Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Sues SCO, Sets Up Legal Fund
An anonymous reader writes "Red Hat has released a PR Newswire article stating that it intends to sue SCO Group to prove that it doesn't infringe any of SCO's intellectual property regarding the Red Hat Linux platform, and to hold it accountable for its actions and smear campaign. They've also announced the creation of a legal fund, to which they've pledged $1M US dollars to fight complaints such as these, called the 'Open Source Now' fund."
Does this help RedHat's customers? I mean, SCO can't really do anything to RedHat's customers while they are involved in a lawsuit with RedHat themselves?
Or can they? I honestly don't know...
While I agree that it should be IBM doing this, it actually may be better in the long run that it is *not* IBM as it keeps the legal arguments cleaner this way.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
The people, especially those in the corporate world, have to be clearly shown how absurd and evil SCOs actions have been.
I almost think that not enough emphasis is being placed on this point. SCO should have notified of their intent to sue way, way, beforehand. What they did instead was basically say "Here's your month, and tell us how you're using Linux in each and every aspect of your company, and also pay us these fines." Sorry, can't do that. From a court's perspective, their claim of plagiarism may or may not be valid -- their method for going about this is definitely invalid.
The coolest voice ever.
This is quite interesting, and should impact SCO considerably. By initiating this action, Red Hat can enter the "discovery" phase, which will allow the lawyers (and developers?) to see the ALL of the code that SCO says infringes on their intellectual property.
The end result should be that Red Hat will be able to wipe away the FUD, and get down to the bottom of what SCO really owns. Assuming SCO owns anything, Red Hat can then begin work on removing that code. Also, if Red Hat wins, they will probably get monetary damages, which always helps.
Go Red Hat!
(Now I suppose I should actually buy the distro instead of downloading the ISO's...)
-Mark
The uncertainty around Linux is hurting RedHat now. This isn't necessarily a billion dollar lawsuit. They are basically just saying "put up or shut up". Maybe IBM will contribute to the fund. IBM is fighting its own lawsuit. Remember, IBM doesn't sell their own Linux, they package other RedHat and SUSE. Nobody should want IBM to open up its big bag-o-patents as this is somewhat of a Pandora's box.
The important thing is that RedHat is trying to force SCO's hand rather than just waiting for SCO to start suing it or its customers. If there is infringing code, hopefully SCO will have to say what it is.
From the ZDNET article:
"We have asked the courts to declare no violation of intellectual property and trade secrets have occurred," Szulik said. "We've been patient, we've listened, but when our customers and the whole open-source community are threatened with innuendo and rumor, it's time to act."
They can count on all the money I can spare. We have waited for a long time for a Legal Fund to be formed and here is it, let's put our wallets where our mouth is and start helping our side with the real tool that can deliver this FUDfest to an end (in the end the truth or justice will not be the fundamental matter to settle this): money.
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
somebody stood up and said "Yea? Well so'z your ol' man."
The moment somebody didn't roll over and play dead, they were screwed. The whole thing will fall apart with SCO not being able to defend itself against a civil damages counter-suit. The Linux will probably will probably start a class action suit against SCO demanding trade-lost and punitive damages and it may come to criminal proceedings with SCO's CEO finhgting to stay out of "Club Fed."
Then SCO's share holders will want to hang him by his SCrOtum because SCO's client base will get offers to move over to Linux for free and share price will free-fall.
Want a prediction? SCO doesn't survive until X-Mass.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
It's interesting to see that we look at the amount of money a company has in order to figure out who is most likely to come out on top when it comes to litigation.
IBM is no more philantropical or free software friendly than SCO. They have only been promoting open standards (very) recently to cut costs. For them Linux is not a philosophy, but just an open standard, that is conveniently not under control of a competititor, and by investing in it, they probably have more control over it than any other company.
In the long run they probably reckon that surrendering some of their IP to linux is cheaper than continuing to develop and support 3 different operating systems/platforms for essentially the same hardware.
In short: IBM will float the bill only if it is in their own interest.
p.s. IBM pay my rent. They are ace. I love IBM. \0/
RedHat has to be in this fight.
/.er. RedHat is the flag bearer for Linux right now. That can change if the Linux culture turns against it. If RedHat does not defend Linux, people will remember that fact for a long time.
RedHat speaks, lives, and breathes GNU. They understand the real issues at steak in this fight, while the team of lawyers at IBM are looking at the cost benefits of fighting vs. settling.
If SCO wins it's a disruption (big but not fatal) for IBM. It's a death nell for RedHat.
IBM may have the deep pockets, but if the ruling went against Big Blue they could always resort to options that leave Linux hanging in the wind. IBM has the resources to build a new operating system from scratch if need be.
And then there's the culture of OSS developers to consider. If RedHat doesn't throw down at some point, they will never be forgiven be the likes of the average
Red Hat may win. That would prove that it is illegal to talk bad about your competetor.
/. is in trouble. No one can post anything bad about them.
No, it would prove that it is illegal to make false claims about your competitor.
The Microsoft can sue anyone who uses a dollar sign in place of an s when referring to them.
No again.
Then
And a final no. This might help you.
Wow, guess I touched a nerve with that one...overrated *and* offtopic, for a simple analogy? Seemed a reasonable one to me, too. Ah, well, the collective wisdom (cough) has spoken. :)
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
True, but it is a simple equation I'm afraid.
The larger company, the better lawyers it can afford and the longer it can keep up an expensive legal battle.
It may not be fair, but it is the way the legal system works.
It's the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.
What an unfortunate side effect of corporations legislated as humans.
Nah. At the risk of taking a too cynical view, I think Red Hat may have observed the recent spikes in SCO's stock price and decided to do a little pumping themselves. Maybe they figure if the idiot investors of the world thought SCO's stock should be more valuable because they made waves with their lawsuit and general FUD, that Red Hat could appeal to the Linux loyalists and maybe the other half of the idiot investors and do a little pumping of their own.
I wonder if the primary purpose of the new fund would be to finance a class action suit by kernel developers against SCO for GPL violations? Think of it - Many individual developers could not afford to bring suit on their own against SCO, but they could if they were part of a class action suit funded by RedHat.
The wording is kind of vague, but that is what the announcement implies to me.An ounce of perception is worth a pound of obscure
"With that and the fact that they almost certainly have a rock solid case, the fact is they should sue the shit out of SCO."
Actually, they probably have no idea whether or not SCO has a case. This move is good, however, because it forces SCO to show their cards, like calling someone in poker to see if he's bluffing.
Vote for Pedro
Rubbish. Microsoft relies on the government-granted monopoly of copyright (and lately patent). Microsoft represents levels of control over information dissemination that Stalin could only dream of via DRM. Microsoft is fundamentally anticapitalist, and represents a 45-billion dollar black hole sucking in capital from companies that might have otherwise produced something physical and useful.
It is about time some company/someone did something serious about this. IBM's just standing there, unmovable, almost playing with SCO, whose efforts to attack them are like water off a duck's back. It's a bit like a cat playing with a mouse before it eats it. And after Novell's rather brief and quickly-dismissed effort, we have been left wondering, to an extent...
:)
And of course, the users who matter, businesses - at least some of them - have been getting scared shitless by the threat of litigation. In these uncertain economic times, who can blame them? Slashdotters may see through SCO's FUD, but we are rather a fringe group in society as a whole, and the average Pointy-Haired just sees "Lawsuit!" and thinks "Run."
Whether this be IBM-funded or a wholly Red Hat initiated effort (although the former seems far more likely, given the relationship between the two companies), it is much needed. Although the SCO FUD seems to have lessened somewhat in the past few days (I'm using that good ole indicator of Number of Slashdot Stories), the damage has been not inconsiderable.
And then the Open Source Now Fund - such a wonderful response to Microsoft's undertaking to underwrite any legal costs incurred by their customers as a result of similar disputes. The community was, I think, left reeling somewhat as to this rather clever attack on open source, an attack which exploited its distributed nature of development and limited accountability. Once again, a solution has been found. (I suppose, perhaps, Michael Robertson might have done something otherwise...)
Let's hope this whole mess is resolved reasonably quickly now. To be frank, questions ought to be asked of a country/legal system where a company can get away with such shocking behaviour for so long, but that, maybe, is for the aftermath...
iqu
There's a second reason for RedHat to file it's own case against SCO: The SCO/IBM lawsuit is a complicated case that could go on for years. SCO could bury Linux under an avalanche of FUD by then. On the other hand, a lawsuit for declaratory relief could go much faster. In a realatively simple case, RH could simply say:
The nice thing about this is that -- especially if it avoids any contentious facts, it could be ammenable to a summary finding in a few mnths rather than waiting a generation or two for the IBM suit to wind it's way through the courts.
A declaration of GPLization of the code would pretty much absolve Red Hat of any claim by SCO. It might also leave SCO open to suits by Copyright owners of Linux that SCO has been in violation of the GPL by threatening users of that same code P>With a declaration that Linux is 'clean' visa-vis SCO, those secondary suits can afford to take the more leisurely pace that more commonly follow.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
1. If the Red Hat vs. SCO goes to trial before SCO vs. IBM SCO will need to substantiate their claims earlier then they would have wanted giving IBM prep time.
2. Red Hat may or may not be big enough to fight SCO however SCO will burn through money fighting them. This could be the first of several lawsuits brought against SCO because of its recent tactics.
3. SCO is trying to convince Linux users to purchase Unix licenses to protect themselves from lawsuits. This type of blackmail should not be tolerated and could end up hurting companies like Red Hat. It would stand to reason that Red Hat would wish to protect their customers and this lawsuit should create confidence within the Linux market. (Something people have been worried about)
I applaud Red Hat.
Red Hat: 1.142B link
Novel: 1.337B link
IBM: 139.9B link [yahoo.com]
One thing to notice, though, is that SCO's market cap is almost entirely dependent on a lawsuit built on what is (so far) very sketchy facts. If/when that bubble bursts, they could easily end up a penny stock (again).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Just commenting on point 2.
If we assume that justice prevails, and the right side wins, then size and amount of money doesn't matter. Hence point 2 seems to suggest to me that SCO wastes a little bit of money beating Red Hat. This isn't good. That gives SCO a very important win under their belt. And Red Hat would not bring forward a case they thought they would lose just to get SCO to waste some money.
Red Hat must seriously think they have a case, and they have the size and money to win it. I hope they are right.
If you look at the competitive space where Linux is growing up, you see two kinds of companies striving for business.
One kind of company sees the writing on wall. These companies realize what FLOSS is, and have redefined themselves under this new reality. These companies are usually content to compete on a level playing field in this respect. They are all trying to incorporate Linux and Open Source into their business, with various degrees of success. Most companies fit into this group: IBM, Novell, Oracle, SGI, Dell, etc.
The other kind of company will settle for no less than complete domination of the market on their own terms: Sun and Microsoft. Sun is interesting because it wants to play both sides of the fence, but I gather they would rather NOT share in the Linux goodness with their competitors if they can help it.
Microsoft will sit and deny that Linux is even viable until they are completely engulfed by it. Witness the Internet.
These enemies of Linux and Free/Open Source have discovered their anti-Linux efforts to be futile. According to leaked Microsoft documents, smear campaigns were in fact counter-productive. The interesting conclusion was that the best attack on Linux was a legal attack. Apparently Microsoft's market research shows that fear of being sued is the biggest deterrent to Linux deployments.
So this is their trump card. If they can stir up fear of litigation, they can point at Linux and say, "Look, no indemnification there! Buy us instead." SCO is just a pawn in this gambit - I don't think anyone expects them to survive the play.
By providing a legal fund to developers of GPL software, Red Hat begins to undermine these tactics used by Microsoft and Sun.
I like this fund because it appears to benefit the community as a whole and not just Red Hat customers. I sincerely hope that other companies pick up on this idea, and decide to contribute to the fund.
If anything, this gives us an idea of how we can provide indemnification to Linux users in general. Perhaps a general fund for all Linux _users_ would be appropriate, with the option to purchase a renewable policy against it (from a community run non-profit group). The community could evaluate claims against this "insurance" and assign legal resources to litigate it if needed. At any rate, owning a policy would guarantee a level of financial coverage. Non-policy owners could also get help, depending on circumstances and the merits of their case.
I see this as a way for the politicaly motivated community members to contribute where they might not be able to give code.
why not a SCO section? There's more SCO news these days
Uh, because Apple will be making the news a lot longer than SCO will be?
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Kudos to Redhat for doing what the FSF should have already done. Now's the time to give money to Redhat or you may end up giving money to SCO instead. After years of free Linux use, I'm inclined to donate for it's future.
Perhaps the anti-trust background and lawsuits of IBM's past made them wake up, and turn into a responsible company.
I don't know if "responsible" is necessarily the right word, but it's definitely true that IBM's anti-trust problems of 20+ years ago have had a major impact on the company's corporate culture -- and the effect was a very good one.
Everyone knows that if you want to be around for the long haul, what you need isn't just business, but *repeat* business. Find a way to hang onto the customers you have, and then focus on getting new ones. The obvious way to do this in the computer industry is with vendor lock-in, but IBM went down that road and found a world of hurt at the end of it. Since IBM was pretty much barred from playing the lock-in game, the company was forced to push open standards. In the process, IBM discovered that when you've got good technology, open standards and head to head competition can be very profitable.
Then IBM realized that its size and stature in the industry meant that it was possible for customers to buy IBM consulting and services even when they were buying competitors product, *and* that doing services not only gave IBM an entre to more easily sell its products, but also provided great insight into what it was that customers needed. Those realizations only came about because of the newfound understanding of the value of openness, but they really reinforced that understanding, because if you want to sell technology services, you have to be seen as somewhat technology agnostic, with a real do-what's-best-for-the-client attitude -- though everyone understands that, all else being close to equal, the IBM people will recommend a Blue solution. And customers are cool with that.
And that was IBM's big discovery: By being the vendor-agnostic integrator, you can give your own products a significant edge, and as long as you do good work, the clients will be perfectly happy with it. As long as they don't feel locked-in, customers *like* the security of a single technology provider, and no one else can play that game like IBM.
Linux, apache, etc., play right into this, because IBM can be "neutral" without giving business to competitors. IBM's consultants can push clients toward Linux-based solutions -- and OSS is clearly as open and non locked-in as you can get, right? -- while simultaneously building some great hardware that runs it better than anyone else's (z-series, anyone?), plus lots of great software to keep pushing the hardware requirements. And they make money on the hardware, and the software, and the services professionals that are quietly painting the entire I/T infrastructure Blue.
So, I wouldn't call it corporate "responsibility", exactly, but there's definitely an understanding in IBM that openness can be used as leverage to fend off the competitors while the company uses its massive resources to get and keep customers, and that this is ultimately a much more profitable and sustainable approach than trying to lock customers in, which just makes them want to escape.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.