Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Adds Copyright Claim to IBM Suit

Posted by michael on from the double-or-nothing dept.

An anonymous reader writes "News.com.com reports that the SCO Group has significantly widened its Unix and Linux lawsuit against IBM, adding a copyright infringement claim to the already complicated case." There's also another story discussing the copyright claims.

18 of 444 comments (clear)

  1. Bluff bluff bluff by grub · · Score: 4, Insightful


    SCO's lawyers are practicing the tried & true method of Throw Enough Shit Against the Wall and Some of It Will Stick.

    They know it's a poor case they have so they keep adding more and more claims to their position along with the necessary bravado stupid investors have come to love.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Bluff bluff bluff by FatRatBastard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I still think they're going after the angle that JFS, NuMA, et al (basically anything that looks or smells like Unix) are "derivatives" of SysV, and their ownership of Unix means that they control everything related. Thus, IBM shouldn't have contributed to the kernel without first asking SCO's permission. This, I believe, is the heart of their case (they are also still saying there's actual SysV code in Linux, but haven't show squat legally and isn't part of the case as far as I know).

      Of course, this is going to be hard to win since it requires them to prove:

      a) the license with IBM actually gives them control of derivatives
      b) IBM's code is a derivative of SysV

      Frankly, I thought they had a much better chance with the Trade Secret stuff since there may have been some Monterey issues non of us knew about. The "derivative" argument seems like one hell of a stretch considering copyright and contract law along with the *BSD settlement.

      Basically, though, the new copyright stuff seems pretty damn empty. I'll be surprised if it goes anywhere.

    2. Re:Bluff bluff bluff by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The big news the Slashdot post seems to have missed is that: SCO HAS DROPPED THEIR TRADE SECRET CLAIM

      Bigger news is that IBM did not file to dismiss. I certainly don't think they are going to fold, quite the opposite. I think they have deliberately not filed the routine motion because they think that they might soon be in a position to get it granted for real, they don't want the judge getting used to batting them away.

      Some SCO speak: "With respect to the overriding issue, that SCO failed to identify line-for-line code copying", Heise claimed "that has not and is not what the case is about". (Again, very surprised looks in the audience).

      The judge did not buy that. SCO is still on the hook. The judge raised the issue of strict compliance which means more games from sco and the case goes out.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    3. Re:Bluff bluff bluff by gujo-odori · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Bigger news is that IBM did not file to dismiss.


      Yes, that is the big news, someone please mod that Insightful. IBM, in not filing for summary judgement against SCO, seems to be saying that they want case law on this one. A dismissal means anyone, even SCO (unless it is dismissed with prejudice) if they are sufficiently imbalanced (and I believe they may well be) can come along and try the same thing again in the future, either with Linux or some other piece of FOSS to which IBM has contributed.


      If IBM goes to trial and wins a crushing victory over SCO in court, then countersues for damages and bankrupts SCO (although simply losing this case will probably do that on its own) and then buys them up for pennies on the dollar out of bankruptcy and fires all of senior management, no one will dare try something like this again, even if they think they might have a case. The price to be paid for failure will scare them off. Put more simply, IBM will probably seek not only case law, but to make an example of Darl and friends.


      And how would you like to be Darl, looking for your next job when this is all over, with the most prominent entry on your resume being something like "Embarked on frivolous and ill-fated lawsuit against IBM, sent my then-employer into bankruptcy as a result, seeking challenging position at tech company." He'd be lucky to get a challenging position emptying the wastebaskets. Of course, he's made millions selling SCO stock since this fiasco began, he'll never need to work again. These executive types seem addicted to work, so he'll probably try, but I bet that will be one long, hard job search.


      I think IBM recognizes this situation exactly as the shakedown that it is, and sees perfectly well that if they give in it in any way, even taking a summary judgement and getting no case law, that anyone else thinking about shaking down IBM would be tempted to try it. They also know, as the oldest practioner of FUD in the computer business (heck, they invented it; every old mainframer like me knows the saying "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"), that they dare not give quarter. As with any shakedown, giving in or giving quarter will only incite others to go after you. If you bust up the one who's trying to shake you down and make an example of him, nobody will dare. That, I think, is what IBM has in mind for SCO.

  2. Re:Old News by spanklin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Already read this on Groklaw

    If we apply that standard to /., wouldn't 99.9% of the stories go away? How many of them start with "NYTimes is reporting... According to CNN.com..."

  3. Re:Just a thought. by Shdwdrgn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is that if someone were to actually buy SCO, it would set a dangerous precedent and other failing compaines would be sure to follow.

    No the only way to put an end to this is to make sure that SCO goes down in a ball of fire that can be seen around the world.

  4. Retroactive Copyright? by Ken+D · · Score: 5, Insightful


    So now they want to claim extra damages for an infringement of "registered" copyright when the registration was filed after the lawsuit? IANAL but this really seems like grasping at straws, otherwise this would always happen in a copyright dispute to get the extra damages.

    Plus, doesn't this now potentially get them in trouble with Novell who claims that the copyrights are still theirs? Criminal plagiarism, anybody?

  5. Stalling by GreenCrackBaby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This just seems like another tactic to stall their case. Personally, I believe that there is something more sinister than just a dying company in its death throws here. The longer this goes on, the more damage being done to Linux and open source in general. Obviously, when they finally have to account for any of their claims they will quickly lose, but the longer they can take to prevent that the better (if you support my hypothesis).

    My guess is they'll go to court and say "Your honour, you asked us to provide these documents to IBM before the case could continue, however since that ruling we've ammended our suite and would ask that we can push back that date as a result."

    --

    "The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
  6. Be real by Sangloth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Suppose some terrorists took innocent hostages in order to exchance them for known terrorists in prison, and demanded an exchance. If we actually went though with the exchance, it would be a short term good at a severe long term cost when more groups of innocent people are taken hostage by other groups.

    Buying out the SCO would encourage more bad behaviour. Better to stick this through, no matter what the cost. It may be messy in the short term, but in the long term it will dissuade this sor tof behaviour.

    Sangloth
    I'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis...it doesn't even have to agree with me.

  7. Re:Just a thought. by Westech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's obvious that SCO is not only wanting to raise its stock price, but it's hoping to be bought out by some of the bigger fish out there to possibly placate them.

    Let's hope Microsoft doesn't clue into this. Their best strategy right now might be to buy out SCO (along with their IP claims) and just throw an insane amuont of money and lawyers into these lawsuits. If a tiny flea like SCO can create this much FUD, imagine what MS could do.

  8. Re:Old News by teeker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Awww c'mon now, /. is not really a news site in the same way that CNN is a news site- it's an aggregation of news stories FROM places like CNN and NYT. The reason it exists to funnel stories that are interesting to the geek community, and give them a forum to discuss them. And the occasional editorial/review/whatever. The object of /. really isn't to scoop real news sites, so quit whining about it!

    --
    teeker
  9. Re:Just a thought. by HiThere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, for this to be a proper example, there also needs to be an attachment of Darl's private fortunes. If the CEO can get away with his pockets full, then it isn't much of an example. If a company is dying, the CEO doesn't care about the company, he cares about himself. So unless you ensure that HE has to pay, you haven't discouraged copycats very effectively.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  10. Re:Just a thought. by HiThere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    MS won't buy. If they did, they'd purchase the legal liabilities as well as the benefits. And then IBM would dig in for damages. And lots of contingency lawyers would start courting everyone who ever contributed anything to the kernel. And every company that did consulting in Linux.

    No. There was a good reason that MS wanted this kept at arms length. If they wanted closer ties, they could have had them cheaply a year ago. (All they needed to do is offer to guarantee 4 profitable quarters and Darl would have done nearly anything.)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  11. Copyright claim is not against Linux! by solman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SCO's case is completely falling appart.

    Apparently, the new copyright claim is that IBM continued to distribute AIX even after SCO "terminated" their license.

    In other words, the copyright claim doesn't have anything to do with the alleged copying of code from SysV to Linux.

    Additionally, SCO responded to IBMs interrogatory (asking which Linux files SCO claims any rights to) by listing only 17 files (and not identifying specific lines in those files) and indicating that none of these 17 files contain code from SysV.

    I really expected them to do much better. I don't see how IBM can be ordered to proceed with discovery given existing case law. (Although it seems like IBM might voluntarily produce information so they can limit SCOs avenues of appeal.

  12. Re:[OT] The court hearing today by Carnildo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like this quote from Groklaw:

    One of the SCO lawyers "...went on to claim that they have identified 400 million lines of Unix code and 300 million lines of Linux code affected, but also admitted that SCO has not submitted everything required by the court order."

    Where did they find 300 million lines of Linux code to begin with, much less 300 million infringing lines?

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  13. Re:You'd think... by Carnildo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They might run out of money first... then they have to start selling the Linux and Unix again.

    Who'd buy it from them?

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  14. In a nutshell... by PingXao · · Score: 5, Insightful
    One line from IBM's
    Report on SCO's Compliance With the Court's order sums up the whole fiasco pretty well I think. It's a line from Paragraph 5:

    SCO refuses to disclose from what lines of UNIX System V code these alleged contributions are supposed to derive, which it must know to allege the contributions were improper.

    Duh! And Darl wants $5 Billion for this?!?! For what exactly? I can't wait for the stomping to commence.
  15. Enough is enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe if the media (cough cough) stops reporting (ad nauseum) every little brain fart out of Lindon, Utah, it will foil SCO's pump and dump strategy and they'll go away. The S/N on Slashdot has been steadily going downhill over the last couple of years, but the daily regurgitation of SCO FUD has been making it worse. Can you report on something else for a change? Pretty please with sugar on top?