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

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!

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.

[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'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!

IBM owns patent on FUD.

[ryan76]

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

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.

Re:Someone needs to do a lawsuit flowchart

[larien]

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

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.

"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.

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

[pavon]

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

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."

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."

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...

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...

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

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: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: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: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.