Slashdot Mirror
More on SCO vs. IBM Lawsuit
Colin Stanners writes "SCO has held a TeleConference and put up a page with information on their lawsuit against IBM. The key phrase (from their complaint) is: 'It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach UNIX performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of UNIX code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance, and coordination by a larger developer, such as IBM.' Their page also includes a Q&A, presentation, and exhibits, although these are mostly licensing agreements and not code." Bruce Perens had an interesting comment on the situation, more than one group is trying to organize a boycott, and Newsforge has a story based on SCO's press conference this morning. Newsforge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN.
I don't know if anyone posted this yet, but the official press release is here.
Lets try this again
http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Sun purchased a paid-up right-to-use from AT&T before AT&T sold UNIX to Novell (which subsequently sold it to SCO, which got acquired by Caldera, which then changed its name to SCO)
****
"I'd never want to join a club that would have me as a member" - G. Marx
From SCO's complaint:
"51. Prior to this time, IBM had not developed any expertise to run UNIX on an Intel chip and instead was confined to its Power PC chip."
IBM had a version of UNIX on Intel, AIX-PS2. And don't forget OS/2's (albeit limited) POSIX layer. And IBM was involved with Linux before Project Monterey began.
SCO monkey:"psst - we already have the source, we've sold linux in the past."
SCO PHB: "You're fired!"
Mind you, just look at their stock symbol : SCOX - say it fast, it sounds like "sucks cocks", or in this case "$uck$ cock$"
SCO is claiming that IBM has recently merged code into Linux from their AIX codebase, which has licensed code from AT&T UUNIX, which they own.
It isn't a matter of 'lineage' going back through the decades. It's a matter of new code submissions by IBM that IBM doesn't have the right to pass along freely.
That's their claim, anyhow. We'll see how it turns out in court.
You have to remember that Caldera and SCO are one and the same now. Caldera used to sell their own version of Linux. Now SCO is a part of United Linux. I would guess the number came from Caldera but still sticks because of their involvment in United Linux.
Why would they poke the T-Rex that is IBM with a stick, unless they think they can bring it down?
Because, as Mr. Perens points out, they don't want to bring it down. They want to be bought out. Again.
You'd have an amazingly hard time proving infringement in court by IBM -- the bits that are most worrisome (such as SysV IPC) were in place long before IBM touched Linux or viewed SCO source. They were implemented because they were widely documented in Unix manuals, books, and taught in schools.
SCO's legal brief has quite a few sections that are laughable:
82. Linux started as a hobby project of a 19-year old student. Linux has evolved through bits and pieces of various contributions by numerous software developers using single processor computers. Virtually none of these software developers and hobbyists had access to enterprise-scale equipment and testing facilities for Linux development. Without access to such equipment, facilities, sophisticated methods, concepts and coordinated know-how, it would be difficult or impossible for the Linux development community to create a grade of Linux adequate for enterprise use.
84. Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment.
Section 82 is humorous. Section 84 is downright absurd. Point by point:
1) It's called a mailing list and revision control. The very same methods that are used in a vast amount of corporate development.
2) What expensive design and test equipment? Earlier in the brief SCO admitted that x86 hardware was vastly less expensive. The design and test equipment is these very same inexpensive boxes.
SMP wasn't that absurdly uncommon in the early 90s, and lots of people had access to large scale equipment, especially at a university. I know people who had unfettered access to early 90s supercomputers (Crays, etc), as well as SP-2s. Or built a cluster of SMP boxes running on Linux for PhD projects -- all of this in the early to mid 90s.
3) Code? No need. Methods and concepts? Sure. They're documented in man pages, thousands of books, and taught as part of most university CS curriculums. They're not difficult concepts really, and re-implementing them may not be trivial, but it's not impossible either.
4) Yes, because nobody knows the UNIX architecture except SCO. Uh huh. It's not in the very same books and courses mentioned previously.
5) There is a large financial investment - look at Redhat, Slackware, FSF, or just start counting man-hours donated to the kernel. If volunteer efforts were incapable of accomplishing anything then Habitat for Humanity would've gone belly up over a decade ago.
To top it all off there's a good bit of questioning with regards to Caldera Linux, the GPL, and SCO. If SCO knew that there were IP violations in the Linux kernel then it willfully violated the GPL in distributing them in Caldera Linux. That doesn't mean that those IP rights suddenly get lost, but it does mean that their legal case becomes a whole lot more hairy.
Because Caldera is located in Utah. State of incorporation is not the same as location of the business. Many (perhaps most, not sure) corporations incorporate in Delaware (I've done it myself, though I have never been to Delaware), because of that state's well-developed body of commercial law. Attorneys (I am one) tend to be conservative, and selecting Delaware as the state of incorporation is sort of like picking Microsoft or Intel -- there is a perception that no one can fault you for making the "safe" choice.
--Steve
Democracy is a poor substitute for liberty.
Caldera does its Unix business in Utah.
Delaware is a handy place to incorporate $-wise. A lot of corporations are "Delaware Corporations".
Here's why.
JoAnn
Trolltech is not owned by Canopy group. It has a 5% stake. No, IBM will continue to use Qt for embedded.
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
I know canopy group well. I've worked with them on several projects. They are very hands off, but they are not the "Mormon Mafia". They are a company just like any other, just a little incompetent in the SCO case.
The site www.sco.com is running Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1 on Linux.
Looks like they started to switch in August of 2002, had some problems and switched back to SCO for a few days, and then completed their switch on August 14, 2002.
You KNOW a company is dying when they don't eat their own dog food.
It's not that I'm lazy and it's not that I don't trust the company to reply to my complaint, but I think it would be easier to saturate their toll-free sales phone line, or their web form, instead.
Caldera Product and Sales Inquiries
1-888-GO-LINUX
1-888-465-4689
http://www.caldera.com/company/feedback/
Incidently, here is the Canopy Group's contact information, but please be aware 801 is not a toll-free number, it's a Utah area code.
The Canopy Group
333 South 520 West
Suite 300
Lindon, UT 84042
phone: 801.229.2223 (not a free toll-free number)
fax: 801.229.2458
e-mail: info@canopy.com
http://www.canopy.com/aboutus/contact.htm
>Why?
There's only one answer to 'why' that would make
normal commercial sense to me: that SCO think
they can prove IBM used some output X from
the defunct Monterey project, and prove that
the way IBM used X violated some
obligation in the SCO-IBM agreement, and that
SCO think they can prove this was worth
megabucks. But then the complaint ought to make
clear what X was and what the alleged misuse was.
Maybe IBM will ask the court to either
extract these details out of SCO so IBM can know
specifically what they are accused of, or throw
the case out.
My guess is that if the case goes forward at all
the area of dispute will turn out much less
wide than it looks from the vagueness of the
complaint and unsustainable overbroad statements
in it.