SCO Refutes claims that it intends to charge for Linux


SCO has released a press release today that refutes claims made in an earlier article by Linux Business Week (and referred to by this site).

Text of the press release is in the body, but basically it says they have no desire to take legal action against fellow Linux vendors. Then, they go on to castigate the press for publishing unfounded rumors with a big headline.

Oddly enough, their last statement is "We've made no decisions, formed no programs and announced nothing about this". I can't quite tell if that means they've not decided whether to attack the community or not or just that they've made no decision to go on the offensive. Certainly, it could have been a more vehemet "we're not going to do it" for my money.

On January 10, 2003 Client Server News published a story concerning SCO and its UNIX intellectual property. This article states as fact speculations about what SCO may do or not do with regard to its ownership of core UNIX IP.

Darl McBride, president and CEO of SCO, has discussed SCO's UNIX IP ownership in many public venues and on the most recent quarterly investors' conference call. SCO has significant UNIX intellectual property dating back to the company's purchase of AT&T's Bell Labs UNIX technology. Our UNIX IP is a significant asset and for several months we have been holding internal discussions, exploring a wide range of possible strategies concerning this asset. We?ve reached no final decisions on any course of action.

SCO is a Linux vendor and a leading member of United Linux. Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News article, SCO has no desire to take legal action against fellow Linux vendors. As a normal part of business, SCO has had discussions with several legal experts in the field of intellectual property law, and these discussions included David Boies. Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News story, SCO has not engaged Mr. Boies to take legal action against our fellow Linux vendors.

It's unfortunate when a publication runs a headline, stating as fact in the present tense that our company is engaging in certain activities when, in fact, we've made no decisions, formed no programs and announced nothing about this.