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."
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...
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'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?
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.
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
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.
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