All their *SCOSource* income is from those two companies. They also list a little over ten million in the most recent quarter from their OpenServer, UnixWare, and apps division.
I'm willing to wager that better than 85% of that ten mil. is from OpenServer licensees paying maintenance fees or upgrade fees for UnixWare. I can't imagine they're getting many new customers.
Agreed. McNealy has a reputation for being a blowhard in interviews, does it to get attention I guess. When you look at what Sun actually *does* rather than what Scott McNealy, or his sidekick Jonathan Schwartz, says, they tend to be a pretty good company and have contributed more than many to the open source community.
They run into three problems if they actually try to send out those invoices.
A) The obvious fraud charge that everyone has already discussed.
B) Anyone who receives one of those invoices might try to challenge SCO's copyrights. Given that the presiding judge ruled ATT was "unlikely" to prevail on their copyright claims in the BSD case, SCO does not want to put their copyrights to the test in court.
C) Anyone receiving one of those invoices might ask for declaratory judgement, requiring SCO to shut up.
It's less a dog and pony show than a strip tease. And I really *don't* want to imagine Darl naked.
That's a possible, though I think unlikely, outcome.
My analysis, and IANAL so I may be wrong, is that SCO's statements about Red Hat give RH the standing to file the claim. Once they've got the standing to file the claim, they can go in there and defend Linux in general, which is clearly their plan. "Show us the code, or we'll show you the door."
If RH succeeds, and SCO refuses, or is not able, to show any code that's infringing in Linux, then they'll probably be enjoined from making accusations about any Linux kernel, not just Red Hat's.
Furthermore, even if the ruling is as limited as you suggest it might be, it would still set a precedent for any other vendor to follow-up -- cheaply.
2A) They raised prices for technology when tech. prices are going down. Which makes CD's *too* *damn* *expensive*. Especially when you can get a DVD, hours of entertainment, with loads of extras, for only marginally more money. For your entertainment buck, you get a lot more on a multi-hour DVD than a one hour CD.
"Now you say that Sequent would have received a clarification letter from AT&T in the mid-late 80's granting them ownership of derivative works, and as soon as I see that I will consider the issue closed."
Fair enough. I'm aware from other historical documents that such letters were supposed to go out to all ATT licensees at Berkely's request, but I haven't seen one either.
"I will stand by my statement that IF Sequent wrote RCU, etc. under a contractual agreement that granted ownership of that work to the Licensor (AT&T->Novell->SCO) THEN Sequent can't sell it to IBM. The idea that Sequent could inherit contract rights from IBM that would retroactively take ownership away from AT&T/Novell/SCO is nonsense to me."
Ok, this is where it gets tricky. In the normal course of events, when one company takes over another they inherit that company's legal obligations. In this case, IBM would inherit Sequents's legal obligations. That's the simple form and it supports your argument.
But the thing to remember is that IBM did *not* buy an AIX license from ATT, nor did they buy a license to develop AIX. They bought a license to Unix source code. They could have forked Unix 3 times over (or 20 times) within IBM on that license. In fact, they may have. AIX was only one of several Unixes IBM developed.
Now, IBM purchases Sequent. Sequent has a Unix source license. IBM has a Unix source license. Your contention is that the controlling license for any work Sequent did on Unix is controlled by the old ATT agreements and that Sequent's code base was *ceded* back to ATT. This is where we differ.
The controlling quote identified by you is "provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT." The key word here, in my opinion, is "treated". In other words, the code is not ceded to ATT, but Sequent is contractually obligated to "treat" any of its derivative works with the same level of confidentiality, etc., as they would ATT's original source code.
Now, if we take your interpretation, then an ownership obligation results, and you're correct.
I happen to think that's an incorrect interpretation. I thinks that Sequent was conractually obligated to "treat" the code as of it was part of the Unix source code base, but obligated to give up ownership of the code.
Anyway, if we can't come to an agreement on that issue, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
If it's the case that Sequent didn't cede ownership of the code to ATT, then the next question is, "Which license becomes controlling when two companies, each with a source license, merge or when one is acquired by the other?" At that point, I'd guess that whichever license is more lenient, or grants greater rights, becomes the controlling contract for the entire company. I may be wrong, and that's another point where we could disagree.
However, this whole discussion began with your assertion that the issues weren't moot in the context of my Open Letter to Darl, this quote in particular:
"Surely, you don't dispute that IBM owns the relevant copyrights and patents to NUMA, JFS, and RCU? Or do you dispute Section 2 of Exhibit C on your web site, the ATT-IBM sideletter agreement, which states in part, "we (ATT) agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you (IBM) are owned by you"?
Well, IBM does *own* the patents for NUMA, JFS, and RCU. They also own copyrights for the implemtations of those technologies in Dynix, AIX, Linux, and OS/2. Had the interpretation you're taking of Exhibit F been controlling, then those patents and the Dynix copyrights should have been registered under ATT. Maybe they should have, but since they weren't, and since no one has previously suggested in the last 18 years that they should have been, I'm assuming that you're interpretation of the wording is wrong.
But you may be right. I guess I'll look pretty foolish then, two years down the line, if this case ever makes it to trial.
Got it from Novell. Wish I had a link for you. Questions about this came up during the last 10-Q also, and Novell clarified it then.
I think I know which part is confusing you, though:
"The Company has an arrangement with Novell, Inc. ("Novell") in which it acts as an administrative agent in the collection of royalties for customers who deploy SVRx technology."
They do. But that doesn't mean that SCO doesn't have its own customers who deploy SVRx technology, just that they also collect royalties for Novell customers who deploy it.
Anyway, I'm eating my Japanese take-out dinner right now, so you can either take my word for it or research it yourself. I'm sure you can use Google to find out where Novell clarified the point just as easily as I could.
Oh, sure, I agree that they needn't cost as much, but the good TC's probably come close.
The only major differences between a good TC and a low-end PC should be that the TC has a lower-end processor with better power management, and Flash RAM for the OS instead of a hard drive. CDR optional, but probably not necessary for most TC's.
The one I'm looking at, from Wyse, is using a 400 Mhz AMD K6. At least that's what an earlier model of the line I'm looking at was using. The model I want may be using something faster, but I haven't verified it yet.
Anyway, I thought I knew what I was talking about, didn't do enough research before posting, and I'm going to have to give you this one and admit that you're right and I'm wrong. Oh well, we all fuck up once in a while.
No, the deadline is/was the 25th. It got confused with the 15th because a) the 10-Q was due by the 15th and b) Canopy was supposed to IBM's subpoena by then. I think Ralph Yarrow and a couple others were to be interviewed by IBM's lawyers on the 15th, too.
Well, no, not quite. In most cases that would be true, but the nature of Red Hat's claim is up to the discretion of the judge. The judge isn't required to hear the case, even if if it has merit. So, in this case, Red Hat could still file a suit correctly and the judge could dismiss it simply because he didn't think they were likely to win.
A lawyer could explain this better.
In any event, the point is that Red Hat's suit has to meet a higher standard than just being properly filed; the judge has to agree to take the case.
On the one hand, this means that Red Hat has to meet a higher standard to keep the case from getting dismissed. I hope, and think, that they will meet this standard and that the judge will accept it. OTOH, if the judge does accept it, this might indicate that the judge believes Red Hat's suit has merit, which should scare SCO shitless. Say that five times fast.
"As hurricane Isabel bears down on my lab, I'm glad I read/., 'cause now I know not to store backups in the cabinet next to the servers...(I put them under the sofa in my trailer)."
Off-topic, but I can't resist. That line reminds me of a training class I was in once. The very bored trainer told the class to log in to their machines, announcing that the userid was "Administrator" and the password was "password." Some brilliant smart as in the back row was heard to say, "Whoa, just like at work."
Re:Nothing to See Here, Folks, Move Along...
on
SCO Volleys to Red Hat
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"...an act of Significant Nastiness..."
IANAL, but after SCO's continued remarks regarding the Linux community in general and Red Hat in particular, I'd be real surprised if acts of "Significant Nastiness" were not on the table as appropriate legal maneuvers.
By the way, while I know it's not really, I just love the idea of "acts of Significant Nastiness" as legal terminology. It's got a sort of Pratchett-like Discworld feel to it.
No stop in New York? Guess I'll have to do the reverse commute on the PATH to Newark that day. Of course, I can understand their reasoning. New York is just filled to the brim with the kind of liberal, commie, activists that would love to sink their teeth into Darl's pockmark-ridden facial flesh.
They're probably members of the Canopy Group. Remember, as long as they don't have board positions, (like Ralph) any memeber of the Canopy Group can dump their stock in SCO without filing with the SEC.
Actually, Bill Gates can't reasonably claim not to be a "pig-fucker" - whoops, sorry, I meant "public figure". Once you're a public figure, people have the right to call you names, even obscene and defamatory names. In order to win a case like that, Bill would need probably to show that the slander was accompanied by willful mis-statements of fact intended support the contention that he was a pig-fucker.
It could be handled as a class-action, but that would just simplify the case for SCO. Better for individual kernel contributors to eah file suits in their home state and let SCO try to keep up with all the claims.
Of course, if no one files in their home states, and so far we don't see anyone taking that initiative, yet, then a class-action is better than nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
All their *SCOSource* income is from those two companies. They also list a little over ten million in the most recent quarter from their OpenServer, UnixWare, and apps division.
I'm willing to wager that better than 85% of that ten mil. is from OpenServer licensees paying maintenance fees or upgrade fees for UnixWare. I can't imagine they're getting many new customers.
Agreed. McNealy has a reputation for being a blowhard in interviews, does it to get attention I guess. When you look at what Sun actually *does* rather than what Scott McNealy, or his sidekick Jonathan Schwartz, says, they tend to be a pretty good company and have contributed more than many to the open source community.
Clarification: It's like a strip tease in that they never show what they promise to.
They run into three problems if they actually try to send out those invoices.
A) The obvious fraud charge that everyone has already discussed.
B) Anyone who receives one of those invoices might try to challenge SCO's copyrights. Given that the presiding judge ruled ATT was "unlikely" to prevail on their copyright claims in the BSD case, SCO does not want to put their copyrights to the test in court.
C) Anyone receiving one of those invoices might ask for declaratory judgement, requiring SCO to shut up.
It's less a dog and pony show than a strip tease. And I really *don't* want to imagine Darl naked.
That's a possible, though I think unlikely, outcome.
My analysis, and IANAL so I may be wrong, is that SCO's statements about Red Hat give RH the standing to file the claim. Once they've got the standing to file the claim, they can go in there and defend Linux in general, which is clearly their plan. "Show us the code, or we'll show you the door."
If RH succeeds, and SCO refuses, or is not able, to show any code that's infringing in Linux, then they'll probably be enjoined from making accusations about any Linux kernel, not just Red Hat's.
Furthermore, even if the ruling is as limited as you suggest it might be, it would still set a precedent for any other vendor to follow-up -- cheaply.
"but obligated to give up ownership of the code."
Missed a word. That should be:
"but not obligated to give up ownership of the code."
"2) THEY RAISED PRICES DURING A RECESSION"
And corallary:
2A) They raised prices for technology when tech. prices are going down. Which makes CD's *too* *damn* *expensive*. Especially when you can get a DVD, hours of entertainment, with loads of extras, for only marginally more money. For your entertainment buck, you get a lot more on a multi-hour DVD than a one hour CD.
Phriedom,
"Now you say that Sequent would have received a clarification letter from AT&T in the mid-late 80's granting them ownership of derivative works, and as soon as I see that I will consider the issue closed."
Fair enough. I'm aware from other historical documents that such letters were supposed to go out to all ATT licensees at Berkely's request, but I haven't seen one either.
"I will stand by my statement that IF Sequent wrote RCU, etc. under a contractual agreement that granted ownership of that work to the Licensor (AT&T->Novell->SCO) THEN Sequent can't sell it to IBM. The idea that Sequent could inherit contract rights from IBM that would retroactively take ownership away from AT&T/Novell/SCO is nonsense to me."
Ok, this is where it gets tricky. In the normal course of events, when one company takes over another they inherit that company's legal obligations. In this case, IBM would inherit Sequents's legal obligations. That's the simple form and it supports your argument.
But the thing to remember is that IBM did *not* buy an AIX license from ATT, nor did they buy a license to develop AIX. They bought a license to Unix source code. They could have forked Unix 3 times over (or 20 times) within IBM on that license. In fact, they may have. AIX was only one of several Unixes IBM developed.
Now, IBM purchases Sequent. Sequent has a Unix source license. IBM has a Unix source license. Your contention is that the controlling license for any work Sequent did on Unix is controlled by the old ATT agreements and that Sequent's code base was *ceded* back to ATT. This is where we differ.
The controlling quote identified by you is "provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT." The key word here, in my opinion, is "treated". In other words, the code is not ceded to ATT, but Sequent is contractually obligated to "treat" any of its derivative works with the same level of confidentiality, etc., as they would ATT's original source code.
Now, if we take your interpretation, then an ownership obligation results, and you're correct.
I happen to think that's an incorrect interpretation. I thinks that Sequent was conractually obligated to "treat" the code as of it was part of the Unix source code base, but obligated to give up ownership of the code.
Anyway, if we can't come to an agreement on that issue, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
If it's the case that Sequent didn't cede ownership of the code to ATT, then the next question is, "Which license becomes controlling when two companies, each with a source license, merge or when one is acquired by the other?" At that point, I'd guess that whichever license is more lenient, or grants greater rights, becomes the controlling contract for the entire company. I may be wrong, and that's another point where we could disagree.
However, this whole discussion began with your assertion that the issues weren't moot in the context of my Open Letter to Darl, this quote in particular:
"Surely, you don't dispute that IBM owns the relevant copyrights and patents to NUMA, JFS, and RCU? Or do you dispute Section 2 of Exhibit C on your web site, the ATT-IBM sideletter agreement, which states in part, "we (ATT) agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you (IBM) are owned by you"?
Well, IBM does *own* the patents for NUMA, JFS, and RCU. They also own copyrights for the implemtations of those technologies in Dynix, AIX, Linux, and OS/2. Had the interpretation you're taking of Exhibit F been controlling, then those patents and the Dynix copyrights should have been registered under ATT. Maybe they should have, but since they weren't, and since no one has previously suggested in the last 18 years that they should have been, I'm assuming that you're interpretation of the wording is wrong.
But you may be right. I guess I'll look pretty foolish then, two years down the line, if this case ever makes it to trial.
John Gabriel
Got it from Novell. Wish I had a link for you. Questions about this came up during the last 10-Q also, and Novell clarified it then.
I think I know which part is confusing you, though:
"The Company has an arrangement with Novell, Inc. ("Novell") in which it acts as an administrative agent in the collection of royalties for customers who deploy SVRx technology."
They do. But that doesn't mean that SCO doesn't have its own customers who deploy SVRx technology, just that they also collect royalties for Novell customers who deploy it.
Anyway, I'm eating my Japanese take-out dinner right now, so you can either take my word for it or research it yourself. I'm sure you can use Google to find out where Novell clarified the point just as easily as I could.
Ok, that made me laugh. You could've said something sooner though, dude.
Oh, sure, I agree that they needn't cost as much, but the good TC's probably come close.
The only major differences between a good TC and a low-end PC should be that the TC has a lower-end processor with better power management, and Flash RAM for the OS instead of a hard drive. CDR optional, but probably not necessary for most TC's.
The one I'm looking at, from Wyse, is using a 400 Mhz AMD K6. At least that's what an earlier model of the line I'm looking at was using. The model I want may be using something faster, but I haven't verified it yet.
Anyway, I thought I knew what I was talking about, didn't do enough research before posting, and I'm going to have to give you this one and admit that you're right and I'm wrong. Oh well, we all fuck up once in a while.
No, the deadline is/was the 25th. It got confused with the 15th because a) the 10-Q was due by the 15th and b) Canopy was supposed to IBM's subpoena by then. I think Ralph Yarrow and a couple others were to be interviewed by IBM's lawyers on the 15th, too.
Well, no, not quite. In most cases that would be true, but the nature of Red Hat's claim is up to the discretion of the judge. The judge isn't required to hear the case, even if if it has merit. So, in this case, Red Hat could still file a suit correctly and the judge could dismiss it simply because he didn't think they were likely to win.
A lawyer could explain this better.
In any event, the point is that Red Hat's suit has to meet a higher standard than just being properly filed; the judge has to agree to take the case.
On the one hand, this means that Red Hat has to meet a higher standard to keep the case from getting dismissed. I hope, and think, that they will meet this standard and that the judge will accept it. OTOH, if the judge does accept it, this might indicate that the judge believes Red Hat's suit has merit, which should scare SCO shitless. Say that five times fast.
"As hurricane Isabel bears down on my lab, I'm glad I read
Off-topic, but I can't resist. That line reminds me of a training class I was in once. The very bored trainer told the class to log in to their machines, announcing that the userid was "Administrator" and the password was "password." Some brilliant smart as in the back row was heard to say, "Whoa, just like at work."
"...an act of Significant Nastiness..."
IANAL, but after SCO's continued remarks regarding the Linux community in general and Red Hat in particular, I'd be real surprised if acts of "Significant Nastiness" were not on the table as appropriate legal maneuvers.
By the way, while I know it's not really, I just love the idea of "acts of Significant Nastiness" as legal terminology. It's got a sort of Pratchett-like Discworld feel to it.
"Isn't all that SCO is doing is manipulating abstract words and their meanings to suit connotations supportive of SCO?"
I think what you mean is "...abstracting words out of their context and manipulating meanings..."
The first is not illegal, the is potentially so.
No stop in New York? Guess I'll have to do the reverse commute on the PATH to Newark that day. Of course, I can understand their reasoning. New York is just filled to the brim with the kind of liberal, commie, activists that would love to sink their teeth into Darl's pockmark-ridden facial flesh.
I New York.
I suspect that's what the Open Source Now! fund is intended to pay for, eventually.
It was the same two pieces of code that SCO presented at SCOForum, and the idiots at PC Mag. published it *after* the code had already been debunked.
It's a tough call, I know, but that may have been the stupidest and most clueless item they ever ran.
They're probably members of the Canopy Group. Remember, as long as they don't have board positions, (like Ralph) any memeber of the Canopy Group can dump their stock in SCO without filing with the SEC.
I read through the 10-Q last night and saw that.
Made me wonder where the line entry was for "Rage".
Actually, Bill Gates can't reasonably claim not to be a "pig-fucker" - whoops, sorry, I meant "public figure". Once you're a public figure, people have the right to call you names, even obscene and defamatory names. In order to win a case like that, Bill would need probably to show that the slander was accompanied by willful mis-statements of fact intended support the contention that he was a pig-fucker.
Or something like that. IANAL. YMMV.
It could be handled as a class-action, but that would just simplify the case for SCO. Better for individual kernel contributors to eah file suits in their home state and let SCO try to keep up with all the claims.
Of course, if no one files in their home states, and so far we don't see anyone taking that initiative, yet, then a class-action is better than nothing.
"Caldera paid less than $400,000 for DR DOS..."
As opposed to the $60,000 Microsft paid for QDos? Boy, those guys at Microsoft just crack me up.