Slashdot Mirror
IBM Countersues SCO, And More!
mr.crutch writes "Few details are available, but CNet is reporting that IBM has filed counterclaims against SCO. CNet also has an interview with Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik..." Jizzbug writes "Thanks to the folks of K5, we can all obtain our rights to use the Linux kernel from SCO, and without paying up to SCO's extortion. If kernel.org kernels aren't safe, sco.com kernels certainly ought to be." LWN has a copy of SCO's Linux License for your perusal. Bruce Perens is speaking of the dangers of patent portfolios to open source software, notable because IBM's counterclaims include patent infringement. And finally, a company is selling SCO Check, a tool to de-SCOify your Linux system, if SCO ever presents any evidence whatsoever of infringing code in Linux. Update: 08/08 00:16 GMT by T : SCO's public response to IBM's counterclaim is short and to the point. Among other things, it says "If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license." Given the other links in this story, perhaps SCO should go first on that count.
I think that old Darl (www.tubdarl.com) bit off more than he can chew! IBM has more seasoned lawyers that specialize in patent cases than SCO has employees.
Anyone notice that SCO's stock slipped another 11% today? heh.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
Hope SCO managers cashed in ALL of their stock.
Sco is going down like Justin Timberlake at a Nambla meeting!
"SCO said it revoked IBM's license to ship AIX in June. In its countersuit, Big Blue reasserted its position that its AIX license is irrevocable and perpetual, but then added a new twist involving Novell, the company that owned Unix copyrights until selling them to SCO's predecessor in 1995.
;)
IBM's suit revealed that Novell on June 12 effectively forbade SCO from terminating IBM's AIX license. SCO said it revoked the AIX license on June 16. Novell maintained the right to issue such instructions to SCO under the terms of the Unix sale, the suit said. "
Does anyone know anything more about this?
I know tht Novell apparently DID sell the copyrights, but this is a news Item...
Bruce Perens might want to help clarifiy this for us
-Colin
Colin Davis
Considering the fact that IBM popularized the practice of litigating a company till they run out of money to fight... it shouldn't take long for this one to end.
There's another story here that has more details, including:
In its 45-page complaint, IBM claims SCO Group's products violate four IBM patents and claims SCO Group doesn't have the right to revoke IBM's Unix license. IBM also claims SCO Group has violated the general public license, or the GNU GPL, under which Linux is distributed.
The Armonk, N.Y., computer giant seeks unspecified monetary damages and an injunction requiring SCO Group to stop violating IBM patents and refrain from misrepresenting its intellectual-property rights.
It also says that a spokesman for SCO wasn't immediately available to comment, I guess they haven't recovered from being bitch-slapped yet. I suppose that this means we'll also have the obligatory conference call tomorrow, or soon after, where Darl will blow some more hot air out of that ass that sits on his neck.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Generally, I would say that linking to a 25 meg file from the front page of Slashdot is unconscionable. But in this case, perhaps it should be seen as an act of patriotism.
And finally, a company is selling SCO Check...
I'd be more than happy to sell my own de-SCO-ifier program for a mere $699 per license.
(i am not a lawyer and any advice given here is purely to take the piss out of everything and everyone, i will not be held responsible for anything, even my own actions)
All I Want For Christmas Is My Constitutional Rights
BM is seeking unspecified monetary damages and an injunction stopping SCO from shipping its software
I'm guessing that in the end, this will be a big number, but perhaps IBM will go for a settlement that involves SCO execs, bricks, and deep water.
Seriously, if anything this whole fiasco is probably as much good publicity for IBM as it is bad to SCO. IBM gets to lay on the smack-down, and they end up looking very much like a hero in the eyes of the linux users/developers.
go IBM!!
hehe being a macuser since the days of the Mac512k never thought i'd be so excited to cheer IBM.. haha GO IBM!!
I just bought a tool for $699 to De-SCO my windows 98 box. I'm not taking any chances.
I recommend you all buy the utility, the website is http://www.caldera.com/
We can only assume that it took IBM this long to prepare the suit because they wanted to ensure a crushing blow to the SCO extortion ring in one quick sweep.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
In a way, I'm glad it's IBM fighting the first big GPL court battle, rather than any of the advocacy organizations, which while strongly motivated and highly expert, are also woefully underfunded and would almost certainly lose in a drawn-out war of attrition.
For once, a corporate behemoth on our side...
I wanted to make money in the computer industry, so I choose to become a computer programmer, however now it looks like all the money to be made from the computer industry is being made by the lawyers.
When SCO dies, who will snatch up the assets it has (including if any valid IP)?
Who has more cash floating around than most?
M$... and that could get messy quickly.
Darl McBride: "We can't comment on the action yet. Our attorneys are still reviewing the court filing."
No Mr. McBride, your attorneys are already dead
All Linux distros need to do is place bright yellow sunburst stickers on their packaging claiming to be Guaranteed, 100% free of infringing SCO code, "for your piece of mind".
SCO really can't dispute that claim without offering proof, and once they offer proof, the distro can issue a patch removing the code from the system, assuming that there really is problem code
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
n/t
11*43+456^2
Wow, that's enough to keep SCO's lawyers busy until the money runs out :)
Vacancy for signature. Apply within.
Looks to me that big blue wont have to buy SCO. They will simply be awarded what's left of the company as a settlement. How poetic.
"And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."
According to the press reports I've read, there is no mention in IBM's counterclaim that it has the right to sell derivative software created by it. Now, it is just possible that the press reports are not the result of a careful reading of the filing, but I am surprised there is no mention of that and would be even more surprised if that were not in IBM's filing.
Anyone know of an online copy of the filing yet?
Comments should be informative... but all I can think to write is. BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH. IBM to SCO. -"There can be, Only One."
Reports I've seen this morning are that the filing contains several causes:
... in their OS. (I am assuming that those are the patents that IBM is accusing SCO of violating.)
1) SCO is infringing on four of IBM's patents.
2) SCO is interfering with IBM's business by claiming to have terminated IBM's license for AIX.
3) SCO is violating the GPL by distributing GPL'ed software without the GPL.
I hadn't thought about that first point before since I always took it for granted that SCO obtained permission from IBM to use RCU, NUMA,
This brings up an interesting question in my mind.
IBM has clearly intentionally released code under the GPL utilizing those patents. Under the GPL we are free to use and modify that code provided that if we distribute the code we do it under the GPL.
Suppose you write a new operating system designed for some specific purpose and the only code it uses from Linux is the code encapsulating those four IBM patents. The way I figure it, as long as you use the code in-house only or as long as you distribute the code under the GPL, there will be no patent infringement. Is that right?
Hope SCO managers cashed in ALL of their stock
Unfortunately for them, right now is the time between the close of last quarter and the official annoucement of results. The SEC generally frowns on insider sales during this time period. Gotta love Red Hat's timing.
The Cnet article says:
"IBM's suit revealed that Novell on June 12 effectively forbade SCO from terminating IBM's AIX license. SCO said it revoked the AIX license on June 16. Novell maintained the right to issue such instructions to SCO under the terms of the Unix sale, the suit said."
Am I the only one who takes this to mean that Novell can override actions regarding Unix IP and licensing?
Finally some decent action outta Big Blue. And coming soon, 1200+ /. comments to keep me busy reading for the rest of the day!
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
Hey Dale!!!!
I don't think IBM is going to buy your company!
This isn't working out like you wanted, is it?
If I were at IBM, I would have seen to it that we mentioned four patents are being infringed, but SCO will have to agree to our terms to find out what they are.
1. Sue IBM
2. ???????
3. Run for your life!
Considering the fact that Redhat recently filed a lawsuit, it looks like the "Linux Allies" are mobilized and are opening multiple fronts. What is interesting here is IBM's fighting for GPL, which means a team of highly paid attorneys will argue the viability of GPL. If this makes it to court, then GPL will have its test.
On another point, perhaps IBM holds the patent "process of suing other companies for patent violations as a means of revenue." If so, SCO is definitely in violation.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Not much there, here it is:
/usr/src/v er/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/linux -2.4.13-21S.src.rpm
How to use the 2.4 Linux kernel safely and legally. (Diaries)
By Entendre Entendre
Tue Aug 5th, 2003 at 05:43:46 PM EST
And without paying SCO's extortion license fees.
Originally posted as a comment but so much fun I had to give it a little more promotion.
cd
mkdir silly_sco
wget ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Ser
rpm2cpio linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm > sco.cpio
cpio -i --file sco.cpio
bzip2 -d linux-2.4.13.tar.bz2
tar -xf linux-2.4.13.tar
You'll find the license agreement in linux/COPYING
Compile, install, enjoy.
Before we go "Yay, GO IBM!" realize that IBMs patents are potentially as harmful to Open Source Software as they are to SCO. Fortunately, IBM pays a bit more than lip service to open source at this point, so it's not like they necessarily will use their patent repetoire against OSS, but just keep in mind that they *could*.
On the other hand, part of my really is saying:
"FSCK DARL MCBRIDE AND SCO! KICK 'EM WEAR IT COUNTS, IBM!"
My journal has hot
http://investor.news.com/Engine?Account=cnet&PageN ame=QUOTE&Ticker=SCOX
If the theroy holds, that every negative thing that causes SCaldera stock to fall prompts an even MORE bizzare release from SCO to get it back up, I wonder what we'll get by this evening?
SCO claiming that because AT&T once owned Unix that everyone with a phone owes them $700 for a license?
Corporatism != Free Market
I bought a single stock that I'm donating to the Darwin awards. First place is a lock for these jokers.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
For a legal, SCO Linux kernel (copied from K5):
/usr/src/v er/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/linux -2.4.13-21S.src.rpm
"cd
mkdir silly_sco
wget ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Ser
rpm2cpio linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm > sco.cpio
cpio -i --file sco.cpio
bzip2 -d linux-2.4.13.tar.bz2
tar -xf linux-2.4.13.tar
You'll find the license agreement in linux/COPYING
Compile, install, enjoy."
I'm guessing their site's been slashdotted... here's the original text:
/usr/src/v er/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/linux -2.4.13-21S.src.rpm
How to use the 2.4 Linux kernel safely and legally. (Diaries)
By Entendre Entendre
Tue Aug 5th, 2003 at 05:43:46 PM EST
And without paying SCO's extortion license fees.
Originally posted as a comment but so much fun I had to give it a little more promotion.
cd
mkdir silly_sco
wget ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Ser
rpm2cpio linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm > sco.cpio
cpio -i --file sco.cpio
bzip2 -d linux-2.4.13.tar.bz2
tar -xf linux-2.4.13.tar
You'll find the license agreement in linux/COPYING
Compile, install, enjoy.
The fact that Novell specifically, explicitly forbade SCO from revoking the AIX license, and the fact that SCO ignored this (despite knowing that they were contractually obligated to respect Novell's orders on this issue) shows that there was never an expectation that this would lead to a payout. This is all about the FUD. Case closed.
And in other news, SCOX is down 12% today.
It's good to see IBM taking a stand here. They've got the resources to hit SCO on so many fronts that capitulation will become the only option. Think about it - IBM has a huge stake in the growing acceptance of Linux, so has everything to gain by squashing SCO like a bug.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
This is the beginning of the end for SCO. You could argue that the end began when they first made their claims, but that was just a prelude. There's no story here, of course; We go right from ONCE UPON A TIME straight to THE END. But somehow we still get a bunch of fun implied drama.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
IBM also claims SCO Group has violated the general public license, or the GNU GPL, under which Linux is distributed.
Will this be the first time that the GPL has actually been used as part of a court preceeding? As far as I am aware all companies, who did not orginally comply, have felt that their public image was more important than a challenge of the GPL, and respected the contract of the GPL, even if it did take the FSF or public pressure.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Remembering that really awesome UNIX history map that Eric Levenez has, we could do a new map, the SCO Lawsuit Map.
It would start out at the beginning with the conclusion and subsequent sealing of records from Novell's days of UNIX and their court case. We could then move on, with the slow beginning to the conversion of Caldera Inc into SCOX, and discuss the posturing between SCO and IBM, moving on to SCO's lawsuit against IBM, SCO's unenforceable "deadline", their personal attacks against the likes of Linus Torvalds, discussions on their failure to provide code examples repeatedly, and the like. We can then get into their license extortion, the additional lawsuits, the countersuits, and the like.
I'd offer to do it, but I don't have powerful enough software to create such a map, according to SCO's claims on my OS...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Odd - I'm still getting 191KB/second - Come on, Slashdotters, you can do better than that!
Isn't the argument about SCO releasing a Linux distribution including the kernel under GPL a loose-loose situation for the GPL community?
I can see two outcomes:
The latter would make the acceptance of GPL as general purpose license even harder.
Yet Another Debian User
fencepost
just a little off
Well, actually, they can't.
IBM can't use the patents against the Linux kernel anymore than SCO can -- as IBM points out in its own brief, distribution of the source under the GPL prohibits you from certain legal tactics... like licensing. You are implicitly licensing any IP (copyrights, trade secrets, patents) that you may own that are applicable to the source you distribute. Don't like it? Don't distribute. Also don't use GPL code in a distributed product, since doing so requires distribution of the source.
Of course, one day a patch could come along that IBM doesn't like and it would cease to provide newer kernels including that patch in order to preserve its rights... but that's a battle that would have to be fought when that time comes. Most likely IBM would inform the relevant people of their rights and their intentions, and the code wouldn't be integrated into the kernel. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, or that software patents are a good thing, just pointing out how it would work.
Hoo-Boy. And here I was, starting to get upset that IBM and Red Hat were doing nothing to stop the fudwar.
Man, can IBM bitchslap or what? Not only are they targetting SCO, they're targetting the managements pocketbooks as much as possible. If that entire Novell blocking the revocation of the AIX licenses is true, then the shareholders have a beef which could ultimately lead to a class-action.
IBM for President!!!
So the big question; who shorted the stock? What was the price point and when do you plan to cash in? C'mon, fess up. We're all rooting for you to make a killing from SCO's flameout as we get the pleasure of watching Darl's FUD machine go crashing into the sea.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
IBM: Do you hear that, Mr. SCO? That is the sound of inevitability. That is the sound of your death. Goodbye, Mr. SCO.
SCO: Oh shit.
Here is a copy of the link on kuro5hin.org, There ISDN is overloaded :)
*ARTICLE*
How to use the 2.4 Linux kernel safely and legally. (Diaries)
By Entendre Entendre
Tue Aug 5th, 2003 at 05:43:46 PM EST
And without paying SCO's extortion license fees.
Originally posted as a comment but so much fun I had to give it a little more promotion.
cd /usr/src/
mkdir silly_sco
wget ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Serv er/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/linux -2.4.13-21S.src.rpm
rpm2cpio linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm > sco.cpio
cpio -i --file sco.cpio
bzip2 -d linux-2.4.13.tar.bz2
tar -xf linux-2.4.13.tar
You'll find the license agreement in linux/COPYING
Compile, install, enjoy.
In other news SCO's stock plummetted 11.4%.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
That settles it . We have finally decided who is the King. We have Slashdotted Kuro5hin , SCO and kernel.org all at once.
Good thing they did not link to IBM.
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
A key aspect in IBM's countersuit is the fact that they are paying to enforce - in the courts - the GPL.
IANAL, but to my knowledge, IBM vs. SCO is the first such case where the legality of the GPL has been tested in the courts.
Should IBM be victorious (actually, 'when' IBM is victorious), it would be a momentous occassion for the GPL - any future litigation involving the GPL would have an established, well-known legal case from which to draw references.
The net outcome of this entire ordeal could be the overall strengthening of open source software w/in the US legal system. If the GPL has withstood court scrutiny, it could act as a 'selling point' for countless corporations, government agencies, et al in consideration of OSS deployment w/in their organizations, as now the unassuredness of the legality of such software would have been resolved.
What claims to patents or infringements can IBM claim over IF SCO owns the rights. Seems to be from reading what I have it's a corporate he said she said.
"We have asked the courts to declare that no violation of intellectual property and trade secrets have occurred," Szulik said.
But if bits and pieces of SCO's license material was used, then a violation has occurred, whether one likes to admit it or not.
"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."
Don't want to play the devil's advocate here, but Redhat seems to have just jumped on the bandwagon. Something similar to the MS case from yonder when the competition all got together against the evil empire. Now the tables have changed. 's/MS/SCO/g'
The action is the most serious attempt so far to seize some of the initiative from SCO, owner of key Unix copyrights, in its legal actions against Linux.
SCO, owner of key Unix copyrights Role reversal... If it would have been Redhat who made claims against SCO with Redhat owning the patents, then everyone would have stood behind SCO. What many will overlook is what is already LAW, which is SCO, owner of key Unix copyrights
Personally I think this was done by SCO solely to make money off of licensing, and the bottom line is, if they own the copyrights to some of the core material, then maybe it's time for someone to spin off a new OS chuck SCO's stuff, and let them self-destruct on their own.
MoFscker
Actually, I'm surprised that IBM made a counter suite so quickly. The more Darl spouts off about the case and pursues new extortion tactics the weaker his suite becomes. The only conclusion that I can draw is that either that IBM thinks that they can finish of SCO right away, or they fear that the negative publicly has gotten so out of hand that it's hurting their products.
IBM argues in the counterclaims that SCO is prohibited from treating any code it distributed under the GPL as proprietary, and that its current plan to require payment from Linux users isn't legal.
Why, oh why, don't they seek an injunction against SCO contacting organizations and demanding royalties while this is pending? This is a no-brainer. They have alot more than they need!
I bet he's very "disappointed" that IBM countersued.
Heh.
Could IBM buy Novell next? That would could really put SCOs nickers in a know.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
McBride: What happen?
Ballmer: Somebody set up us the bitchslap.
Ballmer: We get lawsuit.
McBride: What!
McBride: Main screen turn on.
McBride: It's You!!
BigBlue: How are you gentlemen!!
BigBlue: All your rights are belong to us.
BigBlue: You are on the way to bankruptcy.
McBride: What you say!!
BigBlue: You have no chance to survive make your time.
BigBlue: Ha Ha Ha Ha
McBride: Take off every preferred share.
Ballmer: You know what you doing.
McBride: Move shares.
McBride: For great profit.
By the way SCO's stock is looking i wouldn't be surprise that, in true N.Korean fashion, SCO claims tomorrow to posses Nuclear Weapons, and demand one to one talks will the capitalist-scum IBM. Either that, or something about a mighty Jihad, Saurons dark forces, the mother of all court battles, the shadows, etc...
Anything to get those stocks back up so the execs can off load whatever shares they hadn't yet sold.
"In a way, I'm glad it's IBM fighting the first big GPL court battle"
IBM is an elephant on the battlefield of technology. It's great when the elephant is out trampling on the opposition. The problem is that they sometimes turn around and run back to stomp the other side, too. So today they're OSS heros, but tomorrow the elephant might be running the other direction.
while true that "one day" that could happen that someone will write feature that infringes an IBM patent that they don't want open source, IBM has also openly stated their goal to replace AIX with Linux, this to me means anything that AIX has Linux will get shortly, and then it will be their main platform so all of their patents will go directly there.
Stock is down 11.25% on the day as I type this. Probably just reactionary, but still...
Too bad, so sad.
Why is it K5 gets the credit for posting the link to SCO's linux source? I already did it here on slashdot back in July, and I am sure someone else probably has done it before me even. Sure, the K5 poster put up a short list of instructions, so I guess that'll help some people out who cant do their own research or know it already. Oh well.
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
printf("You're clean!\n");
return 0;
}
It's worth noting that IBM specifically named OpenServer and UnixWare for the patent infringement item, both proprietary apps never released under the GPL.
In any case, IBM releasing GPL'd code that uses its patents doesn't give away its patent rights. But if you're using the code yourself you're fine; the use you describe is GPL-compliant.
http://lamlaw.com/
My understanding is that IBM's Linux distribution policy is specfically crafted to make sure IBM doesn't lose the right to enforce it's patents, at least not on code they don't explicitly release.
Specifically, IBM doesn't actually distribute Linux, it partners with Suse and RedHat who do that for them. Sure they produce patches, but that's all you'll get from them, not the whole kernel.
So IBM has decided to give up the right to enforce the patent on, for example, RCU. They distributed the RCU patches as GPL. But if, for example, RedHat contributes some code to the kernel that contains IBM patented techniques, IBM can still enforce those patents because it never distributes non-IBM code.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Jeez, talk about your Landshark Rush! This is going to get horribly violent ... and I like it! Woo-hoo!
Boot to the head! Na na
Boot to the head! Na na
Boot to the head! Na na
Boot to the head! Na na...
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
This is not investment advice.
I finally found out why there are no shares of SCOX to short. As most everyone knows, shorting is the process where you sell a stock with the intent to buy it back later at a cheaper price. In other words, it is the opposite of buying a stock. Therefore, if the stock goes up in price, you are losing money; if it goes down you are making money... many /.'ers figure that SCOX will fall due to a variety of opinions.
In order to short a stock, there has to be some supply of the stock somewhere somewhere that can be sold... this supply of stock normally comes from stock used as collateral on a margin... somewhere, someone is borrowing money to buy more stock than they have money for, and using stock as collateral.
The problem being is that SCOX stock has climbed too quickly too fast and was once very recently a penny stock... thus brokers are unwilling to take SCOX as collateral... bingo, no SCOX stock available to short!
Just thought /.'ers would find that interesting.
Remember, this is not investment advice.
If SCO found code that they beleived belonged to them and they did not want share it why are they sueing. Why not contact Linus and/or other maintainers and have the code removed. It's unlikely that the code could not replaced with GPLed code. Also, there must be logs as to who submitted the code, why haven't those logs been subpoenaed. Obviously, they beleive they can make more money from the lawsuit then communicating with those who maintain the linux source
What is the SCO Intellectual Property (IP) License for Linux?
Many customers are concerned about using Linux since they have become aware of the allegations that Linux is an unauthorized derivative work of the UNIX(R) operating system. These customers unknowingly received unauthorized copies of SCO intellectual property and many are running critical business applications on Linux. Customers have come to SCO asking what they can do to respect and help protect the rights of the SCO intellectual property in Linux. SCO has created the Intellectual Property License for Linux in response to these customer needs. Customers who are running Linux distributions on a client, a server or an embedded system can obtain a license from SCO to use the SCO IP in binary form. This license is sufficient for the end user to continue to run its operation uninterrupted.
Does everyone who uses Linux need a SCO UNIX IP License for Linux?
End users running Linux 2.4 or later versions for commercial purposes need a SCO IP license.
and my personal fav:
I have Linux servers deployed in my organization. What options do I have besides purchasing a SCO IP license?
There are 3 options for you to evaluate:
You have the option to do nothing, adopt a "wait and see" attitude, and hope that SCO is not serious about enforcing its intellectual property rights in the end user community.
You can replace all servers, desktop and embedded uses of Linux.
You can obtain a license from SCO to use SCO IP in binary form in Linux distributions
So in summary, SCO wants us to pay to use software they claim uses stuff they own but won't tell us what it is so we can stop using it and the rights to which they gave away but claim they can take back because they didn't know what they were giving away when they gave it.
Seems reasonable enough to me.
The reason for IBM to only counter sue with four patents is really simple. 1:1 for the patents and the infinging code. "I'll give a free liceance to use our patent and you give me the rights to my software. If not then let lets see here what else do I have in my little majic bag to smack you with"
Ahh.. The mind what a wonderful trap!
It's nice to see Sco getting it's ass handed to it, but the patent move is so counterproductive. It goes against everything that Linux stands for. It may be the lesser of two evils, but lets not forget that it's still an evil. And once IBM starts attachking, who knows when they'll stop?
I'm starting to find more and more comparisons between McBride and the Iraqi Information Minister.
"There are no IBM patents in SCO. Never!"
"We have them surrounded in their servers!"
"Let the IBM infidels bask in their illusion!"
"We will own them all...most of them!"
-Barkeep, a draft of your most hazardous brew, for the world is slowly stepping into focus, and I don't like what I see.
Method of navigating among program menus using a graphical menu tree
First, SCO's stock fell 12% today! Yay! Lets ride them into an early grave!
Second, I like this part:
"IBM's suit revealed that Novell on June 12 effectively forbade SCO from terminating IBM's AIX license. SCO said it revoked the AIX license on June 16. Novell maintained the right to issue such instructions to SCO under the terms of the Unix sale, the suit said."
So it seems like SCO is all of a sudden in a lot of sh*t, now that IBM, Red Hat, SuSE and Novel are all turning their guns toward them.
Free speech is getting expensive...
If they'd wanted to do that, they could have done so years ago. IBM has a huge patent portfolio, some very broad, which they only ever seem to use defensively, or in securing a good deal with other people whose IP they want to use.
Of course, that attitude could change in future, but SCO have provided them with a perfect example of what would happen to their popularity if they started using those patents aggressively.
mod this guy up, the link was good.
Stop posting this shit. I'm note getting any work done!
Do these patents effect anything that SCO licensed to Microsoft? If IBM wins, preventing SCO from shipping products, what products will Microsoft be prevented from shipping? Will Microsoft have to license patents from IBM?
This could get really, really interesting.
Why is it K5 gets the credit for posting the link to SCO's linux source? I already did it here on slashdot back in July
You should have patented the idea.
There was a mysql case about a year ago in which the GPL was a part of the pleadings. That case was settled out of court before it got very far, but based on reports of preliminary hearings the judge in the case seemed to think it was enforceable.
See this earlier Slashdot story for details on the lawsuit, though I can't find any reference right now to reports of the judge's attitude toward the GPL, but I remember having read of them somewhere. Does that make me like Darl and his super-secert code? I hope not!
The MySQL case from a year or two ago involved a GPL license. The license wasn't a legal issue -- everybody in the case treated it as if it's applicability was undisputed.
One interesting result was that, while the defendants in the case had violated the license for a period of time, once they had complied, the judge felt that no further penalty was necessary to cover the period of time they were out of compliance nor did he think that there was any obstacle to them reasserting the right to distribute once they were in compliance.
Now, if I could only remember the name of the case.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
I'm getting 240-250KB/s, not exactly slashdotted. It might be costing them some $$ for the bandwidth though.
Of EXTREME interest is the "IBM is seeking ... an injunction requiring SCO to refrain from misrepresenting its rights, and to cease further infringement of IBM's patents." part. An injunction would shut down SCO's sales of any of the identified infringing software.
Well, if IBM sells hardware equiped with Linux then they ARE distributing it, aren't they? Remember, Red Hat and Suse don't write most of the code in Linux either, but they certainly distribute it.
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
I'm serious about this. After IBM & Red Hat finish these pathetic twits off in court, their stock will be probably no more than 10 cents per share. The open source community needs to buy them (hell, everybody throw in a dollar) and then throw open their "intellectual property" completely free to the world. While we're at it, let's publicly abandon the Unix trademark (which is likely unenforcable, anyway).
Their market cap before this was $25M. I suspect it'll be 1/10 that after this is done. It's not much money spread among all of us.
Michael
Do you have ESP?
The technical damage is zero.
The damage done to Linux's perception has been significant though. Every single industry talking head will also say "copyright infringement lawsuit" whenever they say Linux, now. To people considering adoption who don't know anything about the story, this is a big deal.
If it weren't for this, I doubt Red Hat would have even gotten involved.
This is awesome news! Not only from the fact that IBM is getting in on the action with a countersuit but every time someone takes a shot back at SCO you know SCO comes out with some bizarre claim/lawsuit to trump it! When Redhat sued SCO decided to start selling licenses for everybody who used linux, when SuSE joined in they went after the US government!!! Now that IBM is countersuing them just try to imagine what we're going to see from SCO in the next couple days. Sue the Catholic curch? Sue everybody who is running linux in a RIAA style attack? I mean I can't even imagine what they'll do.
Okay here's my idea, get a press pass and get some film from the press conference, add a laugh track and we'll have a sitcom good enough to fund linux development for the next 10 years!
I stole this Sig
Right you are... I thought IBM distributed the Linux for zSeries themselves, but it's actually a SuSE distro. And IBM doesn't deliver it either -- quoting from the Linux for the IBM eServer zSeries page:
:)
"SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8 for S/390(R) (delivered directly from SuSE Linux AG)"
This might actually give them legal recourse if someone submitted something that was distributed before they noticed it. A very shrewd legal decision on IBM's part. It also nicely invalidates pretty much everything I said in my previous post regarding this
As Mr. Perens says, software patents are eeeeevil!
I hope at least one of them sticks till the end. Someone must make an example out of SCO. I pity honest people who are still employed there.
Let's say SCO will crowl to IBM and beg for forgiveness. Even if IBM decides to settle out of court (for whatever reason, can't think of one... mercy maybe?) after the settlement in favour of IBM, RedHat's position will be really strong, and they will likely go to court -- to get cash if nothing else. And RedHat *are* entitled to a lot of cash in this. Didn't Gardner group recommend that enterprises delay Linux deployments? I smell financial loss, and possibly a big one.
Then at the same time Novell rumor about complete change of direction towards Linux comes on the very same day as IBM files suit.
I passed the Turing test.
No. I'm sorry. Nothing is better than watching Battlebots.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I expect I'll get modded down for this. It seems that IBM is relying quite a bit on the GPL for their defense and counter-suit against SCO. There seems little doubt that SCO are trying hard to kill Linux, and their motivation is obviously suspect.
/. and elsewhere for his views and his methods. It has often seemed that people believe that he is doing this out of a personal need. That may be true, or it may not. I can't tell as I have never met the man and I have no reasonable basis to make a judgment one way or the other.
I have to wonder how Richard Stallman is reacting to these latest events. Egan Moglen also. It's starting to look like the FSF (who created the GPL, as I understand it) may be a savior for Linux.
Over the years I have watched RMS being reviled in
However, at this point, it does seem that his work is paying huge dividends in protecting Linux as well as GNU. Of course, his detractors aren't very likely to admit that this is the case and may point out that his aim wasn't to protect Linux.
That doesn't matter. RMS and the FSF were working to ensure that free software was free from exactly the sort of problem that SCO has created. They have been diligent to the extreme about licensing and this may may well be the ONLY reason that Linux will not be encumbered with a $1399 tax paid to SCO. The fact that IBM is relying heavily on the GPL in their defense speaks volumes about their work, and about the need for to protect open source from attacks of this sort in the future. I suspect that most of us are a lot more familiar with the GPL than we were six months ago, and we are all taking a lot more interest in ensuring that the open source code we write is protected appropriately.
Egan Moglen, RMS, everyone at the FSF, thank you. A donation will be on its way today.
Although I realize that IBM may sue me for copyright infringement, I thought I would share with you their latest piece of code. Perhaps the OSS community could incorporate some of this code in their future dealings with other companies.
do
{
bitchslap(szCompanyName);
}while(FUD);
My Sig Beat up your Honor Roll Sig
While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.
If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.
If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.
It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula at parties around the town.
Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.
You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.
Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.
It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.
I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".
My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.
Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.
SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Man, now I'm getting so excited I want to sue somebody!
C'mon, mom, can I? Can I? All the other nerds are doing it!
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
Ooh, that's correct. IBM did not want to get in the Linux distribution business which basically means that they didn't want to create and maintain their own VERSION of linux, but they do actually SHIP linux. IANAL, but I would assume that (by using IBM's own logic) that they are still subject to the terms of the GPL. Again, the source is out there, and IBM's been working with it. They can't claim that they didn't know.
Don't forget to donate to Pink Fairies it's about 30 dollars short of 300 in two days! Keep em coming.
Later,
Phil
Oh yeah. Been waiting for this, the official "other shoe," to drop for months.
Seriously, what was SCO expecting? On a ranking of groups not to piss off...
999,934,953,021: PETA
999,934,953,020: FSF
127:GNAA, San Quentin Prison Chapter
2: Colombian cocaine cartels
1: IBM
Shoulda seen this coming.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Here's the patent
Prior art mentions graphical menus in MS Windows, so it seems the distinction here is allowing seamless navigation from one program's menus to another's, but I can't wade through all the legalese.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
"a drop of 11% in one day isn't all that signifigant"
Exactly. Certainly not as significant as this drop
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
From SCO's quarterly report:
This, Ladies and Gentlemen, has to be the understatement of this century, if not of this millennium.
"There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
Nonetheless, the original poster makes a valid point. In the Yahoo story linked from the main page, both HP and IBM are quite evasive when Bruce Perens asks for a written assurance that they will not sue open-source developers. IBM is not our friend. It's interests happen to be aligned with the Linux community on this issue, but ultimately they are a business with interests of their own and a responsibility (as they see it) to no-one but their shareholders. Perens is quite right: software patents are dangerous for free software.
And IBM have a history of using patents aggressively when it suits them to do so.
Vizzini (aka McBride): Ha ha, you fool! You've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less well known is this - "Never go in against IBM when intellectual property rights are on the line!" Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h-! (falls over dead)
Think global, act loco
This is sort of interesting in that I do not see IBM denying SCO's claims. They're simply limiting what SCO can do. 1) The GPL part. If IBM is successful with this claim, SCO has no rights and the suit is over. All the code in question is officially GPL. 2) The patents. If the GPL argument fails, SCO could win. The judgment would be based on damage to SCO (value of lost revenue). If IBM can demonstrate all of SCO's products violate IBM patents, those products are now worth $0. SCO has no claim to lost revenue. In fact, SCO now might owe IBM for past use of those patents. 3) Contract twist involving Novell. This is most benneficial to IBM's sales force and revenue. They need to reassure their customers AIX is still legal whilst the legal stuff plays out.
IANAL, but acceptance of the GPL is required for more than just distribution; it's also requried for creation of a derivative work, and it could well be argued that their patches are a derivative work of the kernel (especially as they are useless without the kernel).
More importantly if they have ever distributed the kernel to anyone, by any means, then they also have likewise accepted the license.
That claim is awfully hard to get out of.
All your codebase are belong to us.
The interview starts off displaying this image, claiming him to be "Mad as hell and not going to take it". He looks about as mad as I would be if I won a billion dollars in the lottery while getting a blowjob from Carmen Electra. Oh yes, very mad indeed.
... "
Anyway, the interviewer then goes on to imply that all linux developers are really just heartless pirates, like the music downloaders on Kazaa.
Later on, we are graced with this gem:
"One view of Linux that's persisted over the years is that it's free. Even though that's not fully accurate,
Yes, those pesky pirates keep insisting that Linux is free! Clearly it's not, however, as RedHat is charging lots of money for it! Moron.
"Microsoft would say the same thing.
I have customers.
They have customers too.
Great."
Wow, RedHat has customers? Microsoft too? Truly, these are men of vision. Men of unparalleled insight!
Back in '95 I used to be both a contractor for IBM and a member of TeamOS2. At the 95 Atlanta COMDEX (Which I attended on my own dime to do OS/2 advocacy and provide installation support to the team,) one of their marketing guys demoed the latest neat stuff for the operating system. At the presentation, he mentioned that IBM's vision was to provide the same OS across the board. It was to be OS/2 on the laptop (PDA? Notebook? hah!) OS/2 on the desktop and OS/2 on the big blue iron. This would result in a significant decrease in training costs because the employees would always know the platform no matter how big the iron was that they were running on.
8 years later their vision has been realized. Sure the OS has changed, but a single corporation-wide OS deployment is now possible. The radical learning curve necessary to use their big stuff has been smoothed out. The search for that last 90 year old guy who knows how to administer MVS has been eliminated. A much deeper talent pool (of people who know UNIX) can now be tapped.
At the moment it looks like the IBM/Open Source Community relationship is pretty stable. Of course we should be wary -- a corporation can turn on you in a heartbeat if it'll make them a buck. Right now this relationship is making IBM a buck, so I don't see that happening in the immediate future.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Our SGI rep. said IBM has found 26 verbatim lines (that includes comments) in Linux Kernel from SCO code. Implecations are that SCO themselves put the code there. IBM is probably firing up the Lawyers to crush SCO's extorsion. On a positive note, the rep. said that this SCO shit hasn't really affected sales of their linux products b/c they mostly are working with intelligent clients ;-)
I just added some command-line instructions to make clear the terms of the other license (the GNU license) under which the code in question is distributed.
IBM should now send letters to all of SCO's existing and former customers and require them to license the patents for $699 (until October, at whcih time the price goes up....)
I hope every Linux user does the same. SCO has demanded to do business with every Linux user, and I say let them enter business relations with us. We can see how many states we can get to file cases against them and how many class action law suits we can file.
SCO, your new customers are very angry with you and are considering legal action. Don't blame us, we didn't want to do business with you.
Sun should probably not be lumped into the same muddy waters as MS. From a August 5 eWeek article (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1210889,00.a sp):
In the early 1990's, Schwartz said, Sun chief executive Scott McNealy agreed to spend several million dollars to take a broad license with AT&T, essentially granting Sun legal rights equivalent to ownership of Unix code.
"As a result of that decision in 1993, we can do whatever we want (to the code)," Schwartz said. "We can drive forward and indemnify our customers too," a basic responsibility of any intellectual property provider, he said.
Seems to imply that Sun just decided to cover their ass a long time ago. At the time they had money to burn. Although they have flung some FUD in the SCO soap opera, they probably are not financing SCO in any way.
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
1.4 "Linux Desktop System" means a single user computer workstation controlled by a single instance of the Linux Operating System... It may not host services for clients on other systems.
Let me get this straight. They want me to buy this license. (well, maybe not right now, but they have hinted before that they intend to go after non-commercial users at some point in the future. And I'm not sure I'd trust them if they said they were leaving home users alone) But almost everyone I know who has a GNU/Linux box also runs sshd. Among other "service hosting"-type daemons. IANAL, but it seems to me that they are prohibiting that sort of thing. Which makes me wonder - are they really trying to make money, or just to piss us all off?
(Not that I ever had any doubt about that. But it's just more reassurance that we're right.)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=c&k=c1&c=ibm&a =v&p=s&t=6m&l=on&z=l&q=l
IBM, one fo the few companies in the world that keeps it's own comprehensive PATENT DATABASE is countersuing SCO (64 million dollars strong LOL!)
for patent infringement. I think a bunch of sphincters in Santa Cruz just puckered.
IBM has the best patent attorney's in the world. SCO seems to have the worst legal team in the country. Yankees vs Tigers would be a good comparison. Regardless of the merits of the Linux suit, IBM would not have added the patent thing unless they were sure they could win it. No matter what happens now, SCO is f*&k&d
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
SCO sues IBM, Red Hat sues SCO, IBM sues SCO, et cetera, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
I say forget the legal process. It's too slow. Let's get each company to build their own BattleBot and go on Robot Wars to settle this whole mess. Just imagine: "Big Blue", a huge flipper bot flinging "SCObot" through the air while a big red bowler hat smashes into SCO at every opportunity. Chunks of metal flying, flames licking up from dismembered metallic remains.
Ah I love the smell of burnt electric motors and battery acid in the morning!
Ruby on Rails Screencast
I just finished my SCO timeline complete with SEC fillings. Got to go back and update it again. Oh well, here it is. Please email me if you can add to it.
June 27 2002
McBride becomes CEO of Caldera.
Stock price around $0.60
March 7 2003
SCO sues IBM
Stock price up from $2.21 to $3.10 but falls back to mid $2.00 range
March 18
SCO stocks hits low of $2.07
Jeff Hunsaker (VP Worldwide Marketing) gets 100,000 options
Reginald Broughton (Senior VP International Sales) gets 50,000 options
Michael Olsen (VP Finance) gets 50,000 options
Robert Bench (CFO) gets 100,000 options
Darl McBride (CEO) gets 200,000 options
Can anyone fill me in on what happened between 3/14 and 3/17 that caused the
price to drop from $2.64? And how did the executives know that $2.07 was the
lowest it would go?
April 8
Robert Bench sells 4100 shares at $2.90 each for $11,890.
April 23
SCO issues warning to Red Hat and SuSE
Stock is up to $3.10
May 2
IBM responses to lawsuit, denies claims
SCO claims they have proof
May 14
SCO stops selling Linux, sends out letter to 1500 large corporations
suggesting that they stop using Linux.
Stock has been steadily rising, now at $3.55
May 15
SCO offers to show proof under strict NDA to journalists only
Stock shoots up to $4.55
May 16
SCO changes name to SCO Group Inc.
Board of Directors gets 10,000 options each at $4.75
May 19
SCO announces that Microsoft has given it cash, and that M$ is
not the first company to pay it off. Rumours are that the other
company is Sun. Total revenue from both licences: $8.25M.
Stock price starts to really take off.
May 28
Novell issues press release challenging SCO
SCO states that they may end up suing Linus
Stock plummets from $8.71 to $6.60
June 3
Opinder Bawa (VP Global Services) pancis and sells 15,000 shares at a paltry
$6.00 each, making $90,000.
June 5
O. Bawa exercises 7916 in options at $1.20 each and sells them for
$6.60 each, netting himself just over $42,000. He really should
have waited a day.
June 6
SCO announces discovery of ammendment to Novell contract
Share price shoots up to $8.52
Giddy with glee, Jeff Hunsaker (VP Worldwide Marketing) sells
5000 shares for $44,500.
June 8 SCO announces that they have shown 80 lines of code to some
doofus. This is a Sunday.
June 9 The day after this announcement, shares are up to $9.38.
Robert Bench (CFO) celebrates by selling 7000 shares, making
over $64,400.
June 11 SCO gives IBM until Friday the 13th to settle.
Shares drop to $8.65. Believing that the end is near, Michael
Olsen (VP Finance) sells 6000 shares, earning $51,720.
June 13
IBM's deadline passes and SCO is still alive. The stock price shoots up
to $11.21. Darl buys 7003 shares for one tenth of a penny each. In an
interview, Chris Sontag (Snr VP OS) says that SCO may own BSD
as well.
June 16 SCO announces that they are revoking IBM's AIX license. IBM
announces that they don't care. Shares dip.
June 17 SCO decides that they actually want three billion from IBM and
elaborate on what technology they think IBM stole from them.
June 18 Sun launches ad campaign trying to get Linux and AIX customers
to use Solaris instead. SCO criticizing Linus in a court document.
June 20
Reginald Broughton, needing some weekend money, sells 5000 shares when the
stock price goes over $11, making almost $55,500. The price closes at $10.77.
June 23 SCO says that they won't sue their own Linux customers.
June 25 With the stock
On a ranking of groups not to piss off...
Wow. If the Columbian Cartel tools around in Blue SUVs and shoots at you with uzis, I wonder what the IBM gang car is?
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200308/07/eng200 30807_121861.shtml
Sig under construction since 1998.
IBM e-Business on Demand General Manager Irving Wladawsky-Berger seemed surprised to hear of Perens' comments. "The question has never come up with Linux," Wladawsky-Berger says. IBM's history of working with open communities like the World Wide Web Consortium should reassure developers, he adds, but he encourages Perens to contact IBM to discuss the issue.
In other words -- again -- Perens started shooting off his mouth about possible bad intentions from IBM before even discussing it with IBM. That's just plain bad form, since it means Wladawksy-Berger was caught off-guard by an unexpected question from a reporter. That's not a good way to treat people whose cooperation you desire.
I hope that someday, the Open Source/Free Software community will have spokespeople who comport themselves professionally instead of brilliant but socially-impaired people with a tendency to ill-considered public tantrums. You can get away with that as a developer, at least sometimes, but when you get into the PR business, basic manners are a fundamental requirement of the job.
If Perens had talked to IBM at length and gotten nowhere, it would have been acceptable to say, "We talked to IBM at length and got nowhere." Just calling the press and saying, "IBM hasn't spontaneously stepped up to the plate and I'm starting to have paranoid fantasies," doesn't cut it.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Had they simply decided to just sue IBM, chances are somewhat good that IBM would have settled the lawsuit,
Absolutely not. SCO accused IBM of not taking proper care of TRADE SECRETS ... and IBM makes billions in IT services because they have a reputation for respecting the trade secrets and privileged information they encounter in the course of that business. Any settlement, even for a token dollar, would be seen as admission that they didn't take proper care of trade secrets.
Compared to what loss of reputation would cost, the legal fees in the SCO suit are not even peanuts.
Yes. Even though you are not an "insider" of the company you intend to short, your knowledge of the announcement and its effects on the competitor's stock still falls under the category of insider information (private information which if made public would materially affect the prospects of the company). So the SEC could nail you if you traded on it before it became public knowledge.
Think of it this way: suppose a visiting customer sneaks into your office, discovers the same information, and shorts the competitor. Do you think the SEC would view that as insider trading? You bet they would.
SCO is still distributing Linux kernels under the GPL (check their ftp site), that doesn't seem to stopped them from making their licence claims anyway. Explicitly forbidden in the GPL, but who cares about proper licencing anyway? ;)
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Ya know, I could *almost* (note that word "almost") buy SCO's argument of "we didn't realize what we were GPLing" if it weren't for one simple thing...they're still making the damned thing available for unrestricted download from THEIR OWN FUCKING WEB SITE *after* they know for a fact what they are GPLing. For being that stupid alone they deserve to be sued in to oblivion.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Two links out of history:
IBM's ThinkPad/Linux support project being dropped
Buying a Linux ThinkPad: IBM's mission impossible.
Note that the GPL isn't about who put together a distribution, but about who distributes.
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
Check out this link for good research and analysis, as well:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/
Groklaw has been posting almost daily updates on this story since April, and recently is posting several updates per day. It's run by Pamela Jones, a paralegal who actually *reads* the court documents, the contracts, etc. and uses her experience to point out what she would flag for a lawyer as important, worthy of more research, etc. Good read.
sue God!
SCO is just one of the Linux players that are part of Canopy's portfolio. There is also Linux Networx and Trolltech. Although Trolltech APIs are used by several Linux-related developers, there hasn't been much hostility from them directed toward the Open Source Community despite Trolltech's technology being proprietary.
I know that a huge pissing match ensued between Gnome and KDE over the use of a proprietary technology in a Linux GUI, and perhaps now is the time for that relationship to be reviewed (in the light of Canopy's behavior). Should those APIs be rewritten in an attempt to dump Qt, or is that over-reacting?
Also, Linux Networx is a cluster service provider. How long until they start suing IBM and HP for some spurious claim?
I trust Canopy about as far as I can toss the collective carcasses of the entire Board of Directors.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
This is SCOX's price action for the day:l =on&z= b&q=l
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=c&t=1d&
Notice the nice spike at the end with very little volume? Could this be an indication of someone trying to mitigate the day's significant drop in share price by buying up stock?
Would certainly be interesting to know who made those purchases at the very end of the day that just happened to make the stock close at a shade over $11. 'Course that would be the SEC's job, not mine, to find out.
Here is SCO's response to the action...
Pathetic press release...
You're close. It's actually fellatious in that the more they push that license the more I want to shove my dick in their mouths.
All's true that is mistrusted
It's actually fellatious in that the more they push that license the more I want to shove my dick in their mouths.
That doesn't sound like such a wise idea. I'd bet SCO bites.
It's about time IBM opened up a can of whoopass on SCO. It is entirely appropriate then to recount this story (it may be wrong in many details or even completely false, but it's still a good story).
It seems Sun and IBM sat down for a little conference because Sun accused IBM of violating several patents of theirs. The Sun engineers, somewhat casually dressed, laid out the their case on a whiteboard to a bunch of Armani-wearing IBM Lawyers, who sat stone faced throughout the proposal.
When Sun was done, the Lawyers sat there for a few minutes, and then proposed a sum to cover the licensing. Sun demurred, saying that the money was hardly enough to cover what they thought the license terms were worth.
The Lawyers sat there for a moment more, discussed and then proposed that if Sun did not like the terms presented, then IBM was perfectly willing to go back to Armonk and dig through their files to see just how many IBM patents Sun was violating at the given moment.
Needless to say, Sun gave in very quickly.
----
IBM is the world's largest patent holder (3,288 in 2002 alone, according to EE Times) and for ten years running has been issued the largest number of patents in a given year. While not all of those patents are directly related to Linux, there is a pretty good chance that SCO's mere existence alone may violate an IBM patent.
AFAIK, IBM has been a pretty benevolent player in the patent arena, only hauling out the big guns when necessary. I would love to see them unload their file cabinets on SCO just once.
IBM may not always be the reasonable giant (they have a spotty record at best in some areas), but I would definitely rather have them behind me, than in front of me.
OK, enthusiastic cheering is over. Back to sarcasm and trolling.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
SCO makes it even clearer than before that they are attacking the GPL:
They seem to be claiming to have been using those patents for years. In fact, all they are saying is that they have been shipping these products for years without making any claims about patents. They could have easily added the infringements later.
I don't know what the following signifies. Are they saying that IBM can't file a counterclaim that is not mentioned in their original answer to the suit?
And, of course, even more blather:
Can be found here.
This surely looks like SCO has bitten off more than they can handle. At the moment they've got three big lawsuits going: their own initiative against IBM, Redhat and now IBMs countersuit. Not to mention that in some countries they have been forced to shut up alltogether or pay huge fines (i'm really wondering if they can be forced to take a definitive stand about their Linux license in Germany). It'll be interesting to see if they can afford to pay all the lawyers. That brings up the question who else can increase the heat by bringing up some litigation against them. If they're entangled in enough lawsuits now that'll bring them down quite effectiveley: They have to pay all those lawyers, every time another lawsuit against them is announced their shares fall (so they'll have a hard time to pay all those lawyers), and they'll have to weigh any statement with respect to all those lawsuits (but i wouldn't expect them to).
Note that SCO did that to themselves: they are shooting their mouth off every which way and opened themselves up to dozens of ways of litigation. I'd say: hand it to them now, draw them into court for any case which has a good chance of winning (if they win the cases it'll only help them publicitywise, and for SCO publicity is boosting shares which equals money).
It'd be nice if the FSF could join the fray for copyright infringement (do they still distribute Linux? since their Linux License invalidates the GPL they'd be violating the copyrights of any kernel-developer out there).
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
http://www.debategate.com/forums/PIC/posts/84363.h tml
Slashdot article discussing the announcement I linked to in grand-parent comment: IBM Dropping Laptop Linux Support
TP T21, T22 - General Overview (Linux models) (interestingely, the page says it was last modified in June, 2003; and it's Caldera Linux of all things - surely it would be a good idea for IBM to stop distributing this ;-)
I doubt that the phrase "distributed by Caldera" matter much, unless the media actually comes under separate cover from Caldera (I'm pretty sure it doesn't/didn't). IBM may want to twist inside and out in its attempts to avoid the GPL, but this Linux distribution is handed out by IBM so they are bound to the GPL.
You mention "a passthrough, *not* a resale". What IBM does, or doesn't do, with the money isn't the point at issue. "Who gave the customer the GPL'd code?" is. Did IBM? So it seems to me.
The GPL is all about passing rights along, whenever the software shifts hands. The GPL is money stream agnostic.
I do find it a bit ironic that IBM is now set to defend the GPL in court --many, many thanks for doing that, IBM!-- while doing its best to evade being affected by the license themselves. Changing the past is difficult, though.
If the above reasoning holds and since it's a complete distribution, you also get a license from IBM for any of the other GPL:d software, such as the GUIs.
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
When is the last time Slashdotters actually cheered on IBM?
When IBM realised that there was money to be made from supporting free software.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1157 25
funny how their response to IBM's IP claims is that IBM has let them be for two decades; they make it sound as if they think they're entitled to IP infringement.
From the news.com.com article:
...and our cash kinda ran out, too!
"What I'm getting a sense of now is there is an effort to counterpunch," said Gartner analyst George Weiss, who has warned clients to take SCO seriously. "What I thought the (Linux) community should be doing is shift the initiative away from SCO and throw them off balance into a defensive posture. Until Red Hat started its counterclaim, all the initiative was with SCO."
This has really suprised me. I mean, I'm not shocked at corporate opportunism of course - especially analysts and people who think of themselves as visionaries, being opportunistic is practically their job description.
But the thing is: I always took for granted that Gartner is just an MS marketing branch, and now they turn around and say that they always thought the Linux community should really take countermeasures, and stuff like that! Wow...
To the paranoid conspiracist mind this can only mean that MS must have realized that there is not much substance behind SCO's claims and that their activities in the fraudulent extortion department didn't go over well at all in the industry.
Probably something like this happened:
SCO: Hey, guess what, we can prove that Linux is just a pirated copy of SCO Unix!
Microsoft: Wow, cool, that would make Linux illegal and discredit the whole open source community?
SCO: Yeah, you bet. Only, if someone could give us credibility.
Microsoft: NP, we'll announce that we honor your Unix rights and pay for your initial lawyer fees with some Unix license, OK? Additionally we will buy some studies and news articles that lend credibility to your claims.
SCO: Thanks, we feel much better now, that really helped. Initiating FUD and extortion campaign now.
Microsoft: What? Uhm, your going to prove your thing in court soon, will you? You know, revealing the evil that is Open Source for what it really is?
SCO: Yah, sure.
Microsoft: SCO? You're making us all look bad.
SCO: We know, but "the software business is binary", remember? Gotta do what keeps us alive!
Microsoft: There is no proof, is there?
SCO: We're still kinda working on that, sir.
Microsoft: OK, that's it, we're bailing out. Steve, call Gartner and tell them they can switch modes from "MS fantasy sales pitch" to default "echo the public opinion" mode. Farewell, SCO.
Someone should start modding this "buy SCO" shit to -1.
SCO can not be bought. The majority of shares are held by Canopy. You will never get 51% ownership of stock because they are not for sale.
What part of can't don't you morons get?
49% does not equal "control" of SCO.
This simple fact has been repeated in every SCO thread.
You can't buy SCO stock and get control of the company.
SCO's bowels are in such turmoil it needs 3 asses to shit out of. Go big blue.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
This having been said, don't be too quick to embrace IBM as our savior. On my first day at IBM I had to sign away, as a condition of employment, any rights to anything that I might create at any time during my term of employment. If I came up with an innovative way to fold cardboard boxes while sitting at my kitchen table, I was required to present this to my functional manager. She would then pass this on to the proper deptartment, where the IP folks would decide if they wanted it or not. More than 2 hours were spent during orientation drilling us over the "no nonsense attitude" that IBM took concerning this.
This experience, and several other eye-openers that occurred before I quit, left no doubt in my mind that upper management at IBM would skin us all if they thought there was a profit to be made selling custom wet suits to China. We're watching SCO, a bottom-feeder, try it's best to parasite Linux. While IBM may stop SCO, let's not forget that IBM embraces the revenue from Linux as a substantial addition to it's bottom-line. IBM may or may not embrace the interests of the open source community quite as strongly....Those that make a lot of cash from something usually prefer to control it. I can't imagine how IBM could contrive to SCOrew the Linux community, but I -do- know that they would not hesitate the least little bit if they thought it necessary...and they've got the clout to do it right.
Arrgh - I've been bitten by the parody bug. My apologies to Dire Straits, and it's not my fault.
Money for Nothing
Now look at them SCO-yo's that's not the way to do it
They say we're infringing on their IP.
It ain't workin' the way they try to do it
They're getting nowhere, lawsuits ain't free.
No it ain't workin', not the way they do it
Lemme tell ya them guys are dumb
They gots a lawsuit from them RedHat people
And a 'nuther from that IBM.
You gotta buy their UNIX license
Or else they gonna sue you guys
They gotta keep that FUD stream flowing
They gotta keep that stock price high.
See little Darl with the options and delusions
He's got no braincells under his hair
That little Darl wants his own jet airplane
Little Darl wants to be a millionaire
You gotta buy their UNIX license
Or else they gonna sue you guys
They gotta keep the FUD stream flowing
They gotta keep that stock price high.
I shoulda learned to play the market
I shoulda learned to pump and dump
Look at them, they got all those profits
Man I could have some fun
Darl's up there in Utah making lawyer noises
Bangin' out lawsuits like a chimpanzee
It ain't workin' the way they try to do it
They're getting nowhere, lawsuits ain't free.
see darl mcbride
I B M fills all his holes
with lawyer penis
/* Intellectual Property Buster v1.0 (IPbuster.h) Include this in your kernel to prevent that nasty SCO licensing business. */
----------------
*cough cough* Damn.
Anyways, just kidding about the license. It's really GPL!
Boies might be disbarred in Florida, at least it's a start.
Help fight continental drift.
Here's an article that has a link to the text of IBM's response/countersuit:
h ives.asp?ArticleID=43784
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarc
If there is a good thing about software patents, it is that IBM, HP, and Sun's patent portfolios are working for Linux, not against it. That's not because it happens to be convenient for IBM right now to use their patents, it's because those companies are shipping Linux and therefore have given people license to use their patents as far as Linux/GPL'ed software is concerned.
I would feel safer if software patents were just abolished, but with all major UNIX companies shipping Linux, they may actually help. In fact, GPL'ed and open source software may be an effective, cheap, and fair vehicle to achieve patent cross-licensing among multiple companies, because the patents and patent licenses basically go with the software and don't require any separate negotiations.
You got more karma out of the deal than me. Your message explaining that you, apparently the K5 person who posted what I reposted here, got two informatives. I only got one, but I got two funnies which don't count towards karma, but did make my message score higher than yours (4 vs. 3). So I think you got your cut. :-)
In that case, it's been a pleasure doing business with you.
It seems like an easy out for 99% of linux users...
Why not charge for Linux?
Go ahead. You are allowed to charge for Linux, and you are permitted to charge whatever you want. And so is anybody who you sell Linux to. That is what the license is about. You are not allowed to deny the rights that you were granted by the GPL to anyone to whom you subsequently distrubute the altered or unaltered GPL code. Hell, Stallman supported himself for years selling GPL software. I believe that the people who paid for it saw the value in supporting his efforts to write an extensible and full featured editor.
If you feel yourself to be a charitable person, then by all means volunteer your time and heart to a worthy organization, perhaps a soup kitchen or a children's hospital.
Good idea. Perhaps we can form a community dedicated to developing Operating Systems, complete with networking, productivity, records management, imaging, and other apps that would be useful for childrens and other hospitals, schools, and charities. That way they could spend thier budgets on providing care and service for those who depend on them, instead of on upgrading thier systems every time the software vendor decides it's time to milk that cow.
The very nature of business precludes money for a piece of property.
Incorrect.Of course if you had stated that the definition of business includes the exchange of money for a piece of property, I'd be forced to agree with you, but precludes means quite the opposite. Perhaps you made a mistake there. (In fact, I'm rather certain that you did mean to use includes, so we agree after all. Isn't this nice?!) When I have a peice of property to sell you, then we can do business. I think that you also forgot that services can be exchanged for currency as well, and it is still business, but I'll forgive that. For the time being though, you can make a copy of what property I have that I'm unwilling to sell, and as long as you have my permission (you do), and you pay for whatever materials you need to make that copy, I think thats legal as well. Just don't use that copy to screw anybody over. (Ha ha, a little humor. See, were all gentlemen here, except for the ladies, and I think we all know that you'd never dream of doing something like that.)
It is not sacred.
I agree with you again. Open Source software has proven to be a practical, secure, and stable alternative to software developed in secretive environments that discourage cooperative problem solving. Practical, usefull, and rapidly developed.Yes, Open Source is all of those things. But sacred? No, nothing is sacred around here. Except for respect for peoples copyright (or copyleft) and thier licensing terms. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that Open Source developers and maintainers go to greater lengths to ensure that they are respecting copyright than most others.
Outside the tech world, linux users are hippies, just barely still democratic.
I'm not quite sure by what you mean by that, but I thought I'd quote it anyway.
They use and work on a system of knowledge steeped in time honored and capitalist traditions
Once again we agree! Getting along famously now, aren't we. Many Linux and Open Source developers have built thier own businesses around Open Source, providing goods (computers) for Open Source to run on, services for both industry (customization, implementation, etc) and end users (networking services, web hosting, entertainment) and documentation (books) to teach the masses (consumers) how to make effective use of Open Source software in hopes that this will bring thier businesses more success and thier personal lives more enjoyment, increasing thier demand for more goods and services. Open source people: Upstanding citizens of our Grand Capitolist system!
division of labor(modularity), stability(conservatism), diversification (to the point of parties spanning the globe contributing anony
Read, L