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!

Report Claims SCO Intends to Charge IBM with Fraud

CowboyNeal posted about 10 years ago | from the case-building dept.

Caldera 377

An anonymous reader writes "Now it gets interesting. According to this report, it looks as if SCO is preparing to accuse IBM of fraud, and has even opened up a web site to counter the runaway success of Groklaw. SCO's expensive attorneys Boies and Silver are apparently going to file a motion asking the court to unseal most of the documents that are currently under seal, in the hope that certain of IBM's e-mails will be seen by the outside world to tell a story about AIX, Dynix, and Project Monterey that implicates IBM in, well to be blunt, fraud. Groklaw is certain to have its own distinct view about this latest development of course."

cancel ×

377 comments

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

Hi... (2, Interesting)

leav (797254) | about 10 years ago | (#10284641)

Wasnt there a recent slashdot story saying that IBM did NOT have any sco code?

i'm confused...

-Leav

Re:Hi... (4, Informative)

FurrBear (668920) | about 10 years ago | (#10284856)

You can read the latest over at Groklaw [groklaw.net] . IBM's MIT computer scientist actually exists as opposed to $CO's mystery team.

Can't treally blame them... (5, Insightful)

Nos. (179609) | about 10 years ago | (#10284646)

They've got nothing, everything they do is getting thrown out of court, so they're going to try and blame IBM for that too. It will be nice to tell our grandchildren about this company named SCO that tried to profit off of others work.

Re:Can't treally blame them... (5, Funny)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 10 years ago | (#10284651)

The way things are going now, our grandkids will just say, "But isn't that thing still going on?"

Re:Can't treally blame them... (2, Funny)

Coneasfast (690509) | about 10 years ago | (#10284687)

i can imagine it, Darl will still be ranting on about IBM in his old-folks home, while shaking his walking stick.

btw, does he have any children to carry on his evil legacy? wouldn't want it to be a family tradition. :/

Re:Can't treally blame them... (2, Funny)

nkh (750837) | about 10 years ago | (#10284706)

Shaking his walking stick? more like crapping his pants, but he'll blame it on Linus.

Re:Can't treally blame them... (4, Funny)

Zorilla (791636) | about 10 years ago | (#10284752)

btw, does he have any children to carry on his evil legacy? wouldn't want it to be a family tradition. :/

Well, seeing that this guy is from Utah.....crap. It's going to be one biiiiiig family tradition.

Re:Can't treally blame them... (1)

niteice (793961) | about 10 years ago | (#10284653)

You mean SCO plagiarism?

Ho Hum... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about 10 years ago | (#10284812)

Another fine day on Coronation Street...

Re:Can't treally blame them... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284772)

company named SCO that tried to profit off of others work.

That's capitalism for you.

Re:Can't treally blame them... (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 10 years ago | (#10284918)

Typo Correction:

It will be nice to tell our grandchildren about this company named SCO that tried to profit off of others work.

Should Read:

It will be sad to tell our grandchildren about one of the companies, named SCO, that profited off of others work and further catalyzed the explosive growth of IP lawyerism in the late 1900's and early 2000's.

The pump and dump worked. The SCO executives took a 2 dollar stock and sold many thousands of shares at over 10 dollars.

Insult + Injury (4, Funny)

Theovon (109752) | about 10 years ago | (#10284647)

So, SCO insults the entire world of Free Software, and they think some stupid web site will generate some sympathy? Sheesh.

The least they could do (4, Funny)

theluckyleper (758120) | about 10 years ago | (#10284668)

Yeah, the least they could do is put some pr0n on it, or something.

a little higher (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284716)

Dont you think that would be raising the bar just a little too high for SCO.

Re:The least they could do (3, Funny)

savagedome (742194) | about 10 years ago | (#10284728)

Actually, even this new look [bbspot.com] would have done!

Re:Insult + Injury (1)

u-235-sentinel (594077) | about 10 years ago | (#10284798)

So, SCO insults the entire world of Free Software, and they think some stupid web site will generate some sympathy? Sheesh.

Unfortunately for SCO, their web site sucks. Doesn't look nice and clean as Groklaw.

Please Open Your Eyes (3, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | about 10 years ago | (#10284859)

Well... Judging by main stream press which is the press most people read, not LinuxWorld, AND taking into consideration that for the most part, in the main stream press SCO FUD has worked reasonably well, yes, I think some stupid web site will generate some sympathy.

On Crack (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284648)

It's widely believed that Maureen O'Hara had sampled Darl's crackpipe before writing that piece.

Re:Why not check sco site every 30 seconds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284672)

give them some hits

GNU hippies stole the code. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284652)

If unscrupulous GNU hippies had not stole SCO's source code, then this would not be an issue. If you still want to use linux then just pay the licenese fees.

McBride thinks he's on the World Poker Tour (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284656)

with an eight high hand.

Fraud? (5, Insightful)

datadriven (699893) | about 10 years ago | (#10284661)

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Re:Fraud? (4, Informative)

Curtman (556920) | about 10 years ago | (#10284897)

No kidding. My favourite part of the article was this:
  • IBM's premise started with asking the court to declare Linux free of any SCO copyright claims. ... asked Judge Kimball to rule that the widgetry IBM contributed to Linux didn't infringe on any claimed SCO copyrights. ... but darned if we can remember SCO ever charging IBM with that.


Thats about the funniest thing I've read in a while. I had a heated discussion about this [slashdot.org] exactly a month ago. SCO spews drivel about copyrights to any news media that will listen to them anymore, then they have the gall to get up there in court and claim [groklaw.net] this has nothing to do with copyrights. Mcbride, the death bell tolls for thee.

Desperation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284662)

SCO has nothing left, this is their last breath.

Money (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284670)

Where is SCO getting all this money to pay lawyers? Nobody's paying the licensing fees.

Re:Money (4, Insightful)

OS24Ever (245667) | about 10 years ago | (#10284703)

I believe that the law firm has capped what they'll charge SCO until they win.

So we'll see two bankruptcies in Utah one day.

Re:Money (5, Insightful)

eddy (18759) | about 10 years ago | (#10284750)

>Where is SCO getting all this money to pay lawyers?

By defrauding investors into believing SCOX had a solid case, when in fact they didn't. Lying through their teeth about "owning UNIX", lying about the pedigree of Linux, lying about everything.

Behind closed doors they pitched this as an "investment opportunity". They probably showed the investors the Berkley Packet Filter code, maybe some standard headers (elf.h, etc). "Look! This is a slam dunk! And there are millions of lines more of that in linux!"

Oh, they really sold this "Linux Lottery" good.

Re:Money (1, Insightful)

bhima (46039) | about 10 years ago | (#10284797)

Microsoft

Re:Money (1)

augustz (18082) | about 10 years ago | (#10284820)

EV1 Servers paid them a significant amount as well I beleive, which is being used to fund there litigation.

Validate (5, Funny)

savagedome (742194) | about 10 years ago | (#10284680)

The page says "Roll mouse over timeline icons to see summary of each document". So I did and nothing. Hmmmm. Well, let's see how it validates [w3.org] .

OH well.

I call fraud on SCO's website (2, Funny)

theluckyleper (758120) | about 10 years ago | (#10284725)

Yeah, I was going to call fraud on SCO's new website too; I looked at the source and it seems like they're expecting the ALT tag text to pop up when you mouseover (there's no javascript or anything)... which doesn't seem to be happening for me, in Firefox.

Fraud! Fraud!

Re:I call fraud on SCO's website (3, Funny)

davron05 (778470) | about 10 years ago | (#10284751)

Wait, I am using ALT tags on my web page too. Applying SCO's "substantial similarity of source-codes" argument to this case, SCO is infriging my copyright!

Re:Validate (5, Funny)

cabra771 (197990) | about 10 years ago | (#10284790)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw this right away. I figure IBM's attorneys can use this as evidence of SCO's incompetence.

"Your honor, those idiots don't know their ass from a title attribute."

Re:Validate (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 10 years ago | (#10284939)

That's weird. Just for kicks, I entered slashdot [w3.org] and only got an error message. I wonder what's up with that?

Hmm (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284681)

I think SCO just likes to believe that if it could just advocate enough false statements then perhaps just by chance one of them will turn out to be true. I figure the chance of that is equivelent to one hundred monkeys tapping randomly on keyboards reconstructing all of linux source code with a covering letter to Darl telling him to politely drink a cup of Ricin. Simon.

SCO is commiting Fraud (5, Interesting)

Omega037 (712939) | about 10 years ago | (#10284685)

The only one commiting fraud here is SCO. They are creating fraudulent lawsuits for no reason but to annoy IBM. Pretty soon SCO is gonna sue for wrongful death because IBM killed their company. I mean seriously, doesn't this kind of suit start to border on defamation? Shouldn't IBM have the ability to sue SCO for damages or at least to force them to stop all lawsuits?

Re:SCO is commiting Fraud (4, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 10 years ago | (#10284755)

Shouldn't IBM have the ability to sue SCO for damages or at least to force them to stop all lawsuits?

It would be ideal to have a karma system for companies who want to sue. You get some accusation points, but if the outcome of the trials determines accusations to be false, the company wouldn't get more points for a long time.
So the damage a "bad" company can do is limited.

I've seen a similar system used in a web site, wish I recalled the url...

Re:SCO is commiting Fraud (2, Insightful)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about 10 years ago | (#10284857)

I've seen a similar system used in a web site, wish I recalled the url...
Come to think of it, I think I saw that too. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work worth crap.

Re:SCO is commiting Fraud (4, Insightful)

PhotoGuy (189467) | about 10 years ago | (#10284934)

I believe that here in Canada, there's a lot fewer frivolous lawsuits, since it's far easier to get losing sides to pay defendant's costs. I think it's a great system; you go around suing people frivolously, trying to be a bully, you primarily end up paying their court costs in battles you lose. The US should really consider moving towards this approach.

There goes the cat. (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about 10 years ago | (#10284686)

Lol, oh boy this ought to be good. What could SCOG possibly make available GrokLaw does not? All Groklaw does it make available copies of official court documents, with of course commentaries by any who desire.

Obligatory stock charts. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284691)

arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284692)

i am wondering why the usa courts and judges dont stop this foolishness already? i mean sco is saying something for some years now and they fail to come up with proof? so how come this case hasnt been dismissed by now?

on the other hand the judges dont end this shit if sco cant prove stuff and cant provide basic hints to their case.

now here is what i dont understand. its either the us.a legal system that is completely rotten that u can make fals claims and accusations for several years without any proof or evidence, or there has to be something to sco's case actually, and the judges arent sure either, and ibm has something to hide too, no matter if its some shit that they did to linux, or whether its just their aix/dynix/whatever code they messedup and mixed with sco stuff...

cany anybody actually enlighten me? is it the us.a legal system that is totally crap and unfair/illegal or does sco actually have some claims that at least tackle ibm/aix/dynix, even if not directly linux ...

why dont the judges demand real shit by now, and why dont they hurry up the whole situation? why is this taking ages and not going anywhere soon? fuck, i dont understand this at all... the judges should be really embarrassed and blushing by now.... no matter if its the one or the other way....

thanks.

Re:arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? (2, Interesting)

Chess_the_cat (653159) | about 10 years ago | (#10284724)

I'm sure this is quite cut and dry to users of Linux but to laymen like myself and the judge in this case SCO has enough to go forward. That doesn't mean they'll win but I'd personally like to hear more. In every history of Linux I've read including The Cathedral and the Bazaar it's been explained to me that Linux came out of Unix. That alone leads me to believe that there is some Unix source in the Linux kernel. Please do not mod me down; I'm simply trying to answer the parent's question by explaining it from an outsider's view.

Re:arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? (4, Informative)

arkanes (521690) | about 10 years ago | (#10284787)

The OSI position paper [catb.org] has a good summary of the various meanings of "Unix" and why when people say that Linux comes from Unix they don't mean it in the legal, code-copying sense.

Re:arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? (4, Informative)

amorsen (7485) | about 10 years ago | (#10284910)

In every history of Linux I've read including The Cathedral and the Bazaar it's been explained to me that Linux came out of Unix. That alone leads me to believe that there is some Unix source in the Linux kernel.

You are implying that Linux was somehow built on the Unix source code, back in the really old days. This was simply not the case, and even SCO seems to stay away from saying otherwise. Linux has always been an independent development, merely inspired by Unix/POSIX. SCO has been saying that Unix sourcecode was introduced into the Linux kernel between version 2.4 and 2.6 (to improve multiprocessor scalability). This is very recent history and has nothing at all to do with the origins of Linux, more than 10 years ago.

Re:arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284727)

> why dont the judges demand real shit by now, and why dont they hurry up the whole situation? why is this taking ages and not going anywhere soon? fuck, i dont understand this at all... the judges should be really embarrassed and blushing by now.... no matter if its the one or the other way....

U.S. judges often give a seen-by-them-to-be-losing side LOTS of room to maneuver to avoid giving valid grounds for an appeal. A successful appeal is a professional 'you screwed up' opinion, and judges don't like that on their resume'.

Re:arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284734)

What may be perfectly obvious to you and me may not necessarily be perfectly obvious to a judge who doesn't spend their days reading technical documents.

And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the more deliberation and time that is allowed the plaintiff in the case, the less likely an appeals court will even hear the case if judgement is declared against the plaintiff.

Having said that: the US is in desperate need of tort reform, specifically in the area of class-action lawsuits, as well as some kind of deterrent to filing frivolous lawsuits/claims.

And who to vote for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284789)

And who do you vote for? Most trial lawyers would vote for the Democrat party, I guess. More crazy lawsuits and baby SCOs.

When Bush talked about limiting liability at the RNC, the crowd went nuts. But they sure let up on Microsoft and let Gates and co. off the hook.

The libertarians wants to let Microsoft be free of government intervention.

I guess the only way to vote against Microsoft would be to vote for something like a communist or green party candidate, but they'd mess up my life even more.

Ah, choices, choices.

Re:arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? (4, Informative)

overshoot (39700) | about 10 years ago | (#10284747)

now here is what i dont understand. its either the us.a legal system that is completely rotten that u can make fals claims and accusations for several years without any proof or evidence, or there has to be something to sco's case actually, and the judges arent sure either, and ibm has something to hide too, no matter if its some shit that they did to linux, or whether its just their aix/dynix/whatever code they messedup and mixed with sco stuff...

Dismissal is when the suit is structurally flawed to begin with (e.g.: SCOX sued Novell for "Slander of Title" but didn't even allege one of the requisite elements for SoT.)

What you're talking about would be summary judgment: there's not even enough evidence that a jury would be needed to weigh it. Since it can take a while to develop evidence through discovery, motions for summary judgment generally wait until the case is well-developed.

IBM now is proceeding to file motions for summary judgment, based in large part on the fact that SCOX hasn't even tried to identify specific facts that would support a charge of either copyright infringement or contract violation.

Slow, frustrating, but like Juggernaught's Carriage it gets there eventually and regardless.

Re:arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? (2, Insightful)

geoff lane (93738) | about 10 years ago | (#10284830)

The system may be slow but it's also expensive.

That is the real problem - if SCO had attacked a smaller company that couldn't afford to defend itself they might have won by default years ago.

There is no justice when the difference between winning and losing is the amount of money you can spend on lawyers.

Re:arent the US.A judges embarrassed by now? (1)

MathFox (686808) | about 10 years ago | (#10284765)

Courts move slowly. The court system tries to give everyone a fair chance in pleading his case. Unfortunately the latest court hearing http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200409151 9471739 [groklaw.net] didn't work out too good for SCO. It looks like IBM will get a positive decision on the first issue (Linux illegaly contains Unix code) in the case because SCO couldn't show any proof for it.

IBM has asked the court to decide on more claims and it looks like they will get those decisions too. So SCO has to think of something "NEW" to stay in the press in a "positive" way. The last thing SCO wants is losing quickly in Utah Federal Court.

Simple (2, Insightful)

microbox (704317) | about 10 years ago | (#10284871)

Because the legal system occupies a different mind-space.

Go to a bookshop, and pick-up a book on running a small business, and read the chapter on going to court...

There is a reason why public faith in the legal system is at an all time low.

Roll mouse over timeline icons... (5, Interesting)

YetAnotherName (168064) | about 10 years ago | (#10284696)

...to see a summary of each document.

Doesn't work with either browser I have installed right now. For a company whose motto is The Power of Unix, apparently you need to run IE6 on Windows to actually use their website.

Re:Roll mouse over timeline icons... (5, Funny)

Sirch (82595) | about 10 years ago | (#10284824)

It's not actually working for me in IE6 either, so I think they're just incompetent...

Re:Roll mouse over timeline icons... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284909)

Doesn't work with either browser I have installed right now. For a company whose motto is The Power of Unix, apparently you need to run IE6 on Windows to actually use their website.

1- It isn't working with any browser

2- The Power of Unix is generally accepted to lie on the server-side of things

It's simple. (3, Interesting)

eddy (18759) | about 10 years ago | (#10284697)

The SCOX crackheads are frustrated. They've been instructed not to embellish their case in the media. That's frustrating for someone like Darl, whose wet dream it is to mouth off at every opportunity.

So SCOX do what they always do, they blame everyone else of doing the things they are in fact doing themselves. For instance, they'll claim that IBM (via Groklaw) is misrepresenting the case. Of course, the only people continuously misrepresenting the case(s) are SCOX insiders and their paided shills (the Endrools and Didiots of the world).

I mean, how many times have we read Darl and Blake talking about the eV1L lUnix in the press? Then in the filings they'll say "this isn't about linux". Or the other way around. It depends on whichever would look the best for them at that particular point.

There'll be a reckoning for you when this is over, Darl.

new low 4 SCO (but thanks for inuring the public!) (1)

KWTm (808824) | about 10 years ago | (#10284753)

Awww, frick, gimme a break, SCO! First you sue, then you fart at the media through your mouth, then when you're about to get pounded to a pulp in court (oops, wasn't that your own sledgehammer that you're about to get pounded with?), now you try to tell everyone that IBM committed fraud. It ain't selling! What's next, IBM is really controlled by evil aliens from outer space?

The time of overblown media hype is over. You're not getting any more credibility (or stock investment) just from making more and more specious claims. And, in fact, thank you for doing this so that when some other company tries this tactic (whether or not with the IT industry), the public can remember, "Wait, didn't SCO try that, too?" And hopefully when ill-informed investment analysts advise a buy on this, the public can remember, "Wait, didn't Forbes try to convince us that SCO had something? Didn't Laura Didio say that they had a strong case?" And if they refuse to react to sensationalism, maybe, hopefully, companies will have less incentive to keep burping out lawsuits just to inflate their stock.

Whew, that is about as insightful as I can get at this point given how irritated (pissed!) I am with SCO. Just when you thought they had run out of ways to disgust the industry...

The question is (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 10 years ago | (#10284698)

when will SCO finally make the laughable mistake of suing SCO? I can't wait till that day :P

It's Boies Schiller (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284707)

Just a minor correction. Their website, actually very well done for a law firm, can be found at www.boies-schiller.com [boies-schiller.com] .

As a side note, I'm a law student and Boies Schiller is an interesting firm. They are one of the three highest paying firms in the country, with a first year starting salary of 140,000 per year as opposed to 125,000 for the majority of large law firms. They are headquartered in Armonk, NY as opposed to New York, NY.

David Boies is the premier partner. He left another high powered firm, Cravath, to start his own firm (Cravath is strangely enough representing IBM in this case). Since then, some say that Boies Schiller has become the cult of David Boies (hyperbole). I think that both his sister and brother have high management positions in the firm.

Regardless, from what I hear, Boies is one of the best litigators in the country. Cravath has good litigators too. This case will be well argued - and that is a good thing.

Re:It's Boies Schiller (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284860)

> Regardless, from what I hear, Boies is one of the best litigators in the country. Cravath has good litigators too. This case will be well argued - and that is a good thing.

Methinks you need to read Groklaw a bit more, and get a re-education on the quality of SCO's legal efforts so far.

Cliff Notes summary: not nearly good enough.

Re:It's Boies Schiller (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | about 10 years ago | (#10284868)

"This case will be well argued - and that is a good thing"

By everyone but SCO at any rate.

Re:It's Boies Schiller (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284877)

Yeah, they did a great job in 2000.

Re:It's Boies Schiller (3, Informative)

dmaxwell (43234) | about 10 years ago | (#10284895)

Except for some press conferences at the beginning, there hasn't been hide nor hair of Boies in the courtroom. At the last hearing, one of SCO's attorneys made a garbled presentation to the judge and then fell asleep at the plaintiff's table. Since you are a law student, try perusing some of SCO and IBM's court filings. From what I understand, what SCO is doing is legal high comedy.

Help me understand this (4, Funny)

overshoot (39700) | about 10 years ago | (#10284712)

Caldera (now called "the SCO Group") is going to sue IBM because they worked with Caldera on Linux, so that when Monterey stalled IBM and Caldera were able to move on.

Thanks at least in part to the failure of Monterey (and the fact that Caldera helped IBM have a contingency plan that worked) Caldera was able to pick up the Santa Cruz Operation's Unix business at a discount.

Because they got it at a discount, they're going to sue IBM for conspiring with themselves to save them acquisition costs?

Re:Help me understand this (1)

Nurseman (161297) | about 10 years ago | (#10284754)

Caldera (now called "the SCO Group") is going to sue IBM because they worked with Caldera on Linux, so that when Monterey stalled IBM and Caldera were able to move on.

This seemed fairly obvious to me also, even as a non-tech, slighly geeked out nurse. How could a journalist actually print something this absurd, and ever be considered credible again ?

Working link (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284714)

The summary links to the main page, whose "Read story" link doesn't work. Here's the link to the printer-friendly page that *does* work:

http://www.linuxworld.com/story/46384_p.htm

Re:Working link (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284848)

Am I the only one who wonders, after reading this, whether Ms. O'Gara is capable of writing a coherent English sentence without massive editing? Just a couble of the curiously-worded tidbits that caught my eye:

Supposedly sometime in the first half of 2000 IBM made a course correction to Linux and way from Monterey, which was the IBM-SCO-Intel initiative to move AIX to the Itanium, a project that Sequent and Dynix ultimately got bolted on to too.

... with due reverence for Cravath, Swaine's abilities to move the ball even you're look plum at it ...

In fact, given the sloppy writing throughout the piece, I find it hard to believe this columnist managed to survive anything higher than freshman-year English, let alone to take anything she says seriously. Or am I being too picky?

-H

Re:Working link (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | about 10 years ago | (#10284885)

Not too picky at all, Maureen O Gara is clearly a moron who is just writing whatever it is SCO are telling her to write.

Not hard to fig. out the origin of theSCO donation (2, Interesting)

catwh0re (540371) | about 10 years ago | (#10284720)

Another step in the art of legal red tape.

With rumours of the SCO donation coming from Microsoft, I would not be surprised in the least to discover that MS is giving the orders on this one.
The goal of all this is to scare users away from open source software, as they might end up in an expensive court battle. However in the end, when IBM do eventually flatten this out, it's only going to create the legal president to make short work of future challenges to related software projects.

Not suprising if donations are coming from MS (2, Interesting)

Savet Hegar (791567) | about 10 years ago | (#10284770)

Since MS can't seem to get Longhorn out the door in a reasonable timeframe, they need to do whatever they can to stop corporations from adopting Linux on the desktop.

Everyone keeps asking how SCO thinks they can win. I don't think they ever planned on winning. As long as they can create enough FUD until Longhorn gets out the door, Microsoft's investment paid off. Not to mention Darl's pockets are probably getting pretty full. I don't care if they don't make $1 in SCO Source licenses....SCO can keep paying Darl's salary until the company is bankrupt.

SCO's IBM lawsuit page is not new (5, Funny)

brumle (814578) | about 10 years ago | (#10284721)

The ibmlawsuit page on SCO's website is not new, but prior to this it hadn't been updated in a while. It didn't take more than five minutes for this story to Slashdot their server. Let's wait for SCO to cry "sco.com hacked by linux users AGAIN".

Sales Call! (2, Funny)

Natchswing (588534) | about 10 years ago | (#10284733)

Anyone else notice that they offer a link on their site to request a sales call [caldera.com] . Where do we start? Have them try and sell licenses to known spammers? Request a sales call of the judges working on the SCO cases? Maybe just get a sales person to call each of us so we can inquire about linux licenses.

So this is news? (4, Insightful)

melevitt (31652) | about 10 years ago | (#10284742)

A paid shill for SCO with zero credibility writes and article full of lies, half-truths, and innuendo, Slashdot posts about it, thus generating enormous amounts of traffic to the site that posts such slop.

Well done. I'll sure they'll keep giving voice to such trash as long as they make money on it.

By this point, who cares about fraud? (1)

overbyj (696078) | about 10 years ago | (#10284744)

If SCO had accused IBM of fraud way back when, maybe somebody might have given a rat's ass. But now, honestly, who really cares if IBM committed "fraud" according to SCO.

Hello, SCO, this is the little boy calling...I would like my crying wolf back.

Re:By this point, who cares about fraud? (1)

Anonymous Writer (746272) | about 10 years ago | (#10284865)

Hello, SCO, this is the little boy calling...I would like my crying wolf back.

Just in... SCO reports they have the copyrights on crying wolf and will charge licensing fees to whoever attempts to cry wolf.

My god... (1)

Vectorman0 (795415) | about 10 years ago | (#10284748)

It's like a soap opera. This SCO funny business is turning into a daily thing that should have its own /. section.

Fraud? (3, Insightful)

rnturn (11092) | about 10 years ago | (#10284760)

Really. So IBM develops a product and promptly decides to kill it in favor of a new product they would rather persue. Apparently, SCO believes IBM was supposed to have had a brain wipe before moving onto their next project. Didn't SCO wind up with a copy of AIX-on-Itanium that they could have run with? This is fraud? I'm thinking that SCO was looking forward to merely riding along while IBM did all the difficult work of developing Monterey into a usable product. When the cache of IBM's name was no longer associated with Monterey, SCO finds they don't have the ability to make the new OS a standard. And then Darl comes along years later to cry foul.

And, so would it be fraud, I guess, to use the fairly common practice of Company A buying competitor B's software product and then raising the license fees to levels that effectively kill it off in favor of Company A's product. Or lifting the guts of B's (now A's) software and incorporating it into Company A's product. Then leaving Company B's former customers with a product that they are unable to use on newer releases of operating systems (as Company A has no intention of keeping it up to date) and leaving them no alternative but to use Company A's product (which they never wanted in the first place).

This happens all the time. The only difference is that most of the time it's the end-users of the software that get the short end of the stick. In Monterey's case, there weren't any users to get screwed. Only a corporation. But corporations have lawyers, end-users don't.

Sounds really plausible to me. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284762)

1. Come up with a way to get rich...
2. Tell the press
3. ....
4. Profit!!!

Forgive me for sounding stupid, but WTF is the point of #2???

On the other hand if you wanted to pump stock prices....

Their own distinct view? (1)

kaleco (801384) | about 10 years ago | (#10284775)

I don't want a distinct view, I'd prefer an objective one :)

SCO continues to fail... (4, Insightful)

talks_to_birds (2488) | about 10 years ago | (#10284791)

...to realize they're not trying this in any court of public opinion.

They're going down in flames in every court they're fighting a legal battle, and they somehow think public opinion is either:

  • going to change in their favor
  • going to matter at all after Lindon Utah is reduced to a smoking crater, salted, and plowed under
just because people get to read some emails from IBM that (in SCO's opinion) kinda look bad.

Actually, the way SCO's research has been going, they've totally misunderstood the meaning of the emails and as soon as they're made public SCO will have made complete and utter fools of themselves, once again...

t_t_b

Artists against SCO scm unite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284792)

keep the site opened, for reading purposes of course :)

http://www.caldera.com/ibmlawsuit/ [caldera.com]

Puhleez! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284801)

Oh come on! O'Gara is known to smoke just as much crack as the SCO Group. I can't believe this got posted.

How long has this been going on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284807)

and we still don't know what SCO is complaining about?

Linux contains our IP? We was just foolin' your honor.

We do own the copyrights, and don't you forget that. Oh, your honor, they hurt our feelings when they said we didn't.

The contract says that everything in AIX is derivative. No your honor, we weren't there, we have no evidence.

Groklaw spins for linux, no question. But at least the documents are available. SCO spins some garbage and a journalist prints it? Shame on you. Did they give you any documents to share with us?

Derek

Media stunts (1)

Muttonhead (109583) | about 10 years ago | (#10284815)

This is all just a media stunt.

More bluster from SCO (2, Insightful)

xyote (598794) | about 10 years ago | (#10284819)

The documents they want unsealed will not show what SCO purports them to show. But SCO knows the court won't unseal the documents. But it's a nice propaganda ploy. Present impossible demands for discovery or evidence and then claim that it's someone else's fault you can't prove your case.

What legal difference does it make ? (4, Interesting)

richg74 (650636) | about 10 years ago | (#10284823)

So the story is that SCO is going to ask the court to unseal some of the evidence to show that IBM has been naughty and committed fraud.

IANAL, but I don't think this would have any effect on the outcome of the legal proceeding at all. Evidence is evidence, whether it's under seal or not.

It seems to me that this is just another example of SCO's lack of real interest in the lawsuit as a legal proceeding. Their real interest seems to be flogging their story through their paid shills and credulous members of the press. The only consistent thread in their legal filings seems to be a desire to drag the case out as long as possible.

Can you say "pump and dump"?

I believe we should do this... (1)

jwcorder (776512) | about 10 years ago | (#10284831)

I think that the Attorney Generals of each state should ban together and sue SCO for wasting tax payer dollars by coming up with all these horseshit lawsuits.

There are no taxpayer costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284883)

WTF are you talking about? The gov is not involved. Someone is going to pay court fees. So where do you get taxpayer money from?

Re:There are no taxpayer costs (1)

jwcorder (776512) | about 10 years ago | (#10284917)

Taxpayer money goes to judges, clerks, baliff, hell the cost to keep the lights on. Court costs to not pay to keep all of this going. Not to mention someone who keeps the paperwork.

You may think that just because someone sues someone else that there is no penalty to the common man involved in the outcome, but it takes more money then the average cost of court to put on a three ring circus for that.

Flossing A Dead Horse? (1)

irbdavid (756585) | about 10 years ago | (#10284838)

Makes you wonder, given that some part of SCO is still able to throw money at its lawyers in pursuit of some sort of vindication, whether they honestly believe that there is some value to their claims? Surely if they were a _real_ software company (and not some sort of poster-child for the anti-OSS arguments), they'd have cut their losses months ago, and drop their actions?

Bad TV Show (1)

Perseid (660451) | about 10 years ago | (#10284852)

When you have a TV show that's going downhill, you kill somebody off, or make somebody pregnant, or something similar. I think SCO is realizing their ratings are dropping again and this is another attempt to recapture viewers.

This show is soon going to be cancelled because nobody is going to care anymore. And once SCO loses their headlines, this is all for naught. After all, this certainly isn't about any legal justice.

Can SCOX add Fraud charges? Simple test. (1)

eddy (18759) | about 10 years ago | (#10284853)

1. Was the Monterey contract between IBM and Caldera?
2. Did it include a Change of Control clause?
3. Did control change from Caldera to The SCO Group?
4. Case closed.

Caldera cherry picking documents (1)

ImpintheBox (153919) | about 10 years ago | (#10284870)

A brief look at the Caldera lawsuit page shows a lot of relevant court documents posted. Someone unfamiliar with the case might be mislead into thinking that this is a pretty thorough picture of what is oing on in the case.

Glaringly absent are the depositions of Otis Wilson and Randall Davis. Otis Wilson, former head of AT&T's Unix licensing thoroughly shoots down the Caldera/bogoSCO contract nonsense. Randall Davis, possibly THE leading authority on software opyright issues wipes out all claims of SysV Unix copyright infringement in Linux, whether by IBM or anyone else.

The SCO vs IBM case is, has been, and always will be a fraudulent lawsuit.

LOL (1)

Tonik, the (748167) | about 10 years ago | (#10284875)

http://www.caldera.com/ibmlawsuit/

Argh shit, where's my "Edit" button? (2, Interesting)

Tonik, the (748167) | about 10 years ago | (#10284926)

Ok so I go to http://www.caldera.com/ibmlawsuit/ and see the two rows of icons titled "2003" and "2004", with a comment: "Roll mouse over timeline icons to see summary of each document. Click on icon to view document."

I hover the mouse over the icons, but wtf? Nothing happens? I take a peek at HTML source (made easy by Firefox's excellent "view selection source" feature) and what do I see?

These idiots think that if "alt=" pops up a description in Internet Explorer, then so it does in other browsers. (No it does not, HTML standards says you need title= for that)

Now this is the website of the company who thinks it owns Unix.

Hmmm lets see... (1)

polyp2000 (444682) | about 10 years ago | (#10284880)

Fraud (n) [reference.com]

1) A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

Hmm , now given 2 companies , IBM and SCO ... and given the evidence - who do we think the dictionary definition of fraudulant bastards [caldera.com] best describes ?

Sounds like another publicity stunt to me (1)

Hortensia Patel (101296) | about 10 years ago | (#10284907)

1. SCO makes unsubstantiated accusations about fraud.

2. SCO asks court to unseal record.

3. Court quite properly refuses.

4. SCO bleats to press about this vast blue-wing conspiracy which, alas, they can't offer any evidence for because the nasty tricksy court won't let them.

5. SCO stock blips up a bit the way it always does on SCO publicity, no matter how bad.

6. Profit! Or, perhaps more accurately, slightly mitigated loss for a day or two.

Film at 11.

The story at linuxworld (5, Funny)

michrech (468134) | about 10 years ago | (#10284921)

The story
at linuxworld
was very
difficult
to read
all the
way
through.

What
were
they
thinking?

redundant, but i must say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10284938)

SCO should be the one chared with frivolus lawsuit and fraud!!!

hurry up and die already sco...

IBM hurry up and clean sco's clock...

yours truely anony_mouse cow_ard
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>