Forbes says 80K for Darl plus options. I wouldn't hire Darl to wash my car; IMHO he would be tremendously overpaid at 20K/year.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

pj - Instead of saying "stuck in the mud", how about "stuck in the tarpit" or "stuck in the peat bog". Nice job BTW. Thanks for pointing out Amy Wohl's blog.

I have a new business model - I am starting a company that will make slide rules and abacuses. I will make most of my money by sueing Intel, AMD, etc. and all computer and calculator manufacturers for suppressing my market opportunities. I will then branch out into oil lamps, buggy whips, and button hooks. This business model will recurse nicely until I get to clovis points. Not sure I can really have a company that sells pointed sticks.

The bogon flux from Lindon is reaching levels I never thought possible.

[ Reply to This | # ]

As for the wiki, that's fine for editing for those desiring to use it, but please make sure that all significant new info gets recorded here, so Groklaw has a complete history, in case the wiki isn't permanently available.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The interest to me is that Sun is offering indemnity to Linux users *at all*, even if it is only for the MH desktops and boxes running Java. That means that either (a) their UNIX is completely permissive, validating their Linux distro (contrary to Stowell's protestations) or (b) they know that SCO has no case. While Sun's actions may be decried as cynical, they do tell us something useful.

P.S. I liked Dell's response! :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Should IBM prove that SCO claims are egregious however, and that wouldn't be very hard to do, SCO's upper management would then become liable to the SEC. Given the fact that they've made a great deal of money through selling their shares the last couple of months, couple that with the canopy purchase, they would be in real trouble legally. If they are thinking that by folding SCO and moving on before the IBM case would eliminate this, or that they could hide behind indemnification provided by the company, then they have another thing coming.

This hasn't gone to plan for SCO; it's gone badly wrong.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whoa there, pj, my rhetoro-meter just jumped into the red. Common interest does not imply conspiracy.

Sun was just looking to avoid having Solaris' provenance brought in question and to opportunistically score a few FUD points on IBM, that's all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Since the only customers for SCO Source are enemies of Linux and SCO Source is the only profitable portion of SCO now (and Darl's only hope for his bonus), it is important that Sun and Microsoft pay has high a price for their support of SCO as possible.

There has to be a reason for Sun and MS executives to cancel the next round of SCO Fud payments.

Microsoft's claim that its payment to SCO was a routine cross-licensing agreement is as much FUD as SCO's claim that Linux has "millions and millions" of lines of SCO code.

As long as Microsoft can get $11 million more Windows sales by giving SCO $10 million for anti-Linux FUD, they will continue to do so, especially in this Window before Longhorn.

As long as SUN can get $11 million more Solaris sales by giving SCO $10 million for anti-Linux FUD, they will continue to do so.

To stop SCO we have to make it clear to MS and Sun that there is a price for this campaign and they won't be able to hide in the background.

[ Reply to This | # ]

- with 600.000 shares Darl would have almost 3times than current top insider http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=SCOX

- there were only sales by insiders last 6 month

- through there is not much data on the "analyst estimates" it shows an estimated growth of 0.4% per annum for SCOX compared to 12.24% (industry) and 14.05% (sector)

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Generally speaking, the law itself is pretty straight forward about what is and is not allowed in one’s conduct. The hard part is establishing just what the conduct actually was. This is the stuff that is fought over in things like depositions & discovery, and is also the part that is often the hardest to understand, and why it helps so much for there to be something like this site where information is gathered & organized. Intent is notoriously hard to prove, and an awful lot of what will count as “stuff” in any trial is very much open to interpretation. My wife always states that what she hated most about litigation was the establishment of the “facts” (“give me the law any day, establishing who did what & why is just ugly”). These are not facts like we have in science, they are the very much fought over information that will actually be allowed to inter the hearing, and that has all sorts of rules attached to it. Unlike T.V., there is rarely any surprise information allowed in a trial. Should such a thing happen (a surprise), both sides are likely to want to have a chance to go over said information & there may well even be an argument about if such is allowed – the famous instructions to the jury to “ignore” what they just heard… (unless it is information that one side was found to have been hiding – but then that just starts another round of did they really hide it, or was it an honest mistake – see how hard “intent” can be to figure out?) Mostly at trial they are either trying to get someone to alter what they said at deposition, or trying to put a “spin” on how that information ought to be viewed (sort of like how Darl put a rather interesting spin in his open letter). That’s what “discovery” is all about – “here is all the information concerning “x” – but then it is up to the attorneys to figure out just exactly what “x” is/means, and how to present said information so as to support that interpretation. Then they have to get the Judge/Jury to agree, thus the trial.

Now, a sane person might think that once they have finally agreed to what the “facts/stuff” is, there isn’t much left to do. Most of the trial is actually trying to get a jury/judge to view those facts the same way you do. As this is going through civil litigation, both sides will spend the time between “discovery” and the trial looking up all sorts of previous case law to support their interpretation of said “facts” (remember, intent has lots to do with these types of things), and lucky for us both sides will undoubtedly be able to find ample examples that seem to support their views… (thus the mess of civil litigation). When they find such case law they present it as being “on point” (an example of how the court ought to act) and there is a regularly blown off, or at least not overtly followed, part of this (though they don’t like to admit it) where they are supposed to also present any case law that limits or dilutes the case law they are citing that they may have uncovered also. A substantial amount of the filings done prior to/during are “here is a case very much like this one (that would be what they call “on point” again) where the court did this, and we think you ought to too…(every night during a trial both sides go over everything that happened in court and try to figure out how best to maximize/minimalize what ever happened in court that day…and perhaps file motions – clarifications or requests- concerning that days events) And then a judge/jury takes all information presented in the trial & tries to decide who to believe.

Like I said, not exactly a text book explanation, but believe it or not that’s basically what the whole process is about. You can also see how it can become rather expensive very fast (my wife always presented to her clients the cost should it actually go to court – easily 5-10 grand per side just for the trial part of it on a small case VS. how much is it worth for you to win? It can get very expensive to “make a point”, one of the reasons so much gets settled without a trial – is it worth spending 10,20 or 30 grand to prove that they ripped you off 3 grand? It is also why so many companies just pay the litigant to go away (the much mentioned “nuisance” fee), it was cheaper then going to trial.

Thomas

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sure, and by that same logic: pj scores a few FUD points on SCO + multi-billion $$ support from IBM ~= pj getting marching orders from IBM.

If you don't like it when Darl has visions of ESR and Perens getting their marching orders from IBM, then don't descend to his level, it's really that simple. Or is Groklaw no longer a just-the-facts site? I choose to believe that it is, pj just got carried away, like we all do sometimes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

No statements are being made. Questions are being asked.

[ Reply to This | # ]

i cant believe didio showed back up enjoy the read

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

interesting comment from mandrake

[ Reply to This | # ]

Note again that the term "intellectual property" is used, not copyright, patent etc.

Note also McBride: "That startled us because they have contracts that state that they won't do things like that." He doesn't say they own the technology, just that IBM have made promises.

I presume that he means the AT&T contracts. Let's leave aside for the sake of srgument IBM's (on the face of it) strong case that the contracts, and the 1985 side letter sent to all UNIX licencees, do not prevent anyone putting Unix "technology" (as opposed to copyrighted code) into Linux.

Let's imagine that there *is* a contract which says that (as SCO alledges) although IBM own the copyrights to NUMA etc. they have promised they won't contribute it to another system, and that IBM did it anyway. Clearly, IBM would be in breach of contract. *But* this would not make the code SCOs property, and consequently there would be no end user liability. To repeat the example I gave on GrokLaw a long time ago, if A promises B not to give C an orange (the orange belonging to A and B not having any title to it), and A breaks that promise, B can sue A but the transfer of title to the orange from A to C is not invalidated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=13900143 http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=139 00143&pgno=2

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.

"It was an example of our ability to find moderately changed or obfuscated code, it was not an example we are using in court," Sontag said. "If they want to go off and make a big defense on that, they are welcome to it."

http://www.inter netwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=X5EZQXR3D0UM2QSNDBGCKHQ? articleID=13900143&pgno=2

Sept 11

http://www.slt rib.com/2003/Sep/09112003/business/91398.asp

SCO acknowledges it has not, because of pending litigation, completely revealed its evidence of purloined code showing up in Linux. However, Stowell argues his company has revealed -- through a mix of private screenings where viewers signed nondisclosure pacts and in a public slide show three weeks ago at SCO's trade show in Las Vegas -- sufficiently damning examples backing its claims.

"They keep saying we are not showing the code, that we are being deceptive," Stowell said. "But we have shown it, literally, to hundreds of people now. . . . We have been very forthcoming. The programs we have identified make up about 20 percent of Linux."

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/232/business/SCO_undercuts_its_Linux _case+.shtml

SCO, though, was steadfast. ''Their assertions are incorrect. The source code is absolutely owned by SCO,'' said Chris Sontag, a company spokesman.

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://news.com.com/2100-1016- 5065286.html

Sontag then showed, in a series of slides, Linux code that he claimed has been literally copied from Unix. He said numerous comments, unusual spellings and typographical errors had also been copied directly into Linux.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

RavingLuni, if you're out there, we need to have more space availabe on each page, and a way to add pages or using the wiki just won't work.

Also, PJ has asked some good questions about whether we can expect the space/bandwidth to be available permanently. Can you address these concerns?

Alex

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't know what the actual limits of page size are for the software or how to alter it, but you can add pages simply by making a wiki-word. A wiki-word is two words put into one...like AlexRoston or RavingLuni or NewPage would all show up with a ? next to them which you then click on to create a new page.

Also, I want to note since it wasn't clear: I do not wish in any way to step on PJ's or anybody at Groklaw's toes...so anything anybody puts on the wiki, please also post here. It is also under the creative commons license same as here, so anyone can use it (I will add that to the HomePage) and I also will give the database over to PJ/Groklaw when they move to the new software package (if PJ/Groklaw wants it).

[ Reply to This | # ]

There are at least two reasons that this seriously damages SCO's credibility:

1. SCO must have removed the BSD copyright attributions from the BPF code if they thought it was theirs. Doesn't justify SCO's self-appointed position as Royal High Guardian of Intellectual Property in the Internet Age(tm), does it?

2. Sontag's admission that the slide "should have been rewritten" implies that SCO knowingly gave a deceptive presentation. And if you look at what SCOX stock did following SCOForum, you might be able to make a case for securities fraud.

[ Reply to This | # ]

When Sontag says obfuscation, he means "code altered to hide its true origins" which is an obvious ploy on SCO's part since they're likely the ones to be obfuscating code in order to claim they own it when they do not. There's no significant difference other than implying "someone" purposely and maliciously did it rather than it being an accident hence the suit vs IBM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www .infoworld.com/article/03/09/10/HNtorvaldssco_1.html

Favourite qoute: "We are happy that you agree that customers need to know that Open Source is legal and stable, and we heartily agree with that sentence of your letter. The others don't seem to make as much sense, but we find the dialogue refreshing."

[ Reply to This | # ]

You're welcome to show me the multi-billion $$ support PJ gets from IBM. I'll show you my evidence if you show me yours.

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://damagestudios.com/jobs.php

Notice that ex-SCO employee's need not apply.

[ Reply to This | # ]

If I read your article right Darl has already vested 400,000 options out of 600,000, none of which are performance related. At today's stock price he's sitting on over a 6 million dollar nest egg. Much as I despise the man I have to admire him, I'm amazed he hasn't discovered a `tax liability' that requires him to cash in some of those shares. -- "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale

[ Reply to This | # ]

>>> I don't know what the actual limits of page size are for the software or how to alter it, but you can add pages simply by making a wiki-word. A wiki-word is two words put into one...like AlexRoston or RavingLuni or NewPage would all show up with a ? next to them which you then click on to create a new page.

As long as new pages can be created, this isn't a major problem at the moment, though it might easily be a problem if the Gorklaw community and PJ decide to use the software to create a more extensive document than a long letter. I've put John's letter on the MainPage, and moved the proposed outline and my letter to Rob Enderle to seperate pages.

>>> Also, I want to note since it wasn't clear: I do not wish in any way to step on PJ's or anybody at Groklaw's toes...so anything anybody puts on the wiki, please also post here. It is also under the creative commons license same as here, so anyone can use it (I will add that to the HomePage) and I also will give the database over to PJ/Groklaw when they move to the new software package (if PJ/Groklaw wants it).

Raving, I agree with your intent entirely here. It's obvious that the Groklaw comments section isn't up to doing serious work on a piece of text. The issue here is what PJ and the community want to do. To me a wiki is a wonderful tool. It has everything necessary to take the excellent news stories, web-references, and opinions here on Groklaw and turn them into a coherent narrative which reads as a linear history SCO's attack on open-source, a narrative which can begin with the early history of UNIX and move through time to the present day, a narrative which is indexed by subject and consists of logically laid our chapters and some good indexing, complete with web-links, footnotes, and appendicies. As PJ noted, something like this would be a great resource for writers, reporters and the general public.

The sixty-four thousand dollar question here is whether PJ (and to a lesser extent, the community) wants to do that. I'm willing to do the editorial gruntwork - working up a general outline for the project, dealing with spelling, grammer and phrasing, working to keep a high tone, etc. However, I'm assuming that whatever we created would essentially take its tone from PJ and Groklaw, and that she would have ultimate control over the project.

[ Reply to This | # ]

And FWIW, I think that since PJ has stated on several occasions that GROKLAW is a permanent resource for all things regarding TSG's behavior (including McBride, Stowell, Sontag, etc. ad nauseum), it is possible that it may be referenced in order to clarify TSG's "intent" with regards to the lawsuit(s).

As for the article, I do deeply suspect that McBride is engaging in securities fraud, and that after the lawsuit is over (for good or ill), the SEC is going to pay TSG a visit regarding the stock price during this timeframe. Remember, there is still a rather sore spot with Wall Street regarding latter-day "robber barons" (Enron, WorldCom, etc.). The only reason that it might fly under the SEC's radar is that any actual defrauding (i.e. what's likely to happen after the lawsuit is over, and findings go against TSG) hasn't occurred yet, since the SCOX is currently riding high. Just wait until it crashes, then watch the feds crawl all over them...

[ Reply to This | # ]

"SCO Group's lawsuits against IBM and Red Hat have helped the company incur the wrath of an entire
IT movement, and no letter or justification will change everyone's mind at this point, says Laura DiDio,
a Yankee Group senior analyst."

(gasp)... can this be a less-than-flattering comment from Ms. DiDio regarding SCO? I'm feeling faint...

[ Reply to This | # ]

1. Aug 19 - These are damning examples of copying.

2. Aug 20 - The criticism of these example slide are incorrect. This is our code.

3. Aug 26 - One of the examples (BPF) is just to show our technique for searching. It's not meant to be a damning example. It's not meant to show copying. We won't use it in court. Ignore the wording on the slide that says it's about our damning "proof" of copying.

4. Sep 11 - The examples that we showed, are damning.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here's my math, assuming he was hired in June 2002 (as somebody posted above):

Total stock options: 600,000 It doesn't specify when he was awarded these 600,000 shares but let's assume it was Q4 2002 (salary for fiscal year 2003). Options vested Q4 2003: 100,000 The remaining 300,000 options of his 400,000 "performance" options will be vested 8333.33(repeating) per month for the next 3 years.

Now, let's assume that somehow they remain profitable until the end of the year, making it 4 quarters in a row. First profitable quarter: Q1 2003 Options vested Q1 2004: 50,000 Options vested Q4 2004: 150,000

So based on my lame math, in December of this year he'll have 100,000 shares vested, with another approximately 75,000 by end of Q1 2004. Do we really have to listen to his mouth spew crap for another 3 years (assuming best case scenario for their finances) until he can sell off all his stock? Or do we really think they can keep the FUD machine running for another year so he can get the rest of his stock options.

I highly doubt it. Once this goes to trial the stock will probably bomb as they are forced to reveal their evidence and IBM lays the smackdown.

Let's hope my math is right... :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

first I must gloat

[GLOAT ON]

I posted something to this effect a few days ago about Dale in the comments saying basically is about the money for Dale.

[GLOAT OFF]

wild bill hit on it without even reliasing it. No sane person would hire Dale, so why did SCO hire Dale?

Here's why.

Canopy buys SCO to grow it and "turn it arround" either it gets a profit or it grows revenue so that it. They go shopping for a CEO that is willing and sleazy enough to sign up for a pretty awful contract for an awful company. The contract for Dale that pj lists is only one half of the contract. There's a BIG negative side. Its either in writing or implied. No good CEO would come in and "fix SCO" under such a contract. The previous guy Love tried to increase sales, introduced products, but that failed. What would someone bring to SCO that Love didn't have?

A normal CEO type canidate would go "OK you want what when? and you think what's in the code? you want me to sue who? NO THANK YOU"

Dale says yes because he's desperate enough or it doesn't matter to him personally if he tanks SCO.

If Dale doesn't perform, he's toast. Same time frame basically. I thought it would be like 2-3 years but with pj's find its definitely 4 quarters. If there is no significant improvement in SCO in only 1 year, Dale's fired. Man, I knew there was pressure on Dale but this is just overkill.

I know the comp package pj listed just shows what happens if he suceeds, but believe me there's a LOT more than what's listed to the SEC. Companies that put out those kind of carrots also have a stick. They put that in Dale's contract to try to get him to fix the company NOW. They MUST get SCO profitable NOW, RIGHT NOW or bad things will happen.

Hence the whole lawsuit and license thing. Its basically a scam to raise capital and "make" sco profitable.

There is a lot more behind this and we could probably research this theory.

pj, we could found out the following: 1. Mr. Love was with SCO for how long? What was his compensation compared to Dale's? 2. How long was Dale out of a job before he got on with SCO? 3. What are the details of the IKON / Dale lawsuit? (I think it was IKON, he sued someone over relocation issues). 4. Did MS and/or Sun get anything for the "license" purchases such as stock? 5. What products / improvements did SCO have when Love was CEO?

What I am saying here is this is boils down to the same thing a stock scam or sleezy venture capital deal simular to an over pumped IPO where everyone really involved knows lots of lies are going arround but thats ok as long as we are making money.

MS and Sun don't just send that kind of money out to Utah for philosophical reasons. $10 Million BETTER buy you SOMETHING. Conspiracy theories aside, the "evil" MS is a business and businesses don't spend that kind of money for nothing, even if it is "small" compared to their bottom line. Yeah,yeah,yeah....they get the FUD advantage and rah-rah go SCO, kill Linux, but there has to be more to it than that. What did they get for their money?

I know that it is common for everyone to think that MS, SCO, Sun, Canopy are all on the same page, but it is entirely possible that SCO/Dale lied to them all. "We found code and we are SURE that IBM/SGI and others put OUR UNIX stuff in there."

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think I have figured out a big chunk of what is going on.

I have been very puzzled by SCO's actions on the licenses. If it was planning to make a lot of money off of them, then why did it announce they were on sale, but then not actually have them available for a whole month? My mistake was that I assumed that what they are saying is true.

What SCO says or implies is "We own code in Linux, so every Linux user has to pay us for a licence (if they don't, they will get sued), and so we are going to make vast amounts of money" ($4.9 billion, by my calculation, if they are correct). But we all know SCO lies a lot, so maybe this is a lie, too.

How to find out if it is a lie or not? One way is to figure out what they would do if they were telling the truth, and then check whether or not it matches their actual behavior. Now if they really are pushing a riches-through-licenses scheme, they would almost certainly have started planning it as soon as they (allegedly) discovered the code in Linux, like back in December. And in that case, they would have had plenty of time to work on the license, and so it would have been all ready to go in early August when they announced availability. The fact they didn't makes me think the license scheme was something they thought up much later, like say mid-July, and then rushed into action.

Here is another thing. If they were really planning to sell licenses to everyone, then they would have thought about how many people they would need on the phones to sell them. Do the math, and you see that if every Linux user was to buy a license over the course of, say, three years, that would means something like 100,000 calls a month, and so they would have needed to vastly expand their phone answering staff. But as far as I can tell, they have not expanded it at all. That is another reason to believe they really are not planning on selling licenses, or at least not in any major way like they say they are.

If that is the case, they why have they kept telling everyone they are going to sell license to all Linux users? Well, if someone's behavior is puzzling, a good idea is to start with what you actually know for fact, and a central fact is that in March they initiated a lawsuit against IBM.

Now almost everyone who has really studied this thinks, for a variety of reasons, that they are not actually planning to go to trial, but instead are hoping for a favorable pre-trial settlement from IBM (in fact, one of SCO's executives said not long after the suit was filed that a buy-out by IBM would be a satisfactory resolution). And a further point here is that we can be pretty sure they want that settlement soon, rather than waiting 5 or 10 years as the case drags through the courts.

Now to get such a settlement, and soon, they have to put pressure on IBM. The lawsuit is some pressure, but not that much. To start, this is an 80 billion a year company (as I recall), so a 3.5 billion lawsuit does not really scare them. Plus they have a strong motive to resist a settlement as long as possible because to settle early would encourage other small, greedy companies to file similar suits. And finally, IBM had deep pockets so it can just wait things out for a number of years before settling.

There is another type of pressure, however, that I think SCO was hopping for, one would be both immediate and 10 times more powerful than the suit itself. Remember, and this is something that I think has not received enough discussion here at Groklaw, 4 years ago IBM decided to make Linux a central part of its whole corporate strategy, and failure here would have very bad consequences.

Here is what I think SCO thought would happen. It would sue IBM accusing it of giving SCO's code to Linux. Now imagine you are the CIO of a Fortune 500 company, say like Ford, and you are planning a 5 year, 250 million dollar project to convert your infrastructure over to Linux. But then along comes the SCO-IBM lawsuit. You think maybe SCO is right and could eventually win. And if that happened, then maybe a day later a fellow from SCO would show up at your office and demand that you sign a 100 million a year perpetual licence with them or they would send in a federal marshall with a court order to shutdown all your networks at midnight.

That idea would make you very scared, and what would you do? You would go to IBM and tell them they better settle the lawsuit immediately or they were not going to take their corporation down the Linux route. And a lot of other Fortune 500 CTO's would do likewise, and IBM would see its Linux strategy in mortal danger, and so they would settle on terms highly favorable to SCO.

I think that is what SCO was hopping would happen. And as evidence, remember how they early on sent a letter to 1,500 large corporations. That is in effect a list of IBM's main accounts, the source of most of its income. And note SCO might adopt this strategy whether it really believed it owned code in linux or not--a bluff still might win them a juicy settlement.

(Part II to follow)

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think I have figured out a big chunk of what is going on.

I have been very puzzled by SCO's actions on the licenses. If it was planning to make a lot of money off of them, then why did it announce they were on sale, but then not actually have them available for a whole month? My mistake was that I assumed that what they are saying is true.

What SCO says or implies is "We own code in Linux, so every Linux user has to pay us for a licence (if they don't, they will get sued), and so we are going to make vast amounts of money" ($4.9 billion, by my calculation, if they are correct). But we all know SCO lies a lot, so maybe this is a lie, too.

How to find out if it is a lie or not? One way is to figure out what they would do if they were telling the truth, and then check whether or not it matches their actual behavior. Now if they really are pushing a riches-through-licenses scheme, they would almost certainly have started planning it as soon as they (allegedly) discovered the code in Linux, like back in December. And in that case, they would have had plenty of time to work on the license, and so it would have been all ready to go in early August when they announced availability. The fact they didn't makes me think the license scheme was something they thought up much later, like say mid-July, and then rushed into action.

Here is another thing. If they were really planning to sell licenses to everyone, then they would have thought about how many people they would need on the phones to sell them. Do the math, and you see that if every Linux user was to buy a license over the course of, say, three years, that would means something like 100,000 calls a month, and so they would have needed to vastly expand their phone answering staff. But as far as I can tell, they have not expanded it at all. That is another reason to believe they really are not planning on selling licenses, or at least not in any major way like they say they are.

If that is the case, they why have they kept telling everyone they are going to sell license to all Linux users? Well, if someone's behavior is puzzling, a good idea is to start with what you actually know for fact, and a central fact is that in March they initiated a lawsuit against IBM.

Now almost everyone who has really studied this thinks, for a variety of reasons, that they are not actually planning to go to trial, but instead are hoping for a favorable pre-trial settlement from IBM (in fact, one of SCO's executives said not long after the suit was filed that a buy-out by IBM would be a satisfactory resolution). And a further point here is that we can be pretty sure they want that settlement soon, rather than waiting 5 or 10 years as the case drags through the courts.

Now to get such a settlement, and soon, they have to put pressure on IBM. The lawsuit is some pressure, but not that much. To start, this is an 80 billion a year company (as I recall), so a 3.5 billion lawsuit does not really scare them. Plus they have a strong motive to resist a settlement as long as possible because to settle early would encourage other small, greedy companies to file similar suits. And finally, IBM had deep pockets so it can just wait things out for a number of years before settling.

There is another type of pressure, however, that I think SCO was hopping for, one would be both immediate and 10 times more powerful than the suit itself. Remember, and this is something that I think has not received enough discussion here at Groklaw, 4 years ago IBM decided to make Linux a central part of its whole corporate strategy, and failure here would have very bad consequences.

Here is what I think SCO thought would happen. It would sue IBM accusing it of giving SCO's code to Linux. Now imagine you are the CIO of a Fortune 500 company, say like Ford, and you are planning a 5 year, 250 million dollar project to convert your infrastructure over to Linux. But then along comes the SCO-IBM lawsuit. You think maybe SCO is right and could eventually win. And if that happened, then maybe a day later a fellow from SCO would show up at your office and demand that you sign a 100 million a year perpetual licence with them or they would send in a federal marshall with a court order to shutdown all your networks at midnight.

That idea would make you very scared, and what would you do? You would go to IBM and tell them they better settle the lawsuit immediately or they were not going to take their corporation down the Linux route. And a lot of other Fortune 500 CTO's would do likewise, and IBM would see its Linux strategy in mortal danger, and so they would settle on terms highly favorable to SCO.

I think that is what SCO was hopping would happen. And as evidence, remember how they early on sent a letter to 1,500 large corporations. That is in effect a list of IBM's main accounts, the source of most of its income. And note SCO might adopt this strategy whether it really believed it owned code in linux or not--a bluff still might win them a juicy settlement.

(Part II to follow)

[ Reply to This | # ]

You could allege that MS quite like the SCO FUD.

You could even allege that MS were happy to pay, knowing the SCO FUD would follow. (although I have yet to see any evidence - just lots of unsupported suspicions - that this is the case).

However, it seems incredibly unlikely to me that Microsoft would want to ensure SCO has a high stock price, that Darl's options vest, etc. It just not something that would even potentially care about, even if the tinfoil hat theories were true.

If MS were to pay SCO for whatever reason (legit license, or if you prefer tinfoil hat version), it's not like they don't have cash to pay immediately. And in most business deals, if you pay immediately in one go, you get a better deal than paying over a period of time.

It seems far more likely to me, that SCO or Darl, was keen on the revenue being spread over several quarters. After all, they would be the ones who had the real interest in SCO showing several good quarters?

Also, if somebody said to me, "Okay you've agreed to pay X. Instead of paying it one go, pay me over a period of time." - I'd hardly be likely to refuse.

For Darl's sake, I think that it would probably be safest, if he got the best deal (most money and quickest payment terms) he could from MS. He is, after all, be supposed to be acting in the interest of the stock holders, whose interests are almost certainly best served by getting the most money as quickly as posible.

[ Reply to This | # ]

David I think your on to something here. The "public" offering of the license might be required to make the "private" sales of the license legit.

The FUD pressure plays well too. IBM type customers are very conservative and long term thinkers. They may shy away from Linux because of the "uncertainty" there. We can afford to buy Sun or SCO or MS/XP. AIX is also "uncertain" because of SCO suit / drop of license agreement. If you follow your theory here its about setting long term strategy for IT departments. Like, Textron or Ford is a MS Windows shop and we won't buy *nix software becuase we don't want to support two OS's

I think there is a lot more to those license sales to MS, CA and Sun. That's the key.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wonder whether being Darl McBride right now doesn't feel a little like being a mobster who's been skimming from Tony Soprano's take...it's not nice to fool Mother Canopy...

One thing they probably need right now, desperately, is to buy a little time. Hence the introduction of "negotiation" with -- who? McBride is surely vividly aware that there's nobody on the Open Source side to negotiate *with*. But the (nice term of art) blather about it can be stretched out indefinitely, or so they're betting, you have to suspect.

[ Reply to This | # ]

After reading today's correspondence, I have the impression that many in the IT press don't want to play Darl's game any more. They are more than willing to accept valid information from other sources and to report on it. Having briefly been employed as a journalist, I can tell you that what journalists do is not magic- it's hard work similar to what is being done here, by contributors. Information has to come from somewhere, and most of what the press has been receiving has come straight from Darl. I think if we can provide verifiable information, it will indeed be covered by the press.

I think it is absolutely essential, that if we have information suggesting that there was no SCO DOS attack, that we provide it. The information should be verifiable, and we should make no conclusions regarding E. Raymond or his statement. Darl used raymond's "open letter" to get in a real cheap shot on open source, but unfortunately, I don't think it would be wise to make accusations of the sort without proof. But we CAN present the information, throwing doubt on the whole matter, and I am sure that intelligent readers will draw valid conclusions. The DOS attacks and allegations are what everyone seems to be interested in; IMHO, not only inclusion of this information in our open letter, but presenting our findings to the press as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is it possible that MS/Sun bought "license" after they were told privately that this whole scam will probably get IBM to buy SCO? I.e. for your "license" here are some shares or options for SCO/Canopy? FUD = presure on IBM to settle = buy out of SCO = lots of $ for MS/Sun.

[ Reply to This | # ]

All paths lead to NFT and Yarrow. SCO could not act without Yarros approval. Concentrating on McBride on the assumption he controls policy is probably a mistake. Darl exists to take the flak and act the fool in public.

Canopy itself is moribund and may well be in the process of being run down, it's assets being gradually sold off as for as much as possible. If this is true, taking a high risk legal stratigy such as SCOs, isn't risky to Canopy at all. For the investment of a few million on lawyers and PR agencies, Canopy just might get a big pay off. If it all goes wrong, who cares so long as they dump the shares before IBM attack lawyers rip SCO to shreds and McBride is already in place as the fall guy.

I've got some additional notes about this theory in http://buffy.sighup.org.uk/sco /note02.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl has presented an excellent opportunity for strong rebuttal. Computerwire has already reported that he lied in his open letter; if evidence can be presented that Darl lied about the DOS attacks on SCO, it will be very damaging. Re-reading his letter, I am thinking about a couple of other things that might prove very damaging to his FUD. Darl has been on the offensive- let's see how well he handles defense. The minute that SCO has to start defending themselves in the press is the minute that their FUD ceases to have much effect. Plus, it will make any other nonsense spewing from Darl much more subject to scrutiny.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft do have an interest: the fact that SCO's stock has risen from below $1 to $18 ever since the beginning of this debacle implies that there is market confidence in a favourable outcome for them. Also, in the case of Microsoft's payment over 3 quarter's, don't be suprised if the dollar amount varies considerable from that decided initially from the outset. I would hypothesise that these payments will be just enough to show a increase in SCO's overall quaterly profit for the duration; a further indication to the market that SCO are suceeding in the battle.

In fact, were it not for these quartly payments, SCO would be, in all likelyhood, bankrupt by now. This case is FUD by proxy, and has Microsoft's hands written all over it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why do you think that Sun chose to take an equity position in The SCO Group as part of the deal?

[ Reply to This | # ]

In January SCO were talking about Shared Libraries in the press

The early SCOsource presentation talks about this. There is a link in the presentation to a Linux documentation article (at redhat.com) that says how to use the shared libraries to run Word Perfect. (incidentally the article says do not violate SCO's copyrights).

In the SCO complaints there is a shared library section in background facts, which seems to me kind of disconnected to the rest of the complaint. Except it crops up again in prayer for relief.

Some how, I think, that we seem to be in a situation now, where the SCO press line is now about completely different stuff, alleged line-by-line copying, derivative works, etc. It doesn't seem very likely to be that SCO is really going to argue that JFS or NUMA comes into Linux from pirating their shared libraries (but read the prayer for relief in the complaint - may be they will!)

The other side of the thing, is I doubt too many Linux users are interested in the SCO shared libraries anyway.

And one other thing, is from what I understand the SCO Linux IP license thing doesn't include media. So these folks are presumably not going to get a copy of these shared libraries anyway. So whatever the SCO Linux IP license is supposed to cover, presumably doesn't cover the shared libraries, at all.

I don't really have an explanation or even a theory, except maybe a speculation something like: SCO started out with the shared library idea - found that was of little use - and then moved on - leaving the shared library element of their legal case, somewhat stranded from their press campaign.

P.S. Regarding davidl's theory about 1500 companies etc. I don't know what was in SCO's mind, so I can't say if this was their plan or not.

In my opinion: However, the idea that IBM would abandon a fortune 1500 customer on a strategic product/platform, just doesn't work for me - it's not how IBM work - IBM always support strategic products/platforms, if they've made a commitment to do so. I also think IBM's major customers would know this (and maybe this even the reason they chose IBM) - and somehow IBM would take care of any major problem. So, even if davidl's theory about the letters were true, it would be a major miscalculation by SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another thing that I think a historical account needs to have, is why SCO is still using those SCO forum slides to bolster their arguments.

If they have lots of samples that show alleged code copying, why keep using just these 2 examples, when even they have (briefly) admitted, one of the examples shows nothing.

It could almost make you wonder, if those 2 examples are all they have.

[ Reply to This | # ]

That said, it is valuable to understand how Darl gets paid, because it will help in predicting his actions.

I'm waiting with bated breath for the 10-Q for the quarter ended 2003-07-31. I want to see how many SCO Source customers there were for that quarter.

Hmmm, seems all that I'm doing today is replying negatively to other peopple, not bringing any fresh info to the tabl. Sorry about that. I'll see if I can dig up something informative to atone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So that is what they were hoping. And in fact, when you realize how important linux is to IBM, then it becomes virtually certain that threatening IBM's linux strategy must have been a big part of SCO's plan in filing the lawsuit. It was a potentially huge weapon, and so of course they would have thought of it.

The problem is the plan didn't work. Some corporations slowed down their linux programs, but most just kept going. Analysts at first said using Linux was a real danger, but as the months went by, many of them realized SCO's claims were dubious. And IBM just dug in for a long battle and showed no interest in settling.

Here is what I think happened next. A few months after the lawsuit was filed, SCO realized that IBM's customers had not become afraid and so were not pressuring IBM, so SCO decided to take more actions to try to instill fear in them.

SCO had been making threats of suing Linux users, but a threat is not creditable unless there is some alternative you are offering ("I am going to shoot you" is not a threat, it is just a statement of what is going to happen next. "I am going to shoot you if you don't hand over your wallet" is a threat). So they had to rush put a license program into effect, or at least make it look like they were, in order to make their suing threat look credible. Another way of making it appear they were serious and so IBM customers should be afraid was to announce the invoice program.

Also, note (I should have said this in part I), threatening to sue IBM customers was supposed to give the customers an additional fear besides the one of SCO winning the lawsuit against IBM. This was supposed to motivate IBM customers to tell IBM "settle now and make part of the settlement that they promise not to sue us, or we won't follow our linux strategy"

So SCO rushed out the license program and also started talking about invoices, and continued to threaten suing, not because they really thought they could make vast amounts of money, but all as a way to try to instill fear in IBM customers who would then pressure IBM into settling.

(Oh, and I just throught of another argument. SCO claims it will make vast amounts of money from linux licenses. But we all know that if its claims were shown to be valid, then 1) the code would get written out of Linux, and/or 2) people would switch to bsd. In either case SCO won't make money. I assume SCO is smart enough to realize this, so that is a reason to think that it is pushing the license scheme for some other reason)

However, it seems that the new tactic is not working. Very few companies are caving in and buying licenses, and IBM is holding to its position, so we can be pretty sure that its customers are not pressuring it to settle.

So does that mean SCO is going to go ahead and mail invoices and start suing companies that don't buy its licenses? I doubt it. As many have pointed out, this would probably not work, and besides would provoke lawsuits and maybe criminal proceedings.

So here is what I predict. In the coming next few months, SCO will keep saying it is going to send out invoices and keep saying it is going to sue users, but it never will. Also (and here I am speculating more), analysts will turn more against it, the kernel developers will file a lawsuit against SCO, and, maybe three months from now, SCO will agree to a settlement that is highly in favor of IBM (ie SCO ceases all claims against Linux, IBM gets Unix, and Canopy has to sell off half its companies to pay the cash side). Well, that how I understand things. What do you think?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Some wonder if the Linux community is damaging its cause through such aggressive behavior. "This is going to hurt the open-source community's credibility as a whole," DiDio says. "I can't attest to SCO's claims, but they have the right to file a lawsuit."

Open Source Community aggressive? Seems to me like SCO has been the aggressor, and the Open Source Community has been on the defensive since the start. Time that should be changed. Also, anyone has a "right" to file a lawsuit. I could probably file a lawsuit against Ms, Didiot claiming her idiotic analyses has caused me great stress- doesn't mean that lawsuit has any validity.

Darl's game plan for a quick settlement with IBM failed. We need to make sure that the fall-back plan fails too (this FUD campaign and the attempts to drive SCO's stock prices up). My prediction is that we will be hearing more from the IT press very soon in regards to SCO's non-existant Linux IP licenses. And also that the next place of employment for Darl will be the Men's Room of the Salt Lake City airport. He'll be sitting under a big sign that proclaims "Darl's Buff and Shine!" While he's shining your shoes, just don't let him con you into paying him an IP fee for that Linux distro on your laptop.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www .infoconomy.com/pages/news-and-gossip/group84712.adp

"McBride said that he initiated an investigation into the provenance of Linux code in January this year after IBM Software Group senior vice president Steve Mills had pledged at LinuxWorld to 'transport' IBM's knowledge of AIX into Linux. "That startled us because they have contracts that state that they won't do things like that," said McBride."

That's false! SCO hired Boies Schiller Flexner weeks before IBMer Steve Mills spoke at Linux World.

Steve Mills made his speech on Thursday, January 23, 2003.

http:// www.infoworld.com/article/03/01/23/030123hnibmlinux_1.html

But on January 22, 2003, Darl McBride confirmed that SCO had already hired Boies:

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-9 81569.html

In fact, Maureen O'Gara broke the story of SCO+Boies on January 13, 2003:

http://www.sys-con.com/li nux/article.cfm?id=381

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hey Brenda, you seem to know where many of the IT media resides. If you were to send e-mails to these journalists, just pointing out that Darl lied in his open letter (specifically, about what was in that Computerwire article), I think there is a good chance this information would be printed. Especially if you include the URL for the article that Computerwire just published, in which they point out Darl's mistake......

[ Reply to This | # ]

In the early days of Linux migration, some customers wanted to run applications for SCO on their shiny new linux systems. There are three things needed to make that happen.

(1) The Linux kernel has to implement the system call interface of SCO Openserver. Fortunately, that interface is an open interface named ibcs-2 ("Intel Binary Compatibility Standard, 2"). The Linux kernel used to come with a personality module to implement ibcs-2. I haven't checked lately to see if ibcs-2 is still available.

(2) The customer has to have the SCO application: Oracle, Progress, Wordperfect, whatever. The customer gets this from the third-party vendor in the usual way.

(3) The customer's Linux system has to have the system shared libraries that the application uses. These are libraries such as the standard C library.

You can see a bunch of details for a typical migration here:

http://www.west net.com/~gsmith/Progress-Linux-FAQ.html#q5

In particular this line:

"Get the files from /shlib from your licensed version of SCO and put them in the same directory on your Linux machine."

SCO's gripe was that certain unnamed consulting firms were helping customers migrate by instructing them to copy SCO's shared libraries from the customers' OpenServer system to the customers' shiny new Linux system, without a license to make those copies. For a while, SCO was addressing this by offering to sell "SCO Shared Libraries for Linux". Unlike the "SCO Binary IP License for Linux", the SCO Shared Libraries for Linux was an actual product with real bits, so that people can install the bits, and then do new things that they couldn't do before (run SCO apps on their Linux box).

SCO Shared Libraries for Linux didn't do well in the marketplace. Oracle et al realized that Linux was big enough for its own native apps, so they started shipping native Linux apps for Linux, which meant that customers had no need to run SCO apps on Linux any more.

That explains all the language in the original complaint about how shared libraries have unique characteristics, that it would be impossible to make a compatibile replacement without illegally reverse engineering the original library, and so on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Their "linux Licensing" program is impossible, even if they win.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Didio scenario will work only if she can make the concept of collective guilt work. Any DDOS attacks would have to be the work of freelance operators over whom we have no control or influence, as most of us roundly condemn these attacks. However, in the lovely and tireless Laura Didio's eyes, we are damaging our credibility because of attacks that we roundly condemn. I wouldn't want to be the guy who has teach her how to use her head to think logically, because I'd probably end up heavily sedated in a padded room wearing a shirt whose sleeves are ties in the back and muttering incoherently to myself.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nah- I attribute that to Darl's stupidity. He didn't think that the code would leave the room because it never occurred to him that someone might photograph his slide show. Just like he never thought anyone would catch him when he lied about the Computerwire article. You have to remember- Darl is basically a bully. Through bluster and bravado, he has gotten his way in the past. Darl tends to underestimate his opposition, and this is one of the ways he can be beaten. His planning, IMHO, is slightly amateurish- didn't he think ANYONE would call SCO and demand to be invoiced when he started SCO's licensing program? My guess is no, he did not- he thought everyone would be afraid they might be charged for their Linux distros, and wouldn't dare give their name and address to SCO.

Darl folded in Germany, when Linuxtag challenged him. He will continue to fold here, because his plan expects no serious, organized, and rational counteroffensive. What Darl DOES know how to do very well is play the media. He's a salesman, and he has some idea of how to manipulate public opinion. Witness the nonsense about the alleged DOS attack in Darl's open letter, and how that was set up beforehand. Darl expects no one to challenge this assertion either, and for his slight against the open source community to go unchallenged (except perhaps for continued apologies from the open source community)- but challenging this assertion in the media is the most damaging thing that can be done to SCO at the moment.

Darl undertands that the more a lie is repeated, the more people will believe it. Darl's strategy at this moment is dependent on SCO remaining on the offensive. If they have to regroup and defend themselves, this FUD campaign starts to fall apart. The FUD has already been stopped in Germany, and it can be stopped here. The first thing to remember in any counteroffensive planning is that Darl is not a genius- don't try to attribute any of his actions to some dark and ingenious "master plan."

It already appears that Boies has jumped ship because he doesn't smell easy money any more- this is a clear victory. Keep the pressure up on Darl, and he will start to retreat.

[ Reply to This | # ]

K. Gardner and others: It's probably not about the options. Those are just pipe dream that maybe Darl could get but he probably doesn't worry about it. My bet its about basic survival. He trying to not get fired.

[ Reply to This | # ]

When this started they may have had a good faith belief that their proprietary code was in Linux. After their disastrous slide show in August, they must fear that all of their evidence may disappear. If they revealed all their code, their uncompromised evidence might seem to be a trivial pile. They are more interested in delaying the process, not resolving it. So they will battle on in confidentiality and unsubstantiated press releases. At some point they might start to crumble - lawyers will withdraw and directors will resign, people will be fired. When they started, their prospects ranged from untold wealth to corporate bankruptcy. IBM and Linux have not bought them off yet. They have not checked their evidence nor have they acted with propriety. The range of their prospects now include sanctions, piercing the corporate veil, personal bankruptcy and securities and ethical sanctions. They are going to have to show some substance soon or the walls will start moving. Just matching what has appeared here on Groklaw is a fromidable task.

So they just want to be MS millionares for a couple more years until this suit goes to trial. Delay Linux must be their only function. Without MS millions none of this is happenning. Let us make it too hot for them to continue on this course.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl undertands that the more a lie is repeated, the more people will believe it. Darl's strategy at this moment is dependent on SCO remaining on the offensive. If they have to regroup and defend themselves, this FUD campaign starts to fall apart. The FUD has already been stopped in Germany, and it can be stopped here. The first thing to remember in any counteroffensive planning is that Darl is not a genius- don't try to attribute any of his actions to some dark and ingenious "master plan."

Which gives me an idea. What would it take to cross reference not only Darl's public statements, but that of McBride, Sontag and Stowel as a whole, and release a series of refutations that point out the direct prevarications with the support facts?

This may walk on top of the already existing effort to respond to McBride's open letter, but there is wisdom in bludegoning your opponent with their own words and in too many places for them to fight back at the same time.

Thoughts?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl cooks up a plan to extract money from IBM's Linux ventures. Caldera is failing, and this is the best plan he can devise. His network of contacts probably includes D. Boies, and Boies smells easy money here, and a lawsuit is filed. Boies is not an IP lawyer, so he's really not right for the case, but Darl has sold him on this. The goal is not to win any lawsuit- this is not even expected to go to trial, or- if it does, to a Utah court, where more friends probably work.

IBM won't be intimidated and fights back. The case is moved to US court, and we aren'r hearing any more from Boies. My guess is he doesn't at all want his name associated with this any more. We have seen the first big mistake, and re-planning occurs.

Darl, new plan in hand, and bank account and confidence bolstered by cash infusions from M$ and Sun, starts an offensive in the press. He knows how to play the press, and knows people will read press releases from Darl McBride, CEO of SCO. Why do you think the company was renamed the SCO Group anyways? So people (probably IBM at first) would notice them. Few people know who/what Caldera is. Darl is also a pretty good manipulator of people, and knows how to play games with analysts and journalists to present his side of the story alone. Witness the NDA nonsense regarding alleged code violations. I must admit, this particular scheme was set up pretty well. Only one participant protested- the rest agreed with Darl.

Darl probably chuckles every time open source people issue an "open letter" because he knows that corporate types won't even read them. The open source people don't wear suits, and don't have CEO after their names.

And now, Darl is on a course that is very dangerous. He either wins completely, or loses it all. That's why the bluster gets louder and louder. But the flaw in Darl's planning is that he expects no serious counterattacks, at least until the trial date. He knows IBM will not openly attack him- they will stay quiet until the trial. Darl is very surprised when Linuxtag files suit and wins, but hey so what- that's over in Germany.

Darl is extremely surprised when RedHat files suit, because this was not expected at all. He whines about IBM "causing all this" and "organizing the open source community" because this Redhat business could really zap his get-rich-quick scheme. Darl still isn't very worried about Torvalds or open source people in general because (in his opinion) they are dopes. They don't understand how the game is played. Darl McBride, CEO, can stomp on them at any time. Because he wears a suit and he's a CEO, and people will read his press releases.

Darl isn't expecting organized resistance from open source players that know how the game is played, because he thinks everyone in open source is a communist granola cruncher. That is the big weakness in his plan. When people start asking about Linux IP licenses, and reporting results to the press, and when his lies are exposed in the press, this will put Darl on the defensive. All of the open letters that Raymond and Torvalds and Perens write will not have as much effect as a single critical article from one of the big IT media houses. That's just how it is. And why the game must be played in a certain fashion if we want to see Darl defeated.

This is a street fight, not a tennis match.

[ Reply to This | # ]

take a look i was screaming and jumping my daughter thought i had flipped out and needed the white coats to come get me hehehehe dell says no to licenses br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

I agree with wild bill that handling the "attacks" is vital. The question in my mind is how to be effective.

Here we're sharing ideas, because we are writing a community letter, but in the end product, we must stick to facts that are provable. The example quatermass provided, for example, about IBM and Boies' hiring is so perfect, I'm sending it to the infoconomy guy right now. mec, your stuff was great too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

That's a VG idea. One place to start to gather information might be the "We Love the SCO Information Minister" website- a parody in the fashion of the "I Love the Iraqi Information Minister" site. They have a great picture of Darl wearing a nifty suit and beret <G>. The site used to have a picture of Darl in a turban, but that's down. Anyways, these guys have been collecting "stupid Darl comments for awhile.

The key is to get this information into the hands of the IT press. WE all know the scoop, but most people in business don't. They don't "waste their time" by going to the "We Love the SCO Information Minister" website, but they read IDG and ZD publications.

Here's the URL- http://www.peerfear.org/rss/permalink/2003/08/23/WeLoveTheSCOInformatio nMinister/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Easily answered- this cash is chump change to Sun and M$. They don't even have to get their hands dirty, and Linux is getting battered and beaten. Wouldn't you do it if your software sales were lagging, and you wanted to stop the Linux juggernaut? the FUD isn't free, for one simple reason. It takes money to stay in business, and SCO didn't have any money. This infusion of cash means more FUD production. Gates-Ballmer and others chuckle- that dope McBride is causing far more damage to Linux than they could have without risking the feds stomping on them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"If there's a way of resolving this that is positive, then we can get back out to business and everybody is good to go, then I'm fine with that," McBride said today in an interview with Computerworld. "If that's one of the outcomes of this, then so be it." May 30, 2003

This has ALWAYS been about how to make money off the remains of SCO

BigTEx

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Doubtless Darl believes that if he wins control of the Linux code Linus will become a suit, and he'll relay Darl's orders to Alan Cox and Bruce Perens. ESR, of course, will be "left behind by the re-organization..."

Years from now, when he's flipping burgers at Jack in the Box, he still won't understand - he'll just think IBM covered their tracks really good.

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

wild bill gave one answer. While I can't say what Sun's reason is, there are compelling reasons for MS. Anyone with any technical sense could see this would result in SCO either being bought out or destroyed, with the money being on destroyed. It has been pointed out that SCO is part of Canopy which is Ray Norda's company. Now Ray and Billy Boy don't get along too well. Maybe this is Billy's way of getting back at Ray. For a little bit of money, Ray loses part of his company in a most spectacularly messy manner. Billy Boy sits back in his castle and smirks at the irony that by giving his enemy a little cash, he helps destroy them.

Yet another answer is, given that the destruction of SCO was assured to anyone with technical sense, this was a cheap and easy way to destroy yet another competitor. No, not Linux, but UnixWare/OpenServer. Everyone knows that Billy Boy wants Windows to be the only player at the table. He's already managed to destroy NeXT and BeOS. Getting rid of the so-called "True" UNIX would be a sweet victory indeed. Billy Boy probably already has a spot on his mantle for the head once it's back from the taxidermist.

It's probably not one answer over the others but a combination of all of them. You can see that they all have merit and gave Billy Boy great personal satisfaction, all for a few measly millions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The key is to get this information into the hands of the IT press. WE all know the scoop, but most people in business don't. They don't "waste their time" by going to the "We Love the SCO Information Minister" website, but they read IDG and ZD publications.

There is also one more thing that is vital (IMO) to make the point stick, and that is to get the reporter/analyst to ask the rhetorical question: "Darl, you've misled us about 'X', 'Y', 'Z', so why should we trust what you have to say?" or something to that affect. With the facts in play for all to see and the obvious question asked, this will put him on the defensive. Whenever he tries to steer the subject away from the problem, it's a segue for the IT reporters to come back to. The thing I feel good about is that the question is a legitimate one as it stems from the simple observation of his words vs his words/actions and what really is. So, this is not being mean spirited, but rather telling truth with a little strategem. :-)

One other side thought, it might be an interesting exercise to plot the price history and volume of SCOX stock against the timing of each Press Release with the tagged falsehoods in it, in order to see if there is any obvious correlation. This may involve taking into account Wall Street friends and family like Johnathan Cohen, et. al.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

And Darl's compensation package explains a lot about his motives and actions. 4 profitable quarters in succession in just over two years is hard to do, especially if there's an annual customer buying cycle. Many companies expect to make an operating loss over the summer.

On the invoices, I don't think we can expect to see any soon. What would they put on the invoice? If you look at the price list, you will see that it is non-linear per number of CPUs per machine. Nobody needs to count Linux CPUs at present and putting an audit system in place just for this costs more money. And what about the zSeries (S/390) mainframes, how do you charge for those (virtual CPUs, 10,000 Linux images under z/VM)? I guess they could offer site licenses at 0.01% of annual turnover. That'll be $8,000,000 from IBM and getting on for a billion over the top 1000 companies please. Since SCO have said they aren't going after their own customers, I wonder if having just one OpenServer license will absolve a company of the need to pay out $1m for Linux Licenses?

With numbers like this, expect invoice recipients, their accountants and lawyers (clued up from reading sites like this :-), to argue over the validity and Ts & Cs of the invoice and license before shelling out. Money will be very slow coming in if it ever does.

Now this suggests to me that we have another potential audience that we need to reach. How many accountants and lawyers read the tech press and are aware of the issues? What do they read? How do we 'suggest', without giving legal advice or emphasizing/evangelizing the social aspects that might turn them off, that supporting the GPL and not paying the invoice is the right and legal thing to do?

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,84819 ,00.html

It's infuriating!

We REALLY need to get all his lies together in one place, suitable for press consumption.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Of COURSE he's weaselly! And we can pin him down and show everybody else how weaselly he is. Computerworld might be one of the first to print some pretty devastating stuff about Darl. I did think it was funny that Darl read Slashdot, and sent Slashdot this URL.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dear Mr. Weiss,

I just read your interview with Darl McBride, and it looks to me like you let him off much too easily.

Why didn't you confront him about how he misquoted Perens? (I've provided a URL to the original Perens piece below.)

http://perens.com/Articl es/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html

Compare that with what McBride said.

http://www.sco.com/company/openlet ter/

Perens didn't come anywhere near making the admission of guilt McBride claims.

Why didn't you ask McBride if the letter was prompted by the analyses of the code shown at SCO-Forum which proved that the code was not stolen as per these analysis below?

http://www.lemis.com/g rog/SCO/code-comparison.html http://www.catb.org /~esr/writings/smoking-fizzle.html

Why didn't you ask him if the fact that IBM owns both the copyrights and patents to RCU, NUMA, and JFS is responsible for his more conciliatory tone? (note particularly the interview with Blake Stowell in the middle of the story.)

http ://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-24-Copyrights_Story01.html

McBride said, "However, IBM and other Linux vendors are reportedly unwilling to provide intellectual property warranties to their customers." So why didn't you confront him on the question of how much indemnification SCO offers his customers? Why didn't you confront him on the issue that if SCO wins money from IBM and charges customers who bought the Linux software in good faith for a license fee they will be double dipping, a practice which the courts frown upon?

Why didn't you ask him if SCO's legal losses in Germany are responsible for his more conciliatory tone?

http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,84564 ,00.html

It looks to me like you gave him a free ride when you should have been answering the hard questions. It looks to me like you didn't do your research. (I'd start here. The author does an excellent job of covering every issue in the drama.)

http ://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/stories/2003/06/24/scoArchives.html

Bad journalist. No biscuit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

(Assuming this is true)

But he is famous.

Which makes me wonder they picked him, instead of an IP lawyer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

In my view, Journo's are generally trying to increase their reader/viewer numbers (apologies to those I slight by this gross generalisation). This brings in numbers, which eventually brings in ads and hence revenue, and "by the way: great job of increasing readership, here's a pay rise". So they want readers, and the most common way of getting readers is to be controversial - that gets people hooked nicely. Witness the type of story on the various "Curent Affair" style programs. "Evil Tradesperson/Landlord/Company director etc etc etc". The taller the poppy the better the story.

A TV series here in Aust. some years ago satarised these shows brilliantly: "FrontLine".

Well the "Tallest Poppy" in the IT industry is currently Linux and Open Source. Strongly hyped. Lots of serious attention, lots of serious money. So the journo's get their numbers up by arguing that maybe TSG has a case after all. Linux etc folk get upset, rant and rave on boards and in Letters to Editors etc. Editors are thrilled.

But now we seem to be seeing a shift in the Tall Poppy (Ha originally typed Poopy - inadvertant slip or subconscious realisation! ;-) ) - Darl McBride, CEO. Oh dear a "CEO" has been caught lying. Shame Shame Shame. Esp as he's no longer attacking IBM - he's no longer the underdog. He's seen now as the bully attacking the software coders, many of whom probably work in Fortune 1500 companies and are actually known to their senior management to a greater or lesser degree. Oops.

"We can't really get much milage out of those long haired hippy types in the linux/open source world - everyone expects them to be barbarians, but a real live CEO, with a faint hint of Enron/HIA around them - WhooHoo, here we go!".

I strongly feel, that the more links to previous articles we can send to various journo's with the more mainstream IT mags/newspapers, of Darl and Co's contradictions; the more we can get that aroma of Controvosy so loved by the modern journo. And hence up the defensive posture on TSG.

The downside is that we could end up making Darl the underdog again.

- Steve M

[ Reply to This | # ]