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.
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.
.02
And SCO has been supporting Linux for quite a number of years, and still has the 2.4.13 kernel sources available on their site. Amazingly enough, they haven't removed that from their site, allowing for Linux to be used free of SCO prior to and including version 2.4.13.
If IBM wants customers to accept the GPL risk...
It is now even more obvious that SCO feels that the GPL is too weak to stand up in court. I think that IBM has already planned for this and is prepared to prove that the GPL will hold up. I just find it extremely interesting that SCO supported the GPL up until 2.4.13 and no FANTASTIC strides have been made since that point in the code that *we think* they are trying to claim is their IP.
I guess that SCO is basically screwed unless they can some how force the GPL to break-down in court.
Just my worthless
As someone pointed out earlier, SCO is STILL distributing the disputed kernel with source. By continuing to distribute it mixed with their own GPL-incompliant source code, they are violating the intellectual property rights of everyone who ever contributed to the linux kernel. Without agreeing to the GPL they have no right to distrubute GPL'd software, because nothing else but the GPL gives them that right.
This case is threatening to be one in which only the lawyers come out of it with anything.
For all the predictably negative comments made by the Linux community, no one it seems, is preparing to challenge SCO and get this resolved. I will guarantee there are an endless stream of SCO jibes on this page now but not a single one of those jibes is something proactive or reactive to this seemingly large problem.
As far as I am aware, this has been ongoing for several months now and is including some very big companies that PHB's have heard of. Now, if a PHB knows that SCO is taking IBM to court and threatening Novell it would seem to suggest that using Linux in any form is likely to have implications at some time in the future, and therefore hold back Linux in the workplace.
Whilst this cloud is hanging over Linux, managers are going to be wary about rolling out Linux solutions and therefore other solutions such as MS ones are going to look increasingly safe choices, particularly with the new legal benefits.
All Lycoris Desktop/LX users are unaffected by this new licensing program and are immune to any further changes in the SCO licensing structure due to the perpetuity of the prior agreement.
Unless Lycoris is referring to the GPL when they are talking about the "prior agreement", it is impossible for them to have another agreement with SCO: the GPL simply does not permit redistribution of code under side-agreements. Either everybody can redistribute or nobody can. That clause is in there precisely to keep companies from doing what SCO is doing.
By definition, a business model that destroys the business is flawed. It may be a successful get-rich-quick scheme for the key decision makers, but it is not a successful business model.
For a primer on the distinction, go talk to some former Enron employees. (Not senior management. Employees.)
If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license.
Now, I think, we get down to the heart of the matter. This isn't an attack on Linux per se. It isn't about IP or patents or copyrights. This is about trying to destroy the GPL. I think this statement, more than anything else, shows that MS really is behind this whole thing. What interest would SCO, a puny company who once distrubuted a Linux kernel in the GPL, have in invalidating the GPL? I just can't see why they would make themselves look like complete idiots to do that. On the other hand, who would jump for joy at the prospect of companies turning away from the GPL? Microsoft would be first and foremost on that list.
SCO: If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license.
Sanity: 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?
I don't think IBM considers linux their "primary" operating system at this point. At any rate, "move away" in SCO's terms I think really means to move away from Linux entirely and go back to solely distributing products based in AIX, to which IBM would have to continue to pay SCO for. Its a statement that's certainly not in IBMs best interests, but certainly is in SCO's.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
What I'd like to know is if Caldera is going to charge it's own users the fee for Caldera Linux? If they do, they cut off a huge source of revenue (not to mention potentially putting themselves in the arena for legal action from their own customer base who now have to pay twice for a product) and if they don't is it antitrust time?
"It's here, but no one wants it." - The Sugar Speaker
I don't know why people are so cagey about pointing to Microsoft as being behind all this. For me, it's not a conspiracy theory, it is obvious.
Why? Because if you look at SCOs actions and what they say, they are doing things to attack Linux and the GLP that don't really have anything to do with their legal battles or trying to boost their share price. For instance, in their response to IBM, they say
If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license.
Why this wording? This seems to be a general attack on Linux and the GPL. In what way does this wording favor SCO or its case?
I think it is clear that Microsoft has done a shady deal with SCO, and that SCO will just continue to do anything it can to damage the GPL and Linux even if it is detrimental to SCOs business or share price. In the last "halloween" document MS identified legal attacks as being the only effective way to fight Linux, and now this is happening. Coincidence? I think not.
SCO said:
As the stakes continue to rise in the Linux battles, it becomes increasingly clear that the core issue is bigger than SCO, Red Hat, or even IBM. The core issue is about the value of intellectual property in an Internet age.
Doesn't this ring as being a strange statement to anyone else? Is this really SCO talking, or is it really MS?
What the community should be doing is trying to find evidence of the deal between SCO and MS. I believe that is where the meat of this fiasco really lies, and if it could be found then MS could get in serious legal trouble too.
There must be employees within SCO that are unhappy about what is happening and have access to "interesting" information. The OSS community should set up a mechanism by which SCO employees can anonymously submit information, and we should be encoraging them to do so. A web site should be set up with contact details of SCO employees (Work contact details - email addresses, direct phone numbers) so we can contact them. If nothing else, if a concerted effort was made to do these things it would really f**k up SCO internally - imagine the paranoia if the SCO management know that there is a concerted effort to get SCO employees to snich.
I bl**dy hate SCO now, and I don't think people are being creative enough in thinking of ways that their life can be made difficult.
It is not a sustainable business. There is no room for growth here, only short term gain. And when the FTC investigation begins they may well find themselves libel for damages as well as (dare we hope) a bit of jail time for select executives. I dunno about you, but I would say that's a supremely flawed business model.
In the release McBride said, "Novell continues to say that it owns the UNIX System V patents, yet it must know that it does not. A simple review of U.S. Patent Office records reveals that SCO owns those patents."
The US Patent Office does not keep track of ownership of patents; they merely record inventors and who the patent is assigned to intially (from the application). Or does McBride think everybody registers all their patent-related contracts with the USPTO?
Well, this is good: McBride obviously has absolutely no clue about intellectual property, which just further supports the notion that SCO's claims are completely groundless. The lawyers are going to have a lot of fun with SCO in court.
I don't think IBM considers linux their "primary" operating system at this point.
You sure about that? Considering AIX is being moved towards linux (the "L" in AIX 5L stands for Linux!), what else do they have left?
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
That's why we have an obligation to spread the word. I've already told my non-geek friends about it. Granted, I don't include the gritty details, but they get pissed when I tell them it could affect the price of their Tivo or shiny new PDA.
The way I explain it is this. It's like trying to charge a licensing fee for certain hamburgers. SCO is trying to say that their IP is lettuce, which has been freely available for a long time. So they now want to charge fees for any restaurant that serves California burgers. Plus, they have designs on salads as well. Their suit against IBM is like they just sued McDonald's.
Details are, of course, omitted, but they get the gist of it.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
The goal of almost any business is to maximes shareholders' value, not provide job security or anything else.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
My suggestion would be to buy a boxed RH distribution and use that to force SCO to reveal code or get a "clean bill of health" from a US court, even a small court carries weight since it will be the first "ruling" on this issue.
Let's say 500 different claims get's filed SCO is pretty much unable to respond.
Help fight continental drift.
All Linux users, including owners of TiVo need to report SCO to their Attorney General. Ask if demanding protection money is extortion. Tell the AG that SCO won't tell you what you are buying and you have no idea if you have compiled the alledged code into your binary kernal and thus don't know if you need a binary license. Tell the AG that SCO is giving your no warrenty that the license will work the way it claims. Tell them to act fast because SCO is considering doubling the cost of protection.
Why would SCO care how IBM treats their customers? It shouldn't care, because if IBM treats their customers poorly they'll go elsewhere, possibly to SCO. So why would they say that? Most likely because they don't like IBM supporting free software. For IBM, software isn't the big seller, it's services and high-end hardware. SCO doesn't have this. At most, SCO is just a software company, but I would say it is just an IP company now. They see their demise if Linux keeps going for free.
The real irony (hopefully I'm using that word correctly) is that if the rumours about Microsoft supporting SCO behind the scenes are true, and Microsoft is the one that put Netscape out of business by giving away web browser software, then Microsoft has really supported the downfall of SCO by setting a business precedent of giving away software.
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
Welcome to the Principal-Agent Problem. This problem is the conflict of interest between the owner of a an organization, the Principal, and the executor of the organization's goals, the Agent. In business, the Principals are the stockholders, and the Agents are management. In democracy, the Principals are the voters and the Agents are management. The Principal-Agent problem occurs because of each group trying act in its own rational self-interest, which often results in differing goals.
Maximizing the shareholders' value is the the nominal goal of any publicly traded company. For the larger body of shareholders, this means producing reliably increasing returns as this provides them with safely growing assets. Ignoring the dot-com IPO craze, most shareholders are into a company for a long time, hoping that it will provide them with sensible return at at least the market average for the life of their time invested. This is the "will of the voters" for a company.
The problem comes in companies like Enron or SCO when the management has investments in the company, is thoroughly unethical (*cough* rationally-self-interested *cough*), and has made a series of mistakes that they and their stock holdings will eventually be held accountable for. Their goal becomes to deceive the market and the other stockholders to try to maximize the price of the stock in the short term and give themselves a window of opportunity to cash out before that shareholders' value come crash down on them. The executives of Enron, the Principals, damn well were charged with keeping their company running by the shareholders, the Agents, who invested their money in the company in hopes of it staying afloat. This little thing of keeping the company alive that you brush off as just "job security" was their job. Instead of properly owning up to what was wrong with their company, they participated in a "pump and dump" scam that made them filthy rich right before dropping the bomb that ruined the asset value of millions of shareholders, including other employees in the company and many retirement funds around the nation. Shareholders lost big. If they had known over the long term what kind of problems Enron had had for years, they could've shored up for the loss or pulled out safely. Instead, their shareholder value was destroyed through deceptive business practices that made Enron falsely seem far more valuable than it actually was.
SCO is essentially doing the same thing. Their business model has been an utter failure. Even as Caldera, they were outcompeted by better and cheaper Linux distros, so Caldera management bought SCO and decided to bet the company on a outside shot. I seriously disbelieve thanks to their own public comments that SCO's management think that they can win. They're bluffing, and the stock trading actions of SCO's executives seems to indicate that they're participating in a very loud and aggressive "pump and dump" scam. They're cashing out while the stock value is currently about 15 times what it was last year. Here's the best part. It doesn't matter if they cash out if they win. Considering that the company has very low overhead beyond its legal department, I'm sure that if they do win, SCO management will grant themselves quite a huge salary bonus from that windfall (with stock options to boot) with the blessing of all the new stockholders which have started flooding in since the change in company strategy. It's a win-win situation for management!
However, it's an extremely risky gamble for shareholders -- one which the entire company's future is leveraged on. If they lose the IBM case, or if they win against IBM but lose the battle to actually enforce fees on the Linux community, their business model is utterly empty of any future revenue sources on the level that the current stock price reflects. You see, SCOX has a dangerously high price to earnings ratio right now. Any stock analyst will tell you that companies with a high P/E are risky. Usually, a
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").