I've replied to this idea several times already. I'll repeat:
*N*F*W*
If somebody buys them, the people who pocket the $718.5M (or whatever it is now) are the owners and investors in SCO (and that includes Darl). Bear in mind, of course, that the market cap is currently inflated by speculation about them winning the lawsuit. In other words, they would be rewarded for this action. No way, no way ever.
Like I said earlier, *NFW*. Who do you think would walk off with that $200M? Err, Canopy group, Darl McBride & co. Want to hand them $200M as a reward for this racket? I don't.
that's one analysis, and a reasonable one, but it appears to contradict what SCO is saying elsewhere. In their NDA'd analyst briefings, they showed code that they claimed was copied line for line from System V. Not stuff developed by IBM, and then added to Linux (which SCO apparently claims to own as a derivative work) but stuff the originated in the SVR4 code base. It's not at all clear to me what their claims are. Bring on the lawsuit - let's find out.
Krill
"I allege that SCO is full of it" - Linus Torvalds
ok, here's a couple of interesting bits from the press release:
The run-time license permits the use of SCO's intellectual property, in binary form only, as contained in Linux distributions. By purchasing a SCO Intellectual Property License, customers avoid infringement of SCO's intellectual property rights in Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 kernels. Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed.
and:
"We have identified numerous files of unlicensed UNIX System V code and UNIX System V derivative code in the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource, the intellectual property licensing division of SCO. "We believe it is necessary for Linux customers to properly license SCO's IP if they are running Linux 2.4 kernel and later versions for commercial purposes. The license insures that customers can continue their use of binary deployments of Linux without violating SCO's intellectual property rights."
That's pretty direct. If they cannot subsequently prove these claims in court, they're going to be in big trouble...
That is what they have asserted in letters. However, SCO has also made pubilc statements alleging that the Linux kernel (or wherever it is this week) infringes their IP, and noting intention to sue end users. Given that public statement of intent, I'd be surprised if they can disown it and point to the watered down version they actually sent people. IANAL, of course, but I think SCO has dug a huge hole for themselves by their lack of caution in making some of their more outrageous public statements. Shame. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people;-)
But actually, I don't think it would be good advice even if SCO does win. Just as soon as SCO presents their "evidence" to the court, irrespective of whether they are able to prove their claims of ownership, the game is up. The allegedly tainted source code files will be rewritten long before the case finishes, and customers won't need the license. I very much doubt that SCO would be able to sue anybody successfully for retrospective infringement, even if they won their case against Red Hat. And personally, I give them very little chance of that.
Bring on the damn lawsuit already. Let's get this shit over with.
However distasteful the strategy, I'd expect there to be some logic behind it (even if broken). Many analysts have stated that this is all a strategy to get themselves acquired for many times what they're really worth (warning: trying to quantify that last one may involve a divide by zero).
But they supposedly hired David Boies to represent them. He's a very good lawyer (and very expensive). Somehow I don't think he wrote that letter. So what is he doing? Have SCO really hired him, or did they just pay him for a one hour consult so they could claim that he's working on the case?
Krill
the reason is that SCO is refusing to identify the allegedly infringing code. The only conditions under which they will show code is an NDA which effectively prevents anybody party to it to modify Linux code. Not only that, but even under NDA, according to the analyst reports, SCO isn't showing a complete list of modules or files that infringe. They show only "samples" of matching lines of code which they allege support their case.
The original Red Hat letter to SCO demanded an identification of the allegedly infringing code, in enough detail that the issues could be fixed (whether or not the allegations were subsequently shown to be true).
What I don't know is whether SCO's refusal to respond damages their case, but I suspect it does; even if they can prove infringement, they have failed to take steps, in this action, to minimize harm to themselves. If I understand correctly, that isn't good for them.
ok, so IANAL, but this is what bugs me about Darl's response:
Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy.
Conspiracy? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but surely conspiracy is a concept in criminal law, not civil law. That is to say, you can be prosecuted for conspiracy, but you can't be sued for conspiracy. So what gives?
Did Darl fire off this letter without running it by an attorney first? What exactly is going on at SCO anyway?
I think you're misrepresenting the argument that's being made significantly here.
The point is not about Hollywood profiting by making derivative works of other Hollywood companies' works. It's about them profiting by creating derivative works of non-Hollywood works (such as the many works of literature drawn from in Disney's production of LXG). For this they pay no royalty, because the copyright has expired. However, they expect their copyright on the derivative work to never expire because it's intellectual "property" (not a limited time monopoly as the constitution holds).
when you say most people who see the code, to whom are you referring? Maybe I missed it, but as I recall only two people have seen the code, namely Laura Didio and Rob Enderle (apologies if I got the spellings wrong). Those two get quoted over and over again, to give the apparent impression that lots of people are examining the code. They aren't. There's only the two people.
More to the point, the comparison in question raises some genuine concerns, and looks very much like showmanship rather than a balanced analysis. Like:
1. Neither of the two analysts are experts in the field.
2. The two analysts were shown limited and carefully chosen code segments, selected by SCO - see also #1. It isn't difficult to present a compelling case to a non-expert based on selections of a few hundred lines of code from a code base of that size.
3. SCO hasn't demonstrated the provenance of the code in question. Merely showing similarity doesn't help.
4. The accounts of the analysts themselves raise questions. All of the "lines of code" referred to with similarities such as "copyright messages", "typos" and "misspellings" doesn't sound like lines of code, rather comments. Something kind of funny here. Not to mention, and this is very important, whose copyright message? If there is a matching copyright message in the SCO code base and the Linux kernel, and the code is proprietary, it seems inconceivable that it would have been checked into the kernel tree without anybody noticing.
5. Oh, yes. Which kernel tree is this supposed to be in?
6. Why hasn't SCO told us answers to any of these already? #5 is a particularly important one, btw
I could go on. There's many more questions here. The point being, repeated quotes from two analysts under the circumstances is hardly conclusive. I guess we'll all find out eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
*N*F*W*
If somebody buys them, the people who pocket the $718.5M (or whatever it is now) are the owners and investors in SCO (and that includes Darl). Bear in mind, of course, that the market cap is currently inflated by speculation about them winning the lawsuit. In other words, they would be rewarded for this action. No way, no way ever.
"...contracts are things you use against people that you have relationships with..."
and you're thinking about signing a contract with these guys, Mr. PHB?
Krill
Krill
Krill
"I allege that SCO is full of it" - Linus Torvalds
Krill
The run-time license permits the use of SCO's intellectual property, in binary form only, as contained in Linux distributions. By purchasing a SCO Intellectual Property License, customers avoid infringement of SCO's intellectual property rights in Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 kernels. Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed.
and:
"We have identified numerous files of unlicensed UNIX System V code and UNIX System V derivative code in the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource, the intellectual property licensing division of SCO. "We believe it is necessary for Linux customers to properly license SCO's IP if they are running Linux 2.4 kernel and later versions for commercial purposes. The license insures that customers can continue their use of binary deployments of Linux without violating SCO's intellectual property rights."
That's pretty direct. If they cannot subsequently prove these claims in court, they're going to be in big trouble...
Can't wait
Krill
That is what they have asserted in letters. However, SCO has also made pubilc statements alleging that the Linux kernel (or wherever it is this week) infringes their IP, and noting intention to sue end users. Given that public statement of intent, I'd be surprised if they can disown it and point to the watered down version they actually sent people. IANAL, of course, but I think SCO has dug a huge hole for themselves by their lack of caution in making some of their more outrageous public statements. Shame. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people ;-)
But actually, I don't think it would be good advice even if SCO does win. Just as soon as SCO presents their "evidence" to the court, irrespective of whether they are able to prove their claims of ownership, the game is up. The allegedly tainted source code files will be rewritten long before the case finishes, and customers won't need the license. I very much doubt that SCO would be able to sue anybody successfully for retrospective infringement, even if they won their case against Red Hat. And personally, I give them very little chance of that.
Bring on the damn lawsuit already. Let's get this shit over with.
Krill
However distasteful the strategy, I'd expect there to be some logic behind it (even if broken). Many analysts have stated that this is all a strategy to get themselves acquired for many times what they're really worth (warning: trying to quantify that last one may involve a divide by zero).
But they supposedly hired David Boies to represent them. He's a very good lawyer (and very expensive). Somehow I don't think he wrote that letter. So what is he doing? Have SCO really hired him, or did they just pay him for a one hour consult so they could claim that he's working on the case? Krill
The original Red Hat letter to SCO demanded an identification of the allegedly infringing code, in enough detail that the issues could be fixed (whether or not the allegations were subsequently shown to be true).
What I don't know is whether SCO's refusal to respond damages their case, but I suspect it does; even if they can prove infringement, they have failed to take steps, in this action, to minimize harm to themselves. If I understand correctly, that isn't good for them.
Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy.
Conspiracy? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but surely conspiracy is a concept in criminal law, not civil law. That is to say, you can be prosecuted for conspiracy, but you can't be sued for conspiracy. So what gives?
Did Darl fire off this letter without running it by an attorney first? What exactly is going on at SCO anyway?
In a sort of "Mussolini made the trains run on time" sort of a way.
The point is not about Hollywood profiting by making derivative works of other Hollywood companies' works. It's about them profiting by creating derivative works of non-Hollywood works (such as the many works of literature drawn from in Disney's production of LXG). For this they pay no royalty, because the copyright has expired. However, they expect their copyright on the derivative work to never expire because it's intellectual "property" (not a limited time monopoly as the constitution holds).
More to the point, the comparison in question raises some genuine concerns, and looks very much like showmanship rather than a balanced analysis. Like:
1. Neither of the two analysts are experts in the field.
2. The two analysts were shown limited and carefully chosen code segments, selected by SCO - see also #1. It isn't difficult to present a compelling case to a non-expert based on selections of a few hundred lines of code from a code base of that size.
3. SCO hasn't demonstrated the provenance of the code in question. Merely showing similarity doesn't help.
4. The accounts of the analysts themselves raise questions. All of the "lines of code" referred to with similarities such as "copyright messages", "typos" and "misspellings" doesn't sound like lines of code, rather comments. Something kind of funny here. Not to mention, and this is very important, whose copyright message? If there is a matching copyright message in the SCO code base and the Linux kernel, and the code is proprietary, it seems inconceivable that it would have been checked into the kernel tree without anybody noticing.
5. Oh, yes. Which kernel tree is this supposed to be in?
6. Why hasn't SCO told us answers to any of these already? #5 is a particularly important one, btw
I could go on. There's many more questions here. The point being, repeated quotes from two analysts under the circumstances is hardly conclusive. I guess we'll all find out eventually.