Slashdot Mirror
Novell Claims Ownership of UNIX System V
Bruce Perens writes:
"We knew that SCO's attack on Linux was a lie. But we never dreamed of the big lie behind it.
"This morning, Novell announced some of the terms of the company's 1995 agreement to sell its Unix business to SCO. The shocking news is that Novell did not sell the Unix intellectual property to SCO. Instead, they sold SCO a license to develop, sell, and sub-license Unix. The title to Unix copyrights and patents remains with Novell. To back up this assertion, Novell refers to public records at the Library of Congress Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent Office.
"In their announcement, Novell refers to recent letters from SCO asking Novell to assign the Unix copyrights to SCO. So, apparently SCO's management team knew that they did not own Unix while pursuing their sham campaign against Linux.
"Along with this revelation, Novell is reiterating its support of the Linux and Open Source developer community, and its status as a partner in that community. Novell rejects SCO's accusations of plagiarism. Novell management says they do not intend to stand in the way of the development of the Linux kernel, its companion GNU system, and other Free Software.
"It would be an understatement to say that this leaves SCO in a bad position. The company has loudly and repeatedly asserted that they were the owner of the Unix intellectual property, all of the way back to AT&T's original development of the system 30 years ago. They've lied to their stockholders, their customers and partners, the 1500 companies that they threatened, the press, and the public. Their untruthful campaign caused the loss of sales and jobs, and damaged Linux companies and developers in a myriad of ways. And now, SCO will be the lawsuit target. SCO's quarterly earnings conference call is this morning, at 9 AM MST (11 AM EST, 8 AM PST). Call 800-406-5356, toll-free, to participate. You might even get to ask a question. It should be fun to watch them try to weasel out of this one.
"Microsoft executives also have egg on their faces. The company self-servingly rushed to buy an SCO license one business day after the threat letter, bringing a senior attorney to the office on a Sunday to tell the press how much Microsoft values intellectual property. Microsoft's management could have taken the time to analyze SCO's claims, if the company had wanted this license for practical and technical reasons. Their decision to buy when they did must have been motivated by a desire to add to SCO's fear campaign. Of course they'll grab any opportunity to spread fear about Linux, but this time Microsoft bought a pig in a poke.
"SCO management, if they insist on standing in the way of a train, could still claim that software they developed in the years since 1995 is being infringed by the Open Source developers. That claim, always a dubious one, will be difficult to take seriously now that their prevarication throughout this campaign has come to light. SCO would be well advised to drop their suit against IBM in exchange for IBM's agreement not to counter-sue. But IBM might not feel that charitable toward SCO.
"In contrast to SCO, Novell's made a friend among the Free Software developers. We're always happy to see people using our software. But a real partnership between an IT vendor and our community is an equal partnership, with the company donating services and new software in exchange for the value it receives. Novell has already placed important software under Open Source licenses. Today, the company has done us a tremendous service, by stomping upon an obnoxious parasite."
Oh my god, you /.'ed the conference call.... You bastards! ;-)
Will the real Unix owner, please stand up, please stand up...
*duh duh duh!!!!* (ASCII MP3)
Mmmm......sacrelicious.
For now, we demand that SCO either promptly state its Linux infringement allegations with specificity or recant the accusation made in your letter. Further, we demand that SCO retract its false and unsupported assertions of ownership in UNIX patents and copyrights or provide us with conclusive information regarding SCO's ownership claims.
Finally, SCO being put in its place. I just wonder why this took so long for Novell to bring up.
"Engineers do the work of man, Physicists do the work of God"
Here is Novell's informative press release on the matter. A juicy excerpt:
"SCO continues to say that it owns the UNIX System V patents, yet it must know that it does not. A simple review of U.S. Patent Office records reveals that Novell owns those patents.
"Importantly, and contrary to SCO's assertions, SCO is not the owner of the UNIX copyrights. Not only would a quick check of U.S. Copyright Office records reveal this fact, but a review of the asset transfer agreement between Novell and SCO confirms it."
Of course, this doesn't address the "source code theft" issues, but hopefully this will shut SCO up about the UNIX IP issues.
the no
That's hilarious! Especially the part saying "you repeatedly asked us to transfer ownership over the past three months" (words are my own). If this is true, then it shows what SCO has been doing is extremely, extremely immoral. They knew they had no basis for suing IBM and for demanding that companies license SCO, but they did it anway to try to make some money. All I want to know is, who's idea was it - Microsoft's? ;)
How long before AT&T makes a statement of being the "real" owner of Unix?
Business Week has interviewed the CEO of SCO Darl McBride here. McBride gives some tips as to where IBM may have used their code. Specifically:
" In the last 18 months, we found that IBM had donated some very high-end enterprise-computing technologies into open-source. Some of it looked like it was our intellectual property and subject to our licensing agreements with IBM. Their actions were in direct violation of our agreements with them that they would not share this information, let alone donate it into open-source. We have examples of code being lifted verbatim.
And IBM took the same team that had been working on a Unix code project with us and moved them over to work on Linux code. If you look at the code we believe has been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an entire section -- and in some cases, an entire program. "
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
This could make an excellent soap opera. All we need now is a love triangle in this SCO/Novell/Linux/UNIX/IBM mess!
In light of this news, I wonder if the "SC" in "SCO" will stand for "Shit's Creek".
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
All I can say is.... this is getting really funny. it's like everyone is coming out of the woodwork with whatever sticks they have to beat the SCO beast into submission.
what's next in this saga?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This makes me proud to be a Novell admin! After all the years of abuse from *nix and even Windo$e admins I can stand proud behind a company that does the right thing. ;)
Proud Novell Admin, pimpin' to keep Bill in business.
"I'm just here to regulate funkyness." - James Gandolfini, as Winston in The Mexican
At this point, I'm not sure if I want it to be owned by everybody or by nobody, but at least being "owned" by two is better than by (a bad) one.
ROFLM~F~AO!
:))
Like everyone else I got all got all pissed off with Caldera/SCO for their petty, vindictive & malicious behaviour. But now look at 'em... the management team will never work again in corporate America, the company will be bust quicker than you can say "busted flush", and the shareholders (if there's any justice) will be left with nothing. How hilarious!
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
That was quick:
The following statement is being issued by SCO (Nasdaq: SCOX - News):
SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor.
Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights.
SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights. SCO's complaint specifically alleges breach of contract, and SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees.
We formed SCOsource in January 2003 to enforce our UNIX rights and we intend to aggressively continue in this successful path of operation.
You have performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.
800-946-0719 for the Conference Call
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
I remember long ago, when Richard Strawlman warned that the LZW algorithm (used by compress) wasn't free. So he wrote zip, which was free. People laughed at him at the time, but when Unisys acquired the LZW patent and started charging fees, he was universially acknowledged as a genius.
Likewise, it's probably best to migrate away from Unix since Novell could still bring up infringement claims. HuRD or Minix are probably the best alternatives.
So what did MS buy from SCO ?
And most importantly, how much did they buy it for ?
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
It's useless to call in and try to ask questions about this. I'm sure it'll be brought up by the financial analysts dialed in, and the SCO people will weasel out with something like "This just came to our attention today. We will be looking at the validity of the claims but are confident blah blah blah..."
You won't today be hearing a full-out apology to the OSS community, if ever at all. They might just quietly drop the whole thing while they figure out the next best lawsuit.
Colocated Linux Servers - From $60/mo
Some stupid-ass language selector JSP is stalled (who uses JSP to put up a press release?!) so here's the text:
Novell Challenges SCO Position, Reiterates Support for Linux
PROVO, Utah -- May 28, 2003 -- Defending its interests in developing services to operate on the Linux platform, Novell today issued a dual challenge to The SCO Group over its recent statements regarding its UNIX ownership and potential intellectual property rights claims over Linux.
First, Novell challenged SCO's assertion that it owns the copyrights and patents to UNIX System V, pointing out that the asset purchase agreement entered into between Novell and SCO in 1995 did not transfer these rights to SCO. Second, Novell sought from SCO facts to back up its assertion that certain UNIX System V code has been copied into Linux. Novell communicated these concerns to SCO via a letter (text below) from Novell® Chairman and CEO Jack Messman in response to SCO making these claims.
"To Novell's knowledge, the 1995 agreement governing SCO's purchase of UNIX from Novell does not convey to SCO the associated copyrights," Messman said in the letter. "We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights. Apparently you share this view, since over the last few months you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO, requests that Novell has rejected."
"SCO claims it has specific evidence supporting its allegations against the Linux community," Messman added. "It is time to substantiate that claim, or recant the sweeping and unsupported allegation made in your letter. Absent such action, it will be apparent to all that SCO's true intent is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Linux in order to extort payments from Linux distributors and users."
"Novell has answered the call of the open source community," said Bruce Perens, a leading proponent of open source. "We admire what they are doing. Based on recent announcements to support Linux with NetWare services and now this revelation...Novell has just won the hearts and minds of developers and corporations alike."
Text of the letter from Novell to SCO:
Mr. Darl McBride
President and CEO
The SCO Group
Re: SCO's "Letter to Linux Customers"
Dear Darl:
As you know, Novell recently announced some important Linux initiatives. These include an upcoming NetWare version based on the Linux kernel, as well as collaboration and resource management solutions for Linux.
Put simply, Novell is an ardent supporter of Linux and the open source development community. This support will increase over time.
It was in this context that we recently received your "Letter to Linux Customers." Many Novell business partners and customers apparently received the same letter. Your letter compels a response from Novell.
As we understand the letter, SCO alleges that unnamed entities incorporated SCO's intellectual property into Linux without its authorization. You apparently base this allegation on a belief that these unnamed entities copied some UNIX System V code into Linux. Beyond this limited understanding, we have been unable to glean any further information about your allegation because of your letter's vagueness.
In particular, the letter leaves certain critical questions unanswered. What specific code was copied from UNIX System V? Where can we find this code in Linux? Who copied this code? Why does this alleged copying infringe SCO's intellectual property? By failing to address these important questions, SCO has failed to put us on meaningful notice of any allegedly infringing Linux code, and thus has withheld from us the ability - and removed any corresponding obligation - to address your allegation.
As best we can determine, the vagueness about your allegation is intentional. In response to industry demands that you be more specific, you attempt to justify your vagueness by stating, "That's like saying, 'show us the
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I am Spartic^H^H^H^H^H^H^H the UNIX System V IP owner!
Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
-Dr. Weird
How the heck did SCO buy "Unix" without buying the copyrights? Why have they been in discussion (dispute?) between SCO and Novell for the past several months? Novell's letter has qualifiers like "to our knowledge" when it says SCO doesn't own the copyrights. It sounds like the Novell-SCO agreement has been flawed all along and nobody knows what the real situation is.
I think there are yet more layers to this madness waiting to be unpeeled.
Heh, I submitted this seemingly seconds before it was posted by Michael.
The press release link at Novell in the story appears to have been replaced with a blank page, at least for now. This story at the Inquirer includes a copy of the letter that Novell's CEO sent to SCO's CEO Darl McBride. Good stuff.
Down 4% since the market opened this morning, half of that in the last 20 minutes.
NASDAQ: SCOX
We formed SCOsource in January 2003 to enforce our UNIX rights and we intend to aggressively continue in this successful path of operation.
This is SCO's responce. And that's just why everyone hates them. Becuase the "formed" specifically to sue everyone they can get their hands on and not to do business.
This is just like the guy patenting "online aucitoning" and suing eBay. Its a load of shit. The sad thing is that its a growing industry.
"Engineers do the work of man, Physicists do the work of God"
This will be one of those saga's that become a part of computing history.
The plot twists and turns are making this into a very intersting story.
"Things that you own end up owning you" - Tyler Durden (via Diogenes of Sinope).
You know, where the bad guy (SCO) comes out and talks trash about the good guy (IBM). Then when the good guy comes out to attack him, he gets jumped by another bad guy (Microsoft). And then just as they're about to pummel the hell out of IBM, Novell comes out of the crowd brandishing a folding chair...
Next week they'll be a tag match to determine the UNIX championship...in the cage!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Based on SCO's response, claiming that no patent or copyright issues are involved, then Linux and Linux users are safe from any action by SCO EVEN IF SCO WINS AGAINST IBM. I certainly hope SCO doesn't win, but even if they do, since the entirety of their claims are contract based, and NOT copyright or patent based, the Linux code base can't be touched.
While I don't discount the possiblity, I find it hard to believe. Not only has Novell given the linux community its blessing, it's building the new Netware 7 OS on top of linux. If it were to come up that Novell's UNIX code was stolen at some point, Novell would be just as guilty as anyone as distributing copyrighted code under the GPL. They couldn't pull a SCO and sue every corporation, because they'd end up suing themselves.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
It was in this context that we recently received your "Letter to Linux Customers." Many Novell business partners and customers apparently received the same letter. Your letter compels a response from Novell.
So who was the idiot at SCO that sent the "you're a bad Linux user" letter to Novell?
This whole thing has really started to remind me of the eniac patent suit. As soon as some technology starts to take off (long after it has actually been created), some larger adversary comes out and tries to threaten the validity of the original claims.
The exact same thing happened when Sperry (the company that bough Eckert and Mauchly's company, which made UNIVAC) was sued for rights to the ENIAC patent (that Mauchly and Eckert at the time held). No one had contested that Eckert and Mauchly had designed the first electronic computer, but instead had hooked onto details in the patent file. Ironically, IBM was in a very similar position as it is with the SCO/Linux problem. IBM has cooperated with open source to a great degree, just as it had licensed Eckert and Mauchly's products and was seen as a supported of the "dark side" by SCO, just as they were seen by those trying to strip E & M of their patents.
History really has a funny way of repeating itself
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
Novells the champ I suppose here, it will win enormous support form the Linux community on this issue if it can really torpedo SCO, but the big fish is Microsoft. Their link to SCO absolutely must be revealed, I think IBM Suse Redhat Novell and others will have an easy time suing Microsoft back on this if the connection is properly revealed.
This issue must be shut ASAP, because it might be causing jitters among ignorant corporate decision makers and consultants. People like Linus should come out to the public after SCO's claims have been squashed, to get the word out that Linux's license is robust and will not drown the way some other UNIXen did.
And finally it would make Novell a hero to release the whole UNIX under an opensource license, preferably GPL, since they're contemplating moving to Linux anyway. These guys have been really innovative for the Internet and the practically invented the LAN for the masses, they should be supported. Their support in these tough times shows the principles behind the free software movement are not simply financially motivated, but are based on ideals that UNIX users and developers anywhere in the world can relate to. Microsoft couldnt fight that.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Without copyright or patents, they can't do anything against Linux, the distros or the end users. They could still go after IBM for breach of contract. They might also step out in front of a runaway tank, the chances were just as great before, now I think they'd prefer the tank.
And congrats from Novell, coming late but well. I imagine it took them this long to go "What the hell is SCO talking about? Did we royally screw up? Let our bloodhou^H^H^H^Hlawyers review all the contracts we made."
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Then Novell and IBM are walking to the ring, accompanied by Bruce Pearns.
IBM and SCO start out, with IBM teasing a test of strength, SCO begins, but gets scared and immediately tags in Microsoft.
Microsoft and IBM go at it, with Microsoft gaining the upperhand. IBM is almost down and out, when a diving tag in to Novell.
HOT TAG!
Novell clears house, and the crowd is going wild, SCO gets back up, and they start double teaming both until
CHAIRSHOT!
Bruce Pearns jumps out from the side, and knocks Novell out!
JIM ROSS: "OH MUH GOD! THEY'VE BEEN DOUBLE CROSSED!"
http://use.perl.org
Is not the Founder of Novell also the founder of SCO Group?
You would think he would have warned the SCO Group board about their own stupidity, no?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
It looks like SCO might have stolen code from Linux, according to this post on the linux kernel mailing list
RFC1925
Novell not suicidal.
Going up against IBM in an IP suit means that you have nothing to lose. SCO is a rapidly sinking ship trying whatever they can to stay afloat, last I checked Novell still had something to actually lose.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Their stock price is down today, so maybe The Street finally sees that the reality of the situation is that their operating systems division is failing. It is ironic that SCO made a profit selling licences to something that Novell now claims it 'owns' but I really cannot make sense of this mess any more. So maybe I just misundersand how SCO can sell licenses to something that Novell opwns the copyrights to.
...And AT&T Asserts rights over Unix IP claim, claiming they never actually sold them to Novell
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
SCO is the owner of the UNIX Operating System Intellectual Property that dates all the way back 1969, when the UNIX System was created at Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the patents, copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX System
I.e. they're fucked.
Many kudo's to Bruce Perens for his obvious behind the scenes lobbying and to Novell for trying to pamper the community (hope they succeed, they're a cute, insignificant little friendly, furry, huggable company and deserve a profitable niche in todays market).
Did anyone notice this?! I wasn't paying attention.
SCO 's Stock Performance
I think it's high time that the SEC got involved here.
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
What they're saying is that (supposedly) they own the rights to the contract IBM signed giving it the right to incorporate the SysV code into AIX. Thus, they assume the contractual relationship with IBM, and even if they don't own copyrights/patents over the code they may still enforce the contract terms. So, if IBM did copy SysV code into Linux (still doubtful), SCO would still have a case against them for violation of the contract.
The claim that Linux was ripping off SysV code *before* IBM started doing open-source development is now much shakier, because even if SCO is right about this, they have no legal rights to pursue it- as far as we know, they have no contractual relationship with any of the other Linux companies. Novell might, but they've shown where they stand on the issue. Therefore, SCO's letter to the 1500 companies could get them in huge trouble if they turned out to be lying about the code ownership, and would be construed by the courts as an attempt to extort licensing fees. (We all know this, but what matters is making a judge understand.)
That's just pure unadulterated @#$!!. SCO sent out threatening letters to 1500 companies many of whom don't have contracts with SCO. If this case is about breach of contract then what in the heck is SCO doing intimidating these customers.
The fact of the matter is that SCO is simply trying to run up their share price so that SCO management can make a buck on the implosion of their company.
If what Novell claims is true then SCO has more than a few problems to handle. It will have to start with a global apology.
... Novel, unlike SCO, may not be thriving, but they aren't facing immenent bankrupcy either), then the fact that SCO lied to their shareholders is an SEC violation. It is fraud (among other things) and the perpetrators could be looking at a prison term (hopefully in a cockroach ridden, butt-slamming Pen, rather than Club Fed).
If this is true (and it almost certainly is
And, as others have pointed out, the civil damages and liability resulting from this fraudulant deception against SCO and those personally involved in the deception could well be quite staggaring. These people could well end up broke and in prison.
This, of course, assumes the government actually chooses to enforce the law this time. As we saw with the Microsoft Anti-Trust case, that is certainly not a given.
Regardless, however, it does vindicate GNU/Linux and free software in the extreme, and it does demonstrate the depths of depravity that Microsoft (who was quite transparently pushing this and financing it via a license they clearly weren't required to get) and its shills, such as SCO, will sink to.
The best revenge is living well, indeed, living better than those who have wronged you. Even if SCO were to get off scott free (unlikely), clearly, anyone running FreeBSD (which could theoretically have been targeted with a similiar FUD campaign) and GNU/Linux are living quite well (in the technical arena at least), certainly much better than the poor sops running Unixware and SCO, and arguably quite a bit better than those running the product of SCO's master in Redmond. We should take joy in that fact (but not let it slow down the counter suits and prosecutions from those who were more directly wronged by SCO's illegal and unconscionable behavior).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I called in and was given a new phone number.
800-946-0719
they then ask for a code after a bit of a wait and will not connect without it.
Code is 728441
Enjoy the call!
SCO Statement on Novell's Recent Actions
Wednesday May 28, 10:15 am ET
LINDON, Utah, May 28
SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor.
Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights.
SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights. SCO's complaint specifically alleges breach of contract, and SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees.
We formed SCOsource in January 2003 to enforce our UNIX rights and we intend to aggressively continue in this successful path of operation.
-- My choice of computing platform is a symbol of my individuality and belief in personal freedom.
Yes, the Microsoft bashing/conspiracy theories get a little out of hand sometimes, but consider ... SCO threatens to sue anyone using Linux. Microsoft, who has made its dislike of Linux well known, immediately jumps in to sign a licensing agreement with SCO.
You don't have to be a tin-foil-hat conspiracy nut to see an obvious connection there.
Wait a minute ....
The SCO claim is that:
" In the last 18 months, we found that IBM had donated some very high-end enterprise-computing technologies into open-source. Some of it looked like it was our intellectual property and subject to our licensing agreements with IBM. Their actions were in direct violation of our agreements with them that they would not share this information, let alone donate it into open-source. We have examples of code being lifted verbatim.
And IBM took the same team that had been working on a Unix code project with us and moved them over to work on Linux code. If you look at the code we believe has been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an entire section -- and in some cases, an entire program. "
They don't actually say they own the code (in this excerpt), but rather, that they have licensed it to IBM. As I'm sure you know, there are often agreements made that allow corporations to sublicense works; although Novell owns the code itself, if they granted SCO the right to license it (as they apparently have), and SCO licensed it to IBM (as they apparently have), IBM is still responsible for using it legally.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Does anybody else wish that Bruce Perens would stop expounding conspiracy theories involving Redmond at every possible opportunity?
Conspiracy theory is one thing; claims supported by factual evidence is another entirely, and this particular case falls directly under that aegis.
It just makes him, and by extension us, look rather childish.
No one can make "us" look childish, unless the looker is intrinsically biased towards foolish stereotyping and generalizations...and if so, who cares?
The evidence is circumstantial at best, and that simply isn't good enough to go around making unsupportable claims.
We're not in court. Common-sense has a place here, and motives can be divined. What possible motive do you see as a counterpoint for MS' involvement with SCO at this time?
All in all, the use of "conspiracy theories" doesn't make you look childish, but it does cast doubt on your ability as a critical thinker, at least in this case.
Anyone know how much revenue they derive from licensing the source code?
It's amusing and delightful, but the IBM suit isn't about patents or copyright, it's about an NDA. IBM signed a contract that said they woudn't disclose certain info, and (SCO claims) they did. It doesn't matter whether SCO owned it in the first place, although that may go into the damages equation. Any lawyers want to comment?
Behold the riant ape! Beware, his crooked thumbs!
Typically, "pig in a poke" implies unforseen trouble or concealed problems that reveal themselves later, kinda like a used car. The term "poke" usually refers to a brown paper bag, like a grocery or shopping bag (back in the days before they all turned plastic), which lends to the image of the problem being just barely contained, and liable to escape at any moment.
When you buy a pig in a poke, you had better head straight home with it, and have a sturdy pen ready for the pig.
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
Press release from SCO this morning:
"SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights."
So what the hell does it involve?
Where's the talk of IP infringement now?
It seems SCO's lawsuit and SCO itself are finished.
In addition to the conference call number, you can listen to the SCO conference call online.
They're Investor Relations Page says, you can listen here.
Here's a blurb from their page;
You may also join via listen-only web cast by clicking on the url located at http://ir.sco.com/conference.cfm or www.companyboardroom.com.
SCO: "Oh, no, we were NEVER suing for patent infringment - it was ALWAYS a contract dispute over the LICENSING of the code." So, Novell, how'd you like to make about a kajillion new fans? License the code to IBM for a buck. SCO is irrelevant, problem solved. P.S. Didn't I hear somewhere that NW7 is going to be a services based connectivity, authentication and management layer running on Linux? Samba? LDAP? NIS? ACLs? THAT would be cool.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
I know when IBM was pursuing propietary claims against other companies, it had to do more than prove that it (IBM) owned the information, IBM had to prove that it actively and dilligently protected that information both internally and externally. With the lack of and casualness of the current protections in place (when was the last time SCO audited IBM for compliance in proctecting Unix propietary information?) SCO has a very weak case.
But the possibility that SCO was so brain-damaged by greed or desperation that they thought they could assert ownership over something they only licensed "reprint rights" for has me flabbergasted.
I'm listening to the conference call right now, and they just claimed that 1/3 of the total revenue for the next quarter would come from SCOsource (IE Suing people). Great.
__________
Love conquers all... except CANCER
Check out the SCOsource website
The page includes a FAQ and quotes from Stallman and Perens that "support" SCO's position.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
61% of company revenue from Unix
8% from SCOX Unix rights
(That's a big piece of pie they are about to lose.)
Now discussing "You are a bad user letter"
SCOX is #3 mover on NASDAC thank to that letter.
Still claiming to own Unix
Claiming to own licensing rights
discussing how the shakdown has generated some good bucks
During the conference call SCO claimed that they own the intellectual property of UNIX. "When you think of UNIX you're thinking of the core code base that we own." Really.
Unix claimed ownership of the Novel 5.0
http://ebgp.net/ccc/
Well, somebody certainly did some heavy selling at around 10 A.M. EDT... Volume up, price spiked low... It's climbed a bit in the past hour or so, but... *shrug* Draw yer own conclusions.
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
I'm listening to the conference call right now - the CEO just said there are 244 people listening in, up from 7 two quarters ago. I wonder why that is? ;-)
I had no trouble getting in, by identifying myself as an individual investor.
He claims "not just a line or two of code problems [in Linux], but significant code problems."
"Millions of lines of code showing up without anyone warrantying [sic] where the lines of code came from"
No mention of Novell yet.
A customer service representative will be with me shortly.
They just said that there were 244 people on the conference call vs 17 people last quarter (or was it two quarters ago? -- either way there's a lot more).
:) This ought to be fun. I'll kharma whore with another post on that as it comes...
They are talking about the MS SCO licensing deal. Not much info.
They're talking about the IBM lawsuit.. just that they sued them, didn't specify the amount. Said that in June they'd revoke the AIX UNIX license.
Talking about the Linux letter.. that they sent to everyong. Said they found code violations -- not saying what code. Said 3 teams came back with "significant code problems". Said they were legally advised to send letters to enterprise users of Linux to advise misappropriation of code.
Regarding Linux: "Millions of lines of code without knowing where they came from" -- almost a quote. Very close. Grrr.. pissing me off.
Q&A session coming soon...
From his Speech, on the Conferance Call-
"Last year we had 7 callers for our earnings, this year we have over.. 240 callers on the line"
Behold the Power of Slashdot.
Slashdotting a Telephone.
-Colin
Colin Davis
This morning would be the best time to do so because SCO is already comitted to a press conference that they cannot cancel or delay.
lock, stock and two smoking barrels.
Oh, man I sooo want to source a class-action libel suit against SCO.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
While IANAL, I hold 12 patents and have been involved in a variety of legal wrangles involving patents.
It would be very interesting to see the letters that SCO sent out. If they weren't worded very carefully, and they include assertions of IP rights that SCO in fact doesn't own they could definitely trigger a rash of lawsuits.
When I was working in this field we were VERY careful when we went trolling for license fees. Something like:
Dear Sirs:
It has come to our attention that you may want to consider licensing the following patents (list numbers here).
Signed
XYX Patent Attorney.
No claims of infringement etc. Just a word to the wise. The recipient would then decide what sort of position they were in and respond with something like:
Dear XYX:
We are interested in #47, and would like to offer a license to our #53 in exchange.
(In other words, yeah, we might be doing #47, but we think you are doing #53)
-or-
We are not interested. (Prove it).
-or-
We invented that long before you patented it and here is a copy of our documentation of the fact.
And so on.
Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights. [Emphasis added]
SCO Customers. Take note.
Now, SCO is about to get their asses sued off by some very angry competitors, and what if they decide to squeal that the whole thing was Microsoft's idea in the first place?
Oh brother, this could get NASTY.
Even if Microsoft was just suckered in by the potential to do damage to Linux, SCO can make it very embarassing to Microsoft. This could be a lot more fun to watch than previous lawsuits.
Novell reveals that after the SCO license deal, they actually sold the UNIX patents to MS to rais capital.
Tomorrows news:
MS admits that it thought any UNIX IP was worthless, and sold it to a .com startup, which has since gone bust. The UNX IP in question was then awarded to a now out-of-work janitor somewhere in the silicon valley at liquidation, in compensation for a lack of salary. A hunt for this individual is now in progress...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Even if this is the case; Novell can simply GPL the relevant code (IF there is any) or release it into the public domain.
It is probably of little (business) interest to them anyway.
Of course, SCO might still then have a case against IBM, but Linux would be safe.
>so I just gave the name of one of the media I've written for regularly.
:)
What happens when they figure out that CDR isn't a news agency?
They don't actually say they own the code (in this excerpt), but rather, that they have licensed it to IBM. As I'm sure you know, there are often agreements made that allow corporations to sublicense works; although Novell owns the code itself, if they granted SCO the right to license it (as they apparently have), and SCO licensed it to IBM (as they apparently have), IBM is still responsible for using it legally.
Good point. But this would also make it a pure license/contract issue between SCO and IBM - SCO does evidently not hold copyright or patent rights to the code, so they can't go after SuSE or any other GNU/Linux distributor, vendor or user.
If IBM broke the license, SCO can get damages. But unless I'm missing something it seems like they can not go after any other party for using or distributing said code. That makes the threat letter a bit puzzling, to say the least.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
AD 2003 war was begining
SCO CEO: what happen
SCO lawyer: somebody set up us the bomb
SCO lawyer: we get press release
SCO CEO: main screen turn on
SCO CEO: it's you!!!
NOVEL: how are you gentlemen!
NOVEL: all your unix IP are belong to us
NOVEL: your lawsuit is on the path to dismissal
SCO CEO: what you say!!!
NOVEL: you have no chance to sue, make your time
NOVEL: ha ha ha
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
Waiting on the Q&A session...
/.'er) -- when are the violations going to be made public?
First question(sounds like a
Only under NDA because of ongoing litigation.
What about the Novell announcement this morning?
Novell called last week re: the letter. Time set up yesterday morning at 11am. They didn't show up for the meeting. Later sent the letter -- saying SCO should publish the offenses.
"Is my linux illegal?"
SCO says people should talk to their own lawyers.
Come June 13 if no resolution with IBM -- revoke AIX license.
Details are not being disclosed. Not saying they can't sell AIX -- no real answer.
Blah blah blah about uninteresting stuff.. web services strategy and stuff.. stuff about acquisitions. Blah blah..
They just said they used to be moving people from UNIX to Linux, but when they did that, they lost a lot of money, and they basically said the customer got the same thing in terms of services. So now they're switching them back for a lot more money. Wow. That's ballsy.
Haha. sorry. Little stuff I find funny.
They say they're sort of looking at buying companies in the 4-5 million dollar (up to maybe 10 million dollars) range. Apparently their stock is doing pretty well.
How much will it cost to go after infringers? Is that being budgeted for?
structure with legal council for staying power -- pursuing and defending claims. First quarter of activitiies -- came in below budgeted amount. Set up for the long haul. Feel good about the legal structure.
Is that legal structure related to contingency?
Yes
Does that include counter suits?
Strucutred so that depending on how those come int hat they may be included in it.
I have no idea what that means.
Novell said SCO execs had asked for UNIX copyrights. It was denied. Why was this denied?
Stuff with IBM isn't related to copyright or patent. Focused on contracts. "By an order of magnitude" more powerful than copyright or patent. Language in contract between novell and SCo was confusing -- as they looked at it and said "this doesn't make sense".. SCO thinks it's confusing -- they call 'em up cuz SCO knows 'em. "If SCO wants it, then we want it too." As SCO brings in attorneys, they do a review on it and read the contract in its entireity -- SCO says they own copyrights -- that they can enforce that and the patents. Talked to all parties in agreement -- two people in NOVELL, two in SCO -- CEOs and legals of each side. Says intent was everything was transferred to SCO. Maybe some little things that are common.. Feel confident that they have the copyright and patent rights.
Suspension of linux sales -- given small amoutn of money from linux sales -- do you forsee SCO returning to selling Linux?
We would only return to Linux once the issues were resolved with Linux and "the community". SCO seems to be getting further away from that path (of selling linux). Claims are very strong and valid and customers are saying "time out here" begfore we do this big linux implementation, we nee to understand what's goign on. Linux leadership -- we like a lot of stuff about open source.. blah blha -- our intellectual property was being abused. Having more problems with that. Fruther from going back to Linux than closer.
What woudl you recommend for previous caldera users looking for an upgrade path? What recomendations?
Linux is "UNIX on Intel" UnixWare, and openserver. UnixWare can go anywhere linux can go. Lost ground while chasing the linux dream?
I'm on now - and it has started.
.net.
8.3 million in revenue from SCO Source licencing.
6000 licences.
They intend to increase these licences as they "agressively protect our intellectual property rights"
1/3rd of their projected earnings is from licencing, the rest is from OS products.
Lots of rah-rah "our best quarter ever" "we have eliminated all long-term debt"
The core business is still selling SCO UNIX
(which as an aside, means that you really cannot afford a wave of consumer hostility, can you?)
Looking to provide "subscription-based" services.
They have cash in the bank.
Their prime focus is defending themselves against Linux.
A nod towards the Novell thing - "SCO owns the UNIX contract rights" not the UNIX trademarks or IP.
A list of customers is presented... British Army just bought an asset/lifecycle management system for helicopters based on SCO UNIX
"SCO Source" is their new shakedown unit. 2 big licencees - one is secret, the other is Microsoft. Microsoft bought a licence for "Microsoft services for UNIX" putting UNIX source into Windows (?)
IBM is NOT the secret licencee.
They claim 3 code teams found violations where their code was in Linux, independantly.
No mention of what code, where.
Ahhhh... something makes sense now. Their Linux sales were tanking hard - they were making more money off SCO UNIX. So they're out to go toe-to-toe with Linux (a big part of which is anti-Linux FUD)
Q&A now starting:
First question mentions Novell release and asks for explicit listing with the code violations. They claim IBM has them (?)
Claim Novell blew them off; that there was a meeting yesterday that Novell skipped.
They refuse to publish the violations publically.
Next question is about how long the SCO Source revenue stream is likely to be. So far, they claim two contracts. No way to quantify how many contracts are in the pipeline.
What is happening Jun 14th re IBM/AIX? They will revoke the AIX licence. Details will follow.
Next question is from a capital company, asking about aquisitions. They want to get into web services, interact with Java and
They claim 2.2 million SCO servers - original business plan was to migrate those to Linux, and they lost money doing that. So now they want to keep those people on SCOX (at $1500 a server)
Nothing about why those people should stay on SCO when they have Linux readily availible....
Mr Wall Street thinks SCO is going to gain some short-term cash.
They think that their stock price spike reflects market confidence in SCO vs Linux
Another venture capitalist.... wants to know if licence deals will drive SCOX product sales.
They used SCO Source to raise capital instead of going to veture capital.
Next question asks for an estimate on legal costs. So far they are below their legal budget, but they are in for the long haul and are ready for countersuits.
Next caller wants to know why SCO was asking for transfer of UNIX copyrights from Novell and why they were denied. SCO doesn't seem to know what they own. They claim they own the UNIX copyrights, based on a contract review of the Novell contracts. They feel they can go toe-to-toe with Novell and win that fight too.
Next question wants to know if SCO has abandoned Linux sales. They claim lots of people are putting Linux implementation on hold, and that Linux "leadership" is dismissive to SCO IP rights. SCO is probably done with Linux. Caldara upgrade path is SCO UNIX.
That's it.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
http://netscape.com.com/2102-1104-992345.html
SCO exec sells stock after price surge
By Stephen Shankland
CNET News.com
March 13, 2003, 5:05 AM PT
URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-992394.html
SCO Group Chief Financial Officer Robert Bench sold 7,000 of his 245,000 SCO shares Monday, two business days after the Unix software company's stock price surged on news of a billion-dollar lawsuit against IBM, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
SCO's stock closed at $2.21 on Thursday, a few hours before the lawsuit alleging that IBM misappropriated SCO trade secrets was announced. On Friday, the stock surged 40 percent to close at $3.10, and Bench filed to sell shares Monday at $3.06. SCO's stock since then has slipped down to close at $2.40 on Tuesday. SCO formerly was named Caldera International but changed its name to reflect the fact that most of its revenue came from Unix products acquired in 2001
For years now, I've wondered just why anyone would choose to stick with SCO Unix when so many other versions existed, most of which are cheaper and/or more stable. When I heard that they were releasing their own Linux distro, I figured they had finally seen the end of the tunnel, and were migrating their apps to move into the application market... Of course, I didn't realize they were so bad off that trying to sue the next quarter's revenue was all they had left!
SCO should be given the same respect that they so clearly show the rest of the community. I hope IBM's 400-pound gorilla legal-team squashes them into jelly.
First Falcon-1 to orbit, then Falcon-9. Then I can die a happy man.
I also listened in on the conference call; wanted to ask a question but didn't get a chance.
The parent poster already said this, but given the size of the post and the fact that it was being written during the call (and thus somewhat stream-of-consciousness in style), I wanted to emphasize one thing: SCO's CEO McBride stated during the call that they're confident that they do own the copyrights (which would mean Novell's claim of ownership in the press release must therefore be false, if SCO were correct).
Are you guys listening to the conference call? The speaker was codemning Linux for having "millions of lines of code"...
... [short answer: no]
...
....
:) ] to pursue claims and defend claims. amount we spent [on legal fees] is less than amouut we budgeted.
... a four party group, 2 SCO, 2 Novell, concluded the contract says SCO has absolute rights to push this in marketplace... [emphasized it's not about copyrights, etc...]
I got in just before the Q/A session. I took rough notes. I'm not skilled in the art of dictation, so you should assume the following is a fictional drama loosely based on reality, which happens to be extremely dificult to read. The part about Novell doing a no show at a scheduled meeting yesterday is interesting... Apologies to non-native-English speakers-- I'm too busy to clean this up.
Questions denoted "Q:", answers denoted "A:".
By the way, SCO is pronounced as one syllable, "sko", with a long "o". Hence SCO X is pronounced "sko-ex" and SCOsource "sko-source". ick...
Q: About the IBM suit: when will you put out info regarding allegations?
A: there are two parts:
1) in discussing with IBM, they've been made aware, we continue to work path with IBM...
2: novell announcment, response from 1500 letters has been significant, lots of companies asking what is going on, "am i running compromised?, is it illegal , who do i talk to?" we have people get their own legal opinions, second, we have invited people that have licenses with us, who are concerned, to come in, under nda, to be glad to go thru things we found. in novell case, they called last week about letter, we said we can sit down with them. set to meet Novell yesterday at 11AM and Novell didn't show up, then they sent out a letter saying SCO won't meet with them, and issues the press release.
Q: the info wrt allegations will not be made public?
A: correct
Q: comment on visibility of SCO source revenue stream. How long expect it to be a contribution to revenue. others?
A: started last quarter, had 8.2 million in revenue. SCOsource 1/3 of this. signed 2 contracts so far...
Q: any way to quantify?
A; range is very broad. for the coming quarter roughly 1/3 of revenue from SCOsource...
Q: will you be able to disclose other contracted party in future?
A:
Q: what happens on June 14th with IBM? About their AIX license?
A: we will revoke their AIX license if no resolution. exact details, not ruling out, can't say definitively,
Q: do ou anticipate coming to a resolution before 6/14?
A; that question is for the other folks...
Q: Nice quarter guys... can you share [question doesn't sound interestng to Linux folk, but is about busines stategy]
A: [Answer is very long-winded-- speaker is happy to answer this one]
Q: [question from same person about business particulars]
A:
Q: [ditto]
A:
Q: [question about SCO X and SCOsource contract values in relation to new products]
A: [... he incidentaly mentions SCO is debt-free and has cash]
Q: [how much money set aside in defending IP claims?]
A: we have a lot of "staying power" [
Q: is legal structure based on contingency [A: yes] and does it include countersuits? [A: yes]
Q: Novell said this morning SCO asked Novell to transfer UNIX IP...
A: We haven't mentioned "copyright" or "patents". Everything we listed is about the contracs [with IBM]... that is our focus. There was confusing language with Novell/SCO agreement... this doesn't make any sense... how do you transfer IP without the copyright?... like selling a book w/o the words... some Novell people said this makes no sense... they concluded "if SCO wants this Novell wants it too"... legal people read contract in entirety... it's clear we [SCO] own the copyrights...
Q: Suspension o
SCO's response to Novell's Unix IP claims by saying that this is ,surprise, a contract violation, and not a copyright violation, although I could pull out half a dozen direct SCO quotes, right now, showing SCO's claim to "owning UNIX IP", which, in the version of the english language I speak, means that they're talking about IP copyrights.
Their current claim about contract breaches means that Linux is not part of their suite, which means that they are open to being sued in Europe for libel(sp?).
I would so dearly love to hear what the Lawyers are going to say about their claims that Contracts are stronger than copyrights, given that copyrights are a binding and do form a kind of contract.
Fuck it, let's all stand up. :)
Will the real Bruce Perens Please Stand Up
They mentioned potential $3B in revenue from SCO/X, based apparently on everyone who owns a SCO server buying an equiavelent number of SCO/X boxes at $1500
This UNIX IP character is damaged goods. Its apparently been around the block a few...dozen...times. Let's just give up and call it community property.
Free love!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Somewhere in Hell there's a little SCO/Rambus room, where the people that enforce the GIF patent are tortured eternally.
"Sig free in '03!"
McBride flatly admitted that SCO knew they didn't have ownership of the copyrights or patents at the time they sent "the letter" out, which specifically mentioned that SCO was defending their "intellectual property"!
I sure hope for the executive teams' sake that they haven't sold any stock since this thing started...
Who am I kidding, I hope they have!
"Here's your new cellmate - his name is Bubba."
"Um... Hi, Bubba..."
"Hello, bitch! Bend over and spread 'em!"
I actually enjoyed the call.
One thing that may be interesting for those who missed it was the statement that "3 independent code teams" looked at the linux code and found "not just a line or 2, but significant code violations".
What is an insignificant violation? Also, if they felt the need to have 3 teams look at it, that seams to suggest that it's a pretty subjective statement to say there is infringement.
This is from SCO's original complaint off of the SCO website. It seems that they do think they own the code as they state in line item 18. If they don't actually own it they are being purposefully deceptive.
17. All commercial UNIX "flavors" in use today are based on the UNIX System V Technology ("System V Technology").
18. SCO is the present owner of all software code and licensing rights to System V Technology.
SCO is now claiming that Novell is wrong. Check ou this article from Forbes.
0 5/ 28/rtr984048.html
http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2003/
Hints, horeshoes and hand granades are all useless in court. What wonders and marvels does he have that have yet to be expressed in any SCO product besides Caldera Linux? It's not there.
Why is it that they don't point to it explicitly? Surely it's not to protect publically publishes source code, nor can they care much about actual damages if they don't send specific cease and dissist orders. Anything they point to can be rewritten without trouble. The only reason is that it's not there.
It's not here, it's not there it's not anywhere. The whole case is some kind of weird sham for the M$ PR department.
Still want that $100 one time fee, McBitch? Yeah, that's what I thought. Why don't you go buy me a happy meal and we'll call it even.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Indeed, they are claiming the IBM suit is not about copyrights and patents (I refuse to use the term IP, since I don't believe it is a valid concept). If neither copyrights nor patents are involved, how can it affect GNU/Linux users and developers other than IBM?
What the CEO said in the conference call just confirmed to me that the attack on Linux is nothing more than FUD. He said that SCO saw they weren't making money distributing GNU/Linux, so they decided to discontinue it and focus on their own Unix products. My interpretation is that they need to encourage people to start using SCO products that cost lots of money; why would they switch from something that's free? When it was asked what current Caldera Linux users should do, the CEO said that SCO Unix products work nearly everywhere GNU/Linux ones do. He also pointed out how some people are delaying their use of GNU/Linux because of SCO's recent letter, so they're succeeding in the FUD campaign.
Microsoft's licensing agreement with SCO comes way too close to be a coincidence. They either saw a great opportunity to contribute to some Linux FUD and ran with it, or they were in on it from the start.
What do you bet that many of the SCO officers sold much of their stock yesterday upon arrival of that letter. How high can you go?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'm glad to see SCO shown to be liars in public. Unfortunately, I don't think it has much bearing on the case. The core of SCO's allegation is that IBM violated nondisclosure agreements by copying secret enterprise scalability techniques from the Monterey project into Linux. This has nothing to do with the ancestral Unix code.
Maybe IBM can get the complaint dismissed since it contains incorrect statements. But maybe SCO can argue that the misstatements don't affect the core of their argument. My understanding is that if A sues B claiming 10 causes of action, and 9 of these are without merit, B could still be held liable for the 10th.
If the truth is as it now appears that SCO really has very little IP interest in the original Unix core, and Novell actually owns what IP remains, then of course they can release any possible legal liabilities for Linux as it is and even release versions of their Sys V property under a free license. Novell would be very wise to do something like this because there isn't much commercial value remaining in this IP. I claim that the commercial value would actually increase after they released all the old stuff under GPL or compatible license. Anyone wanting to create a commercial derivative product still has to come back to the original owners for a commercial license, and the GPL branch will bring experimentation and resources to both.
First off, I was able to get in using the original number from Bruce. I had to give my full name, phone number, and company. For company, I said that I was a private citizen and had no problems getting in.
I came in a bit late, but I don't think I missed much, as the SCOSource bit wasn't discussed until later. Also, I got in on all of the questions. I was disappointed that Bruce Perens didn't get to ask a question.
From what they said in the beginning and from the answers to the questions (most of which were fairly typcial financial questions from financial analysts, btw) here is what I got out of it. Be advised that this is just one person's interpretation of what SCO is saying and that IANAL.
1. The suit against IBM doesn't depend upon IP ownership via copyright or patents, per se. It is a suit based on breach of contract between SCO and IBM. The original contract (license) between IBM and the then-owner of the rights included a stipulation against sharing this code or IP. Needless to say that any alleged releasing of this code under the GPL would qualify. SCO has the right to sue, because it purchased the license rights from Novell.
2. The language of the rights transfer from Novell to SCO seems to have been considered rather unclear by SCO about whether the actual IP ownership (copyright and patents) of UNIX(tm) had been transferred. After much research by SCO and it's counsel, they believe that they do, in fact, now own the copyrights and pertinent patents to UNIX(tm). Included in the research was discussions with lower-level contacts within Novell and with the principals of the earlier deal, many of whom no longer appear to be in power at Novell.
3. While it's true that the suit against IBM doesn't derive any legitiamcy from IP ownership (see 1), due to SCO's belief that it owns the IP of UNIX(tm) SCO believes that future lawsuits may be brought against anyone infringing on what SCO believes to be their IP, with or without a license agreement based on copyright or patent laws.
4. SCO now feels confident that a court proceeding to settle any dispute between SCO and Novell would be resolved in their favor.
My personal conclusions:
A. While Novell's stance certainly helps against SCO's activities (at least it buoys morale and adds a corporate voice against SCO), it is not the end of the IP issue. It seems that SCO is prepared to legally assert it's claims to the IP ownership, despite this morning's announcement by Novell.
B. Novell's announcement will marginally help against the FUD created by SCO's actions. However, I believe that only the most ardent and brave Linux supporters in corporate management will feel better enough to proceed if they were at all concerned. The rest will put off any decision to switch because there is still too much uncertainty and risk to their own stature and careers.
C. The FUD about Linux will continue until the alleged violations are made public enough to allow either a solid refutation or code replacement.
No, it's the aliens, silly! In return for the secret of their anti-gravity super-luminal space-warp drive, the got a UNIX license from SCO.
Stick Men
Really? 'Cause that's not what you said before, you bunch of assholes. Last month, it was patents, copyrights, AND trade secrets. Then they got outted about the patents, and the fact they don't own any (Novell and Tarantella do I believe). Then it was copyrights and trade secrets, according to Darl. Now, they drop the copyright argument, after Novell decides to shame them, and evidently are down to trade secret.
Of course, if he's punting the copyright argument, that puts linux out of damage, or should.
Naturally, they're still lying, since they don't know how to do anything else. My favorite line from their press release today:
"SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor."
Really? They do? That little bitty circle-R there seems to imply a copyright. I wonder if the Open Group will bitchslap them the way Novell just did, since they own that trademark. Anyone can call any product Unix if Open Group says so, and SCO ain't got a thing to do with it. The only way to make the above sentence true is to substitute UNIX with OpenUnix. Now, the only thing they can hang on to is if IBM put some project Monterrey into linux. That's it, and good luck SCO.
I mean, I understand lying and all to get some cash through FUD, but they're losing their skill at it, because their latest is just bunk through and through.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Wouldn't it be VERY HARD to determine WHAT damages would be?
IBM may have violated the license by inserting proprietary code into an open source project. But SCO, knowingly (and still apparently legally in all scenarios (since they were authorized to sub-license)) and willingly published the code under GPL.
Any damages would be constrained between the time IBM released the "stolen code" and the time when SCO blessed the code by knowingly releasing it under GPL.
Even beyond that, the fact that SCO DID publish it knowingly and willingly under GPL could be interpreted as implicit or even explicit permission for the code to be there in the first place thus indemnifying IBM from fault and damages.
It looks like SCO MUST now reveal WHAT code is affected just to stay relevant. They must differentiate their stuff from both Linux AND the source they received (under license) from Novell.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
SCO proves that black is white and get hit by a bus at the next zebra crossing.
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
Give the Sco vs IBM position paper a read (http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html) it's quite informative. One of the main contentions is that the functionality in Linux far exceeds any matching functionality in SCO's code. That being the case you would wonder how they were able to borrow code from SCO?
(The best explanation so far [I believe from here on SlashDot]: IBM coders used cut and paste instead.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
But aren't "uncertainty" and "doubt" synonyms?
SCOX dropped by 5% since the end of the conference call.
NOVL risen by roughly the same amount over the same period of time.
IBM holding steady.
Source: Nasdaq.com
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
..that after all the whining they have done, they can still have this on their website:
United Linux
With claims like
"UnitedLinux provides the Linux business user with operating system platform that is focused on their needs and provides a greater choice of applications and hardware. The four geographically strong Linux partners, with headquarters in Asia, Europe, and South and North America, make it easier to provide local language support, training, and professional services. Customers now have a true international version of Linux. UnitedLinux enables more rapid adoption of Linux in the enterprise, which, in turn allows customers to reap the benefits of Linux with lower risk and cost."
it makes you wonder just how two faced they can be
The Open Group was assigned the trademark rights to the UNIX(TM) name for purposes of standards compliance (you can't call your OS UNIX(TM) without them). What we've found out today, however, is Novell, not SCO, owns the UNIX System V code and its assocated copyrights and patents.
--Mythos
I doubt there would be grounds to sue Linus even if there was clear-cut evidence of patent infringement in the Linux kernel. Linus didn't put the supposedly offending code in there, but he's still liable? SCO seems to be really grasping at straws here; they know that the bluff has been called. I just hope they don't manage to do any more FUD-based harm to Linux before they die a merciful death.
I'm not a lawyer, so nobody use this as legal advice. If you want legal advice, go pay a lawyer.
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
It took the 2:00 bounce and is now heading south indicating that investors see no future for SCO.
SCOX 2:35pm 7.12 -1.59 -18.25% N/A N/A 7.12 7.29
Zoid.com
PROVO, Utah -- May 28, 2003 -- Defending its interests in developing services to operate on the Linux platform, Novell today issued a dual challenge to The SCO Group over its recent statements regarding its UNIX ownership and potential intellectual property rights claims over Linux.
First, Novell challenged SCO's assertion that it owns the copyrights and patents to UNIX System V, pointing out that the asset purchase agreement entered into between Novell and SCO in 1995 did not transfer these rights to SCO. Second, Novell sought from SCO facts to back up its assertion that certain UNIX System V code has been copied into Linux. Novell communicated these concerns to SCO via a letter (text below) from Novell® Chairman and CEO Jack Messman in response to SCO making these claims.
"To Novell's knowledge, the 1995 agreement governing SCO's purchase of UNIX from Novell does not convey to SCO the associated copyrights," Messman said in the letter. "We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights. Apparently you share this view, since over the last few months you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO, requests that Novell has rejected."
"SCO claims it has specific evidence supporting its allegations against the Linux community," Messman added. "It is time to substantiate that claim, or recant the sweeping and unsupported allegation made in your letter. Absent such action, it will be apparent to all that SCO's true intent is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Linux in order to extort payments from Linux distributors and users."
"Novell has answered the call of the open source community," said Bruce Perens, a leading proponent of open source. "We admire what they are doing. Based on recent announcements to support Linux with NetWare services and now this revelation...Novell has just won the hearts and minds of developers and corporations alike."
Text of the letter from Novell to SCO:
Mr. Darl McBride
President and CEO
The SCO Group
Re: SCO's "Letter to Linux Customers"
Dear Darl:
As you know, Novell recently announced some important Linux initiatives. These include an upcoming NetWare version based on the Linux kernel, as well as collaboration and resource management solutions for Linux.
Put simply, Novell is an ardent supporter of Linux and the open source development community. This support will increase over time.
It was in this context that we recently received your "Letter to Linux Customers." Many Novell business partners and customers apparently received the same letter. Your letter compels a response from Novell.
As we understand the letter, SCO alleges that unnamed entities incorporated SCO's intellectual property into Linux without its authorization. You apparently base this allegation on a belief that these unnamed entities copied some UNIX System V code into Linux. Beyond this limited understanding, we have been unable to glean any further information about your allegation because of your letter's vagueness.
In particular, the letter leaves certain critical questions unanswered. What specific code was copied from UNIX System V? Where can we find this code in Linux? Who copied this code? Why does this alleged copying infringe SCO's intellectual property? By failing to address these important questions, SCO has failed to put us on meaningful notice of any allegedly infringing Linux code, and thus has withheld from us the ability - and removed any corresponding obligation - to address your allegation.
As best we can determine, the vagueness about your allegation is intentional. In
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
According to a story on Marketwatch, SCO is intent on suing Linus Torvalds eventually. Now I know his reputation for avoiding political issues, but this one may be nipping at his rear whether he wants it or not:
McBride added that unless more companies start licensing SCO's property, he may also sue Linus Torvalds, who is credited with inventing the Linux operating system, for patent infringement.
Listen to archived audio here:
http://biz.yahoo.com/cc/0/30510.html
Very amusing listening to Darl say they can't promise not to yank IBM's right to sell AIX!
-dave
IOW, Novell claims SCO doesn't own the code they haven't disclosed.
.sig
SCO hasn't said what the code is.
They haven't said what the routines are in general.
They haven't even indicated the amount of code involved.
Wake me when SCO says something that can be [disproved|proved].
-- this is not a
here are novell's patents Link
However, directly from their quarterly earnings page...
This looks like something the SEC should be looking into. Making false claims in a lawsuit is one thing - lawyers are expected to be liars in court. Making false declarations on financial statements is something else.
Information is not Knowledge
In light of your writing above (excerpted by the Slashdot crew) and today's disclosure by Novell, I thought you might be interested in this news report.
Specifically, the threat made by SCO's chief executive Darl McBride today:
McBride added that unless more companies start licensing SCO's property, he may also sue Linus Torvalds, who is credited with inventing the Linux operating system, for patent infringement.
Stunning. Simply stunning.
So, who gets to kick them into recievership to pay the fines for fraud and frivolous litigation?
Class action, anyone?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I think the evil bastards at SCO should change their number (linked from the contact us section on their pitiful excuse of a website) from
1-888-GO-LINUX to 1-888-NO-LINUX.
But, that's just me, and I'm dumb.
The older I get, the less I like everyone else.
According to their website, "SCO is the owner of the UNIX Operating System Intellectual Property that dates all the way back 1969, when the UNIX System was created at Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the patents, copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX System. The SCO source division will continue to offer traditional UNIX System licenses to preserve, protect and enhance shareholder value."
http://www.sco.com/scosource/
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.
so, as soon as SCO announces what code it is, Novell coule just grant the linux community a free license to it.
To know that you have, singlehandedly:
1) Misled your shareholders.
2) Misled your customers.
3) Made your company a laughingstock with your stupid assertions and accusations.
Please enlighten us.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
The below quote is from this Reuters article;a nyNewsArti cle.jhtml?storyID=2839994&ric=SCOX&infotype=news&c ompname=SCO+GROUP+INC
http://www.reuters.com/financeQuoteComp
I suppose this wraps it up for the day.
The market came down with a tough verdict on SCO.
"Shares of SCO closed down $2.11, or more than 24 percent, at $6.60 on the Nasdaq. Novell gained 13 cents, or 4.3 percent, to $3.13."