SCO sends out more letters

In what may be a last ditch effort to scare a few companies into shelling out licensing fees, SCO has sent out another wave of letters to corporations that are apparently violating SCO’s copyrights by using Unix code allegedly contained within Linux. Of course, SCO has yet to identify which portions of Linux code infringe on its Unix patents. A judge presiding over SCO’s current suit against IBM has ordered SCO to identify segments of Unix code by January 5th.

Comments closed
    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    Or maybe if you sign the NDA, they’ll tell you they don’t have proof. Thus, tempting you to tell the news to others. And they’ll be waiting for you to break the NDA so they can sue you as well.

    • dolemitecomputers
    • 17 years ago

    In case you missed Mr Torvalds has responded:

    §[<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031222174158852<]§

    • Orion
    • 17 years ago

    SCO posted a loss of 1.6 million for the 4th quarter, the loss is because of 9 million in legal fees, otherwise they would have posted a profit of 7.4 million. Talk about a great business strategy… rofl

    §[<http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5130499.html<]§

      • Anonymous
      • 17 years ago

      So SCO is taking one for the team to fight linux/open source/communism. That seems to be very noble but what is the shareholders opinion on this?

        • dragondestroyer
        • 17 years ago

        q[

    • Anonymous
    • 17 years ago

    SCO are legal weasels! They clearly plan to drag this out in any way they can. The more time that’s used up – the more chance their stock price will bounce up a point or two. They do anything they can to stop ‘discovery’. Hopefully the bullshit will walk on the 8th, but I have a feeling that they will continue to find unique ways to stall.

    Sooner or later they’re going to piss off a judge and that will probably be the end of the ride, but for right now we have to deal with more threats. Frankly, I’m having a hard time how any company is allowed to legally threaten another with no recourse like this. I’d love for one of those big Fortune 500 companies to lay the r{< smackdown <}r on 'em. We should all be thankful that SCO's actions have occurred when they did. Seriously. A few years before this, when Linux wasn't as popular and didn't have backing from companies like HP and IBM, and it would've been all over but the crying.

    • wesley96
    • 17 years ago

    When will the legal drama end?!
    Litigation-as-business-model is getting too silly now.
    Hopefully, the train will hit the final destination soon… but 2003 seems to be ending with a cliffhanger.

      • rika13
      • 17 years ago

      when ibm and sgi drag darl (dumb enough to have his r[

        • Anonymous
        • 17 years ago

        They installed unlicensed code so they have to pay the license fees. It is that simple.

          • readysetgo
          • 17 years ago

          They /[

          • Anonymous
          • 17 years ago

          You are just as ignorant as our dear friend Darl. Linux is not unlicensed, it’s licensed under GNU GPL/LGPL.

          §[<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html<]§

          • just brew it!
          • 17 years ago

          If there is unlicensed code in Linux, why has SCO yet to produce any credible evidence of it? After all these months, all we have are vague claims akin to “we know there is code we own in there somewhere”.

          The only plausible reasons for this behavior are that they either have no proof, or the proof is weak enough that it won’t hold up to scrutiny. So their only remaining option is to bluff, and hope that the people they are threatening blink first.

            • dolemitecomputers
            • 17 years ago

            They say that if you sign a NDA they will gladly show you the code.

            • readysetgo
            • 17 years ago

            Really? I am surprised to hear this because no mention of this has previously been made in the wider public media, and I suspect this “little” fact would have, at the very least, received /[

            • Anonymous
            • 17 years ago

            Oh come on… It’s been nearly 6 months already:

            y[http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20030527S0020<]§

            • readysetgo
            • 17 years ago

            Thanks for the info. Somehow I managed to totally miss out on it. hehe *sheepish grin* Thanks.

            CHEERS@@@!!!

            • Anonymous
            • 17 years ago

            y{< Yeah, but what's the point of signing under an NDA if you can't DO anything about it, or even use outside resources to corroborate their 'facts'? Their last bit of 'evidence' show in Las Vegas back in August did nothing but make them look incompetant. Note that we haven't seen any code publically shown since - and with good reason. <}y

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This