[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SCO - Why don't we just buy them out and shut them down
On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 09:27, Sean Jewett wrote:
> Yeah, at one point I think it was said SCO told IBM that IBM could buy
> them out and end it all.
Why do you think SCO sued IBM? To get to a quick settlement.
When that didn't happen, then expanded the simple Linux rhetoric in
their original March argument to include actual copyright violations in
their May (and on-ward) argument(s).
> Unfortunately for SCO IBM has deep pockets and an even deeper patent
Which is why IBM _caused_ the "original problem." IBM withheld the
IA-64 port of "Project Monterey" from SCO. IBM did this because it
_knew_ it could outlast SCO _financially_, and it had a _larger_ patent
portfolio in UNIX than SCO.
As much as I _hate_ SCO in this matter (especially starting January**),
IBM is _not_ innocent in this whole ordeal. Yes, SCO had a declining
marketshare, and given Intel's current positioning with IA-64, an IA-64
version of UNIXWare wasn't going to help SCO much -- at least no where
near where they used to be.
[**NOTE: With SCO, I figured the whole "private market would balance
itself out" after SCO lost a few rounds this year and the next. But SCO
"went nuclear" when it decided to involve the government in January,
stating that Linux is "bad, anti-business, anti-IP, etc..." Linux is
the right to assembly and right to community, pure and simple, and it
cannot be outlawed -- as long as IP is respected, and it _is_. ]
But all it would have taken as a few licensees and SCO could have stayed
"head above water" _if_ IBM would have _not_ withheld the IA-64 port of
"Project Monterey" from SCO. Without it, there was no IA-64 version of
UNIXWare. As such, SCO had little future, given that they are getting
killed in the x86 space. Again, IBM is _not_ innocent and _did_ play
"big bully" _first_.
Linux is just the innocent that got "caught in the middle." And now we
have Microsoft taking _full_ advantage of it.
> The worst case scenario is M$ buys SCO.
What difference does that make? Why buy SCO when they are doing what
you want anyway. I mean, assuming MS did buy SCO, how could it "force
its will" on the UNIX licensees any worse than SCO is attempting to?
But even that's at stake. The AT&T licensees (other than maybe Sun)
have been guaranteed rights to their own IP and derrivatives in the
original AT&T license. That's a bombshell that was recently dropped on
> However, at that point it should hopefully trigger some antitrust
I'm not a big fan of _any_ government "regulation," negative _or_
positive for Linux/Freedomware. But yes, Microsoft has now been caught
"red handed" in a lot of matters with SCO. I didn't like the pundits
and the "Microsoft is behind this" at first, but by last fall, even I
had to agree that SCO was destroying themselves and _only_ Microsoft
could benefit. You don't stay atop by not "sticking your hand in
everything." So Holloween X is no surprise at all to me.
The only time I like to see the government do _anything_ with software
is to be a _responsible_consumer_ itself. Just buying "MS by default"
is 90% of the problem we have right now -- especially back when
Microsoft said, "hey, here's Office, it's free with your PC." No such
thing as a free lunch. But the same people who thought so are now
asking the federal government to bail them out. Sorry, but that's the
P.S. SCO's stock price is trading very high, so it's not cheap to buy
them out. IBM had their chance. IMHO, IBM screwed up and Linux is
paying for it. Yes, SCO is _far_more_ to "blame," but IBM was the
"bully" _first_ and then everything fell apart from there. But at leat
IBM is representing the GPL well, and that makes up for it -- a good
"test case" that will _finally_ give the GPL the backing it needs, solid
interpretation of US Copyright Law.
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. -- Engineer, Technologist, School Teacher
To unsubscribe, send email to email@example.com with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.