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 Says They'll Sue A Linux User Tomorrow

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the good-cons-take-gusto dept.

Caldera 606

Xenographic writes "InfoWorld is reporting that SCO intends to sue a Linux using company. Ordinarily, this would not be newsworthy, as they have not followed through on past threats. However, this time, they have given themselves a concrete deadline--tomorrow. While they claim that it will be one of the "top 1,000" companies, they apparently have yet to decide which company to actually sue. Perhaps they need more practice playing darts?" Reader Fished links to CNET's coverage.

cancel ×

606 comments

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

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8436869)

darl mcbride = losar fagot, pls2sue me.

What would John Kerry say? (5, Funny)

whig (6869) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436870)

I have three words for Darl McBride: Bring It On!

Re:What would John Kerry say? (5, Funny)

c1ay (703047) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437046)

While they claim that it will be one of the "top 1,000" companies, they apparently have yet to decide which company to actually sue. Perhaps they need more practice playing darts?

Me thinks they're probably having trouble with their random number generator in Unixware. Why doesn't someone drop Darl [mailto] a line and suggest he try Linux. While you're at it maybe you could suggest that they sue Canopy Group [canopy.com] . You could mention that they're the parent company that owns Caldera and that they're currently anticipating a $5 billion dollar influx from IBM. Since Darl is obviously looking for a big fish maybe he'll try this one.

Pick me Pick me! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8436872)

I'm a Linux user... sue me... why not :P

Re:Pick me Pick me! (2, Funny)

floamy (608691) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436881)

They meant Linux-using companies.

Google (5, Funny)

TravisWatkins (746905) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436877)

Sorry Google, your free ride is over. And in other news, the Miami Dolphins actually won a superbowl!

Re:Google (2, Insightful)

notamac (750472) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436892)

Isn't it going to be a top 1000 company... and not an Internet related business?

IMHO that pretty much rules out Google doesn't it?

Re:Google (5, Funny)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437045)

Isn't it going to be a top 1000 company... and not an Internet related business?

Its Irving Tonks, a 16 year old high school student in North Dakota. He downloaded Linux off the net and he is currently using it to write code for a class project in perl on a PentiumPro machine his Dad gave him from work.

Things could be grim in the Tonks household - after Dad lost his job and mum died of cancer they have been living off Gran's social security. It is not clear that they can afford the billion dollars SCO is claiming in damages.

Re:Google (5, Interesting)

SphericalCrusher (739397) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436972)

I think SCO would be afraid to go after Google. Even though deep down it's just two young nerds running it, I'm sure other companies would not want to see Google at risk of being harmed by some little showoff company who can't backup their own claims for copyright infringement.

Besides, if Google did get sued, it wouldn't harm them that much, because of the IPO that they are releasing soon (hopefully).

*Looks at Anti-SCO shirt* Sure, I may be a flamebait, but I think it's for a good cause. I'm fed up with all of this SCO nonsense, and I'm pretty sure the open-source/Linux world is also. I just want to see what SCO can really pull off... no more of this standing-in-the-corner-pointing-fingers stuff. Bring it on SCO.

In the words of GWB... (-1, Redundant)

NSash (711724) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436878)

Bring 'em on!

A little confusing... (4, Interesting)

bc90021 (43730) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436880)

The article starts:

The SCO Group on Tuesday will launch its first lawsuit against a Linux user for alleged violations of SCO's intellectual property, SCO Chief Executive Officer Darl McBride said Monday.

and continues a little later:

After consulting with its law firm, Boies, Schiller and Flexner, SCO has narrowed down its list of possible targets to a "handful" of the world's 1,000 largest corporations, McBride said. "We're going to file it tomorrow. It's sort of come down to a couple of complaints we have prepared," he said.

So when they sue an "end user", is it going to be an Executive in a Fortune 1000 company? Or an employee? I assumed "end user" meant your average Joe. They're just asking for trouble (as the article points out) if they sue someone in a Fortune 1000 company.

Re:A little confusing... (5, Insightful)

bored1 (758098) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436896)

Since when has anything SCO said made sense?

Re:A little confusing... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8436926)

Maybe they'll sue EV1Servers.net now that they have a prior business relationship? :P

Re:A little confusing... (5, Funny)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436929)

And tomorrow we find out...

They are suing IBM! The company they are already in a lawsuit with!

Re:A little confusing... (1)

NSash (711724) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436934)

On the one hand, it'd totally in-character for SCO to pick on some Average Joe. It's exactly the kind of greaseball move they'd stoop to.

On the other hand, SCO has already said that they'll be going after corporations and not individuals (which, oddly enough, seems to be born out by their actions). I guess it makes sense: corporations are their potential "customers." Perhaps they're hoping the target will settle. (Ugh, this could turn into an ugly perpetual-motion lawsuit machine.)

Re:A little confusing... (5, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436955)

They are going to sue the corporation, the legal entity that has person like status.

And the corporation's lawyers will respond, "Sorry, we bought our Linux from (insert distributor here). You have take your claim to them, and you will receive any compensation you might be due directly from them for selling SCO IP without a valid license. Piss off."

KFG

Re:A little confusing... (5, Insightful)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437032)

heh, good luck passing that off on the /. crowd. You and I might know that distribution, not use, of unlicensed IP is a crime, but its like banging your head against the wall to try to explain that to anyone.

Re:A little confusing... (5, Interesting)

TheLinuxSRC (683475) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436966)

The SCO Group on Tuesday will launch its first lawsuit against a Linux user for alleged violations of SCO's intellectual property, SCO Chief Executive Officer Darl McBride said Monday.

I didn't see anywhere where they said it involved SCO IP in Linux. Just a Linux user misusing SCO IP. Might be a minor distinction. Might not.

Re:A little confusing... (1)

TheLinuxSRC (683475) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437010)

I didn't see anywhere where they said it involved SCO IP in Linux.

Ok, found my answer, a little too quick to post I guess... The CNet article specifically mentions SCO IP in Linux, the InfoWorld article does not.

Re:A little confusing... (5, Insightful)

Dalcius (587481) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436968)

"They're just asking for trouble (as the article points out) if they sue someone in a Fortune 1000 company."

I don't know if you can really get much worse than IBM. IBM's been around the block, they've been the bad dog, have more US patents than most nations have in their patent registry, and probably have more elite, fire-breathing IP layers than SCO has employees.

And SCO is suing for three billion.

Of course, more straw on the camel's back won't do them any good, but I fail to see how they could have picked a harder target than what they already have.

Cheers

Re:A little confusing... (4, Informative)

hendridm (302246) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437081)

> And SCO is suing for three billion.

$5 billion [com.com]

Just get it over with (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8436882)

I want to throw your notice in the trash.

Re:Just get it over with (0)

MadWicKdWire (734140) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436962)

Don't throw it away... they might be tacking on interest, legal fees and anything else they could add just to keep their business afloat!

Oh, good call SCO (4, Insightful)

Skyshadow (508) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436885)

Yeah, good thinking there McBride. Sue a company with deep pockets and vicious lawyers. Good call.

Personally, I woulda sued... Well... Me.

Re:Oh, good call SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8436925)

So... you are rich? :D

Re:Oh, good call SCO (5, Insightful)

CeleronXL (726844) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436984)

But by this point their goal isn't necessarily to win, or at least I wouldn't think. They know that they're going down, and they want to go down tearing Linux off its high perch along with them. Sueing a Fortune 1000 company is a good way to make a high profile case against Linux very popular, thus spreading further FUD everywhere.

Re:Oh, good call SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8437031)

That article makes it sound like a bit of a game. Do they just have a list of 1000 companies and a random unmber generator?

i dunno... (1)

MrDigital (741552) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436890)

if Joe Sixpack LinuxLawnmower(tm) qualifies as a Top 1000 company.

Office Pool.... (5, Funny)

Tsali (594389) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436891)

I pick Starbucks, for it is the hub of Dr. Evil's empire - and Scott (aka McBride) wants to get back at his father's transgression.

Either that or RedHat.

Re:Office Pool.... (1)

MesiahTaz (122415) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436913)

I'd think RedHat too but they're just not big enough. SCO seems to enjoy pissing of giants. I'm thinking Oracle or Google.

That's it. (5, Funny)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436894)

I'm not reading any more SCO stories. Really. I mean it. This is the last comment you will see from the fnkmaster in a SCO story. No more. Nada.


Aaaaaah, fuck it, who am I kidding.


It's like shoveling jelly beans into your mouth at the candy store - sure, it rots your teeth out and you end up with diabetes, but it tastes so damned good you can't help yourself.

Re:That's it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8436951)

What's a "fnk" ?
Just curious what you're the master of...

Fat Noxious Korean? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8437020)

this is all really out of hand... (5, Insightful)

chrisopherpace (756918) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436895)

this whole SCO mess is really out of hand and absurd. They will be suing a Linux user for what? Using software legally? They haven't won their case with IBM. This is all just absolutely outrageous! They're suing someone based on what someone else did (and they haven't even proved that much in court). I hope the "victim" of SCO's suit couter-sues their asses into tomorrow.

Yup, (2, Interesting)

herrvinny (698679) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436897)

Re:Yup, (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437053)

Actually, if they go up against good as an end-user, or anyone else for that matter... it's more like "oh shit yourself laughing" time.

What do they wish to gain? (2, Insightful)

MadWicKdWire (734140) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436899)

What is SCO going to gain by suing a well known company? Nothing! All they are doing is setting themselves up for the worst countersuit. The suit SCO is going to bring against "teh Fortune 1000 company" is going to get stuck in court until the IBM/SCO suit is finished. Then and only then is this NEW suit going to be resolved. I hope for SCO's sake, everyone in that company has somewhere else to go.

- I'm not creative enough to have a sig.

Re:What do they wish to gain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8437072)

I hope for SCO's sake, everyone in that company has somewhere else to go.

I'm sure that Club Fed has a spot reserved just for Darl.

Good Luck (1)

higginsm2000 (242840) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436901)

Any company in the "Top 100" will just chew them up and spit them out!

Good luck SCO, you're gonna need it..

Oh! Oh! I know who it will be ... (4, Funny)

pavon (30274) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436902)

... Themselves.

Nevermind, thats a lawsuit they might actually win. Given their current record of idiocy and bad public relations, my guess is that it will be the the Pope [netcraft.com]

Re:Oh! Oh! I know who it will be ... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8437008)

The Pope's page is www.vatican.va [netcraft.com]
But the results are similar

Re:Oh! Oh! I know who it will be ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8437067)

Actually the vatican runs on UNIX (Compaq Tru64)
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.vati can.va [netcraft.com]

Re:Oh! Oh! I know who it will be ... (5, Interesting)

hkfczrqj (671146) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437073)

Hey, the Pope lives in Vatican City [vatican.va] , and BTW they use Tru64 [netcraft.com] , i.e. Alpha!!! wow! I knew this pope was cool!

Oh boy, this is bad... (5, Funny)

Fiona Winger (758088) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436904)

I can just see the headlines: "12 year old girl sued by SCO for using Linux!"

Re:Oh boy, this is bad... (4, Funny)

cswiii (11061) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436950)

No worries, she'll immediately be signed by Pepsi to some fat contract to appear in the next big Super Bowl ad.

Re:Oh boy, this is bad... (4, Funny)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437037)

As Pepsi launches a new promotion... one in three bottle caps on specially marked bottles will win a free SCO license. Pepsi estimates that 90% of the wining bottlecaps will go unused because most of their market doesn't know what Linux even is...

I'm a 12 year old Linux loving girl :/ (0, Troll)

SexyKellyOsbourne (606860) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437036)

Considering that I'm both a 12 year old girl and a Linux user, this doesn't fare well for me.

I can see it now... it'll be something like this:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/riaa-psa.html [ebaumsworld.com]

A little premature? (2, Insightful)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436905)

Yeah, it's SCO and nothing do makes much sense, but wouldn't it make more sense to wait for the ruling in their primary case against IBM so that they can have a concrete leg to stand on before going off and suing copyright violators without having a definite declaration of copyright ownership?

Re:A little premature? (0)

ckathens (631781) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436952)

You'd think so, because if they actually won the IBM case they could basically use the ruling to collaterally estopp any opponent from claiming linux isn't owned by SCO...

On the other hand, there's always something for sowing a little FUD and then trying to get a company to settle out of fear.....

Perhaps (5, Interesting)

Tokerat (150341) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436906)


...this is why Google delayed it's IPO?

DISCLAIMER: Complete and total speculation.

Re:Perhaps (4, Informative)

Leme (303299) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436958)

Doubt it. He says that they plan on suing a company that is neither Internet Service Providers nor technology companies. I'd say that Google would be defined as a technology company.

Re:Perhaps (1)

p0ppe (246551) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436960)

Google isn't quite a "top 1,000" company though.

Off by two months (5, Funny)

Dalcius (587481) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436910)

Dear Mr. McBride,

This is March, not April. Please refrain from wasting all of our good material until that time.

Thank you,
-Slashdot

Re:Off by two months (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8436943)

er, you mean one month?

february march APRIL may...?

What's up with sco ? (1)

Naut (211748) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436914)

I just dint get it , what do they think they are doing ? what I dont understand is they are alienating so many potential customers that spend money on their products , I'd have to think thats worth alot more money than sueing a few companies and some individuals ? i have no sig

Actually they're probably... (0, Redundant)

Mals (159840) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436917)

using a random number generator to pick from one of the fortune 1000 companies.

And I'll bet you 10 bucks (2, Funny)

Tokerat (150341) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436969)


SCO didn't even write it but claim ownership to it.

You've got to ask yourself a question (5, Funny)

agentZ (210674) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436919)

Did he fire six court briefs, or only five? Tell 'ya the truth, in all of this excitement I've sort of lost track myself. But given that this is Free and Open Source Software community, the most powerful group of advocates, coders, and corporate lawyers on the planet, and would blow your company's revenue clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well do 'ya, punk?

Re:You've got to ask yourself a question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8436985)

i gots to know

Re:You've got to ask yourself a question (1)

red floyd (220712) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437068)

click.... heh heh heh

SCO will sue EV1! (5, Insightful)

ZeeTeeKiwi (615374) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436920)

After all, "contracts are what you use against your customers".

As other have pointed out, EV1 can't comply with SCO's linux license and still get Redhat patches, so there is actually a case that SCO can win against them now.

How about... (5, Insightful)

arsenick (115431) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436923)

actually DOING it instead of saying...

OSDN (1)

stm2 (141831) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436930)

I'd like to see OSDN being sued for using Linux. Nice thread on Slashdot!

And we all know how assiduously ... (3, Insightful)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436939)

Darl, Dave and Co. have stuck to previous carved in stone, we mean it this time, bet the farm, we're not kidding, STOP LAUGHING AT US, deadlines before.

I'll just be holding my breath over there, in the corner.

earnings announcement (5, Interesting)

mikeee (137160) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436940)

Gosh, I'm sure they're all broken up about the fact that this will distract from their quarterly earnings announcement the day after tomorrow.

This has gone on long enough (2, Interesting)

NeoTheOne (673445) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436944)

Maybe, finally, SCO's claims will be exposed for the crock they are. Hopefully, doubtfully, this will expose the crock lawsuits that seem to pervade our country. But I'm not holding my breath. It seems far to many people forgot that this country was built on WORK, not sucking the blood of others. (But that invokes comments on many other subjects as well...mp3 traders, riaa, mpaa, corporate mentality)

Is this supposed to be Scary? (0)

oacis (212298) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436945)

What an odd legal precedence, why on earth aren't they just putting their legal case forward. Normally you just get sued, rather than being warned.

Why all the advertising i.e. 'Watch out we are going to sue someone.... it may just be you'.

To me it is just about trying to get people to sign up for their licensing scheme (Although giving them only one day is not much notice). IMHO it would be better not to sue a fortune 1000 company, those boys have deep pockets and large legal teams. It is like taking on Goliath.

Re:Is this supposed to be Scary? (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437038)

Why the advertising? See post 2 or 3 above yours.

"I'm sure they're all broken up about the fact that this will distract from their quarterly earnings announcement the day after tomorrow."

undisclosed amounts (5, Funny)

nmoog (701216) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436946)

EV1Servers.Net has purchased site licenses from SCO for its two data centers for an undisclosed seven figure sum, according to SCO.
$0000699?

Re:undisclosed amounts (5, Funny)

tktk (540564) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437021)

You forgot the decimal.

$00006.99

Re:undisclosed amounts (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437059)

I thought it was
$0.000699

Re:undisclosed amounts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8437082)

Naw, it's a seven figure sum, in pennies.

Contest (1)

nizmogtr (675721) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436947)

With much more prior notice we could have made this into a contest.

Thank god (1)

nizo (81281) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436949)

The sooner they do this, the sooner they can be crushed into oblivion, and the sooner Slashdot can go back to reposting "TV turns into a mirror" stories. I wonder what kind of cool stuff will be at the fire sale? Maybe an executive chair with Darl's buttprint on it?

Big surprise (5, Insightful)

mehaiku (754091) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436954)


OK now let me make sure I have all of this straight. Wednesday is the day the SCO quarterly non-earnings report will be released, which most likely won't be good news. So, on Tuesday, the day before the report is released, SCO makes a stock, I mean lawsuit announcement. Do I detect a pattern here?

Re:Big surprise (1)

neiffer (698776) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437011)

Wait! Does this mean it's all about money? NO!!!!!!!!!!!

Perfect timing for the counter suit then... (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437071)

I mean what better timing then the day of the quarterly earnings report then to have the counter suit filed against SCO by whomever they try to sue :)

*gasp!* (0)

homeobocks (744469) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436963)

Oh no! They can tell!

/me puts on his tin foil hat, uses 4096-bit encryption on his filesystem . . . makes another lame Soviet Russia joke.

Don't fight it... Embrace it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8436976)

I'm a *BSD user and not a Linux user, but all this SCO vs Linux BS is just that, BS! What a crock of elephant dung - SCO seriously sux a**! I've had dreaded times of having to use it, fix it and support it - yuck! I don't know how they can still be in business especially with these threats.

Don't fight open source, explore the varieties and embrace it!

And if they win? (1, Insightful)

Fiona Winger (758088) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436983)

If they win, that'll bring about a huge change.

Attention grabbers... (0, Redundant)

Rodrin (729362) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436987)

They are like a child desperate for attention. It's pathetic how far they go. But oddly amusing as well.

Maybe... (0)

JustinXB (756624) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436988)

Maybe it will be Slashdot because of all the anti-SCO feelings we have :-D Always stepping on the little guy, makes me sick.

And the winner is..... (3, Funny)

tktk (540564) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436993)

I'd bet that quite a few people would love being the Linux user that gets sued. Think of it, you'd get metioned along Red Hat, IBM, and Novell.

Better start thinking of personal insults to Darl and witty comments to tell the tech media.

Ooooh! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8436994)

I hope it's Bill Gates! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAALLYOURBASEAREBELONGTOUSHAHAHA!!!

I hate this website and all who dwell within this website.

Walmart (5, Interesting)

rjamestaylor (117847) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436996)

Fortune 25 company, sells Linux on PCs (Lindows, Lycoris, Mandrake). Isn't an ISP or a tech company.

That's my best guess.

If it happens.

Hasn't yet.

russian roulette? (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 10 years ago | (#8436997)

russian roulette with an unloaded bb gun?

man, I hope Dr. Phil's wife takes lavasoap and brushes the mouth of SCO's CEO, McBride.

Open source needs to find a hungry DA (5, Interesting)

cluge (114877) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437000)

Someone needs to charge SCO with raqueteering and extortion. SCO has made several claims, but has yet to offer proof, and it's own case has changed so much that it barely resembles the original case presented almost a year ago.

By suing a Linux end users, SCO is in effect trying to use courts to extort money. The definition of extort is "to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power". I cannot see the difference between SCO's actions, press releases and the running a criminal enterprise.

If they (SCO) truly wished to protect their IP, they would proceed with their case and quit stalling. The Linux community would respond, in defference to and in respect to an IP rights. I think that is the crux of SCO's problem, Linux would respond by respectfully removing any proven IP content. If they can extort money from people instead of actually proving their case, then the profit margin goes up. So what if extortion is illegal.

AngryPeoplePeopleRule [angrypeoplerule.com]

Well, you never know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8437002)

I know how we all fear SCO and have been scrambling to buy their Linux licenses, but....

...rumor has it they could actually be lying about this whole thing!

Me! Me! Me! Oh, pick me! (3, Funny)

Lisper (461847) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437005)

I hope SCO decides to sue me. It will be so much fun, and I'll be able to retire on the proceeds for my countersuit for bringing frivolous claims.

Me, Me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8437006)

I hope they sue me. I have nothing better to do, and my assets are virtually nil (though this latter point unfortunately makes me a less attractive target. Sigh, story of my life, ha ha.)

Re:Me, Me! (1, Funny)

MadWicKdWire (734140) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437063)

I would wonder if you would need a lawyer in this case?

"Linux? What? From this nmap portscan I did just two seconds ago, it says that my system is running Windows 3.1. What are you talking about?"

Heh... I could just see that one... Judge looks dumbfounded and dismisses case. :P

what about the use of linux appliances? (2, Insightful)

capsteve (4595) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437012)

for example, what about those companies which have purchased and used sun appliances, specifically the cobalt line of products as a network edge appliance for email or webhosting? or what about linksys/cisco for that matter, for home networking? sco could choose any company in the white pages, and chances are, somewhere in the enterprise is a linux based appliance (if not at the enterprise location, perhaps at a home office...).

face it sco, linux is everywhere, and there are foundation companies which are using/deploying it(sun, ibm, novell, cisco, nokia) and threatening one of their end users with your pathetic attempts will only cause more companies to join the team against you.

give it up! you lost!

Tomorrows (2, Insightful)

Shipud (685171) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437015)

I guess McBride is an Asterix and/or Gone with the Wind fan:
"Tomorrow never comes" Vitalstatistix [angelfire.com]

"After all... tomorrow is another day" Scarlett O'Hara [reelclassics.com]

Sue me! Sue me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8437022)

Oh, please, please, please, please, please. I want to win the litigation lottery. Damn, now that SCO is plush with Microsoft funds, having them pay for my whole defense and a slew of punitive costs should put me in Club Med much sooner than I had anticipated. Me, me, me, me, me!!! Sue me, SCO!! Sue me!!

super troopers (0, Offtopic)

laurent420 (711504) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437026)

if you own the beach property, do you own the sand and the water?
nobody owns the water! it's god's water.
what if somebody, like, walks on to your beach, right, let's say you do own it.
no man, you don't own the beach, well.. you own the sand.
what if there's a naked girl on the beach?
that girls not yours, you don't own the girl.
what if she breaks her foot on your property?
she could sue me. SUE ME, SUE ME!

How the lawsuit is going to go in court ... (4, Informative)

NZheretic (23872) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437030)

Since 1994, both Caldera ( which only changed its name to The SCO Group in 2003 ) and the Santa Cruz Operation ( The original SCO which changed its name to Tarentella ) have accepted, profited from and redistributed copyrighted source code from hundreds of developers under the terms of the GPL license.
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html [fsf.org]
The SCO Group has failed to put forward ANY substantial legal theory why the SCO Group should not be obligated to abide by the terms of the GPL.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/sco/sco-without-fear .html [fsf.org]
The SCO Group obligations under the GPL has been reiterated and reinforced in the legal positions of IBM, Redhat and Novell in their respective cases against the SCO Group.

It is a criminal offense to claim, with fraudulent intent, that you have a copyright if you do not. The SCO Group does *NOT* hold the copyrights to the UNIX source code. Novell has *NOT* transfered the title for the works that the SCO Group fraudulently filed for copyright in 2003. The SCO Group do not have the right to sue anybody for violation of copyright works without the assent of the title holder.

The SCO Group claims the right to sue for work in standard UNIX and POSIX interfaces that AT&T and Novell granted full rights to use royalty free in perpetuity for the ISO, ANSI and FIPS federal standards.

The SCO Group's contract claims against IBM and others based upon the AT&T license in respect to rights of so called derivative works is in direct contradiction to evidence presented to the SCO Group by Novell.

The SCO Group though the press and SEC filings, has bolstered the share price of the SCO Group based upon demonstrably false claims to the contrary of above points 1,2 and 3. The SCO Group CEOs and legal agents were notified by Novell and IBM *before* making these false claims and presenting them as fact. The actions of the SCO Group must be in violation of several SEC regulations.

So how is the lawsuit going to go if it gets to court?
Eben Moglen's Harvard Speech
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/p.cgi/speakers.html [harvard.edu]

The Transcript
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200402260 03735733 [groklaw.net]


The McBrides, jointly -- I feel sometimes as though I'm in a Quentin Tarantino movie of some sort with them [laughter] -- the McBrides have failed to distinguish adequately between dicta and holding.

I do not like Eldred against Ashcroft. I think it was wrongly decided. I filed a brief in it, amicus curiae, and I assisted my friend and colleague Larry Lessig in the presentation of the main arguments which did not, regrettably, succeed.

Oddly enough, and I will take you through this just enough to show, oddly enough, it is the position that we were taking in Eldred against Ashcroft, which if you stick to holding rather than dicta, would be favorable to the position now being urged by Mr. McBride. What happened in Eldred against Ashcroft, as opposed to the window dressing of it, is actually bad for the argument that Mr. McBride has been presenting, whichever Mr. McBride it is. But they have not thought this through enough.

Let me show you why. The grave difficulty that SCO has with free software isn't their attack; it's the inadequacy of their defense. In order to defend yourself in a case in which you are infringing the freedom of free software, you have to be prepared to meet a call that I make reasonably often with my colleagues at the Foundation who are here tonight. That telephone call goes like this. "Mr. Potential Defendant, you are distributing my client's copyrighted work without permission. Please stop. And if you want to continue to distribute it, we'll help you to get back your distribution rights, which have terminated by your infringement, but you are going to have to do it the right way."

At the moment that I make that call, the potential defendant's lawyer now has a choice. He can cooperate with us, or he can fight with us. And if he goes to court and fights with us, he will have a second choice before him. We will say to the judge, "Judge, Mr. Defendant has used our copyrighted work, copied it, modified it and distributed it without permission. Please make him stop."

One thing that the defendant can say is, "You're right. I have no license." Defendants do not want to say that, because if they say that they lose. So defendants, when they envision to themselves what they will say in court, realize that what they will say is, "But Judge, I do have a license. It's this here document, the GNU GPL. General Public License," at which point, because I know the license reasonably well, and I'm aware in what respect he is breaking it, I will say, "Well, Judge, he had that license but he violated its terms and under Section 4 of it, when he violated its terms, it stopped working for him."

But notice that in order to survive moment one in a lawsuit over free software, it is the defendant who must wave the GPL. It is his permission, his master key to a lawsuit that lasts longer than a nanosecond. This, quite simply, is the reason that lies behind the statement you have heard -- Mr. McBride made it here some weeks ago -- that there has never been a court test of the GPL.

To those who like to say there has never been a court test of the GPL, I have one simple thing to say: Don't blame me. I was perfectly happy to roll any time. It was the defendants who didn't want to do it. And when for ten solid years, people have turned down an opportunity to make a legal argument, guess what? It isn't any good.

The GPL has succeeded for the last decade, while I have been tending it, because it worked, not because it failed or was in doubt. Mr. McBride and his colleagues now face that very same difficulty, and the fellow on the other side is IBM. A big, rich, powerful company that has no intention of letting go.

[30:02]

They have distributed the operating system kernel program called Linux. That is, SCO has. They continue to do so to their existing customers because they have a contractual responsibility to provide maintenance.

When they distribute that program called Linux, they are distributing the work of thousands of people, and they are doing so without a license, because they burned their license down when they tried to add terms to it, by charging additional license fees in violation of Sections 2 and 6 of the GPL.

Under Section 4 of the GPL, when they violated it, they lost their right to distribute, and IBM has said as a counterclaim in its lawsuit, "Judge, they're distributing our copyrighted work, and they don't have any permission. Make them stop."

If SCO played smart, they would have said, "But your Honor, we do have a license. It's the GNU GPL." Now for reasons that we could get into but needn't, they didn't want to do that, possibly because it would have affected adversely their other claims in their lawsuit, or possibly because they had taken a 10 million dollar investment from Microsoft, but we'll talk about that a little further, I'm sure, in the question period.

At any rate, they didn't say that. What they said back is, "But Judge, the GNU GPL is a violation of the United States Constitution, the Copyright Law, the Export Control Law", and I have now forgotten whether or not they also said the United Nations Charter of the Rights of Man. [laughter]

At the moment, we confine ourselves solely to the question whether the GPL violates the United States Constitution. I am coming back to Eldred against Ashcroft along the way.

In Eldred against Ashcroft, 435 Congressmen and a hundred Senators had been bribed to make copyright eternal in a tricky way. The bribe, which of course was perfectly legal and went by the name of campaign contributions, was presented to the Congress for a copyright term extension.

In 1929, "Steamboat Willy" first brought before the public a creature called Mickey Mouse. The corporate authorship term under copyright being then, as almost now, 75 years, had it not been for action by Congress in the year 2004, Mickey Mouse would have escaped control of ownership, at least under the Copyright Law. This, of course, necessitated major legal reform to prevent the escape of Mickey Mouse into the public domain.

Copyright term extension now provides that, whether or not a Sonny Bono skis into a tree again in the next ten years or so, every once in a while Congress will extend the term of copyrights a little while longer. And then, as the ball approaches midnight in Times Square, they'll extend it a little longer. And so on and so on. Nothing need ever escape into the public domain again, least of all Mickey Mouse.

Professor Lessig, Eric Eldred, I and lots of other otherwise sensible people in the United States thought that this did not actually conform to the grand idea of the perfectability of human beings through the sharing of information. We doubted that securing perpetual ownership a slice at a time was actually a form of encouraging the diffusion of science and the useful arts, and we suggested to the Supreme Court that on this basis alone, the Copyright Term Extension Act should fall. We were, as Mr. McBride rightly points out, soundly repudiated.

It turns out that there's no such thing as an unconstitutional copyright rule, if Congress passes it, and if it observes the distinction between expression and idea, which the Supreme Court says is the constitutional guarantee that copyright does not violate the freedom of expression, and provided that fair use rights are adequately maintained.

In short, the actual holding of Eldred against Ashcroft is, Congress can make such copyright law as it wants, and all licenses issued under the presumptively constitutional copyright law are beyond constitutional challenge.

I have news for Mr. McBride. The existing copyright law is constitutional and our license, which fully observes all the requirements that the copyright law places upon it, are also presumptively constitutional. Only in the world in which we succeeded in Eldred against Ashcroft, in which if you like there would be substantive due process review of copyright licenses to see whether they met the form of copyright called for in Article 1 Section 8, could Mr. McBride and friends even stand in a United States courtroom and argue that a copyrights license is unconstitutional.

[35:17]

Regrettably for Mr. McBride, in other words, we lost Eldred against Ashcroft, and the very claim he now wishes to make perished, along with some more worthwhile claims, at that moment, at least until such time as the Supreme Court changes the holding in Eldred against Ashcroft.

Mr. McBride takes a great deal of cold comfort from the pro-capitalist rhetoric in which Justice Ginsberg announced the decision of the Supreme Court. And, as yet another disgruntled observer of Eldred against Ashcroft, I wish him luck with his cold comfort, but he and I were on the same side of that case, little as he knows it, and the legal arguments that he would now like to present unfortunately failed. Mind you, even if he were allowed to present to the court the idea that copyright licenses should be judged for their squareness with constitutional policy, we would triumphantly prevail.

There is no copyright license in the United States today, I will lay this down without further demonstration but we can talk about it if you like, there is no copyright license in the United States today more fitting to Thomas Jefferson's idea of copyright or indeed to the conception of copyright contained in Article 1 Section 8, than ours. For we are pursuing an attempt at the diffusion of knowledge and the useful arts which is already proving far more effective at diffusing knowledge than all of the profit-motivated proprietary software distribution being conducted by the grandest and best funded monopoly in the history of the world.

But, sorrily for us all, Mr. McBride will not get us to the stage where we are allowed to tell that to the United States Supreme Court, where we would prevail gloriously, because the United States Supreme Court's already decided that copyright law is presumptively constitutional as soon as Congressmen have taken the campaign contributions, held the vote, and passed the resulting gumball-like statute to the White House for the obligatory stamping. But I welcome Mr. McBride to the campaign for a less restrictive copyright in the United States, as soon as he actually figures out, from the legal point of view, which side his bread is buttered. Unfortunately, as you all realize, we cannot hold our breaths waiting for enlightenment to strike. If only Mr. McBride attended Harvard Law School.

That's, I think, enough about SCO, truly, though I am delighted to answer your questions in due course about it. It's actually a copyright lawsuit desert. There aren't any copyright claims in it. There are some contract claims between IBM and SCO, and those will, in due course, be adjusted by the courts, and I look forward with a moderate degree of interest to the outcome. A threat to the freedom of free software, it ain't. One hell of a nuisance it most certainly is. And I, unfortunately, expect to continue to spend a good deal of my time abating the nuisance, but without much sense of the presence of a hovering threat to the things I really care about, of which this is not a very good one.

The SCO Group is effectively scamming Linux Users with a variation of the "Data Protection Scam"
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22data+protection+ scam%22 [google.com]

Check with your local "Better Business Bureau" if this is in violation of local Fair Trade Acts, Enterprise Acts and Unfair Practices Acts.

"Top 1000" (1)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437041)


"Top 1000?"

Is this like one of those commercials where a company says "We're the leading provider of ...", which translates to "We're a company" given the meaninglessness of the words? Except here, they're claiming they are gong to such the blood from such a "top" company?

Or perhaps they are going to sue themselves? I'd bet they would STILL get a stock boost off of that. Kind of like the old crazy guy who gets on the subway who gets more uneasy respect the more irrational he acts.

Imaginary Investor: "They're just crazy enough to make it happen - I'll really be bucking the trend if I go with them! And a whole bunch of other innapropriate cliches too!"

Ryan Fenton

They already ARE suing a Linux using company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8437047)

IBM. And they're already in the process of getting their head handed to them.

Can we talk about something else now? Pretty please?

This is crazy (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 10 years ago | (#8437056)

It's like arresting a scientist studying cocaine in the lab.

Damn, don't blame the users cause #include is found everywhere.

Amazon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8437064)

They're on record as a huge Linux user and advocate of IP protections for corporations.

My bet.. Bezos would settle if personally named in a suit.

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>