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."
They sound like a crazy old drunk, making up more and more unsubstanciated cliams, C|Net's article sounds like their getting tired off this too.
There is no god
What?
;)
Since when did IBM have anything to do with SMP in the kernel?
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.
I'm starting to think that the folks at SCO are on SERIOUS crack and they AREN'T SHARING. There's reason enough to hate them right there, forget all this Linux stuff.
My journal has hot
Wish I had googled before posting, but here's the dirt:
.. maybe IBM refined the process later, but it looks like SMP is in the Linux kernel as a *direct* result of Caldera's actions.
http://www.linux.org.uk/SMP/title.html
All of SCOs claims are non-sequiters. I would debunk them here, but OSI already did!
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
Every day they delay is another couple hundred thousand dollars drained out of SCO's war chest by expensive lawyers.
Yes, but every day they delay squashing this problem is another day the FUD being spread by SCO chases away current and potential customers of AIX and their Linux server business.
Um, IBM didn't make Linux freely available. Linus Torvalds did. They contributed to the code, but they didn't contribute the SMP code. THey contributed the RCU thing which helps with SMP, but the SMP code itself was already in there, and hence, if anyone is liable for SMP code being in there it's Alan Cox -- and he's in the U.K. and can't be held liable for U.S. export laws.
;)
SCO is high. That's the only explanation here.
My journal has hot
The latest twist in the lawsuit is revealed in a recent CNET interview of Darl McBride: "The System 5 source code, that is really the area that gives us incredible rights, because it includes the control rights on the derivative works that branch off from that trunk. " It is SCO's position that JFS and RCU are derivative of System V.
Opponents of the GNU General Public License perpetuate the misconception that it is somehow viral. In fact, it is copyright law itself that is viral. Quoting from IP in a Nutshell:
If carried to its conclusion, this suit could be the textbook on derivative works with regard to software."More to the point,
as noted in the OSI position paper on the lawsuit
(about half way down - search for SMP and you will eventually find the
correct segment), Linux had working SMP before UNIX did, so this is a
null claim."
Arg.. ESR has that wrong. SMP was
not working on Linux first.. Both the UnixWare and SCO UNIX banches had
SMP working before Linux.
What does SCO hope to gain?
.40 cents lower than yesterday's close. That is a huge gain. Lots of attention. Also, their VP is selling 10,000 shares on open this morning (cash in obviously). He probably thinks they've reached their high point and have no where to go but down. The case currently stands at 50$ billion, and that is a LOT of attention. The company itslef is only worth a couple hundred million dollars, and IBM could easily just squash them with a hostile bid and buy out all their stock. Which I'm sure SCO execs would love, because the shares are incredibly high compared to Feb '03. Will IBM? Why would they? They get nothing out of the deal except a mouse. They'll play SCO's cards and see where it takes them. Perhaps in the end IBM will buy SCO (then MSFT will be paying IBM for the Unix licence ;))
1 Billion Dollars. Which would six-tuple their revenue from the last year. That's a lot.
Do they really think they have a chance against IBM's lawyers?
Not a chance. Not especially since it's not just IBM, but the Linux community acting out against them. Just yesterday a programmer from Germany sent SCO a letter asking them to stop using OpenUnix and to provide him of all information as to who is running it, because it contains his copyrighted Linux kernel code and OpenUnix violates GPL (not part of it). I 'm sorry, I can't remember his name
Do they think they really have a case? Is this just some blatant attention-getting tactic?
I don't think so, and many don't. Attention getting? I think so. Their stocks were 2$ in Feb, and now are at 10.50 (as of 17:05 yesterday), and will open
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
SCO claims that the SMP jumped from 4 processors to 64, something that the linux community could not do on their own, mostly because none of us could afford a 64 proc machine
I remember someone porting SMP Linux to a Sun ES10000 machine and posting the dmesg output to the kernel mailing list. That particular ES10000 sported 64 processors if memory serves, and this feat was accomplished long before IBM became a big Linux player.
From what I remember of Linux SMP capabilities circa 2.2.x, it could scale to a large number of processors, but PC's mobos were only available with a maximum of four processor slots. I'm pretty sure that's where the "only four processors" thing comes from.
Chris
I'm still running on the stock scam theory. It explains the escalating shrillness of SCO (must stay in the news to affect the stock price) better then anything else.
I'm not buying the Microsoft support conspiracy theory because whatever else you may think, you have to concede that Microsoft is a smart company and if they were going to indirectly support SCO in this, they would not leave an blatently obvious money trail to SCO. I think they licensed SCO's IP to just make them go away. Microsoft may have a huge legal team but odds are they are not sitting in Redmond twiddling their fingers; all else being equal even a company as large as Microsoft would probably prefer not to add another lawsuit to its plate.
Without the Microsoft support (IMHO), the "trying to discredit Linux" isn't the motivation, it's just a side-effect of their need to continually ramp up the volume.
If I'm right then we'll know in a bit; SCO can't maintain this volume much longer. I predict that in the next couple of weeks, SCO will unexpectedly drop the suit... and quite possible fold entirely.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
....conspiracy? they changed their name to SCO Group to reflect their main source of revenue, which apparently is everyone who makes an operating system that comes after Unix. :)
Yeah, and USL lost on that one. IBM's SysV license comes from AT&T, it did not originate from SCO. So IBM had the license with USL, and then later Novell, and then later SCO, and then later Caldera, and then later SCO.
Okay. So if USL lost, then the precedence has already been set -- USL didn't have rights to derivative works as ruled by the courts, so neither does SCO, because SCO has the same rights USL had, presumably. The OSI position paper covers this.
Yeah, so SCO even in your scenario, is STILL on crack and they STILL aren't sharing.
Also, tinfoil hat mode, Look at Sontag's quote:
We believe that UNIX System V provided the basic building blocks for all Subsequent Computer Operating systems, and that they all tend to be derived from UNIX System V (and therefore are claimed as SCO's intellectual property).
Hmmmmm
My journal has hot
> I don't think it's an unfair suppository to make at all that Microsoft is viewing this as a high-risk low-cost gamble on SCO winning this fight.
It's not a gamble; it's a kamikazi attack. SCOX was almost worthless and their product had no future. Why let it fade away when you can turn it into a flaming bomb amid the enemy fleet?
Notice that Microsoft wins whether SCO wins or not. The only interesting question is whether SCO's executives are dupes or willing conspirators.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I don't know about anyone else, but I am waiting for IBM's response to all of this in court. I hope that they don't seal up everything because I would like to see their defense (or offense? - hey, the best defense is a good offense, right?).
So far, IBM has only made small comments basically shoving aside the entire situation, like their most recent:
I also remember at the beginning of this whole mess, IBM stated that they wanted this to go to court (specifically a jury trial if I remember correctly). I have no doubt that the IBM legal department has some very interesting material/arguments that they are ready to show everyone.
Maybe SCO has been spewing with new "revelations" and "violations" but I am sure the very adept IBM legal department has been getting something ready that SCO won't stand a chance against.
On slashdot (and many other places) people are really getting played by the SCO "FUD" meanwhile IBM doesn't seem to be playing anything up - and people seem to forget what company we are talking about here - the same IBM that has been around since forever and has fought their share of legal battles.
We should have a little more confidence that good old Big Blue knows what they are doing here and not try to kill ourselves with the B$ flowing out of SCO.
A computer is a valuable tool, so use it and stop whining.
It could scale, but not as effectively as Unix. That's where the RCU code comes into play. Without the RCU code, the bottlenecks barely show on 4-way systems, but begin compounding after that. From the RCU Article linked in the story: "Using RCU it is possible to provide some relief from acquiring dcache_lock. The main work of dentry cache is done in looking up existing dentries in the cache which is done by d_lookup routine. Using RCU (and lazy-lru algorithm), we could do lock-less lookup for dentries and bring down the contention for dcache_lock while running dbench considerably from 16.5% to 0.95% on an 8-way SMP box. Recent measurements by Anton showed > 20% improvement in dbench throughput for a 32-way PPC machine." So even though a standard SMP kernel pre-patch could do SMP, the (allegedly)Sco owned code made the kernel 'Enterprise Ready'
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
The more I read about this lawsuit the more I'm convinced that SCO is a Microsoft Patsyâ. It doesn't matter if SCO loses as long as it damages the Linux community in the eyes of corporate users. And Microsoft Patsy â will drag this out as long as it takes. It's a lose-lose situation for SCO, Linux, and IBM and a win-win situation for Microsoft.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Hmmm.. that's a fine point, and I'm not sure I agree with you.
First off, it depends on your definitions. Having a port to a platform that isn't part of the core project, IMHO does not count (especially since that port is not techinically what SCO is claiming IBM took).
UnixWare, AFAIK, did not have a core SMP capability prior to Linux. SCO Unix on the other hand may have, I'm not sure. Those are, of course, very different products, and again I think SCO is claiming that the Unix license that was sold to IBM *prior* to SCO's acquisition of the rights are the point of "IP loss", so claiming that they had it first in SCO would not help.
I would love to hear people who used to work for Novell weigh in on the timeline. I know that Linux had SMP on certain limited motherboards VERY early on and as early as v0.27, 05 may 1998, the new motherboards were being added to the already growing list of Linux SMP platforms....
According to an article on byte.com, Linux is only the start. BSD,Windows,MAC could potentially be targets as wells. SCO appears to beleive that all operating systems are derived in some way from Unix System V technology. I think they are hoping if they stink loud enough someone buy them out. (Byte article is here
Didn't Caldera give Alan Cox an SMP system?
According to Infoworld, Sun has joined the debate by taking advantage of the uncertainty over IBM. They have taken out advertisements questioning the use of AIX over Solaris.
-Sean
It's totally ludicrous that JFS is derivative of System V in any normal sense of the word. JFS was the first journal file system in commercial UNIXes back in 1990 and way-predated other journal file systems (caveat: dunno when Veritas entered the fray as a third-party vendor).
So why would SCO make this claim?
A new thought on this occurred to me: what's really bizarre is: "How does SCO know what AIX code looks like??!" The IBM guys licensed UnixWare (via Sequent and I think Monterrey), but not vice-versa, did they? Perhaps by making strong claims, SCO can go on a fishing expedition into the AIX code!
The idea goes something like this: show the court that IBM coders took some code from UnixWare and put it in Linux. Then claim that they probably did the same for AIX. Then get to look at all the IBM source code and try to find more (minor, insignificant) infractions that you can blackmail.... I mean settle with IBM for.
Just a thought.
--LinuxParanoid
P.S. The possibility that Sun is that other 'unknown SCO licensee' makes a lot of strategic sense. Dunno whether it's true, but the shoe fits. Kudos rjamestaylor for that thought.
No. In the case against IBM, SCO has yet to identify any claim of copyright infringement. They are running purely on their supposed Unix contract rights with IBM. In fact it could very well be that IBM has not performed any copyright infringement in the least and still be found guilty of breaking their contract with SCO. There could be absolutely 0 SCO code in Linux and IBM could still lose.
SCO's claims of IP infringement, copyright infringement, "ooh I stubbed my toe", all of that doesn't matter. What matters is IBM's contract with SCO and what rights that gives SCO stemming over original work in Unix even work that isn't theirs. However, it will be a stretch or a really poorly written contract that would give SCO claim over any work not done by them.
Go reread the cnet link, it clearly says they have yet to lay copyright infringement claims against IBM. When you realize that is the case you see everything else they have been doing as a total and utter smokescreen.
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
IBM violated their license by introducing read-copy update to the world?
Doesn't SCO read books? Read-copy update was a feature of the mach kernel by the mid 80's. Its IPC was pretty much just messaging and read-copy update was a clever optimization that minimized unnecessary memory copies.
What did AT&T have to do with it? Other than use it? Given mach had it by the mid 80s, in what way did IBM violate this "trade secret" at least a decade later?
Did Carnegie Mellon invent read-copy update? I don't know, but it was a widely taught technique by the late 80s, when I learned it as a 3rd year computer science undergraduate.
What I find truly hilarious is SCO's attempts to rewrite the last 20 years of computer science.
I have always thought that rewriting history was the privilege of the victorious. In what way has SCO been a winner?
To be strictly accurate, this case is about whether IBM was responsible for SCO's alleged SMP code being ported to Linux.
If the Linux Kernel commits show that: 1) Linux got SMP before IBM was involved; and/or 2) that the developer(s) who submitted the SMP code had no connection with IBM, then SCO's immediate case against IBM falls apart.
I mean, it's possible that SCO's code could reach Linux some other way, not just via IBM, right? I'm not saying it did, just that it's possible. If it can be proved that Linux' SMP code is in no way related to IBM, then SCO has just dug their grave a little deeper - at the very least, IBM can counter-sue for libel, slander (probably), illegal restraint of trade and attempted extortion. Add to that 100's of IBM's patents SCO are probably violating, I'd say they're most definitely fucked
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/
http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/ancient-unix/
Go nuts, big boy. Let us know what you find.
(FWIW, the planetmirror link is being slow for me right now. Be patient, it's there.)
the no
Bullshit.
I lived in Utah for 17 years. I am not a Mormon, and am more opposed to the Mormon Church than I am to Microsoft.
What you have said, sir Coward, is blatantly offensive to not just Mormons, but to anyone who holds a religious faith. If you hold to a religious faith, you should be doubly ashamed of yourself. If you are going to criticize a person or a group, have the honor to name yourself, your problem, and the group or person you criticize.
Next time the account creation mechanism doesn't work, try simply signing your name.
This suit is getting especially nasty. I see two agendas.
1) Microsoft wants to stop IBM from undermining their OS monopoly using hard-core litigation.
2) (and more importantly) Microsoft is using SCO like a preliminary boxer to discover what tactics and skills the open source community can bring into the ring. Or, to use another analogy, Microsoft is forcing OSS to put their cards on the table by sending in a substitute poker player. That way, they don't have to risk putting their cards on the table, too.
As OSS shows Microsoft what tactics they'll use to defend open source, Microsoft is preparing for the final battle by studying their tactics and developing attacks that are more likely to defeat those defenses.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Guess what? SCO Unix is already used widely in Iran. I can confirm it. I live in Iran.
So perhaps it's SCO itself that is breaking the US export regulations.
--
A member of the first GPL-ed software project in my country
Quick! Everyone download a copy! :)
For our UK readers who don't have a decent butcher nearby, I recommend the turkey and chicken from Kelly Turkey Farms, who raise probably the best chicken and turkey in the world...
Cheers
Jon
As is apparent by this post, IANAL, I have never wanted to be a lawyer, nor do I have any respect whatsoever for the lawyer profession. Fucking weasels.
That said:
SCO is not claiming copyright infringement, so the case isn't strictly about copied code. They are claiming violation of contract, so the *court case* will hang on contract law, *not* IP law.
However, in *public* they are making this an IP case. They have made not-so-veiled claims to owning the rights to the concepts of *all* modern operating systems.
If the case were based on their public claims, they wouldn't stand a chance. But, their case is based strictly on contract law. All this public posturing means nothing.... except....
If they win the contract violation suit, it will appear as if their public claims were valid, and upheld by the force of law!
This is subtle, and will have a chilling effect on all future SCO dealings. They can then extort money from every single OS vendor in the country, based not on actual fact, but on lies and innuendo. Look at how quickly (Sun?) and Microsoft payed up without a single court win.
In any case, this public face is designed to get the top administration a chance to sell their shares at a nice profit. They don't really care about much else, near as I can tell.
Fuckers.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Now, let me see if I follow this RCU thing: Sequent (a company which appears not to be SCO) developed the technology in the early nineties, and put it into their version of Unix. Later, IBM (a company which also appears not to be SCO) bought Sequent, and recently let the kernel hackers add it in. But since it was originally added to UNIX, and SCO owns UNIX, SCO now owns RCU.
Was Microsoft aware of this "viral" interpretation of SCO IP when they signed their contract?
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
When SCO charged IBM with violating a confidentiality agreement and leaking trade secrets into Linux, that was more than a contract spat going to court. It was a direct attack on IBM's major business line, the data services business. Any buy out or settlement, even if just for a penny, would be seen as a tacit admission that SCO's charges were truthful and that IBM had indeed divulged SCO's trade secrets. IBM would lose clients because of it, they would lose billions in revenue because of it.
They will insist on airing the whole affair in court, and force SCO to prove their allegations because any other course would be business suicide. They have a reputation to protect.