It purports to be about how smart you'd be to invest in Linux instead of proprietary software companies, but it manages to include so much pure FUD, including listing SCO as a Linux company in which you should invest, as well as several plugs for the brilliant Bill Gates, that I thought it was worthwhile to do a little checking on the author and the organizations to which he belongs. First, the FUD.

"HP Extends Linux Lifeline to Sun Customers; Offers Free Services to Help Customers Migrate to HP's Market-Leading Industry-Standard Platforms

"PALO ALTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 3, 2003--HP (NYSE:HPQ) today announced a comprehensive migration program to help move customers from Sun Solaris to HP's market-leading industry-standard platforms running Linux. The new sales and service program offers customers at no cost a combination of assessment, porting and migration services, valued at approximately $25,000, for moving applications from Sun Solaris to Linux. The program enables qualified customers to take advantage of the cost savings of open source Linux and the power and choice of industry-standard computing.

"HP's Sun migration program provides qualifying customers in the Americas with a free assessment of porting and migration needs for up to three applications; porting of one application at no charge; use of an industry-standard HP ProLiant server for up to 30 days for proof of concept testing; and an HP StorageWorks storage area network assessment at no charge to improve storage utilization. . . .

"'Customers are telling us it's time to take advantage of the economics of Linux while cutting their risk and architecting for the future,' said Marc Jourlait, vice president of enterprise marketing programs, HP Enterprise Systems Group. 'HP already offers the market's leading Linux platforms with our industry-standard servers, and we're taking accountability by now helping customers migrate to the future faster than ever.'

"HP last week became the first major Linux vendor to offer an indemnity program(1) to qualified customers for SCO intellectual property infringement claims. HP offers the industry's broadest range of Linux-based servers -- from single-processor HP ProLiant servers to 64-processor HP Integrity servers."

So it appears Linus had it right when he implied it might be a cynical marketing ploy. Sun had indemnified its Solaris customers and HP may have felt it needed to do the same in order to go after Sun's customers. The "architecht for the future" phrase probably refers to Sun's money troubles, meaning HP will still be standing if Sun goes out of business, and the "cutting their risk" crack is a big hint that they aren't worrying about trying for any antiFUD to help Linux. Instead they are adding to the FUD by implying there is a risk.

And to assess the "risk" realistically, take a look at the real world and how Safeway views the "risk", in an article in which Silicon.com lists their "Agenda Setters 2003":

"Someone who could well have fallen into this category this year but didn't make the list at all is SCO CEO Darl McBride. He has led his company's charge to get credit for what it claims is some of its code turning up in Linux. So far the row has taken the form of a lawsuit brought against IBM, headlines in the media and SCO invoicing some users for Linux roll outs.

"However, when asked what happened when his company was served with a request to pay a SCO licence for Linux, panellist Ric Francis, Safeway's CIO, said: 'I told them to stick it. At the end of the day it is never going to fly. It's the last dying breath of a company that is never going to make money.'

"McBride - in the headlines yes, agenda setting no. There is a difference.

". . .Stowell said SCO has not made a decision about whether or not to pull SGI's Unix license.

"'It's not something we would consider until October 14th and not something we would do unless SGI refused to fix the violations of the agreement,' he said, referring to requirements that include removal of contributions related to Unix System V by SGI and the Linux community."

I think the reporter may have gotten that last part wrong. It seems to be saying that SCO will sue SGI unless the Linux community takes certain actions. That's like holding a gun to a man's head and telling a crowd to back off or you'll shoot him. Surely they can only sue SGI if SGI fails to take certain actions.

"More enterprises have been less reticent to gamble on Linux during the last 18 months. Once solely a perimeter infrastructure play, Linux is now finding its way onto mission-critical database transaction servers, high-performance computing clusters and even the desktop. . . .

Update: The link to the Caldera site no longer resolves. You can still find the Powerpoint presentation here [PDF] on the Internet Archive.

In an Aug. 13 letter addressed to SCO's legal department and released to the media Wednesday, SCO Chief Executive Officer Darl McBride claims that SGI's contributions to Linux put it in breach of its 1986 Unix licensing agreement, originally signed with AT&T Corp. but subsequently transferred to SCO.

According to McBride's letter, "SGI flagrantly permitted the copying and use of our proprietary information without any knowledge of the identities of the recipients" and "subjected our source code to unrestricted disclosure, unauthorized transfer and disposition, and unauthorized use and copying."

The letter threatens to terminate SGI's Unix license as of Oct. 14 should SGI fail to "remedy all violations.

A domestic argument has no rules, except whatever the couple may have decided between them are necessary to keep them out of divorce court or whatever restraint their personal morality or faith or personal ethics require. "That doesn't deserve an answer," you might tell her, and get away with it. You might tell your mate she is stupid or he is lazy or that he hates your mother or whatever you feel you can get away with, and it might or might not be taken seriously.

In a legal argument, it's not like that. You can't just show up and tell the judge, "SCO is low-down scum, their posturing is a scam, and they need to be shut up this exact minute." Even if it's all true, it's not legally true, so the judge won't respond the way you want. A legal argument has rules. Irrational, emotional arguments are useless, and you can't ignore one thing your opponent says. And the argument is played out on at least two tracks simultaneously.

"SCO in August said Linux users could avoid lawsuits by paying a one-time fee of $699. The fee will rise to $1,399 on Oct. 15. Since the response to its appeal was adequate, SCO didn't send bills to thousands of Linux users, company spokesman Blake Stowell said." [emphasis added]

um...'kay. Well, that's that, then. If SCOSpeaks, naturally, we take them at their word. Except, I thought their recently filed 10Q said they had no takers. I've only heard of one anonymous payor mentioned in the press. So, unless there has been a firestorm of interest since that filing, we must conclude that they have come to their senses and have realized they don't need to bully as much money from innocent end users as they thought they did. Either that or it's finally dawned on somebody in Utah with a GPL clue, maybe informed in part by reading a certain open letter, that they were steering their poor little fishing boat into the middle of a perfect storm.

So it's a fait accompli, or as we say in the US, a done deal. Here's the pdf of the signed order.

I have SCO's Motion for Enlargement. Basically, their argument was that they didn't have enough time to meet the original deadline and do discovery. Because IBM just filed new counterclaims, they argue, they need time now to do discovery and if the discovery process comes up with new information, they might want to amend their pleadings or add parties. They can't say that would happen now, but if they are forced to meet the current deadline, they'd amend without the discovery process and conceivably miss that opportunity.

Their basis for asking for the time delay in paraphrased detail:

1. Discovery isn't finished, and the original time schedule presumed it would be by now; IBM hasn't provided, they say, what they asked for. SCO has "been providing discovery" they say in footnote 1, but the rest of the footnote says that actually they won't be providing tens of thousands of more documents until "early next week". Translation: we haven't provided everything either.

2. "...other circumstances have drastically changed... Specifically, IBM recently has filed an eleven count counterclaim, including four separate claims of patent infringement." This means time is needed for more discovery. During discovery, it could happen that there would arise the need to add parties, depending on what is learned, or to amend SCO's pleadings. Further SCO didn't yet file its answer to IBM's counterclaims, and the deadline for that is October 1.

3. SCO requested time to enlarge, but IBM refused.

4. Prejudice will be suffered by SCO if it is forced to amend its pleadings without the benefit of further discovery.

So, that's their argument, and the judge said yes. Please note that no new parties are mentioned by name. In fact, they are saying they might add parties or amend, but they won't know until discovery is finished. See why I never leap to conclusions until I see the actual papers? It's a good rule to live by. The pdf is available.