Slashdot Mirror
SCO Amends Suit, Clarifies "Violations", Triples Damages
Bootsy Collins writes "This evening on C|Net contains three new items. First, they've upped the damages they're seeking to $3 billion. Second, they claim that by making SMP technology generally available through Linux, IBM violated federal export controls and thus breached their contract with SCO through committing an illegal act. Finally, they elaborate on one specific technology they claim rights to which IBM inserted into the 2.5 kernel series -- the
read-copy update memory management features which went in at 2.5.43.
Unclear is why SCO thinks they have the rights to RCU, since the technology was originally developed by Sequent in the early 1990s."
Further - how can SCO be upping there damages if the infringing code is in the development kernel; that has nowhere near as wide a circulation as the stable tree. In fact (if they were right -- although obviously they're not) surely their duty of care would be to say which parts of the development kernel are infringing so that they can be removed before they get distributed to the four winds?
Of course, I know who I'd like to distribute to the four winds.
Carpe Daemon
I think IBM has found it's much more satisfying to slowly drain the blood from their prey over the course of many years of heated battle in a courtroom rather than go for a quick kill. Lawyers are very expensive and this will be a war of attrition. IBM will win simply because they will have the resources to stick this out for the long haul. They should be in NO hurry to settle this. Every day they delay is another couple hundred thousand dollars drained out of SCO's war chest by expensive lawyers.
These elements of the article stood out to me as indicating changes in tactics or tactics that they're planning to use:
.
The amended suit also asserts that SCO holds copyrights to Unix, a point that could be key in future Linux and Unix litigation. Novell, which owned Unix intellectual property before selling it to SCO's predecessor, initially disputed SCO's ownership, but later relented.
IANAL - I wonder why they've inserted this now. Did they forget? Is this just clarification? Are they hoping to get some mindshare here? It's weirder since the suit makes no claims of copyright violation . .
"As IBM executives know, a significant flaw of Linux is the inability and/or unwillingness of the Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual property origins of contributed source code that comes in from those many different software developers. If source code is code copied from protected Unix code, there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact," the suit said. "As a result, a very significant amount of Unix protected code is currently found in Linux 2.4.x and Linux 2.5.x releases in violation of SCO's contractual rights and copyrights."
I'm concerned this is getting personal (well, moreso). It casts doubt on Linus' competency and/or ethics, thus casting doubts on Linux, and I think may be a veiled threat towards Torvalds and suggest that in the future they may, as has been hinted, take action against him individually.
Redesigning Linux for use by demanding business customers "is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (a) a high degree of design coordination, (b) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (c) access to Unix code and development methods; (d) Unix architectural experience; and (e) a very significant financial investment," the amended suit says.
They either don't get how OS works or don't want to. Despite the changes, it pretty much the same thing - "Linux couldn't have gotten where it is without stealing. Which, by the way, is IBM and Linus' fault."
The suit also adds illegal export issues stemming from the worldwide availability of open-source software. SCO claims IBM has breached its contract by making multiprocessor operating system technology available "for free distribution to anyone in the world," including residents of Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya, countries to which the United States controls exports. The open-source technology IBM released "can be used for encryption, scientific research and weapons research," the suit said.
The only way I can sum this up is "If you use Linux, the terrorists have already won." This addition is rather odd, as if they are so worried, why wasn't this in the original suit? It smacks of exploiting the fear of terrorism and rogue nations for their own ends, and to me hints that their next strategy could be to focus on the idea that "Linx is unethical."
Overall? I expect it to get more personal and more nasty on the part of SCO. I expect them to target Linus more, and possibly other developers or groups.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Kind of wierd when you think that Caldera (now SCO) acquired DR-DOS to do legal battle with Microsoft only two years ago, but I suppose that just illustrates the shifting loyalties on the intellectual property battlefield. IBM is good and all, but one wonders how long they'd back Linux if a better opportunity comes along.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
IBM will win simply because they will have the resources to stick this out for the long haul.
It's sad really that this is the reason they will will, not because they are in the right or anything...
Why hope to see them crushed? They provide a pretty useful service to the public: demonstrating that the concept of intellectual property leads to poor results if applied in the manner shown by SCO. Intellectual property is a nice idea if used e.g. by an artist to protect her works from unauthorized altering, or if it helps an inventor to make a living. It is not if separated from the actual, individual creators of something; it is not if used to revoke transactions after the fact; it is not if applied to prevent people from tinkering with things they did buy. Now we have a showcase. Thank you, SCO!
http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
I do not think they are serious about the lawsuit. SCO is serious about making a lot of noise.
IBM did not offer to buy them. So SCO will try to raise the noise level some more.
But now all they can do is sound like the Iraqi disinformation minister.
"Those penquins are infidels. There is no way penguins can write SMP code without our help. We will slaughter all the penquins and have them for dinner"
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
I've always thought that the Export Regulation laws were screwed.
Why would Iran, Syria, or whoever want to build a supercomputer to simulate a nuclear explosion, when they only have to ask the fucking yankees nicely and they will gladly provide them with the real thing "oh sure it killed millions of people & animals and poisened hundres of millions for millions of years to come, but think of how many american lives it saved".
Seriosly, nuclear explosions have been studied to death (pun intended). Anyone serious about taking a shot at the US (I'm sure there are some out there) only need pay a laughably insignificant amount of money either on the black market or to the arms manufacturers who don't give a frig about what the Pentagon would like.
Preventing SMP and supercomputer technology (and the fucking web browser I'm using, for fuck's sake) from entering [insert anti-american country here] is just demonstrating american arrogance. I'm sure it is done in the same spirit as all the bans on medical equipment entering Iraq. Can't have the fuckers healing themselves! The yankees aren't too keen on keeping their karma high, are they?
SCO is asserting that IBM is violating export controls, but how that has anything to do with SCO is anyone's guess, unless of course SCO is claiming unfair competition in the giving-tech-to-hostile-countries-market.
Seriously, only the U.S. government can really have much of a case against them for that, if in fact they are in violation.
This is like one of my first graders, back when I tutored, coming up to me and complaining that some other kid was hogging the smelly markers (he had 1), oh and also, know what know what know what know what? He threw a rock at the doggy they saw on the way home yesterday, too!
In other words, a finger-pointing smear campaign, because the original complaint is meritless.
At least little kids are guileless enough to blush and admit it, when you call them on it.
Get off my launchpad!
I'm reposting this, since the previous posting was to an article that was pretty dead already .
From McBride interview at ZDNet:
How did Microsoft's agreement to pay you for Unix rights happen?
Darl: In the Microsoft case, they saw an opportunity. We originally approached them and said we're on a new licensing path; we have this intellectual property that we've started approaching vendors about. IBM is one we approached; Microsoft was another. We had about four big vendors in the last quarter that we talked with. With two of them, we signed deals. The other we're still talking with, and IBM we reached an impasse.
To me it feels like they are still talking with HP, and Sun decided to pay up to take a stab at linux (in the back, I might as well say). Or is there any other interpretation? Was anyone surprised at how quick Sun was to advertise that they are in the clear?
Also, SCO has said that Sun is the only company that is clear of all the violations. Even M$ is less clear.
I hope someone brings this up in an interview with Scott, so he can explicitly deny this if it is untrue.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Is this a flaw of Linux, or just the simple fact that SCO is claiming that their closed source system is being infringed? 'Closed source' means the general public -- including the esteemed Mr. Torvalds -- are not privy to the original code. So exactly what method of verification did SCO have in mind for Linux developers to follow? Of course, we then have Linus' (less directed) retort:
IOW, "we can't identify infringing code and remove it if you refuse to give us that information. Our process is out in the open and you are able to glean all the facts you may need ... what's your holdup?"
Do you like Japanese imports?
It is obvious that the executives of this company have no long-term business plan for SCO. This lawsuit is obviously entirely bogus -- see the OSI position paper on it, and if it had any value IMB would have settled or bought SCO.
Rather than focusing on creating a sound business plan and actually making a good product which consumers want to buy -- something which SCO has failed to do as of yet -- they have chosen to throw baseless allegations around. It generates stock-market interest.
They are obviously planning on doing some insider trading, selling out the investors when the stock is at it's peak, long before the inevitable crash.
As for the allegation that Torvalds can't determine what code contributed is proprietary, no-one can within reasonable means. The best anyone can do is get those contributing to accept responsibility for the contributed code and sign a legal agreement stating that it is their own code. He, nor anyone else, cannot put out bulletins asking the world "is this anyone's proprietary code" before contributing something to the kernel. Many companies would lie and say it was, wasting his time and putting an undue burden on him. Furthermore, he'd have no way of verifying such claims.
The best approach to writing software is exactly what Linus has advocated. Pay no attention to legal patent/copyright, and simply write code. When accepting code from other's, make them claim liability for it, and legally say that it is their own, or code they're allowed to contribute to the best of their knowledge. Trying to find out for sure if contributed code may or may not be copyrighted is an undue burden, and puts additional liability on developers.
Btw, Linux is international. So is GNU software. This lawsuite, even if it's claims of misappropriation are true, will not necessarily force any changes in Linux or GNU/Linux. If any code is SCO's, however, for the convenience of those working in the US, it will rapidly be coded around. This is a non-issue no matter which way you look at it.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
And RCU is clearly a technology that Sequent designed for DYNIX/ptx. Sequent, as the link to RCU states, is now owned by IBM, so I suppose they'd have clear rights to this, no problem. RCU is also notoriously absent from SCO's product, so how they can claim ownership of the technology is beyond me.
OK, I could be completely wrong here. Lord knows trying to figure out what's in these people's minds is hard. But here's what I think is going on, and why they make such a claim. I preface this by saying that it was other posters here, in yesterday's SCO-related articles, that first made this point to me. First, check out this C|Net article, containing a brief interview with the CEO of SCO. In particular, note this quote:
I added the boldface to that last clause for emphasis.
Similarly, Chris Sontag, SCO's Senior Vice President of the Operating Systems Division, said the following in this Byte magazine article:
The point is that I think they feel they have some sort of rights over the additional code and technologies that licensees add to the System V code they license from SCO in the process of creating their particular product. IBM bought Sequent, acquiring Sequent's RCU technology. IBM added that technology to AIX. Apparently, in SCO's mind, that gives SCO some degree of rights over that technology, because it's now part of AIX, and AIX is a derivative work of SCO's System V code, and SCO believes they have some amount of rights over all derivative works. And therefore, claims SCO, adding it to Linux violated SCO's rights.
This seems like what they're saying. It also seems completely nuts -- unless IBM's license for SysV code for AIX gives the rights for technologies they come up with and add to AIX back to the owner of the System V codebase. I can't imagine that being true, though.
Another read on this is that it looks even more than it did before like an attempt to re-try the Unix Systems Labs vs. BSD case.
From the article: "...for free distribution to anyone in the world," including residents of Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya, countries to which the United States controls exports."
The last I heard, Linux has been (and is) developed by folks from all over the world -- including the countries in question -- so how does "export" even come into play here?
Using SCO's own twisted logic, wouldn't SCO itself be responsible for "exporting" banned code to these countries by making its distros available on their FTP servers?
Yes, LSD was synthesized by Dr Albert Hofmann in 1943, and he discovered its mind-altering properties while riding his bicycle on the way home. This is a quote from his laboratory notes:
More information can be found here and here.
Blog Ho
While that's pure common sense, we're dealing with legalities and attorney generals who pride themselves on applying our laws to those devious foreigners. Alan Cox may be paranoid about coming to the US but he has good reasons.
The claim that IBM is aiding terrorism is something so cliched in America it's almost not even funny anymore. This is something so typically used as a last ditch defense when everything else fails that most people should be able to see it with ease. SCO's claims have varied from copyright infringment until proven otherwise, through contract breach by releasing SCO code until IBM called that bluff as well, up until now when SCO goes for the patriotic kneejerk reaction hoping to rally Americans to the cause.
Incidentally, they're also claming RCU is in breach of contract. The RCU might very well be in breach of contract in that Sequent added code to Linux although that code was developed under the Unix licence from SCO. Sequent was bought by IBM and that makes IBM guilty although I'm not sure that SCO can claim ownership of anything that Sequent developed unless there was an agreement between them.
Which would in fact leave only the patriotic fallback, and I'm pretty sure that that one is not going to hold up in court.
So, in other words, you're fucked Darl.
Not necessarily delusional, just driven by the same pathological greed that drives many corporations. Try it this way:
"If you were an SCO employee, would you feel at least a little concerned that your boss is aparently driven by the same pathological greed that drives many corporations such as Enron and WorldCom into the ground? I know I would."
The license of the GPL is different from the "viral" copyright law. I would suggest that it would not lose any credibility as a solid license or in enforcability. The GPL doesn't claim that violations result in all derivative works transferring back to the original copyright holder, just that derivative works must also be GPL. That should be a lot easier to get past a judge than SCO's claims....we hope, at least.
I personally think that this is SCO trying to get IBM to buy them out. Trying Violently.
Think about it - SCO's buisness model is failing because of Linux and Open Source. Claiming 3 Billion Dollars in Damage is probably a good way to get IBM to buy them out - because why spend the money on fighting the lawsuit or paying a settlement - buy out SCO, problem goes away, and all that "incredibly valuble" unix code can be dumped into linux, where useful.
My Theory...
.
No, let's be clear: IMHO, the issue -- at least in this lawsuit -- is *not* "whether or not SCO's code appears in the Linux kernel." The issue is whether or not they can provce that *IBM* put SCO code into the Linux kernel. If SCO code got into the Linux kernel some other way, they have no case against IBM, at least.
make sco.slashdot.org and allow us to filter this stuff off the home page I have had enough of all the sco stories for a while
Yes, there are many Mormons in Utah so many of them who are technically inclined work for Utah tech. companies. That said, I've known many of them for more than a decade at WordPerfect, Novell, Caldera/SCO and dozens of other companies and they're no more inclined to blindly obey a CEO than a Roman Catholic is to obey his CEO because he's been taught that the Pope in infalliable.
For example, I know for a fact that many current and former Caldera/SCO employees *hate* what their company is doing. Why don't you hear more from them? Because they have mortgages to pay, childern to feed and they don't want to lose their jobs and/or find themselves sued left, right and sideways. In short, they're people like everyone else trying to get by as best they can.
Steven
If you want to understand SCO's situation, look at the statements they make and then compare them to the statements North Korea makes. SCO is the corporate equivalent of a starving soviet state, desperate to hold onto its power. The only thing left in its arsenal are threats to use weapons with potentially catastrophic side-effects. Essentially, in both cases it's a plea for economic aid and recognition, and it all demonstrates a tremendous fear that the end is nigh.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
We know well the weaknesses in SCO's claims, but what are the strengths?
That's the issue... thus far there haven't been any strengths found. The lawsuit is rotten at the core -- the original statement was that IBM leaked SCO trade secrets regarding a number of enterprise level features to Linux. The problem is, each and every one of those features existed in Linux prior to IBM's involvement. It's very hard to have a strong house when your foundation is rotten.
Has anyone, besides SCO, looked at the Linux code and tried to determine what might have come from SCO, and what might have come from a common predecessor?
No, because it's an impossibility to do that. SCO is now claiming hundreds of thousands of lines... you can probably look at the whole of Linux and say "well, yeah, the idea for that came from XYZZY", but that's irrelevant - you can't copyright an idea.
How can the FUD be countered?
It's difficult to do so if done right. But thus far SCO hasn't been getting many people buying into their FUD. Infoworld, eWeek, CNet, etc. are all casting aspersions on SCO's claims - none are saying that you should shy away from Linux. The only analysts that are saying that are ones that were already in SCO's (or MS's) pockets... and if your management listens to them then you weren't ever going to go to Linux in the first place.
If SCO wins, what can be done? What will the consequences be?
Violating code will have to be removed. That's it. That's all that SCO can do -- even in the case of copyright violation (which they're STILL not claiming), all they can do is request cessation of further infringement. They dropped the ball on this one when they didn't properly register the transfer of copyright from Novell -- without that filing you cannot sue for damages or any other monetary amounts -- only for cessation. US law is very, very clear on this.
IBM will act in its own interests, of course, and not in the interests of the Linux community; what should we expect from them?
Expect nothing but that they'll do what you say - act in their own best interests. But SCO has acted stupidly here too -- they're trying to back a grizzly bear into a corner. What the hell are they expecting? Statements like revoking AIX's license, that AIX customers are now in violation, claiming IP that belongs to IBM (RCU), etc. are doing nothing but insuring that IBM will go to court to protect their most valuable assets - their customer base and their IP. SCO isn't just backing the grizzly into a corner, it's getting between a mother and its cubs. If they don't change their tune fast they're going to be very unhappy with the outcome.
How time-consuming would it be to replace all SCO code (if it does exist)? Should it be done now, with all the code they claim regardless of merit, to preempt their case?
Again, that's impossible to judge. SCO hasn't stated what's allegedly in violation. You can't replace that which you don't know. To even speculate on this is to do nothing but further SCO's FUD.
Is including controlled technologies in Linux the equivalent of violating US export laws? That could have implications far beyond SCO's suit.
SMP isn't a controlled technology. In fact, the only software that is controlled is crypto. All of that work is done outside of US borders and is not subject to US export laws, period. Additionally, SCO kickstarted the SMP development in Linux itself by donating an SMP capable motherboard to Alan Cox (who is a citizen of England, also not under US export restrictions). They're the ones who would be liable in such a case, not IBM.
Export restrictions are predominantly for hardware, not software (with the exception of crypto mentioned above). SCO is barking up the wrong tree here.
They may seem like critical issues, but the reality is that there's still no basis in reality for most of them. The ones that might be an issue (copyright or trade secret infringement) have no backing behind them yet -- and until SCO puts forth actual documentation regarding it it's not a critical issue. It's just FUD.
Yeah no shit. I'm awaiting the day that SCO claims that Osama himself has submitted patches to the kernel and that Alan Cox colaborated with Saddam Hussain in the mid 90's.
They aren't first to try this though. There are a few large-ish companies (and one very large in particular - guess who!) that claim that Open Source in general and Linux in particular aids terrorists by providing them with a reliable and secure tool without intentionally placed backdoors (for law enforcement or otherwise).
In other words, SCO is just a few years too late to try to claim that. Which brings up an interesting point: If MS accused Linux of something, can SCO do that now too? Or are they infringing on M$ accusation?
Jobs? Which jobs?
Damn straight it is - Darl accidentally played his hand (or on purpose, who can tell with him) in an interview where he admitted that a buyout from IBM is "an option." That means he asks Jesus for a buyout every night. This guy's just a corporate raider - he has stock options, which are worth a lot more after this lawsuit talk, and he just wants to negotiate a sweet per-share buyout to make them worth even more. Of course, IBM would shitcan all the SCO employees if they did buy them out, including Darl, but he doesn't care. Nice.
Problem is, IBM won't settle, as they're pissed. Also, if they were to settle, that would only encourage every other dipshit company with some marginal IP and no business plan to pull an SCO. IBM seems to be playing the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" bit, and I don't blame them.
Also, as SCO has virtually no chance of winning, settling doesn't make financial sense. Naturally, THAT'S why SCO increased the suit to $3B - it lets IBM think that settling makes sense now at a lower SCO success rate. If the break-even point for a settlement was a 50% chance of SCO victory, now it makes sense at a 17% chance. For example, obviously, as both numbers are too high. ;)
Bottom line, though, is that SCO picked on the wrong dog. This one's gonna eat 'em.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Really, what is the US coming to? With VERY little research, a foreigner, like myself can discover this is conservative propagnada. Al Gore Never said he "invented the internet". He did say, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Regarding that statment; Vincent Cerf, who's been called the Father of the Internet, said "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."
The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's High Performance Computing Act.
The University of Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is today."
Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University, claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the Internet?"
So, what Gore said was "true" according to Traub, Ferber, Andreesen, and Cerf.
This "story", can be read about here: http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm
Bottom line, please DONT spread this meme, its flatly untrue... but the fact that this story "Has Legs" in the US is not surprising, when you read here (please read this..) that One in three Americans believe WMD have been found in Iraq. Nearly one in four Americans believe Iraq actually used WMD in the war. And half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001.
With the US so poorly informed, its no wonder Shrub runs willy-nilly around the planet... WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE USA?
I know that on /. it's always fashionable to bash msft. but the truth is that sunw has more to win from this than msft.
- sun hope to convert aix users to solaris.
- linux and freebsd hurt sun more than msft.
I personally think that this is SCO trying to get IBM to buy them out.
Yes, it is also true that the sun is going to raise in the morning tomorrow. There are a few things that are plain obvious, true.
On the other hand, they were doing a much better job trying to get bought out before today. At least they had something that resembled substantiated claims. Not anymore... I mean, it's almost a textbook example of how NOT to try to get bought out. Think of it:
1. SCO isn't worth a billion bucks. Much less likely are they to be worth 3 billion. If IBM were to buy them, they would rather spend a few million bucks to buy them out rather than a billion dollars to settle, right? By upping the settlement three-fold SCO at best ticked off IBM a bit more, and have not contributed to their worth or their chances of being bought out one bit.
2. Ticking off IBM for them is like a death warrant - if IBM was considering whether to sue them out of existence or be nice to them and buy them out, the chances of the latter happening are diminishing rapidly with every new claim against IBM SCO makes. SCO had to make sure that IBM takes them seriously. IBM understood that. SCO got IBM's attention. Now SCO has to sit back and pray that IBM will be nice to them. Instead they make more claims that makes IBM unhappy. Not very wise, if you ask me.
3. Also, if this garbage EVER makes it to court, the judge has got to just laugh at the number - 3 billion! They could as well have claimed a trillion dollars in damages! It's like me suing you for a million bucks because your dog dug up my lawn!
4. SCO tries to involve a dumb export restriction imposed by the government that never worked and has been abolished long ago because its effectiveness was zero, and pain for US companies was significant. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that whether or not IBM violated any export restrictions has nothing to do whatsoever with SCOs intellectual property. IBM has either misappropriated the IP and trade secrets or not - no government involved. If I buy a car from you and run a red light, I pay the ticket to the government; you have no right to try to take my car back!
5. It's dumb to even mention something that just made its way into 2.5.43 kernel as something you own. I mean, you are suing for years of infringement, you are threatening corporate linux users who are still using 2.2 or 2.4, and presenting code that hasn't even made it into any stable kernels yet as evidence!
6. And lastly, they just upped the number of claims of ownership on things that they clearly do not own. I thought their previous similar claims damaged their cridibility bad enough not to try that again. Looks like they haven't learned the lesson...
At times I wonder, if they just figured they have a snowball's chance in hell to be bought out by IBM and just decided to make a really cool fun show for all of us to see...
Jobs? Which jobs?