Slashdot Mirror
EV1Servers.Net's CEO Regrets SCO Deal
spafbnerf writes "Everyone Internet's CEO Robert Marsh, when asked his feelings about the SCO deal almost a month ago responds: 'Would I do it again? No. I'll go on the record as saying that,' Marsh said. 'I certainly know a lot more today than I knew a month ago, in a lot of respects.'"
Robert Marsh is an honorable businessman. He did his deal with SCO, and abided by it thinking that it was in the best interest of his business to pay off SCO to get them to go away.
And, it turns out SCO, in its usual behavior, spun the deal in a way that generated false rumors and is now trying to use EV1 as a model for future deals. The fact that Marsh is now telling the public that he is experiencing buyer's remorse should serve as a warning to all other hosting companies.
I wonder if he regrests it because he didn't anticipate the backlash, or because he just now understands that SCO is/was blowing smoke up his ass.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
If I were an investor, I would be asking why Robert didn't take a week and educate himself before bowing to SCO.
I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.
He says he regrets his decision.. but the bigger question is WHY does he regret it? The public backlash, the lack of evidence from SCO? Is this a PR spin, or something that directly affects his company.... Just a thought...
ev1servers.net features as one of Microsoft's case studies. It's possible that there's some kind of Microsoft/SCO/EV1Servers connection... so... look at all of this, including the 'announced regret' with a jaded eye.
However, he still made the decision to purchase the licenses and now he is in a contract with SCO. Now that SCO has him in a contract, they can (and judging by their previous actions, will) sue him if they feel he is in violation of said contract. Keep in mind all of the people they have sued thus far have been people that are or were contract holders.
I hope he is not hosting any linux kernel source code or some such thing on any of his customers' websites, because I am sure that SCO will find a way to sue him for distributing their so-called intellectual property.
Moving forward, this just goes to show why you don't ask advice from any old lawyer on technical law matters. You need a lawyer who understands what is going on out there in the tech world so you can make an informed decision regarding your business and not waste countless amounts of money into a black hole of litigation.
Then I decided that everybody makes mistakes and this CEO is a remarkably candid and honest person for publicly admitting his mistake.
THEN, I started reading the article, and came across this quote:
HELLO?!?!?! What kind of comment is that to make in an interview? "Well, we lose a lot of sites every month and this isn't any worse than usual". Hmm, interesting.THEN, I thought he'd redeemend himself with the next paragraph:
OK so that's a lot of churn, but it's still net growth. I can see his point, I guess.Of course, his next sentence was "We churn a lot of sites." What this guy needs is a PR consultant. I don't think going on record saying you have a lot of churn is the right way to "spin" things. Of course, the more important question is, why so much churn? It depends on their total numbers to see what kind of a percentage basis this is, but it seems disturbingly high in absolute number terms. It's something I'd consider before hosting my site there, anyway.
www.clarke.ca
As a number of posters have noted, EV1 has a CEO that actually admits that, knowing what he knows now, he would do something differently. But one of the motivating factors developing this understanding is the disapproval of the technology community.
I've been wondering if public disapproval, which has been so effective in this case, could work when it comes to moving technology jobs to low wage countries like India and China.
There was a big union movement that came out of the Great Depression. A lot of people would do their best to buy union made goods. Certainly HP must have felt some heat from their CEOs rather ill advised comments (something like "Hey no one said you have any right to a job"). If US corporations felt that their sales were being hurt by a "Buy American" campaign they would change their behavior.
Of course there is an obvious problem with this argument: in the case of EV1 there are many hosting providers to choose from who have not signed up with the evil SCO. But when it comes to "Buying American" it is difficult to find any multinational that is not moving technology jobs overseas. So who are you going to buy from?
Still, I think that public shame might have some effect. John Kerry's remarks about "Benedict Arnold CEOs" who take advantage of what the United States provides while giving little back, for example.
It doesn't matter what he wasn't trying to do. That would still have been the net result of his license deal had he not expressed regret now. Someone ducking for cover and bolstering a vicious predator like SCO to cover their own ass makes them the enemy in my book. His intentions are not the whole issue, we all have to live with the consequences of his action. The real lesson here is if you want to shake down a company then EV1 is a good place to knock on the door.
Disclosure - I spent 4 days in Houston in the Sheraton on Robert's dime, got to go to the Houston bowl and party in his box, tour EV1 and some other goodies. I've met and talked to Robert and personally I like the man so call me biased if you want.
Robert honestly thought he was doing a good thing, he hasn't went into details but basically SCO came knocking and when the dust settled it was cheaper to just pay them and let it be, than to fight them.
Robert's not afraid to fight if he has to, he recently won a judgement against everyone's (in the hosting industry anyway) least favorite litigious bastards (er bitch?). But I think he simply felt like buying the stupid licenses was cheapest and easiest.
Then I think he made his big mistake (not that buying them wasn't) and SCO basically either said "hey free advertising we'll just mention this in a press release, and people will see your url EVERYWHERE" OR they simply said "part of the agreement is we name names like it or not" I'm not sure which way it went, but allowing SCO to publicly state they bought a license was the big mistake.
No one knows for sure who might have quietly bought licenses so far, but letting SCO publicly display the fact you buy a license is definitely a big bad idea.
--- www.f-theocean.com
Honestly, I could see why a company like this one would be afraid of a law-suit from SCO. I mean, I don't agree with SCO's point of view, but if I were a company whose business was so founded on linux servers as this one appears to be, losing those servers or having the choice between licensing and going with microsoft are realistically the only options they had. While some companies (IBM) have the resources to throw into a law-suit, does this one?
Having a license no one agrees with, or losing the servers and potentially a law-suit may seem like a better option.
I would suggest that the responses he got in relation to his choice is what fuels this statement, but it is good hes making it. It A: Proves he is honest B: It means he has balls.
His PR may need work, but I think hes at least somewhat on the right track. Better to be open and honest and rebuild their reputation through that means than to be underhanded about the whole thing. Openly stating it may just protect some other company from SCO.
-- RJ
Doesn't this situation prove that ideals ARE important when making business decisions? People are going to consider your decisions in the context of their own ideals, and if they don't like your decision, you're going to lose customers. That's what happened here, and it's clear that the decision made was in fact not as pragmatic as it looked. You have to predict customer reaction, and to do that you have to realize people do not always make purely pragmatic decisions.
Businesses MUST understand that because their customers value honesty and integrity, and have certain ideals, then they must show honesty and integrity, and respect for their customer's ideals. If you fail to do that...this is what happens.
True. SCO has been known to sink pretty low (read my sig/journal...). This only reinforces the fact that being one of SCO's customers puts you at more risk than anything else.
If you read the lawsuits, thus far, they have only sued people they had business deals with, and even then their main causes of action stem from the contracts they've had with these other businesses. I'm sure that that's not the message SCO intends to send, but they're very good at shooting themselves in the foot...
In the mean time, here's this same story at Groklaw.
Can we take advantage of this issue to get some of EV1's competition to come forward and state they will give EV1's customers a better deal and help migrate them over? Along with a pledge they won't pander to SCO's obnoxious extortion?
If I were a rackshack customer, I would still move out. Disregard the higher costs. Now that they have the agreement with SCO, they are quite a bit more elgible for a suit against them and their customers. All suits that SCO has filed has been against past customers, not against unrelated ones.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well, he's been hosting my site for close to a year now, and I can't hold him accountable for anything breaking on my server because, well, nothing has broken.
It's that kind of track record that his business runs on. They don't make any SLA pledge that you're server won't totally fall apart, but they just have a volume of customers whose servers haven't fallen apart in the past.
Well, that word "absolution" contains another word that's equally important: "solution." What's he doing to try and actually solve this problem?
Mr. Marsh: A very good solution would be to (a) demand your money back for that high-priced toilet paper that SCO calls "IP licenses," and (b) sue them for fraud and/or extortion. If you want some background to show that what SCO is doing to you is indeed fraud and/or extortion, this is a good place to start.
Until then, no amount of whining you do about how you "regret" the deal will convince anyone to grant you absolution. That's not to say that absolution is impossible; you just have to do the right thing first.
Be who you are...and be it in style!
It's been said, "if you can't be a good example to others, at least be a good warning!"
It looks like he's taking the warning part seriously. Maybe this whole thing will be a net loss for SCO, publicity wise. I doubt SCO will learn anything, but other companies should be concerned about any sort of legal or financial dealings with SCO in the future. In this industry, that's important.
He may have thought he was doing what was best for his company, but he didn't consider the long-term implications. In the end, he would have benefited himself and his company more by helping to prevent the legitimacy of SCO's anti-open-source position. Short term pain, for long term good. As the Bene-Gesserite say, it's what makes the difference between a human and an animal :P
I completely agree,
We got the hate mail, we got the group of people who interpreted our agreement as validating SCO or endorsing SCO or any number of things
But where is the fine line between a company's efforts to protect it's customers and business and move on as opposed to *endorsing* an evil company drawn?
Before we rush into judging someone's actions, we should sit down and think about it. I am sure until the CEO of Everyone's internet *admitted* to have made a mistake, a lot of us thought he did it *ON PURPOSE* against the Open Source, and that he's just as evil as SCO, at a time when Everyone's infrastructure runs on open source
Scaring people away just because they make a wrong move is not the way to go. Sending HATE mail and boycotting a business just because you don't agree with something they did is not the way to go. After all the guy's still using Linux as his main platform. Alienating him is just wrong.
Trying to get the word out about what to *pay SCO licencing fees* means and why NOT TO PAY them is a better idea. Some people are scared, and act in desperation. I think the key is to get the word out, as much as possible and try to emphasise the importance of *sticking together*, and not get divided by the threat. Obviously paying money to SCO not only are you endorsing a stupid agenda, evil and useless, but you are also throwing your money in a black hole. Yes indeed you'll most likely get it back when this is all over, but why give it to the bastards in the first place?
The phaomnneil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Fcuknig amzanig eh!
I had someone I knew that asked me to take a look at his redhat box over at EV1. I told him I would as soon as it is at a different provider. There is not a single EV1 customer getting anything out of me.
All I hear out of this guy is a bunch of hot air. If he was such a good guy he would not be involved in any Microsoft Fun Reports. He also would not have been touring the country with his lips attached to the ass of SCO's CEO .
Got Code?
Lame. You are in the hosting business, immersed in the day-to-day use of systems, and you hadn't thought through your decision, and the possible repercussions, perceptions and reactions?
I don't believe it at all. He's playing both sides of the fence, now. I have even less respect for the guy. I think he underestimated the backlash and he's hoping to have it both ways. I took my hosting elsewhere. Won't have it. Nope.
Look, if he was that concerned he would have brought it up in some form of public forum, at least, prior to doing the deal. Wasn't his company already a Microsoft Server poster child?
Lame. Sorry. My opinion.
sig mind freed
Yes, your right. CEO's shouldn't have morals. Instead, they should look up to their peers at Adelphia, Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, SCO, Microsoft, etc. Yep. The almighty dollar is number one.
WTF? CEO's DO need to repect the law and they should NOT be doing business with other companies that are practicing extortion / behaving poorly. They have a responsibility as a human being - not just a CEO - to do the right thing.
On March 11, 2004, the NASA Records Officer notified Center Records Managers about a lawsuit filed by SCO Group, Inc, asserting the "enterprise" use of Linux (R) operating system violates SCO's intellectual property rights in Unix technology. If court rulings are favorable to the SCO, there may be subsequent claims against Government agencies.
Effective immediately, NASA is to preserve and prevent destruction of all records pertaining to the procurement and use of Linux (R) software per direction from the agency General Counsel and CIO. These records must be preserved until the NASA Headquarters, Office of General Counsel, lifts the destruction freeze.
We are asking each Directorate to review its technical and contract records and identify any that may be relevant to the subject litigation. A record is defined as papers, reports, photographs, or any documentation used to record the work of your office regardless of the physical form. Records can be created by your office and/or document an action, activity, or decision taken by your office. If records are discovered, you are requested to segregate them and immediately notify Ms. Patricia Southerland, the GSFC Records Manager, at extension 6-xxxx, or by email xxxxxx.
Silly!!
---------
No matter how thin you slice it, its still baloney.
There's a lot of speculation that he regretted it because of lost business or lack of sales due to the agreement, however; as someone who has some knowledge internally, sales were higher than normal this month and there was no massive influx of cancellations, in summary, when he says he regrets it, I believe it to be other reasons non-business related.
Not quite. This is not like downloading a single song, and then trying to get your money back.
How many servers does the license cover? How many versions of Linux does it allegedly cover? How long does it last?
If Marsh really wants to demonstrate that he realizes that he made a mistake, and that he has switched sides, all he has to do is to publicly announce that he has deployed Linux in a manner not covered by the license.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=EV1Serve rs.Net
R Y- BLK-11,207.44.128.0,207.44.255.255
'The site ev1servers.net is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.'
That's no surprise.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=EV
Count 'em. Many, many more not listed. You want sympathy, Everyone Internet's CEO Robert Marsh, show us what you're doing to support the efforts of the people truly trying to make a difference and providing the resources that power a portion of your business. I hope I'm missing something here, but there needs to be some accountability here. What has he contributed to the open source community? Lot's to Microsoft and SCO.
sig mind freed
...And it's not even April First. How about that?
Oh no, April 1 on Slashdot is bad enough most years but with the SCO story going? They could post anything. "SCO sues Pope", would you KNOW it couldn't be true? "SCO claims rights to C++", oh no they already did that for real. It's going to be a nightmare.
I have rented from ev1 for quite some time. You could go to their website and SEE how many servers they had for rent. Usually, the total number available was 1 here, 4 there, 6 here, 2 there (of the different OS choices). Most of the time, there were ZERO available of at least half of the servers. As clients quit, more come available, etc.
Once the SCO story broke, EVERY type of server was available, and they quit publishing the number of servers available. My guess is they lost a few hundred clients, the "numbers available" became irrelevent and were dropped. It also made them look bad.... 12 servers available today, sign with SCO, 329 available after Slashdot reports on it...
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Maybe I didn't explain my point correctly. Of course I think it is important that CEOs have respect for the law (which is why I think McBride is such a crappy person/CEO). However, buying a SCO license is not against the law, even if it is full of crap.
If a CEO buys a SCO license, they are not breaking the law, they are just taking the easy, overly safe way out (which is exactly what SCO wants). I wish there was a way we could explain to CEOs that these licenses are crap and there is "no possible way" that if you do not buy this license you will be liable to SCO, but at this time we cannot. Atleaste not until the legal case proceeds further.
All I hope for is that the SCO case ends soon, and it shows that SCO is selling something it doesn't own. And all the people who did buy a license to be safe, will say "Gee, SCO, you sold me something you don't have, which means you are stealing from me. I'm slamming your a$$ with fraud damages!"
Why do we keep assuming, all available evidence to the contrary, that SCO's strategies have anything to do with running a successful business?
Perhaps their strategy is to horribly fail at every they do for some unknown reason.
Maybe Darl has watched The Producers one too many times. Just replace the rich little old ladies with companies and making out with...um...corporate making out. Then when everything fails quickly, they make off with a bunch of cash. The only thing that could mess up their plan is for SCO to do something as ridiculous as Springtime for Hitler and be successful for their how-can-they-be-so-stupid entertainment value...
On second thought, maybe he should have watched The Producers one more time.
I may be a small timer, but I was a loyal customer for over two years. I came on board when they still had Cobalt Raq2 servers. But I switched to Server Matrix and let EV1 know that the reason was because they bought SCO licenses.
I wonder how many other little webmasters did the same?
With a strict confidentiality clause, why not? I'm not advocating that, but it at least seems possible.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
What? We need more CEO's that pay for licenses that they're not sure they need? CEO's that spend thousands, or millions, of dollars of company and shareholder money on pieces of paper that ultimately may be worthless? CEO's that will undoubtedly pass that cost on to their customers?
Yeah, we need more guys like this...like we all need another hole in the head.
This guy just jumped when SCO said "BOO!" and now he's saying he screwed up. His only redeeming quality is he's admitting he's spineless.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
If everyone were to "take advantage of the legal system" the way SCO and CI Host do, McBride would be buried in legal fees. Who knows, someone might actually come out with a judgement!
You can think of this as "stooping to their level" but I prefer to imagine it as "giving them a taste of their own medicine." Think about it.
-Derek