Slashdot Mirror
SCO Has "Made No Decision" On Linux IP Claims
Earlier today, a Slashdot post reported the possibility that SCO would attempt to collect royalty payments for intellectual property that SCO (according to that story) claims would make other Linux vendors liable to the tune of nearly $100 per Linux-running CPU.
This report on NewsForge reports that SCO has issued a statement "disputing the claims in the story, but confirming that it does have significant asset claims in Unix IP and it is discussing 'possible strategies.'" Awfully ambiguous on SCO's part; I'd feel better about a straight denial.
...right behind Unisys. I think they're still waiting for their first royalty check from Slashdot. [Insert make believe deity here]-forbid they should use PNG instead.
What intellectual property does SCO claim to own? Are these patents, or copyrights, and over what code or protocols?
I think the core Linux was based on is past-due, patent-wise, so any claim on that would be prior art; and the fact that Linus coded the basic kernel from the ground up would eliminate copyright concerns, so what's left? Auxiliary functionality?
Someone was mentioning System V; is it SysV binary code compatibility that SCO is laying claim over? I think that could be eliminated from the kernel without major disruptions; some people would get really peeved about the inability to run proprietary software they couldn't recompile, but...
SCO must consider all options, it is after all a revenue generating corporation (supposedly). But, they must consider the risk that such an action would have. Should they decide to enforce such a claim, they risk having to spend a great deal of money defending the lawsuits that would surely arise from other similar companies.
Now, let's assume for a moment that they go forward with their claim and that it is uncontestable. The next step, naturally, would be for every Linux distribution to switch to the BSD style init system. SCO has no claim to this and therefore gain no further revenue from their System V rights. But, most importantly, no one would trust SCO again. Everything SCO would be shunned by all Linux distros and the community at large. At that point SCO may as well forget their Caldera roots and stop selling Linux completely because no one will buy SCO Linux again. SCO will be forced to try to line from SCO Unix alone and the original SCO proved that this is a very hard thing to do. It will be even harder now, as Linux was not as strong a contender 3 to 5 years ago, at least in the mindshare department.
I'm sure that SCO will eventually say that they will NOT enforce this claim against Linux but, they need to do it quickly because the longer they wait the less people will trust them.
1. Buy "Unix" name
1.1. Scribble out all references to BSD and the Univ. California's intellectual property role in the development of UNIX. Toss out any history on UNIX litigation, including Net2 code issue and round after round of court decisions.
5. ???
Actually, it's:
5. Develop pump and dump scheme to boost SCO stock for a few days while the execs dump and get out.
Then...
6. Bankruptcy!
Bingo. It's funny how history repeats. It wasn't too long ago that BSD/386 faced a similar threat from the current UNIX TM licensee.
"If you can't compete, litigate."
*scoove*
Would seem to be whether or not the distribution of a freely distributable version of Linux by the prior owners of SCO, perhaps in violation of their own patents, would in some way negate their current claims. After all, isn't it the case that if you fail to defend your patent or other intellectual property, it becomes harder to defend it later?
Are SCO going to pursue every linux user in the US? and if they do, will the US government (that's busy spending billions trying to re-ignite their economy) simply sit back and watch as the rest of the globe becomes more competitive and a better location to establish your business as a result?
Maybe, just maybe, this is actually what's required though. A really harsh pursuit of a patent by a failing company that sees this crazy ability to patent any and every idea relating to computing, whether it's obvious or even whether it's been done before properly challenged and hopefully halted. And if it's not halted? Well then for many companies it quickly becomes silly to be located in the US.
What intellectual property does SCO claim to own? Are these patents, or copyrights, and over what code or protocols?
... it innoculates against entities such as SCO submarining code into the OS and then making copyright claims down the road.
... and, of course, powerless to do anything about it beneath a government that no longer even feels the need to feign democracy, much less practice it. However, the rest of the world will continue on quite happilly without us, probably breathing a sigh of relief that such an out of control, unilateral superpower has managed to shoot itself so severely in the foot.
... why should one country, one corporation, or one human being own knowledge and wisdom, regardless of whether they thought of it first (and most likely had their employer claim ownership of their thought), or, as is just as often the case, merely won the footrace to the patent office or cribbed the work of others.
It almost certainly is not copyrights. Linux was written from scratch by Linus Torvalds and released under the GNU GPL. Any and all code submitted to the kernel is likewise GPLed, so if SCO submitted code, they did so under the terms of the GPL. This is where the GPL really shines
Of course, if someone violated SCO's copyright and got it accepted into the kernel without divulging its origins (or claiming to have written it themselves), then SCO would probably have a copyright claim against the purported author, not those (the linux kernel folks, distros, and users) to whome that hypothetical black hat illegally licensed the code. And if said person were actually in the employ of SCO, then sco would have essentially granted a licenses and would be bitchslapped by the courts. None of those latter scenerios are even remotely likely, so, as I said, it is almost certainly not a copyright claim SCO's vague comments are asserting.
What they own are almost certainly software patents, likely patents written from looking at the source code written and developed by others, and granted rubber-stamp style from the notoriously irresponsible US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). As others have said, such are the equivelent of 'nuclear weapons' for IT, and if SCO were to do such a foolish thing (as a consiquence of their own stupidity, or shilling for Microsoft), the end result will be no GNU/Linux in the United States (the only country stupid enough to recognize such patents), and a United States with an IT industry that would be irrelevant not within the generous twenty years Alan Cox suggests, but within a scant 5 years at best.
In short, America would become the technological backwater its behavior and policies have so richly earned it. We in the States who care (a vanishingly small minority) would be unhappy with this
In any event, if the rest of the world ever wants to throw off the yoke of the American Hegemony, the best and most effective first step they could take would be to reject our copyright and patent schemes outright
The best thing the developing world could do for itself is tell America and western Europe to fuck off and none-too-gently place their IP regimes, patents and copyrights in particular, into a location where the sun never shines. If free software is destroyed by these knowledge-squatters, it will not be the first such promising work of humanity so destroyed, nor the last. Until people wake up and put these Robber Barons in their place (preferably behind bars), atrocities such as this potential fiasco will occur again and again, with human progress and public interests being trampled, again and again, by the attourney equivelent of a spoiled child's shreak "No, I thought of it first, you can't use it!"
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
An opportunity to use the word FUD in its appropriate context! FUD!=lies. FUD==this exact sort of thing.
They could hurt Redhat, yes because Redhat is an American company. But I thought Mandrake was a French company? And I doubt that they patented using European patents. Likewise with Suse.
Do you know what is happening here? The US is starting to feed on itself. And people outside the US are starting to profit....
For example copyrights on specific music pieces in Europe expire and as such they are free to copy, but not in the US.
Interesting the Land of Free is turning into the land of the regulated lawyer! Actually sad!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
They are talking about the Linux _kernel_. It's GPL, so any "replacement of SCO code in a hurry" would be immediately available to all distributions.
And IBM would be much more likely to finance the work than Red Hat. Hell, IBM might just solve the problem by buying SCO.
Most likely, though, the kernel hackers would do the work with no need for any special corporate funding at all.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
in fact, we've made no decisions, formed no programs and announced nothing about this.
Good. Maybe this discussion will help you avoid doing something really stupid.
Without copyright, people would still write music and songs.
OK, no immediate problems with that (but you didn't say everything you should have -- see below).
And without patents, for other market-led reasons, people will still create and improve designs. Can you imagine that?
I can imagine that. I can also imagine a system based in reality...
You're a creative guy... so you come up with this "Gnomish contraption" that will turn sewage into magical potions. You just spent 10 years of your life researching and developing prototypes. You barely made ends meet because you believed in your idea and in yourself. Now you're ready to release your product to the world.
You're so proud... the first day sales are through the roof! Everyone is buying "Gnomish contraptions" like they were worth their weight in gold! But what's this? You don't get any money from these sales...
That's right... there were no patents available. You had no protection for your own innovations (time limited of course) to regain your investment of time (== money). Your blood, sweat, and tears were for naught; the little old lady next door copied your idea and built it for cheaper and is making money hand over fist. Isn't that competition?
So why do we have patents? Is it to protect Mr. Big Bad Corporation? No, it's to encourage innovation (wow!), because no one will innovate unless it benefits them. Yes, some people will gain their "payoff" in being a "do-gooder" and offering their product with "freely" (for a very loose example, think of the GPL). But remember, even the GPL has stipulations on how you can use the product. I might make some music and make it freely available and distributable, which makes me happy, but happiness doesn't feed my family.
If there were no restrictions whatsoever, no one would produce anything new, as there would be no incentive to do so. Why should you produce something if someone else can "steal" (but it's not stealing since there are no patents) it away from you?
Patents are designed to allow monopolization of a market for a short period, to enable a high return on investment (yes, investment) for those who do the R & D. After that, it's open season... and you'd better be innovating while you're making your monopoly profits... or when your patent expires you're out of luck (and business).
Can patents/copyrights/guns/toothpaste/etc be abused? Yes. But to try and push your opinions across by distorting reality is not going to get you far (or convince your intended audience).