|
|
| Groklaw's Open Letter Linked to SCO's Backing Off Invoicing |
 |
|
Friday, October 17 2003 @ 02:07 AM EDT
|
Computer Business Review indicates our Open Letter to SCO was a factor in SCO's decision to back down from its invoice scheme. I expect the research support document, Digging for Truth, sent with it, had some weight, too. That seemed worth telling you about in its own article, with its own headline. We all worked so hard on that project, and I can't help but be thrilled at this report. Here's what they said: "SCO Group Inc is backing-down from threats to invoice organizations running Linux while extending SGI's compliance deadline.
"A company spokesperson said yesterday SCO's plan to invoice organizations, on the basis that Linux illegally contains SCO code, had changed following what he claimed was success of its UnixWare licensing program. . . .
Members of the open source community warned SCO last month in an open letter they would initiate civil action under anti-fraud and consumer protection statutes.
"Reports, meanwhile, said SCO called off its invoicing program in case it lost its $3bn legal action with IBM, in which case it could be found guilty of mail fraud. Mail fraud in the US is a relatively serious offense." The article also includes the information that the deadline for SGI is extended, as discussions continue. But who can focus on that yet? Not me, for sure. Congratulations, everyone. It was a plum pleasing pleasure working with you.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: mdchaney on Friday, October 17 2003 @ 02:59 AM EDT |
I hate to ask this, but why haven't SCO's own lawyers explained the concept of
mail fraud to them? Seriously, are they now using groklaw as legal counsel?
Isn't Heise getting paid to warn them of the consequences of their actions?
The fact that we would sue them is immaterial if they really believe that they
have a case....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 17 2003 @ 03:22 AM EDT |
While we are at it: Sun's numbers are out and they don't look promising. While
"services" are up from $867m to $902m, "product" sales
are down from $1.88bn to $1.63bn. Stocks are down, too. It seems all the money
they throw at SCO doesn't help after all. Bets are on. Who dies first? Sun or
SCO? I bet Sun, but I hope SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: roundnoon on Friday, October 17 2003 @ 04:11 AM EDT |
And Rob Enderle said that letter made things worse by escalating the
rhetoric...
SCO and their lawyers have behaved so amateurishly to this point, it's kind of
hard to believe that the threat of legal retaliation might have made a dent in
their skulls.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Friday, October 17 2003 @ 04:12 AM EDT |
| I suppose the thought of 1500 irate Fortune 500 bosses filing
mail fraud law
suits made their SCOnesses a little
nervous. It's a heart-warming thought,
isn't it?! ---
finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers
stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of
these states of view, I duck [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 17 2003 @ 05:17 AM EDT |
Thanks to PJ and everyone for all the good work - nice to see it's having a
notable effect!
Dan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, October 17 2003 @ 07:18 AM EDT |
BayStar attributed its investment to SCO's claimed ownership
of Unix and what it called an "aggressive and seasoned" management team focussed
on generating profitable growth. BayStar will own an aggregate of approximately
2,953,000 shares of SCO common stock representing 17.5% of the company's
outstanding shares.
Do you think BayStar would
appreciate finding out that SCO doesn't "own Unix"? Especially since
they just sunk $50M into a failing company based on that claim?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 17 2003 @ 08:04 AM EDT |
The Forbes.com forum for discussing the Lyons article has more than 270 replies
in it (a couple of flames, but most of them are no-pity
licenses-should-be-enforced tough-luck-to-Cisco-who-is-after-all-infringing
arguments). One which I found particularly interesting was number 44 posted by
"Idontthinkso" (try this link):
http://forums.prospero.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=fdctech&msg=47.41
From first paragraph:
"...I think it's a bit simplistic to say that Forbes is a
"Microsoft shill." Rather, Forbes is heavily invested in the status
quo of business circa the early 21st century, and is naturally threatened (and
apparently not a little confused) by open source and what it represents."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lpletch on Friday, October 17 2003 @ 09:14 AM EDT |
http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/reports/ibm/00000050.tif
site best viewed with ghfaxviewer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 17 2003 @ 11:13 AM EDT |
It's too bad that an action can't be taken in court against SCO (hmmm)
...where RED HAT or IBM could make SCO stop all FUD and/or license fee claims
against any LINUX users! It would be nice if the court could tell SCO to put
it's FUD and run-time license on the back burner for a period of time that is
at least until the IBM and RED HAT IP related cases are finalized! -And then,
hopefully, a fair result of these 2 cases would allow the timely removal and
replacement of any infringing code (once said code, if any, is identified, then
it can be removed). If the court could see the logic in doing this, then such
a ruling by the court would take 100% of any pressure off of all LINUX users -
at least until the IBM case starts in 2005 to when it is over (sometime after
all the appeals are over)!
SCO really needs to be told that SCO needs to reel in their Linux run-time
license program! The sooner the better! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 17 2003 @ 01:17 PM EDT |
Here goes ---
This appears a little confusing, but I will try to explain it. But first,
IANAL, OK that out of the way. The thing to remember is that the TSG -vs- IBM
case has become basically two lawsuits.
See, TSG sued (filed a lawsuit) against IBM, and the Judge gave TSG until
February to amend (modify by making changes) in the suit TSG brought against
IBM.
However, IBM has counter-sued SCO (IBM filed a seperate lawsuit against TSG for
suing IBM). So, it is sort of like two lawsuits going on at the same time with
the same Judge hearing both of them. So TSG, still has to respond to the IBM
counter-suit by October 24, 2003.
What TSG did, was get a one week delay, in both the IBM case and the Red Hat
case, so that legal news would not over-shadow the TSG finacial news, DB report,
the $50M investment, etc.
So, in the TSG -vs- IBM, TSG is the plantif, however because of the
counter-suit, TSG is also the countersuit defendant.
What we have then is really TSG -vs- IBM and IBM -vs- TSG both occuring. Get
It?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
