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)
Haha, they didn't give in, they are fighting it. If they had of complied by the dead line, then they would have given in.
I'm a bit confused here... do we want SCO to win, or do we want SCO to lose?
Ok, SCO is a bunch of scumbags, so obviously we don't want them to win.
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."
I'm really not sure which outcome would be worse.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
However, unlike other prominent lawsuits in the tech world, IBM actually has more than just a money-tree with which to pay lawyers. They actually have the law on their side (assuming that all the indications are correct and SCO's claim is BS, which I would rate at atleast 95% chance).
My other sig is funny!
It seems the Friday deadline looked good to traders, the stock price jumped... Yahoo has an article, written on Friday, about the jump.
Any bets on what happens to the stock price on Monday?...
IBM Chooses Caldera's OpenLinux eServer as First Linux Pre-load On Netfinity Servers
eServer Pre-load Saves Customers Time and Money
OREM, Utah--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 24, 2000--Caldera Systems Inc., (NASDAQ: CALD - news), the ``Linux for eBusiness'' leader, today announced that IBM (NYSE: IBM - news) will pre-load Caldera's OpenLinux eServer on its IBM Netfinity servers.
The Netfinity servers may be purchased either pre-installed or bundled with OpenLinux eServer through IBM Direct. This is IBM's first Linux pre-load on Netfinity servers.
IBM believes that Linux will help drive the long-term growth of the Internet by providing an open application platform that can harness leading-edge technologies and simplify customer choice. The common application platform will help ensure software interoperability across heterogeneous servers.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
Of a case involving MCA Universal, Nintendo and Donkey Kong.
It ends up Universal didn't actually OWN the rights to Donkey Kong, but bullied several companies, and sued Nintendo anyway... and ended up paying 1.8 million for the trouble.
Ryan Fenton
SCO can't compete with Linux. Its UnixWare OS, while a fine middle level server OS, doesn't have the the scalability, hardware support or applications that Linux has. They know it. SCO couldn't make money selling its own Linux.
So, it does what M$ could only dream of: launch a self destructive lawsuit in a last, desperate gasp of trying to save its business and destroy Linux, unleashing the greatest FUD attack witnessed yet. People are scared. M$, with its "license" pulls the strings, and watches with glee. "I told you so!" M$ will say. "You can't trust open source!"
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.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
When is the class-action countersuit going to begin?
You mean like Beowulf clusters? (Who were those copied from?)
Puh-leeze. Any Operting System has to have certain features and capabilities. Of course there's going to seem to be some copying involved because everyone's working to the same goals.
There is NO advantage to SCO successfully prosecuting this case. First off, the "IP" that they're claiming and trying to protect so jealously is something that they bought fourth hand. They didn't even create it themselves.
Second, they've been gladly trying to make a business from others' IP and when that didn't work out they suddenly decide that they need to pursue licensing?
Licensing IP advances nothing. It's just making everyone pay over and over again for the same damn thing. To make matters worse they're pursuing this with all the class and aplomb of any eight-year-old shouting "I'll just take my bat and ball and go home!"
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Directly from the article:
" The dispute between SCO and I.B.M. has not yet slowed the advance of Linux in the marketplace, according to industry executives. But the prospect that the suit may linger indefinitely can only add to the anxiety of corporate technology buyers.
"They're really concerned," noted George Weiss, an analyst at Gartner. "The significance of this case is unclear, but there's no question it has gotten the attention of people." "
SCO & MS are injecting some good ol' fashion Uncertainty & Doubt into the minds of corporate IT people considering a Linux project with IBM. Both SCO & MS have nothing to lose by bringing this case.
Win: They get some $$ and stop IBM's new Linux business strategy
Lose: They spread enough UD around to make buyers hesitate, thus still stopping IBM's Linux business.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT Call 1-800-555-CARL
Correct me if im wrong but didnt SCO aquire Xenix from microsoft some time in the eighties, Xenix then becoming SCO OpenServer. I wonder if this is a reason microsoft and SCO seem to be such good chum's. Also wouldnt it be embarasing if code from what was Xenix turned up in Linux!
Does this infringe on any code claimed by SCO? How would I know?
I guess your post was written as a joke, but I am going to write a serious answer.
"It's the comments, stupid!"
If you read the what the reporters said about the code they were shown under NDA, they explicitly stated that they thought the code was identical because of identical comments. As comments serve no real purpose from the compilers point-of-view, chances of two comment lines taken from two different projects should be about zero.
Interesting comparison comes from world of chess, where the reconrding of moves can _not_ be copyrighted (because nobody could then play those moves again), but the comments on those moves (like in a book) _can_ be.
If IBM illegally copied code that rightfully belonged to SCO,and is large enough to warrant real copyright protections, and it made it's way into linux, then we want SCO to win against IBM, and we want SCO to do the right thing, which is let us know which code it is so the linux world at large can work to remove that code from future versions.
Furthermore, realize that we aren't obligated to remove it immediately; even if IBM copied it into, say, OS2, their customers would not be obligated to uninstall their software. SCO can claim damages, but claiming control over all of linux sure isn't going to happen.
On the other hand, if scos claims are really baseless, we want them to die, because they suck.
Friends, I have seen the future.
The SCO Group has three core businesses now. One is OpenServer and UnixWare, which as we all know, suck to high heaven and have never had more than 2% market share in the Unix market. They also hav-- er, had their UnitedLinux offering, but now that we have discovered just how much Darl McBride hates Linux, it's safe to say that SCO OpenLinux is history.
That leaves us with SCO's newest business: SCOsource, their gambit in the lawsuit industry. Now, every time I think about SCO and the lawsuit and the questions being raised, I am reminded of a certain Texas energy trading company that is no longer among the living. SCO can't even confirm how much Unix IP they actually own. Novell says they have the patents as a certainty and some of the copyrights as well, and SCO won't say what they actually own. Meanwhile, SCO says that SCOsource is a key business unit, allowing them to record their extortion fees as regular income, suddenly making them a "profitable" company.
Consider Enron. They inflated their revenues by trading energy that didn't exist and raping their customers for doing so. Now look at SCO. They're suing their customers, claiming infringement of IP that may not exist (they certainly won't confirm or deny the existence of it!).
You'd think investors would have learned from the Enron incident, but nope. SCOX is over $10 for the first time in its history, and McBride and his FUD-spewing lawyer-demons are just waiting for the perfect opportunity to cash out. I just pray that justice is done and that this fscked-up company will be wiped off the face of the planet.
"I am root. Bow before me." To this I say, "You are root, and you bear the sins of the world upon your shoulders."
Ok, let's play what if.
Suppose there was a meeting. There were no notes taken of this meeting. No emails or memos were ever written that it even took place.
The meeting was between Microsoft and SCO.
Microsoft promises to keep SCO afloat...doling out money to them over the next 10 to 15 years. In small chunks. First up is to buy a license from SCO...totally out in the open. Saying that they just want to be on the up and up with any code they may write in the future.
But in exchange for Microsofts funding, SCO must openly attack Linux...the only thing that Microsoft truly fears. They must attack Linux, and all the big companies that support it. They must stir up a huge shit-storm around Linux and spout off FUD like there is no tomorrow. This will put doubt in the eyes of future Linux adopters, investors and users while Microsoft gains an even larger foothold.
But remember, there are no documents ever written to this effect. No emails that can be found or memos to be brought forward. No one even knows what is going on except the people at the top. No one has actually said "Linux must die". But this is the ultimate goal.
Just a thought.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Maybe it won't take years.
Evidence revealed?
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
You absolutely aren't alone... I think it is safe to say that SCO is well on its way to being the most hated company in the IT sector. Microsoft, step aside, there is a new whipping boy in town.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
IANAL, but it was always my impression you couldn't claim trade secret protection and copyright protection. Copyright protection pertains to works that are explicitly meant to be published and trade secret for works whose publication would destroy their inherent value. Note most companies claim copyright on the object code not the source.
It was a big legal brouhaha in the 70's and 80's on whether object code was copyrightable as it wasn't a human readable entity (yes it does depend on the human).
My question is really does anyone know what tools are being used to build SCO unix products ? And, are there decompilers that could reasonably show that SCO stole GPL CODE.
Lets face it the reason that SCO is being so secretive is they are the thieves hoping to pull a fast one on the world. Its pretty much obvious that SCO isnt protecting anything new or revolutionary. My guess is SCO had programmers that were either pressed to meet deadlines or got involved in a little intracorporate one upsmanship , and appropriated GPL code, thinking how could anyone notice.
The SCO source is the big mystery here. If it can be shown that significant parts came from GPL or the open source community (i.e. berkely unattributed). Well there goes SCO down the toilet where they belong.
Not only are there lines of SCO's code in Linux, but also derivative products based on SCO intellectual property have been created, Sontag said. Getting all of the protected bits out, assuming SCO's claims are valid, would be a huge chore.
"Our biggest issues are with the derivative code," he said. "It would be almost impossible to separate it out."
This is the first time that SCO has essentially admitted in the open what some have been saying all along: SCO does not believe that Linux coders can ever "clean" Linux up; simply replacing "infringing" lines of code with new code is not enough becasue they are trying to claim that Linux itself is now a derivative product of SCO Unix.
The chances of this going away before SCO is utterly dead are zero. SCO has no intention of easily revealing the "matching" lines of code because they believe that they are irrelevant... as far as SCO is concerned, every line of code in Linux is infringing and it is essentially beyond repair. Since it is open-source, Linux can't license proprietary code from SCO. Ergo, the courts should essentially put an end to Linux in much the same way that they did with DeCSS code. At least, this seems to be how SCO sees it.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The entire SCO/IBM saga seems like it was written by an amateur scriptwriter. Was SCO's whole idea to cast this as "Open Source vs. The Big Boys"?
After reading a lot of the source material from /. and other sites, it just made me start wondering if someone at SCO thought the Open Source community would jump on their bandwagon in some way, but things went terribly wrong (i.e. Open Source advocates saw them as more threat than friend).
I'm not so naive to think IBM a steadfast friend of Open Source - they and all for-profit companies are out to make money, and they believe Linux can help them do that. It just strikes me as ironic that a former OS-directed company cast themselves in the role of villain, and the corporate giant would be seen by many as the hero in this case.
Ah, sweet irony, "...like goldy and bronzy..."
- Jack
I thought the Judge in the case of Bell Labs (Novell) vs BSD said that comments did not matter when it came to copyright terms dealing with code?
My money's on IBM, too. I just can't believe that SCOX had a strong close on Friday (up ~24%). Who in their right mind would hold this stock long over the weekend? I'm expecting a MAJOR correction Monday morning.
When not anonymous, I work for IBM.
The lawyers there are PICKY.
When dealing with IP, before a project goes out the door, the lawyers go over the thing with a fine-tooth and make sure:
a) We have legal rights to what we're about to put on the market.
b) Everything we have legal right to, we've properly and appropriately protected. (Such as patented, if appropriate - it's not always.)
When buying software from 'outside', the lawyers go through the license terms to make sure it's 'appropriate', and sometimes it's a pain in the neck. Sometimes it seems it takes so long to buy a new, never-before-bought piece of software that by the time you can get it, the need is gone.
Before you can use Linux inside IBM, you need to take the online "Open Source Legal Course" (title probably abridged) and sign off that you have. The mini-course discusses the legal implications of the GPL, etc.
None of these cases is exactly like the SCO case. But the legal folks are so darned diligent about IP that I can't see anything like what SCO alledges happening inside IBM. The place just doesn't work that way.
because Nintendo actually showed that King Kong was public domain!
The article you linked to also says that not only did Nintendo prove it, but years earlier, universal fought to prove that King Kong was in the public domain. "Yes it is!" "No it's not".
Kudos on the link btw.
Given the fact that Microsoft is financing SCO's anti-Linux crusade (or do you really believe that they pay millions for a license they don't need?), I can't agree with you.
Remember, Linux is not the target, it's the means.
SCO want to make money from licensing Unix, but the really major sellers of Unix based systems all bought perpetual licenses and have since enhanced their version of Unix in many ways. None of this makes any money for SCO. In fact because they have neither the ability nor the resources to duplicate the enhancements, SCO's sources are now almost worthless.
But, if SCO could win in court, not only would they get damages, they could also ask for and probably get access to the code that IBM wrote which would be folded back into SCO unix. If IBM loses, SUN and HP would be next to be accused. The grand plan is to bring control of Unix back to and only to SCO with all existing licensing cancelled by the courts.
Fortunately, SCOs case is weak, IBM can keep them in court from now to doomsday. As this will be heard in _civil_ court, damages can and will be adjusted depending on the actions of SCO. So far they have made _no_ attempt to minimize the damage to their IP. Very bad move and the judge will no doubt make a point of mentioning it...
IBM is closely involved in many businesses with all kinds of trade secrets. To settle, even for a penny, is to say "yes, we were careless with SCO's trade secrets". What would happen to IBM's lucrative services business if they settled? How many businesses would start worrying about what IBM might leak to a competitor or appropriate for their own benefit?
They have to be like Caesar's wife: absolutely above suspicion.
It will be very interesting to see what the infantile SCO tries to pull against the widely backed IBM.
Look at SCO's P/E ratios. SCO does not have a P/E ratio, because it is NOT making any earnings. The stock is thus, no matter how low it is priced, over-valued. Would you pay 50 dollars for a dollar bill just because millions of fuckwits were also paying 50 dollars for a dollar bill?
If you want to invest in a company, SCO is not the one to invest in. Never invest in a company with a P/E ratio that's larger than the average in it's industry, and larger than it's P/E:G ratio (price/earnings to growth...it's ok if the stock has a high P/E as long as it's growing rapidly enough to accomodate that P/E).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Yea, ONLY IF you are smart enough to time the market and get out of SCO's stocks before disaster strikes, which is inevitable. This lawsuite is bogus, they have no earnings (P/E ratio is N/A, which means they have no earnings). Their stock is enormously over-valued.
Would any of the men who've made themselves multi-millionares or billionares by investing in the stock-market think SCO's a good investment? Do you think Warren Buffet or Peter Lynch would even consider investing in SCO? Nope.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
According to SCO, Boies is working on a contingency basis. That would indicated #2 or #3 because he's looking for a payday.
Perhaps this is just MS's way of getting SCO out of the way. I imagine the meeting went something like this:
MS: Oh yeah, those IBM guys have nothing on you. They're trying to rob you blind!
SCO: Yeah! Your right! Gee I wish we could afford the lawyers to fight them
MS: Why don't we buy licensing from you to finance your legal battle. We can both come out on top here...Go get 'em Tiger!
MS: [turns to own lawyers] how much can we get SCO's IP for after they lose and file chapter 11?
the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head
On Dec 16 of last year, VP Michael Olson purchased 30,000 shares at the rather low price of, um, one-tenth of a cent per share (must be nice to be an executive, eh?), and then turned around 6 months later and sold 6000 shares for about $52,000.
So he made about $51,994 profit on a $6 investment, in 6 months. That's like a 433,000% profit, and we haven't even annualized it yet.
Where do I sign up?
Would I really have to sell my soul to get this deal?
---------------------------------------------
SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It seems as if SCO has a couple of more problems. First, it seems that they showed someone their evidence without an NDA. Second, they have been given notice by a Linux Kernel Hacker. Its one thing to sue IBM, but it is another to have to defend yourself from claims by hundreds of kernel hackers. Heck, the legal footwork alone will be expensive.
The dogcow says "Moof!"
Before somebody out there calls me an idiot or worse, let me reply to my own comment and say that I've since noticed that yes, Services for Unix definitely does include GPL code. In binary and source form, per the license.
That's right. Microsoft actually ships GPL code and complies with the license.
noah
SCO's big problem may be with their UNIX itself. It's my understanding that the original Bell labs Unix was riddled with code from BSD. If that be the case, how does SCO know whether they even have legal ownership of the code they claim that IBM is infringing upon? In other words, if I steal something from you and then Joe steals it from me, does my (illegal) possession of it mean that I have an action against Joe? Frankly, I doubt it. This is a hot potato that could drag on in court for years...and cast a pall over Linux the whole time. ....which explains why Microsoft has put their nose into the muck here.
IBM needs to be decisive and crush SCO like the insect it is...a cockroach that put into the wrong place can really 'gum up' the works.
I wonder, can the stock holders of Microsoft Corp. bring a lawsuit against Microsoft for the purchase of an unnecessary license costing millions? Isn't it a direct conflict of Microsoft's interest to spend money on a license for things either in the public domain, GPL'd, or owned by another company? And as such won't the spending of this money have some effect, however insignificant, on MS's stock value which could be the basis for a lawsuit (since the purchase is unnecessary since SCO does not own what it is purporting to license)?
My understanding is that Sun already has a perpetual license. So no need to pay new money.
... that they did so was a transparent move to help finance the SCO FUD campaign (and with the aforementioned options scam in place, to make it all back by ripping off SCO's investors).
... Sun is one company that really could stand to benefit from this ... and their business practices to date show that they really did not "get" the free software/open source paradigm, and that many of their top leadership still don't.
... reducing, even decimating the wealth of the world (in this case the millions of man hours of volunteer programmers that is the GPLed GNU/Linux system ... and whose to say they won't move on to FreeBSD next ... nothing in the previous AT&T v. FreeBSD addresses many of the ever-changing allegations of SCO) to achieve a better position for oneself. Whoever the players are should be destroyed, by whatever means ... they and their mentality represent a threat to every person, every economic system, and every business they come into contact with. That Sun Microsystems might be one of these players is an intriguing thought ... their past conduct certainly makes them out to have been a Microsoft wannabe in the past.
Exactly his point. Microsoft could have gotten any code it needed from FreeBSD, free and clear. They didn't need to license a single line of code from the dinasaur product that is SCO
Sun Microsystems could be the silent second party to this, financing it by buying a license they don't need just as Microsoft did. They may well be hoping to score a home run and sweep up all of the GNU/Linux refugess in the unlikely event a clueless judge or brainwashed jury react in SCO's favor, but unwilling to publicly alienate the Linux community should the gambit fail (and they they have to finally get on the Linux bandwagen all the way).
It is an interesting thought
This is about capitalist oligarchs seeking to destroy a cooperative economy of abundance in order to maintain their own dominance of a capitalist economy of scarcity. It is the ultimate in negative-sum policy
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
While many have mentioned that Boies represented the U.S. in the MS anti-trust litigation, what I have not seen as much mention of is that he and his former firm, Cravath Swaine & Moore (one of the oldest and most respected corporate law firms in the U.S.), represented IBM in the earlier U.S. anti-trust case against it. Cravath is in fact representing IBM in the SCO litigation. I am not up to speed on the nuances of attorney conflict-of-interest principles when it comes to former partners, but it is possible that IBM could allege that Boies representation of SCO in a litigation against IBM represented a conflict of interest.
And, in fact, the company which did business with the German government was not IBM but, rather, an independent German company which had licensed IBM technology. There is apparently no historical question but that the German company did business with the German government. It could hardly have refused to do so. But IBM in the USA did not do business with the German government.
At the time Mr. Black's book first appeared, an internal IBM memo pointed out that this was not the first conflict between IBM and Mr. Black. From what I remember, there had been problems with regard to Mr. Black's attempt to profit from OS/2 (a magazine? I can't remember). Mr. Black had apparenty been left with hard feelings and there was employee speculation that he was trying to avenge himself by smearing IBM's reputation.
In any case, Mr. Black's lawsuit against IBM won't consume sufficient legal resources to keep IBM from squashing him (and SCO) like piss-ants.
Note: IBM press statement on Mr. Black's book
Article here: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10018 "Linux Coder puts SCO on notice". In short, the coder is annoyed they are distributing his code apparently out of compliance with GPL. My thoughts: This guy needs to get a lawyer and do this properly - i.e. a proper cease and desist, not an email. If we knew who it was, we could contribute to a legal fund to get him going.
From SCO's own site - I am not a lawyer - but it seems to clearly say - IBM appears to own any derivative works they create: http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
If MS has a UNIX licence, it's for 32V or some other ancient version.
Funny thing, however, is that MS wrote various chunks of System V and Motif and does continue to get a small cut on UNIX royalties to this day.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10018
SCO has been sent a Cease and Desist by one of the kernel hackers. The hacker is demanding FTP logs and other records so he can determine the degree of infringement against his copyright. He is promising that he will sue unless SCO ceases their claims against other parts of the kernel.
Every contributor to the kernel can do this. I hope those scumbags get hammered for every penny they have.
He's hardly the one to hire if you want to win a high-profile case. He got lucky against Microsoft (Microsoft's tendency to anger judges helped him a lot), but it went downhill from there.
But think of this: Microsoft becomes a customer of SCO to prop up a legal threat to Linux (Microsoft's current most feared competitor at the moment). If the threat succeeds in damaging Linux and the Open/Free Source/Software contingent, it's money well spent. If it fails, nice try, and what's a few million to a company with 44+ billion in the bank? Pocket change.
Using Boies as the leader of the charge may just be one of the most brilliant parts of this strategy. Boies is formerly an enemy of Microsoft, and therefore using him distances Microsoft from the fray. They either win or stay the same and no one could accuse them of actively crushing or attempting to crush Open Source.
Yes, well, maybe, but until you've actually died rather than do something against your will, would you mind dropping the air of superiority?
Yes, I would mind. It's a personal point of pride to me that I have not committed any crimes against humanity.
Eichmann's defense was based, in part, on the old Nazi standy--"I was just following orders." And, indeed, if each of his actions stemmed directly from a order from a superior officer, it is possible (though not especially likely) that he may have escaped the gallows.
But as Arendt points out, Eichmann was operating under the Nazi perversion of Kant's moral imperative-- "Act in such a way that the Führer, if he knew of your actions, would approve of it." Eichmann did not merely follow orders, he anticipated them-- and thus deserves condemnation.
If the Reich merely used existing eqipment, and the IBM employees merely maintained that equipment, IBM's culpability in the Holocaust would be slight. However, IBM and the Holocaust claims that IBM custom designed new equipment, new punch cards, and new programs for the identification of Jews, the looting of Jewish accounts, the transportation of Jews into camps, and the adminstration of such camps. If these claims are true, IBM employees did more than the bare minimum to save their own lives.
Even if there is some element, somewhere, that's true, what would be their chances of winning against Big Blue? Practically nothing.
Don't be so sure. Juries are often technically incompetent, and they are easily swayed by the "this little guy got crushed by this big bad company" stories. SCO is betting that they can get across as the innocent little victim.
The outcome of this lawsuit probably depends more on whether IBM can convince the jury that SCO is an out-of-control legal parasite than whether SCO has an actual case (which they don't).
I fail to see where MS would come out ahead with that quote going around the IT circles. In fact, it just makes linux more powerful in the court room.
Exactly where MS want's Linux to look strong, (anti-trust cases against Microsoft). The iminent SCO-death will also be used extensively by Microsoft as a warning to corporations about what happends to code that gets in bed with GPL software.
I.e. "Don't develop or use open-source code, it can kill your company". That example will be worth to Microsoft whatever they paid SCO, many times over.
Of course *we* will know that's BS, but the average top-level manager in a company generally has only some vague information about "some case SCO brought against Linux".
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
From IBM and The Holocaust by Edwin Black:
pages 9-10 page 10. page 20.