[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

"What's happening instead is a shuffling of stock to other Canopy Group shell companies, and it is dumped from there. Bruce Perens supplied a link in one of the commments around here someplace. So, the deal is probably like this: While SCO has stock that is worth something more than toilet paper, they "buy" companies already owned by their parent company, The Canopy Group. The Canopy Group liquidates those stocks, and at the end, Darl and Friends get a nice hefty bonus, as SCO stock tanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

What people don't understand, McBride insists, is that SCO's legal actions aren't just about SCO's IP, Unix, and the GPL anymore, it's a broader issue that includes music, video, and anything that can be digitized and distributed on the Net. To McBride, the real issue is "the future of IP rights in the 21st century."

pj here it is now.i knew there had to be a reason for sco making the comments about riaa and mpaa they trying to ride a white horse.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM counter suing SCO for 1 count of violation of a copyright license (GPL) alleging SCO violates this license for IBM contributions and many other contributors.

IBM counter suing SCO for 4 counts of patent violations.

Now who is protecting IP in the Internet Age?

One thought on the trade secret claim. IANAL but presumably to get damages for trade secrets, they would have to show it was a secret before, not a secret now, and as a result of IBM actions.

In the event that they were to win this - presumably they themselves would have shown it's no longer a trade secret??

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/0001102542030 00054/xslF345X02/primary_doc.xml

I noticed Jeff's wife had 125 shares according to your last filing - http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/0001102542030000 51/xslF345X02/edgardoc.xml - but doesn't seem to now, although I saw no explicit document referencing a sale.

Well done Mrs Hunsaker!

[ Reply to This | # ]

I have no idea whether his allegations are true or not

But remind me who is telling/implying IBM customers not to buy AIX, to destroy it, not to renew any Dynix contracts, not to buy IBM systems with Linux, not to accept IBM's lack of indemnification on Linux, to apply pressure to IBM, etc.?

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO has to: 1) Prove it was a secret! Prove that the information was not already revealed in publically accessible documentation before the alleged leak happened. (one consultant I know was sued for violating his NDA - the judge was not amused when the supposed "secret" had been the subject of several press releases and a few web pages, in sufficient detail that anyone who knew that industry could guess how to duplicate it)

2) Prove they took precautions to keep the secret from escaping - this usually involves not only NDAs, but isolating work groups from each other to prevent any possibility of leakage by accident. This will be difficult, because SCO was working hard on United Linux and making all kinds of press releases about their committment to make the two interoperable.

3) If they Prove 1 & 2, they still have to prove that they were damaged. Considering the downhill slide in the SCO's UNIX business over the years they have had it, it would be like a buggywhip manufacturer suing soimeone for leaking the secrey formula for the laquer the whips are coated with.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What this means is that SCO could be shoveling cash into DataCrystal for "services rendered," at rates that may or may not be reasonable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think the point I'm coming to, is if SCO wins a trade secret case against IBM, then part of winning that case is to prove the secret were revealed (by IBM)? Right?

Then it presumably makes it hard for them to claim somebody else also revealed the no longer-secret secret

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

And in all good sense, their efforts should not be "ongoing." I'd want to make sure that my data mining was complete before I sued IBM. Wouldn't you?

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is an educated guess, but I'd wager that if you used the DataCrystal methodology on, say, NetBSD or even Windows 2000, you'd discover a significant quantity of "obfuscated code" that was "stolen" from SVr4, too.

In any case, if anybody is well-equipped to take down the methodological claims, it's IBM. That's one part of a trial that would be fun to watch.

As far as the Canopy-DataCrystal page is concerned, I bet there isn't an intelligence agency in the world that wouldn't give anything to possess the kind of expertise they claim, which is basically everything in the field.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

What fun would that be?

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

sigh will these reporters ever ask some serious questions

[ Reply to This | # ]

The derivative thing is just incredible. You'd think a journalist would think about it. If the journalist writes an article which he owns the copyright on, and contributes to more than one newspaper (say NY Times and Salt Lake Tribune), can NY Times use this to claim ownership over the Salt Lake Tribune? Especially if the NY Times sent letters to all it's journalists saying them explicitly disclaimed ownership of the journalists' own contributions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The methodology most likely scores similarity in terms of probability, or even more likely, odds against a random hit. But the similarity would be smeared over several, perhaps very many, lines of code. There needn't be any literal duplication at all. Hence the claim that it would be impossible to weed out SCO code, since you couldn't actually point at it anywhere.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"And the methodology will probably occlude *exactly* the differences that, on examination, make the SCO claims invalid."

This may be evident/reasonable to an engineer or a technical person. But what about a jury trial? Anything can happen. Especially if SCO weeds out technical persons from the jury? Try to explain probability theory to a lay person! **megagulp**

In IEEE Computer (August 2003, p.9 'Engineering Decisions' by Bob Colwell), we read:

(Note the tone of the article is somewhat whimsical)

"[...] a trial lawyer told me that she often used her right of recusla before a trial to identify and eliminate engineers from the jury. She said she found them much harder than most people to sway with emotional appeals, and often the same courtroom histrionics that work well on most jurors would backfire on an engineer"

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wonder how much money SCO payed PC Magazine for that article.

Talk about SCO carpetbagging BS.

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil..." 1 Timothy 6:10

Need I say more?

[ Reply to This | # ]

And then they'll probably have to explain why they get very similar results scanning one or all of the BSDs for contamination, so why is Linux special?

And then they'll probably have to explain why their process *isn't* symmetrical. Much of their evidence can just as easily be turned around, to "prove" how SVr4 was contaminated lock, stock, and barrel by Linux.

The only thing their process is good for, in the end, is to provide broad place for human experts to look. And we've seen what the human experts find when they look at SCO's examples.

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://silicon valley.internet.com/news/article.php/3069811

"Ten years ago we saw something coming, so we decided we would work on getting full rights to the kernel so we could incorporate it as much as possible into Solaris," Sun Solaris Group Marketing Manager Bill Moffitt told internetnews.com.

Comment: Didn't IBM have full rights too? After all a paid-up perpetual irrevokable royalty-free license is revokable according to SCO

[ Reply to This | # ]

"The company also boasts servers running Solaris remained virtually unscathed during last week's virus attacks."

Are these guys for real? Of course they would have remained unscathed. The worms were targetting windows.

We all know Sun hates anyone who is not... well, ...Sun. What else is new?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here's a quote:

"Some of the evidence Sontag showed us is straightforward: Sections of the Linux kernel code relating to the journaling file system and multiprocessor support are identical to the Unix System V code. He offered to show us specific sections of the Unix code, but only under a nondisclosure agreement, which we refused. He said this code was not added to Linux by IBM but by someone else, and that it's a violation of SCO's copyright. I'm not a lawyer, but his argument seems convincing."

How can he be convinced that there is identical code if he didn't see the Unix code?

Anyway, to compare the news coverage now to two or three weeks ago, there really has been a strong shift towards Linux.

One advantage SCO has is that "names" are making themselves available for these kinds of interviews while that is not happening as much on the Linux side. (PJ are you up for any interviews?) Another advantage for SCO is that they are the suits and ties US Corporation so they get a real presumption of reasonability.

The Linux community's advantage is that SCO keeps getting caught telling lies.

For example:

"But Sontag said the BPF routines were not intended to be an example of stolen code, but rather a demonstration of how SCO was able to detect "obfuscated" code, or code that had been altered slightly to disguise its origins. The slide displaying the code should have been written differently to reflect that intention, he said. "

(Slide 15)

"It was kind of weird, because they told me they had hired a team at MIT," said Robert McMillan, a correspondent for the IDG News Service. "And then they kind of backpedaled."

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

http: //www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2020889

A nice balanced article.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Right, which means they have to show that IBM was not only in a position to see the recipe for the secret sauce, buyt that they also were the ones who leaked it. If the "secrets" were revealed by Caldera programmers giving code to their counterparts in the Linux world, too bad.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl is a Mormon! I have always had great respect for that religion (until now) Most Mormons are very devout and do not steal, especially on the scale of SCO. Legality, technicality and morality may not be the same in the eyes of man, but under Gods? I can see him on Judgement Day "But I owned it, I was honest, None of those millions of developers did anything but steal my IP" Now we now why he is so upset, he knows where he is going when he dies. Darl, make sure they add an asbestos liner to the coffin.

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://iw.thomsonfn.com/iwatch/cgi-bin/iw_ticker?t=SCOX&range=7& mgp=0&x=21&y=7&i=3&hdate=

It shows buy/sell requests. All those pink bars are not binding, but are an indication that someone is actively seeking to trade a stock. There's a lot for sale, and few buyers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sorry for the OT but I couldn't resist. Also really nice site can't start my day without the daily dose of GROKLAW.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wow!!

Also, I sent PCMag a nasty letter about their coverage.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://news.com.c om/2100-1041_3-5069341.html?tag=fd_top

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anyway, why the hell does SCO want Sun to sign an NDA. Sun already _has_ a copy of the code which according to Sun they just relicensed from SCO.

I think Sun is in on this. Their same-day press release about the trial, the leak that they were the other licensee besides Microsoft, and their attempts to cash in, like in this press release all show something very seedy going on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

nm said:

"Mr McBride, like several directors at Caldera, has worked for Novell and is a devout Mormon."

Darl is a Mormon! I have always had great respect for that religion (until now) Most Mormons are very devout and do not steal, especially on the scale of SCO. Legality, technicality and morality may not be the same in the eyes of man, but under Gods? I can see him on Judgement Day "But I owned it, I was honest, None of those millions of developers did anything but steal my IP" Now we now why he is so upset, he knows where he is going when he dies. Darl, make sure they add an asbestos liner to the coffin.

<End Text>

NM - I am one of those Mormons and I can tell you point blank that Darl McBride does not represent the religion or the best it has to offer. Unless someone complains directly to his Bishop, his Stake President and/or Church Hdq's about his financial predatory behavior, nothing will ever be said about his claim on church membership or pressure brought to bear. Let me explain briefly. One of the basic tenents is that members who actually try and live the teachings are expected to be honest in *all* their dealings, not just personal or business. The LDS Church takes a very dim view of financial predation, extortion, stock scams, fraud, tax evasion, and other illegal and unseamly behaviors, and will discipline or expell members who behave in such a manor. I suspect Darl is not alone in this escapade, as generally people who behave badly do so in groups for moral and mutual support, as they can rationalize their behavior away as "normal" since others around them are behaving the same way: ie. Canopy Group.

I am going to make an observation for consideration - and please take it as just that. Lawsuits happen all the time, so this is probably a big water cooler topic in the Utah Valley. As such, people have left the religious side of this out of the picture, as it should be. However, it has become apparent to me and others that Darl, et. al. publicly leaves the impression that somehow, this is a crusade for Truth, Justice and the American way. Now relgion enters the picture, as Darl put it there with the article in the Economist. The religion is now starting to be identified with the man - for good or for ill, because of his words and his actions.

I am embarrased by the fact that Darl is a member of this Church, as his public display of behavior, words and actions (and those of SCO and Canopy) run counter to the teachings of the Church and it marks all its members with a stigma or bias - not dissimilar to that of Catholics living with the news that some of their leadership behaved very badly. This does not make all Catholics bad, nor does it make all Mormons bad, but it certainly does not help people's first and ongoing impressions of either religion or situation.

If it can be shown there is sufficient evidence to level a complaint of public misbehavior (legal - such as extortion, fraud, etc.) then it is perfectly reasonable to bring this to the attention of the Church leadership in SLC and provide them with the written evidence of that misbehavior (the Economist Article among them) and point out the disservice this man is doing by his public displays (words, deeds, and not a few pictures in Vegas) not only to the Church, but to all the decent people whose reputations are built in large part upon the fact they are Mormon and are respected for that. The idea here is not to say "Nah Nah Nah, I got you back" but create a situation where - if Darl really does value the Gospel as it is taught, and wants to live it the way he should, then sometimes a 2x4 needs to be applied between the eyes to get his attention. As it is oft repeated, no man can server two masters, for he will cling to the one and dispise the other. If Darl is truly "devout" then he will put his relationship with God and his family first, before his business and apparent love of money, and from where I sit (away in the distance) it's not appearing that is the case; otherwise, we would not be seeing this lawsuit or any of the other non-sense that has occupied many columns of print for the last 6 months. Ransom Love may have been a jerk, but at least he knew when to quit - and yes he is a member too.

I appologize for the long diatribe, but I hope I have given something of value back to the community here, which IMO is far more educated on the SCO matter than most I have read.

Thanks for your patience,

...Paul

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

I've known several Mormons over the years and found them to be moral, pleasant people. Darl clearly isn't representative of your religion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I've known several Mormons over the years and found them to be moral, pleasant people. Darl clearly isn't representative of your religion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sadly, it was my observation that one of the ways Mormons most commonly failed to live up to their ideal is in their dealings with outsiders. Perhaps their history of persecution, or their relatively small numbers, gives them a circle-the-wagons mentality when dealing with outsiders. Actually once again this is probably similar to many other groups. But the reputation of Mormons was that they would most particularly take care of their own, but outsiders were fair game for cheating. Couple this with the oft-stated view that material prosperity was a sign of God's blessing, and thus it was particularly status-gaining for Mormons to do well financially, and you have the less-than-ideal Darl McBride in a nutshell. A man who is willing to be sharp with outsiders in order to gain personally and thereby give back more to the church and be looked upon with extra favor. From my personal history with Mormons, his behavior fits perfectly.

None of which is to take away from those ideal-seeking Mormons such as Paul. I have no doubt his words are true for many, many Mormons, and that he and others like him are pained at seeing their religion paired with McBride and his actions. I sympathize, and can only offer this thought: We are intelligent enough to realize that not every member of a religion truly represents what that religion stands for, regardless of what he claims about himself. Just because I've seen my fair share of cheating Mormons, it does not shake my belief that there are many good ones, or many cheating non-Mormons out there.

But don't worry, Paul, your comments were well-taken, and I for one appreciate hearing your side of the matter. Please do not be offended by my own personal observations in life. I was, as I said, merely an outside observer of things, and thinking McBride fits this pattern that I saw may only reflect that I saw the exceptional few, and not the law-abiding majority that you talk about. I certainly mean no disrespect; I'm just reporting what I saw.

[ Reply to This | # ]

You want to read what Montavista says on their SCO v IBM page

They seem to be saying McBride didn't meet even one CELF member, and he attended a SCO internal sales meeting. I guess all that press circus about his trip must have been mistaken?

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=32780&threshold=0&co mmentsort=0&mode=thread&tid=&cid=67286

[ Reply to This | # ]

The part that really got me was the quote " So far, the winners are the companies that recently paid license fees to SCO..." give me a break.

<flame on> HOW can I be a "winner" paying a fee I didn't have to pay before just to do business. What if SCO loses? Didn't I just throw Millions away for nothing? How can you be a "winner" paying a fee that is in many cases equal to the cost of the hardware itself and at least 3x XP pro's cost and up to 7x XP Home cost.

sheeze.... I mean even if you agree with SCO and think they have a case how are the early license buyers better off then the ones that buy later? Man just plain stupid. </flame off>

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Between them the various INTEGRAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT / PARTNERS companies by 22 August owned a total of 1,360,000 shares in SCO. 22 Aug was the date their total went over 5% and hence required filing. That many shares is between 8 and 10% depending on how many shares are actually in issue now so they must have acquired a substantial number on the 22nd, that was a high volume day but even so they would have needed to buy a large proportion of the shares traded that day which is highly unlikely so these are probably new shares.

Coult they possibly have been obtained at a discount and sold during the high volume earlier this week. Does anyone know how to find out?

[ Reply to This | # ]

When the site is down then specific SCO machines report no route to host from the router just outside ViaWest. This is also what happened during almost all of the long outage. No performance impact seems to exist on the machines conected to the same routers that remain up (e.g. stage.caldera.com). I just can't see what they are trying to do here - any ideas anyone?

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

I hope I got the HTML right. It's been awhile...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Profit/Loss by Individual Executive since March 2003

BAWA OPINDER $132,746.40
BENCH ROBERT K $251,251.50
BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES $724,505.50
HUNSAKER JEFF F $344,995.20
MCBRIDE DARL C -$7.00
OLSON MICHAEL P $178,058.00
SKOUSEN K FRED $0.00
WILSON MICHAEL SEAN $121,365.00

TOTAL $1,752,914.60

[ Reply to This | # ]

Alex

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.integralcapital.com/

Cynics may find following link amusing

http://www.integral capital.com/experience/rambus.php3

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did he want out of the blame, or out of the company? I haven't seen any evidence either way, other than he's supposedly now a consultant to the company.

You should remember, I haven't counted Wall, Yarro/Canopy, the Vultus guys, Jeff Hunsaker's wife, and possibly some others. I intend to eventually in future to the best of my ability - however in some cases these figures may be partially based on estimates as I don't know exact prices they sold at, just approximate time frame.

[ Reply to This | # ]

" My Grand Mother was a Mormon, She would not have aproved of the whole IP theft thing at all(had she understood it). I know most Mormons would be appalled to learn the truth about SCO and D. McBride. Most Catholics are appalled at some priests who molest children. SCO is molesting the IP of thousands, if not millions of people who have given a part of their lives to bring about a great thing, a free OS that really works, and is a real wonderful system. If SCO ownes code in Linux, they should let the kernel developers remove it, NOT try to Steal the other 99.99 percent of Linux with SCO's 0.01 percent of older code. I do apologize to the Mormon religion, I did generalize. I think a certain company in Utah should also apologize to the world.(and ask forgiveness)

<End Text>

NM, and others,

Thank you for the kind words. I hope I did not rattle anyone.

Observations are interesting things. When taken singly, they only provide the breadth of conclusion and facts the author either supposed, observed or wished to state to make his case (in most cases somewhat narrow). This is usually tantamount to asking a blind man to describe an elephant and getting back a description of the anatomical region he tounched.

When collectively taken, the view can be quite enlightenting. This is why I enjoy this group and reading the paricipants comments in it as it permits a more "wholistic" viewpoint of the issue.

That having been said, I want to offer a couple of pieces of information together in the hopes that it might make some more sense to the discussion and maybe shed some light. One of the problems I have had with SCO's behavior from the beginning is that no one item could entirely explain away much of the foolishness that SCO management has gone to in order to "protect" it's IP rights (assuming they actually have any), including the purchase of SCO Unix by Caldera (in Ransom Love's day).

In fact, SCO has worked very hard to do just the opposite of what is considered to be proper and legal practice for securing and defending legitimate IP claims. So far, the only explaination that makes sense and comes close to covering all the bases is extortion. However, successful extortionists don't make many of the simple blunders that SCO has made in public - including the trumpeting of every move they make in order to get maximum reaction, failing to do much of their homework (including registering the copyrights in the first place), and making easily verfiable false statements. At some point the predator, in order to legitmize the fear engendered, must kill quickly to show the commitment to course. This SCO has not done. They have squandered their FUD opportunity and I sense that people are turning on them enmass - making the collection of "tribute" that much more difficult. Incompetance? Maybe, but it may also be by design.

Going back to the religious discussion this afternoon, Nick has observed:

<Begin Text>

Sadly, it was my observation that one of the ways Mormons most commonly failed to live up to their ideal is in their dealings with outsiders. Perhaps their history of persecution, or their relatively small numbers, gives them a circle-the-wagons mentality when dealing with outsiders. Actually once again this is probably similar to many other groups. But the reputation of Mormons was that they would most particularly take care of their own, but outsiders were fair game for cheating. Couple this with the oft-stated view that material prosperity was a sign of God's blessing, and thus it was particularly status-gaining for Mormons to do well financially, and you have the less-than-ideal Darl McBride in a nutshell. A man who is willing to be sharp with outsiders in order to gain personally and thereby give back more to the church and be looked upon with extra favor. From my personal history with Mormons, his behavior fits perfectly.

<End Text>

I would say, based upon my personal experience, that Nick's observation has some merit to it, in the context of dealing with many LDS business people from the Intermountain West. This is to say, the bad apples in the barrel - they are not a few and they stand out. But, they are not that large a percentange of the membership population. I have observed that the occurance of that kind of behavior tends to happen to those members who find wealth rather quickly, or seek it to the exclusion of more important things in their lives, without balancing the acquisition with the proper prespective of responsibility that comes with the territory. Their possesions and status become more important than anything else, and they will fight like tigers if they sense they will loose their toys. Ironically, that is what will happen anyway, as you can't really take it with you. If you could, the IRS would've figured out how to tax it long ago... :-)

So, to start folding this all together.

Why did SCO not kill quickly and with silence? I suspect they know they have no legal standing. I suspect they also know that what they are doing is wrong, but have convinced themselves emotionally that because they go to church on Sunday, and they provide jobs, and pay tithing and hob knob with Salt Lake society, they are behaving like Orrin Porter Rockwell and defending the faith by being the heavy hand of justice and taking out the bad people that wanted to kill the prophet - in order to justify the means to the end.

In the end, they may think that all will be forgiven and glossed over. I offer this as purely a speculation based upon observation, and having experience dealing with Utah culture over the years as a member. The article in the Economist just screamed that at me, today. If you look at the documented writings, speeches and comments made by Darl and staff in behalf of SCO, the picture starts to form of a "persecuted" person striking back because they are "right" - irrespective of the reality as Nick has pointed out. Newsforge's story of "SCO - Inside the Hurricane" triggered the thought, and the Economist confirmed my suspicions into a running theory.

Now, that deals with the issue only on the level of possible motivation to action and it's continuance. We need to step back a bit further and look at the parent organization, Canopy Group. This group is composed of ex-Novellite's for the most part, and this "Boys Club" is a most interesting study. If you look at the actions Canopy has taken in their history, you may find that many of their biggest financial "scores" happen though litigation. DR-DOS was a $150M settlement, to which I am trying to locate the money split, but my suspicion is that Canopy got the lion's share. They just settled another lawsuit with Computer Associates for $40M over Center7. I do not know what the complaint was. I suspect this version of the lawsuit tango started out the same way. However, I think that someone figured out along the way that if they extort and play games with the stock before going to court, one could double and triple dip on the money.

Here is my theory for consideration:

1. Using the companies in the basket, Canopy has a ready source of IT talent that can serve as a way station for laundering funds. The Data Crystal story, Vultis, Via West, all point to that type of possiblity. For example, earlier discussions in the comments point to Data Crystal as one of the sources of the data mining to turn up these alleged IP violations. Throw lots-o-cash. or better yet, stock at them, and we can hide funds. It's a Canopy company so, the money comes back in one form or another through loans, outright buys, sales, admin costs, etc.

2. By making loud, long and threatening public claims, Canopy/SCO could bully people into paying a "license" rather than risk a suit. Past history will show the target company that Canopy eagerly seeks litigation, so it's less risk to just "pay" rather than "play". This helps boost the stock price, which then options can be cashed out bits at a time, or stock swapped, or company acquisitions (ie Vultis) can happen to boost the "value" of the existing money pool. This might explain some of the interesting stock activity which looks very much like self-dealing if not "pump and dump". This works with long lead times to court so that it gives a good window to play it out and build momentum in your favor. By the time you reach the court action, there is some "justification" for licensing as you can point out that many people have done it - for whatever reason.

3. Those who sign the license agreement, now are under contract with SCO and can be sued for breech, etc. RedHat can not be sued under contract law as they do not do business with SCO, so SCO has to figure out how to get them to "sign" or another way to coerce them into a situation they can "safely" litigate to a settlement. Hence, I suspect part of the arugment about the GPL. The other part being they need to explain away their own use, as they want to breech that contract without being held liable for past actions. According to Lewis Mettler Esq. (www.lamlaw.com), that is not possible, but SCO has to try anyway, otherwise much of their argument falls apart.

4. With a new stable of contractee's, we can repeat the IBM game, as needed for cash flow, and go to court - or settle at some future date. And, there is the ever present issue of "derivative works", which never really gets litigated to a satisfactory conclusion.

5. Now, suppose SCO goes bankrupt in the process before going to court? My understanding is that Canopy holds a note on the Unix IP, which was used to secure it. If that is the case, and Canopy gets Unix SVR4 (such as it is), could they not set up another entity and start this process all over again? IANAL, but it seems to me that until we get some finality to the dirivative works question and someone public domains this old Unix, that we may have more than one round to contend with.

6. I and wondering that if Canopy is disected as completely as SCO is being, whether or not we may find the "smoking gun" necessary to put this all to bed. The strength of purpose brought on by the emotional and cultural motivators touched on above, can be a good thing when driven in the right direction, but it can also be turned to nefarious activities just as equally well. The dangerous part is that the people involved become irrational in their thinking and focus on winning at all costs. This creates a problem for everyone, as it leaves a very large and lasting damage trail, sometimes measured in lives and lively hoods.

Again,I realize this is a very long missive. So I will go back to listening and see what people think.

Thanks for your patience,

...Paul

[ Reply to This | # ]

/g

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.theregister .co.uk/content/61/32542.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

> If you look at the documented writings, speeches and comments made by Darl and staff in behalf of SCO, the picture starts to form of a "persecuted" person striking back because they are "right" - irrespective of the reality as Nick has pointed out

My feeling is why SCO thinks they have some gripe with IBM is because they think either they or the old SCO (and new SCO seem to often think they are the Old SCO, perhaps because they have some of the same people), got a raw deal on Monterey.

I don't know if there was a breach of contract, whether they really got a raw deal, or whether they have standing to pursue any grievances of Old SCO - but looking over SCO-related forums, I get this feeling.

That's not to say other theories do not have some, perhaps more, truth too.

I think the press campaign is simply an attempt to get IBM (and then maybe later Red Hat etc.) to pay them off, i.e. my getting IBM/RH/etc customers to apply pressure to IBM/RH. If this is the case, it's done incompetently for the reasons you state, and because of all the inconsistencies in what they have claimed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

At first, I thought it was not clear if they just meant in Australia, or worldwide, but it looks worldwide (?) at least that seems to be implied. What do you think?

I guess all those quotes, and all the ones cited in the Red Hat complaint, and the other ones (links please) don't count. I guess the post-RH conference call doesn't count (targets on the backs of IBM/RH users) don't count either. May be that ought to update their web site too?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IN australia, perhaps. Oh ... it appears that their June plans to file suits are shelved, and they didn't really mean it when they sent 1500 letters with thinly veiled legal threats. I think we have a case of corporate multiple personality disorder here ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.sco.com/scos ource/linuxlicensefaq.html

I have Linux servers deployed in my organization. What options do I have besides purchasing a SCO IP license?

There are 3 options for you to evaluate:

• You have the option to do nothing, adopt a “wait and see” attitude, and hope that SCO is not serious about enforcing its intellectual property rights in the end user community.

http://www.sco.com/scosourc e/description.html

This new SCO license is a binary, right to use SCO Intellectual Property in a distribution of Linux. It is applies to commercial uses of a Linux operating system that contains a 2.4 or later version of the kernel, and cures the IP infringement issue for binary use only. Customers who purchase this license are held harmless by SCO for past infringements, as well as the on-going use of the infringing code. (emphasis added)

http://www.sco.com/scosource/

The company also announced plans to make binary run time licenses for SCO’s intellectual property available to end users. The license would apply to all commercial users of Linux based on a 2.4 or later kernel. The license gives end users the right to use the SCO intellectual property contained in Linux, in binary format only. End users who purchase this license will be held harmless against past and future copyright violations of SCO’s intellectual property in binary format in Linux distributions (emphasis added)

I also noticed the warning to Linux shops appears to have disappeared (or have I lost it). Maybe those 1500 letters don't count, or aren't real warning letters, like the MIT mathematics department code-reviewers aren't really at the MIT mathematics department.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.sco.com/scos ource/linuxlicensefaq.html

I have Linux servers deployed in my organization. What options do I have besides purchasing a SCO IP license?

There are 3 options for you to evaluate:

• You have the option to do nothing, adopt a “wait and see” attitude, and hope that SCO is not serious about enforcing its intellectual property rights in the end user community.

http://www.sco.com/scosourc e/description.html

This new SCO license is a binary, right to use SCO Intellectual Property in a distribution of Linux. It is applies to commercial uses of a Linux operating system that contains a 2.4 or later version of the kernel, and cures the IP infringement issue for binary use only. Customers who purchase this license are held harmless by SCO for past infringements, as well as the on-going use of the infringing code. (emphasis added)

http://www.sco.com/scosource/

The company also announced plans to make binary run time licenses for SCO’s intellectual property available to end users. The license would apply to all commercial users of Linux based on a 2.4 or later kernel. The license gives end users the right to use the SCO intellectual property contained in Linux, in binary format only. End users who purchase this license will be held harmless against past and future copyright violations of SCO’s intellectual property in binary format in Linux distributions (emphasis added)

I also noticed the warning to Linux shops appears to have disappeared (or have I lost it). Maybe those 1500 letters don't count, or aren't real warning letters, like the MIT mathematics department code-reviewers aren't really at the MIT mathematics department.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Several VC firms have set up shop on Sand Hill Road. Often this streach has been called "VC Row".

Often in the in the Valley builders will erect a group of buildings that share a common street adress.

So, it is not unusual for different departments of one company to be in different buildings.

[ Reply to This | # ]

deliver the Power PC product and the Intel version was beta tested, available for download, and delivered

to OEM vendors like Bull who even put it on a few machines. If SCO wants to point to a Unix on IA64, there

is always HP-UX, but they claim to make a billion more per year than IBM promoting Linux.

At the time Monterey was cancelled many in the press reported that it was Caldera that had dropped out.

Certainly if Monterey was a business partnership it wasn't being financed by Old SCO or Caldera according

to the SEC filings. The only possible mention of it is in Caldera's filings where they mention funding

to keep on some R&D personnel that Old SCO were laying off. If Old SCO and Caldera weren't financing

Monterey development, it's doubtful that any of the contracts are written to protect their interests

anyway.

The deep pockets in Monterey were IBM and Intel. Intel was an AT&T licensee and the iBCS standard bearer

for Unix. They have throwm more money and software development behind Linux (including IA64 Trillian) than

anyone. SCO's silence about Intel and Monterey is positively deafening. If Intel and SCO didn't have the

money or expertise to compete against Linux with the IBM Intel Monterey beta in hand, what difference would

IBM's continued particpation have made in the outcome of the project?

Here's an article that mentions a lot of that, the fact that Bull was shipping IA64 machines with the

Monterey project beta used to be on SCO's site. I'll try and find something else:

http://www .nwfusion.com/newsletters/servers/2002/01383319.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think it's simple, SCO have begun to realize they have bitten off more than they can chew.

In the spirit of Usenet, I offer these historical analogy...

In 1944-5, when Hitler's regime was in trouble, what were they looking for? A separate piece of one front to concentrate on the other enemy:

- The Atlantic Wall designed to inflict maximum casualties on the US/UK, and get them to consider a separate peace.

- When that failed, negotiations with the Russians, to get peace in the East.

- When that failed, Battle of the Bulge, to try and defeat US/UK and get them to offer a separate peace.

- When that failed, Himmler trolling the US/UK to accept the Nazis as an ally against the USSR.

Semi-returning from the Usenet-land:

It seems to me that we can't accept anything less than unconditional surrender. We don't want SCO dealing with one enemy at a time. We want them surrounded on all sides, and the skies darkened by fleets of legal and PR bombers from all their foes.

Returning all the way:

Anybody who accepts a separate peace from SCO, is IMHO on a fool's errand. I think there might be a tacit offer to RH in there.

Even if McBride, Stowell, Sontag and Yarro sign a contract in blood, to stop their war on Linux, would it be worth the paper it's written on?

SCO delenda est.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Possibly some one of us should contact the author for clarification?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The point, I'm trying to make, is not IBM did anything wrong. I've seen no evidence at all to suggest it.

Just that SCO is looking for somebody to blame because their huge meal ticket didn't arrive - so IBM is the obvious target for their rage.

Justified? probably not

How some SCO-minded people feel? quite possibly

SCO delenda est

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Latina me aegrum facit (?)

I'd say

Yarro delendum est

SCO delenda est

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

This may be related to the ACCC filed by Open source Victoria against Sco in Oz at the end of July.

Three weeks ago Sco's Oz/NZ manager "We've heard nothing from the ACCC," he said. Mr O'Shaughnessy said he expected the licence to be on sale in Australia within seven days, with local pricing confirmed then. Yet there is still nothing on http://au.caldera.com/ Why??

My favourite quote from Sco's OZ/NZ manager: However Mr O'Shaughnessy conceded "substantial numbers" of Australian commercial Linux users were unlikely to buy the SCO licence before the controversial scheme had been tested in a US court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.s mh.com.au/articles/2003/08/29/1062050642514.html

The SCO Group said today it had never planned to sue any Linux companies, had no concrete plans to sue anyone and also no current plans to take a commercial Linux customer to court.

The company was responding to questions routed through its PR people in Sydney.

As the Canopy Group, which has a stake in SCO, also has interests in several other Linux companies, SCO was asked whether it planned to sue all these companies. The answer was "No. SCO has never planned to sue Linux companies."

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

different flavors of Unix. Old SCO helped annoint Intel the iBCS specification maintainer:

http://www.att.com/news/0890 /900821.ula.html

SCOX was founded on the premise that people were using or had reverse engineered their libraries.

This is untrue. They ignore the fact that the interface to those libraries was documented in the McGraw-Hill

book, "Intel Binary Compatibility Specification, version 2", published in 1992. This book allowed the

development of the iBCS2 package, which permitted Linux and the various BSDs to run code compiled for SCO

Xenix, SCO UNIX, Wyse UNIX, and Interactive's XENIX.

If they pass themselves off as Old SCO what they say makes some sense, but if they are really Caldera,

then the movie Titanic was released in 1997 long before they even purchased Unix. It was made before

Monterey, or IBMs open support for Linux was announced. It proves Linux was already being used in the

enterprise and it was no bicycle.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Carthago delenda est" is from the Punic Wars.

"SCO delenda est" seems appropriate to me for the UNIX Wars.

In the 3rd Punic War, Roman Senator, Cato the Elder, ended EVERY speech with the words "Carthago delenda est". Meet him at a party and ask about wine? He'd tell you about grapes in North Africa, and finish up with "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed).

At the end of the 3rd Punic War, the Romans burned Carthage to the ground, killed all the inhabitants, and allegedly salted the earth so nothing could grow there again. Ever. It was such a devasting event, that people were talking about it more than 2000 years later (and that's probably were the phrase "salted the earth" comes from).

SCO delenda est.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I respectfully request that you refrain from referring to the Lindon gang as "SCO-scum", since this term does not differenciate the two entities.

"Old SCO" has two well known skeletons in their closet that warrent them to earn the title of "SCO-scum". The first is that the founder of SCO was forced to leave after serious cases of sexual harrasment were revealed, the second was the "creative book-keeping" that showed they were a profitable company at the time of their IPO. The public record to that point showed them loosing money each quarter.

In my opinion, the old version rightfully earned the derisive term SCO-scum.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Just that some SCO-related people feel rage at IBM because Monterey didn't make them a bundle.

Maybe that puts them in a position where they convince themselves (or are more easily convinced by manipulative leaders) that IBM did something wrong, even when IBM didn't.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yes I think, they do sometimes - it's right there in their press releases (selling Unixware for 2 decades) and court filings (they never mention they are New SCO who acquired some assets/units from Old SCO then renamed themselves)

In companies where there is a merger or take-over of 2 similar size entities, and people come from different camps, there is often confusion over "who are we", sometimes for years afterwards. I've personally experienced this phenomena in my career. What's more is such companies probably behave sometimes one way, sometimes the other, there can be a constant fight for ascendancy between the two camps, and even when one camp is in ascendancy, they are not really like they were before - as people leave, forget stuff, and so on - so the corporate memory of "who we were" gets lost.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It occurs to me the won't sue thing might be a prelude to their defense in the Red Hat case

[ Reply to This | # ]

It occurs to me the won't sue thing might be a prelude to their defense in the Red Hat case

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

acquisition of SCO's Unix and Unixware by three years. It wouldn't matter if they are from Old SCO or Caldera.

Both companies knew that Linux was no bicycle long before IBM ever happened along.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

that gave them the Unix copyrights in late 1996. They signed the three-way contract with IBM the same day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I just think they some have rage at IBM. Probably completely unjustified, but nevertheless still there.

When you're blinded by anger, it's hard to see your own faults or fallacies in your arguments.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

And you can bet folks associated with any particular one, blamed all the companies problems on the other 5. Standard political thing in software companies.

It's funny how so many problems at Canopy companies turn out to be somebody else's fault - so much so that they have to sue them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I am Scam. Scam I am.

That Scam-I-am, that Scam-I-am. I do not like that Scam-I-am.

Would you like it in a box? Would you buy the stock named SCOX?

etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IANAL so I don't see any reason why the article couldn't potentially be used as evidence.

It may be tough (unless he wants to) to get Varghese to turn up as he is in Australia.

I got the impression from previous articles, that Varghese might be sympathetic to SCO. If he was, I don't think he is any longer.

While he doesn't outright accuse them of anything, pointing to contradictions like this, isn't a usual friendly journalist stance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This was EXACTLY my thought on 1st reading the smh story. SCO's attorneys finally started working on the RH response and are trying to figure out how to dismantle RH's request for a declaratory, to keep the FUD of the IBM suit going into 2005.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Alex

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm going down down down down
I'm going down down down down

I'm going down down dooooooown down
Hummm hey bop
I'm going down dooooooown down
<fade out>

(we used to sing that about the VAXes we had to use in Engineering, BTW ...)

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://slashdot.org /comments.pl?sid=76532&cid=6821378

[ Reply to This | # ]

How crazy is this. I can't believe they think a judge is going to buy it, when there must be dozens of news stories, records of SCO teleconferences, even direct quotes from their attorney, implying the opposite.

Is a Delaware judge remotely likely to fall for this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

In any normal company, when they totally reverse course on a, nay THE fundamental issue, that's what happens.

Maybe I'm wrongly getting some expectation of honor mixed up in my thinking

[ Reply to This | # ]

>> had no concrete plans to sue anyone <<
But this leaves the possibility open that they wanted to and made infirm (not concrete) plans to sue everyone.

>>> no current plans to take a commercial Linux customer to court. <<<
which leaves open past and future plans.

>>> no current plans to take a commercial Linux customer to court. <<<
future and past planning still open.

The really interesting thing is how this author puts current and past statements together, repeatedly, proving a pattern of lying but still avoids saying "these guys are lying cheating scum and not to be trusted".

[ Reply to This | # ]

While he doesn't outright accuse them of anything, pointing to contradictions like this, isn't a usual friendly journalist stance.

He articles are pro-linux:- http://linuxtoday.c om/search.php3?author=Sam:Varghese

Looks like he started using linux back in 1999 http://www.goldensun.com/linux/s am1.html The page was last modified 21st June 1999.

pj any chance of tracking him down and verifying the new Sco position?

[ Reply to This | # ]

If every point in an interview is phrased like that it's often a good bet the journalist thinks the interviewee is a lying POS - and it ain't just poor writing.

It would be interesting to do some data-mining on those on the SCO articles, perhaps graphed over time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

"All their statements - plus the interviews which I did with their US officials - have come through the same source so it represents the company's stance.

See

http://www.theage .com.au/technology/scovsibm/index.html

and

http:/ /www.theage.com.au/technology/scovsibm/2003/08/21/index.html

for earlier material.

I have reported their statements and also provided earlier statements as one should in a news story. The reader can draw his/her own conclusions about the seeming contradictions.

Cheers, Sam"

Not terribly helpful I'm afraid. As to Mr. Varghese's attitude toward SCO, he seems reasonable. At the very least he was willing to print a very long letter I sent detailing their misbehavior and the letter stayed on theage.com for a long time. He's on my list of friendlies.

Alex

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe PJ with readers help, can find lots of evidence that SCO were threatening to sue everybody just days ago. Just in case their latest turn is aimed at Red Hat?

1. My first contribution:

http://www.reseller.co.nz/Reseller/Reseller.nsf/0/86256AB D006E93FCCC256D35007CAD19?OpenDocument Chris Sontag, June 1st:

Are you considering suing Linux end users that you notified?

Anything is always a possibility. If you are going to enforce your contracts, claims and intellectual property, you have to be able to go to ultimately the endpoint of infringement.

2. Second contribution:

May 15 http://zdnet.com.com/2100-110 4-1001609.html

"We believe that Linux infringes on our Unix intellectual property and other rights," the letter said. "We intend to aggressively protect and enforce these rights. Legal liability that may arise from the Linux development process may also rest with the end user."

"Legal liability may rest with the end users. It is not carried by the distributor or by anyone else involved in selling that Linux distribution into these commercial accounts. It resides with the end users, which is unheard of. They need to know they have exposure in this issue," Sontag said.

3. May 22 http://www.entma g.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=5821

According to Chris Sontag, Senior VP and GM of SCO’s SCOSource IP-licensing initiative, SCO issued the warning because of IP violations that it identified during its audits of Linux source code. “We felt that we had to provide a warning to commercial users of Linux that there was a problem, … to let them know that there is an intellectual property issue with Linux, that we’ve identified issues, and that the legal liability may rest with the end user.”

Companies that have implemented the open source operating environment can also be sued. “Don’t just take our word for it,” Sontag asserts. “Seek the opinion of legal counsel, get your own counsel to take a look at the Linux licenses you have and see where the liability resides.”

Does this mean that SCO is gearing up to pursue claims against companies that use Linux? Sontag didn’t rule it out: “Right now, our focus is on IBM; we have an outstanding lawsuit with them. That does not mean we will not pursue other violations of our intellectual property rights, however.”

[ Reply to This | # ]

It 's now seeking more than $3 billion in damages from IBM and maintains that Linux users themselves could be subject to lawsuits for illegally using SCO's intellectual property.

Today's announcement presents users with the option of paying SCO rather than running the risk of litigation. The $699-per-processor fee applies to server licenses only, said SCO spokesman Blake Stowell. His company also plans to offer less expensive licensing options for desktop and embedded Linux users.

5. August 11 http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,83906 ,00.html

unnamed Fortune 500 company is apparently the first to sign up for a Unix intellectual property software license that The SCO Group Inc. says companies need in order to run its Linux software without legal worries

6. SCO Press Release, August 5 http://biz.yahoo.com/pr news/030805/latu094_1.html

"We believe it is necessary for Linux customers to properly license SCO's IP if they are running Linux 2.4 kernel and later versions for commercial purposes. The license insures that customers can continue their use of binary deployments of Linux without violating SCO's intellectual property rights."

7. SCO press release July 21

In May, SCO announced that Linux contained SCO's UNIX System V source code and that Linux was an unauthorized derivative of UNIX. SCO also indicated that Linux end users could face liability for running it in their organization. Beginning this week, the company will begin contacting companies regarding their use of Linux and to offer a UnixWare license. SCO intends to use every means possible to protect the company's UNIX source code and to enforce its copyrights.

"Since the year 2001 commercial Linux customers have been purchasing and receiving software that includes misappropriated UNIX software owned by SCO," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager, SCOsource intellectual property division, The SCO Group. "While using pirated software is copyright infringement, our first choice in helping Linux customers is to give them an option that will not disrupt their IT infrastructures. We intend to provide them with choices to help them run Linux in a legal and fully-paid for way."

"For several months, SCO has focused primarily on IBM's alleged UNIX contract violations and misappropriation of UNIX source code," said Darl McBride, president and CEO, The SCO Group. "Today, we're stating that the alleged actions of IBM and others have caused customers to use a tainted product at SCO's expense. With more than 2.4 million Linux servers running our software, and thousands more running Linux every day, we expect SCO to be compensated for the benefits realized by tens of thousands of customers. Though we possess broad legal rights, we plan to use these carefully and judiciously."

8. SCO Press Release August 7 http://biz.yahoo.com/pr news/030807/lath091_1.html

IBM urges its customers to use non- warranted, unprotected software. This software violates SCO's intellectual property rights in UNIX, and fails to give comfort to customers going forward in use of Linux. If IBM wants customers to accept the GPL risk, it should indemnify them against that risk

SCO reiterates its position that it intends to defend its intellectual property rights. SCO will remain on course to require customers to license infringing Linux implementations as a condition of further use. This is the best and clearest course for customers to minimize Linux problems.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anybody willing to bet on this prediction? Or got alternatives?

[ Reply to This | # ]

If it's true - what would be the incentive of forking out ($699-1399) for a license?

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is sort of what they need to say to deal with the Red Hat lawsuit. Which means they just woke up. I think this truly is a wonderful time to collect examples of their threats. I just got the SCO Archives page up to date, which is why I'm late reading about this incredible news, plus working on an article about spectral analysis, so it's a good place to start, then WeTwiki, then Mozillaquest, and Google is our friend. I wonder when the site comes up if it'll be cleansed of all such material? Are we having fun, or what?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe they mean in Australia. But Stowell is simultaneously issuing warnings, as in his reaction to the MontaVista news. http://www.slt rib.com/2003/Aug/08262003/business/86967.asp

[ Reply to This | # ]

DATE: 20/08/2003 SCO Preparing Legal Action Against Customer

By Matthew Aslett

SCO Group Inc is preparing to take a Linux user to court to speed up the legal process in its claim Unix code has been illegally copied into Linux, and also encourage Linux users to take out a license for its intellectual property. ... SCO has three groups working on identifying and approaching Linux users. The first is drawing up the list, the second will send out letters offering the chance to license the code SCO says has been copied into Linux, and the third will take legal action against those who refuse. ... Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager of the company's SCOsource business, added: "There is no warranty for infringement of intellectual property [in the GPL], so all of the liability ends up with end users."

Mark Heise, of law firm Boies Schiller and Flexner, representing SCO against IBM, believes SCO is entitled to pursue users based on its claims. "End users are improperly using this copyrighted material, and under copyright law SCO is entitled to damages and injunctive relief," he said.

Sontag warned users that ignoring SCO's requests to license the code in advance of a court case could be costly. "Those who have chosen to ignore the license are more in a situation of potential willful infringement," Sontag said.

[ Reply to This | # ]

August 18, 2003 SCO Turns Up the Heat on Linux Users By Peter Galli

In his most definitive warning to corporate Linux users to date, SCO CEO Darl McBride told eWEEK here on Sunday ahead of the start of the company's annual SCO Forum 2003 on Monday that there are some 2.5 million servers running Linux and that SCO has "identified by name those companies running many of them.

"We are in the process of contacting them about coming into compliance and taking a UnixWare license from us. If they refuse to do so, we will sue them directly and see them in court," he said. ... When asked by eWEEK if SCO intended to first sue a large Linux user like a Wall Street financial firm or an enterprise-level Linux customer, McBride said that would probably be the case as smaller companies tend to settle when faced with litigation.

He also said SCO was expecting some enterprise Linux users to take the advice of IBM, Red Hat, SuSE and the other Linux vendors and refuse to pay for a UnixWare license. "We will take legal action against any company that violates our intellectual property. We have no fear about going to court as we have nothing to hide. The sooner the court hears and rules on the issues in this matter, the better for us," he said. ... Asked whether SCO could afford to start suing individual companies in addition to the costs of years of litigation against IBM, including defending itself against the recent countersuit brought against it by Big Blue as well as the preemptive suit brought against it by Red Hat, McBride said SCO had already set aside $10 million for legal fees and had so far only spent some $500,000 of this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO: to pay or not to pay

SCO has started invoicing Linux users that it claims are illegally using copied Unix code.

August 26, 2003 11:58 AM GMT (Datamonitor) - SCO [SCOX] is beginning to invoice Linux users for their use of Unix code that it says has been illegally copied into the open source operating system. This leaves IT shops around the world with a deceptively simple decision: pay the fine, or take a chance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Seriously, with McBribe's and Stowell's etc, infallible ability to score own goals, I think they're going to enjoy a long relaxing time doing absolutely nothing for the next x to the nth power years .... SCO delenda est!

[ Reply to This | # ]