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.
fuzzy thinking to make you want to scream for some real answers.
The reality of the situation is that SCO could never collect 100 dollars against every PC running Linux. At best, they would hurt RedHat, destroy what's left of Mandrake's bank account, and have a luminous cloud over every little distribution out there.
Are they going to use the linux counter or something?
--------
Free your mind.
Caldera has prevailed before with their DR DOS settlement with Microsoft - they figure why not try with Linux?
Caldera has no compelling product offerings so they are strictly in litigation mode.
If SCO tries anything, Torvalds, Stallman, et al will have cause to sue SCO and force them to drop their patent claims.
Still, SCO could stop distributing Linux, and demand others do so as well... There's nothing the GPL can do about that. This would simply force another vendor to buy their patent, such as RH or IBM, etc.
OTOH, these claims are still completely unsubstantiated.
This type of crap is just another reason software patents should be not allowed... Ridiculous.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
From the press release: "SCO is a Linux vendor and a leading member of United Linux", so SCO is distributing (claimed) patented software. However, from the GPL:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
That means that by not licensing the patents for free they're violating the GPL. Wonder if that infringement on the GPL could be used to invalidate their claim for money on Linux?
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
The whole point in these two "articles" of sorts is that it would have been much better to just wait and see what exactly is SCO's intention. The first article was jumping the gun (as this one proves), and the reaction of Slashdot is to.. again jump the gun? I almost think some people are using any and all opportunity to spread FUD.
It's quite simple, really: just wait what the decision will be, and if it turns out that Caldera would want to collect royalties from Linux distro makers, then let all hell break out, badmouth SCO and collect karma points all you like.
If it turns out, however, that SCO only wants to target Microsoft (which is, if you think about it for a second, the only sound and sane choice, as MS are the only ones that possess cash in aboundance), then I really wonder if all these zealous posters will take their words back and say "sorry, I suck". And remember, SCO (Caldera) has a history of getting money out of MS, so this should be one hint that MS will be the target. And the prosecutor that was mentioned in that first, atroucious writeup, was Boise, who clobbered MS rather badly (or well, depending on your POV) and earned his reputation as MS's nightmare. That should be another hint.
Sigged!
its not Linux they are after folks..its Oslairs and AIX..
Of course here are SCO's options:
-Sue SUN and IBM to enforce IP claims of Unix Solaris or AIX forcing SUN and IBM to fully embrace al Linux distributions except United Linux and SCO's Linux..
-Admit their business plans suck...
-Sue Linux distributions over IP claims and become a non player in the Linux community..
I think they wil press for the suing other unix players option..
Get your popcorn and get ready for fireworks
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Perhaps it's appropriate that the very first Unix systems were used to process patents for Bell labs. See: http://www.english.uga.edu/hc/unixhistory.html
What goes around, comes around...
This reminds me eerily of the BSD vs. USL/Novell legal battles of the early 90's, one of the things that held BSD's back during a critical period in the history of both Linux and BSD. I would assume that the out of court settlement for 4.4 BSD Lite would cover the BSD's against this, since Novell sold to SCO, then SCO to Caldera/SCO. BSD's would then be in no danger of such an intellectual property fight, so could be a safer bet against legal entanglements. But I'm not a lawyer.
This morning I saw the article hoverred my mouse over the URL just to make sure it wasn't a LinuxGram article.
Now that I have time to read it, I can see that it is a LinuxGram article after all and by Maureen O'Gara no less.
I'm not sure if there are any salt grains large enough for the articles she writes.
First of all, read this document: Microsoft Applauds European Commission Decision to Close Santa Cruz Operation Matter -Decision upholds Microsoft's right to receive royalties if SCO utilizes Microsoft's technology.
This means that it's probably not only SCO's IP, but also some of Microsoft's IP that is involved here.
Unfortunately, Microsoft sold its SCO stock, so this conspiracy theory doesn't quite work out. But hey, the Evil often returns to its former Servants to recruit them again, doesn't it?
Notice that what you're quoting is about copyright
Copyright dealing [incorrectly] with patent royalties. He was saying that if SCO submitted patented code to a GPLd project than SCO loses the rights to enforce that patent. That is wrong. In his words, he seems to be under the impression that SCO is trying to exert copyright infringement claims. In which case it's also wrong. So no matter what his point was, he was wrong.
Ad hominem attacks aren't really very productive, and in this case you again missed (ignored?) the point. The United States sets precident for most of the world's treaties on international patent and trademark law. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to attack the US when speaking of the utter mess that such treaties have created. China is, in fact, making rather grand (if, as yet, unsuccesful) efforts to move toward compliance with those treaties in order to gain an equal footing with the west in international trade.
His point was absolutely ludicrious, and was hard to respond with any degree of respect towards him. What a lot of people fail to understand is that the US is not the center of the patent treaties. The patent system in the US needs reformed, but in a lot of countries it's improved upon. The treaties are trying to unify global commerce by allowing patents in one country to be valid (enforcable) in another. This has nothing to do with the United States at all.
What mess has the treaties caused? It's bringing a global standard together. Why is that a bad thing? It means that the US will have access to the patents of other countries for research and ideas. It's as if you people think that if something is patented it's some big secret that you can't even talk about. You can view and discuss, and educate yourself on existing patents. In order for China to fully be recognized in the various pacts, they will have to fix their copyright issues first.
Attacking the United States for working with treaties for working towards global unification of the patent system is pointless, irrelevant, and misguided. The United States is not alone, and when dealing with the other countries carries no more weight than any of them. The difference is the US has more experience than the other countries. The US has more patents, and typically a longer running history of a patent office.
Again, the reason why the US leads with precedents is because of experience, not because we have a gun to every other countries head saying "Conform to our standards or we shoot you." That's all there is, people who find a conspiracy for the favor of big business in international patent and trademark treaties have no understanding of business or patent law at all.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Back when we were first throwing drivers left and right into the kernel (1992), someone brought up the point that Linux itself might be vulnerable to IP claims if it weren't developed "clean room" style. At that time it was thought that Sun would be the most likely threat, but a message was floated amongst the kernel and application developers, asking anyone who had worked on Sys III/V code or kernel code for anyone else, and I don't remember anyone raising their hand. I worked for Sun during that timeframe, but did not have access to the SunOS or Solaris source.
Of course, this could all be a desperate ploy by SCO to get cash in the door, but they want to leak it via the rumor mill, to gauge how well it would go over. Credits to Navy beans that, when they get inundated with bad press, they claim that it wasn't a consideration, plausible deniability, all that jazz.
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
all they have to do is go to Spain, or venuzuela or Mexico or any govenrnment thinking about converting to Linux and point out the possible complicationsif this ever did go to trial. Maybe the linux distro you are thinking about will have an accident, see...
It would be the cheapest way for MS to subvert Linux. Even sheaper than buying the Sony DRM patents that are in the news lately. (Buy DRM patents, dont let GNU use them. Eventually enough music/movies is out in DRM that without liscenced DRM enabled players linux desktops suck. end of linux withou microsoft having to compete at all).
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Have you ever read a filed patent? They are deliberately worded to cover as much as they possibly can. Just take the BT 'hyperlink' patent.
Uhm, yes, they are. And you can read that information and learn all about it. Nothing is stopping you, so what was your point?
In a world where the physical costs of creation are zero (eg computer software) they don't work. In a world where I can independently come up with an invention, prove it works and pass it around for free on the internet, why should I blocked by a large corporation that A) thought of it first and B) has the money to hire a legal firm. As I pointed out ealier, kids in the playground screaming 'but I thought of it *first*'. So what? Why does that mean that I can't use an idea that I have?
There are physical costs of creation. A lot of inventions that are patented cost less to create than your average economic computer. If you don't patent the idea, than you have to prove it's prior art if someone patents it. If they sue you for it, it shouldn't be hard to win. If you did pass it around and everybody knows. This again, goes into the reform of the acceptance process not the enforcement process.
As for your attorney, why don't you ask him about it. I'm sure he would say that there is ample protection for the little guys who file patents. If there wasn't, than the patent system wouldn't work and there would be a revolt of all the inventors that do use it. Sorry to tell you this, but a very large number of small inventors use the patent system to their advantage.
Well, in software, the idea is the implementation (at least if you can write it down...). Copyright already covers program listings, adding patent protection is just bad for the industry. So go on, name a single beneficial software patent. Just one.
I already did, and in your ignorance you ignored it. The benefit is that if you patent it, other people cannot shit all over you as easily.
You keep bringing up this absolutely idiotic playground analogy. Do you realize that makes you sound not only completely uneducated but uninformed as to how patent law actually works? Go talk to your patent buddy on that one too, say, "Aren't patents just like children in a playground screaming I thought of it first?" He'll probably tell you that you are an idiot, or at least think it. Patents are for giving inventors a head start on the competition. End of story. Unfortunately the abuse of the acceptance system has caused a lot of damage.
I for one rest easy knowing I can patent my software ideas, because if someone violates my patent and tries to sue it I can actually secure VC just for the lawsuit alone if I can prove that they infringed in my patent and are trying to bully me out of business. I can make more money in the lawsuits. Again, patents can help the little guy but only if the little guy is smart enough to use it to their advantage.
Laws are designed for a purpose, and always have loop holes. Use both for your advantage and you win.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.