Slashdot Mirror
SCO Aims For The Feds
MoFoQ writes "News.com reports that SCO is now targetting the Feds and their supercomputers (the Beowulf clusters, etc.). Looks like they bit off more than they can chew, even before winning a single case "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Have you seen their stock price recently?
They need to make as much noise and annoy as many as possible, and they need to do it now. The bigger and more controversial the opponent, the better.
If they don't make noise, Microsoft doesn't get much value for their investment, right? So they need to capitalize every second SCO is still alive.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Yes, but this is the Federal Government here we're talking about. All they have to do is come at them with the big guns.
This sig no verb.
...who's just laughing his head off and thinks no commentary of any kind is really needed?
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Okay, this is just a little more than SCO to handle, even if they do have funding from Microsoft. The government, although horibly expensive and utterly dumb to most things geek, has their fair share of the alpha-geek. Besides, the government already has a thing for suing Microsoft and winning. Hopefully this will transend to SCO as well.
-- johntracy.com, because everybody else is wrong.
It was once said after World War II that the United States should be ready to fight two and a half wars at any point, anywhere in the world. Other conflict management is just like this idea. You can only have so many fights before you will not effectively be able to handle them all. SCO not only has too many fights right now, but their fights are way too large for the relative size of their company. Anyone who takes on IBM, an assortment of other companies, and then the United States Federal Government needs to have their heads checked.
No, they haven't bit off more than they can chew. Their business model isn't about winning court cases, it's about squeezing money. The fact they're willing to go after the feds means that they're not afraid of anybody, particularly YOU, Mr. CEO, so pay up now, before we drag you in too.
Meanwhile, MS has been having some problems with governments defecting from the 1 Microsoft Way) so this helps them out.
Microsoft has gone out of it's way to point investors at SCO because any crap SCOX throws at Linux only makes them look less awful. It's a classic case of MS saying "Lets you and him fight!"
Of course, if they can get federal agencies (who aren't playing with their own money anyway) to pay them to shut up and go away, so much the better! I'm suprised that they haven't thought of this earlier.
There's even a tiny chance that they'll be able to argue for a change of venue based on the courts using FOSS now, and therefore not being disinterested parties. It won't throw the case out, but it might be a good delaying tactic, and time really is money.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
Not a wise move to go after the University of California (who manage livermore and los alamos).
UC regents already won one lawsuit over this business... SCO may be violating BSD vs USL.
Test your net with Netalyzr
First of all, the federal government would probably stomp a hole in MS's skull for anti-trust concerns
Sorry, I may be misunderstanding something here...
Aren't we talking of USA right now, with that George guy on the rudder?
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
He states a computer expert in North Korea can download Linux and create a super-computer. Yet I'm sure the same expert can download some ISOs of Windows from somewhere. Of course one method is legal and one is illegal, but I'm sure they wouldn't care about having unlicensed copies of Windows if they can't purchase legitimate copies.
I'm sure Darl would sooner they be running SCO software.
This is disgusting.
Probably the only thing worse would be if SCO were to send out dunning letters to worthy chartible organization that happen to make use of free and open source software in an effort to save money for helping people.
The sooner that this company's fradulent claims are shot down in flames in the courts and its criminal executive officers charged by the SEC and led in handcuffs to join Ken Lay, the better.
Were it me, I'd send back a letter indicating that my attorneys were in the process of closely examining your claim and will be contacting you shortly. To expedite our process, please submit supporting evidence of your claim to our counsel.
I doubt you'd hear anything more from the litigious bastards.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
"Open-source software--available widely through the Internet--has the potential to provide our nation's enemies or potential enemies with computing capabilities that are restricted by U.S. law," [...] "A computer expert in North Korea who has a number of personal computers can download the latest version of Linux...and in short order build a virtual supercomputer."
The people who read this letter include people who think like this.
Despite all other thoughts (accidental launch on SCO targets and other humor like that), this seems really cyberpunk. An on the verge of collapse desperate IT company get's funded under the counter by a big evil IT company to make life miserable for the people who threaten the big evil IT company. It feels like a subplot in a Gibson novel... wierd. Life imitates art yet again.
hmm, to choose between a lying pack of useless weasels, or, uhh... i guess i see your point but seriously, shouldn't the guys in white coats at Livermore get a fellow-geek vote of confidence when going up against the well-dressed, soulless jackals in Armani suit-coats? are you pro-SCO?
-- How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
You are mostly right, they need to make noise to pump the stock price again. However, there are some targets which we know they chose not to pursue. Bank of America, for one. Why go after Daimler/Chrysler instead? This is complex, and forgive the tin-foil hat sound of it.
BoA is big. More importntly BoA is VERY influential in the Banking and Investment Banking industry. Think it through. BoA has ties to virtually every financial institution on the planet of somekind and could very easily use its influence to ruin SCO in a heartbeat. A few phone calls from some BoA execs and suddenly SCO's line of credit dries up and loans are called-in. Even better, the Mortgages and auto loans, whatever debts, of SCO execs are called and there are suddenly no other banks anywhere willing to lend them money.
Not only that, but BayStar has all its credit affected also, as well as its execs. Sure all these SCO-scum and BayStar-bitches are probably rich enough to handle it, but it is going to hurt and hurt bad. Most Americans, even Donald Trump, are so heavily "leveraged" that if something like this were to occur it would destroy them. It would most certainly destroy SCO, et al.
SCO's lawyers probably realized this at the last minute and convinced Darl that BoA and any other super-sized Bank was capable of playing hardball at a level SCO can't survive. Otherwise, why change targets instead of just tactics? SCO could have just amended that letter to BoA to sue them just like Daim\Chrysler instead of trying to get the court to seize, effectively, all their computers. Answer: SCO isn't suing BoA because they are scared of what BoA could do to them. If not, why announce the Fed-suit instead of going back after BoA? A company that everyone now knows(thanks to MS-Word fun) was an initial target. Answer: Not even the Feds scare them as bad, as this headline proves.
Flash is the Herpes of the Internet.
your.opinion >
While they may lose ( or they may not.. that is still yet to be determined since there hasnt been a judgement on ANY of their claims, yet.. ) that wont instantly mean they goto jail.
.. If the people at SCO truely belive they are in the right.. then no *fraud* was commited.. just a lot of stupidity .. and last i heard that isnt a crime...
The SEC must prove there was intent to defraud
---- Booth was a patriot ----
But you would think if they want to curry that sort of favor with the current adminstration, then they wouldn't sue them!
I love the way they put that "open source helps our enemies, and our laboratories can't use open source".
Who exactly is helping our enemies?
"Open-source software--available widely through the Internet--has the potential to provide our nation's enemies or potential enemies with computing capabilities that are restricted by U.S. law," McBride said. "A computer expert in North Korea who has a number of personal computers can download the latest version of Linux...and in short order build a virtual supercomputer."
I though that when people write crap like this and are dead serious about it... then well, they are probably long past the point of arguing with. We just have to find a way to not let them do their crazy thing.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"
Imagine SCO won some hilarious claim in the US - pretty much every other nation in the world would ignore them. Imagine all the American businesses that would have to pay licence fees to SCO - and all the non-American businesses that would not. That would hurt the US economy for real.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Uhh, no. The Fed will be more than pleased to drive a stake through SCO. Most corporations like to flex their muscles. The Government is probably the worst about this.
It seems suicidal.
And stopping Microsoft's march is a net loss nationally. That does not mean its not the right thing to do.
I'd say it's more liker firing a '22 at a grizzly... It *IS* possible to kill it, but chances are it's gonna be spitting up the spare bullets you have (had) in your back pocket.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Except that it's misleading and there's not enough clarification:
It's not an idle threat, though many Linux fans dismiss the Lindon, Utah-based company's assertions. SCO's attorneys, Boies Schiller & Flexner, have indeed sued AutoZone for its use of Linux, claiming that the open-source operating system infringes on SCO's Unix copyrights.
Unless author clarifies his point, it's misleading. SCO did not sue AutoZone simply because AutoZone uses Linux. They sued AutoZone because SCO had a licensing agreement with them which SCO felt was violated by AutoZone's use of Linux. Author's point seems to imply that if you are a large company and use Linux, you are at a risk of getting sued. This is not true. What legal principle can SCO use to sue Linux users that have no contract or licensing agreements with them? None, as far as I am aware.
This is a problem with most mainstream press reporting on this issue. They follow SCO's FUD more than do their research and report facts.
I think that people who see the U.S. government as some behemoth that can devour SCO are missing something. Four years ago, that might have been a reasonable analysis, but now you have people in charge of the govenrment who are actually much more hostile to the institutions that they nominally govern than they are to the industries they nominally regulate or serve.
This is actually a perfect oppotunity for SCO to walk in, whine about lost IP value, and have a truly sympathetic ear on the other side of the table. The government shut down several nominally free services provided by the government because private industry concerns complained that they were too successful and taking away business from the private sector.
The Bush administration loves anything that makes a buck, and probably hates things like Open Source software because it sounds too much like Communism.
Since we live in a democracy, technically the feds ARE us. We controll them, they serve us. The problem is, we aren't nearly involved enough in our government, so sometimes it doesn't seem that way. Your comment make me sad that our government isn't like this anymore.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
It'a also so hard to keep track of who the enemies are. We know now that Saddam's Iraq is an enemy, whereas it was a friend in the 80s. I think Iran is a friend, at least until a month before the elections when I think they will become an Immediate Threat to Democracy and Freedom (tm). But what about Spain? Are they our enemies, or are they still part of the COW (coalition of the willing)? Perhaps we need to invade, I mean liberate, Catalonia.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
Skull and Bones is a Secret Society. The only frats with any presence at Yale are AEP, DKE, Beta, Sigma Chi and Sigma Nu.
Thanks for playing with the Ivy Bashing. Try again some time when you have a clue.
[senior at yale. not in S&B. thx]
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
Think about it, they're already neck-deep in shit if they don't win everything. Pissing off the feds isn't going to screw them over any more. The chance that they're taking is that the way government agencies deemed important enough to be allowed supercomputing clusters, adding on a charge for linux licenses won't bother anyone enough to raise a stink about it. They then get the credibility of a federal agency paying up to voice their threat with.
That said, I think they *will* get hammered in court, but that doesn't make their behavior irrational from where they stand right now. Proving criminal fraud would basically require audio tape of them saying "No, we don't own the code, but we can still extort them for lots of money." which is unlikely, so all they really have to lose here are attorney's fees.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
now just imagine... SCO kill linux in USA, 699$+equipment per additional CPU. the Enemy: only equipment cost. now who will have the fastest computational power?
Bank of America can't simply call every financial institution in the world and get SCO shut down. That is retarded.
Besides, don't you imagine BoA has competitors?
There's a legal doctrine which addresses this issue. I can't remember the precise term for it, but the Judiciary is allowed to be a litigant before itself. It's somewhat frowned upon, but the logic goes as follows: under the Constitution, the only branch of the government with standing to hear grievances against the government is the Judiciary. If the Judiciary has a grievance against another branch of the government, it is the Judiciary's Constitutional duty to hear its own case.
For obvious reasons, this is really frowned upon. The Judiciary tends to judge itself much more harshly than it judges others.
For instance, under the Constitution the Federal government is not allowed to reduce the pay of a judge during his/her term of good behavior. Sounds straightforward, right? Up until you consider that Federal judges haven't had a COLA (Cost Of Living Adjustment) in a decade. Due to inflation, Federal judges are getting paid about fourteen percent less today than they were in the '80s.
During this time, Congress has made it a priority to give itself frequent and generous COLAs (when they haven't been giving themselves outright raises). It's outraged a large number of judges, who are--in terms of real buying power--getting their salaries cut by over an eighth despite the Constitution's guarantee that Congress is forbidden from doing that.
So some particularly outraged judges filed a lawsuit against Congress, suing them to compel them to give the Judiciary a proper COLA. The Judiciary heard this lawsuit, because (a) nobody in their right mind could say the judges didn't have a legitimate grievance against the government, and (b) the Judiciary is the only agency authorized to hear these grievances.
In the end, the suit was dismissed before trial. A trial is for the determination of facts, but there were no facts in disagreement. The disagreement was purely one about law, and those disagreements tend to be handled in pre-trial motions. The plaintiffs claimed that Congress' refusal to pass a COLA amounted to an unconstitutional cut in salary, and the respondent (the United States Solicitor-General, I think) claimed that Congress only says their salary shall not be cut, not that they're entitled to COLA increases in salary.
The judge hearing the case decided the Solicitor-General had the correct view of the law. The question of law was resolved in the government's favor, and given that there was no violation of law, the plaintiff's lawsuit quietly vanished.
All of this is if-I-recall-correctly. I may be in error on some details, but I think that I'm right on the major points.
(Also, a sidebar: the next time you hear about how government jobs are cushy and high-ranking spots like judicial appointments are overpaid, consider this: on average, a Federal judge gets paid less than a quarter what they would make in private practice. The Judiciary is facing an exodus of judges into the private sector because the $120,000 salary of a Chief Judge of an Appellate Court simply doesn't compare to the $1-million-or-more they could make in a law firm. Are judges paid well? Yes. Are they paid market rates? Not even close.)
Take away their supercomputers and the government won't stop research, they'll just return to blowing up actual bombs.
Maybe they can test them at SCO after that?