|
|
| Today Two Victims but Tomorrow the World's Millions |
 |
|
Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:00 PM EST
|
SCO seems to have the PR machine in full gear, trying to persuade the world that they have a case.
Both "end user" lawsuits are laughable, in my opinion, and are best used as information as to whose customer you don't ever want to be. These are not Linux lawsuits. They're "Uh oh, I was a SCO customer once" lawsuits. A Groklaw reader informs me that his brother happened to be at DaimlerChrysler when the news of the lawsuit hit, and he says everybody in the department he was in was literally on the floor from laughing so hard. Today, DC had no official comment, of course. Even Laura DiDio used the words "suicide gambit": "Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio said SCO has created 'a crazy situation.
"'It's either a bold bet-the-company move [to add lawsuits] or a suicide gambit,' she added. 'Right now, the majority of the industry views it as the latter.'
"Bruce Perens, a leader in the pro-free Linux 'open source' community, added: 'This is the end game, and they know it.'" I never thought I'd see eye-to-eye with Ms. DiDio, but it just happened. Well, not the first part. As Brian Sims, RedHat's business development vice president succinctly put it with remarkable understatement, when commenting on SCO suing its own clients, "It's not a strategy that builds confidence in a customer."
Yes, I heard the news, and I'll write about it probably later tonight or tomorrow. I'm just letting you know, so you'll know you don't need to email me any more about it, although I appreciate all the help. Also, I want to think seriously about it a bit before I write anything, and I'm researching a few details, trying to decide if this leak is legitimate. Eric Raymond says it is. What I am trying to figure out is, if it is a real memo, as it appears it may be, was it a whistle blower or a deliberate leak? Does SCO have any reason these days to want the world to think Microsoft is backing them financially? It's complex, and since you already know the story, it seems best not to write about it until I have the opportunity to research it more deeply. Meanwhile,
SCO claims it is planning to sue all over the world to set a precedent and convince people they are right, according to a Spanish language website. McBride pretty much confirmed this in the conference call yesterday. SCOSource VP Gregory Blepp just visited Spain to spread some FUD over there. Here's a bit on his trip and their plans after the Novell action is finished, which he says they expect to happen in a matter of weeks (I guess he didn't tell them they just asked for a delay): "After that lawsuit, SCO will initiate actions against major users of Linux throughout the world, including in Spain, to establish legal precedent, because, explained Blepp, Linux users want legal certainty that SCO is right.
"Gregory G. Blepp said to EFE that SCO is not going to go against home users or educational use, only against large companies and institutions that are getting benefits from Linux without paying. It added that, with these actions, SCO isn't trying to attack open source code, only to defend its rights and that, in fact, it works together on Linux projects like Apache and Samba.
He figures that currently there are in the world between 2.5 and 3 million users of Linux who need to pay SCO for a license." I just thought you guys at Apache and Samba might like to know what he's saying about you. This sounds like an acknowledgement that they need to work to convince somebody, anybody, anywhere that they have a case. I guess this means SCO will need to hire lawyers in every country on Earth, if they are telling the truth about their plans. Say, more lawyers fees -- that could impoverish a company mighty fast, unless, of course, they have pals with deep pockets.
Speaking of poverty, Blepp picked the poorest region of Spain to visit, Extremadura, where a wonderful project to make using computers less expensive has been going on. You can read a study on the use of FLOSS on this site: "Extremadura is the poorest region of Spain, lagging behind the rest of the country in both the economic and technological arena. Though short on financial resources, the region has set very high goals for itself in its Regional Strategy on Information Society. This paper briefly describes the region's strategy and continues to discuss how the use of Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) aids the regional government in achieving its goals.
"In the mid-90s the regional government saw that new information technology could help the Region to overcome its historical “peripheral” situation. One thing the region did not lack was ambition. The only problem was how to make that ambition a reality using the scarce financial resources that were available.
"Two formal objectives were presented by the strategy:
1. Accessibility for all; Internet as a public service; and
2. Stimulation of technological literacy" You can read about the LinEX project on that page. Or on their homepage
Maybe SCO figures folks in other lands may not have as powerful laws. Maybe it's beginning to dawn on them that they aren't doing so well in the US. Or just maybe they hope nobody outside the US reads Groklaw and will just fold out of fear. If that was Plan A for the US, it didn't work out. Poor pitiful EV1 is getting its PhD right about now in the GPL, I'm thinking. But there hasn't been a serious demand for licenses here. Groklaw does have readers all over the world, but only if they read English, so maybe it's time to think about translating Groklaw into other languages, like Spanish? If anyone wishes to do that, note that Groklaw is published under a Creative Commons license, which gives you the right to accurately translate and publish the articles for any noncommercial use. Do ask an attorney in your country first about laws in your area of the world, so you are clear on all that. The fact that I give you permission is just the first step. But I do give you permission.
Here is a translation of the Spanish site. Here's the Spanish for the snip I translated, in case I made any mistakes: "Tras este proceso, SCO iniciará acciones contra grandes usuarios de Linux en todo el mundo, también en España, para establecer precedente jurídico, ya que, explicó Blepp, los usuarios de Linux quieren tener constancia jurídica de que SCO tiene razón.
"Gregory G. Blepp dijo a EFE que SCO no va a ir contra los usuarios domésticos o educativos, sólo contra las grandes empresas e instituciones que se benefician gratuitamente de Linux.
Añadió que, con estas acciones, SCO no pretende ir contra el código abierto, sino defender sus derechos y que, de hecho, colabora con proyectos Linux como Apache y Samba.
"Considera que en la actualidad hay en el mundo entre 2,5 y 3 millones de usuarios de Linux que tendrían que pagar licencias a SCO."
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:24 PM EST |
| This is the thread for news. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ - You planning anything RE the "Halloween X" doc? - Authored by: leeway00 on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:33 PM EST
- Write about Ev1servers - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:49 PM EST
- Write about Ev1servers - Authored by: Brave_AC on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:02 PM EST
- Over a million - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:41 PM EST
- Write about Ev1servers - Authored by: perpetual_newbie on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:42 PM EST
- What? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 03:00 PM EST
- Re: What? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:43 PM EST
- Write about Ev1servers - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 03:03 PM EST
- Write about Ev1servers - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 03:46 PM EST
- Write about Ev1servers - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:34 PM EST
- 7 digits! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:14 PM EST
- Ev1 could easily hae bought a $1000000 binary license... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 05:06 PM EST
- Darl McBride vs Dan Farber interview - Authored by: trox on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:55 PM EST
- URLs and Updates Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:13 PM EST
- some insight of Spain law - Authored by: jmr on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:43 PM EST
- Heise.de has news and speculations on Halloween X - Authored by: TobiasBXL on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:47 PM EST
- M. Anderer of S2. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 03:22 PM EST
- Bank of America a target? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 03:32 PM EST
- Document shows SCO prepped lawsuit against BofA - Authored by: jwrl on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:03 PM EST
- Stowell comments on Judge Wells' ruling - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:07 PM EST
- Hello from Spain - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:29 PM EST
- M$ Word and Invisible ink (amendments!) - Authored by: Nick_UK on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:43 PM EST
- URLs and Updates Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:43 PM EST
- URL / maybe OT but I've got to post this (funny I hope) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:12 PM EST
- BofA in SCO's crosshairs? - Authored by: BigTex on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:12 PM EST
- SCO quotes on poor financial results - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:20 PM EST
- eWeek Article RE MS/SCO email - URL - Authored by: leeway00 on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:47 PM EST
- Lamlaw.com's radically different perspective on Halloween X - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:54 PM EST
- URLs and Updates Here - Authored by: songfellow1 on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:16 PM EST
- URLs and Updates Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:19 PM EST
- Questar paid $5000, CA license was part of settlement with Center7/Canopy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:54 PM EST
- List of quotes on Ev1servers amount - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 10:29 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:31 PM EST |
Is it possible to get a statement on wether the indemnification funds set up for
legal defense of Linux users will be available outside the US? Being a partner
to a company in Brazil makes this statement very important to me.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RK on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:32 PM EST |
Does Eric Raymond really say that it is legitimate? On the opensource.org web
site he says "I cannot certify it's authenticity", and then admitedly goes
on to talk as though it's genuine in all his comments on the memo.
Does
he say elsewhere that he has reason to believe that it's genuine?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:34 PM EST |
Indeed, the "leak" need not be true, false, intentional or otherwise.
Given the mere rumor that the deepest pockets could be behind the worldwide
shakedown of millions of users, it just might bump the stock a bit.
Remember, at the center this is simply a stock scam.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:38 PM EST |
It is all coming clear to me.
In October of last year, Darl was heard to say that their strategy was working
"according to schedule." The comment struck me as odd, given that
already a great number of facts the disputed SCO's assertations against IBM were
well-known. One has to assume that SCO knew them all along -- people seem to
consistently make the mistake of thinking David Boies is stupid, when in fact he
is not. Oddly, these folks seemed to think him a brilliant hero when he pursued
the DOJ's side of the antitrust action against Microsoft. But I digress. Back
to my point:
SCO is going after two of their customers: AutoZone, a former customer, and
DaimlerChrylser, a current customer. In both cases, I think, they are trying to
poison IBM and Novell's potential Linux markets by introducing the perception of
great risk should the potential customer choose to leave SCO behind and
implement Linux rather than SCO's software.
Tommorow, they're going to sue everyone with deep pockets, for one reason or
another.
Meanwhile, they are going to continue to benefit from the rabble-rousers,
lunatics and terrorists (to paraphrase) that they deride. Namely, the authors
of open-source software.
This is a nifty plan, and if the latest memo leak is to believed, it is all
going to be paid for by Microsoft. Of course, Microsoft has the most to gain,
given that Linux is a direct threat to their core business. If it seems to a
corporation that they will be sued if they use Linux, then of course, their
fiduciary responsibility would be to use something safer...and why not
Microsoft. They're the market leader after all.
This whole strategy, on the other hand, may simply be aimed at making IBM or
perhaps Novell acquire them and shut down these lawsuits once said acquisition
is complete. That would also be consistent with SCO's strategy, to inflate the
value of their company and force a competitor to stifle them by paying them --
either through a settlement (unlikely) or through merger (quite likely.) In
other words, it is a high-stakes case of green-mail.
Meanwhile, Microsoft also gets to benefit from this introduction of apparently
artificial uncertainty, as their sales force will and does quickly point out the
"inherent risks of Linux." That partially explains Microsoft's
willingness to license SCO IP, one, it eliminates any risk of their being sued
(or perceived as being at risk of) and also it funds further SCO fishing
expeditions.
In the end of the day, SCO is at least as unwilling to go in front of a jury as
anyone involved in their various actions. Without in-depth analysis of the DM
and AZ cases (other than stern denial already on record by AZ IT people) it's
hard to rate their chances, however, in the IBM case, we seem to know very well
they have a poor chance of a clean victory. Same for the Novell case, but that
too is somewhat uncertain until the BSD settlement is finally revealed to the
public.
Nonetheless, they have already achieved their aims of introducing great
uncertainty and the appearance of Linux being "risky" into the
marketplace, which makes them all the more attractive for a well-heeled firm to
buy them, squelch them and get back to work. Darl and company have no qualms
whatsoever of shutting up and counting their money on some sunny island...and I
think that is exactly their desire and plan. Somewhere, Bill must be laughing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ile on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:39 PM EST |
The translation is accurate, PJ. The site you pointed out
apparently was rewriting an agency feed from EFE
(www.efe.es).
As to Linex, it's not just the distro. As of this week an
accounting/management program for small to medium
businesses has also been released as part of the
initiative.
I think wllacer will be able to give more detailed info on
Linex and Guadalinex.
What _is_ surprising is that the more developed regions of
Spain do not seem to be really involved with FLOSS (It
should be borne in mind that Spain is a very highly
decentralised country, not to mention the three official
languages in part of the country that would most
definitely profit from FLOSS localization). I simply do
not get it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:40 PM EST |
$86 million isn't that much, given that it supposedly includes the $50 million
BayStar investment.
On top of that we have the 15 million Microsoft license payment, so in total
we're looking at about $20 million that was not previously known. That's not
much money for Microsoft, nor is it a huge amount for SCO, given that they'll be
liable to pay back those $50 million if they lose their lawsuits.
The way I see it, is just more money in the coffers of IBM, Red Hat and those
who have yet to countersue SCO.
No amount of money can stop SCO from losing these lawsuits.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brian_toovey on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:40 PM EST |
Question,
Why doesnt Linus just sue SCO? I think he should. Does anyone else think so?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mark Levitt on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:42 PM EST |
Does SCO? Maybe.
But who has the most interest in stopping people from realizing the economic
advantages of FLOSS?
SCO wants noise. Why not hit the UK? Or France?
Draw your own conclusion...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:44 PM EST |
I'm not sure Eric has that much credibility outside the community, and perhaps
some doubts within it, too. So, PJ is right to look into it further. I would be
surprised if the memo was admissible in court.
In the meantime, as long as the judges sleep, Darl is right to think he has
clear sailing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:47 PM EST |
I'm not sure that SCO is establishing any precedent other than if you a happen
to be a current or former SCO customer, your likelihood of being sued is much
higher than the rest of us.
SCO still hasn't sued anyone over their use of Linux per se. PJ is correct, both
lawsuits center around contract violations. Linux is only scarcely mentioned in
the DC lawsuit.
The act of suing does not establish LEGAL precedent, the act of winning a case
is what does that, and only in the jurisdiction of the court they win in. So, I
see no reason why anyone now has any more reason to fear being sued then before,
unless you are/were a SCO licensee.
All SCO has proven is they know how to pay lawyers and make outlandish press
releases.
As for the memo, who knows, certainly seems logical. It might be a whistleblower
(I can't imagine MS ever wanting it's part in this known publicly) but it also
might be SCO creatively leaking a hint that they have much deeper pockets than
people think, so we shouldn't think we can outlast them due to attrition.
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:47 PM EST |
IF (big "IF") this memo was leaked on purpose, it might indicate that
SCO will attempt to involve Microsoft in their sinking ship, since they would
otherwise get the blaim on all, and risk potential jailtime.
IF (big "IF") this memo is genuine, than it is just another 'proof' of
Microsoft's involvement, which I believe is what is happening.
IF (big "IF") this is a prank, ERS will have his reputation somehow be
questioned, since he is one of the major speaking boards of Open Source.
My question: On what criteria did ESR determine that this memo was
'newsworthy'?
Patrick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:54 PM EST |
Since Spain and Germany are both part of the EU, which is now a single trade
zone, could someone make the argument to the German court that making claims in
Spain is the same as making claims in Germany?
Also, did not France sue eBay and got eBay to restrict the content avaialble to
French IP addresses? Could not someone get a German court to do the same to SCO?
---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:57 PM EST |
Looking at the numbers in the memo, I don't see how they can add up.
The seem to say SCO got ~$30m from MS from licensing, ~$50m from MS via BayStar,
and then $20m-$30m from somewhere else. Wouldn't this $20m-$30m show up in
balance sheets somewhere - I find this suspicious.
The "BayStar deal" actually involved Baystar and RBC, so the way the
deal ascribes all of the $50m to BayStar also looks suspicious.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:58 PM EST |
The interesting part about the letter on opensource.org was the little bit about
acquiring obsolete/out-dated technology.
The comment implies that the motive is to acquire these technologies into a
portfolio and then either milk them like CA or sell them off. MSFT would appear
to be to optimal prospect if they are sold off because the patents could be then
used as a "fence" to herd the community toward other solutions - MSFT
solutions. This strategy is only effective though if the technology being
acquired has some leverage with respect to currently used technologies.
This could also be a massive bit of misdirection, sort of like the 1st Army
Group in WWII prior to D-Day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: coolmos on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:01 PM EST |
If Microsoft is pulling the strings here, what are the chances of sueing them
over the SCO cases ?
Could IBM/Novell/RedHat/AZ/DC/Univention/OZ claim 1 billion from them, for
trying to break the competition ?
If this link can be confirmed, i wonder what will happen.....
---
A 699 license ? Is that the US variant of the Nigerian 419 scam ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:04 PM EST |
Not to start a fire-thread here!, but I believe we in Europe have created a
constitution (in an European context) where these practices really cannot happen
to this agree, risking extortion penalties, fraud etc.
If the US want to proclaim it's industrial advantages, innovation,and what else
have you, the SCO case, amongst others, is a good test case regarding a American
constitutional approach to how to deal with fraudulent companies, monopoly money
influencing 'independant' media and research companies, patent issues, FUD etc.
I believe in Europe people tend to look more rational on situations, and would
consider SCO a joke as a business.
My personal opinion is that a most American IT-media acts a a bunch of
'softballs', hardly daring to forward any critiques or questions of the facts.
Than again it could be the FUD money....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:22 PM EST |
It has come to my attention that Questar has bought a Linux license from The SCO
Group. As a paying customer to which Questar is accountable for its
expenditures, I demand to know the reason for which the license was bought. Out
of the thousands of companies employing Linux, all but a handful have found
SCO's claims to be without basis. What does Questar know that the rest of us
don't?
Signed
A Linux user and Questar customer
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: om1er on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:26 PM EST |
After that process, SCO will initiate actions against major users of
Linux throughout the world.... So, is it okay to start calling
Dark Darl a "sue-happy cowboy" yet? People can get addicted to lots of things.
This looks like an addiction to me, but IANAD (I am not a
doctor). ---
Are we there yet? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:30 PM EST |
In Spain, we also read groklay. It's not a problem to real english, and we
follow closely all actions and PR from SCOG. Well, we will see what happens, but
linux has strong groups of supporters in Spain. We love Linux!!! (anf
groklay!!!)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:34 PM EST |
In the news..
The daughter of Judge Wells gave a new term to the group to show her code, the
representative of SCOG Darl Mc Bride Jr said that this ready to show the code if
new company IBM-NOVELL-ORACLE shows the code of its new operating system that
surely it has inlaid fragments of code of System V, and is indeed a day like
today that M$ with his cyber head bill the first android human half half scrap
iron... I mean Windows, finishes buying the second planet of the Solar System.
and it is a day like today that 50 years ago disappeared LINUX an old operating
system that in spite of its prestige could not be developed by the longest
judgment of all the times.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- year 2050 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:55 PM EST
- ???? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:30 PM EST
- year 2050 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 11:22 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: DrStupid on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:45 PM EST |
TSG asked for a jury trial, so the only way that case could be over in a few
weeks would be if Novell's motion to dismiss was passed. In which case, TSG
would get laughed out of court from here to Timbuktu.
Unless Novell suddenly turned around and conceded the suit, which is as likely
as a small village in Scotland winning the baseball World Series.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Rorgg on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:47 PM EST |
>SCO will initiate actions against major users of Linux
>throughout the world, including in Spain, to establish
>legal precedent, because, explained Blepp, Linux users
>want legal certainty that SCO is right.
Oh, that's totally true! Except he misspelled "full of crap" as
"right."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PSaltyDS on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:51 PM EST |
The quote "Even Laura DiDio used the words 'suicide gambit'"
struck me funny.
The stage play "The Producers" is coming to
town here in a couple of weeks and has shown up in several radio and tv ads
recently. Another example of a business plan that depends on failure to reap a
profit. It's so easy to picture McBride and Sontag producing Boise singing
"Spring Time For Hitler," while taking money from little old ladies!
:-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:54 PM EST |
It seems the press release and law suits distracted all
attention away from SCO's financial reports; I don't even
see any mention of what happened on the conf call this
time. If theyre purpose on scheduling the law suits on wed
was to blurr/make people not notice the financials, it
seems to have succeeded, which makes me even doubly curious
to now see a transcript of the conf call to know what they
likely don't want anyone to notice...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:54 PM EST |
McBride has repeatedly said that developers in the Linux community have admitted
that SysV code has been contributed to Linux. In the conference call, he
refused to name names, but I can only assume he's talking about SGI.
He also keeps saying that SCO made some infringing code public, the Linux
community admitted it was infringing, and they took it out. I assume this is a
(thoroughly inaccurate) account of the facts surrounding the atealloc code
contributed by SGI and presented in the SCO Forum.
If SGI is the only culprit that SCO can find, why are they suing everyone EXCEPT
SGI?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Why not sue SGI? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 01:21 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: jmc on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:54 PM EST |
It does seem to me that a lot of trouble could be saved
if:
- Linus, or OSDL on his behalf, could be persuaded to sue SCO.
It doesn't seem to me that SCO could pull the delaying tactic they've done so
beautifully in the RH case.
- Some of the Fortune XXXX companies who've
received letters from SCO could sue for a declaration that they're
"clean".
- Some of the GPL-ed s/w suppliers that SCO uses, like Samba
and GCC, could pull the rights to use their stuff from SCO and demand/sue for
them to stop shipping them.
A nice round of lawsuits against SCO
might concentrate a few minds and even smoke out any M$ funding.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: clue_by_four on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:55 PM EST |
Please don't confuse us all with DiDio, and the clueless journalists. Some
analysts can call a spade a spade. AMR Research published this today -
http://www.amrresearch.com/Content/view.asp?pmillid=17101[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:56 PM EST |
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&a
mp;tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=103454
According to that post the guy running S2S is an ex IKON exployee from around
the time Darl was there and he had a fleeting association with MIT. Maybe he's
the "rocket scientist" or "group of MIT mathamaticians"?
Anyway, the consulting services S2S offers match pretty well with the stuff in
the new leaked memo. And the author (Michael Anderer) is the head of S2S.
I hope the SEC takes a long hard look at this stuff.
The the judge in Microsoft's antitrust case. If this isn't noncompetitive I
don't know what is.
:)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: CyberCFO on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:58 PM EST |
Maybe we could out translation teams together to capture the major articles in
multiple languages.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 02:59 PM EST |
This is offtopic, but it might be important.
Yesterday when i tried to surf to groklaw i got this error message:
"The GrokLaw site is under a DoS attack. We're waiting till the attack is
over.nWe don't know who's behind the attacs."
But I have not seen any more information about that. Was there a DDoS attack, or
was it some mistake? Or perhaps someone "hacked" the DNS servers so
that groklaw did not work for some people in some countries? Anyone else that
saw this?
Anyone knows what happend?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 03:05 PM EST |
I still can't understand how they can pick and choose Companies to sue... I
mean, if they do own IP/Copyright (whatever) [SCO's words, not mine], then why
don't they just sue everybody that is using the supposedly dodgy code?
Suing just a few but ignoring the rest to me is silly.
I mean, if a gang of 10 (known) burglars raided your house and stole all your
property (IP), why just get two of them arrested and chastised?
Doesn't make sense at all.
Nick
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 03:31 PM EST |
PJ quite rightly asks:
What I am trying to figure out
is, if it is a real memo, as it appears it may be, was it a whistle blower or a
deliberate leak? Does SCO have any reason these days to want the world to think
Microsoft is backing them financially?
warning rampant speculation to
follow...
According to various conspiracy theorists, SCO is merely
running a pump 'n dump. Anecdotal evidence indicates that many people may have
encouraged the SEC to investigate. Meanwhile, it appears that none of their
(SCO's) lawsuits have any merits what-so-ever. Despite new threats to pursue
lawsuits elsewhere, thanks to actions of the German courts and new developments
at the ACC(C?), those avenues may be dead ends. Where is a desperate executive
to turn to get their tail out of hot water? Maybe bargain with the SEC and
provide evidence against MS regarding their anti-competitive activities?
"Hey man, if you think we're doing illegal things, check out how the
convicted monopolist helped us out..."
The conspiracy speculation
posts normally drive me nuts, but I'm beginning to see how there might be merit
to such speculations. Others have noted here that EV1 already has a suspicious
relationship with MS. As does Baystar. What about the others signing up for
SCOSource? The Halloween letter is certainly plausible given MS's past business
practices & the noted relationships between the principals (both individual
& corporate).
bs (not the SCO bs)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 03:43 PM EST |
I read the Slashdot article about the "leaked" E-mail about how M$ was
hypothetically funding SCO.
I personally have no way to authenticate it, but I am curious: What would
GROKLAW consider as proof and authentication. I presume M$ and Darl McBride
will deny it.
With address spoofing even an E-mail from either could be suspect. With
corporate credibility and $Billions at stake, obfuscation and misdirection, even
including double misdirection (throw dirt on yourself and blame the other side,
thus dividing the opposition) seems the order of the day.
This M$-SCO connection is so important: What about contacting IBM (Novell? DC?
AutoZone? DOJ?) directly and asking their opinion or assistance? Can GROKLAW do
that? I can imagine that IBM might not be able to respond (case before the
courts), and its hard to believe they don't know, but GROKLAW is so thorough...
Maybe DC might be able to incorporate it somehow in its discovery.
---------------
Night Flyer at work
My Clan Motto: Veritas Vincit: Truth conquers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mbaehr on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:00 PM EST |
Sorry to post this here but it appears there isn't much activity in the thread
about DaimlerChrysler anymore. I hope someboy on the board with more UNIX
history knowledge can explain or answer the following:
Why is DaimlerChrysler a UNIX System V source code licensee? It is obvious that
SUN, IBM or HP licensed source code to develop their versions of UNIX but I
never heard of Daimlix or Chryslix? Is it possible that you could only get
source code licenses when UNIX was still with AT&T? I really wonder why the
ever would have needed the source code?
I guess that a company like DaimlerChrysler uses all kinds of flavours of UNIX
in their different divisions and business units but I would assume that almost
all of those are off-the-shelf versions of Solaris, AIX or HP-UX, etc. What does
that mean for their original source code license then? Do they still pay their
royalties for the source code license plus the license fees to their UNIX
vendors? Do those HP-UX, AIX or Solaris licenses replace their required license
count for the source code license?
These questions came up in a discussion with a colleague today and I am puzzled
why an end user like Daimler or Chrysler (at the time) would ever had bothered
to fiddle with the core OS. I guess in todays situation they are probably asking
themselves why they ever exposed themselves to this litigation risk!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Loki on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:03 PM EST |
Per Tech Web:
Other notable Web sites that could conceivably be targeted by SCO because they
run Linux include those of
the FBI,
the White House,
the Department of Defense,
the Department of Homeland Security, and
US-CERT, the U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team, a site which provides
information about IT security threats.
Oddly enough, the city of Lindon, Utah., where SCO is based, also runs its Web
site using Linux, as does the city's Chamber of Commerce.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:03 PM EST |
2003-2005 M$ indirectly pays ($100,000,000) SCOx to drive up the total cost of
ownership (TCO) to use Linux and Open Source Software by using lawsuits and/or
the SCO IP License.
2005-2007 M$ pitches TCO and other encumberances to corporate end users to
pursuade them to buy Windows Servers with other M$ products that are
incompatable or not licensed to run with other operating systems. (M$ profits as
yet undetermined, SCOx/Canopy executives make an amount as yet undetermined)
2007-2010 M$, SCO or some other M$ puppet begins to push to invalidate the GPL
so it is more (according to D McBride) BSD-like. (M$ profits as yet
undetermined, SCOx/Canopy no longer needed to insure M$ dominance)
2010-2013 GPL copyright holders have their contributions forced into the realm
of public domain. M$ uses formerly GPL'ed copyrights to improve their
proprietary software. (M$'s only threat is software from China as they have
further developed their own products from formerly GPL'ed software.)
Now is the time for all good programmers to come to the aid of their OSS!
another one from under the bridge
I realize I'm only the help here but I don't do Windows![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 10 year plan - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:54 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:05 PM EST |
| ...according to news.com about 30 minutes ago. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:07 PM EST |
"In der Mail, deren Authentizität von SCO bestritten wird, ..."
SCO denies the authencity of the mail.
"Alle Anzeichen sprechen inzwischen dafür, dass die Mail gefälscht ist,
aber von einem Insider,..."
In the meanwhile everything indicates that the mail is a fake, but from an
insider ... (but there is a message/reason) ...
germans with better english knowledge than me go read and translate
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/45260
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:07 PM EST |
Blepp has an out - Spain comes AFTER "Tras este proceso" (the Novell
suit) "que considera que este caso se resolverá en semanas." (which he
considers will be finished in weeks).
So mis amigos, dueme en paz, because SCO is a loooooooong way away from
finishing off Novell.
He also reiterates the SCO partyline that it would set Linux back DECADES if
they tried to remove all of SCO's code from it. We'll see about that, because
in 45 days, SCO has to produce their version of what they claim to have rights
to in Linux via SysV.
The Extramadura (which is Spanish for "Really Tough" BTW, for the
rough life it has always given to its residents) is seen as the savior of the
region, bringing computer literacy, school computers and affordable business
software. It's put a serious dent in Microsoft's sales, and other more
prosperous provinces are looking at it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:08 PM EST |
Dunno of this is dupe.
Sco forgot to turn of history in doc for DC, and
aperently first at one point actually had Bank of America listed at the
defendant
Here[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:28 PM EST |
"hidden text indicates that SCO spent considerable time building a case
against the bank and that it also considered extending allegations filed against
IBM to Big Blue's high-profile customers--in this case, Bank of America"
http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5170073.html?tag=nefd_lede
Woohoo! "Macromedia to test Linux support"
http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5170061.html?tag=nefd_top
I was hoping last year that "Macromedia" or "Adobe" would
make this announcement in 2004 and the other would follow then. Hopefully by the
time "longhorn 2006" comes out they finished some of their most
important applications natively.
That would be a great indicator and the beginning of restoring competition in
the OS-market.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:33 PM EST |
"The SCO Group filed lawsuits this week against DaimlerChrysler and AutoZone,
but the Unix seller's attorneys also had prepared a complaint against Bank of
America"
Read the entire article at News.com!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:36 PM EST |
| IBM just won a contract to install a $87M Linux system in
Catalonia, Spain.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ken Wilson on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:51 PM EST |
Robert McMillan, IDG News Service, in his article titled "CA named as SCO
licensee" wrote:
<blockquote>In an interview on Wednesday, SCO's CFO confirmed that the
three companies were licensees, and claimed that his company had now signed up
somewhere between 10 and 50 IP License for Linux customers.</blockquote>
SCO never actually claimed that at all. When asked the number of licenses that
had been sold, SCO claimed there had been only a "handful". The person
asking the question then asked if that meant less than 10?...less than 50? After
stumbling over himself briefly the SCO person said less than 50....which of
course could mean anywhere from zero to 49.
Not a big deal but it sure would be nice if these journalist types could get
their info straight before going to press.
---
Ken Wilson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RSC on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:56 PM EST |
<devils advocate>
If we assume that in the Universe that SCO, and now MS appear to live in, that
the courts come down on SCOs' side on all the major points. EI: that IBMs' AIX
and Dynix are belong to SCO, that SCO owns the UNIX copyrights, that Linux has
has got some of this code in it and that the "community" is not
allowed to know what that code is and are not allowed to take it out and SCO are
allowed to charge the world+dog for it. (does *anyone* think that *this* will
happen in this universe?)
Will SCO and MS have effectively killed GNU/Linux?
</devils advocate>
I am not sure they will have. When it boils down to it, MS have made a number of
really big mistakes in my book.
1. They have spent the last decade wasting to much time trying to protect their
monopoly. And have not spent it doing what the should have done, improving their
products.
2. They have wasted to much development on marketing features in their products
instead of securing and listening to what their customers want.
3. They have have been too paranoid about pirating and have given them selves a
bad reputation trying to be the global "control freak" with
"Trusted Computing" and DRM.
4. And last of all, they have let the Monopoly go to their heads and have
refused to price their products at the true market value. IE: have kept the
prices artifitially high.
When it boils down to it, I am not sure any of this current fiaSCO is going to
hurt GNU/Linux at all, because it is after all a much better offering that
anything else currently on the market. Even if there was a $price tag associated
with it, it would still end up out performing Windows because it is better.
I mean isn't that what we need to get across to the world in general. GNU/Linux
is better, not because it is free to get a hold of, but because it is simply a
better group of software products.
RSC.
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: davcefai on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:20 PM EST |
Story at http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1542904,00.asp.
"Blake Stowell, SCO's director of communications, acknowledged that the
leaked memo is real.
But, Stowell claimed that pundits had mischaracterized the memo's
context."
On the other hand, can we believe anything BS says?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:44 PM EST |
... that I almost agreed with! (I think he was quoted in a story on CNet if
I'm not mistaken; lost track of the URL. Sorry.) Either he's finally decided,
after a lengthy digestion of the available evidence, that SCO doesn't really
have a case and that his darlings (Darlings?) are not long for this world or
he's still believes in SCO but is merely trying to save face by beginning to
side against SCO in time to avoid appear to be a total shill. My guess is that
it's more the latter because he wants to have a semblance of a career when SCO
finally flames out. (Jesse Berst used to be the hands-down champion horse
changer in the IT pundit corps. Rob may be making a move to assume that
mantle.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chrisbrown on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:44 PM EST |
PJ, when (if) you cover THE letter, it may be instructive to
review IBM's 2nd through 5th counterclaims and also ponder on
Microsoft's anti-trust case. Also, ponder what happens when the
worlds richest man/company (already convicted of being a predatory monopoly)
conspires with the worlds most morally bankrupt company? Should this
all be brought to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's attention? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:49 PM EST |
The stuff from Spain is quite interesting - the talk of "two-three million
Linux Users affected" and "no threat to home/educational" sounds
like SCO may be trying to ramp down their claims of code infringement and
instead be seeking to focus on SCO customers who they feel have "infringed
on their ip",,,,
Perhaps they just want to focus on some "winnable" lawsuits to try and
gain some karma in the press - who seemingly now are starting to cotton on to
the fact that the emperor has had no clothes for about a year now...........[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 06:11 PM EST |
I was reading the eweek article regarding the EV1Servers.net license agreement,
and they are trying to explain to the community that the dont have an opinion
either way to the SCO case, but were doing so because it was cheaper than
litigating it. FTC WAKE UP! If this isn't the exact definition of extortion,
what is?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:35 PM EST |
has there been any comments from BofA?
did they settle?
did TSG back off?
i have an account there and i'm wondering if i should move it.
btw, i went and found a AutoZone today. bought(B12, and PowerSteiring fluid) a
few things and will be back there saturday(oil change). complimented and
thanked the manager about giving TSG the finger. he did not know what i was
talking about.
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/snafuu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 09:38 PM EST |
Nothing surprises me about SCO's actions here. They are a
bunch of shady businessmen who sit around dreaming up
scenarios where they can take over the world and make a
fortune. I've heard their ilk speak in other contexts.
They flare up and flame out quickly.
But Microsoft's involvement, although suspected, now
confirmed by the email, is different.
Remember who is targeted here. IBM and IBM's customers. By
someone with Microsoft's backing. There is very little
litigation between the big guys, and for good reason. It
has come to be viewed in the industry as a losers game,
ie. if you lose marketshare, lose technological edge, lose
money, you sue. It very seldom turns the tide of the
market, and usually distracts the plaintiff from what they
need to do.
So, first point, Microsoft is playing a losers game.
Second, the industry could tie itself in knots with a
litigious attitude. There essentially is a MAD agreement,
Mutually assured destruction. You sue me bankrupt, I sue
you bankrupt. Microsoft has, possibly inadvertently, shot
off the first round of ICBMs. Will IBM respond?
The main point is that this doesn't involve us. This is a
big nasty fight among the big guys. And I submit, the
beginning of the end of US dominance in the software
industry.
Derek [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 10:00 PM EST |
The DC and AZ lawsuits are best characterized as hissy fits masquerading as
lawsuits. And speaking of masquerading, the SCO Group looks about as ridiculous
as a Masked Avenger who is naked from the neck down.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: qcubed on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 11:43 PM EST |
on Samba's website:
http://us2.samba.org/samba/samba.html (us mirror)
and i quote:
=====================
(19th Aug, 2003) SCO
use of Samba code under the GPL
Over the past few months, the SCO Group
(formerly Caldera International, Inc. a Linux distribution vendor) has been
complaining about violations of its Copyright works by the Linux kernel
code.
Recently, Darl McBride, the Chief Executive Officer of SCO has been
making pejorative statements regarding the license used by the Linux kernel, the
GNU GPL. In a keynote speech he recently said:
"At the end of the day,
the GPL is not about making software free; it's about destroying
value."
In light of this it is the depths of hypocrisy that at the same
event SCO also announced the incorporation of the Samba3 release into their
latest OpenServer product. Samba is an Open Source/Free Software project that
allows Linux and UNIX servers to interoperate with Microsoft Windows clients.
The reason for this is clear; Samba3 allows Linux and UNIX servers to replace
Microsoft Windows NT Domain Controllers and will add great value to any
Operating System which includes it. However, Samba is also developed and
distributed under the GNU GPL license, in exactly the same manner as the Linux
kernel code that SCO has been criticizing for its lack of care in ownership
attribution.
We observe that SCO is both attacking the GPL on the one
hand and benefiting from the GPL on the other hand. SCO can't have it both ways.
SCO has a clear choice: either pledge not to use any Open Source/Free Software
in any of their products, or actively participate in the Open Source/Free
Software movement and reap the benefits. For SCO to continue to use Open
Source/Free Software while attacking others for using it is the epitome of
hypocrisy.
The strength of Open Source/Free Software is that it is
available to all without restrictions on fields of endeavor, as the Samba Team
believes the ability to freely use, modify and learn from software code is one
of the grounding principles of computer science, and a basic freedom for
all.
Because of this, we believe that the Samba Team must remain true to
our principles and our code must be freely available to use even in ways we
personally disapprove of.
Even when used by rank hypocrites like SCO.
Jeremy Allison, Marc Kaplan, Andrew Bartlett, Christopher R. Hertel,
Jerry Carter, Jean Francois Micouleau, Paul Green, Rafal Szczesniak, Jelmer
Vernooij, Volker Lendecke. Simo Sorce
Samba Team.
============
sounds to me like SCO isn't so much "working" with samba now, does it? it
certainly doesn't seem like Samba thinks SCO is working with them...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bobk on Friday, March 05 2004 @ 09:55 AM EST |
There must be a grass roots group that has crafted a letter to be sent to
congress, etc. asking that SCO be scolded and put back in the corner? Does
anyone have a link to something like this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
