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
IBM has terminated sco's licence to live
Fleur de Sel
LINDON, Utah, Jun 16, 2003 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- The SCO(R) Group (SCO) (SCOX) , a leading provider of business software solutions ...
I think whomever wrote this press release needs to do his/her research better...
-Sean
Sorry,
CNET story
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I'm shocked. Absolutely shocked. Why didn't they give notice? Why didn't all of the major news sources, including Slashdot, report this was coming? Never in my wildest dreams did I think that SCO would ever do something so reprehensible. I was just about to purchase OpenServer!
I depend on Slashdot to give me some advance warning, preferably several weeks worth of daily articles with 500 posts, so that I'm not blindsided by issues like this.
Whether the court will grant it or not is another matter entirely.
If IBM believes the license is perpetural, and the injunction is granted, IBM will file a counter claim for breach of contract, probably for the same amount of daily damages.
This means nothing. It's just more grandstanding.
I wonder if this means I'm entitled to damages for every day I've been forced to use AIX.
I mean, c'mon, there's at least as much legal ground to stand on, and at least I can call my psychologist as a witness....
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.
Well, they did buy Microsoft Xenix back in the late 70s or early 80s. Could be MS passed on a few stupid genes along with the source.
... the most masturbatory press release I have EVER read. SCO sure loves itself.
MORTAR COMBAT!
The slashblurb has phrased this poorly. SCO did not terminate IBM's UNIX License. SCO stated that they had terminated IBM's UNIX License. There is a difference.
I could issue a press release saying that i had used my magical powers to turn Bill Gates into a toad, but that would not automatically make it true.
> Has anyone checked their roots to see if they're
> related to Microsoft at all?
They are. Microsoft Xenix was sold to the original SCO who renamed it "SCO OpenServer" after carrying it as "SCO Xenix" for awhile.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
In the red corner, we have a 130 lb mental midget with nothing in his bag of tricks. In the blue corner, we have a 1200 lb gorilla with a nice suit on. .... doh, it's over. :)
Let's get it
I love the way the article describes SCO as;
"a leading provider of business software solutions"
Lets just redefine 'leading' shall we?
Where i work we are very seriously working towards ridding our machine room of SCO forever.
To this end, I'm taking suggestions as to innovative and torturous ways to take a SCO Unixware box down.
Note; we will be putting Linux on the boxes after SCO is removed, so please, no suggestions that involve damage to the hardware.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
In a response, IBM claims that SCO doesn't have the right to terminate the license.
Does SCO realize how many HUGE companies use AIX? I mean they MUST, right?
*SCO walks into court clerk*
SCO: "We would like to sue a corporation today."
Clerk: "Which One?"
SCO: "All of them".
*clerk collapses onto floor*
-renard
I think the big issue in question is all "future sales of AIX". That's the kicker - if IBM can't make new sales of the product, that will be as damaging to their reputation and product line as anything else out there.
That is, of course, unless a judge does something like this:
Judge: So, um, SCO, you're claiming IBM stole your code, right?
SCO: Yes, and we will defend our intellectual property to the ends of the earth, to the moon and back, to the universe -
Judge: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, can we see this source code?
SCO: Um, well, if we showed it to you, you might steal it as well.
Judge: Huh?
SCO: You're in it too - we know it! How much did IBM pay you to betray us?
Judge: Are you on drugs? I just want to see the supposed code theft -
SCO: Master betrayed us! No - Judge is our friend! Nobody's our friend!
Judge: Case dismissed.
Microsoft: But - but we licensed the code.
SCO: (Holding legal documents.) Our presssssciousssss....
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I hear SCO's war drums beating but I don't see any troops. Could they be hiding? I doubt it but their commanders seem to think that beating drums louder will scare of the "enemy."
I'll just grab some popcorn and hope this will be as entertaining as advertised. SCO, put on a good show will you.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
The SCO(R) Group (SCO), a leading provider of business software solutions...
.
should be:
The SCO(R) Group (SCO), a leading provider of frivolous lawsuits...
Also,
About SCO
The SCO Group helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 8,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit http://www.sco.com
should be:
About SCO
The SCO Group helps several SCO executives in USA grow their declining SCO stock value everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 lawyers and 8,000 pending lawsuits. SCO Global Services provides reliable Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt to Linux and IBM partners and customers. For more information on SCO lies, damn lies and lawsuits, visit http://www.sco.com.
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.
I guess this is what Schumpter meant by Creative Destruction.
It would of course be better if SCO is destroyed, but if IBM needs to be destroyed SO BE IT !!
I am all for a good fight !!!
P.S. I just hope Linux-spirit does not get destroyed in the uncertainity that will be spawned. What can uncertainity do? Just ask Alan Greenspan.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
Dear SCO,
I would like some of what you are smoking. Please hook a brother up. Thanks in advance.
[o]_O
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.
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.
I think it goes like this: SCO licensed Unix code to IBM. IBM incorperated said Unix code into AIX. IBM takes up Linux. Rise of Linux threatens Unix. SCO gets notion that Linux steals code from Unix, and places blame on IBM. SCO tries to revoke license to Unix code from IBM, thereby revoking it from AIX - all while suing over supposed stolen code in Linux.
At least, that's how it looks from here...
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
From http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/06/16/24OPcrin gely_1.html:
I wonder what rights AT&T retained.
Does anybody else get the impression that Big Blue is going to give SCO a bloody nose over this whole thing? I mean, come on, SCO! It should be obvious by now that IBM isn't going to buy you - they're going to sue you into bankruptcy, and then buy the rights to your code from your liquidators at a dirt cheap price.
Someone needs to give SCO a clue.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
SCO is now claiming that they could possibly own the rights to most major OSs, including the *BSDs, OSX, and possibly even Microsofts OSs.
You've obviously forgotten overused /. meme #405. It should be:
1.Buy someone else's IP
2.Fail economics 101
3.Sue
4.???
5. PROFIT!
Please keep this in mind next time you decide to come out from under your silly little bridge. Us big people have things to do.
Today IBM announced its filing of over 640 individual lawsuits against SCO.
The lawsuits ranged from countersuits regarding breach of contract, to unfair business practices, to acting not in the best intersts of shareholders, polluting the marketplace, unfair business practices, and illegal distribution of copywrighted materials.
IBM has also sent notices to the US and German attourney generals regarding SCO's breaches of international copyright treaties.
In the same announcement, IBM has denied that it employs ships stationed in international waters to attack and board any ship carrying SCO property.
On Tuesday, IBM plans to 'blacken the Utah sky' with paratrooping lawyers to persue the lawsuits.
More information will be released after Tuesday's paradrop.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
How is this dumb-assed question "insightful"?
What I want to know is, how much "evidence" would they have to reveal to get this injunction (and does the judge have to sign the NSA
If nobody explains it in a LOTR context, I just don't get it.
Thanks.
Honestly, eliminating all traces of AIX from the world is about the most noble goal I can imagine.
(Currently working a project running on AIX - transitioning to Linux)
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
... 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.
What's at issue is that SCO is accusing IBM of putting AIX code into Linux, which is a violation of IBM's Unix license.
Or, in the words of SCO's lawyer:
down: SCO Group SCOX 10.93 -0.28
I guess that sums it all up...up: Intl Bus. Machines IBM 84.50 1.75
Today SCO chewed off it's own arm to spite it's torso by terminating a lucrative licensing agreement with IBM.
.NET initiative."
SCO CEO Darl McBride was quoted as saying, "In order to better leverage our technology IP and increase profits, we've decided to refuse to sell, license, or not sue anyone not directly involved with Microsoft's
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
So yes, they want another UNIX war. Once their precioussss is described as the trunk of all Unices (and stating that almost all vendors contributed to Linux in the same interview) what follows is that replacing the infringing code is impossible. That's why RMS a few weeks ago aimed directly at invalidating the claim to the unix codebase by proving that its already in the public sector (remember his call for people who had or have access to the code? - some people ridiculed him for this, but he saw this clearly coming).
At any rate, SCO does not stand a chance with such ridiculous claims (and no Unix vendor, not even SUN would be happy if the court accepts Darl's interpretation of their IP rights). Read one of the best analyses here (please, someone tell me how do I make a link, coz this is going to be long):
http://forums.com.com/group/zd.News.Talkback/zd
What is interesting is that they have NOT filed for a temporary injunction.
In most cases of alleged IP violations, the accuser will file for a temporary injunction, rather than waiting for the end of the trial after which an injunction may be granted.
The real implication is that to get a temporary injunction, SCO would have to convince a judge that they had a likelyhood of prevailing at trial. In order to convince a judge of this, they would have to back up their allegations against IBM with real facts.
Temporary injunctions could cause severe problems, so they are not issued on a whim. There must be real evidence and the defending side has the opportunity to refute that evidence.
So the real impact of SCO's actions is to spread more FUD, and keep the time at which they must present any real evidence far off in the future.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I was startled to hear the thundering of hooves. Having lived near Armonk, NY all my life, I had never heard such a sound before.
"What is that horrible sound?"
"That is the sound of the Black Steeds riding west from Armonk."
"The Black Steeds?"
"The Nazgul. They once were men. Now they are neither dead nor alive. They are IBM's attorneys."
- The companies had engaged in brief but unfruitful discussions, SCO said last week.
The call, intercepted by an unnamed source, went like this:SCO: Mr. Palmisano, please.
Operator: May I tell him who's calling?
SCO: Darl McBride, CEO of SCO
Operator: Oh, you again. *pause* He is still not taking your call. Would you like his voice mail?
SCO: *sigh* Sure.
[Flush][laughter]*click*
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Uncanny similarities between SCO and Linux:
Here appears to be another reason why, according to SCO's previous CEO (note the date):
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5406
I probly shouldn't post this but meh.
the CEO of SCO Australia can be reached on his mobile : +61419 660 016
"We are not afraid of IBM. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid... and they are condemned.
I can assure you that those villains will recognize in appropriate time in the future how stupid they are and how they have stolen OUR intellectual property.
They are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!""
-- SCO Minister of Information
Although the terms may sound bizarre to any ordinary human, they apparently describe well-defined concepts in lawyer-speak.
A "perpetual" contract means the parties do not need to renew their agreements.
e.g., My lease to the apartment I live in expires in two years, so this lease is not perpetual.
An "irrevocable" contract is one that one or more (usually, all) parties to the contract cannot back out of without due cause.
Basically, the contract remains valid unless certain obligations specified in the contract are not fulfilled, or unless following the terms of the contract would require breaking the law, etc., etc.
(Disclaimer: IANAL)
Over 3 million lines by my count, and that's not counting any header files or documentation.
./ -name "*.c"`; do cat $i; done | wc -l
[root@sether linux-2.4.20]# for i in `find
3333647
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.
After a lot of overhyped anticipation, SCO finally released all of the offending code. It seems that SCO had patented the symbol combinations "/*" and "*/" as well as "//" -- thus proving correct that the comments were obviously stolen code.
They are currently trying to get the courts to uphold their patent of the semi-colon, a pair of parentheses, curly braces, and the crlf combination.
SCO has also filed a lawsuit against a 14yr old California student whose "Hello World" program infringes on SCO's patents. The student could not be reached for comments.
This has got to be the first time in Slashdot history that the Slashdot communty has hoped that a 900 pound corporate gorilla will turn a smaller Linux-related business into a fine red mist.
1) Aim shotgun at foot
2) Pull trigger
3) ???
4) PROFIT!!!
IBM got its start providing IT services to the US Census beureau over 100 years ago. Today it is tightly integrated into the business and government fabric of nations around the world. IBM hires the best and brightest MBA and Law school grads every year into their corporate ranks. With that combination of inteligence and connectivity, IBM is not a force you want to fight directly.
Beginning this year, IBM has appointed a new Chairman. Mr. Palmisano has a history of supporting Linux.
This is all the motivation IBM needs to finish migrating its non-x86 platforms all the way over to Linux and completely dumping that antiquated "Unix" stuff.
I see a lot of job opportunities for Linux hackers opening up at IBM shortly. Especially for people with both Linux and IBM mainframe or PPC experience.
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
Um, it all depends on the terms of your contract. IBM's license agreement probably looks NOTHING AT ALL like a typical EULA. It's Very Normal in the business world to have an irrevocable license. That's how you protect yourself against crap like SCO is trying to pull. I've negotiated dozens of licensing contracts and made DAMN sure that my companies interests were protected.
These contracts are not "take it or leave it" type things like EULA's are. You negotiate.
Albert Einstein is well known for his unified field theory hypothesis. He has a lesser known theory about stupidity: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Although we've never been able to prove the unified field theory, it looks like SCO is proving us the proof that Einstein was right about stupidity being infinite.
I appreciate all the jokes about David vs. Goliath, with people cheering for Goliath, but I have to wonder why IBM hasn't taken the opportunity to annihilate SCO's case by now. Are the lawyers just waiting for this thing to reach a courtoom to unleash the legal nuclear weapons? Are they waiting to spring a nasty surprise on SCO, like proof that the code in question is really BSD, or even GPL? Do the charges really have merit, and the legal team is just buying time to figure out a way to extricate the company unscathed?
Seriously, Big Blue's been strangely dormant on this. What gives? For one thing, the reputation of Linux--a codebase that IBM's banking a big chunk of money on--is at stake.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Time for everybody to sue SCO for previous GPL violations! That'll keep their lawyers tied up for awhile.
-j
I can see the army of lawyers in blue suits gearing up for battle right now.
Hmm... I can see the next project at IBM being a supercomputer capable of playing an intricate game that requires thinking ahead many moves to counter opponent's moves... it'll be called "Deep Tort".
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
I do find it interesting that Windows "Server" 2003 release and advertising coincides with this whole battle though...
Worried about the uncertainty of AIX and Linux? Good thing we here at M$ have a great solution for you...
--- If I had a funny sig too, you might be laughing now.
The call, intercepted by an unnamed source, went like this:
Operator: Thank you for calling IBM. How may I direct your call?
I saw this and assumed it would go more like this:
Operator: We get signal.
Captain: What!
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Captain: It's You!!
SCats: How are you gentlemen!!
SCats: All your AIX are belong to us.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
At the risk of sounding off-topic... doesn't this seem very familiar?
-- Some idiot organisation who were successful once but are no longer relevant start worrying about their future. --
-- In a feeble but desparate attempt to boost finances and publicity, they start throwing lawsuits around. --
-- Getting more and more frustrated, they start screwing their own customers, who are now getting very pissed off. --
-- Most people agree that said organisation are a bunch of a-holes and vow never to buy from them again. --
Ring any bells? If you ask me, this SCO business is like a smaller and faster-moving example of the behaviour and imminent consequences of a certain irrelevant organisation known as the RIAA.
Here's the next part, which I hope will happen to SCO and set an example to the rather slower moving RIAA case.
-- Organisation becomes obsolete and goes down the pan where it belongs. There is much rejoicing. --
Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but it seemed uncanny to me. Watch and learn, fools...
The big deal isn't that the Weather Channel is running AIX. Many banks are using AIX as their OS. Because AIX is known to be secure.
So, SCO is doing something dangerous for their "case". Now, the David-against-Goliath case they think they've got is transforming in a David-against-GoliathS
I don't understand what they're trying to do. Do they want to run out of business? Or do they are simply stupid?
Montreal - Best city to live in!
The end of SCO Group is very near, perhaps within a month. As soon as the judge denies their request for a permanent injunction against IBM, shareholders will know the case is over and will flock away from the company in droves -- sending the stock price plummeting. If you own SCO stock, sell now, while the price is overvalued.
Best,
Doug
Doug Mehus http://doug.mehus.info/
In the GNU Coding Standards, there are a couple of paragraphs about the issue of using/referring to Unix code, as well as accepting code from other contributors whose sources (no pun intended) are unclear. The necessity of being extremely careful with these things is now becoming painfully clear...
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
Damn, my RS/6000 just stopped working today. Oh wait, no it didn't. Tough luck, Darl. Your back is going to snap like the shell of a cockroach getting crushed when IBM gets done with you. You'll be *begging* to be used as currency in the prison cigarette trade before this is over.
IBM Sues SCO
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday June 17, @08:30AM
from the lets-get-ready-to-rumble dept.
AT&T Sues SCO
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday June 17, @08:31AM
from the it's-an-ambush! dept.
FSF Sues SCO
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday June 17, @08:32AM
from the wouldn't-be-a-party-without-us dept.
Apple Sues SCO
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday June 17, @08:33AM
from the just-like-an-*ssrape dept.
Novell Sues SCO
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday June 17, @08:34AM
from the opps-they-aint-lying dept.
Linus Torvalds Sues SCO
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday June 17, @08:35AM
from the ELVIS-HAS-ENTERED-THE-BUILDING dept.
I think it is pretty funny to see all this hype going on about SCO filing suits against IBM when they still have IBM listed as one of their strategic partners on their website! Oh, and they also still have UnitedLinux listed as a partner too. As usual, it appears that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing at SCO (Caldera). I emailed them and asked them about this, typical response from SCO...they didn't respond.
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