Slashdot Mirror
Law Professor Examines SCO Case
An anonymous submitter writes "This law professor from the University of California points out weakness in SCO's legal bluster, and further takes a poke at closed software, for those hungry for more SCO scraps. At the end, he references Slashdot for more info ('itself a demonstration of the power of dispersed individuals working together')."
This really demonstrates the only Archilles heel that Linux has to fear: software patents.
If Microsoft or anyone else gets coordinated enough, maybe 10 years from now, the software industry will be so littered with software patent landmines that Linux will no longer be able to continue development. This is a very real possibility.
Please, Slashdot readers, we need to join together to figure out how the hell we are going to stop this, or else we need to come up with implementations of new ideas, business methods, software algorithms before anyone else like Microsoft can, and publish them open source so that no one else can claim a patent on them!
Talk to your representatives in Washington, Europe, whereever because this is a very real and very serious threat that **will** kill software development.
SCO had made their bed in deciding to take advantage of the open source movement. Now they want to retroactively change the decision.
The guy in the article made a similar comment and I fail to see how it's relevant at all. The issue here is that IBM licensed some code and SCO is claiming that IBM then used this licensed code in Linux. That SCO also participated in Linux development is utterly irrelevant unless they themselves also put proprietary Unix code into Linux.
Now the issue of what took SCO so long to figure this all out might be more relevant. But it would appear that SCO and IBM have been in talks about this for a while, so it's hard to say how long the "offending" code has been there.
After further thought, the article mentions that SCO implies that "UNIX" could not be recreated without looking at UNIX source.
There is a lot of vagueness there -- aside from the kernel, GNU had recreated the majority of the OS long before SCO owned any such trademarks.
The part they lacked most, the kernel, has been so long in coming almost because of that fact -- they recreated the OS to work with existing kernels, so there wasn't a dire need for one.
In other words, reinventing the OS was more important than reinventing the kernel. But the OS (GNU) was recreated legally, and the FSF owns copyright to every line of code in a GNU project (to prevent silly suits such as this one).
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
please people, wake up!
can't you see it's obvious what SCO is doing?
and what this is all really about?
no... ok clueless ones, here's a clue for you...
after they announced the lawsuit their stock went up $10 a share, and the VP sold over 100,000 shares that day!
hello?!? Don't you get it? They don't care if they lose (and they will) that was never the point!
just like the WMD crapola in iraq (there never were any, it never was about that), it was about the oil!
all SCO wants to do is jack the stock high enough, long enough for their CEO, VPs, etc to cash out nice and RICH, and leave a burning twisted pile of rubble at the end....
they probably figured IBM (or someone - say Mr. Bill at M$) might buy them out, but either way, they're getting fat and rich off the share prices.
its a stock scam, and the securities people should be all over this!
so now you know the truth... what are ya gonna do about it?
SCO is claiming that IBM licensed some code (from AT&T mind you) and since they (actually Sequent) wrote some code that ran on top of that licensed code then they had to obey the license for the new, original work created without any help or IP from the "licensor".
That would be like saying since McAfee wrote Virus Scan on top of Windows and using the information from Windows then they can't reuse any of that code in writing a Virus Scanner for any other OS.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
The guy in the article made a similar comment and I fail to see how it's relevant at all. The issue here is that IBM licensed some code and SCO is claiming that IBM then used this licensed code in Linux. That SCO also participated in Linux development is utterly irrelevant unless they themselves also put proprietary Unix code into Linux.
That is only one issue. SCO has been claiming that ALL modern operating systems are in some fashion derived from ideas that they own. They have been talking about per CPU licenses for Linux users and that the "free ride" is over. I'd say their previous Open Source participation is EXTREMELY relevant.
Either: ...or... b] The evil GPL has destroyed the intellectual property of SCO.
a] SCO wins and Linux and/or IBM is injured
I have to wonder if they researched the issue and then clued in SCO to go after people.
Also...
What if it is determined that IBM gave up its rights (by helping Linux) and that SCO isn't the sucessor the the rights? Would nobody own UNIX, and if so, would that devalue it in some way?
It's not _that_ open. Try getting a patch without review to the vanilla tree..
And besides, isn't IBM one of these "core companies"?
SCO (ex-Caldera) is run by lawyers, and they are not stupid nor crazy. Clearly they have a plan and it justifies putting their company at total risk.
Assume for a second that this case goes to court. What are the chances that it will be resolved quickly? Not good. The matter is arcane enough that it will spend several years going through judgement, appeal, judgement, appeal, as long as SCO can pay their own (cheap) legal fees.
What on earth can SCO be after? I don't believe it's a settlement from IBM. They _know_ IBM, a company that has always lived by the fist.
What else? Their business is bankrupt. They sell _nothing_. Their IP is worthless - indeed, realizing this may have been the trigger that set them on their course.
Nuisance value, that is their game. They are attacking Linux and all OSS by association, and they are attacking it a level that plays directly to the paranoia of managers making a Windows / Linux choice today. What SCO are saying, and getting lots of attention to, is that Linux/OSS is not a safe choice. Even IBM are likely to be sued. How about your business next? If the RIAA can sue ten thousand P2P users, why can't SCO sue ten thousand Linux users?
Normal decent paranoia suggests that Microsoft's hand and money lie behind this move, but that is not the crux of the matter.
What is important is that we are at the stage when Linux/OSS seriously threatens commercial interests, and this looks like an undeclared war by those interests against it. War is not nice, not decent, not logical.
Such attacks can go either way. Linux has never has so much publicity as during the last weeks, and the association IBM+Linux is now strongly in the minds of many managers. This is a good thing. People trust IBM.
The OSS community must counter attack. The best approach would be a collective libel and defamation suit by some thousand OSS developers, seeking punitive damages against SCO.
Such a suit would not win but it would show SCO that their opponents are not helpless nerds unable to understand the meaning of cold, hard steel. Knives out!!
Perhaps someone from the EFF would set up a campaign fund? I would gladly contribute $50 or $100 if it would result in SCO getting slapped with a suit.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
If you've got the trump card against IBM, why wouldn't you play it right away instead of engaging in this kind of game they've been playing?
Anyone ever hear the phrase, "Even bad publicity is good publicity"?
NO you could not have.
there is a difference, a big difference, between an Anonymous Coward IANAL saying "the SCO suit has no merit", and a law professor saying "the SCO suit has no merit".
sure there are no new facts, no brilliant new insights there, (nor from you). it's an opinion piece. What is significant is not what was said, but who signed their name to it.
Um...Mr Insightful. I hate to tell you this but software patents don't discriminate against just OSS. Software patents is a mainefield that the entire computing industry has to face every day.
Since it's the US that's pulling most of this nonsense. It's the US that will suffer the most, while the rest of the planet will shake it's collective head, and mutter something under it's breath about those silly Americans.
If there's any dark knight? It's the same force that brought about the mess in the first place.
That's right, greed. You'll see change when rampent software patents make it nearly impossible to continue to make money.
Then you'll see the gordion knot undone quicker than it took to tie.
Instead why don't we refuse contributions from corporate companies. After all it's mainly the U.S. based corporations that erode everything that is even remotely based on benevolent principles -- Capitalism at work primary focus is not on the advancement of humanity...
This is no more a good idea than yours - to do either will do more harm than anything some [insert evil doer here] can dream up to deter the growth of GNU, Linux, or OSS of any flavor.
BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
This kind of stuff really pisses me off. Mr. Chander has written a basically intelligent article, discussing why SCO's case is BS. Yet, he has revised history, probably unknowingly.
Linus Torvalds did not "indtroduce an operating system...that did some of what UNIX did". Linus wrote a kernel, which is complementary to UNIX kernels (though different in architecture, design, etc). He did not write the entire operating system -- properly called GNU/Linux. He wrote one component necessary for the operating system that is now improperly called "Linux".
This is not a knock again Linus. He has never claimed credit for any entire GNU/Linux operating system, nor GNU/Linux in general. He has simply claimed credit for the Linux kernel.
It is, however, a prime illustration of how simply calling all GNU/Linux OS' "Linux" is revising history. People here talk about it like, "so what, everyone knows Linus didn't write all of the software for Linux-based OS' [GNU/Linux distros]". We know that. Obviously, no one else does. This lawyer thinks that Linus Torvalds created the GNU/Linux distributions from the ground up, single-handedly.
It is an example of revisionist history. Just like how Issac Newton is credited as the founder of Calculus, but no-one mentions Leibniz, who invented calculus at the same time as Newton independently.
Linus has done great things for the FS and OSS communities. We should, however, credit others where credit is due.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
With this full transparency, legions of open source coders could write around the protected algorithm. Although important code might be sacrificed, no legal problem would remain.
Much more distressing is the possibility that a company like SCO finds a judge who agrees to view code that is the foundation for a legal claim "in chambers", and finds IBM or another firm using Linux guilty of violating some "copyrighted" or "trade secret" not a matter of public record.
That's the big danger of the SCO case -- the prospect that the code that is the foundation for the legal claim never sees the light of day.
I think Linux itself is not threatened in its essence. Pray hard (if you live in the EU or US) that the EU doesn't follow the US' idiot lead and decide that software can be patented. As long as there are significant Linux players in countries that DON'T recognize software patents (say, China, India, and Brazil, to name a few?), Linux will thrive safe from the software patent menace. I don't think innovation itself will wither, just in certain countries.
Of course, this will come as cold comfort to those of us in the idiot countries, because if M$ and company DO manage to erect software patent barriers to OSS, Linux will be a banned article we cannot legally import.
The logical result of all this will be that the US and (probably) EU will lose their technological edge to China and India and become second-rate powers (and probably not just in the software field) until the software patent madness is overturned.
Our leaders, if they had any ability to think strategically beyond the next election, would realize that Open Source is a critical resource for their countries' ability to compete in the only area they have a critical advantage in -- their technological edge. (Not that I like what's been sliced up with that edge recently, but living in a declining country is an unpleasant prospect...).
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Word of advice; personally, I wouldn't accuse the SCO folks of running an illegal pump-and-dump scam in a public forum, since that could potentially lead to a libel suit. Since you've represented this as fact and not opinion, I'd say you're at pretty high risk...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The law professor's commentary suggests that while this case is being spun against open source software and could certainly affect it, the case is also an example that demonstrates significant problems in the software licensing of proprietary code. Given further analysis, the commentary could be developed into a thorough examination into the problems of software licensing and proprietary software. If the proper legal analysis was completed by reputable individuals, the resulting work could be published nation-wide in various reputable magazines, journals, and newspapers. The analysis could then be expanded throughout the IBM vs. SCO legal action. Let's change the focus of this case from Open Source ignores IP issues to the destructive nature of software licensing in business. If IBM wins, we get an "I told you so" card and the momentum behind open source could hit critical mass and be a BIG win. If SCO wins, it won't just be a blow against open source, but it will be a blow against every business since the powers of the copyright holder concerning software will increase by an order of magnitude. SCO and others are spinning this case against open source with no published evidence, just unsubstantiated legal claims. For any ip lawyer who reads slashdot, we need you. Competent analysis of this case is essential. The outcome of this case is either going to benefit software development or hinder software development, both proprietary and open source. Let's stop allowing SCO to spin this case without substantiating any of their claims, let's spin the case to show what it is really about, software licensing. Let's do it not with unsubstatiated claims, but with superb ongoing legal analysis of the situation throughout the progress of the case. Thank you.
T'is very true. If I point a CEO or CTO to my article on Kuro5hin, they'll just yawn and walk away. On the other hand, if I point them to the same article signed by a lawyer and law professor, they're a bit more likely to sit up, take notice and possibly even sell their inflated SCO stocks.
If I say "Let's go to war against North Korea", people talk about putting me in a psyche ward.
If Bush says "Let's go to war against North Korea", people go and buy duct tape and plastic(!).
The difference is not the words, it's who says it and how people listen to them that counts.q1
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
They didn't win, MS settled.
What's especially interesting about that case, is when Caldera acquired DR-DOS it was already effectively destroyed and devalued, and presumably Caldera paid much less for it when they acquired it (like buying a car that's already wrecked from a scrapyard, and then suing whoever wrecked it, in my view).
The people who would have suffered any real damages from MS's conduct would have been primarily DR, and possibly Novell. But Caldera was the one who sued and ended up getting the settlement.