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."
They are, after all, not interested in girls.
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?
I certainly will never use anything from them ever again.
Does that include Linux?
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
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?
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.
...and hope you can salvage a few dollars for your shareholders after the Chapter 7 filing.
You could call it "Plan Be."
Didn't Caldera already sue Microsoft and lose?
SCO owns the IP for System V. Linux uses several concepts from the System V design, not the least of which is the Linux init system which is a direct take off of the System V method.
Lets look at this guys track record:
:)
Defending Napster: Failure
Representing Al-Gore: Failure
Anti-trust Against Microsoft: Failure
I'm shaking in my boots
Steve.
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!" )
...(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.
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?
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=
I think the issue is that SCO is taking very old patents (let's face it, there's not much new in Unix/Linux) that have remained unenforced for a very long time, and now that they are in financial trouble they're trying to create a cash cow at the expense of the entire rest of the industry. Is it really fair for a company that has created nothing (remember, they bought the IP) to set the entire computer industry back 5-10 years in order to save themselves from their own bad business decisions. It may be legal, but it sure as hell isn't ethical.
(Let's also remember that they seem to be wanting to charge a rediculously high fee for these patents. A per processor cost of > $100 is hardly reasonable.)
"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
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.
SCO is not going after every Linux vendor, only those distributing the two libraries without SCO's permission.
To me, this is all just FUD, and is being blown WAY out of proportion.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
If they win:
Slashdot poster: You, sirs, have soiled the UNIX world with your money grubbing!
SCO: one million, one million one hundred, one million two hundred, oh sorry did you say something?
Slashdot poster: I SAID--
SCO: One second. Bob! You want to bring those bags over here, the ones with the dollar signs on the front? Alright, go on.
Slashdot poster: Your business will suffer because of the bad will in the open source community!
SCO: Are you a SCO user?
Slashdot poster: Well, no, I use linux.
SCO: So the court decision means you won't buy an operating system that you weren't going to buy in the first place?
Slashdot poster: But previously I would never buy SCO. After your court action, however, I'l never EVER buy SCO.
SCO: Riiight. I hope you'll excuse me, I have to stop at the Mercedes dealership before they close. That nice security guard over there will show you out.
From the CNET story:
From Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix by Marshall Kirk McKusick:
- The University's suit claimed that USL had failed in their obligation to provide due credit to the University for the use of BSD code in System V as required by the license that they had signed with the University. If the claim were found to be valid, the University asked that USL be forced to reprint all their documentation with the appropriate due credit added, to notify all their licensees of their oversight, and to run full-page advertisements in major publications such as The Wall Street Journal and Fortune magazine notifying the business world of their inadvertent oversight.
So, in other words, Mr. McBride - PPPPHHHTTTT!!...
The result was that three files were removed from the 18,000 that made up [BSD 4.4] Networking Release 2, and a number of minor changes were made to other files. In addition, the University agreed to add USL copyrights to about 70 files, although those files continued to be freely redistributed.
...
The lawsuit settlement also stipulated that USL would not sue any organization using 4.4BSD-Lite as the base for their system.
Oh, and might want to make sure you are providing due credit to the University of California at Berkeley before you cast the first stone, eh?
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."
...Since it makes a lot of things clear.
From the CNET article: "If you pull down (Mac) OS X you'll see a lot of copyright postings that point back to Unix Systems Laboratories, which is what we hold."
From the O'Reilly link in the parent post: Soon after the filing in state court, USL was bought from AT&T by Novell. The CEO of Novell, Ray Noorda, stated publicly that he would rather compete in the marketplace than in court. By the summer of 1993, settlement talks had started. Unfortunately, the two sides had dug in so deep that the talks proceed slowly. With some further prodding by Ray Noorda on the USL side, many of the sticking points were removed and a settlement was finally reached in January 1994. The result was that three files were removed from the 18,000 that made up Networking Release 2, and a number of minor changes were made to other files. In addition, the University agreed to add USL copyrights to about 70 files, although those files continued to be freely redistributed.
Meaning: The reason why those USL copyrights are in OS X is because the code was taken from FreeBSD, which took the code from 4.4BSD-Lite, which had permission to do so from Novell, the owner at the time of the copyrights. That settlement is still legally binding, even if the ownership of the USL code is now SCO. Looks like SCO has no case against the BSDs (nor against MS or Apple, who use BSD code in accordance with the BSD license.) Linux, I wouldn't be sure about, but I always thought Linux never had any AT&T/USL code.
That, my fellow
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
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?
utter rubbish
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.
"Boies is noted in the computing industry for working on the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust case against Microsoft and for defending music-sharing site Napster. He also represented Al Gore in the Florida vote-counting controversy during the 2000 presidential elections. "
With a track record like that, we don't have a thing to worry about...
Mommy. What's a karma whore?