Slashdot Mirror

I am optimistic this strange concept will be overturned in good time, perhaps even by the Ninth Circuit, upholding the district courts decisions in Vernor and Augusto in pending appeals.

I think you'll be waiting quite a while. Google Blizzard vs Glider for a taste of what the courts have to say about EULA's. You might also want to pop over here for more information about the Psystar/Apple battle.

Pitchfork. $25
Torches. $10
Angry Villagers. Priceless.

For everything else there's Groklaw. Don't surf the Net without it...

In the past 10 years, the most notable patent lawsuits were:

SCO vs. Linux - After hundreds of millions of dollars were blown away in lawyers legal fees, the judge rules that Linux didn't infringe on SCO's intellectual property. Best site for news here is Groklaw

3Dfx vs. Nvidia - 3dfx lost and merged into Nvidia

Rambus vs. Hynix vs Micron Technology vs. Infineon Technologies vs. Siemens AG. vs. Samsung

Rambus seemed to be suing just about everyone, and everyone else was countersuing Rambus and each other. Legal letters seem to be flying around like chairs in a Saturday night bar fight.

Hynix to pay Rambus $379 million in patent dispute

A complete list of legal updates provided by Rambus

Micron vs. Rambus

Although it does seem better to settle all patent disputes with cross-licensing as soon as possible, rather than slogging it out into bankruptcy

Rambus and Infineon settle patent dispute

I second this! Ray, please translate a bit for us poor unfortunates. A little color commentary would be nice, too!

Sorry about that, but the reality is... I don't have the time to do good writing. I don't get paid for this. My highest priority in the blogging part of my life is to get the facts and the litigation documents out, and let the rest of the world handle the commentary. If I got a million dollar grant to spend more time writing I'd do it but I don't see that happening any time soon. I can't even get many people to buy an MP3 from one of my affiliate advertisers.

People compare me to PJ. You shouldn't. She's a great journalist; I'm not in her league. I'm just a lawyer who tripped across a wave of litigation bullying, and realized that the internet might help to slightly counterbalance one of the bad guys' strategic advantages -- their information monopoly.

What PJ and I have in common is that we've both taken advantage of the federal courts' transition to electronic filing to give our readers actual primary source material to read, and in so doing to honor, rather than insult as many other news sources do, our readers' intelligence.

Other than that, my amateur-hour work shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as her deservedly award-winning web site.

Oh, that's too bad :-( (What were they thinking? sheesh!)

My sentiments exactly.

The only good news I can relate is that PJ at Groklaw sometimes puts in the time to convert some of the more important documents to readable HTML; maybe she'll do it with this.

For those who wonder WTF "growler" is, they meant "Greplaw"

Erm, you mean Groklaw right? That's where the article from the Slashdot submission is from.

Greplaw is a different, if similar, site.

you obviously didn't read the letters sent to/from iso...

and you haven't followed much the whole process...

groklaw has some pretty good docuntation on it.

it is not about being rancid. it's about being open(the standard really isn't) and not forcing other counteries vote.

Actually, Groklaw has begun to deal with other cases of dubious IP claims and attacks on free software, open standards, and so forth, so it will still have a reason for existence once SCO is kaput. The current top article, for example, is about the ISO BRM on OOXML.

Ignorance is strength
Freedom is slavery
War is peace

Stay ignorant and repeat the lies, or learn and make your own oppinion. Your choice.

Package management and dependencies used to be a problem for me, then I learned of debian, games used to be a problem for me and then I learned of winex(cedega), I had a problem with MS office and then I found crossover, I had a problem with outlook and then I found evolution, I had a problem with single sign on and windows transparency over server message block then I found winbind... There are frustrated users, and then there are self educating *nix users.

In reality, the biggest failing is education, not cross compatible software.

Is Wikipedia the definitive source for advice concerning law, or should you seek a lawyer?

Groklaw! PJ is da bomb!

She makes her (lack of) qualifications quite clear on Groklaw. She is a paralegal, but she does go through the various filings and explain for mere mortals what's going on. The SCO camp has been trying for some time to get rid of Groklaw, and I guess this bit of scummy "reporting" was the latest attempt. Why don't you go to http://groklaw.com/ and look for yourself?

Check this out.

OSRM is the company PJ (you know, of Groklaw) joined a few months back to provide indemnification for Linux users. This organization isn't the enemy, folks.

[I thought that name (OSRM) sounded familiar.]

have ev1 customers ended up entering a contract with sco? has ev1's license purchase actually made their customers more likely to be sued?

There are reasons why one might not want to support EV1 now that they've bought licenses from SCO, but they do NOT include "EV1 clients are now more likely to be sued".

SCO is trying to encourage as many large Linux-using companies as possible to purchase licenses. Do you think sueing the companies like EV1, who get suckered into paying up, will help this cause? No, no, no. EV1 is actually right in thinking that they are shielding their customers and themselves from SCO lawsuits.

The trick here is that it seems pretty clear after a bit of research (thank you PJ) that SCO isn't going to prevail in any of these lawsuits, and when companies like EV1 take the easy way out instead of standing up for themselves, the money they give keeps that nasty bloated spider that is SCO from strangling in its own web for yet another month.

SCO will be stopped eventually. But they can be stopped sooner rather than later if we can convince companies in EV1's position to take the honorable path and stop feeding the troll under the bridge.

Groklaw has a bunch of them transcribed into text in the comments to their story on this.

Seems that SCO did indeed submit (so we wait while IBM reads it).

Now its their turn to put a motion to compel discovery, asking for all modifications ever made by IBM to the System V source code.

It seems that if SCO doesn't give in (and its unlikely they will), they can drag this out for quite some time.

As an attorney you might want to go and check out this website first, before you cost your company that much money.

I have some doubts about your comment. Since as an attorney for a big company I'd expect you to know the costs involved in massive migration. It's not a trivial thing. Well, I'd expect you to know that if it were your decision to make such a huge call.

And you should also know that SCO have not proven anything whatsoever yet. Their claims have so far been disproven dramatically, most of the times hours after they made them. Most legal minds - if they comment - say SCO is out on a limb.

And as you should know: even if they win the case against IBM, they still won't be in their rights to ask for a license. Go read groklaw, they explain far better than I can.

So maybe, just maybe you haven't really spoken to IT or haven't really done your homework.

This leads me to think you are either a troll or not a very good attorney. It's one thing to be over cautious, it's another thing to make expensive and disruptive choices on a whim - after reading one letter.

I'd like you to give me the name of your company. I'd like to write them a letter. I have several bridges for sale...

Speaking of SCO, over at Groklaw, it now looks like they may sue Novell over some non-compete clause in their contract, since Novell acquired Suse.

In an ironic twist, I think that Novell would have the rights to terminate SCO's UNIX rights. I would just love to see that...

Hmmm. Maybe SCO has been doing that crack Linus accused them of being on.

Someone over at Groklaw that they are clearly in violation of the NET (NO Electronic Theft) Act. The post is the fifth one down in the discussion. I wonder what it takes to file a such criminal complaint?

SCO filed a Motion to Dismiss the action in its entirety, as you know, and Red Hat filed its answering brief. But since we last reported on this case, Red Hat initiated discovery. They asked SCO for documents and for answers to some pointed questions. IBM is forcing SCO into a corner in Utah, and Red Hat is forcefully and aggressively trying to do the same in Delaware. You'll see, I think, that we haven't been wasting our time telling the world the details of this story. The big picture is that Red Hat is telling SCO to prove their allegations with specificity. They also want all their source code, and I'm sure you can figure out what they want to do with it, when I tell you that they asked for the complete Linux Kernel Personality source code, among the other products for which they have requested source code.

They also want to hear some details about the relationship between Canopy and SCO, including any stock or intellectual property transfers. They want SCO to "identify by title, version, module(s) and line(s)" what they think is misappropriated in any way or in violation of any of its rights. They ask for the details of Microsoft and Sun's licensing arrangement with SCO. They want to know who those 1500 companies were that got the letter, and what happened next. They want to know exactly what SCO has filed a copyright on. They want all the details of SCOsource, including all the folks who have seen the code SCO has been showing under the NDA and what they saw, and any other contact with any Linux users about supposed liability. They want to know how they compared the UNIX and Linux code to determine infringement. They want to know if they've done any comparisons of the two and what the results were. They want to know all the stock or industry analysts SCO has met with or talked to and what was said. In short, it's like the kind of fantasy a guy might have about a bully getting his at last, because they asked them everything we wanted somebody to finally ask SCO and make them answer.

SCO responded to Red Hat's discovery requests by filing a new motion, and it has told the judge, in a Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss, it would like a delay until after the first motion, the Motion to Dismiss, is ruled on. They surely don't seem in any hurry to get this matter resolved. They argue that because they are simultaneously providing discovery to IBM (of course IBM says they aren't seeing anything, as I recall), they can't possibly do both, and anyway, if they win their motion, it'd be moot. In short, they would very much like not to have to do this, presumably so that if they win the Motion to Dismiss they can continue to refuse to give any particulars about their case. If the judge doesn't grant their Motion to Dismiss, they'd like the judge to give them 30 days to provide all the discovery items.

Both of Red Hat's discovery documents are attached to this SCO Motion to Stay Discovery, and they begin with definitions, like what is "intellectual property" within the context of the document, and instructions, like how to identify the writers of documents, etc.. The first document begins on page 7 of the pdf, but we find out what Red Hat is asking for on page 12, where the list begins.

Red Hat in its "First Request for the Production of Documents and Things" asks SCO to produce the following documents:

1. All documents concerning the subject matter of the Complaint.
2. All documents concerning any customer, or potential customer, of Red Hat.
3. All communications between SCO and Red Hat or any employee of Red Hat.
4. All communications between SCO and any user or potential user of a Linux product, including Red Hat LINUX product, concerning any rights to Linux, or UNIX that SCO claims to have or concerning any actions by Red Hat that SCO claims are w

SCO filed a Motion to Dismiss the action in its entirety, as you know, and Red Hat filed its answering brief. But since we last reported on this case, Red Hat initiated discovery. They asked SCO for documents and for answers to some pointed questions. IBM is forcing SCO into a corner in Utah, and Red Hat is forcefully and aggressively trying to do the same in Delaware. You'll see, I think, that we haven't been wasting our time telling the world the details of this story. The big picture is that Red Hat is telling SCO to prove their allegations with specificity. They also want all their source code, and I'm sure you can figure out what they want to do with it, when I tell you that they asked for the complete Linux Kernel Personality source code, among the other products for which they have requested source code.

They also want to hear some details about the relationship between Canopy and SCO, including any stock or intellectual property transfers. They want SCO to "identify by title, version, module(s) and line(s)" what they think is misappropriated in any way or in violation of any of its rights. They ask for the details of Microsoft and Sun's licensing arrangement with SCO. They want to know who those 1500 companies were that got the letter, and what happened next. They want to know exactly what SCO has filed a copyright on. They want all the details of SCOsource, including all the folks who have seen the code SCO has been showing under the NDA and what they saw, and any other contact with any Linux users about supposed liability. They want to know how they compared the UNIX and Linux code to determine infringement. They want to know if they've done any comparisons of the two and what the results were. They want to know all the stock or industry analysts SCO has met with or talked to and what was said. In short, it's like the kind of fantasy a guy might have about a bully getting his at last, because they asked them everything we wanted somebody to finally ask SCO and make them answer.

SCO responded to Red Hat's discovery requests by filing a new motion, and it has told the judge, in a Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss, it would like a delay until after the first motion, the Motion to Dismiss, is ruled on. They surely don't seem in any hurry to get this matter resolved. They argue that because they are simultaneously providing discovery to IBM (of course IBM says they aren't seeing anything, as I recall), they can't possibly do both, and anyway, if they win their motion, it'd be moot. In short, they would very much like not to have to do this, presumably so that if they win the Motion to Dismiss they can continue to refuse to give any particulars about their case. If the judge doesn't grant their Motion to Dismiss, they'd like the judge to give them 30 days to provide all the discovery items.

Both of Red Hat's discovery documents are attached to this SCO Motion to Stay Discovery, and they begin with definitions, like what is "intellectual property" within the context of the document, and instructions, like how to identify the writers of documents, etc.. The first document begins on page 7 of the pdf, but we find out what Red Hat is asking for on page 12, where the list begins.

Red Hat in its "First Request for the Production of Documents and Things" asks SCO to produce the following documents:

1. All documents concerning the subject matter of the Complaint.
2. All documents concerning any customer, or potential customer, of Red Hat.
3. All communications between SCO and Red Hat or any employee of Red Hat.
4. All communications between SCO and any user or potential user of a Linux product, including Red Hat LINUX product, concerning any rights to Linux, or UNIX that SCO claims to have or concerning any actions by Red Hat that SCO claims are w

If you attend some of the future SCO roadshow maybe ask a few of the ones that they have come up with

Second: If you have any questions that you think needs to be included post it over at Groklaw.

It appears that HP is still sponsoring SCO's roadshow. Here is a discussion at Groklaw about a guy who called SCO's Blake Stowell to confirm this:

HP is sponsoring the road show

We're talking SCO here; so what's your point?

On a more serious note, a poster to GROKLAW ran across this SCO product brochure from 2002 which points out that the very features that SCO says infringe on their intellectual property (XFS, JFS, NUMA, etc.) are selling points in SCO's version of Linux. This makes it kind of hard for SCO to claim that they didn't know these features had been included in Linux and their release of the code under the GPL doesn't constitute GPLing the code.

I could be wrong but this only leaves SCO with three choices:

1. They can't complain about the features, just individual code fragments. They have just told SGI that fixing the individual code fragments isn't sufficient.
2. They challenge the GPL.
3. Drop the suits against IBM and SGI and watch their stock tank.

In Darl's contract, it states that he is in for a big payday if there are four consecutive quarters of profitability.

Not really. If you want the skinny on the stock options and incentives in Darl's contract, go read this.

In short -- Darl got 100,000 options after one year with SCO (which should have been on or about June 27, 2003). There are another 300,000 options that are vesting at a rate of 8333/month for 3 years. If SCO has 4 profitable quarters then Darl gets another 50,000 shared immediately, followed by 150,000 a year later.

By those numbers, he'd be well advised to keep the company around for at least a year after securing the 4 quarter deal -- he'd nearly double the shares.

On top of that, executives can't just call their broker and issue a sell order. Any insider must register for the purchase or sale of shares with the SEC. If you look at the execs of any large, successful company you'll see many have share sale orders out months or years in advance -- because they have to rebalance their portfolios.

I'm not saying this isn't pump 'n' dump or a variation thereof, but it's not as simple as some of the more ignorant /.ers would have you believe.

I think the explanation is probably simpler, and some docs (e.g. the Renaissance Ventures stuff) on the indispensible groklaw back up this hypothesis:

SCO really thought IBM would quietly settle. They probably pissed their pants when IBM called their bluff. So they are trying to exert pressure on IBM thru IBM's customers by stirring up this idea of indemnification.

For me, this hypothesis passes the "Ockham's Razor" test. Simple and believable.

Probably not, but hard to say. Check out these two comments posted at groklaw:

Letter to president asking for clarification:
http://www.groklaw.com/article.php?story=200309170 54352198#c7446

Response from HP ("I took care of that..."):
http://www.groklaw.com/article.php?story=200309190 72508223#c7287

Probably not, but hard to say. Check out these two comments posted at groklaw:

Letter to president asking for clarification:
http://www.groklaw.com/article.php?story=200309170 54352198#c7446

Response from HP ("I took care of that..."):
http://www.groklaw.com/article.php?story=200309190 72508223#c7287

If SCO really had a case they would not do this since time is not on their side. So why are they doing this?

Me Thinks Boies is bailing.

Off topic on the road show but if you want a running commentary from a lawyer on this whole fiaSCO look at this excellent site. The write up on promissory estoppel is quite good. It's a catch 22 for SCO

SGI said in their 10-K that they received a letter from SCO telling them their UNIX license would be terminated October 14th. SGI believes their license is not terminable.

In other news, GROKLAW is reporting SCO have asked for the IBM case to be delayed by four months, as they say that they need extra time to prepare their responses to IBM and they want to add additional parties to the suit.

I found this off groklaw

Looks like they will be sueing SGI according to this filing.

We recently received a notice from SCO Group stating its intention to terminate our fully paid license to certain UNIX-related code, under which we distribute our IRIX operating system, on the basis that we have breached the terms of such license. We believe that the SCO Group's allegations are without merit and that our fully paid license is nonterminable.

Guess that's why he is delaying the case even longer (4 months) according to Groklaw this morning.

Grocklaw has Two different articles on the IBM countersuit. The first one has a pointer to the counterclaim pdf (apparently on the SCO site). The second describes what they've done differently.

IBM is definitely seeking (an) injunction(s) against SCO. Reading the new counterclaim, I don't see any signs that they're seeking a preliminary injunction. I don't know that this necessarily precludes their filing for a preliminary injunction. The motion for a preliminary injunction would be a separate act.

Grocklaw has Two different articles on the IBM countersuit. The first one has a pointer to the counterclaim pdf (apparently on the SCO site). The second describes what they've done differently.

IBM is definitely seeking (an) injunction(s) against SCO. Reading the new counterclaim, I don't see any signs that they're seeking a preliminary injunction. I don't know that this necessarily precludes their filing for a preliminary injunction. The motion for a preliminary injunction would be a separate act.

Grocklaw has Two different articles on the IBM countersuit. The first one has a pointer to the counterclaim pdf (apparently on the SCO site). The second describes what they've done differently.

IBM is definitely seeking (an) injunction(s) against SCO. Reading the new counterclaim, I don't see any signs that they're seeking a preliminary injunction. I don't know that this necessarily precludes their filing for a preliminary injunction. The motion for a preliminary injunction would be a separate act.

As always, Groklaw has some excellent commentary on this, including a link to a fascinating Interview iwith Ransom Love inteview about the whole SCO fiasco.

Now granted there are plenty of PHBs in the world who are clueness enough to think they need indemnification, and now will get all warm and fuzzy about HP's actions. But it's not needed, won't help, and just plays right into SCO's hands. Not that it will make that much of a difference in the end.

Now granted there are plenty of PHBs in the world who are clueness enough to think they need indemnification, and now will get all warm and fuzzy about HP's actions. But it's not needed, won't help, and just plays right into SCO's hands. Not that it will make that much of a difference in the end.

1. HP considered (and is still considering) suing SCO. It's very clearly mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article.

2. SCO just issued a press release saying HP's actions (indemnifying Linux users) supports SCO's position... Meanwhile SCO has been saying for the last few months, that IBM and Red Hat, not indemnifying customers, supports SCO's position.

3. Documents revealing SCO's motivation (or at least what they told Wall Street their motivation is) have now been revealed:

There's been a lot of speculation about SCO's motivation for their war on Linux. GROKLAW appears to have discovered the definitive documents from way back in February (before SCO filed suit against IBM).

In short, it all started about shared libraries, the idea was to combine UNIX/Linux and possibly wipe out all SCO's competitors, to put SCO on top of the food-chain over Red Hat and other Linux companies, and to force IBM to settle because of SCO's claimed ability to revoke IBM's AIX license. For full details, read GROKLAW.

1. HP considered (and is still considering) suing SCO. It's very clearly mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article.

2. SCO just issued a press release saying HP's actions (indemnifying Linux users) supports SCO's position... Meanwhile SCO has been saying for the last few months, that IBM and Red Hat, not indemnifying customers, supports SCO's position.

3. Documents revealing SCO's motivation (or at least what they told Wall Street their motivation is) have now been revealed:

There's been a lot of speculation about SCO's motivation for their war on Linux. GROKLAW appears to have discovered the definitive documents from way back in February (before SCO filed suit against IBM).

In short, it all started about shared libraries, the idea was to combine UNIX/Linux and possibly wipe out all SCO's competitors, to put SCO on top of the food-chain over Red Hat and other Linux companies, and to force IBM to settle because of SCO's claimed ability to revoke IBM's AIX license. For full details, read GROKLAW.

If SCO had the guts to take on HP, they would have had the guts to take on Red Hat. In actively running away from Red Hat they have invited this.

Groklaw actually has a good article about SCO's linux kernel personality (LKP). Their stance on this is deeply hypocritical, as you'll see from reading the details!!

If you look at the groklaw site you will get a list of some of the places the press release was sent.. Click Here to and scroll down about 3/4 of the page!

For those of you wondering what this whole SCO vs. Linux thing was about, I can finally reveal the truth.

As chairman and CEO of Canopy I've done a lot for the Open Source community. I've promoted investments in companies like Linux Networx, who make the third fastest supercomputer in the world and use Linux to do it. Companies like Lineo the masters of embedded Linux. Also Trolltech producing the incredible QT widget set used by the KDE project. And of course Caldera, producing the finest Linux distribution and pushing forwards the United Linux initiative.

But one shadow lay over my record of achievements. Despite all I had done for the Linux and Open Source communities, I still had never achieved the triumph I most desperately sought. Not once had an article I submitted been accepted by Slashdot :(

I'm sure my fellow Slashdotters can understand how this gnawed away at my soul.

Together with Darl McBride and David Boies I hatched a master plan, to achieve my dream of an accepted Slashdot article or to destroy Linux trying.

Caldera would purchase IP rights from the Santa Cruz Operation and with funding from Sun and Microsoft would use them as the springboard to launch a devastating legal and PR blitz against Linux. As part of this Darl would write a searing open letter to the Open Source community, drawing responses in return. One of these from Groklaw would give me the opportunity I needed...

As you can see everything has gone exactly to plan. I have my successful Slashdot submission, and I'm sure that looking back on it you can all see it was worth any 'collateral damage' along the way.

Darl, you can call off the dogs now.

God bless you all.

Ralphie

Somebody please find a copy of the goddamn SCO motion to dismiss the redhat litigation in Delaware... what does it take to get a slashdotter to go down to the DE district court, photocopy the document and scan it in?

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the "ACCC") has contacted the Company and requested information regarding complaints it has received regarding the Company's intellectual property claims and the Company's statements regarding the need for commercial Linux users to obtain a UNIX license. The Company intends to respond to the ACCC's inquiry. The ACCC has notified the Company that it has not made any decision to pursue the complaints it has received or determined what, if any, action it will take

Sun and MS are propping SCO up to hurt Linux.

Not to be too nice to SUNW or MSFT. Both companies' license agreements were to be paid over several quarters in installments. These aren't new agreements, just the payments for the old ones. IIRC it was equal payments over four quarters. Just the right deal for Darl to make his money.