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."
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.
A crock. This reminds me of the only DUI case in US history whose records are sealed, as far as I know - Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick disaster. What could possibly be the point of sealing code that is already open & public - that is SCO's point, right? They're just prolonging the FUD as long as they can. When you're rich & have good lawyers, there's no pretense that the legal system works - instead, it's worked.
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.
"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)
Right think about it from the point of view of the court. A request to present evidence in closed court will almost always be granted - unless it appears completely frivolous. Publishing is irreversible, evidence presented in closed court can always be released later.
Once SCO has stated with specificity the fragments of code that it claims are stolen IBM will get the chance to argue that they should be made public. They have a very strong claim here since the basis of SCO's claim is that the code has been stolen and included in Linux and is therefore public.
IBM can very fairly claim that their ability to defend the case would be unfairly harmed by keeping the code fragments secret. There is no way they can approach the community to ask for information with a bearing on the case.
There is also the issue of failure to mitigate damages. It is very clear that any allegedly infringing code will be replaced as soon as SCO states the code in question. I don't see how the court could order IBM not to use the evidence provided by SCO to end the alleged infringement. That would be illogical.
I expect that once SCO has shown the code there will be a rulling to make some of the information available, at a minimum the corresponding Linux fragments that are alleged to infringe. The rulling will then be appealed to the apeals court which will kick it down promptly. 24 hours after the data is released there will be a new Linux distribution with the fragments eliminated.
At that point SCO's potential damages will sink to a few tens of millions at best, most likely negligible. The SCO stock price will collapse and there wont be enough money to keep the case going. IBM then buy SCO at discount prices out of Chapter 11 to avoid further littigation from the next bucket shop to buy the rights. UNIXWare is made open sauce. 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.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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