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."
SCO is willing to go for broke on this one. Removing the code is really irrelevant, because they want to collect on all the "back damages" they believe they are owed.
If SGI put SCO code into Linux, and then individuals with no connection to SGI used that code, SCO wants to be able to hold them liable for past usage, even if the code was completely expunged from the current tree.
Rational? It doesn't matter what we think. In the end, it will come down to an old man in a black robe.
Some of the patents aren't even filed with the U.S. Patent Office
How can you have a patent without be filed with the patent office?
I'm hoping that any of the smaller less lawyer-friendly companies suffering from SCO's claims can hold in long enough for this to blow over . It seems that nothing but time is going to get rid of SCO and their outrageous claims, which this current claim confirms.
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."
Nothing is going to stop SCO but time. For every legitimate counter-action and counter-claim, they'll simply come up with more and more unbelievable and unreasonable rebuttals. Until SCO gets taken down in court, there's not much anyone can do about this unfortunately. The fact that SCO execs are dumping stock like hot potatoes proves that they don't believe they have a chance... but that won't stop them from maintaining their current stance of idiocy and oppressiveness.
Would someone please just break through SCO's firewall, "borrow" the System V code tree, run the comparisons, and publish them for all the world to see? Then we can quickly put this matter to rest and then move on to the inevitable next phase: "Sue the pants off SCO for integrating Linux code into UNIX while disobeying the GPL". *sigh*
From article, citing SCO letter: "unrestricted disclosure, unauthorised transfer and disposition, and unauthorised use and copying"
In other words, you must bleed, SGI (or at least pay up to my pinkie's desire). They seem to think they're district attorny or something. Clue to SCO: you're involved in a CIVIL case.
Once again no actual info such as "remove this" or "do that". They don't even want to make a solid case it seems. Or they're really the deranged cult that some portray them as.
According to this slashdot story appearing Thursday, the SCO code had already been put in the public domain by SCO. As such, it is hard to imagine what the material damage to SCO is. It seems hard to imagine that they could go after end-users with that.
Now, that said, they might be able to construe a breach of contract with SGI out of it. What does SCO gain there? Well, one loss is certainly clear. They will no longer get the license revenue from SGI for IRIX. So, this might be a revenue trimming strategy.
SCO is also pursuing this strategy with AIX. Ultimately, deligitimizing all of the commercial unixes might just push faster toward Linux adoption.
The problem is, it'd be a suit against SCO. The executives are gonna get off clean. SCO will just cease to be, and all the honest investors will get screwed.
The only people who can make a class-action suit work are the investors who are getting screwed, and if they knew that, they wouldn't be getting screwed right now.
That's why the legal system needs to change in regards to corporations.
Because, like most companies (and individuals), SGI doesn't like being involved with lawsuits unless it has no other choice. They're damaging financially and publicly, even if you win. SGI is also proving that they're willing to try to remedy any "harm" that has come to SCO before going to court for it. SGI can show that they tried to fix it, but can't really be faulted if SCO is foaming at the mouth and cannot be reasoned with.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Three things really: Revenue. Royalties. Cash.
They couldn't figure out how to make money selling Linux, so the new management sought a new strategy -- make money whenever someone else sells Linux.
As a result, they're not interested in any outcome which dosn't give them a cut. They want to monetize Linux so that they are the toll takers.
It's like the story of the goose that laid the Golden Egg. Any attempt by SCO to exact a toll on Linux installations will cause implementers to move to BSD. Like the Internet, Free Software will route around any attempt to collect royalties. Collecting a toll will kill Linux, but the code will live on.
Not that SCO's legal arguments will put them in a position to collect the royalties they covet. Their legal arguments are as incompetent as they are laughable. Their derivative works ideas are contrary to copyright law as interpreted on this planet. They don't understand how they are bound by the GPL becuase they distributed Linux under it for years and made their IPO on the strength of Linux's promise. Plus, IBM's undead lawyers will be drinking their blood over patents.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
SCO will just cease to be, and all the honest investors will get screwed.
Honest investors? It may be an old-fashioned view, but doesn't investing in a company by buying shares imply that you agree with the company's aims and ethos and wish to support its business?
The net effect of this maybe to just invalidate any license SCO grants in the future.
As a customer when I buy commercial software, I understand I am buying a license. If I buy a copy of office at Staples or CDW, I am buying a piece of software thats mine within the terms of the license. I have never heard of Microsoft retroactively terminating a license.
SCO is establishing a history of terminating, irrevocable licenses. If your'e company X, you now have to think twice about enterring into any license agreement with a company that has shown such little regard about honoring agreements. If you are a current licensee and SCO has terminated your license you can certainly argue that they have established a history of frivolously and fraudulently doing so.
The net effect of SCO's litigation, and out of courtroom antics may very well be to effectively nullify their ability to enforce their property rights in an economic manner. Now, if I were a SCO shareholder and all of a suddent SCO weren't able to enforce license agreements or Sell new SCO server licenses I might look into pursuing the board and officers of SCO for violation of fiduciary duty. But thats just me.
I meant, specifically, those who have been suckered by SCO's hope, as a group separate from those who are in on the stock scam and busy cashing out.
Fine. Lets assume that they invested 2 years ago on some form of hope. If so, then they should have bailed by now. If investors from about 6 months ago, they would have made a killing. If investors from 3 months ago, they can still have doubled/tripled their investments. But once it was shown that this was a scam, they should have been selling. If they are, well, then, it is their own problem.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Someone should just kill these fuckers, or at least neuter/remove them. They're obviously just out to fuck people over for their own personal gain. I hope they both die painfully.
How clueless is this argument?
There are actual definitions of what constitutes an actual infringement of copyright. 200 lines of code, unless in a single block, don't apply.
If such a small segment (out of the whole) was allowed to be prosecutable under copyright law, it would be feasable to copyright the use of single words, such as 'a' and 'the' -- or even letters for that matter.
Then they have to prove that the code was in fact directly copied.
This is not the same as showing they read the same.
They have to have prove that a guy at SGI did this -- such as video footage, etc. There is a light-years difference in leagal terms, between knowing something, and PROVING it.
SCO is honestly setting themselves for the bitch-slap of the century (and it's just 3 years into it!!!).
Linux is FAR, FAR from dead. Even if you believe SCO's line (which they have yet to give ONE SHRED of proof-- EVERYTHING they have used as 'proof' has been discredited so far.). BUT even if you believe SCO's line, it only applies to LARGE, ENTERPRISE-LEVEL features of Linux, which is only used by a tiny fraction of computers. SMP, NUMA, RCS, JFS & XFS? Well, frankly, SMP existed in linux since 2.0 -- well before what SCO claims rights to. NUMA doesn't exist on 99.9999999999% of the world's computers (I may be off by a decimal place or two, but if I err, it is on the side favoring SCO), JFS & XFS don't really offer much in the way of performance over EXT3 or Reiser4...
So WHAT THE @!#$ does SCO make claims to that actually matters for all but the most obscure of cases?
And, having released "Ancient UNIX" under BSD, it's easy to argue that a reasonably competent peanut could have used that code, and adapted it to modern usage -- and was not actually copied.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
The antics of these corporate kingpins are getting pathetic and laughable. But they are serious. Just becasue it's not as much money as Enron doesn't mean the fraud, lies, and manipulation of the stock market aren't just as illegal.
I hope someone is documenting (with suitable domain name: www.SCO-fraud.org) and tracking all the letters and corporate statements they are making (digital voice recording of their statements during their "road show" will be useful and revealing I am sure).
The state of Utah (SCO HQ) and or other jurisdictions should be charging the company with public mischief and fraud: if not now then some time in the future.
I really believe SCO is going to get squashed in court, but it's always possible that our ridiculous court system will let this shit fly.
It's ridiculous that SCO is still allowed to continue this nonsense considering the obvious insider trading going on, etc.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
In the case where there is no other efficient way to implement an algorithm, "fair use" may dictate that a small taking - and 200 lines would be a small taking - is not infringement.
Of course, this argument grants the assumption that SCO's copyright claims would hold up in court. In the ATT/BSD case, the judge concluded that ATT would probably NOT be able to hold up its copyright claims, and the malloc code is part of that code base.
If you are referring to the XFS code, SCO doesn't have any copyrights on that, just contractual claims that appear to be contradicted by ATT's letters granting System V licensees ownership of any code they write for System V unless actual System V code portions are included in said code.
So, I guess you haven't actually read the contracts, or know much about copyright law. Were I to take your rhetorical lead, I suspect that I would be required to call you a "fucking moron" at this point. However, "ignorant" seems to describe your position much better, at least in my opinion.
AFAIK Red Hat doesn't even ship with XFS. No one really uses XFS, nor JFS. The filesystems du jour are ext3 and ReiserFS. I recall there were problems with either XFS or JFS. One of this systems had code duplicated with kernel's and it was difficult to include it in the kernel. There were even rumours it would be abandonded.
That said, I think SCO doesn't have a clue what it's up to - saying the community would be unable to replace XFS and JFS - it already had long ago! They probably think GNU/Linux is controlled by corporations and wouldn't survive without them (this is why they are suing IBM and (probably) SGI), but I think it is slowly becoming the other way - corporations are becoming dependant on GNU/Linux and are not really needed in the development process!
Finding reasonable sane logic in SCO's actions is often challenging... but in this case they are probably really trying to help their IBM case. They are trying to portray wide-scale "stealing" of their "intellectual property"; no matter how contrived the example is, they are just trying to show well-known big computer companies that are supposedly feeding Linux developers with stolen goods. Knowing how little real evidence SCO has I guess they must try to bring in all cases for which they think they have anything resembling evidence... and this just shows how desperate they are.
Thus, from their point of view SGI probably is more collateral damage, small fry, whatever you want to call it, and IBM (plus other wealthy Linux-using co's) is the main target.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Frankly, I can't understand why SCO would pursue this into court at this point in time.
As you say, an extra 20 million never hurt a struggling company with an otherwise lousy business model.
Perhaps equally important, SCO'd also like it if SGI quit dumping their scalability crown jewels into Linux. It makes it hard to slip an extra multi-thousand dollar OS charge for per-processor CPU licenses for UnixWare going from 8 to 32 CPUS (or 4 to 64 GB memory) when SGI is enabling Linux to have all that for free.
The fact that SGI has already poured so much effort into Linux is one reason I suspect why SCO says 'the breach cannot be remedied'; there as aspects of SGI's past help which, no matter what a court rules, practically cannot be undone. (And this is a good thing.)
--LP
Nope. As far as we know, not a line; nothing, nada. SCO never claimed it did either.
Considering this, the rest of your argument that stems from this.
What SCO claims is that since XFS was originally put into a system that was derived from UNIX, and they own the rights to Unix, then XFS is bound to the UNIX license, which prevents sharing that code with anyone else who hasn't paid for a UNIX license. But XFS is a totally independent SGI creation which contains no non-free UNIX code as far as we know.
They're essentially claiming that XFS is a derivative work of UNIX since it was created to be put into Irix, a UNIX derivative OS. Which is ridiculous by any interpretation of property law or the UNIX license. It's as if the car lending company claimed ownership of your trailer because you used their car to pull it. They might sue you for damages to the car if you weren't allowed to do it, but they can't claim that the trailer is theirs.
What SGI actually did was to put some UNIX code in other portions of Linux (unrelated to XFS). That code was public domain or under a free license but was attributed to SGI instead of to the actual copyright holder. They removed those bits and are checking to make sure there aren't any others.
They could sue the person/company who put that code in there and force them to remove it. The company in question would then notify the code-keepers it was illegally put there, it would be removed and possibly have to be replaced, but there is NO LEGAL BASIS for making anyone else pay for damages other than the person who did the actual infringement of releasing the code, which is why everyone thinks the "SCO Linux license" is a piece of shit and means absolutely nothing. It's a racket, nothing else, and if they actually DID sell even one of them they could be sued under the RICO act for racketeering.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Bzzt! It has not been proven at all that the code was infringing. SGI removed it because it posed a potential problem. And really, they said it was maybe 200 lines in millions of lines of code--and it was not essential code. That hardly makes a case for serious damage awards to SCO. Those 200 lines of code can hardly have been the linchpin holding together the rest of the OS, in either the case of Linux, or in the case of whatever Unix it is SCO claims to hold rights to. I fail to see how that code therefore impedes the market for the original in any meaningful way. You forget that copyright is not an absolute right, Fair Use allows for many exceptions.
And in this case, I'd say 200 lines almost sounds like a mistake more than an intentional pattern of abuse. But to award some damages, how about 200 dollars for every 1,000,000 dollars that SGI made off the products that included this code-- that would be proportional to the value added by this code. So, max, SCO makes a few thousand dollars. Big win.
I do not have a signature
> SGI may have removed the infringing code, but the fact is,
> people and businesses have still benefitted from the presence of that code up until now.
That would only be true if the absence of the code meant they would not have benefited from the same features. Which is quite a ludicrous claim, as the routine (badly) duplicates the functionality of original and independently developed Linux routines.
Secondly, that code may never have been *shipping* with machines, as the source code is only built into object code on a certain class of IA64 machines, and SGI may have patched the code well before they shipped production IA64 machines to customers -- not to mention the fact that no-one running Linux on IA32 and opteron machines ever used or copied this snippet of code.
And I'm not even beginning to mention the fact that, at least under European law, the code snippet implements an idea/method that is so basic that it can only be expressed in the way the text describes -- which means even the expression cannot be copyrighted at all (don't know whether US law is similar on that point).