|
|
| If We Send You an Invoice, Then Will You Pay Us? |
 |
|
Monday, August 11 2003 @ 02:58 AM EDT
|
Now SCO says it will send out invoices to the 1500 companies that got the earlier warning from them, and maybe you too, in the next weeks or months. What? You mean you aren't in a hurry to stand before a judge? Expected response from one and all: yawn. Here's the article:SCO Group Inc is preparing to invoice customers running or developing with Linux, while broadening its copyright net to include manufacturers of embedded systems. . . .Invoices will be dispatched in the "next weeks or months" a company spokesperson confirmed. Those being billed will include 1,500 end-users who were earlier this year informed by SCO in writing they should seek legal advice as running Linux violated the company's copyright. Customers running Linux who were not on SCO's original mailing list will also be targeted." Chris Sontag
says you end user pirates better not wait for the legal case to be over, or you'll have to "face the consequences":"SCO has the right to defend its copyright all the way down to the end user," said Sontag. "If necessary we will start picking end users to enforce our rights." Sontag warned that SCO had no qualms about enforcing its claimed rights anywhere in the world - including the UK. And if that doesn't work, then they'll huff and they'll puff and they'll blow your house down.
With FUD galore. 
Update: Speaking of FUD, SCO released a press release about an unnamed licensee:
The SCO Group Announces Signing of Intellectual Property Compliance License for SCO UNIX Rights
Fortune 500 Licensee Acquires SCO UNIX License for Concurrent Run-Time Use of Linux
LINDON, Utah, Aug 11, 2003 -- The SCO® Group (SCO)(Nasdaq: SCOX) today announced the signing of its first Intellectual Property Compliance License for SCO UNIX® Rights. This announcement comes less than a week after the commencement of the SCO IP License for Linux program. Terms of the deal and the Fortune 500 company name were not disclosed based on confidentiality provisions of the agreement, but a license was purchased for each of the Linux servers running their business.
"We've had more than 300 companies in the first four business days of this program contact SCO to inquire about SCO's Intellectual Property License for Linux," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager, SCOsource, SCO's software licensing division. "This Fortune 500 company recognizes the importance of paying for SCO's intellectual property that is found in Linux and can now run Linux in their environment under a legitimate license from SCO. We anticipate this being the first of many licensees that will properly compensate SCO for our intellectual property. After having initiated the program last week, we are very pleased with the licensing interest to date."
For more information on the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux, contact SCO by calling (800) 726-8649 or visit the SCO Web site at http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 12:21 AM EDT |
| First I’d like to thank PJ for creating Groklaw and giving us a great source of
information on the SCOLinux drama. I’ve been keeping up with this since SCO
decided to take on the world. I’ve come up with a theory that may sound far
fetched, but you never know. Reality can sometimes be weirder than fiction.
Besides, I don’t think IBM would invest $1+ billion on something with an
unproven license that could cause problems in the future. Please read on.
Here’s my theory. I think SCO is an IBMNovell pawn and they don’t even know it.
Think about this, IBM and Novell each have great products and of a somewhat
compatible nature. I’ll explain this later. Also, they both have something in
common. They’ve been dethroned by Microsoft in one way or another in the past.
They want to be on top again, but they realize they can’t accomplish this as
individuals. So IBM and Novell decide to collaborate. What they need is an
operating system robust and cheap enough to really have a starting point. Linux
was their answer. Ok, what does each company have to offer? Novell has
experience with the client/server environment (Netware), UNIX patents and
experience, a recently acquired desktop environment company (Ximian), and I’m
sure a whole lot more. IBM has hardware(servers, mainframes, PCs, etc..), a
bunch of patents for UNIX technology, manpower, global reach, UNIX experience,
and they’ve been around to block and have their tricks. Together these two make
a nice couple. :-)
A drama in the form of a legal battle is just what the doctor ordered. Every
drama has a protagonist and an antagonist. We all know who the protagonists
this drama are (IBM, Redhat, etc..), but who’s going to be the antagonist. That
job belongs to SCO who bought the “rights” to Unix from Novell and is part of
the Canopy Group. The Canopy Group was founded by an ex Novell CEO (remember
this). Ok, here’s the juicy part. IBM and Novell write the script for their
drama.
It goes like this,
Novell: I have Unix and that kid, Linus, from Finland has created linux which is
free. It’s loosely based on Unix, has a nice GUI, and a growing developer
community. Why don’t we team up and use linux to counter M$?
IBM: Sounds good, But we need to get linux more legal credibility under the GPL,
more non-geek exposure, and have its community involved in the process. We need
a drama. This drama has to strengthen the GPL and it will be relatively cheap
publicity. Let’s create a company and give them limited rights to Unix. Then
set the stage so this company has to sue me. When they do, you (Novell) have to
bail me out. Ok? Now who’s going to create our antagonist?
Novell: I will. I’m not as popular as you and will get less attention. I think
it’s better this way.
IBM: Fine, sounds good to me. There has to be several degrees of separation
between you (Novell) and this company for this to work.
Novell: I’ll (Novell CEO at the time) leave my company and start a new one.
Then I’ll use this new company to create our nemesis. Nobody will be able to
trace them back to us.
IBM: I like this plan. We’ll have to stagger our efforts in order to stay
inconspicuous. Our pawn must not know our plans, ok?
Novell: Ok. Now, how are they going to sue you?
IBM: I’ll license Unix from them and you’ll reserve the right to overrule them
if necessary. Then I’ll start a project (Monterey) with this company, dump what
I’ve developed into linux, and make sure they distribute this beefed up version
of linux under the GPL. The CEO for this company must not be smart enough to
figure this out until it’s too late. When they do, they’ll sue me and start
pointing out all of the weaknesses in the linux business model. We’ll let them
rant and rave so the hole they dig for themselves will swallow them completely.
This will be our opportunity to prove the validity of the GPL, unite the linux
community, and get some free publicity. What do you think?
Novell: Sounds good to me. You guys are really good. I’ll start immediately
since this will probably take about 10 years to stage. We’ll be heroes and
everyone will love us.
Novell will provide the backend apps (Netware, Active Directory, the Gnome
Desktop Environment, and Mono – the linux equivalent to Microsoft’s .Net) and
IBM will provide hardware (servers, mainframes, PCs, etc..), their arsenal of
patents for UNIX technology, manpower, global reach, and UNIX experience. Nice
couple, huh? I like linux and I know it will prevail. Even if this is true, it
wouldn’t bother me at all. But I just think the recent events are just too
convenient for the GOOD guys to be a mere coincidence.
That’s my 2 cents. Enjoy!!!
Leonel Santana
Leonel Santana[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 01:03 AM EDT |
| Let's concentrate on the juridical aspects on the case and refrain from posting
complot theories. The current juridical cases provide us with enough
discussion.
If I would receive an invoice from SCO, that would be a reason to see a
lawyer and discuss starting the criminal procedures for a count of "oplichting".
(I think it's called defrauding in English, but I'm away from my dictionary.) I
have no intention to pay SCO a dime.
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 01:23 AM EDT |
| I'd love an invoice. They're bound to become a collectors item in a few
years!
BTW I use Knoppix and other linux bootable rescue CD's on clients PCs.
Would I need a special license - since every PC & CPU(s) I use becomes a
potential Linux box? (for a little while anyway) :-)
monkymind[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 03:24 AM EDT |
| As a holder of several Caldera - now SCO Group - Free Unix licenses - which BTW
I got because I wanted to try out Unix on a bochs virtual machine on my Linux
box - I would be extremely amused to receive an invoice from SCO, considering
they got around to organizing a way for me to pay them and thus receive the
cdroms, without breaking the bank.
And I would be extremely interested in their explanations as to why I was
eligible for an invoice for a "Free" license. I can only think that NZ criminal
courts would also be very, very interested in such a question, too.
Wesley
Parish[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 03:27 AM EDT |
| Oops, corrigendum:
"...considering that they ... without breaking the bank." should read
"...considering that they never got around to organizing a way for me to pay
them and thus receive the cdroms, ..."
I'm not made of money, and I hoped they would be prepared to make provision for
that - only they never did, they never got back to me, and now this stupidity
has flared up.
Wesley Parish[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 03:44 AM EDT |
| I sure hope those who get those invoices quietly file them away, not destroying
them.
Those invoices will be great pieces of evidence for the goverments of the world
to bring charges of fraud, extortion, racketeering, etc. etc. against SCO.
It seems that Daryl McBridge, as someone else pointed out, is destined to become
someone's bride in the slammer after all. =)
MajorLeePissed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 04:12 AM EDT |
| MajorLee, I suggest a few changes in your first sentence:
I sure hope those who get those invoices file them at the Police Station and
not destroy them.
There's no need to be quiet about the case, SCO sends out press releases
before having thought about their content. Yes, monkeymind, I consider the loss
of this Ebay sale a worthy contribution to the Open Source movement!
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 06:33 AM EDT |
SCO-scum's stated intention to send invoices over "the next few weeks or months"
is as limp a threat on end users as I have ever read from them. RIIA, whom they
model themselves on, would never have waited weeks or months to send their
threats. In the meantime, SCO-scum's proprietary UNIX product line is in
violation of IBM patents and if they are distributing Linux, they are doing so
in violation of the terms of the GPL. If I were SCO-scum's banks, I would be
calling in the loans just about now - while they still have the cash from M$ and
the Sun.
blacklight[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 06:53 AM EDT |
I thought it was a still a crime in most countries to send out false invoices.
Since SCO has already effectively granted all downstream users the right to use
Linux kernel under the GPL, any additional charge is an unnecessary expense.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">David
Mohring[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 10:04 AM EDT |
| This is really funny. What if instead of hiring attorneys to sue those who don't
buy a license, SCO makes careful records of their attempts to contact the
putative "licensees" and then they sell the receivables to some collection
agency which specializes in buying bad debt? At that point they don't have to
pay lawyers and they have money in the bank.
All the sound and fury isn't intended to raise the stock price. It's to convince
some rich dumbass to buy the receivables at a ninety percent discount without
doing the appropriate due diligence. Then SCO drops the lawsuit, keeps quiet for
a little while, and goes after a new group of Linux adopters after a year or so.
Finally, they sell the next set of receivables to another fool.
"It's the perfect plan," said Darl.
"I love it," replied Chris, "let's celebrate with an evil laugh!"
"BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!"
The funny thing about all this is that I first thought of this idea about a week
ago and here they are sending out invoices. I'd claim to be psychic, but I'm
afraid it simply comes out considering just how corrupt and venal a guy like
McBride might be...
Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
| I was wondering
- if they do send out invoices,
- and if some of the whoever receives them doesn't pay,
- then would SCO want count the balances on these invoices as part of Accounts
Receivable or Revenue?
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 10:48 AM EDT |
| > would SCO want count the balances on these invoices as part of Accounts
Receivable or Revenue?
An excellent question. They don't have to report financials again for 3 months,
but reporting those invoices as "revenue" in the next 10-Q is yet another way
for these guys to go to jail. Not even Arthur Andersen would have signed off on
-that-.
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 10:52 AM EDT |
| Wouldn't this be a CLEARCUT case of mail and wire fraud?
Alex,
"I love it," replied Chris, "let's celebrate with an evil laugh!"
"BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!"
Actually the BWAHAAAAAA is the uncontrollable, blurt-out-laugh reaction,
the laugh you're looking for is "MUUAAAHAHA - HA - AHAHHAHAHAHA" (the MU and
the - occasional interrupt gives it the traditional "evil laugh" imprimatur.
Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 11:30 AM EDT |
It seems to me that any company or person that receives an invoice from SCO
should be filing a complaint with the FTC. With all the controversy with SCO's
claims of ownership and it's rights to license Linux. It seems that as soon as
they send out actual invoices that they are opening themselves up for
investigation by the FTC over whether or not they are actually selling
something more that protection.
Just my 2 cents
-Mike
Mike BMW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 12:16 PM EDT |
| I found an old article on silicon.com announcing Calder'a purchase of SCO's
server products and services. ("Caldera buys SCO for $145m", Aug 2, 2000, by
Joey Gardiner) My comments are offset by "> ".
"Caldera is paying for the deal with 17.54 million shares, $7m in cash and a
loan of $18m to SCO from Caldera investor Canopy.
"Tony Lock, senior analyst for Bloor Research, said Caldera had made the
purchase to exploit SCO's distribution channels. 'Caldera will also be able to
exploit SCO's current customers, and use the credibility they have as a well
respected Unix vendor.'"
> Respect? Credibility? Well, they got the "exploit" part right.
"Clive Longbottom, analyst for Strategy Partners, said the deal represented the
end for SCO. He added: 'Caldera have removed a fly in their ointment by buying a
rival OS vendor, and will use the Monterey technology to gain influence with
IBM.'"
> I don't think that the current fracas is the sort of influence that wins
friends.
Brian[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 02:58 PM EDT |
After thinking about the recent press releases that SCO has made in regards to
licencing,
and the requirment to pruchase license Linux for corperate users. It looked
obvious that
according to SCO as a comercial I was required to purchase a license, with or
without a
invoice. So any of you other corperate Linux users that are willing to fill out
a FTC
complaint form here is the URL. https://rn.ftc
.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01
Mike BMW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 09:24 PM EDT |
| File this under "rumor". According to a poster on Slashdot, he called SCO this
afternoon to inquire about an SCO IP License for Linux and was that the
licensing program has been suspended indefinitely.
If this is true, I can't help wondering if it's a coincidence that this occurred
just a couple of hours after SCO announce their first license sale. Or maybe
it's just a coincidence. Assuming that the Slashdot poster isn't mistaken, of
course.
Calibax[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 09:32 PM EDT |
Hmmm, according to the comment from Brian above, Tarantella owned 17.5 million
shares in the new SCO at one point. That would make them a huge beneficiary of
the current inflated price of SCO shares, assuming they haven't sold them. They
might even have sold some of the shares to pay off the loan from Canopy that is
mentioned in the comment. It would also give them a pretty substantial motive
for keeping quiet about the terms of the sale.
Calibax[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 09:33 PM EDT |
I saw that too, so I've contacted the guy and I'll let you know what I find out.
I'm on it like white on rice.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 11 2003 @ 11:31 PM EDT |
"like white on rice"
<ponders>
I guess it must be an American thing....
Calibax[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 08:38 AM EDT |
Invoices are something new. Before it was a threat: "buy our licenses or we
will sue you" An invoice says, "you already bought something from us, and now
you have to pay for it." If you hadn't actually bought it, is that fraud?
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">David L.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 12 2003 @ 03:56 PM EDT |
| Does anyone know whether or not the claim from LinuxWorld AU that
http://ww
w.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=782728010&fp=2&fpid=1
Boies took the SCO suit on contingency is true?
Pookie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 18 2003 @ 09:30 PM EDT |
| SCO sending invoices would be great. Although the Australian Consumer and
Competition Commission is interested in SCO's F.U.D campaign they've made it
clear to us that they'd be doubly interested if we received an invoice.
It's also clear from the previous mail-out that SCO has made no attempt
to cull from the 1,500 firms those that already have paid-up source
licenses for UNIX. A mass mailing of invoices to those firms is simply
fraudulent.
Glen Turner[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
