Subject: Re: the source, so to speak, of the SCO lawsuit
From: "Federico Lucifredi" <flucifredi@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 15:14:10 -0400

Err,
    Sorry to poke at a sore spot, but after MS handsomely contributed to
both candidates' campaigns in the last presidentials, *amazingly* the DOJ
has decided to let Microsoft off the antitrust hook - I do not see the DOJ
going down that road again.

Besides they are all too busy tryng to figure out what carpet Saddam is
hiding under these days....

    -F

----- Original Message -----
From: <tony@egovos.org>
To: <flucifredi@acm.org>
Cc: <sethg@ropine.com>; <fsb@crynwr.com>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 15:00
Subject: Re: the source, so to speak, of the SCO lawsuit


> This cries out to be investigated by the FTC/DoJ and EC. They should open
> up shop inside Microsoft like they did with IBM and look over every
> transaction. The onus should be on Microsoft to show them that there is no
> ulterior motive behind any of their transactions. It is far too easy for
> them to use their money to do sham transactions with willing companies to
> do indirectly what they are prohibited from doing directly.
>
> The FTC/DoJ should immediately investigate the terms of the arrangement
> with SCO and see if the licensing fees bear any reasonable relationship to
> how much UNIX product Microsoft ships. If the fees are as significant as
> they would need to be for Microsoft to bankroll the fight against IBM, it
> is a prima facie case that the transaction is a sham and it should be
> treated as though Microsoft itself is conducting the case, with the
> antitrust implications that has.
>
> I would be surprised if the Microsoft lawyers would leave such an audit
> trail behind, since I have seen them be much more nuanced than that. It is
> more likely that they are giving SCO moral support for the case with a
> small fee reasonably tied to their UNIX products to show that intellectual
> property rights are important, so as to help establish their [false] claim
> that Open Source ignores IPRs. This will be the basis for a major FUD
> campaign to governments and big business. But I've seen Microsoft getting
> more and more desperate and that can cause dumb gambles.
>
> Nonetheless the transaction deserves scrutiny by the regulators to see on
> which side of the line this transaction falls.
>
> Tony Stanco
> Founding Director
> The Center of Open Source & Government
> http://www.eGovOS.org
> tony@egovos.org
>
> Associate Director
> Open Source and eGovernment
> Cyber Security Policy and Research Institute
> George Washington University
> [NSA Center of Excellence in Information Assurance]
> 2033 K Street, NW, Suite 340
> Washington, DC 20006
> tel        202-994-5513
> fax       202-994-5505
> http://www.cpi.seas.gwu.edu
> Stanco@gwu.edu
>
>
> > Hm - Even with my own "issues" about MS, I find that a little excessive.
> >
> > After all, if you look at SCO's (minute) revenues, a very large chunk of
> > that is prurely licensing the original UNIX code (which speaks volumes
> > about their own producs).
> >
> > I will stick with the buyout strategy interpretation. Of course, once MS
> > sees that it can make a point out of licensing and GPL, tossing some
> > cash in the direction of the Linux problem is no big deal. But remember,
> > M$ used plenty of BSD code for its licensing stacks and builds a few
> > interoperability modules.
> >
> > They do not need a license, but they will gladly buy one if that makes
> > the point that all Linux distro assemblers should as well.
> >
> > -F
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Seth Gordon" <sethg@ropine.com>
> > To: <sethg@ropine.com>
> > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 13:07
> > Subject: the source, so to speak, of the SCO lawsuit
> >
> >
> >> Ah, I see it now.
> >>
> >> MS attorney: We'd like you to sue IBM on the grounds that Linux is
> >> violating your intellectual property in Unix.
> >>
> >> SCO attorney: What?  That's crazy!  We have no proof that they've
> >> violated anything, and we can't afford to drag them through the courts
> >> for a case we're certain to lose!
> >>
> >> MS attorney: We'd like you to sue IBM on the grounds that Linux is
> >> violating your intellectual property in Unix, make as much noise about
> >> this lawsuit as possible to the people who purchase Linux
> >> distributions, and drag out the case and the associated negative
> >> publicity about Linux for as long as possible.  We are prepared to buy
> >> a Unix license from you at a price which will more than adequately
> >> compensate your department for these efforts.
> >>
> >> SCO attorney: Let me talk to my CEO and get back to you on that....
> >>
> >> --
> >> "Ernie and Bert are not gay.  They're puppets.  They don't even have
> >> legs."
> >>   --The Children's Television Workshop
> >> // seth gordon // sethg@ropine.com // http://ropine.com/sethg/cv.html
> >> //
>
>
>
>