Slashdot Mirror
More Criticism of SCO's Claims To UNIX
inc_x writes "GROKLAW has a
compelling analysis that shows that SCO's claims that it owns the UNIX operating system are not very truthful. The Open Group confirms this position: "Statements that SCO "owns the UNIX operating system" or has "licensed UNIX to XYZ", are clearly inaccurate and misleading." It seems that SCO finds it increasingly difficult to distinguish facts from fiction. Last week SCO claimed 'This IP battle is only one part of SCO's business and is an add-on component. The core of SCO's business is profitable,' not bothered by the fact that they had claimed the opposite in their SEC filing: 'If we do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in future quarters and our revenue from the sale of our operating system platform products and services continues to decline, we will need to further reduce operating expenses in order to maintain profitability or generate positive cash flow.'"
A little offtopic:
Who buys the stocks that SCO "dump"? Anyone in their right mind would back off from this company. I for one, wouldn't have bought a sinking ship.
So, if I read this right, if no one pays any license extortion money to SCO then they will have to cut costs to remain in the black. One might suggest they start by dismissing their over-priced lawyers, dismissing their frivolous lawsuits, and trying to kick the collective crack habit they seem to have developed.
Then again, they are well on their way to becoming the poster child to show that taking drugs leads to criminal behaviour. I wonder if they could claim royalties on all the eventual "Don't do drugs or you'll turn into SCO" posters in schools and police stations... ;)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
The whole point of this article is that SCO owns the Unix System V codebase and other IP, but they do not own the trademark to "UNIX".
99% of you probably already know this.
However, since SCO isn't suing anyone for trademark infringement, that fact is completely worthless. It does nothing to negatively affect SCO's claims.
The fact is that SCO *does* own what has been traditionally called "the UNIX Operating System" and they *do* licence it to vendors like IBM, HP, and SGI.
Look, SCO news is a must read. Why should you care? Simple: even if you are burned out on SCO you need to know enough to be able to defend against it.
K, so you just don't care about Linux. Do you care about Open Source in general? It's not just a Linux problem, it's an open source problem. Sure, Linux is the blame stick here, but Linux is just the tip of the iceberg. Linux is just a proxy for the whole Open Source way of doing things. Where do you think the next 'lines of code' will be found? Who owns the copyrights for main()? Old Bell labs? K&R? SCO?
Yeah, you think that's silly question.
What this whole SCO thing is about is modern day robber barons. CEO-theives who think they can create a high level of fear and uncertainty from suits; enough that they will listen, enough that they will wonder, enough that they will pay.
Unfortunately, this is not the scary thing; the scary thing, sad though it sounds, is that they are doing this with legal means. We can bitch and moan about how wrong they are, but you don't see them in 'cuffs do you? This is the exact same sort of tactic (RIAA, Microsoft, and a cast of thousands) that is used to circumvent freedoms of ideas, ideals, and individuality.
Care or not care, but understand what you are doing, understand the implications, and understand that you or someone/something you care about may be next.
While we are all in a foment over SCO lying about its extent of owning everything, should we even really be surprised?
Can you name one corporation that actually seems like it ALWAYS tells the truth? By truth I mean, through its communications never seeks to misrepresent the reality of a situation.
There are not any out there.
This is my sig.
Seems to be the usual overload of people bitching about too many SCO stories. Here is a simple answer:
Don't read them. Some of us want a daily SCO update. It's ok that you don't want daily stories, but you can read the other stories instead of filling up the place with complains.
It's just unnecessary.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Mod parent down, and try reading the article.
The point of the article is that SCO asserts in their media appearances, press releases, and most importantly, their court filings, that (1) UNIX is a single operating system, (2) all based on the AT&T code, (3) SCO own the AT&T code
The artice demonstrates, that (1) and (2) are false, and SCO must know that.
(1) Is demonstrated to be false, by the very definition of UNIX,
(2) Is demonstrated to be false, by the existence of S/390 UNIX, and by the fact that Windows NT could become UNIX in future, etc.
The fact that SCO must know that is demonstrated by SCO's history with trademark licensing and attribution, UNIX certification of SCO products, etc.
We must encourage the grass-roots developers to add to the global intellectual property by releasing great variants of UNIX-based operating systems so that we can topple the dichotomy that Microsoft presents to computer science progress.
An interesting observation.
It seems to me that all non-Microsoft operating systems are converging on Unix.
Just look at a list of the OSes and the companies: Linux, AIX, HPux, OS X, Solaris. IBM, HP, Apple, Sun, SGI.
This kind of reminds me of when IBM had lost control of the "pc architecture" to the clones, and tried to introduce the PS/2 with royalties attached. Everyone did what they were being told to do at the time and "just said no". IBM was left holding the non-industry standard. Eventually they started selling PC's again.
Of course, we may not want too many variants on unix. Linux seems to becomming the great unix unifier. Everyone (but sun) killing off their own unixen for Linux.
Of course this could end up being bad, since SCO is owner of the (important note: singular not plural) operating system Linux.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
OK, not to rain on your parade, but while most the tech crowd is cheesed at SCO, are you really sure that "most of the industry is not impressed"?
In the last few days at work, from what I've heard from visiting execs -- and from some in my department (it's a big department, trust me) -- it became clear to me that some are buying Chris & Darl's party line. In fact, I'm starting to get the impression that a small majority of the decision makers/non-techies in North America is woefully (sp?) ignorant about the whole shebang and has gotten whatever "information" it "knows" about the SCO-IBM duel from sources like CNN and what they over-heard on the bus or on the plane.
Or from places like Gartner or EDS -- a company that has apparently wedged into whatever contracts they sign with their clients a clause that tells the clients they are their own if they need support for the "Linux kernel", because, according to EDS, the "Linux kernel" is not supported. (Now, what kind of logic is that?)
You should remember that not everyone reads Slashdot.
So either SCO was untruthful in its 10K filings, violating SEC regulations and its obligations to its stockholders and the financial community in large. Or....SCO is publically overstating its profitablity and assets (consequently boosting their stock price) while its executives dump all their holdings.
Either way, what they've done is illegal. The question for us - the open-source community - is finding someone with legal standing to make an issue out of it. Find two parties, one who would have been injured by the allegedly incorrect 10K filings, and other who would be injured by price pumping (recent buyers of SCOX). If each party sues for $XX million, someone would win and SCO should loose a big chunk of their relatively small cash assets, either by damage awards, SEC fines, or legal fees. Either way, it puts them out of our collective misery.
Of course, IANAL. But it sounds good, doesn't it?
"If the case is shit, you must aquit." Dayrl may not go to jail if he manages to get a "jury trial", but Linux and free software are not doomed.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It's obvious that they're deliberately misleading people in their press releases/conferences and even in their legal filings. They're damaging the trademark, and Open Group needs to respond a lot more strongly. Threatening to remove SCO's ability to use "UNIX" would be a nice first step.
Get off my launchpad!
I don't think that Red Hat, SuSE, or any of the other Linux vendors are going to give SCO a list of people who have purchased Linux so that SCO can turn around and send out invoices.
Sure, SCO can assume that some Fortune 500 companies are using Linux in some way and send out invoices to those, but, I don't see how SCO will have any solid proof that any of them is using, say, Red Hat Linux unless someone tells SCO first that such and such company is using Red Hat.
So company X gets an invoice from SCO and ignores it. What is SCO going to do? Send someone out from SCO, unannounced, that just shows up and expects to be able to do a thourough audit of the companie's computer networks to find any trace of Linux? Even though SCO may have said that they'd do audits like this, do you really think that SCO is going to have the manpower and money to audit literally thousands of companies?
If you think SCO can do that, I'll show up at your company Monday morning and demand an on-site audit so that I can do a complete network audit and look for any Linux machines that might be running any code that I have personally written. I expect full cooperation. I'll send my bill to you the day before I get there.
The bottom line is that while SCO may send out invoices to customers for using Linux, SCO doesn't have much of an idea which of those customers are using Linux, unless Linux vendors have shared their customer list with SCO in the first place. That, or SCO is doing some sort of Internet scanning looking for Linux systems. And don't think for a minute that most companies will put up with SCO coming to do a audit of all their computers.
Its time that SCO puts up or shuts up. I'm getting tired of reading the SCO posts on /. and in the media, even for their entertainment value.
While it's true that you might be able to convince some people, the simple fact alone that a lawsuit exists will scare away the more "risk adverse" members of management. Nobody ever got fired for making a decision which avoided a lawsuit.
Think of the classic opposition Linux has faced during it's rise to popularity:
1994: "Linux is too risky because it's developed by amateurs"
1997: "Linux is too risky because it's not as mature as Solaris"
1999: "Linux is too risky because you can't buy support"
2002: "OK. All that's changed! Linux isn't risky anymore!"
2003: "Oops, now Linux is too risky because we might get sued for using it!"
At worst, a two years setback in deployment.
Lawyers have no sense of humor, One has already modded the parent as a troll because they can't stand to have some one read it. Too bad it's the truth lawyers are the sole cause of 99% of all the difficulties in the US. Who is driving this law suit? Lawyers. Who is allowing the spread of all this FUD? Lawyers. Who is trying to make sure anything done is "legal" but could care less if it's moral or ehtical? Lawyers. Anyone who would trade with SCO is scum but lawyers are a lower life from than that.
If I had to choose between a car thief and a lawyer I would choose the car thief at least I can keep a eye on my car. Lawyers steal everything and often just out of evil nature and spite.
King Henry, VI part II act IV
"The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers."
It's a joke about lawyers sure it is. There are to many lawyers. Do your part.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
So, SCO claims 2 million lines of code to be infringing, which, without conversion to elephant intestines, looks like a mighty large figure. Instead of calculating the total code in supposedly infringing sections (as some have done), why not just take 2.2 and 2.4+ side by side and enumerate the differences? This might give us a better idea of just how much crack SCO is smoking.
Excuse me if I'm missing something...
Of course this could end up being bad, since SCO is owner of the (important note: singular not plural) operating system Linux.
SCO most certainly does not own Linux. At most they may have ownership of inappropriately included code. The vast majority of the Linux codebase is owned by individual and corporate contributes who have and had full rights to do so. Those copyright holders have every right to nail them for infringment. This is why they're spewing this "GPL is public domain." nonsense. They are even more guilty of copyright infringment than anyone who contributed inappropriate code to Linux. They're practicing "a good offense is better than a good defense".
Sooner or later, SCO will have to reveal their so-called evidence. The provenance of the code will be established and anything that doesn't belong will be removed. At that point they can go after the hapless idiots who contributed the 80 lines or so but that is it.
They can be said to own the Caldera variant but it was always a niche distro at best.
While we're on the subject, Linus Torvalds owns the Linux trademark. They won't be claiming that for their own either.
Oh, I don't think it will be that simple. The members of any jury will more than likely be forced to learn far more about backup schedules, verifcation of tapes, source-code control systems and the like than they would ever want to know about. Do really think IBM's lawyers will let SCO get away with the simple "here's two block of similar code - they must have stolen it" trick without raising a single question in cross-examination? SCO will have to provide excruciatingly detailed histories for every line of code they show (just for starters).
SCO's case against IBM has nothing to do with copyright. SCO is intentionaly trying to confuse 2 different issues
1) a contract dispute with IBM
2) alledged copying of UNIX code into Linux
When SCO refers a million lines of code they are talking about code that is copyright by IBM and other unix licencees that SCO beleives should not have been added to Linux. SCO does NOT own the copyright to that code, and has admitted it publically. Even in IBM is found guilty of innappropriatly copying the code into Linux, SCO still will not own the copyright to that code.
By repeating there allegation regarding a million lines of code they are trying to strengthen thier argument for users to pay for licences. Nobody outside of SCO knows how much code they are claiming is copied from unix into linux.
So it is unlikley that the copied code issue will even be put before the jury.
Actually, IBM already won a round.
SCO sued IBM in a Utah state court, carefully writing their lawsuit so that there were no federal issues in it. SCO can do this because both SCO and IBM are both corporate residents of the same state, Delaware.
Or so SCO's lawyers said in their lawsuit. IBM slapped the fuck out of them by pointing out that IBM is incorporated in New York, and here is a certified copy of IBM's Certificate of Incorporation, and here's a bunch of legal precedents which say that a court has to recognize the actual state that a defendant is really in, not the state that the clot-headed plaintiff incorrectly writes in the complaint. Hence, because IBM and SCO are corporate residents of different states, a lawsuit between them for an amount greater than $75,000 must be heard in federal court, not in state court.
It was really a boneheaded move on the part of SCO's lawyers. Boies spent 10 years of his career working for IBM and he doesn't know what state it's incorporated in?! And none of their high-priced paralegals can read the first page of a 10-Q or a 10-K, the part that says:
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
NEW YORK
(State of incorporation)
In fact it's such a stupid move that it makes me wonder about conspiracy theories, like SCO's lawyers filed in the wrong court on purpose in order to add additional delay.
As far as the federal judge assigned to the case, read the excellent Groklaw article on Judge Kimball.
IMHO, had SCO pulled this stunt 15 years ago or so, they might have gotten away with it. Here is why- the internet in its present form did not exist. Large-scale dissemination of unfiltered information worldwide was simply not possible. We relied on our media filters- publications like ZD and ComputerWorld and newsletters from industry analysts like Gartner for our information. And our media filters were not very reliable- look at the current situation, where "respected analysts and journalists" from Dvorak to DiDiot are so far off base on their reporting of this matter. Not just off-base, plain incorrect. Before the net, a savvy player could use these journalists and analysts to disseminate FUD, and have a real impact. But today, the net has given us unfiltered opinion from a variety of sources- and many of these sources know much more about the issues than the IT journalists. Not only that, the net allows us to see how other countries are handling the matter. Take the LinuxTag suit against SCO, and its consequences- this was hardly reported in the US IT media. What the net is doing is giving us much freer and more reliable access to information. Don't believe all that the journalists say when they start spouting off about the necessary job of filtering the news. These are the same people who have reported on the SCO lawsuit so dismally until very recently. They are the same people who gave us "news" made up by Jayson Blair. And most importantly, they are the same companies who depend on advertising dollars from the big players like M$ to keep themselves in business.