[vox] SCO suing IBM over their Linux activity

[vox@lists.lugod.org]

SCO has not always had amenable relations with MS (think Xenix and 
Tarantella among others).  I think this was a case of bad coincidence more 
than any planned machinations by MS with SCO as proxy (MS isnt that stupid 
but SCO *is* that desperate).

I still maintain that at best (for SCO) is that IBM buys them and quashes 
this (which I think is SCOs plan to start with - they want an exit from 
their death by a thousand fuck-ups) and at worst (for SCO) is that IBM 
gets very vindictive and does the legal equivalent of making SCO dance on 
a landmine in metal boots.

z

On Thu, 29 May 2003, Shwaine wrote:

> On Thu, 29 May 2003, Rob Rogers wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 13:17:06PM -0700, Ricardo Anguiano wrote:
> > >
> > > SCO claims it's efforts to collect Unix licencing fees have made it
> > > profitable for the first time ever.
> > >
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/29/technology/29UNIX.html
> > > >From NYTimes:
> > >
> > >      A recent campaign of litigation and warnings by a Utah software
> > >      marketer against companies that use Linux has helped make the
> > >      company profitable for the first time ever, it said yesterday.
> > >
> > >      [...]
> > >
> > >      There was good news yesterday for SCO, as well. The company
> > >      reported a quarterly profit of $4.5 million on revenue of $21.4
> > >      million. SCO said it collected $8.8 million in cash from its new
> > >      division set up to enforce the company's rights to Unix.
> >
> > How much exactly was that payment Microsoft just made? (/me smells
> > something fishy here)
> 
> 
> I think that is the question everyone wants to know. There are many who
> think Microsoft has had a hand in this all along. Judging by how SCO
> OpenServer had certain Microsoft programs in it (like FoxPro "for Unix"
> which was essentially FoxPro DOS) and there was mention to Microsoft in
> certain credits, I can see where such ponderings would come from. And as
> some have pointed out, MS is not opposed to doing illegal actions, such as
> their "dead people writing letters" campaign during the whole monopoly
> fiasco.
> 
> Also of interesting note, the 1 year (or 6 month) stock trends for SCO.
> Note how the prices have only risen in the last couple months since this
> lawsuit was announced. Now look at the 5 day trends and see how Novell's
> announcement has affected the stock prices. The following link should let
> you view all these trends:
> 
> http://investor.cnet.com/investor/quotes/quote-detail/0-9970-1042-0-SCOX.html?tag=qbox
> 
> Other links of note can be found by search Slashdot for SCO. There's been
> at least a news item a day for the last couple days. Short summary is SCO
> backpedaled a little immediately after the Novell release saying it was
> contractual issues with IBM not IP, but then seemed to go back to saying
> they owned the IP to Sys V by threatening Linus specifically and Linux in
> general. There is definately a FUD in the air.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> vox mailing list
> vox@lists.lugod.org
> http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox
>