Why Is Linux Being Sued by SCO?

Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:59 pm by Indy11

I find the news I am going to post as a quotation after this header to be very important and disturbing.... IF true. The quote is from the New York Times.

It is about SCO's lawsuit against the group who developed Linux and who behind the scenes may have the most to gain by it.

Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:59 pm by Indy11

Here's part of the March 12, 2004 NY Times article written by Reporter Steve Lohr :

More evidence emerged yesterday about Microsoft's role in encouraging the anti-Linux campaign being waged by the SCO Group, a small Utah company.

BayStar Capital, a private investment firm, said Microsoft suggested that it invest in SCO, which is engaged in a legal campaign against Linux, a rival to Microsoft's Windows.

BayStar took Microsoft's suggestion to heart and invested $50 million in SCO last October. But a spokesman for BayStar, Robert McGrath, said, "Microsoft didn't put money in the transaction and Microsoft is not an investor in BayStar." He added that Microsoft executives were not investors as individuals in the investment firm, which is based in San Francisco.

Mr. McGrath said the suggestion came from unidentified "senior Microsoft executives" but not Bill Gates, the Microsoft chairman, or Steven A. Ballmer, the chief executive.

Microsoft, Mr. McGrath said, is not indemnifying the investment firm against risk or otherwise indirectly supporting BayStar's move. "The issue for BayStar," he said, "is whether there is a good return on its investment in SCO."

Microsoft, Sun Microsystems and a few other companies have struck deals with SCO to license its technology. SCO owns the rights to Unix, an operating system initially developed at Bell Labs. SCO contends that Linux, a variant of Unix, violates its contract rights.

SCO's legal campaign began last year when it sued I.B.M., a leading corporate supporter of Linux, and recently stepped up its legal attack by filing suit against two companies that use Linux, DaimlerChrysler and AutoZone.

The defendants are fighting the lawsuits, saying they have done nothing wrong and challenging SCO's claim that its rights are as broad as the company contends.

Microsoft stands to gain most from any slowing of the advance of Linux, which is maintained and debugged by a network of programmers who share code freely. That model of building software is called open source development.

It is not particularly surprising that Microsoft, given its interests, played the go-between for an investment in SCO. "But this shows is that there is a lot more than meets the eye in SCO's litigation strategy," said Jeffrey D. Neuburger, a technology and intellectual property expert at the law firm of Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner. "SCO has an agenda, and Microsoft clearly has an agenda, and it's doing whatever it can to further its cause."

The extent of Microsoft's behind-the-scenes role in SCO's legal effort has prompted questions and speculation for months. Last week, a leaked e-mail message from an adviser to SCO to the company added to the controversy in the industry. In the memorandum, sent to two SCO executives, Mike Anderer of S2 Strategic Consulting discussed a role in financing SCO, writing that "Microsoft will have brought in $86 million for us including BayStar."

Edited by - Indy11 on 3/12/2004 8:00:09 PM

Fri Mar 12, 2004 8:01 pm by Visconti

Because linux infringed some piece of copyrighted code that was claimed by SCO

Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:55 pm by Esquilax

*Rolls eyes* Indy! Didn't you read my "SCO Vs. Linux" thread a few months ago? Search the OT forum for it, it has some nice chewy links for you

.

Sat Mar 13, 2004 4:50 am by Indy11

@Esqy

Couldn't find it and only wanted to just add this note from the NYTimes..... didn't really want to go blind looking for it either.

Sat Mar 13, 2004 4:55 am by Tawakalna

Sco have no case, but simply making this fuss has put many big firms off open-source.

However so far Sco have picked up about US$20,000-00 in "licence fees" from Linux users but have spent millions so far dragging this pathetic argument through various courts.

As the Unix kernel was developed at Berkeley Univ back in the 60s iiirc, it has always been open source; hence Sco have a priori no case.

Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:20 am by [steel]

could it possibly be (and i may be cynical here) the current us/uk culture of if you cant earn money sue someone for thiers

?

Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:37 am by Tawakalna

it doesn't surprise me in the least that MS are the eminence gris behind this. If open-source takes hold, MS are dead as far as the business app and server market is concerned. Clearly they view open-source as a serious threat, as it means an end to copyrighted monopolies. MS reps have even claimed that open-source is communistic and anti-american (really!) but to my mind they're the ones acting like Stalinists, while open-source developers are truer to the idea of private venture capitalism. Funny old world, isn't it?

Sco successfully managed to put Daimler-Benz off open-source development by sullying the waters with this demand for money, and no doubt other large firms wary of protracted lawsuits will no doubt think the same way. But can you see Sco winning a single case on the merits of their argument? No, neither can I.

Sat Mar 13, 2004 11:54 am by Chips

What are the drawbacks to opensource though? I mean can they still sell their product if its open source, or can we all copy it instead

Also - would it be possible for companies to modify the open source slightly to work with thier program, at which point you have to install their variation to run their game/program?

Or does it just mean taht companies can make thier software integrate MUCH easier as they can check the hardcoded parts, and its easier for developers to utilise it? Basically - do you need to buy linux or is it free? Reason i ask is because if this last statement (not the others, just this last one) is true, then whomever developed it was a genuis, cause everyone can look at the source code to make programs run with it, which should make development cheaper. Being cheaper and easier to work with, means it will grow as well, as more people swap to it - which was probabily the only way to take on Microsoft when they do literally own the market place

However, won't it be open to abuse as well? Hackers and stuff made easier to cock everything up or whats the deal ? - someone who is really clued up give us the lowdown on pros and cons of linux systems etc please

Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:09 pm by Geekus Maximus

If SCO has no case why have some companies paid them?

Open Source Down Sides for Companies
Hard to Make profit anyone has access to your code.
People can find vulnerabiliteis in code easier poor security.
And dosen't work that well for buisness's making software

Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:42 pm by Indy11

@GM

Cost of litigation. Often times, it costs less to pay up than to go out and hire high priced attorneys to defend yourself in a case that could drag on or a very long time.
It is a form of extortion by litigation

like what the RIAA basically did to the parents of those kids who were downloading loads of MP3 music.

@Chips

Just as a for starters as opposed to being intended to be an actual answer to your Q, the usual story is that open source has fewer functional flaws and security holes to poke through it because there is a larger community of eyes looking it over. Not being a programmer, I don't know the practical aspects of that point. But I can agree that when only a finite team is put to a task that involves millions of lines of code, you are bound to have something that has not been considered. The team will create an environment/culture that cannot encompass all perspectives and already is generally shaped and biased by the corporation in which it has been constituted.

A larger "community" will be able to look at something with a greater breadth of analysis and perspective and should be able to cover more issues/ground in the process.

Edited by - Indy11 on 3/13/2004 1:53:27 PM

Sat Mar 13, 2004 7:35 pm by Geekus Maximus

@ 600 dollars a liscnce court fees look cheap fast

Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:23 pm by Indy11

@GM

Attorney's fees in heavy duty litigations easily can go into 7 digits.

Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:21 pm by Esquilax

Scuttlebutt states that SCO even admitted to suing people in order to acquire legal tender because they were in danger of bankruptcy. There are also rumours that Computer Associates have purchased a license, and that MS is supporting SCO in its battle against open source. The whole saga has been so much fun, but they can't win. In another 12 months, people will fortget that there ever was a company called SCO.

Sun Mar 14, 2004 2:34 am by Tawakalna

<chortle> CA buying a licence off Sco? send an ambulance in about 3 minutes, cos thats when my laughter will stop me breathing!

Important Message

You are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login.
The content may be outdated and links may not be functional.

To get the latest in Freelancer news, mods, modding and downloads, go to
The-Starport