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.
These guys have some serious nerve - I hope they get put behind bars for this crap.
This has really became the Nerd version of the OJ trial.
SCO's accussing IBM of making unsubstantiated claims? Did I wake up in Bizarro world this morning. At least IBM told them what code they were suing them for.
This is an excellent example of "the pot calling the kettle black". I will have to remember this when my 1 year old nephew asks me what that phrase means.
we do. It's the GPL.
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-133.nosrc.rpm
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-152.nosrc.rpm
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm
They have accepted and continue to accept [th GPL's] terms by having this Linux kernel source code on their FTP server.
Please look at that listing again, and if you don't believe the "nosrc" part, unpack the SRPMS and see for yourself.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
So I'm going to take your comment at face value and assume you saw the code, saw line-for-line similarities between the Linux code and the SCO code, etc.
But what I don't see is how this proves SCO's case.
For example, does seeing the similarities prove that the code in question originated at SCO? No. It's more likely that both SCO and Linux copied code from a common source--quite possibly the author, who has the right to license the same code to two different groups user two different licenses.
Also, assuming SCO did author the code in question, would their case still be proven? No. They licensed that code to the Linux community under the GPL when they released their Linux distribution.
Unless you have answers for these very important points, SCO will lose. They will lose big.
With all due respect, what makes you so sure that they *will* win this?
SCO v. IBM is *not* an IP battle.
Let me reiterate: SCO v. IBM is *not* an IP battle.
It is a contract law dispute (read the original complaint). So unless the NDA allowed you to read the contracts that governed the IBM purchase from AT&T, and then the Novell purchase from AT&T, and then the SCO purchase from Novell, along with all of the side letter agreements, and you understand how the concept of 'derivative works' applies to software, as well as the legal admissibility of both that definition as well as the definition contained in said contracts, I am unsure of your ability to make such an assertion.
This doesn't mean that I think you are wrong. I am just curious on grounds you base your assertion.
Matt.
Hello pot, this is kettle. You're black.
They're claiming 2.4.18 and later is infringeing...
Cool, we just all go back to RH7.2 then...
Al.The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
I guess that SCO is basically screwed unless they can some how force the GPL to break-down in court
Not a problem if the GPL is ruled invalid, then SCO is committing a copyright violation for commercial gain.
If they are selling someone elses work, for financial gain, knowing they do not have a license to do so they could be in a LOT of trouble.
Isn't that actually criminal copyright infringement? Do you think the SCO execs would rather go to jail then lose a lawsuit?
buying an SCO license with monopoly money..
Kidding aside, Microsoft did but an SCO license with 'monopoly' money just a few weeks ago.
And now SCO is attacking the GPL.
Now isen't that interesting.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
""Our review of source code and documents appears supportive of SCO claims, though we are not legal experts and IP matters are not always transparent," Deutsche Bank Securities analyst Brian Skiba said in a research note Thursday after visiting SCO's headquarters in Lindon, Utah, Wednesday.
So he saw the same code snippets that the other analysts have seen, with no dates, file names or other means to see when they were developed.
With these kinds of patents in their arsenal, and the stupidity of judges when it comes to patent infringement suits, I'd be effin' scared of IBM. It's a good thing they don't pull them out very often.
SCO is doomed. But not before the execs make millions in dumping stock.
Everyone is pissed at SCO. I am wondering if it would work to just have thousand/tens of thousands of people go and almost simultaneously file small claims court case against them. The amount (199-699) is perfect for small claims and we can all allege fraud and extortion, and sue for court cost (or maybe add on the attempted license fee too). In the suit we can say there is no proof to substantiate the license. If they show up you don't have much to lose and they have to show prrof so we would find out and remove the proof. If they don't you should be immune to further prosecution on that computer and they get stuck with many bills. If enough users file there is no way they could respond to this. Maybe this is far fetched, but I don't see why it wouldn't work. It would ultimately force SCO to quit this as we bleed them dry and they end up with almost no end users to try and charge without finally revealing their code and having it removed anyway.
Noone in the linux community can prove where or who it came from, it just sort of miraculously appeared and noone took credit for it.
I doubt very much that this is the case. Linus does not accept anonymous additions to the kernal! And everything is logged. So you're talking out your ass I'm afraid.
The only reason we can't identify where it came from is because SCO won't tell us what the code is!
You might be right. SGI is exactly what I was thinking. The article mentioned "another hardware vendor" (Who is not IBM or HP) that contributed Unix Sys V code for SMP. I immediately thought about SGI's recent work on NUMA to get Linux up to 32 processors. Can anybody substaniate or shed light on that? Apologies to SGI, I don't want to FUD you guys, but that seems to be where SCO is pointing.
Are "they" going to be wary? I am an IT head and I am not wary about deploying Linux systems. The license on my software says it is free. The US legal system allows me to sue anyone I want for anything I want. I can claim all kinds of things when I file a case with little or no ties to reality. Prevailing in a case is the difficult part - something that SCO has yet to do for any of its claims. In the end you have to have the preponderance of the evidence to win in court, or as SCO wants to do, instill enough fear to settle out of court. At this point it doesn't look like IBM is going to settle.
Isn't it obvious that SCOX is trying to whip up as much controversy as possible? They take their irrelevant little failed company, and thrust it into center stage based on all of their wild claims.
This drives up their stock price, increases the FUD in the business community, and makes their claims seem more legitimage than they are.
Whenever someone pushes back, they either make even wilder claims, or reverse the allegation back on the claimant.. SCOX: "Your claims that our case is unsubstatiated FUD is a blatantly unsubstantiated claim."
The only effective measure for the Linux community is to IGNORE THESE MORONS.
This case is threatening to be one in which only the lawyers come out of it with anything.
Wrong, SCO execs who sold shares at inflated prices come out with cash money
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.
Gee officer, you've been standing there with your gun all this time, but you didn't point it at me until I started snatching old ladies' purses...
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
Even better, it's against clasue #3 of the GPL to not distribute the source code or at least post a notice offering the source code. Chaulk up another actionable violation.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Think about that for a minute. Get it yet?
I bet IBM's got a whole slew of pattents it'll claim SCO infringes upon, if needed. They've just listed the four it can build a quick and completely solid case for. IBM has a massive IP inventory to fall back on -- The senior guys at IBM are thinking "Silly fools, you want to play IP games, then We'll play IP games!"
-
http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html
Here's the introduction: Thanks for your help.Request your free CD of my piano music.
What scares me is the thought of a jury made up of the usual non-techie types who don't even have a clue of what an operating system is. I wouldn't be surprised if SCO's lawyers filter out any potential jurors who've used Linux or done any professional programming.
It looks from the analysts comments as if the SCO claims have merit. Even a non-programmer can tell that two code blocks are identical. Most likely the code in question was copied and pasted in this case. This is too bad, but it underscores the importance of keeping others IP out of your IP.
Yeah, just as I can show you two pieces of identical code and you'll be able to see that they're identical.
What's more important is:
None of the analyst said it was shown historical proof that code belongs to them
Good thing I use Linux:)
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Up to this point, MHO was that while Mr. Stallman had a lot of good ideas, he was being a bit too fanatical in implementation, which I think was a fairly common opinion.
I must say that events of this week are causing me to reconsider that opinion. SCO's direct assult on the GPL seems to justify both Mr. Stallman's position on free vs. non-free software and also his fanaticism in keeping free software "pure".
sPh
I've read the other responses. The GPL won't collapse. Here's why:
MS would love for Linux to go away. However, the power of OSS is that many minds can organize efficiently enough to create a workable product. After years of educationally-focused Unix-like software getting streamlined, studied, debugged and now ported, we've hit commercial grade server product. For free.
The GPL is the grease for that organization. It forces the trust to appear in the transactions working with this code. It also enables the rejection of people who won't play by the rules. We're simply watching a greed-based test of that right now with SCO. Sure MS is rooting for the SCO team, they need to sell against only SUN, HP and other moneymakers in the industry. They know how to undercut someone with production costs.
Linux's only production costs are in manhours donated. Come hither-dither, feast/famine, Linux has been at enterprise quality and will only improve as new theories and algorithms get tested and then put into the churning process for implmentation, testing, etc.
So if SCO's code is present in the current Linux, "derivative works" clauses be damned, we're going to end up with a free something as an OS. The machienery for creating such a beast is already well constructed. if we OSS'd the old BeOS, or the obscure other OS'es out there right now, it would quickly flower into a powerhouse. BSD isn't a derivative, so we're only a kernel away from another Nix flavor anyway.
That said, I believe this mess of a SCO press release per day (and all the FUD in it) and then the world's jabbering about it, will pass when the courtroom doors finally open. There just isn't any logic left in it anymore. Also, serious cases aren't tried in press releases. We're talking about simple sales numbers here. MS pays SCO, makes the next Munich sale. If this doesn't happen, the money well will dry up and the lawyers will pick the bones clean at SCO.
You can be sure, though, that this brain-numbing series of moves by SCO is not without support. 5 execs aren't doing this because they want their stock to simply go from 0.25 to 11.00 - this is an orchestrated effort to remove the trust/reliability and certainty in the Linux-is-an-option for corporate servers. Who benefits most? MS. By far. One could be very certain Balmer is getting an inside on the SCO moves word-by-word before we are. He's ready to play off of this.
If you need to check, ask for an MS sales rep to come by and give a little presentation for your next "long-range server upgrade" - for those in the $10mil and up range (they will check your company structure, sales and potential first). Those slides are hot off the press from that morning's sales meeting. And they say: "Linux is a liability because of the GPL." Almost verbatim SCO's press release.
mug
None of these claims have any merit at all.
Two identical pieces of code can have a variety of explanations:
Until they disclose more information, it can be total BS. The reviewers could even be outright lying.
These kind of claims are called "unsubstantiated claims".
Apparently, SCO doesn't know how to play the patent game. As anyone who's worked for a big company with large patent portfolios would know, the patent game works something like this:
For those of you still not clear on the concept is that it doesn't matter what particular patents you have but rather how many you have. In other words, how many cards do you have to trade? If you don't have enough patents cards to play, you are either going to get sued out of existence or you will be sent running with your tail between your legs.
Now, you would think that SCO would understand this game, having been around a while, so to speak, but then again, what is now called SCO hasn't really been around that long.
The thing that really gives away their cluelessness is that when most intelligent companies think of suing IBM, they don't think of easy money from deep pockets. They think about IBM's deep legal pockets, and how to deal when IBM comes back over the top with their countersuit. Even those loser companies that buy patents and try to sue people know enough to go after the easily bullied small fry before trying to take on someone who can fight back with a vengence.
"Please look at that listing again, and if you don't believe the "nosrc" part, unpack the SRPMS and see for yourself."
So they're guilty of 8 million counts of copyright infringement, one from each author whose copyrighted code they're illegally distributing without permission.
How does that help them?
I hope that this post was modded "Interesting" as in a "Look at that hobo with the tin-foil hat shouting about John Lennon and the KGB. Isn't that interesting." sort of way.
Yeah, you tell him! It makes much more sense to believe that Microsoft would shell out millions of dollars to SCO for a vague "intellectual property license" they won't need then to believe that they would do so as an attempt to fund an attack on some of their major competitors.
Because at least five SCO executives need to go to jail for stock manipulation and fraud, and spend the next ten years as some bad men's wives?
But more seriously: How many lawsuits do you think IBM would be hit with in the next decade, if they were to reward this sort of behavior? SCO so far has made two basic claims: that anything IBM ever wrote and distributed with AIX is now a "derivative work" and belongs to SCO, and that Linux has a few copied lines of code which can only be identified in secret presentations that make it impossible to check which direction any copying went in.
There are probably hundreds of small companies that could make equally ridiculous claims and wild threats against IBM. If those companies believe that they'd have to actually win a case in court, then they won't even try. If, however, they believe that they can just make a lot of noise and get bought out for ten times what they're worth, then the ink won't even be wet on IBM's check for SCO before other moneygrubbers start getting in on the action.
It all depends on the benchmarks you choose.
They won't win any awards for processing power per dollar, that's for sure. Their I/O bandwidth is extraordinary, however, and their reliability puts even Suns biggest boxes to shame.
For what they are designed for, they're still the kings.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
/proc is really a Plan 9 From Bell Labs thing, though Linux quite reasonably picked it up.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Employees are remunerated for their work and time through money and other tradables.
They are not working there as a personal investment and because of faith in the company, at least they shouldn't. If they are not properly compensated for their time and work, they should ask for proper compensation or look for greener pastures.
Consumers are not investing in your company. They are investing in their own demand. They are remunerating the company for meeting that demand, which brings money to your company, but their loyalty is (psychological manipulation aside) to satisfying their demand. Or should be.
Businesses need to deal with these three groups to be successful, but that doesn't make them all equal in nature. Nor would that make them all shareholders by any linguistic stretch of the imagination. I'd love to see what kind of etymological magic is behind that.
Let's get our facts straight:
- Businesses are for-profit entities created to make money for the owners (stockholders).
- Employees are people making money by selling their work/time (human resources) to the company. If anything they are business partners of the company, not shareholders.
- Consumers are people who demand something and are willing to pay for it to whatever business best meets the demand.
- Businesses are successful if they, on average and on the long term, make money for the owners. This can only be done if they don't screw over their employees (losing their resources) or their consumers (losing their clients).
Yet we don't say the goal of the company is to follow those rules anymore than the purpose of human life is to take a bath, use the toilet or eat frequently. Those are just things you have to do if you want to successfully do whatever it is you're doing with your life. It's the environment of the game. It's a given.
The people behind the Enron scandal did a lot of illegal things. Some of them were illegal because they bankrupted the company and defrauded investors. Others were illegal because of entirely different, non-business, reasons.
Screwing over employees is wrong, and often illegal. Screwing over consumers is also mora than plain stupid. There's no reason to justify the immorality of one with the language of the other.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...