Slashdot Mirror


SCO Ordered to Produce Evidence

harmless_mammal and others wrote in with news from the SCO-IBM hearing in Utah today - apparently the judge has ordered SCO to respond to IBM's discovery requests within 30 days. IBM is asking SCO to tell IBM precisely what code it is alleging is infringing, and to date SCO has failed to show any evidence whatsoever. Some reports from the hearing are at Groklaw, which is already slow under the load. If SCO continues to fail to produce the evidence they've claimed they have, the judge will likely be very displeased, perhaps dismissing the lawsuit entirely.

44 of 693 comments (clear)

  1. Finally... by Nasarius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We can end all this SCO crap. Though I get the feeling that they've already gotten what they want...

    --
    LOAD "SIG",8,1
  2. Merry Christmas, Darl! by shystershep · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The judge could, indeed, dismiss the case if SCO refuses to comply, but that is an extreme remedy that is seldom used. I think SCO will either give the information (although probably not with "specificity") or else dismiss the suit on its own. As Michael's pithy tag-line says, this is a classic case of put-up-or-shut-up, and I (like most /.ers) doubt there is much of anything to "put-up."

    --
    The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think SCO will either give the information (although probably not with "specificity") or else dismiss the suit on its own.

      What's in it for SCO? They can only dismiss their own suit, not IBM's countersuit. Dismissing their own suit would be pretty damned close to admitting culpability in IBM's countersuit. Okay, their company is on its way to destruction anyway but I think they'll choose for a long drawn out death, not a quick one.

    2. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by leerpm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And what about IBM's countersuit? I believe unless IBM also voluntarily agrees to drop its complaints, they still get to proceed against SCO too. SCO is going to get it one way or another. They have walked too far into this to just be given a 'get of court free' card.

    3. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think SCO will either give the information (although probably not with "specificity") or else dismiss the suit on its own.

      ...happily, SCO can't dismiss IBM's countersuit. They're beyond the point of backing out unscathed by this...

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    4. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The judge could, indeed, dismiss the case if SCO refuses to comply, but that is an extreme remedy that is seldom used.

      The courts are seldom presented with cases as completely devoid of merit as this one.

      I certainly wonder if the judge will dismiss the case out of hand if SCO turns up next to nothing yet again in 30 days time. I don't expect an outright refusal, I expect a second game of hunt the copyright violation. But I also doubt that the judge is going to allow SCO to simply slide until the next 30 days ad infinitum.

      Instead I think that the court will start with remedies like a fine and sharply reduce the scope of the case, if sco will not reduce the number of claims the court will. It happens all the time in complex cases, if you claim the defendant engaged in malpractice on 10,000 occasions the judge will tell you to pick five specific instances and the case will proceed from there. If you won't choose the five instances the judge will choose for you. If you loose on those five instances you loose the whole case.

      Courts are real sticklers for deadlines in cases like this where they suspect one side is manipulating the system. The appeals courts have no sympathy either. Court dockets are overcrowded enough as it is.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    5. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by the_mad_poster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, that's the way the cookie crumbles in the business world. If IBM decides that the cost of bringing Darl and company down exceeds the value of doing so, they won't do it. Justice, fairness, heck, even the law don't always apply in business decisions. If IBM doesn't think it's a good investment, IBM probably won't push it. They have a business stake in Linux, not an emotional one like a lot of us do.

      Of course, if there happens to be an issue of criminal wrong-doing here, that could be a whole different story that doesn't involve IBM's decisions at all.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    6. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by shystershep · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SCO can't dismiss the counterclaims, but IBM would probably settle very quickly for an agreement by SCO not to challenge its rights to UNIX/LINUX in the future. IBM is still a business, after all, and -- as emotionally satisfying as it may be to stomp SCO into a greasy film -- litigation is expensive. Without the threat to its business, IBM loses its incentive to pursure this matter.

      --
      The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
    7. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by El · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, SCO has seriously damaged IBM's business, taking money out of their pockets. IBM needs to make an example out of them, preferably getting the SEC involved. You DON'T want to send the signal that "playing the Linux lottery" has no downside; that would only encourage other slimey types with no viable business model to attempt simular tactics. Oh, and if IBM is anything like Intel, their lawyers get paid the same regardless of whether or not they crush SCO into greasy pink pancakes, so letting SCO off easy won't save IBM any money.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    8. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by gmack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Spending the extra money now will keep others from trying it and save money in the long term.

      A warning to the others is ample reason for IBM to grind them into the dust.

      If it were just about this case IBM would have just bought them outright since odds are that would have been much cheaper than this drawn out legal battle.

    9. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by astroboy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      IBM would probably settle very quickly for an agreement by SCO not to challenge its rights to UNIX/LINUX in the future.

      No.

      IBM stands accused by SCO of breaching a contract between the two and divulging priviledged information or methods to others by contributing code to Linux.

      IBM has as customers the governments of just about every country in the world that can afford to invest in IT. IBM provides solutions to hospitals, research centers, and buisnesses all who deal in sensitive or proprietary information. IBM can not have people going around saying that IBM broke a contract, especially by not treating sensitive data or methods correctly. IBM must, as a buisness priority, have SCOs claims declared completely baseless.

      Which, cheerfully enough, means that IBM can't settle for anything less than the complete dismantling of SCOs claims, which will be quickly followed by the destruction of SCO by IBM's counter claims.

    10. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      This is SCO we're talking about. They make demonstrably false statements. Their press releases are full of self-contradictions. They haven't shown one whit of givashitness for the facts up to this point, what on earth makes you think they'll actually comply with a judge's order?

      If they don't, so much the better. Case dismissed.

      You can mess around with duplicitous and misleading and slanderous legal briefs all day long if you want. The judge doesn't have to take your crap though.

      Antagonizing the judge means you lose your case.

    11. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by rgmoore · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure if that's true, or at least if it's true in the sense that you mean it. Part of the defensive value of IBM's suit is from making an example of SCO. IBM wants to prove to anyone else who might be thinking of launching a nuisance suit that it's a really, really bad idea. If the result is just a draw, or even a small win in IBM's favor (like SCO agreeing to pay legal fees) then there isn't sufficient example. If, OTOH, the final result is smoking craters where SCO, Canopy, et. al. used to be, it sends the much stronger message that suing IBM is a good way to lose everything.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    12. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by TrentC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Happily? You're not worried about them being forced into a corner where they have to fight really really hard?

      What do you call taking a *ahem*simple contract violation case and blowing it up into a series of libelous attacks on the open source development model, Linux kernel developers, and the Free Software Foundation and the GPL. What, I'm supposed to worry that they're going to start fighting dirty?

      The "something" that sparked the case was greed. They're a company suing another company, not a wounded bear protecting its cub. If they have no case, then "backing them into a corner" isn't going to provide them with a magic bullet to slay the dread IBM lawyer-horde.

      My guess is, McBride and SCO thought that Microsoft and Sun standing in their corner cheering, media whores and cronies uncritically repeating their pablum, and rising stock prices probably gave them an inflated sense of self-worth; today, they've gotten their first real dose of reality.

      Jay (=

    13. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by rgmoore · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Somebody else pointed out an additional dimension, which is that IBM feels that its integrity has been impugned. A key part of SCO's suit is that IBM has failed to live up to its contractual obligations. That's a big deal in business, because nobody will want to deal with you if they don't believe that you'll hold up your side of the bargain. IBM clearly has a very strong business reason to want their reputation cleared, which is a driving factor behind the Lanham Act violation countersuit. I sincerely doubt that they would accept any deal that didn't clear up that issue unequivocally.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    14. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by fanatic · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Remember how Boies managed to antagonize the judge

      Moron. You've got it 100% backwards - Boise was on the DOJ teanm for that one.

      The verdict was overturned, and Gates won .

      The verdict was NOT overturned. Only an idiot would say that. All findings of fact that Microsft broke anti-trust law remain in effect. What was overturned was the penalty that was originally prescribed. To that extent, Gates did win, tragically.
      --
      "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
    15. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by Our+Man+In+Redmond · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That certainly appears to be the case here. Magistrate Judge Wells stated that, while she left the door open in the matter of rescheduling the next hearing (set for January 25 or thereabouts), she did NOT give SCO any extension of the 30 days they have to come up with a case.

      So basically SCO has two viable choices: come up with some kind of evidence that IBM contributed SCO's IP to the Linux kernel, which IBM will then tear to shreds; or, say they don't have the evidence they've been claiming to have for the last six months, and have their case dismissed for lack of substance. Oh yeah, and the IBM counterclaim will continue either way.

      Sucks to be SCO right now.

      --
      Someone you trust is one of us.
    16. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by DarkSkiesAhead · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'd have to agree with shystershep that it wouldn't be worth IBM's time to pursue the lawsuit.

      1. GPL has never been involved in a court case, so some buisnesses see it as unproven

      IBM is not "some businesses" nor would IBM waste it's legal resources looking into matters that concern "some businesses".

      2. What happens to the next piddling little company running out of money that may have something that they can BS into making it look like it's a big deal?

      Huh? In no way could the countersuit set a precedent that "piddling little companies" should automatically lose to IBM. Each case of copyright infringement must be examined individually. Precedent plays no part.

      3. Litigation is expensive, and SCO made IBM do most of the research already... does IBM's legal department want to look like they just wasted $$? In most businesses, that isn't a good thing for the department.

      The amount of money already spent is completely irrelevant. IBM must weigh the remaining costs against the projected benefits of crushing SCO vs settling. Given that pursuing this in court will be very expensive (research is just one of many costs) and that crushing SCO doesn't benefit IBM any more than settling, I think the choice is easy. And the research money is certainly not "wasted" if it leads to SCO's law suit being dismissed.

      4. I know some people at IBM have got to be emotional over this. So throw back in the we are pissed at sco part. :)

      Since when did lawyers make important monetary decisions based on their emotions? Or the emotions of Linux advocates? Not likely.

      5. If they win, given that IBM registers it's copyrights (please please tell me if I am wrong)

      You are wrong.

      The winnings could definately help defray some of the cost of Litigation

      Let's speculate here. SCO has used shady legal shenanigans for years to pump up it's stock. All large purchases it has made have been mostly in stock. It's executives are being paid because dumbass investors believe their lies and buy their stock. Within about 0.002 nanoseconds of SCO losing their case against IBM every investor in the world will realize that SCO has no source of income, no product worth buying, and insufficient cash reserves. All of SCO's "wealth" will vaporize as their stock plummets. At this point any award against SCO is worthless because they won't have any money to hand over to IBM. So, why exactly does that seem like a worthwhile pursuit from IBM's perspective? (Hint: it doesn't.)

    17. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Also please keep in mind that a Motion to Compel is generally a rare thing. Federal and most state laws require that there be transparency between parties in a court case when it concerns evidence.

      Absolutely. One other thing occurred to me. It is unusual to see a case dissmissed entirely. But it is very common, pretty much usual to see a court strike out several claims prior to trial.

      This type of situation is rare precisely because it is a hopeless one. The courts do not like a plaintif who is apparently bringing a bogus case for extraneous reasons.

      At the end of the SCO IBM case I predict a messy shareholder lawsuit against the officers of SCO in their personal capacity. Folk might like to notice that the Delaware courts have recently reversed their traditional supine approach to corporate governance.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    18. Re:Merry Christmas, Darl! by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > 1. GPL has never been involved in a court
      > case, so some buisnesses see it as unproven
      IBM is not "some businesses" nor would IBM waste it's legal resources looking into matters that concern "some businesses".


      To quote an IBM motto, "Think."

      IBM would very much like to sell its Linux solutions to "some businesses". If IBM can demonstrate to those businesses that GNU Public Licensing IS a proven and legitimate model, IBM can make more money.

      Each case of copyright infringement must be examined individually. Precedent plays no part.

      That's true, once it gets to court. But IBM's goal is the discourage these baseless copyright nuisance suits from even making it into court. The message they want to send is, "If you even THINK about suing us, we will destroy you."

      Since when did lawyers make important monetary decisions based on their emotions?

      Since when does ANY person, lawyer or otherwise, make decisions without at least being minorly influenced by emotions?

  3. come on, baybee! by mekkab · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IN reality, SCO will produce something, no matter how B.S. it is.

    But it'd be super cool for them to produce nothing and have the judge fine them, and then KICK THEM IN THE NUTS. Yeah, that'd be sweet.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  4. Court Costs by mirio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hopefully the judge will order SCO to pay for the courts' time in filing such a meritless suit, a practice I believe our entire tort system should follow.

  5. I hope this works by gdeciantis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't like Linux, but having choice is better than not having it. I hope SCO is wrong and the case is dismissed.

  6. SCO vs. The World by Ridgelift · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Judge granted both IBM motions to compel, gave SCO thirty days to comply 'with specificity' and suspended further discovery

    The same brute power of the Open Source movement is at work with this lawsuit as well. Should the code ever become public, you can be assured that the source of the source will be sourced faster than you can say...uh...'source'.

    I'm looking forward to seeing how Darl and Co. spin this one!

  7. Why do i get the feeling.... by freidog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    that they'll produce some of the same public domain type code we saw in the SCOforums to the judge, then claim that if it was stolen from their System V code or is a matter of fact for a jury to decide...

  8. Don't want to see it Dismissed by gentgeen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know that I for one do NOT want this case dismissed. I would like to see it finished out for the future of Linux and the GPL. Let's put all this rubbish to bed. If this thing goes to court and SCO losses, then Linux and the GPL will be that much stronger. Less likely to be attacked down the road.

    1. Re:Don't want to see it Dismissed by elvesRgay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if SCO's case against IBM is dismissed, that would not dismiss IBM's counter claims against SCO. That counter case includes the fact that SCO has violated the GPL. So that case would move forward. Not to mention RedHat's case against SCO.

  9. fraud by sstory · · Score: 4, Insightful

    SCO is knowingly making false and misleading statements which negatively impact IBM, RedHat, etc. Furthermore they are representing themselves to linux-using businesses as owners of Linux IP and demanding license fees. This is all not just unlikely to succeed, but in fact illegal. It's fraud. If prosecutors want to deal with it, Sontag, McBride, etc could see themselves facing not just civil actions which could be ameliorated by resignation and/or bankruptcy, but criminal actions. And I hope they do. They represent a destructive force, they are theives, and I hope they suffer the consequences.

  10. "... which is already slow under the load" by Malor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Great... so instead of posting a mirror, they make ABSOLUTELY SURE that Groklaw melts down.

    I'm sorry, guys, but I really think this is crappy. You cry about how it's hard to mirror stuff, because it would require *gasp* permission. So instead of taking a little extra time, particularly when you know that the remote server ALREADY can't handle the load, you aim tens of thousands of hits at them.

    I'm sure this isn't the intention, but it is essentially a deliberate DoS.

    Enough excuses, already.... the prior permission thing just doesn't work anymore. Google mirrors practically EVERYTHING and they don't have specific permission. You can live by the same rules they do.

    At the VERY least, in cases where the server is already obviously choking, post a synopsis without a link.

  11. Re:I Love the Legal System: by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Each side has spent bucketloads of money and all the judge could come up with so far is 'Shit or get off the pot.'"

    In all likelihood, the lawyers that IBM uses are on retainer, and this hasn't really cost IBM much for legal fees. Thing is, this smear campaign has been damaging enough that once this is all said and done, IBM will be able to add libel and slander to it's complaints against Darl and his other brother Darl. All that they'd have to supply is proof of lost business or delayed business from people cancelling orders citing the SCO fiasco, and even if they're just delayed orders, IBM is a large enough company that months of inflation alone might be enough to show lost revenue.

    The bitchslapping of Caldera is something that I'm looking forward to.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  12. Let's hope its more... by MImeKillEr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    .. than the judge simply throwing the case out. Let's hope he orders SCO to pay IBM's legal fees, forces SCO to require court clearance to sue anyone else, and orders/suggests an inquiry into SCOs stock price manipulation in addition to throwing out the case.

    --
    Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
  13. Not necessarily. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even IF the SCO crime syndicate is thrown out of court, they will continue to "plead their case" in the media like they've been doing. They've already got a few trained seals slapping their fins on command in the media (like Didio) in their favour.

    SCO needs a MAJOR smackdown if we're ever going to shut them up good.

    1. Re:Not necessarily. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, we probably won't have to worry about that. Part of IBM's countersuit is a request for an injunction to prohibit SCO from making damaging public statements. If SCO's suit gets thrown out, I am pretty sure the judge would grant IBM's injunction.

  14. Let's bring SCO to it's knees by bluelarva · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. Detailed migration plan and tools to ease transition from SCO UnixWare to Linux. This includes researching companies that will do his service. A paper showing hard numbers on the cost savings and benefit of migrating away from SCO Unixware.

    2. Create a collection of testimonials from former SCO customers who has successfully migrated away from SCO products.

    3. Extensive benchmark showing inferiority of SCO Unixware.

    4. Feature comparison between SCO Unixware and Linux.

    5. Create a list of things Linux can do that SCO products cannot do.

    6. List of hardware that Linux supports which SCO products do not.

    7. Create a list of companies using SCO product and educate these companies about findings from 1 - 4.

    8. Urge Free Software and Open Source developers to drop support for SCO Unixware across all softwares being developed. GNU Software (GCC, Emacs, libraries, autotools, base utils), Samba, Apache, OpenSSL, OpenOffice, XFree86, Gnome, KDE, etc.

    9. Dissemination of information regarding insider trading of SCOX stock. Collection of detailed information on who is selling how much shares and when.

    10. Analysis of all SEC filings by SCO especially that part about disclosure of all SCO's competitors and it's liability with investing money in SCO.

    11. Create a collection documents debunking every single press releases, interviews and official statement made by SCO officials. Dissection of every sentence ever came out of Darl McBride's mouth clearly citing fallacies, misinformation, and contradictions.

    12. Create a list of all patents held by SCO and then systematically try to disprove the validity of those patents by citing prior art.

    13. Start a letter writing campaign to Wall Street analysts of all the findings from above. (There has to be Linux users who has connection to Wall Street folks.)

    Any thought?

    1. Re:Let's bring SCO to it's knees by thelen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a fun thing to think about, but it's really not a good precedent for F&OSS to make compatibility decisions based upon opinions of a corporation's business practices, however despicable we think they are. F&OSS justifies its existence by claiming to give users freedom; to drop support for a platform for non-technical reasons would be a violation of its own guiding principles. Business issues should be addressed at the business level, not the technological level.

  15. Re:Public...? by Dastardly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But they're claiming its in the linux source.. so technically its already public

    Which would mean they are no longer trade secrets, and therefore the judge should not seal them.

  16. Re:Wrong judge to dismiss the case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I do believe you are incorrect. Certainly court proceedings and processes vary by state and municipality, but hearings determine whether or not a complaint (a law suit) should go to trial. If the judge holding the hearings does not send it to trial, that's what they call a dismissal.

  17. Biggest victory possible for Linux by mcc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the standpoint of the Open Source Community, this is about the best thing that could be hoped to possibly happen. This means that within 30 days, the question of "is there SCO code in Linux?" will be definitively answered, legally. So in 30 days, either we will know for a fact no, there never was any SCO code in Linux, or we will know exactly where it is. (SCO may try to play the "trade secret!" rule and get the locations sealed, if they exist, but I can't see this succeeding-- the part that would theoretically be a trade secret, the code itself, would already be leaked no matter what. I doubt they would outright claim in court "the locations of the code are a trade secret becuase once they're known, we can no longer make vague allegations and drive up our stock price, our primary product"..) This means two things:
    1. In 30 days plus a very short amount of time to do some cleaning in the linux codebase, there will be no SCO code in Linux at all and SCO will not be able to claim otherwise without admitting they lied to a judge in the IBM case discovery.
    2. Once SCO has to present EXACTLY what its evidence and allegations are, not just "Linux stole some stuff", they will have a MUCH harder time obfuscating their allegations toward the Linux community by confusing them in the public mind with the rather straightforward contractual-obligation suit SCO has going on with IBM...
  18. Well, for one... by TrentC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...it might have something to do with the fact that, for the first time since this whole ugly debacle began in March, SCO had to get up in front of a judge and make its case, instead of trying it in the (clueless financial) media.

    Man, the SCO-story whiners are starting to bug me as much as the JonKatz whiners did, before I removed him from my story preferences two years ago.

    Again, if everyone is so pissed off about the SCO coverage, uncheck the "Caldera" topic in your Slashdot preferences and they'll go away (taking your much-vaunted eyeball impressions with them, for the tinfoil hats who think Slashdot is only flogging this case to get hits).

    But this case is arguably more important to the Free/Open Source Software community than the Microsoft antitrust trial was, and as long as the suit progresses, and SCO shouts blatant lies about Open Source software, its advocates, and the GPL, expect /. to cover it.

    Jay (=

  19. Re:SCO selling to IBM? by SoSueMe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Really now, what is there here for IBM to buy?
    Is there any technology that is not already available to IBM?
    No.
    Should IBM buy SCO to shut them up?
    No.
    If IBM were willing to spend any amount on SCO, it would be as a warning to tell the world not to try a similar form of extertion.

  20. The great part by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The great is, the judge ordered "specificity." There can't be any vague crap claims. IBM gets to see, specifically, all this great evidence SCO has been hyping all these months.

    This is the equivalent of put-up-or-shut-up. FINALLY, is all I've gotta say. A little faith in the justice system has been restored. I was thinking this would be dragged out for years.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  21. Actually, they didn't.... by Svartalf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IBM's case was dropped. No Findings of Fact, no Findings of Law, and no Remedy.

    Microsoft has a Findings of Fact (They are effectively a Monopoly and they used the position to leverage themselves into another market and crush a competitor...), they have a Findings of Law (Microsoft is guilty of violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act...), and they have a Remedy that has been accepted by half of the States involved in the case and the DOJ.

    I'd say that it's a piss-poor comparison to what IBM did in their Anti-Trust suit.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  22. Re:conspiracy theory by foonf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since SCO is already deep in grey legal territory, it's a small step to just toss *all* and *any* code IBM will release in Discovery to a safe Russian, or Chinese FTP site, and have it aired out like laundry IBM refuses to show any code whatsoever because the IBM code is extremely valuable.

    The problem with this is that unlike System V itself (for a while you could download the entire Solaris source tree under conditions similar to the Java source license, ie restrictive but by no means a full NDA), IBM's Unix source code is very tightly held, even within IBM itself. If it became widely available on pirate sites within a few weeks of IBM turning it over to SCO's lawyers, there would be little doubt as to where it came from, and it would not bode well for SCO, although admittedly they could try to blame it on IBM and argue that it shows further proof of IBM's lack of respect for their contracts.

    --

    "(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
  23. GPL ought to be tested in court by hlee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I feel much more comfortable knowing whether the GPL is upheld or not, rather than leaving it in limbo.

    But I believe it will be upheld. I've been following some of the articles by Mogden and Lessig - and they make clear and sensible arguments why GPL is valid. You write code, or a book. Its yours. Your property. Copyright law says its yours, and no one can monkey with it without your permission. GPL grants other people that permission to monkey with it as long as they agree to the conditions laid out. In a nutshell, that's all there is to it. GPL will be upheld.

    If GPL is NOT upheld, it will have dramatic ramifications as to what you can and cannot do with your own property - hah - I'd like to see a judge/jury regulate the rights of ownership!