http://www.linuxworld.com/story/38045.htm

'A source claiming to be in the know says that the SCO Group is going
to sue Google for not paying its Linux taxes.

Last week SCO threatened to make an example of a big-time Linux user
that hadn't paid SCO the license fees it's demanding and take it to
court for copyright infringement.

SCO has not disclosed the identity of its mark and SCO CEO Darl
McBride claimed Tuesday that a decision on what company to target
wasn't final yet. He said SCO and its lawyers were working with "a
short list" of "seven or eight" names.

McBride declined to say whether Google's name was on it, but another
knowledgeable source said it was.

SCO said last week that it would sue within 90 days. The Linux
community thinks SCO's bluffing and won't make its self-imposed
February 17 deadline. McBride said he'd like to play that number in
Vegas.

The idea behind the suit is obviously to make all major Linux users
tractable and make them reach for their checkbooks.

If it turns out to be Google, it's a provocative choice.

It's a household name.

It's said to have a Linux server farm of some 10,000 of servers,
worth, oh, $7 million to SCO as long as SCO's current cut-rate license
fees maintain.

It's reportedly putting together a positively glorious IPO that could
supposedly be worth $15 billion-$25 billion, a feat unmatched in the
last two decades despite Tulipmania.

And Microsoft, which has been accused of conniving with SCO in its
march against Linux, is slated to enter the search market and compete
against Google. The widgetry, which is supposed to retrieve all kinds
of file types, both structured and unstructured, and all kinds of
storage systems, beginning with the user's own drive, will be
integrated into its operating systems like the anticipated Longhorn.

Meanwhile, industry wags are saying that God invented SCO to give
people a company to hate more than Microsoft.'

Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Roy Culley mumbled this incantation:

Sounds like Microsoft is a spurned lover, so it sent its bully boy after
Google <grin>.

I guess SCO thinks that repeating the same strategy over and over will
work in swaying timorous accountants to sign up for some licenses, and
then the whole thing will snowball.

Unless SCO can come up with some more stock and revenue for their
showman lawyers, this snowball will be a snowball in hell.

--
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!

Jim Fairchild wrote:

SCO is m$ ass-boy.

Attack the attacker.

Jim Fairchild threw some tea leaves on the floor
and this is what they wrote:

I think that your expressing what we all feel Jim

However I think that when IBM finishes with SCO, there will be just a red
spot on the ground where SCO had been.


--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2
New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/
** Linux Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **

Jim Fairchild <JimFairchild@Apelt.org> wrote in
news:3I9xb.20843$Rk5.3541@newsread1.news.atl.earth link.net:

Just be very careful when approaching with that cork, you never know
when the next wave of vile shit will spew from the SCO-Hole.
<shudders at the imagery>

Jim Fairchild <JimFairchild@Apelt.org> wrote:


It's harder than you think to get one of these going, and
expensive too. You have to be able to show similar injuries to
all the plaintiffs, and being annoyed by their action isn't
enough.

Tsu Dho Nimh

--
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
your kid and run for your life.

Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Roy Culley mumbled this incantation:

http://www.computerworld.com/governm...,87413,00.html
Who Will SCO Sue?

Things aren't going well for The SCO Group these days. Business is down.
Those Unix licenses SCO is trying to sell to Linux users just aren't
moving. SCO's lawsuit against IBM is running into trouble. So is SCO's
defense in the lawsuit Red Hat has filed against it. In and out of the
courtroom, SCO is getting beaten up on every side.

...

Which means we know just who SCO is likely to sue.

We know it will be one of the 1,500 companies that got that nastygram
from SCO in May.

We know it will be a company that does business in Utah, since SCO plans
to file suit there. We know it will be a company that hasn't upgraded to
the most recent versions of Linux, since SCO specifically claims that
Linux 2.4 is chock-full of stolen code.

Mainly, though, we know it will be a company in financial or legal
trouble already. One that can ill afford a lawsuit just now. One that
SCO's lawyers believe will fold instead of fight.

Because with SCO already getting beaten up on every side, the last thing
the company wants is a real fight. So when SCO picks on a corporate
user, it will go after the lamest 98-pound weakling it can find.

======================

My question is, is this Novell? I wouldn't think that Novell would fold
at this juncture.

--
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!

Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Roy Culley mumbled this incantation:

There is room enough in my heart to hate both of them.

--
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:15:40 +0100, Roy Culley wrote:


Google would shit out SCO with pocket cash.

This is even stupider than the SCO VS IBM lawsuit.

On 2003-11-27, Linønut <linønut@bone.com> wrote:


FYI: SCO is claiming ownership of 2.4 AND ABOVE, not just 2.4.

Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, Ed Cogburn mumbled this incantation:

Actually, they are claiming ownership of the full UNIXverse, and
claiming that GNU/Linux is part of that universe.

May SCO rot in hell.

Which reminds me...

--
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!