No. 1 is EV1Servers.net who announced SCO lied about how much they were paid (Microsoft is a fan of EV1) (little did the CEO know when he made the deal that SCO planned to 'worth' him out of seven figures)
No. 2 is CompterAssociates who announced SCOlied about "linux licenses" which are really from an unrelated settlement
No. 3 is Leggett and Platt say SCO lies and they don't have a license and "would not have an interest in doing so"
Make sure *you* are Legally Unencumbered(tm) by getting a SCOsores license and don't forget to head over and sign your Clean Slate contract with the RIAA
LA Times (free crappy reg) story
Here's the highlights (emphasis added):
SCO Confronting Its Creation
Company's CEO is taking precautions as the head of the 'most despised' tech firm
From Bloomberg News
Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO Group Inc., says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed bodyguard protected him when he gave a speech last month at Harvard Law School.
Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux operating system, calls SCO "the most despised company in technology."
McBride and SCO are more hated than Microsoft, the world's largest software maker, and its Chairman Bill Gates, according to some Linux backers. That's because SCO, once a backer of Linux, has turned around and attacked the essence of the system: its free source code.
"SCO are just complete hypocrites," said Jeremy Allison, co-author of Samba, an open source software that runs a file and print service that SCO sells.
"The real reason why people don't like SCO, and Darl McBride in particular, is that he is so dishonest," Torvalds, 34, said in an e-mail.
SCO lies once more Leggett & Platt was even clearer. "I have now talked to our people who handle our Linux systems and, at least at a corporate level, we have not bought such a licence from SCO Group," said the company's VP of human resources, John Hale. "To their knowledge they would not have an interest in doing so."
No. 1 is EV1Servers.net who announced SCO lied about how much they were paid (Microsoft is a fan of EV1) (little did the CEO know when he made the deal that SCO planned to 'worth' him out of seven figures)
No. 2 is CompterAssociates who announced SCOlied about "linux licenses" which are really from an unrelated settlement
Make sure *you* are Legally Unencumbered(tm) by getting a SCOsores license and don't forget to head over and sign your Clean Slate contract with the RIAA
Ok guys, we're going to sue Bank of America^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H SuSE^H^H^H^H IBM, DaimlerChrysler, AutoZone.. we're going to do it in California^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Ohio^H^H^H^H^H Florida^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Indiana^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Oklahoma^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Washington^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Arkansas^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Michigan..
On the conference call it was stated both literally and the 'strongly implied' way that the exact same lawsuit could happen to anyone using linux, whether they ever signed a piece of paper with SCO or not. I think the exact words were something like 'do a search and replace with the word AutoZone'.
Remember when you were a kid and there was stuff named [something] Olympics (no not Special Olympics)
Then they came and sued everyone to make them rename their organizations...
Ah, simpler times, back when I used to watch WWF.
The Nevada court where SCO Group has filed a lawsuit against US retailer AutoZone could itself theoretically be subject to legal proceedings because the court is using Linux to run its Web site.
(Is this considered a conflict of interest? I'll bet even SCO didn't see this one coming)
LINDON, Utah, Mar 3, 2004/PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (SCOX, Trade), owner of the UNIX operating system and a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions, today reported revenue of $11,392,000 for the quarter ended January 31, 2004. In the comparable quarter of the prior year, the Company generated revenue of $13,540,000. Revenue for the first quarter of fiscal 2004 was in line with the Company's expectations, and was comprised of $11,372,000 from UNIX products and services and $20,000 from SCOsource initiatives.
For the first quarter of fiscal year 2004, the Company reported a net loss applicable to common stockholders of $2,253,000, or $0.16 per diluted common share. The Company reported a net loss applicable to common stockholders of $724,000, or $0.06 per diluted common share, in the comparable quarter of the prior year. The net loss applicable to common stockholders for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 was reduced by $3,624,000 of income resulting from the change in fair value of the derivative associated with the Company's previously issued Series A Convertible Preferred Stock. The loss from operations for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 was $5,169,000 compared to a loss of $738,000 for the comparable quarter in the prior year. The loss from operations for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 includes costs of $3,440,000 related to the Company's SCOsource licensing initiatives. These initiatives had not yet commenced in the comparable quarter of the prior year.
"Our revenue and results of operations for the first quarter were consistent with our expectations," said Darl McBride, President and CEO. "In coming quarters, we will continue to expand our SCOsource initiatives, with an ongoing campaign to defend and protect SCO's intellectual property assets, which will include continued end-user lawsuits and negotiations regarding intellectual property licenses. At the same time, we are committed to supporting our extensive UNIX customer base and leveraging our UNIX business for future growth opportunities. Over time, these two efforts are expected to yield positive long-term results for our stockholders."
Financial Outlook
The following financial outlook reflects expected contributions from the Company's two business lines, SCOsource and UNIX products and services. These statements are forward looking and actual results may differ materially. See the discussion of certain risks and uncertainties related to this financial outlook at the end of this release under "Forward-Looking Statements."
For its second fiscal quarter ending April 30, 2004, the Company currently expects total revenue to be in the range of $10,000,000 to $14,000,000. Revenue from the Company's SCOsource initiatives remains difficult to predict in the short-term due to the nature of these licensing transactions and the variability of the timing of revenue recognition. However, the Company anticipates revenue from its SCOsource initiatives will increase in future periods.
Operating expenses relating to the Company's UNIX business for the next three quarters are anticipated to decrease from the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 and comparable quarters of the prior year as the Company's worldwide operations continue to become more efficient. Expenses associated with SCOsource initiatives for the next three quarters are expected to remain consistent with expenses incurred in the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 as the Company continues its legal strategy to enforce and protect its UNIX intellectual property.
Conference Call
As previously announced, the Company will host a conference call at 11:00 a.m. EST today, March 3, 2004, to discuss its first quarter 2004 results. To participate in the teleconference, please call (800) 818-5264 or (913) 981-4910, confirmation code 141144, approximately five minutes prior to the time stated abo
LAS VEGAS, Mar 3, 2004/PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (SCOX, Trade), the owner of the UNIX(R) operating system and a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions, today announced it has filed suit against AutoZone, Inc., for its alleged violations of SCO's UNIX copyrights through its use of Linux.
SCO's lawsuit alleges the following:
* AutoZone violated SCO's UNIX copyrights by running versions of the
Linux operating system that contain code, structure, sequence and/or
organization from SCO's proprietary UNIX System V code in violation of
SCO's copyrights.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Nevada, requests injunctive relief against AutoZone's further use or copying of any part of SCO's copyrighted materials and also requests damages as a result of AutoZone's infringement in an amount to be proven at trial.
The company will discuss this announcement as part of its regularly scheduled conference call related to first quarter earnings, scheduled for Wednesday, March 3 at 11:00 a.m. Eastern time. To participate on the call, individuals may dial 1-800-818-5264 or 1-913-981-4910 and use the confirmation code: 141144. Alternatively, a listen-only live web cast is available at http://ir.sco.com/medialist.cfm. Call participants are encouraged to dial in 15 minutes before the scheduled start time.
It seems very likely, for AutoZone to maintain their same functioning infrastructure, they re-used some SCO interface or something that is considered an IP contract violations. (reasons to never sign anything in conjunction with SCO)
The other company has to be something approved by Microsoft, and presumably serving Microsoft's plan for world domination. It would also have to be another knock against Open Source, and a SCO contract/license holder.
Maybe this is all a big orchestrated move by EV1 & SCO to "sue" EV1 over linux usage, and then EV1 moves all linux servers over to SCO-approved binaries and SCO drops the lawsuits. (Why the hell else would EV1 be the first company to come out of the closet publicly regarding giving SCO extortion $$)
...
By paying a licensing fee to insulate itself against SCO's legal claims, EV1Servers drew immediate fire from many corners of the Linux community, with some Slashdot readers suggesting a boycott of the company. EV1Servers is one of the largest dedicated hosting companies, with more than 11,000 Linux servers visible on the Web, according to our most recent survey.
"We realize we may be vilified by some diehards within the industry, but we feel a real obligation to take care of our customers," Marsh said in an interview this afternoon. "We had private discussions about this issue with some of our customers, and they were quite concerned about the uncertainty and the potential for a legal quagmire. What we've done is ensure that it's not an issue for our customers." ...
03-02-2004 06:48 AM
Additional Headsurfer Comments Regarding SCO Contract
By now, many of you have heard of our[sic] agreement with SCO. What you have probably heard, though, is misinformation about the arrangement.
We license Linux through Red Hat. They provide our distribution and support/updates for the Enterprise distribution. Plus, they do an awesome job at delivering. Their support and dedication is second to none. Our agreement with SCO is in no way any kind of indictment on Red Hat.
We did not license a linux distribution or any software covered by a referenced EULA from SCO. We did, however, license certain IP from SCO.
We fullly support the GPL and the open source movement.
It has been argued by a Linux Journal reporter that I have essentially called the various GPL Linux developers plagiarists[sic]. This is false as I would never make such a claim against them. They are some of the brightest minds for whom I hold a great deal of respect.
Other have claimed that we're essentially funding SCOs various lawsuits. This is not true. SCO already has like $60 million on hand and our small fee would not go very far defending an action such as this, much less prosecuting one.
We make no endorsement of SCO nor do we make any admission as to their claims.
HOWEVER, what we did do was make a prudent business decision based upon our circumstances and our customers needs and the need to bring certainty to their businesses.
Whatever your position on the various suits, which SCO has said will increase. These suits have a very real and significant cost, even if proven unsuccessful. These are costs we were prepared to bear as we did in the Free Speech case with CI Host. the vast majority of smaller hosts using our services do not have our resources to defend/prosecute such an action. While our decision may not be popular, it does ensure that our customers (to the extent that they operate servers in our data centers) are protected from action by SCO with respect to those servers.
No legal action is certain. The outcome of every legal action is subject to risk. (Just look at the OJ Simpson case.. who would have figured that one) There is significant risk on both sides of this equation.
In every step building the EV1 business, I've had to make decisions that I believed in my heart were in the best interests of my clients and my shareholders. My team and I have worked to bring the best possible service at the best possible price to our customers. In this case, the same decision making tools were employed and only after significant thought and analysis, an action taken.
As a result of this action, our customers can be assured that as these cases work their way through the legal system, that they[sic] have no worry that SCO will take action against them for servers in our data centers.
I do appreciate the positive comments and emails that many of you have sent as I also understand the negative positions that others have taken. We are fortunate to live in a country where it is possible to speak your mind freely.
Hmm.. wasn't Microsoft also around during Reagan's presidency?
Wasn't there also a blackout on the entire Eastern US due in-part to improper response by the control software to the outages that initially started at First Energy?
Isn't it also possible all these email worms, viruses, and trojans might be some form of espionage by workers planted at Microsoft?
Slashdot Mirror
No. 1 is EV1Servers.net who announced SCO lied about how much they were paid (Microsoft is a fan of EV1)
(little did the CEO know when he made the deal that SCO planned to 'worth' him out of seven figures)
No. 2 is CompterAssociates who announced SCO lied about "linux licenses" which are really from an unrelated settlement
No. 3 is Leggett and Platt say SCO lies and they don't have a license and "would not have an interest in doing so"
No. 4 is Questar Gas said they just wanted to get things over with and also runs Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) on Windows 2000
Make sure *you* are Legally Unencumbered(tm) by getting a SCOsores license
and don't forget to head over and sign your Clean Slate contract with the RIAA
LA Times (free crappy reg) story
Here's the highlights (emphasis added):
SCO Confronting Its Creation
Company's CEO is taking precautions as the head of the 'most despised' tech firm
From Bloomberg News
Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO Group Inc., says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed bodyguard protected him when he gave a speech last month at Harvard Law School.
Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux operating system, calls SCO "the most despised company in technology."
McBride and SCO are more hated than Microsoft, the world's largest software maker, and its Chairman Bill Gates, according to some Linux backers. That's because SCO, once a backer of Linux, has turned around and attacked the essence of the system: its free source code.
"SCO are just complete hypocrites," said Jeremy Allison, co-author of Samba, an open source software that runs a file and print service that SCO sells.
"The real reason why people don't like SCO, and Darl McBride in particular, is that he is so dishonest," Torvalds, 34, said in an e-mail.
SCO lies once more
Leggett & Platt was even clearer. "I have now talked to our people who handle our Linux systems and, at least at a corporate level, we have not bought such a licence from SCO Group," said the company's VP of human resources, John Hale. "To their knowledge they would not have an interest in doing so."
No. 1 is EV1Servers.net who announced SCO lied about how much they were paid (Microsoft is a fan of EV1)
(little did the CEO know when he made the deal that SCO planned to 'worth' him out of seven figures)
No. 2 is CompterAssociates who announced SCO lied about "linux licenses" which are really from an unrelated settlement
No. 3 is Leggett and Platt who shockingly is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000
No. 4 is Questar Gas who just wanted to get things over with and also runs Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) on Windows 2000
Make sure *you* are Legally Unencumbered(tm) by getting a SCOsores license
and don't forget to head over and sign your Clean Slate contract with the RIAA
Here's what "XFree86" shows for two more search engines. Really is interesting graphical results.
Yahoo vs. Google
On the conference call it was stated both literally and the 'strongly implied' way that the exact same lawsuit could happen to anyone using linux, whether they ever signed a piece of paper with SCO or not. I think the exact words were something like 'do a search and replace with the word AutoZone'.
Remember when you were a kid and there was stuff named [something] Olympics (no not Special Olympics)
Then they came and sued everyone to make them rename their organizations...
Ah, simpler times, back when I used to watch WWF.
Best reporting ever!
The Nevada court where SCO Group has filed a lawsuit against US retailer AutoZone could itself theoretically be subject to legal proceedings because the court is using Linux to run its Web site.
(Is this considered a conflict of interest? I'll bet even SCO didn't see this one coming)
Stock Charts for Companies Du Jour
just announced...
Are you going to go back to Advanced after AutoZone settles out-of-court with SCO?
(please at least consider it)
Seriously, you need a new air filter, maybe wipers, at least some new windshield wiper fluid.
Quit reading groklaw, go out support AutoZone TODAY!!
LINDON, Utah, Mar 3, 2004 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (SCOX, Trade), owner of the UNIX operating system and a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions, today reported revenue of $11,392,000 for the quarter ended January 31, 2004. In the comparable quarter of the prior year, the Company generated revenue of $13,540,000. Revenue for the first quarter of fiscal 2004 was in line with the Company's expectations, and was comprised of $11,372,000 from UNIX products and services and $20,000 from SCOsource initiatives.
For the first quarter of fiscal year 2004, the Company reported a net loss applicable to common stockholders of $2,253,000, or $0.16 per diluted common share. The Company reported a net loss applicable to common stockholders of $724,000, or $0.06 per diluted common share, in the comparable quarter of the prior year. The net loss applicable to common stockholders for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 was reduced by $3,624,000 of income resulting from the change in fair value of the derivative associated with the Company's previously issued Series A Convertible Preferred Stock. The loss from operations for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 was $5,169,000 compared to a loss of $738,000 for the comparable quarter in the prior year. The loss from operations for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 includes costs of $3,440,000 related to the Company's SCOsource licensing initiatives. These initiatives had not yet commenced in the comparable quarter of the prior year.
"Our revenue and results of operations for the first quarter were consistent with our expectations," said Darl McBride, President and CEO. "In coming quarters, we will continue to expand our SCOsource initiatives, with an ongoing campaign to defend and protect SCO's intellectual property assets, which will include continued end-user lawsuits and negotiations regarding intellectual property licenses. At the same time, we are committed to supporting our extensive UNIX customer base and leveraging our UNIX business for future growth opportunities. Over time, these two efforts are expected to yield positive long-term results for our stockholders."
Financial Outlook
The following financial outlook reflects expected contributions from the Company's two business lines, SCOsource and UNIX products and services. These statements are forward looking and actual results may differ materially. See the discussion of certain risks and uncertainties related to this financial outlook at the end of this release under "Forward-Looking Statements."
For its second fiscal quarter ending April 30, 2004, the Company currently expects total revenue to be in the range of $10,000,000 to $14,000,000. Revenue from the Company's SCOsource initiatives remains difficult to predict in the short-term due to the nature of these licensing transactions and the variability of the timing of revenue recognition. However, the Company anticipates revenue from its SCOsource initiatives will increase in future periods.
Operating expenses relating to the Company's UNIX business for the next three quarters are anticipated to decrease from the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 and comparable quarters of the prior year as the Company's worldwide operations continue to become more efficient. Expenses associated with SCOsource initiatives for the next three quarters are expected to remain consistent with expenses incurred in the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 as the Company continues its legal strategy to enforce and protect its UNIX intellectual property.
Conference Call
As previously announced, the Company will host a conference call at 11:00 a.m. EST today, March 3, 2004, to discuss its first quarter 2004 results. To participate in the teleconference, please call (800) 818-5264 or (913) 981-4910, confirmation code 141144, approximately five minutes prior to the time stated abo
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Nevada, requests injunctive relief against AutoZone's further use or copying of any part of SCO's copyrighted materials and also requests damages as a result of AutoZone's infringement in an amount to be proven at trial.
The company will discuss this announcement as part of its regularly scheduled conference call related to first quarter earnings, scheduled for Wednesday, March 3 at 11:00 a.m. Eastern time. To participate on the call, individuals may dial 1-800-818-5264 or 1-913-981-4910 and use the confirmation code: 141144. Alternatively, a listen-only live web cast is available at http://ir.sco.com/medialist.cfm. Call participants are encouraged to dial in 15 minutes before the scheduled start time.
To save you from a soon to be slash'd registration page (they don't need anymore fake emails)
SCO Group First Quarter 2004 Webcast and Conference Call (Wed, March 3 - 9am MT)
Windows Media Player
Real Player
lawsuit & free media attention/PR
lawsuit & pump and dump
lawsuit & get money from MS
lawsuit & keep stock afloat
lawsuit & see my overly vain name in print
lawsuit & slander GPL
lawsuit & damage companies reputations
lawsuit & damage open source momentum
lawsuit & make CEOs question using Linux
lawsuit & get people get angry, nervous, or upset
(in case you haven't caught on, by having three stories every day about SCO, you are helping them accomplish their goals)
It seems very likely, for AutoZone to maintain their same functioning infrastructure, they re-used some SCO interface or something that is considered an IP contract violations. (reasons to never sign anything in conjunction with SCO)
The other company has to be something approved by Microsoft, and presumably serving Microsoft's plan for world domination. It would also have to be another knock against Open Source, and a SCO contract/license holder.
Maybe this is all a big orchestrated move by EV1 & SCO to "sue" EV1 over linux usage, and then EV1 moves all linux servers over to SCO-approved binaries and SCO drops the lawsuits. (Why the hell else would EV1 be the first company to come out of the closet publicly regarding giving SCO extortion $$)
Had to repost this brillant post from previous EV1 story.
by ImpintheBox (153919) on Mon Mar 01, '04 02:00 PM (#8432077)
Microsoft provides SCO $millions in loan cum licensing deal (to attack their No. 1 threat, Linux)
EV1 has amazingly low, low pricing for Win2003 servers.
Microsoft touts EV1 in Win2003/Linux case study.
Netcraft names EV1 the top Win2003 hosting provider.
EV1 buys SCO license in $million+ just days before Q1 conference call
and on the day of the PIPE and Boies deals deadline
EV1Servers Pays License Fee to SCO
...
...
By paying a licensing fee to insulate itself against SCO's legal claims, EV1Servers drew immediate fire from many corners of the Linux community, with some Slashdot readers suggesting a boycott of the company. EV1Servers is one of the largest dedicated hosting companies, with more than 11,000 Linux servers visible on the Web, according to our most recent survey.
"We realize we may be vilified by some diehards within the industry, but we feel a real obligation to take care of our customers," Marsh said in an interview this afternoon. "We had private discussions about this issue with some of our customers, and they were quite concerned about the uncertainty and the potential for a legal quagmire. What we've done is ensure that it's not an issue for our customers."
EV1 Forum (text below, emphasis added)
.. who would have figured that one) There is significant risk on both sides of this equation.
03-02-2004 06:48 AM
Additional Headsurfer Comments Regarding SCO Contract
By now, many of you have heard of our[sic] agreement with SCO. What you have probably heard, though, is misinformation about the arrangement.
We license Linux through Red Hat. They provide our distribution and support/updates for the Enterprise distribution. Plus, they do an awesome job at delivering. Their support and dedication is second to none. Our agreement with SCO is in no way any kind of indictment on Red Hat.
We did not license a linux distribution or any software covered by a referenced EULA from SCO. We did, however, license certain IP from SCO.
We fullly support the GPL and the open source movement.
It has been argued by a Linux Journal reporter that I have essentially called the various GPL Linux developers plagiarists[sic]. This is false as I would never make such a claim against them. They are some of the brightest minds for whom I hold a great deal of respect.
Other have claimed that we're essentially funding SCOs various lawsuits. This is not true. SCO already has like $60 million on hand and our small fee would not go very far defending an action such as this, much less prosecuting one.
We make no endorsement of SCO nor do we make any admission as to their claims.
HOWEVER, what we did do was make a prudent business decision based upon our circumstances and our customers needs and the need to bring certainty to their businesses.
Whatever your position on the various suits, which SCO has said will increase. These suits have a very real and significant cost, even if proven unsuccessful. These are costs we were prepared to bear as we did in the Free Speech case with CI Host. the vast majority of smaller hosts using our services do not have our resources to defend/prosecute such an action. While our decision may not be popular, it does ensure that our customers (to the extent that they operate servers in our data centers) are protected from action by SCO with respect to those servers.
No legal action is certain. The outcome of every legal action is subject to risk. (Just look at the OJ Simpson case
In every step building the EV1 business, I've had to make decisions that I believed in my heart were in the best interests of my clients and my shareholders. My team and I have worked to bring the best possible service at the best possible price to our customers. In this case, the same decision making tools were employed and only after significant thought and analysis, an action taken.
As a result of this action, our customers can be assured that as these cases work their way through the legal system, that they[sic] have no worry that SCO will take action against them for servers in our data centers.
I do appreciate the positive comments and emails that many of you have sent as I also understand the negative positions that others have taken. We are fortunate to live in a country where it is possible to speak your mind freely.
Robert Marsh
Head Surfer
Hmm.. wasn't Microsoft also around during Reagan's presidency?
Wasn't there also a blackout on the entire Eastern US due in-part to improper response by the control software to the outages that initially started at First Energy?
Isn't it also possible all these email worms, viruses, and trojans might be some form of espionage by workers planted at Microsoft?
Which Linux user is SCO going to sue next?
Google
Yahoo
WalMart
EV1Servers.net
Microsoft (oh the irony)
State of California
U.S. Government
A 12 yr old girl
Cowboyneal