Indemnification Roundup

Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by weave · 2004-07-01 23:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

Indemnification is just a rouse to rise the total cost of ownership of Linux. Do I need to buy or worry about this kind of stuff when I buy Microsoft software? If not, why not? Is Microsoft not capable of accidently stealing someone else's work?

Here we have an allegedly pro-Linux site promoting the same false statement. That if you run Linux, you have an increased legal risk and hence should shop around for a vendor that indemnifies its users or buy insurance to do so.

If you're going to do an article like this, at least remove the distinction between FOSS (free and open source software) and proprietary software. For example, have a section that lists Microsoft, and then has a statement that says Microsoft does not indemnify their customers.

All these risks people are throwing out about FOSS play right into the hands of proprietary software vendors trying to figure out ways to up the TCO of Linux. Shame on LinuxDevCenter for playing along.

Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by frankthechicken · 2004-07-01 23:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's just human nature, everyone wants to make money out of something.

In the case of FOSS, it's usually support, and if it's not support, it'll be insurance. And if it's not insurance, it'll be protection money.
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by aixou · 2004-07-02 00:00 · Score: 5, Informative

I suppose it's somewhat analagous to volcano insurance. Everything's cool until your house is covered in soot.

Do I need to buy or worry about this kind of stuff when I buy Microsoft software?

No, but then Microsoft software is all done in house. 95% (give or take) of software included in a Red Hat distribution was not created by Red Hat, so they don't have the same level of accountability as Microsoft. With an indemnification plan, they are taking on the accountability of the linux kernel writers, which might give a justified peace of mind to any potential customer.
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by weave · 2004-07-02 00:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

No?
Does Microsoft not hire programmers that used to work at other firms, for example? Couldn't they "accidently" contribute code from a former employer's products? Are you willing to indemnify all users of Microsoft that they are not under any legal risk for using Microsoft software if you are so sure?
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 00:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

So if the next SCO comes out screaming that windows has their stolen code and they want to alsu try and extort... oh wait fine all users $500.00 per CPU then everything is fine because it's microsoft and they will be a nice benelovent company and protect us?

Waht exactly are you smoking this morning? as not even crack can make a person that wacked out.

it applies to microsoft and ALL microsoft products exactly the same UNTIL microsoft comes out and says, "we will take the fall for YOU no matter what."... and we know that wont. Steve Ballmer is not that smart or strong of a company leader to do that.
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by clymere · 2004-07-02 00:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

The difference is that Microsoft is one of the largest corporations in the world. They do in fact use other people's code on a regular basis...they outright steal things, knowingly.

The difference here is that Microsoft has the legal muscle to get virtually anyone to back down from them...even if MS was actually in the wrong.

You can't afford to hire MS's lawyers if SCO decides to sue you next...thats what you would want indemnification for.

Frankly, I am surprised that anyone is still discussing this as if its really a viable option anyways. SCO's suits are all but over, paying indemnication fees to anyone at this point is a waste of money, no matter who you are.

--
once you go slack, you never go back
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by aixou · 2004-07-02 00:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

It comes back to accountability, which is a problem in the world of OSS. If there is tainted code in the Windows source that spurs a lawsuit, you can bet that this lawsuit will be on Microsoft's hands, not on users of its software.

In some sense, it's similar to the Napster (the Napster of yesteryear, not the name-whoring music store) vs. Kazaa from the RIAA's perspective. Microsoft is like Napster in that there is a central place of accountability, so the RIAA can just go there (in this case, Napster's servers) to settle their beef. Kazaa however (or bittorrent/whatever), is like the opensource world. There is no single place of accountability and therefore the problem has to be solved at the users end. I'm not saying that the kernel does have SCO's code, but if it did, wouldn't you like to know who's accountable.

With the Open Source community, this problem is a dangerous one. Since every user has access to the source code, and every user is potentially a kernel hacker, does this not make every user somewhat accountable? (yes, this argument is stretched a little thin, but its food for thought).
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 00:24 · Score: 0

Astroturfing scum, you know full well that MS only provide indemnity upto the purchase cost and that the majority of MS software originated in other companies who were swallowed by the beast. And where exactly was Microsofts accountability in the antitrust trials?
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by weave · 2004-07-02 00:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

I could spin that and say since Microsoft code is not open, then it's impossible for independent groups to audit and confirm that no infringing code is in there.
In legal terms, never assume a company will come to bat for you, or that an entity suing will pick Microsoft and not you -- especially if you look like an easier target for a win that will set some precedence for them.
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 00:29 · Score: 0

Stop sprouting total bullshit, remember Timeline?
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by aixou · 2004-07-02 00:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

In legal terms, never assume a company will come to bat for you, or that an entity suing will pick Microsoft and not you -- especially if you look like an easier target for a win that will set some precedence for them.

And what type of precedent do you think that would set? One that discourages using Microsoft products? Microsoft is in the business of making money. If Microsoft's customers were being sued left and right you can sure as hell bet that they wouldn't just sit there with their thumbs in their butts, especially with the free competition breathing down their neck.
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 01:00 · Score: 0

No, but then Microsoft software is all done in house.

Thank you for playing but that answer is not correct. Please get out your NT 4 disk and look at the ftp.exe code. See the BSD copyright? Yup. Software that was not 'done in house' on a microsoft product. The terminal software is copyright Hillgrave - seems Microsoft outsources that.
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by weave · 2004-07-02 01:15 · Score: 1

You're right, Microsoft wouldn't just sit there. And neither is IBM or Redhat or Novell (who are also in the business to make money). They are defending and counter-suing. Justice takes time, but FUD is instant.
SCO's plan was to get IBM to buy them out. Even the lawyer's payment terms were geared towards that. You don't see a possibility that a Microsoft customer might get sued for some bogus copyright claim with an eye towards Microsoft buying them out?
I don't see any big differences here.
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by mqx · 2004-07-02 01:18 · Score: 1

"They do in fact use other people's code on a regular basis...they outright steal things, knowingly."

That's a pretty bold and gutsy statement: can you back that up with evidence?
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by liquidsin · 2004-07-02 02:27 · Score: 1

Ok, for the sake of being the devil's advocate, let's say that Longhorn comes out, and SmallSoftwareCorp. Inc. thinks that some bit of software looks just like their UberWidget 1.0 only it's been rebranded as MSWidget 1.0. So they do a little digging and find a string that says "Copyright SmallSoftwareCorp. Inc.". They have MS dead to rights and decide that they want $1000 for each misappropriated copy of their software, which by now is on ten million machines world wide. Are you certain that MS will go to court and fight this for YOU? Have they ever come out and said "don't worry, if you get sued over our software, we'll foot the bills"? Last I checked their EULA pretty much gave them immunity from everything up to and including the cardboard box that the software ships in coming to life and strangling you with it's newly formed hands.

--
do not read this line twice.
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 02:33 · Score: 0

It's total BS. Why would Microsoft steal anything? They don't have to. Microsoft does take ideas, and more often than not, just buys out a company with whatever they want - but steal? Hardly.
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by stiggle · 2004-07-02 02:34 · Score: 1

You mean like the developers from Digital did when they left DEC and started the work on Windows NT.

Why do you think NT and beta versions of Win2k worked on the Alpha - but got canned when Compaq bought Digital out.
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by Beolach · 2004-07-02 02:35 · Score: 1

In one case it was certain: the ftp client (called FTP.EXE) contains the following string:
$ strings /C:/FTP.EXE | grep Calif @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.

--
Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by mqx · 2004-07-02 02:39 · Score: 1

"the ftp client (called FTP.EXE) contains the following string: ... Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California."

You are wrong: stealing isn't when you use source code under an appropriate license - and the BSD license certainly allows for this. Try again.
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by Beolach · 2004-07-02 02:58 · Score: 1

I guess I should have read the grandparent poster more... I was looking at the "use other people's code" part. I was aware the BSD License permits this.

--
Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by zoloto · 2004-07-02 07:33 · Score: 1

No
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by bronsinbound · 2004-07-03 07:01 · Score: 1

In case you have never read your license agreement (MS and others), YOU indemnify THEM. What a crock! Can you imagine one of us broke down geeks providing legal protection for companies like MS? Don't think so.
I am close to having a "ceremonial burning" of all my computers, software and docs...then go fishing for the next few years until I expire.
If enough of us refuse to buy software under these "licenses", i.e., you get between them and that cash register, they'll drop that shxx in a heartbeat. But not until!
Re:Am I safe just running Microsoft stuff? by clymere · 2004-07-03 11:36 · Score: 1

From the Wikipedia entry on Microsoft(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft):

Stac Electronics, which accused Microsoft of stealing its data compression code and using it in MS-DOS 6 [4]

Sendo, which accused Microsoft of terminating their partnership so it could steal Sendo's technology to use in Windows Smartphone 2002 [5]

Apple Computer, which accused Microsoft of stealing QuickTime code and using it in Windows Media Player

This was just a quick google too. There was once a documentary on TV about MS, where they went inside developer meetings, and actually had managers telling developers "if you see another product that looks useful, incorporate it into ours. Don't worry about the legal issues...we've got lawyers whose job it is to sort that out."

I'm not trying to be a tin-foil hat wearing anti-MS zealot here. I thought it was a pretty well-known fact that they are the 8000lb. gorilla of the software world. Ask yourself: if MS sued your company, could you afford the legal battle, or would you just give-in and take the generous out-of-court settlement?

They certainly have the ower to get their way most of the time(especially 10-15 years ago). History has shown that in business anyone who has great advantage, uses it. MS is no different than any of the other large corporations that came before them.

heck, i'm even posting this from an MS box.

--
once you go slack, you never go back

All of this concern.. by cbreaker · 2004-07-01 23:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

For something that has yet to be proven, and all signs point to the SCO case as being a farse.

These companies backing their products with legal aid are simply doing it as a marketing ploy. RedHat, HP, Novell.. they know there's nothing to worry about, that's why they've all been so eager to extend these "services."

I can't wait until the whole SCO case is just over. We all here know that SCO will lose.

--
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -

Re:All of this concern.. by Timesprout · 2004-07-02 00:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

We all here know that SCO will lose.

Will the Judge rule that way though. The masses were all sure OJ would be convicted as well.

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Re:All of this concern.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 00:44 · Score: 1, Funny

Will the Judge rule that way though. The masses were all sure OJ would be convicted as well.

OJ was tried by a jury, and juries are not noted for their in-depth knowledge of the law. So long as SCO vs IBM stays in front of competent legal minds, I have much less worry that the wrong verdict will be reached.
Re:All of this concern.. by Skapare · 2004-07-02 01:13 · Score: 1

Definitely a farse, for sure. But to business executives, it is also a legal reality that cannot be ignored. And the fear is not that SCO might ever win anything, but that they might be expected to have to defend against such an attempt. And the counter-suit to recover legal defense costs might well get nothing because of the financial problems at SCO. So it isn't a matter of knowing that SCO will lose. The risk is getting struck by its dying attacks.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:All of this concern.. by Otter · 2004-07-02 01:21 · Score: 1

These companies backing their products with legal aid are simply doing it as a marketing ploy. RedHat, HP, Novell.. they know there's nothing to worry about, that's why they've all been so eager to extend these "services."
To my mind, anyway, there's a huge distinction between Red Hat and Novell saying, "You have nothing to worry about over buying our product -- we guarantee it!" and Perens & Groklaw Insurance saying, "If you buy our 'insurance', we'll (sort of) protect you from getting sued over Red Hat and Novell."
It continues to amaze me how a little name recognition apparently makes even the most blatant parasitism acceptable.

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Re:All of this concern.. by cosmo7 · 2004-07-02 01:40 · Score: 1

Remember, SCO v IBM a particularly tenuous case. They are arguing that existing code that IBM ported to AIX automatically became derivative of SVD, so when IBM ported code with a similar function to Linux they were breaking their SVD contract. I'm talking about JFS here, but the same ridiculous scenario applies to other things SCO is making a big deal out of.

There is no way that SCO can prevail. Their main argument with DaimlerChrysler is about whether a list of Unix registered CPUs constitutes a list when there are no CPUs running Unix. Their main argument with Novell is that they should own the Unix copyrights because, despite being specifically excluded from the sale, it kind of suits them right now.

Despite the Harvey Birdman nature of their litigation, the point is that SCO doesn't have to win next year in court to inflict lasting damage on Linux adoption, which is the point of all this.
Re:All of this concern.. by gcaseye6677 · 2004-07-02 03:28 · Score: 1

True, but in addition to the prosecution errors, all the OJ attorneys had to do was brainwash a jury and he was free. SCO does not have this luxury because even if they manage to do this, the verdict would not stand up to appeals. So their chance of success, even if they have a case, is miniscule. And even if they win, all infringing code would be removed from Linux and they would not have their much hyped revenue stream.
Re:All of this concern.. by genner · 2004-07-02 04:28 · Score: 1

To get away with murder you have to be rich and famous. SCO is only rich, and soon they won't even have that going for them. No one likes Mcbride, this why he'll loose regardless of all else. OJ won his freedom mainly because of the football fans in the jury.
Re:All of this concern.. by cbreaker · 2004-07-02 13:08 · Score: 1

And it's so true that nobody likes the man. I mean, the way he's conducted business his whole career is about making a quick buck with minimal effort, pushing the legal system to it's limits.

The man is a slime-ball.

--
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -

I agree. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-01 23:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why is it even necessary to get this kind of insurance, it would be the company selling the software to me that is liable, not myself unless I decide to redistribute it, and even then...

Re:I agree. by weave · 2004-07-02 00:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why is it even necessary to get this kind of insurance, it would be the company selling the software to me that is liable, not myself unless I decide to redistribute it, and even then...

Well, anyone can sue anyone for any reason, so there are risks for just existing. Any larger company has a legal department and a legal budget as it is.
My point is, there's nothing to stop some small software maker in Australia from claiming that a technology inside Microsoft SQL server violates their patent or copyright and threaten to sue end users of SQL server (which I seem to recall actually did happen).
Risks are everywhere. Please stop supporting the myth that using Linux is extra risky.
Re:I agree. by gcaseye6677 · 2004-07-02 02:46 · Score: 1

I don't see how it would be possible to sue end users of closed source software. If there were infringing code in Linux, it could at least be argued that the users had access to the source and could have found the code. Whether they are obligated to do so is a different matter. But with Microsoft products, I have no way of knowing what code was used, even if I want to find out. The user has no obligation and no ability to police Microsoft's use of code, so how could someone file a lawsuit in a case like this without it getting thrown out immediately?

Bad opening statement... by Beolach · 2004-07-01 23:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't like how the article starts.

Little doubt exists; a legal cloud hangs over Linux from infringement claims of the SCO Group, Inc. In spite of that cloud, Linux server sales grew 56.9 percent in the first quarter of the year. Linux sales in 2004 follows six consecutive quarters of double-digit growth for the free operating system during unprecedented legal attacks from SCO over the same period.

Just that first statement, "Little doubt exists; a legal cloud hangs over Linux" annoys me. I can't really argue against it (yes, SCO did start a big stink), but I for one don't think of it as much of a 'cloud over Linux'. It really doesn't take much research to see that SCO's claim's are unlikely to hold up in court. And I think sales growth indicates I'm not alone in not being afraid of SCO's litigation, so where's the cloud? This almost seems like a scare tactic, not to make you stay away from Linux, but to buy a indemnification package to protect yourself. I don't buy it.

--
Join moola.com, play games to earn money.

Re:Bad opening statement... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 00:15 · Score: 0

We have to face facts, there are parasitic losers out there who are going to try and attach themselves to the linux bandwagon. Indemnification, legislation and general harrassment is the future, the scum are searching for an angle, film at 11.
Re:Bad opening statement... by khallow · 2004-07-02 01:12 · Score: 1

I found the future sales pitch mixed in with the discussion of Novell.
Some people might believe that Novell knows something no one else knows: secrets of the SCO case. Some may reason that if Novell offers indemnification, it must know that SCO hasn't got a chance. That's probably not the situation. Going into litigation, no one knows the outcome. Anyone who thinks a lawsuit is a slam dunk lacks knowledge of legal matters.
The legal system is a craps shoot. Give us money to protect you or really bad things could happen!
Re:Bad opening statement... by mqx · 2004-07-02 01:15 · Score: 1

How many of you are reading this now, as paid daytime employees who write F/OSS software in the evenings, not aware of the Intellectual Property clauses in your employment contract, nor of the legal cases over direct or indirect (subconscious) copying of software - meaning that your day work could spill over into your evening work, meaning that you employer may actually have grounds to take you on in a law suit some day?

I'm not sure if there is a could hanging over F/OSS, but there certainly seem to risks that people are not aware of.
Re:Bad opening statement... by Beolach · 2004-07-02 01:28 · Score: 1

That's different. These indemnification packages protect from legal action against you for using or purchasing Linux, they do not protect you from legal action against you for breaking a contract with your employer. That's your own stupid fault for signing without reading. And IANAL, but I really don't think an employer who had an employee contracted not to produce work for anyone other than the employer would be able to sue anyone besides the employee who broke contract. This is one of the most ridiculus things about the SCO vs. AutoZone etc. cases: even assuming SCO has the rights to any source code used in Linux, why is AutoZone liable for that? Back in the early days of automobiles, the guy who invented (and patented) the windshield wiper tried to sell it to auto makers, and the auto maker turned him down, but then started selling cars with windshield wipers. The inventor sued them, and won rightfully. I don't think he would have won if he had tried to sue someone who had bought or used a car that had windshield wipers. It just doesn't make sense.

--
Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
Re:Bad opening statement... by mqx · 2004-07-02 01:41 · Score: 2, Informative

"That's different."

Of course it's different, but it's a legitimate issue to raise now that we're talking about F/OSS and indemnification.

"And IANAL, but I really don't think an employer who had an employee contracted not to produce work for anyone other than the employer would be able to sue anyone besides the employee who broke contract."

It's clear that your not a lawyer, because the circumstances are blindingly obvious: employee "moonlights", then employer claims that employee contributed unauthorised works to a F/OSS project, so employer as owner of the works (because, employee's contract says so) can take action directly against projects in which works are embodied.

"This is one of the most ridiculus things about the SCO vs. AutoZone etc. cases: even assuming SCO has the rights to any source code used in Linux, why is AutoZone liable for that?"

Because AutoZone has the works in its possession and is in fact using the works: it doesn't matter about any intermediate chains. If you have a pirate DVD in your possession, it doesn't matter who pirated it for you, the copyright owner can take action against you (and of course, they can also take action against the pirate if they can get their hands on him/her).

"The inventor sued them, and won rightfully. I don't think he would have won if he had tried to sue someone who had bought or used a car that had windshield wipers."

He would have won just as easily: infringement occurs if you possess, not just manufacturer. But the point is, why try and take action against 100000 separate car owners, when you can take against against 1 large car manufacturer. This is about the practical economics of litigation. I'm surprised you don't understand it.
Re:Bad opening statement... by Beolach · 2004-07-02 02:54 · Score: 1

This type of thing can get really confusing. Say my next door neighbor works in an autoshop, and is under contract not to compete with his employer... so if I ask him to help me fix something on my car, is he commiting a crime? Am I? What if he does just as a favor for me (no money changes hands), would that be more/less/the same of a crime? What if the work he did for me was not work that the autoshop he works for normally does? If he stopped on the freeway and helped an old lady change a tire, is he now a criminal? Is the old lady?

Now of course "intellectual property" and the service of changing a tire are very different things, but when you look at computer code as the result of work done by a programmer, and a changed tire as the result of work done by an automechanic, what makes one persons work "intellectual property", and the other persons not?

--
Join moola.com, play games to earn money.
Re:Bad opening statement... by glenrm · 2004-07-02 03:49 · Score: 1

Is there a way to obtain one of the rapid growth clouds for my own game development biz...

--
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
Re:Bad opening statement... by mqx · 2004-07-02 03:52 · Score: 1

"This type of thing can get really confusing."

Of course, but lawyers understand them just as well as developers understand multiple-inheritance, polymorphism and dynamic dispatch.

"Say my next door neighbor works in an autoshop, and is under contract not to compete with his employer... so if I ask him to help me fix something on my car, is he commiting a crime?"

Possibly, but it depends on a number of factors. Did he just fix your car? Or does it fix other peoples cars as well? Does he use tools from the workplace? etc.

"What if he does just as a favor for me (no money changes hands), would that be more/less/the same of a crime?"

No different. A crime is a crime irrespective of whether you were paid to do it or not. Technically we're not talking about crime here, we're talking about breach of contract.

"If he stopped on the freeway and helped an old lady change a tire, is he now a criminal?"

I doubt it.

"Now of course "intellectual property" and the service of changing a tire are very different things, but when you look at computer code as the result of work done by a programmer, and a changed tire as the result of work done by an automechanic, what makes one persons work "intellectual property", and the other persons not?"

Huh? Underneath these issues are common issues law, liability and contract. Changing a tire has nothing to do with intellectual property, but it's still a breach of contract of service. The general rule is that an employer cannot restrain you from undertaking independent work, so long as that independent work is non-competitive and does not utilise time, effort and resources of the employer.

If the mechanic used workplace tools to change your tire, he could be in trouble. If he used his own tools, he's probably okay. If he's charging you money or getting something in return, it's probably okay so long as he's not making a regular business out of it.

Anyway, why I am explaining to you? Go read a book on law 101.
Re:Bad opening statement... by iabervon · 2004-07-02 08:13 · Score: 1

It does seem like a legitimate risk that, if you've ever done business with SCO, or maybe even if not, and you're using Linux, SCO might come after you. Saying that Linux is legally sound is like saying that you don't owe any muggers any money. It's true, but that doesn't really matter. By the time you actually get to prove your case, you'll have had to spend a significant amount of time in court, and SCO will probably go bankrupt and be unable to pay your legal bills by the time you win.

Article repost before the slashdot-ing hordes by Rat+Tank · 2004-07-02 00:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Looking for Indemnification While Linux Sales Double
by Tom Adelstein
06/28/2004

Little doubt exists; a legal cloud hangs over Linux from infringement claims of the SCO Group, Inc. In spite of that cloud, Linux server sales grew 56.9 percent in the first quarter of the year. Linux sales in 2004 follows six consecutive quarters of double-digit growth for the free operating system during unprecedented legal attacks from SCO over the same period.

Advertisement
Linux success helped push all server growth to 7.3 percent according to IDC's Worldwide Quarterly Server Tracker. The contradictions of sales increases and legal uncertainties bring into question the degree of concern people actually feel about SCO's legal claims. One might say, if the defendants of the SCO suits don't see concern, why should I?

This article examines issues related to Linux use in the enterprise while copyright infringement claims exist. CIO's and others who need pragmatic information when deciding whether or not to deploy Linux will find this useful. Rather than examine the legal case, we will examine market perception and risk related to using Linux.
Market Perception

SCO believes that Linux infringes on its Intellectual Property. SCO has sued IBM, Novell, AutoZone, and DaimlerChrysler on the basis of that belief. IBM and Novell market Linux while AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler use Linux in their businesses.

Realists consider Linux adoption remarkable. The word on the street and in the foxholes of the IT community has created a swell of adoption from small businesses to the entire Fortune 500. The marketing of Linux by HP, IBM, Sun, Dell, Oracle, and Novell demonstrates the commitment of industry to Linux. With all the agreement in the market, most observers do not give SCO much of a chance of winning its cases.

The recent announcement that the U.S. Federal Court system has deployed Linux adds further to the speculation that Linux deployment may be safe. People will reason that Linux use in the courts bodes poorly for SCO.
Normal Risks Associated with Software Acquisition

Procurement policies within large organizations discuss infringement. For example, the basic policy for software purchases at the University of Texas states:

"We should expect that Vendors will develop their products without infringing the intellectual property rights of others, that is, without appropriating others' protected ideas or expression."

Large purchasers want warranties from vendors guaranteeing their software does not infringe. Such purchasers do not necessarily expect vendors to provide warranties. They do expect that if the software infringes someone else's rights, the vendor will take care of any expenses incurred if the purchaser is sued or asked to stop using the software because of alleged infringement. Large organizations expect protection from infringement. They want to know that a software vendor will pay for expenses related to infringement and they want that stated in the software license agreement. They also realize that exceptions exist if the software is:

* Beta test software
* Free, steeply discounted, or very low-cost software
* Software provided by nonprofit vendors
* Software whose source exists in the public domain

In enterprise terms, if a vendor agrees to indemnify, it means the vendor accepts the risk of financial loss.

The first three situations above illustrate circumstances where a vendor may not make enough money on the product to justify assuming risk for indemnification. In effect the vendor says, "If you want this software, you'll have to accept the risk that it might infringe. If you want us to accept that risk, it will cost you a lot of money."
SCO's Unprecedented Infringement Case

Past infringement cases have focused on software makers rather than end users. For example, Microsoft has encountered many infringement cases from companies like Eolas, Stac, Burst, Netscape, Sun, and InterTrus

Re:Article repost before the slashdot-ing hordes by chromatic · 2004-07-02 05:33 · Score: 1

Please don't repost our articles without permission. (I've never denied permission to anyone who asked, but we have several speedy servers and a lot of bandwidth.)

--
how to invest, a novice's guide

hmm.. by dementedWabbit · 2004-07-02 00:11 · Score: 2, Informative

actually, I seem to remember a stink over MS SQL Server, as they bought a limited-use licence for software used to make SQL Server work. This licence [IIRC] makes it illegal to modify SQL Server, or to use it in different environments. Redhat offering services to indemnify buyers against this is actually helping to get those that would hesitate - and it's actually still far more economical that MS (actually, if you count future support and forced upgrades from MS, Linux distro's could charge $1000 per seat and still come over cheaper in the whole TCO argument). Off topic, but there was a big stink about this over a period of what? a few hours on slashdot? Really, stop advertising these ginks that don't help the problem, and start getting more information up on the propriety sh****** that is the problem..

Re:hmm.. by PornMaster · 2004-07-02 00:24 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but what the hell are you babbling about?

Are you babbling about running SQL Server on Linux, and then making up numbers for costs?

I don't know what you're referring to by seats... if you're talking about SQL Server, do you mean server OS installs? If you're talking about CALs, then you have to pay per "user" on the server side. If you're talking about OS licensing on the server, if you're going to run RHEL ES, then it'll cost you more than a grand.

Forced upgrades? Do commercial Linux vendors not stop support for older products? *ahem* Can you say "Red Hat Linux"?

If you're saying "licensing costs are evil, proprietary software is bad", then state it as the ideology that it is, and don't try to justify it with bad examples.

-PM

--
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo

RMS was right! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 00:13 · Score: 0

But no one listened!

No listen to the truth!

The risk of not using Linux or GPL software by codepunk · 2004-07-02 00:17 · Score: 1

The risk of not using Linux or other GPL licensed software is. Some day some Litigious Bastards turn around and sue you even though you have not had their software on a machine in over 7 years.

--

Got Code?

Just proving them right by Rat+Tank · 2004-07-02 00:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

I wouldn't be so quick to indemnify myself; this just 'shows' SCO and their paid shills that they're right.
"Look, these Linux users are getting indemnification ... they obviously know they've stolen our code for communist activities!"

stuff for fools to buy. by Lumpy · 2004-07-02 00:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

anyone that buy's into this is a complete fool. there is NO guarentee that you are protected in any way. I dont care what any of these companies say, they will not pay all your legal fees to protect yourself in court if another asswad company or person comes out of the woodwork and tries to claim that anyone using XYZ owes them $$$.

it's a bunch of empty and useless words that the companies are throwing out there. if you read it very closely I am betting that there are clauses and loopholes that relieve them of their "protection" in many ways.

if it makes a PHB heppy and shut's him up, then it may have value in that way. but it has ZERO value in any courtroom or for any protection for a company.

anyone with even a slight legal background can see this.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Microsoft end users have been sued by walterbyrd · 2004-07-02 00:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Nobody has ever been sued for just using Linux. However, end-users of a msft product (SQL server) have been sued over a patent violation.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/20/sql_serv er _developers_face_huge/

From the evidence that exists so far, it is clear that msft end-users are the ones more likely to be sued.

Of course the most likely to be sued of all, are end-users of scox proprietary products. For the simple reason that scox has made it a normal business practice to sue anybody who has any sort of contract with scox. So far that includes: ibm, chrysler, autozone, and novell.

What was it scox spokesman blake stowell said? "Lawsuits are what you use against people you have a contract with."

Re:Microsoft end users have been sued by weave · 2004-07-02 01:18 · Score: 1

THANK YOU walterbyrd. I remembered that case but couldn't find mention of it.
Here's a clickable link to that article.
Re:Microsoft end users have been sued by ch-chuck · 2004-07-02 02:25 · Score: 1

software is the must utterly bizarre legal property there is: just about all the advantages go to the vendor, and all the problems go to the customer. The IP owners get all the advantages of govt enforced artificial scarcity and ease of replication (charging $500 for a CD and a manual) but have no liability for damage caused by their property (a bug in the software wipes out a disk of important business data). If the owner of a swimming pool doesn't put a fence around it or take step to secure the water hazard to children, the owner of the pool is liable for damages if someone trespasses and drowns. But the owner or software is indemnified for ANY damages caused by real defects in their property.

Now, the next level of insanity: the unwitting end user paying customer is responsible for the IP owner stealing and selling property. That's like a car dealer hot wires a car and then sells it to a customer, and the police come and arrest the customer for theft! I can understand the car buyer being out of price of the car when it's returned to the rightful owner, until the dealer is caught is made to pay up.

Software has the most bizarre, irrational property law about it. It's almost like the laws are being written by IP holders for their own benefit.

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }

Imdemification for only $100 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 00:20 · Score: 3, Funny

These guys are doing imdemification for $100 penguin dollars

Re:Imdemification for only $100 by Advocadus+Diaboli · 2004-07-02 00:42 · Score: 1

Usually the dollar bill shows a picture of an US preisident. Can we assume, that sooner or later the US president will be a Linux penguin. Well, it can't be worse than a stupid cowboy from Texas. :-)
Re:Imdemification for only $100 by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · 2004-07-02 01:01 · Score: 1

...sooner or later the US president will be a Linux penguin. Well, it can't be worse than a stupid cowboy from Texas. :-)

(Hmmm, thinks...) "From Tex to Tux - all that's needed is 'U'!"

--
This is where the serious fun begins.
Re:Imdemification for only $100 by zoloto · 2004-07-02 07:36 · Score: 1

It should have read

"From Tex to Tux - all that's needed is 'GNU'!
Re:Imdemification for only $100 by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · 2004-07-02 22:01 · Score: 1

...all that's needed is 'GNU'!

Damn, much better! Thank GNU very much!

--
This is where the serious fun begins.

Why worry? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 00:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why worry about SCO's lawuit of GNU/LINUX?

If I want to use an Open Source OS that had settled the UNIX IP matter long ago, I pick FreeBSD.

If for some reason I want the GNU tollset I could pick GNU/FreeBSD.

Too bad Tom Adelstein couldn't be bothered to point out how the SCO claims of UNIX IP vs Open Source OS was solved years ago by the BSDi crew.

Re:Why worry? by Skapare · 2004-07-02 01:27 · Score: 1

You and I, and I am sure Tom Adelstein, all know that SCO's case is meritless. But the real problem is that some companies still get sued by a dying company. Executives don't want their company to have to be the one that has to pay a lawyer to bring the BSDi facts into a courtroom. Indemnification will help for those companies where the decision to go with Linux is being held back due to the legal risk (not of losing, but of having to defend).

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:Why worry? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 03:19 · Score: 0

one that has to pay a lawyer to bring the BSDi facts into a courtroom.

Google says:
http://www.daemon.org/bsd-releases/misc/USL -lawsui t
Thus, 4.4 BSD-Lite will not
require a license from nor payment of royalties to USL.

SCO's case needs the USL UNIX IP rights. BSD based code settled WRT UNIX IP rights.

all know that SCO's case is meritless.

The case may have some merit. There may be some 'stolen code'. Is that 'value' worth 3 billion? Prob. not. But that is why the trial needs to happen.

Best indemnification yet by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 00:21 · Score: 0

Don't sign a contract with SCO. Heck, don't even mention their name.

Uhhh, can I take back what I said?

This isn't helping by TexasDex · 2004-07-02 00:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

The idea of indemnification just puts more emphasis on the claims of SCO and any other company who might feel like claiming they've been wronged by Open Source. What we really need to do is prove SCO wrong, and this will likely fade into the woodwork.

I know, I know. It's awfully hard to prove them wrong when they won't say exactly what they claim. So sue me. err, no... Sue them! That's what IBM, RedHat, and a few others are doing right now.

--
The Cheese Stands Alone.

Funny you should say that, GNU/FreeBSD exists. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 00:22 · Score: 0

Courtesy of your apt-get overlords

Re:Funny you should say that, GNU/FreeBSD exists. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 00:34 · Score: 0

You make it sound like the original poster didn't know of the existance of GNU/FreeBSD. Perhaps s/he didn't know how to make a link.
Because they didn't link to FreeBSD I did.

This could be great... by morgdx · 2004-07-02 00:27 · Score: 0, Redundant

Without this indemnity SCO will carry on picking on smaller companies that use linux, who may pay up on the basis of licence<court costs*risk.

With this indemnity, SCO will be just going to a few companies who are insuring the individual users. Here the equation would be reversed, and you will have effectively pooled the legal resources of all of the linux using companies.

The insurer will have a lot more to lose in court, and a lot more resources with which to destroy SCO's arguments.

--
http://jfin.org/jFin pure java open source financial library

Re:This could be great... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 00:35 · Score: 0

Well done for passing the entrance exam for densa (a mensa type organisation for people with 2 digit IQ's). Psst: Want to buy a statue of liberty?

Barriers To Entry by persaud · 2004-07-02 00:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Once a business demonstrates sufficient long-term viability, there is inevitable pressure to consolidate and "standardize" the market by the removal of small competitors.

The most politically attractive tool for removing small vendors from a market is overwhelming economic force (free as in beer). Current case in point, Gmail will destroy small ISPs by teaching users to demand hundreds of megabytes of email storage. Yahoo & Hotmail have already responded.

Indemnification will do the same for Linux distributions. You may be able to roll your own distro, but it will be increasingly difficult to distribute it without legal exposure (not only to the publisher, but the distribution channel, e.g. SourceForge/OSDN).

After economic consolidation comes political consolidation (regulation). Sender-pays email, state-issued ID for publication, bank-issued ID for consumption, firewall liability insurance in exchange for permission to face the public network, VOIP-driven consolidate of "offline" and "online" IDs -- and just when you're about to go insane with boundary barriers: premium green-light services that guarantee swift passage to those who can afford it.

Creative anarchy will remain possible within organized economic pools that can negotiate regulatory barriers to entry and evolution.

Re:Barriers To Entry by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 02:26 · Score: 0

destroy small ISPs by teaching users to demand hundreds of megabytes of email storage

Um... ISP is Internet Service Provider. As far as I know Hotmail, Yahoo, and Google aren't internet service providers. An ISP mainly offers email as just an extra throw in. And what are most of them using? IMAP? Web based? No, they usually offer POP3 which really has no limit on storage size, just on the queue before you download it.

Really, most people I know (aside from AOL users) don't even use their ISP mail service - they use Hotmail reguardless. Many ISPs offer a small webhosting option too, and 99% of people don't use that either.

CEO by Mr_Silver · 2004-07-02 00:44 · Score: 4, Informative

So why not print a copy and send it to your company CEO

Unless you're in a very small company, the CTO would be a better bet.

If you're in a really big company, then the chances are it should be going to the Director of IT.

Don't immediately shoot yourself in the foot by annoying people whose job is not to consider/deal with these issues.

--
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.

Re:CEO by Skapare · 2004-07-02 01:20 · Score: 1

While the CTO would be the person to move forward on decisions like using Linux (and a good CTO would well understand the lack of merit in SCO's case), a CEO might well be involved in addressing the legal issue. If anything, the CTO should be the one doing the printing of it and putting it on the CEO's desk.

If you're not the company CTO or Director of IT, it probably is best to pass it up the pecking order. But it should be intended for the CEO ... or maybe even the CFO ... as that is where legal risks could be made into a show stopper.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

ZERO value? by PornMaster · 2004-07-02 00:47 · Score: 1

if you read it very closely I am betting that there are clauses and loopholes that relieve them of their "protection" in many ways.
...
but it has ZERO value in any courtroom or for any protection for a company.
So you haven't read it, but you can state that it has ZERO value?

anyone with even a slight legal background can see this.

I am sure that any slight legal background that you have comes from being prosecuted. You have zero knowledge of contract law.

Presumptuous of me to say?
Yeah, I thought so.

-PM

--
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo

Re:ZERO value? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 01:39 · Score: 0

nice to see a twit come from the woodwork.

if you are stupid enough to pay for one if these "protections" then please go ahead. any company that thinks another company will "protect" them or indemnify them is extremely stupid.

hell even Novell's policy is to only reimburse you 125% of the purchase price AFTER it is proven in a court of law that they are at fault and then only if you are a $50,000.00 a year level customer.

I.E. the novell documetnation states thet they will leave you high and dry if you are sued... they will refund your money only after they are proved to be at fault, no help, no indemnity, no nothing...

I suggest you actually learn something instead of what you view from the basement windows of your parent's home.
Re:ZERO value? by PornMaster · 2004-07-02 05:53 · Score: 1

HP's policy doesn't have a financial cap.

http://h10018.www1.hp.com/wwsolutions/linux/down lo ad/sco-indemnify-qa.pdf

Nothing is full protection "like you never got sued", but indemnification isn't entirely worthless, either.

Game over. Thanks for playing.

-PM

--
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo

indemnification agreements could be deadly too by rozz · 2004-07-02 00:50 · Score: 1

"...details available indemnification offerings from Novell, HP, Red Hat, and OSRM. So why not print a copy and send it to your company CEO."

the simple fact that you need an indemnification agreement when buying linux is enough for your email too go smell the trash-bin.
a responsible CEO cannot act in a "so, sue me" manner!

and btw stop bashing SCO, its not their fault .. the real culprit is the american justice system that allows them to do what they do!

--
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

The costs of linux by Ignignot · 2004-07-02 01:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

With all the costs of linux (accountability, support services, re-writing inhouse software, re-training IT), I think that most businesses will stick with MS and license their software. This recurring cost may be more than Linux's recurring cost, but the barrier for exit from MS's world is high. However, I do think that once MS releases a new OS and eventually businesses feel pressure to switch to it, many will instead switch to Linux. The cost of switching to Linux, while higher than the cost of supporting Windows, will be lower than the cost of switching to a new Windows OS, and will present a lower forward cost. Never underestimate greed as a tool to switch people to OSS.

--
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.

Definitely Not. by gillbates · 2004-07-02 01:16 · Score: 4, Informative

For your consideration:

Microsoft's customers were sued by Timeline when Microsoft distributed code with SQL server that Timeline had only license to Microsoft for internal use.
I have never heard of a Linux vendor suing their customers. Yet fairly recently, Microsoft sued the LA school district for about $400,000. They sued a school .... Think about that one for a while.
Microsoft was convicted of abusing their monopoly position to hurt competitors. Misgivings about code written by volunteers are understandable, but it would be downright foolish to eschew code written by someone with altruistic motives in favor of code written by a convicted felon.
The idea that a convicted felon's code - code which is intentionally kept secret - is somehow less likely to infringe on IP rights is laughable, at best.
Furthermore, the fact that the source is closed means a company cannot even begin to evaluate the risk of infringement. One simply cannot determine how much or from whom Microsoft has stolen code - or if they've stolen any at all.

One could make some very good objections to using Linux, but liability is not one of them. If anything, the fact that the source code is freely available means that absent frivolous plaintiffs (*cough* SCO *cough*) there is a very small risk of being sued. Unlike the proprietary, closed source model, cases of actual infringement can be mitigated by the end user. If I was sued for IP infringement and didn't have the source code, my only option (assuming that infringement really took place) is to pay royalties and licensing fees. But if I do have the source code, I can simply remove the infringing material, substantially reducing the damages that a plaintiff could collect.

And for all you Microsoft-vs-Linux trolls, save it. Microsoft and Linux are just good examples of the relative strengths and weaknesses of open versus closed source. The argument would apply equally well to Adobe Photoshop vs. Gimp or Oracle vs Postgresql, etc...

--
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.

Re:Definitely Not. by dave420 · 2004-07-02 03:04 · Score: 1

You can't win the Linux/Windows battle on ideology. Even talking about how software was written brings your argument to a grinding halt. People don't buy software because it was made by someone with "altruistic motives". They buy software because it does what they want it to do. You can't expect people to make their computers do less because it's more ideologically sound. We're talking business :-P
Saying there's no way to determine what's in a closed source project is ridiculous. It's not as if the developers write one byte at a time and don't see anyone else's stuff. The code is open source in microsoft, where it is subject to auditing like anything else in redmond. Just because you don't get a copy of the Office source with your MSOffice CDs doesn't mean to say the code hasn't been looked at under a microscope. Your point about linux vs. microsoft is nearly accurate, but we're talking about something quantifiable here. People buy software to make it do something. The closed source packages you've mentioned are setting the trends. The open source alternatives are actively trying to catch up. They rely on the "we're written by nice guys, and we're cheap" angle to make up for the lack of functionality.
This isn't trolling - I couldn't give a crap which OS/software package is superior (i use what suits me - linux and windows), but standing by while people talk a bunch of nonsense is not helping either argument.
Re:Definitely Not. by gillbates · 2004-07-02 06:32 · Score: 1

Well, yes, functionality wins hands down. There's little point in installing software you can't really use.

But the whole security through "code auditing" thing is a farce. What does auditing matter when the company itself is willing to steal the code of others and infringe patents at will?

The Timeline case is a perfect example. Timeline gave Microsoft their code, and someone at Microsoft decided to ship it with SQL server. It's not as if it was an accident (and if it was, there goes your auditing argument). Rather, someone at Microsoft thought they could "bend" the rules, and shipped Timeline's code. When Timeline pressed Microsoft about the issue, Microsoft claimed that their license gave them the right to redistribute code; Timeline thought they were selling them a license for internal use.

You have to admire the slick way Microsoft pulled this off - they duped Timeline into giving them their code for a song, claiming they were going to use it internally. But then they shipped it, and now the burden of proof is on Timeline to show damages.

--
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.

I've got a bridge... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 01:17 · Score: 0

So why not print a copy and send it to your company CEO.

That's easy to answer. It's snake oil.

Huge Stuff for the Gunshy by tarsi210 · 2004-07-02 01:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is huge in my business where the CEO is gunshy from a lawsuit 7 years ago. (yeah, I know...therapy) We recently turned down a completely free, open-source component for a relatively expensive one that did less for what? Indemnification. Our legal aid couldn't guarantee us that we wouldn't get sued.

It's a problem. Businesses that use 3rd party products need those products to perform WITHOUT giving them the added legal expense. I think your ROI really drops when it includes a few suits. Small businesses, in specific, aren't about to take that chance. That being said, they're less likely to be targeted, but often the chance isn't worth it.

They want someone to point a finger at if something goes wrong...the software breaks, it destroys data, or they get sued for infringement in order to recoup lost money. With open-source, you have no one to point at. (usually)

--
Blog,Twitter

Has this even come up ...... by zogger · 2004-07-02 01:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

... in any of the Microsoft anti trust cases? I really don't know, but it sure would be interesting if there was any way to force an audit of their code looking for "stolen" code. Someone who has looked at it under an NDA might have noticed it, but be reluctant to whistleblow on the subject being afraid of getting sued from microsoft for violating the NDA, and having no one to step in and help them with the legal fees. Just a maybe there because I don't know, but I am suspicious of them and their relationship with SCO at this time. It might be one of the reasons behind the SCO suit, perhaps "protect" some code that they are using now. If there was ANY bonafide evidence of code theft at their shop, it might be enough to get a new investigation going.

What say ye, ACs who have seen the code, any wisps of smoke there?

My indemnification plan: by Badanov · 2004-07-02 01:52 · Score: 0

Here is my indemnifcation plan.

--
Dawn of the Dead

Why is Novell's solution better? by evenparity · 2004-07-02 02:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't quite understand the author's conclusion that Novell offers the best protection.

Novell offers legal protection, but Red Hat is basically offering the ability to carry on operations without worrying about the lawsuit. I understand that legal liability is important, but the real threat is not having a solution that you are legally able to use. To me, this reduces the real uncertainty in the situation. Novell's users might not have to worry about the legal fees, but what do they do with their business until they find a new OS solution?

I have a question by zogger · 2004-07-02 02:05 · Score: 1

This is a side issue but might be tangentially relevant to the whole discussion of software patents and copyrights and various code.

Who OWNS tabbed browsing? Is there a patent on it yet? Compared to a lot of the other ridiculously silly patents out there in IP land,and all these disputes, it seems to be a major big one. It is so useful any innovation (imo) that most people who use it will hardly ever be satisfied again with any non tabbed enabled browser.

Indemnification the great con! by LWATCDR · 2004-07-02 02:12 · Score: 1

It is such a great con. Lawyer to small firm, "The company you bought from did something wrong so we are going to sue you. If there was a chance we would loose they would indemnify you so you better settle!"
Typical small company, "Oh dear we had batter settle we can not afford to loose a suit like that!"
Smart company, "If the comapny we bought this from did wrong why are you not sueing them? Could it be that you are going after those that are too weak to fight you and betting they will just cave in?"

What a crock.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

I'm not allowed to use Expat!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 02:17 · Score: 0

I have an issue with regards the indemnification for 3rd party copyright infringment at work.

I have downloaded the symbian port of Expat only to be told that I'm not allowed to use it in our software due to the risk of us getting sued for copyright infringement. :(

Has anyone else experienced similar problems, and if so, how did you resolve them? Are there any companies who will provide liability insurance to resolve this issue? What other options are available?

Steve/

I don't think... by ganiman · 2004-07-02 02:34 · Score: 1

that I will be sending this to my CIO! They don't even know who the CEO of SCO is! Who is this Daryl Mcbride they speak of. I thought DARL Mcbride was the CEO of SCO, not this DarYl. I was getting ready to send that link to my CIO too..

--
geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken

Correct, but there's more. by khasim · 2004-07-02 02:42 · Score: 1

From the article:
"Past infringement cases have focused on software makers rather than end users. For example, Microsoft has encountered many infringement cases from companies like Eolas, Stac, Burst, Netscape, Sun, and InterTrust. None of the Microsoft cases have fallen over to consumers."

While there is nothing to stop anyone from filing a claim against anyone else, one company filing a claim against the end users of a different company has NEVER happened before.

The threats can be (and have been) made, but no one has ever filed such a claim in court.

Which brings up the issue of WHY no one has ever brought such a case in court.

And then, WHAT is DIFFERENT about Linux that would change that?

So far, I have not seen anything detailing why Linux (or Open Source in general) is different from Windows (or Closed Source in general) and thus would be subject to a situation that has never happened before.

Until I see some material addressing those points, I'm going to believe this is just some stupid marketing ploy (follow the money to Microsoft).

(Note: this is just about copyright, software patents are a completely different issue.)

dont' pay for indemnification... by ammoQ · 2004-07-02 02:44 · Score: 1

If you are afraid that SCO might win the case (ok, a very stupid assumption, but let's say you are), why not buy a few SCO stocks? They currently sell somewhere around USD 5, but if SCO wins, they would at least be rise to USD 200; using this money, you can easily buy a SCO IP license for your servers. If SCO loses its cases, which is the most likely outcome, you will probably lose the money invested - but that's not a difference to any other insurance.

Speaking of indemnification by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 02:54 · Score: 0

Speaking of indemnification, why doesn't anyone ever mention that just because a software company is closed source, it doesn't mean that it will provide indemnification.

Look at what Microsoft did with SQL server +1 year ago....

http://slashdot.org/articles/03/02/21/1323237.sh tm l?tid=155

Just let SCO and patents die by bakreule · 2004-07-02 03:08 · Score: 1

So why not print a copy and send it to your company CEO

Why on earth would I do that? The first thing (s)he'll ask is
"So there's truth behind all this SCO stuff?" At which point I'll say
"Er, well no, it's all a buncha hooey"
"So why are you showing me this?"
"Err.. uhhh"

I'm aware of the litigious world we live in, but even acknowledging that there's a possibility all this patent/SCO crap is right plays into their hands.

SCO is dying, and with it (I can hope) the threat of patent infringement lawsuits, at least as far as Linux is concerned. Let the sick dog die ignored and humiliated as it should be.

--

Buses stop at a bus station
Trains stop at a train station
On my desk there's a workstation....

This is bullshit by spitzak · 2004-07-02 03:48 · Score: 1

The New York Times has announced a new idemification program. For only $100 extra over the cost of the paper, you are protected when reading the Times against any legal liability in cases that one or more of the articles is plagurized. Feel safer when reading the Times! Now your legal department can feel safe letting a copy be left in the break room at work! All for $100 dollars. PS: better stop reading those cheapo little papers who can't afford this idemification program, you could be sued!

FUD terrorists by LMCBoy · 2004-07-02 04:02 · Score: 1

The success of indemnification means that the FUD terrorists have already won...

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.

Simple. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 04:20 · Score: 1, Informative

Run BSD.

Uh ... by tbone1 · 2004-07-02 04:47 · Score: 1

So why not print a copy and send it to your company CEO.

Because she's functionally illiterate?

--

The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines

Can OSS insurance work? by sadiklis · 2004-07-02 05:15 · Score: 1

If those insurers cover the kernel (or any other ubiquitous component) then they're a joke, IMHO.

Let's say Linus blunders and commits in something that really violates a patent. Now when the patent holder sues everybody... it's like if all the cars crashed in an instant for a car insurer. The insurance company would go broke in a second.

Am i missing something?

Yeah, and... by gillbates · 2004-07-02 06:50 · Score: 1

Just once I'd like to see Open Source apps that didn't pretend to be a cheap knock-off of someone else's successful product.

Why is it that FS developers insist on following Microsoft's lead? .NET is a stupid idea, and .Mono even worse - why would you build a virtual machine if it would never be ported to other platforms, and why spend effort optimizing said machine when modern compilers can already generate much faster code?

Oh, I know - the challenge. Rather than writing code which actually solves problems, I'd rather reinvent the wheel, learn how to everything in this New! SHINY! Language (tm), just so my programs will run more slowly on fewer platforms.

And .Mono is insane. GCC is a very mature, very good compiler, and it will be a long, long time before any virtual machine can come close to the performance of gcc-generated code. Why would you waste talent on a project which is going to produce something worse than what you've already got? Because it's popular? Because Microsoft is doing it? Think about it - Free Software will never be a leader as long as they look to an unethical corporation for ideas. Microsoft implements ideas, but it doesn't create them.

Okay, flame away.

--
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.

Pressure from where? LargeCorp marketing dept? by Monkius · 2004-07-02 06:59 · Score: 1

I sure that large IT companies would love it if they could remove all the smaller competitors.

I wonder if comporate consumers are ever motivated by price competition? Hmm...

--
Matt

new competition? by bitspotter · 2004-07-02 07:00 · Score: 1

Microsoft, and Microsoft alone (supposedly) indemnifies their software. even if they try to disclaim the hell out of it, they'll still foot the legal bill even if the court doesn't buy it.

Is it me, or does having all these companies offering indemnification services for (roughly) the same product look like a market being re-opened up to competition again? Even when it comes to legal services for something you probably don't need, you STILL have more choices with Linux than with Windows.

SCO's next target by HenchmenResources · 2004-07-02 07:01 · Score: 1

OK maybe I'm interpreting this all wrong because I just woke up and am not thinking coherently, if thats the case please correct me but I read this line:

SCO plans to continue to threaten people who know very little about the state of its information technology shops.

First thing I think this means is that SCO is threatening companies that are not well informed about the history of Unix and Linux. And if what the experts of Unix and Linux are saying SCO is one of those companies that doesn't fully understand the history of Unix and Linux. If this is truly the case than I would expect the lawsuit SCO should file would be against SCO.

If this were to happen than SCO would become a proverbial Oroboros feeding its need to sue off of itself. They could sue for eternity and never cause worry to the rest of the world.

OK so maybe I'm stretching it with that last one but like I said I'm still half way in my dream state so maybe non of this makes sense but it's funny as hell to me.

--
"Napalm is nature's toothpaste" - Chef Brian

Wierd SCOX stock behavior on Wednesday by Animats · 2004-07-02 07:08 · Score: 1

SCOX has been trading around $5 ± 0.50 for about a month, with low trading volume. Below $5, you can't short a NASDAQ stock, so the bears have dropped out of the market. (Two German exchanges with different short-selling rules recently listed SCOX, to get around the NASDAQ rule. This came up in the SCO conference call, and Darl was annoyed about it.)

Last Wednesday, around 11 am, SCOX suddenly went up to $6.25, in heavy trading. Somebody made that happen. It wasn't a random event. But whomever did it (and it could be the announced SCO stock buyback program) didn't put in enough money to keep the price up, and it started sliding back down that afternoon. Today, Friday, it's back to where it was at the beginning of the week, close to $5. The trading volume is back down, too.

We've seen a few attempts by SCO to prop up their stock. Each one has failed. Except to correct for the distortions caused by the buyback program, the market is ignoring SCOX. Volume is far below what it was last year. When the legal mess starts to generate some decisions, we'll see some activity, but until then, it looks like nothing much will happen.

BOOOOOOOORING by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-02 09:55 · Score: 0

OH GOD HOW DID WE BECOME SO BORING> MAKE IT STOP MAKE IT STOP MAKE IT STOP MAKE IT STOP

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

do the big boys offer this by Qrlx · 2004-07-02 12:19 · Score: 1

Do Microsoft, Oracle, and so on indemnify you?

We don' need no steenking indemnification... by Jedi+Dwight · 2004-07-02 14:46 · Score: 1

SCO's beef is technically with the Linux kernel 2.4 and newer. Solution: Dust off an old distro with Kernel 2.2 and run that.

The whole deal revolves around SCO's allegations that IBM borrowed copyrighted Unix code and incorporated it into Linux to improve Unix program compatibility, thus hurting SCO's business. SCO would be severely impacted if the Unix-alike, Linux, were now Just-Like Unix, and people no longer needed to pay for a genuine Unix solution - they could get it for free, or perhaps with some IBM hardware instead of AIX.

SCO sure sounds stupid with all of the boneheaded lawsuits, but maybe, just maybe they didn't just pull this lawsuit with IBM, out of their ass. The allegedly infringing IBM contributions presumably appear in some 2.3 beta on the way to 2.4. So... do what you want to do with a 2.2 build for all it's worth.

Whoa there by A+nonymous+Coward · 2004-07-02 16:22 · Score: 1

Microsoft did just sit there once upon a time. I don't remember the details, the name of the product or company, but a year or two ago, some company sued Microsoft and won because Microsoft had appropriated their code in some manner. I think Microsoft had bought non-transferable rights to the output of the program, and this company insisted that Microsoft customers had to purchase their own licenses to use the output of the program, whereas Microsoft had resold it as if the rights transferred. Microsoft explicitly said they would not indemnify their customers, who the other company had threatened to sue.

How far things went, whether Microsoft changed their, mind, whether they simply bought up the other company, etc etc etc, I do not remember. But I do remember the big stink when it came out they weren't going to indemnify their own customers.

--
Infuriate left and right

In fact, here is the link by A+nonymous+Coward · 2004-07-02 16:26 · Score: 1

Right Here, as another poster has listed.

--
Infuriate left and right

And Microsoft never copies? by A+nonymous+Coward · 2004-07-02 16:31 · Score: 1

Why don't you name something truly innovative that Microsoft has developed all on their own? I mean truly distinctive, different, revolutionary. Not these incremental "improvments" of .NOT and ActiveX and Boband papers flying from a folder into a trash can while delete works its magic.

Betcha can't do it. Not even one.

--
Infuriate left and right

Re:And Microsoft never copies? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-08 07:27 · Score: 0

Yeah, so why copy Microsoft?
My point was that I'd like to see OS leading the way, not following someone else's lead. The fact that MS copies only makes copying MS worse.

120 comments