Slashdot Mirror
SCO Says 'Linux Doesn't Exist'
4A6F656C writes "In an article on LinuxWorld.com.au, Kieren O'Shaughnessy, director of SCO Australia and New Zealand, details SCO's plans for Australia, stating that they have 'prepared a hit list' and "would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP licence." In closing, he adds 'Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix'." UnknowingFool writes "IBM's lawyers have been busy the last few days. Groklaw has reported a number of different filings. On the heels of last week's motions (1) and (2) for summary judgement, they have filed more documents. First, IBM wants large portions of SCO's testimonies striken (removed) on multiple grounds. Deep in the motion, they call out SCO to produce the 'experts' that did the code comparison analysis. If IBM wins on most of these points, SCO will have very little left in the way of legal evidence. SCO answers on IBMs 10th counterclaim. IANAL but from I understand SCO says this copyright infringment that SCO has allegedly committed on one of IBM's patents is irrelevant to the case and the court doesn't need to decide on it. So SCO is saying that they can sue IBM for infringing on their Unix copyrights and patents but IBM can't counter sue on a specific patent. IBM also filed another memo to support summary judgement. As a matter of law, SCO has to produce evidence to backup its claims. This mountain of evidence SCO has claimed all this time: If they don't produce it, the court has to rule in IBM's favor."
SCO must figure if we can't own them or buy them then they must not exist!
...ever downwards.
The Army reading list
"SCO doesn't exist"!
I've been thinking this same thing. It's all relative, really. Just coneceptual ideals and data floating around in the aether, aspiring to the ideal form of Unix.
And for that matter, you guys don't exist when I close my eyes! Neener neener neener!
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
Here's a question. IBM seems to be willing to go to the mat to defend open source and/or free software. Does this buy loyalty from you linux developers? Do you think they are getting more "good will" than they are spending in lawyers fees?
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
What in the world have I been running over the last few years. Was the penguin just a figment of my imagination? Slashdot doesn't actually exist either? And Google?
SCO: Do not try and use Linux. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth.
IBM: What truth?
SCO: There is no Linux.
IBM: There is no Linux?
SCO: Then you'll see that it is not Linux that you're using, it is only SCO Unix Openserver v. 5. And that will be $699 per CPU please or else you'll be hearing from our lawyers.
Starts to talk nonsense..
"The only reason we are [pursuing a lawsuit against IBM] is to defend our Unix business; we are not a litigation company, we are about Unix on Intel," he said.
Accelerates..
"IBM has transformed Linux from a bicycle to a Rolls-Royce, making it almost an enterprise-class operating system.
Goes into overdrive..
"It took us 25 years to build our business and it took [IBM] four years simply by stealing code and then giving it away free."
and ofcourse finally..
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix,"
I wish more people like this existed to make my day.
Showing a graph of 3 months is worthless, since this whole thing has been going on for years now. If you look at the 2 year chart, you will see that they still have quite a bit to dip before they even hit the low point.
I believe it's a cricket reference. Out for a duck is out for no runs, breaking your duck is actually getting somewhere (i.e. making some runs).
After saying that Linux doesn't exist, O'Shaughnessy then ran around the room with his fingers in his ears, yelling "lalalalalalalalalalalala... I can't hear you!"
Afterwards, he went on to discuss SCO's legal strategy of, "I am rubber, you are glue, what bounces off me sticks to you".
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Seriously, go to groklaw and read the latest 4-5 files from IBM. Yes they are each ~100 pages but very interesting. Basically IBM has nailed SCO in a box that they can't get out of. In fact IBM is so confident that the language in their filings has gotten beyond the normal angry lawyer comments as they point out how insane SCO's arguements are.
In Cricket, that funny game played by Poms, Kiwis and Aussies (among others) a zero score is known as a duck. To break one's duck means to have scored, at least, one run. So SCO are claiming to have sold, at least, one Linux "licence" down-under.
Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
I know SCO doesn't have much (if any!) credibility with geeks on Slashdot, but when you want to win a court case you have to maintain credibility in your claims.
Using terms like "hit list" is not a good way of gaining credibility with investors and with judges. Claiming that something doesn't exist and then trying to sue people for using it doesn't help your credibility with anyone.
The legal system isn't deaf or blind to the media; SCO's ridiculous actions will affect the outcome of subsequent court cases. As we've seen with IBM's increasing success in court, SCO just hasn't learned these lessons.
Not that I mind at all.
I think, therefore I am.
Linux computes, therefore it is.
But if SCO falls in a forest of futile legal filings, did it really make a sound or was that just wind breaking?
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
Small correction: It's GNU/Linux. And GNU's Not Unix.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
We knew this would eventually happen. Hell, SCO knew they would end up in this type of hot water. The whole problem with this mess is that they don't care if they lose.
The connection between themselves and Microsoft is firmly established now. I guess it is still open to debate if Microsoft was the company that came up with the idea of using SCO as a massive FUD machine against Linux, or if they simply started backing SCO once they realised what potential that would have. My personal guess would be that you could probably trace the very idea back to Redmond, but that's really irrelvant here.
For all the time this has been going on, there has been a blanket of FUD over Linux. Most people here saw through it, but even on Slashdot you could find posts along the lines of "...but what if SCO is actually right and their IP is in Linux..." The business world, getting their news from sources like Forbes, had a far different perception. To them, Linux suddenly became a poison pill that no IT manager would touch. You may believe Linux's reputation will eventually recover, but SCO was able to plant seeds of doubt in so many minds in the mean time.
The real trajedy here is that this type of tactic has made SCO management and board members rich, SCO employees unemployed, Linux tarnished in the eyes of the businessman, and most likely nothing will ever be done to punish those responsible for the lies.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
And the letter after the 'd' is 'u'. It is most defninitely not an 'i'. Although, if he were misquoted and it was SUPPOSED to be an 'i', it would make more sense considering the state of their legal case at the moment.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Gosh, I was wondering where the Iraqi Information Minister went...
"There is no Linux here!! It is LIES, from the mouth of the evil Stallman!! It is all a Zionist conspiracy against the brave people of Utah! The people are united undet the benevolent and loving rule of Darl McBride, who shall lead us to glorious victory against the heathen penguins!! The infidels shall commit suicide against the walls of our bullshit!!
Every man and boy in Utah is ready to resist the invading horde of penguins with his life! We have held them off, and are slaughtering them like sheep on the shores of our Greeat Salt Lake! There are no Linuxes within Salt Lake City, as we defeat the avian aggressors and drive them from their homes! Our lawyers are mercilessly cutting them down as we speak, any reports of Novell or IBM winning are lies! LIES!!!
SCO is great! Praise be to SCO! There is no UNIX but SCO!!"
You mean the perceived market value before they started this pump and dump exercise? What exactly will that tell you? What the three month dive means to me is that even Wall Street realizes that there is no SCO case, there will be no further buyouts and SCO is worthless. People who bought into SCO are sorry they did, including Baystar who recommend that SCO fire their remaining technical staff and become a full time IP scam house.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The Darl: - Humph. /root, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.
Tux: If I were you, I would hope that we don't meet again.
... it probably will.
If you read them, SCO is betting the farm on a diversion tactic to answer IBM's request for summary judgement.
Basically, they're feigning surprise that this is an issue, complaining that they need more discovery, and trying to say that they haven't had time to properly prepare for this because it could take 25,000 man hours.
Unfortunately for them, IBM responds that it's been hammering SCO on this question for over a year now (in spite of SCO sticking their heads in the sand to avoid it). Also, IBM's experts say that SCO's characterization of the times involved is ridiculous and SCO has already claimed in the media *many* times to have made these comparisons already (even though it refuses to provide them to IBM).
Worse, SCO's "experts" haven't been properly qualified, they're testifying about things they would appear to have no personal knowledge of, and as such IBM is moving to strike our large portions of their declarations, meaning that SCO wouldn't have much of an arguement left. This is especially true because SCO's Samir Gupta, the only "expert" who appears to have done any code comparisons (and I say "expert" because they give no credentials for him other than him being in the employ of SCO), has completely ignored the abstraction & filtration required by the case law (whereas IBM's properly qualified MIT professor has done one refuting theirs, which respects the case law in question).
Lastly, they point out via copious amounts of case law that SCO does *not* need any more discovery. They show that the only thing which matters for a judgement in terms of *copyright infringement* is the two final works. SCO surely has its own product line, and IBM points them to every version of Linux since 1.0, which is available online.
Taken in sum, unless SCO can pull off one hell of a miracle to convince the judge in the oral arguments, I would tend to think that SCO is screwed here. SCO's tactic of sticking its head in the sand to try and duck IBM's arguement doesn't seem very persuasive, and *SCO* has the burden of proof to show that there are material facts in dispute. Given how IBM so carefully destroys all the testamony SCO relies on, it's hard to see how SCO could prevail in any meaningful way when these motions are resolved.
"Linux does not exist" --SCO
"SCO's case does not exist" --IBM
Coming soon...
"SCO does not exist" --Wall Street
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
but I just can't shove my head up my butt that far.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
You know they're done when their last option is the Jedi Mind Trick.
br
I think they're going to go out, not with a bang, but a whimper. Their ability to construct a case is just going to wither away and die. We'll quit hearing about them (thankfully); then, 20 years from now, we'll hear a "Whatever happened to SCO" retrospective?
This is a little unfortunate. I was counting on their legal shenannigans to destroy them in a publicly enjoyable way.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
The current price is roughly consistent with their cash position, now that they've paid off BayStar. There's an earnings call on August 31, and then we'll know how well, or badly, SCO did this quarter. SCO has lately been issuing press releases for many minor events, and none of them mention substantial revenue. So there probably isn't any new income.
Meanwhile, many of the various motions in SCO vs IBM will be heard in September. If IBM wins any of them, SCO is toast. If IBM doesn't win any of them, IBM is no worse off.
Anyone know what the laws in Australia are on slander?
"IBM has transformed Linux from a bicycle to a Rolls-Royce, making it almost an enterprise-class operating system.
It took us 25 years to build our business and it took [IBM] four years simply by stealing code and then giving it away free."
This seems like a statement that could put one in jail. Claiming that someone stole from you without proof seems a risky move at best.
Yes SCO everyone does hate you. No one will ever want to business with you ever again. Suing customers is not the way to make people want to do business with you. By your actions you have made IBM look like a warm, friendly, and even cool company and the hero of the IT world. Yes the former evil empire now looks like Santa Claus while SCO's image is that of the Iraq information minister. I would say that SCO hasn't reached the level of the Anti-Christ. Frankly most people would expect the Anti-Christ to not be as incompetent as SCO. No not even level of Hitler. SCOs level of evil is about at the level of a pimple faced Neo-Nazi skinhead publishing newsletter out of his bedroom. Full of lies, stupid ranting, and a false sense of injustice.
Yes SCO you have sunk so low that you are not even really hated anymore. SCO you have sunk to the level of disgust. SCO has sunk to level of a guest on Jerry Springer.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.