Slashdot Mirror
SCO Announces Product Line Updates
ArbiterOne writes "Techworld has the story: SCO has unveiled their upcoming product plans, including a new release of UnixWare and a version for point-of-sale devices. Oddly enough, the article states that 'SCO's continuing Unix intellectual property lawsuits against IBM, Novell and others is apparently putting customers off.' I wonder how that could have happened?"
"We're looking at this long term, and we see value that we can provide to our customers now and in the future," said Marc Modersitzki, a SCO spokesman. "Not only do we have a road map, but we're delivering on the road map."
It's obvious SCO's "roadmap" is less product-oriented than legal. But you have to wonder, why they would invest any resources in an aggressive marketing plan when their PR quotient is so incredibly low--much like their recent financials.
They are not the "vibrant, leading UNIX vendor to regain market share lost to Windows"... that would be like the US sending troops to Vietnam to "regain Hanoi". War over. Done deal. Time to close shop, SCO.
Sigs cause cancer.
With all this fuss, it's easy to forget that SCO was orginally a software company.
Their warnings are right on the money, though. Who the hell is going to want to do business with them now? It's probably not far fetched to assume that there aren't many new SCO installations anywhere, and that the installed base is only grudgingly still doing business with them.
The perfect sig is a lot like silence, only louder
in the article is that SCO is interested in being an IP company and not a products company. That would be somewhat OK is they had clear rights to any IP, but only as a static company. No one will buy new products from a company that is focused on what they DID and not what they can DO. Would you buy a 'new' vehicle that was actually a remade 1978 Chevy Monza with the same 1970s technology?
I wonder if SCO is offering Service & Support in quarterly increments? I don't know if a company wants to pay for five years of Service & Support that might terminate by next year :)
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
This might just be troll feeding, but what the heck.
/. community has maligned this legitimate, above the boards company just for trying to get restitution for code that they really did buy.
/.) seems to think SCO has nothing.
The truth is that the
(1) I believe the jury is still out on their claims. I don't know what inside information you might have but nearly everyone covering this case (not just
(2) Above the boards? With all the dirty legal tricks, stalling, and blatantly obvious stock scams they have been pulling I don't know if "above the boards" accurately describes them.
So they don't want to give their hard earned IP away.
So was it hard earned or did they buy it? (or, like nearly every other pundit, IP lawyer, company, etc believes, do they not actually have a claim on what they are suing over)
Sorry, but stuff that IBM developed INDEPENDENTLY of SCO is not SCO's hard earned property, and it looks very obviously like the case is going to be decided that way.
Look at the companies that have tried to make profit off linix.
Yeah, IBM is really hurting. So is Cisco/Linksys. Not to mention all the companies who use Linux to solve a problem. So what if it is hard to sell, nobody owns it, nobody has to sell it. And I don't know where you get that Redhat is floundering, they seem to be doing just fine. Operating Systems are becoming a commodity. Where it is written that a company has to be selling Linux for it to be successful? It seemed to grow just fine on it's own without corporate backing. Granted corporate backing has helped it quite a bit lately, but it is not like it was in danger of dying without it.
The truth is that the /. community has maligned this legitimate, above the boards company just for trying to get restitution for code that they really did buy.
www.groklaw.net.
Since the commentary there will be no more to your liking than the commentary here; just read the court filings. SCO has done everything possible to obfuscate and delay the case as long as possible. A legitimate company with a legitimate grievance would have worked with the kernel team to mitigate their harm. As it is, they're trying make the kernel devs their unpaid slaves by leveling accusations without details. In this way, they can claim ownership of what they allegedly own as well as what is undisputably the original work of the kernel developers. NO ONE is obligated to pay SCO for that work.
Paying SCO $699 or whatever it is does not compensate the kernel devs...some of whom are employed by deep pocketed corps who will insist on their full GPL rights. Nope, SCO is going to have to publically identify with specificity what allegedly infringes so it can be removed from the kernel. It does not help that SCO also appears to be trying to appropriate the POSIX standards. The POSIX standards are NOT the property of SCO. SCO has no right to automatically expect tribute from anyone who implements them.
They will also have to do something about their bizarre theories of what is a derivative work before they will get any sympathy whatsoever.
Your "legitimate above board business" is trying to commit a much larger theft then the one they are accusing others of. Being a business does not give you the right to steal no matter how money you think it will make you.
> Mark my words, there will be a day that will come when you will all see many, many documents > that will directly contradict IBM's current public posturing.
And that day isn't today because...?
Chris Mattern
That's funny, but how about trying the other way? Like linking SCO to something informative.
There seem to be two schools of thought regarding acceptance and compliance with the GPL.
One school says that public statements rejecting the GPL mean that one doesn't accept it in the legal sense. Making such a statement and then distributing GPL product is automatically violating the GPL. Fyodor seems to belong to this camp.
The opinion on the matter is actions are the only thing that matter. One could publically diss the GPL as long as the actual obligations regarding the providing of the source and license are respected. This seems to be the Samba Team's position.
I'll also point out that SCO has done more than publically disparage the GPL. They have asserted that the GPL is null and void several times in a court of law. That is much stronger mojo than mere press conference lip flapping. Fyodor may have a point.
They may also have imposed conditions the GPL doesn't permit on code distributed from their FTP site. This screws them under either theory of GPL acceptance. IBM for one is hanging them for this in their counterclaims.
Is anybody here an AL?