Beta
×

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 "Disappointed" by Red Hat Lawsuit

CmdrTaco posted about 11 years ago | from the everybody-feel-bad dept.

Linux Business 778

schmidt349 writes "SCO has issued a preliminary response to Red Hat's lawsuit, in which President and CEO Darl McBride advises that SCO will prepare a "legal response" to Red Hat's requests for injunctive relief. In addition, he promises that the countersuit that SCO will file may include "counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy." His final statement-- that Red Hat's "decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux--" is chilling in light of the business strategy that SCO has adopted in its sales of UnixWare licenses to actual and potential users of the Linux kernel."

cancel ×

778 comments

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

good faith discussions (5, Insightful)

ArmageddonLord (607418) | about 11 years ago | (#6615294)

"I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux."

I don't seem to remember SCO giving IBM much of a chance for "good faith discussions"

Re:good faith discussions (3, Insightful)

Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) | about 11 years ago | (#6615373)

I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux
...
I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux.

Darl C. McBride


This man is talking out his ass.

Re:good faith discussions (1, Flamebait)

CBackSlash (613476) | about 11 years ago | (#6615375)

I don't seem to remember SCO giving IBM much of a chance for "good faith discussions"


Actually, I thought the whole point of the
lawsuit was that they had been trying to negotiate
with IBM, but the negotiations brokedown.


Or maybe I'm getting confused with the Martha Stewart. Both scales rank about equally on the Yawn Scale.

Re:good faith discussions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615382)

SCO would have loved to "negotate" some quick cash, and spent 2-3 months saying so. IBM wouldn't talk to them.

Re:good faith discussions (5, Interesting)

IFF123 (679162) | about 11 years ago | (#6615390)

Look, I would be also "dissapointed" if somebody would destroy my money strategy. All SCO is saying is that "We can sue you, but you shouldn't sue us since" since we can't fight your claims in court.

I still believe that Red Hat SHOUDLN'T have sued SCO. Red Hat is going to be drained of money for a loooong time in court. Or do you simply think that by suing, they would win in a few weeks.

Prepare for a long winded fight in which SCO will do ANYTHING in it's power to smear Red Hat.

In the long run, it's not who is right, it's who looks good in the end....

Re:good faith discussions (5, Interesting)

tuffy (10202) | about 11 years ago | (#6615450)

I still believe that Red Hat SHOUDLN'T have sued SCO. Red Hat is going to be drained of money for a loooong time in court. Or do you simply think that by suing, they would win in a few weeks.

Prepare for a long winded fight in which SCO will do ANYTHING in it's power to smear Red Hat.

In the long run, it's not who is right, it's who looks good in the end....

In this case, countersuing looks better to the consumer than simply allowing SCO's original claims to go largely uncontested in the court of public opinion. It might cost cash, but so does advertising. And in this case, both expenses accomplish largely the same purpose. It's not about winning or losing, it's about making sure SCO can't make Linux look bad.

Re:good faith discussions (3, Funny)

GeckoFood (585211) | about 11 years ago | (#6615401)

Well said.

Essentially, SCO's letter could alternately be read, "Waah! No fair! I'm the only one who can do that! You're not playing nice. I want my mom!"

Go Red Hat. I hope they tie up SCO in court for a nice long time and win their case. SCO seems to be playing the intimidation game and is being very smug -- the tune will change if they get a slap in the face in court. Too bad only Red Hat has had the nads to fight back up to this point.

Re:good faith discussions (2, Funny)

Lord_Slepnir (585350) | about 11 years ago | (#6615492)

There were probally good faith discussions between between SCO and IBM.

oh wait, you mean where the IBM lawyers don't laugh in their faces and tell them to GFY. No, I don't think that happened somehow.

I'm dissapointed too. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615296)

Red Hat obviously is intent on destroying Linux, How can we have a legal Linux to buy if Red Hat is going to pulling this crap?

In other news... (-1, Offtopic)

themaddone (180841) | about 11 years ago | (#6615298)

In other news, thousands of filesharers said to be "disappointed" by RIAA's continuing subpeonas and lawsuit threats.

McBride (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615300)

cry me a river

oh, and stock up on the anal-ez. within 3 years time, i predict you will be big blue's toss-around bitch

You know im first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615301)

suck my balls!!

Fuck you, Darl. (4, Funny)

BJH (11355) | about 11 years ago | (#6615303)

Hi Darl, you fascist, I run Linux on a dozen boxes. Please send me a bill that I will be happy to wipe my ass with and send back to you.

What an arrogant little prick.

Re:Fuck you, Darl. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615406)

I say we do excrements in a box and send it over to SCO - hell if we can slashdot websites, we can also slashshit evil companys.

Re:Fuck you, Darl. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615480)

I'm surprised that good'ole Darl was able to remove his lips from Satan's ass-crack long enough to make any kind of statement at all...

Finally... (4, Insightful)

Richardsonke1 (612224) | about 11 years ago | (#6615305)

I'm glad that Redhat finally brought their suit. This will assure linux users that they are not being left out to be attacked by SCO. Even if their claims are unfounded, you must agree that they seem to have a quite large legal team (if that isn't all that they have), and could really cause some damage if they started to attack companies. The companies may have to settle to just avoid a suit. Also, this'll nicely divide the SCO legal team into two suits.

Come one now... (2, Funny)

botzi (673768) | about 11 years ago | (#6615463)

...everybody knows that...

..this'll nicely divide the SCO legal team into two suits.

Is NIL. SCO does not have a legal team. For some time now the company HAS become a law practicing firm. So the RedHat suit comes just like getting a new client.

Conspiracy? (4, Insightful)

tremor_tj (656492) | about 11 years ago | (#6615306)

Conspiracy? Wow, that's a really strong word to throw into the FUD campaign. It will certainly have people looking at Linux with even more doubt. Hopefully, the judicial system will work in this case and force SCO to actually prove their side of the issue.

Re:Conspiracy? (5, Interesting)

WCMI92 (592436) | about 11 years ago | (#6615419)

Conspiracy is a word SCO should use lightly... Considering that the company that MOST benefits from anti-Linux FUD (and most definately from spreading doubts as to it's legality) propped them up to the tune of buying a "license" they didn't need...

I'm of course speaking of Microsoft...

How could Redhat conspire with ANYONE?! Did they conspire with IBM to SCO to sue?

Certainly Redhat and IBM will work together in their own defenses (and offenses). They are partners with common interests.

Just as SCO works with (and takes money from) Microsoft and Sun, the two companies with the MOST to lose from Linux...

Re:Conspiracy? (1)

Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) | about 11 years ago | (#6615440)

It seems to me that SCO is practiced and very good as throughing around words to help their cause. In this case, I think they're scared that they might have bitten off more than they can chew (Two or more large, pissed off companies with lawyers - and a 15% stock price plummet) They need to pump themselves up. And as evidenced by past history, a lot of talk is how they do it. Whenever SCO needs a little boost, they issue a threat or chastise someone. It's very weak-minded. But it works on Wall-Street... Go figure.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615307)

fp

Amazing (5, Interesting)

mao che minh (611166) | about 11 years ago | (#6615308)

"We have been showing a portion of this code since early June. SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users. We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX."
- Darl McBride, CEO, SCO Group

Again, end users are not at risk, if anyone is, but rather the distributors of the Linux kernel in question. Secondly, the code was released by SCO under the GPL, negating the claim. Third, by not asking the "infringers" (who would be IBM primarily and companies like Red Hat secondly) to remove the suspect the code and instead attack the customers of the "infringers", SCO has made no attempt to keep their trade secret a secret at all, which renders it's claim to secrecy invalid in legal terms.

SCO has buried itself. I can't believe that anyone is still buying their stock, all they are doing is making McBride richer.

"In any such meeting, we will provide example after example of infringement of our intellectual property found in Linux. Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.........If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request."
- Robert Bench, CFO, SCO Group

In other words, they still refuse to take action in defending their trade secrets and rectifying the problem. No moral judge is going to cut them any slack with this kind of behaviour.

"Of course, we will prepare our legal response as required by your complaint. Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy."
- Darl McBride, CEO, SCO Group

It is amazing that this crook has the audacity to suppose that Red Hat is engaged in some kind of a conspiracy, considering the disgusting actions of his company. This is truly laughable.

Re:Amazing (4, Funny)

BrynM (217883) | about 11 years ago | (#6615386)

"copyright infringement and conspiracy."

McBride's reality checker is broken. We tried to send him replacement parts, but he keeps sending them back to us with a note saying that he doesn't need reality since he owns Unix. Poor bastard...

Re:Amazing (4, Insightful)

dmaxwell (43234) | about 11 years ago | (#6615416)

In other words, they still refuse to take action in defending their trade secrets and rectifying the problem. No moral judge is going to cut them any slack with this kind of behaviour.

A moral judge isn't necessarily a warranted assumption. All SCO needs is a somewhat viable legal theory to hang their case on. That isn't to say a "amoral" judge wouldn't find SCO's legal theories wanting but morality needn't enter into it.

SCO Emergency Conference Call today (5, Informative)

isn't my name (514234) | about 11 years ago | (#6615430)

Want to hear more details on the conspiracy and long term viability of Linux? Check out their conference call [prnewswire.com] today:

Where: Toll Free within North America: 1-800-238-9007
International: 719-457-2622
Password to enter call: 274040

When: Tuesday, Aug. 5, 2003
2:00 p.m. EDT, 11:00 a.m. PDT

conspiracy 8-) (1)

leuk_he (194174) | about 11 years ago | (#6615452)

Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy. "
- Darl McBride, CEO, SCO Group

You would get paranoid too if everybody was against you. 8-)

Re:Amazing (5, Informative)

tshak (173364) | about 11 years ago | (#6615500)

Secondly, the code was released by SCO under the GPL, negating the claim.

This argument gets thrown around a lot but it can only be correct of SCO knowingly injected the code in question into Linux. However, that's not the argument. Even before SCO started selling distributions, the alleged code existed in the codebase. If this is true, than that code is not legitimately GPL'd.

For example: I write some commercial code. You get the code under a license for internal modification. Later I decided to create a distribution for a cool project on Sourceforge. However, you took some of the code I licensed to you and contributed it to that project without my knowledge. Because you don't have ownership of that code, you do not have the right to GPL it. I distribute that project with no knowledge that my commercial code exists within it. This does not mean that I explicitly GPL'd my commercial code. Therefore, no one with the right to GPL said code GPL'd the code.

Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that SCO's claims are valid, I'm simply pointing out the fallacy in this commonly used argument.

First comment (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615309)

I got the first comment. Wow!

Welcome to slashdot - the SCO channel (-1, Flamebait)

nxs212 (303580) | about 11 years ago | (#6615312)

argh

1st anti-sco lawsuit. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Custard (587661) | about 11 years ago | (#6615313)

1st anti-sco lawsuit, many more will come.

SCO's using lawsuits as a business threat? "this may include copyright violation charges!" It feels oddly like mccarthyism, or the salem witch trials, where any skeptics was accused of the crime themselves.

Just disappointed...? (2, Insightful)

Mattb90 (666532) | about 11 years ago | (#6615314)

Will they continue to remain 'disappointed' if others follow the line of Red Hat and sue SCO? I'm sure there will a lot more anger floating around their offices than mere disappointment.

Re:Just disappointed...? (4, Interesting)

stephenbooth (172227) | about 11 years ago | (#6615488)

I was thinking earlier today how cool it would be if SuSe were to sue SCO in Germany, Novell (through Ximian) in Mexico, Chinese government in China &c. Screw them as much as possible in as many different legal systems as possible. Where possible get some sort of judgement against the directors as individuals as well as corporately against SCO. Destroy their stock price and make sure they can't travel out side the US (preferably inside as well) without getting arrested for contempt of court or something like that.

Even better! does anyone have photos of McBride playing golf with Bin Laden and Saddam?

Vindicitve? Moi?

Stephen

A laugh a minute (2, Funny)

TopShelf (92521) | about 11 years ago | (#6615315)

"I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux." - Darl McBride

This guy oughtta write for Letterman!

Re:A laugh a minute (1)

bersl2 (689221) | about 11 years ago | (#6615445)

Damnit, don't insult Letterman like that.

Besides, I don't watch any network which partners with M$...

(Psss... bersl... what about ESPN (@ MSN [annoying butterfly logo])...)

Shaddup.

This is getting Bloody (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | about 11 years ago | (#6615317)

No wonder Novell quit saying they sold rights to SCO.

This whole situation is becoming a legal teergrube. Wonder what YEAR it will be resolved?

Andways, what happened to a law-suit that puts SCO as the code stealer? I figure that Linux is open sourced, and SCO's isn't. What happened to claim that SCO did it backwards?

Re:This is getting Bloody (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 11 years ago | (#6615427)

Seriously. When is this shit gonna see a judge?

Re:This is getting Bloody (1)

dmaxwell (43234) | about 11 years ago | (#6615476)

Andways, what happened to a law-suit that puts SCO as the code stealer? I figure that Linux is open sourced, and SCO's isn't. What happened to claim that SCO did it backwards?

If that is the case, SCO will go out of their way to make it hard to prove; I wouldn't put altering developer logs above them. Even if true, if our hypothetical litigator can't prove it then SCO could probably countersue for defamation. I'm not saying it's impossible but some serious ducks would need to be in a row to do it. Something on the order of an entire chorus of Unixware developers willing to testify in court that this is the case.

Wtf? (4, Insightful)

kmac06 (608921) | about 11 years ago | (#6615321)

decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux

I would say this is the pot calling the kettle black...but that just doesn't come close...

Re:Wtf? (4, Funny)

fr2asbury (462941) | about 11 years ago | (#6615473)

Perhaps a case of the crackpot calling the redhat black?

Is that too contrived?

Poll (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615322)

Today RedHat is

a) Good
b) Bad
c) CowboyNeal

Whua!? (4, Funny)

Lord Custos (518206) | about 11 years ago | (#6615324)

We have been showing a portion of this code since early June.

Um...no you haven't. Nobody has seen this comparison but Darl McBride and his evil twin brother.

Re:Whua!? (5, Funny)

GrenDel Fuego (2558) | about 11 years ago | (#6615394)

Nobody has seen this comparison but Darl McBride and his evil twin brother.

Is that his other brother Darl?

fud (1, Insightful)

chef_raekwon (411401) | about 11 years ago | (#6615325)

its amazing the FUD that this clown CEO spreads. Its time to go to court, to shut this clown, and his clown conspirators up.

Redhat is doing a bit of justice for linux in general....

SCO quote (5, Interesting)

ckd (72611) | about 11 years ago | (#6615329)

To my surprise, I just discovered that your company filed legal action against The SCO Group earlier today. You, of course, mentioned nothing of this during our telephone conversation. I am disappointed that you were not more forthcoming about your intentions. I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux.

So, they're disappointed that other people are choosing litigation, which is exactly what they did. No surprise to me, though; I'm surprised that SCO is surprised.

Re:SCO quote (4, Insightful)

Sheetrock (152993) | about 11 years ago | (#6615418)

It's all PR, obviously.

The image that SCO is trying to put forward is that of course there isn't any problem that they're going after IBM (and threatening Linux end-users) because that group is in the wrong, but they're wounded that Red Hat is opportunistically and cynically using the court system to punish them for only trying to set things right.

It's not going to work, mind you, because this is the kind of crap long-term 'stable' investors will cut through, and the ones that are betting on SCO as a kind of crapshoot have probably already committed themselves, but if you're going to bluff (as I'm still suspecting is their activity) why go halfway?

Re:SCO quote (1)

paranode (671698) | about 11 years ago | (#6615459)

No surprise to me, though; I'm surprised that SCO is surprised.

You sound confused. Are you surprised or not?

Makes Sense To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615330)

I can see why a non-litagous company like SCO would be disappointed by somebody else filing a lawsuit.

Can't we all just get along? Whimper, whimper...

Speechless (0, Offtopic)

Spackler (223562) | about 11 years ago | (#6615332)

Dear Darl,

I am speechless. I have so many thoughts wizzing through my head that I want to express, that my brain just locked up.

-Spack

Re:Speechless (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | about 11 years ago | (#6615398)

Haha. Your brain just Oopsed.

Should've used GCC 2.95 instead of the 2.96 .

This is why the Big Guys let Red Hat sue first (4, Interesting)

FuzzyDaddy (584528) | about 11 years ago | (#6615335)

SCO will now get to counter sue, and can draw a major Linux player into a legal dispute it had no basis to drag it into before.

I'm not saying that Red Hat made the wrong decision - they were injured and are suing - but I think the more Linux players SCO can get involved with litigation, the happier they will be - if they can drag out the proceedings. Imagine the boost to the "Linux has IP problems" line if all the major Linux players are tied up in litigation over IP issues.

The best that can happen is that they lose quickly. But I bet they'll drag it out as long as they can.

I hate their tone. (2, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | about 11 years ago | (#6615336)

SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users. We have been educating end users on the risks of running an
operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX. Linux includes source code that is a verbatim copy of UNIX and carries with it no warranty or indemnification. SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.


First off, don't use FUD in a press-release, that's just stupid.

Second, you might have been showing this section of code but the people you have shown it to have no fucking idea what it is, most people are speculating that it's bullshit anyway, and what's the fucking point? You are STILL fucking spreading GPL'd kernel code (in its entirety as we have been shown 1000x before on /.).

Third, *everyone* looks forward to you showing this in court because you haven't proven anything anywhere else except that you can play God with your stock prices.

SCO "Disappointed" (5, Funny)

Anonym1ty (534715) | about 11 years ago | (#6615341)

SCO's "Disappointed"? Awe poor SCO.

Well SCO, I'm very disappointed in YOU!

Now go to your room and don't come out until you've thought about what you've done.

"Leverage information" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615344)

I don't understand what they mean by "leveraging information property through adequate means"? The SCO folks are so enigmatic.

Darl can www.lickmysweaty.com (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615347)

Darl is such a punk ass. I'll bet he was the school bully in middle school. There are ways of dealing with bullies like him.

Had to expect this from them (3, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | about 11 years ago | (#6615349)

Right or wrong, RH was in their list of eventual suits..

This only pushes up the timetable.. Bad thing is RH is a more logical target the IBM..

They have a much better chance of squishing RH due to their size. This would set a legal precident that none of us want to see. And it would make it easier to go after the big guys. ( i stil dont know why they didnt try that to begin with.. )

Unlike IBM who can fight and destroy SCO due to their sheer mass..
.

Re:Had to expect this from them (4, Insightful)

paitre (32242) | about 11 years ago | (#6615487)

Umm, SCO is literally a -tenth- the size (market cap wise, they're even -smaller- when you compare revenue) of RedHat.
SCO squish RH? Maybe the other way around...

SCO just (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615351)

SCO just rekindled the fire by selling 6 shares to redhat for the price of $8 each. I dont know how this would make any difference.

huh? (0)

double-oh three (688874) | about 11 years ago | (#6615352)

So SCO is saying that it is dissapointed in Red Hat for figureing out their smear campaign and trying to extort money out of linux users? And we're supposed to feel sorry for them(SCO)? Anyone else getting a sour taste in their mouth?

Incredible... (0, Offtopic)

BJZQ8 (644168) | about 11 years ago | (#6615353)

I'm sure that Darl gets a nice Gates pat on the back every once and awhile...good job, keep that uncertainty and doubt coming...Windows Server 2003 is selling like hotcakes. I won't be intimidated by some CEO's threats.

Translation for the uninitiated: (5, Funny)

schon (31600) | about 11 years ago | (#6615355)

"How dare you counter our frivolous claims with an honest-to-goodness lawsuit based on real facts!?!?!"

"We at the SCO..." (5, Funny)

Darth_brooks (180756) | about 11 years ago | (#6615358)

We at the SCO are disappointed you did not roll over and die when we used the word lawyers.

We are awaiting further instruction from out legal team, however this may be delayed as our current course of action provided by our lawyers lists only the phrase "2. ???" for our next step. We are awaiting clarification from them before continuing.

Re:"We at the SCO..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615497)

Sounds like a plan to me. Call me back when they get to step 3. Watching Darl steal underpants will be the best enterainment all year.

What they mean... (5, Insightful)

sprouty76 (523155) | about 11 years ago | (#6615360)

Red Hat's "decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux"

Red Hat's decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of SCO.

Litigation culture (3, Insightful)

benjiboo (640195) | about 11 years ago | (#6615362)

I'm not sure where it went wrong, but litigation culture has gone too far. Fair enough IP has to be protected, but in a lot of cases the suits seem to be against the spirit of the law, if not the letter. Maybe something is fundamentally wrong in the way in which software is protected.

If they all just got on with building software instead of legal wranglings, everyone would be better off. It just seems that almost anyone can kick up a fuss half expecting to be bought off, just because it's easier and cheaper than lititgation.

It does sound a bit weak (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615364)

I think Red Hat might be bending to popular internet pressure on this one. I mean, quite a few successful businesses pay royalties for many of their technologies. Is Red Hat so immature they can't handle a buck here or there? They're supposed to be a business.

Disappointed by RedHat Lawsuit? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615366)

Dear SCO,

Get used to disappointment. There's a lot more on the way.

Bury them in Paperwork. (3, Funny)

CyberGarp (242942) | about 11 years ago | (#6615368)

I liked Red Hat's letter to SCO. So much that it leaves me wondering what would happen if every Linux user coordinated sending a copy with their demands to SCO on the same day. We could all demand responses.

Instead of supporting their FUD campaign with license fees, we could create cost by forcing them to deal with a mountain of letters. Make sure you send it registered/certified so that someone has to sign for it.

Just picture the tractor trailer backing up full of letters...

is *bsd safe from this crap? (1)

dnotj (633262) | about 11 years ago | (#6615372)

I'm a pure linux user, like a few of us on /. I avoid billware if at all possible. I haven't used a *bsd in several years.

However, all this lawsuit and counter lawsuit, and counter counter lawsuit sh*t is starting to get annoying and unnerving. Is *bsd safe from the never ending SCO FUD? It might be time to start freshening up on the ole *BSD's.

Chilling (5, Insightful)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | about 11 years ago | (#6615376)

"His final statement-- that Red Hat's "decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux--" is chilling in light of the business strategy that SCO has adopted in its sales of UnixWare licenses to actual and potential users of the Linux kernel."

Whatever. If SCO proves their claims, then it won't be long before the Linux community re-writes those parts that IBM contributed and makes the Linux kernel "UNIX-free."

You'll pardon me if I'm not frightened.

Re:Chilling (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about 11 years ago | (#6615494)

Maybe SCO will claim ownership of everything right down to the ideas of pipes, inodes, and accessing devices as files.

Sco will be more "disappointed" about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615380)

SLASHDOT SCO!

SCO needs a good old-fashoned slashdoting.

Launch an unspecified number of wget processes:

wget ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/OpenLinux3.1/SRPMS/xemac s-21.1.10-15.src.rpm

click here [caldera.com]

don't waste space and time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615468)

for i in $(seq 1 100); do wget "ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/OpenLinux3.1/SRPMS/xema cs-21.1.10-15.src.rpm" -O /dev/null; done

chilling (1)

cheeseSource (605209) | about 11 years ago | (#6615381)

Red Hat's "decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux--" is chilling in light of the business strategy that SCO has adopted in its sales of UnixWare licenses to actual and potential users of the Linux kernel.

I wouldn't say "chilling", I would say "ironic", or perhaps "stupid".

SCO's double standards (5, Insightful)

twisty (179219) | about 11 years ago | (#6615387)

I don't seem to remember SCO giving IBM much of a chance for "good faith discussions"
More importantly, how can they expect "good faith discussions" from Red Hat, when they used the vehicle of their IBM press to first alledge violation on Red Hat's part?

SCO still has not formally charged someone with copyright violation... Their only (related) suit on record is a "contract breach" with IBM. That makes great grounds for libel and fraud, considering they continue to distribute Linux code over FTP months after proclaiming this a crime against themselves!

SCO is disappointed -- too bad (2, Insightful)

ACK!! (10229) | about 11 years ago | (#6615391)

Give me a break!

What a load of nonsense doublespeak.

They are ready to sue IBM and everyone else they can get their hands off but they chide another company for taking legal action against them first?

Typical. This will not hasten the demise of linux but in actuality will only hasten the departure of SCO from the scene.

Kudos for RedHat for having the balls to call these scumbags bluff.

Children (1)

Blackknight (25168) | about 11 years ago | (#6615392)

Dear SCO,

Please have a nice cup of STFU. Until you show some evidence, in court, I will continue to ignore any and all claims that they make.

And no, I will not take your word for it that some of your supposed code is in the kernel, and no, I won't sign any NDAs to see the evidence.

Please ask this at today's conference call! (4, Insightful)

yeremein (678037) | about 11 years ago | (#6615393)

Blake Stowell on Moglen's statement that users don't need a "copyright license":
Copyright absolutely applies. For the same reason that a commercial user must have a valid licence to run Microsoft Word, a user must also have a valid licence to run our Unix source code.

It was my understanding that the Microsoft EULA is the "use" license for Word--Linux customers have made no such agreement with SCO.

In addition, Stowell admits that IBM holds the copyrights to the code in question (emphasis mine):

While IBM owns the copyrights on these derivative Unix programs, SCO owns the control rights to these and they cannot be contributed to open source. The contracts between IBM and SCO state all of this.

Someone please ask SCO this:

Since IBM has the copyrights to the code in question, what recourse can SCO possibly have against end-users?

If the contracts forbid these "derivative works" from being contributed to open source, what recourse do you have against end-users now that they have been? You don't own the copyrights for such code, and end users are not party to your contract with IBM.

Or do you realize that you have no claim against end-users, and as such are inventing a new kind of intellectual property called "control rights"?

class action? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615399)

I wonder if anyone is working on a class action with claims similar to RedHat's on behalf of linux integrators & resellers.

The libel and FUD impacts the little guys as well.

in other news... (4, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | about 11 years ago | (#6615400)

Saddam Hussein "Disappointed" by U.S. liberation of Iraq....news at 11!

Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615402)

SCO today announced that RedHat's lawsuit infringes upon their recent patent of sueing businesses as a business model.

On a related note, Amazon claims they had the lawsuit as a business model patent first. Legal action forthcoming.

text of the article (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615415)

I was going to post the text of the article, but then I decided against it ... I would prefer to just let them get slashdotted ;-)

hahahahha (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615417)

SCO should die. like, now.

Laughing out loud! (1)

frkiii (691845) | about 11 years ago | (#6615420)

"...SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users. We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX."
- Darth McBride, Corporate Extortion Officer, S.tupid C.orporate O.gre

This guy is a piece of work! He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time! What an ability!

SCO back as early as January 2003 (maybe a bit more) started making spurious IP mutterings.

They file suit against IBM in March 2003, telling IBM to "comply with our licensing demands or suffer the consequences".

Then, when that does get SCO purchased by IBM, they directly target Linux users with their threatening letter.

Darth and other officers at SCO make numerous statements, at times contradicting the other officers, then their own individual statements when trying to "correct" or "clarify" what they said.

So now Darth is "surprised" that someone finally told them, through RedHat's suit to "shut your gosh darn mouth, you lying piece of worm ridden filth! Put up or shut up!"

Good bye, SCO, I will not send my condolences when your company ceased to exist.

Regards,

Fredrick

Re:Laughing out loud! (2, Funny)

iapetus (24050) | about 11 years ago | (#6615446)

This guy is a piece of work! He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time! What an ability!

That's nothing - he can do that with both of his faces as well.

Very smart move from Red Had (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615421)

Now SCO will be forced to show the "infringing code", publicly and without any NDA attached, and the community will at last be able to rewrite the few functions and go ahead.

SCO is dead

AC

Re:Very smart move from Red Had (1)

bkmurf (633238) | about 11 years ago | (#6615502)

SCO can't show the code in public, it would be replaced within a week and they would have no more suit. They have to try this in the media and hope for a settlement. Once it goes public every copy of LINUX will have a new kernel and SCO will be back to rock bottom stock prices and virtually no product.

Frankly, Redhat is too nice (1)

augustz (18082) | about 11 years ago | (#6615426)

Statements RedHat could make would include "It's time for SCO to put up or shut up." Would love to hear some other suggestions.

Irrespective of the legal merits of the case (SCO is the kind of company you never want to sign a contract with.), Redhat needs to go for a more aggressive stance in their public statements. SCO has been off the wall with theirs, and Redhat needs to call them on it (the idea that running linux now before anything has been show open one to liability just on the sayso of a company out for bucks is rediculous for example).

With a group like SCO they probably need to have the mindset of "go for the jugular". They need to hire an aggressive set of lawyers, get a pool of folks together to front serious money (get things to $5 million or so) and then sit back and prepare to grind it out.

The problem nowadays is if you make wild enough statements repeatedly enough, they are given more credit then they deserve.

Know what would be really funny? (-1, Flamebait)

stratjakt (596332) | about 11 years ago | (#6615434)

If SCO is right, and produces a smoking gun in court.

Lets say in the form of an IBM whistleblower who testifies directly to the fact that they knowingly leaked SCO code into linux to drive them out of existence. They come up with copies of memos that state in black and white to release SCO code.

You think IBM is above that? It's quite possible, hell with IBM even probable. These guys have a track record that makes MSFT look like born again christians.

So then what do the rabid linux zealots do?

License linux? Roll back the code, and exclude all current kernel hackers from contributing because they've eaten of the poisoned fruit? Screw it and convert en masse to BSD or HURD zealots?

SCO shares (3, Informative)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | about 11 years ago | (#6615438)

slatted to lose 35% today after 8% losss yesterday..

burn sco group shares!

next comment from IBM: OH YEAH?!?! (1)

not_a_george (687840) | about 11 years ago | (#6615443)

IBM: well, your stupid!!! and and and your company is stupid. :P
SCO: well, OS\2 was stupid too :P
hey guys, grow up and just sue each other, oops too late.

A quick translation for those not familliar (4, Funny)

cluge (114877) | about 11 years ago | (#6615455)

What SCO said, and what they really meant

SCO has consistently stated that our UNIX System V source code and derivative UNIX code have been misappropriated into Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels

We just want to scare you into paying us money. Thats easier than actually producing a product that anyone wants.

We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.

We have been trying to extort money from you.

SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.

If we can get you to give us money, then we don't really have to prove anything. Our lawyers told us that.

Recent correspondence from SCO to Red Hat further explains SCO's position

Holy SH*T someone is calling our bluff, what? They have lawyers? Suing WHO? I can't belive it, threatenting to sue is the way to do business, can't we grease your palm with some of our liscence fee to make this go away?

If redhat didn't say something... who would? (3, Interesting)

makoffee (145275) | about 11 years ago | (#6615460)

Being the biz world's poster child for linux, they basicly have to counter suit to maintain the validity of the kernel.

Though I often trash talk redhat for not quite being what I want in a distro, I have to give them a pat on the back for this. kudos to ibm as well, though I'm not happy about them sending so many developer jobs over seas.

In Soviet Russia... (2, Funny)

monopole (44023) | about 11 years ago | (#6615462)

SCO Sues you!

No wait, we did that already

Maybe SCO should sue Dictionary.com (1)

telstar (236404) | about 11 years ago | (#6615464)

After all ... They're not accurately defining the word "insane".
It's a term that really should be entirely reserved for describing SCO's recent actions.

SCO Teleconference Today at 2:00 p.m. EDT (5, Informative)

Tolchz (19162) | about 11 years ago | (#6615467)

Toll Free within North America: 1-800-238-9007
International: 719-457-2622
Password to enter call: 274040

More info at: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030805/latu080_1.html [yahoo.com]

1st of many, hopefully... (1)

Psiren (6145) | about 11 years ago | (#6615471)

I hope more and more companies do this. Imagine the cost to SCO if every large company with a siginificant investment in Linux were to do this. How much cash do SCO have to pay their lawyers? 10 Lawsuits? 20? Of course, I'd like to see SCO die a quick death, but I'll admit I'd rather see them thrash around in agony for a while first.

Six words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615474)

Six words:

Me cago en tu madre, cabron!

Yeah, that should do it!

[***] Can someone answer this question please? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615477)

What would happen if the next version of the kernel simply rewrote the disputed parts of the code? Or, at least if there were some parts that were more in question than others, just these?

In addition, I'm wondering about the rest of the world, like China, Japan, countries in South America, all of which are repidly adopting Linux. They don't need to worry about the U.S. copyright laws so what happens then? Everyone is already pissed at the U.S. so does Linux become a world standard and MS an American one, like NTSC and PAL?

ever get the feeling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6615493)

that one (or more) of these things are going on.
a) the news isn't telling us what SCO is smoking.
b) the news isn't understanding what SCO is saying.
c) SCO's legal department isn't understanding what SCO is saying.
d) the news isn't understanding what SCO's legal is saying.

it just seems so wierd that what the news says they say is so different from article to article. sueing over copyrights, killing linux, saving linux, its not about copyrights, its about IPs, its not our IPs but that doesn't matter because its about copyrights... etc

Linux will survive (1)

uberdave (526529) | about 11 years ago | (#6615506)

The whole point behind open source is that it is open. If there is code that is questionable, it can be removed, and replaced. Redhat may go. Debian and Mandrake may bite the dust. But the source is out there, and available. Linux will not die because of this SCO fiasco.
Load More 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>