Slashdot Mirror
SCO Threatens to Press IP Claims on Linux -$99/cpu
Tangential writes "New story on LinuxBusiness week says SCO is about to mount an effort to get all Linux sites to pay a per cpu license for so-called patent violations."SCO has been proposing to charge users $96 per CPU for a so-called one-time System 5 for Linux software license to protect their systems from SCO-enforced patent issues if they ante up as soon as demand is made." They've retained David Boies (DOJ prosecutor of Microsoft) to handle the legal issues." Note: I've been unable to substantiate this - which are fairly incendiary claims. Further updates as more is heard.
This sounds like High School again.
"Mark said that Shirly swears (and Shirly never ever lies) she overheard Jenny say she got it on with Mr. Macgee the English teacher!"
No - you may be thinking about trademarks.
Don't use a trademark or object to an infringing use that you knew of and you might lose it.
This is not true for patents.
You call "incorporating Linux functionality into Caldera/SCO OS8" favorable towards the Linux community? Me, I would call that survival instincts...
Yeah, SCO used to be the leading x86 UNIX vendor and yeah, they USED to be extremely arrogant towards Linux, calling it a toy OS, etc. But I think they got pretty scared when all their ISVs started moving their software to Linux. (NOTE: I'm talking ISVs who used to target SCO systems.)
So like, what else can they do? They're dead without the applications. Making their OS run Linux apps might be their only way out. Run the Linux apps and sell on the "flexible" licensing and superior clustering (Compaq NonStop clusters.. which is being ported to Linux. Running on Unixware, it was the worst piece of shit I've ever seen though I've no idea whose fault that was)
It's interesting reading that IBM was actively "dissuading" SCO from carrying out this threat.
IBM has an enormous number of software patents that probably cover every operating system on the market. IBM, unlike SCO, understands that for software companies software patents are like nuclear weapons. They are useful as a deterrent, and useless for anything else.
There's a story, possibly apocryphal, about how a Microsoft lawyer contacted IBM's legal department, informed them that they had a patent that IBM's operating systems infringed upon, and set up a meeting to discuss royalty payments. The IBM legal team supposedly showed up with a pile of hundreds of patents that Windows infringed on, and that was the end of that.
I suspect that this is the nature of the dissuasive force being brought to bear by IBM.
This seems to be a useful side effect of large companies like IBM adopting Linux. They serve as a certain form of protection against this sort of shakedown racket, at least from by actual software companies.
The only companies that are able to enforce software patents with impunity are those companies that don't actually manufacture software, like PANIP This highlights the destructive uselessness of software patents -- they are only capable of benefiting companies that don't produce software, in other words, lawsuit factories like PANIP.
Oh yes, they also benefit the patent office to the tune of millions of dollars a year -- a destructive racket in and of itself.
Until I see some citations, I'm a bit skeptical about these claims. If it does turn out that the Linux kernel is violating a solid patent, is there any reason why the code couldn't just be tweaked to not violate the patent anymore? While a "real" company might not be willing to do this, the kernel developers have demonstrated a willingness to overhaul major portions of the kernel code and I'm sure any problems could be routed around fairly quickly.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Naive people on slashdot will consistently tell you how software patents protect the little guy. Of course, they're unable to ever show you a case of this happening, but I guess the idea that it could potentially help the little guy in some sort of odd circumstance makes it all right.
Software patents have always been a bad idea.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
You are so missing the point. While you are correct, they won't sue you personally, they will sue the distro owners. If they are successful, then the distro owners will be forced to pass the charge off on to the consumers or eat it themselves. Given those choices, which one do you think will happen? This will effectively kill any free as in beer distribution of Linux, because the distro owner will be forced to pay for every free download.
If SCO publish the source files for linux complete with the original GPL licence files then surely that constitutes acceptance of that licence. They have already done this so I dont see that they can say anything. IANAL but it makes sence to me.
is the doctrine of laches. You can't claim back dues for patent infringement if the person you're suing honestly didn't know about your patent. This supposedly puts a stop to "submarine patents".
Does my bum look big in this?
I'm sure Microsoft likes what it's hearing today, but it's not stupid enough to get involved.
Why? Because it's in still in court trying to settle it's antitrust case. All a judge (or Sun, or any one else that is "Sue MS" Happy) would have to hear is that MS is involved (in any way I might add) in preventing Linux from being sold in a market that MS dominates, and all kinds of hell breaks loose.
Because if this, Microsoft will not even think of getting close to this case, let alone touch it.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
But the GPL requires not only the freedom to redistribute, but to distribute arbitrary derived works. So really, the above should read "... would not permit royalty-free distribution of arbitrary derived works". But this is clearly nonsense: If I added one-click shopping to GNU ls, I would not have a license to distribute the result. So by section 7, nobody can distribute GNU ls under the GPL.
There are many other scenarios in which the claims of section 7 are rendered absurd. Consider the impact on those outside of the jurisdiction in which the patent applies; the hypothetical rogue nation that outlaws GPLed software; the employee whose contract prohibits him from contributing to certain free software projects. The requirement that "all those who receive copies directly or indirectly" be able to exercise their GPL rights is ludicrously onerous.
Regarding the parent's main point: I certainly believe that SCO itself is prohibited from distributing GPLed software on which it has patents, unless they also give everyone a free, perpetual license to the patent for GPLed software. Otherwise, they would not really be giving others the freedoms that they say (via the GPL) they are giving. Since they have distributed Linux, that alone is enough to thwart the rumored patent attack.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
Innocent until proven guilty?
Don't waste your energy in ranting about this (yet)
The interesting thing is that SCO have themselves distributed Linux. This means that if the patents were not "free-for-all" they have infringed on the copyright of the kernel hackers. After all, if they don't obey the GPL they have no right to redistribute. If they really push this I could see a copyright suit coming from the kernel hackers - notably Alan Cox. I don't think SCO would want that...
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
No, this is yet another reason why SOFTWARE patents are bad, bad, bad. In the realm of physical devices you need to be specific enough about your device for the patent to be enforcable so there is usually an alternative implementation that can achieve a similar goal without infringing. For example look at the way that AMD was able to basically clone the Intel cpu's over the years, they could make another cpu that could take the same inputs and give the same outputs but which did not infringe on Intel's patents.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
As a newbie to Linux coming from The Beast - even paying $96 is cheap compared to the hundreds, possibly even thousands I've paid to Redmond over the years.....
Tossing something patented and replacing it with something that does the same thing... doesnt work. Only a wheel has the function of a wheel.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Hmmm... that's real reliable.
Let's assume for the sake of discussion that they're really doing this. Why? They don't have the muscle to pursue *all* the violators. And if they did, there would be serious impact to infrastructure. Aren't there one or two or more "CPUs" critical to the internet running GNU/Linux?
So, we also have to assume that SCO doesn't care about the potential impact to the community (not the "Linux community"; the community). And we also have to assume that they don't care about the logistical nightmare of effectively enforcing their alleged patent.
Maybe they're hoping some big organization that has an ideological problem with Linux will buy SCO (and the alleged patent), and enforce it?
If we assume all that, then we can conclude that SCO is ready to throw in the towel. What has happened when the sort of company that might buy this alleged patent for the purposes above actually does so? You can reasonably expect that company act like a wolverine that's found a cache of food.
C'est la guerre.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Well you get into the old agrument between pushing content and pulling content.
Distribution is important in the GPL, because it ensures that the publishers are responsible. It's like you children being refused entry to a porn movie. (though I don't beleive that children are affected, not unless it's a daily brainwash)
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Suppose I've got a Win98 PC running Linux in a Bochs x86 emulator. Would I be expected to fork over money for the virtual cpu, or the real cpu? What if I run several copies of Bochs at the same time?
I'm pretty sure that thats where this case is leaning towards, IBCS has been around since the early 90s allowing us to run SCO bins under linux. It sounds like they want to charge for that ability now... (bit late with the action on SCO's part)
Seriously, at 97 cents, SCO would stand to pull in a lot of money, and many large users would pay that small bill than deal with potential litigation. $97 seems like a ridiculously large sum to ask for.