Slashdot Mirror
SCO To Show Copied Code
A number of people have written this morning in regards to the latest update in the ongoing SCO dropping Linux, with word from LinuxJournal that SCO has broadened the implications of code copying. A number of analyst groups have come out, however, saying that it's fine to keep moving ahead with Linux adoption - and there's an interesting interview with SCO's General Manager of SCOSource.
Nonono... the business plan is:
1. Sue IBM.
2. Irritate the dinosaur.
3. Get bought by dinosaur.
The reason for this being that SCO is on the way down, down, down. The only way to rescue shareholder value at this point from total obliviion is a large injection of equity. Since no-one is likely to weigh in with the millions needed, the best way to obtain that equity is to replace it with those of a more stable stock.
i.e. get bought by IBM.
It's a high-risk, last-ditch strategy by a failing company.
- K
Doesn't matter, the gpl clearly states you can't take things back once distributed....
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
SCO started this case in state court in Utah. SCO alleged both SCO and IBM were Delaware corporations, making them technically "residents" of the same state. Unfortunately, IBM is actually a New York corporation. Therefore, there is federal court jurisdiction to hear the case (residents of different states and amount of controversy in excess of $75,000.00).
SCO obviously wanted the case in state court. It very carefully pled no federal law claims such as copyright or patent. It pled only state law claims for unfair competetion, etc. The only reason to do this would be if SCO wanted this in state court.
IBM removed (that's the verb) the case to federal court - United States District Court for the District of Utah on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Not a thing SCO can do about it.
Why did SCO start the case in state court and why did IBM remove it? The state law claims of unfair competition, etc. are the same (the classic Erie decision still applies for all you budding 1Ls out there). The case will still physically remain in Utah.
IBM gets Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 26(a), the parties must disclose to each other, without even a formal request, the most relevant documents to their case. The disclosure must be done relatively quickly. I doubt there is a similar automatic disclosure in the Utah rules. In state court, SCO might have been able to drag the discovery process out for at least a few months. It could keep its source code hidden for a while. Under the federal rules, it cannot do that. By removing the case to federal court, IBM undercut a big hunk of SCO strategy - namely FUD.
Obviously, the most relevant documents to this case are the source code listings SCO alleges IBM stole. These must be produced to IBM and produced quickly. There willl probably be a protective order preventing the rest of us from seeing them, but IBM gets to see them very soon (like maybe this month).
If there was no theft of code by IBM, expect a quick resolution of the case. If there was theft from Project Monterey in violation of the SCO-IBM agreement, expect a slugfest over intent and the the measure of damages.
In addition, by not even knowing the corporate home of its adversary, SCO comes in looking foolish. How hard would it be to determine IBM is a New York corporation, not a Delaware corporation? Not hard at all. Take a look at any of its SEC filings. It was a stupid mistake by SCO and although it does not logically follow that the rest of its allegations are undermined, it does decrease credibility of SCO and its attorneys.
The interesting question (at least for entertainment value) is who subpoenas RMS first to testify.
From an earlier interview, which was pulled because of it's containing an admission of guilt:
- 05 -12-010-26-IN-CD-LL-0026
"Finally. Somebody raised a possible problem that you yourselves distribute the infringing code under the GPL licence. Do you see that as a problem from your point of view?
No we do not, because you do not have an infringement issue when you are providing customers with products that have your intellectual property in them.
OK, but Linux has a kernel which isn't yours. Are you saying that there are changes to the kernel?
We have concerns and issues even with areas of the kernel.
So you are saying that you are happy distributing the kernel because the offending code belongs to you anyway, as I understand it?
Yes."
I.e. these guys don't have clue 1 what the GPL actually says. Unfortunately for them, failure to comprehend a license does not relieve you of your responsibilities under said license.
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2003
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.