Slashdot Mirror
SCO Calls IBM Countersuit "Unsubstantiated Allegations"
dacarr writes "Yahoo currently hosts a press release from SCO that basically calls for IBM to "move away from the GPL"." Lycoris tries to dodge the flood of idiocy from Utah. Another non-programmer has seen SCO's presentation, and without attempting to verify the facts through his own research, reported on it. One reader buys a SCO license. SCO justifies their continuing illegal distribution of the Linux kernel.
"Regarding Patent Accusations
SCO has shipped these products for many years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these products."
IANAPA (Patent attorney), but as I understand it, the holder of patent can choose when to enfornce the patent. "Because we have been" is NOT a legal argument.
Holy s-, it's Jesus!
Grocklaw has an overview of the IBM countersuit. And for added fun, the whole 46 page filing is available in multipage TIFF or pdf.
T O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,814,746.WKU.&OS=PN/4,814,746&RS =PN/4,814,746 T O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,821,211.WKU.&OS=PN/4,821,211&RS =PN/4,821,211 T O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,953,209.WKU.&OS=PN/4,953,209&RS =PN/4,953,209 T O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,805,785.WKU.&OS=PN/5,805,785&RS =PN/5,805,785
The patents are at:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
After reading the actual countersuit filing, it looks like an even bigger, more comprehensive smackdown than even was speculated yesterday. IBM is fully ready to press SCO's GPL transgressions, talks at length about the failure of SCO's business, makes clear in several locactions the difference between Old SCO (Tarantella) and Caldera/New SCO, they even mention that some of SCO's claims have exceeded the statute of limitations. IBM has clearly been tracking SCO FUD and mentions specific quotes from SCO execs that are damaging. They also reiterate that IBM's UNIX license is perpetual and irrevokable, but they also say that even if that wern't the case SCO still can't revoke IBM's license because SCO has not followed the agreement on the procedure to revoke the license. SMACK, SMACK, SMACK!
the no
This has really became the Nerd version of the OJ trial.
I see this guy has already been modded Flamebait, but he is so right about this. What's really messed up though, is how ONLY people who read slashdot seem to know anything about it. I'm serious - I've tried to bring up SCO's situation a couple of times and no one knows what the hell I'm talking about. Even other programmers where I work have no clue that anything has happened at all.
This shit is trouble, mark my words. The guys at the top of companies don't read slashdot either - keep that in mind. I guarantee you that large companies that use Linux are pissing their fucking pants over this thing right now, considering the fact that the execs are going to have no fundamental grasp of the reality of the situation.
The 46 page response is now available as a multipage TIFF and converted to a PDF file.
Highlights include "20. Although it completed an initial public offering, SCO has failed to establish a successful business around Linux. SCO's Linux business has never generated a profit. In fact, the company as a whole did not experience a profitable quarter until after it abandoned its Linux business and undertook its present scheme to extract windfall profits from UNIX technology that SCO played no part in developing."
My God! It's full of Voids!
Just in case.. here is a Mirror.. http://www.plu.edu/~perryjd/sco.html
2.4.19. They're claiming 2.4.18 and later is infringeing.
/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updates/SRPMS/ ...rver/4.0/updates/SRPMS > ls kern*e rnel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-133.nosrc.rpmr ce-2.4.19.SuSE-152.nosrc.rpm9 .SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm ...rver/4.0/updates/SRPMS >
NcFTP 3.1.5 (Oct 13, 2002) by Mike Gleason (ncftp@ncftp.com).
ncftp> o ftp.sco.com
Connecting to 216.250.140.126...
ftp.caldera.com Ready.
Logging in...
Welcome to SCO's FTP site!
This site hosts UNIX software patches, device drivers and supplements
from SCO.
To access Skunkware and Supplemental Open Source Packages, please
connect to ftp2.caldera.com.
** Please read the following export notice **
Please note that the electronic transfer of this data to a destination
outside of the United States constitutes an export (as defined by the
U.S. Bureau of Export Administration) and is authorized ONLY to the end
user. Any subsequent re-exportation of this data requires that the end
user obtain an additional export license. Also note that it is illegal
to re-route Caldera product to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea,
Sudan or Syria and that you must file a special license if you intend
to re-route goods to the embargoed regions of Serbia or the Taliban
controlled areas of Afghanistan. Placement of this order constitutes
an agreement to comply with these stipulations.
Anonymous access granted, restrictions apply.
Logged in to ftp.sco.com.
ncftp / > cd
ncftp
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-106.nosrc.rpm
k
kernel-sou
kernel-source-2.4.1
ncftp
Which means that regardless of whether or not "SCO feels that the GPL is too weak to stand up in court," is moot. They have accepted and continue to accept it's terms by having this Linux kernel source code on their FTP server.
Any code in kernel 2.4.19 that is 'infringing' is actuall not, because SCO knows about so-called 'infringing' code in there, yet they continue to distribute it, meaning they have effectively GPLed whatever code is in there, regardless of who actually put it in there (most likely, according to various sources, a Caldera employee!)
My journal has hot
This Counter claim as reported on the front page of Slashdot just yesterday.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Even if they do show that the GPL is unenforcable and their code is in the kernel, that would mean that they have no rights to any of Linux except their code. Everything else would go back to "all rights reserved" and they would not be able to license the whole shebang. Just their lines.
"no one it seems, is preparing to challenge SCO and get this resolved."
Apparently you haven't been reading the news this week (or, for that matter, TFA). Both Red Hat and IBM have "challenged" SCO in the form of lawsuits, and many companies have publicly stated their objections to SCO's tactics, including SuSE and Novell.
You should know better :-). SCO's announcements ARE trolling - trolling for more pump-and-dump breathing space.
It's just getting more obvious to the rest of the world.
SCO is learning the hard way that "you can fool some of the people some of the time ... ", etc.
Yahoo's SCO Page has the money SCO execs have made by pumping the share price and setting automatic sell limits. When you consider how low the stock was its amazing that they put limits of $12 or more for a sell.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I can't find the damned link now, but Eben Moglen is consulting with IBM on their case. Why not let IBM do the heavy lifting here?
the no
Thats the point. They arent licensing Linux.
They are saying go get linux somewhere, they are giving the code away. Then, buy this license so you can use our proprietary code in your copy of linux.
They are not trying to license all of linux.
A simmilar situation would be, if Linux has no infringing code, but SCO does offer something you want to use, you can go get linux for free, license some stuff from SCO, and integrate it into your copy of linux. You are not allowed to redistribute this tho, because you do not have ownership of the SCO code.
This is in fact what SCO alleges happened. Excepted someone started to distribute, and it got integrated into the main kernel.
You say "[nobody] is preparing to challenge SCO and get this resolved", but that's utter crap. Many, many requests have been made to SCO to reveal the infringing source code.
SCO doesn't actually want to reveal it, because they know that it will be replaced with clean code almost instantly. The fact that they're unwilling to talk about which code infringes shows that they are dealing in bad faith. Their purpose is to damage Linux and (attempt to) extort protection money from the gullible.
Until SCO tells the community what code infringes, there is nothing that the community can do. You seem to be trying to blame the people on this side of the fence, who would like nothing better than to resolve the problem. It is SCO that is preventing any real solution. Their purpose is *not* protecting their IP. If it were, the problem would already have been resolved.
And as far as "having implications at some time in the future" -- also probably incorrect. I have downloaded a copy of the Linux kernel from SCO *well after* they filed their IBM suit, so they have knowingly given me their code under the GPL. I can now transfer that code to anyone else I choose, also under the GPL. So I am safe, and anyone I work for is safe. Hell, anyone I even vaguely KNOW is safe; I can email the file to anyone that asks.
You also call it "a seemingly large problem", but it really isn't. Even if the GPL doesn't hold up in court (unlikely), it'll probably take about two weeks for all infringing code to be removed as soon as it's revealed.
But, hey, if you feel safer, you go right ahead and call SCO and offer to pay them their protection money. The head of Linux IP Licensing, Mr. Barnum, will call you right back.
Trying to be factual, eh troll boy? Real Email address, and the company you work for would be credible. But what gave you away as a troll is your own words:
what about your earlier response? The one you posted in the "Linux annoyances" article?
I quote:
Linus blatantly stole our IP and is, in essence, trying to distribute a warezed version of our UnixWare.
By the time this book is in print, you're biggest annoyance will be the thick black cock in your asses, as we'll see your entire IP theft ring behind bars.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Except if you can't prove it's your bike in the first place, you've got problems (e.g. the code was at SCO prior to Linux, but was it anywhere prior to SCO?)
And if I've got a bill of sale that proves you sold that bike to me, it's mine (e.g. the GPL SCO licensed it under)
All you've managed to do is prove there's a bike in my garage.
Until SCO is forced to reveal the code in question in court, we can't even begin to search for the original authors of the source code (under this NDA, would it be legal for you to publically ask "who wrote this code...here, here, and here?") So that issue is basically on hold until the trial.
Luckily, SCO was nice enough to license all of that code under the GPL to their customers, who then have the right to incorporate it into the Linux kernel for everyone. Thanks for the free bike, guys!
No, they have said that Caldera OpenLinux users have a license for "their IP". But ONLY for use in purchased copies of OpenLinux. So you can't transfer it to Red Hat.
A quote from one of the articles:
Stowell admitted that his company was still providing Linux source code and security patches on its Web site in order to fulfill support contracts with customers, but he disputed Kuhn's claim. "If our IP [intellectual property] is being found in Linux and that's being done without our say, then I don't think that the GPL can force us not to collect license fees from someone who may be using our intellectual property," he said.
Um, yes it can. The GPL explicitly says so.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Jay (=
(Who is to say that Caldera-now-SCO didn't authorize it? Wasn't Ransom Love and his whole crew basically forced out in favor of the current Chief Sleazebag Officer and his ilk? I wonder what Love has to say about all of this; I smell an interview opportunity...)
The problem is of course that SCO sponsored a lot of Linux development, and we don't have any proof that they didn't put the code their themselves.
As far as the bike analogy goes - if your bike "shows up" in my garage because you planted it there, and then you say I stole it, you're not only lying, but you're slandering me by calling me a thief and you're also guilty of conspiracy to frame me. SCO is doing all of this and more.
Also, one last thing - keep in mind that just because SCO might actually have a case does NOT mean that they will win, not by a long shot. They obviously have no idea what they're doing or what they're talking about when it comes to patent infringement (hint: patent owners have the right to choose when and how they enforce their patents), and for all of their talk about how wrong the GPL is, they are still distributing the kernel sources from their own FTP server right now, without securing them via any sort of authentication mechanism. No password, no public-key handshaking, nothing.
So, as much as I doubt that SCO even has a case, I'm willing to grant the possibility that they might, but they're destroying it themselves via their own unprofessional actions and statements. Not only that... but they decided to go after IBM for an IP case. IBM, the company that out-litigated the Department of Justice. And we're not even talking "convinced a Republican president to call off the DoJ hounds" out-litigated - we're talking "spent more money and had better lawyers" out-litigated. So, even if they are in the right (which I personally seriously doubt) they still don't get to win necessarily, just because of our amazing legal system here in the USA.
And, even though Boies may be famous, he is an ex-IBM lawyer. He's also under review in Florida and may be disbarred.
All in all, I've got my popcorn ready. I've always got FreeBSD to fall back on if things get too out-of-hand.
From paragraph 22 of IBM's counterclaims:
"Although most, if not all, of the UNIX technology that SCO purports to own is generally known, available without restriction to the general public or rapidly ascertainable by proper means, SCO undertook to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the marketplace in regard to SCO's rights in and to that technology."
Umm AIX is being moved toward working better with Linux over the network, but it's not being phased out anytime soon. There are two other OS IBM won't be abandoning anytime soon either - z/OS and OS/390. That's the big iron stuff. AIX is mostly for the minis these days. Linux is for the micros.
They are putting a lot of work into making sure everything plays nicely together, but they are certainly NOT going towards using Linux exclusively.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Except that karma whores can't be funny anymore.
Your credit card information wants to be free.
Go, IBM, go!
[emphasis mine]
You thought wrong. Follow the insider trading reports and you'll see that the SCO top brass has made over a million dollars so far in their pump and dump scheme.
War is necrophilia.
Ah, ah, ah! But the GPL isn't a *use* license, it's a *redistribution* license. The developers gave it to you to use for free, with all the rights that copyright law doesn't prohibit; they then additionally offered you a chance to redistribute it if you comply with the GPL.
If the GPL goes away, you still have the free ability to use the software -- but no ability to redistribute the product or create derivative works.
Yes, but since you cannot assume that the shareholders will all sell at a particular time you should maximize the shareholders' value in the long term (under the assumption they keep the stock).
The biggest problem with Enron (as a business) was not that the employees lost their jobs, but that the shareholders lost their money, and the company went down (so they won't be getting their money back).
The biggest problem with the SCO business model is that it depends on flimsy claims of IP infringement, outrageous compensatory demands that have not been backed yet by evidence, and the hope someone will buy them out. It doesn't depend on any of their ACTUAL PRODUCTS, and it actually kills some of their product lines (the Linux side), antagonizes their users and the developer community, and not a few business partners.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
And don't forget OS/400, which I forgot in my original post. That's for the iSeries minis, formerly called AS/400s.
IBM is big on linux right now, no doubt about it, but when folks say stuff like it's their only OS they are way wrong.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Electronic Frontier Finland Co. warns and makes a note for all finlandians not to answer or reply to any Linux Licence procedures, statements or requests on the behalf of SCO. If at any given time or any way someone has received or will receive a letter or e-mail from SCO, offering Linux-Licences or likewise, it is to be ignored and handled just like any other ordinary spam, advices the EFFI's chairman, Mikko Valimaki. The minister of EFFI, Kai Puolamaki, points out and reminds that Linux is being shared and supervised by the GPL-licence, due to which the operating system can be developed and shared freely by independent factors. He also states the SCO to have offered their own developed Linux-version known as Caldera supported by GPL-licence conditions, and thus letting the code open in the public, free for all. Valimaki also comments SCO still has not publiced any proof or evidence regarding the copying of the code, in spite of the numerous requests.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
What, you mean these reports?
Different company.
Santacruz Operation has since changed their name to tarantella:
http://www.tarantella.com/
The current SCO is actually Caldera systems
It didn't occur to me to look for it under that.
Here's two more:
first one
second one
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Actually a change of ownership of the patent is usually registered with the Patent Office. I can't recall if it is a legal requirement.
But changes of ownership are actually pretty rare. Most times that a patent is 'sold' by a company that is still in business you instead keep ownership of the actual patent and sell the resale and enforcement rights.
Novell is almost certainly right in its claim it still 'owns' the patents, although AT&T may well still hold title. The issue is what rights have been transferred. Clearly SCO holds a very substantial interest but it is unlikely to affect IBM since IBM has a prior contract with the original owners of the patents.
IBM are pointing out a very basic principle of patent law. IBM signed a contract with AT&T. That cannot be affected by subsequent contracts signed with Novell and now SCO.
IBM is also pointing out a very basic fact of the computer industry, if you get into patent disputes with a company that sells the same stuff you do the guy with the longest patent portfolio wins. I was very surprised that the countersuit mentions only 4 patents, I had expected more like 40, or perhaps this is only the start.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/