Best of the Newsgroups: SCO lawsuit

If this isn't exactly what you wanted, please try our Search (there's a LOT of techy and non-techy stuff here about Linux, Unix, Mac OS X and just computers in general!):

Interesting analogies

From: fuzzywzhe@yahoo.com (fuzzywzhe)
Subject: Re: How much code is disputed by SCO?
Date: 9 Aug 2003 03:35:31 -0700
References: <_IXYa.1134$Nf3.745@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net> <3f348743.34390462@news.paradise.net.nz> 

peterwn@parazzdise.net.nz (Peter) wrote in message news:<3f348743.34390462@news.paradise.net.nz>...
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:00:42 GMT, Russ Lyttle <lyttlec@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> 
> >According to the news reports, SCO is only claiming that the kernel 2.4 or 
> >later violates SCO IP. So has anyone done a diff to see exactly which lines 
> >could be disputed? We're only talking the kernel, so anyone who has copies 
> >of the last kernel prior to 2.4 should be able to provide a diff for us to 
> >look at. It can't be "thousands of lines".
> >
> Other changes would have gone into 2.4 so such a comparison would
> yield far more than the 'disputed' code.  Anyway, if anyone in the
> Linux Community has a reasonable idea what the lines are, there is
> little point in publicising it, hence placing sensitive information in
> the hands of the enemy.  Far better to save such gunpowder until it
> can have the most effect.

SCO is lying.  There is no disputed code.  This is an exit strategy.
They are trying to instill fear in the business community to such a degree
that somebody, anybody, will purchase them.

Take this to more typical territory.  Say, for example, a company, let's
call them "Microsoft" stole code from another company, we'll call them
"Stacker".  Say "Microsoft" distributed this code illegally for several
years without "Stacker"'s permission.

Would "Stacker" have the right to sue end users?  Say "Microsoft" offers
a EULA, but it doesn't offer indemnification in the EULA

Well, that case happened, and Stacker didn't have any right to sue end
users - it could only sue Microsoft, which it did, and won.


But the SCO case is even more bizarre:

Say "Stacker" doesn't even identify the code, so there is no way to gauge
its worth, or indeed, if the code even exists.  "Stacker" doesn't identify
the functionality, and makes no explanation as to how their proprietary
code got into the hands of some "Microsoft" employee.  To make it even
more bizarre, "Microsoft" WANTS to remove the code and has asked "Stacker"
repeatedly to identify it so it can be removed, because "Microsoft" is
a respectable company that "values IP rights" but "Stacker" doesn't allow
this.

Is "Stacker" acting in good faith?  Can "Stacker" demand money from anybody
without proof in a court of law?

HELL no.  Talk to any COMPETENT IP lawyer, describe this case to him, and
watch him laugh until he pukes.  There are lots of really shitty lawyers
out there that will say SCO has a snowball's chance in hell, which clearly
they do not.


If anybody here still thinks this isn't an exit strategy, you should take
a look at the recent "acquisition" of Vultus by SCO.  SCO is majority owned
by Canopy.  That means Canopy basically makes the decisions about what SCO
does.   Vultus is also owned by Canopy, privately.  Canopy directed SCO to
buy Vultus.  Vultus is a worthless company.  This was a way of taking money
out of SCO and putting it into the pockets of Canopy.  If you doubt this,
try Vultus' demonstration programs, they ONLY run IE.  Vultus is a Microsoft
Internet Explorer ONLY company, and you have to wonder how they will work
with SCO, a Unix company.  Well, wonder no further, they won't.

You also have to wonder about the fact that Vultus is in the SAME BUILDING
that SCO is.  SCO didn't buy them so they could work better together.  There
is no reason to purchase them, they are both Canopy companies and they
can both worth work together anyhow.

SCO basically bought a useless rock for with a bunch of overinflated stock
shares and cash.  It's as if you owned 51% of a company, and decided it was
a good idea to have it buy some dummy company you setup yesterday for 5
million bucks.

What you are witnessing folks, is a total scam.  SCO doesn't expect to
collect any Linux licensing fees, they just want some really dumb and rich
company with a remarkably incompetent set of lawyers to buy them.  For some
reason, they thought IBM was this company, but when June 13th, the deadline
to "resolve" the issue passed, the weren't bought out!!!  What to do?  Oh,
I know, their stock has rocketed up from $1 to $10 over this bullshit,
let's move some of that money out to buy a totally worthless company in
the same building as SCO.  Let all the insider's sell.  Let's change the
bylaws to indemnify the officers to protect them against the inevitable
litigation.  And it's all being done under the cover of daylight.  Well,
if Ken Lay can walk away from his scams, why can't the people behind this
do it do too?  It's a lot less money...

Here's my bet - Canopy is broke, and they are trying everything and anything
to make back their investment.  I think this is bigger than just SCO.  The
Vultus "acquisition" points to somebody pulling strings in the background.
It's certainly not a rational purchase from a business perspective.

Oh - and you might want to check out what LinuxTag did to SCO in Germany.
Basically what RedHat is going to do to them in the US.  They sued for
unfair competition, and demanded that SCO stop making claims that Linux
had SCO IP in it.  Guess what SCO did eventually?  They caved in totally
to LinuxTag.  See if you can find ANY mention of this case on www.sco.de
or www.caldera.de - if you can, it's a 250,000 euro fine.  That was MONTHS
ago, and nobody in the US saw fit to report it.  Either our tech media
sucks, or they are paid whores - doesn't really matter which it really is.


Of course, this is all just opinion and guess work, and research, and
following the case obsessively - let's see if anybody else can come up
with a more rational explanation?  I'd sure like to hear one from SCO
but investor relations doesn't seem up to the task.  Write them and ask
them yourself:

investorrelations@sco.com

I really feel sorry for the people working underneath these people.  I
don't bear them any ill will, I imagine that jobs are tough to find in
the tech industry in Utah.  Boies however, wow, he just affirmed the
general disgust of lawyers in the country.  IBM is a former client of
his, oh, and Boies is up on ethics charges in Florida - almost forgot to
mention that.

Well, I had my rant.  SCO will be out of business in probably less than
4 quarters, a bunch of idiot investors will be holding the bag, and
will be suing to get blood from a stone eventually.

The upside, a completely stupid and incompent set of idiots are about to
set precident with Linux and the GPL, and it will be favorable to Linux
and the GPL.  The next time somebody tries to bring up IP issues with
Linux, everybody will point back to this fiasco.

Take Control of Switching to the Mac

Take Control of VMware Fusion 3

Jump to Comments

Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.

Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.

We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.