WLTSIM T-shirts and mugs at
Fifty percent of sales commissions will be split in a joint donation to the Free Software Foundation and Groklaw.
Edward Cahn, bankruptcy trustee:
"The copyright claims are gone, but we still have other claims based on contracts."
[Ah yes, contracts...you know, those things you use against people you have relationships with?]Daniel Lyons, Forbes Flamer:
"Readers on [Slashdot and Groklaw] post responses to stories and share links to other Web sites, which is how rumors and paranoia keep spreading, unchecked." [http://www.forbes.com/ home_europe/ 2003/ 12/ 16/ cx_dl_1216linux.html]
[NOTE: See Tilting at Windmills: A response to Rob Enderle for why this quote is not hyperlinked. For a long time we successfully resisted the urge to put quotes up if the person was not a past or current SCO employee, but we think Mr. Lyons' latest pontification has rightfully earned him his place among such distinguished company.]Ransom Love, ex-Caldera CEO:
"In the future, all Linux applications will have a price tag." June 24 2001
Doug Michels, ex-President and CEO:
"Linux didn't break any new ground. They took the [API's] of Unix and
re-engineered that lightweight kernel that implemented those APIs. Linux is
just a kernel...but it's nice, elegant and small, easy to understand. So now
we've got some punk young kids who've taken and engineered pieces around the
Unix [kernel]."
[...]
"...Linux products are not particularly scalable and don't handle
multiprocessors well."
[...]
"As far as I'm concerned, [Linux providing modules for SCO is] free R&D. A lot
of developers who have always preferred Unix are developing on Linux. The last
thing in the world I want is some cool app and have my customer go, 'Oh, God,
if I only had Linux, I could get that app.'"
April 26 1999
Chris Sontag, senior VP and general manager:
"A number of entities have violated contracts and contributed inappropriate content into Linux." August 19 2003
"Their assertions are incorrect. The source code is absolutely owned by SCO." August 20 2003
"What's at issue is that there is copyrighted Unix System V code, Version 4.1 code, copied into Linux. Whether it is used broadly or not, it is widely published and available. August 26 2003
"The amount of Unix code in Linux could be greater than 25%."
[...]
"That [1,549 lines of allegedly copied code] is just the number identified so far. It will probably end up being a lot higher."
September 2 2003
"I haven't seen anyone in the Linux community racing to remove these million lines of code from Linux yet."
[...]
"SCO has really been left with no other choice but to request that commercial customers of Linux compensate SCO for our intellectual property with a license fee."
[...]
"SCO has not had to invoice commercial Linux users yet for their use of our Unix code. We are satisfied with the level of interest and compensation that we have begun receiving from Linux end users for our IP."
[...]
"We truly expect any commercial user of Linux based on the 2.4 kernel and later to properly compensate SCO for our intellectual property by paying us a license fee."
[...]
"The only thing we are concerned with is protecting our intellectual property."
October 8 2003
"I view this [IBM's subpoenas of BayStar, Renaissance, Deutsche Bank and Yankee] as an attempt to bully and intimidate analysts -- to try to cow them into silence." November 11 2003
"...there are some elements who have an almost religious zealousness about Linux. In some ways, that can be scary for anyone opposing their positions." November 19 2003
"[Novell] are effectively filing inappropriate or incorrect or fraudulent applications with the Copyright Office." December 23 2003
"Unix source code licensees and certain commercial Linux end users...must utilise SCO intellectual property within the bounds of their existing legal agreements and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act." January 5 2004
"There are large Linux users [in the UK] - with very large commercial
usage of Linux for which our IP is being exploited - for whom we have a
great deal of concern."
[...]
"We have had some discussions. With some of those companies they have
not been fruitful. There is a very good chance of taking legal action
against these very soon."
January 14 2004
"I would expect within the next few weeks we will have a number of Linux end users who we will have identified and taken legal action [against. We will probably see that ramping up over time." January 14 2004
"...the argument that [Linux is] freely visible so it makes for pure software - well, maybe over the long term with enough resources that's possible. We will help with the purification process. We're raising all these issues with Linux and identifying our intellectual property in Linux - putting Linux into a refiner's fire."
[...]
"It is unfortunate that end users bear the burden for liability related to Linux. It's because of the GPL."
[...]
"...when you can see all aspects of the code you can see the vulnerabilities that exist in the code."
January 20 2004
"Society and individual rights are what have to be balanced, and that's what happens in the court system everyday." February 4 2004
"The GPL itself supports, in a lot of ways, our positions."
[...]
"If I can get my hands on it, it's mine."
April 1 2004
Blake Stowell, Communications Manager:
"C++ is one of the properties that SCO owns today and we frequently are approached by customers who wish to license C++ from us and we do charge for that." March 4 2003
"Linux could still be used; it just wouldn't be free. These people are upset because they've been enjoying a free ride for some time. They're upset their free ride will potentially be gone." June 21 2003
"I think [IBM is] taking the threat seriously otherwise they wouldn't be informing their salespeople about that. We've had a lot of customers suggest they'd be interested in taking out a licence." July 25 2003
"For the most part, we've managed the communications pretty well over the last
six months."
[...]
"There are some people -- press, open source companies, and opinion leaders,
like Eric Raymond, in the industry who don't know what's going on."
[...]
"Every time the open source community fires back with an issue I have to reply
and that takes up bandwidth on my side. I think it's been a good exchange of
opinions. I think each side understands the other's viewpoint now even if they
don't agree with each other."
[...]
"I haven't been just drinking the SCO Kool Aid."
[Perhaps he meant
this? -ed.]
[...]
"I hope at some point we can find a solution where SCO can be properly
compensated for its IP and the Open Source community can move forward
unhindered in creating great software."
[August 28 2003]
"Just because we aren't 'planning' to sue Linux companies doesn't mean we won't. We tried to avoid suing Red Hat, but they seemed to bring the litigation upon us, not us upon them. Also, just because we are saying that we won't sue Linux companies doesn't mean that we won't sue Linux customers". [August 29 2003]
"We're not trying to make this into a witch hunt."
[...]
"There will most likely be some kind of lawsuit. I don't think that SCO is
completely dependent on the SCO/IBM case to prove that Unix is in Linux."
September 4 2003
"[While] we are not hellbent on suing someone, we are willing to take that step against any company that is not willing to comply with our copyrights by taking out a license." September 8 2003
"I think Darl McBride wants to show the open-source community he can be reasonable and that, hopefully, we can meet our objective of protecting our intellectual property while at the same time allowing Linux to go on." September 9 2003
"Darl believes strongly that intellectual property rights in a digital age need to be respected and that we need to retain the value that's been created in software." September 9 2003
"The code we claim is ours will have to be taken out and Linux would roll back to the 2.2 version of 2000, or Linux customers and companies will have to pay us a licensing fee." September 10 2003
"They keep saying we are not showing the code, that we are being deceptive, but
we have shown it, literally, to hundreds of people now...We have been very
forthcoming. The programs we have identified make up about 20 percent of
Linux."
[...]
"They continually seem to be in denial on a lot of these things, and as long as
they are they won't be in a position to negotiate or to come to an amicable
conclusion."
September 11 2003
"We're just denying the things that Red Hat has claimed in its complaint. We've never publicly stated that we planned to sue Red Hat or threatened to sue Red Hat...it's never been our intention to sue Red Hat and we have no plans to do that." September 16 2003
"We're the copyright holder for the core Unix operating system. If we want to charge someone a licensing fee for using our copyrighted software that's gone into Linux, then we have that prerogative. If we want to continue to distribute Linux to our existing customers, we can do that because we own the copyrights on that Unix software." September 26 2003
"I think that people have seen what individuals in the Open Source community have done to SCO (DoS attacks, slamming SCO on message boards, etc.) No one wants to suffer the same kinds of attacks or animosity that SCO has, especially if they've been perceived as a good community member in the past."
[...]
"End users have a choice. They can go back to using Linux based on the 2.2 kernel which includes no infringing code, or they can continue using SCO's UNIX code as it is being found in Linux and properly compensate the company for using it."
[...]
"It seems that some companies in the industry would rather use deception rather than try and work things out diplomatically, one-to-one."
[...]
"As long as vendors continue to contribute our UNIX derivative code into Linux, SCO will have a hand in Linux for a very long time to come."
[...]
"Replacing SCO code in Linux won't replace the licensing situation currently facing commercial customers of Linux. Did they benefit from this code for a period of time? Certainly. Will they need to compensate SCO for the period of time that they benefited from using this code? Absolutely."
October 3 2003
"While it's good of [SGI] to make an effort to try and remove code which may have been misappropriated into Linux, they also minimize the code having gone into Linux." October 6 2003
"There is no such thing as an irrevocable license. You have to abide by the statutes of a license or it can be revoked." October 10 2003
"I think people will try and come to the conclusion that Microsoft is somehow involved in this [Baystar PIPE] deal, but I can tell you with great certainty that Microsoft was not involved with this investment." October 13 2003
"We believe that by trying to protect the GPL, IBM is really opening a big can of worms." October 15 2003
"The executives have said we haven't had to do it yet [send invoices to corporate users]. They're happy with progress in the licensing program." October 15 2003
"For anyone out there that was doubting we had the necessary funds to fund that litigation, they should rest easy now." October 16 2003
"[Deutsche Bank Securities] is the first major financial analyst firm that has provided a recommendation for our company. They based their recommendation on a lot of thorough research and digging into the prospects for our company." October 16 2003
"We're trying to execute on this licensing plan (by) really starting to deal with the very top players and working our way down. After the company has rolled this out to the Fortune 1000 and we're satisfied with how the program is going...we'll then roll it down to small to medium businesses."
[...]
"I don't think that any company is going to see a lawsuit rolled out to them that hasn't been given an honest and fair chance to purchase a license."
October 22 2003
"The Free Software Foundation is the only entity that can enforce the GPL so, in effect, IBM is barred from trying to enforce the GPL with SCO."
[...]
"If we're in violation of [IBM's software patents], then just about every other vendor in the entire software industry is in violation of them. What they're claiming is something that is a common practice within the software industry."
October 27 2003
"SCO's position is that anyone running Linux for commercial business purposes, based on the 2.4 kernel or later, should contact SCO to obtain a SCO IP License for Linux. Purchasing Linux from a UNIX licensee like HP, IBM, or any other company doesn't absolve them from having to purchase the SCO IP License for Linux." October 27 2003
"I'd be confident if we had any reservations that misappropriated code had gone into Samba, we ourselves would stop shipping it, and we would recommend to our users they stop using it. I don't think we could [assume responsibility for a Samba lawsuit]." October 29 2003
"They [IBM] are trying to coerce and intimidate [by subpoena]. I think what they're trying to do is that if you're a potential investor in our company or an industry analyst that says anything even remotely favorable toward SCO, you're going to be subpoenaed by IBM." November 12 2003
"It could be a few companies [SCO will sue] -- it could be a half dozen." November 24 2003
"SCO really has no need for a back up plan. We're confident of the evidence that we have. I think as we uncover more and more, end users will become more convinced that they really should purchase a SCO Intellectual Property License." November 26 2003
"We have not yet decided what company we will sue for Unix intellectual property rights. At this time, we don't even have a date for when we will decide except that it will be by the end of our already started 90-day clock." November 26 2003
"This shows how contradictory the GPL really is. One section requires copyright holders to post a notice indicating that their software can be contributed under the license." November 26 2003
"...we look forward to providing what they're asking for, and we look forward to requesting items of them that they have not yet provided." December 8 2003
"[The judge's order compelling SCO to produce code was] absolutely not a surprise to us at all. We were sure at some point we would need to be more specific, and this was that point." December 8 2003
"We made claims we felt were pretty obvious to them, but they wanted us to be more specific, to go through and show specific lines of code in Linux...right down to the brass tacks, so to speak." December 9 2003
"It's obvious that when people are acting outside the bounds of the law, it's a negative." December 11 2003
"...SCO will present this evidence to the jury, the judge and to the defendant [IBM], but it will remain confidential. No one in the public will get to see this code." [December 16 2003]
"To our knowledge, [Linux] 2.6 builds upon the intellectual property violations that continue to be in 2.4. JFS, NUMA, XFS, RCU, and a host of other code violations have not been removed. SCO's position remains unchanged." [December 18 2003]
"In our opinion, Novell is confused." [December 23 2003]
"Certainly if [Google] are using 10,000 Linux servers that include our intellectual property as part of Unix, we would want them to license." January 9 2004
"We've not introduced copyright infringement as part of our case with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that it's a contract issue." January 13 2003
"The fact that we are now offering a license for SCO's intellectual property for Linux in the U.K. opens up the door now to the fact that if customers in the U.K. choose not to purchase a license from us, the threat of legal action could be forthcoming." January 14 2004
"We sent this communication because we felt it was an issue that the highest lawmakers in the land need to be aware of." January 21 2004
"The company believes it's time to put a stop to the misleading statements that have gone on long enough and is causing confusion in the marketplace." January 21 2004
"We feel we fully complied with what [IBM] asked." January 24 2004
"We've tried to assert our intellectual property rights, and we've tried to do it in a legal and forthright way. In response, we receive these types of activities by individuals who have no desire to keep their activities within the bounds of the law." January 28 2004
"There are Internet service providers around the world who are blocking access to SCO." February 1 2004
"We remain suspicious [of the open source community]." February 2 2004
[On SCO bringing lawsuits against end users] "...stay tuned. We are not stating yet when that may take place or with whom it may take place, but you may see something from us in the near future on this." February 18 2004
"SCO would soon -- [in] days not weeks -- bring suit against a Linux-using company." February 20 2004
[Regarding SCO filing lawsuits] "You can expect something from us soon."
[...]
"We hope people will take us seriously as well and will compensate us."
February 24 2004
"Do I question my role? Not at all." February 27 2004
"I think the unfortunate thing about Groklaw is that many people reference the site as a supposed 'credible resource' and take a lot of what is posted there as the absolute truth. I find that there is so much misinformation on Groklaw that is misconstrued and twisted that it's probably one step above a lot of the ranting and dribble that takes place on Slashdot."
[...]
"Doesn't anyone find it the least bit ironic that Pamela Jones lives ... less than 10 miles from IBM's worldwide headquarters, and that Groklaw is hosted, free, by a nonprofit outfit called iBiblio, which runs on $250,000 worth of Linux-based computers donated by IBM and a $2 million donation from a foundation set up by Robert Young, founder of Red Hat?"
[...]
"Call me crazy, but I somehow think that Pamela Jones isn't just a paralegal with nothing better to do with her life than host a Web site called Groklaw that is dedicated to bashing SCO. I think there is a lot more to her background and intentions than she is willing to reveal publicly. I believe that Big Blue looms large behind Pamela Jones."
March 1 2004
"We believe the e-mail was simply a misunderstanding of the facts..." March 4 2004
"Has any specific evidence about SCO lying under oath actually been presented or come forward? Not to my knowledge. Has anyone found that SCO was actually the creator of the MyDoom virus? No. To even suggest that SCO was the creator of the virus I believe is ludicrous. This is one example of how in SCO's opinion, a lot of misinformation is posted on Groklaw." March 8 2004
"I can't point fingers. We don't believe our attorneys are responsible for this [but] we don't know for sure who put it into the public database."
]...]
"It is SCO's contention that when this information was provided, it was supposed to have been done in confidence -- otherwise, it would have been disclosed."
March 10 2004
"Ours is certainly the most reasonable way to go and certainly the safest way to go." March 16 2004
"The copyright infringement in end-user cases goes beyond the IBM contributions." April 7 2004
"We firmly believe that with our Unix product upgrade plans and new product introductions, with the licensing opportunities that exist for Unix source code [and] Linux, that SCO can definitely return to its glory days." April 25 2004
"The bottom line is nothing has really changed..." May 7 2004
"This [Linus's documentation and signing-off proposal] is the very reason why inappropriate contributions of SCO's Unix code and Unix derivatives made their way into Linux. While this is a step in the right direction for the future of Linux, they are closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted." May 25 2004
"Unix is our core business, and I don't see that changing." June 17 2004
"The biggest mistake that anyone can make with today's ruling is to assume that the thing that happened today with DaimlerChrysler will have some sort of impact on our AutoZone or Novell or IBM cases." July 21 2004
"The outcome of the [Daimler-Chrysler] case wasn't unexpected, since they finally did certify, so the main point of the lawsuit was now moot. We're glad that DaimlerChrysler finally certified the software agreement that they entered into and sorry that they waited until after we had filed litigation against them."
[...]
"This is not a setback against SCO's Linux copyright cases."
[...]
"It's important to understand that the four cases SCO has in litigation may appear similar but are actually very different, so the results of this case doesn't have any effect on the cases with AutoZone, Novell, Red Hat and IBM."
July 21 2004
"[SCO] has filed to receive that [Unix Systems Laboratories] trademark because we believe there's some value in that. How we plan to use that trademark in the future has yet to be determined."
[...]
"It could be used for our company; it could be used for an initiative within our company; it could be used in any number of areas."
July 30 2004
"Companies that license now may be able to do so cheaper than if they do so later." August 10 2004
"Frankly, there's been confusion about our stance on open source. Many people think that because we're part of this Linux dispute, we've declared war on open source itself. But that simply isn't the case." August 11 2004
"I'm sure that we'll respond to this latest filing by Novell with some kind of a response filing of our own." August 11 2004
"SCO disagrees with IBM's interpretation of their contractual obligations regarding derivative works...We look forward to proving our case in a court of law in the near future." August 17 2004
"I think all we can say on this one is that SCO will answer IBM's latest legal filing with a response filing in the near future." August 19 2004
"We've received a lot of feedback from people saying, 'I would like to follow what's going on, but I would prefer to not have to visit Groklaw.'" October 13 2004
Kieran O'Shaughnessy, Australia and New Zealand managing director:
"This IP battle is only one part of SCO's business and is an add-on component.
The core of SCO's business is profitable."
[...]
"This is not a stock 'pumping' exercise..."
September 5 2003
[While litigation was] "a last resort," [SCO] "always retained the right to file claims against users who are not forthcoming with compensation." November 20 2003
"We're serious." January 9 2004
"...we have begun the process of identifying organisations running Linux and we are starting at the top end of town."
[...]
"Those who do not buy the licence will be contacted by SCO directly and the process will begin; we are not suggesting that we will sue every man and his dog, but we will seek redress through the courts if necessary. In the US we have announced we will be suing large Linux users."
[...]
"The Licence protects Australian organisations so they can leverage their Linux investments and continue day-to-day business without interruption."
January 21 2004
"There is a significant amount of training and information that needs to be passed on to these resellers. We are trying to control the flow of information."
"...we will be adding names to it [SCO's hit list] forever and a day." February 11 2004
"I feel that many of the comments that have been made in publications, print media, online and in press releases… have been factually incorrect." March 2 2004
"The first sale may well have gone through, but I'm not going to comment on each and every sale." March 23 2004
"We have a bona-fide belief in the veracity of our claims." May 28 2004
"...we are not the anti-Christ of cyberspace..."
[...]
"IBM has transformed Linux from a bicycle to a Rolls-Royce, making it almost an enterprise-class operating system."
[...]
"The legal battle is certainly a cash drain, but we see it as an investment in our future because there will be a big return at the end. We wouldn't have started this if we didn't think we could win."
[...]
"...we have broken our duck..."
[...]
"The true story will unfold as court filings continue and everyone gets to see our side of the story; the IT industry as a whole will take a different view and see we have been dumped on from a great height."
[...]
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix."
August 26 2004
Ralph Yarro, Canopy Group CEO:
"We don't care how big you are. If you mess with us, we're going to take you on, even to our utter destruction, whatever occurs. We fear nobody, and we are respecters of no persons."
[...]
"I still support Linux, but I don't support Linux in its tainted versions, or people taking copyright information and contributing it."
September 28 2003
Marc Modersitzki, "SCO spokesperson":
"We believe that all of the individuals that we subpoenaed have a recognized leadership role in the development of Linux. Everybody knows they're a part of the Linux community, and certainly their testimony will be part of the case." November 13 2003
"Our official position is that we don't discuss our licenses." March 5 2004
"We have enough to see our lawsuits through to fruition. We are still very motivated. Some of the legal battles will be addressed tomorrow. We still feel very confident about our position."
[...]
"We are confident and happy with the things we have turned over [to the court] already. IBM says we have not turned anything over, but that is not the case. We have." June 9 2004
Kevin McBride, "the other brother Darl":
"...just so you know I'm not making this stuff up, or at least I am not making it up new..."
[...]
"Linux is a free operating system that's distributed free of charge and is literally
undermining, totally, the entire operating system environment for Unix users in the
corporate world of Fortune 1000 and thereabouts."
[...]
"...IBM clearly did contribute a lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just
don't know what it is."
[...]
"You have to have the discovery of the universe, then we can argue about where the code
falls in what bucket."
Oral arguments, December 5 2003
Newest Deathless Quotes [10.20.2009]
UPDATE, April 2017: Memento Mori
Fourteen years ago, my friend Omnedon and I registered this domain. We were promptly Slashdotted, never again to regain that level of popularity. Darl and SCO were ignored by almost everyone outside of the courts and eventually went their separate ways. Last year, my friend succumbed to cancer. Promptly rescuing our joint project before it went dormant, I've finally revived it. Ultimately the courts decided SCO's fate, but long before the slow wheels of justice ground their way 'round, the court of public opinion had long since rendered its verdict...and in the form of dank maymays and rare paypays, no less. So I raise my SCO Information Minister mug in a salute to all those still with us -- and those like PJ or Omnedon, who for one reason or another are no longer.UPDATE, March 31 2010: Unanimous jury rules copyrights did NOT go to SCO!
UPDATE, October 20 2009: DING DONG, the witch is dead! SCO Fires Information Minister!
UPDATE, August 11 2004: Enderle continues to spin the FUD:
"I've been at the wrong end of a weapon and it shouldn't take us long to realize the some folks who make threats, whether it be in school or against governments or against companies, do, in fact, intend to carry them out."
Mr. Enderle, why do you continue your shameful innuendo? Why do you attempt to tarbrush every last individual associated with free software, based on the misguided actions of a few? Why do you go to such great lengths to equate words with actions, and spout dire warnings of words that you feel are in imminent danger of becoming actions?
Take note again, ladies and gentlemen: There is nothing funny about death threats -- or false accusations and slander. If you feel the need to contact Enderle and his partners in FUD in any way, remember that like it or not, you represent the community, because they will use your words in their fight to smear a vast group of individuals. To collectivists like Enderle, there are no individuals, no freedom; only mobs, and power.
"I am absolutely convinced that we will have violence before this is over."
- Rob "Tilting at Windmills" Enderle
Given the increasingly litigious and irrational nature of American culture in general and The SCO Group in particular, I was naturally concerned to find this entry in our webserver's logs:
dhcpX-XX.ut.sco.com - - [12/Mar/2004:17:06:31 -0500] "GET /wltsim/ HTTP/1.1" 200 86285 http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=darl+mcbride+death+threat
Until Mr. Enderle made the above statement, I was willing to wait and see. Perhaps this was nothing more than a disgruntled employee, and my concerns unjustified. But I didn't think it beyond the pale that SCO representatives, in their attempts to spread FUD, might be hunting for a fresh target to distract the media with -- particularly now that Pamela Jones has proven both willing and able to defend her honor and well-earned reputation. But she's a serious paralegal (no offense, PJ!) and we're just a few bad apples...
So, for the record: Neither I, nor any other individual associated with "We Love the SCO Information Minister", have made any threats toward Darl McBride, or toward anyone else; Darl only has to worry about us shooting him if he fires first, and that won't happen unless he is as irresponsible with firearms as he is with his mouth. Darl provides us with the gift of laughter, but there is nothing funny about death threats -- or false accusations and slander. Like the rest of the free software community, we have nothing to hide.
-Ian Rowan
webmaster @ welovethescoinformationminister.org
Thanks to SearchEnterpriseLinux for their coverage, but we must disagree with the statement that our site "excerpts several comments SCO officials have allegedly made about Linux during the past year or so." None of these comments are "allegedly" -- they're 100% verifiable fact, statements made in front of God and everyone...which is the point of providing links, so the reader can check the full original context. [Note: The original article has since been modified to read "reportedly" instead of "allegedly", as well as remove an error of assumption regarding this site's ownership.] Of greater significance is the assumption that our creation must be motivated by anger; since we don't know Darl personally, our feelings could best be described as "affection". Like Saeed al-Sahaf, McBride proves that "truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense." With his rampant contradictions and defiance of all logic, he provides us with the finest gift of all -- the gift of laughter. Rather than provide needless attempts at witty commentary, we prefer to let his statements speak for themselves.
Quotes are in forward chronology (oldest to newest) for maximum comical effect. In the spirit of truth and accuracy, we welcome new attributions and corrections.
"Obviously Linux owes its heritage to UNIX, but not its code. We would not, nor will not, make such a claim." [August 28 2002]
"What impressed me about Linux was Open Source." [August 28 2002]
"And C++ programming languages, we own those, have licensed them out multiple times, obviously. We have a lot of royalties coming to us from C++." [August 15 2002] [UPDATE: Bjarne Stroustrup refutes SCO claims of C++ ownership]
"During the last ten years, Linux as a business platform has matured and is now, because of UnitedLinux, becoming an economically viable opportunity for Caldera and its partners." [August 2002]
"If the Linux community is going to successfully compete against companies like Microsoft, we have to be rallied around standards and interoperability. LSB [Linux Standards Base] gives us that...If Linux companies are going to be successful in providing solutions that compete against MS, then we have to agree upon a certain set of standards. That's why Caldera/SCO has been so vocal and supportive of LSB from its early beginnings." [September 20 2002]
"Caldera was always known as a Linux company; the SCO Group came from the Unix camp. The pendulum swung too far on the Linux side. We're just trying to get a happy medium that is more beneficial to our users." [September 30 2002]
"I really think it's a matter of Unix and Linux moving forward together. One of the reasons that Linux is so popular is that it's a clone of Unix. It's not like these two products are that dissimilar. If they were in the zoo, they wouldn't be at different ends of the zoo. These are similar animals and would probably be in the same cage."
[...]
"I see SCO five years from now being as significant a technology brand as it was five to 10 years ago."
[October 8 2002]
"We are more committed to Linux than ever before." [October 15 2002]
"We have to ask ourselves, are we trying to cater for the guys at Slashdot or the larger business audience?" [October 15 2002]
"If you think about a horse race, we're really getting out of the starting gate right now. We're maybe not the first horse on the track, but we think before the race is done, we'll be at the front." [November 19, 2002]
"At the end of the day, we're not going to care whether you're running it on Unix or Linux because we already have an application programming interface superset that binds them together from an application standpoint." [January 22 2003]
"We don't want to start running before we can walk. We're trying to take things in the right order." [February 27, 2003]
"This case is not about the Linux community or us going after them. This is not about the open-source community or about UnitedLinux, of whom we are members and partners. A small part of our business is Linux-based. This case is and is only about IBM and the contractual violations that we are alleging IBM has made and that we are going to enforce." [March 7 2003]
"This case is not about the debate about the relative merits of the proprietary versus open-source software models. This case is also not about IBM's right to develop and promote open-source software, so long as they do that without SCO's proprietary information." [March 7 2003]
"There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done."
[...]
"Is there collateral damage? Yes. We had our eyes wide open when we started this. We're not blind as to what is going on around us. But we're in it for the long haul."
[...]
"We're not trying to destroy the Linux industry. They say we're attacking Linux, but IBM brought this on. We are in defense mode. We've been attacked. To the open-source community, I ask them how they feel that IBM knew about these contracts and did what they did anyway. You have to shift the responsibility back to IBM and ask them why they're ruining [the open-source community's] party."
[...]
"Everyone just says we're a company going out of business, and throwing a Hail Mary pass, but once we get to court, those who say that will look as strange as the Iraqi information minister on TV saying the infidels are defeated and did not get into Baghdad."
[...]
"From what I hear, IBM will blacken the Utah sky with lawyers."
[...]
"System V is the basis for all operating systems outside of Redmond - AIX, HP UX, Solaris, Apple and Linux."
[April 24 2003]
"We feel very good about the evidence that is going to show up in court. We will be happy to show the evidence we have at the appropriate time in a court setting. The Linux community would have me publish it now, laundered by the time we can get to a court hearing. That's not the way we're going to go." [May 1 2003]
"We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code...We're finding code that looks like it's been obfuscated to make it look like it wasn't UnixWare code--but it was." [May 1 2003]
"I believe that at some point, you are going to see a more rational business model attached to Linux than something that is called 'free software.'" [May 16 2003]
"We want to protect our rights, but our goal is not to litigate with anybody." [May 23 2003]
VB: Is there anyway to get a real Linux version from your perspective without violating SCO IP?
McBride: Based on the understandings we have right now, we don't see how. [May 23 2003]
"The month of June is show-and-tell time. Everybody's been clamoring for the code...and we're going to show hundreds of lines of code." [May 30 2003]
"Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with." [June 2 2003]
"If we don't have a resolution by midnight on Friday the 13th, the AIX world will be a different place." [June 12 2003]
"The point about open source that I believe is really cool is this notion that you have thousands of eyes around the world looking at a similar problem, and obviously when you have more people focused on something, you can solve things better."
[...]
"Novell and IBM have been working together on some things relating to this case. So our suspicion is that some kind of deal they have going on with IBM is what motivated it."
[...]
"It's like you're sitting there fighting a battle; you have this David-and-Goliath battle going on. And then from the side, you get hit by this other force, this other army's attacking you. At first, you're surprised by it. But then you realize there appears to be some linkage to the Goliath, so then I guess it's not so surprising."
[...]
"...Novell didn't dig to the bottom of their file drawer and find the second amendment to the contract. Once we exerted our second amendment rights, if you will, Novell basically took their ball and went home."
[...]
"The world seems to be divided into two camps--those that respect intellectual property and those that don't. Those that do, to the extent they're associated with SCO, anybody who steps forward and does something with us in a positive way seems to get attacked these days."
[...]
"There's a big concern that if you just drag this out in a typical litigation path, where it takes years and years to settle anything, and in the meantime you have all this uncertainty clouding over the market, it's not a positive. So we've been responding to things in a proactive way. We've been bringing out bits of our evidence...so people can get an understanding of the problems that exist."
[...]
"The more rational minds start to come to grips with what's really happening here, we believe that the community will come to be a little bit more reasonable in how they view us and how they deal with us."
[June 16 2003]
VuNet: Have you considered what would happen if you lost the case?
McBride: I haven't spent much time thinking about it because the claims
we have are so strong. We're pretty clear about how this is going to play out.
[June 27 2003]
"Our employees are strongly engaged on what we are doing. We are making record profits and see huge opportunities because of the licence rights we have around the Unix business." [June 27 2003]
"With more than 2.4 million Linux servers running our software and thousands more running Linux every day, we expect SCO to be compensated for the benefits realized by tens of thousands of customers." [July 28 2003]
"Rather than go out and just say, 'Let's go sue everybody now,' we're coming out with a well-thought-out program." [July 28 2003]
"Clearly, it's at a point and time where we are going to take matters into our own hands and move forward. It's time to start marching onward again with our legal claims." [August 5 2003]
"IBM and Red Hat have painted a Linux liability target on the backs of their customers." [August 5 2003]
"IBM and Red Hat have painted a Linux liability target on their [customers'] backs. We have no choice but to fight it. It wasn't the place we wanted to go but yesterday was a push in that direction." [August 5 2003]
"The legal liability for Linux clearly rests with the end user." [August 6 2003]
"We have the ability to go to users with lawsuits and we will if we have to." [August 6 2003]
"Both companies [IBM and Red Hat] have shifted liability to the customer and then taunted us to sue them. So that's all they have left us to play with." [August 6 2003]
"For the first time in the history of the industry, we have a major operating system platform that's being pushed on end users and at the same time the users take it, they're being told buyer beware -- you own all the inherent intellectual property risks with this product." [August 7 2003]
"Because Linux is replicating Unix...Linux plus fee equals Unix. It sort of begs the question of why don't you just run Unix?" [August 8 2003]
"The silent majority is behind SCO, and they're hoping that SCO prevails in the end." [August 14 2003]
"We have continued to build and strengthen our legal case, and have notified global 1,000 companies of our position." [August 14 2003]
"Building your company on a GPL license is like building your enterprise software on quicksand. Everybody is scared to death that their own IP is going to get sucked into this GPL machine and get destroyed." [August 14 2003]
"The legal position we have is rock solid." [August 15 2003]
"We have very strong capabilities to fight the legal fight to whatever level it has to go." [August 15 2003]
"The magnitude of our SCOsource licensing opportunities and our confidence in the SCOsource revenue pipeline is growing each quarter." [August 15 2003]
"We've been called into the fight, and we're not backing down. We continue to gain in credibility." [August 18 2003]
"They have found already a mountain of code. The DNA of Linux is coming from Unix." [August 18 2003]
"Hundreds of customers like and use SCO's Unix products." [August 18 2003]
"We had 16,000 names in our database, but about 5,000 names were marketing fluff that we sent materials to." [August 18 2003]
"We are in the process of contacting them [companies running Linux servers] about coming into compliance and taking a UnixWare license from us. If they refuse to do so, we will sue them directly and see them in court." [August 18 2003]
"We will take legal action against any company that violates our intellectual property. We have no fear about going to court as we have nothing to hide." [August 18 2003]
"In a nutshell, this litigation is essentially about the GNU General Public License and all it stands for. That license has not yet been challenged or tested in court, but it is now going to be. We are also firmly and aggressively challenging the notion that Linux is a free operating system." [August 18 2003]
"[IBM was] hoping the matter would just go away. We expect them to throw everything they can at us before finally coming to the table to negotiate a settlement. Their countersuit is just part of that." [August 18 2003]
"We've been holding our tongue on the GPL until IBM put it on the table. I predict that the GPL is not stable in its current form because copyright law pre-empts the GPL." [August 20 2003]
"We're fighting for the right in the industry to be able to make a living with software. We are fighting battles that will impact everyone. We're protecting IP not just for us, but for you." [August 20 2003]
"There's going to be a lot of attacks. Hang in there and go with us." [August 20 2003]
"Is SCO going out of business? No, SCO's going into business." [August 20 2003]
"We have absolute direct knowledge of this [that IBM is orchestrating attacks against SCO]. If you go behind the scenes, the attacks that we get that don't have IBM's name on them, underneath the covers, are sponsored by IBM." [August 22 2003]
"Even though IBM looks like they're not really involved in it, they're very involved. From a PR standpoint, they're able to extract themselves from (the dispute), and so they throw Red Hat at us, they throw Novell at us, they have (Open Source Initiative President) Eric Raymond on their payroll. They have all these guys that they fund and then they just step back and watch the fracas go on." [August 22 2003]
"You've got all of these guys and it looks like the whole world is coming against SCO. It's really IBM that has wired in all of these relationships. That's why it looks like they're sitting back and not doing anything. It's us fighting a whole bunch of people that they put on the stage." [August 22 2003]
"Are we trying to conceal things? No, it's actually the other way around. We're trying to be extremely open." [August 22 2003]
"[SCO's Unix technology] is like a house that hasn't been maintained in a few years. We're going to come back and spruce the place up." [August 25 2003]
"We don't get the whole free-lunch thing." [August 28 2003]
"[The Linux battle] is not about suing but about doing the right thing." [August 28 2003]
"We're absolutely not going away, and they're not giving up, so we got a big problem." [August 28 2003]
"Our first decision was whether we were going to fight or get taken out early. Since we made that decision to fight for our property rights, as we unravel the yarn, it just becomes bigger than you thought it could possibly be going in."
[...] "Early on, it was fairly unnerving for employees, but now people are really tough on and see that SCO has taken an IP leadership position."
[...] "IBM has a vast reach to a large number of people in open source. IBM doesn't touch hundreds of thousands directly, but with their strong reach and influence to companies and people in the open source community, in particular Linus Torvalds and Eric Raymond, IBM gets its message out...Novell is trying to get in [the attack] by trying to co-coordinating with IBM along with Red Hat and SuSE. [...] We're in the discovery stage and this will be part of the filing and we will show direct information that IBM is the source of some of these attacks coming at us." [August 28 2003]
"If IBM drags the case out into several years, we will consider seeking damages from Linux customers." August 28 2003
"We have customers in two camps, those who respect intellectual property, and those who don't. We're setting the standard." August 28 2003
"Running your company on Linux is like running your company on Napster." August 28 2003
"[IBM is] the ringleader. We are staring down the barrel of hundreds of thousands of lines of code that enabled Linux to go from a mom-and-pop operating system to a big-time, enterprise-class OS at Fortune 100 companies. It's really interesting to see what happens when people see the code, when they see how blatant the copying is." [August 30 2003]
"We've stepped up with 80 direct lines of code and derivative works that amount to thousands of lines - and we're saving the rest for the courtroom." [August 30 2003]
"We're trying to work through issues in such a way that we get justice without putting a hole in the head of the penguin." [August 30 2003]
"The intellectual property roots of Linux are obviously flawed at a systemic
level under the current model."
[...]
"Rather than defend the 'don't ask, don't tell' Linux intellectual property
policy that caused the SCO v IBM case, the Open Source community should focus
on customers' needs."
[...]
"The copyright rules that underlie SCO's case are not disputable. They provide
a solid foundation for any software development model, including Open Source.
Rather than ignore or challenge copyright laws, Open Source developers will
advance their cause by respecting the rules of law that built our society into
what it is today."
[September 9 2003]
"Yes, [my open letter] is an olive branch."
[...]
"Clearly, the free model just about killed our company, and I would argue that
it's going to kill a lot of other software companies if the GPL [General Public
License] is able to gain a foothold and run rampant throughout the industry."
[...]
"The point of the letter was not a precursor to saying, 'Let's go sue a bunch
more companies.'"
[...]
"Clearly, in this case we have one set of forces here that are pro-SCO, and
I've characterized them as the silent majority."
[...]
"We believe we've got the moral high ground in this case, so that's what
propels you forward."
[September 11 2003]
"The two major operating systems in the world -- Unix and Windows -- SCO owns one of those, and having the ownership around the Unix operating system is a gigantic marketplace opportunity for us."
[...]
"Our goals is not to go out and start suing companies. But, as we go down that path, if we have certain companies out there that are using Linux and we're unable to come to a resolution or reach an impasse, then we absolutely will reserve the option of (taking) the legal path as the remedy to go resolve that."
[...]
"We're not trying to run a sprint here, we're not running a hundred-yard dash. This is probably a marathon and we are in for the long haul."
[October 17 2003]
"We're generating cash from our operations, so why now? The ability to build a war chest right now was too compelling to pass up."
[...]
"We're not here to spell out how the money will be allocated, but we have this war chest to take the company forward from here."
[October 17 2003]
"With damage which we estimate at nearly one billion dollars per week, the lawsuit can drag on." [October 22 2003] [Note: Printed interview in French]
"The Internet created -- and creatively destroyed -- great wealth. It also created a culture legitimizing intellectual property theft. When you defend intellectual property, you speak an unpleasant truth. People don't like to hear unpleasant truths. The alternative to this fight, however, is the death of an industry and thousands of jobs lost." [November 5 2003]
"They're using a ton of Linux in Hollywood, so they've become a lightning rod for us. It's hypocritical for them to be going around saying that they don't want their stuff to be given away for free, but at the same time saying, 'Boy, this free stuff sure is cool.'
[...]
"We're going to force people down a path. They can choose licensing or litigation. If someone says they want to see a court ruling before they pay, we'll say, 'Fine, you're the lucky winner. We'll take you first.' I'd be surprised if we make it to the end of the year without filing a lawsuit."
[November 6 2003]
"It's license or litigate." [November 18 2003]
"When (The Santa Cruz Operation) sold us the property, included in the property was a non-compete. Last time I checked, Linux was intended to compete with our core products."
[...]
"[Novell greatly enhanced its legal risks] by getting into this Linux game."
[...]
"Once the [Suse] deal is done, the non-compete can be invoked at that point."
[November 18 2003]
"...what they don't see is that we're trying to defend the rights of capitalism for the silent majority. Linux leaders pound the table about a community-driven model where everything is free, and that's the flip side of capitalism. This country was founded on capitalism, the right to make a profit for what you own, not give it away for free."
[...]
"It's like back on the farm where we had to break a new colt and try and tame them. You'd get bucked off and thrown into the fences, and with your back bleeding, you'd get back up and do it again."
[November 18 2003]
"We'll be communicating with users what our expectations are."
[...]
"I think it'd be good for all of us to get some closure. ISVs, end-users, customers--they all want this cleared up."
[...]
"The GPL-based products have to come to grips with the realities of business."
[...]
"The GPL is definitely at risk. But we're not the ones who put it there. IBM put the GPL in the line of fire."
[November 18 2003]
"With the personal threats to our lives we have had to rachet up security both for our company and for certain individuals." [November 19 2003]
"The world, especially here in America, is shifting to one that is an information society. In the future, is that $229 billion in software still going to be there? Or in the case of the Free Software Foundation's goal, is proprietary software going to go away?" [November 19 2003]
"...the more yarn you pull out the more you see...With our limited energies and what our guys are going through, we probably won't file any suits against BSD until sometime in the first half of next year."
[...]
"As we go forward we will continue to do battle, but we hope for a position where we can settle this amicably."
[...]
"We have been placed in a tug of war between those who think software should be free and those who want to license it."
[...]
"There is a misconception that SCO wants to destroy Open Source and Linux. Certainly we believe strongly that there needs to be checks and balances, that open source has merit. We think there is a way for both to be possible."
[November 19 2003]
"Now we're going to the other side of the playing field and opening up the part that has to do with copyright inside of Linux. We're not going to go out and sue a thousand companies on Day One. We'll start off, we'll get a domino and we'll go from there." [November 24 2003]
"We're culling the list down."
[...]
"[Novell will] be hearing from us."
[November 24 2003]
"If you want to talk about desperate, it's the Free Software Foundation. If
you go by what it says in the GPL, if you infringe on someone else's code, the
only recourse is to either take it out or shut down the distribution. This
validates our claims, and their only solution is to shut down Linux. If they
shut down Linux, it's an unmitigated disaster."
[...]
"The question is not whether the [Linux] code can be cleaned, but at what level?
If you go back to the way Linux was in the mid-1990s, that's the only version I
see working. We are not trying to kill Linux."
[...]
"We are trying to deal with the problem, but we are shouted down, so we'll go
to court, put our case on the table and say, 'Here we go boys; here's the
problem.' It's either clean it up or shut it down, and this kind of cleanup is
an Exxon-Valdez kind of cleanup. It's not simple."
[...]
"It's clear to me that people are trying to shut us down."
[...]
"This does have the potential to shut down Linux. The longer the clock ticks,
the [greater the] potential for this to end up in court. And as this happens,
the more excited we get."
[...]
"We are not trying to sell the company. We are trying to get compensation from
the marketplace."
[November 25 2003]
"SCO owns the underlying core source code that feeds all the major versions of UNIX around the world...It's like you own the Ark of the Covenant of the computer industry -- it's just there -- and people can't take that away from us."
[...]
"In spite of this being controversial, it doesn't change the fact that our ownership rights on UNIX are rock solid. It doesn't change the fact that we have copyright violations that we can point to in Linux. In fact, I would argue that the strength of our case is what has created such a firestorm and controversy."
[...]
"We showed over a million lines of code and where it has existed. [Linux creator] Linus Torvalds has told me that the Linux kernel has around 5 million lines of code. This derivative code accounts for 20 percent of the Linux code base."
[...]
"The significant lesson learned here is that intellectual property does matter...We are protecting what is rightfully ours that we've paid hundreds of millions of dollars for over the years."
[...]
"We think the GPL is not going to make it. We think that it is so unfriendly to businesses. Companies are worried about protecting their own intellectual property assets."
[November 28 2003]
"We've talked to companies about Linux and they're not doing it, or if they are using it, they take out a license. We have yet to have a one-on-one where a company has said straight out 'no' and forced us to litigate. We know what's going on. We're a public company and, with all the disclosure we have to do, the last thing I'm doing is telling a bunch of lies. We have companies that are signing up, and we are going to protect their identity because they have requested confidentiality."
[...]
"We've taken the central issues of the case, Linux and the GPL, and essentially keyed on the leaders of those movements. We're going to bring in the guy who started the whole thing [Torvalds] and the father of the GPL [Stallman]."
[December 4 2003]
"SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws."
[...]
"In the past 20 years, the Free Software Foundation and others in the open source software movement have set out to actively and intentionally undermine the U.S. and European systems of copyrights and patents."
[...]
"...the GPL is exactly opposite in its effect from the "copyright" laws adopted by the US Congress and the European Union."
[...]
"There really is no middle ground."
[...]
"SCO is confident that the legal underpinning of our arguments is sound. We understand that the litigation process is never easy for any party involved. Our stance on this issue has made SCO very unpopular with some. But we believe that we will prevail through the legal system, because our position is consistent with the clear legal authority set down by US Congress, the US Supreme Court and the European Union."
[...]
"The positions of the Free Software Foundation and Red Hat against proprietary software are ill-founded and are contrary to our system of copyright and patent laws. We believe that responsible corporations throughout the IT industry have advocated use of the GPL without full analysis of its long-term detriment to our economy. We are confident that these corporations will ultimately reverse support for the GPL, and will pursue a more responsible direction."
[...]
"SCO intends to fully protect its rights...against all who would use and distribute our intellectual property for free, and would strip out copyright management information from our proprietary code, use it in Linux, and distribute it under the GPL."
[December 4 2003]
"To get matters moving, [Judge Wells] asked SCO to go first." [SCO Press Release on Judge Wells' granting of IBM's Motion to Compel]
"The vast majority of these [alleged threats] have been of the crank-call variety. We have hired the best personal security team. They have worked through these threats and determined that some have come from people with records who have done time in the big house. We take these very seriously." [December 11 2003]
"Our lawsuit with IBM is progressing to our satisfaction."
[...]
"We intentionally kept this thing very tight, very controlled."
[...]
"This is not a case of SCO versus open source."
[...]
"When you look at the GPL you realize that you don't actually buy this...there's no warranty."
[...]
"Copyrights are there to prevent people from making copies." [Just like "Contracts are
what you use against people you have relationships with"?]
[...]
"This is a dumping case...Linux is the ultimate dump case, the price is zero. You can't
destroy marketing more than that."
[...]
"Novell snuck into the copyright office..."
[December 22 2003 Conference Call]
[This currently links to the original audio stream. A link to a full transcript will be
provided as soon as one is available.]
"No amount of money into a defense fund can protect somebody if they're the guilty party." [January 12 2004]
"Everybody's been clamoring for us to show the code. But be careful what you ask for, because we're going to show that and a lot more." [January 12 2004][subscription required]
"If vendors feel so confident with the intellectual property foundation under their massive contributions into Linux, then they should put their money where their mouth is and protect end users with true vendor-based indemnification." [January 12 2004]
"I think it's time to face this thing head on." [January 12 2004]
"Indemnification programs or legal defense funds won't change the fact that SCO's intellectual property is being found in Linux. SCO is willing to enforce our copyright claims down to the end user level and in the coming days and weeks, we will make this evident in our actions."
[...]
"We believe Novell's indemnification announcement is significant for a couple of reasons. By announcing the program they are acknowledging the problems with Linux. Through the restrictions and the limitations on the program, they are showing their unwillingness to bet very much on their position."
[January 13 2004]
"[SCO is] trying to work through these things without going to court."
[...]
"Google is using a lot of Linux; they've benefited from that."
[...]
[Regarding Linux use by BP] "There are clearly some concerns with those guys."
[January 19 2004]
"Until now it has been generally agreed that the GPL has never faced a legal test. SCO is involved in a major software intellectual property case through which the GPL will face such a test."
[...]
"By taking action, our company has become a target for sometimes vicious attacks -- including online attacks that have repeatedly shut down our company Web site. Despite this, we are determined to see those legal cases through to the end because we are firm in our belief that the unchecked spread of Open Source software, under the GPL, is a much more serious threat to our capitalist system than U.S. corporations realize."
[...]
"I believe that Open Source, as it is currently constituted, is a slippery slope. It undermines our basic system of intellectual property rights, and it destroys the economic reasons for innovation."
[January 21 2004]
"I've been pounding the table here for a year or so saying there's no free lunch, and there is going to be a day of reckoning for every company that thinks they are going to try and sell a free model."
[...]
"We haven't published the exact number [of licensees] yet. It's not in the dozens, but it's, you know, we've had some that have started to sign up."
[...]
"Our customers that are buying [UNIX] from us today, we generally don't have a problem with. We have some former customers that have left that are running on Linux, and they are in the crosshairs."
[...]
"[T]he ownership with Novell has absolutely been legally decided. We've got all the documents in front of us. Anybody who has any legal sense here says 'I don't get it, can Novell not read the English language?'"
[...]
"[The Linux community are] disingenuous on that or they would be ripping out the million lines of code we've already pointed to...they just ignored it."
[...]
"...anybody that says we don't have any claims there, yes, I guess they will be going home with a sock in their mouth."
[...]
"The reason [SCO supporters are] silent is because if they stick their head up, they tend to get shot by a bunch of Linux people."
[...]
"You know, this is an epic battle that is going to reshape the definition of the computer operating system going forward."
[January 22 2004]
"...we have had four attacks on our company over the last year. At least one was claimed -- the
Linux community claimed responsibility for the attack."
[...]
"[The virus author(s)] could turn themselves in, go to jail, sit around with their $250,000 [reward]
and get out. So I guess maybe that's the way to make money. Since you can't make money with Linux
because it's free, maybe that's the new monetization system."
[January 30 2004]
"I know people want us to go away, but we are not going to go away. We're going to see this through."
[...]
"The theater of this -- it's sort of beyond belief for all of us."
[February 2 2004]
"...it wasn't like a binary switch. It wasn't like we said, 'Oh, let's go find people and sue them.' It was a gradual enforcement of our rights..."
[...]
"Linux is a cross between religion and politics."
[February 2 2004]
"This is not Chris and I up here making this stuff up." [February 2 2004]
"You go out and talk to them, and they tend to get a lot more reasonable." [February 5 2004]
"We're going to file it tomorrow. It's sort of come down to a couple of complaints we have prepared."
"We're not claiming to own IBM's derivative works.."
"Our counterparts that we're in battle against here have convenient third-party websites that promote their cause, whereas we've basically had the responsibility to tell our story ourselves."
"I think anyone who has a rational mind would come down to the same conclusions I do."
"Our company has never been in a better position and we've never been more committed to our Unix business. We are preparing major updates of our products... We are confident of our litigation efforts and we are well-funded to achieve many of the goals that we have as a company."
April 25, 2004
"This is like...Nothing...Nothing compares to what's happened in the last year."
May 14, 2004
"Sue Linus Torvalds? And get what?"
[...]
"I don't see hundreds and hundreds of lawsuits like the RIAA did, but I do see more than one."
[March 1 2004]
[...]
"OJ's walking around free, so I guess nothing's bullet proof."
[...]
"We like to think we bought Unix, because the contract says we bought Unix."
[...]
"It is a lot of legal mumbo jumbo..."
[...]
"We either paid hundreds of millions of dollars for something or we didn't."
[...]
Interviewer: "And you are strongly funded by Microsoft. So..."
McBride: "Well, yes but about IBM, so let's talk about them for a minute."
[...]
"You don't see things on there saying, Oh this is really strongly in favor of SCO or even half strong in favor. So you go peel that away and you realize IBM is a sponsor of Groklaw."
[...]
"I don't see a conspiracy. It's pretty straightforward. And there's nothing hidden about it."
March 2, 2004
[...]
"Our counterparts on the IBM front have convenient third-party websites that promote their cause. We've been in a position of having to basically go out with detailed information."
[...]
"I think if you look at the people we have filed suit against today, they're not currently customers of SCO."
[...]
"...many of our current customers have come in and said, 'Go, fight, win. We're glad that you're fighting for your rights and we hope that you win.'"
[...]
"...once they get educated and they get a better understanding of what our rights are, then for the most part 90 some odd percent of the marketplace actually agrees very strongly with the copyright and contract protection. So we think that as we go forward and we educate people on our rights that it's going to be favorable for us."
[...]
"...if you took the case we filed against AutoZone yesterday and did a search and replace on the name of an end user who we never had a relationship with but is running Linux, that suit would pretty much hold up. It's going to be a little bit different obviously, but in general the claims that we're making there are pervasive throughout the end-user Linux community."
[...]
"Gosh, it's hard to go out and sue somebody. Yes, we're not particularly thrilled with it ourselves..."
March 3, 2004
[...]
"We'll give them 'hello world.'"
[...]
"The truth will come out in the courtroom."
April 1, 2004
[...]
"The notion that we're going to sit back and let the Linux steamroller go over us at our expense, at the shareholders' expense, makes zero sense to me."
[...]
"It's sort of like somebody stealing your car, and you hunt them down and you find them, and they say you can have your car back, but there's no penalty for that. If there's no penalty for stealing property, then where are we?"
[...]
"[June] will be show-and-tell time. We're not going to show two lines of code. We're going to show hundreds of lines of code..."
May 30, 2004
"The GPL has this sucking effect of grabbing your IP [intellectual property], sucking it in and destroying your property rights." June 10, 2004
"Let's be clear, we did not cause this problem."
[...]
"Linus Torvalds's proposed developer's certificate of origin system...validates the concerns and problems we have expressed over the past year about the Linux development process..."
[...]
"...this licensing program was put in place from requests from customers."
[...]
"...we've backed off from the position of trying to have a daily commentary on what everybody's issues are."
[...]
"I think when we hear the words 'open source,' all our minds rush to a certain concept of what that means...If you look at UNIX in total, even if you look at where SCO's coming from, we have made Unix very open over the years."
[...]
"I would ask IBM a question, why are you not putting up the code?"
[...]
"Mark my words, there will be a day that will come when you will all see many, many documents that will directly contradict IBM's current public posturing."
[...]
"I believe very strongly in our case. I believe very strongly in our claims."
June 10, 2004
[SCOX Conference Call;
bittorrent link to MP3]
"The yelling gets the loudest when you're near the end zone. We're in their stadium, and it's as noisy as it can get. But we think the crowd is going to get very quiet when we put some points on the board."
[...]
"It seems to me that the battle isn't really SCO versus IBM, or SCO versus Linux. I think there's a war going on. The war is around the future of the operating system, and whether it's going to be free or not."
June 23, 2004
"This has not been an easy year. It's been a year of ultimate suffering."
[...]
"If I had it to do ten times over again, I'd do it, every time."
[...]
[When a verdict is announced in November 2005] "The mainstream IT community will understand and embrace SCO's position."
[...]
"We didn't start this, but we're going to finish it."
August 2, 2004
[On Linux:] "Wait until the SCO battles are over and let's see if it's free or not." August 2, 2004
"I don't think a few dogmatic open source guys are going to change the constitution."
[...]
"We're just a simple little product company keeping our IP and stopping people doing improper things with it."
August 5, 2004
"I think that what will happen here is when the truth is on the table and people really understand what happened in the case, there will be a big swing in the public perception about this small company that got clobbered by this big bully. I'm going a year out and saying that between now and then, when the truth gets out in the public filings and people know what we know, people are going to view us in a much more positive light." August 9, 2004
"Many people think we hate open source, that we want to crush it. That's simply not true." August 11, 2004
"We just want our business back, which was snatched from us illegally." August 16, 2004
"We've taken a response as the management team that we can't fight back against the boisterous nature of a lot of people that are trying to shout us down. What we've tried to say is that we're not going to get into a shouting match. We're not going to get into an industry brawl, if you will." August 31, 2004
"We have a core group of customers that are extremely loyal and are ambivalent to the lawsuit. The business was in decline long before the lawsuits." October 8, 2004
"We are under attack from what I call 'hurricane Linux'..." October 12, 2004
"I can't believe some of the stuff I read on Groklaw." October 14, 2004
"We thought we had a pretty legitimate story."
[...]
"We used to counter everything Groklaw said. I thought it was my
responsibility to SCO stakeholders to have a counter reaction to all
these attacks. It turns out that doesn't work well in a courtroom
setting. The judges told us that, my attorneys told me that, so I
decided to back off."
August 30, 2007
"For the naysayers out there that would say, 'The lights are out, the
lights are very dim on SCO and it's only a matter of time until there
are no lumens coming out of the light bulbs and the game's over' -
that's far from what the truth is."
[...]
"We believe it is time now to go in and get things finished off."
August 16, 2008
"I'm putting together an alternate plan...that will ultimately get SCO its day in court." October 20, 2009, after being fired as CEO
Scott McKellar's SCO and Linux FAQ
Law vs Reality: Darl McBride is a Socialist
Tilting at Windmills: A response to Rob Enderle
OSI Position Paper on SCO vs. IBM
Halloween 9: It Ain't Necessarily SCO
Bruce Perens on SCO Slide Show
Dissecting the Las Vegas Presentation
The Ever-Changing SCO Linux FTP Site
William Bader's History of Xenix
Canadian Linux Interests Coalition: Research Links
Unix History with Darl McBride and Others [August 2002]
Microsoft / SCO Conspiracy Theories
An Open Letter to the DOJ: Cui Bono?
Strange-But-True: Linus Torvalds at SCOForum 1995
