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.
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....
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 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.
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
In a response, IBM claims that SCO doesn't have the right to terminate the license.
-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
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
1) print out the Unixware license document onto soft paper
2) eat taco bell
3) next day, wipe ass with license document
4) mail to SCO
5) profit!
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 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.
SCO is now claiming that they could possibly own the rights to most major OSs, including the *BSDs, OSX, and possibly even Microsofts OSs.
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.
... 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.
Clerk: Sorry, but we keep all of our briefs, filings, dockets and other paperwork in an Oracle database on a big Aix server. Thanks to your licensing shenanigans we're not allowed to use that anymore, so I'm afraid you'll just have to wait while we drag all the old typewriters and filing cabinets up from storage!
SCO: You bastards! I'm holding this court liable for damages every minute that our filings are delayed.
Clerk: While you're waiting, you should reformat your 40,000 page complaint and 1,100 page briefs from MS word files to typed paped documents. We need those in triplicate, so you might want to send one of your lawyers out for carbon paper.
0 1 - just my two bits
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."
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
- 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
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)
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.
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 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/
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
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.