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?
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?
It seems that SCO is just trying to piss off the Open Source community. Breaches that can't be remedied? How exactly is this possible? Programs can be written hundreds of different ways. I think SCO is making up its rules as it goes along, much like a race I participated in during 5th grade. I clearly won, but my opponent then seated himself and said, "er... you have to sit down too, so I win!" That's no good.
Esoteric reference.
Just like you can own code you never wrote, bought or saw.
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.
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
That doesn't make sence since the vast majority of Linux systems in use don't require any of the features SCO is claiming rights to.
You're running a scam
Any AC can see that
Go back to Utah
Rank Presidents by th
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*
As it looks it will never be enough.
And looking at two factors:
1. SCO is not willing to take any approach to solving problem (FSF approached them, they didn't answer), nor willing to take any solution as creditable
2. SCO is currently making more money than it would if problem would be solved
the only solution is to take this to court as soon as possible. Then everything will matter again. Until then just let SCO bark as it does.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
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.
It's clear that these people want to destroy *nix, destroy the GPL, the Open Source community... the whole concept of Intellectual Property altogether. Not to mention (but I will) that they don't intend to stop until rob all monetary value of any software and/or services derived therefrom.
It's war. SCO declared it, and is actively on the attack. They intend to vanquish their enemies... us. To win this war, you defeat them, crush them... DESTROY them.
IBM, SGI and the rest of SCO's declared enemies should join forces and take these people down... and crush them so badly that noone else should ever even THINK of pulling this nonsense again.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Did you ever even read what SGI admitted to? They admitted to adding code which didn't infringe on anything! It was already public domained, they just removed it because SCO would shut up about stuff being from SystemV. SGI hasn't officially even stolen any code.
Also, there has to be at least SOME proof of it being even SLIGHTLY intentional, or they're given a chance to solve the problem. They pulled *200* lines for *2,000,000* lines they had contributed.
Oh, my god, how could they possibly have missed that.
By the way, pull your head out of your ass.
Then I want to let SCO try to prove in court that "thier" code was required for Linux to thrive. It would also show a judge that SCO's potential customer base for UnixWare was a tad smaller than SCO likes to claim.
This would be better than replacing the code short term. It would show that the technologies which SCO says customers would have purchased UnixWare to get were in fact virtually irrelevant.
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.
The speedy trial thing in the 6th amendment applies to criminal cases. The SCO stuff to date all involves civil cases. Both sides in this dispute have been allowed extensions, it's all a part of the game.
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
You do not go after someone with shallow pockets on a flimsy claim on a contingency basis.
They might be rodents but they are not dumb rodents.
Adding SGI to the IBM claim makes the issues harder for SCO as both IBM and SGI can point the other party if they need to. SCO can't just claim that One or the other did somethng they have to be specific, so it adds legal risk with pretty much zero legal upside.
Help fight continental drift.
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.
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.
Perhaps you haven't heard of this thing called "public domain". See, when something is in public domain, copyright can't be enforced with regard to it. Sooo, even if the code in question *was* originally written as part of SysV, if it's in the public domain, no harm, no foul. (And anyhow, damages for 200 lines of code implementing a very well-known algorithm can't be very high).
...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
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.
Like everyone here, I don't believe that there is a case. I could care less if IBM breached a contract with SCO: it won't affect free software once the infringments (if they exist) are released to be fixed. In any decision, I cannot fathom a scenario where SCO will be allowed to "win" in their battle against Linux.
Likewise, I also agree that the SCO execs are "pumping and dumping". Whether they will get away with it or not, time will tell.
But I think that the main source who is pulling the strings has GOT to be Microsoft. They have figured out that throwing FUD at Linux has not, and likely will never, help. Plus their lawyers have examined the GPL and likely come to the conclusion that it is completely unassailable.
Linux has been making steady progress and slowly taking market share from Microsoft. This comes at a time when MS has to start charging more for their products in order to grow revenues (since they have essentially no room to grow in terms of customers) and when they have virtually no new products of note ready for release in the next couple of years! This is a prime time for customers to look into Linux adoption.
How can MS stem the tide? They can't start directly hurling the legal scare tactics (probably get even Ashcroft looking at them in disapproval for that), so they quietly get the SCO execs on board, and get them to do their dirty work for them? Anyone think this is plausable?
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
Results for google search:
"linux is full of crap".......... 0 hits
"apple is full of crap"......... 0 hits
"microsoft is full of crap".... 9 hits
"toilet is full of crap".......... 2 hits
"SCO is full of crap".......... 92 hits!
So it's official, SCO is 46 times more full of crap crap than a toilets are.
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
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!
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
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