Slashdot Mirror
SCO Group Hires Boies After All
pitr256 writes "So it seems the SCO Group has decided to
hire infamous Anti-Microsoft lawyer David
Boies after all. This comes upon reversal of the SCO Group statement
according to Chief Executive Darl McBride of having not engaged Mr. Boies
to take legal action against our fellow Linux vendors. Now, CNet
News is reporting that not only is SCO Group investigating the Linux vendors
but that it is also going to investigate Windows, Mac OS X, and the BSD derivatives. So if your technology can't win on price
and performance, break out the lawyers and sue everyone. Does anyone else see
this as the end of SCO (Caldera) like I do? I certainly will never use anything from them ever again."
IANAL, but I believe the issue is with software patents, not copywrites. If they have software patents over processes that are used in other OS, it doesn't matter if the exact code was used, just the process that is patented.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
As I stated in a post from the earlier article, this action is a serious threat to SCO's future and I am not certain that SCO has fully examined the fallout that this announcement will cause, regardless of the final outcome.
The very fact that SCO flat out lied, yes lied, in last week's announcement will seriously impact the level of trust that any vendor or customer might have had in SCO.
The CNet article did not discuss the audience's reaction to this announcement but, I doubt very much that it was well received. Would anyone that witnessed the announcement and the audience's reaction care to report on it?
The GPL requires people/companies that distrubute software under the GPL and hold patents for that software to grant royalty free use of those patents for everyone. Since SCO distributes a version of Linux, all code their distribution must be free of any problems with their patents.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
Have you ever considered legally licensing SCO's IP if you are going to use it? That's what the issue is all about.
Why am I not hearing outrage from the crowds because Microsoft still dares license their software? Shouldn't I be able to copy Windows at will? Of course not.
So let's adhere to SCO's licensing agreements and everything will be fine. Otherwise if you steal from SCO, I don't feel any more sorry for you then if you have stole from Microsoft.
-BrentPerhaps he was the only lawyer that would take the case?
It's entirely possible that SCO's claims are accurate. If they inherited valid software patents on some of the basic designs of UNIX, then they have a government-granted right to sue any company which uses those designs.
We all view UNIX as being freely copyable in its design, because traditionally it has been. Linux shares no code with the original UNIX, but it does share both design and interfaces such as syscalls. This is not a copyright issue, it is a patent issue. If the patents are valid, then it's possible Linux is infringing by its very existence. The BSDs are in a different camp, because of their heritage and the previous agreements between Berkely and AT&T, but possibly they're infringing as well.
Of course, it's also possible that there is no actual patent infringement going on. But that depends on what AT&T decided to do back in the day regarding patenting UNIX. I know that IBM's standard policy is to patent *everything*.
(cue Gary Oldman at the end of The Professional: "EVERYTHING!" )
The problem is that no one seems to know, or at least isn't saying, exactly what routines/IP/patents are being investigated. Remember, patents only last for 17 years from issuance of patent, or 20 years from application for patent, whichever expires first. Anything patented pre-1986 (or applied for before 1983) will have fallen into public domain already.
I'm not entirely sure what you can do if, after your patent expires, you find out that someone was violating your patent while it was still valid.
...(IANAPL, and I'm not an expert on US patents) they may be able to get any UNIX-like system on that pesky "prior art" provision, not necessarily because it specifically violates any putative patents by reusing code. After all, as the other poster (and anyone who cares to do a little research) knows, both Linux and BSD originate from independent, non-UNIX codebases. The ideational structure, the "Unix-like-ness," however, that makes these OSes what they are, may be the problem, in fact (actually, de facto AND de jure). And that's a big problem, since it's utterly impossible (?) to get around.
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
Think of the internet as a big dump filled with potential, er, recycling materials. A lot of it is trash but there is some good stuff there. Anyone can go out and pick up stuff and build stuff with it. Only, digital copying and transmission technology means that if someone happens to throw away a split-level ranch house we can all live in nice houses.
So how do you keep this from happening if you are in the business of selling houses? (1) control the real estate market [hardware] so you can have a nice house but no place to put it; (2) cut off access to the dump; (3) make recycling illegal; (4) claim you own the stuff in the dump.
So SCO wants #4 today. What else is new. They'll all be tried. They're all a problem.
The real problem is not today's battle on thus-and-such a front. It's that there are a *lot* of people out there who have it out for recycling of *anything* that people can live in.
=googol=
Ahh, the standard techique of misquoting and then using that as a basis for an argument. See, on a fair and level playing field, such as the Linux market, everyone should be able to compete on their own merits. However, when one company can leverage their monopoly power to maintain it illegally, it is a different story. That isn't fair, moral, or legal. You are simply showing your ignorance of the business model, and comparing apples to turds.
Where's my knife, I need to cut through the irony.
It is probably stuck in the backs of all the companies that Microsoft stole their "intellectual property" from, or ran out of business, or sabotaged. It amazes me that some people still defend their actions.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
People were rooting for the cause, not the person. If motives change, so does opinion. DUH. Welcome to humanity.
" . . . how long can you milk 30-year-old technology?"
Ask Disney.
Note to readers: Don't bother trying to show off by informing me of the differences between media and technology.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
If these IPs that SCO are talking about are descended from the AT&T copyrights, than all of the BSDs are in the clear, as well as anyone else descending from 44BSD-Lite. This case has already been fought, and won by the Good Guys.
The only rational explanation for SCO's behavior is the existance of patents heretofore unknown to the public.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The whole point is no one is using their stuff, ergo they've got nothing to lose.
paintball
Famous perhaps, but why "infamous"?
Is it because he is not on Our Side this time?
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
If Lord Kelvin was alive today he might say something like:
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Boies has earned a great reputation for the job he did dissecting MS in the MS-DOJ trial. Its hard to see how that trial could have come out better for the prosecution, except perhaps for the Judge keeping his well-earned opinions to himself. It was only in the appeal and re-trial of the penalty phase that the MS-DOJ trial went out of whack, when Boies was no longer involved, when the new administration apparently instructed the DOJ to roll over and play dead. Instead of blaming Boies for this, he should be recognized for the good work he did.
In the other high profile cases, Boies was recruited because he did so well in the DOJ trial.
As for Napster, does anyone seriousely think any lawyer could have won this one?
And, as for Gore, there is not much you can do when the Supreme Court makes a decision that does not seem to have any legal basis. Stop the counting to provide equal protection under the law? What about the people who were turned away from the polls? Don't they deserve equal protection? What about the votes of servicemen being submitted after election day and still being counted. Isn't this a privilege that other voters were not afforded? I think it would have taken JC himself as the lawyer in order to win this one.
In order to enforce those copyrights that were originally owned by Unix Systems Laboratories, I believe SCO will have to show that they were granted an EXCLUSIVE license to the IP involved. In addition, they are going to have to show that the alleged infringing software (Linux and OS X are the only systems we've seen mentioned so far) COPIED their code.
I have not reviewed every single copyright notice in, for instance, Debian's code base, but I'm reasonably sure that there's NO AT&T code in it. Most of it is GPL/LGPL, a little bit is the Artistic License and the bulk of that which is not GPL/LGPL is BSD licensed, none of which could apply to the original AT&T (Unix Systems Laboratories) code.
utter rubbish