Slashdot Mirror

According to Heise Online (yes, it's German, machine translation here), AN.ON at TU-Dresden, the operators of the JAP service, no longer need to store connection logs as a court decided that unrestricted logging of connections to certain web pages has no legal basis.

Wrong.

Steve Ballmer has explicitly stated that free implementations of Dotnet will not be tolerated and that he will use patents to protect the "millions" invested.

Reference: Interview in May 2002 issue of IX Magazine (in German, excerpt here).

Translation: New device found. Device: Airbus A310. Do you want to start auto configuration now?
Start/Abort

Has anyone followed up or concluded anything regarding the possibility of the power grid's SCADA systems (which habitually run a stripped down Win2K) getting nailed by the Blaster worm? The timing is right, and there are a number of indications thereof:
See:

this or
this or
this.

Yes, there are significant problems with biometrics over the Net. Most of these problems can be alleviated by adding a trusted human being to the equasion, someone to stand by the biometric reader and make sure nobody does anything obviously hinky with it. (In this case, the teller serves that function.)

The german c't computer magazine has created a database sometime ago.
It doesn't only list CDs, there is also information about the used copy protection and how well different players/drives can handle those (UN-)CDs.

Database

I think the project was started because of the growing number of "protected" CDs especially in Germany, as the music industry is convinced to get away with it here, due to the lack of organizations like ACLU (related (german) article here).

The german c't computer magazine has created a database sometime ago.
It doesn't only list CDs, there is also information about the used copy protection and how well different players/drives can handle those (UN-)CDs.

Database

I think the project was started because of the growing number of "protected" CDs especially in Germany, as the music industry is convinced to get away with it here, due to the lack of organizations like ACLU (related (german) article here).

In the US the continuation of claims after paying the fine would eventually lead to contempt of court charges. Would this not be the case in Germany as well?

Yes, probably, but they don't continue to make those claims. The preliminary injunction is only against "The SCO Group GmbH," i.e. the German subsidiary, not against the US parent company. I've just looked at SCO Group GmbH's web site, and not found any claims about Linux, information about their Linux licensing or anything like that.

The fine that SCO has to pay now is because after the injunction against them was issued, SCO took offline their German web site, but when they put it back online their "letter to Linux users" was still published on the HTTPS version of the web site. SCO claims that the continued publication was a mistake. That was in June, more information can be found in this article (German).

The court has now decided that SCO was negligent in operating their web server, that's why they have to pay the fine.

is that they don't work.
The German computer magazine c't once these such set-ups and the Pringles cans failed miserably.
They wrote that a open cable stump would do better.
However, coffee cans is a different story. They do in fact work. That's be cause their diameter is larger and thus make decent receivers. The Pringles cans are simply too small.

Heise has had an article on this as well. Translation follows.

Normally, one would only see this kind of stuff happening in rather bad secret agent movies, but now it happened to a woman in Amsterdam: Her cell phone exploded. These news about the exploded mobile phone are likely to disturb many cell phone owners: "Could this happen with my phone too?" In the Netherlands city, the woman's phone had first fallen to the ground. When she turned it on again and held it to her ear, the device exploded and caught fire. The woman suffered minor injuries. Experts, however, see no reason to be concerned: Cell phones explode extremely rarely, according to Bernd Schwencke, head of the cellular phone testing department of the German Quality Testing agency, Stiftung Warentest, in Berlin.

"Up to now, no such case was known to me," Schwencke notes. According to him, what's unusual about this event in the Netherlands is that the phone did not catch fire during recharging as in previously known cases, but while using the phone. In previous cases where the rare case of a mobile phone catching fire occured, forged batteries were spotted as the cause. This was also the cause when a Siemens phone caught fire during recharging in a car kit. The phone manufacturer was not responsible -- the device was equipped with a bogus battery that was not properly working. "The accumulator had no overcharging protection and simply burst like a balloon filled with too much air," says Stefan Muller, spokesperson for the Siemens mobile phone division in Munich. Unfortunately, the plagiarized products mostly originating from Asia are still a problem, according to Muller. To prevent the use of such "time bombs" in cell phones, the experts advise to only buy batteries in specialized stores instead of flea markets -- even if a manufacturer's logo is on the battery.

Article in German. Sobig.F filter rules for Sendmail, Postfix and Exim.

When is the REAL heise going to send SCO a cease-and-desist letter telling them to stop using their name as the supposed name of a "lawyer" representing SCO?

It strikes me that SCO would show their best example. This is it?!?!? Hoary old code from 1973 that's been all over the net for three decades and is released under a license that allows the Linux developers to use it with impunity? If this is their best example, they are bound to lose.

However, the Heise article says (my translation):

Supposedly, around 700 critical lines of code for SMP-technology drifted from Unix into Linux releases 2.4 and 2.5. In total, SCO's testers are supposed to have found over 800000 lines of duplicated program code - an example from SCO is shown in the picture right (enlarged view).

i.e. that was just one example, chosen by Heise. If even 1% of what SCO says is true, this could get very nasty for IBM and/or Linux in general. <flame suit on>

Maybe we'll one day see the FSF sue the arses of the any programmers who stole code and signed false copyright assignment forms. You can see the text of one of those here. It includes this:

The Assigner hereby represents and warrants that it is the sole copyright holder for the Work and that it has the right and power to enter into this contract. The Assigner hereby indemnify and hold harmless the Foundation, its officers, employees, and agents against any and all claims, actions or damages (including attorney's reasonable fees) asserted by or paid to any party on account of a breach or alleged breach of the foregoing warranty.

Be afraid, be very afraid...

At SCO's annual reseller show, the company's executives put up a couple of slides as a way of demonstrating how Unix code had been "stolen" and put into Linux. The two slides were photographed and have since appeared on Heise Online; see them here and here. The escape of these slides has allowed the Linux community to do something it has been craving since the beginning of the SCO case: track down the real origins of the code that SCO claims as its own. The results, in this case, came quick and clear. They do not bode well for SCO.

The code in question is found in arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c in the 2.4 tree. It carries an SGI copyright. It seems that SGI was not entirely forthcoming in documenting the source of its source; some of the code in question was, indisputably, not written at SGI. So where does it really come from?

This code is from sys/sys/malloc.c in V7 Unix. It has been widely published; among other things, it can be found in Lion's Commentary on Unix (if you can get a copy). It featured in this 1984 Usenet posting. And, crucially, it has been circulated with the V7 Unix source, which was released by Caldera (now the SCO Group) under the BSD license. SCO would like the world to forget about that release now, but the Wayback Machine remembers.

So...SCO's code demonstration, the one that it put up to convince its resellers of its case, comes from a version of Unix which first came out in 1979. The code was publicly circulated in the 1980's, and explicitly released under the BSD license by [the company now known as] SCO at the beginning of 2002. SCO might well have a complaint that SGI did not properly give credit for the code it used. But there is no possible way the company can argue that this code's presence in Linux is an infringement of its copyrights.

And this, of course, is why SCO refuses to show the code that, it claims, is copied. These claims do not stand up to even a few hours' scrutiny on the net. SCO may yet have an interesting contract dispute with IBM, but, from what we have seen so far, its claims of direct copying of code are hollow.

(Many thanks to those who commented on an earlier LWN posting on this subject - those comments are the source for just about everything that appears in this article. Many thanks are due to LWN's readers; you have shown the best of what the community can do. Update: see also: this analysis of SCO's code by Bruce Perens.)

While I'm here, I have my own comments, that I really don't think that that chunk is copyrightable... It's far too direct an implementation of a simple algorithm to make it past copyright rules.

At SCO's annual reseller show, the company's executives put up a couple of slides as a way of demonstrating how Unix code had been "stolen" and put into Linux. The two slides were photographed and have since appeared on Heise Online; see them here and here. The escape of these slides has allowed the Linux community to do something it has been craving since the beginning of the SCO case: track down the real origins of the code that SCO claims as its own. The results, in this case, came quick and clear. They do not bode well for SCO.

The code in question is found in arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c in the 2.4 tree. It carries an SGI copyright. It seems that SGI was not entirely forthcoming in documenting the source of its source; some of the code in question was, indisputably, not written at SGI. So where does it really come from?

This code is from sys/sys/malloc.c in V7 Unix. It has been widely published; among other things, it can be found in Lion's Commentary on Unix (if you can get a copy). It featured in this 1984 Usenet posting. And, crucially, it has been circulated with the V7 Unix source, which was released by Caldera (now the SCO Group) under the BSD license. SCO would like the world to forget about that release now, but the Wayback Machine remembers.

So...SCO's code demonstration, the one that it put up to convince its resellers of its case, comes from a version of Unix which first came out in 1979. The code was publicly circulated in the 1980's, and explicitly released under the BSD license by [the company now known as] SCO at the beginning of 2002. SCO might well have a complaint that SGI did not properly give credit for the code it used. But there is no possible way the company can argue that this code's presence in Linux is an infringement of its copyrights.

And this, of course, is why SCO refuses to show the code that, it claims, is copied. These claims do not stand up to even a few hours' scrutiny on the net. SCO may yet have an interesting contract dispute with IBM, but, from what we have seen so far, its claims of direct copying of code are hollow.

(Many thanks to those who commented on an earlier LWN posting on this subject - those comments are the source for just about everything that appears in this article. Many thanks are due to LWN's readers; you have shown the best of what the community can do. Update: see also: this analysis of SCO's code by Bruce Perens.)

While I'm here, I have my own comments, that I really don't think that that chunk is copyrightable... It's far too direct an implementation of a simple algorithm to make it past copyright rules.

They're all written in Greek! Greek is a fine language for religious texts and plays about incest, but it's not a programming language. Silly SCO...
Here's what they cleverly hid using a different font:
"As part of the kernel evolution
toward modular naming, the
functions malloc and mfree are being
renamed to rmalloc and rmfree.
Compatibility will be maintained by
the following assembler code:
(also see mfree/rmfree below)
"
Does breaking their encryption count as my DMCA violation for today?

The battle for the legality of Linux is becoming increasingly melodramatic: Two weeks ago, RedHat CEO Mathew Szulik declared himself Saviour of the Free World, and called for all Linux-Supporters to join the battle for freedom from the software industry. His opponent darl McBride from SCO strikes an even more martialic pose: a James Bond fighting against the forces of Darkness -- incarnated in the Open Source Movement.

McBride spent no less than two hours at the beginnign of the SCO symposium to clarify his company's legal position. Backed by pictures and music from various Bond flicks, he attempted to rally the supporters of the formerly cult company from Santa Cruz to his fight for the Good Cause. The SCO Group has started a legal battle against IBM for alleged copyright violations and misuse of SCO-owned UNIX code in Linux. Star attorney David Boies, famous for fielding the US anti-trust effort against Microsoft, represents SCO against IBM. More than 1500 major Linux-using companies have received admonitions to pay licensing fees from SCO.

With Vice CEO Chris Sontag as sidekick, McBride offered several examples from Kernel 2.5 and 2.6 that are meant to prove that several program parts were transplanted unmodified from UNIX -- such an example is here. Duplicated typos in the commentary as well as unusual coding style have left traces, says Sontag. To porve this, McBride employed teams for pattern recognition to parse tens of thousands of lines of code. The few sequences of actual code shown besides the commentaries were largely scrambled, supposedly to protect SCO copyright. They were, however, representative for a thousand other just like them, emphasizes Sontag. Multiple developers had illegally transplanted code into Linux and then distributed the source to users and developers. The software in question is nothing trivial, but contains integral operating system functions used for demanding applications and extremely secure environments in companies. Among them are the multiprocessor technologies NUMA and SMP, which under UNIX licensing cost 10,000$ or more.

Rouhgly 700 lines of code for the SMP technology are supposed to have gone into Kernel versions 2.4 and 2.5. All in all, SCO claims to have found no less than 800.000 lines of duplicated code -- one example is shown here. Attorney Mark Heise from Boies' law firm joined the SCO chiefs on the podium in Las Vegas. He emphasized that the GPL did not offer protection against copyright claims from SCO. The Unix license that SCO bought from AT&T in 1994 guarantees SCO ownership of System V copyright and all AT&T software and sublicense rights. The license agreement, originally drawn up by AT&T lawyers, which has since gone over to SCO, is unequivocal concerning scope, Heise affirmed. Accordingly, the license gives the licensee (e.g. IBM) the right to use the software internally for commercial purposes. Modifications and derivatives are subject to the license just like the original. They cannot be used for or by third parties.

"Now we finally know how Linux has matured from hobby OS to IT-company platform," Sontag jibes. "If something sounds too good to be true, it usually isn't," topped McBride. Evolved technology simply cannot be had for free. "Free Software -- not our thing." UNXIX comprises 20 years of development work: Based on it, SCO wants to make money for another 20 years. McBride appealed for support from partners and developers from the UNIX community, otherwise, "the times for good business might soon be over." GPL and Open Source destroy legal business models -- compensations and a legal business model for the future are therefore necessary. Heise seconded: That SCO once distributed its code as Linux distributor, did not mean that Linux users where protected from all demands because of the GPL. Copyright for code can only be obtained by a written contract wit

The battle for the legality of Linux is becoming increasingly melodramatic: Two weeks ago, RedHat CEO Mathew Szulik declared himself Saviour of the Free World, and called for all Linux-Supporters to join the battle for freedom from the software industry. His opponent darl McBride from SCO strikes an even more martialic pose: a James Bond fighting against the forces of Darkness -- incarnated in the Open Source Movement.

McBride spent no less than two hours at the beginnign of the SCO symposium to clarify his company's legal position. Backed by pictures and music from various Bond flicks, he attempted to rally the supporters of the formerly cult company from Santa Cruz to his fight for the Good Cause. The SCO Group has started a legal battle against IBM for alleged copyright violations and misuse of SCO-owned UNIX code in Linux. Star attorney David Boies, famous for fielding the US anti-trust effort against Microsoft, represents SCO against IBM. More than 1500 major Linux-using companies have received admonitions to pay licensing fees from SCO.

With Vice CEO Chris Sontag as sidekick, McBride offered several examples from Kernel 2.5 and 2.6 that are meant to prove that several program parts were transplanted unmodified from UNIX -- such an example is here. Duplicated typos in the commentary as well as unusual coding style have left traces, says Sontag. To porve this, McBride employed teams for pattern recognition to parse tens of thousands of lines of code. The few sequences of actual code shown besides the commentaries were largely scrambled, supposedly to protect SCO copyright. They were, however, representative for a thousand other just like them, emphasizes Sontag. Multiple developers had illegally transplanted code into Linux and then distributed the source to users and developers. The software in question is nothing trivial, but contains integral operating system functions used for demanding applications and extremely secure environments in companies. Among them are the multiprocessor technologies NUMA and SMP, which under UNIX licensing cost 10,000$ or more.

Rouhgly 700 lines of code for the SMP technology are supposed to have gone into Kernel versions 2.4 and 2.5. All in all, SCO claims to have found no less than 800.000 lines of duplicated code -- one example is shown here. Attorney Mark Heise from Boies' law firm joined the SCO chiefs on the podium in Las Vegas. He emphasized that the GPL did not offer protection against copyright claims from SCO. The Unix license that SCO bought from AT&T in 1994 guarantees SCO ownership of System V copyright and all AT&T software and sublicense rights. The license agreement, originally drawn up by AT&T lawyers, which has since gone over to SCO, is unequivocal concerning scope, Heise affirmed. Accordingly, the license gives the licensee (e.g. IBM) the right to use the software internally for commercial purposes. Modifications and derivatives are subject to the license just like the original. They cannot be used for or by third parties.

"Now we finally know how Linux has matured from hobby OS to IT-company platform," Sontag jibes. "If something sounds too good to be true, it usually isn't," topped McBride. Evolved technology simply cannot be had for free. "Free Software -- not our thing." UNXIX comprises 20 years of development work: Based on it, SCO wants to make money for another 20 years. McBride appealed for support from partners and developers from the UNIX community, otherwise, "the times for good business might soon be over." GPL and Open Source destroy legal business models -- compensations and a legal business model for the future are therefore necessary. Heise seconded: That SCO once distributed its code as Linux distributor, did not mean that Linux users where protected from all demands because of the GPL. Copyright for code can only be obtained by a written contract wit

* As part of the kernel evolution
towards modular naming, the
* functions malloc and mfree are being
renamed to rmalloc and rmfree.
* Compatibility will be maintained by
the following assembly code:
* (also see mfree/rmfree below)
*/

If SCO believes that the GPL isn't a valid license, then the Linux sources remain implicitly copyrighted by the authors. Wouldn't the posting the Linux source by SCO here be a violation of the DMCA and/or copyright infringement?

I'd love to see SCO get nailed for that!

I like the babelfish translation of the article, especially the phrase 'McBride still one drauf.'

I'm not sure what a drauf is, but whatever it is, it doesn't sound nice.

In this picture, they show that the comments are almost identical. Of course, the comments do sound very generic, almost text-book, and at the bottom of the SCO comments, they obfusticated the remainder of the comments for this line of code.

If someone wants to search the kernel for the phrase "Algorithm is first-fit" and let us know where it came from, we can back-check who put it in, if it's in BSD, and if SCO is talking out their ass.

The code seems to come from arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c, copyright by SGI:
http://www.funet.fi/pub/Linux/PEOPLE/Linus/v2.4/pa tch-html/patch-2.4.19/linux-2.4.19_arch_ia64_sn_io _ate_utils.c.html

Does this code come from:
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V5/usr/sys/ken/mal loc.c.html
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/sys/mal loc.c.html

Plus...

For version referencing, look here

Justin.

SCO did a big dog and pony show yesterday at their conference. They also raised their claims, and according to them, there are "millions of lines" of offending code which they have identified by "rocket scientists" using "spectral recognition" and "pattern analysis".

To convince SCOforum attendees of their case, SCO showed obscured slides which supposedly proved copying.

Research reveals that the code fragment SCO showed in one of their slides, doesn't even belong to SCO - it's from BSD. See for yourself, the code originated from, and is Copyright 1986 Regents of the University of California! And, while they might have more up their sleeve, it's is revealing that the most compelling example they can show at their forum, doesn't even belong to them!

Code like this?

and this?

Code like this?

and this?

Wow. I've never heard that System V was written in Greek

good stuff. just gotta fix the links
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-19.08.03-00 0/imh1.jpg
http://www.funet.fi/pub/Linux/PEOPLE/Linus/v2.4/pa tch-html/patch-2.4.19/linux-2.4.19_arch_ia64_sn_io _ate_utils.c.html
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V5/usr/sys/ken/mal loc.c.html
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/ken/mal loc.c.html

gotta love the slash code.

There seems to be nothing of value here. As pointed out by Starborn this comment goes at least as far back as BSD 2.11, which, according to the file, is from subr_rmap.c 1.2 (2.11BSD GTE) 12/24/92

...

The linux version is slightly modified with some differing variable names, but the algorithim seems to be nearly identical.

There seems to be nothing of value here. As pointed out by Starborn this comment goes at least as far back as BSD 2.11, which, according to the file, is from subr_rmap.c 1.2 (2.11BSD GTE) 12/24/92

...

The linux version is slightly modified with some differing variable names, but the algorithim seems to be nearly identical.

There seems to be nothing of value here. As pointed out by Starborn this comment goes at least as far back as BSD 2.11, which, according to the file, is from subr_rmap.c 1.2 (2.11BSD GTE) 12/24/92

...

The linux version is slightly modified with some differing variable names, but the algorithim seems to be nearly identical.

There seems to be nothing of value here. As pointed out by Starborn this comment goes at least as far back as BSD 2.11, which, according to the file, is from subr_rmap.c 1.2 (2.11BSD GTE) 12/24/92

...

The linux version is slightly modified with some differing variable names, but the algorithim seems to be nearly identical.

Clickable links

Heise News shows the code:

The code seems to come from arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c, copyright by SGI:

Does this code come from: Here (V5) or Here (V7)?

In the heise.de screenshots from the SCO Forum: First screenshot, second screenshot.

A simple google search reveals that these comments are from malloc.c and/or ate_utils.c

The copyright at the tops says Silicon Graphics et al. WTF?

In the heise.de screenshots from the SCO Forum: First screenshot, second screenshot.

A simple google search reveals that these comments are from malloc.c and/or ate_utils.c

The copyright at the tops says Silicon Graphics et al. WTF?

This is from a heise.de article .

Two slides show some code (1 2)
that may come from Fifth Edition UNIX.

This is from a heise.de article .

Two slides show some code (1 2)
that may come from Fifth Edition UNIX.

This is from a heise.de article .

Two slides show some code (1 2)
that may come from Fifth Edition UNIX.

We've been discussing this on the gentoo forums just now, and we've found that:
1) Their example is from the IA64 port of linux 2.4 (its not in 2.6)
2) Their example can be traced back to 2.11BSD
3) The greek in the sco code is actually english, with the font changed to english (Stupid obfucation attempt) heres what it says:

"As part of the kernel evolution towards modular naming, the functions malloc and mfree are being renamed to rmalloc and rmfree. Compatibility will be maintained by the following assembler code: (also see mfree/rmfree below)"

We're still discussing it on the gentoo forums here

Here's the clickable German link and here's the translation:

The explanations for the blackout in the USA and Canada were rather incomplete: Lightning supposedly struck a powerplant at the Niagara falls. Following this, the electrical grid collapsed in numerous states.

Nationwide, the connections of a powerplant to the power grid are controlled by a central Grid-Center, to prevent these failures. Normally, it ensures that single regions are quickly disconnected in case of emergency [short circuit, lightning strike etc.] so that the other powerplants can continue as normal. But this time, any protections failed. Resulting from this, the load on the other plants increased, so that they in turn were disconnected as well due to overload, leaving parts of the US without power. Why the measures to prevent a complete failure not worked is still unclear.

Our investigations [Heinz Heise Verlag, publisher of security and IT-news] uncovered the following coincidence: The failed Niagara plant belongs to National Grid USA. This power company is mentioned as a reference customer by Northern Dynamics. This firm calls themselves the "Home of the OPC Experts" and offer a range of products that use OPC for communication with control- and measurement-systems.

OPC stands for "OLE for Process Control" and uses Microsoft's COM/DCOM-Model. This is exactly the technology with the security hole exploited by the W32.Blaster-worm. In a subnet with the worm active, (as enduser got to know at their desktop PCs rebooting regularly) the DCOM-interface fails on unpatched systems and therefore the OPC-system is unavailable, too.

OPC is used for the coupling of so-called SCADA-systems (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition), that are employed by power plants. Process data is exchanged between a data center and one or more telemetric sensors. [...]

Because National Grid USA was unavailable for a statement, we can't help but ask the following questions:

- What is the exact usage of OPC at National Grid USA?

- Were there problems with OPC at the time of the blackout? If yes, do they are connected with the W32.Blaster-worm?

Further references mentioned by the "OPCExperts" Northern Dynamics are among others General Electric, Siemens, ABB and the european center for nuclear research (CERN). All this requires investigations.

Really ?

You better read this (in German) or the (automatic) translation.

Why couldn't the SCADA systems been affected by some RPC blocking firewall ?

Of course no one will ever admit that such a thing has happened. Otherwise she/he will end up in Guatanamo. It's your turn now to do some research.

With our searches we are encountered the following connections: The failed Niagara power station belongs too national to Grid the USA . This power supplier is specified as a reference customer of Northern Dynamics. This company calls itself as "Home OF the OPC Experts" and offers a set of products, which use OPC for communication with control and control systems.

OPC stands for Process control "for" OLE for and touches down on Microsofts COM/DCOM model. That is however exactly the technology with the safety hole, which the worm W32.Blaster uses. In a net, in which this worm is active, malfunctioned due to the regular restarts, which observe now final users also concerned with their PCS, DCOM communication and concomitantly OPC on ungepatchten systems.

It's not too convincing, to be honest. It's just saying that there is a possible connection, and that the company running the plant didn't answer their questions yet. (Which is of course very suspicious, what could these people have better to do right now then answering to wild allegiations from a german IT magazine?)

This posting on heise (German word for slashdot in some way) shows some interesting points:

* National Grid seems to use OPC

OLE for Process Control

OPC is based on the COM/DCOM modell.

Further investigation is under development...

I am not going to translate the whole thing, but it says that some of the National Grid USA system is based on OPC from Northern Dynamics which uses COM/DCOM for communication.

nice theory anyway.

url: http://heise.de/security/news/meldung/39451

Patents don't stimulate innovation, they capture and protect innovation. My experience at Cisco is that the ability to get patents is not what inspires new developments. Instead, competition has been the major stimulus of innovation at Cisco. Our engineering teams are motivated by the desire to quickly turn their ideas into products and services that customers want, solutions that will help our customers improve their productivity. They don't ask "can we patent this?" before deciding whether to create new solutions.

In order to "capture and protect" innovation, companies register more and more patents each year, often just to prevent others from suing them. But some companies register patents for the sole purpose of engaging in legal warfare -- a risky gamble with potentially huge prizes.

The biggest danger inherent in software patents is to free software. Megacorporations can easily collect thousands of patents on trivial processes to use against open source programmers who have little means to defend themselves. Wait for Microsoft and others to attack on this front -- that would be nice extra FUD fodder with all the SCO crap going on right now. To ignore software patents as Linus Torvalds does is the wrong approach. They must be eliminated entirely.

Schwabisch Hall mayor quote: "one-time savings of 200.000 Euro". Lifetime savings will be much bigger, of course. das link

but good luck

To those who wish that IBM or whoever would simply buy out SCO, consider the following:

1) America is rampant with frivolous lawsuits. Hell, we invented the term, along with nuiscience suit. What big company doesn't have one or more?

2)There will be more to follow. Count on it. When you get big enough, you get sued. If you're intimidated now(or your manager is), then you might as well drop Linux because this won't be the last. This lawsuit is as full of s*** as they come, and if we as a community concede to their desire for a buyout under these circumstances, we have no chance of surviving.

3)The only thing which gives this lawsuit any legitimacy is the fact that SCO bought some UNIX licenses in the past. Everything else about it is made up of lies and contradictions:

1. They attack Linus for not carefully checking and preventing proprietary code from infecting Linux, yet SCO itself continued(continues?) to distribute Linux, apparently oblivious to violation of their own IP.
2. Their inability to decide on what type of IP case this is; copyright? patents? contract violations?
3. They claim ownership of all code related to Unix. As the BSD case has established, this is impossible. If they claim ownership only of work derived specifically from Sys V, then all they can ask for is for those "stolen" parts to be removed.

4)The only thing that matters is what is done in court. "Cease and desist" letters, random claims of ownership of IP, threats to sue anyone and everyone, look pathetic. Despite all the fears of FUD scaring users away, most people understand this. This is why smart companies have a policy of silence during litigation.

5)Be grateful SCO's claims are so outrageous. It's as if I were to send Microsoft a letter claiming they stole some of my IP and therefore the entire company is mine. Or that some MS employee sneaked some SCO code into Windows, and therefore SCO owns all of Windows XP.

The best thing to do is point people to articles like Eric Raymond's and ANUPAM CHANDER's as well as the fact that in the first court challenge by LinuxTag, SCO backed off.

i think what IBM, Redhat and all the other linux distributors should make clear that it is soon enough to buy SCO Unixware or linux or what ever licences when SCO has proven their statments and/or there is a pro SCO judgment
in germany Linuxtag e.V. has achieved interim injunction (or what ever einstweilige verfugung is in english) against SCO that prevents them from spreading their FUD in Germany german article