Fact and fiction in the Microsoft-SCO relationship

(continued from previous page)

Hasn't the impact been fairly limited, considering that Linux continues to make inroads?
Despite some corporate caution, Linux still has strong momentum.

For one thing, major companies such as Intel still contribute new software to Linux, and development of new Linux versions continues unabated. Few have paid SCO the $699 per single-processor Linux server the company is demanding for a SCO intellectual-property license that wards off litigation.

And Linux hasn't stopped proliferating--indeed, Linux server sales grew 62 percent to $960 million in the fourth quarter of 2003 as Linux spread to higher-end machines, according to IDC. Also, a JupiterMedia survey found that 21 percent of U.S. companies with revenue above $50 million and more than 1,000 employees are using Linux on desktop computers--Microsoft's stronghold.

Isn't Microsoft's involvement in the SCO situation part of a pattern of behavior toward Linux?
It certainly doesn't seem to be just a coincidence. At the same time Microsoft was talking to SCO and winding down its antitrust litigation, it was gradually ratcheting up its response to Linux.

Microsoft initially attacked Linux and some other open-source software as a "cancer," as viral or as "an intellectual-property destroyer"--an effort that backfired. These days, it's using more pragmatic tactics, said Directions on Microsoft analyst Rob Helm.

"They've gone from attacking the open-source business model and development model to trying to co-opt the open-source development model."

--Rob Helm, analyst
Directions on Microsoft

Now, instead of churning out philosophical criticism, Microsoft raises questions about the expense of running Linux systems, via underwritten studies and advertising. As recently as October, CEO Steve Ballmer issued a 2,600-word memo that was almost exclusively devoted to knocking Linux. On another front, Microsoft is now launching its own open-source projects.

"They've gone from attacking the open-source business model and development model to trying to co-opt the open-source development model," Helm said. Microsoft also has countered with lower-priced Windows versions in markets where Linux has made inroads. "Microsoft is getting a handle on Linux," he said.

When considering motive, isn't Linux such a threat to Microsoft that an attempt to kill the OS would be considered self-defense?
It's certainly true that Microsoft emerged largely unscathed from the U.S. government's antitrust case--it wasn't broken in two and it's largely allowed to freely integrate new features into Windows--but it's had more trouble taking on Linux, which presents a different type of challenge compared with traditional rivals such as WordPerfect, for example, or Netscape's Navigator browser.

Linux's open-source foundation has provided a mechanism that has encouraged competitors to cooperate at Microsoft's expense. Linux's mutability let companies adapt it for new uses, expanding Linux's utility in the process. Corporate coders have joined the original band of volunteers working on Linux--but individuals still can make a difference contributing their code or launching their own projects. And today's engaged programmers become tomorrow's corporate computing staff, a lesson Microsoft knows well.

Active Linux support comes not just from overt advocates such as Red Hat, Novell and IBM but also from companies as diverse as Wind River, which makes software for embedded computing gadgets such as nerve gas detectors; Oracle, which sells high-end database software; Motorola, which manufactures cell phones; and Linux Networx, which makes supercomputers.

And internationally, Linux has special appeal because of its adaptability and built-in independence. The world's two most populous nations, China and India, are embracing Linux at the same time that Microsoft is having trouble in the developing world. And according to a November 2003 report by the World Bank, Thailand aims to use Linux for half its government computers.

And what's been the impact on SCO?

[fgoldstein]

Steve S really doesn't get it

Once again, a Steve Shankland article uses the childish bad-journalist definition of "objective" to totally muff a story. An article is not objective if, in reporting a dispute, it give equal credence to both sides, regardless of however imbalanced the evidence is. A good journalist calls a spade a spade. Yet here, Shankland acts as if SCO had a good case, and ends with an old quote from Darl McBride that implies that the case is headed to a jury. That is *extremely* unlikely. None of SCO's cases are that strong -- the countersuits are more likely to get there, with SCO as a defendant.

He also mixes up the AIX/Monterey issue with Linux itself. Most of the SCO suits are around Linux, except when they are losing, and claim that they're about an IBM contract. These are two distinguishable issues. There is a shadow of a case concerning IBM's role in Monterey, if they acted in bad faith in pulling out and recycling the code against what an alleged contract said. That remains to be seen. It's doubtful, but it has nothing to do with Linux.

The Linux issue began with McBride's asssertion that there were "millions of lines" of SCO-owned code in Linux. This falls flat on its kiester for various reasons:

1) There are zero lines of copyrighted Unix System V code in Linux; SCO never produced any, even after repeated discovery requests. (There are some lines in common, of course, but they're not subject to copyright, and mostly originate in standards outside of System V, or older versions.)

2) SCO doesn't own the copyrights in the first place. Novell just last week opened its corporate kit to show that their BOD, in selling its Unixware business to SCO, absolutely meant to retain the copyrights, as the bill of sale says. Novell, not SCO, is the rightful owner, and Novell's now a Linux shop.

3) SCO, formerly called Caldera, distributed Linux under the GPL, and therefore is bound by the terms of the GPL. That prohibits them from enforcing a closed-source copyright claim on that code.

All of those are probably grounds for dismissing all of SCO's claims on Linux. The judges are being methodical, and SCO is a master of dilatory tactics (presumably to give them more time to unload worthless stock on investors, er, speculators fooled by bad coverage). But there is obviously no valid SCO threat to Linux users. Microsoft has profited from the FUD, but it should be called just that, not treated as equally valid as evidentiary reality.

[fgoldstein]

Steve S really doesn't get it

Once again, a Steve Shankland article uses the childish bad-journalist definition of "objective" to totally muff a story. An article is not objective if, in reporting a dispute, it give equal credence to both sides, regardless of however imbalanced the evidence is. A good journalist calls a spade a spade. Yet here, Shankland acts as if SCO had a good case, and ends with an old quote from Darl McBride that implies that the case is headed to a jury. That is *extremely* unlikely. None of SCO's cases are that strong -- the countersuits are more likely to get there, with SCO as a defendant.

He also mixes up the AIX/Monterey issue with Linux itself. Most of the SCO suits are around Linux, except when they are losing, and claim that they're about an IBM contract. These are two distinguishable issues. There is a shadow of a case concerning IBM's role in Monterey, if they acted in bad faith in pulling out and recycling the code against what an alleged contract said. That remains to be seen. It's doubtful, but it has nothing to do with Linux.

The Linux issue began with McBride's asssertion that there were "millions of lines" of SCO-owned code in Linux. This falls flat on its kiester for various reasons:

1) There are zero lines of copyrighted Unix System V code in Linux; SCO never produced any, even after repeated discovery requests. (There are some lines in common, of course, but they're not subject to copyright, and mostly originate in standards outside of System V, or older versions.)

2) SCO doesn't own the copyrights in the first place. Novell just last week opened its corporate kit to show that their BOD, in selling its Unixware business to SCO, absolutely meant to retain the copyrights, as the bill of sale says. Novell, not SCO, is the rightful owner, and Novell's now a Linux shop.

3) SCO, formerly called Caldera, distributed Linux under the GPL, and therefore is bound by the terms of the GPL. That prohibits them from enforcing a closed-source copyright claim on that code.

All of those are probably grounds for dismissing all of SCO's claims on Linux. The judges are being methodical, and SCO is a master of dilatory tactics (presumably to give them more time to unload worthless stock on investors, er, speculators fooled by bad coverage). But there is obviously no valid SCO threat to Linux users. Microsoft has profited from the FUD, but it should be called just that, not treated as equally valid as evidentiary reality.

[Not Bugged]

Hoping for an over-patriotic jury?

So SCO are relying on a jury, and IBM are trying their best to prevent it getting that far.

But what if a Jury did go for SCO? Could a jury be biased towards the locals, or even worse, could the jury become madly patriotic. Linux is a chance for non-Americans to participate equally in the software world. A win for SCO, if non-Americans honour it of course, would be a chance for America to tax one of the largest growing sectors in the industry. Haven't SCO already tried to play this card with their letters to Congress?

I can just imagine SCO hoping for a jury that thinks along the lines of "Gawd Bless America - down with Johnny Foriegner". I just hope that such a thing doesn't happen.

[Not Bugged]

Hoping for an over-patriotic jury?

So SCO are relying on a jury, and IBM are trying their best to prevent it getting that far.

But what if a Jury did go for SCO? Could a jury be biased towards the locals, or even worse, could the jury become madly patriotic. Linux is a chance for non-Americans to participate equally in the software world. A win for SCO, if non-Americans honour it of course, would be a chance for America to tax one of the largest growing sectors in the industry. Haven't SCO already tried to play this card with their letters to Congress?

I can just imagine SCO hoping for a jury that thinks along the lines of "Gawd Bless America - down with Johnny Foriegner". I just hope that such a thing doesn't happen.

Smoking Gun

This report asks some relevant questions, but seems to have missed crucial evidence:

http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html

Smoking Gun

This report asks some relevant questions, but seems to have missed crucial evidence:

http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html

Good ending

MS is backing away from SCO and embracing some form of open source after trying to destroy it.

SCO will end up bankrupt, and hopefully anybody that worked there that had anything to do with this farce will never be empliyed in the IT industry.

If you have to litigate to stay in business, you shouold be out of business.

Good ending

MS is backing away from SCO and embracing some form of open source after trying to destroy it.

SCO will end up bankrupt, and hopefully anybody that worked there that had anything to do with this farce will never be empliyed in the IT industry.

If you have to litigate to stay in business, you shouold be out of business.

[knobsturner]

Paul Allen is a (the?) major investor in Baystar Capital

From the article on wired:

"BayStar Capital is a private equity fund that makes direct
investments in privately held and publicly traded companies.
One of BayStar's largest investors, according to BayStar (PDF), is
Vulcan Capital, the private investment vehicle of Paul Allen. Allen
co-founded Microsoft with Bill Gates, and is the second-largest
Microsoft shareholder after Gates."

So although the Microsoft and Baystar as _companies_ have
nothing to do with each other, Paul Allen is a major share holder
in both companies.

The Baystar connection is just a back door that MS can shove
money through.

This kind of hiding makes me sick. It may be perfectly legal for
Paul Allen to start up a company with his own (all MS derived)
money, and then say that the company has nothing to do with
MS, but the OWNERS are THE SAME people.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/
0,1367,62544,00%20.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

--Tom

Hmmm.

You raise an interesting point. Whether Allen really is this big-time investor is still speculation, though, correct? Although, I wouldn't doubt it.

MS has its ways of sneaking around things and getting where they want to be. Let's hope they don't get their way.

[knobsturner]

Paul Allen is a (the?) major investor in Baystar Capital

From the article on wired:

"BayStar Capital is a private equity fund that makes direct
investments in privately held and publicly traded companies.
One of BayStar's largest investors, according to BayStar (PDF), is
Vulcan Capital, the private investment vehicle of Paul Allen. Allen
co-founded Microsoft with Bill Gates, and is the second-largest
Microsoft shareholder after Gates."

So although the Microsoft and Baystar as _companies_ have
nothing to do with each other, Paul Allen is a major share holder
in both companies.

The Baystar connection is just a back door that MS can shove
money through.

This kind of hiding makes me sick. It may be perfectly legal for
Paul Allen to start up a company with his own (all MS derived)
money, and then say that the company has nothing to do with
MS, but the OWNERS are THE SAME people.

http://www.wired.com/news/business/
0,1367,62544,00%20.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

--Tom

Hmmm.

You raise an interesting point. Whether Allen really is this big-time investor is still speculation, though, correct? Although, I wouldn't doubt it.

MS has its ways of sneaking around things and getting where they want to be. Let's hope they don't get their way.