Slashdot Mirror
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."
Does anyone have a chart of all the lawsuits by and against SCO? I lost track.
The GPL will only get a full vetting when it goes to court. SCO will never let this case see a courtroom.
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.
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.
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?
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
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.
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."
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
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...
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
Corporatism != Free Market
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
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.
Here is who will win.
SubReale
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 worldBecause 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.
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.
"There is no spoon." - The Matrix
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
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
Linux at home
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?
i am so very tired....
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...
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
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.
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!
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.
> 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...
...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...
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.
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.
That might just be because it was penned by a former IBM attorney?
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
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