Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Darl McBride Interview

michael posted about 11 years ago | from the yap-yap-yap-yap dept.

Caldera 463

mpsmps writes "vnunet.com has a long interview with SCO CEO Darl McBride devoted entirely to the SCO/IBM suit. McBride radiates confidence, describing SCO's contracts as "bullet-proof." He says he thinks IBM is desperate to buy SCO because "the last thing [IBM wants] to hear is the testimony that is going to come out," but that SCO isn't interested in being acquired. Read the interview for much more on these and other topics." See also part 2 and part 3 of the interview.

cancel ×

463 comments

fix (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329280)

sols

Re:fix (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329296)

I'm going to have to get you to come in on saturday and fix SOLS. So if you could do that, that'd be great.

Re:fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329304)

anonymous coward.. what's happening? yeeaah..

Re:fix (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329321)

Broadcast Message from root@sols
(/dev/pts/2) at 20:00 ...

PC Load Letter
wtf? wtf is PC Load Letter? Fscking SOLS.

Re:fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329351)

Fix red stapler or I will burn this place down.

Re:fix (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329367)

Hey Peter! Check out channel nine! Check out this chick!

Re:fix (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329359)

assclown

Re:fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329401)

Didn't you get that memo?

SOLS will be down until further notice.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Once again (-1, Funny)

rosewood (99925) | about 11 years ago | (#6329281)

This case is just huge and I am adicted. I read all the SCO links etc.

I need to sue slashdot because maybe I am losing money because I keep reading their stories. Seriously, if DirectTV can do it, why cant I, Mr. Joe Average, do it as well?

(Its 5am)

Re:Once again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329350)

Seriously, if DirectTV can do it, why cant I, Mr. Joe Average, do it as well?

Because you're not a corporation (and it's 5 AM). Mr. Joe Average vs. Slashdot would probably get thrown out of court. Now, if it were Mr. Joe Average _Inc._, then you'd have a case.

1st post?!? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329283)

I'ma little scared, if this turns out to be 1st post, will SCO try to sue me into retracting it?

Re:1st post?!? (-1, Offtopic)

I POOP ON FAILURES! (685242) | about 11 years ago | (#6329414)

Heh, scared you should rightfully be. I just dumped a load of hot smelly and steamy poop onto your failure! I will not be retracting it either. I POOP ON YOUR FAILURE! p.s. do you have have an asswipe? it took an amazingly large dump to cover your enormous failure

McBride has a beatuyfull cock (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329288)

but it smell a little

DON'T READ ANYTHING VNUNET HAS TO SAY (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329292)

It's biased as hell and the standard of journalism is poor to say the least.

SCO: The new 'Military Intelligence' (5, Interesting)

Buran (150348) | about 11 years ago | (#6329293)

... that is to say, they're a living oxymoron.

If SCO isn't interested in being acquired, then why are they sure acting like they are? All this posturing is pointing to wanting to be bought out to make them shut up.

Re:SCO: The new 'Military Intelligence' (5, Insightful)

Bowie J. Poag (16898) | about 11 years ago | (#6329327)

Kind of an odd strategy, isn't it...To be the thorn in the side of the company you're trying to entice into purchasing you?

Personally, I don't think it's gonna happen. SCO has made itself a pariah, and no company is stupid enough to fall for the scam. That goes for IBM, Sun, Microsoft, you name it -- At the end of the day, no one needs SCO.

Nice legacy. Heh.

Re:SCO: The new 'Military Intelligence' (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329434)

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
My Dear Friend IBM,

I am highly compelled upon strict recommendation, to write you this very urgent and confidential letter.I do hope my letter will not embarrass you since I had no previous correspondence with you.I hope this mail will not come to you as a surprise.I am sending this proposal with due sense of humanity, responsibility and with few awareness that you will give it a sympathetic attention. I regret to the inconvenience it may cause you base on the condition that we have not met before.

I wish to use this opportunity to introduce myself to you, I am Mr. Darl McBride,the CEO of the former proprietor of Unixware in my home city of Lindon, Utah, My Vice President Christopher Sontag had a synflood shot by the GNU rebels on his way travelling to White Plains, a city after New York, your headquarters along with my daughter, My daughter died on the spot while the HP-UX team rescued my Vice President, he was taken to hospital for medical treatment which he later died about three months now.

Fortunately, My Company has Ten million and Five hundred thousand United States Dollars(US$10.5 million) cash, which he intended to use for investment purposes overseas. This money is kept with private security company in Europe since two years ago. It is only my son and myself that know where the money is kept and has the documents for it.

Due to the current situation in the market concerning GNU's vendettas towards my family, we seek your assistance to transfer the ownership of this fund to you so that you can asisst us to claim it and used for the purpose of investment as intended by my Vice President.

My family is currently being probed by this present GNU for alleged involvement in misappropriation of GPL code during his regime.

Towards this effect, an embargo restricting my family members from traveling or carrying out financial transactions without their express permission is in force. Right now, my son and myself have concluded plans and decided to take immediate claim of this fund so that we can use it to better our lives and alliviate our present suffering hence this contact.

However, I have an arrangement on how you can help us to recieve this money after receiving some assurances from you. The money personally belongs to my Vice President and he intended that it still be used for investment. No record ever existed concerning this money, neither is the money traceable by the GNU rebels because there is no documentation concerning the funds in the SEC reports. Bearing in mind that your assistance is needed to transfer this fund, we propose a commission of 20% (Twenty Percent) of the total sum to you for the expected services and assistance. While 5% is mapped out for miscellaneous expenses.

On your positive consent, I shall expect you to contact me urgently to enable us discuss about this.Your urgent response is highly needed. I must use this opportunity to implore you to exercise utmost indulgence to keep this matter extraordinarily confidential, while I await your prompt response.

Best regards,

MR. DARL MCBRIDE, SCO LINDON UTAH

Re:SCO: The new 'Military Intelligence' (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329394)

SCO is a public company (I actually shorted their stock at $11), and the CEO has little say whether his company will be acquired as long as someone offers a good deal. It is up to the shareholders to vote. The CEO has a little room to turn down an offer, but if it is a good offer, shareholders can sue the CEO for breach of fiduciary duty (duty of care state violation).

If you want to hear some info on how SCO makes money, listen to their conference call here: http://biz.yahoo.com/cc/0/30510.html

They said Caldera Linux was only 3-5% of their revenue, with the rest coming from UNIX licensing.

- P.S. I'm in the legal profession.

Re:SCO: The new 'Military Intelligence' (-1)

yatest5 (455123) | about 11 years ago | (#6329442)

How exactly is Santa Cruz Operation an oxymoron? I think you are a living MORON.

Vote (5, Funny)

cb4b (683827) | about 11 years ago | (#6329297)

Vote McBride for minister of information!

Re:Vote (1)

darkov (261309) | about 11 years ago | (#6329404)

Hmm, he may be overqualified. There's also an opening for a sadistic, delusional dictator tough...

A Dreamworld... (5, Funny)

calebb (685461) | about 11 years ago | (#6329298)

You've been living in a dreamworld, Mr. McBride.

Have you ever read some code, Darl, that you were so sure was yours? What if you were unable to prove it? How would you know the difference between your code and GNU's code?

What is yours? How do you define yours? If you're talking about your opinion, how you feel, taste, smell, or see, then all you're talking about are conjectures - mere electrical signals that are likely misinterpreted by your brain.

...do you believe in OSS, Darl?

Is it so hard to believe? The code is different; The open relays in the binaries and daemons are gone. Look at the time & date management; they weren't Y2K compliant a moment ago.

Darl: No! I don't believe it. I don't believe it...

SCO's investors He's gonna pop...

Not interested in being acquired? (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 11 years ago | (#6329299)


That seems to have an "it's not about sex" ring to it.

Re:Not interested in being acquired? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329373)

Which should make it doubly funny when he totally fscked over by IBM's lawyers.

Am I the only one.. (4, Funny)

Mr2cents (323101) | about 11 years ago | (#6329427)

.. who always misreads this guy's name as "McBribe"?

Re:Not interested in being acquired? (4, Interesting)

Stephan Schulz (948) | about 11 years ago | (#6329443)

That seems to have an "it's not about sex" ring to it.
Indeed. If you read through the article, you can see that he is actively threatening to make as much as nuisance of himself as possible:
  • Auditing IBM's customers...I strongly doubt that SCO has a leg to stand on, unless they have a direct contract with them as well.
  • Going over IBM with a fine-toothed comb to see what comes up...right. If they are so sure of themselves, they should push for a fast trial, which they obviously don't.
I think IBM is actually very smart in not doing anything at all while letting SCO run up legal bills and make more and more unwise threatening statement. Sooner or later, SCO will be deflated, and then the company actually will be totally bust.

more from the "independent people" (1)

Zayin (91850) | about 11 years ago | (#6329300)

The people that have looked at this - both our legal teams as well as independent people coming from the outside - say: 'These contracts are bullet-proof. This is a very strong contract right you have.'

Wonder what he means by "people coming from the outside". Did they say something like: "This is a very strong contract right you have. I would like to clarify a simple fact here: How can you lay siege to a whole company? Who is really under siege now? SCO cannot be besieged. UnixWare cannot be besieged. Our IP rights cannot be besieged. They [IBM] are like a snake and we are going to cut it in pieces.

SCO Minister of Information (4, Funny)

GrouchoMarx (153170) | about 11 years ago | (#6329301)

"The IBM infidels are not in Utah! And if they are, we are driving them back, and they are falling before us! We cannot be defeated by the infidel Penguinistas! The people of Unix will never fall to the Linux infidels!"

*glances over shoulder, sees 500 IBM lawyers licking their lips and advancing, carrying briefcases, with black crows taking off before them.*

"As I was saying, the IBM infidels are not here, and if they are, we are driving them back, and they are falling before us!"

Bottom Line (4, Interesting)

idiotnot (302133) | about 11 years ago | (#6329303)

It is not a matter of reeling in compensation for this. It's a question of what form it takes - the form of settlement - if it goes all the way to litigation. Those are, to me, more the unknowns.

IBM is going to string this out as long as possible, and won't settle. Why? Because SCO's continued existence as a company depends upon revenue from this case. It's the same reason they aren't suing other people (Apple, Microsoft, and the BSD's have been mentioned as targets, and one can infer from other comments that SGI is a target too); they don't have the money to carry on this long litigation.

In some respects, going after IBM first is unwise. If, in fact, SGI is a target, there would be a much greater chance of SCO winning, and getting some money. SGI doesn't have much money to give, but you start to establish some precedent.....

Re:Bottom Line (1)

Bowie J. Poag (16898) | about 11 years ago | (#6329336)

"IBM is going to string this out as long as possible, and won't settle. Why? Because SCO's continued existence as a company depends upon revenue from this case (....) They don't have the money to carry on this long litigation."

Well said, sir.

Re:Bottom Line (4, Insightful)

ultrabot (200914) | about 11 years ago | (#6329339)

they don't have the money to carry on this long litigation.

Dunno. Boies is not paid by the hour, but by a portion of their hypothetical winnings from this case. They can stretch it forever, and the money pumped in by MSFT and (possibly) Sun isn't hurting.

If there is any justice in the world:

1) SCO will be no more after this is over

2) McBride and Sonntag will be serving jail time in a maximum security penitentiary. (ah, well, one can always dream)

Re:Bottom Line (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329432)

McBride: I don't want to go to a Federal pound-me-in-the-add prison. In fact, I don't want to go to any prison! You, David Boies, are a very bad man!

Re:Bottom Line (5, Insightful)

jkrise (535370) | about 11 years ago | (#6329416)

"In some respects, going after IBM first is unwise."

OTOH, consider the possibility that Microsoft is the one sponsoring this case. Whom would they sue? HPaq is already at their mercy - besides after Compaq's Digital takeover, the alpha series was consigned to oblivion. SGI was enslaved by MS for a while (they made some MIPS workstations running NT with Cobalt chipsets - remember), and only recently moved towards Linux.

Dell doesn't have a Unix/Linux strategy worth talking about. Sun (even if SCO had a case against them) doesn't compete in the PC game. Their 'Java PC' talk was just that - talk. That leaves only IBM - since IBM has a Unix AND a Linux strategy with their Lotus Notes and Websphere; IBM could be the juicy target to go after.

Now, I doubt SCO really intends to follow-thru on their hollow claims. Their main objective seems to build some sort of credibility and nuisance-value with their suit against IBM, and help MS attack the Corporates with threatening letters, Gartner reports, FUD etc.

It would thus appear SCO isn't keen on making any money from the IBM case directly, their only interest is to bad-mouth all and sundry in the Open Source game - Linus, RMS, RedHat, LUGs, users, Corporates etc. This alone can explain their strange crazy idiotic conduct over the past few months.

Re:Bottom Line (2, Interesting)

idiotnot (302133) | about 11 years ago | (#6329436)

OTOH, consider the possibility that Microsoft is the one sponsoring this case.

Re-read my post. Chris Sontag said that Microsoft could be a future target; the agreement between MS and SCO is only for a few libraries. SCO's main thrust here is that every modern OS since SysV violates SCO's "intellectual property." If they do the same things that SysV could, they're infringing. In effect, then, any multi-user POSIX-compatible system would be fair game.

Yes, MS's move to license Services for Unix probably was a token to SCO. But SCO seems eager to bite the hand that feeds it.

How it will all end (3, Funny)

Xpilot (117961) | about 11 years ago | (#6329305)

I posted this before, but I made a typo so I'll post it again just for karma. Go ahead, mod me down :p

----

This is how it's going to be settled : IBM sends grim looking men in black suits to SCO, and a representative named "Smith" (who looks oddly familiar) confronts Darl Mcbride.

Smith: As you can see, we've had our eye on you for some time now, Mr. Mcbride. It seems that you've been living...two lives. In one life, you're Darl McBride, CEO of what used to be a respectable software company, you have a social security number, you pay your taxes, and you help your landlady carry out her garbage. The other life is lived in lawsuits, where you go around accusing everyone that they are guilty of virtually every computer crime we have a law for. One of these lives has a future, and one of them does not. I'm going to be as forthcoming as I can be, Mr. McBride. You're here because we need you to cut it out. We know that you think you can get your ailing company to be bought out. Now whatever you think you know about intelluctual property laws is irrelevant. You actions are considered by the open source community to be the annoying and disruptive. My colleagues believe that I am wasting my time with you but I believe that you wish to do the right thing. We're willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start and all that we're asking in return is your cooperation in dropping your stupid lawsuits against IBM.

Darl: Yeah. Wow, that sound like a really good deal. But I think I got a better one. How about I give you the finger... and we see you in court.

Smith: Um, Mr. Mcbride. You disappoint me.

Darl: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap. We own UNIX IP rights. I want my lawyer.

Smith: And tell me, Mr. McBride, what good is your IP rights... if your company has violated so many of our patents.

(Smith drops a huge pile of legal papers on the desk with a thud)

Smith: You're going to help us, Mr. McBride whether you want to or not.

(Darl screams hysterically)

Re:How it will all end (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329324)

Its a shame I allready replied in this topic, otherwise you'd get modded up :D

Re:How it will all end (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329340)

Yeah, IBM enslaves humanity and McBride is The One. Brilliant idea.

Re:How it will all end (3, Interesting)

Bowie J. Poag (16898) | about 11 years ago | (#6329352)



I don't even think Mr. Smith even needs to exist. I think SCO is painfully aware that they're on their last legs, AND the fact they're in violation of so many patents that it would be completely ridiculous to even go down that path with IBM.

IBM files what, 20,000 patents a year? I'd give it a week before IBM had a list of at least a hundred patents SCO sits in violation of.. The only thing stopping them is the reluctance to come off looking like a bully.

Besides, IBM isn't the boogy-man.. They're actually a fairly friendly company, i'd say. Why would they bother to resort to scare-tactics unless they were legitimately threatened? :)

Re:How it will all end (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329440)

When a CEO is engaging in this much chest thumping and postering over "bullet proof" cases, you can be fairly sure of two things:

1. The CEO knows he is in trouble.
2. Its about as bullet proof as a sponge.

Me McBride, you Jane. We go sue now! Aieahahah!

Re:How it will all end (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329454)

In fire. It all ends in fire. Didn't Kosh teach you anything?

SCO -5; Nuisance (5, Insightful)

jkrise (535370) | about 11 years ago | (#6329307)

Not long ago, SCO said that buyout by IBM was an option. They'd said that trade secrets were violated when IBM sent code to Linux. A mysterious contract amendment with Novel was discovered, with just the right wording to bolster SCO's case.

All these and more SCO statements have been competely reversed now. Why should we listen to this never-ending story of lies from SCO. If they can't say something and stick to it, they do not deserve attention, only contempt.

In fact I fail to u'stand Slashdot's motives in continuing this sequence of non-articles about SCO. News for nerds? Gossip, maybe. Stuff that matters? Matters to whom? No one but SCO.

Interestingly, far away from all the court cases, the Gartner group is pumping more nonsense urging the masses to eschew Linux for mission-critical uses. These are the real evil-doers who need to be exposed. Have any of Gartner's predictions proved accurate? Did they predict the success of Linux, apache or PHP? Except sending out the odd report slamming IIS, they've done lots of damage to the OSS.We should watch out for more of these Gartners and less of SCO.

Re:SCO -5; Nuisance (1)

Bowie J. Poag (16898) | about 11 years ago | (#6329356)

"All these and more SCO statements have been competely reversed now. Why should we listen to this never-ending story of lies from SCO. If they can't say something and stick to it, they do not deserve attention, only contempt."

Amen.

Re:SCO -5; Nuisance (1, Funny)

Jaysyn (203771) | about 11 years ago | (#6329438)

"In fact I fail to u'stand Slashdot's motives in continuing this sequence of non-articles about SCO. News for nerds? Gossip, maybe. Stuff that matters? Matters to whom? No one but SCO."

Apparently, you've never watched a train wreck before. Once you know a disaster is about to occur, it's kinda hard to take your eyes off.

Jaysyn

No evidence of... (2, Insightful)

ctve (635102) | about 11 years ago | (#6329308)

"Yeah. That one is a no-brainer. When you look in the code base and you see line-by-line copy of our Unix System V code - not just the code itself, but comments to the code, titles that were in the comments and humour elements that were in the comments - you see that everything is taken straight across."

There has been no evidence provided of this copying. Those who have independently seen both copies of the code have no evidence that it was copied from System V to Linux, that the code was originally in System V and not in BSD or Linux itself.

lather, rinse, repeat (1)

wizbit (122290) | about 11 years ago | (#6329309)

past-its-prime technology company files frivilous patent infringement lawsuit against mega-corporation, seeks billions.

story at 11.

When you have what people would call nuisance cases then you usually go in and try and knock those out with a summary judgement motion, or something to cause them to be dismissed. IBM has actually done none of that.

sorry, but that's NO basis for a solid claim. this case will ultimately set a precedent and i believe IBM is acting wisely in taking its time to address the lawsuit. i hope SCO falls HARD and gives the industry pause. all this patent nonsense lately has been just silly.

Re:lather, rinse, repeat (1)

Bowie J. Poag (16898) | about 11 years ago | (#6329361)


They already ARE falling hard.

Alot of companies, news outlets, tech writers...they all take their cues at least in part, from us. If we don't like SCO, they're going to tend to not like them either.

The Linux community is split --- Split between deciding to laugh hysterically at SCO, or wish them a speedy trip to the grave. That cant help but rub off on the others outside the community.

How will this affect IBM (1)

Golthar (162696) | about 11 years ago | (#6329310)

At the moment im not really worried on the impact on Linux.
As it has been said before, the tainted code will be found and rewritten.
But how will this affect IBM, in the case that SCO does have a right to the code IBM wrote on AIX and distributed in the Linux kernel?

Does Darl understand the concepts ?? (5, Funny)

pytheron (443963) | about 11 years ago | (#6329311)

It has said publicly that it moved, and is moving, key parts of AIX, and in fact is willing to move all of AIX over into Linux.

Surely he can't believe that all of AIX would be moved over ? Maybe that's why he believes his contracts are cast-iron.. perhaps because he is CEO, nobody dares tell him "Hey Darl, our code is crap, and the linux community wouldn't want it anyways"

I don't get it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329315)

Is SCO source really in the Linux kernel?
I thought open source is suppose to keep
this sort of thing from contaminating the
kernel through peer review?

Uhh.. (1)

DMDx86 (17373) | about 11 years ago | (#6329392)

Uhh..

How does one look for closed souce code if the code, by its nature, is secret?

Re:Uhh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329445)

You sign an NDA with SCO and then...no wait, thats a stupid idea! Damn you SCO, damn you McBride!

The innocent have nothing to hide... (5, Insightful)

Bowie J. Poag (16898) | about 11 years ago | (#6329316)

...But the guilty have everything to hide.

It's hard for me to look at SCO's CEO as anything but a cock-jerker. He himself knows for a fact that making such allegations puts a question mark on alot of things..And alot of good work...Honest work that honest people did.

The world is filled with assholes, and this guy apparently has no problem counting himself among the ranks. Thats the most disturbing part of all.

Power4, G5? (0)

lederhosen (612610) | about 11 years ago | (#6329317)

Now, as of 16 June, we also increased our claims
amount to include all AIX-derived hardware, software
^^^^^^^^
and services, given that they are now - in deriving
that revenue - on an unauthorised route for use of
the software.

France is right again! (0, Funny)

borgdows (599861) | about 11 years ago | (#6329318)

French Minister Dominique De Villepin comments on SCO case :
"SCO's alleged weapons of legal destruction doesn't exist! The internet crows should continue inspections until everyone know SCO's case is nonsense."

Re:France is right again! (1)

borgdows (599861) | about 11 years ago | (#6329326)

s/The internet crows/The internet crowd/

This is new information how? (4, Insightful)

expro (597113) | about 11 years ago | (#6329319)

There have been good submissions over the last several days containing new information and perspectives on the SCO case. This is not one of them. This is SCO trying to stay in the news and Slashdot editors resurrecting his interview again a number of days after the interview. In terms of SCO news, this is very tired and old.

One thing's clear (3, Funny)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | about 11 years ago | (#6329323)

I think one thing's clear, which is that everytime Darl McBride talks to the press, he comes off sounding like an asshole.

It's a unique situation when a company as powerful as IBM has somebody coming at it with such strong claims as we have in a very public forum. So maybe its supercomputers haven't spat out an algorithm yet on how to respond to this kind of situation. I don't know.

Haha.

Best quote (1, Funny)

spacefight (577141) | about 11 years ago | (#6329325)

Are you still saying categorically that there is offending code in the Linux kernel?
Yeah. That one is a no-brainer.

Uh, we'll see...

I dub thee (2, Funny)

Vertex Operator (100854) | about 11 years ago | (#6329330)


Sir Comical McBride.

"We will slaughter IBM."

"We will great Linus with death and shoes."

Famous last words... (4, Funny)

Noryungi (70322) | about 11 years ago | (#6329332)

SCO CEO: that thing is bullet-proof!
IBM lawyer (pointing fingers at CEO's chest): Bang.
SCO CEO: Aaaaaaaaarrrrgghhhhh...

Al-Sahaf? (2, Funny)

Vajsvarana (238818) | about 11 years ago | (#6329333)

Ok, now I'm pretty sure... the real "Comical Ali" is not the old man interviewed some days ago.
He has obviously escaped Iraq to take the guide of SCO... but all his fans cannot be fooled by this McBride camouflage. He's the man! He's back! :)

I can't SCOre anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329334)

SCO is awesome. I once worked there and met this bird who was totally keen on me and I SCOred. See SCO is should really be called SCOre as that is all they really want to do just my 2c god she was a hottie tho' [grandegirls.com]

Re:I can't SCOre anymore (1)

mholt108 (229701) | about 11 years ago | (#6329418)

BullaShitta - Whats the Job?

No a Slashdotta evera scories

How do you sleep at night? (1)

Cally (10873) | about 11 years ago | (#6329337)

n/t

Quick Summary (5, Funny)

thelandp (632129) | about 11 years ago | (#6329338)


SCO - Source code's ours!
IBM - I'm being mugged.
Linux - Let's ignore the nuisance use of extortion.
MS - Monopoly secured. Money stashed. Mess sidestepped.

How hard is this? (4, Interesting)

pubjames (468013) | about 11 years ago | (#6329347)


One thing I find really annoying about this case is that the Open Source community hasn't been able to point to a bit of code and say, look, there's the problem. Or alternatively, we've looked, and there is no problem. I mean, how hard can that be?

Let's just remind ourselves of the issue here:

SCO's lawsuit claims that IBM broke its contract with SCO by allowing parts of SCO's Unix V source code, licensed to IBM for use in AIX, to be used in the rival Linux operating system kernel.

Ok, I appreciate that SCO's Unix V source code is closed source, and so it is not widely accessible to the OSS community. But someone must have a copy or access to a copy, surely? I'm sure there must be people in the OSS community that actually worked on the original code, isn't there?

At the very least, can't we just highlight the code that IBM has contributed, and then say, if there is a problem, then it must be in there. As far as I am aware, IBMs additions are for "enterprise ready" systems. If that is the case, then I'm sure they could be taken out without affecting the majority of instances of Linux use.

If we had a distribution that was free of the IBM code, then doesn't that mean we have a distribution that is legally untouchable by SCO? I know IBMs contributions are probably very valuable and all, but are they worth risking Linux to vagaries of the increasingly irrational legal system?

Re:How hard is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329381)

And would this protect the kernel from further attacks?

ABSOLUTLY NOT!
It would encourage people with SOFTware patents and copywrites to attempt to hold Linux hostage.

If SCO proved their case by providing access to the code in question, there would be little doubt changes would be made. But guessing only creates more FUD and problems.

Since SCO refused to reveal the problems in a public forum, a judge must decide. And with luck the transcript will not be sealed.

One thing that will happen is that the Judge will probe for the *REAL* reason the code was not aired and the problem resolved prior to the case being presented.

Re:How hard is this? (1)

pubjames (468013) | about 11 years ago | (#6329402)

And would this protect the kernel from further attacks?

Perhaps I should have been more specific.

I am suggesting that a new distribution be made without the trouble-causing code until after the case has settled. I think your position overlooks two pragmatic points:

1) This case could go on for years. During that time, organisations will hold back from using Linux because of this case. If they wanted a desktop rollout, for instance, and they knew that there was a codebase that was clean of the IBM code, then they might still be persuaded to go ahead with a Linux rollout.

2) SCO might win. I know that the OSS community doesn't like to think about that, but the legal system doesn't always do the right thing, especially in very complex situations like this. A good strategies plans for all eventualities, even the more unpalatable ones.

This is a CEO (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329348)

who was handed the keys to a company in dire straits. It was circling the bowl rather fast. This guy was probably lured into position by the smell of money. $$$ for signing, $$$ per annum, $$$ for rescuing the stock owners value and $$$$$ for rescuing the company.

So if he looses the lawsuit he would receive $$$$$$. If he wins, he gets $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Now he is posturing, showing a good face. Reporting that the company is healthy. What would you do if offered $$$$$$$$$$$$$$?

No news here....Please move along and post more comments on how windows sucks...

Revocation of GPL Rights? (1)

zangdesign (462534) | about 11 years ago | (#6329349)

Since huge portions of the Linux kernel are apparently NOT copied from the original source code, assuming the inverse of SCO's statements, is it possible to revoke the right to use or distribute those portions of the code covered under GPL?

If this is possible it would, in effect, leave SCO with about 100 or so lines of working code, nothing surrounding it.

No one has used such a death sentence yet that I am aware of, but does such a "weapon" exist (provided the judge has a stroke and sides with SCO on this one)? If so, it would certainly be challenged in court, but huge portions of the code are on solid legal ground here and not open to any sort of question at all about its provenance (I'm assuming).

Just a thought. Don't shoot the messenger.

Re:Revocation of GPL Rights? (1)

Znork (31774) | about 11 years ago | (#6329411)

If SCO is claiming to be distributing their own 100 lines under non-GPL compatible terms then they have a problem. You may not distribute GPL code together with non-GPL compatible licensed code at all.

There is no need to revoke anything, it happens automatically as the GPL is the only thing granting them the right to distribute Linux. If they violate the terms of the GPL they have no right to distribute Linux at all. If they still do it they're engaged in criminal copyright violation for profit, and would face huge fines and jail time.

Street rumours? (4, Interesting)

mccalli (323026) | about 11 years ago | (#6329354)

From the article: "Those guys know what is going to come out in discovery, and you hear a lot of rumours on the street that they are going to buy us out."

A more blatant attempt to plug the share price could not be found. If IBM were to try and buy, the share price would shoot up. Here's our friend Mr. McBride making that even more explicit to his current stockholders (don't sell) and potential buyers (buy us, we're going to go skywards).

Besides, I hear no rumours on the street (what a marvellous phrase, unattributable yet pseudo-meaningful...) that IBM are interested. In fact, everything IBM has done so far has shown a complete lack of interest in that outcome.

Cheers,
Ian

Re: Street rumours? (5, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 11 years ago | (#6329371)


> Besides, I hear no rumours on the street (what a marvellous phrase, unattributable yet pseudo-meaningful...) that IBM are interested.

I think he misunderstood it when he heard someone say "1BM is going ot 0wn SC0 before this is over."

Bullet-proof (4, Interesting)

Anthony Boyd (242971) | about 11 years ago | (#6329358)

McBride radiates confidence, describing SCO's contracts as "bullet-proof."

Yeah, it sure has IBM's lawyers in a panic.

/me rolls eyes....

You know, at first, I thought that McBride was insane -- totally reckless or totally corrupt. But now, I'm starting to think the man is just stupid. I mean, sometimes I talk to people and I disagree with them, but I feel nervous because they might be smart enough to prove me wrong. I don't feel that way with McBride. I read his comments and I just think he's stupid, and the courts will tell him he's stupid, and he just won't get it.

The last time I felt this way was with the pet-store guy who sued anyone who said anything critical about his terrible service. He was dangerous because he intimidated some people into settling, but mostly he just lost lawsuit after lawsuit. The poor fool probably still thinks he'll somehow turn everything around. McBride is just a reincarnation of that pet store guy.

Re: Bullet-proof (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 11 years ago | (#6329384)


> You know, at first, I thought that McBride was insane -- totally reckless or totally corrupt. But now, I'm starting to think the man is just stupid.

A whiff of fresh green cash tends to have a detrimental effect on some people's IQ.

Recall the lady who stole $4,000,000 from her employer in hopes of coming out ahead in the 419 scam. This boils down to the same thing, ultimately.

Re:Bullet-proof (1)

Bowie J. Poag (16898) | about 11 years ago | (#6329388)


I don't think he's reckless or insane. I just think he's a titanic idiot.

There's ethics, then theres responsibility to stockholders...But I cant help but imagine how much better his company would have done had they announced they were going to throw in the towel, drop their silly/pointless policy about protecting what amounts to a pile of largely obsolete code, and put their support behind Linux along with IBM.

But they're not doing that.

They're so damn stuck in their way of doing business that they're completely blind to their own demise. Linux made SCO irrelevant. Thats what history will record, that, and SCO went out kicking and screaming even after a helping hand was extended for 11 years.

Re:Bullet-proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329410)

Isn't that the gay guy on CNN that sounds like Mr Magoo ??

Re:Bullet-proof (3, Interesting)

pla (258480) | about 11 years ago | (#6329417)

You know, at first, I thought that McBride was insane -- totally reckless or totally corrupt. But now, I'm starting to think the man is just stupid.

I've pondered SCO's motivation in this, and come up with two possible answers...

First, SCO realizes it will soon die, and in a manner similar to some dying humans, it has gone a tad batty. Started giving houses, boats, and cars to 3rd cousins, while suing its brother over a 25-cent bet made a decade ago. All the while trying to reconcile itself with its creator ("Our Shareholders, Who art on Wall Street, hallowed be Thy Capital") by not actually "dying" but rather getting "bought out". A sort of "saving face" in failing miserably as a corporate entity.

Second, SCO thinks it might win. Since IBM hasn't already bought and dismantled them, we can presume with reasonable confidence that SCO has nothing. So I suspect their "hundred lines of code" will amount to a coincidentally-identical textbook implementation of some common algorithm, and they've bet the farm that they'll get a judge who can't tell the difference. "Why yes, Mr. McBride, it would appear that IBM did release code substantially similar to your... now what did you call it... ''quicksort'' routine. For shame, IBM!".

I just have difficulty considering both McBride and SCO's entire legal department as either stupid or insane. A few of them, sure, but the whole lot of 'em? Not likely. So, they have either decided to save face in death, or bet it all on a spin of the roulette-wheel-o'-US-justice (Hey, if OJ got off, Bush won in 2000, and the xrispies have gotten to "Roe" of "Roe vs Wade", anything can happen). Nothing else makes any sense.

Reaganaut (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329363)

The photo, the attitude, even the name reeks of the 80s. The guy seems to think Reagan era ruthlessless and egotism is in again. Of course, with Bush and his gargoyles running the show, he might be right!

Remember the Futurama episode with the 80s style businessman?

A more candid interview would have been like... (3, Interesting)

AtariDatacenter (31657) | about 11 years ago | (#6329368)

[b]Have you considered what would happen if you lost the case?[/b]
[i]I have nightmares about it. We're talking about the utter destruction of our company. But really, we have no place else to go. This is a balls-to-the-wall strategy. All or nothing. But it isn't like I can't jump ship if things go sour.[/i]

[b]Do you plan to sell Linux ever again?[/b]
[i]Don't be silly. That is a low-return activity. Our job will be to shake people down for money. That's a high-return activity.[/i]

[b]Would you actually like to be bought?[/b]
[i]God, yes! We'd love to be bought out. But it isn't going to happen whatsoever. Given that, it is best that I said that we don't want to be bought out, because it makes our case look that much stronger.[/i]

Novell (5, Interesting)

thejackol (642922) | about 11 years ago | (#6329369)

I'm more interested in what The SCO Group had to say about Novell's letter to them [theinquirer.net] . There seems to be not much talk about it. The last I heard Novell was going to challenge SCO on Unix ownership.

Time For a Song (1, Funny)

DASHSL0T (634167) | about 11 years ago | (#6329377)

With apologies to Morris Day & The Time.

SCO-wee-oh-wee-oh!

I, I've been watching you. I think I wanna sue ya, sue ya.
Said I, I'm litigatious. Nerd, I'd love to show ya, show ya.

(chorus)
My lawsuit love, yeah. SCO-wee-oh-wee-oh!
I think I wanna sue ya, sue ya.
Lawsuit love. SCO-wee-oh-wee-oh!
Nerd, I'm gonna own ya, own ya.

You, you're an OS star. I think I wanna swipe it, swipe it.
I ain't playin', said I am quite litigatiuos. Take you to my crib, rip you off.

(chorus)
My lawsuit love, yeah. SCO-wee-oh-wee-oh!
I think I wanna sue ya, sue ya.
Lawsuit love. SCO-wee-oh-wee-oh!
Nerd, I'm gonna own ya, own ya.

Come on Linus, where's your guts? You wanna make love or what?

I wanna take you to my cage, lock you up and hide the key.
You only get water and to look at MFC. Then you'll have a breakdown and give your code to me.

(chorus)
My lawsuit love, yeah. SCO-wee-oh-wee-oh!
I think I wanna sue ya, sue ya.
Lawsuit love. SCO-wee-oh-wee-oh!
Nerd, I'm gonna own ya, own ya.

I think I wanna ... I wanna file my case.

(chorus)
My lawsuit love, yeah. SCO-wee-oh-wee-oh!
I think I wanna sue ya, sue ya.
Lawsuit love. SCO-wee-oh-wee-oh!
Nerd, I'm gonna own ya, own ya.

Lawsuit love, that's right. Can't nobody fuck with me?
I got 80 lines of crappy code, I got a contract with IBM too.
And I'm all the way wild Torvy. All the things I could do to you.

SCO-wee-oh-wee-oh!

Lawsuit love. Yes! That's it. Ha haa!

I Call Sillies!!! (3, Insightful)

Alexander (8916) | about 11 years ago | (#6329383)

"He says he thinks IBM is desperate to buy SCO because "the last thing [IBM wants] to hear is the testimony that is going to come out," but that SCO isn't interested in being acquired. "

Uhhh, yeah....

1.) As if the $$$ it would cost IBM to buy SCO wouldn't be pocket change.

2.) As if SCO shareholders wouldn't JUMP at the prospect of trading their stock for IBM.

It sounds like to me this should read

"We're really just trying to get someone to buy us. This whole OS thing has been a fUx0r since the Caldera/SCO merger, neither OS sells very well at all. For the life of me, I can't figure out why IBM won't just put down a little cash and buy us to shut us up."

Mental Health... (1)

mustrum_ridcully (311862) | about 11 years ago | (#6329385)

I'm worried about this guy's mental health. Do they have something similar in the US to "sectioning" in the UK (putting people into a mental hospital for their own protection when they've totally lost it)? If so I think someone should be calling the appropriate authorities...

Delerium (4, Informative)

Znork (31774) | about 11 years ago | (#6329386)

Now, this must be the final proof that McBride is delerious:

"You go back to SCO's brand in the 1990s and it was Unix on Intel. SCO was primed to seize the multibillion-dollar server market of Unix on Intel that hit in the early 2000s that has in fact shifted over to Red Hat."

SCO was primed to go down the drain, even without Linux anywhere. Most people were already migrating or had migrated off SCO before Linux became a contender; migrating to Solaris or Windows, or basically anything that wasnt quite as bad as SCO.

The man is completely delusional and should be locked up in a small padded room for his own good.

As someone who used SCO in 1993... (4, Informative)

MosesJones (55544) | about 11 years ago | (#6329437)


I can tell you that this is totally and utterly...

True.

It was a pile of rubbish, we had it running our net connection, all it had to do was act as a mail server and dial-up modem. It fell over on a regular basis and was generally a pain to work with. I also had to develop some Curses applications on it and ended up developing them in Eiffel with a thin layer onto Curses which meant I could do the work on Solaris.

Re:Delerium - I'll second that (1)

nixman99 (518480) | about 11 years ago | (#6329459)

SCO was primed to go down the drain, even without Linux anywhere.

Back in about '92, our company went with SCO. That lasted about a year before we switched everything to Solaris. Hell, even Sun's much-maligned Unix-on-Intel 386i platform was better than SCO.

slashdotted.... (1)

Valpis (6866) | about 11 years ago | (#6329393)

from the site:

We're sorry, but vnunet.com is temporarily unavailable while we conduct essential upgrades.

Our technical team is working hard to restore the site as quickly as possible.

Please come back to vnunet.com shortly.

vnunet /.'ed ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329395)

Did we just slashdot vnunet?

"
We're sorry, but vnunet.com is temporarily unavailable while we conduct essential upgrades.

Our technical team is working hard to restore the site as quickly as possible.

Please come back to vnunet.com shortly.

©VNU Business Publications Ltd
"

from 0 to /.'ed in 10 minutes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329398)

amazing

Slashdotted already! Here's the text of part 1: (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329405)

Here's the text I was able to snag from part one before the site underwent "maintenance". I added the Q/A style for legibility.

-----------------

Interview: SCO chief Darl McBride part 1
By Peter Williams [25-06-2003]
In the first of a three-part interview, SCO chief Darl McBride talks exclusively to vnunet.com's Peter Williams about why he believes his company has a rock-solid case against IBM.

The SCO Group has terminated IBM's right to sell its AIX operating system and is seeking $3bn in damages.

The company has also filed a permanent injunction that requires IBM to "cease and desist all use and distribution of AIX", and to return all copies of Unix source code to SCO.

SCO's lawsuit claims that IBM broke its contract with SCO by allowing parts of SCO's Unix V source code, licensed to IBM for use in AIX, to be used in the rival Linux operating system kernel.

vnunet.com spoke exclusively to SCO's chief executive, Darl McBride, about the court case, Linux and the future of SCO.

Q: You've filed your injunction against IBM. When is the hearing due?
A: There's not a date set currently. The next action is really discovery, where we get a chance to go in and take a look at what has been going on at IBM.

It has said publicly that it moved, and is moving, key parts of AIX, and in fact is willing to move all of AIX over into Linux.

The problem with that statement and those actions is that SCO has a very strong contract in place with our software source code licensing agreement that has not allowed IBM to do that. So we are protecting those licence and contract rights.

We went to the 100 days of trying to resolve the issues. So in effect we pulled its contract and it doesn't have any authorisation to now use the software.

Q: But in order to enforce that you have to go through the courts.
A: We have taken every step possible. Now it's for the courts to step up and enforce the contract rights that we have.

The people that have looked at this - both our legal teams as well as independent people coming from the outside - say: 'These contracts are bullet-proof. This is a very strong contract right you have.'

The way IBM is responding is very interesting. They haven't filed for an injunction; they haven't filed for the summary judgement enforcement to be dismissed.

When you have what people would call nuisance cases then you usually go in and try and knock those out with a summary judgement motion, or something to cause them to be dismissed. IBM has actually done none of that.

In fact, it took the opposite approach of not talking about it at all. So we're perfectly fine to go through whatever time it takes to get resolution on the legal path on this.Now, as of 16 June, we also increased our claims amount to include all AIX-derived hardware, software and services, given that they are now - in deriving that revenue - on an unauthorised route for use of the software.

Q: So what are you going to do in the meantime? Are you just going to wait?
A: Well, not necessarily. We have been pretty assertive and pretty aggressive and we are going to continue that.

So as we move into discovery this will be very nice for us, because now we get to go in and talk to all their people, their customers. We get to really shake things up and find out what really is going on over there.

Now, by going into pre-discovery, we have strong enough claims. We'd be fine to go to court just on what we have before discovery.

Q: Is IBM agreeable to this process? Does it have to be?
A: In a legal setting it doesn't have a choice. In discovery you get to go in and investigate the things that relate to the case, and there are a broad range of things that relate to Linux and AIX. We will be going in with a fine-toothed comb and coming up with every detail.

Q: Wouldn't you like to get this resolved quickly?
A: I would love to have this behind us and move on. IBM has put the brakes on to try and slow things down. And to the extent that it wants to do that, I am saying that we are prepared to go the distance on this. But I would prefer to get this resolved and move forward.

Q: Have you got any idea when the main case will happen?
A: Well, we are going into discovery now, starting in July. I suspect that will take us into the fall timeframe. Then, I think, when all the discovery is on the table, you start talking about actual hearings. Can this take a year or two? I suppose it could.

Q: Your permanent injunction is supposed to have happened by now.
A: We amended our original complaint to include the injunction. We are asking the courts to now enforce our contract rights to prevent IBM from shipping AIX software, so this ties right back into the main case again, which means we'll build the due discovery and then we'll go to the hearing.

Little Red Lawsuit Hood (0)

Joel Bruick (685266) | about 11 years ago | (#6329406)

SCO "outsider": "This is a very strong contract right you have." McBride: "Better to sue you with, my dear."

vnunet is upgrading folks ... (2, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 11 years ago | (#6329413)


VNUNET.COM

We're sorry, but vnunet.com is temporarily unavailable while we conduct essential upgrades.

Our technical team is working hard to restore the site as quickly as possible.

Please come back to vnunet.com shortly.

©VNU Business Publications Ltd

Essential upgrades huh ? I didn't know replacing melted-down ethernet cables counted as upgrading ...

One question they do not ask (1)

fireman sam (662213) | about 11 years ago | (#6329415)

To SCO: You say the same code exists in both Linux and your product. You have also shown snippets of the offending code. But, you have yet to show any proof of where the code actually originated. Is it that you can not show timelines of the code process?

From SCO: As you can see from the following timeline the origin of the code is clear:

1996 SMP scalability added to Linux kernel
1999 SMP improvements by IBM

2000 SCO employee "develops" SMP scalability
2003 SCO determines Linux and SCO share the same code.

Please note that these values are made up and are very bias.

The only thing that SCO has claimed is that in fact the two products share the same code.

Google Cached copies (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329420)

vnunet site has been down for a little while... here are the appropriate google cache links:

Part 1 [216.239.39.100]
Part 2 [216.239.39.100]
Part 3 [216.239.39.100]

----------------
karma whoring for linux 'n stuff: Dartmouth Open Source Community [dartmouth.edu]

Buy them out! (1)

IdleLay (682465) | about 11 years ago | (#6329429)

I saw a signature of someone on here once that said "on't argue with a fool; other may not be able to tell the difference". Well done to IBM, they obviously learnt their lessons.

Just for my own ego, I would really love for IBM to state publicly via press release that they would buy SCO - with the evil bits set to on ;-)

Can we find a solution ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6329446)

Why not demand to IBM to pay 1.5 Billions to SCO, then SuSE, Redhat and the others to pay small royalties, and ask SCO to contribute in linux developpments by allowing us to put Unix functionnalities ? A linux with the capability to manage 16 or 32 processors would be fine, isn't it ?

Everybody will be happy after...

SfCuOd (5, Insightful)

SeanTobin (138474) | about 11 years ago | (#6329451)

Background - I'm an avid linux user. I like to think that I can see through marketing hype, inappropriate tests, legal absurdness etc... My opinion is that SCO is on its way out, and like a dying star (note the deliberate lack of the use of sun) its trying to go out with a bang.
But some of the things in the interview just threw up some 'red alert' flags. Some select tidbits:

The way IBM is responding is very interesting. They haven't filed for an injunction; they haven't filed for the summary judgement enforcement to be dismissed.
When you have what people would call nuisance cases then you usually go in and try and knock those out with a summary judgement motion, or something to cause them to be dismissed. IBM has actually done none of that.
Although I obtain *all* of my legal knowledge from slashdot :grin:, I don't believe that IBM's lack of filing a summary judgement is a sign that they believe thier case is in trouble. SCO has time and time again denied to release exactly what code was infringing, saying that it will only relesase that at trial. My view of the situation says that IBM is trying to get to the discovery phase as soon as possible. Due to the nature of the case, a summary judgement will probably be denied, which SCO is undoubtably waiting for so they can spin into a huge storm about how IBM lost its first legal battle over the code. IBM isn't letting them have that victory. SCO will have to go to trial and have thier bluf called.
Now, as of 16 June, we also increased our claims amount to include all AIX-derived hardware, software and services, given that they are now - in deriving that revenue - on an unauthorised route for use of the software.
Oh, this is good. IBM develops faster/better/cheaper hardware that runs AIX. IBM improves AIX specifically for that hardware. SCO calls the hardware a derivative work and claims it as its own? God, I'd pay to be on this jury.
Wouldn't you like to get this resolved quickly?
I would love to have this behind us and move on. IBM has put the brakes on to try and slow things down. And to the extent that it wants to do that, I am saying that we are prepared to go the distance on this. But I would prefer to get this resolved and move forward.
Yeah, IBM is soooo slowing this process down. Not filing for that summary judgement must have delayed this case by -1 or -2 months. Bastards.
We have other rights under the contract that we are looking at. For example, we can audit IBM customers. SCO has audit rights on its customers. The reality is that we are going into discovery right now and that might be the vehicle to be able to investigate what we need there anyway.
Just what I want from a company. Although its happened before where a company has gone in and audited software, it has always resulted immediately in backlash against that company. See Microsoft and some western school districts. What is interesting is that SCO could/will be auditing IBM's customers. I'm glad that no entity has any right to barge into my business and conduct random audits. If I plunked down half a dozen 0's for some big iron I'll be damned if any SCOpunk is going to get within 200m of any of my equipment. I'll consider it a test of my internal security measures and tell the guards to shoot on site.
But really, if SCO tried that it would be a act of desperation. Public opinion is already against them. A stunt like this will end all the credibility they have left. Plus, it will also blacken IBM's eye. I'm pretty certain that IBM will fight this one to SCO's death. Which is probably what SCO is betting on.
Are you still saying categorically that there is offending code in the Linux kernel?
Yeah. That one is a no-brainer. When you look in the code base and you see line-by-line copy of our Unix System V code - not just the code itself, but comments to the code, titles that were in the comments and humour elements that were in the comments - you see that everything is taken straight across.
Everything is exactly the same except they have stripped off the copyright notices and pretended it was just Linux code. There could not be a more straightforward case on the Linux side.
God, I'd love to find the actual coder that originaly wrote those lines. Unfortunately no one will know that until those lines are actually released. My money is on people going through the linux changelogs and finding the originators name and e-mail for every single line within 6 hours of the code being publicised.
There are a few options depending on thier source. The first and most likely is someone contributing it from BSD. In that case, SCO also used the BSD code in which case the entire case dies right there and IBM countersues SCO out of existance.
The second case is that the code was written by some kernel hacker for linux, and SCO coppied it verbatim, and is now suing IBM over it of all people. This ends with IBM countersuing SCO out of existance.
The third situation is that someone from SCO (or any of unix's previous masters) actually distributed/released/contributed the code to the linux kernel. Depending on when and how this was done, it could range from being perfectly legal to corporate espionage. In either case, IBM isn't involved so they countersue SCO out of existance.
The fourth situation is that IBM actually did contribute those lines to the linux kernel, and they actually did take them from the unix source. In which case, its a legal battle in which SCO ends up losing. Heck, they distributed the offending code as GPL in thier own branded product. But, we've already seen that SCO doesn't understand what "perpetual and irrevocable" mean so IBM will have to 'school them on it.

When IBM walked away from Project Monterey it put a dagger into the heart of SCO. Santa Cruz Operation lost its heart at that point and sold its business to Caldera. Caldera tried to run it as a commercial business. That didn't work and it was nearly flat-lined when we took over last year.
What you see in this company right now is some resuscitation effort. We are coming back. The heart is beating very nicely. We're out of hospital and back in the marketplace. The company is totally revived around this concept that we were supposed to be the big dog.

Ok. IBM left your little linux project and that hurt your company so bad that you want revenge? And to continue the 'big dog' metaphor, why on earth are you attacking the leviathan?

Have you considered what would happen if you lost the case?
I haven't spent much time thinking about it because the claims we have are so strong. We're pretty clear about how this is going to play out.
But we think our claims are very strong. It is not a matter of reeling in compensation for this. It's a question of what form it takes - the form of settlement - if it goes all the way to litigation. Those are, to me, more the unknowns.
At least everyone is drinking the cool-aid.

I'd like to hear anyones opinion that thinks SCO has a case.
The people that have looked at this - both our legal teams as well as independent people coming from the outside - say: 'These contracts are bullet-proof. This is a very strong contract right you have.'
Contracts are well and good. The problem with them is many of them are illegal. If you sign a contract giving me your right to vote for you in all elections for the next year in exchange for 10 dollars, the contract can be written in a very strong bullet-proof language. Unfortunately they are illegal. Although this is a extreme example, see the previous claims of SCO on the hardware that is a deriverative work of AIX. IMO, that's crazier than selling your voting rights.

So, all the SCOpporters out there, please let me know exactly why you think IBM is walking all over your rights?

What if... (3, Interesting)

Tellalian (451548) | about 11 years ago | (#6329456)

...IBM is indeed guilty of what SCO claims? McBride makes a good point in that IBM has made no motions a company would normally make if it thought this case was frivilous. Naturally, I understand /. can be a somewhat jaded forum, but are we that confident in our legal system that we assume the impossibility of injustice?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...