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."
"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
Three times nothing is still nothing.
...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?
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!
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
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.
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
FUD champagne? Is that the kind with scary bubbles?
Why ask for 3 billion when we can ask for 3 _million_?
*raises pinky finger to corner of mouth*
Pore SCO. The funny thing is that "someone" has demonstraighted a major comitment to Linux by steping forward to pay Dr. Torvalds a full time salary to work on just the kernel with no obligations to any specific vendor etc...
My gues ? It has something to do with SCO's silly little lawsuite. See the story before this one.
Now here is the tall order SCO has to fill to compleat this case.
1: These specific lines were introduced into the Linux Kernel by IBM at this date.
2: That date must be after the comensment of Trilian.
3: That item was not in any IBM product before Trilian.
4: That item was not in BSD.
5: And finaly. That item was in SCO before the Trilian project.
That's a lot to prove and I doubt SCO will ever do it.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
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...
Actually, I believe the "It's Funny, laugh" logo of the Monty Python foot suitably amended with at least one smoking bullet hole through it, would be far more approriate for SCO v's The World stories.
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.
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'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
Well, duh. The plagarist removed the copyright notice. They're not THAT silly!
But shame on you for revealing all of SCO's intellectual property! Don't you realise what this will do to their stock price? You've got a trade secret law suit on the way buddy.
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.My [large hardware company] rep who is supplying me with neat technology including handhelds, laptops, tablets and Linux server appliances, is also the rep for SCO. He tells me he doesn't even want to touch SCO now that they've pulled their shenanigans. He even referenced McBride's comment that contracts are strong bases for lawsuits as a real chiller. Imagine being so reviled that sales people don't want your money...
I wonder if employees of SCO have any pride left, or any intention on working with the tech industry again? They may not be the source of SCO's vitrol and venom, but as long as they sit quietly and let the day traders pimp and pump the stock they are one and the same as McBride/Sontag/et al. We need a hacker revolt from within SCO -- if any are left. ... Until proven otherwise, no friends of tech or Open Source remain in SCO.
If you work for SCO you better cut your ties with Sontag/McBride or lie on your resume for your next position. Pretending to be unemployed since Caldera brought on McBride will get you further than admitting you sat idly by while your company pulled the crap that it is pulling.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
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.
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?
How about Dr. Evil with his pinky raised to the corner of his mouth saying "Three Billion Dollars!"
I want to be alone with the sandwich
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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...
.
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
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
If I were a CEO of barely breathing tech company in the midst of a shakeout, I'd consider accumulating a few million shares of my company thru an off-shore broker when everybody is puking them out. Pick them up quietly, like gathering apples as they fall from the tree. Then, file some outgeous suit against some deep pocket, wait for the shares to multiply by 20-30 times, call my broker on payphone using a phone card purchased a gas station, and head for the islands. But, I'm not in that position....
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
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?
/usr/src/linux/mm/numa.c in the 2.4 series kernels. This file contains a comment header stating it was "Written by Kanoj Sarcar, SGI, Aug 1999". This file has been removed from later 2.5 kernels (its gone by at least 2.5.46), appearently because Linux accepted an IBM NUMA patch as reported here. This patch was announced by Martin Bligh and is likely the code in question in this lawsuit.
So far four components of the Linux source have been implicated: SMP, RCU, NUMA, and JFS.
I have done a little digging into the NUMA code. IBM has contributed several people who have participlated in developing NUMA under linux. Some names I've run across: Martin Bligh, Matthew Dobson, Patricia Gaughen, John Stultz, Michael Hohnbaum. IBM even has a Linux NUMA news archive. It appears that IBM jumpstarted it's NUMA efforts when it purchased Sequent which was intitally intended to boost its participation in Project Monterey, which is no doubt the origin of SCO's objections.
The most obvious source file for NUMA is
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.