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.
Oh boy. Monty Python couldn't keep you in stitches longer then McBride. This guy is one of the world's greatest comedians.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
pot.kettle(black)
Graham
Linux - Fast Pane Relief
Normally I don't repost, but I wrote this too late in the last posting cycle and I want a +5 Funny rating.
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.
SCO is accusing someone else of filing a lawsuit containing Unsubstantiated Allegations? This is from the Onion isn't it?
-=DaveHowe=-
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
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.
In other news, the pot today called the kettle black. Steming from a futile attempt by the pot to pass off as a kettle, and the kettle reaffirming it's own existance, the pot, for reasons yet unknown, called the kettle black in front of fellow kitchenware.
"It was just an unwarranted attack" said the Roast Pot. "We all know the truth here, and for the pot to be so stupid and call the kettle black, while itself is black, is just ridiculous.
The pot refused to answer any of our questions claiming temporary insanity due to undue financial stress. The kettle however smiled at our cameras and stated "now we realize who is living in the fantasy world!". We will bring you more of this developing story as it becomes available. For Koo-Koo kitchen News, this is Tea Spooner.
---
A tautology is a thing which is tautological.
Move away from the GPL or I'll..um say Move away again! Ha!
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.
"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!
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.
Deutsche Bank Securities analyst Brian Skiba...
The guy likely uses a computer, so obviously he's an expert on kernel design.
In other news, St. Mary's Hospital caterer Edna Pratt reviewed the conditions of several patients, and declared them free of cancer.
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.
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
"Why, good afternoon, Mr. McBride! Me and Tiny here, we's here as goodwill representatives of our esteemed employer, IBM. We'd likes ta take a minute of your valuable time and substantiate our employer's claims against your organization. Would youse mind steppin' into dis darkened alleyway with us?"
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
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.
buying an SCO license with monopoly money..
:)
*gaaah* I almost fell out of my chair..
That just killed me.. I gotta buy one with some monopoly money..
thought, I only have the simpson version and might need that money later for the "save the SCO" foundation for when they declare bankruptcy
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
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.
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.
SCO responded to the countersuit on Thursday, calling IBM's complaint an effort to distract attention from flaws in its own business model and criticizing the GPL.
Clearly, IBM's business model is broken and they're trying to hide that fact. I mean, selling products and services is so 20th Century. Litigation is the way to make money these days. The countersuit just smacks of "me too"ism.
-- dR.fuZZo
ARMONK, NY - Aug. 8, 2003 -- "Dodge this."
No. There's a mountain range in the way. It tends to drift across the salt flats into Nevada, and south along the Colorado into Arizona.
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.
(just some random crap so it will post...)
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
.. In an apparent attempt to distract IBM, SCO's CEO told it that he could 'hear its momma calling'. IBM, confused, turned away from the blacktop at which point Mr. McDumbass picked up IBM's ball and attempted to leave the playground with it.
IBM soon realized what was going on, chased Mr. McDumbass to the monkey bars and beat the shit out of him.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/xenix
Those two companies should team up again, since their absurd arrogance and disregard for true innovation make good bedfellows.
Perhaps the moron coalition heading up SCO should view the original open source UNIX post --> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=771%40mit-edd ie.UUCP. And then proceed to jump out a window.
Though they tweaked their business model, yet the bastard wouldn't go
Oh my Darl-ing, oh my Darl-ing, oh my Darl-ing Darl McBride
He'll be lost and gone for ever when the SEC comes for the ride.
So they fed the fire with lawsuits, fear uncertainty and doubt
Tried to set the stock a-pumping, hoped to dump and then move out
Oh my Darl-ing, oh my Darl-ing, oh my Darl-ing Darl McBride
He'll be floating down the river when the SEC gets into stride
Who would buy this stock for money? Not a broker with a brain
But God oft gives stacks of greenbacks to the certified insane
Oh my Darl-ing, oh my Darl-ing, oh my Darl-ing Darl McBride,
When the shit impacts the fanblades, you can run but you can't hide.
SCO is not an Enron, not a congressman will care
When the monster from East Fishfill has you dangling in the air
Oh my Darl-ing, oh my Darl-ing, oh my Darl-ing SCO,
For a while the joke was funny, but it's really time to go.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
...then surely SCO is breaking copyight law. I thought the whole point of the GPL is that if found null and void then copyright law stood as its last line of defence.
In this case, that means every single Linux developer can now sue SCo for unauthorised distribution of their copyrighted material!!
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
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.
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
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.
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?
""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.
Just print out 14 - 50 Darler Bills and send them to SCO for each CPU running Linux.
Frank:-)
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
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
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!
I'm getting pretty sick of this, and I've seen that small claims has been a pretty useful way of dealing with some really anoying pests (ie. telemarketers). Is there any possible way I could bring them to small claims? I mean they're claiming I owe them money, but I don't think I do. Of course IANAL, but if someone else know the applicible law better than I do...
It'd be really funny if SCO got slashdotted in small claims court.
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.
I read the linked article on lycoris.org, which is the Lycoris community site, and it depressed the hell out of me. Yes, in order to create Lycoris (which before the name change was Redmond Linux) they had to license Caldera OpenLinux from the company which now calls itself SCO.
;_;
The unfortunate upshot is that if you support Lycoris, you are ultimately supporting SCO. So it is with a heavy heart that I have to say that I will cease advising newbies to check out Lycoris. Instead, I will advise installation of Mandrake 9.1.
Too bad...Amethyst is really, really nice and is a great "training wheels" distro for those who are migrating from Windows.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
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.
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.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
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!
From the article on the Lycoris web site:
Redmond, WA - August 6, 2003 - Lycoris revealed today that its flagship product, Desktop/LX, is based on Caldera OpenLinux, which Lycoris has a license to develop and distribute directly from SCO. The terms of this previous agreement lock in Lycoris's ability to alter the source code of the Caldera OpenLinux product, which it has done extensively and release the results as Open Source to the public.
Now, as I understand it, Linux is just the kernel that is distributed ONLY under the GPL. So if Lycoris has purchased a license from SCO that covers Linux and is more restrictive than the GPL, then haven't SCO just lost the right to distribute Linux (as IBM suggests)? More to the point, doesn't that also mean that Lycoris have also lost the right to distribute Linux under the GPL? But Linux can't be distributed except under the GPL, so isn't Lycoris sorta screwed?
If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license. 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.
Not convincing. SCO's shouting loud as if the problem is in GPL and free software and open source, but that seems to me to be definitely a false claim intentionally made-up to confuse people.
This is not a GPL problem. This is not an open-source problem. This is not even a problem of certain kind of license (be it Free or Open or proprietary).
Just imagine (only at the moment) that IBM breached some of its contract terms with SCO and released the "stolen" code, NOT under the GPL, but under some proprietary license where you as a customer never see the source and still have to pay $100000 to use the binary. SCO can (and has to) sue IBM to collect damage. Is this any worse or better than the current situation where IBM used GPL? Probably that would affect the amount of damage (don't know in which direction), but if SCO can collect damage that doesn't matter.
So, even if SCO has something, it's only IBM playing dirty, and that should be all (from SCO's point of view). Not at all a problem of GPL. It seems that SCO wants to make free software/open-source movement look as disrespectable as possible, for some reason.
Let me start first by saying THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE:
How to bring $CO down to their knees (this is just theory I don't know much about our legal system), one person in every county in each of the fifty states file small claims (extortion) with that county's court near or on the same date. $CO would have to default most if not all those claims, and most likely would have to file bankruptcy on all those defaults. Now here is the kicker after they file bankruptcy everyone file one more small claim under a different argument, such as operating under a false pretenses. They would then not be able to claim bankruptcy on those defaults and would then have to come out of the companies operating cost.
Organizing a grass roots effort to under take such a task would be hard if not impossible, but my question for you lawyers and law students is, would this essentially work in theory? Lets face it; $CO has personally attacked every person of the Open Source Community, I think it is time for the community to do something about this attack and show the world that people make the difference in the US not corporations.
Sig
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.
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...)
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!"
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.
-
http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html
Here's the introduction: Thanks for your help.Request your free CD of my piano music.
EXT. BUILDING
.38.
As the Linux users panic trying to escape, Darl locks eyes with RedHat and levels his gun. RedHat throws SuSE to the ground and grabs the dumbstruck Linus's sidearm.
But he doesn't get off a shot -- a lone gunshot stops Darl -- knocking him back through the doorway. RedHat looks back to see IBM still sighting down the barrel of his
His hand is rock steady. He sees RedHat's look.
IBM
(shrugging)
You were right. You couldn't have
made it without me.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
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.
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."
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
I want to know if linus kept the copyright and trade mark when he released Linux under GPL.If he did and choses to be nasty then may be SCO could be in for copyright violation and unauthorised trademark use.
anybody care to comment?
Wanted : A Signature.
The only explanation I can find for SCO's lunacy is that they are setting themselves up to lose a court case against the GPL. Isn't this what we always wanted--a "test case" to set a precedent for the GPL?
Darl McBride is a hero, and I think we should all stop...
Damn, I nearly got through that with a straight face.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
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 $10mil and up range (they will check your company structure, sales and potential first). Those slides are hot off the press from that morning's sales meeting. And they say: "Linux is a liability because of the GPL." Almost verbatim SCO's press release.
mug
Except that karma whores can't be funny anymore.
Your credit card information wants to be free.
Go, IBM, go!
[emphasis mine]
None of these claims have any merit at all.
Two identical pieces of code can have a variety of explanations:
Until they disclose more information, it can be total BS. The reviewers could even be outright lying.
These kind of claims are called "unsubstantiated claims".
IBM should be concerned. If anyone is an expert on Unsubstantiated Allegations it is SCO.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Just a crazy thought. I think it's far fetched, but let's entertain it.
Remember the article about M$ starting a Linux Lab to investigate Linux? What if M$ plans are to fund SCO (or buy SCO). Throw money at a bunch of layers. Get a court of law to "prove" that SCO owns the "IP" in question.
M$ makes their own version of Linux. Claim that no-one else has the rights to it. The can advertise their Linux as the only "legal" Linux (or something like that). Alternately, they could sit on their "IP" and not distribute Linux at all. Hence Linux would be effectively "illegal".
Now I know that's a big conspiracy theory. But entertain it. Would M$ do something like that?
Someone who has more knowledge than me, please detail what it would require for IBM to just buyout SCO in a hostile takeover? From the looks of yahoo's finance page, SCOX has 13.1 million shares outstanding, and they seem to currently be selling at $15 a piece. So, in order to get controlling interest (51%, say), they would need to drop $98.25 million. Is this correct? Is this possible? Is this probable?
Sign the freakin NDA, get a good look at the code, take notes, and then release the information anonymously on Freenet so all this crap can come to an end sooner rather than later?
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
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.
IANAL, but here's my wacky idea to exctract justice from SCO:
Linux users should collectively file a class action lawsuit against SCO to stop the extortion of "license fees", litigating using an open source development style. No expensive (cathedral style) legal team would be required. Instead all legal actions would be developed and decided bazaar style. A web portal would allow all class members to see all documents relevant to the lawsuit and to submit their own "patches" to legal filings under development. Elected volunteers would represent the collective will of Linux users in court.
Would many eyes make all holes in legal strategy shallow? In a drawn out war of legal attrition would a broadly distributed volunteer effort outlast an opponent that is rapidly accumulating legal costs?
My understanding is that while the U.S. court system is in practice accessible only to those with a lot of money to pay lawyers, it is in principle accessible to all citizens. This would be a test of that principle.
IBM urges its customers to use non- warranted, unprotected software.
Since when is ANY software warranted? I haven't seen an EULA in years that didn't say AS-IS, NO WARRANTY like some sort of old rusted heap in a used car lot. Protection? "XXXXX corporation is not liable for any damages that may result from the use of the software." That's REAL protection, guys.Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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...
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.
IBM: Eh. You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
SCO: Oh, had enough, eh?
IBM: Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left.
SCO: Yes, I have.
IBM: Look!
SCO: Just a flesh wound. (kick)
IBM: Look, stop that.
SCO: Chicken! (kick) Chickeeeen!
IBM: Look, I'll have your leg. (kick) Right!
[IBM chops SCO's right leg off]
SCO: Right. I'll do you for that!
IBM: You'll what?
SCO: Come here!
IBM: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
SCO: I'm invincible!
IBM: You're a looney.
SCO: The SCO always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then.
I code, therefore I am.
SCO today counter counter sued IBM claiming "You're just a bunch a weenies".
IBM responded with yet more pointless stupid eServer commericals. The new initiative has a SCO exec bent over an eServer while an attractive and trendy eServer flack takes him from behind.
After reading IBM's countersuit, I no longer think that SCO's execs are going to walk away from this with millions. IBM is going to crush them all like little bugs and the whole lot of them are going to jail. Most likely the Canopy Group will get rolled over, as well.
By the way, thanks to everyone who modded my timeline up yesterday. It was nice to see all that work appreciated.
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.
Ahh! So SCO admits publicly that the infringement, and therefore damages, have been accumulating over many years!
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
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.
If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license
This is all the proof I need to show that Microsoft is behind all this. SCO's case is all about alleged theft of their code, which will prove to be a red herring. The real issue is to discredit the GPL. It's ludicrous for a company like SCO to pick a fight with so many people, unless they have Microsoft's billions to back them up.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
I actually have a copy of Caldera somewhere around here, installed on a 486sx laptop no less. I didn't actually buy it, but it was given to me as a promotional item. To me it was like, "Oh hey, don't have to put up with a multi meg download and burning a CD".
As far as useful value to me, it's just a glorified text terminal.
What is SCO's position on Caldera distrobutions? Do they expect me to pay money for a product that they gave me for free? Can someone provide me with a link that has this information?
I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, I'm actually curious. If there is some form of evidence SCO expects me to pay money for a product that was sent to me in good faith, I think my state attorney general should be informed.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
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.
If you paid for a $199 desktop license with $199 Taiwanese New Dollars, it would cost you $5.78 US.
I didn't see a specification that all amounts were in US dollars, and Taiwanese New Dollars are negotiable currency.
I couldn't know what the current exchange rates are for Monopoly Money....
Krill
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Mark Webbink made some comments that are being reported that are quite interesting.
He pointed out that even though it has now been months since SCO filed their lawsuit against IBM, SCO has yet to file even a single motion for discovery in the matter.
I suspect SCO is in real trouble, now.
From the above, it certainly appears, as we've long suspected, that SCO was seeking something other than an actual lawsuit.
Now SCO has been filed with a strong lawsuit by Red Hat that could cost them enormous amounts of money.
And to top it off, IBM has responded with counterclaims that should threaten even the continued existence of SCO.
I really don't see any way out for SCO at this point.
If SCO keeps going as they are, they are going to get flattened by Red Hat and oblitterated by IBM. Talk about road kill on the information super highway!
If they settle, the only way they survive is if IBM allows them to continue violating their patents. I guess it's possible that IBM could end up with System V as part of the settlement. In any event, there won't be much left of SCO, but they'd at least be in business.
The executives that got them there would be likely to bear the brunt of the punishment. They'll be out of there.
If the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) investigates and finds problems, some of the executives of both SCO and the Canopy Group could find themselves in a federal country club prison for a while and both SCO and the Canopy Group (depending on the blame for the violations) could end up paying enormous fines as well.
The only way I can see that SCO is gong to come out ahead is if they continue and IBM and Red Hat both stumble. But I can't imagine either making the kinds of mistakes that they would have to make for SCO to win.
Just what is SCO's exit strategy? Or do they have one?
For that matter, what is Boies' exit strategy?
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.
Wow. Imagine a Beow*smack*
Thanks, I needed that.
Money for nothing, pix for free
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
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").
/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
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/