IBM Puts Pressure On SCO

inode_buddha writes "An article at Groklaw shows IBM's legal team dissecting the whole SCO thing professionally and thoroughly. I'm almost willing to bet the case gets dropped with extreme prejudice, especially now that Novell is getting involved. Is anyone taking bets as to when the case actually closes and how?" I suggest the MIT Technology Review add this one to their markets.

Comments

Re:Fraud

[MatthewB79]

It's been said by SEC representatives already (as posted in other forums and here on /.) that SCO and Darl do not represent enough "pump-n-dump" to affect the current market. In other words, he's not even on thier radar.

Re:Good or bad?

[DaEMoN128]

Actually, the SCO case can be dismissed and not affect the IBM countersuit. The GPL issue isn't brought up in the SCO case; it is part of the IBM case. The GPL will still be tested even if Judge Kimball tells SCO to quit smoking crack and continue with discovery for the suit that IBM brought against them.

It gets better!

[Larsing]

SCO has filed a motion to compel discovery against IBM and IBM has responded...

Timeline

[Kalak]

It appears that "IBM's motion to compel is scheduled for oral arguments on Dec. 5." (stolen from Groklaw). Hopefully after that, things will tank and we can get back to normal.

Re:And now, the hammer falls...

[Krow10]

SCO's lawyers get a twenty percent payoff if SCO wins or IBM settles. If SCO is bought out while the lawsuit is pending, the lawyers get twenty percent of that, too.

Not only that, they get 20% of any equity financing deals that come along during the suit and up to an additional $1mm and 400K in options (see the Oct 17 8-K filing with the SEC here.) And note, they got $50mm in equity financing right around that time. So, Boise & co. could alrady have (or have commited to the) $11mm cash and $7mm worth of SCOX stock (at yesterdays closing price.) So much for Didio's confidence on SCOX's case 'cause Boise is taking it on "contingency."

Cheers,
Craig

GPL in court

[Ender Ryan]

Actually, the GPL has already "stood up" in court, see MySQL vs. Nusphere.

http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34553.htm

Specifically, In the process, a federal judge deemed the GPL enforceable and binding.

The codes SCO shown is actually owned by FreeBSD

[kimkhan]

Read the last para just before the section 'Migration' starts. http://www.thejemreport.com/software/freebsd51.php FreeBSD license lets anyone to use their code in any propreitary software and not affect the software license. So I can take code from FreeBSD and incorporate it into my propreitary software and not having to release it to the community. That is I believe what happend with SCO, they thought they owned the code that is actually licensed by FreeBSD in the first place.

Re:but there are thousands of lines of copied code

[michael_cain]

SCO pulled up some 519 files which have around 300,000 lines of code, which might or might not contain tainted code. That is something like 1 percent of Linux kernel code. Rewriting the whole thing might take a month or two at the maximum, assuming cleanroom specs can be developed out of it.

First point -- on the assumption that the case will continue, which I believe, it may be some time before anyone knows which lines are "tainted". For example, SCO points at the source files for JFS and says "These may be tainted." IBM says, "Which lines?" SCO responds with, "Any lines which you developed under AIX. Which are those?" SCO's legal theory seems to be that any features of AIX which were transfered to Linux are a violation, unless IBM can prove that the code given to Linux was developed as part of a non-AIX operating system, then ported to Linux directly from that non-AIX system. IBM is using the obvious tactic of providing a mountain of raw information, then demanding that SCO sift through it and identify the lines that are in question -- make it too EXPENSIVE for SCO to continue the case.

Second point -- on the assumption that SCO wins, which I don't believe will happen, generating cleanroom specs may well be a problem. As I understand it, the contract forbids revealing the methods as well as the source code. IBM would be in the position of having to say to the Linux community, "The code and documentation that we revealed to you, and on which your specs are based, were trade secrets that we did not have the right to reveal." ANY use of that information -- such as writing specs -- could be deemed improper by a court. However, if SCO wins and gets a large settlement from IBM, I would expect the judge to rule that SCO has now been compensated for the loss of their trade secrets, and that the Linux community is free to make use of those "secrets".

SCO appears to have (although IANAL) a simple case that is at least arguable. I have to believe that all of the public posturing, much if not all of which is irrelevant, is intended to run the share price up so that the executives can cash out.

Sorry, but no

[DaveAtFraud]

I frequent Groklaw so I chased your article through Google to finally end up with this article which digests the fallout from the case. The critical quote from the paper is (top of page two)

One particularly interesting point: it did not appear that anyone was arguing that the GPL did not apply or was not a valid license. Though what Judge Saris said in the proceedings has no value as precedent in other cases, it sounded as though the GPL would be treated as any other license would be in a software context.

I would have loved to have come up with a finding that says the GPL is enforceable and binding but this would seem to indicate that MySql vs. NuSphere doesn't provide it. I'm guessing this is because the GPL itself was not in dispute, but rather, the question was whether it applied to NuSphere's proprietary extensions to MySQL.