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.

Comments

There's nothing like..

[Gortbusters.org]

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?

it doesn't even matter

[Ender Ryan]

It hardly matters. If SCO tries to extort money from people using Linux, the SCO will lose it's run to distribute Linux in any form whatsoever. The GPL forbids distributing anything under the GPL license that is patented and the patent isn't freely usable.

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.

Get them for GPL violation!

[jmv]

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?

Re:Get them for GPL violation!

[GauteL]

"So very wrong. If you were right, that would mean that I could write a GPLed program that reimplements the MP3 patent, and then tell Thompson Media that their patent is violating the GPL."

You misunderstand the whole issue. The GPL will not invalidate patents, it will invalidate the patent holders rights to distribute the GPL-software.

So if Fraunhofer distributed mp3 players based on GPL-code, and refused to give out royalty free licenses for their mp3 patent, they would loose their rights to distribute the GPL-based mp3-software.

They would still be able to enforce their patents and they would still be able to distribute mp3-software for which THEY are the copyright holders.

It is not in Calderas interest to enforce royalty fees on their patents, because that would mean they could not distribute Linux anymore.

"So esentially, if SCOs to proved to be correct, that would make the GPL invalid for those portions of code, and thus it would be free game for anybody to use the code. Then SCO could be free to grab the code and enforce their patents anyway, an effort must made easier by removing that pesky GPL."

Here you are just plain wrong. You do not understand copyright law at all. Without the GPL-license, Caldera has no rights to the code AT ALL, apart from the very few portions they might have written.

If the GPL-license was declared void, then only the original copyright holder would have any rights to the code. In Linux's case, that would be a big mess, since there are (AFAIK) lots and lots of copyright holders for the Linux kernel. Linus would probably have to contact as many as possible, and ask them for permission, and rewrite portions of the code that had owners that he could not reach.

For the GNU-tools, the Free Software Foundation is the copyright holder, and they could do whatever they pleased. Noone else would have any rights besides what FSF decided to give them.

Wait a fucking minute

[haggar]

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.

Unix comes full circle

[JohnZed]

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...

Re:SCO

[Error27]

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.

What if Microsoft Buys SCO?

[goombah99]

I think the danger here is if microsoft buys SCO. Now they own the patents. They wont really care about enforcibility. Actually, They wont even want to test it in court.

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).