Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCO's motivation

amcguinn (549297) writes | more than 11 years ago

Caldera 2

An oft-asked question is basically, "What do SCO think they're doing?"

I can't say when they started, but the plan was to repeat the success of the DR-DOS Microsoft case. Caldera obtained the rights to DR-DOS in 1996, and in the same year brought a suit against Microsoft for unfair competition, which was settled in 2000 for an estimated $150 million

news story

An oft-asked question is basically, "What do SCO think they're doing?"

I can't say when they started, but the plan was to repeat the success of the DR-DOS Microsoft case. Caldera obtained the rights to DR-DOS in 1996, and in the same year brought a suit against Microsoft for unfair competition, which was settled in 2000 for an estimated $150 million

news story

That is quite a pattern: buy a product which is obsolete and going cheap, and sue a major IT player for impairing its value.

Caldera effectively bought SCO Unix with the money it received from MSFT in the DR-DOS settlement!

Caldera buy SCO Unix

I don't think Linux was at all a central part of SCO's strategy. AIX was the target, as IBM was to play the part of Microsoft in a replay of the DR-DOS case. The big initial threat SCO went in with was the termination of IBM's Unix license.

The thinking went:

  1. Use UNIX rights to sting IBM
  2. How? Find some pretext to yank IBM's license for AIX
  3. What pretext? Oh, say they leaked code into Linux.

Remember SCO's early statements were that they weren't going after Linux users or distributors, their beef was with IBM and AIX. I believe this reflected their initial strategy.

Quote from March 2003 Caldera press release:

Caldera press releases

"The complaint alleges that IBM made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's new Linux services business."

Again, this echoes the MSFT anti-trust suit far more than any claim over Linux code.

For some reason, they got rattled and changed approach. I'm not sure why. They should not have been shaken by IBM's choosing to fight; after all, it took them four years to screw their settlement out of MSFT.

For whatever reason, every step they took after that point looks hurried, desperate, and ill-thought-through. The facts that they seemed ignorant of the terms of the GPL, and of their own release of the 32V code under a BSD license, indicates that they hadn't done any homework on the issues.

The mode of thought behind these ill-considered maneuvers is quite a common one: you get carried away with the possible gains from a course of action and simply forget to weigh up the odds or estimate the possible downside. I think SCO, rattled for some reason, waved around for new angles they could find and rushed ahead with a disastrous course of action like medieval cavalry pursuing a beaten enemy off the battlefield.

The last question is what rattled them and threw them off their original plan. I really don't know, but here are three suggestions:

  1. IBM's response to the suit was much stronger legally than they expected
  2. They were expecting a sympathetic "David vs Goliath" press background similar to the one they had in the DR-DOS case, and were taken aback by the opposition coming from the Open Source movement. This theory has the recent "IBM is out to get us" ranting to back it up.
  3. They just saw the Linux attack as a great opportunity they hadn't really considered, and charged ahead thoughtlessly.

I'm really open to other suggestions, because that's the best I can do on this question.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I think your model makes a lot of sense (1)

mec (14700) | more than 11 years ago | (#6774318)

Here's some more facts to grind in:

Another Canopy Group company recently settled with Computer Associates for $15 million.

SCO's getting a lot of money from Microsoft and Sun. SCO takes in $21 million per quarter in revenue, and $8 million of that is from Microsoft and Sun (as of the last two quarters). In fact, all of their profit comes from these Microsoft and Sun deals.

So I agree that Canopy has this business model of IP-based litigation. They've done it, not once, but twice.

But what's new this time is the big chunk of money from Microsoft and Sun. I think that has influenced SCO's business model. They started out by doing things to maximize their chances of lawsuit $$$, but now they are doing things that are prejudicial to their lawsuit, like talking a lot in public and attacking the GPL.

My theory is that they are getting paid directly to attack the GPL, it's not just a means of increasing pressure on IBM.

Anways, the CA settlement is a fact, the payments from MS and Sun are facts, integrate them into your own model any way that makes sense to you.

Money (2, Insightful)

Thiarna (111890) | more than 11 years ago | (#6775456)

I think it's safe to assume that's their motivation. Which leads to the question who's money they want to take and why do they think they can have it?

The source's I've seen identified are
a) Win money from IBM in court
b) Take tribute payment from every Linux user (starting with big companies)
c) Sell worthless shares at inflated prices
d) Get paid to tarnish and discredit the GPL.

a) and b) are the two official answers,and as you say it looks like b) may be a desperation move after a) started to look unrealistic. It looks like c) is happening too, but the stock price action for the last week makes it look like there is far more money being pumped into keeping the share price up rather than taking the profit before the price collapses again. As for d), at first glance that looks just as paranoid as SCO saying IBM is orchestrating a campaign against them. But it is the only rational reason I can think of for attacking the GPL and Linux users directly. It's possible that someone saw dollar signs after multiplying an arbitrary estimate of Linux users by an arbitrary license fee, but realistically, even if everything goes right for them it's unlikely more than a handful of people would give them a penny. Take away the freedom a Linux license gives business users and yo've taken what's currently it's biggest selling point. And expecting payment from end users is totally unrealistic, they would just switch to a BSD system, use some new system started from scratch, or most likely just ignore them since there is no central list of Linux users that SCO could find them on. d) is likely to wind up expensive and unprofitable to SCO, but to Microsoft (most notably, but many other companies as well) just the fact the dispute has lasted this long is a victory, by adding one more element of risk in the minds of business users choosing software.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>