Personally I opine that: If they lose the lawsuit, or their stock tanks if they look like losing it, somebody will true to sue them from the shareholder side. There are enough people watching to make this almost inevitable. That is not of course the same as saying such a suit would succeed.
As to the 2nd part, I don't know, not too well I expect (which assumes such a suit would succeed which is a big assumption), and I imagine Canopy might be an obvious target for any potential litigant too.
The C64 had 8 hardware sprites, and hardware for horizontal scrolling 0 to 7 pixels (so you could do a byte copy for smooth scrolling), among other things. The official name for the sprites on the VIC2 chip (as used in C64) was MOBs - it's in the early documentation, but eventually sprites became the normal word including in semi-official and even official docs
Getting the stock price up has no effect on SCO's day to day operations, nor on the execs except when they sell the stock.
1. The execs have been execs have been selling stock
2. Canopy could be offloading stock, I don't know.
3. SCO may have been scared of eventually getting delisted from NASDAQ before all this started.
4. If SCO need money, they may try and issue more stock. This would presumably dilutes the existing stockholders, but it might help fund SCO's legal expenses. However, if the stock price is in the toilet, a new stock issue would be much harder to do, and require much more dilution.
If I was MS, I'd enjoy the FUD while it lasts, but I'd also be checking and double checking any contracts they have with SCO. There's when Xenix was sold originally. There's the recent license. To check there wasn't anything in these contracts that SCO might use against them.
Remember the SCO comment in Byte, which I read as a possibility that SCO might come after MS.
How do SCO want to use the discovery process> Darl said: "We get to really shake things up". I don't know what was in Darl's mind when he said that, but I assumed (I'm not a lawyer though!) that discovery was supposed to be about collecting evidence not shaking up IBM's customers. I'm also unclear (the sentence doesn't parse) what Darl means by using discovery as a "vehicle" - again I thought discovery was supposed to be about collecting evidence prior to the case, not used for some other purpose. Anybody care to comment??
There are also some more Darl (longer quotes in more context) on the same subject here.
With all due respect, if you think SCO is infringing your copyrights, it is likely to have little practical effect unless you enforce your copyrights in court.
If you think SCO is infringing your copyrights, have you told them (and kept records of it)? Are you planning any legal action to enforce your copyrights? Have you hired a lawyer? Are IBM aware of your issue?
I'm not bashing you, but if you take no action except complain here, from the outside world's perspective it'll just be one more disgruntled geek preaching to the choir.
I don't know if this works for you, but maybe you can transfer your copyright to somebody who is interested in enforcing your rights (FSF?), or get a lawyer to take it on contigency.
If I were you, I'd keep very good records of all your communications with SCO as well as a diary of any day to day events which may be relevant.
I also believe that's one of their possible theories.
However the huge hole in it, is that not all (majority of?) Linux contributors have signed Sys V licenses. In which case, they need an even more expansive definition of derivative than something than might be in the AT&T contract.
The other question that arises, is where would this leave the OpenGroup. If SCO owns anything remotely UNIX-like, Open Group's UNIX role would be redundant. Novell sold some UNIX rights to SCO, and gave some to OpenGroup, so even if AT&T had the broadest rights, I don't think it automatically follows the rights have passed down intact from AT&T to USL to Novell to SCO, undiluted - at least in the Novell/SCO case, it doesn't seem to have been Novell's intent.
He doesn't say whether or not, they will go after Linux users
Personally I'd be surprised if they didn't read the GPL years ago. I mean how could they distribute software under it, create a web site containing info about it, etc., if they didn't know what it contained.
> In a way Linus theory on "distributed copyright holding" vs. the FSF's centralized approch may prove an advantage here. FSF can only sue once per infringement
That assumes Linux contributors (or for that matter FSF) would step up to the plate and sue for copyright violation [and win]. Right now, except for 1 guy sending email to SCO [what happened next?], as reported at theinquirer.net, nobody has sued yet.
I think they are simply saying they don't want license fees and/or won't sue (not sure which - probably means same thing) existing SCO customers. I personally don't think the letter necessarily implies that SCO thinks that SCO Linux customers will be able to keep on distributing source, GPL style.
One thing that I haven't figured out, is what about UnitedLinux? (which I believe SCO to be a member of). Is SCO Linux = a standardized UnitedLinux distro, or is it more complicated than that?? And if yes, or nearly, how do SCO think customers of their UnitedLinux partners should act??
Another thing that isn't clear, is whether you will be able to become a SCO Linux customer (not saying I want to, just whether it will be possible) - i.e. what if you want to buy SCO Linux - could you? I realize they have stopped selling it for now, but will this continue?
IANAL. Look at your local small claims court. You probably need some evidence that what they sold you, wasn't what they led you to expect you were getting. If they don't turn up, I assume you might win by default.
While I have no evidence to support it, my gut theory tells me that they might start making claims against applications and/or device drivers, too, soon. It would seem logically consistent with their stated position.
After all, X-Windows or other *nix applications are "derived" from the Unix operating system, if their legal theory about the definition of derivative-rights works.
Re:Buyouts (why MS or anyone hasn't done it yet)
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 1
My opinion is that MS want as little as possible to do with SCO/Canopy as possible. Touching them would be like being having a potentially faulty gun in your hand: if you pull the trigger, you're not sure if it'll shoot your enemy, or explode and blow your whole arm off.
MS have been bitten by these guys before (DR-DOS case). My interpretation of an eweek article that came out around the time MS licensed this stuff, was that MS were threatened by SCO. Even after MS pays up, and probably thinks they're in the clear, there goes SCO in Byte including them as a future potential target. MS lawyers are probably very carefully reading over all their contracts with SCO (recent licensing agreement, and the chain of contracts since they sold off Xenix), looking to see if there's anything in there that SCO can turn against MS in future.
...And the worst part from MS perspective, is unlike IBM, they probably couldn't make any SCO-problem go away by acquiring the company: an MS acquisition would raise too many anti-trust issues even for the Bush administration.
Given all this, it makes you wonder why SCO didn' turn on MS first (probably with the Linux community cheering them on!).
Side note: On DR-DOS, I never understood why Caldera had a case. The people who suffered cos of MS actions would be DR. When Caldera acquired DR-DOS, they purchased it for a song (it was already devalued, arguably by MS actions - remember case was settled) - so it's not like Caldera actually suffered because of MS.
I think it's obviously they are claiming (2), as RCU was patented by Sequent (patent now expired), so to this extent at least, I agree with the original poster.
Be aware of general IP law issues, and having read most of the available documents, I do not think this claim will fly (I am not a lawyer though), however, that said, I still think it is potentially a brilliant ploy by SCO.
I think that they will try and claim: Code that builds on GPL, must itself by GPLed, why should SCO not get the same treatment? (I'm not saying this argument holds water, just they'll argue it)
i.e. SCO will say
X+GPL=Y means X and Y are GPLed
X+SCO=Y should therefore mean X+Y are SCOed
In truth, this argument doesn't work, because if I create X and use it a GPL product to make Y, there is nothing to stop me also using X in a non-GPL app. (and the same applies when X is used with SCO). If this was not the case, then ALL application customizations, and indeed ALL applications, would automatically belong to the OS owner (i.e. Microsoft would own all Windows app, etc.)
But even though this argument doesn't work, SCO might hope the jury will buy it, on the basis of "fairness" [i.e. GPL works like this, therefore SCO deserve same treatment].
Hopefully, the judge would rule on this (and the right way!) before it got to the jury, as this is a matter of law, not evidence.
You can marginally hurt SCO, because they need cash to pursue the lawsuit. Drain their coffers, or to use a more accurate phrase "cut off their air supply".
Even if SCO go out of business, I expect them to sell their rights to one of the other Canopy companies in some sweethear deal. So the best idea seems to "cut off the air supply" of all the Canopy group.
Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo (and MSN) is missing lots of info, there are many inside trades (not necessarily the illegal ones), see my 2 posts above with the sec.gov links.
Sorry to reply to myself, but as far as I can tell
Robert K Bench 6/9 appears only on SEC not on MSN or Yahoo.
Same applies for Michael Olson 6/12
Same applies for Darl McBride's purchase at 0.001 dated 6/13
Yahoo seems to have lost some information (there was more there before).
e r/trans.asp?Symbol=SCOX - sales dated 6/20, 6/4, 4/8 etc.
t company&CIK=0001102542&owner=include (SEC filings - the government site)
Compare and contrast
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html (only 1 trade shown dated 6/20/2003 - claims this is all in last 2 years!)
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/insid
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=ge
Personally I opine that: If they lose the lawsuit, or their stock tanks if they look like losing it, somebody will true to sue them from the shareholder side. There are enough people watching to make this almost inevitable. That is not of course the same as saying such a suit would succeed.
As to the 2nd part, I don't know, not too well I expect (which assumes such a suit would succeed which is a big assumption), and I imagine Canopy might be an obvious target for any potential litigant too.
I'm pretty sure the advertiser pays for that ad per unique IP clicking on it.
I would agree with you. But doesn't it sound similar to DR-DOS? (although of course nobody at SlashDot cared, as it was MS who was in the cross hairs)
The point is:
DR-DOS was already damaged when Caldera bought it. Caldera got it cheap as a result.
MS actions may have damaged DR-DOS, but it was DR that suffered, not Caldera. Yet Caldera was the one suing for damages (and getting a settlement).
Seeing a pattern here? You should.
Part 1 and Part 2 of 3 part interview with McBride
The C64 had 8 hardware sprites, and hardware for horizontal scrolling 0 to 7 pixels (so you could do a byte copy for smooth scrolling), among other things. The official name for the sprites on the VIC2 chip (as used in C64) was MOBs - it's in the early documentation, but eventually sprites became the normal word including in semi-official and even official docs
Getting the stock price up has no effect on SCO's day to day operations, nor on the execs except when they sell the stock.
1. The execs have been execs have been selling stock
2. Canopy could be offloading stock, I don't know.
3. SCO may have been scared of eventually getting delisted from NASDAQ before all this started.
4. If SCO need money, they may try and issue more stock. This would presumably dilutes the existing stockholders, but it might help fund SCO's legal expenses. However, if the stock price is in the toilet, a new stock issue would be much harder to do, and require much more dilution.
UnitedLinux has a partner program
If you sign up as UnitedLinux ISV partner or certify on UnitedLinux, you have an (indirect) contractual relationship with SCO Group, Inc.
We know what SCO thinks about contracts.
So any volunteers to sign up?
If I was MS, I'd enjoy the FUD while it lasts, but I'd also be checking and double checking any contracts they have with SCO. There's when Xenix was sold originally. There's the recent license. To check there wasn't anything in these contracts that SCO might use against them.
Remember the SCO comment in Byte, which I read as a possibility that SCO might come after MS.
I personally would not be surprised to see them make a grab at some UNIX/Linux applications. It'd seem like the next logical step.
:-)
They've announced a new SCO web platform product. Maybe it will be Apache
I actually thought the other SCO news today was more interesting: SCO may audit IBM AIX customers.
How do SCO want to use the discovery process> Darl said: "We get to really shake things up". I don't know what was in Darl's mind when he said that, but I assumed (I'm not a lawyer though!) that discovery was supposed to be about collecting evidence not shaking up IBM's customers. I'm also unclear (the sentence doesn't parse) what Darl means by using discovery as a "vehicle" - again I thought discovery was supposed to be about collecting evidence prior to the case, not used for some other purpose. Anybody care to comment??
There are also some more Darl (longer quotes in more context) on the same subject here.
With all due respect, if you think SCO is infringing your copyrights, it is likely to have little practical effect unless you enforce your copyrights in court.
If you think SCO is infringing your copyrights, have you told them (and kept records of it)? Are you planning any legal action to enforce your copyrights? Have you hired a lawyer? Are IBM aware of your issue?
I'm not bashing you, but if you take no action except complain here, from the outside world's perspective it'll just be one more disgruntled geek preaching to the choir.
One other thing I forgot. If you are sending letters to SCO, I don't see why you couldn't keep IBM informed about it (ask your lawyer about this)
I don't know if this works for you, but maybe you can transfer your copyright to somebody who is interested in enforcing your rights (FSF?), or get a lawyer to take it on contigency.
If I were you, I'd keep very good records of all your communications with SCO as well as a diary of any day to day events which may be relevant.
I also believe that's one of their possible theories.
However the huge hole in it, is that not all (majority of?) Linux contributors have signed Sys V licenses. In which case, they need an even more expansive definition of derivative than something than might be in the AT&T contract.
The other question that arises, is where would this leave the OpenGroup. If SCO owns anything remotely UNIX-like, Open Group's UNIX role would be redundant. Novell sold some UNIX rights to SCO, and gave some to OpenGroup, so even if AT&T had the broadest rights, I don't think it automatically follows the rights have passed down intact from AT&T to USL to Novell to SCO, undiluted - at least in the Novell/SCO case, it doesn't seem to have been Novell's intent.
He doesn't say whether or not, they will go after Linux users
Personally I'd be surprised if they didn't read the GPL years ago. I mean how could they distribute software under it, create a web site containing info about it, etc., if they didn't know what it contained.
> In a way Linus theory on "distributed copyright holding" vs. the FSF's centralized approch may prove an advantage here. FSF can only sue once per infringement
That assumes Linux contributors (or for that matter FSF) would step up to the plate and sue for copyright violation [and win]. Right now, except for 1 guy sending email to SCO [what happened next?], as reported at theinquirer.net, nobody has sued yet.
I think they are simply saying they don't want license fees and/or won't sue (not sure which - probably means same thing) existing SCO customers. I personally don't think the letter necessarily implies that SCO thinks that SCO Linux customers will be able to keep on distributing source, GPL style.
One thing that I haven't figured out, is what about UnitedLinux? (which I believe SCO to be a member of). Is SCO Linux = a standardized UnitedLinux distro, or is it more complicated than that?? And if yes, or nearly, how do SCO think customers of their UnitedLinux partners should act??
Another thing that isn't clear, is whether you will be able to become a SCO Linux customer (not saying I want to, just whether it will be possible) - i.e. what if you want to buy SCO Linux - could you? I realize they have stopped selling it for now, but will this continue?
IANAL. Look at your local small claims court. You probably need some evidence that what they sold you, wasn't what they led you to expect you were getting. If they don't turn up, I assume you might win by default.
While I have no evidence to support it, my gut theory tells me that they might start making claims against applications and/or device drivers, too, soon. It would seem logically consistent with their stated position.
After all, X-Windows or other *nix applications are "derived" from the Unix operating system, if their legal theory about the definition of derivative-rights works.
My opinion is that MS want as little as possible to do with SCO/Canopy as possible. Touching them would be like being having a potentially faulty gun in your hand: if you pull the trigger, you're not sure if it'll shoot your enemy, or explode and blow your whole arm off.
...And the worst part from MS perspective, is unlike IBM, they probably couldn't make any SCO-problem go away by acquiring the company: an MS acquisition would raise too many anti-trust issues even for the Bush administration.
MS have been bitten by these guys before (DR-DOS case). My interpretation of an eweek article that came out around the time MS licensed this stuff, was that MS were threatened by SCO. Even after MS pays up, and probably thinks they're in the clear, there goes SCO in Byte including them as a future potential target. MS lawyers are probably very carefully reading over all their contracts with SCO (recent licensing agreement, and the chain of contracts since they sold off Xenix), looking to see if there's anything in there that SCO can turn against MS in future.
Given all this, it makes you wonder why SCO didn' turn on MS first (probably with the Linux community cheering them on!).
Side note: On DR-DOS, I never understood why Caldera had a case. The people who suffered cos of MS actions would be DR. When Caldera acquired DR-DOS, they purchased it for a song (it was already devalued, arguably by MS actions - remember case was settled) - so it's not like Caldera actually suffered because of MS.
I think it's obviously they are claiming (2), as RCU was patented by Sequent (patent now expired), so to this extent at least, I agree with the original poster.
Be aware of general IP law issues, and having read most of the available documents, I do not think this claim will fly (I am not a lawyer though), however, that said, I still think it is potentially a brilliant ploy by SCO.
I think that they will try and claim: Code that builds on GPL, must itself by GPLed, why should SCO not get the same treatment? (I'm not saying this argument holds water, just they'll argue it)
i.e. SCO will say
X+GPL=Y means X and Y are GPLed
X+SCO=Y should therefore mean X+Y are SCOed
In truth, this argument doesn't work, because if I create X and use it a GPL product to make Y, there is nothing to stop me also using X in a non-GPL app. (and the same applies when X is used with SCO). If this was not the case, then ALL application customizations, and indeed ALL applications, would automatically belong to the OS owner (i.e. Microsoft would own all Windows app, etc.)
But even though this argument doesn't work, SCO might hope the jury will buy it, on the basis of "fairness" [i.e. GPL works like this, therefore SCO deserve same treatment].
Hopefully, the judge would rule on this (and the right way!) before it got to the jury, as this is a matter of law, not evidence.
You can marginally hurt SCO, because they need cash to pursue the lawsuit. Drain their coffers, or to use a more accurate phrase "cut off their air supply".
Even if SCO go out of business, I expect them to sell their rights to one of the other Canopy companies in some sweethear deal. So the best idea seems to "cut off the air supply" of all the Canopy group.