IBM Adds SCO Counterclaim Charging Copyright Infringement

linuxjack55 writes "According to Yahoo! Finance, IBM has filed yet another counterclaim against SCO, this time claiming that SCO 'infringed IBM's copyrights by distributing IBM's contributions to Linux after SCO had violated its Linux license by claiming a copyright on parts of Linux.' Like it or not, it looks like the GPL is going to get a full vetting in this case. It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL."

Comments

You reap what you sow.

[guacamolefoo]

IBM has the resources to make a test case of the GPL. I'm going to be very interested to see how this turns out.

GF.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Trigun]

IBM does not have the resources to make a test case of the GPL. IBM has the resources to make this a slam-dunk that will make the O.J. Magic Mystery Tour look like a circus sideshow.

Right or wrong, who cares. It's going to come down to who has the most cash.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[nurb432]

I for one agree, as this is the first *real* case of the GPL/BSD type licenses, and its LONG overdue..

But, this will either solidify what we are all doing, or kill us off....

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right or wrong, who cares. It's going to come down to who has the most cash.

Not really. By the time that this is tried Bush and Ashcroft will be gone and unable to be bribed to do damage again.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do people speak slowly when they talk to you?

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

what makes you think those dimwits needed to be bribed?

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how it will turn out: GPL = No legal standing = end of open source because money = 0.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish we could say the same of you.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[harlows_monkeys]

Right or wrong, who cares. It's going to come down to who has the most cash

So how come most of the trouble with software patents has come from small companies or even individuals with almost no money taking on big companies?

According to your theory, Microsoft should have blown Eolas out of the water right from the start.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[nocomment]

I'd be very interested to know what this says:

'infringed IBM's copyrights by distributing IBM's contributions to Linux after SCO had violated its Linux license by claiming a copyright on parts of Linux.'

I read and re-read it and I can't make heads or tails out of what they are saying. Reminds me of this thread. Sure glad they aren't after me.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Jaysyn]

This case was generated by a legion of fire-breathing IP lawyers for SCO.

Sorry... I had to do it.

Jaysyn

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Sevn]

Amen brutha. No matter what happens, it's going to be a hoot. Damn. I hope some smart bastard gets the movie rights. It would make an excellent mini-series starring:

John Bobbet as Daryl McBride

Giant Killer Robots With Nuclear Bombs For Balls as the IBM legal team

Wilford Brimley as the caring and passionate Judge

The cast of Friends as disgruntled Linux users

Ryan Phillipe as the young Eric S Raymond during a flashback scene

That chick from voyager as the evil SCO lawyer

Danny Bonaduce as the hotdog vendor out on the street who has keen insight and good advice.

And a cameo by Sean Connery as the old prison guard that comforts Daryl after his first pooper invasion in the prison scene at the end of the movie.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[AJWM]

I read and re-read it and I can't make heads or tails out of what they are saying.

Essentially, IBM is invoking section 4 of the GPL, which reads in part:

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.

SCO has done a number of things that certainly violate the spirit and probably the letter of the GPL (extra licensing, etc. -- and if the rumors are true, they've backported Linux code into their proprietary Unixes). Under section 4, this terminates SCO's rights to distribute Linux. IBM has copyright on its contributions to Linux, therefore SCO has been distributing IBM's (and ever other Linux contributer's) code without a license. That's copyright infringement.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[donutz]

'infringed IBM's copyrights by distributing IBM's contributions to Linux after SCO had violated its Linux license by claiming a copyright on parts of Linux.'

I read and re-read it and I can't make heads or tails out of what they are saying. Reminds me of this thread. Sure glad they aren't after me.

SCO disagreed with the GPL (and declared it void). That means they aren't allowed the benefits it provides (redistribution). They continued (probably still on their FTP site) to distribute Linux.

IBM has the copyright to part of the Linux source code. Their work is being distributed counter to the terms they offer it under (the GPL). IBM sues SCO under copyright law for infringement.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's going to come down to who has the most cash.

Well no shit, what the hell country do you think we're in.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[dmaxwell]

I read and re-read it and I can't make heads or tails out of what they are saying. Reminds me of this thread. Sure glad they aren't after me.

I can help you out with that. SCO is still distributing the Linux kernel sources from their ftp site. That kernel contains work contributed by IBM. IBM still has the copyright on that work.
The GPL says that if you can't meet all of the obligations of the license then you can't distribute a covered work at all.

SCO would not have been as open to this if they had ceased all distribution of Linux as soon as they started this foofraw. As it is, they left an opening for IBM and everyone who holds copyright on various components of the kernel to sue them. RedHat is nailing them for GPL violation as well.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[RufusFish]

"Damn. I hope some smart bastard gets the movie rights." Then SCO could just recoup their losses by suing them. It's a failproof business plan!

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is quite funny. I think you should use the fat chick from The Practice as the evil SCO lawyer.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[kilgortrout]

Both these companies have more than enough cash to finance this litigation for a long time. No one's about to run out of money here. If nothing else, MS and Sun will keep SCO afloat. After a certain point, having more money than your opponent is no advantage. That point has been more than reached here.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[tmark]

That's copyright infringement.

And we know how much regard people here have for copyright law now, don't we ?

Re:You reap what you sow.

[canajin56]

Hehe, and since SCO has claimed that the GPL is invalid, they are outright admiting that they are violating IBM's copyright :D

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

The really fucked up thing is I can imagine this movie in my head right now. Joey saying "Damnit Chandler, it's my turn to play frozen bubble". And Wilford Brimley "I hope you SCO boys started your morning our right with some quaker instant oatmeal". And Connery going, "Shumtimes ya gotta take one in the butt McBride". I've done way too many drugs.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[El]

And you can damn well bet that IBM had a team of lawyers analyze this for a couple months and make sure it was bulletproof before they filed it. Looks like the SCO flea picked the wrong dog to bite.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

|3ut did you get head?

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

and Mark McKinney (of Kids in the Hall) as Linus Torvalds.

Seriously, look.
Is that not an uncanny likeness?

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

I got this image of a Gundam with two fatboys and a littleman (the first nuclear bombs you pervs) welded between its legs wearing the worlds biggest armani suit saying "YES YOUR HONOR" is this really loud metallic voice. Sounds cool.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[00_NOP]

Bottom line is: this now war unto the death - at least in the jurisdiction of the United States. Is anyone aware of SCO making any similar claims in court in any other jursidiction?

Re:You reap what you sow.

[epiphani]

That chick from voyager as the evil SCO lawyer

That chick?! THAT CHICK?! Show some damned respect for Seven of Nine. First of all, shes not evil. Second of all, if you piss her off, she could very likely blackhole your network. Now, take it back, damnit.

If you want to have someone as an evil lawyer for SCO, my vote is for this guy.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Sevn]

I was talking about the other chick. DUH!!!

Re:You reap what you sow.

[swillden]

After a certain point, having more money than your opponent is no advantage.

However, having more *sense* than your opponent is always good, and actually having a *case* is very, very valuable. And I think IBM's position relative to SCO on those issues dwarfs even their relative financial advantage (which, of course, sits at around 10,000 to 1).

Re:You reap what you sow.

[flacco]

i wouldn't be surprised if MS lost the case on purpose. it's in their interest to have strong software patent laws.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[sdriver]

This is not "the first *real* case of the GPL/BSD type licenses" as the two licenses are totally different. GPL is more restrictive.

With a BSD license I can take the code, modify it, and sell binaries without providing source EVER.

With the GPL I can take the source, modify it, and sell binaries. BUT I'll have to give up the source to anyone who asks for the source. I can only charge, at best, the cost of providing the source ($10 ship/handling).

Try reading the licenses sometime.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet your hatred of Bush and Ashcroft must show every time you open your mouth.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I see this more as IBM playing the part of Unicron...

For a time I considered sparing your little wretched company SCO. But now, you shall witness, it's dismemberment!

I just hope things don't turn out like the movie...

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

W h y D o Y o u A s k?
D o Y o u H a v e T h a t P r o b l e m?

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

idiot.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[SigmaDelta]

I for one agree, as this is the first *real* case of the GPL/BSD type licenses, and its LONG overdue..

Well, on paper this would be a real test, but then with all of the fire coming from all sides, SCO might cave before going to trial, then we won't have a ruling.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous DWord]

And we know how much regard people here have for copyright law now, don't we ?

Yeah, but we're not suing IBM.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[fucksl4shd0t]

I for one agree, as this is the first *real* case of the GPL/BSD type licenses, and its LONG overdue..

I, for one, welcome our new GPL overlords.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[sdcharle]

That is a theory that's circulating. Still, over $500 million...

Re:You reap what you sow.

[rootofevil]

500 million falls out of [random microsfot exec]s' pocket when his wifes servant does the laundry.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[OldBen]

AFAIK, there are preliminary injunctions preventing them from making claims in some other jurisdictions, notably Germany. SCO has essentially had to cease operations in Germany, and has had to shut down their German website due to such an injunction.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[pyros]

You only have to provide the source to those to whom you provided the binaries. So if you sell binaries and don't give them away, you only have to provide the source to people who purchased the binaries.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Excen]

Props for that Flash Animation. It was kick-ass!

Re:You reap what you sow.

[sharkey]

John Bobbet as Daryl McBride

Actually, Bobcat Goldthwait as Zed McBride sounds about right to me.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Citizen of Earth]

So how come most of the trouble with software patents has come from small companies or even individuals with almost no money taking on big companies?

Because small companies are the actual innovative force in the technology industries and large companies simply rip them off. (Not that I think that all or even most patents are actually innovative.)

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Sevn]

Totally not mine. I just linked to it because I thought it rocked. :)

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Citizen of Earth]

That's copyright infringement.

That's probably something like 300,000 instances of copyright infringement against 2000 copyright holders at $150,000 each. Anybody got a calculator?

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Urkki]

Of course those people can then give it, as well as the binaries, away freely or for cost.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to this, IBM could sue RedHat and Suse and any other Linux distributor too. I disagree that IBM's lawyers are on our side.. they are on IBM's side and that can be very dangerous for the free software movement!

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

No they can't. IBM released their code using GPL. RedHat and Suse are not violating GPL.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[MetalArc]

------ What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand ---- How about the part about the "well regulated militia"? That's the part that I don't understand. Do you?

Re:You reap what you sow.

[DaveAtFraud]

Nah. John Bobbit has the right life experience to play Darl's role. I'm guessing Darl's going to wish he only had as few parts missing as John Bobbit when IBM's lawyers are done with him and SCO.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the militia is an unorganized group of citzens. I believe the USC defines membership in the militia as all able body men between 18 and 45. Pretty much, they want everyone who is able to have a gun to have one.

A more modern way of putting it:

The citizens of this country should be armed to defend themselves. Therefore, congress shall not prevent people from owning guns.

Having a militia is having an armed citzenry. But you didn't know that, right? Look at the def in the USC. Look it up in the dictionary. The reason why it is defined as men is the same reason why women didn't vote early on. Now that women are full citizens, the definition needs to be expanded to include them too in the spirit and intention of the law.

Actually try understanding these things before you spout off your own uninformed opinions. The militia is an armed citizenry.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[AJWM]

Heck, even one instance of copyright infringment against 2000 separate copyright holders at $150,000 each is way more than SCO's current market cap.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[homer_ca]

When two big companies get into a patent dispute what often happens is that the defendant looks at the plaintiff's products and finds some of their own patents that the plaintiff's products infringe on. If the counterclaim is strong enough, they'll usually settle out of court for a patent cross-licensing agreement and maybe some settlement money one way or the other.

If the plaintiff is a small company with no marketable products or if it's set up purely as an IP holding company, the big company can't make a counterclaim this way. Of course the small company will still need a warchest to pay the lawyers. That's what investors or lawyers on contingency fees are for.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[hqm]

Microsoft wanted Eolas to win. It means they have to close their browser down to third party plugins. It was probably worth $5 billion to them
to lose that case. It means they *own* the desktop, and no one can accuse them of monopolistic practices if they close their browser up to any third party extensions.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Natalie (Portman) Hershlag porn is here:

http://www.geocities.com/gapataro/

get the natalie*.jpg files.

The poor, dumb shmuck who put these up is hating it. Other neato stuff is available if you browse the directory: denise richards screen captures from Wild Things, selma hayek, etc. Whoever put this up has been a busy, busy boy.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[dfung]

If I had points, I'd mod you up... When the big MS antitrust case was running, at the very beginning, I believe MS was trying to make a very specific point about the relationship of IE to Windows. MS was saying that their HTML rendering engine was a component of Windows (much like Gecko was the rendering component of Netscape) and that IE was a thin application shell that wrapped around that engine to create the behavior of a browser like Netscape. Other Windows applications can use that rendering engine, such as their help. So they could construct help files like web pages, but the app that you see them in is a help tool, not a browser.

That architecture is different than Netscape who carried their own rendering engine along with many other components as a bundle in their app. That difference in architecture is where the rathole regarding "taking IE out of Windows" comes from - removing the shell (as the CMU prof demonstrated) is relatively trivial, but if you object to the presence of the rendering engine, then the removal of that is not only painful but breaks other parts of Windows such as help.

Of course, it doesn't help that MS was also being an ass about this all.

Netscape (actually, I think it's other plantiffs such as Sun's Java) would complain that their ability to interact with the interfaces of these internal components was disadvantageous vs. Microsoft's own access and ability to enact change in the interfaces.

The remedy to this solution would have been hard to implement I think - you have to force Microsoft to publish and commit to a set of public interfaces and functionality, make them available to all comers, and create some mechanism through which MS can't have back-door entry. In practice, quite difficult to do, especially in areas like this, subject to significant evolution.

Once again, it doesn't help that MS was being an ass about this too.

OK, now flash forward to Eolas. For competitive reasons, MS got pulled into having plug-in interfaces. Later, they took the ball and moved it beyond where Netscape had already set it. Today, those public plug-in interfaces are the way that Real audio can be a pluggable replacement to Windows Media, or that Macromedia in some future Flash will become yet another option. Again, to a lesser extent, these kinds of plug in interfaces are what allows Sun to build a pluggable JVM (although I believe this is a pretty different mechanism).

So, if MS decides to lose the EOLAS case, that pretty much gives them carte blanche to slam the doors through the existing public interfaces shut and switch back to proprietary interfaces of their own, and their own control. In Soviet Russia, you don't plug into the brower, it plugs in to you (sorry, couldn't help it)! In a post-EOLAS world, poor Microsoft can't publish an API that allows Quicktime or Flash or RealMedia to appear in a window because they can't afford the license. But that won't stop them from doing a non-infringing implementation of Windows Media will it?

I think this is definitely NOT a case where the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

"But, this will either solidify what we are all doing, or kill us off...."

At worst, GPL2 is declared invalid and code is forced into public domain. Then we create GPL3 which fixes problems in GPL2 that got it struck down, and proceed.

Unless the entire idea of free/open software is killed, in all its forms. I don't think they can do that, but that would be bad if they found a way.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Stryker2]

Well regulated meaning well trained and proficient, of course. Thanks for playing, now go and read the writings of the people that WROTE the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Of course, having an opinion with no knowledge hasn't stopped anyone else...

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Maserati]

They should probably recompile the binaries just to be completely pedantic about the whole thing.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Maserati]

Coincidentally, that's also how much they're suing IBM for. It'd be an oddball way for IBM fo fund GNU/Linux developers.

Nahhh, they'll just squish SCO and then spend it on wringing the last bit of use out of the System V code

Re:You reap what you sow.

[gregfortune]

Exactly... This is only occuring because SCO wasn't watching their butt careful enough. In their haste while pressing forward with their claims, they mistakenly violated other license agreements (namely on the GPL'd code in the kernel and other applications in their distro).

IMHO, this is probably worse legally than the false claims they have been making. With those claims, they could at least back out at some point, take a slap on the hand for being idiots and watch their company slowly die. This way, they've set themselves up to get utterly destroyed. IBM is going to make them fry ;o)

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

His teeth?

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear of pro bono? Potential large amounts of money is still enough to get people to do anything...just look at all the app developers working at startups with no pay!

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Boiled Frog]

At worst, GPL2 is declared invalid and code is forced into public domain.

If the GPL is declared invalid, then the code is then protected by copyright. The author of the code can (obviously) release the code into the public domain but it isn't automatically "forced" to happen.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Giant Killer Robots With Nuclear Bombs For Balls"

wow how american...

Re:You reap what you sow.

[holt]

Pro bono doesn't mean you do something on the off chance that it will pay off if you win. Pro bono means that you do it for free, as a sort of charitable donation to the cause.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

People here have the highest regard, but there are always exceptions. After all, many of us, me included, have distributed OSS.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[ReallyQuietGuy]

yeah am worried about that too. it would be armageddon.

Re:You reap what you sow.

[fredrik70]

ooooh, just hit his quota of allocated data transfer amount...

Re:You reap what you sow.

[doc_smiley]

---- It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL." ---- Actually, I think it is important to note that IBM's lawyers are NOT on the side of the GPL; they are on the side of IBM. A small but important distinction. Don't kid yourselves and think that they wouldn't turn on the GPL in a heartbeat if it benefitted them

Re:You reap what you sow.

[Anonymous Coward]

The klingon chick? The Cardasian chick? The 4 years to live turned to energy alien chick? The Captain?

Schoolyard fun.

[Rosyna]

Why does this sound like a dodgeball game with a team from Class A and a team from Class B in grade school?

Re:Schoolyard fun.

[rossz]

Naw, it's more like the chess club challenging the varsity football team. They go in thinking they'll be able to checkmate in a few moves, but suddenly find themselves in a huddle on the football field.

Re:Schoolyard fun.

[harley_frog]

And IBM has more and bigger balls than SCO? (Hmm, somehow that just didn't come out right).

Re:Schoolyard fun.

[crazyphilman]

Chess club dork #1: "Hey, I just heard one of those IBM guys talking in their huddle..."

Chess club dork #2: "Which one? That giant one with spikes on his shoulder pads?"

Chess club dork #1: "No, the other one, the one that keeps pointing at you and growling."

Chess club dork #2: "Ok, ok. What did he say?"

Chess club dork #1: "They were talking about something called a blitz."

Chess club dork #2: "A blintz?"

Chess club dork #1: "No, a BLITZ. No 'N'".

Chess club dork #3: "Huh. I wonder what that means?"

Chess club dork #2: "Who knows. Ok, look. When Charley passes me the ball, I'll run back a few steps like they always do and I'll throw it that way. Hey, doug, you run like hell and make a touchdown, ok? How hard could it be? These guys are all big, lumbering idiots."

(A minute later, on the line).

IBM Football Jock: "Grr... DEATH TO CHESS CLUB DORKS!"

Chess club dork leader: "Talk is cheap. I think you'll find..."

(one of the other chess club kids, I can't tell 'em apart, can you?): "Um... 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, HIKE"

RUMMMMBBLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEE!

(the dust clears).

Referee: "I can't look, it's too horrible. My god, the football team ran straight over them, their poor little dorky heads are all crushed, cleat marks... (SOB) I can't look!"

Janitor: "And, just who the hell do you think is going to clean this mess up? This is some major repugnant shit. Matter of fact, why the hell am I on brain detail? Hey, coach, get your ass down here and start picking up these here brain chunks!"

Coach: "I'm like a race car, and I'm running in the red. And, all I'm saying is, it's not safe to run a race car in the red. I'm ready to blow."

Janitor: "Oh, you're ready to blow, eh? Well, I'm a mushroom cloud laying motherfucker, motherfucker! Take this bucket and mop, I'm going home. Screw this job, I'm moving to L.A. and becoming a hit man."

Fade to black... ;)

Re:Schoolyard fun.

[fucksl4shd0t]

Naw, it's more like the chess club challenging the varsity football team. They go in thinking they'll be able to checkmate in a few moves, but suddenly find themselves in a huddle on the football field.

Actually, dude, I think you've got it backwards. The stupid football team more resembles SCO, I think. Therefore, this is much more like the football team challenges the chess club, and the chess club pulls some intellectual shit and forces them to sit down and play chess.

Re:Schoolyard fun.

[rossz]

Perhaps, but isn't more fun to imagine the SCO assholes as a bunch of skinny dorks about to get their collective asses kicked by the varsity football team?

Re:Schoolyard fun.

[gregfortune]

I'm getting a kick out of the fire-breathing dragon reference earlier in the comment :) I'm thinking pathetic goblin verses Ancient Gold Dragon.

Re:Schoolyard fun.

[rossz]

pathetic goblin verses Ancient Gold Dragon.

What bothers me is I understood everything you said.

Re:Schoolyard fun.

[EvilTwinSkippy]

One quote comes time mind:

"Nobody worries about loosing to a droid."

"That's because droids don't pull your arms out of their sockets when they loose."

Re:Schoolyard fun.

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Headmaster: ...What's funny Biggs?

Biggs: Oh, nothing sir.

Headmaster: Oh do please share your little joke with the rest of us... I mean, obviously something frightfully funny is going on ...

Biggs: No, honestly, sir.

Headmaster: Well as it's so funny I think you'd better be selected to play for the boys' team in the rugby match against the masters this afternoon.

Biggs: (Horrified) Oh no, sir.

I have empathy for other people.

[grub]

Ouch, the graph shows that SCO dropped ~15% since that news broke.

Darl, I'll let you sleep on the couch in my basement. Note though that my cat is very fussy, you'll have to completely bury your turds in the litterbox or she'll get mad. Thanks, buddy!

Re:I have empathy for other people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. Daryl will get free room and board someplace else.

Re:I have empathy for other people.

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is if you look at the graph on a 6 month scale, this piece of news has hardly had an impact.

Re:I have empathy for other people.

[TopShelf]

Ouch, the graph shows that SCO dropped ~15% since that news broke.

Yeah, they're only up about 1000% on the year! Seriously, though, stock price isn't a great indicator of SCO's fortunes - there is so little stock available to trade (7.5 million float, over 60% held by insiders and institutions) that it doesn't take much wind to blow this thing up or down.

Re:I have empathy for other people.

[Anonymous Coward]

in SOVIET RUSSIA, turds bury YOU!!

Re:I have empathy for other people.

[red floyd]

Ouch, the graph shows that SCO dropped ~15% since that news broke.

Darl will make another crackhead announcement, causing the stock to go up 13%.

Re:I have empathy for other people.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if I could get that graph on a T-shirt at thinkgeek?

Re:I have empathy for other people.

[realdpk]

On the contrary, it's the ONLY indicator of SCO's fortunes, for they have no real/actual revenue (aside from the bullshit $699 licensing).

However, it is VERY pleasing to see that it dropped so much so quickly after news broke. That means that people are still at least somewhat sane. They know there's very little propping SCOX up, and that any bad news could cause it to fall fast, so lots of people have set it to sell very quickly at even the most minor of price drops.

Re:I have empathy for other people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Darl, I'll let you sleep on the couch in my basement. Note though that my cat is very fussy, you'll have to completely bury your turds in the litterbox or she'll get mad. Thanks, buddy!

Heh, that was good. But it would have been funnier if I thought Darl was facing financial peril. Darl isn't as stupid as he wants us to believe. And I don't know that getting disemboweled in court wasn't part of Darl and The Canopy Group's plan from the beginning.

Re:I have empathy for other people.

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, you're tard -- if "lots of people" were set up to sell SCOX, it would be in freefall right now.

Second, you're a slashbot. Going apeshit over ever minor drop in SCO stock while never saying a word as it shoots up 20, 30% or more in a single day.

Re:I have empathy for other people.

[Anonymous Coward]

grub is a well known troll. Wake up mods.

Re:I have empathy for other people.

[MuParadigm]

7.5 million float...

Actually, I think the real float is probably much lower. That number just accounts for Canopy's holdings. Then there's John Whats-his-Name 7%, Sun 1.5%, Trolltech holds 1.5%, ICP 5%, probably a number of other Canopy companies with 1-2% stakes, stocks owned by Canopy group members like Ralph Yarro, etc.

If the real float on this is as little as 4 million, I wouldn't be surprised. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if it was as little as 3 million.

Re:I have empathy for other people.

[Sri Lumpa]

You'll just have to rename her Linux to make things even better.

Re:I have empathy for other people.

[Anonymous Coward]

methinks you should look up the meaning of "troll", moron.

Someone needs to do a lawsuit flowchart

[Unknown Poltroon]

I cant keep track anymore.

Does anyone have a chart

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone have a chart of all the lawsuits by and against SCO? I lost track.

SCO responds.

[eddy]

This just in.

Stowell disputed the idea that SCO could no longer distribute Linux. "We're the copyright holder for the core Unix operating system. If we want to charge someone a licensing fee for using our copyrighted software that's gone into Linux, then we have that prerogative," he said. "If we want to continue to distribute Linux to our existing customers, we can do that because we own the copyrights on that Unix software."

I'll just let that... sink in.

Re:SCO responds.

[drakaan]

Since he said it publically, and in response to IBM, does that mean it can be used in a legal argument? I thought SCO was trying to skirt the whole "copyright" issue, since they only had some odd contractual agreement. Is Darl really saying, out loud, in public, that SCO owns the copyright for some software that's in Linux?

Re:SCO responds.

[sokk]

"If we want to continue to distribute Linux to our existing customers, we can do that because we own the copyrights on that Unix software." I haven't got words for this...It's so -- whacked. If you repeat a lie enough it'll eventually become a truth. I think they've actually convinced themselves that this is the truth. Tragic..

Re:SCO responds.

[lobsterGun]

Do they understnd the GPL at all?

Do they understand the concept of ownership at all?

Are they really claiming that just beacuse a program runs in Linux that it is automatically their property?

Re:SCO responds.

[angst_ridden_hipster]

Keep in mind that this is the same guy who said:

"C++ is one of the properties that SCO owns today and we frequently are approached by customers who wish to license C++ from us and we do charge for that." March 4 2003

No point in trying to argue with delusionals.

Re:SCO responds.

[yeremein]

Okay, assume for a moment that it's true that SCO can distribute the whole of Linux because it claims it has a copyright on a part of it.

This means that if there really is copyrighted SCO code in Linux, then IBM, RedHat, et. al. are free to distribute it along with Linux. After all, IBM, RedHat, et. al certainly have their own copyrights in Linux.

Re:SCO responds.

[tmroyster]

Actually, this statement is pretty consistent with
their (ridiculous) viewpoint and legal opinion that anything that was every developed for or from or used the same bathroom as sysV is their IP and belongs to them.

They are claiming that they OWN linux, because their
view is, it is a deriviative (by their definition) of sysV.

Re:SCO responds.

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like they understand that they own the GPL.
It is no longer the GNU/GPL it is the SCO/GPL.

Re:SCO responds.

[mike449]

Is Darl really saying, out loud, in public, that SCO owns the copyright for some software that's in Linux?
More than that. He is saying that SCO owns copyright on all Linux code. Since they do not agree with the GPL terms for Linux, they can only distribute parts of it for which they own copyright. And he says they will continue to distribute all of it.

Re:SCO responds.

[bo-eric]

The quote is taken from a mozillaquest article and the context is quite relevant.

Re:SCO responds.

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

I vote that we just put them out of their misery and nuke the SCO offices off the face of the planet. Oh, and make sure their families are visiting, letting this sort of wacked-out lunatic into the gene pool could be disasterous for the human race.

Re:SCO responds.

[gr8_phk]

"If we want to charge someone a licensing fee for using our copyrighted software that's gone into Linux, then we have that prerogative.

Even if they owned Unix in full, they don't have the right to distribute IBM's contribution without permission from IBM. If I write Star Wars episode 317, I own the copyright. I may not be able to distribute it (would that be true?) because it's a derivative of someone else's work, but that doesn't mean they own my work too.

Re:SCO responds.

[garcia]

blah blah blah and more blah.

They have ignored the GPL from the beginning (and still are).

None of their press releases have made any sense (we have tried to make sense out of them ourselves by wondering if they are trying to make money off the deal before the stock goes into deeper shit than it already is).

They are claiming that Linux is their property because it is a derivitave work of their IP.

Re:SCO responds.

[Haeleth]

Er, I think that refers to a program called "c++", i.e. a particular implementation of a C++ compiler.

Re:SCO responds.

[rgmoore]

Translation: All Your Code Are Belong to Us

Re:SCO responds.

[kfg]

Indeed, one wonders how SCO acquired the rights to distribute any code I may have contributed to their Linux distro (note that this is a broader field than just "Linux")when I have no contractual obligations to transfer rights to SCO.

One wonders exactly which files they claim ownership of, and even if they refuse to identify specific lines of code that they believe are theirs they should be required to at least identify the files they are charging a license fee for before they can collect any money. That's basic contract law.

"Give us some money."

"What do I get?"

"We can't tell you. Ha, ha, ha!"

Right Sparky. Blow me.

If you have written a single line of code that is being distributed in a file that SCO is charging a license fee for and are under no contractual obligation to transfer rights of derivitive works to SCO, even if they do own the core operating system code they are still violating your license on your IP.

By law derivitive works belong to the actual author.

I wonder what would happen if everyone who has contributed legitimate code under the GPL to SCO's distro were to each file a suit for violation of their license terms?

More than wonder, I highly recommend it.

If you represent yourself pro se it will cost you some time, some stationary and the filing fee.

It will cost them a lawyer to respond, for each individual case.

Make the bastards bleed from one thousand little legal cuts. Even the expense of that many band-aids and bactine will hurt.

KFG

Re:SCO responds.

[arkanes]

More than that - he's claiming, at least unless theres unquoted context there, although I can't imagine what it would be, that the alleged copyright claims they have over Linux not only exist, but are so overwhelming as to trump the copyrights of every other person who has ever contributed to Linux - including Linus himself.

Re:SCO responds.

[Anonymous Coward]

This was not Darl McBride being quoted.

It was Blake Stowell - Darl's other evil twin.

Re:SCO responds.

[rgmoore]

Do they understnd the GPL at all?

No, they don't. But IBM does. There's a great quote from IBM later in the article:

"The typical approach to indemnity, and apparently HP's approach as outlined in the press, we believe runs fundamentally counter to the Linux value proposition," Samson wrote. Because HP's indemnification is rendered void as soon as customers make modifications to the source code, "it will inhibit customers from taking full advantage of the open source development process," he wrote.

That's a quote from somebody who genuinely understands the power of Free/Open Source software.

It's pretty clear that IBM's lawyers get the legal aspects of the GPL, too. I remember hearing a story about IBM when they were first considering going into Free/Open Source software. IBM, being IBM, didn't want to get involved without understanding the legal issues, so they asked their lawyers to look over the GPL. The lawyers came back with the opinion that it was a well written legal document. Their business background meant that they didn't understand why anyone would want to release their code under the GPL, but they agreed that it actually would achieve its goal of keeping the source open. IBM never would have used GPLed software if they weren't quite confident that the license was sound.

Re:SCO responds.

[MuParadigm]

Well, Darl didn't say it, Blake did. I know, it's a fine line, given that it's kind of hard to tell the siamese triplets (Darl, Chris, Blake) apart.

The copyright claim, while flat out untrue, is also contradicted by SCO's own previous statements. Even more interesting to my mind is the statement: "If we want to charge someone a licensing fee for using our copyrighted software that's gone into Linux, then we have that prerogative..."

Has Blake even *read* the GPL?

These guys really aren't making any sense at all anymore. It used to seem like they were at least making an effort, unsuccessfully, but trying. I think they must have added LSD to their crack mix.

Re:SCO responds.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know Linus doesn't like to get into legal battles, but after reading this, I think he really should respond by suing them for claiming his orignal work (that he did while at school) is theirs.

Re:SCO responds.

[angst_ridden_hipster]

He's claiming rights to the compiler in general.

I don't know what rights AT&T owned vs. the rights that Stroustrup personally owns (if any -- he is an employee of AT&T Labs, among other affiliations).

Just because Stowell's saying he doesn't know whether other compilers like gcc contain the IP doesn't mean he's not claiming rights (or wouldn't, if he thought he could get money out of it).

Re:SCO responds.

[Our Man In Redmond]

Are they really claiming that just beacuse a program runs in Linux that it is automatically their property?

No. They're claiming that just because a program looks and acts like Unix, it's their property.

Re:SCO responds.

[kfg]

The question boils down, at least in part, to what copyright they claim to be distributing their distro under.

The distro has a license that may be unique and apart from the licenses of each individual file.

If they distribute their distro under a blanket GPL license then yes, they are effectively charging a license fee for code they have no rights to even if a single line of that code does not belong to them and are thus in violation of the GPL for their entire distro. Every individual who has contributed code to that distro may sue them for license violation.

How many people have contributed code to their distro? Richard Stallman, Bill Joy and Linus Torvalds, for starters, since it is a BSD/GNU/Linux distro. The entire KDE/Gnome teams as well.

If they have not claimed GPL over the entire distro than they must enummerate those files which are under a different license and take care that all linking and derivitive works therein comply with any GPL licensed code.

If they have not they are in violation of the GPL for each instantiation.

If you right a VB app Microsoft may own the VB runtime, but they do not own your code as a derivitave work. You own that.

SCO has effectively declared legal war on anyone who has contributed code to their entire distro.

Fight back.

KFG

Re:SCO responds.

[timlewis_atlanta]

They don't seem to understand. **Even if their claims of code ownership are correct**, Stowell's statement is wrong.

If their code copying claims are validated, a correct version of his statement would read something like this :

"We're the copyright holder for the core Unix operating system. If we want to charge someone a licensing fee for using our copyrighted software that is in UNIX, then we have that prerogative."

"If we want to continue to distribute Linux to our existing customers, we cannot do that because we violated the GPL, and are being sued by the copyright owners of some of the GNU/Linux software."

Re:SCO responds.

[Dashing Leech]

Why stop there? Can't every person who holds a copyright to some of the code sue SCO? How many different copyright holders are there in Linux? If SCO had 1000 lawsuits for copyright violation against it tomorrow, I wonder how much its stock would plummet.

Re:SCO responds.

[JCCyC]

Even if SCO did own the copyright for some part of Linux, they don't own it all. Their understanding of copyright law is abysmal. They just don't get that contributions unrelated to the disputed portions belong to their creators (ex. Kuznetsov has the routing code, Alan Cox has gobs of drivers, the NASA guy has a lot of NIC drivers etc etc etc...) and any of them can sue if the Linux kernel is distributed in violation of the GPL.

I refuse to believe they're THAT stupid. I can only assume someone is lying.

Re:SCO responds.

[LightSail]

The people that decided to take this foolish course should live to suffer a long time. Some civil suits should empty their pockets and then criminal charges of fraud etc. should send them up the river. Nukes are so messy!

Re:SCO responds.

[flacco]

If you right a VB app Microsoft may own the VB runtime, but they do not own your code as a derivitave work. You own that.\

*Damn*. I was hoping to unload on SOMEONE that mountain of shit VB code I wrote ten years ago and I still have to do maintenance on.

Re:SCO responds.

[kfg]

As you sow, so shall you reap.

Sorry about that. Live and learn.

Just hope maintenence doesn't extend unto the third generation. Users are jealous.

KFG

Re:SCO responds.

[Daniel_Staal]

Better yet, if you do that, and keep close to IBM's wording in the suit, the judge may decide to handle all the cases at once in a class action suit.

Imagine a class action suit against SCO, backed up by IBM's legal muscle.

Re:SCO responds.

[Jo Owen]

People really need to get this right, because ive read this a lot.

SCO is not claiming that they wrote linux, or even have the rights to all of it.

What they do claim is that they own the copyrights to PARTS of the linux code, it is these parts that they are offering people a licence for.

Re:SCO responds.

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously think that the GPL should be modified...

Instead of "anyone" it should read "anyone *except* SCO"

Would be really nice if SCO are denied to use *any* of the software in the distro that is not Linux, such as KDE/Gnome etc.

Oh well maybe modifying the GPL is not the answer here, but it would be sweet to hit them with their own medicine to put a stop to all this nonsense

Re:SCO responds.

[OscarGunther]

If we want to continue to distribute Linux to our existing customers, we can do that because we own the copyrights on that Unix software."

I think he's wrong, but I get his point, which is consistent with SCOX's stance:

1. SCOX owns Unix.

2. SCOX owns all works derivative of Unix.

3. Linux is a Unix derivative.

4. Therefore, SCOX owns Linux and can distribute/charge for it at will.

That you have copyrighted a contribution to Linux doesn't matter, since it is a derivative work. SCOX truly believes that all your base are belong to them and, as someone else has pointed out, IBM's explicit injection of copyright issues into the countersuit forces SCOX to put/shut up in court, rather than on PRNewswire.

In a sense, SCOX must do this for the sake of credibility with their installed base and the stock market. I predict we'll see more outrages like these in the future, maybe along the lines of "revoking" other distros' "licenses" to distribute Linux.

Re:SCO responds.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is not the distro, it is the kernel. They have no right to distribute IBM's kernel contributions other than GPL. They are charging a license fee in volation of that aggreement. There is no higher aggregate, such as the 'distro' involved in the claims at all.

Re:SCO responds.

[Anonymous Coward]

What they do claim is that they own the copyrights to PARTS of the linux code, it is these parts that they are offering people a licence for.


Yeees...

But by saying that the parts that they hold copyright to can only be used under additional license, they lose the right to distribute the other parts under the GPL. (Read the GPL, it is right there) So their distribution of the parts that theiy don't hold copyright to is copyright infringement.

And IBM has just called them on it.

No matter which way SCOX turns now, they are dinner. Not as satifying as a preemptive nuclear stike, but it will achieve the same end.

Re:SCO responds.

[Drantin]

Also, Microoft probably wouldn't claim it was viral without having their lawyers looking into it thoroughly to see whether they could use any of the code...

Re:SCO responds.

[rodgerd]

Part of their argument has been that they own anything that looks like Linux so that, say, IBM's JFS code, developed entirely by them as an AIX extension, belongs to SCO because it's bundled with a Unix.

So SCO own Linux, because it's like Unix. In SCO world, anyway.

Re:SCO responds.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were to consider modifying the GPL in that way, you'd need to be more specific, since SCO can just change their name. I'd recommend:

Anyone employed by, or a stockholder of record in, SCO or the Canopy Group between (insert dates here). In addition, any company that employs said individuals in the future would forfeit all rights to use the software at the time of employment and for as long as said individuals are employed.

Be as specific as possible so that there can be no mistake as to who you're referring to. Prevent them from doing anything with the relevant software, including running it, modifying it, and distributing it.

Of course, only the original developers of a program could impose such a restriction, and they could only do it on new versions of software, not retroactively.

But still, it would be fun. Basically, you'd make anyone associated with SCO or Canopy a virtual poison pill for any organization that uses such software. If the license caught on and was used in popular software, you could go a long way toward making these people unemployable.

Payback's a bitch, ain't it? :)

Re:SCO responds.

[91degrees]

f you have written a single line of code that is being distributed in a file that SCO is charging a license fee for

SCO might be able to completely ignore your rights as the author because trivial segments are covered under fair use.

Re:SCO responds.

[91degrees]

You're assuming the situation is too simple.

SCO's take is that they distributed Linux - a piece of software that they acquired in good faith - and distributed according to the terms. They then discovered that someone had pirated their code (just accept the use of the term "pirate" for now. We all know what I mean), thus meaning that everyone who had distributed it since then had committed copyright infringement.

Their code is not under GPL, because although they distributed it under the GPL - They didn't put it there. In fact, IBM did. After discovering this, they ceased distribution, but in order to remain compliant with licencing terms, continued to allow their customers to download the code as required by the GPL. Not allowing people who had received binaries access to the source would be breach of licence or copyright violation. It is just as likely to be a violation if the allowed downloads or disallowed downloads since the GPL requires that source is made available. It is also a breach of licence to include their code in the download, but SCO didn't breach the licence. Whoever put SCO's code in there did.

Hence SCO are abiding by their commitments under the GPL, at considerable cost to themselves. In much the same way, they believe that the people who have illegally acquired SCO's code should abide by SCO's licence requirements and pay for a licence. It may or may not be possible to abide by the GPL and pay SCO's fee, but this is not SCO's responsibility since they didn't put the code in Linux. They cannot be held responsible for the actions of a third party.

So, to summarise, their distribution is the minimal they believe they can manage to stay roughly within the GPL. They are also charging a licence fee for use of their code, which is not GPL since they didn't put it in the kernel. There are a couple of contradictions caused when the GPL is used on code unlawfully added to a project which makes it impossible to abide by, so therefore it is not valid for this situation.

Re:SCO responds.

[kfg]

We must make a distinction here between their legal claims and their press release claims.

Their press release claims have no legal standing ( although they may open them up to various legal complaints. See Red Hat vs. SCO). These are just FUD.Some of them though give hints to what their actual legal arguments must be if it comes to that.

Argument of in my original post does not rely on press release claims. Copyright claims are legal claims.If they release a distro under the GPL that is a legal claim of assignment of rights. If the GPL is a valid license then they are bound by its terms for every line of code in the distro.

If they release a distro (c)SCO they are making legal claim to ownership of the distro and all the code contained therein.

Their filing against IBM is an actual legal claim. This claim makes a fairly tortuous definition of derivitive works that is highly unlikely to prevail.

IBM has also pointed out that since SCO distributed the code themselves under the GPL they have released it for use under the GPL, so any other legal argument is moot.

SCO has responded in a press release ( but this must be their legal argument if it ever goes to court, because there is simply no other counter against IBM's defense here) that the entire GPL is invalid and thus all works released under the GPL either A)belong to them as derivitive works, or B) have passed into the public domain so they are able to use them as they please.

This argument relies on A) that their definition of a derivative work is correct, which it isn't, AND B) that if the GPL is invalid all GPLed works inherently become public domain, which they don't.I'd hazard a guess here that RMS will fight this one tooth and nail. He owns what he wrote.

They also have to be very careful about that argument since it would also likely result in a ruling that all UNIX code up to 32V is public domain as well. A judicial ruling has already been made that such is likely to be the case if anyone wants to push the issue.

So SCO's claims against IBM inherently attack the GPL, by necessity, or their legal claims fail prima facie.

This is very important. They must destroy the GPL itself to prevail over IBM (because SCO having released the claimed infringing code under the GPL is an affirmative prima facie defense). This effects every piece of GPLed code in existence.

Any way you cut it this is not simply an IBM/SCO issue.

Keep your stick on the ice, because we're all in this together now. Like it or not.

KFG

Re:SCO responds.

[kfg]

Yes, but that would be a trivial segment of the line that you own. Not a trivial segment of the file in which it appears.

That's one of the unique properties of the GPL. Unless ownership is otherwise assigned by the author ( such as to the FSF) each contributor retains full ownership rights to everything they contributed.

Rights are not subsumed into the overall work.

How few characters have already been held to be infringing? Three.

Sing along:

"My sweet Lord. . . "

When it comes to computer code you'd be unlikely to prevail over three characters, but precedent supports your right to make the argument.

And making the argument would cost SCO.

KFG

Re:SCO responds.

[Penguinshit]

"Keep your stick on the ice, because we're all in this together now. Like it or not."

I prefer a little stickwork to Darl's face. That would be a sweet 4 minutes in the box.

But, if I *ever* find that clown with his head down in the corners.....

Re:SCO responds.

[DaveAtFraud]

Probably one of the coolest things out of this specific turn of events is that it appears that IBM really *gets it* when it comes to Free/Open Source Software. On the other hand, I don't have any delusions that there is some altruistic motive on IBM's part to this. IBM sells service and support. With closed software, there is only so much you can do beyond installation and upgrades. I'm sure that IBM sees the ability of the customer to customize the system as a continuing revenue stream since it means the customer will always need someone with IBM's expertise to come in and fix things whenever something changes and their custom stuff suddenly is broken.

IBM is going to bat for Free/Open Source because they see Free/Open Source software as a way to make money. Nothing wrong with that and bottom feeders like SCO are why open source needs companies like IBM. It would have been somewhat ugly if Darl & company hadn't gotten greedy and gone for all the marbles instead of just quietly infringing on GPLed code.

Re:SCO responds.

[Malfourmed]

If you have written a single line of code that is being distributed in a file that SCO is charging a license fee for and are under no contractual obligation to transfer rights of derivitive works to SCO, even if they do own the core operating system code they are still violating your license on your IP.

By law derivitive works belong to the actual author.

Even if the derived work was based on a copyright infringement?

I've always wondered, for instance, if Viacom has ownership of the Star Trek fan fiction out there.

Re:SCO responds.

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially if these lawsuits originate in several different countries. At that point, SCO will have to choose between going through the expense of defending these lawsuite in far-flung parts of the world or losing them by default.

Look at how SCO is damaged.

* If SCO decides to respond, they spend money.
* If SCO ignores the suits, they lose them by default. Does losing a case in Ecuador hurt SCO? You bet it does. That's one more judgement hanging over SCO, and investors can be skittish about buying stock in a company that's getting hammered all around the world.
* All the while, SCO's stock price takes a beating with each lawsuit filed.

Yes, developers should sue SCO as often as they can do so. Bleed the bastards dry!

Re:SCO responds.

[DickBreath]

Let this part sink in...

SCO has not sold the SCO Linux software in question since May 12, but the company continues to distribute it via the Internet to honor existing support contracts, said SCO spokesman Blake Stowell.

This means that they either violate some other support contracts or they violate IBM's copyright.

I have often wondered what it was that kept SCO offering Linux for download. Every time it has come up on slashdot that you can download Linux from SCO I wondered. Why? This obviously damages their claims.

Could there be some contractual issue as part of United Linux that is so strong that they are more afraid to remove Linux from their server?

Re:SCO responds.

[hacker]

IBM, being IBM, didn't want to get involved without understanding the legal issues, so they asked their lawyers to look over the GPL. The lawyers came back with the opinion that it was a well written legal document.

That might just be because it was penned by a former IBM attorney?

Re:SCO responds.

[SillySlashdotName]

Their code is not under GPL, because although they distributed it under the GPL - They didn't put it there.

Wrong.

SCO/Caldera is claiming an "I didn't know" defense, and it doesn't hold up.

They are claiming someone took their code and put it into Linux, then GAVE it back to SCO including source code, SCO made modifications and then released it under GPL.

They are also claiming a majority of the kernel is infringing IP.

If I put your lawn furniture at the curb, and then you pile your household garbage on top of it and the trashman takes it away, you have given up your right to claim I threw away your property because you either knew or should have known your property was in jeopardy and acted to retrieve it or prosecute me BEFORE you added to the trashpile and BEFORE the garbage collectors took the pile away.

If there really are massive amounts of infringing IP as SCO/Caldera claims, then they either KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN it was there BEFORE releasing it under the GPL. If they knew it was there when it was released, then WHO PUT IT THERE becomes irrelevant.

They are no longer being held responsible for the actions of a third party, they are being held responsible for their own actions.

In fact, IBM did.

Not a fact, not proven.

Not even a very good troll. I give it a 2 out of 10 - really, you need to try harder.

Re:SCO responds.

[mindriot]

Talking about their distro, consider this: If they put the kernel under a different license (however legal that would be), it's quite possible they get themselves into more trouble by linking other code (such as i2c/lm-sensors/...) against their kernel - ILLEGALLY, since this other code is still under gpl version 2, and thus can't be linked to non-free code as they claim their kernel to be.

Re:SCO responds.

[alexo]

> seriously think that the GPL should be modified...
>
> Instead of "anyone" it should read "anyone *except* SCO"
>
> Would be really nice if SCO are denied to use *any* of the
> software in the distro that is not Linux, such as KDE/Gnome etc.

Which word in "free software" did you fail to understand?

Any limitation on the use of GPL'ed SW will violate the spirit of the GPL and will ultimately kill it.

Sort of like free speech, if you think about it.

Re:SCO responds.

[anthonyrcalgary]

Couldn't they at least put a password on the FTP site? They're not obligated under the GPL to distribute the source for free, and if they were just really slow to respond to requests for it, then it wouldn't be a clear cut violation. Not as clear cut as this anyway.

Re:SCO responds.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they release a distro (c)SCO they are making legal claim to ownership of the distro and all the code contained therein.

No, if they release a distro SCO are infringing the copyrights of people and corperations on code the distro is a derivative work of -- unless SCO has been granted distribution rights. The GPL grants the right to distribute the distro, but only if the distro is licensed under the terms of the GPL[1]. It is probably this condition that IBM claims SCO is violating; "claiming a copyright on parts of Linux" is not a violation of the GPL. And if SCO is licensing their distro to others with the GPL, the recipients can further distribute and modify the distro without paying SCO licensing fees; the GPL grants them those rights.

[1] There is a reason for legalese: while the GPL clearly intends that further distribution is licensed under the GPL, the verbiage "... and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program." is less than explicit on this point. But as the intent is clear (particularly given the preamble), I suspect the license will hold up.

Re:SCO responds.

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind the footnote; I just found section 6:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

That is perfectly clear.

Re:SCO responds.

[91degrees]

They are claiming someone took their code and put it into Linux, then GAVE it back to SCO including source code, SCO made modifications and then released it under GPL.

Yup. Their claim is that this makes it non-GPL

If I put your lawn furniture at the curb, and then you pile your household garbage on top of it and the trashman takes it away, you have given up your right to claim I threw away your property because you either knew or should have known your property was in jeopardy and acted to retrieve it or prosecute me BEFORE you added to the trashpile and BEFORE the garbage collectors took the pile away.

I may not have realised it was my furniture. I miht have assumed it was someone elses. Besides, it's not something large and easily identifiable like furniture we're talking about. Suppose instead, i throw your expensive watch away. You can hardly be expected to check.

If there really are massive amounts of infringing IP as SCO/Caldera claims, then they either KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN it was there BEFORE releasing it under the GPL. If they knew it was there when it was released, then WHO PUT IT THERE becomes irrelevant.

SCO's press releases and legal docs don't seem to agree on this point. Their press releases claim that roughly every line of code belongs to SCO. Their legal filing seems to limit this to a handful of pieces of code. SCO's position is that they didn't have any reason to know it was in there. They assumed that the information regarding Linux was 100% true, and it was all the work of hobbyists.

In fact, IBM did.

Not a fact, not proven.

In SCO's legal opinion.

Re:SCO responds.

[91degrees]

Fair use is deliberately vague. Take for example the line "I think I'm in Love", which has to have been in quite a few crappy pop songs. This is not copyrighted. The importance to the original work is what's important.

That's one of the unique properties of the GPL. Unless ownership is otherwise assigned by the author ( such as to the FSF) each contributor retains full ownership rights to everything they contributed.

But it relies on copyright. If the work is not covered by copyright, the GPL need not apply. No idea what copyright and fair use says about contributing a trivial amount to produce a derived work though.

Re:SCO responds.

[dontbgay]

Last time I checked, LSD doesn't make you stupid, just crazy.

Re:SCO responds.

[thisgooroo]

wouldn't make a difference. even if you can access it only with a password, they would still be distributing it. contracts with their customers doesn't justify doing something illegal (distributing GPLed code in violation of the GLP)

Re:SCO responds.

[fredrik70]

Of course it's viral in the sense that if you do modification to code once released under GPL, you would have to release it as well under the GPL if you wanted to reditribute it. so what, that's a feature, not a bug.

Re:SCO responds.

[John Hasler]

That's not fair use. That's just lack of originality. Fair use is quite a bit more complicated than that, and involves more than the mere size of the excerpt. It's likely that inclusion of a portion of someone else's program in yours is rarely fair use.

Re:SCO responds.

[catman]

*Damn*. I was hoping to unload on SOMEONE that mountain of shit VB code I wrote ten years ago and I still have to do maintenance on.

Well, you know the saying:

"Programming is like sex. One mistake and you have to support it for life."

IBM's Millions and Millions of Lawyers

[JasonUCF]

I swear, if this ever proceeds to court, I fully believe Darl McBride will be wearing Depends.

How charming to think that the lying, snivelling legal lapdogs at SCO are going to get the Big Blue treatment.

Thanks Big Blue!

Re:IBM's Millions and Millions of Lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

+1, "Caused a Wicked Grin"

Re:IBM's Millions and Millions of Lawyers

[sweetooth]

The lawyers probably don't care. They get paid regardless. They might get paid more if they beat IBM, but they are probably already being paid very well.

Re:IBM's Millions and Millions of Lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing too, cause soon as the case is over, SCO is history.

Re:IBM's Millions and Millions of Lawyers

[Saeger]

SCO are going to get the Big Blue treatment.

Soon to be followed by the Big Bubba treatment.

--

Re:IBM's Millions and Millions of Lawyers

[megaduck]

How charming to think that the lying, snivelling legal lapdogs at SCO are going to get the Big Blue treatment.

That's one of the really weird things about this case. IBM is NOTORIOUS for savage and unethical business practices. There was once a time when the whole tech world lived in fear of getting the "Big Blue Treatment". That treatment quite possibly involved a public reaming in court.

Now that "Big Blue" is our Linux-loving buddy, I find myself rooting for IBM to demolish a smaller company in court. Weird.

Re:IBM's Millions and Millions of Lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

What's really fun about that thought is that this is a civil action, not a criminal case. There is no fifth ammendment protection in lawsuits. IBM's lawyers can put Darl on the stand, and he has to answer any relevant question they ask him.

Re:IBM's Millions and Millions of Lawyers

[SillySlashdotName]

I read that SCO is budgeting $1M per quarter to pay the lawyers. ~$330,000.00 per month. Yup, they are being well paid.

Same time a year ago, they had $15.4M revenue and a loss of $4.5M, while this year, AFTER the $8.3M they got from Microsoft and SUN they were only at $20.1M - or to put it another way, excluding the cash infusion from Microsoft and SUN, they made only $11.8M in revenue (down $3.9M from last year when they had a $4.5M loss) AND STILL HAVE $1M PER QUARTER TO THROW AT THE LAWSUIT.

Re:IBM's Millions and Millions of Lawyers

[sweetooth]

Just think if they actually spent that money on development instead. They might actually have something to sell and not be hated by everyone. Then again I always hated dealing with SCO so maybe not.

Re:IBM's Millions and Millions of Lawyers

[Minna Kirai]

They get paid regardless.

Where do you get that idea? The lawyers SCO has attacking IBM are on contingency. That means no payday unless they win.

(Now that SCO has multiple lawsuits going, prehaps some of their addition lawyers will be on a more fixed payplan)

Re:IBM's Millions and Millions of Lawyers

[sweetooth]

I hadn't seen that. All I had seen up to this point was that SCO was setting aside a large chunk of money every quarter to cover legal fees in the ongoing legal suit. That leads one to believe that the lawyers weren't working on contingency.

Duh......

[phunhippy]

It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL."

yesh because with all the work IBM has done with linux in the past short years they obviously have no vested interest in making money off the GPL or linux(or GNU/LINUX or SCO/GNU/LINUX, whatever you want to call it).

this trial should prove to be interesting as long as it doesn't drag out for 5 years

Re:Duh......

[grub]

should prove to be interesting as long as it doesn't drag out for 5 years

It won't. SCO will go belly up long before that.

Re:Duh......

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think IBM supeonaed Canopy....shit and giggles. No, that did that to make sure that even when SCO hits the grave there will still be a target to hit.

Re:Duh......

[Anonymous Coward]

yesh because with all the work

Put down the vodka, phunhippy... it's to early to be getting that hammered.

Re:Duh......

[LWATCDR]

yesh because with all the work IBM has done with linux in the past short years they obviously have no vested interest in making money off the GPL or linux(or GNU/LINUX or SCO/GNU/LINUX, whatever you want to call it).

What is wrong with that? Why is it bad if someone makes money from doing work? IBM does a lot of work makeing Linux better. They support and follow the GPL. They spend there money defending the GPL. Let's see.

1. write free software
2.???? No wait I got it, sell support for the free software and hardware to run it.
3 Profit!
Hey that works.

Re:Duh......

[JonnyElvis42]

SCO/GNU/LINUX

I realize you're joking, but please, never say that again. Really.

Re:Duh......

[geekoid]

I would pay good money to see the expression on a certian "GNU/LINUX" persons face if someone actually called it "SCO/GNU/LINUX" to his face.

heh.

Re:Duh......

[sweetooth]

Define "good money."

Re:Duh......

[Alizarin Erythrosin]

With the amount of FUD, lies, and etc that SCO ('specially McSlide, as in their stock) have been spewing from their gaping holes, IBM doesn't want this to drag on any longer than it has to... although by that logic that woulda been months ago.

Ok, let's just say IBM wants it over ASAP. Maybe we should help speed up the process by firebombing SCO's HQ?

Re:Duh......

[rkhalloran]

IBM's betting the farm on Linux, true, but if SCO's we-own-derivative-works game was validated in court, OS/390 is certified by Open Group as Unix-compatible because of their POSIX support...

you KNOW they aren't going to open that up for SCO to claim against...

Re:Duh......

[ZeeTeeKiwi]

SCO will go belly up before that...

Yes it will (almost certainly), but that doesn't mean the end of this case, as their liquidators may decide to continue the case if they think it has merit.

Continuing the case would be particularly beneficial to SCO shareholders as there would be only upside - if they win they win big - and IBM's countersuits are not to be feared as they're already bust!

And I say I want this case fought to a close. A clear win for IBM (and Redhat on their suit) does two good things.

i) it aids the case for getting Darl & co to do a "perp walk" and

ii) it further legitimizes the GPL. While many feel the GPL is very robust already, they are other who disagree and some settled case law on topic always assists.

Re:Duh......

[hankaholic]

sell support for the free software and hardware to run it

This fits wonderfully with IBM's traditional modus operandi.

They tried to co-author an OS with Microsoft; however, Microsoft's goals ran against IBM's, and it turned sour. Being a software company, MS had (and has) a significant interest in controlling the software involved.

It seems to me that IBM hasn't traditionally been interested in selling programs, but in providing top-notch business solutions. Remember, IBM stands for International Business Machines. IBM embraced OSS because it allows them to do what no traditional software vendor (including SCO, MS, et. al) can allow them to do -- provide business solutions with a minimum of outside interference. OSS means that IBM can do whatever necessary to allow software to fit a customer's needs, and to ensure that it'll run on whatever hardware they throw at it, even to the extent of porting the code.

OSS means that IBM isn't tied to a vendor, or architecture. IBM isn't afraid of a bunch of people copying their software -- in fact, they're probably pretty happy that some of those using the same programs happen to also work on improving them.

Open standards work for IBM. Code which can be freely modified works for IBM. OSS works for IBM because it removes the worries of vendor lock-in, and IBM will survive because in the end they do something which SCO does not:

IBM delivers a product for which many businesses will gladly pay, and from which they will benefit, and for which they would probably pay again in the future.

Re:Duh......

[aastanna]

fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers

BURNINATION!

No

[brlewis]

The GPL will only get a full vetting when it goes to court. SCO will never let this case see a courtroom.

Re:No

[gl4ss]

so.. they're going to do what exactly?

settle for measly pennies out of court? would ibm want that, or what good it would do for ibm to settle for measly pennies, and pennies paid to who?

they might realise that sco's claims have gone so far that settling the case(one way or another) wouldn't make as much sense as beating them silly in the courtroom would(because they need that for credibility and as a predecent and a warning against other silly idiots who might try the same).

Re:No

[Short Circuit]

I suspect IBM has enough vested interest to force the issue.

They could continue with a lawsuit for damages, even if the current suits are dropped. Of course, we'll then see SCO saying "We didn't harm Linux in any way, so IBM must drop the suit."

Re:No

[molarmass192]

The problem is that it's out of SCOs hands now. SCO can drop their suit but that would not cause an immediate drop of IBM's countersuits. SCO's going to court whether they like it or not unless they can convince IBM to drop their suits. It's ironic as hell since at first, SCO wanted to make an example out of IBM but now it looks like IBM is going to make an example out of SCO.

Re:No

[typobox43]

SCO won't want to settle on this one. If they do that, it makes it look like everything else they've said is a lie. This issue is really at the core of the whole SCO debate.

Re:No

[Our Man In Redmond]

I'm willing to believe SCO will never see this case in a courtroom, but I believe it will be more because they'll die before the trial date than because they didn't "let" it get to a courtroom.

Re:No

[Short Circuit]

That certainly makes IBM sound like the classic bully, doesn't it?

I wonder what historians will think about this in ten years. Twenty? Fifty?

Re:No

[Eric Damron]

Oh, but they may not have a choice with all of the counter suits that are going to come their way.

They can't just dismiss IBM's lawsuit and every single person who has contributed code in the version that SCO is distributing has valid grounds for a lawsuit. SCO could conceivably face hundreds of lawsuits. They will not be able to unilaterally dismiss all of the lawsuits and I doubt that their pockets are deep enough to settle out of court with everyone who will hopefully file a copyright infringement lawsuit.

I think SCO is toast.

Re:No

[ahodgson]

Anyone with code in the Linux kernel should file a similar lawsuit asap. I bet IBM or RedHat would even help pay for the filing costs.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

>I wonder what historians will think about this in ten years. Twenty? Fifty?

A cow swats a fly in a barn with its tail. That's the kind of moment in history we're talking about here.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ironic as hell since at first, SCO wanted to make an example out of IBM but now it looks like IBM is going to make an example out of SCO.

Does this mean we're in Soviet Russia now?

Re:No

[Delirium Tremens]

SCO actions are only decided based upon money. They will settle if they see that is a better for them financially. They will go on otherwise.

Re:No

[cdrudge]

Actually, I think it's the opposite. I think SCO is the playground bully. It sat there trying to pick a fight with someone. One day, that person was IBM and decided to stand up and fight back. At that point, IBM started whailing on SCO.

I would imagine that SCO will now start crying how they are just this small company trying to eek by and IBM just came out of no where and started picking on them when SCO was just doing good things.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

" That certainly makes IBM sound like the classic bully, doesn't it?"

It sounds like SCO is the bully that decides to start fist fight with an Army Ranger (IBM). SCO's going to wake up in the hospital with every bone in their body broken.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say it means we're OUT of Soviet Russia

Re:No

[arivanov]

Or they will die (in business sense) on purpose so that the two fscking arseholes footing the bill in first place can finance 10 new SCOs.

Re:No

[Short Circuit]

That would be the classic movie plot, yes. I've only heard of it happening in reality once.

(A friend of mine runs a karate dojo. In her neighborhood, a 7-year-old was bullying her 5-year old, so the 5-year-old beat the tar out of him.)

Re:No

[fredrik70]

What do they got to lose?? Seriously, it's not like they can lose their stocked up cash reserve!
too *really* serious, I do wish it went to court, GPL needs a test, it it succeeds, great, otherwise, back to the drawing board and come out with a better version. copyright will protect the code in the meantime inbetween

Re:No

[drinkypoo]

On the contrary, SCO could face thousands of lawsuits. Anyone who has ever written any code which made it into the linux kernel, even if it is a mere one line, has a suit against SCO for violations of copyright, since they are not abiding by the terms of the GPL.

SCO announces they own the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO today announced that they own portions of the GPL, and thus anything licensed under it. Citing their previous usage of words such as "the" and "of" presently used in the GNU Public License, SCO attorneys made it quite clear they were ready to litigate. "We won't let our own property, the GPL, be used against us." said SCO lawler Michael Gutenbottem.

Pump and dump now!

[hackstraw]

This press release was 11:48, and look at SCO's stock drop.

Its interesting that IBM is getting behind the GPL, but I do think that this suit is just a press release, and I would be very supprised if it ever made it to court. If it were the case that Linux has SCO IP in the kernel, then IBM's case would have no merit. Also, I do not see where SCO is even in violation of the GPL. IBM says:

SCO violated the general Public License under which Linux is distributed. The GPL requires Linux distributors to permit customers to freely copy the software.

SCO's binary runtime license says nothing about source code nor distribution.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[warmcat]

The GPL requires Linux distributors to permit customers to freely copy the software.

During your holiday on Mars, SCO insisted that every Linux user must pay SCO ~$700 for the fantastic yet undefined SCO IP in Linux. That's where SCO slightly deviated from the "freely copy" bit.

IBM rock and SCO paper.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[flosofl]

It has nothing to do with the distro of the SCO Unix binary. It has to do with the distro of Caldera Linux.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Anonymous Coward]

They're violating this part:

The GPL requires Linux distributors to permit customers to freely copy the software.

I don't know if it's still the case right now, but last time I checked (about 2 weeks ago) the Linux kernel was still available for download on SCO's ftp.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[pavera]

By distributing the source code or a binary version of the kernel you would be requiring the person who received the kernel from you to pay SCO $700. That is a violation of the GPL, no code can be under the GPL that requires a license fee to be paid. By distributing code under the GPL you forego your rights to charge a license fee for your IP. Hence if SCO knowingly distributed their Unix IP under the GPL they gave up their right to charge for it. the fact that they've been distributing the kernel since after they filed the lawsuit means that they are knowingly distributing their IP under the GPL, and hence cannot charge a fee for it. Doing so violates the GPL and allows *every* contributor to the kernel who owns a copyright in the kernel to sue them for violation of the license.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Jonboy X]

Yeah, umm, try it on a linear scale. That logarithmic scale that Yahoo uses by default can lead to some incorrect conclusions unless you're wary of it.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[DG]

What I don't understand is the mini-recovery betwen 12:30 and 13:00

There's a huge volume spike right after the press release, and the price falls right off a cliff. But then, from 12:30 to 13:00, the price recovers quite a bit, even though the volume was relatively low compared to the sell-off.

I Am Not A Broker, so I don't get this AT ALL - it takes an act of God to make the price drop, but it seems to rise at the drop of a hat.

DG

Re:Pump and dump now!

[gr0nd]

From the GPL:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

They have annouced they are selling/requiring licenses to GPL covered code.

Additionally, SCO can't have a binary-only runtime license, under the GPL:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
(...etc...)

Re:Pump and dump now!

[cK-Gunslinger]

I always assumed that after a massive drop like this, all the investors who wanted to short, do so, buying up the necessary stock to cover their options. This increase in buying drives the price back up a bit. Maybe?

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Short Circuit]

As a pump and dump scheme, they're still way ahead of the game.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[cK-Gunslinger]

I can't tell a bit of difference between the two (linear vs logarithmic).

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Paper beats rock.
Rock beats Scissors
Scissors beats paper.

This is what your IBM rock and SCO paper would create

Rock Beats Paper
Paper Beats ??
Scissors Beats Paper

help.. can't get out of that loop....

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Mr. Sketch]

And just yesterday I was talking with a co-worker about shorting SCOX. I need to trust my instincts more.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[arkanes]

Hypothesis : The price of a stock isn't some defined value - it's how much it's being sold for - basically, however much the people willing to buy the stock are willing to pay for it.

Speculate that a couple people in collusion hold a large amount of shares (not hard to believe, since roughly 60% of the stock is held by insiders & big firms). If one of those people sells large amounts of his shares to the other person for slowly increasing amounts (and then back again), the stock price will rise.

Now, I'm not a broker either, and this seems pretty obvious to me so you'd think that the SEC would be all over that - so maybe theres levels of indirection or whatever.

I'm amazingly skeptical of the stock market as any indication of anything since it's all just a big collective hallucination anyway.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[William Tanksley]

This is either slightly confused or slightly confusing, but essentially true. Let me reword it a bit and see if we agree.

Hence if SCO knowingly distributed their Unix IP under the GPL they gave up their right to charge for it. the fact that they've been distributing the kernel since after they filed the lawsuit means that they are knowingly distributing their IP under the GPL,

No, their claim is that they're distributing their IP under their own license, and since their IP is entangled with the Linux kernel they're also distributing the Linux kernel under the GPL with some added restrictions.

THAT is where they get in trouble. Nobody cares how they license their own IP, or whether it's mixed in with Linux; the problem here comes when they slap their restrictions on other people's code in violation of the other people's licenses.

the fact that they've been distributing the kernel since after they filed the lawsuit means that they are knowingly distributing their IP under the GPL, and hence cannot charge a fee for it.

But they're not distributing it under the GPL -- it's under the GPL plus their own license. Again, the error wasn't distributing their *own* code; they have every right to do that, even under an impossible license. The error is distributing other people's code in violation of copyright.

Of course, they can fix this in a heartbeat -- just take their FTP server down.

Doing so violates the GPL and allows *every* contributor to the kernel who owns a copyright in the kernel to sue them for violation of the license.

And now, we're back in agreement. :-)

Of course, the judgement would be for pennies; most of the people involved lost nothing due to SCO's infringement. The loss is due to other things, such as their libels.

-Billy

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Haeleth]

> IBM rock and SCO paper.

I think you mean "SCO scissors".

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Royster]

They have the pump part worked out, but they can't dump. They need to find a bigger idiot and so far the suckers aren't biting.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Mr. Sketch]

At least they made it in the top 5 of todays largest % losers on the NASDAQ. (as of this writing, markets don't close for another 10 minutes).

Re:Pump and dump now!

[darkov]

A little bounce after a big drop is normal. Some people will be looking to trade the bounce (almost any observation/theory can become a self-fulfilling prophecy in the market), others are buying at that point from the point of view that the stock just got much cheaper. If you are bullish on the stock then it represents a buying opportunity. If you're holding the stock you might buy some more stock to make the average purchase price of your stake lower (a risky strategy). Someone who is short on the stock might look to take profits after the fall, creating the bounce.

These a just a few reasons stocks bounce.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Eric Damron]

"If it were the case that Linux has SCO IP in the kernel, then IBM's case would have no merit."

No, no, no. You miss the point. IBM has contributed a lot of it's own code that SCO could not possibly have claim over. These are two different issues. Further, everyone who has contributed any code that SCO distributed has had their copyright violated by SCO. And I'm not just talking about the kernel. Any applications that are GPL'd that SCO distributed with its distro. as well.

SCO = TOAST

Re:Pump and dump now!

[ScottSpeaks!]

That's practically a textbook-example curve of a stock losing a chunk of its value all at once, complete with the "dead cat bounce" (in which the price bounces back up briefly after hitting bottom... like a dead cat).

Re:Pump and dump now!

[nick_danger]

How did the parent get modded '5 Interesting'?

If it were the case that Linux has SCO IP in the kernel, then IBM's case would have no merit.

IANAL, but I'm not letting that stop me from saying... buzz! Wrong! You fail to recognize that the Linux kernel is the effort of hundreds, each holding copyright to their own contributions. IBM has their own contributions in there, too. And the whole lot is covered under a license that places certain restrictions on what one may do with the material. If you don't agree to the terms of the license, then normal copyright law takes effect. And according to copyright LAW, what SCO is alledged to have done is illegal.

This isn't just an IBM vs SCO thing. It's a Linux kernel contributor vs. SCO thing.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[pyrrho]

I see 12 replies, so maybe this will be redundant.

The thing is, the GPL says you cannot have royalty generating IP in a GPL covered product. When SCO found out their IP was in there, they had to remove it. They had to RECALL IT! That's right, they had to recall their shipped copies of linux, not because their customers had no right to SCO IP, but because they don't have a right to everything else. E.g. you can't have GNOME because you have that under GPL, the violating IP means you don't have the GPL, and therefore SCO can't ship linux because of all the IP in there that does not belong to them. Of course the best example is not GNOME, but the parts of the kernel that are comingled with supposed SCO IP.

So when SCO indemnifies SCO Linux customers, they were saying SCO wouldn't sue them, but in reality, IBM now can! Those customers are using IBM IP without a license (because the GPL doesn't apply while SCO's royalty generating IP is in there with it!)

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Short Circuit]

No, SCO paper.

IBM is a blowtorch.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Darth]

Paper beats rock.
Rock beats Scissors
Scissors beats paper.

This is what your IBM rock and SCO paper would create

Rock Beats Paper
Paper Beats ??
Scissors Beats Paper


well, considering we're talking about SCO's legal case here, i think it does make sense.
if SCO = Paper, and Paper beats nothing, that sounds about right to me.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[pyrrho]

>Of course, they can fix this in a heartbeat -- just take their FTP server down.

I think they also have to recall all the distributions they have made that are in violation.

They told their customers "we won't sue you", but those distros are still not covered by the GPL anymore, because they cannot be under GPL and comingled with royalty generating IP, so other people could sue those customers for using IP that they do not actually have a licence for.

Since SCO indemnified them, it sanctioned their violation, and as the original distributor, that puts them in violation of the GPL too. They have to recall all violating distributions to get out of this.

At least, that's my analysis.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[gr]

This layout is (imho) a bit more interesting. SCOX falls off the deep end and IBM... stays right where they are? Guess frivolous suits can lose you stock value, but not gain it for you.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[SmilingMonk]

SCO = TOAST

I believe the correct syntax is

• SCO == TOAST

Re:Pump and dump now!

[dillon_rinker]

Mod the parent UP! This is the most interesting comment I've read in the entire discussion, and it's completely non-obvious (until you read it, of course, then it's a head-slapper).

Re:Pump and dump now!

[pyrrho]

I've been posting much the same, I basically agree with you, but I think some of the applications they will get away with. It mostly is the KERNEL that is in question.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[rmohr02]

If it were the case that Linux has SCO IP in the kernel, then IBM's case would have no merit.

So you're saying if there is SCO IP in the Linux kernel, that it is impossible for IBM to also have IP in the Linux kernel?

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Anonymous Coward]

I posted this on the other SCO thread, but I'll post it here too because so many people don't seem to understand how to read graphs. In spite of the tiny little dip that SCO took today, they are still up about 500% in the past six months. Look for yourself. Unless you bought your SCO stock in the past 4 - 5 weeks, you'll still make a profit if you sell it right now.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[GooberToo]

Did you notice that at about 11:20, or so, the trading activity jumped significantly? That's odd, considering you said the press release was made at around 11:48. Are we looking at a difference of timezones or what? Insider knowledge?

Any ideas? Explanations?

Re:Pump and dump now!

[cdrudge]

He was just doign pseudocode. He doesn't want a SCO lawsuit since they own C++ and your syntax is C++ compatible.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, I do not see where SCO is even in violation of the GPL.

And later, you write SCO's binary runtime license says nothing about source code nor distribution.

Yes, but the GPL does. In fact, Paragraph 7 of the GPL states that:

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.

IBM's code was licensed under terms (of the GPL) that require SCO not to redistribute it unless they can do so without patent or royalty requirements. They're trying to impose a royalty license on it while still redistributing it. That's how they're in violation of the license.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[William Tanksley]

so other people could sue those customers for using IP that they do not actually have a licence for.

No. The GPL is very explicit that it does not affect use; it allows it because copyright law allows it.

So SCO's customers don't need to know about the GPL, don't have to stop using, or anything else -- unless, of course, SCO rescinds their license to _its_ non-GPLed code.

But there's nothing in the GPL or copyright law that can force SCO to do _that_.

So no, SCO doesn't have to recall anything, only stop the violation.

-Billy

Re:Pump and dump now!

[arivanov]

Now this is the only meaningfull comment for the entire article.

Actually not just IBM. Anyone with any contribution can. And frankly, I would be more afraid of Intel laywer squadrons, and let's not even mention people like Serverworks, Broadcom, 3Com, so on so forth. Compared to them IBM is very agreable and kind.

Fun fun fun ...

Re:Pump and dump now!

[RickHunter]

Of course, they can fix this in a heartbeat -- just take their FTP server down.

Of course, THEN they get trod on by their own customers (what few they have left), who are suddenly without official support. Remember, its not just public distribution. IIRC, SCO can't distribute Linux at all while violating the GPL like this.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[naarok]

Actually, my understanding is that nothing in the GPL prevents you from having royalty generating IP in a GPL covered product.

The GPL says that when you distribute the code via the GPL, you can not require additional restrictions along with the GPL in that distribution. (I'm not talking linux distributions (eg. Suse, Slackware), but the more general give something to someone else)

This does not prevent you from also incorporating your code in a product that you license/sell/whatever so long as it is only your code and not anyone elses GPL'd code in your product.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[greed]

Screw that, he wanted to assign TOAST to SCO and get it the hell over with.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[William Tanksley]

Of course, THEN they get trod on by their own customers (what few they have left), who are suddenly without official support.

Correct -- I didn't say it would be easy, just simple. Every engineer knows that the two are opposites.

IIRC, SCO can't distribute Linux at all while violating the GPL like this.

Yup! All gone. No more customers.

I didn't mention that at least some of the customers might have grounds to sue for violation of contract, since SCO had to stop supporting them -- but I'm not sure what was in SCO's contracts. SCO would definitely be liable, since their actions led directly to them being unable to provide support.

SCO could very well be in a catch-22, unless their contracts with their customers are ALL completely free of continuing-support obligation. (And THAT would be a funny catch-22 itself, considering what they've said about indemnification!)

-Billy

Re:Pump and dump now!

[42forty-two42]

Bad example - GNOME is entirely seperate from the Linux kernel, and thus isn't affected in any way with this. For example, you'd still have a licence to use/copy it in FreeBSD with linux emulation. However, any of the Linux code that's not owned by SCO would be under GPL, etc.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Rimbo]

Travolta's character in "A Civil Action," Jan Schlichtmann, makes a good observation: If a case ever makes it to court, both sides have lost.

IBM is playing this beautifully from many points of view: They are moving slowly and quietly.

This gives them the appearance of deliberate and thoughtful action. Because there's a good month's worth of rumbling about possible attacks IBM can make before IBM makes them, their claims are never surprising. But because the delay between when the ideas seem to be part of the meme and when IBM makes their action is so long, and because IBM says so very precious little about the suit publicly, the action feels very sudden. And last, the slow movement causes one to think that their case has been very thoroughly researched long before the axe ever falls.

As a result, these counterclaims are absolutely devastating to SCO. Not just because of what they state, but mostly because of how they are stated.

This action serves two goals. One, when it comes to settlement offers, each counterclaim is weakening SCO's ability to make demands with settlement offers. I think that with the first counterclaim, SCO was able to demand much less than at first. I think that with this one, SCO may want to try to make the whole thing go away.

Two -- if SCO is stubborn enough to allow this to go to court, IBM is covering its bases.

IBM has really impressed me lately with their management, which I can summarize with one principle I learned from Dale Carnegie: "Cooperate with the inevitable." They saw Linux's promise and also saw that in the long term, no one would be able to compete with Free, so they began working on ways to make money with that inevitability. And in the short run their handling of SCO has been similar: They have covered all of their bases with this lawsuit.

Contrast this with the RIAA member corporations. Pay specific attention to the corporations' current profitability, stock movement (relative to S&P 500 or any major index), and future prospects. Double-space your answer and turn in on Monday. This assignment represents 33 1/3% of your grade for this class.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[pyrrho]

copyright law allows you to use an illegal copy? No. The GPL clearly states it does not apply when commingled with royalty generating code. It's SCO's position that it's commingled with royalty generating code. If they are right, then the GPL does not apply, and you have an unlicensed copy. It doesn't matter what the GPL says or does not say, as you have an unlicensed copy, the GPL does not pertain, only copyright law.

Copyright law says you may not use the product unless given permission by the copyright holder.

no?

Re:Pump and dump now!

[pyrrho]

yes, I know. I hope my rhetorical technique didn't strike you as dishonest. I mostly used it first to explain the idea that there is NON-SCO ip involved, and since SCO wisely doesn't say which IP in the kernel belongs to SCO ("um, all of it") I just used another well known product. But I did clean up! I did say it was really the other (non-SCO) kernel code at issue.

AND: I'm not sure, that while Sun can ship GNOME with Solaris, that SCO isn't also in violation for products like GNOME. Why? Because they are charging for "linux" the distribution. They are not charging for GNU/Linux, they are not saying "pay for the linux kernel", they are asking for money for linux distributions, they are charging for GNOME. They can't do that. Still, I'm saying you are right, it's really the non-SCO kernel code that makes them absolutely in violation.

There is a lot of arguing room over something like GNOME, and clearly, there are ways to ship GNOME with other royalty generating products, since, as you point out, it's entirely seperate.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the judgement would be for pennies; most of the people involved lost nothing due to SCO's infringement. The loss is due to other things, such as their libels.

Perhaps not. If SCO were found to have violated the copyrights maliciously, willfully, or repeatedly then exemplary and statutory damages might be in the works. I read something about this in an article regarding the RIAA lawsuits.

ianal.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[IIH]

SCO = TOAST

I believe the correct syntax is SCO == TOAST

The original poster was correct, SCO = TOAST assigned the value of TOAST to SCO, guaranteeing that SCO is TOAST after this statement, but SCO == TOAST is only a logical expression (not necessarily true), whose result does not change the value of SCO, and plus you all know that logic and SCO don't go together.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[spitzak]

SCO is miniscule compared to IBM. Even if 100% of the people selling SCO stock immediately invested the sale price in IBM, it would make only a microscopic rise in IBM's price.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[spitzak]

If it were the case that Linux has SCO IP in the kernel, then IBM's case would have no merit.

No, this is wrong, as many other people pointed out. Eric Raymond's IP is in Linux: that does not mean IBM's or SCO's case has no merit. I think a tiny bit of MY IP is in Linux, that does not mean IBM or SCO or Erir Raymond's claims have no merit, either!

Legally the only thing SCO can do is claim their code was put into Linux by mistake, and that they have to identify exactly what it is so it can be removed. They can then sue any Linux distributor who refuses to remove the code (since they have now indicated how), and they can also go after the person or organization who did the original copyright infraction. (this all assummes there is any SCO IP in Linux, which some posters here doubt. Personally I would prefer that there really be some code, so that the proper procedure for removing it can be demonstrated).

This new claim by IBM is pretty clever, I think. Originally I thought the GPL claims were a smokescreen designed to get SCO to blurt out all kinds of stupid anti-GPL statements, while the real claim was the later one that SCO refuses to identify the infringing code or do any other steps designed to lessed the infringment.

However it is quite possible that this GPL claim, that SCO's distribution violates IBM's OWN copyrights, is really devastating. (rather than the copyrights of a whole lot of Linux authors who everybody knows are just commie hippies living in their mom's basements and thus have no rights).

Re:Pump and dump now!

[babyrat]

IBM rock and SCO paper.

ummm - okay I just had a glass of wine...but doesn't paper BEAT rock?

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Lost Penguin]

IBM=Rock and SCO=Darl's head

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Lost Penguin]

Doing so violates the GPL and allows *every* contributor to the kernel who owns a copyright in the kernel to sue them for violation of the license"

I wonder, SCO allows only a binary use; I think that you would not have to contribute to the code base, to sue SCO for infringing your RIGHT to contribute to Linux.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Anonymous Coward]

No. There is no such thing as an unlicensed copy of GPL software, because there is no such thing as a licensed copy of GPL software. The GPL is not a software license at all, in the sense you seem to believe. It is a license to distribute a copyrighted work, which just happens to be software. It applies *only* to distribution, because that is the only thing you need a license for. You need no license to run any software in existence, just like you need no license to read copyrighted books (regardless of their origin, legal or illegal) and no license to listen to copyrighted music, again regardless of origin. Consumption/use of creative works is not something that copyright law restricts. Instead it restricts distribution. Thus, there is no such thing as an illegal copy, only illegal copying.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not correct, because you don't need a to 'have the GPL' in order to use GPL'd software. The proper language is 'abide by the GPL', and you don't need to do that to use GPL'd software, either. You only need to abide by the GPL if you are distributing software. In fact, the GPL is explicit that it doesn't even apply except in circumstances involving distribution, which means most linux users cannot even be said to be 'subject to the GPL' in any way. So, while it's true that SCO doesn't have any right to distribute Linux, it's not true that their customers have no right to *use* Linux. Any 'recall' would be farcical, because while customers may return something they could also keep it (or a copy), and continue using it, defeating any purpose of a recall. So basically anyone could refuse the recall and it would be a pointless recall in any case.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[mindriot]

SCO's binary runtime license says nothing about source code nor distribution.

Maybe not, but SCO imposes further restrictions on the kernel source and code, and that too is not allowed by the GPL. You can not add any further restrictions to GPLed code.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Anonymous Coward]

pyrrho and I have continued this discussion on this thread

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Lord Ender]

Anyone who has contributed any code to SCO Linux distro should be watching this case. Once IBM wins, if there is any money left over in SCO, you could get a piece just the same as IBM does if you sue, too.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, unless he had said:

SCO == TOAST or die "eating my hat";

...

Why am I posting this?

Re:Pump and dump now!

[warmcat]

You scissors guys are right, but its more aesthetically pleasing if SCO are paper.

Re:Pump and dump now!

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter how much the people with the copyrights lost. It matters how much SCO gained from violating their copyrights. SCO is facing a maximum of 300 billion dollars in violations, and that's taking it conservative:

$100,000 per infringment (minimum for non-registered)
300 developers (asuming only 300 of the several thousands file complaints)
10,000 instances of infringment (each shipment of the violating code)

The actual number is in the trillions. You don't mess with open source!

Re:Pump and dump now!

[eugene_roux]

SCO = TOAST

I believe the correct syntax is

SCO == TOAST

I dunno. The second sort of naturally follows from the first, doesn't it?

Re:Pump and dump now!

[stephandahl]

No no no...

SCO := TOAST;

Re:Pump and dump now!

[William Tanksley]

NO.

Read the GPL -- it specifically states that nothing can affect the right to use the software, only to distribute it.

Now, that might possibly NOT be what copyright law actually _means_ -- but that's what the people who use the GPL want their users to do. Thus, the people who contributed to the kernel explicitly allow use, regardless of other violations. (Not to mention that the GPL's drafters might have been right that copyright law DOES allow use without license.)

-Billy

That might not work

[siskbc]

Darl, I'll let you sleep on the couch in my basement. Note though that my cat is very fussy, you'll have to completely bury your turds in the litterbox or she'll get mad. Thanks, buddy!

Darl's such a turd, your cat will try to bury HIM.

Re:That might not work

[tgd]

Looks like IBM gets first dibs on that task...

Re:That might not work

[JonnyElvis42]

Darl, I'll let you sleep on the couch in my basement. Note though that my cat is very fussy, you'll have to completely bury your turds in the litterbox or she'll get mad. Thanks, buddy!

Darl's such a turd, your cat will try to bury HIM.

Already done... sort of. I was using pictures of Darl to train my cat to attack him, and the dumb cat ate the pages. After several hours of... processing, Darl re-emerged and was promptly buried. What's sad is that he was far more pleasant afterwards.

Re:That might not work

[OECD]

Darl's such a turd, your cat will try to bury HIM.

In Soviet Ru... oh, nevermind.

Re:That might not work

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, he'll never get to rape that sow.

Re:That might not work

[Anonymous Coward]

news for turds, stuff that mutters?

Re:That might not work

[Anonymous Coward]

You jerk! I was drinking Kool-Aid! Now my monitor is all sticky!

Re:That might not work

[suss]

Darl, I'll let you sleep on the couch in my basement. Note though that my cat is very fussy, you'll have to completely bury your turds in the litterbox or she'll get mad. Thanks, buddy!

Darl's such a turd, your cat will try to bury HIM.

So he's a soviet russian cat, then?

You are easily misled

[stratjakt]

..nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL

No, IBMs lawyers are quite decidedly on the side of IBM. If IBMs linux experiment fails, all bets are off.

I still remember when IBM was the big evil. I remember the geeks cheering when MSFT crushed OS/2 to secure Windows' place on the desktop. Hooray! No more IBM monopoly!

That is, of course, not to say that I dont find every bit of minutia about this nerd hissy fit absofuckinglutely enthralling.

Re:You are easily misled

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for that.

Most little Slashkids are too young to remember when we actually APPRECIATED Microsoft for choosing Windows over the evil OS/2.

Of course, now the tables are turned, and just like a lazy susan, there is no reason that those evil monopolies won't become evil again.

Re:You are easily misled

[dthable]

-1 Too Insightful For /.

Re:You are easily misled

[red floyd]

I used to have a handmade sign with OS/2 and the internation "No" slashed circle...

Of course, this was the in the days of OS/2 1.x...

Re:You are easily misled

[MKalus]

I remember the geeks cheering when MSFT crushed OS/2 to secure Windows' place on the desktop.

When where they cheering? In my circles at least nobody really liked Windows even back then, not even NT, OS/2 was way more interresting to play and tinker with (and so was DR-DOS, I still remember the book "DOS Unleashed").

M.

Re:You are easily misled

[edwdig]

I remember the geeks cheering when MSFT crushed OS/2 to secure Windows' place on the desktop. Hooray! No more IBM monopoly!

That's kinda funny, because everyone I knew wanted OS/2 to win. I never saw people really want to deal with Windows until it became clear it wasn't going to go away.

Re:You are easily misled

[HiThere]

I don't remember that, and I was there. I was pleased that MS had managed to come out with competition to what looked like a monopoly. This was what enabled Compaq, etc., to get started. And I still cheer that action.

But doing one good thing doesn't make you a good person. And doing one bad thing doesn't make you a bad person. A bad person is the kind of person who will choose to do bad things. That's MS.

If MS has two profitable alternatives, they will choose the path that hurts everyone else the most. By my lights that's a bad thing. IBM was never that kind of company. I was against IBM because they were so totally dominating. Because they became uncaring of what happened to anyone smaller. But I can't ever remember them choosing a course of action because it would hurt everyone else rather than because it would help them. (Perhaps they would occasionally choose to hurt a specific someone else rather than help themselves. I've sometimes been unsure about that.)

Re:You are easily misled

[johnnyb]

And IBM today admits that they were bad guys back then, but have since shaped up. They even warned Microsoft publicly that they had to learn things the hard way, and hoped Microsoft would come to their senses before they had to learn it as hard as IBM.

Re:You are easily misled

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember the geeks cheering when MSFT crushed OS/2 to secure Windows' place on the desktop. Hooray! No more IBM monopoly!

It must be nice to have such an active fantasy life.

Anyone who was actually around and paying attention at the time will tell you that IBM didn't have anything resembling a monopoly by the time Windows crushed OS/2 with the usual superior marketing and dirty tricks.

Re:You are easily misled

[swillden]

I remember the geeks cheering when MSFT crushed OS/2 to secure Windows' place on the desktop. Hooray! No more IBM monopoly!

You may remember some cheering, but it wasn't from geeks. No one who seriously understood the technology would have preferred OS/2 over the weird amalgam of 16 and 32-bit code that was Windows 95, much less the thin DOS-wrapper that was Windows 3.x (depending on when your hypothetical geeks considered OS/2 to have been "crushed").

And why would these technology-deficient geek wannabes be happy about getting rid of the "IBM monopoly", given that it didn't exist? IBM had no monopoly on the hardware, Compaq had seen to that. IBM had no control over the evolution of the personal computer (c.f. Microchannel). IBM neither owned, nor controlled the common PC operating system, which was Microsoft's MS-DOS, nor any of its direct competitors, like DR-DOS, nor any of the major shells (QuarterDesk, Windows, etc.).

At the time OS/2 was crushed, IBM was a bit player in the microcomputing scene in all but name, and Microsoft was already the 500-lb gorilla. So your mythical cheering geeks were not only technically deficient, they were oblivious of the market as well.

Re:You are easily misled

[Anonymous Coward]

"Geeks" were NOT cheering Microsoft's "crushing" of OS/2. Many of us non intel-users were saying "a pox on both your houses." We weren't any more enthusiastic about the joke called "Windows" than we were of OS/2.

And OS/2 was not "crushed." IBM let it wither on the vine. Big difference.

Re:You are easily misled

[Alomex]

Windows even back then, not even NT,

He's talking about a period circa 1988, grasshopper, when Microsoft first split with IBM... OS/2 came out around then (I certainly was using it in 1989).

NT wasn't even in the radar back then.

Re:You are easily misled

[Entrope]

Maybe you appreciated Microsoft doing that. I thought Microsoft dumping OS/2 was a cheap and dirty stunt, and indicative of Microsoft's growing monopoly -- and Microsoft's tendency to abuse that monopoly. Microsoft had a contract to develop OS/2 with IBM, semi-secretly developed NT behind the scenes, and chose to shaft IBM just to consolidate their control over the OS market.

I certainly didn't like Windows then, and Windows NT 3.1 was vastly inferior to the OS/2 of its time (despite its chintzy "OS/2 1.x support" personality). If Microsoft had focused its "innovation" in the direction of OS/2 instead of NT, I suspect the world today would be much better for end users.

Re:You are easily misled

[Alomex]

You are too young... back in the 80's Microsoft was good and IBM was bad. OS/2 didn't become a cause celebre among the /.-types until after the release of the GUI and more particularly Warp...

Re:You are easily misled

[Anonymous Coward]

A bad person is the kind of person who will choose to do bad things. That's MS.

Microsoft is a person? I quote Keanu Reeves when I say: whoa...

Re:You are easily misled

[arivanov]

At least in those days if I recall my 1991 MSDOS books right Microsoft was formally proclaiming OS/2 to be the future and all MS to go that way as well as recommending to program in an OS/2 compliant manner.

Not that anyone at the time gave a f**k. So I think it was noone giving a f**k which did OS2. MSFT helped it only by means of providing so slow, lame and crippled implementation of their DOS APIs that anyone in his sane mind bypassed them left right and center. As a result the programs did not work under OS2. When WARP came out it could do emulation of real mode in protected mode as per the 386 spec, but it was too bloody late.

So IMO you are mistaking common programming practice from those days with the actual MSFT party line. Just take any MSFT press book from those time (I have a few around). And MSFT just followed the flow. And accidentally won.

Re:You are easily misled

[RickHunter]

Ditto. I can't remember anyone except total MS fanatics cheering the demise of OS/2. Everyone I knew who knew anything about computers at the time was at least curious about it, and quite a few (especially in the PC gaming realm) saw Warp 4 as a serious contender to the much-hated tyranny andp pain of Windows and MS-DOS.

Thanks to the invisible hand, we got Win95 instead. Aren't monopolies wonderful?

Yes, IBM was once hated. That was back in the early PC days and the mainframe days, when they were the monopoly in the computer industry. The PC clones and the antitrust suit against them changed that - while they're a big player, they're no longer the only game in town and they're much less abusive than they once were.

IBM versus Microsoft and SCO? I know whose side I'm on.

Re:You are easily misled

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM had a contract to develop Monterey.

Are you bitching about them and their stunt?

Re:You are easily misled

[Arker]

I still remember when IBM was the big evil. I remember the geeks cheering when MSFT crushed OS/2 to secure Windows' place on the desktop. Hooray! No more IBM monopoly!

You're making a fool of y'self, youngun.

IBMs monopoly was crushed long before that point, by Compaq and a horde of come-afters in their wake. No geeks cheered when MS crushed a vastly superior OS with marketing and dirty tricks. At most, perhaps, two stupid nerds and a herd of extras in bad nerd costumes hired at union scale.

Re:You are easily misled

[spitzak]

You seem to be easily misled. Microsoft *was* the good guy at one time, but it was several years before OS/2. I have no idea where you got such an idea, perhaps you are too young and to remember?

When Microsoft was cheered was when it replaced the overpriced CPM86 with a technically superior produce (MSDOS) for 1/10th the price, and for retaining the rights to it so that competitors for the IBM-PC could come into existence, resulting in a very rapid improvement of the hardware. Technically I also thought 100% of the stupid things about the IBM-PC were IBM's fault, such as the BIOS that required *TWO* calls to draw one character on the screen (one to move the cursor, the other to draw the letter).

I also remember MSDOS 2.0 being a very improvement over 1 and felt great hope that Microsoft would continue to merge Unix and MSDOS into a unified and better product and get us out of the crap that was used on home computers (they were already far more powerful than the machines Unix was designed for and it was disgusting that they continued to fail to take advantage of modern designs from Unix).

By the time of OS/2 Microsoft was already considered an abusive monopoly and despised. I had friends who worked with OS/2 and Windows and they universally praised OS/2. The only people I ever heard argue against it were Unix/X people who did not want Windows either.

Re:You are easily misled

[babyrat]

Right now they are absolutely on the side of the GPL. However they are not on that side because of some altruistic feelings - they are on that side because they are (and hope to in the future) making a boatload of money from it.

To say they are not on the GPL's side would be incorrect given the claims they just made.

Re:You are easily misled

[Alomex]

MSFT helped it only by means of providing so slow, lame and crippled implementation of their DOS APIs that anyone in his sane mind bypassed them left right and center.

Actually you got it bass-ackwards. The part of OS/2 that worked was Microsoft's. The part that didn't was IBM's. Back then IBM still evaluated it's worker's productivity using KLOCs.

Only after M$ left did IBM and a few years went by did IBM get's it act together and come out with Warp.

Re:You are easily misled

[HiThere]

According to current US law, a corporation is a person. I may not think that this is proper, but it is current correct usage.

Stupid, I grant. Vile, even. But it's been the law since...I believe it was Union Pacific vs. either the United States or vs. California. Somewhere around 1850 (well, before 1880, and during the 1850's seems right).

I will agree that this stupid court decision is the basis for many of the malign laws and subsequent decisions that have plagued our country. But it's the way the law reads.

Re:You are easily misled

[antiMStroll]

But that's the important part. IBM, being on the side of IBM as you put it, thinks the GPL is good business. The profits appear to indicate it's a correct analysis. This is a potential revolution in the making.

Businesses will always be organizations driven by self-interest, or they'll cease being businesses. Seeing this overwhelming self-interest driven to ultimate sharing as a viable strategy is amazing.

Re:You are easily misled

[Anonymous Coward]

The original poster was claiming to remember geeks cheering when MSFT defeated OS/2, which was long after the 80's (actually, there was no single event where OS/2 was "defeated"; it slid into obscurity as win95's hype peaked and IBM was still shipping it for 5 years after that....)

Now, I do remember a lot of geeks cheering when IBM was defeated over Microchannel (that would be when they announced their first EISA or PCI machine, I forget which.) They were attempting to make up for their loss of the PC spec by pushing a proprietary standard so they could lock in customers, like MSFT does with Windows operating systems, apps and file formats now. Of course, companies change. Maybe in 10 years MSFT will have seen the light and.... naah.

And this is all offtopic.

Re:You are easily misled

[sharkey]

No one who seriously understood the technology would have preferred OS/2 over the weird amalgam of 16 and 32-bit code that was Windows 95, much less the thin DOS-wrapper that was Windows 3.x (depending on when your hypothetical geeks considered OS/2 to have been "crushed")

Seems like it would be the other way around. IIRC, the ones who seriously understood the tech, preferred OS/2.

And many still do. Our PBX vendor uses Warp 4 as their platform for running their voice mail product.

Re:You are easily misled

[MKalus]

1988 I already had a PC but again, (at least in Germany) Microsoft wasn't all that interresting I remember someone having a Windows 2.0 Floppies but my computer at that time "came" with GEOS (anyone remember those?).

NT itself, was a spinoff of OS/2 and I do remember seeing that back in 1993 with NT 3.5 but also before at a company with NT 3.1.

I also remember a futile attempt of mine to get WfW stable.

And then of course there was OS/2 3.0 and that was a completly different thing and I do remember that pretty much everybody liked it a lot more than windows (even though for some apps we ended up running the Windows Emulator which pretty much didn't work anymore once WfW 3.11 came out and Microsoft broke things on purpose.

Found this short history of NT:

IBM owns patent on FUD.

[ryan76]

I am almost positive SCO has violated several IBM patents on FUD.

Re:IBM owns patent on FUD.

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents expired in 1984. About the time Microsoft added their proprietary extensions to it which they bought with a kited check from some grungy hacker that lived near the fish market.

Re:IBM owns patent on FUD.

[pegr__]

Not owned by IBM... They licensed it from Microsoft, but only the earlier versions. They do own their modifications, though. Unlike what SCO is saying about their Unix license...

Re:IBM owns patent on FUD.

[Eric Damron]

No, they licensed Microsoft's FUD patents.

Re:IBM owns patent on FUD.

[ScottSpeaks!]

That patent has been declared invalid, due to IBM's failure to sue Microsoft over it over the past several years.

Re:IBM owns patent on FUD.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually it *did* originate as a reference to IBM:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/F/FUD.html

Re:IBM owns patent on FUD.

[dmaxwell]

FUD...Invented by IBM ......Perfected by Microsoft.

Microsoft: Where do we want you to go today?

Irony, thy name is IBM

[GrouchoMarx]

It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL.

The company that is known for having more patents (hardware and software) than any other company in the world is now the poster child for and the paladin of those who believe such patents to be immoral in the first place.

Satire is dead! Reality is so much weirder.

Re:Irony, thy name is IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

and you're a dumbfuck

Re:Irony, thy name is IBM

[devphil]

Also, something to keep in mind...

It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL.

IBM's destroying legion is not on the GPL's side. They are on IBM's side. The two sides happen to both be opposed to SCO's position at the present time, in a enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend situation. Those situations are not permanent.

Re:Irony, thy name is IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Could I get your real name? That ought to go in a sig...

Re:Irony, thy name is IBM

[HiThere]

Deadly weapons are vile. But if they're around, I want one. I'd really rather that nobody have them, but I sure don't want to be defenseless.

It's not satire. It's a problem in game theory. And there doesn't seem to be any good answer, unless you can get rid of them.

But patents, especially software patents, COULD be gotten rid of.

But until we can get rid of them, it's sure nice not to be undefended.

Re:Irony, thy name is IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

The company that is known for having more patents (hardware and software) than any other company in the world is now the poster child for and the paladin of those who believe such patents to be immoral in the first place.

Kinda like invading the Planet of Scum-Sucking Lawyers with Darth Vader and the Deathstar on your side.

Re:Irony, thy name is IBM

[kmurray]

Many companies use their patents defensively, including IBM. With the amount they spend on R&D, you would expect a lot of patents.

True, they could turn evil and go after everybody. But for now, it looks like they might do some good with them.

Re:Irony, thy name is IBM

[shogarth]

This has to be a troll. The arguement that patents should not exist is the arguement that all research should be federally funded with the results going into the public domain. Think how few fundamental technologies (light bulbs, telephone, telegraph, radio, television, etc.) would have been developed if the R&D costs could not be recovered during the patent period.

That doesn't mean perpetual patents are a good idea. Nor does it mean that 14 years makes sense for a software patent.

Similarly, anyone that thinks the GPL is other than firmly based in intellectual property law hasn't actually read it. In this round, IBM is just attempting to protect its own property as licensed under the GPL. SCO has continued to distribute Linux, which contains a lot more than the allegedly infringing code, after refusing to abide by the license chosen by thousands of other coders.

Contributing code to Linux does not automatically put it in the public domain; the author reserves some rights to it. IBM is putting those rights to use.

Re:Irony, thy name is IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

"all research should be federally funded with the results going into the public domain"

Frankly, that makes a lot of sense for things like medical and energy technologies. Those areas are far too important to be slowed down by short term corporate thinking, and too fundamental and critical to allow anything but pure compeition to decide the price.

Re:Irony, thy name is IBM

[RickHunter]

Except the objections are to patents that are a) trivial and b) abused. While IBM's may be trivial, they are definitely not abused. This is the first time I can remember hearing about IBM using them, which seems to say that IBM believes they shouldn't be used except to take out kamikaze lunatics like SCO that threaten the entire industry.

Re:Irony, thy name is IBM

[rodgerd]

If someone comes at me with a knife, I'd be happy to see them gunned down.

In this case, IBM is the guy who can defy physics and unload a minigun while walking.

Re:Irony, thy name is IBM

[ZeeTeeKiwi]

Think how few fundamental technologies e.g. light bulbs ...

Buzzzz. Wrong example. Light bulbs are a case study in what can go wrong with patents. See the Wikipaedia entry on the history of the light bulb to witness greed, fraud and corruption at play!

In the USA, the greater problem is not software patents themselves, but the ease with which they can be obtained.

A double standard exists between patents on physical commodities and those on software.

With physical commodities, you have to prove originality, and a level of sophistication, that what you're trying to patent is the product of non-obvious thought.

However, with software, you only have to cook up some new jargon words, sufficient to make a really trivial and obvious solution look technically difficult.

Also, in the USTPO, the patent examiners are credited not by the number of patent applications they process, but merely the number of patents they approve. This is corrupt, since there is a strong disincentive against declining trivial and unworthy applications.

The patent portfolio corporations, mostly made up of lawyers, know how to take advantage of the endemic computer illiteracy within the USTPO.

The triviality of software concepts that have been patented is deplorable. It's like a chef being able to patent the concept of breaking an egg and emptying it into a bowl with one hand.

Perhaps software invention being patented, as long as:

1) The software's concepts are totally non-trivial

2) There is an order of significant complexity, that your everyday programmer could never think of

3) The software represents a solution to a specific commercially sensitive, mission-critical challenge.

For example, trivial things like XOR-ing graphics pixels, linked lists and one-click purchase should never be patented.

However, something like a mind-numbingly-clever whiz-bang algorithm for rapid and accurate fingerprint comparison, for software sold to police departments, an algorithm that took significant investment of effort to develop, and isn't just based on a single concept, should perhaps be patentable.

Also, given the volatility of software, patents on software algorithms (IF they are deserving, and granted) should only be for short terms, depending on complexity - say 1 year for low complexity, 3 years for moderate complexity, 5 years for extreme complexity.

And, for a company to renew a patent, it would have to prove that it has added significantly to the original concept.

For example, JPEG or GIF file format or LZW Compression would, if granted patents, only have 1-year terms - and these patents would only apply for the commercial context in which the patents were applied for. To have monopoly in a different commercial context would require a whole new patent application.

Conclusion

Whether or not software patents become a reality, the devil will be in the details. There would have to be the strictest laws to ensure that patent examiners have no incentive to approve with their productivity measured by the number of completed evaluations, without regard for the percentage or number of approvals.


Credit where it is due: much of the above is a paraphrase of a usenet posted by someone with the tag "Evil Bastard".

Re:Irony, thy name is IBM

[Anders Andersson]

The company that is known for having more patents (hardware and software) than any other company in the world is now the poster child for and the paladin of those who believe such patents to be immoral in the first place.

Abstract objects (such as a patent, or a law) know no concept of morality. Only sentient beings are capable of acts that can be either moral or immoral. Issuing a patent may be immoral, while obtaining that same patent need not be, and recognizing the difference between those two acts is not a sign of double standards.

If a bad law awards you a right you don't want, you may decry the law and elect not to utilize that right, but you cannot make the right go away from you any more than you can escape your own shadow. Since you don't have a choice as to the existance of your rights, merely recognizing them without using them is hardly an immoral act no matter what evil you could theoretically use those rights for.

Power may corrupt, but it doesn't make you guilty of having it.

WLTSIM comments on press coverage

[Demona]

From We Love the SCO Information Minister:

"I think this [website] comes from a few individuals in the open-source community, which tends to paint a bad picture of the community as a whole. I think most in the open-source community are good, hard-working developers that want to create some great things. It's unfortunate that a few bad apples spoil the image of the whole group." - Blake Stowell, September 25 2003

Thanks to SearchEnterpriseLinux for their coverage, but we must disagree with the statement that our site "excerpts several comments SCO officials have allegedly made about Linux during the past year or so." None of these comments are "allegedly" -- they're 100% verifiable fact, statements made in front of God and everyone...which is the point of providing links, so the reader can check the full original context. Of greater significance is the assumption that our creation must be motivated by anger; since we don't know Darl personally, our feelings could best be described as "affection". Like Saeed al-Sahaf, McBride proves that "truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense." With his rampant contradictions and defiance of all logic, he provides us with the finest gift of all -- the gift of laughter. Rather than provide needless attempts at witty commentary, we prefer to let his statements speak for themselves.

Stowell and company should recognize WLTSIM as being far less hostile to them than their own crude propaganda was to the Linux community.

Hurting SCO stock

[jpetts]

Down 17% since midday. Guess IBM has some Wall Street cred...

Re:Hurting SCO stock

[Le Marteau]

Down 17% since midday. Guess IBM has some Wall Street cred...

And I am SHOCKED, I say, SHOCKED. Why, that's COUNTERINTUITIVE! Everyone KNOWS a companies stock goes UP when they are sued by IBM.

STFU, mmmkay?

where's mcbride?

[Anonymous Coward]

He hasen't squaked anything off for a while. maybe he had an...uh... unfortuante accident?

Re:where's mcbride?

[gregarican]

Maybe Darl was riding a Segway and accidentally slammed head-on into a VW "The Thing," thereby bringing together two silly transportational fads in a most tragic way.

Re:where's mcbride?

[MarkGriz]

Or perhaps he ignored the warning that his Segway batteries were running low.

Re:where's mcbride?

[jc_panda]

OMG that was just tooo funny. I am sorry, I prolly should have kept that to myself, but DANG it was funny.

Re:Someone needs to do a lawsuit flowchart

[larien]

We'd need MC Escher for that, I think....

SCO are arming the opposition

[gilesjuk]

SCO thought IBM would give in early on but this hasn't happened. They're trying to come up with as much ammunition as possible but ultimately I think they're giving other people plenty to to shoot back at them.

Hopefully other contributers to the kernel will start suing them too.

Re:SCO are arming the opposition

[ptbarnett]

Hopefully other contributers to the kernel will start suing them too.

Could other Linux contributors join the suit? Maybe it could be certified as a class action?

Re:SCO are arming the opposition

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be *FAR* more effective if the individual suits weren't joined into a single class action suit. SCO would have to defend themselves in dozens of courts instead of one. That is a much more expensive undertaking. They might not even show up in some of the cases, and the plaintiff might win by default. That could set precedent for other courts and lead to SCO's rapid demise.

Re: SCO are arming the opposition

[Black Parrot]

> SCO thought IBM would give in early on but this hasn't happened.

It's kind of like when you were playing D&D and your halfling thief back-stabbed a sleeping dragon... and missed.

Now you're all alone in a room full of piles and piles of treasure, and one big angry dragon.

Ouch!

[SoTuA]

Heh! This will put a dent on SCO's mad stock pump-o-matic.

Now, with IBM by our side, I think the GPL is going to get cast in concrete, and a good part of the doubt and FUD will be neutralized. PHB's will see something worthy of IBM's backing.

Now, I await with bated breath... what unvelievable crap will issue forth from Dear Darl's anus to *try* and neutralize this.

"Legion of fire-breathing IP lawyers" ??

[Rick.C]

There are in fact only 16 of them, but they multiplex into a virtual legion of 4096.

Re:"Legion of fire-breathing IP lawyers" ??

[TimeZone]

There are in fact only 16 of them, but they multiplex into a virtual legion of 4096.

We call that an LPAR.
TimeZone

I would make a joke

[SHEENmaster]

but I think Stowell's quote speaks for itself.

"Oh lordie! lordie! I'll never make software outside of a major corporation again!"

noose

[Anonymous Coward]

old news maybe, but I heard those from an IBM representative (I prefer not to be specific) :
-if sco is after cash, royalties, etc... they will get that but linux is in no danger, and we all know sco doesn t have a business any more.
- whatever comes out of these trials, we will have a real-life-proof GPL in less than 2 years.

They may have to now

[siskbc]

The GPL will only get a full vetting when it goes to court. SCO will never let this case see a courtroom.

They can't make IBM dismiss the counterclaim. Unless they go bankrupt or something, this is probably going to court - I think IBM doesn't want this sort of thing to happen again, and it appears SCO will be made an example/bitch.

Re:They may have to now

[HiThere]

And if they *DO* go bankrupt??

If the recent statements are correct, their only source of income is two companies that purchased a license to use "their" code. Given that, it won't take long to run the accounts into the red. Just vote the CO, CEO, etc. a salary bonus large enough and it's all gone. Or slander someone who takes action against you, and end up paying court costs.

IBM needs to speed this case up or it will never come to trial.

Re:They may have to now

[DarkSarin]

however even if they do go bankrupt, that doesn't mean that can't be sued. Only if they fold completely, and SCO ceases to exist does that occur, and even then it is still sometimes possible to sue the owner of the company.

If I were the owner I would be very nervous right now..

Re:They may have to now

[GreatOgre]

If I were the owner I would be very nervous right now..

If I remember correctly, publicly traded companies are incorporated and as such the shareholders are not financially responsible for the company's debts. Now IANAL; so, take this with a grain of salt.

Re:They may have to now

[GreyyGuy]

I believe the shareholders are responsible. They are the ones that own the company and profit from it. And if they are not responsible, then I belive the board of directors are in actionable positions. I'm also NAL, but I listen closely at the corporate water cooler.

Re:They may have to now

[anthony_dipierro]

They can't make IBM dismiss the counterclaim.

I'm sure dropping the original lawsuit and agreeing to pay a certain amount for lawyer fees would be a good incentive to convince them too, though.

Re:They may have to now

[siskbc]

I'm sure dropping the original lawsuit and agreeing to pay a certain amount for lawyer fees would be a good incentive to convince them too, though.

Normally, yes. Here, I doubt it. IBM wants blood now, and I think they're going to have it.

Re:They may have to now

[Spunk]

The shareholder will lose all his money when the stock drops to $0, but he will never have any additional liability. That's really why corporations exist. Now the board and the executives, they are another story.

Re:They may have to now

[anthony_dipierro]

IBM wants blood now

IBM wants money, just like any other shareholder-loving corporation.

Re:They may have to now

[SillySlashdotName]

No, the shareholders are not responsible (legally or financially) for the debts or actions of the company. The limit of their liability is the price they paid for the stock they own. It can go to zero - in a bankruptcy for example - but it can't go any lower than that.

Yes, the officers and board of the company ARE individually liable for the actions of the company - both to the shareholders and to the rest of the world.

Although I do think the shareholders are MORALLY responsible for the actions of their company.

IANAL, either.

Re:They may have to now

[siskbc]

IBM wants money, just like any other shareholder-loving corporation.

Yes, but what they get out of thrashing SCO is worth more than the pittance SCO would pay them for legal fees. What would we be talking about there? A few million, tops? That's nothing compared to the insurance IBM would be buying themselves. That insurance is the knowledge in every two-bit holding company like Canopy that taking over a small company with questionable IP holdings to go after IBM is a really shitty idea.

IBM will want most to make sure the message is clear to everyone out there, and settling doesn't do that. Compared to the massive amounts of cash that are at stake, come on, *legal fees*? No way.

Quite frankly, when it becomes apparant that SCO won't be making money from "licensing" linux, the company won't be worth squat anyway, so how much would they be able to offer IBM in the form of a settlement?

Re:They may have to now

[jjo]

But one of those 'licensees' is Microsoft, which can afford to bankroll SCO's legal expenses as long as it cares to.

Microsoft has already discovered a need for 'enhanced' licenses from SCO (for which it will probably pay just enough to ensure that SCO makes a nice profit next quarter), and it will likely need more and more SCO licenses as long as SCO delivers the goods (i.e, Linux FUD).

Re:They may have to now

[Penguinshit]

I vote for "bitch".

Re:They may have to now

[SlashDread]

Shouldnt that be beeatch?

"/Dread"

Re:They may have to now

[DarkSarin]

I was referring to the company that owns them, not the shareholders in SCO....aren't they mostly owned by another company, who may hold some liability?

Dunno. Just asking.

Correction

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL.

(1) It's IBM that's on the side of the GPL. It's fire-breath lawyers are on the side of whoever pays them.

(2) IBM is on the side of the GPL because they don't have much of a choice : they don't really have an OS of their own, and they had already invested millions in promoting Linux before this whole SCO idiocy.

This said, if IBM's lawyers reckon the GPL is a tool worth using in court, then you can be pretty sure it's a solid license, which is good news for the rest of us (read: IBM's money has paid for a very thorough review of the GPL for the rest of us. Thanks guys!)

Re:Correction

[cbiffle]

> IBM is on the side of the GPL because they don't have much of a choice : they don't really have an OS of their own

Wow. :-) Your second reason, about IBM having already invested millions, is valid. But this is pure lunacy. I guess the zSeries was developed with....Linux in mind?

Re:Correction

[RevMike]

IBM is on the side of the GPL because they don't have much of a choice : they don't really have an OS of their own, and they had already invested millions in promoting Linux before this whole SCO idiocy.

They do have an OS of their own. In fact the have more than one. They have OS390 and AIX.

What is really happening here is that IBM missed the last paradigm change. When the PC market exploded with quality clones, IBM was always 6 months late and $1000 too expensive. IBM didn't manage to bring a really respectable PC product to market from the tim eof the IBM AT until the first ThinkPads hit.

The reality is that there isn't much money in either PCs or OS and Application Development. The real money is in enterprise hardware and consulting services. As long as the linux market continues to grow, IBM Global Services is sitting pretty doing implementations.

Re:Correction

[gvc]

Don't forget VM. (I don't know if they flog CMS any more.)

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

they don't really have an OS of their own

Whuh? AIX, OS/2 off the top of my head. OS/2 is "dead", but AIX isn't. I'm sure they have a few others too. Or they could write one next week, if they wanted to.

Re:Correction

[pavon]

Thats right, IBM has not a single OS of their very own :)

Re:Correction

[mawi]

The reality is that there isn't much money in either PCs or OS and Application Development. well said, that small company MSFT doesn't make any real money. I must be missing the point...

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget OS/2.

Or actually, you know, when I think about it, feel free to.

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats right, IBM has not a single OS of their very own :)

And not one of those operating systems will run on IBM's computer line from top to bottom. Linux could. I have no doubt that is why they (IBM, the epitome of a capitalist mega-corporation) are so interested in Linux (GPL, hippy, communal, free software). That and it pokes a finger in the eye of MS and a few other IBM competitors.

I can even see the video they showed "the suits" to help them make the leap...

[Cue creepy industrial theme music...]

The Linuxator - OS/2(003)

Linux, an operating system of the past, moving into our future - You can't outreason its community. You can't undercut its price. You can't hide its code. It patches faster than you. It's more secure than you. It tolerates more faults than you. Its faults are more tolerable. It will destroy your market paradigm. It will create enough choice and chaos that your customers will leave in droves. It will keep coming until either Windows is destroyed, or you crush its power.

Coming soon to a store near you. This OS should not be underrated.

Re:Correction

[efflux]

They do have an OS of their own. In fact the have more than one. They have OS390 and AIX.

As well as OS400.

Re:Correction

[lurker412]

Not to quibble, but there are still quite a few AIX boxes out there. I think IBM saw a good strategic possibility in moving towards Linux, but it was certainly not out of necessity.

Re:Correction

[glaqua]

It gets even more interesting

IBM makes a very large amount of money from the zSeries line(AKA Mainframes) and from zOS licensing. They sell close to $4 billion per year in mainframe hardware, and $2.369 Billion from operating systems (zOS, OS400, AIX. Sorry, I couldnt find a breakdown for each). For comparison, in the early 90's, they were selling close to $11 billion per year in mainframe hardware.

I believe that IBM desperately needed another OS to run on mainframe hardware, in order to rejuvenate the product line, and justify the continued research. If the revenue fall off had continued, it might really mean the death of the mainframe.

Now that you can run Linux on the mainframe, it is the most scaleable linux platform you can get. They are going to vigorously defend that revenue stream.

Re:Correction

[Sangui5]

You forgot VM. They may not push it anymore, but it was an IBM product.

Re:Correction

[iggymanz]

yes, our money in the bank exists as data in IBM's mainframe OS's, we get some from the ATM which runs OS/2, and we buy goods from a manufacturing plant that uses AS/400 for MRP, and work for companies that often use AIX on RS/6000 for ERP.

Good grief, kids these days think the website is the company's main computer? That the internet is the most important network in the world? That big money is moved via j2EE and XML? yeesh.

Re:Correction

[ca1v1n]

...they had already invested millions in promoting Linux...

Billions, actually, from what I've heard. Try saying it with your pinky to the corner of your mouth.

Thank you, Big Blue

[lanswitch]

I guess this is another sign that the GPL has found its place in corporate business.
It's also a sign that IBM has an interest in protecting the consequences of intellectual freedom of GPL-ed software.

I like IBM's approach better than HP.

[ron_ivi]

So to summarize:

IBM: "Free software wants to be free."

HP: "Pay us because free software is scary."

Re:I like IBM's approach better than HP.

[Anonymous Coward]

ron_ivi.iq = 0;

Re:I like IBM's approach better than HP.

[bigberk]

So to summarize:

There's a frequent mistake made by techies/geeks/hobbyists -- they might think that a company is guided by altruism. But when all's said and done, company decisions are motivated by profit. The primary concern is for money and the potential to make more money.

IBM may certainly do things along the way that benefit society and community, and they should be applauded for such actions.

Re:I like IBM's approach better than HP.

[ron_ivi]

There's nothing altruistic about this.

By HP saying they're indemnifying customers, they're betting that to the Legal departments (who manage risk) are the decision makers in companies.

By IBM saying they're defending the GPL, they're saying Technologists (who like the philosophy) and Finance (who like the price) are the decision makers.

Re:I like IBM's approach better than HP.

[johnnyb]

Not all companies are devoid of altruistic motives. However, all _public_ companies are, as are most companies carrying a sizeable debt load.

See here - http://www.eskimo.com/~johnnyb/spiritual/EthicalPr oblemsOfCorporations.xml

(Requires XML-capable browser - Opera/Mozilla/Konquerer/maybe some versions of IE)

The stock price is going down at last!

[Pembers]

Chart. As I write this, it's down nearly $3, or 17%, on yesterday's close. McBride and his cronies have less than an hour before the markets close to innovate another press release to try to pump it back up again. Grab some popcorn - this is gonna be fun.

Re:The stock price is going down at last!

[YU Nicks NE Way]

Yeah. Just like VA Software's price is plummeting too. After all, we know that IBM is going after LNUX and Red Hat.

Re:The stock price is going down at last!

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

Curses, beat me to it!

The first thing I noticed was the chart showing IBM and HP holding more or less steady (actually both up slightly when I looked) while SCO was the big red downhill slump line....

...and I thought to myself "Hooray! Another wild press-release from SCO!" And this time they have to get it out on short notice if they want time for it to take affect before the weekend...

Interesting that this comes out on an infamous Friday afternoon when supposedly nobody will notice...was this calculated to cause SCO's stock to close lower before the weekend?

Re:The stock price is going down at last!

[Lord_Dweomer]

I'd love to see a chart marking the date/times of the press releases compared to what the current stock price is and any recent gains/falls of the stock price.

Re:The stock price is going down at last!

[Rimbo]

The beauty of this is that IBM did it on a Friday. These thoughts -- and today's drop -- are going to have time to marinate before anyone reads SCO's response on Monday morning.

Man, I'm glad IBM's on our side. But then, most well-run corporations are.

Ransome Love talks about SCO

[kuwan]

eWeek has an interview with Ransome Love, the former CEO of Caldera/SCO where he comments on SCO's current lawsuit and what Caldera's intentions were when they purchased the Unix source from the original SCO.

Some interesting bits of information are that Caldera originally wanted to open source the Unix code they had purchased and that Ransom Love sold all of his shares in SCO when they announced the lawsuit with IBM.

Here's a nice quote from Love: "I don't believe that the suit is good for the company or Linux."

Re:Ransome Love talks about SCO

[overbyj]

The most ironic part about this is Love's first name. He should sue SCO for infringement because they are smearing his first name by doing exactly that: Ransoming the Linux community.

Re:Ransome Love talks about SCO

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

If I was Ransome Love, I wouldn't shoot my mouth off : his business choices for Caldera were disastrous, he was noisy, obnoxious and just plain laughable on licensing issues, and generally contributed greatly to turn Caldera from the average Linux company with a vague aura of open-source pioneers it was after Bryan Sparks left it into the giant pile or worthless hot-air it was before turning SCO.

Ransome, just shut the fuck up.

Re:Ransome Love talks about SCO

[wafflemonger]

But Even Ransom thinks that this was a bad idea. Yes he had quite a few of his own, but even this guy who really had a hard time figuring out how to make money off OpenSource realized that this was a dumb idea.

The last sentance is incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL."

IBM's lawyers are only on IBM's side. No one elses.

No it's not

[gr8_phk]

"Like it or not, it looks like the GPL is going to get a full vetting in this case."

I doubt this crap will make it to court. SCO is bluffing all the way. OTOH, if it does then it's good that IBM will be fighting for the GPL in it's first big case.

Re:No it's not

[pknoll]

I doubt this crap will make it to court. SCO is bluffing all the way.

As another poster pointed out, SCO no longer has a choice. They cannot simply wave a magic wand and make IBM's countersuit disappear if IBM isn't interested in an out of court solution.

They may have been bluffing, but IBM has called them on it.

Re:No it's not

[Rimbo]

That just means that SCO is now at a position where they have to not only give up on their current claims, but potentially give a few more things up to make this whole thing go away. They've gone from possibly making money on a settlement to now being lucky if they don't end up having to spend money to save their company. They are in deep, deep doo-doo.

My only hope...

[lyapunov]

is that IBM doesn't back off. I hope they grind these unethical bastards into the ground and do not let them settle, be bought out, or otherwise escape what is truly deserved.

We have all heard of DA's making examples out of people. I hope that the corporate lawyers and executives can see past the bottom line and send a message.

Attention! May I have your attention please?

[Chordonblue]

SCO will most definately have to follow up IBM's news with some sort of 1984-ish FUD. Sort of like this stuff:

"Big news! More companies than EVER are purchasing our licenses!"

"You should see our new version of UNiX - it's got SAMBA!"

"All your Linux are belong to us..." etc...

After an annoucement like this, they're going to have to come up with some huge Newspeak-like announcement to get that stock price back up - and quick. Wait for it, Darl can't possibly shut his mouth now.

All we need now are reassurances that all goes well on the Malabar front...

Re:Attention! May I have your attention please?

[Zathrus]

All your Linux are belong to us..." etc...

Although you were trying to be funny, this is exactly what they're saying.

SCO believe that Linux is, somehow, derived from their Unix IP. That would make it a "derivative work" and render the GPL invalid for covering the relevant parts.

Excepting, of course, that they've previously accepted the GPL, contributed code to Linux (as Caldera), and done other things to severely undermine their case. Not to mention that Linux is certainly not a derivative work in it's entirety -- if it was then they'd be talking smack about kernels other than just 2.4 -- and even if they are correct about derivative code being in Linux, that doesn't give them license to all the other non-derivative work done by people. Including by IBM.

All I can say is...

[Anonymous Coward]

... holy buh-sheet-buh!

Pile on...

[VivianC]

Is there a simple way for other copyright holders to now join in on this case? I figure anyone who has code in the kernel has the same case as IBM presented today.

If I had any code in there, I'd be looking through my old high school year book to figure out who went to law school...

Re:Pile on...

[Anonymous Coward]

I figure anyone who has code in the kernel has the same case as IBM presented today.

Not really. IBM has lots of damages.

It's okay

[MSBob]

In fact, they must be shitting their pants. McBride's an asshole - the only thing that comes out of him is shit. This Comment was generated with the Comment-O-Matic for SCO Stories.

And SCO says....

[veldstra]

Makes me wonder what SCO's next press release will be.
Just when I thought the newsfeed ran dry on the SCO vs. IBM case, this comes up. It's such a shame that justice takes it's time. It would make for a nice daily-dose-of-sco when this goes to court

heh

[Tumbleweed]

And you thought the Battle of Helm's Deep was massive. I'd rather have a bunch of Uruk-Hai after me than IBM lawyers. *shudder*

Re:heh

[mark-t]

The battle in The Two Towers between the forces of Mordor and those of the free Middle Earth will make the Helm's Deep battle look like a tiny skirmish.

That's a direct quote from Peter Jackson.

-1 offtopic

Re:heh

[Tumbleweed]

I think you mean in 'Return of the King'. Two Towers was the previous movie. :)

And that'll _still_ be nothing compared to a pack of IBM lawyers on your ass...I mean, really, the glowing eyes alone, not to mention the fangs dripping with saliva ala 'Alien'...*shudder*

Re:heh

[Anonymous Coward]

These aren't mindless paralegals. These are Full Partners. Their wallets are thick and their legal pads are wide...

Re:heh

[mark-t]

I think you mean in 'Return of the King'. Two Towers was the previous movie.

DOH!!!

A classic freudian slip.

-1 offtopic

Re:heh

[Nucleon500]

McBride: So it begi-- [fwish...THWACK!!] gurgle!

Legolas: ...43...

Re:heh

[InfoVore]

I'd rather have a bunch of Uruk-Hai after me than IBM lawyers. *shudder*

Yes, too true. After all, Uruk-Hai will only split your body in two and eat you alive.

IBM Lawyers do that AND chew on your immortal soul for all eternity. Then they get REALLY nasty!

Re:heh

[Qeantk]

They get really nasty AFTER all eternity?

Keep a copy around, just for laughs.

[Anonymous Coward]

I say we keep a copy of that article before it gets silently "updated".

Odd icon

[secolactico]

I know this is offtopic, but this has been bugging me for a while.

Does anyone else sees the Caldera icon and thinks of Mickey Mouse's head flattened against a red globe?

Yeah, I'm sick...

Re:Odd icon

[AkkarAnadyr]

Always have - what is is supposed to be?

Re:Odd icon

[gnutechguy]

I see the globe as a big Mickey Mouse ear too.

It's like he's peeking around the corner....wierd

We really need a better SCO/Caldera icon.

if the GPL is found invalid...

[Anonymous Coward]

...then Linus, the FSF, and a bunch of other folks can now sue you for using their copyrighted content!

Seriously, I don't see what's so tricky about the GPL. It lets you copy stuff you couldn't copy otherwise. That would be one stupid judge that said that somehow it removes the copyrights! That's like saying a poorly-worded Microsoft site license puts Windows into the public domain! Yeesh!!!

Now, the copyrights themselves might be found invalid to begin with, but that would apply only to that *particular* piece of code, not everything covered by the GPL.

So I'm pretty confident that the GPL is airtight. The "what-if" you read about in Infoworld etc are from folks who haven't actually READ the GPL, and who haven't kept on eye on the many copyright cases where the courts almost always favor the copyright holder.

The GPL is a beautiful thing and I hope the judge, whoever s/he may be, will appreciate the way it is crafted....

SCO having IP in Linux doesn't affect IBM's IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that, even if SCO's claims are true, IBM did add things to Linux which SCO has (by violating the GPL) been distributing without permission. If SCO wins - it loses.

Groklaw

[astroboy]

As always, Groklaw has some excellent commentary on this, including a link to a fascinating Interview iwith Ransom Love inteview about the whole SCO fiasco.

Everyone should support IBM...

[slasher999]

Whether it's buying some IBM product or choosing to use some IBM technology over their competition in some manner. IBM is supporting Linux and the GPL, so those of us that choose to rely on Linux should help out any way we can! Show IBM we appreciate the effort and expense!

Re:Everyone should support IBM...

[HiThere]

Last time I tried to buy a ThinkPad, it only came with MSWind. Unless they've changed things, well...
I'm sure that they'd gladly sell you a mainframe.

Defending the GPL != Defending GNU

[mkc]

From GNU, next to the rest of the files about Emacs, "Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air." True, IBM may let you have the source code to (some of) the software they install for you. If they billed you for air like they bill you for Global Services, however, you'd suffocate in a jiffy.

This case may try the letter of the GPL, but we can guess that it'll stay lightyears away from the spirit.

A kick in SCO's hairy balls

[GillBates0]

According to the memo, which was obtained by The Wall Street Journal, the new counterclaim charges that SCO infringed IBM's copyrights by distributing IBM's contributions to Linux after SCO had violated its Linux license by claiming a copyright on parts of Linux.

The memo failed to state however, that the counterclaim was the latest strike in what IBM calls "it's long term plan to kick SCO's big'n'salty donkey balls".

Everyone needs to follow IBM's lead...

[Eric Damron]

SCO seems to have no concept of the separation of the Linux kernel from the remaining GPL's software that is distributed with it. It looks like they are claiming copyrights not over just the kernel but every application, which is bundled in the version that they have distributed.

Anyone who has contributed code to the version of Linux that SCO distributes should follow IBM's lead and file a lawsuit.

Let the march of the fire ants begin! SCO is going down like the cheap whore that it is!

You should probably thank SCO..

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

At some point the GPL was going to have to be tested in a court of law. Thank you SCO for what is sure to be a slam dunk. Congratulations to those who are now successfully shorting SCOX.

Obligatory Matrix Quote

[oni]

Do you hear that Mr. McBride? That is the sound of inevitability.

Re:Obligatory Matrix Quote

[Comatose51]

My name is Darl! *promptly gets run over by the big IBM ligitation team*

Re:Obligatory Matrix Quote

[Heggsy]

You say 'Matrix', but I read 'Monty Python'. :)

Re:Obligatory Matrix Quote

[rodgerd]

"IBMs lawyers are a disease. The move into an area and they multiply until all of the resources are consumed."

Re:Obligatory Matrix Quote

[Captain_Chaos]

Is inevitability the word with the highest syllables to length ratio?

Stowell tells a bald-faced lie

[gvc]

I know that all of SCO's statements have been, shall we say, disingenuous, but Stowell's comment today, if quoted accurately, is the clearest lie I have yet seen issued from an officer of that company:

"If we want to continue to distribute Linux to our existing customers, we can do that because we own the copyrights on that Unix software."

cf. Infoworld

Re:Stowell tells a bald-faced lie

[zurab]

"If we want to continue to distribute Linux to our existing customers, we can do that because we own the copyrights on that Unix software."

I'm amazed. Let me get this straight. I believe this is part of IBM's original counter-claim also.

Even if, assuming they are right, and they own copyrights to some part of Linux code, they have completely disregarded the software license (GPL) for the rest of the Linux code, and, by continuing to distribute the parts of software they have no copyright claim in, they are knowingly in direct violation of copyright law.

Hell, this case should be easier than downing a burrito. Or, are they now claiming that they own copytights to ALL Linux code?

Re:Stowell tells a bald-faced lie

[nagora]

Or, are they now claiming that they own copytights to ALL Linux code?

If you mean "copyrights" then, actually, yes that is really what they are claiming. If on the other hand, you really did mean "copytights" then I don't know and I don't think I want to know.

TWW

Re:Stowell tells a bald-faced lie

[condosolon]

It is the general corporate trend to extend IP property rights to the extreme. I think the SCO position is that they owne ATT Unix that was licensed with the proviso that any derivatives are owned by the copyright holder. Therefore, SCO owns UNIX and anything that was derived from UNIX, anything that works like UNIX, anything that looks like UNIX and (why not go for it) anything that vaguely resembles UNIX.

Re:Kernel source ripoff

[psgalbraith]

Trying to plant some FUD for future reference are you?

Are you then going to post the link to it to a Finance forum to convince investers this is true?

Nice job. It would be more convincing if you weren't anonymous. What have you got to lose anyway?
You're an important former kernel contributor!

I'll bet...

[Bull999999]

I'll bet you that RMS never thought that the GPL would be defended in the court in a major case by a mega corp like IBM.

Re:I'll bet...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet you that RMS never thought that the GPL would be defended in the court in a major case by a mega corp like IBM.


I'll bet he's sitting in a room somewhere right now muttering to himself: "that's GNU/IBM."

Any part of the GPL case class action?

[leftie]

I use linux. I want my piece of the enormous punitive damages that will be levied on SCO in the judgement. I don't care if SCO will be utterly worthless by the end of trial. I'd still love to get a stock certificate (suitable for framing) out of this mess. It would only be a couple of shares of a penny stock... but it would be the geek equivalent of a big stuffed swordfish over the mantle. So... what part is class action and how do I register? I want my piece of Darl's ass over my fireplace.

IBM's word on indemnity for Linux customers

[SoTuA]

"IBM and most other industry leaders do not indemnify for open source code," IBM managers wrote in an internal memo, "The typical approach to indemnity, and apparently HP's approach as outlined in the press, we believe runs fundamentally counter to the Linux value proposition."

They basically say that the HP indemnity is crap, being as restrictive as it is. And they aren't offering you any indemnity.

(a little bit more on this here.)

GPL: It's the law

[vinsci]

Remember that the GPL has already been tested in court, and won?

IBM got the idea from me

[dillon_rinker]

Seriously. Look here.

I will be insufferable for the rest of the day.

Re:IBM got the idea from me

[Anonymous Coward]

How does that differ from any other day?

*duck*

Re:IBM got the idea from me

[anthony_dipierro]

And you got the idea from Advogato. Or maybe it was just that obvious :).

Re:IBM got the idea from me

[dillon_rinker]

Alas, I must yield to prior art while protesting that, yes, it was that obvious.

Nevertheless, I was insufferable today.

They're going to do this exactly:

[brlewis]

They'll have long, drawn-out settlement negotiations, allowing more time to sell stock, so that the money's in individual hands, not in the company. When IBM sees there's not much to squeeze out, SCO will likely be able to broker a deal in which they admit no wrongdoing. They can say something like, "Rather than go up against the legal resources of IBM, we felt it was in the company's best interest to settle, even though we did nothing wrong."

Re:They're going to do this exactly:

[mmclure]

This would not be a good thing for IBM to do, and they know it. It opens them up for every failing company to bring trumped-up charges against them to try to get bought out or to raise their stock price. Better to smash SCO and keep those other lawsuits from happening.

Re:They're going to do this exactly:

[gl4ss]

my point was that ibm has no reason whatsoever to settle with sco, sco can't just decide by itself that it wants to settle.

(ibm doesn't benefit from measly pennies from possible settlement with sco, where it can lose potentially much credibility if they let it off the hook, and they employ those lawyers anyways since they need them all the time just not as mercs for hire)

Re:They're going to do this exactly:

[arivanov]

Assuming IBM is in OSS for the long run they would not like anyone getting any silly ideas to try the SCO route anytime in the future.

They could have bought SCO ten times so far and can still buy it, but this will create 10 new SCOs. And this not something even IBM can afford.

IBM just as insane as SCO?

[Anonymous Coward]

It hurts SCO's case that they continue to distribute the Linux kernel after declaring that part of it is owned by them and not covered by the GPL. However, it's only a violation of the GPL IF they are actually correct (or at least judged to be correct). So SCO still has a legal right to continue to distribute Linux, it just makes their position inconsistent.

IBM on the other hand wants to sue SCO to stop them from distributing the parts of Linux that IBM owns. That isn't allowed under the GPL unless SCO is violating the GPL. As mentioned above, unless they win, SCO isn't violating the GPL. It seems that by launching this countersuit, IBM is taking the position either that the GPL isn't valid, or that SCO's claims on portions of the Linux kernel are valid.

Neither of which would help their position at all...

Heavy weight Litigation champion: IBM

[LightSail]

After toying with the lightweight contender for several rounds, The Undisputed HeavyWeight Champion unleashes a viscious couter, SCO goes down! 1, 2, 3, 4, ....

Be sure to give him one of these coupons

[Trigun]

He'll need it!

Re:In soviet Russia

[WindBourne]

I think that is happening all over.

No, where's BOIES?!!

[Chordonblue]

Where is this hotshot lawyer, hmmmmm? Showed up day one - that was it. If this isn't an obvious clue to anyone out there what a scam this is on SCO's part, I don't know what is.

Boies won't be found NEAR SCO, and neither will anyone who has a future career to protect. Darl and his boys will be sipping Pina Coladas soon enough, and maybe that's enough for them.

Please don't delude yourselves that SCO's downfall will in anyway hurt the execs at that hellhole. The people who will be hurt most are the employees, the vendors, the customers, and people like me in the OSS community having raised my BP over this BS.

I'm not nieve enough to believe they'll be any kind of formal justice here - I just want these people and this issue to go away. More importantly, to be permanantly resolved. If this is what it takes, than so be it. Better it happen now than 10 years from now.

Besides, if these exec scumbags live their lives the way they do business they'll be miserable enough for all of us - trust me.

Re:No, where's BOIES?!!

[WCMI92]

Boies, hotshot?! Has this guy ever WON a case?! He lost the Napster case, lost against Microsoft, lost defending Algore's perpetual recount, etc.

I don't know WHY this guy has ANY kind of reputation that is positive. He is either a horseshit lawyer, or he takes on loser cases. There is no third possibility.

Hell, the best sign for our side was that BOIES's name was tacked on...

Re:No, where's BOIES?!!

[Anonymous Coward]

That was my point, TARD. Read closer next time

Re:No, where's BOIES?!!

[efflux]

There is no third possibility.

Certainly, because it is impossible that he's had more than 3 cases.

Re:No, where's BOIES?!!

[Saithier]

Actually, in an amusing twist of history, he was IBMs lead lawyer in their successful defense of the anti-trust trust case brought against them (by the government) in the 1980s.

He most certainly won that one, as we still have Big Blue, and not a bunch of baby blues running around.

More than just a GPL issue

[CgiJobs]

The claim also states "SCO has published false statements in a series of widely-distributed press releases ... as part of its bad faith campaign to discredit IBM's products and services in the marketplace ... IBM has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial."

Hopefully, this will require SCO to reveal more evidence since IBM is claiming that SCO's current practices are causing damage. In related news, SCO stock continues to drift lower under heavy volume...

Re:More than just a GPL issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Dammit! I knew I should have sold SCO short!

Who better?

[benploni]

If there were any company in the world you could pick to be the precedent-setting defender of the GPL who would it be? IBM would be my dream pick. This is very good news.

Re:Who better?

[cyt0plas]

> If there were any company in the world you could pick to be the precedent-setting defender of the GPL who would it be?

Microsoft?

USC-17

[eddy]

Personally, I hope he invoked USC-17 on himself via that comment. That'd be sweeeeet.

Re:USC-17

[johnnyb]

What is USC-17?

Re:USC-17

[sweetooth]

Maybe there is another USC-17, but I think it has to do with the burden of proof in proving insanity when using an insanity defense.

Re:USC-17

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the US Copyright law section 17. Allows for criminal charges of the "let's go to jail"-kind.

(IANAL, IANEAA)

Re:USC-17

[Jeremy Erwin]

It's title 17. Sections are subdivisions of Titles. For instance, 17 USC 1201 et seq. is where most of the provisions of the DMCA are lodged. Although the criminal penalties are encoded in title 17 (in various places), Title 17 encompasses statutory Copyright law in all its forms.

Re:USC-17

[mkldev]

17 USC (a.k.a. Title 17) is the U.S. Copyright act. The burden of proof for insanity is 18 USC section 17(b).

Re:USC-17

[sweetooth]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up.

Brilliant strategy

[WCMI92]

Everyone is missing what this manuver does... SO far, SCO's ACTUAL FILED allegations are about a contract dispute with IBM.

They keep making their copyright claims in press releases.

By IBM introducing copyright violations into the suit themselves, THEY FORCE SCO TO RESPOND. Also, IBM can get the code that SCO claims is in Linux in the discovery phase.

This thing is quickly going nuclear. I notice the stock's dump has started to level off, guess Melinda Gates is spending more pocket change...

Re:Brilliant strategy

[benploni]

This is important point. Please moderate the parent post up.

Re:Brilliant strategy

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

Yes ... and they also requested a declaratory judgement that SCO has infringed their copyrights, infringed their patents, impugned their honor and left three of the typing pool with child.

It's going to get real ugly, real fast for SCO.

Re:Brilliant strategy

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Well two in the typing pool. The third has been traced back to the mailroom.

Re:Brilliant strategy

[EvilTwinSkippy]

SCO is like the moron who breaks into the zoo in the middle of the night, and decides to harass the Polar Bears.

All the polar bear thinks is: "Cattle Prod? No. Mmmm ... Meat popsicle ..."

SCO validates GPL and erradicates their own case

[Anonymous Coward]

It is actually a brilliant move by IBM. Either of the following will happen:

a) SCO says the GPL is valid and that they are free to distribute under the terms of the GPL - thereby making IBM's claim superflous AND also making Linux (and any theoretical infringing code therein) available to all users under GPL with no need of licensing from SCO.

b) SCO says the GPL is invalid - thereby making IBM's couterclaim true - thereby making themselves subject to endless lawsuits for delivering code that they don't have a license to - thereby insuring the timely demise of SCO due to lack of legal funds.

SCO can't win. They can't have it both ways. They are in a very bad legal quagmire.

Paul Seamons

SCO reply

[Anonymous Coward]

1. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!
2. It's *spelled* S C O, but it's pronouned "ass hats".

-SCO comment generator

Re:Someone needs to do a lawsuit flowchart

[GMFTatsujin]

Portions of the flowchart will also have to be traced at 88 MPH...

This is the strength of the GPL

[mike449]

If you try to fight against it, you always loose more than you win.
SCO: "GPL is invalid"
IBM: "Fine, then you can not re-distribute our copyrighted code. There is plenty of it in Linux."
SCO: "Ok, ok, it is valid then..."
IBM: "Fine, then you can not take our code, strip GPL from it and re-distribute as your own"

fire-breathing paladins

[brlewis]

Funny that you take the "fire-breathing" comment to mean IBM is now looked upon as a paladin. I simply took it that IBM is an awesome foe.

A matter of coincedence

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL"

If you think IBMs laywers are on anyones else side other than IBMs you are mistaken. It's jsut so happens that at this particular moment in time IBM and Open Source community happen to want the same thing.

More counter claims???

[Error27]

The original response to SCO included 10 defenses and 10 counter claims.

Adding another counter claim screws up the symmetry completely.

Re:More counter claims???

[Newsome]

Fortuntely, the judge isn't going to come out and say into his mike "Penalties offset. Repeat 3rd down."

Then Darl announces that he will sue ...

[burgburgburg]

the CE Linux Forum and all of it's members: Sony, Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., which makes the Panasonic brand, Hitachi, NEC Corp., Sharp Corp., Toshiba Corp. -- as well as Royal Philips Electronics of the Netherlands and Samsung Electronics Co. of South Korea. At that point, SCO stock will hit 50. After Canopy leverages that to sell a lot of paper on other Canopy sub-companies and cash out a lot of positions, Darl and the other insiders will sell, sell, sell and cry boo-hoo all the way to the bank. That's what this has been about all along anyway: pump and dump.

Thinly Traded Stocks...

[Royster]

...are prone to manipulation. WHen volume is high and there's a lot of activity and the bid/ask spread is narrow, there's not much luck of manipulating it short of throwing wads of cash at it. SOmeone on the Yahoo finance message board for SCO says that someone spent $1 million in 15 minutes to stop the free fall.

WHen the volume is low and the bid/ask spread is wide, someone can (illegally) collude with someone else to make wash trades within the bid/ask spread to slowly walk the price upward. The price is completely unsupported so that when selling hits again, it free falls as it did today.

You can learn a lot about the risks of trading thinly traded stocks by reading the last few weeks of messages on the Yahoo finance board.

Re:Thinly Traded Stocks...

[Anonymous Coward]

And, linky linky, especially this post.

Re:Thinly Traded Stocks...

[Royster]

Thanks for linking to my own Yahoo post. I couldn't have linked that post since I wrote it about an hour after I wrote this ./ post.

Re:Someone needs to do a lawsuit flowchart

[pla]

Someone needs to do a lawsuit flowchart
I cant keep track anymore.

Well, no one can fault you for that. I have to admit, this one seems to baffle me as well... It appears this flowchart would require future dependancies - Namely, in order for this countersuit to have merit, SCO needs to win the primary suit first.

Really kinda interesting, in a traps-within-traps way. If SCO wins (as if...), they've established the precedent needed to lose.

Darl should just dump his stock, call the whole thing off, and go out for a few beers. Any other course of action just increases the diameter of the phallus IBM will eventually lubelessly impale him upon.

Winner?

[SubReale]

Here is who will win.

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia turds bury you.

Re:Obligatory

[B3ryllium]

You shouldn't insult the russian mafia like that.

Mod Parent Up: +4 Interesting

[Short Circuit]

Some serious effort should go into researching potential legal basises(?) for an effective class action suit.

It need not even be for damages. It could simply be a demand for a public retraction and apology. It would be a much easier demand to have ordered met. Besides, we don't care about the money, anyway, do we?

Re:Kernel source ripoff

[petermdodge]

I think that SCO's claim to own parts of the CODE are valid. As a former contributor to the Linux Kernel I can tell you that there are many parts inside the Kernel (drivers mostly) where copyright notices have been removed, code re-organized and implemented in the Kernel.

Look, fellow slash-dotters, Darl is among us! Quick, get the torches and pitchforks!

If that is the case, the copyrights belong to Novell. Novell never gave the copyright to SCO/Caledra, they just gave the rights to distribute. Educate yourself on the full case before making broad accusations.

IBM has a lot to gain by using the GPL to win this

[ron_ivi]

IBM and their firebreathing lawyers are on the side of the GPL because it's good for business.

IBM has worked long and hard to prove it's a friend of the open-source community.

• Gang-like tagging of city property
• Large, highly visible donations of software and cash into open source community projects

This isn't as a charity act. They're doing this because open source advocates are influential in many large hardware and software purchases around the world

Because IBM thinks this community is influential, they guide their actions to appeal to them.

Defending the GPL is a great way to appeal to them -- even better than spraypainting grafiti on cities.

like everything else they've said is a lie

[brlewis]

When and how do you anticipate that things will change such that SCO starts caring whether their statements look like lies?

Re:like everything else they've said is a lie

[typobox43]

If they concede this case, they might as well give up the whole deal. This is really the platform that their whole anti-Linux case is built upon.

And the next version of the GPL?

[Short Circuit]

So what happens when we go to version 3? Do we have to go through all this again?

Will there be a split in the pro-GPL community between progress and the "tried and true" solution?

One of these days...

[Kjella]

...they're going to slip up and claim "If we want to continue to distribute Linux to our existing customers, we can do that because we own the copyrights on that Linux software.", because that's what they're implying to say.

Now I haven't checked how many LOC Linux is, but the great great majority is NOT in any way copyrighted to SCO, even with their most absurd of claims. That means they need a valid licence to distribute Linux, and must abide by the terms of the GPL.

This in particular includes paragraph 2b:
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
and 6:
"Each time you redistribute the Program (...), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

However SCOs rights may or may not have been violated, SCO has no right to violate the rights of all the honest contributors to the Linux kernel. Their right to compensation comes from the legal system, not by stealing back. "Some of you (OSS developers) took our code and illegally licenced/distrbuted it, now we'll take yours and do the same!"

That's what their claiming. Not even that their the same people. It's like claiming "Well this one black guy punched me once, so now it's my right to punch any black guy I feel like!" That argument is only for the press - they'd be torn to pieces for it in court.

Kjella

Re:One of these days...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but it's like that guy claiming a black guy punched him in the nose, and yet there is no evidence of the punch (i.e. no blood, no broken nose, no bruise, nothing).

Same with SCO. They have shown no proof (and I mean NO PROOF! BSD code doesn't count!) to show that they own Linux. They are down to "We own linux because we own rights to Unix." This shows how ridiculusly stupid they are. They are like the kiddie scripters who say "U R 0WNZRDDD!!!!!"

Re:One of these days...

[xski]

Now I haven't checked how many LOC Linux is, but the great great majority is NOT in any way copyrighted to SCO, even with their most absurd of claims.

Uhm... i thought that, effectively, their claim is that they own the copyright to all UNIX-like code ever written. They own the "root of the tree" and thus anything that is derived from it or added to it in any way, shape or form is theirs. Even things like Minix and especially and particularly Linux fall under their control, in their view.

As someone here said: All your codes are belong to us.

Re:One of these days...

[Wordplay]

Copyright law on derivative work doesn't function like that, though. If I create a story with Harry Potter in it, I might not be able to distribute it as it's derivative of Rowling's copyrighted work. However, she can't distribute it either, since the story has original content--my copyright applies to that content (but not to any of the things I borrowed from her). Best case with SCO's argument is that they could block the distribution of Linux, but that doesn't mean they could distribute it themselves unless each and every little bit was derivative of their copyrighted works.

Compilations, Collections, And Derivative Works

Re:One of these days...

[jelle]

"Now I haven't checked how many LOC Linux is,"

I did on linux-2.6.0-test5 using sloccount:

directory details and formatting removed by request of the lameness filter (Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters....)

FYI, almost half of the SLOC is in the drivers directory...

Totals grouped by language (dominant language first):
ansic: 3623853 (94.94%)
asm: 182056 (4.77%)
yacc: 2601 (0.07%)
perl: 2481 (0.06%)
sh: 2298 (0.06%)
cpp: 2115 (0.06%)
lex: 1502 (0.04%)
lisp: 218 (0.01%)
awk: 59 (0.00%)

Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC) = 3,817,183
Development Effort Estimate, Person-Years (Person-Months) = 1,153.08 (13,836.98)
(Basic COCOMO model, Person-Months = 2.4 * (KSLOC**1.05))
Schedule Estimate, Years (Months) = 7.80 (93.66)
(Basic COCOMO model, Months = 2.5 * (person-months**0.38))
Estimated Average Number of Developers (Effort/Schedule) = 147.74
Total Estimated Cost to Develop = $ 155,765,672
(average salary = $56,286/year, overhead = 2.40).

SLOCCount is Open Source Software/Free Software, licensed under the FSF GPL.
Please credit this data as "generated using 'SLOCCount' by David A. Wheeler."

Re:One of these days...

[cybergrue]

However SCOs rights may or may not have been violated, SCO has no right to violate the rights of all the honest contributors to the Linux kernel. Their right to compensation comes from the legal system, not by stealing back. "Some of you (OSS developers) took our code and illegally licenced/distrbuted it, now we'll take yours and do the same!"

SCO seems to believe that its derivitive ownership rights override the GPL, sort of a type of viral ownership, where (they believe) anything that has ever touched the Unix core is theirs. Now we all know that this won't stand up in court, but it looks good on paper, and has been effective in scattering FUD to the managerial types who were beginning to embrace Open Source software.

To me this is beginning to look like a carefully constructed scam. Part FUD machine, part pump and dump scheme, complete with its own fall guy. I noticed that just about all the executives in SCO but Mr. McBride are selling their stocks like crazy. Coincidence, I think not.

On Who's Side

[Goo.cc]

"It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL."

No, they are not on the side of the GPL; they are on IBM's side. It just so happens that, currently, that IBM and the GPL have a common interest.

And never forget the lesson SCO has taught us: the business that is your friend today (IBM) can be your enemy in the future (SCO/Caldera).

Re:On Who's Side

[flacco]

No, they are not on the side of the GPL; they are on IBM's side. It just so happens that, currently, that IBM and the GPL have a common interest.

uh, which is the definition of "being on the side of". no one said it was permanent.

Re:On Who's Side

[cruachan]

Certainly true, however I think there's some additional special considerations in IBM's case.

I've been around IT as a coder in one form or another since 1985. Back in those days, before the rise of Microsoft, Big Blue was regarded with the same mixture of fear and loathing that Microsoft are now. Actually I think it was worse because deep down there's always the appreciation that Microsoft has never been _totally_ controlled by the suits in the same way that IBM was.

In the late 80's of course IBM went through a period of making the largest losses in corporate history. All the chickens of arrogantly backing it's own corporate world-view of software/hardware to the exclusion of everything else - in short it's own sheer bloody arrogance - came home to roost with vengence.

Now while I'm sure that IBM never had a coorporate road-to-jeruselem experience, I think that the trauma of that period does seem to have rubbed off on coorporate culture to some extent. Fundementally I think IBM has taken on board the message that it's own best corporate interests are in working with the IT community and not against it or trying to force it down it's own exclusive vision of the future. So whilst I don't doubt for one minute that IBM lawyers put IBM's interests first, I think that IBM is more likely to see it's interests in supporting the GPL and Open Source than many an other large corporate IT company would be.

to those who think open source will win

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not fight the operation. it will just hurt you even more.

Madness -- Madness I say

[sokk]

How can we make this SCO madness stop?

In Germany the government put their foot down, and stopped the FUD. Can't USA do the same?

Has SCO even filed a case against someone?

--
In Russia the kernel compiles you.

Re:Madness -- Madness I say

[nagora]

In Germany the government put their foot down, and stopped the FUD. Can't USA do the same?

It's a long, long time since Big Business told the US Government to butt out of trying to run their country for them.

TWW

Re:Mod Parent Up: +4 Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, SCO (a $300m company) claims over $1b in damages from IBM. At least demand a few million, to be given to the FSF, EFF, OSDL, et al. Linux has seen at least as much damage as SCO did.

And the money and contractors?

[Short Circuit]

With all of IBM's money, and the ability to draw in more help, I'd say you're looking at 16-bit number: 65535...

Re:And the money and contractors?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, supporting auxillaries don't count. :p

Profit from SCO's demise

[CHaN_316]

Has anyone considered short selling SCO shares by using options? Options is where you predict the price of a company at a future time, and the closer to the price you are by that time, the more money you make. Put me down SCO's stock price at $0.01 USD/share for next year same time. It's probably a good move for geeks since we know what SCO is trying to pull here. To the average financial broker guy, all they see is oooo, SCO may make $1 billion from IBM... BUY BUY BUY!

*Disclaimer: The opinions offered in this posting is merely speculative and does not reflect any professional financial insight at all. Please consult a real financial expert for all your investing needs before even considering attempting this financial manoeuver. Please kids, don't try this at home.

Re:Profit from SCO's demise

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

Has anyone considered short selling SCO shares by using options?

No options available.

Re:Profit from SCO's demise

[Zathrus]

Has anyone considered short selling SCO shares by using options?

It doesn't look like the options are being sold on the major markets -- a few quick checks of public stock data show no options available for SCOX. Not surprising - it's a very low volume stock with very few shares outstanding.

That said, unless you can get some very long term options, I certainly wouldn't buy them. Until the case goes to trial (2005) the stock is going to vary wildly based on market perception. Presuming the trial goes as expected it would mean the stock would drop and your options are worth something.

Options are a very dangerous way to play the market -- you pay money for them and if the stock doesn't become worth more or less than the option price (depending on the kind of option you buy) then you lose all your money. You don't even have the stock to show for it -- which could at least revalue at some point.

Unless you're very market savvy, I'd recommend staying away from options.

Re:Profit from SCO's demise

[TopShelf]

Besides which, there's no such thing as short-selling by using options! That's like "walking to the mall by car," or something...

Re:Profit from SCO's demise

[The Pim]

Has anyone considered short selling SCO shares by using options?

Why don't you sell them short by selling short? Makes a lot more sense as far as I can see. Options appear problematic, aside from their evident inavailability, because you need to pick an exercise date by which you're sure SCO will be down. You probably want to estimate conservatively, which sounds like at least a couple years. I don't know if any options last that long.

Scarcity is an issue with shorts, too. I tried many times over a period of weeks before finally succeeding, so don't give up!

Re:Profit from SCO's demise

[smillie]

there's no such thing as short-selling by using options!

What he would be refering to is "put" options. Buying puts allows you to sell at the put price. If the stock drops in price you buy shares cheaply then sell to the put holder at the fixed price.

Re:Profit from SCO's demise

[Anonymous Coward]

"Options appear problematic, aside from their evident inavailability, because you need to pick an exercise date by which you're sure SCO will be down"

Borrowing shares and selling them short is even more problematic, because if at *any* time the price goes high enough that the value of your other securities is no longer sufficient collateral for the loan, the brokerage's margin clerk will close your position by buying the shares back at this very high price, and thus you are screwed even if the price crashes the next day.

If you short only a very small number of shares relative to your available assets, then you will be able to ride out very large spikes in the price, but in that case you have limited your best-case scenario to only a small gain.

Thus, short-selling is either (A) foolish, if you're shorting too much and risking being totally wiped out, or (B) not very glamorous, if your maximum gain is just a tiny percentage of your net worth.

The only people shorting significant amounts of a volatile stock are giants and fools.

Re:Profit from SCO's demise

[The Pim]

This is all well-said, but don't worry about me. :-) I'm not going for glamour, I just see a good expectation value, so I borrowed what I consider a safe number of shares. I may yet lose--SCO could still get bought, for example. Or, momentum investors could chase this thing to 30, 40, (gulp) 50. But if things don't get too insane, and SCO indeed crashes, I have a nice return. If you consider that there is no opportunity cost in long investments (quite the opposite, I can invest the proceeds of the short sale), it seems only logical.

Re:Profit from SCO's demise

[WhiteWolf666]

Umm----

I'm not sure what your definition of glamorous is....

BTW: I'm not able to short SCO stock right now, as I understand it, most brokerages aren't allowing that (datek/ameritrade both aren't, perhaps cooler, full service brokerages are).

If I can sell, I dunno, one to four thousand shares of SCO stock short, my account is large enough that I won't get a margin call, unless SCO's stock goes up by another factor of 8----SCO would have to hit $120. I do not anticipate this happening. In fact, I would be extremely, extremely surprised if SCO hits 25, and wouldn't be surprised at all if SCO's ceiling is around 20.
But at the same time, 4,000x$15.00= $60,000. If IBM pops SCO next month, or even 6 months from now, that is a very significant gain for me. It is not in the 1000's of percent range, but it is in the low teens, as a percentage of my total account.

The other aspect of this situation. I could short SCO at 15. I would buy it back at 25, if it hit 25. In the long run, I would within 5 points of whatever I perceived its ceiling to be, because I ultimately think the company is DOOMED.

I guess, perhaps, your intrepretation of glamorous might just be 1000's of percent. Sure, if I had purchased 10,000 shares of SCO at $0.48, I would be up some ridiculous percentage now....$140,000, yup----thats a lot of money.

But the difference is, from my perspective, that was not a sure deal. I thought SCO would hover in the dollar range for ever, until it was snuffed out. I still believe that SCO will be snuffed out. I just am sure that their P/E valuation has hit such a ridiculous level (150-200x) that the institutional investors will no longer be duped by the FUD fest. The stock has no where to go but down.

Unfortunately, by brokerage is not accepting shorts on SCOX, otherwise I'd make my $60,000 bet.

Re:Profit from SCO's demise

[WhiteWolf666]

Options don't really work like that.

I hate to be a slashdot nerd, but, a good book on options trading my help.

I know that it helped me, I picked up a few last year, and now have a small amount of knowledge about options.

Usually, one does not trade exclusively on options. Options are generally used in conjunction with other securities (stocks) to generate a profit when a stock will stay within a given range.

Based upon the range you believe the stock will stay in, (they are roughly like this---- X is current price. Y is some value of dollars, for all 2 digit decimal. a. X-Y, or lower. b. X+Y, or higher. c. (X+/-Y1)+Y2 or (X+/-Y1)-Y2.) you pursue a certain option strategy. I'm not going to describe the strategies that are out there. Instead, I'll direct you to here.

You could exclusively trade on options, but then you have a great deal less flexibility than just trading on stocks.

Option do not exist for all prices. There are option 'chains', which have different 'striking' prices. This, for example, is a IBM's option chains. There are striking prices between 45 and 115. See the first link for what is a put option, and a call option.

For a simple operation the way you are describing, short selling stock is a much better way to acheive the affect you want.

For the people who say you can loose tons of money in options, you can also loose tons of money on long and short trades.

Its all about knowing when to cut your looses, and when to take profits.

All though it is nigh near impossible, you have unlimited liability on a short sell.

You also have loads of liability on a long buy. Options are generally used to limit your liability on stock trades.

Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about, I'm not a professional broker, just an amateur who reads stock trading books.

Re:Profit from SCO's demise

[The Pim]

most brokerages aren't allowing that (datek/ameritrade both aren't, perhaps cooler, full service brokerages are).

I shorted with datek/ameritrade on like the tenth try over a few weeks (on 09/25--lucky timing). I had actually given up hope by then, so I was pretty shocked. I only wish I had your money to leverage. :-)

Your analysis of course is perfectly sane. It's a shame people are so irrational about shorting.

Re:Profit from SCO's demise

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if any kind of option trading were possible you could use put-call parity to replicate the payoff of a short position.

Paragraph 2b & 6 (n/t, see other post)

[Kjella]

Avoiding lameness filter... lame lame lame

Re:Paragraph 2b & 6 (n/t, see other post)

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the lameness filter is a little bit too strict for things like that. Why not have a 'accept lameness penalty' option that allows posting of 'lame' messages in exchange for a low score (penalty amount configurable by each user under 'preferences') and/or no karma when it gets moderated up?

I can't believe

[rsilvergun]

SCO hasn't spun this to thier advantage. After all, in order for them to be violating the GPL some of their code has to be mixed into the kernel they're distributing, right? Still, I guess this news is hurting them (someone above mentioned their stock price is down 15%). But in the end if this flies with the court SCO's claims will be rendered null, since they'll have distributed the code under the GPL :).

Re:I can't believe

[vidarh]

In order for them to be violating the GPL all they have to do is distribute a SINGLE copy of a GPL'd program and not abide by the license terms. They don't need to have as much as looked at the code for that to be the case.

In this case they are trying to insist that parts of Linux is not GPL'd, and that recipients of the code therefore don't have the rights awarded under the license - the downside of that is that if that is the case the software can't legally be distributed without violating the copyright of every single copyright holder who do assert the GPL as the license of THEIR contribution to the kernel. Since IBM is one of them, they are suing.

So what's next?

[Short Circuit]

I have to believe SCO was expecting this response.

Assuming their executives haven't forgotten everything they learned about strategy when getting their MBAs, they must have had something planned for this response.

Reading Slashdot...

[soloport]

Ever seem like that scene where the Skipper says, "Gilligan! The Professor and Mr. Howell can't both be '+1 Interesting'!" ???

Let's be realistic.

[SiO2]

It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL.

I hate to be the cynic (Actually, I really don't mind at all.), but IBM's legion of IP lawyers on the side of IBM, which only just happens to have embraced the GPL. If IBM wasn't pushing Linux, their lawyers wouldn't give the GPL a moment's thought.

SiO2

Re:Let's be realistic.

[wjeff]

The point is that while IBM may not care about the GPL outside of this case, their notably able lawyers will be arguing for enforcement of it in this case. Assuming they win, this could provide a precedent for the legal force of the GPL.

This is a good thing.

hostage situation

[trybywrench]

I hear there is a group of terrorists in FL holding a plane load of SCO lawyers hostage. They're threatening to release one every hour unless their demands are met.

apologies to Kenneth Lay for stealing his joke.

whew

[Niteshade]

With all the dark news on these threads regarding our eroding security and online freedoms, coupled with the likewise dark news from news sources regarding our eroding civil liberties in the US, and the RIAA... it's nice to see at least some bright spots on the horizon. So many corporations, so little empathy for people, and so little desire to use our high technology to make the world new and better. I use Macs, and I never in a million years thought I'd find myself cheering Big Blue, but here I am. Yay!

I have my fingers crossed; maybe if the good guys win this fight, then the momentum will carry beyond its borders, and other corporations will give more than lip service to technological freedom.

Strange these days how much consumer choices can become political statements, but I'm considering buying a PC soon, and I think I may plunk down the change and buy a Thinkpad, and install Gnome. It's almost an ethical necessity.

Viva IBM and Linux, and of course Apple, who likewise needs all the help it can get.

Re:SCO validates GPL and erradicates their own cas

[dillon_rinker]

Exactly what I said here.

funny

[pyrrho]

I mean, they have not read the GPL. I'm serious, this is not meant as a zealous snipe... really, they must not have read it. Of course they know there is a lot of IP in there. Of course they know it's not all theirs. If they read the GPL they would know they CAN charge for their IP, but in that case, it isn't under the GPL, it cannot be a part of linux. In that case they lose their right to use IBM, et al, code. It's as simple as can be, I mean, the GPL is not a long document. They have not thought about what allows them to make the distribution? The GPL? It's amazing. Of course, we know their theory is that the GPL is unenforceable, that it's really public domain.

Further, it's pretty clear they also don't understand software, I mean, linux has a lot more code than what they claimed is theirs, even if you give them JFS, etc..

Oh wait... they're just lying bastards. They have to set up a really strong "but I'm just stupid" argument for the SEC.

The Million Hackers' March

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is the agreement by which all the Linux kernel contributors agree not to sue each other for redistributing each other's work.

By asking for a fee for the Linux kernel, SCO publicly and definitely placed itself in the position of a Linux kernel contributor who would suddendly breach this agreement and start asking for a fee all the other contributors. The agreement does not protect them anymore, so each other kernel contributor can prosecute in return.

This Copyright blade is heavy, and cuts both ways. Just stop and imagine the news headlines if every single person who contributed code to the Linux kernel filed a suit against SCO for copyright infringement !

Sue the OpenSource Community, get sued back a million fold ?

Re:The Million Hackers' March

[AJWM]

The GPL is the agreement by which all the Linux kernel contributors agree not to sue each other for redistributing each other's work.

That's one of the best summaries of the GPL I've seen.

Not perfect -- it omits "potential contributers" (ie anybody else who wants to take the code and redistribute without necessarily modifying it) -- but still a good summary.

To quote Jack Nicholson...

[Tuckdogg]

"The worm has turned and is now packing an uzi."

Thanks IBM

[Krashed]

I want you to know that if I ever have the need for serious computing power (blades, mid-frame or mainframes), I will give IBM a call right away. This is a great way to not only protect your assets but to build extreme brand loyalty with Linux users. Also, great job with the Linux Prodigy commerical.

IBM is like Godzilla.

[raygundan]

He's a monster, but sometimes he helps us fight off other monsters. We can cheer as long as he's saving Tokyo. Once that's done, we just have to make sure he goes back into the ocean.

Re:IBM is like Godzilla.

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM is turtle meat! IBM is really neat! We believe in IBM!

Re:IBM is like Godzilla.

[drinkypoo]

Yeah, he's got to sink back into the deep blue sea...

Copyright assignment

[lspd]

I was under the, possibly mistaken, impression that IBM had assigned all their copyrights in the Linux kernel to the FSF. If that is the case, how can IBM claim SCO violated their copyright. Wouldn't the FSF have to make this claim?

From FSF Statement on SCO v. IBM
The Foundation notes that despite the alarmist statements SCO's employees have made, the Foundation has not been sued, nor has SCO, despite our requests, identified any work whose copyright the Foundation holds-including all of IBM's modifications to the kernel for use with IBM's S/390 mainframe computers, assigned to the Foundation by IBM--that SCO asserts infringes its rights in any way.

Re:Copyright assignment

[yeremein]

... "all of IBM's modifications to the kernel for use with IBM's S/390 mainframe computers, assigned to the Foundation by IBM" ...

I don't think all of IBM's contributions are for the S/390 mainframes, but I could be wrong.

Re:Copyright assignment

[borgheron]

The FSF does not hold the copyright on all GPL software. You can, for instance, release your software under the the GPL, but retain the copyright yourself.

GNU/Linux is not an FSF sponsored project. FSF owns no copyright interest in GNU/Linux whatsoever.

GJC

Re:Copyright assignment

[linuxbikr]

If SCO distributed JFS, RCU, etc with their kernels, then IBM's counterclaims make sense since SCO is now going against section 4 of the GPL.

Despite all the ranting about the possible "questionable" validity of the GPL, a lot of folks seem to forget one thing: the GPL was conceived by Richard Stallman but the actual license text was written by and reviewed by lawyers! It isn't some individual attempting to produce a quasi-legal sounding license, it is a legally binding agreement and had to pass some pretty serious legal muster before it could be released and used.

The mere fact that in the entire time the GPL has existed, NO ONE has dared to try and challenge it. There's been lots of "analysis", but there has been no one to ever try to challenge the GPL even on principle in a court of law (unlike the DMCA, for example). A few companies got caught violating the terms of the GPL (i.e. incorporating GPL'd code into proprietary products) and all of them had the chance to fight the GPL but didn't! They all settled, rewrote and backed off. How is SCO any different under the circumstances?

Remember, SCO first has to prove that any code that IBM wrote independently is in fact a derivative work of the SysV codebase or produce the "line for line" copied code that they claim IBM dropped into the kernel. In past GPL violations, this is exactly what the violators did with GPL'd code: dropped it as-is into their products. Regardless of IBM's motives or aims, does anyone seriously believe that a company like IBM who has an extremely long history of legal wrangling over patents, copyrights, anti-trust, etc, would be that stupid? Especially considering they have a clear policy and process on how code developed by IBM can migrate into the kernel. IBM is also required by the kernel maintainers to waive any and all current or future patent claims on any code they contribute.

So yes, IBM is being friendly now. Even 5-10 years down the road if they changed their tune, they would still be unable to try and make claims against Linux because of their previous agreements to waive their rights to patent infringement. The best they could do is pursue copyright infringement claims againt a rogue developer or third party.

Re:Copyright assignment

[TheCrazyFinn]

IBM did assign copyright for the OS/390 porting code to the FSF. However, since there is a bunch of other IBM Code in the kernel (RCU, NUMA, and some drivers) this is a moot point.

I do think IBM's support of Linux is partially inspired by their desire to return to an industry comprised of Hardware and Professional Services, where they once reigned supreme.

owner?

[siskbc]

If I were the owner I would be very nervous right now...

It's public, so that would be the shareholders,and I'm sure they're not liable. Management could be hit for the obvious pump-n-dump scheme tho.

If you think this, you are a fool.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL.

The GPL is nothing more than a tool to beat back SCO's attack in this case. Do not think IBM is 'on the side of the GPL', the legal language of the GPL is just one of the ways they will use to attack SCO.

Closing price

[Heggsy]

Courtesy of Yahoo! Finance.

SCO GROUP INC (RTM/ECN)
Symbol: SCOX
Last Trade: 14.29 4:00PM ET
After Hours Change: N/A
Today's Change: 2.94 (17.06%)
Bid: 13.70
Ask: 14.75

It dropped a ways below $14 a time or two just before the close. Some shoring up going on, I suspect.

After Hours trading might be interesting.

Yes, I know it's Friday night and no, I have nothing better to do.

Contribute code to Linux, make money off SCO ?

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM is basically suing in its quality of Linux contributor, charging SCO for distributing the parts of the kernel that IBM wrote. What about all the other contributors ?

Hey, imagine suing SCO and earning juicy compensations and interests. All this money that Sun and Microsoft gave to SCO would actually end up in the purse of all the Linux contributors ! Ooooooooh the irony...

1) Contribute code to Linux
2) Sue SCO for distributing your contribution
3) Profit !!!

Oh oh another claim for SCO!

[Kjella]

There are in fact only 16 of them, but they multiplex into a virtual legion of 4096.

IBMs lawyers could never have developed that kind of advanced, enterprise-class concepts on their own, and must so in some way have misappropriated it from the Intellectual Property of SCOs legal department. Sue! Sue!

Kjella

Exactly.

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't "geeks" cheering for Microsoft or Windows at my university. It was the non-computer-literate business students.

Very few "geeks" cheered for Microsoft at all.

Why is SCO

[future assassin]

Why is SCO black and blue all over? Cause IBM slapped them.

This is bad

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

This is very bad... IBM, like all large corporations, is simply using its patents to attack others. How much do you want to bet that IBM will use the same tactic against other Linux competitors in the future (if Linux becomes popular)?

Allying with the devil to defeat your enemy is never encouraged (as history of US imperialism in recent memory, including unholy alliances with Usama bin Laden in 90's and Saddam Hussein in late 80's show). SCO may be an enemy but IBM isn't a good friend either... They are on the Linux side now because they are profitting from it... but watch out in 10 years...

I wish IBM hadn't reverted to patent rights "manipulations" to defend Linux. Even if IBM is successful now, it will not mean anything. GPL is not being tested and IBM could simply turn around and use the court case to attack other entrants to the Linux world...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:This is bad

[nagora]

IBM, like all large corporations, is simply using its patents to attack others.

What patents are you talking about? This is a copyright case.

TWW

Re:This is bad

[k98sven]

Actually, IBM has raised patent-infringments in their counterclaims.
But that's not what the story was about.. so the original poster is either confused or misinformed.

Re:This is bad

[spitzak]

Although IBM made patent threats in their original claim (and some people here were quite upset by that), the new claim is entirely based on copyright. The general feeling here is that copyrights are good, and technically the GPL requires copyright for legal support.

Anybody who says "but Slashdot users want music for free so they must not like copyright": downloading a copy of song from Metallica without paying is nothing compared to selling Metallica's music for profit and convincing people that you wrote and performed it yourself. This sort of copyright violation is what everybody agrees should be illegal.

I think one single word can sum up IBM's actions..

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

"Checkmate"

Yeah!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Go get em IBM...

Big Blue

[Bendebecker]

SCO: All your Linux belong to us.
IBM: I'm in your face, suing your dudes...
SCO: That's no fair!
IBM: noob

Yeah it's retarded but I am too damn tired to be funny.

Re:Big Blue

[mentatchris]

Three cheers for IBM. Those SCO dudes deserve all they're getting, and probably more. I especially like how the executives are selling all their stock... good to show such confidence in the strength of their case. Worthless and weak.

Mass. opting for open source

[Rock Ridge]

Check this out: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Mass achusetts-Microsoft.html A NY Times (reg. regquired, blah, blah ...) link to an AP story about the state of MA wanting open source software for gov't purposes. This story has been out for hours, I even tried submitting a story to Slashdot, but still nothing. This is another nail in the MS coffin, so get your hammers, gang, and pound away.

Your statement alludes to the presence

[Trigun]

of a good twin. I believe that this is, in and of itself, impossible. Should I be proven wrong, I say we bury him right next to the rest of the family anyways.

Not so fast

[DarkOx]

It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL." --They are on the side of the GPL THIS TIME.

IBM and every other company for the most part does what ever is best for them at the time. If in a later case it is useful and reasonably possible for them to overturn the precedent set in this case they will in a heart beat and take the GPL down with it. Don't get to cocky and happy here folks IP law and IP law suits are *bad* for *everyone*

Re:Not so fast

[rdean400]

Actually, based on every interview I've seen on the subject of open source from IBM in the last 3-4 years, I think their open source strategy is coming down firmly on the side of the GPL, with little chance of backtracking. The amount of code they've contributed to Linux is significant.

Granted, it may be a decision they come to regret later, but they're not going to attack the GPL and undermine the license a lot of their code has been placed under.

Re:Not so fast

[rajafarian]

I would think, however, that someone at IBM must feel a little comfortable thinking that the chance of them getting back-stabbed by the Linux community is near zero.

recall

[pyrrho]

I think SCO might plead stupidity about that part (hopefully not getting away with it), but even so, I think there is another part.

They "indemnified" their current Linux customers. They said, "you go ahead and keep it!" But all the kernel and linux code that SCO doesn't own is there only under GPL. The GPL does not apply for the reason you stated. Those customers cannot have the non-SCO part of linux, but SCO has distributed it to them and told them they can keep it! SCO has therefore violated the GPL even based on the distributions prior to the suit.

SCO would have had to RECALL their Linux distributions!

These guys are too stupid to believe, they are probably just setting up a "but we ARE that stupid" defense for the SEC hearings.

Re:In soviet Russia

[Entrope]

I told my officemate (born in Russia, lived there most of his life) about IBM's "new" counterclaim and the claim by the same spokesman that SCO owns C++. He said that in Soviet Russia, there was a slogan to demonstrate that everything originally came from their country: "Russia is the motherland of the elephant." I think Darl McBride & Co. need a similar slogan: "SCO is the inventor of the elephant."

Speaking of turds....

[Linuxathome]

Darl McBride may be one. But what most upsets me is David Boies, the bigshot lawyer behind SCO, who has turned into one himself. And I quote from this article:

Boies also represented the federal government in its antitrust case against Microsoft, Al Gore in his attempt to win a favorable Florida ruling in the 2000 presidential election, and Napster in its fight to defend its online music-swapping business.

I'm fine with the fact that you were a turd all your life and show it (Darl), but if you weren't and turned to the dark side (David Boies), I have a harder time accepting it.

Re:Speaking of turds....

[kenl999]

Well, given Boies' track record, the Linux community is home free...

Re:Speaking of turds....

[geoffspear]

Well, at least it's encouraging that he didn't manage to actually win any of those cases.

Re:Speaking of turds....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, let's see. Boies tried to steal an election by defending differential recounts under standards designed to artificially inflate the number of Gore votes, worked for a central registry that assisted directly in the illegal distribution of music, and now is trying to seize control of Linux.

Turn to the dark side? Hah. He's been a thief all along, and this is just one more in a string of them.

WTF do you call AIX?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, that OS that IBM already has? The one that they spent a ton of time and money making linux comparable to, just so they could lay off the AIX team and let the open source community maintain their new OS for them for free.

You linux douchebags really need to spend a couple minutes learning about this magical unix thing, instead of just jizzing over a shitty re-implimentation of it.

OT: Linux / Thinkpad question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where can I buy an IBM Thinkpad preloaded with Linux? If I can't, why not?

Get your kernel from SCO now!

[LightSail]

Are copyright violations compensated on the quanitity distributed? We all need to pay a visit to a SCO FTP server for a copy of the kernel. Just a small thank you for IBM!

FYI Ransum finally speaks up

[old-lady-whispering-]

A fresh if not frustrating view into the SCO Vs. IBM case
Ransom love interview
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1300359,00.as p

And I quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL."

Well I don't think that's the case at all. I suspect that the IBM lawyers are useing the GPL because it's convienent to do so and they think it will hold up. Thinking they are on the GPL's side is foolish. What is the GPL's side anyways? Are they on RMS' side? No, the developers? No. They are on IBM's side. It's like an old Star Trek fight, they just want the biggest (legal) club they can find behind the foam rocks.

Anonymous since '83

No effect...

[El]

And at close of business today, SCO stock is down only 2.94 or 17.06%. Seems like that IBM filing didn't have much effect at all... Darl, maybe you should have sold your stock when it was at 20?

Re:No effect...

[El]

In fact, it was only the 6th worst loser on the NASDAQ today... come on, IBM, you can do better than that!

Which unethical bastards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you are a linux fanatic, doesn't change the fact that IBM is one of the most evil, terrible corporations in existance. But hey, its not like knowingly designing systems to more efficiently track and kill jews is even close to the evils of accusing someone of copyright infringment, right?

Re:Which unethical bastards?

[jareds]

Just because you are a linux fanatic, doesn't change the fact that IBM is one of the most evil, terrible corporations in existance. But hey, its not like knowingly designing systems to more efficiently track and kill jews is even close to the evils of accusing someone of copyright infringment, right?

Corporations are amoral. Their actions may be wrong and terrible, but they cannot accrue moral guilt. Only the people responsible can. Any people who might have committed the acts you allege are surely no longer involved with IBM. It is silly to suggest that IBM is evil in perpetuity.

no no no

[Anonymous Coward]

if you had shorted it, it would have gone up today! no need for us techies to start playing the stock market, the karma is all wrong. Remember, only evil wins.

Just kidding.

But don't wash your car either, or it will rain.

But I'm not superstitious --- knock on wood.

Re:SCO validates GPL and erradicates their own cas

[Darth]

except that SCO went with option c)

They claim the right to use and distribute that code without regard to the GPL because all code vaguely associated with an operating system is derived from the UNIX sources and is therefore their property.

In my opinion, the lawyers involved on SCO's side should all be disbarred at the end of the case. They are either incompetent, or knowingly grossly misrepresenting copyright and contract law. Either should result in them never being allowed to practise law in the United States again.
(that's just my opinion, i could be wrong)

Class action suit against SCO?

[darkharlequin]

How many people have actually contributed code to linux? We could get those scum sucking lawyers to go after SCO, for which they get the lion's share of the settlement, and SCO gets a 0 ballance in their bank account. If IBM can claim this, why not the individual developers?

Hip Hip Hooray

[Anonymous Coward]

Three cheers for the fire-breathing IP lawyers!

Hip hip! HOORAY!!

Hip hip! HOORAY!!

Hip hip! HOORAY!!

They'll warez music, games, movies and whatever the fuck-all else they feel like, of course, and then bitch and gripe when the copyright owners try to protect their work.

Oh, and they'll also piss and whine and moan about spam all day, as if there is some difference between someone using the Internet to annoy them while they have 10 downloads of first run movies and games going, annoying hundreds out of their paychecks in the process.

But violate some obscure section of the GPL, and they'll line the streets with banners flying high as the grey-clad IP lawyers march into court to the time of a single field drum.

What tremendous hypocrisy.

He's right

[Anonymous Coward]

16 lawyers is just a platoon.

16 lawyers!!! aaaaaak!

Darl lost almost a million today...

[linuxjack55]

SCOX opened at $17.02. It closed at $14.29.

Between the shares he owns outright and his vested options, the net value of Darl C. McBride's SCOX portfolio dropped from $5,133,293.22 to $4,227,836.85, a one-day fall of $905,456.37.

I was hoping he would break the million-dollar barrier, but a small rally in the last half-hour of trading took the stock above 14.

Which monster is SCO

[pyrrho]

??? Is SCO baby godzilla where you stomp his tail to get fire? after all, he did burn Microsoft last time around the courthouse...?

Or is sco MOTHRA? Ok, I only said that cause I don't remember the names of the other monsters.

Re:Which monster is SCO

[raygundan]

My vote's for the Smog Monster. Mostly hot air, attracted to crap, and if memory serves me, he spends most of his fight with Godzilla pissing himself.

Re:Which monster is SCO

[Lost Penguin]

Which monster is SCO

SCO would be Bambi,

IBM would be Godzilla.

It's a short flick :)

Re:Which monster is SCO

[pyrrho]

you just need to re-edit that so that bambi is cursing up a foul mouthed storm at the world, then, godzilla foot!

Er.. reality check

[gilgongo]

I wouldn't call this being in deep shit.

SCO's market performance should be a reality check for ALL of us (myself included) who oppose them and their actions: the world outside thinks they have been doing the right thing, and has bought their stock because of it.

I point this out so that we get some perspective here. In terms of SCO's business they are not "on crack", "talking shit" etc.

In our little /. universe we have a perspective on the GPL and software "copyright" in general that does NOT necessarily fit with that of the rest of the world.

We need to present more mature arguments against SCO than "blah blah blah and more blah."

Re:Er.. reality check

[Jeremi]

A couple of years ago Enron stock was performing extremely well also... when the public found at that the company was based on lies, the stock value fell immediately to near zero. The only difference between that case and this one is that in this one, the public hasn't figured it out yet.

Re:Er.. reality check

[dfung]

Well, maybe it's just me, but I think the psychology here is along the lines of:

1) SCO asked for the moon, didn't get it but their nuts haven't been blown off yet, so maybe there's something to their claims.

2) A couple of big companies, Microsoft and HP, are willing to pay some bucks to make this problem go away.

3) IBM could grind 'em into the ground, but it's probably more likely that they'll just pay in some bucks too to make this go away.

If #3 follows from #1 and #2, then an investor might buy SCO on the hopes that they either get a license payment from IBM or IBM just goes ahead and buys SCO.

I think a lot of the mind game here is not based on merit but on how the big game is played (actually, that's sort of what you were saying).

As Perens and others have said, there are lots of people who have both sets of source code and know how serious the infraction is. The Linux community can solve the violation via rewrite, but I'm not sure that even that makes SCO's claims of damages go away for the guys who made revenue selling Linux systems.

I'm in agreement with your posting, and I wonder if the market reaction is sort of like the classic hooker joke - you already know what's going to happen and this is just the way to bicker on the price.

Re: Er.. reality check

[Black Parrot]

> SCO's market performance should be a reality check for ALL of us (myself included) who oppose them and their actions: the world outside thinks they have been doing the right thing, and has bought their stock because of it.

No, it only means someone thinks the stock is worth buying. That may be clueless home traders who think of the investment as a lottery ticket, or it may be insiders/puppetmasters who can afford to spill cash to keep the prices up. (See the comments about "thinly traded stock" elsewhere under this story.)

Have some compassion, guys!

[FFFish]

I, like all of you, have had great fun participating in the sport of Darl-bashing. Frankly, it was just too easy and too amusing to pass up.

But I've had a sudden realization, and I must confess that I'm now rather embarassed at my behaviour, for the truth is this:

Darl McBride must surely be a mental retard. I see no other viable explanation for his actions.

Which means that I've been picking on the handicapped, and that's just unacceptable. I'm terribly embarassed. I didn't realize at first, honest!

Darl, if you're reading this, I apologise. I'm not going to say nasty things about you any more. You have my compassion and pity.

Re:SCO validates GPL and erradicates their own cas

[anthony_dipierro]

Yeah, it's even in my signature.

To sum up:

[Anonymous Coward]

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! SCO reminds me of my brother and I fighting over something. What do we get? I pictured an IBM semi-trailer rumbling down the highway, with an SCO chicken (looked like Darl with feathers) standing at the other end of a straight, squaking furiously at the oncoming behemoth. The chicken doesn't stand a chance. Fuck off, McBride.

This Comment was generated with the Comment-O-Matic for SCO Stories.

A Summary?

[inaeldi]

Does anyone know of a timeline summary of all the lawsuits going on regarding SCO? There's so many lawsuits that I'm getting confused, and I don't really want to search through thousands of archived Slashdot stories.

But has an injunction been requested?

[ErikTheRed]

More importantly, does anyone have a copy of the lawsuit or know if IBM is seeking a preliminary injunction? This case, like most lawsuits, will probably take at least three years to run its course, however, a preliminary injunction could show (nearly) immediate results...

Re:But has an injunction been requested?

[The Analog Kid]

I believe IBM is seeking an injunction on UnixWare and OpenServer, because it infringes on patents that IBM owns.

Re:But has an injunction been requested?

[Stephen Samuel]

More importantly, does anyone have a copy of the lawsuit or know if IBM is seeking a preliminary injunction?

Grocklaw has Two different articles on the IBM countersuit. The first one has a pointer to the counterclaim pdf (apparently on the SCO site). The second describes what they've done differently.

IBM is definitely seeking (an) injunction(s) against SCO. Reading the new counterclaim, I don't see any signs that they're seeking a preliminary injunction. I don't know that this necessarily precludes their filing for a preliminary injunction. The motion for a preliminary injunction would be a separate act.

Re:Someone needs to do a lawsuit flowchart

[Anonymous Coward]

MC Escher, that would be a good name for a rock band.

Re:Mod Parent Up: +4 Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, we don't care about the money, anyway, do we?

The current SCO bosses are in this just for teh money. They want to recoup whatever it is they think is owed to them. The only way to make them back off and retract their allegations is to hit them where it hurts(pocketbook). I think whatever money is recouped from damages SCO has made against linux developers and companies should be put into some sort of linux advertising and/or anti-fud campaign fund to educate companies and businesses that linux is the right business model and SCO's isn't. And I'm not just talking about advertising on linux or opensource sights but get linux mentioned more positively in the general press(newspapers, network news, non oriented computer press publications)

Re:Someone needs to do a lawsuit flowchart

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

Or with a TARDIS.

Boies did NOT, repeat NOT lost the Microsoft case!

[Anonymous Coward]

As the government's lawyer, Boies won the case against Microsoft, and his cross-examination of Microsoft's witnesses was legendary. See here, for one example. Choice quote:

During one of Kempin's stickier moments of cross-examination, Boies caught him contradicting an answer to a question he had asked the Microsoft exec 10 minutes earlier. Boise wanted to know if a huge manufacturer such as Acer or Gateway could feature a browser other than their own and that of Microsoft. Netscape's, for instance. "Yes," Kempin said. "If they want to list a third browser, that's O.K. They can do that."

Trouble was, moments before, Kempin had said the Microsoft license agreement "doesn't allow that."

He is one of the best lawyers around, period. I have no idea what made him think he could win this case, though.

lets see the goods...

[joebeone]

someone please post the PDF of this court document... we could all use it!

Re:lets see the goods...

[Newsome]

The funny thing is that SCO actually did it themselves this time. It's here at their IBM lawsuit web page (which they had't updated since June).

Enjoy!

Tying your allegiance..

[tjwhaynes]

"It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL."

No, they are not on the side of the GPL; they are on IBM's side. It just so happens that, currently, that IBM and the GPL have a common interest.

But consider this. Having placed themselves on the side of the GPL and by litigating against another company using the GPL license, it makes it nearly impossible for IBM (or any other company) to ever turn around and disregard the GPL. This will set legal precedent in stone. If IBM didn't want that precedent, it would not be pursuing this line of action.

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

IBM's OS Holdings

[jmpnz]

I wouldn't count AIX (since it is a Unix/BSD variant), but there are a few others:
OS400
OS/2
z/OS
VSE/ESA
ooh and don't forget PCDOS!

Re:IBM's OS Holdings

[Anonymous Coward]

and
VM ("z/VM" if you must)
and
TPF (isn't that what airline reservation systems run on?)

A Better Obigatory Matrix Quote

[EXTomar]

But wouldn't a much better obligatory Matrix quote be:

I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid... afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and then show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you. A world without rules or controls, borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.

IBM will win

[f00duvoodu]

If this case goes to court without settlement then ibm will win. Not just because they have a large amount of lawyers and alot of money. But because if the gpl is considered invalid than technically all opensource licenses are in the same boat. And think about the repercussion's that would cause. Lets look at BSD alone, who all is using bsd? while everyone knows apple is, so is MS. I doubt MS wants bsd license to become invalid so MS has no choice but to support the gpl in this. Why you may ask. Because if all the licenses become invalid only one of two things happen. either all code goes back to originating owner striped from all who use it. Or all code becomes public domain. And there are alot of companies including MS who would never want to see that happen. Laugh this is really funny because MS really has no choice but to support the GPL and linux in this case even though they dont want to.

Kernel programmers NEED to do this

[nagora]

It's been mentioned before, but it's worth repeating that if you have copyright on any of the code SCO are stealing you need to be seen to be doing something about it; at least sending them a legal letter notifying them of the breach. Otherwise, you're telling a judge and jury you've yet to meet that your copyright is worthless to you, so why should they care if it's broken?

TWW

Alternative quote from Backdraft

[rbird76]

Do you see that blinking red light, Mr. McBride? That's your career dissipation light, and it's going full blast.

Re:Kernel source ripoff

[Avihson]

Did you post your source code as Anonymous coward also? If so maybe all the other driver coders did also!

Re:I want my money

[terminal.dk]

I have contributed bug fixes and ideas to quite a few OSS projects over the years, so I most likely have the copyright to some of the code SCO distributes.

Maybe I should just write them, demanding $1 for each copy of my intellectual property they have sold :)

MOD PARENT UP!

[Wiz]

This is a totally pointless post... but I just love the parent post! Too cool.

If that timeframe is right...

[dmacdonald]

..then look at the volume spike and subsequent sharp dive in price just after 11 am.

Looks like somebody had inside info that this was coming and dumped a load of shares.

A short period of rebound followed, then at 11:48 the shit really hit the fan (those aren't freckles in Darl McBride's most recent photo folks).

Re:Kernel source ripoff

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The point is, if I would post my name here then I would get a lot of bad credit from the community regardless of the fact that this may be true or false. I only protect myself here. Why don't you go and compare a lot of driver code yourself, say from Linux 2.0.x -> 2.6.x and you figure out that a bunch of drivers lost headerfiles and copyright notices and made more Linux'ish from codestyle.

Re:Speaking of turds.... (Boies)

[Corporate Drone]

Umm... so, that means that he's 0-2-1?

U.S. v Microsoft (draw -- Bush administration lost interest)

Gore v Florida (lost)

Napster (lost)

You know, though, where's the evidence that he's turned "to the dark side"? He's a lawyer -- he's simply a paid advocate. The fact that you're against M$, for Gore, and for Napster doesn't imply that he is, as well...

Now this lawsuit IS about copyright

[worldcitizen]

SCOX has been babbling that this issue is about copyright.

Yet, their court filings didn't mention copyright.

Now this lawsuit points to the true violators of copyright and copyleft!

Glad to see SCOX a couple of $$$ down, looking forward to the day they're in the pink sheets or delisted

----------
Disclaimer 1: This is my opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of my employer
Disclaimer 2: I'm short SCOX

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I want my money

[kfg]

Ah, but therein lies the rub. They refuse to sell you a copy.

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:Gl8qNivqh7I J: www.caldera.com/products/scolinuxserver/+SCO+linux &hl=en&start=2&ie=UTF-8

Sorry for the Google link, but I refuse to actually vist their site.

These weasels aren't domesticated and haven't had their scent glands removed. They stink like a skunk.

They claim the right to charge a license fee for your code, but then refuse anyone attempting to purchase such a license, thus retaining the right to argue that they haven't misappropriated your code because they haven't distributed it.

It all fits neatly into their FUD campaign though, since most people don't know this is what's going on. If they get to court the judge will damn well find out though. He's not likely to be pleased with SCO's tactics.

SCO is actually making what amount to superhuman legal efforts to avoid going to court. Hence the counter-suits to force the issue.

Note that Red Hat has not sued them for copyright violation. Only for making false statements harmful to their business. Because SCO has not actually sold a copy of their Linux distro under propriatary license.

IBM is taking the artillery to the fore.IBM is the only one SCO is actually taking action against. The rest is just talk. It's almost enough to make me join the Union Army. Ah, wait, the Colonial forces dressed in blue as well.

I think I'll retain my position in the Green Mountain boys though and just run supporting harassing actions.

KFG

Re:Speaking of turds.... (Boies)

[Minna Kirai]

He's a lawyer -- he's simply a paid advocate.

"Paid"? He's not on retainer. Boies is working on contingency. His only payday will be a percentage of the award, IF they win.

And as you've seen from his record, he doesn't win the big cases.

Wrong time frame...asshole

[Anonymous Coward]

We are talking in the 80s, when IBM was shoving OS/2 down people's throats, not Windows 95 and Warp.

Please, I understand you know nothing about computing history, but most people back in the mid to late 80s, viewed IBM as evil, and Microsoft as good.

Times changed, and now the roles are reversed.

Please, learn something.

Re:Wrong time frame...asshole

[jelle]

While I agree that IBM was then the big and well hated monopoly player of the era in the computer business, it hardly had anything to do with OSs for PCs, but much more with hardware, networks, micro's, mainframes, big disks, etc.

Re:Wrong time frame...asshole

[swillden]

We are talking in the 80s, when IBM was shoving OS/2 down people's throats, not Windows 95 and Warp.

No, we're talking about when "MSFT crushed OS/2", which didn't happen until the early to mid 90s, depending on your definition of "crushed". It certainly didn't happen until after MS bailed on the joint development project in 1990.

Please, learn something.

Please, learn to read the posts you're responding to.

There, I've fed my troll for the day.

DMCA takedown.

[faedle]

Will somebody please who has GPLed code that is not in the kernel, but commonly found in Linux distributions send their ISP a DMCA takedown notice? Please?

Re:I want my money

[Newsome]

Sorry for the Google link, but I refuse to actually vist their site.

Yeah, it sure would stink if they somehow got slashdotted.

Sort of like Dan Marino

[Anonymous Coward]

"He is one of the best lawyers around, period. "

Who has lost every big case.

Oh yes, even the MS case... it was all overturned on appeals.

So this guy has a good rep based on something that was overturned?

THat's a good one!

Re:Sort of like Dan Marino

[Anonymous Coward]

It was not ALL overturned on appeal. The findings of fact were NOT overturned, and they showed that Microsoft had abused its monopoly position. That's the part that Boies won, and it's still as valid as ever.

The punishment was overturned because Judge Penfield Jackson was an ass and spoke to reporters about the case while it was still going on. The punishment was remanded to a different judge. By this time, he Bush DOJ had thrown in the towel and settled for a wrist slap (by this time, Boies was off the case).

Boies lost the Napster case because Napster was making money off of others' copyrighted works and blatantly infrigning the copyright. He lost the Bush case because the SCOTUS was stacked against him. Any law student could've beaten Boies, or any other lawyer, in these cases.

ObSimpsons

[sharkey]

Darl, I'll let you sleep on the couch in my basement.

Do you know what Radon is?

A nasty trick IBM could play.

[wowbagger]

Submitted for your approvial:

Item: IBM has accused SCO of violating copyright.
Item: DMCA allows a copyright holder to demand an infringing website be shut down, by the ISP if needed, within 24 hours IIRC.

Scenario: 36 hours before SCO's next conference call, IBM makes a DMCA demand. Thus, during the conference call, SCO's web site is down.

Question: what effect would that have on the investors in SCO?

Re:A nasty trick IBM could play.

[dcavanaugh]

"Question: what effect would that have on the investors in SCO?"

You really have to wonder just what would register with SCO investors. That said, DMCA is surely an option. To me, it's mostly a one-shot weapon, to be used at a strategically chosen moment. Perhaps IBM would like to join BSA and launch a raid on SCO headquarters!

Meanwhile, A SCO Executive Commented ...

[the_mushroom_king]

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." - Gen. Isoroku Yamamoto of Japan commenting after the attack on Pearl Harbor in WW II.

-- TMK

Big Blue's our big friend now

[Ricin]

Just wait

Looks like bait for a trap

[Dav3K]

There are still some things that do not add up for me. One of those things is SCO's continued distribution of GPLed code on their site, even after every tech/geek site has raved about how this is in violation. They obviously know that doing so would open them up to this type of action - even if the execs were oblivious to the fact (and I hardly think that is the case here, despite the 'creative' press releases) the sys admins would surely know to take it down to cover their asses.

So why leave it up? Because they WANT this kind of lawsuit. Why would they want it? Because they want to kill the GPL once and for all, and hopefully take Linux along with it.

What I haven't pieced together yet is how they think they can pull this off.

Re:Looks like bait for a trap

[Anonymous Coward]

They have to... to provide the source code for -their- customers who want it (Those who bought Caldera Linux) to satisfy the GPL. I'm guessing they hope to defend themselves by not giving anyone -quite- a good enough reason to claim they have violated the GPL. Even though they've been trodding so close to the line for some time.

Re:Looks like bait for a trap

[Stephen Samuel]

One of those things is SCO's continued distribution of GPLed code on their site, even after every tech/geek site has raved about how this is in violation.

SCO's actions against/about Linux have left them in something of a legal bind: When they sold Linux to their previous customer base, they sold service contracts to them.These service contracts bound SCO to release updates for Caldera Linux for a period of time. Given their claims that they made about Linux, the only really appropriate thing for them to do would have been to refund the purchace/support price of the software that they sold, and stop distributing Linux, but that solution would have left them in a financial bind, and would have caused their stock to nose-dive (not what they wanted).

Their second condrum was the GPL itself. The GPL may have required them to make a promise to keep the source code available for 2 years. This requirement would have only come into being, however, if they distributed copies of Caldera linux in binary-only format. If they distributed the source with the binaries, then that requirement wouldn't stand.

Nonetheless, SCO has also continued to distribute binary copies of their update RPMS. This would actually be necessary to keep up the facade of owning Linux but it's clearly in violation of the GPL given that they're now attempting to limit distribution of Linux with their legal shenanigans.

So the quick answer is that they're continuing to distribute Linux because it's in their short-term financial interest. Given that they probably know that they're going to get their butt kicked in court, I don't think that they're seriously worrying about the long term implications.

NO NO NO! Your cast is all wrong

[whittrash]

It would be a feature movie. The cast would go like this.

Bill Gates = the voice of Optimus Prime

Darl McBride = Christopher Walkin "I don't understand Wwhat! Is the problem...here."

SCO Lawyer - Boies = John Travolta (the fat version sitting with bridged hands in a leather chair)"Elegant, isn't it."

Linus = Victoria Silvestedt (shes such a great actor, I lover her work, but she won't talk the whole show but will be in every scene)

Linux developers = Jack Black and the Mountain Dew guys (comic relief)

ESR/Perens = Nick Nolte, Michael Ironsides (pissed off and dramatic) Nolte: "Well damnit, this is bullshit, how much longer do I have to take this crap." Ironsides: "They (the aliens) sucked his brains out! Theres your problem."

The Intrepid Reporter = Nicholas Cage (the narrator eye for the story with his bad southern accent in Conair mode)

IBM CEO = Ian Mckellen (Gandalf)"This foe is beyond any of you.""Ahh, there it is, the air isn't as foul this way, when in doubt, always follow your nose."

IBM Lawyer = Samuel L. Jackson "We need shotguns for this job"

The Judge = Puppet Yoda(not CGI) or Grover "Begun this SCO war has", "now matters are worse"

The Jury = Chasey Lain and a pole "Oh yes, yes yes, Oh god, YES."

Director= Ridley Scott

TITLE: Project Monterey

Reserve quagmire for our troops

[Anonymous Coward]

quandary, dilemma, predicament, plight, tight corner, muddle, entanglement, involvement, imbroglio, impasse, stalemate

This doesn't really hurt SCO

[geekee]

If SCO wins their case against IBM, that will pretty much invalidate the GPL for Linux, at least in respect to IBM contributions. If they lose, they're going out of business anyway, so losing this case won't make any difference.

Re:This doesn't really hurt SCO

[caillon]

> If SCO wins their case against IBM, that will pretty much invalidate the GPL for Linux, at least in respect to IBM contributions.

I don't see how SCO winning defeats the GPL. IANAL, but AFAICT, the point upon which SCO's case relies upon is whether proprietary code owned by SCO was put into the linux source by IBM without permission. The GPL provides safety against that with...

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.

...and if they win the case, it would potentially reinforce that section of the GPL. It seems to me that IBM is trying to get SCO on clause 7 which says...

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.

Also, don't forget that many contracts tend to follow that if one thing is found by a court to be illegal, the rest of the contract shall remain in full effect. So it seems to me that IBM's suit does have some merit. It may be possible that one portion is found to be illegal, while other portions stand. It should be fun to watch this pan out.

Re:This doesn't really hurt SCO

[spitzak]

If SCO "wins" they will have to reveal where the infringing code is so that it can be removed. After providing this information, they can legally go after any Linux distributor who refuses to remove the infringing code now that it has been identified. They can also go after the original copyright infringer (perhaps IBM).

However in no way will SCO winning invalidate the GPL.

Re:This doesn't really hurt SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how SCO winning defeats the GPL. IANAL, but AFAICT, the point upon which SCO's case relies upon is whether proprietary code owned by SCO was put into the linux source by IBM without permission. The GPL provides safety against that with....

WTF is up with all the acronyms?

Little Solace Boise facing Ethics charges

[bstadil]

The Boise scumbag is facing Ethics violations in Florida.

I am always taken back when lawyers talk about Ethics, but I guess it has to be understood in a Arbeit Macht Frei sense

Re:Little Solace Boise facing Ethics charges

[hsmyers]

Might want to check the connections on your fingers, thats Boies not 'Boise'! one is an asshole the other a city...

A plea for help

[Anonymous Coward]

A group of SCO executives is being held hostage by a terrorist organization. The terrorists are threatening to burn the SCO executives alive if their demand of ten million dollars for the release of each SCO exec is not met.

We are requesting a donation from anyone that cares about the issue and no amount is too small.

So far we have received two Zippo lighters, three boxes of matches, twenty gallons of unleaded gasoline and a can of kerosene. Please contribute to alleviate the sutuation.

Re:SCO validates GPL and erradicates their own cas

[Free_Meson]

In my opinion, the lawyers involved on SCO's side should all be disbarred at the end of the case. They are either incompetent, or knowingly grossly misrepresenting copyright and contract law.

First off, it's the SCO executives that are causing all of these problems, not their lawyers. Lawyers are bound by their code of ethics to advance the interests of their clients to the greatest extent allowed by the law. So long as SCO's lawyers are giving SCO sound legal advice (such as "Don't do this, you'll lose") I have no problem with them and neither should you. Furthermore, as I understand the way the legal system works, SCO's lawyers can't be sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit on SCO's behalf. If you think about it, you'll agree that this is a key component to a working legal system. If (for example) the Mechanized Frog Corporation cuts off my arm and I want to sue them because, hey, I don't have an arm then I need to be able to find a laywer to represent me. If the MFC can just use their lawyers to sue any lawyer I hire out of business then I effectively have no legal protections, which is bad.

Re:SCO validates GPL and erradicates their own cas

[91degrees]

c) SCO says that the GPL is valid, but their behaviour does not violate it since random legal jargon under clause 13.3(b) subsection 2.1.4a(31.7).

Declaratory judgment == No court for GPL?

[eddy]

The new complaint allegedly asks for declaratory judgment, which I presume would cover the whole she-bang, in which case the GPL would not get to go to court, no?.

Re:Declaratory judgment == No court for GPL?

[siskbc]

The new complaint allegedly asks for declaratory judgment, which I presume would cover the whole she-bang, in which case the GPL would not get to go to court, no?.

Maybe. I don't see defending the GPL as IBM's main goal here - they seem to be using it as *a* weapon in their arsenal. But you're right, if they win the judgement, no court on that angle.

Also, I believe those sorts of judgements are rare. It's frequently filed in cases like this, just as SCO will then move to dismiss. So there's a good chance that IBM would continue going after them after losing declaratory.

Re:Declaratory judgment == No court for GPL?

[danoatvulaw]

The new complaint allegedly asks for declaratory judgment, which I presume would cover the whole she-bang, in which case the GPL would not get to go to court, no?.

Actually, the issue of the GPL will go to trial regardless of any declaratory relief given. IBM in counterclaim 6 claims breach of contract. This issue will be need to be litigated to determine the extent of any breach by SCO, and in the process SCO will undoubtedly attack the GPL as a defense. So in my opinion, there will be some portion of the trial dedicated to the GPL and its scope and enforeceability. However, since less than 2% of all cases actually go to trial, the odds are that this will settle in some manner.

note that this is just the opinion of a law student, not a lawyer.

OS/2 is dying

[yerricde]

OK, what OS developed and published by IBM is in wide use on home computers? I'm guessing OS/2 on the desktop is less widespread than GNU/Linux on the desktop, and it's not even close to one proprietary BSD.

Home computers are important because somebody trained on Windows at home is going to want to use Windows at work.

Re:SCO validates GPL and erradicates their own cas

[Malcontent]

Can the lawyer be sued for deliberately misrepresenting the law in public forums and articles? In other words does the lawyer have a reasponsibility to the legal system not to lie about what a certain law says.

I ask this because the SCO lawyers have said the GPL is invalid because fair use says you can only make one copy while the GPL says you can make as many copies as you want.

Now I am not a lawyer but I know this guy is lying. Not only is he lying but he is confusing copyrights with licences.

Can the American Bar association do anything to this lawyer who is either dumber then a rock or clearly unethical?

IBM had no shoice

[ozzee]

If IBM did not add this claim, it would have diminished claims it made in an earlier filing.

Note that earlier IBM had filed that SCO was in violation becuase it had shipped the code it was saying that had been illegally added.

What would happen if the judge had asked IBM, "if this is the case where is this code that you claim you wrote that is now being shipped by SCO and why are you not screaming about it ?".

I think they are just dotting 'i's. They have full intention of involking the GPL.

More than rumor, it seems...

[Anonymous Coward]

> and if the rumors are true, they've backported Linux code into their proprietary Unixes).

It has been rumor for some time, mostly due to a strangely parallel explosion of identical device support in Unixware 7. But no longer rumore, it is now a specific legal complaint by IBM against SCO. And, knowing IBM, they surely have a bit or two of evidence. From the amended complaint...

33. The viability of SCO's product ... Indeed, SCO incorporated certain code licensed pursuant to the GPL into its proprietary Unix products. ...

Re:SCO validates GPL and erradicates their own cas

[Darth]

First off, it's the SCO executives that are causing all of these problems, not their lawyers.

for the most part, this is a fair point. I shouldnt hold their lawyers accountable for the company's press releases. However, if they do actually try to use this tactic in court, that is all on the lawyers.

Also, it is not entirely SCO execs saying this stuff. The misrepresentation of copyright law from a couple weeks ago came from Mark Heise who is an associate at the law firm representing SCO. That is all on him (and by extension, his law firm).

Lawyers are bound by their code of ethics to advance the interests of their clients to the greatest extent allowed by the law.

lawyers can also drop a client when they have irreconcilable ethical problems with them. Of course, the only lawyer trying to drop their client i can think of right now is Leslie Abramson, who tried to drop the Menendez brothers after causing a mistrial in their first trial. (Interestingly, her ethical dilemma with their case coincided with the point at which they ran out of money. (the judge did not allow her to remove herself as their lawyer and she ended up having to represent them for free from that point on, if i recall correctly))
(that btw was just an aside and not necessarilly relevant. i should probably delete it, but i'll leave it in just for fun.)

Furthermore, as I understand the way the legal system works, SCO's lawyers can't be sued for filing a frivolous lawsuit on SCO's behalf.

as i understand the law, that is correct but not relevant. a lawyer who brings a frivolous suit to court can be punished by the court and the bar association. This is what i was referring to. I never said anything about lawyers being sued for bringing a case to court.

If you think about it, you'll agree that this is a key component to a working legal system. If (for example) the Mechanized Frog Corporation cuts off my arm and I want to sue them because, hey, I don't have an arm then I need to be able to find a laywer to represent me. If the MFC can just use their lawyers to sue any lawyer I hire out of business then I effectively have no legal protections, which is bad.

i absolutely agree that that would be bad. however, it is not what i was suggesting.

Unsure

[pyrrho]

I'm not sure your point, you might be correct in that there are ways to commingle the two, the easiest being, do whatever you want to the code, just never release it, and there are no limitations. In that case the code you got was GPLed, the code you created is not, and it's undistributable.

My comment was about a distributor like SCO, and in the clearest way to make my point (good or bad) is to quote the section of the GPL that leads me to think this. It's below.

>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.

They had to

[bert33]

SCO had to keep distributing the kernel in order to honor their service contracts. If they had voided all their Linux service contracts the stock would have dropped, making it a non-option.

Prediction.

[Anonymous Coward]

Richard Stallman will write an amicus curae about IBM's revised counterclaims in which the "Linux Operating System" is mentioned. He will suggest that it should be titled the GNU/Linux operating system, because it is the unification of the Linux kernel and the family of GNU utilities.

humor, man... it's humor.

How original

[Anonymous Coward]

That almost would have been funny 3 years ago.

I think SCO is being a "good guy".

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember back when SCO/Caldara muttered about bringing AT&T Unix and Linux together into one big, happy, free, OS? (Well, more or less).

Now, they have these pesky contracts that include an NDA. Right? Because of these NDA's doling out Unix V was a legal problem. Licencees, like Sun and HP, would surely object that SCO was destroying their market in malice and breach of the NDA (SCO claims the NDA would be breached even in defending the release of any infringed code).

Ok, follow along here...

So they wack a bunch of GPL code into the AT&T codebase, and call it Unixware 7. But, nobody seems to care. After all, the code is secret and the community isn't so much about suing people.

So SCO starts making brash statements about IP ownership, NDAs, psudo-infringement, Linux, ad nausium, and ends up going after who? Well, of all the god forsaken choices in this world... IBM.

And, SCO's does an "oops" when it comes to that whole GPL distibution thing. In all probability nuking their case beyond compare. Just in case there was any doubt whatsoever in the judge's mind.

Now during discovery and the course of the case, SCO knows the fact they wacked endless lines of Linux into Unixware 7 -- and made large distribution of Unixware7 -- will come to light.

And, knowing the GPL is damn near bulletproof on its face...

SCO will be found to have breached the GPL and rendered all of Unixware 7, as distributed, subject to it.

Presto! The AT&T codebase is found to have been GPLed and SCO can't be held in breach by the licensee's. SCO got "greedy", SOP for American business, and caught. How sad for them. The licensees' will likely retain secrecy to their copies, but one copy of the code tree will be forked by the court and released pursuant to the GPL.

Hey, Business 101. If it turns out this way, and it just might, Business 101 dictates SCO "declare victory". Obviously, this was their plan all along!

Smokin' Crack

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that crack has a real sweet high--that is altogether too short lived. The crash is a bitch. Enjoy what you got McBride, you going down!

Love letter from Bill Gates to McBride

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh baby oh bay your pants are on fire.
Come on over and do me over.
Big Blue is gonna crush our fud
Ah let this nite last for crud.

IBM is asking for a declaratory judgement!

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

The IBM steamroller just got on the fast track.

Not only are they charging infringement of IBM's copyrights (several listed, with record numbers) they are asking for a declaratory judgement (another put up or shut up permanently request). Page 36 ...

And on Page 37, IBM reminds the court that there IS a controversy between IBM and SCO on these issues. (SCO can't try to weeezle out of the request for declaratory judgement like they did RedHat's)

SCO is SCOrewed!

Re:NO NO NO! Your cast is all wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is Natalie Portman?

I was promised Natalie Portman!

Hurry! buy more SCO stock!

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO is going to at least double in value after this anouncement.

All news are good news? Or something like that.

This may be redundant

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's posted here so it'll show up in your comments page as a reply.

The document you are looking for is here. [pdf link]

Re:hostage situation - from how many 1000 feet?

[Anonymous Coward]

From how many 1000 feet are they planning on releasing them?

Yup.

[mindstrm]

Thought of it yesterday. Great idea.

The only problem is nobody sells options on sco.

You need to read the article again

[bstadil]

(Judge) Saris declined to get into the complexities of the GPL

IBM's lawyers are on the side of the GPL?

[satyap]

Er, no, they're on *IBM*'s side.

Grammatical error.

[MoronGames]

IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL

Should be:

IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers are on the side of the GPL

Thank you for your time!

Re:Grammatical error.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, oddly enough the Slashdot editors have their grammar right for once. Plural lawyers, yes, but singular legion.

I bet there's a grammatical error somewhere in this post. I just know it.

Re:Grammatical error.

[Alex_Ionescu]

I have a lot of free time on my hand to reply to this I guess.

Your correction is incorrect. We are talking about IBM's legion, which is a singular entitiy.

Re:Grammatical error.

[Alex_Ionescu]

Great, I just HAD to misspell "entity"...

naive

[pyrrho]

I think you are mistaken. I have heard that line of reason.

However, if the BSA comes and finds unlicenced software, they are not bound to find out where you got it. They KNOW that was an illegal distribution.

The point is, there is no laundering of blame so that down stream it's fine to have/use the unlicensed code.

It's like stolen property. The crime is in stealing, but it's also a crime to possess stolen property. You might not get in trouble if it was an "accident", but you better give the property back and don't wait until the crook gives you a refund.

The law governing copyright is totally different from that, but the enforcement and interpretation is the same.

If you got it by illegal (unlicensed) means, you cannot continue to posses/use the material. There was no right for distribution... so there is no way for you to legally possess it.

SCO is distributing 2.4.13, maybe others

[billstewart]

I downloaded 2.4.13 from SCO a month or so ago. Their main assertion has been that IBM's additions to newer Linux versions, I think by 2.4.19(?), are what violates IBM's licenses, and they could continue to distribute 2.4.13 without jeopardizing that. It interferes with their FUD campaign a bit, but doesn't break either their lawsuit positions or (presumably) their contracts.

On the other hand, the code they showed other people in Greek fonts which they claimed was an exact copy of Unix code that they own included a BSD version of malloc(), which says they've pretty much toasted their ability to distribute or copy just about anything since Linus adopted the GPL (or since Linus included the BSD-like malloc(), whichever came second.)

So they're in a maze of twisty little self-contradictory statements, all different. (Oh, wait, adventure was in V7 or at least 4.1BSD, which makes this parody a derivative work? Arrrrgh!)

Good money

[billstewart]

"Money that's freely copyable and includes source code for the printable image".

"Free, like in beer".

SCO/IBM/GNU/BSD/X/LINUX

[billstewart]

The BSD and X Windows parts are important. After all, you're not just trying to annoy RMS, you're trying to trip up SCO's lawyers, who don't really understand the issues that were quasi-resolved by the AT&T vs. BSD lawsuits or the technology involved in them, and don't appear to have a very deep understanding of any of the research IBM or companies it had bought did that they implemented in a Unix operating system environment.

SCO stocks are going down :)

[ArcticCelt]

Haaaa finally sco stocks are going down. In the last couple of months uninformed stupid investors where boosting the price of sco by buying the stocks that the high ranking employees where selling like crazy. I hope this is the beginning of a ride to hell. Since the beginning of this week SCO lost the quarter of its value. Hope panic will ensue on monday...

IN OTHER NEWS.....

[linkdead]

SCO has recently announced a lawsuit against major keyboard makers on ground that they have proof of having pateneted the spacebar.

TocomplywiththisIshallnolongerusespacesfortheres to fthispost.Thankyou.

Height of hurdle

[bstadil]

Your comment is about as valid as saying that making the hurdle someone has to cross 5 feet or 10 feet does not matter, as they will land on either side anyway.

software

[pyrrho]

The GPL is irrelevant because it expressly doesn't apply.

It's just copyright. And it's clear as day that when the BSA comes knocking on the door, they don't have to go after the distributor, they can just go after you, why? You are using unlicensed, copyrighted, material. And that is exactly what GPL software is the moment it's shown the GPL doesn't apply.

The GPL is untested in court, we don't know what interpetation will win the day. But copyright law is clear. You cannot POSSESS copyrighted material, and this prohibition is accomplished by making it illegal to distribute.

For the logic used in the law this is sufficient. There was no legal way for you to recieve a distribution... that doesn't mean you keep it... it means you NEVER OFFICIALLY DID RECEIVE A DISTRIBUTION. The distribution event is null. You don't have the code.

As for being able to make a copy. Make a copy if you like to still be in violation and take your chance. But the judge will expect you to follow an order. Besides, the point is not that SCO could really ensure the code was recalled, but it could call for that. Instead it's sanctioned use of unlicensed code, namely it's linux distribution.

It seems to me you honestly think that it's legally OK to have "pirated" software, as if you could only be caught in the act of CD copying, you're free and clear afterwards. No court will interpret the law this way.

Re:software

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying that you would have to be caught in the act; there may be other ways to determine whether the act occured. I am, however, saying that 'mere possession' of an illegaly copied (by someone) work is not itself an legal offense. Copyright law allows for 'impoundment' of such copies in certain cases, but this is specifically when the damage caused by the illegal copying might be to some extent reversed as a result of impoundment. And even in such cases, the possession is still no legal offense, it's just that you might be ordered by a judge to remit the material. Your post seems a bit confusing to me. It seems obvious that possession and distribution are two separate things, and a person could easily posess a work without distributing the work. If this is the case, then how can copyright law, as you claim, accomplish a prohibition against possession merely by prohibiting distribution? Sure, something illegal must have happened in order for me to possess an unauthorized copy, but *I* don't have to be the one that did it. So unless possession itself is illegal (which it's not, and I challenge you to show me from the Copyright Act or it's amendments that it is) the possibility seems to be wide open for legal possession of unauthorized copies. The fact that impoundment *might* occur does not erase the fact that there was still legal possession of unauthorized copies. At most it would limit the duration of such a circumstance.

Re:software

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, your BSA example is faulty. If the business had receipts or licenses for all their copies, but the BSA claimed that their distributer had illegally obtained them, then the BSA *would* have to go after the distributer. Once they had made their case against the distributer, they could request that a judge order the impoundment of the copies, and then the business would need to comply. If, on the other hand, the business did not have receipts (licenses, etc.) for all of their copies, then infringement (or bad bookkeeping, which is legally going to work out just the same in this case) obviously occured within the business, meaning that the business itself was the 'distributor' of the unauthorized copies. So the BSA would be, in either case, going after the distributor.

Re:software

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore Part II: The GPL denies that it grants, or needs to grant, any license to use GPL'd software. It does so in the following sentences of Section 0 of the GPL:

"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program)."

So, if you need any kind of license to run (or by implication possess) the program, then you are really screwed, because the GPL is not that license! So you apparently have no right to run GPL'd software, though, strangely, you do have the right to distribute it.

In the Preamble the GPL states:

"We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software."

You make it out that step 1 denies you the right to possess or run the software without a license, yet you can hardly argue that step 2 grants you such a license, especially in the face of the first quotation, which expressly denies this. So, you must be wrong about the implications of step 1, which is simply Copyright. Either that, or you've found an incredibly gaping hole in the GPL that leaves all users of GPL'd software open to a jillion lawsuits.

Re:software

[pyrrho]

Copyright law allows for 'impoundment' of such copies in certain cases, but this is specifically when the damage caused by the illegal copying might be to some extent reversed as a result of impoundment.

As it would in this case. Impoundment is the only way, SCO knows who it's customers are and believes it's own legal arguments, therefore needs to take such steps as to stop the violation.

Now about finding law that says this, I don't need to do this. I've heard this argument before and it's akin to another based in the truth, the argument that income taxes are voluntary. The argument is a technical detail.

The reality is people do get fines and other punishment for possessing unlicenced IP. Don't they?

And all I'm saying is that once it's found out you have illegally distributed IP, you don't get to keep it, you have to remit it. I am not saying it's illegal to have it in the first place, I'm saying once you know it's not licensed, then you have to remit it. You can't just keep it, think you are in the clear and it's someone else's problem.

Even if the law shouldn't be interpreted this way, it clearly is. IP piracy is punishable, and does get punished often.

Re:software

[pyrrho]

that case would not prove the business distributed somthing to themselves at all.

In fact, in the scenario you just gave, it's possible that the DISTRIBUTION was in fact perfectly legal, but they just lost some paperwork. The DISTRIBUTION was legal, and they are still going to pay and be punished. Why is that?

Finding stolen property is not illegal. Keeping it is though. Keeping it when you didn't know it was stolen, again, not illegal. Keeping it later when you find out, is illegal. There is no loophole because the law goes to intent. If your intent was a good faith use, no problem, but if you know that it's stolen (unlicensed), then the situation changes. You have no right to use unlicensed IP. The copyright code ensures this by making sure the owner is the only one able to make a copy legally for distribution. As soon as the illigitmate distribution occurs all (mere) possession down stream is tainted.

Re:software

[Anonymous Coward]

"The reality is people do get fines and other punishment for possessing unlicenced IP. Don't they?"

No, not for possession. They may in practice pay fines that are assessed by other companies, but that says nothing about what is legaly required of them. Most people, when the BSA shows up and finds unlicensed copies, pay up and are more careful. And in some of those cases companies were in fact infringing and *should* pay up and be more careful. The only sense in which anyone is fined for possession is in the case that possession is deemed by a court to be prima facie evidence of infringement (read, illegal distribution). I described such a case, where the business had obviously obtained copies legally, was obviously in possession of additional copies, and could not create a reasonable doubt that they had illegally produced those copies from the originals. This is sort of a presumed guilt situation, I would think, though perhaps in a perfect system it would not be so.

"And all I'm saying is that once it's found out you have illegally distributed IP, you don't get to keep it, you have to remit it. I am not saying it's illegal to have it in the first place, I'm saying once you know it's not licensed, then you have to remit it. You can't just keep it, think you are in the clear and it's someone else's problem."

You don't automatically have to remit it, and the person who gave it to you or the prosecution can't simply demand that you remit it. It must be the court. And you are in the clear, until that order comes from the court.

Re:software

[Anonymous Coward]

"The DISTRIBUTION was legal, and they are still going to pay and be punished. Why is that?"

Because they can't prove it was legal, and as I posted above just a second ago (after you posted this... not implying you should already have seen it) there is likely a kind of presumed guilt here, as when you claim tax deductions but later can't provide any receipts.

"Finding stolen property is not illegal. Keeping it is though. Keeping it when you didn't know it was stolen, again, not illegal. Keeping it later when you find out, is illegal."

Well you obviously must return stolen property, because 'impoundment' is a pretty thorough remedy when we're talking about tangible goods! You can obviously reverse your loss by retrieving the goods. And again, with IP, 'Keeping it later when you find out' is not illegal, not until a court orders impoundment, which may not happen even in flagrant cases, because it depends on the effectiveness of impoundment as a remedy rather than on the obviousness of the crime. The only reference I can find so far is a bad one, here though it does contain a very good review the the topic so I guess that speaks in its favor. It states that "Possessing stolen physical goods is a criminal offense while mere possessing of goods which infringe on copyright is not."

Re:software

[pyrrho]

The only sense in which anyone is fined for possession is in the case that possession is deemed by a court to be prima facie evidence of infringement (read, illegal distribution).

this is all I'm saying. It's always a cause for that. The code is only distributed under one license, the GPL, and it doesn't apply. That is prima facea evidence of illegal distribution.

Think of this other example, SCO has revoked AIX. When the judge rules that this is SCO's right... does IBM get to keep AIX because when the distribution occured to IBM, they were in compliance with the license, they were legal at the moment of distribution, they keep the code? What about IBM AIX customers, do they just keep the code, regardless of what happens to IBM? Only if SCO lets them. IBM would have to negotiate something to stay in business and protect it's customers. It would owe it's customers money if it allowed AIX to be lost because IBM has indemnified them in such situations. But that downstream distribution would be tainted.

You are talking about where liability stops, where damages are involved. But in terms of keeping the code, EVERYONE downstream has to give up the code. If they keep it that just means they are getting away with something usually called software piracy.

Re:software

[pyrrho]

it's not often I find someone as persistent to a conversation as I am. So, nice to anonymously meet you.

"Possessing stolen physical goods is a criminal offense while mere possessing of goods which infringe on copyright is not."

This is true, and it argues for your side of this. My analogies are just that. I persist in calling things illegal copies because that's a common language and it's not misleading. You get in trouble for having them just as with stolen property, in much the same way (which is to say, some allowance is given for innocent possession in either case). But I don't know of any case where such possession was sanctioned, and the IP was allowed to remain at the unlicensed recipient.

Which parts is IBM suing about?

[billstewart]

Originally SCO's claims seemed to be that IBM has used some mentally-contaminated-by-SCO-owned-UNIX-code capability to develop code that they included in Linux kernels after 2.2 (maybe after 2.4.13?), and that they therefore owned copyrights to those (unspecified) parts. Since IBM definitely did develop some code in those sections, it's reasonable for them to sue SCO for GPL violation if SCO distributed Linux products including IBM's code, but as far as I can tell, that wouldn't block SCO from distributing other GPL'd products, e.g. earlier versions of Linux. So if SCO is only claiming ownership of parts newer than 2.4.13, they could still distributed products based on 2.4.13 or 2.2.

However, SCO's display of Greek-fonted malloc() as an example of possibly stolen code might be able to trash their GPL-redistribution rights for anything newer than whenever Linux got GPL'd or included that malloc(). Their claims have been way too fuzzy to tell exactly what they meant, and of course they've been asserting that they can't reveal their trade secrets except under NDA and therefore can't show anybody anything.

IBM's lawsuit might make it possible for IBM to do discovery to force SCO to clarify their claims on exactly what they think they own. SCO's lawsuit against IBM can also do that. It's probably lots of fun to be an IBM lawyer right now, and I bet it's not too often that it's been possible to say that :-)

Correcting Corrections

[antiMStroll]

First, it was a billion dollars, not 'millions'. Second, you put the cart before the horse. They invested this money in the belief that GPL is a viable business strategy. You make it sound as if the board of directors woke up one morning only to realize they'd unwittingly spend a billion on GPL product and were scrambling to justify the error.

OLD NEWS, More of the same

[screenrc]

Why is this news? IBM
already counterclaimed
this back in August 6, 2003. Scroll down
to the "SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM".

I have yet to understand why today's counterclaim
from IBM about SCO's violation of the GPL is
different than what we already know from
August.

IANAL

[pyrrho]

but it seems to me this thread is trying to argue that "PERL -does- make sense".

Re:IANAL

[drakaan]

That's "Perl", not "PERL".

Maybe SCO has a point?....

[LnxAddct]

Let me first say IANAL and am rather ignorant of copyright law, but is it possible to essentially say, "Hey heres this free operating system, but we added a function that we have copyrighted. You'll have to pay us in order to use that version with our copyrighted function, otherwise you'll just have to have the version that has everything but our function." I mean technically you'd be paying for the ability to use some function, you wouldnt be paying for an Operating System, right?

Re:Maybe SCO has a point?....

[Todd Knarr]

Except that that's not even what SCO's claiming. SCO's claiming that IBM copyrighted a function and added it to Linux, and that because IBM also licensed SCO to use that function that IBM no longer has any right to let anyone else use that function without SCO being paid.

Re:Maybe SCO has a point?....

[LnxAddct]

Thanks for clearing that up, I was hoping there was more to it then what I said

Re:Maybe SCO has a point?....

[frkiii]

Correction.

THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT CLAIM MADE BY SCO VS. IBM IN THEIR LAWSUIT!

Now that that is out of the way, here is the correct information:

SCO is accusing IBM of writing code (which IBM owns the copyright and patents to) and contributing it to Linux.

SCO claims that this is a breach of contract regarding IBM's license with SCO for System V Unix, trying to claim that IBM's code is a "derivative" of SCO's System V Unix.

The code worked with (but was not a re-write or part of IBM's AIX, which is based on SCO Unix).

IBM had an agreement which assigns ownership of all "derivative" works to SCO Unix System V that IBM developed. However, IBM has an addendum to this stating that IBM owns this code.

SCO's whole case hinges on whether they can convince a court that IBM's owned, copyrighted and patented code is somehow a "derivative work" of SCO Unix. That is very very unlikely to happen.

SCO is either completely and utterly ignorant (or collectively insane) or they knew they did not have a case to begin with, and this is all just part of a scheme to try to extort money from Linux users and to pump and dump SCOX stock.

But, do not take my work for it. Do the research yourself. Google is a wonderful thing.

Regards,

Fredrick

Re:Maybe SCO has a point?....

[frkiii]

By the way, the only copyright infringement or IP infringement claims made by SCO have been in their press releases, interviews, etc.

These have either been direct accusations or merely hinted at by various corporate officers or senior executives of The SCO Group.

Regards,

Fredrick

yes

[pyrrho]

Yes, you are right. But to me this is where your mistake also comes in. That is. You have a right to use the code if you are in possession of it. But if you got it unlicensed you are not in possession of it.

Reworded... you are not in LEGAL possession of it. The GPL gives you a way to be in LEGAL possession, then you can do what you like, including commingling it with your own IP, even. That's not a violation of the GPL because the GPL doesn't cover that. That does not mean a court cannot trace back and find out if you are supposed to possess the IP, that is, if you the provider had the right to give it to you. The court can trace that, and if it find you got it through illegitimate means, then officially, you don't possess it. You can't possess it. You can't recieve it.

"But I already recieved it" won't hold. In the eyes of the law, you couldn't recieve it. You have to make reality match the legal reality.

Think about it. Do you think that if I give you Windows source code for 10 million dollars and flee the country, that you have a legal copy of that source code? That you can use it as you wish? That you can compile it and use it as you like? Or do you suppose you are fine as long as you don't distribute it to the next guy. Or that you are fine if you don't get caught distributing it to the next guy.

Please understand, I get your argument (I think) and I understand your thinking, but the law would not work if interpretted that way, and it doesn't get interpretted that way.

In deed, if it did work that way, you could have Chinese companies distributing pirate software and there would be nothing Microsoft could do but fly to China.

Re:yes

[Anonymous Coward]

What I am denying is that a copy per se can be legal or illegal. And the court does not necessarily trace it back to find out if your possession came through a legal chain of events, because the only reason they care about possession is if by impoundment they can reverse some of the damages. In the case of SCO's Linux distribution, impoundment would have no effect on the damages the kernel contributers (or whoever sues SCO) are able to prove, because monetary damages can hardly be tied directly to the illegal distribution of already free software. This is not to say that there are no monetary damages that the prosecution might argue for and win, but I can't see (maybe somebody here can point it out) how 'undoing' the distribution of the software would help any of them. The most obvious reason for impoundment, at least, is absent.

In all of the Microsoft examples, impoundment is an obvious remedy, so it is not as if Microsoft has no recourse under U.S. law. When impoundment is not a remedy, the courts are basically saying "Yes, you were wronged. Yes, you lost money. However, the recall of said IP will not in this case, even indirectly, regain you the money that you lost, or keep you from losing more. Therefore the court will not order the works to be impounded. You may collect your damages from the defendant."

I really think IBM likes Open Source...

[caveat]

Their legal team is no doubt easily capable of containing the "viral" nature of the GPL, and it would do them worlds of good to be able to reliably open-source things that they need development on more than profit from, with the assurance that they could always use the advances that would come from that move. I'm really pretty convinced Big Blue has really seen the advantages of OSS in the coroporate environs and this is their stand to secure it.

mythical cheering geeks

[jelle]

Hmm. mythical cheering geeks... Sounds like a title for an article or book...

Memory error

[j_w_d]

Your memory has a parity problem. First, IBM NEVER had any monopoly that involved OS/2. Their attempt at monopoly was years earlier and it had to do with hardware, not software, when they tried to close up the hole they inadvertently made in their business by using an open standard for the PC. That monopoly was broken by many small computer makers assembling clones from off the shelf parts. MS happily provided its OS to all makers - for a fee, the infamous MS "tax" on CPUs and mo'bo's. Second, the people who cheered when MS Windows became the monopoly it now is were not "geeks." Anyone who has used OS/2, especially the later versions - Warp and after knows just how much Windows 9* and later versions owes to the shameless copying of OS/2's capabilities. XP is still catching up. Built-in internet was something Gates hated. He wanted Windows users on a glorified BBS of all things run by MS - the original MSN.

OS/2 Warp had a built-in browser, ftp links on the desktop, and dial-on-demand to your ISP. IE was the shoddy result of a last minute buy-out by MS to counter act a surprising growth in the OS/2 user base and internet operation in Windows required acquiring an add-on set of tcp/ip winsock utilities from MS or an independent vendor like Trumpet. Even the recent XP ability to restore to a previous system state following a failed or problem installation of software was preceded in OS/2 Warp years earlier. OS/2 even offered a menu of different states and you could step back through five states or so.

OS/2's big problems were that the OS and the developer's kit were both expensive and the people I know who programmed for OS/2 all say it was very difficult to program for. Even so, the end results were generally more stable than comparable Windows programs, and the OS was far more stable than any competing version of Windows including NT. Problem programs were mostly ports of Windows programs that often were pretty badly done.

Cool!

[rune2]

IBM Slashdotted their stock price! :-)

titi

[bstadil]

We will just consider it a Freudian slip ;-)

Currently not shipping

[bstadil]

now being shipped by SCO

They could just have said that SCO is no longer shipping Linux.

What IBM learned ...

[j_w_d]

Through the last twenty years was that:

1) Open standards eat your lunch.

2) Open source evolves more quickly than any closed source can, at less cost to the company.

3) Users, given the opportunity, will go for the least expensive product that does what they want it to. Thus the price wars that practically killed Borland, throttled OS/2 Warp and wiped out Wordperfect showed that MS, with its infinite supply of money through the "tax" on CPUs could kill rivals through providing functional suites of OS and apps at or below cost (competive up-grades) to computer makers who had to pay them anyway.

4) Linux is cheaper and more versatile than any other OS and users will certainly continue to behave per item 3 above.

5) By supporting an open source, "free" OS, IBM can stop paying into MS war chest in direct proportion to how many of its clients it can wean from Windows. IBM now has the potential eat MS lunch for the first time since they first settled on DOS as the OS for the PC.

Emergent entities may have a moral code...

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM is large enough to be an emergent entity - it likely has the necessary "scale-free" network structure that exists among so many other network systems, from the cell to the human brain. It has the feedback loops necessary for emergent behavior. It has what is likely the minimum needed number of nodes and links.

If large-scale, intelligent, emergent entities exist among human societies and endevours, they most likely exist in the form of large corporations. Of those corporations, IBM is one of the largest. IBM (the entity) could be reading this message board right now...

Which is why I post anonymously.

Think of this: the nervous systems of living creatures are composed of numerous individual neurons (cells) which are connected and arranged in a scale-free network. These individual neurons are unaware of the larger role they play, and can not hope to acheive such awareness. But the whole they create sometimes is much, much larger...

Think of this - what would you do if you found out one of your neurons became sentient, and wanted a "different job" - surgery, right? But that neuron would likely have no clue as to *who* you were, or what you were, or where you came from. Relative to the neuron, you are the greater.

Humans to multinationals?

Also, do the neurons in your brain dying typically cause massive changes in who you are? Rarely (such is the benefit of scale-free network topologies), unless the well-connected hubs die. Much the same in multinationals, who many times seem to change personality when major characters (CEO's and such) are ousted or leave for other reasons. They were the hubs, and things split - islands form, etc.

IBM - if you are listening: I know about you.

Re:Someone needs to do a lawsuit flowchart

[Anonymous Coward]

MC Escher, that would be a good name for a rock band.

I prefer DJ Goedel (Bach appears to be taken in the music context)

I see, i see...

[Anonymous Coward]

A little elephant with the name SCO written on it walking to a small Linus Torvalds and saying:
"Now we got you, pay up!"

Linus shakes his head, and wisely ignores the little elephant.

Then the little elephant whistles, and the earth trembles as a giant Bill Gates comes up on the scene behind the elephant, pushing it forward and screaming:
"You better pay up little fellow, we support SCO fully!"

At this time, Linus looks a little awed, but acts not in fear, but simply whistles for some support.

The earth quakes now, massively, when a giant elephant goes stand behind Linus. The elephant has IBM written on it.

"Wanna play !?"

End of story

Re:I want my money

[BiggerIsBetter]

What I find odd about that is the distinction between selling and distributing. Whether sold or given away, the copyright implications are the same.

No Tardis required, SCOX botched their GPL already

[leonbrooks]

So IBM can indeed sue them for copyright violations, because (and this is the key, important bit so read it carefully) the GPL is the only licence under which SCOX could ever have distributed IBM's copyrighted contributions to Linux. Having violated the GPL terms (by claiming a patent on the software), SCOX at that instant voided their right to distribute. And they continued distributing. End of story.

As for "lubelessly", what's the largest-grain adhesive garnet you can get? Or should we just spray the writ with superglue and roll it in shards of broken glass?

%s/HP/Sun/

[leonbrooks]

ANd they are the only ones... getting a tad lonely out there on that limb, dudes?

I'd call a 17% drop in about 2 hours deep shit

[leonbrooks]

Pity that they hastened to prop up the price again. Dang, I hate tame share prices. Deep shit isn't enough. Freefalling would be more encouraging, say a drop to 17.5c over the weekend.

Re:I'd call a 17% drop in about 2 hours deep shit

[gilgongo]

Well, we can but hope.

I interpret most of what SCO are doing as an attempt to prolong things on the very, very slim chance that they win.

You did miss at least one.

[leonbrooks]

lessee: atheist, vegetarian, linux user. have i missed anything?

VB coder. (-:

SCO, horrible stock...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=SCOX

Look at the PE ratio!

It's 143! The total value of outstanding stock is 143x the net earnings of SCO.

With a market cap of only about $200 million, that means SCO's yearly earnings are about $1 million and change!

Wow, talk about a dead dog.

It's year range on the stock value goes from 0.87 to 20.85 ( obviously when SCO started their allegations )

The analysts are predicting Doom and Gloom

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ae?s=SCOX

While industry revenues are expected to grow 12% in the next 5 years, SCO is expected to only to grow by 0.4% ( if it survives that long ).

That's worse than the rate of inflation. With inflation usually around 3%, SCO will actually be worth ~15% less in the next 5 years. ( unless inflation is taken into account in the growth estimates, in which case, SCO is still at 0.4% growth which is just about 0% anyways )

The enemy of my enemy...

[Anonymous Coward]

is my friend.

Probable sequence of events

[Animats]

• IBM hires Cravath, Swaine, and Moore, the most to handle the case. (IBM usually uses Cravath, the big New York firm for "must-win cases", as they put it.)
• SCO stock drops to about 10.
• Cravath gets a preliminary injunction against SCO preventing them from trying to collect royalties on Linux.
• SCO stock declines to about 5.
• Pretrial discovery of SCO results in embarassing documents.
• SCO stock declines to about 3.
• A trial date is set.
• SCO stock drops below 2 (which is where it was earlier this year.)
• The first securities fraud lawsuits are filed against SCO executives personally.
• SCO stock drops below 1. NASDAQ delisting process starts.
• More securities fraud lawsuits are filed.
• SCO stock drops below $0.50.
• The first trial (SCO vs Red Hat) starts. SCO execs waffle on claims.
• SCO stock delisted from NASDAQ. SEC investigation starts.
• Trial verdict goes against SCO. Huge claim against SCO becomes due. SCO says they will appeal.
• SCO stock (now on pink sheets) goes below $0.10.
• SCO appeal rejected. Payment due.
• SCO declares bankruptcy.
• First private securities litigation against SCO execs goes to trial. SCO execs lose.
• Democratic president elected. New SEC head announces tougher enforcement.
• SEC files criminal charges against SCO execs. SCO execs face personal bankruptcy.
• Lower-level SCO exec pleads guilty, provides full details on CEO involvement.
• Arrest of former SCO CEO.
• Former SCO CEO tried and convicted. Judge says "what you did was, simply, a scam".
• Former CEO enters federal pen at Allenwood.

Re:NO NO NO! Your cast is all wrong

[fredrik70]

Victoria Silvestedt?? You mean her *bosom* will be in every scene, of course...

getting somewhere

[pyrrho]

I enjoy a debate.

I think we are getting somewhere.

What I am denying is that a copy per se can be legal or illegal.

I understand and agree. But having a copy is evidence of a distribution. So we call that an illegal copy as shorthand, because it is the same thing. Even if the court didn't trace it, it would be illegitimate.

the only reason they care about possession is if by impoundment they can reverse some of the damages. In the case of SCO's Linux distribution, impoundment would have no effect on the damages the kernel contributers (or whoever sues SCO) are able to prove, because monetary damages can hardly be tied directly to the illegal distribution of already free software.

impoundment is to stop damage wrong. Your point plays more to "what monetary damage might be awardable". Based on GPL software prices, maybe nothing. Well, not nothing, just no money. Except that SCO wants to charge for that software. The judge is to award damages up to three times the money made by the violator. If the violator charges for something free, that can set the "monetary value" just as well. Further, the judge will no doubt be asked to give monetary value to the lost compliance. I.e. SCO has shipped it's proprietary code with Linux. What is the value of that code to the plaintiffs. By GPL that SCO code should now be available to IBM and other kernel contributors, that really is the FEE that they were asking for when they put their own code in. But it's not available because SCO has violated the GPL.

The easiest thing for the judge to do, in that case, is not attach a monetary value to the product and then try to figure the ratio for each plaintiff, the simpler thing is just make SCO give up the code, which is worth itself by definition.

the recall of said IP will not in this case, even indirectly, regain you the money that you lost, or keep you from losing more.

but it WILL stop you from losing more. And the judge does not have to wonder what you will lose (money, access to code, etc.) because he knows that the copyright exists and without the license you may not have a copy of that. THINKING you were in compliance will keep you out of jail, it will not let you keep the unlicensed IP.

This is not to say that there are no monetary damages that the prosecution might argue for and win, but I can't see (maybe somebody here can point it out) how 'undoing' the distribution of the software would help any of them. The most obvious reason for impoundment, at least, is absent.

one little thing

[pyrrho]

your mistake in this context is that you have forgotten, the GPL does not apply. The GPL, which you need to re-read, specifically section 7, specifically does not allow itself to be commingled with royalty generating code. There is a lot of potential controversy about what constitutes commingling. But in this case, code in the kernel, it's clearly commingled if the accusation is true (SCO is bound to represent it's own current argument in it's actions).

So, the code is not covered by the GPL. Therefore, by copyright, the copy is unlicensed, the distribution was illegal, and the copies must be "returned" (stopping use and destroying copies).

Once the GPL no longer applies you don't have to think about the GPL. It's not GPLed software at that point. It's just "pirated software".

Re:one little thing

[William Tanksley]

I admit that there's a theory about copyright law that claims that the law covers use. The problem is that if it's true, the GPL itself is invalid, or at least seriously lacking.

Either we ALL have to stop using Linux because SCO is using it to violate the law, or only SCO does. Which one makes sense to you?

-Billy

Legal DDoS

[Anonymous Coward]

Like a legal DDoS attacking the SCO legal team.

That can't be true, at least I don't see how

[Anonymous Coward]

If that was true he couldn't be a part of this lawsuit. Having previously represented IBM, he could never be able to act against them as a lawyer. One of the reasons for that rule is that he probably has lots of inside knowledge of IBM which he could never even be sure to himself he wasn't using.

apologies

[pyrrho]

Perl then.

I don't follow

[pyrrho]

Why would SCO's action cause everyone to stop using it? SCO just has to specify what IP and linux users would have to remove it. How long would that take?

And the court should also make sco provide a program or patch that removes their patented IP from their own distributions. Or, just grant the IP.

Not that I really think they own anything.

Re:I don't follow

[William Tanksley]

Why would SCO's action cause everyone to stop using it?

Exactly my point. SCO's illegal actions can't stop _anyone_ from using Linux unless they can stop _everyone_ from using it.

You were also making a mistake when you said that SCO had to recall its product from its customers. Think about it -- who is SCO's customers? The answer isn't "everyone who's paid SCO money," because money isn't part of the violation. The answer is "everyone who's received illegal code from SCO." Guess what? If SCO's right, that's ALL of us.

Of course, like you, I don't think SCO's right. Well, I don't think it's substantially right; I think there's so much error, and the error goes both ways. If SCO survives this (and thanks to IBM, it won't), Linux will be freed, mostly by declarations of public domain and partly by removing SCO code.

-Billy

Re:I don't follow

[pyrrho]

Of course, like you, I don't think SCO's right. Well, I don't think it's substantially right; I think there's so much error, and the error goes both ways. If SCO survives this (and thanks to IBM, it won't), Linux will be freed, mostly by declarations of public domain and partly by removing SCO code.

well we agree on the most important thing then.

but not on the rest. If SCO's IP is in linux, and it's still royalty generating (b/c IBM etc. put it in there), then yes, we all have to stop using it. If the only way to do that is to stop using Linux, yup, you have to stop using linux (of course, not until a judge says so). But in reality, if SCO's IP is in there, the judge will give time and information to allow it being removed. The result, a patch for your linux machine.

If you really need the feature that the patch removes (which I doubt, I don't think it will remove anything... there is no way SCO owns JFS, etc.) then you are in trouble. But that's just the way it goes.

Also I think that you mistake SCO's, or any companies, responsibilities. Companies have to make the right motions. They can get away with being insincere, but not so insincere that it's provable they are not really complying with something. If you sue another company based on facts ABC, the judge will and can and should look to see if you yourself are acting on the conviction of those beliefs. When the SEC looks into the stock sales, it will look to see if SCO really believed it's argument. If it really studied the issues and made reasonable comments to the press based on real knowledge. So SCO's communications to it's users is important. The GPL clearly says it's not valid in the circumstance SCO claims. It's black and white. SCO has to inform it's users that it did not have authority to distribute that code, SCO claims no one did.

KFG?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kentucky Fried Giraffe?

Re:SCO validates GPL and erradicates their own cas

[Jaywalk]

They claim the right to use and distribute that code without regard to the GPL because all code vaguely associated with an operating system is derived from the UNIX sources and is therefore their property.

The complication with that is that they have to say it out loud in open court in front of a judge. It's one thing to float wild theories in the press, it's another to try to slip it by someone with real legal training. And it's not going to be good for their stock price if the judge can't keep a straight face while they're talking.

Re:Speaking of turds.... (Boies)

[Corporate Drone]

psst.. whether he's on retainer or working on contingency, he's still in it for the cash.

whereas the OP took Boies to task for aligning with a "great enemy", i'm simply pointing out that he's in it for the bucks, not for the cause...