Slashdot Mirror
NY Times Reveals SCO/Canopy Group Hypocrisy
rjamestaylor writes "The New York Times reports that 'SCO, the company that touched off a computer industry slugfest last spring by suing I.B.M. over its use of Unix software, may find itself embarrassed by a similar claim against a company once related to SCO.' Note that the reporter, John Markoff, ties together Noorda's Canopy Group companies, revealing that: 'Canopy is now SCO's largest shareholder, with two seats on the company's board, and has played an important role, analysts say, in shaping SCO's legal strategy.' He even quotes SCOSource shill Laura Didio as saying, 'All roads lead to Canopy...'"
It's a bit late for that, isn't it? While on the one hand, the massive publicity of the SCO lawsuits may have had, to some degree, the effect of creating some doubt in the minds of cautious CIOs/CTOs, by associating the word "Linux" with "unresolved, potentially damaging IP issues", the comparative lack of visibility of anything actually produced by SCO, combined with the massive media coverage of their seeming focus on litigation will certainly badly tarnish what's left of that company after this whole thing is over.
Large companies, which are normally fairly conservative on adoption of "new" technologies, will be just as loath to look at anything coming from a company so strongly perceived to be as lawsuit-happy as SCO...
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
Typically, especially in a civil suit, a case can be sealed on request of both parties involved. This is typically done when one of the parties (usually some company) doesn't want "damning evidence or testimony" to be made public. This company would most likely propose a settlement offer that is contingent on the case being sealed and that the other party be prohibited from discussing the case publically.
In short, it's to prevent bad publicity from getting out.
Remember the battle-cry of the Slashdot'er - IANAL!!!
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
How about specifying the violations so they can be corrected in all Linux distributions?
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
According to the article, Montavista found GPL-ed code in Lineo's product.
Possible implications:
- the issue who copied from whom has become a lot more important to the SCO court-case
- Lineo broke the GPL and decided to settle. Why? Did Lineo think that the GPL does hold water? Any way you turn this, it looks no good for SCO and their bickering over the GPL being 'invalid'.
- The GPL was the basis for law-suit. Just because it was settled out of court doesn't take anything away from that fact. Another strengthening.
- How is SCO going to deal with IBM's and RedHats quid pro quo: innocent infringement? Innocent infringement means that, although an infringement is aknowlegded by the accused party, the infringement was done unknowingly. In the SCO case it would then become very hard to get any compensation because:
a) damage will be hard to show anyway (it is probably easily provable that SCO lost more customers because of the lawsuit than because of infringment of any kind).
b) if any damage is shown, compensation will be low if at all applicable because it was due to 'innocent infringement'.
c) !!!
d) Loss for SCO/MS because the victory for IBM, SGI and RedHat will be complete.
Karma? What's that again?
Facts from the story: Montavista writes software under GPL. Lineo uses said software but removes copyright notices. Montavista sues Lineo over that (copyrights must be retained under the GPL)! Montavista wins (settlement).
How cool is that. And here we have people bitching that something as the GPL won't hold up to any major court challenge.
Smile, people. This is really cool considering that numerous people believe the GPL won't stand a chance in court.
roland
Well, the suggestion in the article was that Lineo used an "innocent actor" defense. They admitted that they did infringe but did so innocently and without knowledge that what they were doing was wrong. In other words, "Whoops, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that happened, let me just take that code right out of there."
The reason that is important to seal the records is that *if* there is found to be infringing code in Linux (and it is a big if) that is exactly the defense that IBM and others would use. So if Lineo used the same defense tha IBM and others want to use and got off with a slap on the wrists, knowledge of that could taint the jury and they don't want the jury tainted.
IANAL, but apparently ignorance of the law is then an excuse in civil court?
At least that was the speculation in the article.
The fact the are willing to embarass themselves to try this kind of long shot is very telling of how desperate they are.
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
SCO has killed Unix-branded Unix. Can you imagine any company willing to buy a license after SCO started suing some of the licensees (IBM, SGI)? The effort to start a new OS from scratch is enormous. (See BeOS.) Any new OS is going to be based on BSD or Linux. (See Apple.)
There will never be a new SystemV-based Unix, which means SCO can never sell another license. And most of the current licensees (not including MS and SUN) paid AT&T in full for perpetual licenses, so there is little revenue from the current licensees.
Lawsuits as a business model is all that SCO has left.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.