Slashdot Mirror
SGI Code Changes Not Enough, Says SCO
yeremein writes "According to this vnunet.com article, SCO's code changes Update: 10/04 20:51 GMT by T : (This should read "SGI's" rather than "SCO's.") removing arguably System-V-related code from SGI's Linux submissions is 'not enough.' According to Blake Stowell of SCO,
'Making minor amendments to its XFS file system doesn't cure the breach. SGI must do more as outlined [in the August letter] to cure all of their breaches.' But later on in the article, we learn what was outlined in the August letter:
'We don't believe that SGI has taken all of the steps necessary to cure all of the breaches, and in fact in our letter to them, we state "SGI's breaches of these agreements cannot be cured."' So SCO essentially told SGI, 'You're in violation of our contract and unless you remedy the violations, we'll pull your UNIX license. Oh, BTW, you can't remedy the violations.' This looks to me like the clearest example yet of how SCO is acting in bad faith." Read on below for another snippet of SCO strangeness.
An anonymous reader writes "As many are aware, SCO has sought (and got) a 4 month extension to its IBM lawsuit. According to the Salt Lake Tribune: 'SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said Tuesday that he understood the extension is being sought "for the purpose of gaining documents from IBM related to the patents they claim. . . . Some of the patents aren't even filed with the U.S. Patent Office, as far as we can learn."' I thought this was worth looking at, and quickly found that the patents in question are 4,814,746, 4,821,211, 4,953,209, and 5,805,785 - which can be found by typing in their numbers in this USPTO form."
I assume that should read "SGI's code changes" at the beginning?
I only hope that they can be adequately punished by the law.
I am certain, however, that those in charge of the company (which I will not name, as one should not name the devil) will make of with wads of cash after running their stock scam, and all anyone else will get is an end to a great deal of pain and suffering.
I only hope that I'm wrong (it's happened before, once or twice)
Here are the USPTO links, for ease of consumption:
US Patent 4,814746
US Patent 4,821,211
US Patent 4,953,209
US Patent 5,805,785
You can stop now. The intersection of individuals with no connection to SGI that used ate_alloc is empty: I heard that the only systems that used the offending lines were beta hardware that was never shipped to customers. Additionally, certain parts were never working, because ate_alloc assumed 1-based numbers and other parts of the implementation used 0-based numbers...
SGI found some code that seemed likely to have come from old Unix code. The code has almost certainly been released under the BSD license, so it was extremely unlikely to have been infringing in that sense. However, there may have been an issue with the proper copyright notice being included with the code. Additionally, the functionality of the code was provided by other other, original code in a different location, and the second implementation was superior to the code in question. SGI removed the old code.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
...and whether or not the judge thinks SCO's blowin' and goin'. That weak response from SCO in regards to the initial filing probably won't float, especially with Red Hat's reply to the response. SCO's got very little rope left from which to hang itself with the Red Hat case- the only way they're going to not get a declaratory decision on them very shortly is if they come back with an actual strong response to the recent Red Hat reply.
I don't see them doing it.
Based on Red Hat's claims in the filing, a temporary injunction is likely to be handed down from the court since there IS controversy and they ARE obviously guilty of what Red Hat's claiming if they can't come up with conclusive proof of their public, business statements.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Basically, SCO is asserting that "you're f**ked no matter what you do", which for anyone who is thinking of at least trying to remove possible infringments is stating "why bother."
And if SCO's claims weren't so ludicrous, that would be a perfectly reasonable position for them to take. For example, if you were copy half of the Windows NT source code and shipt it as a free product, well, of course, you'd be in violation of various coyrights and you'd be "f**ked no matter what you do".
This interview with Chris Sontag in Byte Magazine, most likely.
SCO basically believes they own every OS ever written and that ever will be written.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
msft isn't shoveling millions of dollars to scox for nothing. Darl needs two more profitable quarters before his 600,000 options vest.
Except there's not going to be a jury trial.
Haida Manga
Removing the code is really irrelevant,
No, it really isn't.
because they want to collect on all the "back damages" they believe they are owed.
If SCO wishes to collect any damages at all, then they MUST (as in _ _MUST_ _!) take steps to stop the alleged infringement as soon as possible - whether they believe it "can" be stopped or not. (Legally, they have to do everything within their power to stop SGI from continuing any infringment.)
The only way it can be irrelevant is if the code in question holds no value - which SCO is demonstrating; by not giving anyone the chance to remove any alleged infringing code, they are stating that their code is worthless, and you can't claim damages for something that's worthless.
It doesn't matter what we think. In the end, it will come down to an old man in a black robe.
The law (both written and case) states quite clearly that SCO must take steps to end any alleged infringement. Any "man in a black robe" can't rule any other way.
It actually hasn't been declared public domain, yet, but if taken to court, it probably would be. The code is part of the same code base that the judge in the BSD case said ATT probably wouldn't be able to protect. It's also been include as an example in a number of basic C programming manuals, including Kerighan & Ritchie.
So while it's not *literally* public domain, it's unlikely that the code samples provided by SCO so far would survive a public domain challenge.
In any event, the code was definitely released as part of Caldera's "ancient Unix" distribution under a "BSD-like" license, which means it could be used in open source or proprietary projects as long as the copyrights were maintained.
In the unlikely case that a public domain challenge did not hold up, SGI *might* be slightly vulnerable on this point, but it is also the kind of trivial mistake that is supposed to be capable of mitigation by re-inserting the copyrights. The courts probably wouldn't look to kindly on SCO for denying SGI that privilege.
SCO can't collect for back damages, even if they are right on all points, because they didn't register their copyrights until they started suing everyone.
Remember that whenever you hear them claiming that mitigation doesn't take care of past infringements. They can't demand financial damages for past infringements since their copyrights weren't registered. All they can request is mitigation, and financial damages for the period of time after their copyrights were registered.
Here
It is in there SEC filing as well
Quote
SCO warned in a filing that its legal costs could be expensive, but the company revealed Wednesday that it doesn't have to bear the brunt of much of its legal costs. To pursue its case against IBM, SCO hired high-profile attorney David Boies, famous for his antitrust victory over Microsoft as well as his loss in the vote-counting controversy representing Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election.
SCO's legal costs are being paid under a contingency arrangement, McBride said. In such cases, lawyers typically are paid not by the hour, but with a percentage of whatever money they can win for their clients in the case.
Help fight continental drift.
Errr, since the code was released under the GPL without SCO's permission, yes - either pony up or stop using XFS.
No, technically, if SGI released it and it was SCO's code, then its not GPL because they didn't have the legal authority (copyright) to release it under any license. It has to be "recalled" so to speak, meaning removed and SGI would be liable for any real damages.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!