|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

SCO vs. the Linux world…what's a Linux user to do? (ZDNet)

[Posted August 12, 2003 by corbet]

ZDNet is running a column by lawyer Thomas Carey on SCO's case. "Any plaintiff complaining that it is being injured by wrongful conduct has a duty to mitigate its damages. In order for SCO to assert claims against Linux users, it has to take reasonable steps to lessen the harm that it is suffering. This means giving Linux users the opportunity to remove the infringing code from Linux. SCO's refusal to identify the Linux code in question is hard to defend." This is a good article to show to worried bosses.
to post comments

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 3:01 UTC (Wed) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] (28 responses)

Scox is a canopy company. If you pay scox for a linux license, you are doing business with canopy. Consider:

Canopy just won a $40 million settlement from CA.

Canopy is indirectly suing IBM though scox.

Canopy won a huge settlement with Microsoft: also by using scox (then scox was called caldera).

Top exec at scox, sontag I think, said: "contracts are what you use against people."

Canopy controls about two dozen shell companies. All in the same area of Utah, all owned by Mormons. All the top execs are graduates of BYU, all sit on each others boards of directors, all have long business histories together. All own stock in each other, and trade that stock frantically.

If you do business with Canopy, Canopy will sue you - it's as simple as that. That is the only reason Canopy does business with another company.

Canopy companies don't really produce anything. They try to figure ways to sue other companies, and they do it very well.

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 3:35 UTC (Wed) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] (22 responses)

Darn, you seem to have found the core of the conspiracy: the Mormons. They're all out to
get you, you know. Thank you for pointing this out; I had my suspicions but I really needed
someone like you to cement it for me.

(Get real... A quick glance at just the SCO execs' bios would tell you how many really
graduated from BYU. Some aren't even Mormon. Ditto for lots of execs in lots of other
Canopy companies. In fact, some -- gasp! -- may practice the same religion as YOU!
Yikes, huh?)

It might be just one big coincidence. Or not.

Posted Aug 13, 2003 4:39 UTC (Wed) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link]

From SCO's Executive and Board Biographies

Executive Profiles

Darl McBride – President, CEO
Bachelor of Science, Brigham Young University
Masters, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Robert Bench – Chief Financial Officer
Bachelor of Science in Accounting, Utah State University

Jeff Hunsaker – Senior Vice President, Worldwide Marketing
Bachelors in Business Finance, Utah State University

Sean Wilson – Senior Vice President, Corporate Development
Bachelors in Accounting, Utah State University

Chris Sontag - Senior Vice President and General Manager, SCOsource
Bachelors in Information Management, Brigham Young University

Reg Broughton – Senior Vice President, International Operations
MBA, Pepperdine University

Board of Directors

Ralph J. Yarro III
Bachelor of Arts, Brigham Young University

Edward E. Iacobucci
Bachelor of Science, Georgia Institute of Technology

Darcy Mott
Bachelors in Accounting, Brigham Young University

Thomas P. Raimondi, Jr.
Bachelor of Science in Communications, University of Maryland

Steve Cakebread
Bachelor of Science, University of California at Berkeley
MBA from Indiana University

R. Duff Thompson
Partner with the Salt Lake City law firm of Callister, Duncan & Nebeker
Former Chairman of the Board of the Business Software Alliance

K. Fred Skousen, Ph.D., CPA
Bachelors, Brigham Young University
Masters and Ph.D., University of Illinois

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 10:58 UTC (Wed) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] (20 responses)

Don't you get it? Canopy functions more like a crime syndicate than a legitimate investment group. You don’t see the incestuous relationships of these companies? You don’t see a pattern of producing nothing, and suing everybody? Can’t you see Canopy shifting money and ownership between the companies that Canopy controls?

Did you know that money won in the CA settlement is going to be funneled into scox? What do you make of Canopy/Scox/Vultus deal? Do you know about Angel Investors? Canopy is closely affiliated, if not outright owned by Angel Investors, and Angel Investors is very closely affiliated with the church of LDS.

Insane to think that major players in a religion could be behind a big scam? Do you know how Scientology works?

It may be that everybody at Canopy is not a Mormon, in the same way that everybody in the Mafia is not Italian. Canopy and it’s affiliates are certainly Mormon controlled.

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 14:35 UTC (Wed) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] (1 responses)

I've seen this behavior in other so-called "spiritual" leaders. One of them (who shall remain nameless, and is not a Mormon,) was into the idea that Jews were never killed in the millions in German concentration camps. This guy used to tell people that his family was "more highly evolved" than various ethnic groups near our church. When he wanted his way, he would arrange short-term memberships for his relatives until the voting was over.

Our head bishop eventually kicked him out because he kept harassing us to move the church out of the city, then when we did, he started whining because the new location wasn't right in his little suburb. Also, when the guy started ranting about the Jews, he was asked to shut up and sit down.

I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but this is one of the chief reasons why I'm worried about SCO. This may all be controlled by people who think the rest of us aren't worth anything at all.

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 16:05 UTC (Wed) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]

Oh---forgot something.

Just like with the Linux situation, this fool did cause some serious damage. The original church building was indeed in a run-down neighborhood, but it was due for a rebound, and now they could sell the building for far, far more than they got. They were running the organization on investments, because they didn't have a mortgage any more.

Once they moved, they were in a termite-infested area, they had huge bills because they had to pay more than they had for the building, and they suddenly had a property-tax bill because no one wanted to live in the "parsonage," which was not considered a church building by their new-found "heavily spiritual, church-infested" new suburb (hint: Very near Wheaton, Illinois.)

Also, I can no longer attend because I can't drive (the old church was on a number of public transit routes; the new one is way, way out there.) So, they lost an organist.

I am so down on these "spiritual" people these days that I won't even allow one of them to preside at my memorial service when I go.

I think that once these SCO clowns get through with their baloney, we are all going to have to do some serious repair. I sure hope that by the time that happens, they will all be in jail, where they belong.

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 16:03 UTC (Wed) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] (16 responses)

More conspiracies...

Look, I don't like this lawsuit business any more than you do. I used to work at SCO (that ended last November) and at this point I have few kind words to share about them. Regardless, the stuff you're saying is ridiculous.

First off, there's nothing odd about "incestuous relationships" between companies. I've spent the last 7 years in the Linux industry and the previous 12 years in the civil engineering industry (starting in the Washington, D.C. area and ending in Salt Lake City) and in every case I've seen "incestuous relationships". For civil engineering, it makes perfect sense for folks to move around between the same companies in the same industry. Ditto for tech companies. As for Canopy, if it can help the companies it invests in by trying to get them to work with each other (instead of throwing their business to "outsiders"), they're just being smart about their investments. Think of the "Made in the USA" campaign which keeps money in the USA instead of sending it to other countries. Same thing.

Second, I'm sure that TrollTech, MaxSpeed, Linux Networx, SnapGear, and a slew of other companies would take exception to your insinuation that Canopy companies produce nothing and sue everybody. SCO != all Canopy-related companies. The only other company that I can think of that had a lawsuit going is Center7. You mentioned that CA settled the lawsuit. Do you even know what the lawsuit was about? I do know, but I can't comment on it, nor can I comment on the settlement. I can say that I have not heard or read anything that would indicate what the settlement money is going to be used for, so I find it surprising that you're so sure that it's being funnelled to SCO. It sounds like you're just guessing.

The Canopy/SCO/Vultus deal? I don't know much about it other than SCO seems to have submitted forms to release a ludicrous amount of shares to the public market. If I were a shareholder I'd be pissed, but I'm not so I don't care all that much.

I have not heard of Angel Investors, so I know of no affiliation between their organization and Canopy. Why is this important?

I have no idea how Scientology works. Again, why is this important?

Yes, there are lots of Mormons in Canopy companies. Again, I don't see why this is important. If you're Catholic, your company is run by Catholics, and you mostly do local business with other Catholics, can I implicate the Catholic church if you or your company engages in questionable activity? By your logic, yes. By my logic, no.

Read all the drama that you want into this situation. You're only making yourself more mad. I'm tired of seeing religion brought into the SCO ordeal. If people are doing things that you don't like, that's a people issue, not a church issue.

(Full disclosure: I'm not Mormon. I don't even play one on TV.)

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 17:03 UTC (Wed) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] (3 responses)

The point not that there is something wrong with Mormons. Rather, I am making the point that this is a very close knit bunch.

>>The Canopy/SCO/Vultus deal? I don't know much about it other than SCO seems to have submitted forms to release a ludicrous amount of shares to the public market. If I were a shareholder I'd be pissed, but I'm not so I don't care all that much.<<

Maybe you should care a little just because it's fraud. Scox did not buy Vultus (as scox claimed), they where both Canopy controlled companies, existing in the same building. A building which I think was owned by Canopy. The "purchase" was made with freshly minted shares of scox, which went to Canopy. Also worth noting is that Vultus products are strictly for windows, and scox doesn't do windows. It was a bogus purchase. And the public didn't know until a month after it happend. Canopy is trying to back out of bad purchases, at the expense of an unsuspecting public.

Read up on the scox/vultus deal, you will find reference to angel investors.

This sort of shifting around money and ownership between a few dozen shell companies was very characteric of the Enron scam.

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 17:21 UTC (Wed) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] (2 responses)

You can find closely knit groups of people and companies everywhere (even within the Linux realm). This implies nothing.

As for the SCO/Vultus deal, companies acquire other companies with stock all the time. It's the prefered manner in which companies facilitate mergers and acquisitions and -- much like the "closely knit" argument -- implies nothing improper or out of the ordinary.

And last time I checked, interoperation between Windows and UNIX was still important. Look at Cygwin, Tarentella, Citrix, VMWare, VirtualPC, every Windows-based FTP client and web browser, Putty (SSH for Windows), Microsoft SFU, etc. I am not the least bit surprised that a UNIX company has an interest in Windows interoperation. In fact, considering that most desktops run Windows, I'd be more surprised if a UNIX company was not interested in Windows interoperation.

Sorry, but the Vultus acquisition doesn't sound like fraud to me. The dilution of SCO's shares that helped facilitate the acquisition may suck but that's the only complaint I have about it. (By the way, companies don't "mint" shares; those shares were established when Caldera IPO'd, and only a small percentage were sold to the general public. What SCO did was release more existing-but-privately-held shares for sale.)

And one more time, Canopy companies produce products, have clients, keep people employed, etc. They are not "shell companies". Just because you don't like one of them, that doesn't mean all of them are bad.

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 20:58 UTC (Wed) by nchip (guest, #13292) [Link] (1 responses)

Funny that you mention interoperability.

I couldn't get any of the vultus demos work on any browser installed
on my OS. There is not much of a product in the vultus site..
Everything there could be done easily with struts for example.

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 21:48 UTC (Wed) by erat (guest, #21) [Link]

Well, I never said that Vultus stuff worked...

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 18:45 UTC (Wed) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] (2 responses)

>>I find it surprising that you're so sure that it's being funnelled to SCO. It sounds like you're just guessing.<<

This guy, from the yahoo boards explains the money funneling better than I could:
------------------------------------

Money can flow C7 -> SCO
by: tossoffus 08/12/03 11:52 pm
Msg: 27314 of 27673

The 10Q actually discloses how money can pass from Center7, which just won a judgment from CA, to SCO. Apparently SCO will act as Marketing agent for C7 software and collect sales minus a royalty passed on to C7. As part of the deal, C7 already gave SCO an IOU for half a million dollars, which was not realized last quarter, but will be booked as the money arrives.

<On April 30, 2003, the Company and Center 7, Inc., ("C7") entered into a Marketing and Distribution Master Agreement (the "Marketing Agreement") and an Assignment Agreement. C7 is majority owned by The Canopy Group, Inc. ("Canopy"), who is the Company's principal stockholder. Under the Marketing Agreement, the Company was appointed as a worldwide distributor for C7 products and will co-brand, market and distribute these products. The Company will pay C7 a royalty on all products sold. Under the Assignment Agreement, the Company assigned C7 the copyright applications, trademarks, patents and contracts related to Volution Manager, Volution Authentication, Volution Online and Volution Manager Update Service (collectively, the "Assigned Software"). As consideration for this assignment, C7 issued to the Company a $500,000 non-recourse promissory note, secured by the Assigned Software, due on April 30, 2005 with interest payable at a rate of one percent above the prime rate as reported in the Wall Street Journal.>

<During the time the Company was developing the Assigned Software, it had expensed all amounts for its research and development efforts. As a result, at the time the promissory note was executed, the Company had no recorded basis in the Assigned Software. Because the transfer of the Assigned Software was to a related party in exchange for a promissory note, no gain will be recognized by the Company until payments are received.>

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 20:04 UTC (Wed) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] (1 responses)

What you posted is known in the industry as an "OEM Agreement".

Come on, this is getting silly... Just end it, 'kay?

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 20:11 UTC (Wed) by erat (guest, #21) [Link]

Here I go, replying to my reply.

SCO transfered some of its Volution product IP to Center7, and as part of the deal they entered into an agreement to OEM the products and provide sales and marketing for them. A chunk of the profits from sales that originated from SCO went to Center7.

The first sentence is not typical of an OEM agreement. I was off base there. The rest is pretty standard stuff.

You can get more press releases to scour by looking into the birth of "Volution Technologies, Inc.", a short lived joint venture between SCO and Center7 that ended up being absorbed into Center7. I'm sure SCO's web site has press releases describing this stuff.

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 19:00 UTC (Wed) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] (5 responses)

>>If you're Catholic, your company is run by Catholics, and you mostly do local business with other Catholics, can I implicate the Catholic church if you or your company engages in questionable activity? <<

In the USA, it might be considered religious discrimination.

Besides, it's not as if Catholics are a close-knit secretive group who are so heavily concentrated in a particular area of the USA. Mormons are so concentrated in that area of Utah that they can, and do, affect the local laws, and non-Mormons can legally be considered second-class citizens. How many Canopy company have CEOs that are non-Mormons?

I'm not sure that trolltech qualifies as a canopy company. Canopy only owns 6% of trolltech. But trolltech is on canopy's web-site, and Yarrow is on trolltech's BOD. Trolltech also owns 1.5% of SCOX.

Canopy opperates like a crime syndicate. Lawsuits, extortion, and stock manipulation is their game. Why did Canopy buy dr-dos, other than to sue msft? What did Canopy do with dr-dos after msft settled? Why did canopy buy UNIX, Canopy never did much with UNIX - expect use it to sue IBM, and to try and extort money from Linux users.

Why would scox "buy" vultus - it makes no sense. Do you honestly believe that scox would have wanted vultus is canopy wasn't around?

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 20:01 UTC (Wed) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] (4 responses)

How many Canopy company CEOs are not Mormon? I have no earthly idea, nor do I care.

Why did Canopy buy DR-DOS? Perhaps because it was for sale and they saw a market for it? And what did they do with it after the MS lawsuit was settled? Let's see... Caldera Thin Clients had made quite a bit of money licensing DR-DOS to third parties, and that trend continued when CTC was spun off into Lineo. One could argue that had Lineo not gone on a rampant acquisition spree (nobody can acquire and successfully integrate all those companies in such a short period of time) they'd still be around licensing DR-DOS today.

I believe DeviceLogics (yes, another company that started with the help of some Canopy funding) now owns DR-DOS. They don't appear to be suing anybody over it, either.

Why would SCO buy Vultus? Why not ask SCO: info@sco.com.

Are you familiar with the term "witch hunt", by chance? It's used to describe a situation where someone looks into a situation with the sole intent of finding something bad. "Witch hunts" typically result in something bad being found, but quite often that bad thing is actually a skewed fact or flat out fabrication. I could look into just about anything and twist some part of it into something sinister. I don't bother, though, because I have more important things to worry about.

Keep an eye on SCO, protest when it's time to protest, whatever. Stop dragging everyone and their grandmother into this, though.

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 21:55 UTC (Wed) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] (3 responses)

>>How many Canopy company CEOs are not Mormon? I have no earthly idea, nor do I care. <<

How about all of them? It's not as if they just happen to be Mormon. Canopy group is very closely tied to the LDS. Angel Investors, remember?

Also, isn't there a point when these guy have a little bit too much in common? All Mormon, all went to BYU, all own stock in each other's companies, all live in the same area, all have long business histories together, etc? Can you say with confidence that these companies are acting on their own accord, or are these companies just pieces on a chess board?

>>Why did Canopy buy DR-DOS? Perhaps because it was for sale and they saw a market for it?<<

They used it to sue msft, then they got rid of it. And it wasn't just dr-dos either, this is a pattern for Canopy. They didn't do much with UNIX either, did they? Just use UNIX to extort from Linux users, and to sue IBM, maybe get some fud money from sunw and msft.

>>Why would SCO buy Vultus? Why not ask SCO: info@sco.com<<

Because canopy arranged it? Both companies are controlled by canopy and all the money went to canopy.

>>Are you familiar with the term "witch hunt", by chance?<<

Are you familiar with the term "apologist" how about "arm's length transaction."

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 14, 2003 5:01 UTC (Thu) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] (2 responses)

Again, the religion and the collective alma mater of the CEOs means bupkus to me. I don't
care if they're all Mormon, Jewish, atheist, whatever, or if they went to the very Mormon BYU,
or the barely Mormon University of Utah, or the almost completely agnostic Salt Lake
Community College, Utah Valley State College, or Westminster College, or the College of
Massage Therapy, etc. Folks who live in the same area have things in common. This is not
unusual.

And once again I feel that you are narrowing "Canopy companies" into a small container that
includes only SCO and one or two other companies. There are many companies that have
received Canopy funding, are in Utah, and are not SCO, such as Linux Networx, SnapGear,
MaxSpeed, Fat Pipe, and DeviceLogics, and I have yet to hear you explain how they're part of
the conspiracy. By your own words, all that Canopy companies seem to do is produce
nothing, gather technologies, and sue people. Let's hear how the rest of the companies play
into this theory of yours.

Can I say with confidence that all of the companies you're throwing darts at are acting on
their own accord? No, at least no more than you can say with confidence that they're up to
something. We're in the same boat in that regard, although I may know more about Canopy
funded companies in Utah considering that I've worked for them since 1996 (and will
continue to work for them until the day before I go back to college full time next week). Are
you here in Utah? Or are you assessing this situation from a couple thousand miles away?

As for DR-DOS... Novell sued Microsoft. When Caldera purchased DR-DOS, the lawsuit that
Novell started came with it. Caldera merely finished it.

As for UNIX... Caldera did plenty with it, not the least of which was open up some of the
source code and add a Linux emulation layer to help Unixware customers start their
transition to Linux. What SCO's plan is now with Unixware is anyone's guess. If you think
they've only purchased Unixware so they could sue Linux users, I can only guess you haven't
paid attention to any of Caldera's press over the past few years up until the IBM lawsuit.

As for the Vultus deal... I give up. I can't see a single possible benefit to Canopy resulting
from the Vultus purchase. If you see one, bully for you. I'm tired of thrashing over it.

And if you think I'm an apologist, consider that my entire development team was let go from
SCO last November, and I'm leaving another Canopy funded company (my decision this time)
next week, thus releasing me from any and all ties with anything Canopy has touched. I
have no investments in Canopy companies so stock is not motivating me to speak. I am not
related to any Canopy employees, I am not Mormon, and at this point I have no vested
interest in any Canopy funded company succeeding or failing.

So tell me, what does your conspiracy manual tell you is motivating my responses other
than to refute the FUD you seem to be spreading?

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 14, 2003 5:02 UTC (Thu) by erat (guest, #21) [Link]

Talk about screwing up the formatting of a post... What happened there?

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 14, 2003 14:05 UTC (Thu) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link]

>>As for the Vultus deal... I give up. I can't see a single possible benefit to Canopy resulting from the Vultus purchase.<<

You must not be looking very hard. Canopy was giving 200,000 newly issued shares of scox, which Canopy prompty sold at top dollar.

I think it worked like this. Vultus was in a canopy building, and was way behind on rent. As part of the "purchase" scox had to give canopy a load of shares to compensate canopy for the back rent. At least, that is the best I could make of the story.

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 14, 2003 3:31 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] (2 responses)

Worked for SCO?

Any idea why they were calling people up end of last year into this year, lying that they wanted to ask a few questions about people's feelings about Linux, and wound up grilling them at the end about whether they ought not to pay for IP theft?

I was one of those people, and they claimed they were going to send me money for that abuse. And, BTW, the person at the end of the phone was raising her voice quite a bit by the time she described how I would get my money when the "project" was over with "sometime in the future."

Listen. I'm not a "conspiracy theorist." But something very rotten is going on here, and I want to know what it is. I also want to see the perpetrators pay for it. If that means going deeper than SCO, so be it. If it doesn't, that's fine, too. But either way, I do not care in the least that participating in a volunteer, community project like Linux earned me this kind of abuse.

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 14, 2003 5:04 UTC (Thu) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] (1 responses)

I have no idea about any of that stuff. My team was spun off November 4th and we haven't
worked there since.

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 14, 2003 14:00 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]

There could be all kinds of reasons why people fool around with stock, but I can't think of *any* reanson why people would call me up, lie about what they want, and try to browbeat me into admitting I'm doing wrong (when I'm not,) other than pure evil. It seems to me that those kinds of things belong (if anywhere) in a police station or a court of law, with a lawyer around. Say "maybe pure incompetence" if you want, but incompetent people kill other people with their cars, and *they* are punished for it.

Listen, I was a member of NORML for over 10 years. I *know* there are people, both in the corporate world and in government, who will do *anything* to get their way.

One of them even told a woman he would marry her when he really wanted to find out about her marijuana use (which was quite minimal) and then turner her over to the police. He worked for the FBI. When she asked why he lied to her, he first said he never promised marriage, then later, under pressure from counsel, he said he was just doing his job. This is a *fact.*

I'll say it again: Mormons or no, there are very rich, powerful people who don't want any kind of commons at all, much less Linux, and I believe they will do whatever it takes to stop people. If all that is part of a scheme to fleece people of their hard-earned money or divest them of the results of their labor in other ways, then I won't be surprised. I won't be surprised, either, if ther *is* some kind of coordinated effort involved, and I will *definitely* not be surprised if lying, betrayal, and pure crime are involved.

Not a conspiracy, just a strongly encouraged synergistic partnership.

Posted Aug 13, 2003 18:02 UTC (Wed) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link]

Do you know about Angel Investors?
I don't know about Angle Investors, but a Canopy company web site has this to say about Ralph J. Yarro:
Ralph is the Chairman of the Board for the Canopy Group. He also serves as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Angel Partners, a 501(c)3 support organization for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
From the above, I think this says it all:
Canopy companies are strongly encouraged to work with each in synergistic partnerships.

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 13:54 UTC (Wed) by derby (guest, #2977) [Link] (4 responses)

I don't know about all that mormon stuff. Claiming an organized religon is behind
this due to the fact that a large number of the players belong to that religon is
illogical.

My main worry about the whole canopy connection is the relationship between
canopy and trolltech - the people behind Qt and the foundation of KDE. I sure would
like to hear something from trolltech's management about this whole debacle.
Something along the lines of - 'we are buying back canopy's interest in our company."

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 15:06 UTC (Wed) by timmyjoe2 (guest, #13929) [Link] (1 responses)

My understanding about the Canopy-Trolltech connection is that Canopy write off its
TrollTech invest and is no longer an investor.

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 13, 2003 15:32 UTC (Wed) by derby (guest, #2977) [Link]

Maybe so but Trolltech is still listed on the Canopy site and Canopy is still listed on the Trolltech site. Looks like they're still investors to me.

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 14, 2003 6:28 UTC (Thu) by wperkins (guest, #767) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't know about all that mormon stuff. Claiming an organized religon is behind this due to the fact that a large number of the players belong to that religon is illogical.

I do not know much about Mormons either, except that they are a very close knit group of people, but when people create associations, it is a common practice to pick members for that association that have things in common with the association's organizers. This could be because the the association members are of the same religion, orginally from the same country of origin, or wear the same school tie. This is normal. The real issue is what is the purpose of that association. SCO's purpose appears to be to make money using lawsuits to inflate their stock price, and thereby profit. Eventually, the bottom is bound to fall out for SCO and Canopy. I do not think that most Mormons, or most people in general, would approve at all of SCO's activities if they understood the situation.

Don't do business with a Canopy company

Posted Aug 14, 2003 19:22 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]

I agree with you, and this is precisely why news organizations have lately fallen into disrepute on the part of free-thinkers everywhere. The only thing that counts, to people who "own" media outlets, is that bottom line. If sensationalism and good guy/bad guy portrayals make them more profit than honest journalism, then the quality of reporing (and the competency of the reporters,) cease to be important, as long as the end product is more hits/ratings/ad space.

Example: My grandmother, who was very kind and smart, was also about as "Jane Public" as you could find. Twice, when I visiter her and mentioned my involvement with the Internet. Every time I did that, she told me that the Internet was a place for pornographers, because that's what they were saying on the news.

The lawyers are likcing their lips at this. So are the media, because we can all be portrayed as thieves and pirates.

This is why, as I have said repeatedly, that the supporters of Free and Open Source software need to get all the dirt out in the light for people to see clearly. And I believe there is plenty of it.

SCO vs. the Linux world…what's a Linux user to do? (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 13, 2003 3:47 UTC (Wed) by tkeiser (guest, #2862) [Link]

I think this is probably the most lucid writing I have seen on the subject, and the lawyer - author is obviously technically competent as well (he used to be a programmer).

After reading this, if you still want to buy a SCO license for a server, your shareholders should immediately want to see you fired. The fortune 500 company that supposedly did buy a license should either get rid of their in-house lawyers or outside counsel. Such timid souls shouldn't be allowed to practice law.

TEK

What's a user to do? Stay off Canopy's radar.

Posted Aug 13, 2003 11:14 UTC (Wed) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] (1 responses)

If you don't buy this linux license, there is nothing canopy can do. But, once you start paying an extortionist, it is a certainty that the extortionist is going to come back for more.

Direct quote from SCOX:
"Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with"
http://e-businessadvisor.com/doc/12514

There are many things scox/canopy can do, once they have a contract with you. They can harass you into buying upgrades - at any price they see fit, or harass you into buying other products you don't need. They can constantly threaten to audit you, or sue you, or sue your customers.

If any of that seems far-fetched, then you don't know how canopy opperates.


What's a user to do? Stay off Canopy's radar.

Posted Aug 13, 2003 13:41 UTC (Wed) by dmaxwell (guest, #14010) [Link]

Too right!

Once you pay the danegeld you never get rid of the Dane.

what's a Linux user to do? Class action against SCO?

Posted Aug 13, 2003 14:13 UTC (Wed) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link]

What about a class action against SCO?

Filing Date: 6/13/2003 Form Type: 10-Q

Posted Aug 13, 2003 19:49 UTC (Wed) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] (4 responses)

Maybe slightly off topic, but interesting.
---------------------------------------------
(8) COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

Beginning in July 2001, the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering were named as defendants in a series of class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Actions”) by parties alleging violations of the securities laws. The complaints were subsequently amended and consolidated into a single complaint. The consolidated complaint alleges certain improprieties regarding the circumstances surrounding the underwriters’ conduct during the Company’s initial public offering and the failure to disclose such conduct in the registration statement in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The consolidated complaint also alleges that, whether or not the Company’s officers or directors were aware of the underwriters’ conduct, the Company and those officers and directors have statutory liability under the securities laws for issuing a registration statement in connection with the Company’s initial public offering that failed to disclose that conduct.

http://www.edgar-online.com/bin/cobrand/finSys_main.asp?nad=&formfilename=0001104659-03-012299&x=10&y=12

Filing Date: 6/13/2003 Form Type: 10-Q

Posted Aug 13, 2003 19:53 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (3 responses)

This is the standard IPO sleaze that afflicted almost everybody who went public during this period. I don't think there is much of real interest here...

Filing Date: 6/13/2003 Form Type: 10-Q

Posted Aug 14, 2003 13:44 UTC (Thu) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] (2 responses)

"officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering were named as defendants in a series of class action lawsuits"

That's *standard* you say? Everybody that does an IPO is served with a class action lawsuit?

Filing Date: 6/13/2003 Form Type: 10-Q

Posted Aug 14, 2003 13:46 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (1 responses)

If you look at IPOs that happened during the Bubble Days, especially dotcom IPOs, the answer is yes. There are plenty of lawyers who specialize in stockholder lawsuits, and they smell blood here.

Filing Date: 6/13/2003 Form Type: 10-Q

Posted Aug 14, 2003 19:31 UTC (Thu) by erat (guest, #21) [Link]

Jon's right. Non-savvy investors who bought into dot bombs and lost tons of money in the process have been courted by these modern-day ambulance chasers since the tech bubble burst a number of years ago.

One of the firms that took out a suit against Caldera included a link to their web site in one of their trolls for plaintiffs. I don't recall the exact number of companies they listed on their site as being sued by the firm, but I do know it took a lot of web browser scrolling to get through the one-per-line listing. I'd have to say there were close to 100. That's just one law firm.


Copyright © 2003, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds