Slashdot Mirror
SCO Code to be Protected in Closed Court
An anonymous reader writes "SCO public relations director Blake Stowell today said that the company had secured permission to present the code alleged to have found its way into Linux to a closed court. Once again SCO is refusing to tell Linux users just what code they claim is infringing on their IP rights, while still threatening to sue corporations running Linux."
The question, of course, is whether the claim is true or not -- it is coming from SCO, after all. There's a good chance it could be true, though, because a big part of SCO's claim is for trade secret violations -- which require the alleged secret to, well, remain secret (disclosure does not effect copyright, but it does trade secrets). It only makes sense for them to seek a protective order, and it does not really effect the case from the judge's and lawyers' standpoint. But that doesn't make it suck any less for the rest of us who want to see the code for ourselves.
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain
This protects the court, because if the code itself became part of the court records, SCO would have to sue the court itself for violation of SCO intellectual property.
"We find this Court to be in contempt of SCO!!!"
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
IBM kill this when they feel so inclined, so just pretend SCO doesn't exist.
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
"We can't just open this up to the public. The minute we open it up we have in fact opened it up to the public and we can't restrict it in the future from a proprietary standpoint," said SCO CEO Darl McBride at conference in August this year.
So they're afraid that releasing the code could encourage other people to take it and integrate into their own OSes? Yeah, there's a good idea. I wouldn't touch anything SCO-code-related with a 20-foot pole.
... who can modify the kernel, if needed. At least someone getts to peek ...
I'm pretty sure SCO and the US Federal courts will be relieved to know where "liquilpele" stands on the subject. I, for one, am relieved to hear your opinion does not clash with the slashdot concensus.
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
If they are proved to be wrong, the code will come out anyway.
If they are right, their valuable source code will be released on the internet and lose all its value if it is open court.
A court case shouldn't be allowed to trample over people's rights. It's quite normal for commercially secretive cases to be held in camera (but only for the sensitive bits) - such as trade secrets, and other similar issues.
Well if they'd released it into Open Court they'd have had to sue the US Judicial System, so maybe the Judges just got scared ?
I can imagine it now
Darl McBride : "By forcing our code to be shown in open court the US Judicial system has infringed on our copyright and we demand a royalty from every sentence now uttered in court which is a derivative of ours... which is all of them"
Next week SCO sue the Department of Defense for using SCO infringing software in the conquest of Iraq.... and demand Iraq as payment.
Darl McBride leader of Iraq...
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
They're going to show it to IBM as well. Not to worry, IBM's army of blue-suited LawDrones will tear it apart line by line.
Trolling is a art,
I'm just quoting from memory, but an old press release said something like,
"Open source leaders have refused to take action [and remove the code]".
And then a few sentences later,
"We don't want them to take out the code because then we can't sue them".
Stupid bitches.
what if IBM (or some sneaky intern who works there) records a list of (linux kernel) line numbers for us?
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
What prevents someone who's being sued for having SCO code from saying, in closed court, of course, "OK, we'll replace it"? And then, perhaps, release their changed code to the public, not necessarily identifying the SCO code but just showing possible replacements inside Linux that people could place?
I just wait for them to sue a Linux end-user... should be fun.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
This is only a good idea if the court has included a caveat stating that the records will be opened if SCO is demonstrated to be perpetuating fraud
And since IBM is the opposition, I'm certain that they will come up with some way to require this...since they love linux so much.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
I believe that's their point. A judge is hardly technically qualified to determine whether something is a derivative work, much less analyze the lifeline of the code in question. Avoiding the technical experts gives them their only fighting chance.
-j
this has definitely gone on too long. if they're saying that the offending code is currently open the world....they just say lines X-Z in module Y are ours, take them out or we'll sue. instead of: -where is it? --not telling -then we can't take it out --we'll sue, but we still won't tell
Amen. The people who need to see it in this case are the court and IBM. That will be sufficient to splinter Darl's sick dreams of being Bill Gate's lovable sidekick into sagans of slivers.
Heaven forbid that people infringing on their sacred "IP" know exactly what it is, thus allowing it's removal. If it were removed, then SCO would not be able to charge their extor.. err.. sorry, licensing fee. "Why I'm of a mind to give them a piece of my mind, but I seem to have lost my mind."
I'm of a mind to give them a piece of my mind, but I seem to have lost my mind.
The fact that IBM's lawyers will be there, too, perhaps?
...published on the Internet by way of the alleged inclusions into Linux. It's no longer a Trade Secret and prior precedents say as much. I have trouble believing Blake Stowell's clams and I would have even more trouble with the court letting that one go down.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
"We can't just open this up to the public. The minute we open it up we have in fact opened it up to the public and we can't restrict it in the future from a proprietary standpoint," said SCO CEO Darl McBride at conference in August this year.
The fact that I have seen your code does not make it part of the public domain. This is just silly.
What exactly is Darl trying to say here...I can no longer read around his incredibly twisted language. I think the only reason why they can't open the "offending" code up to the community is because they don't want Linux to be fixed, they want it to die. If all they wanted was money, they wouldn't have bothered to keep the code a closely guarded secret.
Another reason, ofcourse, is that there is NO offending code, and they want to prevent a public hue and cry over bits and pieces of for and while loops.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Once again SCO is refusing to tell Linux users just what code they claim is infringing on their IP rights, while still threatening to sue corporations running Linux.
So far, SCO is only engaging in vague threats about future action. They haven't actually sued anybody over Linux-related copyright issues. Yes, that's still scummy, but until they actually do something, it's just a nuisance. I suppose someone like Redhat could sue them for business damages, but that's it, AFAIK.
Let's just wait and see if they try any specific threats without letting us know what code they think is in violation.
This is not a good sign for the Linux community. If they were going to publicly state what code has been infringed on, then it would be easier for everyone to go through it. But, SCO only has to disclose the code that they think has been stolen in a private court, then only the people who are involved with the trial will have the opportunity to go through the evidence. It just puts more work on Linus and co.
What is SCO protecting?? Every package in thier distro is an open source package.
I dont understand the need for secrecy, the issue here I thought was whether or not IBM copied code into the linux kernal... the kernal source code is freely availble to anyone who wishes to view it. What is secret about thier code exactly??
Another SCO FUD tactic... wont someone just buy them and close the doors to this forever??
The secrecy comes from the fact that Darl McBride claims to have drawn Tux when he was a small child. The picture is so embarressing that he does not want anyone to see it.
poor old Darl, his masterplan isn't working and everyone knows SCO are going to try and pull some tricks to delay having to show the code the IBM. If they are not granted an extention expect them to cry " US courts support communism....yarrr boo" and drop the case. The following week SCO.com will have been turned into a soapbox for Darl to bitch and moan in some pathetic attempt to convince investors that somehow SCO can be relevant again and that they can enforce their imaginary IP rights.
My advise to SCO investors. Get out now! The price is only going to get lower from this point on and as a company SCO optimistically has 6 months left. IBM is not going to tolerate this nonsense for much longer.
As several sources, including Bruce Perens' fine analysis of code fragments thus far disclosed, have indicated, some of what SCO is claiming as their IP in fact stems from material that were in the public domain as far back as the 70's. If this can be established beyond the shadow of a doubt in court, then they should have no right to keep private that which is already public and the codes can ultimately be disclosed.
It's somewhat similar to my attempting to keep the contents of "Encyclopaedia Brittanica" secret by claiming IP rights, only to realize later that I never owned it, do not own it, and will never own it. Therefore, I would have no right to keep it confidential since my original claim of ownership is debunked.
Do you think that the court can be made to understand that the only reason SCO doesn't want anyone to know what code is infringing is that two hours later, nobody is going to be using that particular code any more and therefore won't owe SCO anything?
Technoli
What really blows me away about this whole debacle is the value of SCOX. At around $15/share, this same time last year it was only a few bucks per share. Someone's buying this crap and someone's going to get raped. People better check to see their mutual fund managers aren't taking them for a ride. All these shady court arrangements are only prolonging the inevitable decline of SCO, and when that happens a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money. I hope the SEC is looking into the stock dealings.
Then it's just a matter of whether it's worth it to keep fighting for the right to use the existing code and the scope of SCO's rights in anything. But on a going-forward basis, at least Linux can become SCO-free.
And yet the public is subject to lawsuits over this fictitious code? What sense does that make? I can't see what I can, in theory, be sued over?
Supposedly this is protected information, and as such the court needs to prevent it from becoming part of the "public record". Here is what concerns me.
What if a few lines of code ARE found to be infringing? SCO doesn't have to tell the world what the code is, it just has to prove that the code is in violation. If so SCO can then start trying to collect $$$ from linux users with a fresh court ruling in hand saying that linux 2.4 is in violation. Lets be honest, SCO isn't going to tell you WHERE the offending code is so that you can rip it out and replace it with something else.
I guess it's time to get out my 2.2 series kernels and dust them off.
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
How can SCO claim that the knowledge of "which" code is supposedly infringing is a trade secret, when they've been distributing the source code to the linux kernel and a bazillion other packages over their web site for years?
A sketch artist drawing symbols.
We can't just open this up to the public. The minute we open it up we have in fact opened it up to the public
Thank you for your brilliant insight!
How bout IBM's army of blue t-shirted CodeDrones tearing it apart lie by lie.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
on IRC:
irc.perfectping.com
#finite
While it is a trade secret, the code is presumeably already in the field. I mean, they are saying "Hey, this code is ours and it's out in the wild and we want compensation." Eventually, in order to exact license for this code they will have to disclose it to anyone they attempt to sue. It would seem to serve the better public good to disclose it now, since the kernel is already being distributed, supposedly, with this code. I would imagine that judgment will resume with this code held secret but that eventually it will come out regardless of the outcome. If IBM loses, then each subsequent litigation will include revealing this code to the otherside for SCO. More importantly, I don't see any judge saying "Okay, the code is in violation and now all you companies have to leave it there and pay SCO" when the OS movement is saying "Give us a chance to remove the code." No judge is going to just leave the opportunity in place for continued violation. If IBM wins, then it's going to depend on the summary of the issue. Either the code is SCO's but IBM didn't put it in the kernel or the code is not SCO and it is moot how it got in there.
Well can we at least see the code in the Linux tree that they claim infringes even if we don't see their tree?
Nobody is asking to see SCO's code, just point at the code everyone already has in Linux and say what parts are claimed to infringe.
There is absolutely no excuse for not making at least this portion fo the evidence available.
"Ahh yes lots of { and } and 'if' in both sets of code, i find in favour of SCO."
Just a thought.
Judge Damon J. Keith, in the Cincinnati ruling, opined that "Democracies die behind closed doors."
Little surprise, Darl figures SCO will survive behind closed doors.
And it is true that SCO will survive only as long as it is behind closed doors. Open the doors, let the light shine, and let people pore over the code .... SCO is then as good as dead ....
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
The minute we open it up we have in fact opened it up to the public and we can't restrict it in the future from a proprietary standpoint,
And that's why the GPL is illegal, too. Darl enjoys twisting words, doesn't he?
I think people are confusing this case with an open-source v. open-source fight.
While I appreciate the "community-nature" of open-source and Linux, the average user does not have a right to see the infringing code just because he or she feels personally affronted by SCO. If you were personally named in the lawsuit, then you should be able to see the code.
Assuming SCO has any valid case, it is going to be determined in a Court of Law, not the Court of Slashdot. If SCO happens to win its case against IBM, et al., then the "proprietary code" in which it claims Linux infringed would no longer be "proprietary" if SCO released its source to every Joe Linux-User who asked for it. You can't expect a company to shoot itself in the foot just to prove a case in a Court of Law (though I guess Slashdotters might expect it from SCO).
Let IBM's goggle of lawyers fight this out. My sense is that they have half-a-clue as to what amounts to infringing code. Anyway, with IBM on its side, it's like having Daddy Sawbuck's pay the Open Source community's legal fees!
-A
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And have more money in their coffee fund than SCOX have in their legal fund...
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
People who contributed code to any of the files SCO claims has copied code, should be represented at this trial. They are the ones who are at risk of having their copyrights stripped from them.
The problem is how to do this without them losing the ability to write code in the future. If SCO presents their code and someone who views that code later contributes code to similar portions of the kernel then SCO would have a much stronger case in any future lawsuits.
There is a danger that, through lack of representation, IBM could be let off the hook but the court makes a statement asserting that code in the kernel belongs to SCO. This wouldn't happen if the disclosure was done in the open.
Is this a real possibility or would the court not make any statements about transfer of copyright for groups not present at the trial?
--YAAC (Yet Another Anonymous Coward)
If not before, then when they've lost their case, their market and their reputation and the shareholders agree to give what's left of SCO to ESR in return for his VA Linux stock ;-)
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
This is actually entirely consistent with SCO's stance: that it simply doesn't ... and we can't
understand copyright in any way. Given the number of hot-shot lawyers who are
prepared to have their name appear in public next to SCO's for a fat fee, that
stance is almost certainly feigned and willful. But it is consistent. They
don't get the GPL, they don't understand copyright law or its constitutional
underpinnings. What they're effectively doing here is saying "it's our
prrreccioussss, our codeses, millions of lineses, yes there is
show it, oh, no, Scccooogal can't show it, because the thieveses will TAKES IT,
they will. Wicked, nassssty, trickssy falssse THIEVESES!", and I don't
share their confidence in how effective that argument will prove to be.
Not only is it normal, but I imagine if the magistrate initially opened the court up, it could lead to a charge of prejudice and a reversible error on appeal.
The court does not get a copy of discovery materials. They only see what the parties choose to submit into evidence. However, the next hearing will likely discuss that evidence in enough detail that, unfortunately, it makes sense for the hearing to be closed.
I suppose that IBM could move to have the transcript released if they can claim that there was nothing covered under the protective order discussed. And, particularly given that Kevin McBride admitted in court the last time that they have no evidence from Sys V and that they don't have a copy of AIX, I would imagine that any evidence SCO submits will only come from Linux and that it would then be easy for IBM to argue for opening the transcript.
What I think will be even more interesting is if we ever do find out what the code was, then we figure out who did it, and it was never someone who could have ever possibly had a glimpse of SCO code or anything like that, and just happened to come up with the same idea in the same manner they did.
... well, okay, that guy's just as smart as the other guy we had doing stuff, BUT YOU STILL HAVE IT! ;)
It would be icing on the cake. YOU HAVE OUR CODE! --
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There is no good reason for the code to not be publicly shown. There can't possibly be trade secret status for it, as it's already in the kernel which is viewable by the world, and by copyright law the copyright holder has to let you know what you're doing wrong so you can fix it, IIRC. SCO is doing this for two reasons:
1. They don't want the open source people to tear thier case to shreds like they did with the first snippet of code they saw.
2. If there is actual stolen code, they don't want the open source people removing it so that SCO can't collect a fee on Linux.
It's bullshit, and it stinks. The restriction must be lifted and the code shown in open court.
The very few lines of "offending" code that slipped through to the public didn't survive one week of the open source community's reviewing before it was clearly demonstrated NOT offending SCO's IP.
...
Isn't it obvious they learnt their lesson: Don't show the code to the ones who know how to use it to prove we are lying
Hopefully IBM can do it without Groklaws help - but probably it will take longer time.
could a company like SCP be allowed to behave like this. I am correct in thinking that as far as US law goes it is perfectly legal for SCO to threaten litigation and genrally try and extort monies from linux users without evidence of any IP infringement?
Hmm. So to become rish in America i need only
1. Decide on a copyright to accuse ppl of infringing
2. spread FUD and threaten to sue all ppl infringing my non existent copyright
3. collect millons
4 laugh
All without ever having to prove a thing in court.
There is no court documents yet that support this spin that SCO is trying to put out. There is no fillings to have anything kept from the public (yet).
/*
String Copy PLUS(tm)
(c) AT&T,SCO
*/
char *sppy(const char *s2) {
static char s[100];
strncpy(s,s2,200);
return(s);
}
True and True sorry for some odd reason i thought they wanted a closed court as in SCO and the Judges
A psychopath can't tell the difference between right and wrong. A sociopath knows the difference - he just doesn't care.
For those of you that need a constant SCO fix ... it seems the place to be is on the Yahoo finance boards
General consensus is that the stock will tank any day now , I'm looking forward to seeing the blood run freely.
OpenOffice tips:richhillsoftware.com
SCO... why don't you just crawl into a little hole (away from the rest of us, we don't want to smell you)? Please die there, and leave your festering carcass for the worms. In any case, leave me the f*ck alone.
You stole it from us. Nasty hobbitses.
My pressciousss...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
...fscking wrong. I just hope the IBM team can disprove SCO's allegations without the community's help.
According to my SCO Countdown - Counting Down To The End Of This fiaSCO website, there's just slightly more than 19 days until SCO has to finish giving it's evidence. Happy hunting, IBM...
First they are claiming that EVERYONE has seen their code. Now they are preventing those same people from seeing what they already have. Isn't this an admission there is nothing to see?
In other words, because of the openness of Linux, their code is already available to anyone. They have nothing to gain by keeping it secret now UNLESS it has always been secret.
Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
If the EULA is not on the outside of the box, than it is invalid if you bought the box from a store.
I don't doubt that this is all just more SCO manuevering/FUD, but if they do get a protective order it only hurts the OSS community, not IBM and its lawyers.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
that the UNIX code base was released to the public years ago. My guess is that maybe they think that if they act like what they have is worth something, eventually they can trick somebody into believing it and paying for it.
While the closed proceeding is disappointing to Linux advocates, it is not as much as a set back as one might think. After all, IBM still will get access to the code. With IBM's resources, I'm sure they can skillfully analyze and debunk SCO's claims. While we cannot do so, our analyses would not have mattered to the court anyway. Those who may have been invovled the the "alleged" code might be ready to receive some inquiries from IBM. Namely the two former SCO/Caldera employees, Linus, etc.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
In a case like this, the actual code disclosure is pretty much always sealed with the case, and both party usually agreed to this up front. The problem was that SCO hasn't even began to send any kind of information to IBM yet. It's not like Cravath will disclosed this code to IBM Germany Linux team.
"It has come to our attention that Linux and other systems compile into the binary computer language for execution. As UnixWare does this we find all other operating systems and programs to be an illegal derivative of our IP and will be suing the following for violating our IP: any company that produces an operating system or program, schools which teach mathematics in base 2, teachers who teach compilers, programming, base 2, or anything generally related to computer science, cs students, and end users who execute binary code."
--The next big SCO press release
not to mention the possibility of somebody unbiased seeing the code and it reaching the papers (electronic or not). This would certainly create bad publicity for SCO both court-wise and .biz-wise.
Most pointyhaired-bosses don't believe a thing until it reaches their particular newspaper or magazine
IBM could just publish a listing of the code which is not in dispute.
"No your honor, we didn't release the code SCO said was copied into Linux. We just released a listing of what SCO says isn't theirs. Surely that isn't secret..."
Too bad for them they *won't* be able to avoid IBM's technical experts.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
if the GPL is an amalgamation of individual copyrights collected together, then SCO's code needs to be delineated for the end users. If the GPL is an umbrella copyright, then all of the developers need to know what is infringing so that it can be removed.
The secret is going to be out. Whether it happens now, when the accused is standing in court, or later when the judgement is handed down and something has to be done about the infringement, it is going to be out. The only way the secret could stay a secret is if the judge threw the bums out. Not a bad option, in my opinion.
At this point, a well-timed "leak" is in order. Those silly IBM lawyers and their unsecured FTP servers.
Hey... Isn't this what Freenet was made for?
The ______ Agenda
For the court to release SCO's source code into the public realm would be absurd. Now we all know it's not their code, but this hasn't been proven in court yet. What if Microsoft stole your code and you had to publicize it in order to prove your point? I think IBM will be able to pull the resources together to refute SCO's claims.
In way this makes sense - SCO should not have to show its source code to compare with the alleged infringing linux code. On the other hand, *if* they win and*if* the infringing code is removed from the linux source, a simplecomparison of the pre and post source will clearly show the infringing code.
I think the crux of the agrument to reveal this in closed court is to avoid SCO having to show its code in public. They should have the right to keep their source "closed".
Don't get me wrong - I think Darl and Co are all smoking crack -but they should be allowed to retain the rights to propietary source code.
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
Under the terms of discovery, the discloser may
label certain parts "confidential." If challenged
the onus is on the discloser to justify the
confidentiality.
The transcript of the court session is public and
this standard protective order is the only thing
mentioned. I am quite certain there was no
further side-deal with the magistrate.
While I would not put it past SCO to label
everything confidential, that would be an abuse
of the process. I doubt the magistrate would
allow it.
Stowell's announcement is just SCO's usual
disingeniuty in reporting the facts. Remember
that this is the person who claimed the judge
"flipped a coin" in deciding to rule in favour of
IBM's motion to compel discovery.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When did Darl get rid of the sleazy 'tache?!
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that SCO wins this case.
And furthermore, let us assume that the code is never released.
Linux users still don't have to pay license fees. Why? Because the user did not steal the code: IBM did.
Unfortunately, development is put back to the 2.2 kernel days. However, 99.9% of kernel patches after that are valid code. So, after each patch is validated (that is why code modules are tagged with author's names. Also, the ChangeLog is useful there). One by one, they will be applied until a faster, leaner 2.6 reappears after a few months.
We have nothing to worry about here.
I have trouble believing Blake Stowell's clams...
Then don't listen to the man's clams. What do mollusks know about jurisprudence anyway?
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
That's not true. Courts have ruled, routinely, that the full version of a long contract that cannot be displayed at time of purchase may be included along with delivery. Generally, if this requires the consumer to waive rights, then the consumer is entitled to a refund if s/he does not agree with the new terms in the EULA.
However, EULAs in general are NOT illegal, for the simple matter that they wouldn't FIT on the outside of the box.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
In other words, this is typical SCO FUD and misrepresentation of the facts, and in this case, facts that are already old and well known to those following the case. SCO has not won any victory here; quite the contrary. The alleged code (if it exists at all) will almost certainly be available after some very standard legal procedures.
There is truly nothing to see here; zdnet got suckered by a SCO press release. Regrettable, as they should have known better by now, but aside from allowing Darl et. al. to defraud some day traders and invenstors for another few days, it really doesn't amount to anything at all.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
While I think they are nuts.. Why should they be compelled to reveal trade secrets to the PUBLIC?
If a company had to reveal their secrets to be able to sue someone that stole them, then there would be no suits and rampant corporate espionage..
note: I'm not saying SCO is in the right here for their alledged infractions, but any legal decisions/precidents like that would have ramifications way beyond this one suit.. You have to think about consequesnes of any actions beyond your little pet project.. noone lives in a box..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It would be interesting to see a news organization try to obtain the source; they usually try to open up the evidence during a big trial.
Ok, since they don't want to code to be public, then just have SCO show the Judge, and IBM the infringing code. Then everyone does research to find out where that code came from, when it made it into Linux. WHO put contributed it, was it a SCO employee with permission from management or did it come from BSD or another contributor, then find out if SCO had the rights to clam it anymore. Which if its from those sources above, they don't. So far I have heard that SCO employees have made contributions with management giving the go ahead to do so, and BSD code finding its way into linux. The only System V source that has been known to get into linux was contributed by SGI, and that code has been taken out. How did this all happen without evidence, is our court system that bad.
It's official! The Santa Cruz Organisation (SCO, $CO) have been taking lessons from their close acronymical relatives the Church of Scientology (CoS, Co$). Don't believe me? The evidence is quite compelling:
Extortion
Spurious Copyright Lawsuits
Unwarranted Secrecy
Playing to the media
Paranoia
Dead-agenting
Yup, it's only a matter of time before SCO declares itself a religion, McBride declares himself God, and the staff are made to buy e-meters, exorcise their body thetans and start work on a remake of Battlefield: Earth... remember - SCOentology, you heard it here first, people. :)
These sigs are more interesting tha
I realize that this is civil and not criminal court, but doesn't IBM have a right to see the evidence against it so they can mount a defense. SCO would have to present a section of code, then IBM would have to rush to produce documentation of the lineage of that section, whether it came from "Ancient" (pre-V7/32V) AT&T UNIX, CSRG/Berkley/BSD, SysV or minix/linux/*BSD and whether the code is "known" (ie Lion's book, Pre-92 BSD sources, K&R, et al). Such a proceedure would cause a very slow, stop/start trial that could carry on forever.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
I wouldn't worry too much.
If SCO takes you to court for copyright infringement, they will have to show you the code.
Assuming they win against IBM, on copyright infringement, they still can't just grab someone and say "him too" without proving they own the copyright, and the defendant having the chance to prove they don't.
I hacked there server four months ago, and have been working long hours comparing all the code. There is no offending code in Linux.
Great. It's not even 12:01am Wed.
You realize you still have a few hours before you don that robe and staff, don't you?
Since the only real game is the IBM lawsuit, anything that will get that process rolling is good. Hopefully the trial will begin to go badly and all the other diversionary offenses will begin to break down. But even if IBM is found to be liable in some way, the court will at least define a much more narrow avenue of liability, which will still stop SCO from it's current round of random bombing.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
If they do in fact have code which is protected by copyright, then they have nothing to fear. Copyright still protects things that have been seen by the public -- it's called publication. It seems to me that the only reason copyright exists in the first place is to encourage people to publish their works by allowing them to still own a work once it is in the open.
If, on the other hand, SCO believes that it's control over the code is only based on its status as a trade secret, then they have no recourse against the Linux community, only (theoretically) IBM. Keeping any infringing code secret wouldn't help.
It seems to me that there are only a few possible reasons that SCO wants to keep all this secret, which are unrelated to their stated reasons:
1) They need Linux to continue infringing as long as possible. My guess is that the length of infringement, which will stop 24 hours or so after public disclosure, will directly affect any increase the damages paid by IBM.
2) They want to catch IBM in a contempt of court charge. If the code is sealed by the court, and it becomes suddenly removed before being made public, then SCO can say that IBM leaked information, and so is in contempt of the secrecy order. This makes IBM look very bad, and gives SCO a strong argument that IBM has clearly shown itself to be untrustworthy with information. It's an interesting gambit, relying on the fact that the information will need to be widely available within IBM for its defense, and bets that at least one of those people will spill the beans.
3) They have no idea who actually contributed the code in question. If they open it up to the public, there's always the possibility that some expert in the field will stand up and say, "No, I wrote that code, not IBM, and I have never seen SCO's code". Opening the code suddenly gives IBM a very large army of people who will study and scour the code SCO releases to find any evidence in IBM's favor whatsoever. With it secret, the burden is entirely on IBM, and so the process will take longer and evidence may be missed. This also plays into #2 above.
4) There is no code. SCO's allegations have been a delicate web of half-truths and bravado, exposure of which will mean certain death to the company. It will lose its case, it will not be purchased, and its lawyers will not be paid.
If they're getting the code hidden by court ordainment, then there's the likelyhood that they will have 'professional witnesses' analyze the code. I wonder: who might these 'professionals' be, how will they be selected, will they be competent and knowledgeable (since I'm assuming they'll have to be 'impartial', it's unlikely they have any knowledge even of the fact that there's a large amount of public domain UNIX code out there from the 1970's), and what is the potential that they might be financially corrupted (being as it's much easier to buy off 10 people for $10,000 (or 10k in stock) each, than thousands of people at any price).
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
1. You do not talk about Open Source Fight Club.
is to prove 'infringement', and then force the code to remain in Linux. The 'infringing' code is already public knowledge, but they have made the very important step of tricking the judge into protecting the secrecy of something that widely distributed and still available to anyone. This logically implies that the same judge will force the 'secret' to be kept if and when he/she rules on the side of SCO. If IBM can't publically disclose what the infringing code, they are hard pressed to remove and replace it, and forced to leave the infringing code in. With a judgment that Linux is infringing, SCO gains massive leverage to charge anything they want to for someone else's OS.
... it all depends on how bribable our legal system is, either directly or indirectly. SCO got a lot of clams from investors recently ...
Infuriate left and right
Once IBM sees the code, and verifies that -- whoops! -- they really did steal some code, then they can begin the process of removing/changing their code so that it is no longer in violation of SCO's "property".
;)
The beauty of this is that IBM already contributes a fair amount of code to linux. So while we can all fall over ourselves asking whether or not changes are being made because it is SCO trade secret related, so long as IBM never says yay or nay on that issue, SCO's trade secrets are preserved.
Even better though is that the modifications by IBM will almost certainly be an improvement over the existing code base, and so SCO will now have antiquated trade-secrets -- assuming they aren't already antiquated
The only thing left is whether or not SCO can collect damages from benefactors of a violation -- any linux user -- after they've already collected damages for said violation from the violator/IBM. I believe this IBM case should settle it once and for all and the rest is SCO FUD.
IBM releases an "update" to the Linux kernel, which does not include any of the SCO code. They are going out of their way to avoid hurting SCO, because their release of Linux has removed any SCO code they don't want the public to see. They don't tell anyone what SCO's code is directly, but instead release a derivative work of legitimate GPL code, using only legitimate GPL code and not SCO code that SCO doesn't want revealed.
Of course, this is demonstration by absence. However, since Linux already exists in the open, the code SCO is not talking about is not secret except in the fact that no one knows what they are claiming.
I find this arguement very interesting:
"We can't just open this up to the public. The minute we open it up we have in fact opened it up to the public and we can't restrict it in the future from a proprietary standpoint," said SCO CEO Darl McBride at conference in August this year.
What is he refering to by "open this up"? If it's code in the Linux kernel, it's already open in the sense of having been seen. If they have any LEGITIMATE claims, it is NOT "opened up" in the sense of everyone being able to use it. The only thing they would "open up" would be how we can get their crap (if any) out of the kernel, and if they're going to try to make proprietary arguments on THAT basis either they are totally out of our minds or our IP related laws in the country have utterly failed. I can't believe the judge didn't ask them to explain how code already in the public eye as part of the Linux kernel can possibly be further harmed by identification, and how they expect to make money off of not identifying it publicly. The only possible answer is a study in absurdity. I want to hear them say "If we let any knowledge out of how to remove our code, we won't be able to try and force Linux users to pay us for future versions" in front of a judge.
I suppose the court isn't able or required to look into the business model of SCO, but come on.
If this nonsense drags on long enough, I say we put an intense concentration of effort into EROS, make it functional at or near the Linux level with it's advanced concepts in place, and introduce the world to a whole new scale of OS security and robustness, and make them wish they had never even heard of the Linux kernel. Maybe IBM would be willing to back such an effort - they developed some of the original ideas behind it, and by now they probably appreciate open source's potential or they would have abandoned it. They say a good fighter never hits where the opponent is expecting the punch, and that would sure be a pretty KO bunch for SCO.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Leave none alive!
That's probably similar to IBM's marching orders to their attorneys.
And if anything is OK with IBM's lawyers, I'll accept it. I may not really like it - I'd much rather have the judge force SCO to go public - but I have faith that IBM's lawyers won't fail.
"The Court of Slashdot", I like it...
Judge: "Mr. ForeGeek of the Jury, have you reached a verdict?"
FGOTJ: "Yes, Your Honor"
Judge: "What say you?"
FGOTJ: "We find the defendant guilty of Trolling in the first degree"
Judge: "I sentence the defendant to -1, Flamebait!"
That should teach 'em! Or not...
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
... if, as they claim, it's already in linux? If their code really is in linux (which they can easily check, since it's open source), then it has already been distributed, and there are no ip secrets that are not known already. While I can understand the automatic attempt to not reveal company secrets... it seems pretty illogical in this case. What exactly are they worried about revealing?
Alphanos
If the code is actually infringing, SCO doesn't have to worry about a mass cover-up to deny any use of the SCO code. I'm sure there are plenty of Linux distributions on store shelves with CD-ROMs containing kernel source rpms.
I'm more interested in whether or not SCO can actually prove that (non-SCO) programmers intentionlly stole specific non-public-domain code and inserted it into the Linux kernel.
Well, if you could keep it a secret that you were claiming the Encyclopeaedia Brittanica as your own IP until you got a court to back you up, and give you the license to sue all those door-to-door salesman, you would, right. Or at least SCO would.
This all assumes they really do have good instances of infringement to disclose to IBM.
... something. If they come up with anything at all, it is likely to be shot down fast and hard by IBM.
... exactly nothing?
Pretty much only SCO and a few suckemup analysts believe that.
Pretty much the rest of the world doesn't believe it.
They have 30 days to come up with
And then, who cares if it is public or not?
What if they come up with
Infuriate left and right
What we need is for someone with the time and spare paper to print off the (publicly available) source of the kernel, and stand outside the courtroom showing it to the public. Then SCO can't claim the public haven't already seen the 'SCO owned' code in question.
Phil
I think the point of the parent post is that this whole case is getting stale.
Just get some legal ruling and lets move on to the next step.
1. Court rules SCO has a case. Lets move to the next step.
2. Court rules SCO has no case. Lets move to the next step.
In the end this case is just one step in many before we get to a conclusion.
This day-time soap opera is getting old.
In the end, the OpenSource hordes will go to any extremes, including re-programming the whole thing in some pre-alphas version of Microsoft LISP, to kill off SCO claims.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Anyone want to lend Linus a couple of lawyers so he can sue SCO for tarnishing his trademark? A C&D preventing SCO from mentioning Linux in their press releases might put a hitch in Darls giddyup.
--
E_NOSIG
Considering that SCO has already stated in open court (read their own response to IBM's 2nd amended complaint for forcing discovery) "there are no Trade Secrets in SCO's code".
Therefore, requesting a sealing of the LINUX code that supposedly comes from SCO CANNOT be for protecting Trade Secrets, as there are none to protect. It's only purpose is to prevent the OSS community from quickly re-writing any actual infringing code and removing SCO's revenue stream. I hope the judge can see past SCO's FUD.
I'm curious about something, I read SCO's NDA and I'm not sure, but does it cover saying what parts of Linux absolutely are not being claimed as SCO IP? I mean I see clear through it that Confidential Information provided by SCO will not be disclosed. But it doesn't say anything about what is not shown. Probably can't circumvent things that way. Because of the circumstances. However one has to wonder.
I mean if say I were to sign a NDA with MicroSoft to see some of their source code I could probably get away with saying. None of the source code shown me was in these parts of Linux or in Linux at all. (One would hope). And I haven't told you anything about what was shown me.
But in this situation does the fact that someone would be telling you what's not there, equate to them telling you what is there and therefore violate the NDA?
Just Wondering... I'm about as far from being a lawyer as is possible.
As far as I can tell, it's still not a crime in the USA to possess someone elses copyrighted materials. Even the RIAA only goes after people who are distributing songs. So while Redhat and Cheapbytes might be in line for a lawsuit, Joe Sysadmin probably isn't.
--
E_NOSIG
I was under the impression that under US law one could confront one's accuser.
Isn't sco accusing the entire community?
How's that make it any different from 50% of the comments on slashdot?
One should not have any legal protection whatsoever of trade secrets.
Legal protection of inventions is something provided by the government when you agree to patent those inventions: part of the agreement is that you document your invention for the future public good in exchange for a limited (20 year) monopoly enforced by law. Patents are something like the GPL in this sense: the enforcement isn't provided in exchange for money, but rather in exchange for particular rights.
If you decide not to accept this agreement but instead rely on secrecy, then the burden should be on you to protect that invention. If it gets out, tough shit: you made your bed, now lie in it.
[ home ]
Fortunately, It's in my home environment. Most of my family wouldn't know how to exploit it.
I will keep my router/firewall up to date however.
The truth shall set you free!
The executive board of SCO consists of:
Darl C. McBride
Chris Sontag
Robert K. Bench
Reg Broughton
Sean Wilson
Larry Gasparro
Jeff Hunsaker
Ralph J. Yarro III
Steve Cakebread
Edward E. Iacobucci
R. Duff Thompson
Darcy Mott
K. Fred Skousen
Thomas P. Raimondi, Jr
If you see any of these people in years following the implosion of SCO, do not give them a job. Do not enter into contracts with them. Do not loan them your car. They have proven themselves incapable of planning for the future of a company and incapable of behaving like mature partners in the sphere of business. At a time when SCO desperately needs to be investing in research and development, these people are plunging the company into bankruptcy. They're taking a tremendous gamble with their shareholders money, a gamble which even if successful would only mean residuals on existing Linux implementations in the US, and a painful migration for everyone else to OpenBSD. They're betting everyone else's money on a long shot, and should be held accountable for their irresponsible actions.
Once again, those names are
Darl C. McBride
Chris Sontag
Robert K. Bench
Reg Broughton
Sean Wilson
Larry Gasparro
Jeff Hunsaker
Ralph J. Yarro III
Steve Cakebread
Edward E. Iacobucci
R. Duff Thompson
Darcy Mott
K. Fred Skousen
Thomas P. Raimondi, Jr
The ______ Agenda
If we were working for IBM or its lawyers, wouldn't it be within their rights have us work on researching this evidence for flaws?
Who wouldn't sign up for that public internship program?
Tomorrows headline: IBM Offers Public Internship to World. World Signs Up.
If this can be established beyond the shadow of a doubt in court,
Criminal trials only require beyond resonable doubt. Civil trials only need a preponderance of evidence. IANAL.
In Soviet Russia, corporations obey courts.
search for IBM and look at the associated text... what do you all think of this? http://www.intelligententerprise.com/010810/412e_b usiness1_1.shtml
"SCO characterises the licenses as a source of 'immunity' from future intellectual property claims."
If I were to say "I own a lot of code in Microsoft's OS" and then offer a license to Windows users offering "immunity" from me suing them, and all the while not revealing any evidence in order to prevent Microsoft or the users from eliminating the components I say are causing them to owe me $$, how would that be looked upon by the press and the courts? What if I generated a lot of press saying:
"My ancient DOS code is the core of Windows! End users should pay me a license fee or face lawsuits!"
"I can't reveal why my code justifies this demand or what it is since that would damage my ability to leverage my IP."
"Microsoft cannot release a patch or update to resolve this issue - the code is too deeply entrenched. Plus, the rest of Windows is a derivative work, including things like NTFS."
The responses would be a) Windows is at fault, not the End Users and b) No tikee, no laundry. Show evidence or booted out the court door. Now, this is what SCO is doing to Linux, but somehow the fact that the author's price for Linux is $0 makes the End Users responsible????? What makes $0 special as opposed to $X? Why are End Users suddenly no longer as innocent in Linux as they are in Windows?
Oh, and now apparently acting decently and acting in good faith are now liabilities. Allowing someone a chance to fix a problem or a mistake is against corporate policy since it's more profitable to try and make them pay through the nose for it for eternity. Oh, and make anyone who benefits from that mistake, however unknowingly, also pay. Yay corporatism.
This whole thing is a crock. The saying "No good deed ever goes unpunished" certainly seems to be true for the open source community. But of course, "good deeds" are a threat to commercial suppliers of helpful services and products, and therefore are no part of a proper capitalistic system. Lord, what a messed up world we (or at least SCO) live in.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
It is my understanding that this is one risk of "trade secret". If someone develops something the same time as you, but independently ('course, there could be issues of determining independence), then you don't have any claim to the idea because you did not disclose it. This is one aspect of patents, actually: you are making some technology public, but the patent gives you exclusive rights for the patent term. You are trading public knowledge for exclusive use. If I develop some widget in my basement, and some guy on the other side of the country does the same and we both sell it without protecting the idea, we don't have any mechanism for protection.
The fact that SCO is claiming "trade secret" could possibly be an advantage: "Hey folks, well their code was secret so we had to come up with our own way to do it, and we did. But since it was math, there was only really one way to do it, so it looks the same." (This you might be able to prove by giving 6 people some differential equations and having them solve it - my guess is they will all arrive at the same answer (if they know what they're doing, at any rate)).
So, in summary, do "trade secrets" have any protection if they are not stolen? If I make a competing technology for one that is a "trade secret" that does the same thing but without copying the guts, is there any grounds on which the offended party may seek damanges? Is that not part of the risk of keeping an idea "secret"?
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Be careful to keep client software updated as well, because all it takes is a remote local hole in something like your IRC client (these are common sadly) combined with the local root in the kernel, and you now have a remote root, and there isn't much a stateless firewall can do to help in this situation.
Nonaggression works!
They'll get in trouble if they do release the claimed source code to the public, that's for sure. However, couldn't they release file names and line numbers in CVS?
Could it have come from IBM? Doubtful. It would not be permission then, it would be an agreement.
It must have come from some third party. Perhaps a party with a copyright/trade.secret interest in the code. Perhaps permission from someone less connected but pulling the strings?
The agreed protective order might cover SCO code. But can it cover Linux code which is already very public? Certainly not. How could the mention of allegedly infringing files and line-numbers be considered a trade secret?
You can't have it both ways. You allow the code to be used, or you say "this is mine, get your own!"
Jeez, only in Amerika, can you threaten legal action against someone and not have to tell them what law was broken. What happened to simple cease and desist? "This is my code and you have 30 days to stop using my IP."
Initially one might suppose that by keeping the code secret, they are saying, in effect, "Linux has our code, we want it fixed, but we won't tell you what's wrong." and therefore getting linux users in a catch-22
However, what they are likely trying to establish is this, "Linux has had our code in it for the past x revisions. The following entities have made a profit off Linux, either by use or sales or support, and have thereby profited illegally from our code."
However, the instant the code is out it will be very difficult indeed to prove that some corporations did use the kernels or modules in question as they will upgrade and destroy any trail or proof of use. "No sir, we used linux 2.1 for the last x years, and only recently upgraded to the latest, sco free, release a week after some patches were released..."
They need time and a court order to seek out infringing use evidence before the code can be released. They need to win against IBM in order to get the court orders they need, and then it'll take a year or longer to vet out the targets of further lawsuits and try to get them to pay.
This is NOT about co-opting linux, or even getting it 'fixed.' This is about getting money for their investors by licensing IP which has been allegedly mishandled and used by many profitable organizations.
If it does work (unlikely) then it will have a chilling effect on the usage of Linux as other comapnies use the SCO case as precedence to license code they feel is an infringement on their IP. For instance, many developers of Linux, even on their free time, are beholden to their companies through various state laws and contracts they may have signed without careful reading.
BSD, having been through its litigation phase, may catch up during this time. But I doubt much will come of the whole affair. IBM will settle with no further suits from SCO to endusers, SCO will be sold, the lawyers will be paid, and the court documents will be sealed according to the terms of settlement.
We may never have full knowledge of the IP allegedly being infringed.
-Adam
Mod that up.
what lines in what files of the Linux kernel are being contested. SCO may have won the right to not have in public record the context of the ORIGINAL SCO sources they claim had code taken from, but the portions of the Linux code claimed to have been contaminated may yet be identified. Without seeing the original SCO code you won't be able to prove that the Linux code WAS contaminated, but if you do find out which lines of which files were, you can clean it up.
Not only in America. I'm sure there are several dictatorial regimes where that happens too.
Technoli
I don't know why everybody is making such a big deal over this. If you want to see the infringing code get it from sco. They will make it available (provided you sign a NDA).
Taken directly from the SCO Linux IP License FAQ.
15. Is SCO willing to show any examples of source-code violations to Linux users?
SCO has been showing examples of direct line-by-line copying of UNIX code into Linux to hundreds of industry analysts, reporters, customers, partners, and industry influencers since June of this year. To view this code, interested parties have had to sign a non-disclosure agreement verifying that they would keep this code in confidence. SCO continues to identify and show this code to parties willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
There you go, talk with SCO, sign the NDA and start grep'ing the source tree, then lets really see if SCO has anything.
Someone needs to explain to the judge that SCO's claim is ridiculous as a matter of law. Assuming SCO proves their claim, as a matter of law IBM must be allowed to remove the infringing code. The code for Linux containing SCO's code is already available to the public, and the now-clean code will be available to the public per the terms of the GPL (which IBM would still have to abide by). A simple diff of the two will reveal exactly the code SCO's trying to keep unrevealed. The only way to prevent this would be to either prohibit IBM from curing the infringement (not legal) or to pull in every other Linux contributor and take away their right to license their own intellectual property (the parts that don't belong to SCO) under terms they find agreeable (again not legal, remedy doesn't extend that far beyond the plaintiff's own IP).
I doubt the court would want to force vendors to use alleged SCO code when they don't want to. More likely is that the court is giving SCO the benefit of the doubt early in the trial. SCO would have to present its (closed) UNIX code along with Linux code, so there's no point in revealing any of it. I think we shoild have expected this. However, if SCO sues anyone in the future, the code would have to be revealed to the defendant anyway.
Also, the code isn't really public. For instance, anybody's social security number may show up in a uuencoded binary, but until it is identified as such, the SSN is not public.
10 SCO says "X is confidential"
20 IBM appeals to the judge
30 The court rules on whether X is not
40 GOTO 10
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
How's that make it any different from 50% of the comments on slashdot?
This one isn't bashing Windows or referencing 1984.
In Soviet Russia, SCO obeys the court.
My thinking is that there is a strong possibility that they know this is totall b*llsh*t, and that--just maybe--it's documented somewhere.
So here's my plan: all us slashdotters should buy a few shares each of SCO stock. This might let us get a significant vote in the next shareholder meeting, but that's not even the real point. The real point is that we could mount a major shareholder lawsuit if it turns out--as we all are assuming--that the emperor has no clothes.
The nice thing about this plan is that if it turns out that they've been right all along, and that IBM owes them $3billion, then we sell our stock when the decision comes through and make a little profit off it all.
Of course, the one downside to it is that all of /. buying 10 shares of SCO could cause another price spike that would let Darl and Co. sell off more shares to their own personal profit... D'oh!
The CB App. What's your 20?
As others have noticed: There is no reason to present these code fragments to a closed court, because the fragments in question are already publically available.
There can be only one reason then. SCO must have additional arguments which will either not stand the daylight or could damage SCO significantly should they be publically known. I wonder what that could be? Something about their employees leaking the code without permissions and against contractual bindings?
The news would be something along the lines of: The Orlando Magic ban audiences from attending games because 'we can't make baskets when people are looking'.
IBM does have an interest in minimizing the amount of SCO evidence that is claimed to be confidenial. It comes down to press access. If IBM truely believes they will win this case fairly easily, they will want the press there to write about it. IBM can't be held responsible for anything the press writes about the case, unlike SCO's press releases and statements, which have already been used against them in court.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
...ripping apart their arguments so completely!
goates
But I believe you are correct about trade secrets and parallel development.
SCO might have a case IF they could show that SCO showed IBM the trade secrets SCO was using under contract and that IBM then released those to Linux.
So, SCO has to identify the code they claim is a "trade secret". For some reason, SCO has been very, Very, VERY reluctant to do so in court.
Then SCO has to show that there was a contract covering that code signed with IBM (or one of the companies that IBM now owns and that the contract was still binding when ownership changed) and that IBM had access to that code PRIOR to that code being added to Linux.
IF (and that's a big IF) both of those items are met, then IBM needs to show that the person/team that submitted that code to Linux did not have access to the SCO code.
Trade secrets have a problem in that it is up to the company with those secrets to protect them and take REASONABLE precautions against them leaking out.
Now, if SCO shows the code and the contracts and IBM cannot show that the code was clean, IBM can still come back and say that since no one in the Linux kernel developers' community can IDENTIFY THE SCO CODE, the "trade secret" is still a secret.
Satan: [Singing] But what if you never change? What if you remain a sandy little butthole?
Saddam Hussein: [Singing] Hey, Satan, don't be such a twit / Mother Teresa won't have shit on me.
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Folks,
.... So, in the USA, Linux would have underground dealers and eventually the FBI and ATFS (Alien Technology Free Software) agents would be arresting folks like me and you. The prison sentences will be comparable with cocaine and heroin dealers ... (I know, but ...) look at PA-1+2, DMCA, HDA, ... directions (forget the US Constitution protecting US citizens). In other words, SCO is already in their grave the world community will not allow this frivolous BS to invade their sovereign nations. As for the USA ... we wait to see ...?
(1) SCO is hiding their lies. Legal wrangling by SCO to find a favorable (technology incompetent) court is a waste of corporate financial resources and burdens the recourses of interested others. SCO is the only party in any possible case that does not want to resolve these problems ASAP. Rather than a rush to court by SCO, it appears SCO is in a rush to scam and defraud businesses internationally. SCO needs to withdraw from the game they are playing, or play and lose, before some State Attorney General initiates a criminal investigation.
(2) SCO could win in a USA court and lay-claim to Linux. SCO would never win in a Canada, EU, China, India, French, Russian, British, Irish, Scot, German,
The USA FLAG waived proud and high, as the USA Constitution ideals died in Congress.
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
Plutocratic Capitalist perverts subverting Pluralistic Democracy and Open Economy are as clueless as Marie Antoinette and King Louis XVI (1755-1793).
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
It wasn't the IBM experts that identified the small bit of code the SCO has already released. It was the community. The community has the most to loose from the courts decision, the community is the greatest research base for finding the true origions of the code; if the supposed infringing code is locked behind closed doors then the community will have no power at all to save ourselves. Whether their is infringment in Linux or not doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what the lawyers can make the judge believe. Remember the 9 states vs. the Microsoft Anti-trust penalties. Legal people while very good in other matters tend to miss huge points when it comes to technology. They are ruling on something that they truly do not understand.
Tonight on BBC 4: Clamofibophobia -- are bivalve mollusks lying to you?
As a public service to the /. community, let me review the relative truthfulness of various members of the animal kingdom.
A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
SCO claims that proprietary UNIX code was incorporated into Linux, with "copyright info" comments stripped off.
What if it's the other way around? What if some truly "free" code was incorporated into UNIX, and their "copyright info" comments were added "boilerplate-style" (just because policy was that all code was supposed to have copyright info?)
In other words, just because the UNIX code has copyright info that says "this is mine" does not prove it to be so.
Does this influence anybody else's perception of
SCO?
Lets file a class action law suit agains SCO. They are threating us with no proof. I would guess the EFF might be intrested in this.
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
Actually, If they believe this-- that seeing code makes it public domain, then that explains why they think invalidating the GPL would allow them to use Linix code. They would be arguing that computer code is a special case that cannot be copyrighted but must be either held as a trade secret or released as public domain.
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
If there are any limitations on seeing the code, AND those limitations are upheld, then it would NOT be a wise idea to have Linus or any other ACTIVE kernel developer look at SCO's code.
That is for the same reason that Linus refused to sign the NDA from SCO when SCO was showing snippets of code.
Linus and the other developers MUST remain clean of any SCO taint OR any restrictions on what they can work on in the Linux kernel.
I'm sure that IBM's legal team can learn from groklaw and everyone else about how to trace code origins.
Given ANY chance, I believe that SCO would try to tie a developer up with a flimsy excuse for a lawsuit.
This way will take longer, but it will prevent potential future problems.
If there's a rational here, I would (seriously) appreciate an explanation.
"Will they steal your vote in 2004? [gregpalast.com] "
I just went to his site recently. You don't get it that he is a satirist. The stuff about Haliburton and "stealing the election in 2004" are all for laughs, just like his article about Jessica Lynch being the one to capture Saddam. This recent fake story is still there, complete with fabricated quotes.
Oh, wait, I thought it said Blake Stonewall
My bad.
-=sig=-
...by using Eric Raymond's comparitor. It would allow for disclosure of the "signature" of infringing code without disclosing the actualy code. Then kernel developers could look for similar signatures in the kernel tree.
Which is the whole reason they want to keep it secret. If people are breaking the law NOW, they can be sued even if they don't know it (ignoantia legis non excusat). If they open the proceedings, we'll all switch...and they'll lose evidence in future suits. What the court is doing is quite fair.
Doesn't mean I'm not hoping for a leak...
Hey freaks: now you're ju
I don't even want to think about differential equations. I probably just flunked my calc 2 exam.
You insensitive clod.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
As useful as IRC and AIM are, they are too much of a security risk for me, so we are not running them. I'll keep an eye out in the future for a client that has zero ability to load and execute remote code.
The truth shall set you free!
open4free
For the moment, at least, we'll have to leave ourselves in IBM's good legal hands. So far they've done a good enough job that I'm not too concerned.
Later on, the code may be revealed in public. There are certainly some arguments that IBM could make to the court along those lines.
In the meantime, have a cup of coffee and try not to get too stressed over the SCO press releases.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
I know it is frustrating, but it doesn't really matter. IBM is going to show in court that there is no SCO code in Linux.
IBM has nothing to prove, nor any reason to show their cards, until this is in front of the judge. :sigh:
Jaysyn
So Ralph J. Yarro III is a member of both.
Doesn't that mean that we should get rid of Qt in all open souce projects?
Maybe it'd be a good idea to not only avoid "business" with SCO and their boardmembers but even any business related to the other companies whos boards they occupy.
k2r
Ah, another victim of SCO's dishonesty.
Look back over the case that SCO filed against IBM. SCO is not claiming that IBM ripped off code SCO wrote or already owned.
I want to say that again because it's the crux of SCO's lies: SCO is not claiming that IBM ripped off code that SCO wrote or already owned.
What SCO is claiming is that code that IBM wrote for SCO was also included in Linux, allegedly contrary to IBM's license.
Essentially, SCO is claiming IBM had a "no compete" clause somewhere in that license. I don't know if they did or not. Even if they did, I don't know if they contributed code to Linux in contravention of the clause.
But please let's not let SCO distort the question of fact: they have never claimed that pre-existing code owned by SCO was added to Linux. They have claimed that code was simultaneously added to Linux and (I think; somebody correct me here) AIX in violation of IBM's license with SCO.
All's true that is mistrusted
"Once again SCO is refusing to tell Linux users just what code they claim is infringing on their IP rights, while still threatening to sue corporations running Linux."
SCO does not want SCO's code to become public domain. Anything in a court record is public knowledge. It's not unreasonable for SCO to be allowed to keep their own code secret.
Do you think that the court can be made to understand that the only reason SCO doesn't want anyone to know what code is infringing is that two hours later, nobody is going to be using that particular code any more and therefore won't owe SCO anything?
If they had a case, they'd have used CnD to stop people from infringing.
In lawsuits in federal district courts (and most state courts as well), the rules of discovery provide that opposing parties can get the other side to produce any information that is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(b)(1). This means that litigants have some leeway. They are not limited to asking for evidence that is admissible in court but rather can get ANY information that would LEAD to the discovery of admissible evidence. In other words, litigants do not get free, unfettered access to each others' files, but can go on limited "fishing expeditions" so long as they can show that they have some reasonable expectation of finding fish where they are fishing.
That said, assume (as the judge must at this stage of the litigation) that SCO actually does have some trade secret or confidentiality interests to protect in its source code. That secret or confidential status would be forever lost if disclosed to the world. SCO should not lose any valid rights it has simply because it sued to enforce those rights. (Take it easy flamers - we're making assumptions here still - keep reading!).
Obviously there are tensions among the right of a party to get information from an adversary to defend itself, the right of an opposing party to protect its trade secrets or confidential information, and the public's right to have judicial proceedings in the open. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure balance these interests in Rule 26(c) which proivides for protective orders. Such orders are issued to keep confidential information from becoming public. There are several features which ensure that the use of such orders is not too problematic:
-
The material produced under such an order must still be produced to the other side (and potentially the court if the litigation goes that far. In this case, I think everyone agrees that IBM has a substantial interest in gettin gthe information to defend itself. I also think most Slashdot readers would agree that in this case, IBM's interests are closely aligned with those of the Open Source community.
- The information claimed to be confidential must actually be confidential. That means that information which is not truly confidential cannot be made confidential because a party produces the information under the terms of a protective order.
-
The judge is free to reveal anything he determines is not confidential. A protective order is called an interlocutory order, meaning that it is one of those types of orders issued to keep the suit moving forward and does not finally determine the rights of the parties. Basically, it is the way the Court manages litigation. Because these orders do not (usually) determine the rights of parties, the judge is free to modify or revoke those orders at any time.
Now for all those who want desperately to see SCO's source code, I ask this: WHY do you want to see it so badly? If you enjoy reading source so much that you just HAVE to see SCO's code, then I suggest you sign SCO's nondisclosure and get it. If however, you want to do your own comparison to Linux code, then I submit that the community as a whole has no need to see what SCO has. IBM will adequately protect the community becuse its interests are so closely aligned with those of the community. If your burning desire to do a comparison is to prove that SCO's claims have no merit, again, IBM will do this job just fine. Sit back, be patient, and trust that IBM will defend itself (and the community) vigorously.Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
The term for what you're describing is misappropriation. A misappropriated trade secret is still considered secret and anyone that uses it is committing a crime. At least that was the theory before cases like DeCSS and Verance/SDMI/Felten where the trade secret holders are desperately trying to apply the old rules to the international internet.
The key cases on the misappropriation doctrine seems to be E. I. DuPont de Nemours Powder Co. v. Masland where a competitor took aerial photos of a chemical plant & claimed it was reverse engineering. The reasonableness of a measure to discover inner workings was at issue.
It's still a wierd area. Printed circuit board layouts can be copyrighted but you can look at one, extract a schematic and lay out your own board. The circuit design could receive patent protection, but not trade secret protection.
ObLink
... Cheney is impeached for helping Haliburton's war profiteering, the Red Sox win the world series, pigs fly and Commander Taco fixes the slashdot code to warn editors of imminent dupes.
And all's right with the world. B-)
But a nit: Clinton, not Bush, started the no-bid Haliburton contracts. (There ARE few choices in this industry, after all.)
Meanwhile, Cheney had to put his assets in a blind trust - where the trustee will by now have sold it off and converted the proceeds to a pot of random stuff. (And if he let Cheney know what was in the pot, or invested/left a disproportionate amount in Cheney's old interests, he's committed a felony, and the Dems can arrange to fry him after Cheney is out of office to deter such behavior in the future.)
For Cheney to get personal financial benefit (as if the VP had any real power in the first place) he has to improve the WHOLE US ECONOMY. (Maybe the whole WORLD economy). Which is what you WANT.
Isn't it?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This thing about SCO wanting to keep the code a secret is a non-issue at the moment. In actuality, if you think about it, it makes perfect sense for SCO to want to do this.
Look at it this way: You have some code you claim is proprietary and you sue someone for using it. Now, if you can keep the code a secret save for the courtroom, and you lose the case, then you still can keep that code proprietary and continue to charge licenses from people who obtain it directly from you.
But say instead you're forced to reveal the code to the public and you lose the case. Now you're up shit's creek because you have this code that was proven not to be infringing, but you can't claim it to be proprietary anymore because now everyone can see it. Personally, I'd be more worried if SCO went the other way and was more than happy to show the public. They would not do that unless they thought they had the case all sewn up. The fact that they will not reveal it to the public means they're hedging their bets and want the opportunity to continue using the code if they lose the case (assuming there is anything left the company afterward, but that's another story).
So don't worry about this quite yet. The code WILL be shown to the party that needs to know, namely IBM. IBM is not stupid. The splendid conduct they have shown before and during these proceedings shows that they know what they are doing. They can shoot holes in SCO's argument almost as good as the FOSS community can. And if they need help, they can rightly argue that they should be allowed to have outside experts view the code (read: Linux kernel maintainers). And in the unlikely case that SCO wins, they will be forced to reveal the code, as it is the ONLY way that it can be removed from the offending software.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
The reason they don't want to disclose the code to the community is because they know that the community will be able to shoot it down in about two seconds.
We can't just open this up to the public. The minute we open it up we have in fact opened it up to the public and we can't restrict it in the future from a proprietary standpoint," said SCO CEO Darl McBride at conference in August this year. "
Besides which, this claim makes no sense -- letting people see the code doesn't give people the right to use the code -- SCO would still have the copyright on anything that they wrote (or, to be more accurate, bought the rights to).
SCO might argue that (micro?)somebody might be avoiding integrating the code into CLOSED source software for fear of the wrath of the herds of wild Gnus who scrutinize object code for infringement. But once the stuff that's "realy SCO's" is identified, so only tiny SCO has an interest in hunting for it, they might go ahead and use it.
Of course the argument is bullshit since the release of the various Unix code (by SCO among others) already points more directly to anything that would fit the argument - as if anybody in the proprietary sector was really interested.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"Amerika" is a Kafka novel (inside joke).
Why does this remind me of President Bush's private meeting with Tony Blair?
Read, L
After all, the AT&T vs BSD case was sealed, too.
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
Eight people who have never seen a line of code in their life will analyze this evidence and decide the case, and we'll have to take their word for it.
I'm involved in a court case where they charge $2.35 per page per copy. The court fees add up quickly if you want to find out anything.
You are correct in what SCO has filed and that is all that matters at this point.
:)
It might have been a non-compete, or it might have been some other restriction.
Until SCO identifies the code, we won't know what contracts, if any, cover that code.
As for SCO's claims that pre-existing code was added to Linux, SCO did claim that in their NDA presentations.
SCO has filed ONE lawsuit against IBM for contract violations. What those specific violations are will have to wait for the specific code to be identified so the specific provisions of those specific contracts covering that specific code can be specified.
That is what the judge just ordered.
But, SCO has made lots of public statements about copyrights, patents, trade secrets and implied other things under "Intellectual Property". That crap is what gets reported by all the "journalists" and "analysts" out there.
I think it is good to have each of the possible scenarios discussed and what would happen under each of them.
More importantly, we could look at past cases to see what the standards were and what the legal outcome was.
People are asking for information regarding a situation which, taking the broad view, clearly affects them. Telling them they don't need to know is paternalistic and idiotic.
And nothing makes me more nervous than the words "trust me". Okay, maybe "homeland security".
Actually, there is some good reading over on Yahoo's finance pages. Several insiders have been selling off their stock continuously since SCO sued. While that isn't evidence of a pump-and-dump scam in itself, it is information that no serious investor can ignore. The insiders don't have any confidence that they can keep the share price this high. Let's review the numbers, shall we? (I've eliminated "Planned Sales" from my totals because they are generally reflected in the actual sales the same day, or a couple of days later.)
The grand totals are: 34,140 shares purchased through the exercise of options for $42,690.00. No purchases other than through options were reported. 184,440 shares were sold for a total of $2,468,103.00. That's sixe insiders who have been selling off their shares throughout the past few months. And according to the record of insider holdings, these guys between them only owned about 380,000 shares as of the dates of their most recent transactions. They are getting their money out. To me, this smells very bad.
Really? The only Butterfly that I am aware of that actively spreads viruses is the MSN butterfly, and (lucky for us) there is only one around...
Its just that SCO finds that even they don't fully know which lines it is either. Its embarrassing for them so they have resorted to a closed court.
If it takes a closed court for IBM to discover what the hell SCO are going on about then so be it but fact remains that NO ONE wants the SCO code if it compromises the freedoms that the GPL affords us with respect to the Linux kernel.
I'm happy to pay good money for a product or service but all I want to know is what exactly am I paying my money for ? Its REAL simple SCO: simply tell me what I am getting for my money. I'll show you my money if you show me your code. Deal ?.
Then I can make a call if I want it or not. Always wanted to look at OpenBSD/FreeBSD but its the freedoms of the GPL that keep me with Linux.
Revenge Of The Nerds
Daniel Lyons, 12.16.03, 12:30 PM ET
NEW YORK - In the real world, Brenda Banks is a 54-year-old grandmother in Greer, S.C., a former warehouse supervisor who teaches rubber-stamping arts and crafts classes. But online she transforms into "br3n," a passionate user of Linux software who cruises Web sites posting smash-mouth messages about SCO Group. So far Banks has posted more than 1,500 messages on SCO's Yahoo! message board alone--including five on Thanksgiving.
"I feel very strongly about it," says Banks, who runs Linux on a six-year-old Acer home computer. "They want to come and stab Linux. It's just not right."
Banks has joined thousands of others in a rag-tag Linux army dedicated to the destruction of SCO (nasdaq: SCOX - news - people ), the Lindon, Utah, company that last March sued IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ), claiming IBM put code from Unix, for which SCO holds some copyrights, into Linux, which is distributed for free. SCO also aims to collect license fees from companies that use Linux. IBM denies SCO's charges and has countersued. SCO also has been sued by Red Hat (nasdaq: RHAT - news - people ), a Linux distributor.
Linux crusaders insist SCO's claims have no merit and that SCO's evil managers will all end up in jail. They write to government agencies complaining about SCO, and some have even threatened to boycott the Royal Bank of Canada (nyse: RY - news - people ), one of SCO's investors. SCO's management has hired bodyguards after receiving death threats. Robert Enderle, an analyst who believes SCO's claims might be legitimate, says he and others also have been threatened, and says this "techno-insanity" verges on terrorism.
How do people get so emotionally involved with a piece of office equipment? "People are seeing something going on that they really consider evil," says Bruce Perens, a well-known Linux developer and independent consultant. "These people are just showing moral outrage."
Linux was developed collaboratively by thousands of people around the world, all working for free. Now some of those folks are becoming amateur legal researchers and financial sleuths too. Banks says she has complained about SCO to the Securities and Exchange Commission. "There's after-hours trading going on," she says. Isn't this common? "Not that I'm aware of." Moreover, sometimes SCO shares drop during the day, then rise in after-hours trading. "That raises alarm bells," she says. "Maybe there are some preference trades going on." And what are preference trades? "I don't know," she says.
Much of the rhetoric is ordinary cheerleading: "we will WIN. sco is TOAST," Banks wrote recently on Yahoo! (nasdaq: YHOO - news - people ). But sometimes it gets ugly, as when Banks and others refer to Laura DiDio, a market research analyst who is unpopular among Linux fans, as "Dildio." Says Banks: "I don't associate 'Dildio' with anything bad, and I think someone's mind has to be in the gutter to associate it with that. No offense."
Says DiDio of her tormentors, who swamp her with hateful email and "report" her to her supervisors at Boston-based Yankee Group: "Welcome to the wonderful world of Linux. These people are living in an alternative reality."
One poster, "korbomite," on SCO's Yahoo! message board has posted more than 3,100 messages to the board and says he is "single-mindedly working to destroy this company," though he won't give his real name. Another frequent poster, who requested anonymity, says he has stored evidence against SCO on CDs and stashed them in safe-deposit boxes scattered around his state "just in case." He says he has shared his evidence with the SEC and other government agencies.
Some in this camp are so angry that in December, when SCO said hackers had attacked its Web site, Linux zealots suggested SCO was staging the attacks itself. "If there is an attack, where is the proof? Did SCO...attack itself?" wrote Pamela Jones, a White Plains, N.Y. paralegal who runs a Web site called Groklaw which is d
Moderating 101
Okay guys, I've got a confessions to make....
If SCO wins, we'll be faced with a situation in which a government perfectly campable of overriding public opinion (as they did in the case of H-1b in which 85% of the public opposed expansion and the Senatate supported expansion 96-1) is making major decisions that impact the lives of a lot of people giving no clear explaination. There is this matter of governments rule by "consent of the governed". This isn't want folks like Jefferson intended.
Fairly typical FUD from Forbes.
Check out Business Week for more balanced business reporting.
1. Not every random person is guaranteed to be able to see the code, even if they are willing to sign the NDA. I'm sure SCO has to believe that candidates have a good deal to lose by violating the NDA.
2. Even for people who are shown evidence under NDA, they certainly do not provide the filenames and line numbers of infringing code for the entire Linux kernel! (They don't even know that information themselves, apparently.) They provide a relatively small number of context-free lines that are clearly identical between something they say is Linux and something they say is their proprietary code.
Thus, your proposed solution is hardly adequate.
I do believe SCO's code should be private.
Linux however is very public and always has been.
If SCO can prove it owns some Linux code in court, Linux developers will remove it, if SCO asks and specifies the code.
End of story.
SCO does not pass go, or get to collect 200 dollars.
Just because SCO is incompetent to run a software busines does not mean anyone owes them money.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
So, SCO is NOT selling licenses to it own, proven, propriatary code. It is selling the same kind of insurance Capone sold in Chicago.... protection from his own thugs if they paid up.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
The IBM case is a contract dispute. The SCO vs. IBM issues are different from the copyright issues SCO raises in the press and which will eventually be litigated in Red Hat vs. SCO.
I say we nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Seems to me that if the code in question is already part of the Linux kernel (and after all, that is the heart and soul of SCO's claims) that it is already out in the public. Showing it in court is not going to change that.
The opinions expressed here are not mine, but those of these dang voices in my head.
The supreme court of the US has not ruled on EULA's specifially to my knowledge, I'd love to see evidence to the contrary.
Here's a decision where a particular EULA was upheld, and also ruled that EULAs can, in general, be legal (generally) so long as the buyer has recourse to refuse the additional terms.
Again, EULA's can be legal, though it doesn't mean that every EULA is legal.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Ok, let say this decisions stands. If they continue to claim copyright violations in linux they still have to tell what is violating so the infringement can stop. So who can they get damages from if they dont. Cant they claim damages from IBM for any time *before* they show the code to the court. Can they claim that the code cant be removed by IBM because doing so would show everyone what the code was? And can they continue to charge a license for a 'mystery' product? Assuming they win will the eff or some linux company sue to open the documents?
If SCO actually does have a court order to block IBM from disclosing their claimed infringement (which I seriously doubt BTW) then we can still get around it.
IBM simply needs to remove any files that SCO has identified and issue a distro. A diff against the latest release will clearly show what SCO is claiming.
It is totally perposterous for SCO to take this position. The code has already been released. It already IS published.
So how can IBM be barred from publishing everything EXCEPT what SCO claims infringes? No doubt SCO will try though. The silly fools.
In any event - a distro devoid of the claimed infringing code will allow every developer in the world who has worked on Linux to note the absence of their code and they can then come forth with the evidence that IBM needs.
This ploy will go nowhere IMHO
No. They don't. They simply have to have the right to refuse the transaction if the additional terms of the contract added by the EULA are untenable to the consumer.
Saying "oh, you can return it once you open it and decide you don't like the EULA" is meaningless if the person wasn't made aware at the time of sale that there were additional terms he or she must agree to before being able to use the software.
Funny, an appellate court disagrees with you. I linked to the ProCD decision in one of my other responses in this thread, look it up. The court specifically cites revocability of the contract as one of the things that makes EULAs legal. They also cite the impossibility of displaying the entire contract at point-of-sale as another factor.
I bought it, it's mine, I don't agree to the EULA, I can still use it.
No. You can't. And if you do something that countered the EULA, you may be legally responsible if the court upholds the EULA, which they likely will if it's well-crafted.
Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean it's not. Check actual legal precedent here, because your own interpretation of the law is NOT upheld by specific, relevant court decisions.
There have been instances in which EULAs didn't hold up, but these cases were specific to those EULAs, not to the breed.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
...and do something about it - consider:
1. If Linux were your standard for-profit software, it'd be worth big money
2. The reason it is not is that the contributors decided to exchange the monetary rewards for something they valued more (the satisfaction of many people benefiting from their work, an effective and OS OS, etc, whatever) - we don't know the dollar value on that, but we can say it is collectively at minimum the equivalent dollar value of all Linux systems out there (i.e. how much would you have made selling inferior MS products to the name number of customers?)
3. The main beef people seem to have with SCO is that they are making false statements about Linux that are reducing this value - the fact that the value is not normally expressed in dollar terms does not make it non-existant.
4. Questions of propriety have also been raised on slashdot around the fact that MS is effectively helping fund their anti-linux crusade via payment of "license" fees.
5. America is known for her lawyers the way France is known for her wines - fight fire with fire. Mention "class action" and "contingency fee" in a case this size, and you'll have more lawyers than you know what to do with. Mention MS in the same sentence and you'll be trampled in the rush.
6. profit
SCO has violently [emphasis added] opposed public disclosure of the code at the heart of the dispute, claiming that doing so would damage its ability to leverage its intellectual property in future.
Wow...violently huh? I'll be waiting with bated breath for the WACO-style takedown of the SCO offices.
SCO was going under. They own the rights to Unix as I understand it. They figured IBM would buy them out if they go under. They figured a lawsuit against IBM would likely end quietly in a settlement where IBM just bought SCO and made the SCO execs a lot of money.
IBM decided to fight. SCO is doing damage control. They know that even if the court finds that code was stolen from System V Unix and put in Linux they have maybe a one in a million chance that the court will actually order that Linux will be essentially turned over to SCO to sell.
Basically SCO is in a lawsuit lottery right now. They have nothing better to do since they don't really have a business left. They are gambling 50-100 million in legal fees and operating expenses for the next few years on a very very slim chance that they could end up effectively monopolizing linux and the potential trillion dollar payoff that would lead to.
They will most likely loose and possibly end up being seized by IBM when they countersue for their legal fees which will be 10-20 million and by that point, that is all that SCO will be worth.
Even if they win at trial, they will not be permitted to control linux. The offending source code (if any) will simply be removed by developers.
- as has been pointed out before here... if you have a 401(k) or invest in indexed funds (such as those from Vanguard), YOU OWN A PIECE OF SCO! - fund managers cannot even remove SCOX from the fund's index! - most Slashdotters would be quite surprised to learn that they own a small piece of Microsoft as well (depending on investments held)... - a horrifying thought to be sure..
Pointing out the SCO control Trolltech/KDE is usually grounds for getting whapped with -1 Troll score ... often from KDE Zealots in denial or by one of the slashdot staff's super sweeps at imposing groupthink. Duck !!!
You can stop posting this OT crap now; it's your third time.
It stinks when a company uses the
legal system to its own dishonest ends!
Seems that SCO continues to use the legal system as a way of
spreading FUD. If this had been a "normal" case, the court's
ruling acts to protect SCO in the event that it proves itself
correct. Should SCO publicly reveal their intellectual property,
and win their case against IBM, then they lose the their intellectual
property because it becomes a matter of public record. This
destroys their business model, and in turn, SCO itself. At the
risk of bad karma, this would be unfair to SCO.
What SCO is actually doing is leverage the courts in an attempt to
destroy Linux by getting the courts to protect them from attacks
resulting from claims made in the media. They make claims of IP
theft publicly against Linux, and use IBM to get maximum appeal in all
the trade media. This gets them more bang for the buck for every
press release. The choice also makes sense financially, as IBM
has very deep pockets. Had they picked on Red Hat, for example,
they ran the risk of Red Hat running out of money in the middle of the
FUD campaign. However, for IBM, this barely shows up on their
bottom line.
So, they attack Linux publicly, but only sue IBM. Next, they get
the court to protect their intellectual property. Hence, the only
company that they reveal their source to is IBM, which already has a
source license. Publicly, they bring down Linux by revealing its
case against IBM, and get the court to protect them from settling with
the Linux community. This limits the Linux community from making
repairs if there actually are pieces of SCO source in the kernel. So,
if they are lucky enough to win against IBM, they have no obstacles
preventing them from suing and shutting down all commercial Linux
companies. If they can convince the court to nullify all of the
Linux license and rights of the copyright owners, they walk away with
the kernel and sell their new Unixware to all those Linux customers now
left out in the cold. This is strategy that would make Snidely
Whiplash or Bill Gates proud!
My opinion in all this is that Torvalds should take the
offensive. He should sue SCO for defamation. All the public
statements imply that he willingly let others put code illegally into a
product that he is largely responsible for. This could be
damaging to his ability to gain employment in the future. At that
point, he can request to see the offending code, and have the chance to
remove it. This is a reasonable request, and one a court is
likely to rule in his favor. It would be in this way, by also
leveraging the legal system, that this could be resolved.
There are some other interesting things about clams.
And don't forget dragonflies, I think you can trust them, as they're related to daemons (not demons...I hope).
Asking for sealed procedings is unfortunatly an all to common move in american justice nowdays, especially in divorce trials. The misapplication of this power is particularlably worrisome because it strikes at the heart of our open system of justice. If the people cannot see the miscarridge of justice they can't correct it.
While I doubt SCO is particularly worried about (by themselves) rousing congress to a leglislative remedy for computer copyright law (though they could be part of a larger trend that does so) they are worried about too many public eyes.
Look at how effective publicity and the internet have been in finding examples of prior art in software patent cases. Asking for closed procedings forces IBM to track down every potential witness individually by themselves. No doubt SCO is hoping that with an open source product with developers spread across the globe IBM won't be able to find the relevant people if they can't publisize their claim.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
2. You do not talk about Open Source Fight Club.
It is official; Netcraft confirms: SCO is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO UnixWare community when IDC confirmed that SCO market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO UnixWare has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO UnixWare because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO UnixWare continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
SCO has lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time UnixWare developers L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: SCO is dying.
All major surveys show that UnixWare has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
Fact: SCO is dying
http://saveie6.com/
However, EULAs in general are NOT illegal, for the simple matter that they wouldn't FIT on the outside of the box.
I disagree. They could outline the do's/don'ts on the box cover without the extended legalese.
The first couple paragraphs are always a description of the EULA - remove that. Do you see a definition of copyright law when you buy a book? No, you just see the word "Copyright", a date, and what rights are reserved.
The next few paragraphs define the parties/products involved as ALLCAPS words. These are all repeated extensively in paragraph form. If everything pertaining to the EULA is listed by party (as in a chart), the party's name appears once and there are no repeats.
Also, by keeping everything in paragraph form, you cannot easily compare the value provided by one EULA vs another. Think along the lines of the "Nutrition Facts" table found on the box cover of processed food. There's a reason the food label is standard - to force the manufacturer to fess up about the nutritional value of their product, while making it easy to compare two similar products.
Somewhere along the way, the EULA will breakup the rules according to the product subdivisions. This means that some of the EULA will not apply to you. The more product varieties, the less applies to you. For example, did you get the professional, academic, personal or demo version? One standard EULA (with a section describing each EULA nuance) accompanies all versions. Having one EULA per product makes for a few paragraphs less of text.
It think that the EULA can follow a standard chart and therefore fit on the box cover. However, it won't happen because it's easier to hide crazy stuff in paragraph text than a standardized chart.
I'm probably wrong since IANAL, the idea just dawned on me, and I haven't had my afternoon caffeine fix.
This is not my sig.
I think it's okay.
Leave him alone; quit trying supress popular insurrection.
Taco won't post political posts, so peope gotta sneak hot topics into regular threads.
This stuff is legit.
Why wouldn't I want to confuse a British spelling with the Americanized spelling of the exact same Greek word?
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
AT&T vs BSD was settled, not tried. The settlement was confidential by the agreement of both parties. In the SCO-IBM case, it sounds like SCO wants it confidential, IBM wants it open, and the court took SCO's side. That's stupid of the court.
However, in this case the technical trade secrets are already in the public domain (that's SCOs whole case - that their trade secrets have been made public - so it seems strange to keep these details closed. In effect the only secret is which files they are laying claim to.
The use of a jury freaks me a bit. It is quite likely that building a Commie Leftie image for open source will contribute to swaying the jurors.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
But all the open source developers do! This is why SCO is really afraid of release. McBride is probably terrified of the idea that Bruce Perens or Linus Torvalds or Alan Cox will see the code and show how full of shit SCO is ( like they already did with the malloc and BPF code).
...if you take this attitude, then either the code is in fact in the Linux kernel and they have a legit claim to file suit, or it's not in the kernel, and their Trade Secrets are in fact still secret. Since the US legal system seems to have a history of not penalizing plaintiffs for losing false or frivolous lawsuits, it doesn't surprize me all that much that the judge would allow this argument, so that when, god willing, they lose their case, they'll still have their Trade Secrets intact.
-"It seems like you're trying to exploit a security hole. Would you like help?"
Is IBM allowed to publish all the code that SCO is not disputing? If so a simple diff should do the trick.
There is a little thing called EXTORTION. The criminal process goes like this:
Step 1. Criminal claims to be a friendly salesman
Step 2. Forces businesses to buy 'insurance' from being attacked by the salesman.
Step 3. FBI/courts slaps on RICO restrictions
Step 4. Court and Conviction
Step 5. Prison
When you think about it, what is SCO really selling? They are selling 'insurance', the kind where you give them money and maybe they don't attack you.
if IBM releases a broken version of linux, free of SCO code, SCO can't dispute it. How could they say "Hey! Don't distribute linux without our code in it!"
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Slashdot posters are developing an unhealthy obsession with a doomed parking lot corporation. It's perfectly simple. Our f***ed up legal system will allow them to pursue this charade for quite a while yet, but their fate is sealed. Think of something else to worry about, like small third world dictatorships buying and selling nukes or something.
If I were the judge, I would force them to display ALL of their source code until the trial is over so that EVERYBODY can see it and try to figure out who's code infringes on who's rights, if any such infringements exists. Yes, SCO's so-called "trade secrets" would be out in the open, but that is definitely a desired side effect, because it would undermine investor confidence in SCO while not really helping nor harming anyone else, since SCO most likely does NOT have any trade secrets, and whatever they claim is a trade secret is most likely common knowledge since 1970.
...but you are an idiot. Disclosing code in court will not assign copyrights to the public domain. The owner of the copyright still owns those copyrights. These rights cannot arbitrarily be reassigned. Also secrets aren't secret if everyone knows them. Unix has been widely published on a massive scale, what could possibly be secret in Unix V, and besides, the real secrets to Unix are in its processes, specifications and patents which SCO doesn't own for the most part, and are also widely known or even public domain and aren't even slightly secretive. The particular code is just the implementation of the spec. which is copyrighted but isn't a 'secret' if everyone knows how it is made. Secrets are like Kentucky Fried Chicken, ring laser gyros and Coca Cola, once you tell everyone how to make it, it isn't a secret any more, and anyone will know how to make it.
What kind of dumbass would tell me to sit back and relax while someone tries to violate my rights. That is bullshit. I don't trust IBM to watch out for my interests, they would just as soon fuck me up the ass as help me out, and I would like to do my own due dilligence, very much thank you, because I do not like to get buggered.
Squeel like a pig? Hell no!
Dear SCO,
Got to hell, go directly to hell, do not pass heaven do not collect beer and virgins.
TM
Welcome to living under the Bush administration, where due to 9/11 and the risks to US security, these documents have been classified. Okay, I know that this has nothing to do with the Bush administration-but I would like to point out that a U.S. News investigation finds that the Bush administration classified 44.5 million documents in its first two years, the same amount kept under wraps in President Clinton's last four years. Other evidence of the administration's cone of silence, which began expanding before 9/11: Tire safety information provided by manufacturers after the Firestone scandal has been kept under lock and key, and the secretary of agriculture can now classify information as secret.
No, bad analogy. SCO is afraid other closed source idiots will take their code and not tell anyone. SCO should know, they did this to BSD!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If the SCO code is in the linux kernel then it is not secret at all. If it is not in the kernel SCO can keep it as secret but then can not win the court case then?
Ha! You guys kill me. Are you gonna hate the decision makers or the mouthpiece? Make up your mind. Sheesh. Learn to separate the message from the messenger.
I don't think the public wants to see the code. I think what they want to see is the line numbers within linux that SCO considers to be infringing.
This isn't anything that could concievably be propreitary to SCO. It's a series of numbers describing sections of an already-publicly-available block of code, Linux.
IBM is not the only party that needs to know. The Linux maintainers need to know, as soon as possible, because if there is code which was illegally integrated into linux, this is a violation of the GPL by which the linux developers all agree to share their code with each other.
Your definition of "propeitary" is strange. Someone can read something and it would still be propeitary, and would still be covered fully under copyright. What it would not be is covered under trade secret law. Perhaps this is what you are thinking of.
Under what possible view of things does it make sense for SCO to claim Linux contains infringing code, but then not allow the Linux developers to know what said infringing code is so that they can remove it and fix the infringement?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Of course they won't tell, if the Linux people knew what was "infringing" they would re-write it and SCO would be out a lucrative revenue stream.
Some folks have characterized code licensed under the GNU Public License as viral, yet it seems SCO is the real perpetrator of viral code. They claim Linux has been 'infected ' with their code. There's no cure because they won't identify any of their (alledged) code. All you can do is to cough up $$$ for a license.
Now that's viral!
Too right it would damage the ability. 'Cos if the code's in there, the moment it's out in the open it's get yanked, losing SCO it's chance of all that lovely licensing.
And regardless of whether it is or not, if the Judge decides it is infringing copyrights, again the devs won't be able to see the bits of code that need pulling.
And I'm guessing the latter would require extensive rewrites "just in case" - harming the corporate takeup of Linux (except on SCO's twisted terms).
Y'know, I get the feeling that perhaps SCO understands OSS a lot better than they pretend to.
TiggsIt looks very much that they know that if there's the slightest chance that some code was there that shouldn't be, it'd be re-written to exclude it in less time than a corporate project would take to draft the first memo to Management.
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
I can't imagine that SCO has trade secret rights to the *LOCATION* within Linux for their alleged IP, only the content, which is pubically accessible, so they really can't continue to claim trade secret rights.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This code, according to SCO, is already there in lunix. I've got it on multiple hard drives right now.
If Darl tells me what it is, I will happily rip it out. If he doesn't tell me, I'll continue to use and duplicate it out of ignorance.
This does not bode well for an informed judgement.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Once IBM knows exactly what code SCO is claiming is infringing, why couldn't they just remove that code from their version of the kernel and submit it to Linus as a 'maintainence patch'?
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Using markets, media and courts to enforce their claims and demands, no one seems quite sure just what SCO is really up to -- or why. Is this a genuine pursuit of rights, or a bare fisted marketing plan served up in notice letters and lawsuits? Get the details at capt.cc
Rehabilitated journalist and web builder No electrons were harmed during the creation of this mess
Why is everyone so afraid of calling this like it is. These guys are a bunch of washed up get-rich-quickers. I would be upset if MY Amway aspirations went sour and would probably lead a life of grey-area, money making ventures like they are. Am I off-base here?
The Protective Order was agreed to long ago by IBM and SCO, and ratified by the court. It provides that either party can label a discovery item confidential, but the other party can challenge, and, if they cannot agree, the judge will decide whether the item requires secrecy. Until the judge decides, the item has to be treated as confidential. That is why the hearing has to be closed until the judge rules on this question.
IBM will certainly challenge the items that don't really require secrecy, and the Protective Order provides that, in that case, SCO has the burden of proving that there is a good reason for keeping the items secret, one by one.
I don't think that the judge issued an independent order saying that the hearing will be closed; no such order appeared on the court docket. I am sure that the judge has not ruled that any of the discovery items are confidential; the arguments have not been presented yet.
Stowell lied about the import of the closed hearing, and lied again when he implied that all the results of discovery would be secret until 2005 and beyond. IMO, the most that will be left secret after the hearing will be parts of SCO's code that SCO does not claim were copied into Linux.
Further, if any trade secrets were illegally copied by IBM into Linux, they are no longer secret. IBM might have to pay damages to SCO, but the information is no longer secret, and SCO cannot collect from anyone else. Again, the contract I looked at said that IBM could refer to SCO's code and use SCO's ideas and methods while developing IBM's products, and IBM would own those products. I saw nothing that implied that IBM had to keep its own products secret.
I think this cartoon will make perfect sense now