SCO Says IBM is Beating Up on Them

SCO's McBride claims that IBM is stage-managing all the attacks and bad press, which would probably explain why I cleared this article with IBM World Headquarters before running it (not!). The publisher of Linux Journal invites SCO to sue. One of SCO's lawyers has this barely coherent interview where he spouts legal rubbish for a gullible reporter. There's an interview in German (machine translation) with SCO's execs. And finally, SCO is still hoping for a settlement with IBM. Update: 08/22 18:26 GMT by M : ESR responds.

Comments

Yeah...

[ArmenTanzarian]

did you guys get your checks from IBM today? My hourly on posting anti-SCO stuff has gone through the roof!

Re:Yeah...

[oolon]

I found IBM wanting to reduce my hourly rate for SCO bashing as so many people are willing to do it for free!

How is a guy ment to make a buck these days ;-)

James

Paranoia

[PIPBoy3000]

Remember, it's not paranoia if they really are all out to get them.

And we are.

Re:Paranoia

[mikeee]

But there's no conspiracy against SCO; it only looks that way because everyone hates them.

Re:Paranoia

[sterno]

Nope, it's not paranoia, it's desperation!

There's no clearer sign that SCO is walking on thin ice here than the desperation of their tactics lately.

Desperate acts:

* They accuse IBM of being this manipulating orwellian company that could somehow motivate us open source advocates to hate them.

* They claim the GPL is invalid on grounds that would effectively destroy the publishing industry if upheld.

* They make many of their claims sound like legal claims without actually filing them in court

They are trying to win a war of public opinion to infalte the stock price. They will lose in court, without question, so they are doing everything they can to try to make IBM bail them out.

IBM is an evil corporation, don't get me wrong, but it's nice to see them excercising a little enlightened self interest and playing chicken with SCO.

Re:Paranoia

[RealityShunt]

From the Infoworld article:

"You've got all of these guys and it looks like the whole world is coming against SCO."

Geez, Darl, you think? Couldn't be because you're attacking virtually the whole community?

What a putz.

realityshunt

Re:Paranoia

[Grenade of Antioch]

I remember a kid in our neighborhood growing up who wasn't a very nice person. One time he said to a group of us: "You just hate me because I'm Jewish." To wit, I replied: "No David, we hate you because you're an a**hole..." We don't hate SCO because they are trying to make a profit selling software, we hate them because they are trying to make a profit by scheming and defaming and threatening people. Did I mention that IBM told me to say this?

Re:Paranoia

[Znork]

"They'd pull the rug out from under linux in an instant if they could."

They'd pull the rug out from under linux in an instant if it made buisness sense. As writing operating systems and maintaing them across all of IBM's platforms makes less buisness sense than getting a much cheaper one, maintained largely by other people and companies, working on all their platforms that is unlikely to happen. Especially as it has the added advantage of making ISV programs easily ported between the different IBM architectures, and makes support more easily streamlined within the corporation in the long term. IBM is _the_ company that linux makes buisness sense for.

"It'd be a real sweet plum if someone could take "ownership" of linux."

Not quite. It would be a rotten tomato if someone could take ownership of Linux. Take a quick look at how well buinsess has turned out for the non-free Linux distributions. Take a look at how well buisness was/is going for most other x86 proprietary unixes, even before Linux became more mainstream.

As you'd lose every developer, all support competence, all contracts, all evangelists in a single second, what do you think you could do with the ownership several millions of lines of unmaintained code without a single developer and with everyone in the computer industry hating you?

Proprietary Linux would not be a sweet plum. It would be a worthless pile of unsellable unmaintained code involved in litigation from every contributor to the end of computers as we know them.

Smart companies know the value of Linux is in its freedom. Idiots like SCO have a hard time realizing that there is no money in it for people who dont want to work to earn their money.

With apologies to Dave Sim

[Demona]

"Dear Darl McBride colon Having determined for myself that you and your band of scofflaws are as dead meat festering in the sun of Lindon and that his holiness Pope Stallman the First will one day dance upon the graves of you and your half-baked western heresies comma in all good conscience comma i must respectfully inform you that i would rather eat a half hyphen pound of diced earthworms raw than ever again have to stand within ten feet of your lice hyphen ridden comma foul hyphen smelling person comma and that further comma it is my considered opinion that all of your female ancestors must have mated with decidedly inferior breeds of bulls to produce to genuinely worthless a specimen of humanity as yourself period In hopes that this finds you dying of some singularly loathesome and painful disease comma i remain comma very truly yours comma archbishop sontag of the *eastern church*"

"You don't have any...*objections* to signing that, do you...my son?"

Re:With apologies to Dave Sim

[On Lawn]

Why do you spell out your punctation questionmark

Darl must be losing it...

[TopShelf]

I can't decide which is funnier - the point about IBM orchestrating all the outrage, or the point that SCO is somehow more "relevant" to the tech community because they've filed a bunch of press releases!

Thanks, Darl - it's good to kick off the weekend with a good laugh...

Re:Darl must be losing it...

[NoUse]

No this is all part of his plan...

Judge: You are being charged with criminal fraud and anti-competive and damaging business practices.. How do you plead?
McBride: I plead insanity.
Judge: On what grounds?
McBride: Are you kidding? Did you see all the crazy shit I said? I was rambling for months that "they" were out to get me!


Yeah he's crazy...Crazy like a fox...

I admit it

[theolein]

IBM paid me $699 to criticise SCO ;););)

that cnet interviewer...

[jeffy124]

... didnt ask any questions about the BSD involvement. almost like she didnt know about bruce peren's findings. yet, the day before (8/20) she published an article with peren's assertions. question becomes: when did this interview take place?

Yup

[kylus]

"We have absolute direct knowledge of this..."

Yup, and all this proof is, of course, documented with the 'illegal' source code. To see it you'll need to sign an NDA. :)

Seriously, I don't think Linus' comment that "they are smoking crack" really covered it. McBride obviously seems to believe that the Open Source community isn't capable of refuting their bullshit without the backing of a large company.

Here's a newsflash for you, Darl: IBM doesn't -need- to coordinate an attack on SCO. The way I see it, an attack on one member of the Open Source community is an attack on all of us. And I know it's been said before, but why not: put up or shut up, SCO.

Re:Yup

[worm eater]

The way I see it, an attack on one member of the Open Source community is an attack on all of us.

I don't see this as just an attack on the Open Source community. This is an attack on our society, because it is an abuse of our legal system. As far as I'm concerned, abusing the legal system is worse than breaking the law. I noticed in an article that some SCO users, who even had booths at SCO Forum, were outraged by what this company is doing. And has been doing. Forbes points out that SCO has pulled this same shit with Microsoft -- and won. In this case they bought the rights to an old, 'decrepit' version of DOS and proceeded to sue the shit out of Redmond. They are crafty bastards. And they basically leverage intellectual property law to fuck other people over. Obviously.

This kind of behavior, taken to these extremes, has the potential to seriously disrupt the fabric of our society. Especially since our society is becoming increasingly dependant on software. If SCO wins, which they might (I mean hell, they beat MS), their example has the potential to make the software industry even more litigious, even less focused on solid product design and just generally shittier. EVERYONE should be up in arms about this... Darl McBride makes Bill Gates look like freakin RMS.

The only thing that came close to pissing me off this much was when Rosa Parks sued Outkast -- although the stakes were much, much lower.

This clinches it ...

[DrJimbo]

Q. Why on earth would McSnide come up with the loony idea that a big corporation (IBM) is backing all his opponents?

A. Because all this SCO fud is being backed by a big corporation (M$).

A source of nutrients

[davmoo]

I have started printing out SCOs press releases so I can save them and spread them on my garden for next year. Normally I would have to pay top dollar for bullshit that rich and strong.

I always wondered where they went...

[RobertB-DC]

You know, after the dot-com bust, I wondered where all those "visionaries" went. You know, the ones who could charm millions of American Dollars from venture capitalists and day-trading shareholders with nothing more than a bottle of snake oil and a press release.

I guess I found them:

McBride proudly dumped two phone-book-sized binders of press clippings on the stage during his SCO Forum keynote on Monday as proof that his company had become more relevant in the high technology industry. SCO has issued 46 press releases since filing suit against IBM on March 7. Last year it issued only 29 press releases between March and August.

Here I was, worried about unemployment among the "visionary entrepreneur" community. They're working for SCO! And just look at those results -- they've had a 58% increase in press release generation in just one year! I'm so glad to see that they've landed on their feet.

Too bad the rug's about to get yanked out from under them again.

One issue to raise

[jared_hanson]

If the Linux kernel is truly infringing on SCO's UNIX copyrights, why doesn't SCO ask a judge to issue an injunction against kernel.org/mirrors to stop them from distributing it.

If they did this, however, they would have to show a *minimal* amount of compelling evidence. Enough so that it is justified, but not necessarily the amount it would take to prove the case in a court trial.

My bet is they know they don't have this much evidence. They are simply trying to extort license money from gullible companies. If they saught an injunction, and were denied, all their posturing would immediately be disregarded.

Anyway, just something I was thinking about. Mabey they did seek one already. I admit I've become lazy in my SCO-story-reading duties.

Re:I think i speak for all of us when I say

[u-235-sentinel]

"However, SCO's public relations (PR) department has had a busy few months. McBride proudly dumped two phone-book-sized binders of press clippings on the stage during his SCO Forum keynote on Monday as proof that his company had become more relevant in the high technology industry. SCO has issued 46 press releases since filing suit against IBM on March 7. Last year it issued only 29 press releases between March and August."

More relevant in the high tech industry? Just by spouting trash all this time will make you more relevant? I guess writing good code and marketing it properly wasn't part of the business plan after all. Sad.

"McBride also pointed to the involvement in the dispute of the Free Software Foundation, whose legal counsel, Eben Moglen, has issued a position paper critical of SCO, and Linus Torvalds, who has been increasingly vocal in his criticism of the Unix company. "You've got all of these guys and it looks like the whole world is coming against SCO. It's really IBM that has wired in all of these relationships," he said. "That's why it looks like they're sitting back and not doing anything. It's us fighting a whole bunch of people that they put on the stage."

What's amusing here is that SCO doesn't realize that it really IS the whole community going after them and they REALLY HAVE pissed off everyone on the planet. WTF did they think would happen? We would simply bend over and pay up like good little lemmings?

Speaking of which... I still haven't received any payments from SCO for the use of my code in UnixWare. I'm pretty sure it's there. Honest ;-)

"pre-empted by copyright law"

[cperciva]

Ok, let's put down the flamethrowers for a moment, and try to understand what SCO's lawyers are saying.

When they say "the GPL is pre-empted by copyright law", they don't mean that the GPL is invalid. What they mean is this: You can't GPL something you don't own. In other words, the fact that the code in dispute was distribute "under the GPL license" is irrelevant -- the company which did that (IBM) didn't own the code, so the fact that they "licensed" the code under the GPL is irrelevant.

Psychology, pathology, personal impressions

[Badgerman]

Regarding the interview with the lawyer, I got the impression he was largely spouting the party line for his client. It did feel rather incoherent and he honestly didn't seem to believe what he was saying.

Meanwhile back at SCO, apparently they're not buying crazy because they've got a stock of it. Claiming IBM is orchestrating some conspiracy to attack them is just another one of the bizarre psychological acrobatic displays we've seen from SCO, admittedly one of the more impressively stupid ones since this started.

Looking at the articles, I'm feeling SCO is stuck in a "ratchet it up until they give in" mentality, where they'll keep making attacks and outrageous claims until someone gives in and buys them or gives them lots of money. However, they have to count on people backing down - which isn't really happening. Since they have no other options, I think they're going to keep at it.

I actually do wonder just how in touch with reality some of the SCO execs are. Now that they've committed to a business path based on lawsuits and dubious legal claims, they can't really back out, so it seems they're becoming wrapped up in the worlds they created to justify their claims.

Expect it to get even more insane.

Get your popcorn out.

Re:First long, thoughful post.

[Col. Klink (retired)]

> The main thrust is that he's betting on the fact that Copyright law trumps whatever provisions are in the GPL, so IBM's GPL defense doesn't hold water;

Oh come on. This is their same claim that Federal Copyright only allows 1 copy for backup and the GPL allows multiple copies and is therefore invalid.

Somehow out of all this, they conclude that since Federal Copyright only allows 1 copy, the GPL is invalid and they are now free to make unlimited copies. After all, they are STILL distributing the kernel and, even if you can accept that 1 million lines belong to them, the rest DON'T. Under their own theory, SCO is guilty of vast copyright infringement.

And this, of course, completely ignores the fact that the Federal Copyright law still allows the OWNER of a copyright to authorize additional copies. Duh.

Clueful Judge

[pjrc]

On every SCO story, invariably someone posts a paranoid concern that perhaps a clueless judge will be assigned to the case, and rule in favor of SCO. These are often moderated to +5, which is quite silly since Judge Dale A. Kimball has already be assigned to the case, and we can see that he's got a reputation for being fair and capable of understanding cases involving technology.

Groklaw has very extensive research on Kimball's history, which is nicely summarized and easy to read. Every case has links to much more detail. The overall appearance is that Kimball will probably do the right thing.

Probably most important is the Jacobsen vs Hughes copyright case. Apart from considering much of the material uncopyrightable historical facts, Judge Kimball was quite unimpressed by the plaintif's failure to act in a timely manner to mitigate damages. Quoting from that article:

"Had Jacobsen voiced his disapproval in 1996, Hughes would have had the opportunity to take the offending material out of the books," Kimball wrote. "For Jacobsen to wait until three volumes of the series had been published before voicing his disapproval, when it is clear he had ample opportunity to let Hughes know of his disapproval as early as 1996, results in extreme prejudice to Hughes."

Obviously this bodes quite well for IBM and all Linux users. SCO of course will claim they stopped distribution of linux, but this ruling at least shows that Judge Kimball isn't likely to be be charmed with the deplorable way SCO has conducted itself. Kimball's willingness to consider the writing a separate work, even though a part of it was loosely based on Jacobsen's also casts quite a shadow over SCO's chances (assuming the unlikely worst case scenario that SCO has an ace up its sleeve, rather than the bogus examples we've seen so far). It's certainly a good sign that Kimball is unlikely to buy SCO expansive theories about what constitutes a derivitive work.

The groklaw page has examples where Kimball has ruled against big business, where he's shown competence at handling software intellectual property disputes (eg, Altiris vs Symantec), and where he's handled very complex cases.

While nothing is 100% certain going into the courtroom, it is a fact that the Judge Kimball has been selected to hear this case. His history shows he's competent, fair, and at least in Jacobsen vs Hughes, he doesn't tollerate the sort of shenanigans SCO has been pulling!

An honest question

[Badgerman]

The lawyer makes this quote: Let's say you have a hundred files, and you put one of your hundred files under the GPL. That doesn't mean you've lost the rights to your other 99 files.

But from what I can tell, SCO argues if one of THEIR files (or some of their files) touches Linux, then Linux is essentially theirs, especially because Linux apparently benefitted from the code they "own."

Maybe its just me, but there appears to be some hypocracy here (OK, it's SCO, expecting hypocracy is a default setting). Maybe it relates to their twisted take on GPL and Copyright, but I think the lawyer's statement really makes them look worse.

Thoughts on this?

Signs of Mental Breakdown

[4of12]

Not that there haven't been many signs already that SCO has lost touch with reality, but adding in the "it's all a conspiracy by IBM" really indicates that the paranoia has gone into high gear.

[It's akin to Hillary's claims of a "vast right wing conspiracy" out to get Bill. There certainly was (and is) a "vast right wing" that delighted in hating Bill Clinton; but that doesn't make it a "conspiracy".]

Re:incoherent

[tomhudson]

The reason it was called a "barely coherent interview" was because they (SCO) continue to intentionally misrepresent copyright law in a fashion that is:

1. completely at odds with what the law actually states;
2. not even applicable in the current context, which is not about "making a legal backup of licensed software that doesn't otherwise permit copying"
3. contrary to the entire body of contract law
4. full of lame meanderings, circumlocutions, and just plain bad sentence constructs/grammar

Besides, he still sounds like he's smoking more crack than the worst /. moderators.

It's incoherent in part because it matches everything else SCO has been doing lately.

Re:Whole reminds me of the British empire

[LMCBoy]

Funny, but the line:

Linux Programmers: We don't need a copyright. We wrote it and we have the GPL.

Should read:

Linux Programmers: Duh, of course we have copyright! Without it the code couldn't be GPL'd.

GPL'd code is copyrighted by its author, it is NOT public domain. End broken-record mode.

McBride's sources

[hal9000]

From the first article (not that it matters):

"McBride declined to reveal the sources of his allegations, ..."

Anyone have a guess as to who these McBride sources are? My hunch is Miss Cleo.

Favorite Darl quote

[JiffyPop]

"Hundreds of customers like and use SCO's Unix products."

I think that is a pretty good example of have "relevant" SCO is... This is like the director (?producer, someone else) of Gigli getting quoted as saying "I've seen worse movies [than Gigli]"

From the Mark Heise interview...

[Simon Brooke]

Quote:

The difference between SCO and other companies that have put their copyrighted material into the GPL is SCO didn't do it.

Uhhhmmm... It isn't fair to make fun of people with learning difficulties, I know; but -- they pay this guy to work as a lawyer? He can't even construct a sentence!

And then further down he says:

You're not going to see that when you go into Linux. You're not going to see "copyright, The SCO Group."

Well, no you're not, but only because the SCO Group is just a new name for Caldera. You'd forgotten these ones, had you, Mark?

Documentation/networking/tlan.txt:(C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
drivers/net/tlan.c: * (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
drivers/net/tlan.h: * (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc. <greg@caldera.com>
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: KERN_INFO "IPX Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc.\n" \

You know what would be really interesting (editors, bloggers, are you listening)? It would be really interesting to hear what Marcus Meissner <Marcus.Meissner@caldera.de> and Greg Page <greg@caldera.com> think about all this.

MS buying shares?

[bstadil]

I saw an interesting posting on some of the Stock boards yesterday. The people were wondering why their shares went up $2.3 or so on VERY heavy volume. 360K if I rember.

Considering there is 12.6Mu shares outstanding and 40% directly owned by Canopy and 20% indirectly, yesterdays volume is 8% or so of "normal" outstanding tradebable shares.

So question arrises WHO IS BUYING especilly after the code snippet flap earlier in the week.

Consensus, most likely MS' investment arm.

It's the quid pro quo for SCO committing legal suicide.

McBride is scared...

[wikthemighty]

McBride: That's like if someone comes into your house while you're sleeping, takes your jewels, and as you start chasing them down...

I'm no expert, but having dreams about about somebody cutting your balls off and running off with them doesn't sound good to me!

I think you've hit a key point here.

[DG]

The more I read of SCO's garbage, the more I think that SCO Really Does Not Get It.

I think that McBride and Cronys really do believe in their heart of hearts that people are not capable of organizing, co-ordinating, and for that matter, producing functional code, without the direct support of some company as a mastermind.

When you think about it, the forces and processes behind Linux and other Open Source/Free Software are so contrary to what are taught at business schools that it must threaten to make your average MBA's head explode.

In many ways, the whole Free Software movement is a direct refutation of the core principles of the MBA curriculem* I can't wait to see how Alan Cox does on his MBA. :)

When one reads an SCO press release, one cannot help but imagine a group of dinosaurs confronted by an ice age - and mammals.

DG

* One may interpret through this that I think Free Software in inheritly Communist - and I don't agree. One of the central principles of Communism is Central Planning, and that's NOT how Linux etc development is done - it's more like a free market of ideas. Where the MBA-brainfuck comes in is that this "free market" has absolutely nothing to do with MONEY. There's no PRODUCT here - instead, it's a "free market" designed to provide something for the common good.

So we have a quasi-Capitalist process - with no capital, per sae - in the service of a quasi-Communist ideal. This is, I think, something new and scary, and this fear colours everything coming out of SCO.

Ah, brave new world!

Not "they"; ...

[burgburgburg]

We. We are out to get them.

SCO: GPL is valid after all?

[kaip]

Heise, a SCO lawyer, claimed that GPL was "pre-empted by federal copyright law", to which Eben Moglen, FSF General Counsel, replied. Heise repeats his argument in the CNET interview.

But in the same CNET interview Heise also says:

[Question:] What if, during the course of discovery or another time, you find that the code was originally under the GPL?

[Heise:] Using that hypothetical, if Caldera (International) put something into the GPL, with copyright attribution, the whole nine yards, they can't make the claim about what that thing is that they put in there. - -

So - according to Heise - GPL is valid after all!

The only way to make any sense of this is that Heise's real argument - at least today - is that "GPL is pre-empted by federal copyright law" if something is released under GPL without right owners consent... This is of course trivial: if you release someone else's program under GPL without her permission then the GPL is obviously not valid (in that particular instance). But if you release your own or somebody else's code with her permission under GPL then GPL is valid and enforceable.

SCO Predictions - What's next?

[Chordonblue]

Hmmmm - let's see:

- SCO ammends lawsuit to claim damages done by IBM's 'interference' with their business.

- SCO announces new 'secure' initiative (don't they all)

- Darl McBride claims that the original BSD/AT&T lawsuit is invalid and therefore not relevant to SCO, i.e. 'All Code Are Belong To Us'

- SCO accuses the GPL as promoting communism in China, socialism in Europe, and drug use in California.

- David Boies will never make another appearance unless SCO 're-rents' him for another day.

- SCO will continue to reap the benefits of open source projects like GCC and SAMBA and yet slam the GPL for being too 'restrictive' on IP.

Far Future Prediction:

SCO's execs will be living in luxury on some tropical island while their customers, users, resellers, and programmers get totally screwed.

"That's just the way it is. Some things will never change." - Bruce Hornsby

SCO secretly hires Iraqi Information Minister...

[harmless_mammal]

Well, at least Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf has a job now...

The SCO FAQ (revision 2)

[heironymouscoward]

Q: Why are SCO suing everyone?
A: SCO is run by a bunch of vicious, lying, cowardly, greedy, sociopathic lawyers.

Q: Why is IBM being so slow to respond?
A: IBM is still coming to terms with the fact that a company such as SCO would be so entirely suicidal and stupid. They are not used to dealing with complete and utter morons.

Q: Do SCO's actions present a danger to the Linux and OSS community?
A: Yes, a sociopathic killer who hates you can present a danger. He might just get lucky with that ax he is waving.

Q: Are SCO doing this for the money, for the shares?
A: SCO's executives will end up in prison getting midnight visits from large violent criminals. But that kind of logic never stopped a sociopath before.

Q: How can I defend myself from SCO?
A: This would be a good time to move to Texas and get a larger gun.

Q: Does SCO have any valid arguments at all?
A: Strictly speaking, all arguments have equal merit when digested by stupid and possibly corrupt members of the press, as government ministries of disinformation have shown over the centuries. SCO remain, however, a stinkin' bunch of evil mutant fiends, and everthing they say should be taken to be concentrated pranoid drivel.

Q: Who stands to gain from this circus?
A: Entertainment is good for everyone, and it has been a slow summer, so SCO is actually contributing to the mental well-being of many people with their daily antics. For this we should be grateful. If you mean financial gain, the only party who stands to gain is Microsoft, who enjoy watching people attack the GPL and Free Software, because these represent a way of life that is entirely incompatible with its own.

Q: Could Microsoft actually be behind SCO?
A: Is George Bush the President of the US? OK, poor comparison. Yes, of course they are. Even evil, corrupt, whore-mongering, cocaine-sniffing running dogs like SCO's executives have a sense of self-interest and only leap into dark holes when they know they will be paid well for it.

Q: How is Microsoft paying SCO, then?
A: It only has to pay the executives. SCO is a publicly traded company. I presume MS is offering the SCO legal eagles direct and indirect financial support, promises of future comfort, what have you. There are so many ways...

Q: Should I be buying SCO shares?
A: YES, and if you do, I also have some very nice shares in a brand-new satellite network called Iridium that might interest you. They are sure to do amazing things!!

Re:First long, thoughful post.

[mugnyte]

In a way, the interviewer tries his best to ask poignant questions. So I agree the article attempts at coherence. EXCEPT IT MISSES THINGS LIKE:

How do you address claims that SCO's demonstrated evidence so far is not theirs to copyright!

Nobody has answered the questions about the four kernal modules origin and algorithms being textbook common knowledge - in whole or in part. Why is this considered IP?

Why did SCO keep distributing the GPL'd code while putting out press releases?

Why does SCO make use of many many GPL'd tools for their own product?

Why does SCO [threaten to] spread this lawsuit out to Linux users instead of only IBM's copyright infringement case?

How is SCO planning a business model around a licensed copy of Linux when it will be quickly obsolete once the full body of evidence is released?

What are your definitions of "derivative works" in this case? Would future version of Linux without any SCO IP be within those bounds?

Why are the true numbers of lost existing customers for SCO due directly to their adopting a "free" Linux alternative? How are they calculating damages?

Can SCO provide the complete code references to things it DID contribute to Linux (as SCO or Caldera) and thus differentiate between given and stolen?

These are just a few things I'd like to ask anyone at SCO, legal or not, or both!

mug

Millions of customers, or hundreds?

[BuddhaDude]

Here's the beginning of SCO's self-description, clipped from one of their latest press releases:

About The SCO Group

The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses with UNIX business solutions.

And here's a quote from Darl's latest interview:

The Canopy Group [of Utah] is an investment company. Those are just ignorant statements about SCO's business. Hundreds of customers like and use SCO's Unix products. (Emphasis mine)

Hmmmm! At this rate they'll fade away in a couple of weeks or so.

Re:Fuck them.

[tomhudson]

poster wrote:

He's a cunt, plain and simple.

No, no. cunts are useful, fun to play with, etc. :-) McBride's an asshole - the only thing that comes out of him is shit.

Interviewer: Mr. McBride, how tall are you?
McBride: (answers)
Interviewer: Gee, I didn't know you could pile shit that high.

On a side note, I had to defend McBride the other day, when someone said he wasn't fit to sleep with a pig. I said, "That's not true".

Is it time to sue SCO for slander?

[Anonymous Coward]

I posted this thought as an Ask Slashdot submission, but it was rejected, so I'll state it here.

Perhaps it's time for Linux developers to consider suing SCO for slander. After all, SCO is accusing them of theft and therefore damaging their reputations, which not only hurts Linux, but could hurt the developers' ability to advance their careers. Would you hire a programmer accused of stealing code to put into his software? And note that SCO won't precisely define what they allege is stolen or who stole it, but it is crystal clear that they're accusing Linux developers of illegal acts.

Suing SCO will have at least two consequences. First, it'll make SCO clearly define and prove their allegations. Second, any lawyer worth his salt will ask a judge to slap a temporary restraining order on SCO to stop their constant threats and accusations.

Any developers out there who want to consider this?

Re:First long, thoughful post.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that SCO shipped GNU/Linux under GPL is extremely relevant.

SCO had every opportunity to review all of the code that they were distributing before they distributed it. I would say that reviewing each piece of code for IP is the responsibility of any distribution such as Red Hat, or Suse, or SCO. If a distributor is going to make money off of somebody else's work, they better make sure it is owned by the right person.

Distributing code under the GPL is analogous to signing a contract. SCO's argument that they aren't responsible for copyrighted items that they didn't know where in their distribution is simillar to claiming that they are not responsible for a signed contract that was not fully read. Anyone can say that they are not responsible for an item in a contract because they didn't read that part. At the end of the day, when the judge looks at the contract and sees the signature at the bottom - the contract will be full and binding and the person will be as accountable as if he had read all of the items.

SCO has signed the contract - even if they didn't read it before they signed it.

Paul Seamons

SCO's Press Release Method

[TitaniumFox]

$HighSchoolGirl_1 : Tony said that in 3rd period Kelly saw Suzy and Sharon talking about Darl McBride passing notes in English class to Mark Heise!!!1!1!!

$HighSchoolGirl_2 : Yeah, I know! The teacher caught them and read the note out loud before the class.

$HSG_1 : Like, what'd it say?!?!!11!

$HSG_2 : Well, I wasn't there, but Marcy said her friend was there, and Darl was like, "Hey Mark, we ro0l, and IBM sux0rs," and Mark was like, "Yeah, we should kick IBM's ass and take all their IP," and Mark was like "Those dirty linux-using geeks are messing up our plan, too," and Mark was like, "Yeah, I hate those damn hippies," and Darl was like, "We need to start our own web page so we can out IBM to everyone," and Mark was like "Yeah!!11! I can put it up on my 486DX at home! My parents got dialup, but it's 56k and shit. I've got this k-rad script that auto redials!"

$HSG_1 : No. They didn't really say that, did they?!1!one!?

$HSG_2 : YES. They. DID!!1! I think IBM and a few of their friends are going to meet up with Darl and Mark out in the parking lot after school...

Microsoft is behind SCO

[Mybrid]

Ha! If we want to talk conspiracy theories, my favorite is that Microsoft is behind SCO.
The SCO lawsuit, then, is a conspiracy by Microsoft against Open Source.

Baahh! You say! Here's the Evidence:

• So far, the only major company [August 8, 2003] to publicly endorse SCO's claims by taking a license is Microsoft, the company that analysts say has the most to lose from the spread of Linux.
• IBM used the notion of FUD, once coined for IBM but now synonymous for Microsoft, to finger Microsoft as the culprit via this usage:

  In an internal memo obtained by internetnews.com targeted for IBM's sales force, Bob Samson, vice president of systems sales in IBM's Systems Group, discussed his company's thrust behind the SCO suit. "We see no merit in their claims and no supporting facts," Samson said. "Significantly, IBM counter sued SCO on a range of issues. Simply put, SCO's scheme is an attempt to profit from its limited rights to a very old UNIX operating system by introducing fear, uncertainty and doubt into the marketplace."

There you have it. Microsoft is SCO. Have you indulged in your favorite conspiracy theory today?
Cheers!
-Mybrid

Manual tranlation of the Heise article

[Apogee]

Don't know if this is good old Karma whoring, but I don't like the fishy fish tranlations, and since I speak german...

SCO: We keep our options open for further law suits

The dispute on whether parts of code from Unix development have possibly entered into Linux, and therefore whether rights held by SCO have been violated, has gained momentum again. At the SCOForum in Las Vegas, the SCO group has for the first time publicly presented parts of code and comments, which are supposed to prove the allegation of the company against IBM and the Linux community. Pictures of the code, which were published on Heise online, led to a first analysis by open source developers. Further investigations led to the assumption that the code shown in greek letters in SCOs evidence for code theft may point towards a transfer. Greg Lehey, for one, thinks so. Bruce Perens, however, merely concludes that none of the evidence brought forward by SCO would be sufficient to prove SCO Group's rights in court. SCO, in turn, argues that the code is protected by a licence with SGI.

c't spoke to Chris Sontag, Vice President Intellectual Property SCO, and Darl McBride, head of SCO, about the origins of the purported stolen code, the further directions of the legal dispute and the situation of SCO as a company.

c't: Mr. Sontag, the code sequences shown by you on the forum have been analyzed by experts. Result: Silicon graphics inserted them into Linux, not IBM

Chris Sontag: That is right. This example is not from IBM, but another of our licensees. At the moment, I cannot comment on who it is.

c't: The copy is supposed to go much further back than your rights on Unix. Moreover, it is said to have already been distributed by AT&T under the BSD licence, therefore freely accessible, and could have entered into Linux that way.

Sontag: That's completely wrong. We posess all files of this code with the complete source tree (lit: pedigree) in all version, up to the origin in 1969. We have looked through all tapes and all versions of the code. The code in question dates from exactly the version of Unix System V which we have delivered to SGI and licenced with a signed contract. This version was at the disposal of the licensee, and it was never in BSD or other releases. And the letter-by-letter copy of this version is found in Linux. We want to point out such flagrant breaches.

c't: But this evidence is useless in the dispute with IBM?

Sontag: Correct.

c't: Why then are you demonstrating exactly this code publicly as evidence? You are sueing IBM.

Sontag: We found several kinds of breaches of copyright and of contracts. Literal copying of code was the most obvious kind, and we wanted to prove this as well. Therefore, we have shown it in the public talk, and demonstrate the example also unter terms of an NDA. In the case of IBM, we have not yet found such cases of verbatim copying, but we have not examined everything yet. With IBM, this is above all about a different kind of breach of contract, namely the transfer of derived results on a very large scale. The licensing agreement provides that all changes and derived products remain within the originally licensed body of work.

c't: Your interpretation of copyright law -- concerning direct copies, as well as derived works -- was said to make no sense and not to be admissible at court by Egen Moglen, Professor of Law at Columbia University.

Sontag: Moglen is not exactly known as an expert for intellectual property (IP) law. I spoke with IP experts - and they think Moglen's interpretation makes no sense.

c't: Your lawyer David Boies is no IP specialist either.

Sontag: Correct, but his expertise is in contract law, and that will be the decisive weapon.

c't: You really didn't chose him for his highly publicised role in the Microsoft case?

Sontag: Let's say that aspect won't harm us at least.

c't: Will you sue this other licensee, as well?

Sontag: I can't comment

We Don't Hate Them

[tds67]

We just dislike the way they try to disparage open source, try to hijack Linux, try to extort money from Linux users, try to pump and dump their stock, try to create a business model using the courts, try to prove they are still relevant by bragging about how much negative press they've generated, etc.

No, we don't hate those people. And we certainly don't want to mash the SCO executives into a bloody pulp, either. Nor would we want to keep their body parts in our freezers. No. Hate is such a strong word.

Let us put aside any negative feelings we might have toward them and simply put flame to some feces on their doorsteps.

SCO Hires Iraqi Information Minister

[CHaN_316]

I think SCO should hire the Iraqi Information Minister to spread propaganda. A portfolio of the Minister's work is available here

Here are some sample answers he could be giving in an interview:

Question: What do you think are your chances of winning a lawsuit against an industry giant like IBM?

"We are not afraid of [IBM]. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid" (dramatic pause) "and they are condemned."

"I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have started to commit suicide under the walls of [the courts]. We will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."

"My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all"

Question: Could you elaborate on the perceived media attacks being launched against SCO?
"I blame Al-Jazeera - they are marketing for [IBM]!"

"Lying is forbidden in [SCO]. President [McBride] will tolerate nothing but truthfulness as he is a man of great honor and integrity. Everyone is encouraged to speak freely of the truths evidenced in their eyes and hearts."

Question: What do you think will be a result of your lawsuit against Linux users?

"Our estimates are that none of them will come out alive unless they surrender to us quickly."

"We will welcome them with [lawsuits] and shoes."

"Let the [Linux] infidels bask in their illusion"