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.

Comments

-1 troll

[Sanity]

If I didn't know better I would say that this entire press release is a troll - and a pretty unconvincing troll at that:

We view IBM's counterclaim filing today as an effort to distract attention from its flawed Linux business model.

Flawed business model? Relative to what - SCO's ingenious strategy of using rediculous claims of IP infringement to pump and dump their shares while refusing to publicly disclose what the IP infringement actually is? Yup - SCO knows all about flawed business models.

If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license.

Guh?! Since when is the GPL license the problem - even if SCO's claims did prove to be true? And how exactly does IBM "move away" from the software license under which their primary operating system is distributed?

As the stakes continue to rise in the Linux battles, it becomes increasingly clear that the core issue is bigger than SCO (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), Red Hat, or even IBM

What - that a company can get away with lying about Linux in order to pump up their share price? Yeah, that is a problem that is bigger than SCO, Red Hat, and IBM, but perhaps they won't get away with it after all.

The core issue is about the value of intellectual property in an Internet age.

Would this be the same Internet that largely relies on Free Software?

In a strange alliance, IBM and the Free Software Foundation have lined up on the same side of this argument in support of the GPL.

Normally when different groups line up on the same side of an issue it suggests that there is something to it.

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.

And how long was SCO shipping Linux without raising an issue about IP infringement?

These guys have some serious nerve - I hope they get put behind bars for this crap.

Re:-1 troll

[Cognitive Dissident]

Yes, they have finally tipped their hand and admitted their real motivation in this case. They've all but cut and pasted from the Microsoft anti-Open Source rants we've seen from Steve Ballmer and Bill gates in the past. Is there a .DOC file or just HTML? If it's available as a .DOC the anal record-keeping properties of MS-WORD that have tripped so many other people up in the past might also catch MS and SCO in their game if it proves the link between MS and this anti-Open Source campaign. Heck, even if it's HTML you'd better read the souce and see if the comments indicate it was really written in Redmond.

The value of GPL as a 'business model' has absolutely nothing to do with their legal claims against IBM. The fact that they state it as if it is part of the case betrays that this lawsuit itself is just the vehicle that gets them the attention they want so they can propogandize for their real cause. They know they can't prevail legally. They are just going for the negative publicity to scare people away from Open Source products, and whatever possible delays they can cause with legal entanglements before they get sued into oblivion. SCO is executing the corporate equivalent of a suicide bombing.

SCO vs OJ

[Anonymous Coward]

This has really became the Nerd version of the OJ trial.

Unsubstantiated?

[jmkaza]

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.

Mass Small Claims Court

[mrjohnston]

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.

Re:Beginning to look Valid

[defile]

None of these claims have any merit at all.

Two identical pieces of code can have a variety of explanations:

• A was copied verbatim from B (SCO -> Linux)
• B was copied verbatim from A (Linux -> SCO)
• A and B copied it verbatim from C (BSD IP checksum algorithm -> Linux, SCO)
• A and B both copied it from a reference manual/document/standard (hashing algorithm published in Practice of Programming by Kernighan & Pike)
• A and B implement an interface (the code may be part of a header file)
• A and B are not verbatim copies, just pretty similar (same algorithm, different authors)

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".