Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Computer Associates Pays Off SCO

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the say-it-ain't-so dept.

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"."

9 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. What is it with Forbes and inaccuracy? by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is getting to be an ongoing grudge with Forbes... First their editorialists skew every fact they can find in attempts to cheerlead SCO on, now this.

    Didn't CA already explain the whole Canopy/SCO financial thing?

    /P

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  2. Yeah, CA paid for them - $0.00 by mflaster · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From Dow Jones Business News:
    The Islandia, N.Y., company, one of the biggest makers of corporate software, said that although it signed the licenses, it didn't pay for them -- and never would.

    Mike

  3. Misleading lede by LightStruk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Computer Associates International Inc. 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. in a battle over who owns the software.
    The editor who let this lede get published should be taken out and, er, fired. It does not make a shred of difference in court if somebody actually caved to SCO's extortion; just because CA believed SCO's lie does not make the lie true.
    1. Re:Misleading lede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hell, they let Daniel Lyons post some rambling bit of nonsense wherein he "investigated" Groklaw. He read the PO box from her domain registration (which is NOT even the town where she lives...) and discovered that IBM might have an office somewhere in that general area. He then found out that IBM, once upon a time, had given some computers to Ibiblio (which recently became the host of Groklaw).

      That's it. That's the supposed "connection" between them. And half of it was WRONG.

      And Forbes let Daniel Lyons publish that. Why? Because PJ chastized him for not bothering to do ANY research. And now we see how poor his researching skills really are. Hell, I could do better than that, and I'm just an amature. Yet, given what I know, if I had access to some of the databases PIs use, I could probably have PJs info in a few minutes. And I'm just some schmoe, not an "investigative reporter."

      The lesson here? Forbes' "research" consists primarily of corporate PR documents. IBM hasn't put out any, SCO has, so Forbes prints SCO's story and never bothers to research after that.

      At least, that's the most consistant interpretation I can give of it. In the mean time, guess which magazine I tell everyone NOT to bother reading or subscribing to? I would encourage the rest of you to do the same, unless you want to read rehashed press releases for some reason...

  4. Re:Misleading Headline by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Even worse, the story is completely consistant with the claims quoted yesterday which reported:
    By acquiring the UnixWare licenses ( ed: as part of a settlement of an unrelated lawsuit brought by Canopy, not SCO), CA indemnified itself against a possible Linux lawsuit from SCO, said Sam Greenblatt, the senior vice president and chief architect of CA's Linux Technology Group. "We did an agreement with the Canopy Group and in the agreement with the Canopy Group, we acquired UinxWare(sic) licenses," he said. "For every UnixWare license you acquired, you got indemnified for that number of Linux licenses."
    Kind of wierd to post this. Am I missing something?
    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  5. Re:Misleading Headline by robslimo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Misleading Headline by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Insightful
    That's exactly right.

    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?
  7. Re:CA should have known better than to allow this by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  8. Re:Misleading Headline by Bull999999 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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