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
In Unix, a zero length file is a valid shell script, that has an exit value of true. Thus, here is the whole program copied --
"There are two major products that come from Berkeley : LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." -- Jeremy S. Anderson
Soon SCO will claim ownership for LSD too
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Heck, why settle there? While were at it, why don't we ask for 30 billion? I mean if your going to make a spectacle, why not achieve high?
30 billion? 300 billion? 3 trillion?
Cmon SCO, make those claims WORTH something!
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
Three times nothing is still nothing.
On behalf of the /. crowd, I am formally requesting that the Caldera/SCO widget be changed to a steaming pile of poo.
We feel that this is more appropriate.
Sincerely, /.
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
I think i speak for everyone when i say:
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH MUAHAHAHA -gasp- MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
Next they'll be getting the U.N. involved!
Steve
...on grounds of comedy. This is starting to turn into an old Looney Tunes cartoon, where the SCO Coyote throws everything but the Acme kitchen sink at the IBM Roadrunner. Meep meep!
Dude, where's my packet?
I found it interesting that they have dropped some claims about linux like the comment that it was like a bicycle compared to UNIX being a luxury car. I also find it funny that they cite IBM's Linux investment as evidence that they stole code. Wouldn't a big investment like IBM's indicate that they were doing NEW development as opposed to just taking it from somewhere else?
What I REALLY wonder about is all the idiots buying SCO stock, and why it's still hovering around $10 as opposed to the 1 cent it's really worth.
Hmm - five - six more articles maybe, and SCO will become the most posted/hated OS on Slashdot?
/. ;)
I wonder how Bill Gates will take losing the "Number One" spot here at
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Seems pretty easy, all you have to do is find some company with a rapidly declining market share and large ip base.
Then find some other big company that you have once done business with and sue them. Damn I wish I was a lawyer on this case, sitting back knowing I am earning a fat pay check while spewing as much crap as humanely possible to keep everything going.
But really now, does this make it any clearer wether SCO has a vaguely legitimate case on UNIX code been in the Linux Kernel?? I want to see that proved before I even try and understand why IBM is responsible for it..
37 - what does it stand for really...
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
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.
Even IBM doesn't own it. It's in the public domain. Because it was invented by IBM 3 times (hey, it's a big company). Once in the mid 80's in VM/XA Rel 2 (patent 4,809,168 now expired), once at Sequent which was acquired by IBM and where RCU was coined, and once as part of the K42 project at IBM research.
Since when did IBM have anything to do with SMP in the kernel?
I think they're complaining that SMP was a restricted technology, so by helping to add SMP to the Linux kernel, and making it freely available, IBM violated US export laws. By violating those laws, IBM is therefore in violation of the SCO / IBM license agreement (not sure how that connection was made), and therefore, all rights assigned to IBM are void, blah, blah, blah, blah.
They're asking a judge for an injunction now? Good. The sooner the judicial system gets a chance to take a formal look at this, the better.
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
I don't know all the history of Unix, Linux, etc. but from reading the comments in the past couple of stories, the consensus seems to be that SCO doesn't have a leg to stand on. There have also been repeated comments about IBM's lawyers.
So my question(s) is(are):
What does SCO hope to gain? Do they really think they have a chance against IBM's lawyers? Do they think they really have a case? Is this just some blatant attention-getting tactic?
I mean, we know IBM has a massive legal team, and money to burn on this issue, especially since there is MORE money at stake, so why would SCO even try this if they don't actually have a valid case as most of the slashdotters seem to think? Could they HAVE a valid case? If not, why this continued charade? Are they mad?
I'm confused.
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
I see your 3 billion and raise you two more. Show your cards...
My rights don't need management.
FUD champagne? Is that the kind with scary bubbles?
So IBM is helping terrorists and rogue states now? I think we need an addition to Godwin's Law - "As a dispute goes on, the probability of one side claiming the other is helping terrorists approaches one"
Story from Bloomberg...
BN 06/16 SCO Cancels IBM Contract, Seeks $50 Billion in Suit (Update4)
SCO Cancels IBM Contract, Seeks $50 Billion in Suit (Update4)
(Adds additional IBM comment in fourth paragraph.)
June 16 (Bloomberg) --- SCO Group Inc. canceled International
Business Machines Corp.'s contract for the AIX Unix operating
system and revised a lawsuit against IBM to seek as much as $50
billion.
The amended complaint also seeks an order forbidding the
sale of IBM's AIX operating system, SCO Chief Executive Darl
McBride said. SCO, which licenses Unix to thousands of companies,
sued IBM in March claiming it transferred Unix code into the
related Linux operating system in breach of IBM's contract. IBM,
the world's second-largest software maker, denies the claims.
``The meter is now ticking with respect to AIX and will be
ticking until we get conclusion to this,'' McBride said in an
interview. SCO is seeking from IBM ``any amount they get from the
AIX or related business lines'' while the case is pending, an
amount he said could run as high as $50 billion.
IBM's AIX license is irrevocable and there is nothing in
today's action that changes that, IBM spokeswoman Trink Guarino
said. IBM will continue to ship AIX and develop products, the
company said in a statement.
SCO shares fell 28 cents, or 2.5 percent, to $10.93 at 4
p.m. New York time in Nasdaq Stock Market trading after earlier
dropping 14 percent to $9.60. Shares of IBM, the world's largest
computer maker, rose $1.75 to $84.50 in New York Stock Exchange
Composite trading. They've gained 9 percent this year.
Impede Marketing
SCO's lawsuit might hamper IBM and dozens of other
companies' marketing of Linux, which Morgan Stanley and other
companies use to cut costs, analysts said. Today's move escalates
SCO's demands by expanding a previous demand of $1 billion in
damages and seeking an injunction against AIX, which SoundView
analyst John Jones said generated $2.8 billion in sales in 2002.
``For a fraction of that, IBM can buy SCO outright,'' said
Carl Hoagland, an analyst with State Street Corp., referring to
the demand for as much as $50 billion. ``Why bother to play these
games?'' State Street is IBM's largest shareholder.
Lindon, Utah-based SCO, worth about $134 million based on
today's closing stock price, bought Novell Inc.'s licensing
rights to Unix for $145 million in 1995. Novell, whose software
is used to manage computer networks, last month challenged SCO's
claims, saying Novell retains ownership of the Unix patents and
copyrights. SCO maintains it has legal entitlement to them.
SCO's suit was filed by attorney David Boies of Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, who represented the U.S. Justice
Department in its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. and
Vice President Al Gore in his dispute over the 2000 presidential
election results. Both Boies' firm and IBM are based in Armonk,
New York.
Linux, developed by Finnish developer Linus Torvalds, is
maintained and updated by a corps of volunteer programmers who
make it available for free over the Internet. Companies such as
IBM, Oracle Corp. and Red Hat Inc. make money from Linux by
selling computers, software and services related to the operating
system.
Unix was first developed in the late 1960s by AT&T Corp. Sun
Microsystems Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., IBM and other companies
over the years derived their own operating systems based on Unix.
Linux is one of the most recent Unix offshoots to emerge.
Microsoft Corp. is the world's biggest software maker.
--Jonathan Berr in the Princeton newsroom (1) (609) 750-4516 or
jberr@Bloomberg.net. and Dan Goodin in San Francisco, (1) (415)
743-3548 or dgoodin@bloomberg.net. Editor: Todd.
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
It's like playing the Kevin Bacon game! Can you claim IBM broke your license agreement in less than 7 hops? Yes? Well then you've got a case. Sad. It's just sad.
Fear trumps hope and ignorance trumps both
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
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...
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.
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'm sorry to hear that, but I'm still loving it. I especially liked the bit about exporting to axis of evil countries, and the weaponisation of linux. And doubling the claim just when things are getting hairy for them. It's like a failed poker player trying to pull off the biggest bluff in history, when everyone knows he's only got a pair. When this goes to court, it'll be hillarious. Go SCO!
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
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
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
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.Like that matters! All you need to know is (repeat after me) SCO bad; Linux good. SCO bad; Linux good.
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
"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.
Translation of the next obfuscated memo to come out of IBM:
No, seriously, you need to fuck off now. It's not funny anymore.
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
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
Who else very recently made the Linux kernel freely available to any foreign party including terrorists, communists and all three vertices of the Axis of Evil?
Hmmm?
Could it be .... SCO!!!???
Didn't they do the due dilligence to see if the capabilities that they were distributing were exportable under U.S. law? Looks like they didn't, and now OBL himself could very well be running Caldera Linux on the Beowulf cluster in his cave simulating thermonuclear explosions.
This might help: http://news.com.com/2104-1016_3-1017965.html
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.
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
SCO upps damages to 6 billion - citing IBM's illegal use of 'international business machines' acroynm which they thought up first.
Damages go up to 15 trillion when SCO discovers that gravity and other basic laws of the Universe which IBM has been using to build servers formed a basis for SCO's machines first.
Finally, SCO ups damages to (quoting here) "forty bazillion-kabillion" for "having a successful business," which is what SCO was planning to do but couldn't because of IBM.
It should be noted that this last figure was given just before the Executive board collectively passed out after coming down dangerously from a hallucenagic high caused by dry-erase markers, non-dairy creamer, pez, and possibly other office-related recreational drugs.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
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.
Does anyone remember the news articles like "SCO may expand Linux case" where RedHat, SuSE & co were mentioned as next targets?
Well how could SCO target those companies when they didn't released distros with RCLOCK yet ?!? Providing they can prove that RCLOCK is really "derived" from SysV.
All this looks like South American soap opera with really bad script.
bb4now,
PMC
we-go-we-fly
IBM are a superpower of villains. They are superpower of Al Capone. These cowards have no morals - they have no shame about lying. We will slaughter them all
Mohammed al-Sahaf (now SCO press spokesman)
Former Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
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?
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
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.
SCO: They built a better OS using so-called open source methods? Inconceivable!
IBM: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Almost every comment here could be modded down as 'Redundant'. Rants against SCO are a poor substitute for analysis, and absent analysis, we're all in the dark.
Let's look carefully at the issue:
We know well the weaknesses in SCO's claims, but what are the strengths? The issue is legal weaknesses and strengths: The contest isn't in the court of common sense or the FSF; it's being decided in a court of U.S. law.
* 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?
* FUD FUD FUD: Lawsuits can last years and SCO's, whatever its merits, may cause Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, freezing many Linux customers and Linux contributors (who don't want to waste their time or be sued) for as long as it lasts. How can the FUD be countered?
* If SCO wins, what can be done? What will the consequences be?
* IBM will act in its own interests, of course, and not in the interests of the Linux community; what should we expect from them?
* 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?
* Is including controlled technologies in Linux the equivalent of violating US export laws? That could have implications far beyond SCO's suit.
These seem like the critical issues to me.
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
I hate to break it to SCO, but Linux had SMP support LOOOOOONG before IBM got into the open source game. Idiots.
I hope SCO execs have to sell their kidneys to pay for the lawsuit filed by IBM when courts figure out how unsubstantiated these claims truly are!
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
[Raise pinky]
[Dr. Evil]
$3 billion dollars
[/Dr. Evil]
[/Raise pinky]
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Dear Mr. Palmisano:
I have become aware of a litigious situation between your company and that of Darl McBride (SCO). In your pending defense against their lawsuit(s) I would like to recommend to you that I, NMG be your sole defense attorney. I am not on your legal defense team, nor am I actually a lawyer. I am merely a reader of Slashdot. SCOâ(TM)s claimâ(TM)s of damages are so ludicrous, I believe that even a troop of Screaming Monkeyâ(TM)s could provide you proper defense. Unfortunately for you, the Screaming Monkeyâ(TM)s were already hired out for the year by the Federal Trade Commission. Therefore, I extend an offer of my services for your legal defense in return for a pack of smokes, a ThinkPad and a chance to punch SCO in the kisser. This union will save you a bundle of money in defense feeâ(TM)s and will save your legal resources for your pending investigation with the horde of Screaming Monkeyâ(TM)s. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
NMG
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.
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
"To do is to be" - Socrates.
"To be is to do" - Plato.
"Do be do be do" - Sinatra.
"Please pass the doobie" - Darl McBride.
Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the ones she got were sorta rotten and insane.
Your understanding of the USL/BSD case is faulty. While the court did find that BSD included a small amount of code from AT&T, they also found that AT&T took much more than that from BSD.
Your understanding of derivative works is similarly faulty. While it's true that the issue of what is a derivative work in software has never been litigated, it is not true that the owner of the original work owns the copyright to the derivative work. When a company, like IBM, buys the right to make derivative works, they own the copyright on the derivative work. Disney bought the rights to make films from A.A. Milne's Winnie the Pooh. The Milne heirs do not own the rights to those films, Disney does.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
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.
SCO has been all over the place about what they're claiming. We've heard about patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and even trademarks, and vague "intellectual property rights". But the actual complaint they filed with the courts does NOT allege any copyright infringement, just breach of contract and unfair competition.
Thanks to xyote for pointing this out:
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
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
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
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.
why spend the money on fighting the lawsuit or paying a settlement - buy out SCO
SCO hasn't sued anybody yet..
And if their behaviour can be used as a indicator of how solid their case is, I'd say here is a good change they won't be suing anybody in the forseeable future.
Either that, or the case will be dismissed right after SCO has explained it's case and the judge has had a good belly laugh ..
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
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?
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
We have now identified lots of code copied source from our precious SCO Unix.
Here are 2 of the worst offending code snippets:
Please look at our SCO-Unix code, you will see how shamelessly those lines were copied:
And there are 58 other lines of shamelessly copied source code in Linux. Our marketing department has calculated that each line of code is worth 50,000,000 $ which translates to an average of about 10,000,000$ per character. We have found copied characters worth of 5,693,340,000,000 $ in the Linux source code, however, because we are generous, we only insist on the fully copied lines of code. However, if IBM doesn't pay, we might be forced to demand the full amount.
But for now, I only demand IBM to pay 3,000,000,000 $ within 2 weeks to this account:
account holder: Barl McDride
account no: 4239573204
Royal Cayman Bank
134 Ocean Boulevard, Cayman Islands
Every week of delay will cause another 1,000,000,000 $ due to lost sales, mental stress and other damages which have to be paid to the same account, so please pay quickly, or else.
Sincirely, your pal
Darl McBride
See this interview article.
Let me summarize SCO's position:
"We own Unix System V, which was innovative and gave the world lots of experience with operating systems. As a result, all operating systems that follow are derivative products which violate our trade secrets. These include, but are not limited to: Apple Mac OS, Microsoft's MS-DOS, Microsoft Windows, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Sun's SunOS and Solairs, SGI's Irix, IBM's AIX, HP's HP-UX, Digital's DG-UX and Ultrix, Linux, Bell Labs' Plan 9, the GNU Hurd, BeOS, Atari's STOS and Amiga Workbench, Apple's PRODOS, Tandy's TRSDOS...[paragraph trimmed due to time constraints]
"Oh... and what's more, IBM is an international nuclear terrorist, so we should get a billion... no THREE billion dollars because they're un-American. OH, and Linux is bad, don't use it, that Torvalds guy is sloppy."
If you think this even deserves to be dignified with a response, you're a little shaky yourself.
Answers to your points:
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?
The Linux development process, including all code additions, is completely transparent and recorded for posterity on the Internet. Every snippet of code can be traced to its submitter or originating project. This is why Linus' only real response thus far has been to essentially say "Hey, our development process is open for all to see... on the other hand, where's SCO's evidence?"
If SCO wins, what can be done? What will the consequences be?
If SCO wins given their current claims, it will essentially have a claim to every last product in the entire computing and networking industry, and the US legal and intellectual property systems will be thrown into confusion for decades to come.
This will be extremely silly because SCO Group hasn't ever contributed a single line of code to any product, including the ones that they now claim to "own". It would be turning any concept of "justice" on its head in a crazy world.
IBM will act in its own interests, of course, and not in the interests of the Linux community; what should we expect from them?
This is moot because right now, what IBM appears to be doing is precise
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.
Well I'm English so as a country I hearby give notice that all people in the world who are using English are breaking copyright and all derivative works (including technical specifications and patent applications) are now owned by the UK Goverment.
We are also claiming Charles Babbage and all derivative works that involve computation and concepts of automated computing.
Unfortunately the Iraqi's are now claiming that they invented writing, the Chinese are laying claim to printing and basically everyone on without a 2,000 year+ history is screwed.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
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
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!
I love it when the news media expecially on the internet writes articles and title's them differently everytime they add a paragraph and update the report.
Too bad we can't get them to do it the right way, with version numbers and ReadMe's stating changes since the previous version.
Interesting history, and your comment really sheds some light on why SCO may feel that code was duplicated, as it might well be the same code!
If UnixWare's SMP originally came from Sequent, and IBM later (2001) bought Sequent, then I would not be surprised if IBM had incorporated "their" SMP code from Sequent into Linux. If that's the case then SCO would be correct, but absolutely unable to prevail in the suit (as IBM did nothing wrong) as long as there are no licensing problems with Sequent/IBM claiming the rights to that code (e.g. if the code was written independantly and the version that was merged into SVR4 was a derived work, then SCO can claim no rights to the original, but if the code was written as changes to SVR4, then SCO might have a claim, but a much weaker one than they have been trying to make it sound!)
Planning meeting in Dr. Evil's lair.
.... ozone layer
Dr.Evil:
Number Two: That already happend.
Dr.Evil: Sh.t! Oh well, let's draft some frivolous lawsuit and sue the world's biggest computer company for...
ONE MILLION DOLLARS!
Number Two: *cough* Don't you think we should ask for more?
Dr.Evil: OK. And sue them for ONE BILLION DOLLARS!
Or heck, make it three.
Good.
Hyperom.com
2) OS Blending
:)
by 2names
As Linux developers inside IBM, do you get to see the AIX source code? If you do, are you allowed to "steal" some ideas from AIX and implement them in Linux? If not, why not, and what's the IBM official line?
IBM Kernel Hackers:
First of all, before any of us were allowed to contribute to Linux, we were required to take an "Open Source Developers" class. This class gives us the guidelines we need to participate effectively in the open source community - both IBM guidelines and lessons learned about open source from others in IBM.
We are definitely not allowed to cut and paste proprietary code into any open source projects (or vice versa!). There is an IBM committee who can and do approve the release of IBM proprietary or patented technology, like RCU.
That covers "stealing" code, but what about ideas? We might talk to an AIX programmer and comment we're seeing performance issues in Linux in this area or that area and she tells us they discovered that they really needed to profile the network routines when they saw that. Having solved the problem once, our non-Linux peers can help steer us without spelling it out for us, allowing us to still develop solutions that can then be open sourced.
It's a fine line to walk, especially as an engineer who just wants the answer
Interview
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
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
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?
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.
Topic in #os: hey guyz, stop pickin on irix. /msg atnt haha. idiot. :~(
. html?thread=2531787
<SCO> w00t! i bought unix! im gonna b so rich!
<novell>
<novell> whoops. was that out loud?
<atnt> rotfl
<ibm> lol
<SCO> why r u laffin at me?
<novell> dude, unix is so 10 years ago. linux is in now.
<SCO> wtf?
<SCO> hey guyz, i bought caldera, I have linux now.
<red_hat> haha, your linux sucks.
<novell> lol
<atnt> lol
<ibm> lol
<SCO> no wayz, i will sell more linux than u!
<ibm> your linux sucks, you should look at SuSE
<SuSE> Ja. Wir bilden gutes Linux für IBM.
<SCO> can we do linux with you?
<SuSE> Ich bin nicht sicher...
<ibm> *cough*
<SuSE> Gut lassen Sie uns vereinigen.
* SuSE is now SuSE[UL]
* SCO is now caldera[UL]
<turbolinux> can we play?
<conectiva> we're bored... we'll go too.
<ibm> sure!
* turbolinux is now turbolinux[UL]
* conectiva is now conectiva[UL]
<ibm> redhat: you should join!
<SuSE[UL]> Ja! Wir sind vereinigtes Linux. Widerstand ist vergeblich.
<red_hat> haha. no.
<red_hat> lamers.
<ibm> what about you debian?
<debian> we'll discuss it and let you know in 5 years.
<caldera[UL]> no one wants my linux!
<turbolinux[UL]> i got owned.
<caldera[UL]> u all tricked me. linux is lame.
* caldera[UL] is now known as SCO
<SCO> i'm going back to unix.
<SGI> yeah! want to do unix with me?
<SCO> haha. no. lamer.
<novell> lol
<ibm> snap!
<SGI>
<SCO> hey, u shut up. im gonna sue u ibm.
<ibm> wtf?
<SCO> yea, you stole all the good stuff from unix.
<red_hat> lol
<SuSE[UL]> heraus laut lachen
<ibm> lol
<SCO> shutup. i'm gonna email all your friends and tell them you suck.
<ibm> go ahead. baby.
<SCO> andandand... i revoke your unix! how do you like that?
<ibm> oh no, you didn't. AIX is forever.
<novell> actually, we still own unix, you can't do that.
<SCO> wtf? we bought it from u.
<novell> whoops. our bad.
<SCO> i own u. haha
<SCO> ibm: give me all your AIX now!
<ibm> whatever. lamer.
* ibm sets mode +b SCO!*@*
* SCO has been kicked from #os (own this.)
From : http://www.livejournal.com/community/linux/397771
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!
Found this little gem on Spot's LiveJournal Account:
/msg atnt haha. idiot. :~(
Repeated here to avoid slashdot affect:
Topic in #os: hey guyz, stop pickin on irix.
<SCO> w00t! i bought unix! im gonna b so rich!
<novell>
<novell> whoops. was that out loud?
<atnt> rotfl
<ibm> lol
<SCO> why r u laffin at me?
<novell> dude, unix is so 10 years ago. linux is in now.
<SCO> wtf?
<SCO> hey guyz, i bought caldera, I have linux now.
<red_hat> haha, your linux sucks.
<novell> lol
<atnt> lol
<ibm> lol
<SCO> no wayz, i will sell more linux than u!
<ibm> your linux sucks, you should look at SuSE
<SuSE> Ja. Wir bilden gutes Linux für IBM.
<SCO> can we do linux with you?
<SuSE> Ich bin nicht sicher...
<ibm> *cough*
<SuSE> Gut lassen Sie uns vereinigen.
* SuSE is now SuSE[UL]
* SCO is now caldera[UL]
<turbolinux> can we play?
<conectiva> we're bored... we'll go too.
<ibm> sure!
* turbolinux is now turbolinux[UL]
* conectiva is now conectiva[UL]
<ibm> redhat: you should join!
<SuSE[UL]> Ja! Wir sind vereinigtes Linux. Widerstand ist vergeblich.
<red_hat> haha. no.
<red_hat> lamers.
<ibm> what about you debian?
<debian> we'll discuss it and let you know in 5 years.
<caldera[UL]> no one wants my linux!
<turbolinux[UL]> i got owned.
<caldera[UL]> u all tricked me. linux is lame.
* caldera[UL] is now known as SCO
<SCO> i'm going back to unix.
<SGI> yeah! want to do unix with me?
<SCO> haha. no. lamer.
<novell> lol
<ibm> snap!
<SGI>
<SCO> hey, u shut up. im gonna sue u ibm.
<ibm> wtf?
<SCO> yea, you stole all the good stuff from unix.
<red_hat> lol
<SuSE[UL]> heraus laut lachen
<ibm> lol
<SCO> shutup. i'm gonna email all your friends and tell them you suck.
<ibm> go ahead. baby.
<SCO> andandand... i revoke your unix! how do you like that?
<ibm> oh no, you didn't. AIX is forever.
<novell> actually, we still own unix, you can't do that.
<SCO> wtf? we bought it from u.
<novell> whoops. our bad.
<SCO> i own u. haha
<SCO> ibm: give me all your AIX now!
<ibm> whatever. lamer.
* ibm sets mode +b SCO!*@*
* SCO has been kicked from #os (own this.)
Ben, you've become an UberGeek! Take me as your padawan!!!
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.
From an interview [byte.com]with Chris Sontag, SCO's Senior Vice President in Byte. Sounds more like Donad Rumsfeld than Mohammed al-Sahaf.
Either way you're talking about a delusional maniac spewing lies anyone with a scrap of sense knows are crap.