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."
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.