Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 07:02 UTC, submitted by SEJeff
SCO, Caldera, Unixware On April 29, SCO will finally have its day in court, but not exactly in the way the Unix and Linux litigation company had planned. If things had gone the way SCO wanted, it would be facing IBM to see how much money it would get for IBM using Unix code in Linux. Instead of that fantasy coming true, SCO will be trying to hang on to what's left of its assets from Novell.
Thread beginning with comment 297335
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Faulty business model
by yahya on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 08:23 UTC in reply to "Faulty business model"
yahya
Member since:
2007-03-29

I'm really happy to see one patent troll get what they all deserve.


However, the whole SCO story is not about patents but about copyright. Their claim was that Linux included original Unix code. They did not claim that any of their patents (if they have any) had been violated.

Edited 2008-01-23 08:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Faulty business model
by SReilly on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 11:37 in reply to "RE: Faulty business model"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

You and Butters are right of course and I guess I expressed myself inadequately.

What I was getting at, and didn't explain properly, is how much SCO's tactics resemble those of a patent troll's.

I know I've made the same comparison in other posts of mine, but come to think about it those posts could have been quite some time ago. My bad!

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Faulty business model
by sbergman27 on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 14:32 in reply to "RE[2]: Faulty business model"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

What I was getting at, and didn't explain properly, is how much SCO's tactics resemble those of a patent troll's.


I knew what you meant, but also knew, as soon as I read it that people would be lining up to point out the difference.

But as you say, the tactic is the same; Only the weapon is different. SCO had a particularly poor patent portfolio, and patents were not an option. So they had to work with what they had... or more correctly, what they could *claim* they had with anything at all approaching credibility.

Again, same intent, different weapon. If copyrights are an exacto-knife, patents are a hatchet.

Edited 2008-01-23 14:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Faulty business model
by kaiwai on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 14:26 in reply to "RE: Faulty business model"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, if you have a look at the IBM case, and their (SCO's) public statements, they said they would also go out and demand payments for patented stuff they owned. They even went as so far to claim that they owned the C programming language - and all companies had to pay them for the privilege.

Basically its just one big fascicle round-about where by a company who can't get its business act together tries litigation instead of improving their product line-up. But I'm not surprised. This is Caldera after all - anyone remember the anti-GPL rhetoric, claiming that it was destroying software - or more like the fact that Caldera was unprofitable for years and Red Hat was charging ahead. Caldera then turned around and failed to take advantages when it was given to them - where was their relationships with companies when it came to their OpenLinux server product?

Quite frankly, SCO would have survived had it never been bought out by Caldera - Had SCO remained a stand alone company, re-organised themselves, and priced their server line up competitive with Windows and Linux over 9 years ago, they wouldn't be in the stick they are now. For those who don't know, SCO back then was Santa Cruz Operations, they were bought out by Caldera who hoped to leverage the UNIX assets and bring that to their Linux product line. They failed to properly commercialise their Linux product line, so they grabbed onto any possible thing that might allow them to survive a little longer - ranging from open source bashing to suing companies based off unprovable claims.

Edited 2008-01-23 14:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3