Slashdot Mirror
SCO Terminates IBM's Unix License
AKAImBatman writes "SCO has terminated IBM's license to use Unix code. SCO is filing for an injunction that will require IBM to cease all sale of AIX as well as accrue damages for each day IBM continues to sell AIX."
I can't believe they are this stupid! How can they possibly claim that
IBM customers are operating without a valid license? SCO does not
dispute that IBM possessed a valid license up through the end of Fri 13.
So any copies that IBM sold before that date are perfectly legal licenses.
Any court that even takes any other legal theory seriously will destroy
the entire US economy by creating uncertainty in ALL sub-licensed IP.
And I have just enough faith remaining in the US legal system to believe
that the judge will be bright enough to see the can of legal Whoop-Ass SCO is asking them to open.
Democrat delenda est
Someone HAS to get these buggers into court to prove their specious claims.
SCO are going to destroy *nix.
Has anyone checked their roots to see if they're related to Microsoft at all?
I think SCO are playing a dangerous game. IBM are a formidible opponent, even if they've had the wind knocked out their sales in recent years.
;-) But this is starting to seem like the technology equivalent of Days of our Lives or something!
Plus, it would probably be a smart thing(tm) for SCO to publicly state what IBMs so-called infrigement is now that they're proceeding with directed action.
Don't get me wroing, I don't love AIX by any stretch of the imagination
-psy
If SCO is seeking an injunction, does that mean they would have to prove to a judge that there is sufficient evidence for such an injunction? And if they do happen to convince a judge...
Well, better that IBM be the one to take on SCO rather than a group of Linux volunteers or users.
I just hope IBM doesn't cave. They've shown incredible lack of backbone in the past when push came to shove (OS/2 backing out of desktop market anyone?), let's just hope this isn't one of those times.
-- If it ain't broke - overclock it more.
That's about what I'm thinking. IBM isn't just going to sit around and take this... AIX is a big part of their business, no? I think all SCO has done is just kind of bully IBM into some kind of (hopefully, brutal) legal response.
Mmmm......sacrelicious.
In order for IBM to be able to comply with certain actions, as I understand it, IBM would have to either:
A) Stop selling AIX.
B) Remove the offending code from Linux.
In order to do A), well, IBM would have to give up. In order to do B), IBM would have to have a copy of what SCO thinks is the offending code, review it, engineer suitable replacements, and submit patches to Linus. I don't think Linus would necessarily have to accept it for IBM to prove that it has done all it could. But, I believe we've read before, SCO didn't want to share its violated code until last week or so. If IBM didn't have access to that until last week, SCO was asking IBM to take their word for it. Doesn't sound very legal to me.
I've seen IBM work. Sometimes it's slow, but sometimes they can move a staff of 300k people so quickly the earth spins the other way. I've got to think that IBM has enough talent to replace many 60 line blocks and have them tested before 100 days had expired, if given a fair chance.
Last night, I had convinced myself that I thought it was reasonable for IBM to be dual licensing code they had written. I'm still not sure SCO has proven IBM has liberated code, but if it had, and it was originally IBM's, why not allow it?
By stating "IBM has clearly demonstrated its misuse of UNIX source code..." by "using UNIX methods to accelerate and improve Linux as a free operating system", is SCO saying that even if a completely disparate group of Unix virgin IBMers couldn't work on Linux without undermining the contract? That sounds awefully strict.
The real issue that's going to be litigated here is to what extent SCO can claim damages from another company if the infringement is tiny. The very best thing that SCO can muster, in this case, is that they've identified a subroutine or two that seem to be close or identifical to something they claim is their own code. Let's suppose that this is true. What effect does this small infringment have on the entirety of Linux? Can they claim that Linux is an infringing product when only a tiny part of it contains (arguably) any SCO code?
The court is going to have to struggle with this part/whole issue. If I had to guess, I'd say that if it hit a jury, the jury would tend to be fairly absolute -- as in, you copied this tiny bit, so now you're liable for the whole thing. A judge is probably going to weight the infraction versus the whole.
And I really don't know what the law is on this. Maybe a legal type can help us out here.
when would BSA raid IBM premises? Looks like they are the biggest software pirates.
IBM's stock is up over 2% today while SCO's stock (SCOX) is down over 2%.
Nice to see Wall Street react appropriately to this news.
IANAL, but, if they had half a case, they should have sought an immediate temporary restraining order. A permanent injuction is granted as part of the final ruling of the court.
The problem with the TRO, is that you really have to show cause before screwing up your opponent's business.
On one hand, SCO is trying to protect what they see as theirs to protect. On the otherhand, they are ruining their reputation in the marketplace. To suddenly say that all of IBMs sub-licenses are now invalid will do nothing but piss off the owners of those licenses. IANAL, but I don't see how a judge can agree with them. To force every company that uses AIX (and there are quite a few of them) would bring the economy to its knees. If unscheduled downtime costs companies so much money (arguably in the $K's a min), how much will it cost them to suddenly shut down their systems, and converty everything over to non-AIX boxes? As for what I think, I think that SCO will have hundreds of major corporations sue them for terminating their licenese. Imagine if Microsoft suddenly said that all of Dell's sublicenes were invalid. (ok ok, probably apples and oranges, but still) Would every Dell running a Windows OS suddenly be illegal? I can't see SCO surviving this lawsuit as a company. All they want is to be bought out, and I think that won't happen. If IBM is smart (or feeling vindictive), they will sue SCO until they declare bankrupacy, and then buy the UNIX IP off of them. Just IMO.
Now, if that makes sense to anyone, could you please explain it to me? I think I've confused myself.
I heard a common environmentalist tactic was to have a large number of individuals buy exactly one share of a corporation they disliked, then show up en mass at the shareholders meeting, (they cannot be refused entry as a shareholder) and liven up the party.
My rights don't need management.
From http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/06/16/24OPcrin gely_1.html:
I wonder what rights AT&T retained.
Since the article referenced is a SCO press release I find this noteworthy. Linux has made massive inroads in the server market, almost exclusively at the expense of Unix. Does anyone else see this as a sign that in a few years Linux will have replaced Unix in the server world? For IBM to switch from AIX to Linux would not be entirely out of the question since they have already set up (almost?) their entire line, from laptops to big iron to run Linux. With their license terminated, might they fold AIX and not look back?
I ask about the potentially imminent death of Unix in part because I am have been scheduled for some time to spend 6 months in college exclusively for Solaris, having just finished up Cisco. In short, I'm wondering if I'd be wasting my time and not an inconsiderable some in tuition by taking Solaris instead of focusing more on Linux on my own?
Heres a quote from an article at internews that gives an idea why IBM may be taking a laid back attitude to this.
"IBM's position is that our contract is perpetual and irrevocable and there is nothing further to discuss," IBM spokeswoman Trink Guarino told internetnews.com Thursday. She added, "We do not see momentum slowing anywhere, either with AIX or Linux."
In a research note based on a meeting with Bill Zeitler, IBM senior vice president and group executive of the Systems Group, Deutsche Bank Securities analyst George Elling said Zeitler defended IBM's case against SCO by noting Big Blue's 700 existing or pending patents related to AIX.
700 existing or pending patents, do SCO know of those? what if the code is in AIX and Monterey?
How can IBM obtain patents on code that's supposed to be donated to SCO or is AIX completely seperate from SCOs code?
This is confusing, IBM are going to rip them to shreds.
Normally with an IP/Copyright issue you go for the little guy, get some cash and establish precedence, then go after the bigger fish. Unless of course your trying to annnoy some company and get them to buy you out.
... And in this news.com.com.com... story, there is a quote from SCO claiming "This termination not only applies to new business by IBM, but also existing copies of AIX that are installed at all customer sites. All of it has to be destroyed."
That is something I have not heard SCO claim before. I was under the impression that they wanted to cut off future sales, but all past sales too? The insanity never ends at SCO.
Nice analogy there, Darl.
(from http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-1017308.html)
qslack.com
They're using an extremely broad definition of "derived". From that interview it's finally clear what they're trying to claim.
They're saying that they have rights to any technology that any Unix company ever added to Unix. So the JFS, for example, which was added by IBM to their Unix derivative, can't be added by IBM to any other software (including OS/2 I suppose, which is where the Linux version actually came from).
I really doubt that IBM was stupid enough to sign something that broad. In fact, it would be far more viral than the GPL. If I incorporate my proprietary code into GPLd software, I can still retain copyright to the code and continue to use it in my own projects. Apparently not so with SysV code.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
A few years ago, Caldera Systems was bobbing along as one of the last software companies to claim a piece of the Linux land rush, scoring a successful IPO that raised $70 million.
Since then, Linux companies have gone through several rounds of grueling consolidation, and Caldera--now known as the SCO Group--has sworn off Linux. What's more, the company now finds itself a pariah in the same open-source software community it helped elevate to prominence.
SCO's non grata status among corporations stems from a lawsuit the company filed against computing giant IBM earlier this year in which it claimed that major portions of the Linux software IBM distributes are based on Unix source code SCO controls.
The dispute has grown to rattle the growing movement to boost corporate use of Linux, embroil SCO in a spat with former business buddy Novell and possibly open a new front in Microsoft's war against Linux.
But Darl McBride, CEO of SCO Group, says he thinks there's still a lot of value in the open-source approach.
"The point about open source that I believe is really cool is this notion that you have thousands of eyes around the world looking at a similar problem, and obviously when you have more people focused on something, you can solve things better," he said. "To the extent you take that model and solve problems better and create ultimately a better computing environment that solves a lot of application problems and makes life better for everybody, that's the part of open source I believe is really cool.
"I think this business of not having intellectual-property protection or in fact even having a system set up to be able to police intellectual-property violations coming into Linux, that's the part that's really going to the jury right now. I believe that we've got to get that part resolved...so the baby doesn't get thrown out with the bathwater."
McBride spoke with CNET News.com about the origins of the IBM dispute, the side effects and what comes next.
Q: How did the Linux action originate? How and when did you come to realize there was this problem?
A: It really goes back to last fall. I joined the company last summer, and we spent a quarter or two looking at this Unix operating system asset we have.
SCO ends up owning the intellectual-property rights to the Unix operating system, which is a pretty substantial asset to be holding. So we started looking closely at where Unix was relative to Linux. Linux was starting to take off, and we did have some concerns.
We saw some initial problems last fall, and we tried to address those with vendors in the December time frame. We didn't really get a lot of traction with just having friendly discussions. So we came out in the first part of this year and basically said, 'We are going to enforce our intellectual-property rights.' And even though we weren't directly going after IBM at that point, they had a violent reaction to (that).
So at that point in time, we tried to work through the issues with IBM. We came to an impasse, and that's what led to our filing our lawsuit against IBM on March 7. Concurrent with filing our lawsuit against IBM, we put them on notice that we were going to be revoking our AIX (IBM's Unix distribution) license. Under the contract, we have to give them 100 days notice. That notice was due on Friday, June 13, and if we hadn't had the issues resolved then, we would revoke their AIX license.
We're talking about line-by-line code copying. That includes not just the function but the exact, word-for-word lines of code.
During the period of time we were focused on the IBM issues, it came to our attention that we had our code, our Unix System 5 code, showing up directly inside of Linux. So that, in turn, led us to send out letters to 1,500 of the largest companies around the world, to let them know we had these substantial intellectual-property violations and to notify them that we had these problems. We didn't think that necessarily they were the ones that generate
Even if SCO manages to win, they'll never have another customer again. I guess with their new business model that doesn't matter, but still... I mean, who's gonna even want to license ip from these guys after the way they're treating IBM? Heck, this might kill Unix (not that something else just as good and without SCO code won't pop up).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Sure, we'd love to file your complaint, but since your injunction made us shut down our servers, we can't do that".
OK, though it seems impossible based on the near-daily SCO coverage here, I feel like I've missed something major here.
I thought the beef was that SCO claims to know for sure that some of its code got into the Linux kernel, and claims to believe that IBM is the company that contributed this code to said Linux kernel.
So, now SCO demands that IBM stop selling AIX. Buh? By their own logic, shouldn't they demand that IBM (and everyone else, for that matter, but let's start big) stop using the SCO-code-stealing Linux? What the hell does AIX have to do with anything?
jf
I think the ish is that There is some SCO code in AIX (dispatching and such). IBM used that code in LINUX (the L in AIX 5L stands for LINUX). SCO wants all your base.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
In the various interviews and statements that have come out of SCO over the past few months, there has definitely been some conflicting information. In this most recent interview, I find a number of things peculiar, but this is what jumps out at me first:
Note how he says "entire programs"; the basis of the complaint is that code was copied into the Linux kernel. Apparently they are also claiming that some GNU tools and other programs are also "copied." From what I understand of the initial press releases, SCO was suing over certain multi-processor related functions of the kernel which apparently came out of Project Monterey, which IBM and SCO were a part of.
He does state in the interview that this is a lawsuit for breach of contract with IBM, and not copyright or patent infringement.
So, it is interesting that he is proposing taking Linux distributors (Red Hat, SuSE, etc.) and possibly other Linux users to court as well. If they are not on solid ground suing IBM over copyright infringement, how are they going to manage to sue all of the linux distributors and users on the planet for copyright infringement - since these distributors and users never had any contract with SCO.
For a final major thought, all of this "copied code" is appearing in both Sys V and Linux.. where does BSD come into play? Could the code from both places have been taken from BSD? Of course with the terms of the NDA that SCO makes you sign, I am sure that you couldn't compare the Sys V code to BSD, only Linux.
PS: Why hasn't someone run the Sys V and Linux code through a copied code detector program (like some college professors use to stop code copying on assignments). Obviously this would be a much larger scale project, but if SCO's UnixWare has such great multi-processor capabilities, they should be able to figure something out. And if there is so much copied code, it should be no problem to find it using this program. Show us the stats, at least.
A computer is a valuable tool, so use it and stop whining.
They'll give you the Codebas3 if you give them your computer. They ownz your puter
To sum up:
1: SCO bought the copyright to UNIX from AT&T
2: IBM licensed UNIX code from SCO
3: IBM put UNIX code into AIX (that's what they licensed it for)
4: IBM made lots of money selling AIX systems to big companies
5: IBM had another team forking on Linux
6: SCO claims that IBM put UNIX code into Linux (violating the terms of their license)
7: SCO canceled IBM's UNIX license because of the alleged violation of their contract
8: SCO released scary-sounding press releases implying that everyone running AIX would be liable for infringment (hoping to make IBM's customers nervous, so they would put pressure on IBM to settle quickly and out-of-court)
Further speculation:
9: ???
10: IBM will buy SCO at an inflated price just to shut them up
11: PROFIT!!!! for SCO lawyers and executives
To further condense:
It's a publicity stunt, SCO wants a buyout. They're targeting IBM because they IBM has lots of money, whereas no Linux-based companies are making a profit.
0 1 - just my two bits
but the already do... IBM is the deepest pocket; and, they claim that IBM put System V code directly into Linux. Because of this they've started by suing IBM. If they survive, the plan to sue others...
Time for everybody to sue SCO for previous GPL violations! That'll keep their lawyers tied up for awhile.
-j
I know that seems a little off the deep end, but I've spoken to more than one person who believes this might be the case...
Couldn't IBM just secure a licence from Novell?
Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
/me picks himself off floor
I still say we need a +6 for these kinds of comments. Someone else once posted a followup to this thought that we ought to have "posts of the day" or somesuch. Whatever form it takes, we need a way to get the "best of the best" available in an easy-to-read form.
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
The theory: SCO owns the right to license Unix(tm). AIX is a Unix(tm) system. IBM needs a license from SCO in order to sell AIX. Therefore, SCO can rescind IBM's Unix license,and thus IBM can no longer sell AIX.
The reality: IBM is going to stomp SCO into a small, bloody puddle, and then piss in the puddle.
And typically the company asking for the injunction has to put up a bond in the event that they lose the case. It'll be interesting to see SCO, a company with little cash reserves that's been operating in the red come up with that kind of cash.
IBM already had a licence to SysV.2, it would be interesting to see what the licence IBM signed with Novell covered. (And did they pass any AIX code back? Can SCO still use that code if so?)
This is going to be fun.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
WOW! If everything that guy says is true, then this really does sound like "Custers last stand" for the closed source software industry. If they win this suit, Linux and all open source will be relegated to the dustbins of history, but if they lose, Linux will be pretty much unstoppable.
Aparently he is not that good at math either....
"--if you look at the marketplace over the last two years, there've been 2 million servers shipped into the market. Our UnixWare price tag of $1,500 would have generated $3.5 billion in revenue for us."
By my count that would be 3 billion if they had a 100% market share. But considering their share is about 2%, from all the numbers I have read, that would leave them with a rather generous $6 million.
SCO can do this if, and only if
- They own the original rights
- They have allowed for revocation in the license
- They have allowed for revocation of any and all sub-licenses in the agreement as well
So, you see the mold is already cast here. It's all in the license, and who owns the rights. The question is, what are the exact terms of the license, and can IBM get out of those terms on the basis of the capricious damage to their business or other grounds?I'm not a lawyer, this is a lawyer friend't assesment based on very little info and then translated through me, so take it with a grain of salt. But I think the general idea that SCO could not revoke the sub-licenses due to the damage to the market (as someone suggested) would be kind of moot, since SCO only has to demonstrate that THIS agreement allows such. Of course, IBM would be foolish to have allowed such a thing....
Sontag even hinted that SCO somehow has some ownership rights to Windows (and that the recent MS/SCO licensing agreement doesn't cover it).
The whole thing reeks of some small-dicked execs hoping to get golden parachutes with a buyout, but not before damaging the credibility of several companies and a few thousand volunteer hackers. Sadly, the stock market seems to reward this kind of blackmail.
I have this image in my head of a small SCO lawyer pounding on the feet of Bahamut, while the dragon just stands there, arms crossed, growing less patient with every pathetic stomp.
At the breaking point, Bahamut unleashes a nice, hot Mega Flare.
Bye-bye, annoying little bug.
Still, I've gotta wonder just what IBM is prepping.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
If corporations want to avoid the trouble
IBM now is facing perhaps they will see
the advantage of using GPL'ed code. A GPL
licence can't suddenly be revoked.
And furthermore (if anyone was in doubt)
it clearly shows how ridicusly SCO is
acting for the moment.
-- A Mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems. - Paul Erdös
If you make additions to a contract (and EULAs are such additions according to german law) both parties have to be able to see those additions before the contract is placed. Since this is rather seldom the case for EULAs these licenses are not even worth the paper they are printed on.
Regards Christian
This is nothing more than a last ditch effort by SCO to be acquired by IBM. They know they're slowly rotting and becoming worthless, and their first lawsuit didn't convince IBM to buy them out in order to settle, so they've decided to end everything the quick and easy way.
If all goes according to plan, IBM will countersue for malicious prosecution, claiming damages equal to SCO's market value, and the courts will award ownership of SCO to IBM.
Devious!
Convert RSS to HTML - integrate webfeeds into your website
A thought just struck me, and I am trying to be gentle with it, as it is in a strange place...
WHAT IF...
What if SCO(Caldera) is HELPING?!? We have been saying for a long time we needed a court case to validate the GPL. MAYBE SCO(Caldera) is lending a helping hand as they go down the toilet?
What if they are playing the fool ON PURPOSE, while IBM, in cahoots with them, LETS SCO(Caldera) take them to court - TO FORCE politicians/courts/public to acknowledge the GPL as valid or to pass laws to Dutch-boy the legal dyke (I think I dated her...) - laws that are way overdue by my way of thinking - or to acknowledge Linux as a no/low cost INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH Unix(c).
Can anyone else think of a reason why SCO(Caldera) would not only shoot themselves in the foot over and over again, but even stop and reload so they can shoot themselves in the foot some more?
SCO(Caldera) has certainly made a lot of noticeable waves, lots of press copy, and lots of noise, but have also pretty much presented themselves as buffoons while doing so. I can not believe they (and their lawyers) are not smart enough to NOT present themselves as half-wits if they didn't WANT to.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled conspiracy theory...
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
IBM is simply waiting it out. SCO can't take away their right to the "code in question" due to: A) SCO has to prove that IBM gave the code to linux. For all we know linux STOLE the code. B) IBM has held their ground on that the license can't be refuted, which means it probably can't. If it could I think IBM would be doing other tactics right now. C) IBM is merely making press releases, will send a few lawyers to court, and then cause more damage to SCO by refuting their claims. D) They will probably counter sue for breaching their contract, and possibly aim for free use of the code etc. SCO is really looking for a buy out, or renegotiation for their CODE. They think they're MS or something and can pull licenses when they want to.
IANAL but I don't see this thing ever getting to trial. Whether SCO has a basis or not, between SCO's agreements with IBM and Novell, IBM's license agreements with their AIX customers, SCO's agreements with Microsoft, and BSD's agreements with whomever, SCO doesn't have the money to even participate in the discovery phase of a trial (where logically all these agreements would be sorted out, along with where each alleged incident of copying came from and who "owns" them.) It will take years, involve dozens to hundreds of expert witnesses and lawyers, and cost millions. SCO doesn't have that kind of money, particularly to throw away on something so speculative as a court fight against IBM. Therefore, they don't intend to.
:)
The question is then, why start a legal challenge you don't intend on following through with? What does SCO stand to gain by initiating a court suit they don't intend to try?
SCO is making a lot of noise. Maybe they want to be bought out and this was all they could think of to get themeselves noticed. If so it was stupid: nobody buys toxic waste.
Maybe they're being paid to cause a short storm. Heh. Conspiracy theorists can line up to the left...
Maybe they're bored. Heck, it isn't like they have a business plan otherwise.
Maybe they're on drugs. *Shrug* From where I'm sitting it's as good a theory as any...
leave them feedback here: SCO Feedback!
tell them what you think of their attempt at extortion.
have you seen their 3-month stock chart recently? the only thing they've proven is that the theory of stupidity does not stray far from einstein's theory of relativity ;). i have made a lot of money off SCOX, and i am sure i am not alone. so as far as my wallet is concerned, their tactics have been brilliant.
We need to find the actual injunction (I haven't found it yet) and actually read the thing, and as such this is purely speculative, but it opens up a nice posibility.
In the long run, the judge *must* find for or against the complaint, dismiss the complaint, or remand it to a higher court. It appears (although nobody seems to have the actual complaint) that the complaint is two parts. The first is that they used the code in Linux, and the second is that they are now distributing AIX without a licence to SCO's code. That second point is the one they would file the injunction on.
This boils down to a simple complaint: "We terminated their license, so they must stop using our property." If that were the entire complaint in the injunction, the judge would have to agree since the Supreme Court has upheld that rights of property owners is one of the key elements of freedom. Not being able to use your property is the loss of freedom.
That complaint is so fundamental that he could not simply dismiss the complaint. He therefore must rule on it, or the law, or remand it up the chain of command.
The judge could rule that SCO is correct, meaning that:
By ruling FOR SCO, the judge would not only put a penalty on IBM, but on everyone who uses it. While the simple case (no pay, no play) is reasonable, IBM's lawyers could easily argue that the damage to society and possible lives lost would outweigh SCO's property rights.
Ruling FOR SCO would set a precedent that Microsoft and others could quickly follow -- Revoke the licenses to each version of Office even faster, or include in new online music services a quickly expiring license. When the song goes popular, the license expires, and you must pay the new, higher rate. It would be extortion, except the SCO case would make it legal.
Conversely, he could be ruling that you *CAN* continue to use IP after terminating your license. This would have profound effects (I like some of them), including...
That can't happen either. The sectors of our economy dealing with IP would be blown away, and that would also have so profound negative effects that the judge could not rule that way.
So either way the judge rules in the end, he cannot justify the expense to society of ruling for or against them. A judge at the state level sould not put the entire nation's economy into such a state. That would mean he should remand the case to a higher level. The district cour
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
First, I am not a lawyer, so I am probably wrong about this.
Check out this quote from this CNET article, from SCO's CEO McBride:
Based on this, I believe SCO is not necessarily claiming that IBM copied code from Sys V, they are claiming that IBM copied code from AIX into Linux, and further they are claiming the rights to the 'derivative' (AIX)! More importantly, the code SCO is claiming was copied may not have been in Sys V at all, it could have been added to AIX solely by IBM. If SCO's claim that they own the rights to derivative works, then any change, including additional functions or even new files or API would be owned by SCO, even if IBM added the code themselves.
IBM better check their licensing agreement, if they don't own all of the rights to the derivative (AIX) then SCO may be justified. I can't believe anyone, especially IBM would ever sign an agreement that would not give them 100% of the rights to a derivative work.
Odd how they suddenly happened to come up with a document that happened to give them the copyrights, that they just happened to have at the bottom of a file cabinet, that just happened to be the only copy since Novel just happened not to have one. I don't think we've seen the end of this.
Ok, let's say you're an IT manager at an aix shop that uses it for 24x7 mission critical applications. Sheriff deputies knock on the door with a warrant to search for unauthorized copies of AIX and have a SCO rep in tow that tells you that you can either buy a license, wipe the OS off your hardware, or let the deputies impound your equipment.
What do you do?
That scenario is the next logical step for SCO in their FUD campaign.
Maybe I'm just sadly naive, but a company launching a $1bn, attention seeking law suite/campaign against an enormous, multinational company such as IBM, forging documents really isn't a route one would follow. Just think, with all these new "tough" laws GW is enacting in regards to America's business accountability; the recent downfall of the beleaguered accountancy firm, Andersen, for document interference, and all the remaining prime examples of business corruption, there is simply no room for anything of this sort. If they were found to be forging documents, you can bet your life the US government would come down hard, because it's a simple and relatively clean endeavour to garner market, and public confidence. Also, if the law firm, on instructions from their client presented forged documents in court, you could see another corporate giant topple.
Is it really an option ? I do profess to having no faith in the US system(s), but still... Coincidently, should I seek help ?
shoez
&lawyers($instruction);