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.
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).
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
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.
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 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.
'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
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.
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.
"(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.)
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
Maybe this is what SCO wants.
SCO tries to get money from any company that supports Linux/Open Source in any way, then the Linux/Open Source supporters boycott that company.
Maybe that's why SCO is trying to make it look as if CA is a traitor.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Way to fall for the FUD though.
...picks up where Forbes fails, the truth.
here
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
It's either a joke or a misunderstanding.
In this case, CA = Computer Associates, not California.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
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 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 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.'"
Here and here.
Not that I'm against ragging on SCO and their stupidity, but isn't this horse dead?
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
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!
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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
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.
That was my point, actually. Big companies are potentially afraid of using linux because SCO might actually sue them. That would affect their bottom line, and they don't want to have to deal with defending themselves from a nonsense lawsuit just because CA deployed some linux servers/software for them. Individuals (non-corporate) who might otherwise use linux are really not worried about SCO suing them.
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.
Okay, now that's just creepy. I work for CA on their metadata repository scanner / ETL software. A DecisionBase product from (most recently) Platinum, no less. (this is, incidentally, a pretty small segment of CA's total business).
But yeah, you're exactly right, a bunch of slashdot readers aren't going to make a dent boycotting CA software, and the corporate customers aren't going to boycott.I'm not a smorgasbord.