Slashdot Mirror
SCO Taking Linux Discussion To Japan
levin writes "EETimes is carrying a new story about our good friend Darl McBride, CEO of SCO. His latest escapades include a trip to Japan in response to the CE Linux Forum initiative undertaken by several big-name Japanese tech firms such as Sony and Toshiba. He's putting his famous tainted code dog-and-pony show on parade, trying to influence some of the major CELF founders."
For what?
I remember we use to use this EMC datamovers on the controller server that was hooked up to the things. Besides that, I knew of only one other company that used them.
ACK
"McBride, who is fluent in Japanese, will visit with several founding members to show them code samples in which the Linux open-source operating system allegedly violates SCO's Unix patents, said an SCO spokesman."
I wonder if he's dumb enough to think they'll sign a non-disclosure?
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
"McBride, who is fluent in Japanese, will visit with several founding members to show them code samples in which the Linux open-source operating system allegedly violates SCO's Unix patents, said an SCO spokesman."
Something tells me that he won't need to use his Japanese much to understand their response. Laughter transcends language, after all.
-- Fratz, human
end of line
It seems that if you really want to advance the state of Linux, doing things to bring about the downfall of SCO and to convince others never to follow in their footsteps should receive as much attention at the moment as, say, improving the user interface. In other words, I think getting a few of the sharpest people in the Linux world leading the effort to mess with SCO might take away Linux's greatest threat.
I'm neither a programmer nor a Linux user, and I'll readily acknowledge I don't know what the hell I'm talking about here. But I'd be really interested to hear ideas about how the Linux community could organize an open-source style project, not to create software, but to help wipe SCO off the map. To start with, what would such a group look like, and what would its immediate short-term projects be?
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
top execs.
Something I read on yahoo message board.
----
Specifically quoted from their FORM 8-A/A SEC filing. Last sentence of page 3 in the Bylaws section:
"The Bylaws also provide that the Company will indemnify officers and directors against losses that they may incur in investigations and legal proceedings resulting from their services to the Company,"
So as far as I can tell the Company could care less whether or not what they did was legal or ethical.
IBM has the code to both SCO and Linux, why don't they find out the offending chunks and release a patch to romove them. The Linux community can then rewrite these peices of code and the problem goes away.
Unless ofcourse IBM thinks that would be an admission of guilt and therefore screw them.
In this zdnet article (who else!) from 2002, Darly Baby says:
"And C++ programming languages, we own those, have licensed them out multiple times, obviously"
Watch yer arse Stroustrup! Darls coming to get you!
The courts will do that in the US. As soon as this hits a court-room there are one of two outcomes I expect: 1) it gets thrown out on the basis that SCO has spent so much time trying this case in the court of public opinion that a court decision would be a meaningless adjunct to SCO PR 2) SCO is made to shut up for the duration of the case. I think 2 is far more likey, but SCO's in for a nasty bit of bonking on the head for their behavior.
Judges don't tend to be fond of those who would use their courts for PR purposes.
I got this post from the yahoo message boards, the guy has a good point:
t m
-----
by: martin_lvnv (41/M/Las Vegas) 07/07/03 04:44 pm
Msg: 18108 of 18112
Has anyone considered how strange it is that Darl is going to Japan to talk to the CE Linux Forum? CE stands for consumer electronics: i.e. very small embedded systems running out of ROM most of the time without a hard drive on a small cheap processor.
SCOs published claims both from press releases, news reports and their own complaint are about IBM putting "enterprise" technology into Linux: NUMA, JFS, RCU, SMP etc. None of these things apply in the least to embedded systems running out of ROM on a consumer electronic device. Whats up with that?
My only guess is that SCOs arrogance knows no bounds and they think anything using a computer chip, even a toaster, has to infringe on SCOs IP.
http://www.celinuxforum.org/PressRelease/pr02.h
I worked on an IP case as a paralegal once that involved the Japenese Patent and Copyright office. It is an amazingly complex system over there and I doubt that SCO would be able to do anything to them even it wanted to. Even if they tried to get a UTC injunction against the importation of the Linux embedded goods, they would still be limited to getting the infringing pieces removed. While I am not a developer, it certainly seems from what I have read that replacing the offending code would not be terribly onerous.
In the end, however, I can see potentially large blows coming to either the Linux community or SCO depending on how the companies respond to the presentation.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
IAAL, but despite the fact that I've worked on copyright and patent litigations, I'm no expert. With that disclaimer, a couple of words about what little I do know:
1. SCO's suit, at least so far, isn't a copyright case, it's a contract breach claim against IBM.
2. In a contract suit there is a doctrine called "mitigation of damages," which says you can't get damages from the other party for harm you could reasonably have avoided. I'd take this to mean that SCO can't get damages for any use of its code that occurred after the point where IBM could have stopped using it if it had been notified by SCO.
3. Like everyone else, I'm very puzzled by SCO's failure to specify the offending code, and its lame excuses for that failure. OTOH, David Boies is a *very* good attorney, and if this is as lame a case as SCO's management is making it appear, I can't understand why he's still representing them. So the upshot is, as someone said in a response above, we'll just have to stay tuned (for a couple of years? arrgghh) and wait for this thing to play out.
"The 1,500 companies who received letters from SCO [about potential infringements] should be worried, big time," said Rob Enderle, a research fellow for the Giga Information Group (Santa Clara, Calif.). Based on what he saw, Enderle said, "The evidence appears to be very compelling."
Ohh.. Rob Enderle a previous IBM employee whose research and client list includes "Anticipating changes in Microsoft products and organizational direction" and "Microsoft". Sound like someone I'd trust to comment on SCO vs IBM? Yeah...
This is really bordering on the ridiculous! The few specific (sort of) claims that SCO has mentioned about stolen IP that ended up in the kernel had to do with:
1. SMP support
2. journaling filesystem
(correct me if I am wrong or I missed something else that SCO has mentioned)
Now how in the hell can these issues be related to embedded Linux applications? I mean, yeah, I can see how the definition of embedded systems is creeping up to include the capabilities of general purpose computing platforms, but unless I missed something from SCO, how can they be threatening this consortium with what they claim as the basis for their lawsuit against IBM?
Isn't it time for the courts (like they did in Germany) to force these people to put up or shut up? If there is offending code in the Linux kernel, which I personally doubt, it should be fairly obvious IF it was copied and, with a little work, WHERE it was copied from. If there are discoveries that need to be made to determine exactly where it came from and who stole what from whom, then making this a PUBLIC discussion with full disclosure and as many eyes as possible looking at it can do nothing but help SCO's case, if they have one.
If they don't have a case, surely there are some legal remedies available to the companies (like the consortium mentioned in this article) for compensation for their time and effort wasted on groundless accusations. And, if SCO wants to drag this out to the maximum, can't they be forced to post a (huge) bond against potential awards of damages?
...why does nobody stop these ridiculus claims of SCO ? It can be done as it has been already proven in Germany. Nobody can make false accusations without giving proof. Any Linux distributer or the EFF or other interest groups can sue them. And if one does this SCO would to have to show the code or STFU. It also raises the question why IBM doesn't do this.
Several reasons:
- it costs money to sue. Without a reasonable expectation of a return of that money in the form of an award for damaages, it's a poor risk.
- is the code from Sequent subject to SCO licensing and IP owership with regard to their contract with IBM for license rights to Unix?
- what of the GPL? This is clearly the biggest question for the Linux community, and much less so for IBM
- Who really has a horse in this race? Marketing considerations aside, what risk does Suse, RedHat, Mandrake, et al have in the SCO vs. IBM suit? Until they are sued by SCO--and it will come in some shape or form regardless of the SCO vs. IBM outcome, unless IBM just buys them--what do they have to worry about that they can do something about?
"It shows how entrenched Linux has become," said Victor Yodaiken, CEO of FSMLabs Inc. (Socorro, N.M.), a maker of real-time software for Linux.
Aah... yes. Last time I checked, FSMLabs was trying to undermine the GPL by offering kernel patches which use FSMLabs proprietary patented technology. The situation has become better due to massive intervention of the FSF since then, but is still somewhat uncertain.
It's scary that this is a time where even the foe of our foe is not necessarily our friend.
My non-lawyer understanding is that US courts can be really unwelcoming if you're not directly affected. A judge might say "Has SCO sued you? Sent a cease-and-desist? Have they even mentioned you by name? No? Then mind your own business".
US courts are also Very Expensive. Anyone who jumped in now would be doing IBM's work for them, and paying kerjillions of dollars to do so.
What IBM gains by waiting is that every time an SCO executive opens his mouth, IBM's lawyers have one more thing to cross-examine him about.
At least, he works for clients who want him to say that linux sucks, which can be seen here for instance (thanks to Anon on osnews for that link)
"Linux and other open source projects require too much customization, and doubts about the legitimacy of open source code could get users tangled up in lawsuits. Besides, many Linux supporters are a bunch of potty-mouthed malcontents. Enterprises are better off staying away from Linux and open source -- or at least thinking through the possible liabilities, argues guest columnist Rob Enderle."
Belief is the currency of delusion.
How is it this person can say this without violating the NDA? Does SCO have to enforce all violations of the NDA, or just selective ones? I guess SCO could allow this person to view it without an NDA, provided they say this.
Thoughts?
-- bearclaw
It would be damned hard to prove libel in the US. But what about the UK. If I recall correctly, the libel laws in the UK are such that the burden of proof is on the defendent. If SCO has a business prescence in the UK, and someone were to sue them there, they'd be forced to either accept a guilty verdict, or make their "proof" public. win-win for the linux community
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose
In the beginning when SCO first made its allegations , I was frightened beyond belief that this could be true, but as this whole matter got carried on and the lack of respect and unprofessianlism that SCO shows as a company has made me deteste and put less faith in the company. I am not saying that it may have a case or not but who wants to deal with a company who chooses this method as a means of fighting back to regain its so called lost IP rights so much so that it has to flood the airwaves with pleads and cries. And yes , I do say it is pleading cause it seems more like a company who just got a wound and rather than getting antibiotic and a bandaid it wants to rub the wound even more. Rather than directing the Opensource communtity to correct their problems and so both OSs can exist harmoniously it now wants to go after open source markets :). This is not the sort of company I want to invest in if the only way it can make money is in bullying and extorting its own customers and customers of other companies. SCO's OS can never gain as much popularity as the linux OS cause it is this IP protocol that has limited its growth and direction because only the IP holders can dictate its direction. Linux has no one IP holder and each one of the many talented programmers who code for it and also for the various GNU produts that support it continue to expand its boundaries something that SCO can not stop with threats because simply linux is doing what sco can't which is "INNOVATE". Something that SCO doesn't seem to be able to do.... So SCO can sitback and grow green with envy as Linux develops and innovates into new untapped areas cause SCO can never innovate better than linux, have as large a following of developers and fans as linux, be as flexible as linux and allow its users to expand its ability and growth as linux, but most importantly SCO can never own or be linux. Linux exists in the hearts and minds of those who use and develop the OS and as long as those remain creative free and open linux will continue to innovate and grow and there is nothing SCO , Microsoft or any anti linux or anti GNU supporter can do about it.
Didn't SCO say that the "stolen" code was Enterpise stuff that Only could come from SCO. Didn't they also claim that this code was Intel based? What the heck is this all about then. Embedded systems are not Enterpise systems. A lot of Embedded systems do not use Intel CPUS. Why do I get a feeling that Sony was laughing there butts off at this guy. Well we can hope.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Mod parent+ up.
It's very important that Slashdot stays on top of this, so that people in the IT world who *are* following it know that we are very, very seriously concerned about what is going on (and seriously pissed off).
This cannot be a fly by night sort of thing. It has to be, and will be, fought to the death. SCO's death. Hopefully any other companies out there who consider these sort of public FUD tactics will have second thoughts after this is all over. (I'm NOT mentioning any names, they know who they are)
The power of the linux community is not in it's lawyer division, nor even in it's programming expertise; it's in the huge number of users who believe that Open Source Software can and does work. If that sounds religious, so be it (and you can kiss my shiny metal ass, Enderle)
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
More to the point, the comparison in question raises some genuine concerns, and looks very much like showmanship rather than a balanced analysis. Like:
1. Neither of the two analysts are experts in the field.
2. The two analysts were shown limited and carefully chosen code segments, selected by SCO - see also #1. It isn't difficult to present a compelling case to a non-expert based on selections of a few hundred lines of code from a code base of that size.
3. SCO hasn't demonstrated the provenance of the code in question. Merely showing similarity doesn't help.
4. The accounts of the analysts themselves raise questions. All of the "lines of code" referred to with similarities such as "copyright messages", "typos" and "misspellings" doesn't sound like lines of code, rather comments. Something kind of funny here. Not to mention, and this is very important, whose copyright message? If there is a matching copyright message in the SCO code base and the Linux kernel, and the code is proprietary, it seems inconceivable that it would have been checked into the kernel tree without anybody noticing.
5. Oh, yes. Which kernel tree is this supposed to be in?
6. Why hasn't SCO told us answers to any of these already? #5 is a particularly important one, btw
I could go on. There's many more questions here. The point being, repeated quotes from two analysts under the circumstances is hardly conclusive. I guess we'll all find out eventually.
It'll all be evidence against him in his "unfair restraint of trade" lawsuit that someone will no doubt bring against SCO when they lose the IBM suit...
I predict that SCO will not be bought out and will not make big bucks suing people. I predict that THEY will be sued and brought to bankruptcy by the lawsuits within the next couple of years.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
This is one of those cases where it's obvious what's going on, but the party that buys the lawyers and the PR firm prevents the truth from being proven in court. (Look at OJ Simpson's first trial for another example of this.) It's obvious to us that MS "bought a license" from SCO as a way to funnel money to a dying company, in exchange for which it would launch a massive FUD campaign against Linux. MS looks clean but the damage is done. SCO execs make some money. The SEC has been squeezed of funds so it won't ever bring the case to trial.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Two things
0 7-03.cfm, Caldera bought DR-DOS $400K, but got from law suit $155,000,000.
e .jhtml?articleID=10818216
0 .html also has a SCO spokesman refering to patents
1. According to http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2003/city_2003-
As far as I know (I guess somebody could check) they didn't purchase the UNIX source, or value it in their SEC reports, for anything like $1bn, or $3bn, let alone $50bn... so how can they claim billions of damages, if they bought it for a few millions, and valued it of the same order?
2. I keep seeing patents in lots of news articles about the case. My understanding is the case is about alleged contractual violations, alleged trade secret issues and alleged unfair competition etc.,
http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticl
"McBride, who is fluent in Japanese, will visit with several founding members to show them code samples in which the Linux open-source operating system allegedly violates SCO's Unix patents, said an SCO spokesman"
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,59551,0
So the obvious questions are:
- Is the press getting it wrong?
- If the press is indeed getting it wrong, why are they (and not just one news source) getting it wrong?
Just want to straighten everyone out on the Caldera suit against MS several years ago. A lot of people here seem to regard that suit as part of the same pattern SCO is persuing in the current fiasco.
In fact, Caldera's suit agains MS was far more similiar to Netscape's. MS screwed DR-DOS in the market-place with FUD, and technically by coding Windows 3.1 to break under it. Given MS-DOS's origins, it's likely that it had lots of copied code from it.
Furthermore, Darl & Co. weren't involved in the DR-DOS suit. Ray Noorda basically took it from Novell (or off their hands) when he left to run Caldera.
A lot of people approved of Caldera's actions at the time, because they clearly had a strong case and it was also clear that MS had strong-armed DR-DOS in the same way that eventually got them pulled into anti-trust court and declared a monopoly.
In other words, the DR-DOS case was a very different situation with a largely different set of characters involved. Microsoft deserved what it got there.
Linux, however, clearly doesn't deserve this shit.
Can we just moderate SCO -1 Troll
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that
Francis Smit