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."

14 of 444 comments (clear)

  1. The Old Days by yamcha666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Doesn't this entire SCO suing [insert vendor name here] for using the UNIX IP remind anyone of the days when AT&T was getting in Berkley's face over using the UNIX IP - then Berkley rewrote the entire BSD so there was no AT&T UNIX code in there?

    I don't know about Windows or MacOS, but I don't believe Linux or Open/Free/NetBSD use any copywritten UNIX IP code in their kernels. Do they?

    1. Re:The Old Days by kp2sushi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is a fundamental difference between the AT&T days and now. AT&T was concerned over the use of of AT&T code, not AT&T features. The issue back then was copyright, now it is software patents. BSD was able to give AT&T the finger by rewriting the entire code base. Linux may be in trouble because it may violate an SCO patent. Where the kernel does this is anybody's guess; I've never heard of anyone patenting system calls, the TCP/IP stack, the VFS layer, etc. A quick search of the US patent office does not return any SCO patents. If they have a leg to stand on, I do not know. I'd like to see these patents before I believe that SCO can do anything. Oh, and I'd pass the word on never using an SCO (Caldera) product again. They just dug a very deep hole. -Kp2

      --
      Take the white suppository, and I'll show you how deep the rabbit hole goes...
    2. Re:The Old Days by FatRatBastard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes it did, but as I understand it the issues was "copyrighted" code (i.e. chunks of code taken verbatim from AT&T). In this case it seems to be about patents. I.e. they don't give a shit about how you implemented something, they're only interested that you *did* implement it (assuming they own the patent).

      My prediction: all the big dogs will cross license with each other (because if you dig deep enough I'm sure SCO/Caldera is infringing on some Apple/MS/IBM/Sun patent). The only thing I worry about is Linux and *BSD since the don't have any IP to hold over SCOs head to force them to cross license (maybe IBM will bitch slap them into not persuing the free unicies)

    3. Re:The Old Days by cfulmer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, probably bad form replying twice on the same thread.... oh well...

      The issue is *NOT* Patents. It's all about copyright and licensing. Unix dates back to 1969 (see http://www.levenez.com/unix ), and software patents only go back to 1981.

      So, the question is whether any software written by SCO (or really, anything that SCO now owns the rights to, since it was mostly written by Ma Bell) is ending up in software that somebody else sells. If the answer to that is 'yes', and that somebody else didn't pay SCO for the right to use that software *AND* their use isn't considered 'fair use,' then SCO probably has a cause of action.

      I think this will eventually amount to not much. They're not going to go after redhat or Linus or Stallman or.... They may go after somebody who grabbed SCO source code, recompiled it for Windows and is running their app there without paying SCO for the right to copy the code. Or somebody who did the same thing for Linux.

      IANAL (yet)

  2. Which Patents? by HaeMaker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone know which patents these are? SysV has been around a long time, and AT&T sold it a long time ago, the patents may not have a lot of life left in them.

    1. Re:Which Patents? by cfulmer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't think it's patents, per se. Software patents just didn't exist in the days that most of what we now consider to be 'Unix' was written.

      It's likely just plain-old-ordinary copyright and licensing issues. It seems that the argument would go that some people are using SCO software outside of the bounds of the license agreement that they originally agreed to.

      I've heard some people assert that this means that SCO is asserting that they own 'ls', for example, and that nobody can use 'ls' without a license from SCO. That's only partially correct -- nobody can use *their version* without permission. But, that doesn't prevent the GNU people from writing 'ls' by themselves in a manner that behaves exactly like the SCO S/W.

      I suspect that what they're really trying to target is people who use certain SCO software outside of SCO unix and aren't paying for the right to use it.

      That being said, though, you gotta worry if a big chunk of SCO's revenue comes from lawsuits and not from new technology. It's 2003, for crying out loud -- how long can you milk 30-year-old technology?

  3. Aren't *BSDs 4.4BSD Lite-derived? by kwoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems to me that OpenBSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD are derived from 4.4BSD Lite -- which I believe is covered by the original BSD license. It would seem to me that trying to pursue something like that legally would simply be a great waste of time and money.

    That being said, it does sound a bit like SCO has given up trying to make money the honest way and brought in the land sharks...

  4. Does he ever win? by nearlygod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So he defended Napster... That ended well. He fought Microsoft... Does that count as a win? He worked on Al Gores case in the Florida voting fiasco... Good job on that, too.

    --
    The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?
  5. Re:System V init by kaisyain · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Except for those Linux systems which don't use sysvinit, I guess you mean. I think Gentoo, for instance, uses something other than sysvinit. There's no real reason other distributions couldn't as well. sysvinit isn't part of the linux kernel, it is just a piece of software; you can put anything you want in /sbin/init.

  6. Buy them. by dmw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to Yahoo Finance, SCOX has a market cap of 16.4M. Can't the FSF try to buy them and then release the IP to the community?

    It seems to me that this is an opportunity for us open-source geeks to put our money where our mouths are.

  7. Unix software patents considered harmful by watchful.babbler · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The issue is *NOT* Patents. It's all about copyright and licensing. Unix dates back to 1969 (see http://www.levenez.com/unix ), and software patents only go back to 1981.

    Actually, there are patents open on *nix: the famous example is patent no. 4,135,240, the setuid patent (this link may work), filed 1973, granted 1979.

    I don't know if there were any post-assignation grants of ownership to the patent, or if Lucent (nee Bell Labs) still owns it.

    A press release from SCO states that Boies, Schiller and Flexner has been retained in an advisory capacity, which isn't unusual when a company is trying to determine an IP strategy. We often forget that lawyers are often used for things other than suing people (such as, uh, determining under what statutes one may sue, who one may sue, contracts to enforce terms over which one may sue ... I'm not helping my case here, am I?). The press release (and this story) indicates that the UnixWare and OpenServer libraries are affected. Unfortunately, their "Intellectual Property Pedigree Chart" is one of the least useful displays possible, since it appears simply to be the "History of UNIX" chart with some colored lines added. Hopefully, a full clarification by SCO will be forthcoming.

    --
    "Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, and I have disposable income that I'll spend to find out how to get people more."
  8. Re:Possible outcomes by ninewands · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Does anyone know if they have a legal leg to stand on?

    That, my fellow /.'er is the ten megabuck question.

    The way I see it, if Caldera sues over any of their proprietary IP that they contributed to the kernel, etc., the terms of the GPL will govern (I hope ... there are still SOME areas of the kernel that are NOT simon-pure from a GPL perspective).

    Are they pursuing software patents?

    I suspect so. Caldera's active voluntary participation in development of various parts of the system, in its entirety, would probably preclude an attempt at enforcing copyrights that have become "tainted by the GPL." Here again, any IP infringement that was a direct result of Caldera's participation would carry an implied license under whatever license covered the particular system component that contained the IP.

    Now, all bets, above, are off if they are going to seek enforcement of IP governing a part of the system in which Caldera did not participate. If the contested IP is merely copyrighted by Caldera and the developers can show that they did a true "clean room" reverse-engineering job, then Caldera will get nothing but legal bills and a LOT of bad press in the community. However, if the "independently-developed" infringing IP is covered by a PATENT, there is NO protection for the developers unless they can prove Caldera/SCO contributed that IP to the project.

    Either way, I don't see how Caldera can POSSIBLY gain from this exercise. Many members of the OSS community are also in "buying official" positions out in the "meat world." Anyone want to let them know that if they pee in our Post Toasties(TM), we might just be inclined to return the favor by buying our respective companies' server software, etc, from their competition?
  9. I know this Darl McBride guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I'm posting as anonCow for obvious reasons:

    I knew this guy when he "worked" for Franklin Covey (see bio here: http://www.sco.com/company/execs/dmcbride.html ). He ran the e-Planning group, trying develop things from online planners to FC's desktop planning software.

    I should say, "ran into the ground." Everything he did sounded nice on the long project plans that he and other around him made, and were full of COMPLETE FREAKING BULLSHIT, every time.

    Darl McBride is a total symbol of all that is wrong with the tech world, especially during the dot-bomb era.

    He knows dick-all, but sounds real good and smooth to other suits.

    He was really hot on WAP (if that tells you anything!) and thought that people would pay to be able to check www.franklinplanner.com (FC's online planner - seemingly now not working) via their cell phones.

    Dumb!

    By the way, he also bought that technology (for the online planner) from two guys who were basically Cold Fusion script kiddies for $10,000,000 ... I spent some time talking to the guys who had to rewrite all the crappy code (non-componentized, no db abstraction, etc. etc. non-optimized). Those script kiddies must have laughed all the way to the bank.

    I mean, can you believe it - buying an online planner! A good coder can whip up a basic one in a week solo!

    Then they spent $250,000 - a cool quarter of a mill US - turning it into a Flash planner ... so it would feel like a desktop app on the web.

    Maybe not such a stupid idea, but they executed it as a total one-off, again with no componentization, etc., so that their strategy (to customize this calendar for big corporate clients) was totally impossible.

    Then his big plan was an app that aggregates all your data (mail, web, documents, contacts, etc.) into one big portal-on-the-desktop application. I forget the name of the company that he did this with, but again it was a total freaking failure.

    FC stock, which had been trading at about $30 in the '98, '99 years, dropped like a stone ... not just because of Darl, of course, but almost certain contributed to by his total freaking cluelessness about anything technical that could actually make (as opposed to burn) money.

    The one group of people that did get rich while Darl was at FC was the lawyers ... they had an insane contract with some top firm, running at something like $15,000 monthly retainer.

    For what is anyone's guess.

    But this really makes sense when I see he's now running SCO. Those dolts are so far gone their exit strategy is to sue the whole world. Maybe they invented the if statement or something, too.

    Rest assured: with Darl McBride at the head of SCO they won't make anything innovative, new, good, or money-making.

    But I supposed the lawyers are still going to be fine.

    Unbelievable ... I never expected him to turn up there.

  10. Re:Possible outcomes by mikehoskins · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They're hosed. I personally saw Caldera/SCO as a bridge from Linux to Unix and saw them as a catalyst for change over to Linux from Unix, DOS, and oddly, CP/M.

    I personally won't buy a thing from them, again. I'm done with them. This is wrong.

    This coming from a company that not only contributed to the Linux kernel, but the same company that OPEN SOURCED SCO!!! Where's the lawsuit against them?

    Fortunately, this will bankrupt them, soon. I just hope it doesn't end up killing off Linux in its wake.

    <really_think="on">
    How can they sit on their "moral high horse" and actually have been a vendor of Linux as an OPEN SOURCE PRODUCT?!?!?!? It's pure hypocrisy, IMHO.

    I think there should be a counter-suit in the form of a class-action suit from the other vendors, plus a FUD campaign against them for this.

    I hope this doesn't do more for Microsoft against The Competition(tm) of Linux and Unix than M$ could ever do. What an opportunity for M$ to sieze upon!

    They're nuts, this late in the game. What, no finding of fact or cease-and-desist order?!?!? I hope their lawyer continues to be the loser in all of this....

    To me, this is an outrage!
    </really think>