Slashdot Mirror
SCO Gives Friday Deadline To IBM
bcisys writes "Reuters is reporting that SCO is planning to revoke IBM's license to Unix this Friday unless IBM settles SCO's claim that parts of its Unix code are being used in Linux. 'If we don't have a resolution by midnight on Friday the 13th, the AIX world will be a different place', SCO President and Chief Executive Darl McBride told Reuters News. 'We've basically mapped out what we will do. People will be running AIX without a valid license.'"
...Or I'll say Stop again!
I mean it this time too, pal.
SCO is sounding more and more like the meglomaniacal villian from an 80's movie.
At least that'll make everyone elses' lisences invalid just like mine.
So they either have to remove code they don't know about, or pay up ... not much of a choice SCO leaves them.
Friday the 13th?! Is this a really bad movie, or what?
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Perhaps April 1st would be a better deadline.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
i mean, SCO hasn't even gotten IBM into a courtroom yet.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
The whole plot of the SCO vs. IBM saga.
if you bought the rights to use AIX, is it legal to have it revoked?
We be the pirates of SCO! we tell you to pay up or face the consequences! Of us putting our blade threw the gully of Unix license. Arr you cant threaton us with the fact that you are 100 times larger then me, wont spare our bearly leagal clames to owning Unix! For we are pirates and arr above the law! now fork over your treasure!
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It's pretty clear that SCO is trying to get IBM customers to pressure IBM to settle this. However, it frankly seems pretty absurd. The bottom line is that, as a customer, I am not responsible for IBM's alleged failure to maintain a proper license for UNIX. IBM's license is a license to *copy* UNIX software, and copying is the only activity that could possibly be prophibited. Given that IBM's customers already HAVE copies of AIX, unless IBM's license from SCO has some very odd language in it it seems extremely improbable that customers could lose the license they already have.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
What does this really change though?
This seems like nothing more than a sneaky attempt by SCO to force IBM to settle.... Did SCO not check into IBM's operating profits before this announcement? This isn't a David and Goliath situation, this is a David VS. 4 Goliaths with Lasers.
And I want Goliath to win too.
Stupid SCO.
If I live the rest of my life and never hear the name of SCO again, that will be fine by me.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
It's viral: parts of SCO code in AIX make the whole AIX a subject of SCO whims.
If the license of a subcomponent is revoked the whole thing may be in trouble. What if one of M$ subcontractor get in dispute with M$? Windows user is suddenly in license violations.
IBM will guarantee its customers protection from any indemnity, and they'll keep on running AIX. Come Friday, everybody will be happily running unlicensed copies of AIX in the knowledge that IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.
Sorry, SCO, you lose.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
After Friday, we'll have a pretty good idea what IBM really thinks about SCO's suit. If they make no attempt to settle, it will be clear they really don't think SCO can prevail.
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers
An SCO koan.
And the apprentice asked of the Master, "But the end user is not the infringing party. Why are they to be invalidated?"
The Master replied, "Are the children at fault if their father steals a loaf of bread to feed them?"
"No."
"Yet the baker sees the children eating, the produce of his ingredients" says the master.
The apprentice points out "The father owns the bakery. The baker stole the recipes, which were developed by the father's kin. Who owns the bread now?"
The Master became enlightened.
The interesting thing is that SCO is now punishing people for buying Unix/AIX (TM) not Linux. The media spin has been that Linux is under a haze of doubt but for now at least Red Hat customers seem to be in a better position than AIX customers even though IBM has paid for a Unix license and Red Hat has not. Weird.
All I can say is that I did not license my AIX boxes through SCO. I licensed them through IBM and the only person that can revoke that is IBM!! The courts my not see it that way but I have no contract with SCO so how does SCO think that everyone running AIX will be illegal?
Mike
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
...make me point at the sign...
Spreading FUD about Linux is one thing -- you have a real chance of scaring away some potential Linux users that way. But AIX? It's old-school, like prehistoric. It's firmly entrenched into the legacy systems of some of the biggest corporations in the world, and they not only don't want to get rid of it, they are in fact be completely unable to do so without hugely expensive redevelopment and massive disruption. It is far cheaper for the AIX users of the world to pour money into the defence of UNIX than attempt to abandon the platform. SCO is just waving a red flag in front of one hell of a bull, and they are going to get seriously trampled.
... is that it doesn't matter if IBM renews its license with SCO or not. Assuming you purchased AIX, you already have a valid license from SCO, purchased through IBM. Unless the license terms state that your license from SCO needs to be renewed and/or can be revoked at any time, SCO choosing to withdraw their licensing arrangement with IBM has no effect whatsoever on the legality of your copy of AIX. Naturally, if you purchase AIX *after* SCO revokes the license, then it will be an illegal copy.
Anyone here a lawyer? This could fall into several categories, namely extortion/racketeering, and potentially breach of contract. I can't see IBM agreeing to a clause in the contract which states that SCO is able to revoke the license upon 1 week's notice. That's just absurd.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Hey editors and who ever submits these stories:
Can we do this OJ style? For example:
Trial of the Millenia: Day 47
It is now day 47 in the trial that rocked the geek world as SCO prepares to offer 5 more lines of evidence. Opinions have been mixed, has SCO now is suing IBM for mental anguish while Linus Torvalds has responded "[Expletive Deleted] SCO and their [Expletive Deleted] code". Defending lawyers are believed to try and have the case thrown out on the grounds of insanity on SCOs part. Stay tuned for more minute by minute coverage after these commercials.
Something like that? Come on lets add some day time television drama to this.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
>> Though, the people who might truly be worried are SCO's customers
Yep, I'll bet both of them are worried!
Wham, come Saturday June 14 thousands of boxes with AIX all over the world would suddenly shut down.
Now tell me why DRM is a good idea and explain how it will never be misused or abused.
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
In recent months, some corporations have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private monies urging a settlement to leave with SCO, so that licensince can proceed peacefully. IBM has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. IBM and it's board of directors must leave IBM headquarters within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign workers -- including contractors and temporary employees -- should leave IBM immediately.
/tongue planted firmly in cheek
Many IBM employees can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your company and not against you. As our lawyers take away their power, we will deliver the employment and medical benefits you need. We will tear down the apparatus of AIX and we will help you to build a new IBM that is prosperous and free. In a free IBM, there will be no more wars of aggression against UNIX, no more antiquated mainframes, no more skipped lunches, no more broken copier machines and TPS reports. The board of directors will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.
Hammer of Truth
I wonder which and how many of the 30,000 patents IBM owns SCO will get accused of violating. Usually it doesn't pay to wake a sleeping giant...
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
A recent auction at the former soviet union insiders mentioned that several representatives of Internation Business Machines (IBM) were present and buying lots of hardware.
They were questioned about the use? possibly for research for their military contracts with the US government?"
the reply was not what was expected....
"No, we are gearing up for negotiations with a rival company that has been knocking on our door with insane claims for a while. the CEO last night in a fit of rage mentioned that he would love to see SCO just dissappear... so we decided to follow his orders... we figure these 75,000 pounds of conventional bombs will do the job, and suprisingly enough the US govt said that they would be glad to "drop ship" them for us."
we figure that the whole thing will settle within a few days...
No further comments were made, but one of the IBM representatives was overhead asking if it was going to be really loud, and can they swing by Redmond Washington if they have any leftovers...
Richard Head, UPN News...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Luke...
That would be AT&T. It is unlikely that SCO can affect IBM because any contract they have made with Novell is trumped by the prior contract with AT&T.
AT&T may under the terms of the contract be able to assign its interest to another party (Novell) and that in turn may be assignable. But SCO is bound by the terms of the earlier IBM/ATT contract.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Or to paraphrase Apu,
"Hey, hey! I have asked you rudely not to mangle my copyrights. You leave me no choice but to ask you rudely again."
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
Really, I could understand the issue as long as they were talking of suing distributions, Linux users, Linus himself. But IBM's contract relations and IBM's customers?
If IBM thought SCO had a case, they'd slam them with a countersuit of a kazillion patents SCO violates and offer to settle. End of story. The fact that IBM is letting SCO buzz around like they do tells me that SCO has no case.
And I sure as hell don't think that IBM's lawyers were so stupid that the revocation of the licence from SCO would create any problem with current AIX licences (maybe with issuing new, but that's another story). My conclusion: More FUD, but let IBM debunk this and get back to something more nerdish.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
In other news, IBM spokesperson John Ashton responded to SCO's reported Friday dealine by simply saying, "Blow me."
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I'm a bit slow, but I just worked out what had been freaking me out.
Usually, if someone is breaching a license, you would go to them, point it out and ask for a chunk of money. It's not just to help them protect their good name. It's also to protect your own good name as a trusted partner to do business with.
If SCO's business is really about trying to license Unix, then they should pay attention to this. Imagine what their other customers are thinking. "These guys are feral. We should look for a way out of this". And prospective customers would be thinking "Err, no. That's not the type of supplier I want to do business with".Well, unless you are Microsoft. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions on that.
Clearly this is a sad death spiral.
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
I'm not sure about IBM, but most large corporations tend to structure their businesses to insulate risk. I wouldn't be suprised to find that the part of IBM that licensed AIX and the part of IBM that sells Linux and the part that develops Linux are all insulated from each other.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
...and I don't mean IBM. SCO just rattled the cages of everybody that uses AIX. I work at a .gov that shall remain nameless, and without bragging, we have at least one of everything - and we run AIX in all kinds of funky places. Tell me I can't run AIX? Come and get me. But make sure the SCO flunky you send is expendable, they WILL shoot you nowadays.
But forget about the guard force using SCO interns for target practice, you just threatened almost every Fortune 500 company with a datacenter to speak of. THEIR lawyers using your ass for target practice is much more scary. Telling folks with THAT kind of power to turn off their line-of-business systems will get SCO slapped around like a red-headed stepchild.
IBM has done something about that already...
We always talk about SCO, SCO, SCO but I realized I have no clue about what IBM's response is...
Anyone ?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Ok, so do they need the license and the trademark from 2 different sources?
Aparently you ceritfy your OS and buy the rights for the trademark from the OpenGroup and then you also need a license from SCO...am I following this right?
But SCO doesn't seem to be up in arms over unlicensed releases that are legitimatley derived from the unix source base (OS X).
I just don't see how anyone has any legs to stand on when ther are at least 3 legitimate owners of unix property of some sort (Open Group, SCO, and Novell), plus all of Universities that received early licenses....
Seems like it's time to public domain some stuff....
SCO also won a license from Microsoft, which agreed to pay SCO to ensure that it would not violate intellectual property rights when developing software that works with Unix. But Microsoft's move was widely seen as an attempt to lend weight to SCO's attack on Linux, which Microsoft views as a threat to its Windows franchise.
This rather strong anti-Microsoft comment is coming off Reuters. Not Slashdot. This tells me that, despite what the Windows apologists may say, the public view of Microsoft closely mirrors some of the more cynical posts here. Such widely-held disdain spells doom for a corporation. Cash reserves and ruthless schemes will only go so far against it....
-----------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
At 11:30PM on Friday the CEO of IBM should fax SCO a Xerox of his butt. That seems an appropriate response.
IBM?
You know you're a geek if you've ever replied to a tagline.
Its called Extortion. If they do this, they're going to screw themselves in the ass in the long term. They've already filed suit against IBM, they can't start making demands like this ahead of the suit. They can't just revoke the contract for no reason either, and even if they claim it's because they violated the contract, they've yet to offer proof!
I don't know who they think they are, but they're an ant to IBM. If they pissed off IBM enough, IBM is gonna squash them. Hey, maybe that what will happen.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
This seems a little like that kid in school that was always getting picked on and finally lashed out and did something really stupid then got his ass beat.
Hopefully, IBM will realize that SCO can't do anything but sit and fire off more lawsuits and will let SCO dig itself into so much legal debt that IBM will end up buying the UNIX IP (on the cheap) and letting SCO rot into nothing.
It is rather interesting that, of all days, SCO has chosen Friday (the 13th). Are they hoping someone at IBM actually cares? No, they are trying to get our attention. They're doing a good job of that, that and making an ass of themselves in the process.
1. It is not SCO that is going to determine the pace of this case. Upon trying to unilateraly cancel IBM's license a judge will step in and maintain the "status quo" until the dispute is settled.
2. If you bought AIX prior to SCO's accusations, then you still have a valid license. SCO cannot retroactivly cancell prior licenses on it's own whim. Can you imagine the havok that would cause in the business world as a whole if it were so? Can you imagine Novell announcing tomorrow that they are cancelling whatever agreement they had with SCO?
3. The mere fact that SCO is dragging IBM customers into this tells me that this is more a political manuever then a valid legal manuever. They are trying to get IBM customers to pressure IBM to resolve this fast, and fast means caving to SCO.
4. SCO has yet to prove harm. 80 lines of code copied exactly word for word, punctuation for punctuation means nothing without harm. The actual code has to do something particular that is germain to SCO and that the loss (or unlawfull distribution) has harmed SCO.
5. So not only does SCO have to reveal the offending code, it has to say when it discovered it and when it notified IBM and prove what type of harm was done. I find that hard to believe that 80 lines of code out of a code base of a million plus lines is going to fly just on its own.
6. There is no doubt that IBM is insured for all errors and ommissions on their part, that will protect their customers. As long as everybody was acting in good faith ... IBM believed they were in compliance, the Customers believed they were in compliance, the only damages that SCO will be entitled to are actual damages.
7. Actual damages will be a whole 'nother lawsuit and court proceedings. Probably take years to sort this out. But then, who doubts this is SCO's intent. To hold LINUX hostage for years.
8. If it turns out that SCO discovered this a while ago, and didn't immediately notify IBM, they themselves may have given up alot of rights in the remedy. I.E You just can't discover it and hold back a few years, then come forward and try and correct or remedy it.
Predictions ... When IBM makes its legal move, watch how fast SCO shuts up (gag order, restraining order. If IBM sees no need to capitulate, they will slap SCO silly with gag orders and restraining orders enjoining them from frightening IBM's customers.
I have a feeling it's not going to be pretty for SCO
McBitch: Gulp.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Except that licenses prior to this threatened expiration are still valid. SCO is really telling a bald-faced lie when it claims that it can de-license people who already have licenses.
Get off my launchpad!
I hope that the criminal stupidity of SCO management doesn't result in out of work SCO employees, but I strongly suspect that sooner or later the pigeons will come to roost, and guess who will get shit on?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Interestingly, when I tried to copy&paste your comment, I got this error message:
:(
This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...
If only the editors received such feedback.
deus does not exist but if he does
If anyone can make a good assesment of the situation without compromising any IP, its Richard M. Stallman. He should be allowed, paid even, to view all the documents and given time to make a critical assesment.
You could bother actually reading about Trusted Computing* and DRM and realize that the above probably wouldn't even be possible. If it _was_, almost no one would buy it - what company would trust that? What government would ever buy that hardware/software? And so on. That kind of feature doesn't help business any, especially in the gov't market, where it would _NEVER_ be purchased.
:P Likewise, TCPA would be a cool feature to have in AIX, Solaris, and so on as well. The OS determines if its used for DRM - my OS (any that I would use) would only use TCPA for security.
*Note I'm talking Trusted Computing, not Palladium - Palladium is Microsoft's version of TCPA that will run on Windows - it's a moot point for things like AIX and Linux and such, since it's a Windows technology. TCPA on the other hand is platform neutral. Palladium may well have the "external control of systems" feature, but I don't know - Palladium isn't my problem, since I don't run MS systems. ~,^ On the other hand, I _look forward to_ TCPA, since it actually does offer the ability to increase security, and doesn't have any features to make me worry, especially not on an Open Source platform.
CUUG, our local UNIX group, had a lawyer talking about this a couple of weeks ago. One thing that was very interresting was the fact that there is a good reason why Software is not sold to you, but licensed. If it were sold to you, it would become your property, and then a lot of laws would apply to it, giving you way to many rights, like re-selling it, reverse engineer it, etc... because it would be YOURS.
That is why the software industry has decided license software to you, because legally, when you license something to somebody, you can set whatever you want in the license, like "you shalt not reverse engineer this software", etc...
So, one would have to look at the license between SCO and IBM to be able to say if they can revoke it or not.
I don't see anybody posted this link yet:
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1016020.html
Best Quote: "What SCO is arguing seems instead to be that it didn't know what it was packaging."
That's still not quite the full picture.
The Canopy Group is the majority stockholder in Caldera Corp, dba (that's "doing business as") "The SCO Group".
What Caldera bought was not "SCO" (the company formerly known as The Santa Cruz Operation), but that company's "Unix Business". While I haven't seen the documents, there's basically a bundle of rights, contracts, and licenses (the 30,000 contracts, though most are quite historical, we've heard so much about). The original SCO continues as a going concern under the name Tarentella. Rather quietly, I might add.
Though Caldera voted at its stockholder's meeting this past May to officially change its name to "The SCO Group", the name change has not yet taken legal effect.
Oh, and Caldera is the company which co-developed the RPM packaging format with Red Hat, distributed GNU/Linux (under the GNU GPL) for nine years, and which, for the past three years, has distributed the very 2.4 Linux Kernel (downloaded my own copy last week). Um. Under the GPL, last I checked.
I'd recommend The OSI's Position Paper and a compilation site I've had some involvment with, SCOvsIBM.
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Their whole corp website was unavailable in the recent past...
<amused sarcasm> And of course, it helps to with the amount of slashdot publicity to SCO, with probably large numbers of geeks either visiting/poking/etc the SCO webservers. </amused sarcasm>
I think that until SCO manages to clean up their act, we should make linking to their corp website mandatory on all related articles... make their bandwidth spike for weeks on end and perhaps we'll drive them into slashdotting-induced bankruptcy
And of course, my question is: without linux, how long would they have lasted anyways? I mean, how much crossed from linux back to unix. What about the apache project, etc? I'm just a linux geek myself, I've always avoided the unix end of things (justly so it seems) - so I really don't know much about it except for recent actions.
All,
Several thoughts have come to my mind concerning this issue.
Please keep in mind that IBM:
1) backs Linux on a large number of it servers
2) believes that it's license with SCO is perpetual.
3) has spent billions hyping Linux.
IBM will likely take action on Friday or perhaps sooner in a pro-Linux fashion, given the above facts.
Suppose it is shown that in the completion of LKP (Linux Kernel Personality) that SCO did incorporate GPL'd code into it's kernel (as suggested by an article on linuxtoday.com) and it is shown that, according to Eben Moglen, that "SCO gave up rights to the code when the released their version of Linux".
If SCO licensed any of this code to third parties for inclusion in their products, it is possible that *all* of those products will be *required* to be released as Free Software under the terms of the GPL.
This is perhaps why SCO is being so loud about this. Is this the fact that they want to hide under all of this legal rangling? Also, don't forget that Microsoft made a public showing of buying a license from SCO, which according to the recent news from Novell, ONLY covers the copyrights which, if the above is shown, would be subject to the GPL.
The implication here is very clear. Many companies which have incorporated the disputed code would need to release their code under the GPL.
Could the GPL set the industry on it's head?
I, for one, hope so. I am not a lawyer, just an engineer.
Later, GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
On friday the thirteenth the unimaginable will happen! All of the AIX machines in the world will become Illegal, oh the humanity. Hundreds of previously upstanding companys will be running illeagal warz!
seriously would be interesting if IBM filed counter-suits, and as part of the discovery process requested the complete UNIX SVR4 source code and pedigries; with 10K patents in the basement I'm sure the lawyers at IBM could find a few infringements of their own.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
But yet, if you walk into CompUSA and say "Will you sell me Windows XP(tm) for $299?", the clerk will say "Yes". The signage hanging on the shelves and walls reinforces the idea that selling will occur. More importantly, the reciept says "Sold".
Either the vendors of computer software are committing fraud on a gargantuan scale, or you are being sold software.
(Software publishers wish to change this- why they include those EULA that are legally nonbinding, and why they've pushed US states to create laws making EULAs effective. Virginia, so far, has agreed)
However, the reason normal EULAs are meaningless is because no contract terms were presented before money and product were exchanged. So, they have no similarity with the agreement between SCO and IBM. It was presumably conducted with lawyers, signatures, and even handshakes.
I've been watching this whole fiasco unfold and I've been fascinated. The reason is because I was a Caldera employee up until just over a year ago. I worked in IT, and IT at SCO is still made up of some of my best friends. So, I have the unique opportunity of getting the inside scoop on their feelings of what's going on, and the feelings of the company in general. I also have an interesting internal battle with where exactly I stand on the issue. Being that I learned about the things that matter most there (Linux), I can tell you that the early days of Caldera (right when it went public) were EXTREMELY exciting! We were all going to make money doing stuff that was cool and fun, PLAYING WITH LINUX!
/. community rejected Caldera. "You can't make money with Linux, you leeching bastards!" was pretty much the common attitude from /. users. We tried, we really did. But not only did no-one think they had to PAY for anything, they bashed and made fun of Caldera. Keep in mind that most of us WERE LINUX GEEKS and we LOVED LINUX. Our job was more than money, we wanted to be part of the OS community. People made fun of the logo, the company, the products, and it hurt. I wondered many times what we possibly did to deserve the scorn that was thrown at us CONSTANTLY.
/. persecution since the lawsuit: "Well, there's deffinately no love lost between SCO and the OS community. Things are no different now than they were before the lawsuit."
Something happened though. The
I was laid off about a year ago, and I've since moved on to much better things. Ransom was replaced, and the name was changed back to SCO because OBVIOUSLY there was no value left in the Caldera name after you guys were finished with it.
I've been using Red Hat ever since I was laid off, as Caldera's Linux distro pretty much fell by the wayside. I look back on those days with fondness and wish it could have turned out differently. I am horrified by SCO's actions as of late, at the same time I can't help but think that you guys kinda created this fiasco in the first place. You guys have been poking this dog into a corner for the last several years and now, when it turns around and starts fighting for its life, you seem to be amazed at how angry and irritated and frusterated SCO is. "Will they stop at nothing?!" you all ask in amazement? Of course not, cause they are going the ONLY ROUTE THEY HAVE LEFT. You all seem to be proud of yourselves for boycotting their products... sheesh, that's a rediculous notion since you had all boycotted them WAY before the lawsuit ever happened. I'll quote my friend who still works there when I asked him about how he felt about
I'm rooting for IBM. I think SCO are going way too far. It makes me angry that they have become such a mindlessly self-centered company. SCO is not at all what Caldera used to stand for.
But when you think about it, they really don't have anything to lose and a whole possible pile of cash and revenge to gain if this thing pans out for them.
And the ironic thing is that you are all, to some degree, the ones that helped cause this. You can bet that if they do prevail, they are going to make you suffer as MUCH AS THEY CAN with no remorse, since you all have had no remorse for them in the past.
This is not meant to be a troll. I only wanted to present a unique viewpoint of the whole situation.
SCO IS the Black Knight!
I'm not dead yet....really I'm not dead.
You can't kill me...I'm invincible...
(Youâ(TM)re a loony)
Hack-Hack-Thump...
Alright we'll call it a draw.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
It is not legal, or rather legally sound, what SCO is doing to IBM, because they didn't prove anything in court, not even that they own UNIX. But they have the guts to go with it anyway. Why? "IBM believes that our contract with regard to AIX is irrevocable and perpetual and there is nothing further to discuss," said IBM spokeswoman Trink Guarino. Well, if that's the case then why IBM is not taking any preemptive action against SCO? Is that because they have nothing to worry about? IBM may win the case but what SCO is trying to do is to undermine IBMâ(TM)s business with AIX/Linux, therefore thereâ(TM)s something to worry about.
These kind of things donâ(TM)t go unnoticed by IBMâ(TM)s clients. Theyâ(TM)ll worry about it and also if they use SCOâ(TM)s software at the same time thereâ(TM)s more to worry about it. A friend, who works for IBM said âoeour lawyers will take care of thatâ, they may, but until then IBMâ(TM)s business will suffer especially if combined with other issues like their accounting and profit reporting probed by SEC. The next stop for IBMâ(TM)s stock is around $76, down from $90 in the beginning of May this year.
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
The other quote that I can't get out of my head is from Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, where the Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto explains his reservations about attacking Pearl Harbor as ordered by the military junta: ...it was hard to tell them that their plan was full of shit and that the Americans were just going to get really pissed off and annihilate them. Substitute "IBM" for "Americans", and you have my feelings exactly.
God, I love that book.
It's funny reading the comments here. Just goes to show that IBM's Linux strategy is really paying off. If this were any other pair of similarly sized companies, slashdot would be fully on the site of David, not Goliath.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm pro-IBM in this case, and think SCO is somewhere between moronic and suicidal. But it's definitely funny to see this level of grass-roots support for such a huge corporation.
Either we're open minded folk who can see right and wrong without prejudice, or we're so defensive about Linux that we'll side with anyone when Linux is attacked.
Cheers
-b
Dont try to hack the SCO website as a revenge. Do something thar realy hurts instead. Like loss of development support. Stop porting applications to sco-unix and sco will die a paifull death. Does Apache, Bind, GCC, Mysql or Perl run om sco-unix today? Does the next verson have to? Who want to by a system without programs?
Case #1:
>
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#inc lude<math.h>
#include<limits.h>
#include<time.h
More cases of flagrant copyright infrigement of System V source code by Linux kernal hackers is to come!
April 1, 2004: Today The SCO Group(formerly known as SCO/Caldera) sued 27 of its Linux customers for breaching SCO's IP rights on UNIX (tm).
... weed prices are going through the roof man ... and we're like, you know in UTAH for god's sake ..."
... this is Chewbacca ..."
Darl McBride, SCO's CEO has made the following statement:
"This move was made in the light of the fact that, like, you know, our case with IBM was thrown out of court on account that we were misleading the court in our complaint and like, you know, were trying to confuse the court on the issues of trade secrets and copyrights and like, you know, we didn't do anything to minimize our losses until we were waaaay down the drain."
Also, SCO's CEO declared that the company was strapped for cash, depriving the board of certain commodities: "Lately, there seems to be a crackdown of some kind
SCO's lawers declared that the grounds for the lawsuits are rock solid: "Well, it's obvious they stole it from us. Yes, we sold it to them, but we didn't know it was stolen from us. And even when we knew, we kept selling it for a couple of month, but look
Good luck, SCO, you're gonna need it.
...nothing will happen. Those running AIX systems are not going to switch them off. The courts won't tell IBM to stop selling AIX unless and until the contract questions are settled.
SCO plays lousy poker.