Slashdot Mirror


SCO Linux Licenses Could Increase In Price

prostoalex writes "ZDNet UK says that, while SCO Group's legal department took a timeout from generating new lawsuits, their Linux license prices might be increased. 'Companies that license now may be able to do so cheaper than if they do so later,' [Blake] Stowell said. In the upcoming financials call, SCO expects to announce 6-figure revenue from its SCOSource division."

72 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I haven't bought mine yet! I better rush out while they're still priced reasonably.

    1. Re:Oh no! by OrthodonticJake · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know, I was just thinking about switching to a free OS. It's a good thing that this was on slashdot or I would have ended up paying more than I needed to.

      --
      I regularly report MSN spam to the Hotmail admins.
    2. Re:Oh no! by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just make sure you put it on the P2P networks so that we can get through Linux's nagware screens! My copy of Linux is a 30-day evaluation copy and it's about to shut down!

      har har har...

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    3. Re:Oh no! by ethzer0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't stress yourself, simply pay the difference in monopoly money, like the first time...

    4. Re:Oh no! by danamania · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If SCO and Rob Enderle aren't outright lying (!) then they hint that they're not going after smaller users.

      From Rob's keynote at SCOForum 2004, he states: "Now I hear from the Linux folks that it is SCO that is the bad guy here taking away the rights of those that worked hard to contribute to Linux and to that I say Bull Shit. SCO, unlike the RIAA which is targeting kids, is going after large well funded companies who are perfectly able to take care of themselves. In all cases the firms being challenged have more resources and are larger than SCO. If there is one thing firms like Daimler Chrysler don't need is a bunch of "hang'em high" bigots who think of themselves as judge, jury, and executioner."

      So it comes down to - do you believe Rob Enderle, that SCO is only going after the big companies, and isn't like the RIAA and targeting kids..?

    5. Re:Oh no! by SourKAT · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's supply and demand for you! ... oh wait, too much supply, no demand ... WTF kind of economics is this?

    6. Re:Oh no! by tonyr60 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Seriously, what good is a licence from a company that will be bankrupt in a few years from multicast litigation?"

      It is likely that the license would survive such a bankruptcy. In the event of SCO going belly up uts assetts would be sold off, including any Intellectual property it may own. The purchaser (which could be Microsoft, Dell, IBM, whoever) would continue to own the licensing rights.

      None of the above should be interpreted to mean that I think that that SCO has any intellectual property of value, or that it hold the right to license *unix or anything else.

    7. Re:Oh no! by superpulpsicle · · Score: 5, Funny

      Uh yes, we were in a meeting and someone pointed out that we should try SCO linux. The whole room started laughing. Boy, last time I lol to tears was watching some rerun of Naked Gun 2.

    8. Re:Oh no! by vladkrupin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you probably should! Or it might turn out that SCO doesn't really have the 6-digit revenue from their SCOSource division. That would make them mighty embarrassed, and you wouldn't really want that, would you?

      6 digits! Did Microsft buy a few licences or something? I doubt the EV1 deal can bring 6 digits, and there isn't really anything else they can count as SCOSource revenue.

      --

      Jobs? Which jobs?
    9. Re:Oh no! by Necrobruiser · · Score: 4, Funny

      SCO Linux - Free as in "$699".

      (Limited time threat, er, that is, offer)

      --
      "I planned within my means and got a fixed rate mortgage, so where's MY bailout?" -cafepress
    10. Re:Oh no! by ShadowRage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they're wise not to attack invidividuals, because all is needed is a class action lawsuit, and given their "size" they're a tiny company compared to bigger guys who will simply push them aside until they get tired of them screaming and swat them with a newspaper made up of lawyers.... a class action lawsuit of hundreds, if not thousands of individuals (eg, the opensource movement is made up of people like these) could easily sue for infringement and harassment and deflamation.. and a few million dollars doesnt spread well with thousands of people, and will not have much left over.

      so in the end, it'd be suicide to try going after individuals, whilst the RIAA, who have a constant stream of money, and tons of political ties, can attack anyone they want and get away with it with their huge amounts of money, and the fact they control parts of the media, as well as the mpaa..

      sco is an ant compared to the riaa. so they're gonna watch it more.

    11. Re:Oh no! by trewornan · · Score: 3, Funny

      I really want one but I'm hoping to pick one up on ebay after they go bankrupt. Trouble is they've sold so few they're going to be gold-dust. Might be easier to buy one now - if only giving them money wasn't such a repulsive idea.

    12. Re:Oh no! by msobkow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Personally I believe that everything coming out of the SCO "press releases" has degraded to demonstrating a completely delusional lack of contact with reality. Rather than just shooting them, maybe we should lock them up and pump them full of thorazine for their own safety.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    13. Re:Oh no! by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 2, Interesting
      6 digits! Did Microsft buy a few licences or something? I doubt the EV1 deal can bring 6 digits, and there isn't really anything else they can count as SCOSource revenue.
      I think they are still milking the EV1 deal - this is the quarter in which (some of) this revenue should finally be on the book. It has consistently been toutet as a 6-figure deal.

      And notice that they have not said that they have a 6 figure income this quarter, just that they are going to report it.

      All in all, it again looks like they have no new income from SCOSource this year.

      --

      Stephan

    14. Re:Oh no! by shanen · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You mean you haven't bought your shares of SCO stock yet? They're certainly priced reasonably. Since they broke through the $5 floor on short transactions, they've been sinking pretty nicely.

      Oh, you mean you want to buy SCOX shares to sell at a profit ? So sorry. That seems rather unlikely. Nothing to stop them from sinking to penny stock level now...

      I like the comparative views against IBM, their "favorite" target. This one shows the 6-month view, in which SCOX is about 70% below the starting point.

      Here we have the 2-year view, which gives you a pretty good perspective of the entire lawsuit bubble.

      Finally, here's a big-picture 5-year view which shows what really happened since the IPO bubble burst. On this one, the lawsuit price response looks like a rather trivial burp.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    15. Re:Oh no! by papukanghi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just why is /. still following this? I havent bought one for 1 of the 240 node cluster i run. who cares? let them give for a million bucks of for free. Aren't we just giving them free publicity? let them do whatever they want to do with their lie-sense.

      --
      ( 2b || !2b)
    16. Re:Oh no! by mbrezu79 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now I understand those Microsoft studies about Linux TCO. The TCO just went up, it seems. Boy, these Microsoft guys know the future! Wonder why they don't see the exploits coming ...

  2. Cheaper... by IronMagnus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wouldn't it be cheaper to just not by a license at all?

    1. Re:Cheaper... by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 4, Funny

      Depends on what the software is... you don't want the BSA Copyright Weasel to get you.

    2. Re:Cheaper... by TopShelf · · Score: 2

      Consider it an investment in a collector's item, like an original pet rock from the 70's. Years from now, people will look back and say "you actually used to buy a license for that?"

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  3. It makes sense... by TheWart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, if they have sold 2 licenses at $700 a license, but upping it to say, oh, $1400 (nice ring to it :)) a license, they can *double* their revenue with no higher operating costs!!

    At least that is how SCO probably is seeing it through the haze of their pipe dream.

    1. Re:It makes sense... by sevenofnine · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have been toying with buying $700 worth of monopoly games, taking the money from them and sending the m-money in a box to sco asking for a license :)
      To bad i don't have the cash flow for this at the moment...

    2. Re:It makes sense... by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have been toying with buying $700 worth of monopoly games, taking the money from them and sending the m-money in a box to sco asking for a license :)

      Might as well print your own bogus money. You could even print a $699 bill. Put Darl's picture in the center. "In Laywers We Trust" or similar. That would cost you nothing, except time. If it's good enough, do a rear image, and save both as TIF files for sharing.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    3. Re:It makes sense... by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why stop there? If they raise the price of a licence to one billion dollars, they only have to sell one of them. How hard can that be?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:It makes sense... by danamania · · Score: 4, Funny

      Might as well print your own bogus money. You could even print a $699 bill. Put Darl's picture in the center. "In Laywers We Trust" or similar. That would cost you nothing, except time. If it's good enough, do a rear image, and save both as TIF files for sharing.

      I'd pixelled up an SCO Dollar once. Send in 699 of them

      Or 1400, your choice :)

  4. "Six Figures" is just $ from an old deal! by DiscoBobby · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think the only reason that SCO will be able to announce 6-figure revenue for SCOSource is because this is the fiscal quarter that they'll book the revenue from the EV1 scam - the first and to my knowledge ONLY large deal (other than the war-chest they got from Microsoft) they've ever closed.

    If this is the case, this does NOT indicate new deals, this does NOT indicate a new revenue source, this does NOT mean that did a dime's worth of business in the last 3 months - it's just when the revenue from their only decent deal some time ago hit the books.

    A quote from the SECOND quarter conference call (Darl speaking to Maureen O'Gara):

    McBride: We had a few deals on the SCOsource side, Maureen. You know with last quarter we had announced a major deal with EV1. That is not part of the revenue stream that we're reporting in second quarter. That revenue will start to be accounted for in the quarter that we're currently in.

    O'Gara: Sorry. The EV1 revenues will show up on this quarter?

    McBride: Yes. They will start this quarter, and they'll be booked over multiple quarters going forward.

    Now, within that conversation, Darl claims to have deals in the pipeline:

    O'Gara: Well, we'll see how that .... Now, you forecast 10 to 12 this quarter, but that's mostly from the UNIX business, which ....

    McBride: Yeah, until there's a stream of revenue that comes out of the SCOsource side, we're not going to get in the business of handicapping or projecting the forecast of it. You know, the pipeline that Bert is talking about that is healthy right now is not really part of that 10 to 12. Once we have more predictability, then we'll start to get projections on that.

    Notice he hints "10 or 12", but I suspect all he got this time was money from EV1. Looking forward to the conference call to see if anybody challenges his smoke-and-mirrors show.

    1. Re:"Six Figures" is just $ from an old deal! by nihilogos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I heard they were bundling an SCO source license in with their Unixware stuff. So they can count Unixware sales as SCO source as well.

      --
      :wq
    2. Re:"Six Figures" is just $ from an old deal! by DiscoBobby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're right, but how many Unixware sales can there possibly be? :)

      Jokes aside, that is clearly a possible revenue stream to SCOSource, and would inflate the numbers. But then they're denting the margin of the "core UNIX business" they're pimping lately by assigning some of that $ from each Unixware sale to SCOSource rather than the software side (unless they increased the price of Unixware). You can't count that $ twice. Either way, it's still smoke-and-mirrors.

    3. Re:"Six Figures" is just $ from an old deal! by Veridium · · Score: 2, Funny

      When I read that "six figures", I figured two of them were to the right of the decimal point.

      --
      Think for yourself, destroy your television.
  5. SCO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    What, are they still around?

  6. in related news by spacerodent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder how many figures their legal bill is. Somehow I suspect its a seven or eight figures at least.

  7. Only works if people pay. by duslow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, but what if nobody pays for it. How do they expect to generate 6-figure revenue from nothing? They have to win their cases first, and that doesn't seem to be that likely.

    1. Re:Only works if people pay. by Ieshan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Easy! Just convert to base (whatever) and you can make your numbers have however many digits you want.

    2. Re:Only works if people pay. by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 2, Interesting

      wrong...

      0 in base 0 is 1

      heh...

    3. Re:Only works if people pay. by Kynde · · Score: 2, Informative

      0 in base 0 is 1

      The hell it is. 1 is not even a number in base 0. Not that base 0 makes any sense, but when someone mods your post "interesting" rather than "funny" that someone is way off.

      --
      1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
  8. Before we panic ... by crimethinker · · Score: 3, Informative
    When I saw the mention of six figure revenue from SCOScam^H^H^Hource, I thought, oh shit, the FUD has been working. But then I remembered the EV1Servers deal. Didn't that happen too late to be counted on last quarter? Really, has anyone publicly stepped up and said, "SCO is right, and we're buying a license." I mean, since EV1 got slapped by the community for swallowing the BS hook, line, sinker, rod, and fisherman?

    -paul

    --
    Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
    1. Re:Before we panic ... by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really, has anyone publicly stepped up and said, "SCO is right, and we're buying a license.

      Publicly? No. How do you know what the millions of small to mid sized businesses may have done?

      700 bucks isn't a lot of money to throw at a potential problem to go away. And if you run a business, it's probably not the right venue to make your moral stand on OSS. After all, you have a business to run, bills to pay, employees, etc..

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Before we panic ... by buss_error · · Score: 2, Insightful
      700 bucks isn't a lot of money to throw at a potential problem to go away. And if you run a business, it's probably not the right venue to make your moral stand on OSS. After all, you have a business to run, bills to pay, employees, etc

      The only problem with that is "Once you pay danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane."

      --
      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
  9. -1 Redundunt by MrRuslan · · Score: 2, Funny

    I know it has been said before and i will say it again...WTF are these mother fuckers smoking...are they completly retarded or something???

  10. Great line by Kafka_Canada · · Score: 5, Informative

    "SCOsource is the Linux users' shakedown program. Apparently, no one is paying up. It took in $11,000 last quarter. That's not a typo. President and CEO Darl McBride paid more lip service to 'increasing shareholder value,' but you really have to wonder about the viability of his vision when his firm's most engrossing initiative brings in less money than the guys who mow lawns in my neighborhood."

    --the Motley Fool

    --
    Fuck it
    1. Re:Great line by Kafka_Canada · · Score: 5, Funny

      This also, from a ComputerWorld interview with Darl McBride:

      Q. In June, SCO reported that Unix licensing revenue through its SCOsource division totaled just $11,000 in the quarter that ended April 30 - a 99% drop-off from $8.25 million in the same quarter last year. What happened there?

      A. In the day-to-day business, we have some speed bumps that come up from our [intellectual property] issues. In the previous quarter, we had several large licensing deals, but you can't repeat those every quarter. It's not really as brutal as people might expect.

      **

      --
      Fuck it
  11. Bad news by spellraiser · · Score: 4, Funny

    Looks like this guy is going to have to get a new account. Such a pity.

    --
    I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
  12. Why does Linux cost so much? by Sheetrock · · Score: 2, Funny
    An associate told me that this was free software, but $699 sounds a bit steep for what looked to me like a hobbyist Mac OSX clone.

    He said you can do all sorts of stuff with it, and I'd sure hope so for that price. :P You can buy a PC with WinXP Home from Dell for that.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




  13. 10 shares of Google stock per CPU by Sean+Clifford · · Score: 4, Funny

    They've ditched the whole currency scheme - now it'll cost 10 shares of Google stock per CPU.

  14. What happens when (if - haha) SCO lose? by hattig · · Score: 2

    I mean, that will mean all those licenses they have charged for will effectively have been fraudulent won't it? That's kinda illegal in most parts of the world, so what will SCO do? Refund everybody? haha right.

  15. Re:Everyone with a 6 figure income by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Funny

    $1000.00 last month.

    Does that count?

  16. Enderle: "Free Software and the Idiots Who Buy It" by Landaras · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is slightly OT, but it's in regards to SCO.

    A week ago at SCO Forum, Rob Enderle gave a keynote speech entitled "Free Software and the Idiots Who Buy It." Mr. Enderle employed repeated logical errors, accusations without evidence, and ad hominem attacks. He materially confused the meaning of Free Software, as well as assigning physical threats to the Groklaw / Free Software community without proof.

    I have written a paragraph by paragraph critique of his keynote, and it is available at my site (Part One and Part Two)

    I welcome and appreciate feedback and comments on it. I jokingly refer to the paper as "Logical Fallacies and the Idiots Who Use Them," but did my best to keep the text proper professional.

    - Neil Wehneman

  17. Re:cost increase by RKBA · · Score: 3, Informative
    "I really don't get this joke."

    Microsoft purchased a license from SCO early on, ostensibly because they have some sort of Unix interfacing or development tools that run on Windows.

  18. sure...that will get the customers running..... by f-bomb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    last time i checked:

    anything * 0 = 0

    maybe they are just going to charge their UnixWare customers an extra $1400 when they bundle in the 'Linux IP' license

    --
    Everyone should believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.....
  19. Yes, they did say six figures by leonbrooks · · Score: 4, Funny

    $1400.00, now count the digits...
    $1234.56

    IW4M.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  20. Considering they've already achieved it... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    what SCOsource revenue they have now by EXTORTION, I say they're already generating revenue from nothing.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  21. What!!!!!! by vwjeff · · Score: 3, Funny

    WTF are these mother fuckers smoking...are they completly retarded or something???

    How dare you ask that question. It should read as follows:

    These guys are smoking dog shit...their mothers(I guess bastards can't have a mother) dropped them on their heads daily as small children.

    Please don't ask questions. When you ask questions it appears that you don't have the answer.

  22. -99% is a "SPEED BUMP"???? by crimethinker · · Score: 4, Funny
    Revenue drops from $8,250,000 to $11,000 and that's a "speed bump"? Talk about cajones! Thankfully I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.

    I think the financial world's penchant for integral numbers saved SCO a little face here: if you allow digits to the right of the decimal, it is actually a 99.87% drop in revenue. That's better than Ivory Soap and their "99 and 44/100th's pure" of yesteryear.

    I guess SCO is gunning for a new meaning of "five-nines" - a 99.999% drop in revenue.

    -paul

    --
    Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
  23. All proceeds go to defending SCO... by MbM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't buy a license, don't support SCO and most importantly don't give them any money to defend this business practice in court; it's cheaper and it helps out in the long run.

    --
    - MbM
  24. Blake is just trying to out do Rob by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Blake must be feeling a little down and out now that Rob Enderle is apparently competing with him for the SCO Information Minister position:

    Here is one of Rob Enderle jewels from his SCO keynote:

    That is why I stood up for SCO; they were being attacked because they were vulnerable. Those that attacked them did so because they could in a clear effort to deny the employees, the stockholders, and the customers of SCO their rights and, as a number of veterans have reminded me from time to time, heroes died for those rights and I believe it is our.... No my, obligation to uphold them.

    One can only smirk at the twisted logic of coupling poor vulnerable SCO with the heroes who died for our rights... Not only that, SCO is proud of this address that they host it on their website . If I were them I would take it down immediately and claim I was hacked and the site was defaced.

    1. Re:Blake is just trying to out do Rob by Strontium-90 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Reminds me of a movie:

      Walter Sobchak: Those rich fucks! This whole fucking thing... I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that this fucking strumpet--

      The Dude: I don't see any connection to Vietnam, Walter.

      Walter Sobchak: Well, there isn't a literal connection, Dude.

      The Dude: Walter, face it, there isn't any connection.

  25. Does not compute by adolfojp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I fail to understand...

    1. They release their own linux distro (Caldera) making their code GPL.
    2. They say that linux infringes their IP, although they have GPL'd it (They haven't proven that it is true anyway).
    3. They try to convince everyone that the GPL is ilegal.
    4. Their latest Unix distro is full of GPL software.

    Please help me understand, perhaps I am too simple minded to ascertain their logic.


    Cheers,
    Adolfo

  26. Re:Formation of SCO by twiddlingbits · · Score: 2, Informative

    This one has been debunked by Torvalds himself, he STUDIED Minix in school and thought he could do it better and so he built Linux from scratch with some help from his friends. There has never been any Minix code in Linux. Minix was never meant to be more than a teaching tool thats why it was never upgraded. This topic came up on Groklaw a while back and someone actually emailed Linus and got his permission to post his reply to the Minix question.

  27. Well, you know what? by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tht just means I have to ship them more Monopoly money.

    Damn, and I had enough to survive Boardwalk before this...

    --

    Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
  28. Damn it! by OmegaBlac · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was $199 away from getting that license and now this happens! Looks like I need to go find(create) some security holes in Mozilla to pay for the increase in SCO's Linux fee.

  29. Greedy SCOwned by OmegaBlac · · Score: 2, Funny

    First they demand a fee for Linux and now they are raising the license fee!?! What are they going to do next sue their customers? Oh wait...

  30. Six figures by VistaBoy · · Score: 4, Funny

    EXECUTIVE: "Sir, our evidence was laughed out of court again."
    DARL: "Figures..."

    A little later...

    EXECUTIVE: "Sir, our lawsuit against IBM was thrown out of court!"
    DARL: "Figures... guess I better sell my stock now."
    EXECUTIVE: "Yeah, it's about as high as it will ever be. Our products are being laughed at for being so obsolete in today's market."
    DARL: "Figures..."

    A little later...

    EXECUTIVE: "We're gonna have to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy."
    DARL: "Figures..."
    EXECUTIVE: "Looks like the SCO empire is crumbling quickly."
    DARL: "Figures..."
    EXECUTIVE: "Also, there's some SEC guys outside. Said they wanted to talk to you."
    DARL: "Figures..."

  31. That's like... by labratuk · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...me selling my pants for $100,000.

    It doesn't matter, I can charge what I want because nobody's going to want to buy them anyway.

    --
    Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
  32. Re:Enderle: "Free Software and the Idiots Who Buy by vettemph · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What Mr. Enderle was trying to say is: "Free software and the idiots that would pay $699" Think about it, what idiot would buy "free" software. :) Free software may hurt Redmonds economy DEEPLY but would have a positive effect on your wallet and your local economy. No one will just put their MS tax refund under the mattress. We will spend it on something that actually has value. We must press this important issue to all who try to say that linux is a cancer. Linux allows money to flow from place to place, exchange of goods for services and what not. Money sent to Redmond stays in Redmond. It's a black hole. Support your local economy. Hang banners at your grocery store, paint this message on overpasses, tell everyone you know. The money we save using FOSS will contribute to local jobs for our neighbors. Think global, spend local.

    Vote for me. :) (actually, I'm not running for anything.)

    --
    The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
  33. Uh-oh, better hurry up! by kkirk007 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Last week I was willing to pay $0 to SCO for a license, but in the face of potentially increasing fees, now I'm willing to pay ten or twenty times that amount!

  34. Check out LamLaw.com... by talks_to_birds · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ...if you want a second opinion without the overhead at Groklaw.

    And the good news is: this guy *is* a lawyer.

    http://www.lamlaw.com/

    His take on SCO's increasing their SCOSource license fees:

    • "...I guess SCO lawyers do not to see this motion [Novell's motion to dismiss] coming their way because someone suggested to SCO management that they should increase the price of those SCO licenses
    • to help scare at least one more linux customer into paying license money while the SCO legal scheme goes down in flames. Or maybe I should say gets hosed with cold water."

    t_t_b

    --
    I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
  35. Just an observation... by di0s · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just because they may cost more doesn't mean they'll be worth more (as far as business value)... Don't sellers usually lower prices to get rid of inventory that doesn't sell well?

  36. Of course it will cost more by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you want to get a licence later on you will need to give them enough money for them to recover from bankruptcy.

  37. Re:Enderle: "Free Software and the Idiots Who Buy by killjoe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Never argue with an idiot, people might not be able to tell the difference.

    Really it's enough just to call him insane.

    --
    evil is as evil does
  38. The problem with that is... by Svartalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That Copyrights aren't the same as Patents. Users typically aren't actionable for past and current infringements of Copyright unless they themselves are guilty of willful and active infringement- and typically don't owe anything on it. The worst that could have ever come out of this whole thing would be that SCO was right, there was some infringing code and it'd have to come out to be legit under the GPL- once that happened everything would be back to complete normal for the end-users. The only people that would be actionable and possibly facing stautory damages would be the guilty parties of the active act of infringement, not the contributory part. Worse, since SCO's pretty much made a botch job of their enforcement of any possible IP rights by way of keeping it secret- you're supposed to tell the infringers what they're infringing upon so they are obligated to stop. Failing to do so may be an estoppel on their pursuing anyone that currently is infringing- and may cause them to lose rights to the alleged IP with regards to it's use within Linux.

    $700 to throw at a potential problem- no, that's not a lot.

    $700 to throw at a NON-problem (which is what this is, no matter how you slice it...) is far, far too much.

    I can't see what you've said as being really insightful- what you've said is valid, but only in the context of a possible or probable problem and SCO's just not a reality and they're about to be NUKED from orbit by Novell. If Novell gets that Dismissal with Predjudice, I expect that the whole damn SCO mess will implode within a day or so- they didn't own the IP rights at the beginning of all these cases so they're actionable under the Lanham Act and pretty much all of their cases go *POOF*, including the IBM one (since Novell executed their rights per the APA to waive any issues regarding contract or IP with regards to the SVR4 source base...) with SCO facing countersuits and suits regarding their obvious Lanham Act violations, Copyright infringements, and Patent infringements.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  39. Re:A fool and his money. by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I doubt that they'd sue you for license violations as long as you have the right number of licenses and continue to pay the maintenance fees.

    Now, once you decide to move on, they will sue you for anything and everything you did or didn't do.

    So, if you pay up the $700 you'll be paying it for life - plus all the eventual price increases every time revenue doesn't quite meet SCO's expectations.

    Chrysler got sued becuase they used to be a customer and they moved on. SCO is sending a message to its customers - don't leave us. They're sending a message to non-customers too - don't join us!

  40. Re:A fool and his money. by schon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I doubt that they'd sue you for license violations as long as you have the right number of licenses and continue to pay the maintenance fees.

    Just like Daimler Chrysler, right?

    SCO has demonstrated that they love to invent restrictions which are not in a contract, and then sue over 'violating' them.

    I have no doubt that when/if SCO decided they needed more money (perhaps to fund more litigation?) that they'd use the contract as a basis for extortion.

    "Hey, we believe you're in violation of your contract by running Windows on your desktops - pay us more money or we'll sue you."

    Chrysler got sued becuase they used to be a customer and they moved on.

    NO, THEY WEREN'T. At the time the lawsuit was filed, SCO fully believed them to be a current customer (read the court documents.)