Posted on 08/26/2004 10:37:19 AM PDT by ShadowAce
Tired of being portrayed as the bad guys of IT, Kieran O'Shaughnessy, director of SCO Australia and NZ, last week declared "we are not the anti-Christ of cyberspace" but a defender of Unix fighting the monolithic power of IBM.
Claiming SCO's business was stolen by "foul means", O'Shaughnessy said the company didn't just go out and pick a fight with IBM, but was backed against a wall and had to fight back.
"The only reason we are [pursuing a lawsuit against IBM] is to defend our Unix business; we are not a litigation company, we are about Unix on Intel," he said.
"IBM has transformed Linux from a bicycle to a Rolls-Royce, making it almost an enterprise-class operating system.
"It took us 25 years to build our business and it took [IBM] four years simply by stealing code and then giving it away free."
In an exclusive interview with Computerworld, O'Shaughnessy admitted the past 12 months have been tough coping with an avalanche of harsh public criticism while trying to maintain sales, protect its customer base and release new products.
"But there is support from the people who really matter, our customers and partners. Sure, there is concern about sales but if you go back to 1999 our revenues were in excess of $US250 million and today they are up by $40 million," O'Shaughnessy said.
Despite claims that the legal fight is the last gasp of a dying company, he said the company's cash balance is strong with $US45 million in the bank.
"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," he said adding that the legal costs are burning about $4 million a quarter.
O'Shaughnessy foreshadowed a significant shift in SCO's focus over the next 12 months pointing out that selling intellectual property (IP) licences is no longer a priority.
With two millions servers installed globally, he said the company has recently been more product focused, releasing more products in the past year than in the entire history of the company.
Early this year, O'Shaughnessy warned that SCO had prepared a hit list and would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP licence.
But this urgency has dissipated with O'Shaughnessy pointing out that he had enough on his plate and would simply sell licences as the opportunity arose.
IP licences, he said, have been sold but wouldn't "go down the path of numbers" except to say "we have broken our duck".
Claiming it is impossible to win a PR war against the likes of IBM, O'Shaughnessy said he's confident the public hysteria will subside over the next six months as "the truth unfolds" and SCO's adds "meat to the bare bones of the case" allowing commentators to get a different view of the facts.
"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," he said.
"There will be less of the IBM spin version of events and the courts are the right place for it to come out."
SCO, he said, doesn't just expect financial compensation but removal of the stolen code.
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix," he added.
SCO, he said, doesn't just expect financial compensation but removal of the stolen code.
Could someone translate that to English for me?
Yes, and there are no Americans in Baghdad.
So 'breaking your duck' is scoring a point.
Apparently Microsoft Australia has paid some Linux license fees or something.
Here's the ComputerWorld (AU) article link:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;97798672;fp;16;fpid%20;0
> Kieran O'Shaughnessy, director of SCO Australia and NZ, last
> week declared "we are not the anti-Christ of cyberspace" ...
Hadn't heard that one, but now that they mention it ...
> ... we are not a litigation company, ...
Coulda' fooled me, and IBM, and Daimler, and AutoZone,
Novell, and 1500 Linux users who got vague threatening letters.
> "It took us 25 years ..."
This is nonsense supporting the canard that the current
"SCO" is the same company as the original "SCO".
> ... he said the company's cash balance is strong
> with $US45 million in the bank.
I'm not sure it was wise to reveal that.
> ... the legal costs are burning about $4 million a quarter.
Seems too low, but based on the quality of their
filings, they aren't getting what they're paying for.
> ... selling intellectual property (IP) licences is no longer a priority.
Because almost no one is buying them. By the way,
if you buy one, expect to get subpoena'd by one or
more of the parties to the various lawsuits.
> ... SCO had prepared a hit list and would approach
> Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP licence.
Attention members of the Aussie bar - there's tons of
useful raw documents at http://www.groklaw.net
Some of the forum chatter might prove useful, too.
> Claiming it is impossible to win a PR war against the likes of IBM,
Unlike SCO, IBM has done no (zero) PR on the case.
And every time these SCO folk go off the reservation like
this, they find their press quotes being used against SCO
in court filings.
When you're losing a shooting war, and YOU are the
only one firing, the message is clear.
> ... confident the public hysteria will subside over the next
> six months as "the truth unfolds" and SCO's adds "meat
> to the bare bones of the case" ...
In most cases, it is now too late for SCO to reveal the "facts"
they claim to have in these cases.
> "There will be less of the IBM spin version of events ..."
There exists no IBM spin.
> SCO, he said, doesn't just expect financial compensation
> but removal of the stolen code.
Did he just torpedo SCO's claims for damages?
Will SCO actually ever reveal even one line of actionable
code they now claim to want removed?
> "Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an
> unlicensed version of Unix," he added.
In their dreams, and based on how the cases are
developing, SCO is in for a rude awakening.
That was the phrase that made me post this. I couldn't figure it out either.
I haven't seen this much spin since the donks vs vets.
"we have broken our duck".
In cricket, the batter has scored at least once.
Meaning, they have sold at least one license.
In Geek: the number of licenses we have sold is some number other than zero.
> I haven't seen this much spin since the donks vs vets.
Every time we think they're finally learned to shut up and
litigate, they give one of these jaw-dropping interviews,
or excrete a similarly self-incriminating press release.
The opposing parties in court will bash SCO with this stuff.
>> "we have broken our duck".
> In cricket, the batter has scored at least once.
> Meaning, they have sold at least one license.
And O'Shaughnessy can now expect to be deposed on that.
And the purchaser will get dragged into any legal
actions that arise down under.
The market has'nt finished speaking (yet).
Thanks to both of you for responding.
See posts 6 & 11 which explain the term.
*choke* *chortle* BWAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
I like that...SCO: the Anti-Christ of Cyberspace. Very fitting.
Sorry, SCO. You made your bed. Now it's time to lie in it. You're finished.
This is what came to mind after I read your comment...
# true;echo $? 0 # false;echo $? 1
Zeugma is a geek
Well, greater than zero, actually. Although it's hard to see how a negative number would apply in this case, a true geek plans for out-of-range conditions...
Thats why I was using unsigned ints. Boundry conditions did not apply :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.