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.

[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.

[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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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: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: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: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.

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.