
SCO sued International Business Machines Corp. [...] a year ago
Misleading use of the word 'sued' also.
I've seen this a lot, especially with regard to SCO's actions. Wouldn't the correct usage be SCO filed suit against IBM [...] a year ago?
As stated in the Forbes article, it could be taken to mean that SCO successfully sued IBM... or maybe I'm not as hot at my native language as I thought.
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 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.'"
CA went to the store and bought a computer. Someone threw three AOL disks in the box while they weren't looking.
Now AOL's trying to claim they've been a customer for 135 days, because, after all, those were 45 day free trial CDs.
Actually, it's even sillier than that. CA got Unixware licenses. SCO has just gone around saying they won't sue anyone who purchases Unixware licenses to cover their Linux intallations. At no point did CA see 'Linux license' on anything, even if they had checked the box carefully thy would have ended up with them.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
When this came out a few days ago, it was my understanding that CA acquired a bunch of Unixware licenses as part of the earlier settlement. They needed these licenses to come into compliance, since they were using (or had sold) machines running Unixware.
Then, after the fact, SCO decided to give all existing Unixware licensees Linux rights as well. If CA didn't even know they were getting Linux (as opposed to Unixware) licenses, that's a crucial distinction.
CA ended up with UnixWare licenses, not Linux licenses. It's just that SCO has turned all UnixWare licenses into Linux licenses.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
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!
I would be like SCO throwing in a Linux license with every Happy Meal and claim that it sold a billion Linux licenses.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
What I worry about, is that exact license. They "gave" it to CA, CA seems to have accepted the license.
The license is VERY restrictive though. I mean EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE.
I wonder whether CA by accepting that very license gave away their rights to do with Linux whatever they could do before.
That's even way worse than SCO just wanting to give an impression of legitimacy. They actually screwed CA big time. Or at least, you could see it that way.
And hence: Could CA now be sued by SCO for normal Linux "use" ?
Notrace.Nosig.
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.
You should broaden this to say that it dangerous to have any business dealings with Canopy. I'm sure CA was already aware of this; after all, they were trying to settle a breach of contract claim!
Secondly, CA was given a number of UNIXware licenses. SCO merely tacked on the SCOsource licenses. This would be akin to a grocery store clerk slipping an unpurchased product into a celebrity's shopping bag, so that the product manufacturer can claim that the celebrity endorses its product.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.