Slashdot Mirror
IBM Doesn't Comply With SCO's Deadline
prostoalex writes "IBM refused to settle with SCO and comply with their deadline, expiring Friday the 13th. "We've got a strong defense case, and we're going to fight it", IBM representative is quoted."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I hate to say this, but who actually thought IBM would give in to this undersized bully?
Someone hates these cans.
I'm sick of the money grubbing BS that's hovering around this case. It's clear that SCO is using the "open" in open source to try and challenge an IP issue because they know the court's never seen anything like this before. Also, the fact that M$ injects money into SCO is really suspect and deserves and out right investigation, because EVERYONE knows they [SCO] wouldn't be paying lawyer's for this FUD if they didn't have the cash.
Everyone here knows that Linux is kicking the shit out of Microsoft on the server, and they [M$]know it's not long before it starts cutting into their desktop margins.
This stuff is making me sick. It's a joke, it's friggin' "high-tech ambulance chasing".
I can't wait until they lose and I hope IBM find's something suspect in the case so that they can reveal the true evil behind all this...
With all their legal, financial and IP power it's very likely. But this we be a huge setback for open source software.
Yes, this opinion might surprise you, but let's look at the fundamental issue of todays open source system:
Modern OSS lack original ideas. Linus created Linux - as he claimed himself - as a Unix clone, to give himself and students access to a decent Unix-like OS on x86 basis. The same goes for many other OSS projects. Usually the ideas of commercial software are copied (of course not the code nobody is that stupid). And this makes exactly OSS always vulnerable to bongus attacks like SCO's nonsense claims.
If SCO would be successful then OSS will be forced to step beyond its inital hobbiest pratices and do original innovation at scientific level. There are some movements in this direction like OpenBSD, but the mass is sticking to the ole power-through-copy concepts like Linux etc.
But we can go beyond this. OSS can make cutting-edge software and the highest innovation level. And we can, indeed much easier than any commercial company, refuse any bounds to old deprecated systems by "compatibility arguments". People should just stop to emacs and vi onto any crappy platform but do something productive and insightful instead.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you."
If SCO lose because their rights have not been infringed upon, as seems likely, then that doesn't say anything bad about the GPL at all. How could it?
...of something strongly in doubt.
First off, SCO has to prove that the code in question is in fact "theirs". Considering the rather incestuous family tree that is UNIX that is not so cut and dry.
Additionally, there are allegations that SCO has been helping themselves to GPL'd code without credit or redistribution.
No, the thing we're learning here is that if you really have an IP case against Linux or another GPL project than just be right out in the open. Document the code and PROVE your case. Don't hide behind lawyers, NDA's, horribly out of context quotes and vaguely threatening letters.
And, oh yeah, it helps if you can at least stick to one story for greater than a week.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
IBM has contributed to Open Source far more than SCO has. If SCO wins (*snort*) the message being sent will be "Don't contribute to Open Source; you never know whose gonna claim that the code you submitted was really theirs".
Nope, this is a no brainer, IBM all the way.
Go blue!
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
And if SCO wins, it'll send a message to the world that you can't trust any GPLed product, because a contributor might suddenly determine that, oops, some of the code in it was "unintentionally" released-- and therefore, you never really had a license to use/distribute it in the first place.
Of course, you really have to break this case into four separate decisions:
1) Did IBM steal proprietary code from SCO in violation of an NDA, and include that code in their Linux release?
2) Does SCO even own the copyrights to that code, or do they still belong to Novell, in which case the determination in (1) may or may not be important.
3) Assuming (1) and (2) break in favor of SCO, does SCO have the right to sue Linux end-users for posessing/distributing Linux code, even if the end-users didn't know they were breaking the law? This turns on...
4) Does SCO's distributing their own version of Linux (under the GPL) invalidate any copyright claims they might have made on code that was (without their knowledge) included in the Linux codebase? In other words, if you steal my code and hide it in a corner of the Linux kernel, can I legally be deprived of my rights to it just because I distributed a copy of Linux?
Quite frankly, the best outcome is for SCO just to drop this nonsense.
SCO needs to be destroyed. No bought or settled with, but crushed, utterly and completely. What they have done is unethical, immoral and (hopefully) completely without legal base.
Your wish is most likely granted, and it's going to be by SCO's own hand. Someone called them "the 800-pound gorilla" a while back, when I mentioned that they should be bought up. They may still be an 800-pound gorilla, but gorillas don't fare very well against a well-trained sharpshooter (read: IBM).
What's going to destroy them? Simple. IBM, and anyone else who wanders along and wants to buy in, will happily dedicate the financial resources needed to tie SCO's suit up in court for years. SCO will simply go broke from litigation costs. I doubt even MSFT is going to stand by them, no matter the appearances of MSFT's recent purchase of a license from SCO. This, of course, is predicated on the court not tossing the whole thing out in the first two weeks as a frivolous lawsuit.
Just my two cents' worth...save up the change for a banana split or something.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
Very simple: SCO must die. Their downfall is not so much GPL as it is the overdependence on old technology that is now commoditized. Just how many dollars were they expecting to squeeze out of Unix, anyway?
Would you have sympathy for M$ if their DOS business was threatened by FreeDOS, or would you tell them to grow up and spend a few dollars on R&D?
I find it ironic that SCO/Caldera is the first company to be killed by Linux while simultaneously failing as a Linux company. Good riddance.
Even if SCO are right, revoking the licencse is the wrong thing to do. The correct thing for SCO to do is to sue IBM. If SCO ask for an injuction to stop IBM selling AIX, it will most certainly be denied because they have offered no proof. Revoking the license is wrong, because (unless the contract explicily states that SCO can do this) it will violate SCO's contract with IBM. In IBM's suit, IBM shows the contract and SCO revokation letter to the judge and jury and SCO loses.
Two wrongs do not make a right, so SCO has to be careful to follow a clear and rational path to redress their alleged grievances. Their public statments already put them on shaky ground and can be used in any suit that IBM would want to bring. IBM are playing it cool and are not saying anything except denying SCO's changing allegations.
SCO's tactics are a study of ill will. What an honest company would do if they found their code in some GPL software is send an email informing the project leader. Then, certainly 99% of the time, the offending code would be removed from the project. End of story.
SCO isn't protecting their code. They're attempting to blackmail another company for monetary reasons.
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
it's just too easy to point a finger at MS each time linux is attacked in some shape or form. Sun is actually getting hit alot harder by linux's popularity than MS. Second undisclosed company licensing SCO's "technology"?? hmmm Sun Micro?
I'm rather suprised more people aren't mentioning this. IBM has bankrupted more than one smaller fish in the past who tried to play them in the court room only to find themselves under a mountain of patent infringement lawsuits months later.
When it comes to litigation, IBM is a prize fighter who knows where to hit and knows to hit there very hard.
So there are three possibilities as I see it:
1) SCO wants to be bought out. Darl McBride has mentioned this in the past as being a reasonable thing for SCO's shareholders.
2) SCO wants a token settlement from IBM to use as a weapon for suing other companies who have Linux deployed without a Unix license.
3) SCO has a solid foundation to their case.
Hiring a well-known lawyer like David Boies (ahem, didn't the justice department win the battle but lose the war in their anti-trust suit against microsoft??) seems to imply either #1 or #2. Giving "experts" very small selections of code (80 lines?? give me a break!) for media propaganda suggests either #1 or #2.
I guess agree with what you closed with, SCO probably doesn't even have a case to begin with.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
I think you've been too confused by the idiotic "They GPL'd their code when they sold linux", which is probably not true.
Only because they probably don't have any code inserted into Linux. But if they did, it would be under the GPL.
SCO clams that someone from inside IBM inserted their code into Linux
No, they are most definitely NOT claiming this.
They are claiming two things - first that "someone" put their code into Linux.
Second, they are claiming that IBM used "knowledge" of their OS to make Linux better.
The two issues are completely separate.
There are no allegations of code theft against IBM. Their sole complaint is "Linux hackers suck, so the only way that Linux could compete against us is if IBM helped them."
Now, if there really is SCO-owned code in Linux, SCO distributed that code knowingly. They know it's there, they know that the kernel is covered under the GPL, and they are still distributing it.
SCO is implicitly licensing their code under the GPL because they continue to distribute Linux. They must have agreed with the GPL, because nothing else grants them the right to continue distributing it.
even if they had never touched the GPL they still would have had code leakage
True, and thier actions state exactly how much any alleged code is worth to them.
The doctrine of laches says that if an injured party wants to claim damages, they must minimize the damages. Since SCO won't allow anyone to remove the alleged code (they refuse to say what the alleged code is, or where it is), then they are unable to claim injury.
By refusing to tell anyone what the alleged code is, they are effectively saying that any code that might be in the kernel is worthless to them.
I don't think that you've caught onto the idea of Free software yet.
If anyone tries to cut SCO out of GPL programs, they might be liable. And in the worst case, SCO probably already has the code, and if need be could update the software themselves, possibly even using the patches for other OSes. This would be easy since Unix is highly portable.
Free software protects against people against the source code going away. Free software can even protect against itself. If not, how could any abandoned part of the Linux kernel source be used?
Ain't Free software grand?!
The SCOX shareholders are about to be taken to the cleaners.
A couple of things to keep in mind:
Total number of shares outstanding: 12.2 million
Total shares being publically traded: 3.9 million
The public 'float' is 3.9 M shares, worth 43.7 Million dollars.
8.3 million shares are held within the company, unisssued or as backing for option and stock grants. SCO has been beating the litigation drum for a while now, making noises to run up the stock. But now...
They are going to court, and David Boies of Boies, Schiller and Flexner probably is not working pro bono (for charity). He'll want to be paid, at his usual rates.
The company has 4.94 million in cash as of the last reported quarter. Their income (available to common) for the past 12 months is -3.4 million. Given that they'll spend almost that much to continue operating at a loss for the next 12 months, they cannot spend all of that on lawyers and remain a viable business.
So, where will the money come from?
Easy. They'll just issue more shares or options to be backed by new shares. What's that do to existing shareholders? It's called dilution. More shares, same business, less value per share.
And, given that the huge runup in stock value from 0.60 to 11/share was driven by speculation of a buyout or settlement for gobs of cash, which isn't going to happen, I'd say the stock has peaked.
I'll be buying put options Monday. (That's a mechanism to short a stock without the unlimited upside risk.
> They are claiming two things - first that "someone" put their code into Linux.
Yep. And if the code is in Linux, it's very possible that it was planted there by someone working for Microsoft or SCO.
Susceptibility to planted evidence is not unique to Open Source. I could just as easily pay a Microsoft employee to plant some stolen code in Windows.
It would, however, be harder to show the authorities that Windows contained the stolen code, due to Windows being closed source.
That's not an argument in favor of Windows. Quite the contrary, it is a good reason to use Open Source software. With Windows, for example, you never know what code you are running, or when it might come back to bite you -- see the Stacker case.
The only real danger to Linux is the same danger that faces every major Microsoft competitor, namely, that Microsoft is a criminal organization, that has been caught commiting sabotage and fraud (as shown by the evidence in the Java, DR-DOS and DOJ cases), yet the law keeps looking the other way.
> By refusing to tell anyone what the alleged code is, they are effectively saying that any code that might be in the kernel is worthless to them.
That's a good point, and I would go further.
By claiming that Linux contains stolen code, then refusing to say where it is, SCO is intentionally damaging Linux businesses. I liken SCO's behaviour to someone who calls in a bomb threat.
Even if they played no part in planting the code, by refusing to say where the "bomb" is located, SCO is making themselves an accomplice after the fact. SCO is taking part in a criminal act against Linux companies, the severity of which depends on whether the threat is real.
It seems to me that SCO is opening themselves up to a large countersuit.
There are two licensees: Microsoft and someone/something else that doesn't want to be identified. Microsoft was the second licensee, so the 10Q is referring to the other one, not Microsoft.
So who is it? Previously, I thought it must be a well-known company that wants to remain secret because it fears bad publicity from being associated with SCO. Perhaps someone like Sun, who might even believe that the suit is baseless but sees a license as a form of insurance.
Based on the 10Q, I see another possibility: A shell corporation set up solely for the purpose of selling stock and channeling the money back to the company as licensing fees. This would be a classic pyramid scheme: A company whose only product is its own stock, using a shell corporation to make it appear to be dealing in something real.
>The dollar is going to crash sooner or later
You don't think the world economy will follow? *Starting* with the Euro?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The article claims that the traditional kind of programming produces proprietary software. This seems wrong to me. Wasn't software in the beginning just an addition to very expensive hardware and only became later a product of it's own?