Talk:SCO Group/Archives/2014

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Send me a bill

hey SCO im linux user. send me a bill and im gonna crack yours things like i do with W$ linux is a culture not a copyright your not gonna be eable to take control —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.144.50 (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate links

Note for other contributors to this page. I've removed many duplicate links. For example: intellectual property and IBM were linked several times, which is superfluous. Wikipedia suggests that once a term is defined by a link it can be used in the remaining text without further links.

Niels Leenheer


Level of detail

I think this page contain way too many detailed information about the Linux wars and that some of this information is not compliant with the NPOV of Wikipedia. Ideally, I think we should limit the information on this page to only NPOV information about the company itself and their products. A very small section about the Linux wars should give people more than enough information about this controversial issue. A separate page called 'SCO vs. Linux', which is of course linked from this page, could then be used to give more detailed information which in its turn links to the pages for each separate lawsuit.

If nobody objects I'll go ahead and create such a separate page.

Niels Leenheer

Don't be redundant with SCO v. IBM. Though that page is a mess. Much of the info here should be there. You should probably organise that page in some sensible format then move the stuff from here there as background - David Gerard 23:40, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Have at it. Was thinking the same thing myself. I do intend to flesh this subject out in some detail.

More on the page change, 'SCO v. Linux' uses the format of a files court case. The meaning here is to the overall controversy. It should be changed to something like "SCO verses Linux" or the "SCO Linux War", but not the case name format. Comments?

An article on Trillian Project and Project Monterey could be a good addition for this company's article. They could be under a title "see also" [1]

I couldn't find any information about the P2P program similar to iTunes. Maybe someone meant SCO Marketplace? I'll modify that part, revert if you don't like it. Jannex 19:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean SCO Marketplace. However, they seem to have removed all reference to that program from their site. That's a pity; it would've been cool. Almafeta 22:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the article? I'm seeing "Warning: strpos(): Empty delimiter. in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/Parser.php on line 1065" repeated over and over again.

On the suggestion that the "Linux Wars" material be largely moved to another article, an attempt to "limit the information on this page to only NPOV information about the company itself and their products" would itself be to ignore the information which most readers would find relevant. I'd suggest not moving the litigation-related material out of the article. I do understand that this material would probably be difficult for most Wikipedia contributors to handle in an admirably NPOV way; however, regardless of one's stand on the various aspects of the litigation, it is some of the most relevant material about SCO, aside from historical matter predating the litigation. Keeping my views to myself, the article could be NPOV'd, even on this topic, without cutting its vitals. Where POV assertions would be truly relevant and necessary, these could be explained as assertions of interested parties, and as explanations to the uninitiated as to why these issues bring out so much adrenaline according to the parties' views. Upshot: I suggest leaving detailed reportage of the litigation in, as it's the most relevant contemporary material on SCO... but "POV" it where necessary. (...I can't beleive I typed that... I generally hate pretending nouns and adjectives are verbs...) Xenophon777 23:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is too anti-SCO

The SCO Group is not entirely to blame for this and that is what's being done here.

First, the Davidson paper is mentioned here, although various examples of SCO code in linux aren't.

Second, the anti-intellectual property idea is heavily in this page, and it seems to support Linux a lot more and is not neutral.

Third, they claim that this suit was to bloat thier share value. That's the biggest piece of bullshit (sorry for being overpassionate, but I sometimes have to; I don't mean in any way to insult the authors) I've ever heard. People value their property. What would they do if there was GPL code speculated to be found in Windows which contains Microsoft proprietary extensions to which they refuse to release (I doubt this will happen, but still); I bet everyone here would be blasting windows. The same way, SCO sees that their code is being abused and I see nothing wrong with that claim unless evidence proves otherwise. Note: I personally am not a fan of SCO, and definitely not their argument because it seems totally unbelievable and fictitious that all the code from 2.2 to 2.4 (900000+ lines had come from sco). Linux is actively developed, and even if sco code was taken, I would say that it would have been no more than maybe 1500 lines, an unarguably small amount unsigned post by 24.60.161.0

  • Sign your name when you're trolling, k? Anyway, you've clearly written this in the last couple of weeks, when it's become clearly evident that SCO has never shown any significant evidence of copyright infringement in Linux, and in fact it's clear as mud exactly what SCO is asserting in the first place. Is it a copyright dispute or a contract dispute? Apparently not even SCO is clear on that point. It is a little over the top to assert solely that it's a pump-and-dump scheme -- just as many people are convinced that it was either a hardball tactic to get bought out by IBM or a Microsoft sock puppet maneuver. But the conventional wisdom is that SCO would have to have coughed up some positive proof by now if there was any truth to their assertion. Haikupoet 04:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, 24.60.161.0, I've removed the third issue. I agree that it was POV and didn't even belong in the "News" section anyways. Can you point to any specific part of the article that shows the anti-intellectual property bias you perceive? Can you give an example of SCO code in Linux that we have neglected? If not, then the POV tag should go. S.N. Hillbrand 12:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Hillbrand, often when someone removes something because it is POV and says "see talk" there is an argument on the talk page justifying their action. The anon's third point "bullshit" comment above does not count. Could you explain why noting the timing of McBride becoming CEO and the start of litigation is POV rather than just a fact? The sentence having to do with stock scam charges should be reworded as an allegation, plus we should include all evidence, as there is a plethora of it available on the internet. zen master T 12:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
It was pure speculation as to why the suit was filed, that was the argument. If there are credible claims that this was a pump-and-dump, then we should be able to give references to those claims, rather than stating as fact (in other words, I agree with you). But I didn't think that McBride becoming CEO was "News" because it was 3 years older than the other items. Calling the section "Timeline" doesn't help the article as it overlaps with "History" and is really just a timeline of the Linux lawsuits. Are we trying to accuse McBride of something? S.N. Hillbrand 13:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Regards the "sealed" adjective, I removed it because 1)it seems that Groklaw received it after it was unsealed. 2) It wasn't entirely clear in the article that sealed was meant in the legal context and 3)it didn't seem to add valuable information. S.N. Hillbrand 13:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes the timeline should have more info, and perhaps we should merge history info into it, and it might more accurately be described as the "Timeline of important events" or something like that. The info about McBride's apparent contradiction (and allegations there of) are a good starting point for the timeline going forward I suppose. All the various SCO vs Linux/IBM related articles are somewhat lacking in my opinion, perhaps it's time for a major clean up/reorganization/expansion, especially in regards to recent information.
I don't understand the creator of this section's allegation that this article is written with some sort of "anti intellectual property bias", could they explain? Also, there are no examples of "SCO code" illegitimately in Linux that haven't been debunked by experts I believe, certainly nothing acceptable to the court so far. zen master T 18:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm removing the POV tag, since the person who put it there has (IMO) failed to support his decision. Perhaps there should be more information on SCO and less on the Linux wars, but what's there doesn't seem POV in any way that I can see.
"credible claims that this was a pump-and-dump" ... Check darl's SCO Forum 2003 presentation. I could not find a canonical reference, they are spread around several mirrors, but I could not find an original source on Google. McBride CLEARLY states one of his primary goals was bolstering stock price. There was even a page where the stock price is prominently touted. During the presentation, NO other financials were discussed - no sales numbers, no gross margin analysis, no P/E predictions. Also, a hint might be to take a peek at his bonus incentives.


Darl McBride on shareholder value [1]:

Most of the points here seem to be pretty old, and I'd say they were resolved, yet, a POV-Check tag was added on May 5th with no explanation. I don't see a real bias in the section, so I've removed it. Obtuseness 17:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bias in History

"Not having any grounds to sue Linux final customers, and trying to persuade some of them to purchase such a license, they sued two of their own customers (Autozone and Daimler-Chrysler) for licensing problems and tried to make it pass as if the lawsuit were related to the fact of them being linux users."

This sounds completely bias to me, but I don't see any other way to word it. 68.45.94.93 15:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree, I'm going to try to reword it now. Copysan 09:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Article need date

Currently the article looks more like an essay than a wikipedia article. In a controversial move, the SCO Group sued two former customers (Autozone and Daimler-Chrysler). Please add the date here. It is probably given in some of the links or somewhere but it is needed here.--Anupam Srivastava 13:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputed issue stated as fact

"Daimler-Chrysler, when faced with such a request, did not respond."

Wasn't D-C never actually *faced* with that request? I seem to remember D-C's lawyers saying it was sent to the wrong address. StringCheesian 08:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


I recall something similar - SCO sent the request to the wrong address, and overall left DC with very little time to certify and respond (even if it had been mailed to the correct address). So I don't think this is a completely fair statement that DC was "faced with a request" and "did not respond"... it might be a little more balanced to state DC's standpoint that they never properly received the request.

HIstory section inaccurate

The history section is inaccurate and not detailed enough. For example: "Caldera Systems, based in Utah, was founded in 1994 by Ransom Love". In 1994 he was VP of marketing, while he left the Novell with Bryan Sparks he doesn't become CEO until '99. If you look at the article on Caldera OpenLinux you get a much more detailed history and who founded it and when become much more complex.

Yarro case

Stumbled upon subject article while doing routine maintenance - suggested there that it merged into this one and/or repaired. It was put up by a relatively new user; I have nil subject matter expertise - could someone here have a looksee please, thanks. Bridesmill 02:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As I recommended in Talk:Yarro case, I think that the article would be best merged into Canopy Group, not here. --Jannex 07:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Weird"

Several times throughout the article, it uses "weird", such as "under weird circumstances". I don't know if weird is properly encyclopedic (if that's even a word :D), and who knows, there might be folks who find it not so weird. How about "Unusual" instead? 168.159.213.36 19:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That is disturbing and does not belong anywhere near something purporting to be an encyclopedia. All the "weird" stuff was unsubstantiated innuendo, and I took it out. Haakon 20:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


"SCO's plethora of public statements..."

I checked out the note after the quote mid way down. It opens a PDF that isn't text searchable, but I couldn't find the referenced quote in the article. I didn't want to take it out but I though someone else might verify and then do so. Alexa411 11:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's on page 10, right under 4. Discussion. By the way, paper has been flying in SCOX vs IBM, go to Groklaw to get a better idea. MER-C 12:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"The Linux Wars"

Not a very neutral-sounding section heading, maybe change it to "disputes with Linux vendors" or similar?

Nickname

Is SCO's famous nickname in the opposing camp not worth mentioning? ("Smoking crack operation") Yeah, I know it's a bit childish, but I do really wonder (: --abach 18:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual property

Using the term "intellectual property" is very uninformative and misleading. According to wikipedia article the term "intellectual property" includes "copyright; patent; trademark; industrial design right; trade secret;". Therefore from reading this article one might conclude that Linux allegedly violates SCO's patens, or that Linux uses SCO's trademarks.

However, SCO do not have UNIX related patents and Linux does not use any SCO-related trademarks. SCO do not claim that Linux infringes on their patents and trademarks. What SCO seem to claim is that "truckloads" of source code, for which SCO have copyright, had been copied into Linux.

So, if you insist on using this ambiguous term but want to be factually correct (do you?) you should at least say: "intellectual property excluding patents, trademarks and trade secrets".

Again citing from this very article,


there is no reference to some unidentified "intellectual property" in language of the Judge.

Nevertheless all their press releases... SCOX claimed their precious IP was violated. We should state what SCOX claimed and what really happened in court then. --Kebron 16:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

++++

Right, but I guess we should not simply repeat "SCO's plethora of public statements" in a wikipedia article, should we? Here is what SCO claimed in their complaint against IBM (please notice the absence of the term "intellectual property"):


++++

The problem here is that SCOX(E) can't decide whether the case was about copyrights or trade secrets. The original suit was about trade secrets - the original complaint only uses the term "copyright" once - but now it's about UNIX copyrights, which SCOX(E) doesn't own anyway. MER-C 09:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Sco logo big.gif

File:Sco logo big.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Charts should be removed

The information in these graphs does not come from a reliable source. I think they should be removed from the article and possibly deleted. Cool Hand Luke 22:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, the revenue chart says that the range is 20,000 to 45,000 MM in revenue. That's $20 - $45 billion! Yeah right. 76.17.1.177 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I say leave them where they are. They look like they've been created by a kid in high school. I don't know where the charts came from (no references that I could see), but I would assume they come from SCO (maybe in their annual report). If SCO is happy to portray high school competence in producing financial charts then I'm certainly happy to let them. Cheers. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft and Sun

From the ruling:

SCO breached its fiduciary duties to Novell by failing to account for and remit the appropriate SVRX Royalty payments to Novell for the SVRX portions of the 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements

The court, however, is precluded from granting a constructive trust with respect to the payments SCO received under the 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements because there is a question of fact as to the appropriate amount of SVRX Royalties SCO owes to Novell based on the portion of SVRX products contained in each agreement.

Nowhere the judge said that all the money SCO got from Microsoft and Sun should go to Novell.

Usage of current event template

As I understand it, the current event template is only for articles which are "subject to rapid change". Much as I would like events with SCO to move faster, it seems very unlikely there will be any need to rapidly change this article any time soon. I will therefore remove the template again unless someone explains why it should remain. --MediaMangler 11:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong notion of "subject to rapid change". Articles on current events are subject to change that is rapid in comparison to articles about past events. That doesn't mean that there has to be a new development every day. The actual criterion is: "The template should be removed from the article when the event described is no longer featured in the news headlines." SCO continues to be in the news. A chapter 7 reorganization does not bring the company or the lawsuits to an end. The bankruptcy court has yet to decide whether SCO will be allowed to reorganize. It may be denied bankruptcy, or it may be forced into Chapter 11. There are ongoing revelations as to the creditors and who wants to be part of the bankruptcy proceedings. There is fighting going on over the staying of the lawsuits. This is still a current event.Bill 02:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

new info

Moved from article:

http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000095013407026193/v36780e8vk.htm

dec 21/07 go nuts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.187.214 (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Caldera vs. Microsoft

The information about the Caldera v. Microsoft lawsuit and settlement needs to be expanded (or maybe a new article should be created?). Here are some resources that can be used:

Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

York

The article needs info on the aborted York deal. Superm401 - Talk 13:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added this, and cleaned up the SNCP proposal. Superm401 - Talk 20:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline is completely missing 2003 and 2004. Superm401 - Talk 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I'm not a native English speaker and even though I'm quite familiar to SCO, their products, the history and the controversy, I haven't heard it pronounced. Is i [ess see oh], [skow] (as in "show") or something else? I think this is important for this article as I would look for such cues before I spoke about issues concerning SCO with a native speaker. Don't want to look like an ass :) -- Henriok (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard "The SCO Group" pronounced any other way than "The Skow (as in Show) Group". However, the company they acquired, The Santa Cruz Operation, also called SCO was more often than not referred to as "Ess See Oh". This pronunciation was by no means universal with the Santa Cruz Operation frequently referred to in both ways. The products of SCO are more generally referred to with the SCO being pronounced "Skow" as in "Skow Unix" or "Skow OpenServer". I'm sure that clears things up perfectly. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

next bankruptcy hearing today?

http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101129213209654

"The next hearing is currently scheduled for January 18, 2011 at 10:00 a.m." That'd be today. Or has it been rescheduled once again? -- MiG (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Archive Explorer newest stuff implies there was an opportunity for an auction on 2011-01-14, and there will be a hearing about how it went on 2011-02-16. "SCO wants to try to sell its business assets at another auction January 14th" (posted 2011-01-06) questions whether this might just be a way to delay oral arguments in the January 20 hearing in the Novell case or defaulting on a major loan. --Closeapple (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename?

Now that The SCO Group has changed their name, should this article be moved? (With reasonable redirects retained, of course.) Xtifr tälk 16:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Too POV?

Would it be too POV to more concisely state that SCO's claims were never substantiated in any real way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.128.194 (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft owns shares of SCO?

I hear that Microsoft owns quite a few SCO shares (15%??). Is that true? Can someone please check the annual report. THANKS.

Microsoft bought 16% of SCO (this would be Santa Cruz; Caldera's mutation into The SCO Group (SCOX) would not occur until much later) in 1989. I'd hate to see this factoid twisted to make it seem like Microsoft is supporting SCO's action against Linux. When you consider what it was like for Microsoft in the 80's, it makes sense they'd invest in a Unix company. Microsoft even licensed Unix from AT&T in 1980 to make Xenix. More info: [2]
--cprompt 22:02, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This is a fact, not a factoid, assuming the article you linked to was properly researched. Microsoft later sold the stock, but SCO has admitted[3] that when it started attacking Linux it received at least $50-100M from MS. --Townmouse 20:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
While Microsoft has not owned stock in SCO since January 2000, SCO received a very timely windfall courtesy of Microsoft soon after the lawsuit started. This came in the form of SCO's most lucrative licensing fee ever of $16.6 million payed by Microsoft. And another through a Microsoft introduction to BayStar_Capital which injected $50 million into SCO. Darl McBride made the significance of this funding clear saying: "A year ago we had $6 million. Now we have $60 million, with $50 million of that coming in through the investment. We have a war chest to defend our rights, to fight our claims in the courtroom," [4] [5]. Also a leaked email from MS to SCO suggests that the connection between the 2 companies might not be as innocent as they claim [6] spoonman
The first response is the correct one. A $16.6 Million licensing fee paid by Microsoft is the only connection substantiated between Microsoft and the SCO Group (as opposed to the original Santa Cruz Operation). The Microsoft licensing deal accounted for 21%[7] of The SCO Group's revenues for FY 2003. Another 12%[8] ($9.5 Million) came from licensing to Sun Microsystems, the same company that supported OpenOffice all those years. The SCO Group never received "at least $50-100M from Microsoft" and there was never a leaked email from Microsoft to SCO Group. There was a leaked email from a consultant to SCO Group, not involved in the SCO Group's deal with Baystar Capital, that erroneously speculated on a Microsoft role in the BayStar Capital deal.[3] But conspiracy theorists aren't going to let inconvenient facts get in their way.
Sadly, SCO Group's IP trolling is not atypical, as the actions of Research In Motion against other smartphone companies and Apple against Android over the past decade have shown. The difference is that the SCO Group's actions against LINUX became a cause celebre because of the political popularity of the target.

75.111.20.66 (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

And the "SCO at Caldera" link is broken (404 page not found). MJanich

  1. ^ [9]
  2. ^ The SCO Group, Inc. vs. International Business Machines, Inc. case number 2:03cv0294 United States District Court for the District of Utah doc #398 [10]
  3. ^ http://www.informationweek.com/sco-refutes-allegation-that-microsoft-is-footing-suit-costs/d/d-id/1023609?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SCO_Group/Archives/2014&oldid=815648440"