Source Claims SCO Will Sue Google

Linuxworld ^ | 11/26/03 | Maureen O'Gara

[Salo]

Source Claims SCO Will Sue Google

Industry wags are saying that God invented SCO to give people a company to hate more than Microsoft

November 26, 2003

Summary A source claiming to be in the know says that the SCO Group is going to sue Google for not paying its Linux taxes.

By Maureen O'Gara

Page 1 of 1

A source claiming to be in the know says that the SCO Group is going to sue Google for not paying its Linux taxes.

Last week SCO threatened to make an example of a big-time Linux user that hadn't paid SCO the license fees it's demanding and take it to court for copyright infringement.

SCO has not disclosed the identity of its mark and SCO CEO Darl McBride claimed Tuesday that a decision on what company to target wasn't final yet. He said SCO and its lawyers were working with "a short list" of "seven or eight" names.

McBride declined to say whether Google's name was on it, but another knowledgeable source said it was.

SCO said last week that it would sue within 90 days. The Linux community thinks SCO's bluffing and won't make its self-imposed February 17 deadline. McBride said he'd like to play that number in Vegas.

The idea behind the suit is obviously to make all major Linux users tractable and make them reach for their checkbooks.

If it turns out to be Google, it's a provocative choice.

It's a household name.

It's said to have a Linux server farm of some 10,000 of servers, worth, oh, $7 million to SCO as long as SCO's current cut-rate license fees maintain.

It's reportedly putting together a positively glorious IPO that could supposedly be worth $15 billion-$25 billion, a feat unmatched in the last two decades despite Tulipmania.

And Microsoft, which has been accused of conniving with SCO in its march against Linux, is slated to enter the search market and compete against Google. The widgetry, which is supposed to retrieve all kinds of file types, both structured and unstructured, and all kinds of storage systems, beginning with the user's own drive, will be integrated into its operating systems like the anticipated Longhorn.

Meanwhile, industry wags are saying that God invented SCO to give people a company to hate more than Microsoft.

[Salo]

The linuxworld site is a bit slashdotted right now.

[Salo]

Paging Dr. Penguin and other interested parties.

[mattdono]

Meanwhile, industry wags are saying that God invented SCO to give people a company to hate more than Microsoft.

Seems that the way SCO has been acting as of late, they quite deserve it.

[StatesEnemy]

Don't mess with my Google

[Semi Civil Servant]

New motto:

SCO Group: We Invented Everything TM *

*This motto is a registered trademark of SCO Group and if you use it, we'll sue.

[demlosers]

Is Microsoft behind SCO?

[GluteusMax]

Is Microsoft behind SCO?

The actions SCO is taking are suicidal. The lawsuits are baseless, so one must ponder if they are the sock-puppet of Micro$loth. M$ has openly declared they aim to pull a "Netscape" on Google and replace it with their own bloated worthless mandatory alternative. Perfect "2-fer" for M$loth: Attack Linux AND Google through proxy SCO. They get to keep their hands clean and still smear the competition.

[Salo]

There is a school of thought that SCO is being used by Microsoft to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) about linux so as to halt its adoption. It does look suspicious that MS is one of a very few SCO licensees and that weeks after Google rebuffs MS, rumors about SCO suing Google begin to surface.

Is Microsoft behind SCO?

[avg_freeper]

I'll tell you one thing. If Microsoft ever produces an ad-supported search site as effective as google but with out all the anti-gun anti-conservative bias they will have all my search business. And google will never get a hit from me again.

[ShadowAce]

My question is this--

Can Boies et al really afford to continue filing these lawsuits, putting the work and effort into keeping them going, and harassing everyone on the planet without ever getting a payout? I know they just got $50 mil, but that money won't last forever, and by now they must surely realize that no buyout is in the works.

What in the world can they be thinking?

[Political Junkie Too]

Is this deja news all over again?

-PJ

[Salo]

You think this might be a pump to get the stocks (the currency being used to pay SCO's lawyers) up again?

[steve-b]

If Microsoft ever produces an ad-supported search site as effective as google but with out all the anti-gun anti-conservative bias

In that event, you had better carry an umbrella at all times unless you don't mind being splattered with pig feces.

[ShadowAce]

Are they stupid enough to just give them stock without tying it to real performance over a certain time frame in the future? </stupid question>

[Bush2000]

The lawsuits are baseless...

Really? Would you mind giving me a link to the all of the evidence that will be introduced at trial?

[Bush2000]

In that event, you had better carry an umbrella at all times unless you don't mind being splattered with pig feces.

Why? Considering taking a job there, Stevie?

[Bush2000]

It does look suspicious that MS is one of a very few SCO licensees and that weeks after Google rebuffs MS, rumors about SCO suing Google begin to surface.

Got Tinfoil? (TM)

[Bush2000]

Can Boies et al really afford to continue filing these lawsuits, putting the work and effort into keeping them going, and harassing everyone on the planet without ever getting a payout? I know they just got $50 mil, but that money won't last forever, and by now they must surely realize that no buyout is in the works. What in the world can they be thinking?

Simple: They're asking IBM for a billion dollars. And that's just the start of litigation. If a jury agrees -- and let's not forget that a jury acquitted OJ -- that makes for a helluva retirement...

[Nick Danger]

Can Boies et al really afford to continue filing these lawsuits, putting the work and effort into keeping them going, and harassing everyone on the planet without ever getting a payout?

I think so. Boies is under the legal-ethics equivalent of an indictment in Florida for doing something similar. He spent seven years and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of his own money pursuing a breach of contract case against a gardening firm... this on behalf of a women with whom he has a "relationship."

Here's the part I thought was funny: the gardener couldn't afford an attorney. So he was representing himself. And he kept David Boies tied in knots for seven years. By the end, Boies' "client" was cited numerous times for contempt of court, and now Boies himself faces an ethics hearing before the state Supreme Court.

It's a good thing Al Gore didn't hire this gardener. Gore might be president now if he had.

[Salo]

The *gardner* might be president. :-)

It's a good thing Al Gore didn't hire this gardener. Gore might be president now if he had.

[Bush2000]

Al Gore *is* the gardener. Think about it. What has the guy ever really done that's exceptional? He's the son of a former US Senator. That single credential got him into Harvard (where he reportedly showed his mettle by earning mediocre grades), a billet in the military as a reporter ("I ain't no Senator's son, yeaahhhhh"), a mediocre journalist job, a Senate seat, and a job as Vice-President. His ridden somebody else's coattails his entire life. He's an empty suit -- and that is the reason why he's not in the White House today.

[D-fendr]

If a jury agrees -- and let's not forget that a jury acquitted OJ…

I just love that argument repeated once again for SCO's chances in court: "Hey even a slam-dunk case can be bungled - so SCO could WIN."

You must not have a lot of confidence in SCO's chances. Still, I still wouldn't bet that IBM's lawyers are as incompetent as Gil Garcetti and Marcia Clark.

Would you?

[Petronski]

Industry wags are saying that God invented SCO to give people a company to hate more than Microsoft

Who can tell them apart?

[Salo]

Accountants :-)

Who can tell them apart?

[Bush2000]

You must not have a lot of confidence in SCO's chances.

I haven't formed an opinion yet. Unlike most of the Linux kneepadders aroundhere, I'm waiting to see the evidence.

Still, I still wouldn't bet that IBM's lawyers are as incompetent as Gil Garcetti and Marcia Clark. Would you?

I wouldn't necessarily bet on IBM's lawyers to overcome a stupid jury. After all, IBM's lawyers actually tried to patent a toilet-queuing system (Scientific American: IBM Toilet-Queuing Patent)

[D-fendr]

I wouldn't necessarily bet on IBM's lawyers to overcome a stupid jury.

Jury stupidity. Yep, that must be what SCO's counting on too - assuming the judge is really stupid too and it gets that far. Such faith you guys have in the actual case.

I'm waiting to see the evidence.

Yeah, you and the judge both; Dec. 5th maybe SCO will actually make a specific claim.

But wait, SCO already told us their evidence: It's the U.S. Constitution.

Case closed, O.J. walks.

Sure you don't want a little cyber-wager on this one?

[Bush2000]

Such faith you guys have in the actual case.

Can't you read? I just said that I haven't formed an opinion on the case.

[D-fendr]

I think a non-stupid jury would decide after reading this statement:

If a jury agrees -- and let's not forget that a jury acquitted OJ

that it would be logical to infer that the writer had little faith in the merits of the case – and given the bulk of your other posts would also reach the same conclusion.

But I stand corrected, you are nuetral on SCO's case, firmly and solidly, go-either-way, no opinion formed, nuetral.

My apologies.

[Salo]

Alas, *everyone*, including the defendent, is in the same boat. What has been seen so far is BullShit Lite - unless you ar Golden Eagle, in which case it's DNA-solid.

I'm waiting to see the evidence.

[Bush2000]

I think a non-stupid jury would decide after reading this statement: If a jury agrees -- and let's not forget that a jury acquitted OJ that it would be logical to infer that the writer had little faith in the merits of the case...

Dude, take a course in logic. It's not that complicated: Juries are unpredictable. OJ was a perfect example of a case in which the prosecution had very strong DNA evidence and were undone by a jury that ignored the evidence. Whether SCO has (or lacks) strong evidence may not matter. This case pits David (SCO) against Goliath (IBM). Don't underestimate the little guy on the jury who either consciously (or unconsciously) has an axe to grind against "the Man" and wouldn't mind handing a victory to SCO. It is that single reason that causes insurance companies to settle so many cases out of court. They can't control the outcome, even with strong lawyering; hence, they settle.

I have taken no position on this case, other than saying that we should all wait for the evidence before saying the as-yet-unseen-evidence is weak.

[Bush2000]

But I stand corrected, you are nuetral on SCO's case, firmly and solidly, go-either-way, no opinion formed, nuetral. My apologies.

Thanks. ;-p

[Bush2000]

Alas, *everyone*, including the defendent, is in the same boat. What has been seen so far is BullShit Lite ...

You're right. Everyone is indeed waiting and wondering what SCO will offer as evidence. I haven't made up my mind on the case but, if the evidence consists of elements which are similar to those presented in public, the case isn't very impressive.

Still, I've been involved in enough litigation to know that, sometimes, the evidence is less important than the emotion it evokes. Juries are temperamental and, quite often, full of complete morons.

[ShadowAce]

Juries are temperamental and, quite often, full of complete morons.

That is correct. However, I base my opinions on the stories I've read, and the history of Unix that I've seen. Hence, if I were to evaluate the case, I would have to say SCO is full of it. I am the first to admit that there may be more to this than is public--but based on the public information so far, SCO has no case and should be sued out of existance for litigous harrasment of legitimate businesses.

[Glenn]

They're asking IBM for a billion dollars

Are they now? Did they say, "Please"?

IBM will paper SCO's ass until they crumble from the weight of it. You must be too young to remember how IBM held the government off for more than a decade until a reasonable President and his minions called the whole thing off.

[Salo]

Paternity suits? Rascal! :-)

Still, I've been involved in enough litigation to know that, sometimes, the evidence is less important than the emotion it evokes.

[Bush2000]

based on the public information so far, SCO has no case and should be sued out of existance for litigous harrasment of legitimate businesses.

If that's all they have, I agree. But it won't be long before we know the truth.

[Bush2000]

IBM will paper SCO's ass until they crumble from the weight of it. You must be too young to remember how IBM held the government off for more than a decade until a reasonable President and his minions called the whole thing off.

Microsoft tried to do the same thing to Boies and it didn't work. Boies, whether we like him or not, is a sharp litigator. Plus, the attorneys on SCO's side are essentially working on contingency, so driving up legal costs is a non-starter.

[MediaMole]

The rumor is that Bill Gates was behind the $50million in new financing SCO got a month ago.

[jimtorr]

Would you mind giving me a link to the all of the evidence that will be introduced at trial?

Please tell me......why do you spend so much time and energy defending MicroSoft and SCO? You almost invariably pop up very soon after either is the subject of any post.

[Glenn]

Plus, the attorneys on SCO's side are essentially working on contingency, so driving up legal costs is a non-starter.

Hope their pockets are deep & wide.

[Bush2000]

Please tell me......why do you spend so much time and energy defending MicroSoft and SCO? You almost invariably pop up very soon after either is the subject of any post.

I'm not defending SCO or Microsoft. Read the thread. I'm waiting until trial to decide, based on the evidence.

[Bush2000]

Hope their pockets are deep & wide.

This won't come cheap for IBM, either. Motions and depositions and discovery are notoriously expensive propositions.

[jimtorr]

I've already read this thread, and dozens more. Why do you find it necessary to stifle complaints about MicroSoft and SCO whenever they appear?

This is not a courtroom where the rules of evidence apply. Opinions and commentary on public information are welcome on FreeRepublic.

I'll grant you, waiting for evidence is a welcome change from your usual staunch defense posture.

[Bush2000]

Why do you find it necessary to stifle complaints about MicroSoft and SCO whenever they appear?

Who's stifling complaints? People are free to speak their minds here -- and do.

[Glenn]

Plus, the attorneys on SCO's side are essentially working on contingency, so driving up legal costs is a non-starter.

$9 million in legal fees reported by SCO for IP defense costs in the latest financial statement tipped them into the loss column. Some contingency.

[FreedomPoster]

I find Google less useful of late, due to the large number of ad-support high-level hits. Not the "shaded" ones, the first five or six, or more, after that.

I really need to see if anyone else is halfway as good.