SCO Adds Copyright Claim to IBM Suit

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.

Comments

Bluff bluff bluff

[grub]

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.

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[Deitheres]

The problem comes when the owner of the wall has coated it with teflon.

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[FatRatBastard]

The big news the Slashdot post seems to have missed is that:

SCO HAS DROPPED THEIR TRADE SECRET CLAIM

Remember when this crap all began Darl's mantra was "It isn't about copyright, its about trade secrets." Well, apparently not any more. Highly suggest parusing Groklaw for some great coverage. IBM's court filings from yesterday are brilliant.

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[FatRatBastard]

Oh, and I should add that the copyright infrigement isn't about Linux, its about AIX being distributed by IBM after SCO revoked their license.

But remember, SCO revoked IBM's license due to trade secret violation...

Violations that SCO isn't going to legally persue

Which rhymes with Catch 22

Which sums up SCO's claims now quite nicely.

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[stevesliva]

The Inquirer has a great commentary about this all from earlier today.

And, of course, Groklaw has a summary of today's court action. Basically SCO ends up looking stupid again.

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[JPriest]

Your post suggestss that SCO dropped the entire thing and is only going after IBM for ignoring thier revoke of their UNIX license. Can someone lse confirm this statement?

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[mowo]

Doze SCO guys are SOOOO...predictable.

DO WHILE exec_stock EXISTS
IF new_stock_price lt old_stock_price
THEN sco.lawsuit.initiate_new(random_no)
LOOP

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[Pakaran2]

Basically SCO ends up looking stupid again.

Can the judge moderate them -1 redundant?

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[FatRatBastard]

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.

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[jcuervo]

Can the judge moderate them -1 redundant?

Their karma already sucks. :-)

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[Lonath]

Nope, the problem is when the "wall" is really one part of one blade of a giant fan and the owner finally decides to turn it on.

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[Pieroxy]

Don't waste your precious brain cells on this matter. Every other month they change course radically. All that you can think and react on the current news will be wiped out by the following one, which will probably be in total contradiction with this ons.

This has become now really too much. They don't have a case. Their contradictory press releases and various public announcements should be enough to win the lawsuit, even if they had a case.

So why worry?

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[Zeinfeld]

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.

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[gujo-odori]

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.

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[Darth Yoshi]

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'll just condense it down to, "Experienced CEO seeking challenging position at tech company."

Why does it seem the bigger the screwup, the more it counts as experience?

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[msobkow]

The problem is one corp has been allowed to hold an entire industry in turmoil, manipulate the stock market, threaten the corporate world, and not one segment of the so-called American legal system has put a leash on them.

By dropping prior claims and initiating new ones, SCO is just showing (again) that they have no valid claims. Isn't it time that Darl and his supporting team of lunatics were locked up?

Or is there some perverse American "right" to run around accusing and threatening an entire industry without fear of reprisal, provided you just stop making the accusations before you're forced to prove they're true?

Tired of this crap. I was tired of it almost a year ago. More than anything, I just am stunned that they haven't been yanked short by an order to stop making accusations and laying charges until they prove at least one point!!!

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[cdrudge]

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).

See...it's the virual nature fo the SysV licenese. Anything that you incorperate in with SysV code automatically becomes SysV code. If you kept the code in a closed source program, this wouldn't be an issue...Oh wait. Shit. Wrong argument for the wrong side.

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[merlin_jim]

More than anything, I just am stunned that they haven't been yanked short by an order to stop making accusations and laying charges until they prove at least one point!!!

IANAL but I beleive the main reason this may not have been done is a little constitutional guarantee called due process; its a standard tactic for delaying trials and trying to get off on technicalities; you simply hide behind due process, saying you must be given a chance to prove blah blah blah, and no judge can touch you until you stop.

This appears to be largely of that order...

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[macdaddy]

And then the SCOX stockholders sue the management of the company that was intentionally run into the ground for damages. We all win, but Darl. Woot! It's all good. :)

Re:Bluff bluff bluff

[KlausBreuer]

Yeah, I'm getting tired of this myself.

Mind you, I live in Germany. Germany has told SCO to "Put up or Shut up". They couldn't put up, so now they have a court order to shut up. At least around here :)

On the other hand - doesn't this whole stuff begin to bore you? Isn't it the same, every week, reading about yet another idioticy SCO had done?

I've decided to ignore it. They're beneath me. They'll never change anything in my life. To quote my grandfather: "I have never argued with morons, and I'm not going to start now".

You'd think...

[grasshoppa]

...they'd have to ask Novell's permission before they go sue IBM for Novell's copyrights. ;)

Re:You'd think...

[Supp0rtLinux]

So the question is... will Novell sit on the SCO side of the courtroom or the IBM side? Better yet... if Novell is claiming they own the copyright, won't the Novell/SCO issue have to be resolved before the now ammended complaint against IBM can be resolved? My understanding is that once a case is ammended, it must be resolved in full. SCO can't now try to get the contract dispute handled separate from the copyright issue, but the copyright issue is still just that... an pending issue. It'd be pretty sad if SCO had to first deal with Novell, then IBM. They might run out of money first... then they have to start selling the Linux and Unix again.

Re:You'd think...

[HiThere]

I don't know about Novell's permission, but they definitely need the judge's permission. And she hasn't granted it yet. In fact, as I read things, all she did was give SCO an extension in the time they had to satisfy the discovery (though she also asked IBM how long it would take them to respond fully).

Re:You'd think...

[Carnildo]

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

Who'd buy it from them?

Re:You'd think...

[iminplaya]

Who'd buy it from them?

Ooo...ooo...I will. I realize now that we must do everything to support our current patent/copyright system, so I can cash in on the NEW pet rock I made with a COMPUTER on the INTERNET. :-)

Just a thought.

[DarkHelmet]

Okay...

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.

My suggestion... How about we do as they say and buy them out just to shut them up.

I propose that the mods of Slashdot start a fund called the "Buy out SCO so they can shut the fsck up" fund. If we all paypal a couple of dollars into the pot, we can use it in order to help buy out SCO so that we can go on as usual without all this SCO gibberish.

An added benefit would be to get Slashdot Subscription pages for every dollar we donate to the cause. That will make some of the more geeky of us choose to help. Not like we wouldn't help anyway :).

Of course, when SCO loses their case, it will become significantly easier to buy the company since their stock will be worth about 1/10th of a cent. At that point, us Slashdot users will be able to make McBride our own personal bitch, and everyone will be happy still.

Hurry though! Before Microsoft chooses to buy out SCO before we can.

Just a thought. Continue as normal.

Re:Just a thought.

[Shdwdrgn]

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.

Re:Just a thought.

[CoreDump]

How about not encouraging exactly this sort of behaviour, by taking the moral position not to cave in to it.

It *is* worth standing up for what is right, no matter the cost.

Re:Just a thought.

[Westech]

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.

Re:Just a thought.

[aquabat]

Ohhhh, that suggestion just pushed my hate button. I swear my skin is trying to crawl off my body right now, just thinking about it. There is no way I will ever give my lunch money to this bully.

Re:Just a thought.

[HiThere]

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.

Re:Just a thought.

[HiThere]

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.)

Re:Just a thought.

[Phillup]

I think it would be better to buy the companies that license SysV code... and have them stop.

Cut off their air supply...

Re:Just a thought.

[fermion]

My guess is that if it were possible to buy SCO at market cap, it would have been done. It is probably not possible because there are relatively few stocks owned by private investors. Furthermore, one can surmise, based on the original IBM lawsuit, that the insiders believe the company to be worth a few hundred million dollars. Therefore, any friendly takeover would involve paying twice as much for the company as it is worth. While such things are done, it does not appear to be in any of the current players best interest to do so.

The bottom line is that SCO is probably worthless. The values of the stock is to a few insiders, and the strategy is to keep the charade going so the stock will continue to be an attractive item to a few high end gamblers. By the time the SCO crashes, they will no longer be a problem because they will not be able to pay the lawyers

Re:Just a thought.

[Trailer Trash]

If we all paypal a couple of dollars into the pot, we can use it in order to help buy out SCO so that we can go on as usual without all this SCO gibberish.

This has been discussed. Less than half their stock is publicly traded, so buying them isn't an option.

Re:Just a thought.

[TioHoltzman]

All they needed to do...and Darl would have done nearly anything

The mind just boggles...

Re:Just a thought.

[nolife]

A SCO press release from today states:

The SCO Group Exchanges Series A Convertible Preferred Stock

They are refering to the $50 Million infusion they recieved in October 2003. Does this type of transaction play into the theory of pump and dump and lining pockets or is this a normal long term stategy that any company would benefit from?

Another?

[paranode]

Adding a copyright infringement claim? They wouldn't dare!

Go SCO!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a shareholder and a proud parent of a shareholder of SCO Group International, I welcome this step. With millions of Linux systems installed over the world, the value of the company that sells $699 licenses is within billions of dollars.

Let's make SCO the largest company on the planet and show those boys from Redmond how Windoze is buggy and insecure! Let's sell more SCO-compliant Linux boxes! Go Linux! Go SCO!

Re:Go SCO!

[Anonymous Coward]

True!

It's well know that kernel of the Linux operating system was written by young consultant Darl McBride while in college. He left it on the FTP server only to see some Finnish jerks download it and rename it. This chart undoubtedly proves that SCO has a stable position in the market and that Wall Street rewards young entrepreneurs with the guts to go against big guys like IBM, even though Slashdot has a heard mentality and would support IBM on any issue.

Re:Go SCO!

[gebbeth]

But I thought Al Gore wrote Linux?

New Additions to SCO's Legal Team

[ackthpt]

In light of new developments, SCO has expanded their legal team to include two well known icons:

Stimpy: "Hey, Ren, if we keep piling things onto the suit, we'll never lose because it'll go on for ever."
Ren: "Stimpy! you're a genious!"
Stimpy: "All we have to do is keep finding investors to underwrite the suits, because if SCO runs out of money we'll have to find someone else to represent."
Ren: "So geet back to woork, you eediot!"

Re:New Additions to SCO's Legal Team

[Pakaran2]

They're Darl and the Brain, they're Darl and the Brain, one is a genius, the other is insane, they're Darl, Darl and the Brain, brain, brain, brain, brain, brain (fade out, and switch to SCO headquarters).

Darl: So, what are going to do tonight, Brain?
Brain: The same thing we do every night, Darl, try to sue IBM!
Darl: But we did that already, and we're losing!
Brain: Don't worry, Darl, this time we're going to make it. Using our copyrighted Lunix code, I have created an automatic evidence generator!
***Brain sits down at odd-looking contraption, and types in "cat /dev/urandom > /dev/lp"
***Contraption begins spitting paper.
Brain: Ok, Darl, now you go take this evidence down to legal, and the judge doesn't understand technology, so he'll be impressed at all the evidence we've gathered.
Darl: Okey dokey, Brain, here I go!
***Darl picks up stack of paper, which is covered with vaguely code-like control characters and things, and carries it out door.

***Fade to black
Big scrolling letters appear: In next week's episode, Darl and the Brain try to cope with the discovery that their claimed Lunix code is actually a screenshot from the Ancient Unix version of Nethack - be sure to tune in!

courts

[Dreadlord]

looks like it won't take long until we see something like this in courts.

Re:courts

[Samrobb]

Actually, given the amount of acrimony being directed at SCO, I think it will end up more like this.

Heh. Lawbot 0.92 - so you know it has to be an Open Source project.

Re:Old News

[spanklin]

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..."

[OT] The court hearing today

[e6003]

Groklaw has a detailed eye-witness account. It seems SCO's new claims might just be about IBM continuing to distribute AIX after SCO "revoked" their license. And apparently IBM's lawyers wiped the floor with SCO's counsel (it wasn't Darl's brother this time!). Great reading - enjoy!

Re:[OT] The court hearing today

[Tackhead]

> And apparently IBM's lawyers wiped the floor with SCO's counsel

What that IBM lawyer did is an outrage.

I urge every Slashdotter with an ounce of human decency to donate via paypal to PETCF (People for the Ethical Treatment of Courtroom Floors) today.

No courtroom floor should ever have to be subjected to that sort of filth.

Re:[OT] The court hearing today

[Carnildo]

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?

Re:[OT] The court hearing today

[Hentai]

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

REUTERS, 3/1/04:

In a stunning reversal today, SCO (NASDAQ SCOX) has announced that due to a 'minor technical error', it has been looking at the wrong source tree all along.

"Funny enough, we came across the actual copyrights in the code headers, and discovered it wasn't Linux at all! We were kinda confused ourself when we saw 300 million lines of violating code in a piece of software that only has 30 million lines of code or so, but it all started making since once we realized we were actually looking at a copy of the Windows NT kernel!", Darl McBride told reporters on Tuesday.

"This represents a complete shift in strategy for us. We have bigger fish to fry, this time. Incidentally, Linus might want to take a look at this too - one of the main reasons we were confused for so long was the amount of Linux code mixed in with ours."

A representative from IBM told the press, "We completely understand the confusion, and look forward to working together with SCO to remedy the situation."

Steve Balmer was unavailable for comment, but sources close to the Microsoft (NYSE MSFT) chairman report him as having said, "Oh, FUCK".

God, please grant me just this one wish before I die... just let this come true.

Re:[OT] The court hearing today

[Rufus211]

Hrm:

perl -e 'foreach (`find kernel-source-2.4.24 -type f -exec wc -l {} \\\;`) {/^(\d+) /; $lines += $1;} print $lines;'
5308651

(damn that's hackish). That's about 5 million lines of everything and anything in the kernel source, including documentation and .h files and everything.

Re:[OT] The court hearing today

[glk572]

actually if they did find infringing code in windows nt they could still sue ibm. windows nt is a derivitive of os/2. when microsoft and ibm broke up microsoft took it's share of the code and called it windows nt. I'm shure that there is some code in there contributed by ibm.

Honestley I think that sco started this whole thing in an attempt to get ibm to buy them out. They got a shit deal with novel and wanted to get out.

As for the whole claim that sco own's unix sys V, why would they give all the money they collect from lisenses to Novel. They bought the buisness of lisenseing unix not the actual code.

Comply with judge first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't they be bitch-slapped by the judge for expanding their lawsuit before they can even manage to comply with the judge's original order to "put up or shut up" re: evidence?

Then again I'd noticed that SCOX was about to slip below $13/share yesterday. I guess Yet Another Lawsuit/Press Release was due in order to meet the SCO business cycle.

Re:Comply with judge first?

[kfg]

Actually, what they appear to have done is not expand their lawsuit, but change its claims, dropping the charge of making public trade secrets entirely and replacing it with the copyright violation charge.

This technically makes much of IBM's interogatories legally moot, although the fact of the matter is that the same code is in question.

It appears that SCO may be pulling, in the technical jargon of the law, "a fast one" to escape having failed to comply with the court's order.

KFG

Maybe this'll speed things up

[Supp0rtLinux]

This is good news. IBM surely has the money to fight the defense. Granted, who knows... maybe IBM did commit some heinous act of open source, but at least SCO's ammending the copyright issue will bring the entire issue to the forefront and get us all a resolution faster. Certainly, its better than waiting for the breach of contract issue to get resolved, then waiting through a copyright case.

Retroactive Copyright?

[Ken D]

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?

Supreme Irony in the Making

[Mr. Darl McBride]

IBM has filed NO motions to dismiss. This is pretty much SCO's only out at this point, and IBM aren't offering it.

I'm no lawyer, but so far as I understand, if this carries through and the verdict is against SCO and the judge feels the case had no merit, IBM should be able to turn around and sue for (very significant!) damanges.

The only asset SCO has that's worth dirt right now is UNIX licensing. Wouldn't it be poetic if the outcome of SCO's market gaming were that IBM sued SCO for all assets, including that, then turned around and freed UNIX once and for all? :)

(Just kidding. This is Darl, and Linux is bad, you smelly hippy.)

Re:Supreme Irony in the Making

[LowerL]

I would like to see IBM parade Darl McBride down the street in his underwear. "You're the little boy that likes sue everyone...wave to the people, blow them kisses."

Re:Supreme Irony in the Making

[Tin Foil Hat]

That all may be true, but even if IBM did acquire all of SCO's assets, there would still be no guarantee that IBM would release UNIX under an open source license. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of even one open source product that IBM has released. (Yes, I know they are selling Linux boxen, but that's not the same thing.)

I know that IBM has become something of a Linux poster boy in recent years, but let's face it: IBM is in this business for the money, not the karma. They would only release code under an OS license if they thought the idea held substantial value for the company.

On the other hand, we can be relatively certain that IBM would not be behaving as SCO is now. They would stand too much to lose, especially in customer confidence terms.

Re:Supreme Irony in the Making

[ediron2]

Wouldn't it be poetic if the outcome of SCO's market gaming were that IBM sued SCO for all assets, including that, then turned around and freed UNIX once and for all?

IBM?! Give up assets? IBM? Free Unix forever?

I grew up tracking the IBM antitrust news. IBM was cutthroat enough that I remember how Microsoft's geek-chic stature grew when they out-IBM'ed IBM. IBM was embracing-and-extending long before Microsoft was founded. They were (and are) pit bulls when it comes to marketing, consulting, patent-collecting, acquiring or conquering competitors, etc, etc, etc. In fact, the (delightfully) ruthless motives given in this thread for IBM carefully avoiding dismissal sound like the IBM I've known all my life. Handing the rope out for SCO to hang themselves is a tactic worthy of a Grisham novel, but entirely in-character for IBM.

So, um... which one of us has fallen into another dimension? 'Cuz you sure aren't talking about the IBM I know. IBM giving an asset away isn't poetic. I'd call it heart-stoppingly unimaginable.

Re:Supreme Irony in the Making

[vidarh]

Eclipse, Jikes, i8n support libraries used in Xerces among others, and a LONG list of other projects, a ton of Linux contributions (JFS, for instance).... Just to mention a few. IBM have released more code as open source than most software companies produce during their entire existence.

Re:Supreme Irony in the Making

[jjo]

No this is not true. Now that IBM has answered SCO's complaint, SCO cannot withdraw its case without the court's permission (see FRCP 41). In any case, even if SCO's case were dismissed, IBM's countersuit would continue it's relentless path toward SCO's destruction.

Re:Supreme Irony in the Making

[_Sprocket_]

I grew up tracking the IBM antitrust news. IBM was cutthroat enough that I remember how Microsoft's geek-chic stature grew when they out-IBM'ed IBM.

Like the Star Wars fans quote... "There are always two: a master and an apprentice." Microsoft learned how to do business from IBM. Then perfected the technique.

What will be interesting is watching Microsoft follow IBM's history in its own way. Commoditization of hardware transformed IBM. What will commiditization of the OS do?

Re:Supreme Irony in the Making

[roystgnr]

'Cuz you sure aren't talking about the IBM I know. IBM giving an asset away isn't poetic. I'd call it heart-stoppingly unimaginable.

Start imagining. IBM wouldn't be in this mess if it hadn't started giving away (well, GPLing at least) some of it's assets.

Some of the entries on those lists are a lot more advanced than SCO's code (compare IBM's NUMA contributions to the malloc version SCO was whining about under NDA, for example), too. At least a few prominent divisions of IBM see that open source isn't necessarily "IBM giving away an asset", but can often be "IBM adding value to their services and hardware". In the case of giving away Unix, it would be "IBM removing a perceived risk of their services and hardware".

You're right that this isn't the way IBM used to behave, and it's probably not the way every IBM executive would like to behave now. But is a way that they've started to behave, and it isn't implausible to hope that they'll continue. If you want implausible, you could consider that IBM's changes today give us hope for a changed Microsoft sometime in the future. ;-)

Darls claims IBM kicked his dog

[l0ungeb0y]

Immediately following the addition of the copyright infringement claims, Darl McBride announced that his dog fluffy, a 3 year old pomeranian had been kicked and severely injured. McBride citing his suspicions of IBM being the culprit planned to add his veterinarian bills as well as an unspecified monetary claim for emotional distress. "Poor Fluffy will never be the same again" Darl was quoted as saying from his Lindon Utah office

dodging the bullet

[senzafine]

I watched Darl's presentation at Harvard in its entirety last night. He (and the CIO at SCO) dodged so many of the questions it was getting boring. Namely Linus' claim of remembering two write 2 of the 70 header files submitted as "infriging" by SCO.

You'd think that after hearing a CEO of a company speak...I'd at least give more validity to their claims. But after hearing Darl...it felt like he was struggling to stay afloat.

IBM has an INCREDIBLE reply

[rewt66]

I grabbed this link off of Groklaw (credit where due): IBM's statement as to whether SCO complied with the discover order. It is unbelievably good.

Now the bad news: Posting it on Groklaw seems to have been enough to /. the court's server, so you're going to have to wait a while to read it (and no, I didn't grab a mirror while I had it - my bad).

Of course, posting the link here is far worse than posting it on Groklaw, so maybe you should try to read it tomorrow...

Late update: I re-tried the link when I did the preview, and got it - so it's back, or perhaps intermittent. I'm going to try to grab it right after I post...

Re:IBM has an INCREDIBLE reply

[HiThere]

Groklaw has a copy, so if you're really interested you can find it there. I'm not posting a link, as I don't want to /. THEM, so it will take a bit of searching. But it's there. Look for 203cv0029400000103.pdf .

Re:IBM has an INCREDIBLE reply

[Anonymous Coward]

Use the Groklaw copy. Slashdotting pacer is bad. I recommend saving the groklaw copy locally though, because it's still quite slow.

In related news.com

[EulerX07]

They've posted another story that states that SCO's claims have reached 5 billion (yes, this really is a news.com link).

This will surely give them enough funding from high-risk investors that don't mind losing a few hundred k's for a chance of a big payout.

Re:In related news.com

[Waffle Iron]

The new figure is due to the effects of "Darl's Law", which states that on average the damage claims of a lawsuit doubles every 5 months.

Stalling

[GreenCrackBaby]

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."

Re:Stalling

[NitroWolf]

I seriously doubt this will damage Linux and/or OS in the long run. In fact, this is the kind of boost that may tip things in our favor.

The old addage that "There's no such thing as bad publicity" really is true, especially when dealing with people who don't know exactly what's going on. The big thing is to get the name out there, anything after that won't be retained by 99% of the population.

When the dust finally settles, and assuming it settles in Linux favor (how can it not?) - everyone will see a big brouhaha that happened, and think "If there was such a big stink about this, and Linux won, it must be "really cool!"

So we'll have a big boost in mindshare from this no matter what, and that pretty much translates into a good thing once all is said and done.

Oh, who cares anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm tired of hearing the latest absurdity about this ridiculous little company. Who cares if they are making more, different, wilder, or whatever other sort, of claim?

Stop giving them the free publicity of paying attention to them. Let's just agree not to talk about it till IBM destroys them in court, at which point we can gloat, and be happy.

Be real

[Sangloth]

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.

wtf

[CoyoteGuy]

This is not McDonalds or Burger King where you can order a side of something with your lawsuit... Sheesh...

Actaully they narrowed not widen!

[linuxislandsucks]

News got it wrong again..

SCO dropped the trade secrets claims.. and only is going to turn over code in 17 files that they claim is infringing 30 days from now after numerous delays..

see groklaw.com for details..

Re:Extent of copyrights

[FrancisR]

Don't worry, you can avoid that by switching to extended characters 128-255 in the new Microsoft ASCII.NET(tm)

New Copyright Claim

[richg74]

From a quick read through the story on Groklaw, the copyright infringement claim has to do with IBM's continuing distribution of AIX, after SCO supposedly revoked their Unix license.

IBM has told the judge that SCO did not comply with her earlier order to specify their claims precisely (in terms of what Linux code was involved). There was apparently a ~30 minute conference with counsel in chambers before the open hearing. It doesn't sound like the judge was too sympathetic to SCO; from one witness's notes:

The judge said "The problem is, unless you identify those codes, then IBM is not in a position to have a response. We're at an impasse, and the case cannot continue with an impasse, that's why there was a court order".

From other comments the judge made (see the Groklaw write-up), it sounds like SCO may get one more really final order to lay out the specifics of their case. (Ha!)

IBM did not move for dismissal, to the surprise of some observers. My theory is that IBM thinks they have SCO on the run, and want to make sure there is nothing left of them but a glowing crater when this is all done.

Re:Extent of copyrights

[elbarrio]

ah, yes, but as we all know, all the other numbers can be created from 1's and 0's, so Microsoft still wins out in the end. Maybe they'll even sue SCO over it.

By the way, you should really acknowledge your sources.

this is interesting

[plopez]

http://weeklywire.com/ww/02-23-99/slc_cb_a.html

http://www.lds-mormon.com/6303056a.shtml

Seems that Utah is scam central...

Re:Old News

[teeker]

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!

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

All 12 Infringing files have been identified:

$ grep -ilR Regents /usr/src/linux
/usr/src/linux/net/ipsec/radij.c
/usr/src/linux/net/ipsec/radij.h
/usr/src/linux/drivers/net/bsd_comp.c
/usr/src/linux/drivers/net/slhc.c
/usr/src/linux/drivers/net/slhc.o
/usr/src/linux/drivers/net/slip.c
/usr/src/linux/drivers/char/tpqic02.c
/usr/src/linux/drivers/isdn/isdn_bsdcomp.c
/usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/queue.h
/usr/src/linux/include/net/slhc_vj.h
/usr/src/linux/include/linux/queue.h
/usr/src/linux/include/linux/quota.h

Class action?

[infernalC]

If SCO is going to seek damages for its distribution of AIX after license termination (which Novell and IBM claim it cannot do), can we then as folks who have contributed code to GNU and Linux and all the GPL'd goodies not seek damages from SCO in a class action suit for their violations of the GPL? It seems that they revoked their copy permission long ago by distributing GPL'd works linked to code they licensed non-freely. And they still distribute schtuff to Caldera clients. I'm sure someone would be willing to bankroll that.

News Flash

[dduardo]

As SCO's stock price continues to plumet amid growing speculation that their whole lawsuit lacks merit....

Wait, this just in...SCO has just upped the lawsuit agianst IBM to 100 trillion dollars...

...My God, look at that stock price rise!

(Back at SCO headquarters)

Darl: MUAHAHAHAHAHA

-------------

sigh

[Richard_at_work]

I really really wish the slashdot "Do not show stories from the following: Caldera" tick box applied to real life. This thing isnt going to go away for 5 to 10 years, and I can see it ruining a lot of productive time and effort on the opensource side. Its going to haunt us for the forseeable future, regardless of who wins the first round, the second round, the third round and so on. Technicalities will be found, loopholes will be exploited, cases thrown out, new cases raised, you name it. This case isnt going anywhere.

Ahh, the Joseph Goebels method...

[i_r_sensitive]

Yell a lie loud enough and long enough and it becomes the truth...

Ye Gods, hasn't this farce gone on long enough?

But it has this wierd attraction, I see SCO in the posts... ..must resist.. ..overwhelming urge.. ..to.. ..repeat myself...

Copyright claim is not against Linux!

[solman]

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.

Re:Copyright claim is not against Linux!

[michael_cain]

SCO's case is completely falling appart.

At least, it's been pared back down to what it was originally -- a weak contract case. SCO owns AT&T's contract with IBM that says that IBM can't reveal the methods used in their enhancements to SysV UNIX (AIX) without permission. IBM says

• There's an addendum to the contract that says we can.
• At least some of the features you're talking about were developed outside of AIX, and ported from those other sources to Linux.
• There are limits to what can be considered to be "derivative works".

To some degree, the original SCO legal theory made a bit of sense. And SCO had a point in saying that without access to IBM's internal development history, they couldn't prove/disprove their claims: JFS is in AIX, and JFS was contributed to Linux, and SCO didn't give permission, so there's at least the possibility that the methods used in "derivative works" were inappropriately revealed. People apparently in the know claim the development history shows JFS originally developed for OS/2, and ported from there to both AIX and Linux independently.

SCO and their attorneys appear to me to have committed two colossal blunders over the course of all this. They filed all kinds of other insane claims, which they have now had to drop, making them look kind of stupid. And they let Darl out without a keeper, running his mouth, making his own set of nutty claims in public ("millions of infringing lines").

I suspect that IBM is in no hurry to have the case dropped because they would prefer an outright win on the first or third grounds mentioned above. That would get them out from under any future threats from this contract.

Re:You're all missing SCO's trick

[lax-goalie]

>SCO's comments in the media are not SCO's legal case. That's another
>matter entirely, and one that has been considerably more carefully
>orchestrated.

Interestingly, IBM referenced SCO's public statements in their filing today: http://pacer.utd.uscourts.gov/images/203cv00294000 00103.pdf

The document states that "SCO has identified no more than approximately 3,700 lines of code", then quotes Darl McBride comments at Harvard this week saying "[T]here is roughly a million lines of code". IBM concludes that if McBride's statement is true, "then SCO should have identified them in response to the Court's Order."

Bottom line, SCO's public statements are now in play. Their "more carefully orchestrated" media comments are now a major liability.

Slashdot now Linux FUD source?

[Anonymous Coward]

They replaced the previous claims with the copyright claims because they were completely and utterly able to provide the minimum amount of information during discovery.

So saying the case has been "widened" is wrong.

Also, they didn't add the claims yet. The asked the judge to allow them to add the claims. This is because they missed the deadline to add claims to the lawsuit.

You'd think there would be more reliable information from a place where Linux people supposedly hang out.

They HAD to, you know

[Doug Merritt]

They HAD to find some reason to bring the suit up to $5 billion, you know...

They calculated the projected future losses caused by ill will generated in potential customers, losses from counter-lawsuits, contempt of court fees for frivolous lawsuits and fraud, etc, and the previous $3 billion they were asking for wasn't enough to cover it.

It's both... and Terrorism too!

[ajs]

The both added to and subtracted from the claims... The one that really killed me was this bit I got from Ziff:

"With the amendment, the suit also includes new allegations that IBM violated its SCO contract by improperly exporting Unix software to India and countries subject to federal export controls, including Iran, North Korea and Cuba, echoing recent comments by SCO CEO Darl McBride that characterized the spread of Linux as a threat to national security."
-ZDNet

You just have to laugh at how far they're reaching here ;-)

IBM's Report on SCO's Compliance

[SilverThorn]

As from the SCOX Message board (found on Finance.Yahoo.com): IBM's Report on SCO's Compliance with the December 12th order. http://pacer.utd.uscourts.gov/images/203cv00294000 00103.pdf

Re:$1.6B and dropping fast...

[shades66]

The SCO Group's stock symbol is SCOX not SCO.

The SCO Groups' market cap is $190M and falling

Wrongful termination (yes, I'm abusing the term)

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny things is that SCO claimed to terminate the license based on IBM actions which it now admits it can't prove. So if they terminated the license (assuming it was within their power in the first place) on those grounds how can they now claim damages? Sounds like IBM can counter-sue for contract violations and easily dismiss the copyright infringement charges by showing the court the Unix license text. SCO had to tell IBM in writing what they were doing wrong with enough detail and enough advanced warning for IBM to remedy the problem. If IBM failed to fix things SCO's only recourse would be to sue for contract violations, not the ability to terminate the license.

Darl McEvil

[DaGoodBoy]

"Maybe if I keep raising the damage award, no one will notice I have no evidence!"
http://www.awtrey.com/darlmcevil/

Yet Another Smart Comment!

[jimicus]

1. Make snide comment about SCO's latest ploy. 2. ??? 3. KARMA!!!

In a nutshell...

[PingXao]

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.

Easy to see how SCO could believe they own (c)s

[Ungrounded Lightning]

You'd think they'd have to ask Novell's permission before they go sue IBM for Novell's copyrights. ;)

Much as I hate the idea, I can see how the SCO execs could read the Asset Purchase Agreement to mean that they DID buy the copyrights:

Schedule 1.1(a) Assets

1. All rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare and Auxiliary Products, including but not limited to all versions of UNIX and UnixWare and Auxiliary Products [...] including source code, [...]

Schedule 1.1(b) Excluded Assets

V. Intellectual Property:

A. All copyrights and trademarks, except for the [...] copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies.

SCO could easily read this as "You now own the source code. That includes (as an explicit exception to the copyright exclusion) all of Novell's copyrights on the source code that you need to enforce your ownership of the source code."

Another poster (in a previous article) wrote:

Novell has claimed in the past that SCO has asked them to transfer the copyrights, but they (Novell) refused. If they can bring hard evidence of this out (and I would bet they can) then that proves SCO knew Novell retained the copyrights.

But SCO can argue that this was just a request for confirmation of what they believed the contract meant, in preparation for their suit to enforce their copyrights. Then they could argue that Novell's refusal to give that "confirmation" was just Novell trying to back out the deal once they discovered they'd given away the store to someone who was actually going to KEEP it.

(None of which, even if the court upholds SCO's interpretation, in any way releases them from promptly identifying the alleged infringing code in Linux, so the open source community can expunge it, end the alleged infringement, and minimize the alleged damages.)

Re:Easy to see how SCO could believe they own (c)s

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no lawyer, but the translation of this seems to be "You get the Unix copyrights. No you don't, unless you need them". ????

Everyone at groklaw seemed to conclude that this meant Novell did not sell SCO the UNIX copyrights, even while SCO was "acquiring" UNIX.

But another reading could be that Novell wanted to make it clear they were not transferring any rights to their other products (NetWare, etc), even if those products contained some UNIX code.

You are right and you are wrong

[burnin1965]

I think you are correct that everyone is missing the trick, but you are wrong if you think SCO is holding out to pull some magic trump card for a climactic finish.

I think what everyone is missing is that SCO is trying to say that SCO owns UNIX, UNIX=AIX, AIX=LINUX, therefore UNIX=LINUX and SCO owns LINUX.

And the way they are trying to state this is by saying that IBM signed a contract with SCO that says "we will let you look at our SCO code and in return any code you develop from then on belongs to us as a derivitive work".

They have stated this over and over in many different ways, however, I suspect that they haven't come right out and stated it in a simple way because anyone who saw the simple truth of their arguement would be astonished at the absurdity.

So you see, the reason SCO wants all the AIX code is not because there is SCO code in linux but because they believe that IBM copied IBM AIX code into linux. That is the copyright violation. And SCO is hopeful that everyone will ignore the fact that its IBM code developed and paid for by IBM and somehow fall for their asinine logic of "all your code belong to us".

Anyhow, its sure fun to watch IBM trash SCO's lawyers in court and show no sign of giving quarter.

burnin

Re:You are right and you are wrong

[BigFire]

Not really. Pretty much all of IBM's contribution to Linux are created with a strick adherance to clean room developement method.

Re:You are right and you are wrong

[eclectro]

I complement you. You seem to have hit the nail on the head. Your analysis fits nicely with SCO's "rungs to the ladder" nonsens^H^H^H^Htheory.

From today's hearing;

Heise referred to the 1985 Agreement point 2.01, that "modifications
to SysV code must be treated as derivatives", and he claims that AIX
and Dynix are such derivatives. SCO feels that AIX and Dynix code
has been put into Linux, and that IBM admitted it publicly. Heise
made an analogy to "the first 10 rungs of a ladder", but the ladder
goes to step 20 now, and maybe step 16 has some issues with it.
Heise said that IBM "has not proven ownership of *their* code" and
that they must do so to show that it's OK to put it into Linux.
Heise gave a printout to the judge, and described it as showing
line-for-line ("in red") copying, and mentioned Async I/O and Scatter
Gather as two areas in question. Said they want IBM source code.
Judge said it is SCO's requirement to show: "this is about your
response, and compliance to the court order".

At that point, Heise said SCO cannot identify violations. The judge
said "The problem is, unless you identify those codes, then IBM is
not in a position to have a response. We're at an impasse, and the
case cannot continue with an impasse, that's why there was a court
order".

Heise went back to the ladder analogy, saying "maybe rung 15 to 16"
might be involved, but they cannot identify the lines because SCO
doesn't have derivative IBM code. Heise then made comment (which
drew some audible "Huh?" responses from the audience), that
"Arguments of the case aren't appropriate at discovery." 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

Truly laughable. Makes you wonder about the enviroment in SCO that cooked this up.

Re:You are right and you are wrong

[Adriax]

Truly laughable. Makes you wonder about the enviroment in SCO that cooked this up.

Darl: Larry, you go mash on that keyboard and create us some "evidence" for the case. Curley, think up some big numbers to tell the press, the bigger the better. Moe, go tell our investors we're gonna make $5 billion off this thing, and we're not gonna stop there.
3 Stooges: Yes boss!
Cue zany antics.

Enough is enough

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Best part of the hearing...

[TrentC]

...is when Mark Heise, counsel for SCO at this hearing, was asked why SCO needed IBM's source code to AIX to determine if there is any infringement occuring, when SCO has certified that Sun and HP are not infringing without having shown any source code.

Heise replied (not sure of the exact quote, transcript isn't available yet) "As for HP, there is a fundamental difference in that they haven't said they are contributing to Linux". Dave Marriott, counsel for IBM at the hearing, replied that HP has, in fact, contributed to Linux.

Talk about not having done your homework...

Jay (=

Re:Best part of the hearing...

[swillden]

Dave Marriott, counsel for IBM at the hearing, replied that HP has, in fact, contributed to Linux. Talk about not having done your homework...

Oh, it was much better than that (I was there). David Marriott didn't just say it -- he whipped out a stack of copies of HP documents describing their contributions to Linux and passed them out to the Judge, the court reporter and the SCO attorneys. Even more impressive, Marriot had a perfectly straight face when he handed the stapled photocopies to Mark Heise.

SCO.com copyright page does not exist!

[VisorGuy]

<defense style=chewbaca>
Hey! Look over here!

Browse to sco.com and mouse over the Company nav menu at the top and select the bottom entry for "Open Letter on Copyrights" and note that it doesn't exist.

Therefore you must acquit!!
</defense>

;-P

How Darl found the infringed code...

[weeboo0104]

Darl McBride had to make a profit,
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dummmmmbb.

And so an angel appeard to Darl and said, "System V code is buried deep in the Kernel 2.4 tree.
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dummmmbb.

Darl McBride translated the code,
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dummmmbb.

And Darl thus spoke "I have over a million lines of code that IBM has stolen from me. I will translate the code for our attorneys and they will get our money from IBM"
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dummmmbb.

But the attorneys lost the code on the way to the courtroom and asked Darl to tranlate again. Darl became very angry.

Darl said "God is angry because we have not shown the million lines of code to the world and has taken the code from me. He will not let me translate the code again. To appease God, we must file a copyright infringment against IBM instead!"
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dummmmb

IBM grew weary of Darls claims and said "but if you want to show us the code you think we stole, just download it from any number of freely available sources"
Smart smart smart smart smaaarrrrt

The fun continues, ad nauseum.

Doublespeak

[Rufus211]

IBM's finally calling SCO on it's in court / out of court doublespeak:

Morover, there remains a significant disparity between the information in the Revised Response and SCO's public statements about its alleged evidence. In the final analysis, SCO has indentified no more than appoximately 3,700 lines of code in 17 AIX or Dynix files that IBM is alleged improperly to have contiributed to Linux. (A list of the files we believe SCO has identified in its Revised Response is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.) Yet, speaking at Harvard Law School earlier this week, SCO's CEO, Darl McBride, stated that:

"...[T]here is roughly a million lines of code that tie into contributions that IBM has made and that's subject to litigation that's going on. We have basically supplied that. In fact, that is going to be the subject of a hearing that comes up Friday..." (emphasis added.)

Good to know you can't completely get away with talking so much BS.

"Unfortunate" press coverage

[Grrr]

In the ECommerce Times coverage by Elizabeth Millard, Yankee Group Dana Gardner was quoted as saying...

With continued insults being hurled in formal statements and Web site postings, SCO will move forward with its trial preparations as the target of much ire from the Linux community and others, Gardner noted.

"There's a lot of negative sentiment toward the company," he said. "You see it in everything from published remarks to the recent denial-of-service attack. But they're continuing to be resolute.
...

Almost, but not quite, connecting "the Linux community" with the DoS.

Very slippery.

<grrr>

Almost there...

[Darth McBride]

A few more billion dollars thrown in for good measure and I will surely have enough money to complete the DeathSCO. Darth McBride (Ps. Plans for the DeathSCO are shown in this topic's icon.

Re:Almost there...

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

Huh...that's funny...I can see an unshielded exhaust port from here.

My favourite article headline..

[wo1verin3]

My favourite article headline so far has to be from SiliconValley.com

SCO files for temporary restraining order against reality

Through the looking glass

[russotto]

IBM: Show us the infringing code SCO: We can't. You have the infringed code. You wrote it, you put it into AIX, you then put it into Linux, and we never saw the AIX original. But we own it. And we can prove it. If you'll only show us your code. IBM's lawyer: Raises eyebrow.

Re:Question

[HTH NE1]

Why are stories about the SCO-IBM lawsuit filed under "Your Rights Online"?

Because there aren't enough of them to warrant their own area.

Wait, that can't be right....

David v. Goliath

[yintercept]

The Salt Lake Tribune has an article positioning this as a David v. Goliath suit of SCO against IBM...IBM stealing the assets developed by a small Provo firm. Utahns are extremely susceptiple to this type of argument.

Re:David v. Goliath

[yintercept]

what gives you the gall to assume that Utahn's are susceptiple to this type of argument?

Being educated does not mean you will not fall for myths. Education sometimes makes people more apt to fall for myths. For example, it really could be the that large portions of Linux were willfully copied from SCO, and all the highly educated people on slashdot fell for it. We all believe in the myth of Linus Torvolds. He is too pure to allow the copying of another's code into Linux without consent. Very few linux users have read and or verified the source of all the code in the program.

Look at the number of educated people who fell for the myth that if enough people were copying music via P2P that the courts would roll over and nullify the copyright laws.

As for the image of the common man fighting against corporate interests and the liberal elite of the East. Utah's #2 hero is Philo Farnsworth who stood against RCA. And currently the Utah Legislature is passing legislation to withdraw from the United Nations.

If SCO can position this to the jurers as a fight between a small company and IBM...then it is a completely different beast than if it is positioned as a company buying up property rights then suing on shaky ground.

It would be possible to pick a jury in Salt Lake who have never heard of Santa Cruz Operations, but have heard of IBM.

Re:David v. Goliath

[gujo-odori]

Not all Utah(a)?ns. A close friend of mine lives in Payson and works in SLC and has to drive past SCO headquarters every day on his way to work. Every day, he flips the bird to SCO headquarters.

A friend of his, in turn, works at SCO. Poor guy. He says the customers (yeah, I guess they still have a few) really beat him up on the phone over SCO's actions.

SCO's enemies (that's almost everyone) hate them, their own customers seem to hate them (that's hardly anyone), and I bet most of their own staff probably hate them, too. Does anyone like them? Oh yeah, I guess their lawyers like them. Their names will be mud when this is over, but it will be rich mud, b/c they make money win or lose and have already been paid millions of dollars.

Re:The SCO Group Exchanges Series A Convertible Pr

[DonGar]

If I remember correctly.....

Preferred stock is kinda special and comes with a lot of extras. Common stock doesn't, but common stock gets it's dividends first (as a trade off).

A common thing with preferred stock is to be able to convert it to common stock through some financial transaction with the company. I'm not sure exactly how, but it's possible for the company to make or lose money through this transaction.

You can't just change the rules related to a share be it common or preferred, but you can take away a share and replace it with a new one (if the stock holders agree).

This looks like they yanked all of the preferred stock, and replaced it with a new flavor of preferred stock that doesn't have a conversion feature.

Somehow or other, the potential losses SCO would have if the preferred stock was converted to common stock were showing up on their balance sheet.

By yanking the conversion features from the preferred stock, that potential loss goes away and the books look better without having really done much of anything.

How's that for a vague explanation?

But they didn't get it in writing

[A nonymous Coward]

My understanding was that SCO had to specifically ask for those additional transfers, they had to specifically state it was necessary in order for them to exercise their previous rights. Since SCO did not in fact state this, they didn't get the additional rights.

But I could be wrong, and everything is so fuzzed up, it will take years to settle. Not even that $50M will cover their expenses in the meantime.

When does it end?

[wallingford]

I am definitely not a lawyer, so after months of SCO news I have this question when can we seriously expect this whole fiasco to end?

Is this going to be one of those court cases that takes years to be settled?

There must be some old-timers out there who have seen this type of thing in the past; how many series of filings -> hearings -> more filings -> more hearings -> ... does it take?

It doesn't seem that complicated to me...

Re:You're all missing SCO's trick

[zurab]

It was the same with DeCSS, it will be the same here. Everyone thinks they know what the result will be because they can't imagine the other side will pull something out of their hat, and they all have their own opinion about how the law should work.

Except that SCO doesn't know exactly what they are doing themselves. Of a high importance, as other posters and groklaw pointed out, is that SCO has dropped the trade secret allegation from their lawsuit. This is, or rather was, one of the biggest parts of their lawsuit. Besides, the copyright claims they added are in regards to AIX, not Linux.

Remember, SCO has also argued they may have a problem disclosing what source code has been copied because their trade secrets were going to be violated. Now, they have switched their tune to - we need IBM to give us the source code of everything they have ever written so we can find out if and what they copied.

IANAL, but what I gather from groklaw summary is that judge ordered SCO to produce evidence, so IBM could reply to their claims. If SCO cannot provide any evidence, then judge cannot order IBM to give SCO source code to all their software.

Besides, IBM pointed out that its contributions to Linux kernel are a matter of looking up publicly available records, and it cannot be unnecessarily burdened to produce the same evidence that is already available in public. However, I cannot discern what SCO's logical response to that was. They had none in the groklaw summary.

Anyway, it seems like the judge will issue a strict order to SCO to comply, giving them 2-4 additional weeks. I somehow don't understand - was the previous court order not a strict one?

Parent's Nethack reference

[weeboo0104]

actually a screenshot from the Ancient Unix version of Nethack - be sure to tune in!

You are suing IBM in a large courtroom,
You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

SCO's new claims

[merodach]

The news.com article got it SORT OF right. SCO filed a motion to amend it's claims. IOW, they asked the judge to be allowed to amend the claims. The judge has YET to rule on this motion. For a FAR more accurate and complete edition of what happened today see Groklaw here and look here for IBM's analysis of what SCO provided.

Yes they did.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

My understanding was that SCO had to specifically ask for those additional transfers, they had to specifically state it was necessary in order for them to exercise their previous rights. Since SCO did not in fact state this, they didn't get the additional rights.

I didn't find anything to that effect in the document. I provided the link. If anyone can find something that says they have to ask for additional permission, please point out the section number.

This reading of the document says that they now own the unix source code and that they now also own exactly the minimum set of copyrights necessary to enforce that ownership. No further transfers needed. (The other exclusions seem to be for things like Novell products, rights Novell didn't have in the first place, or rights it already contracted away.)

Which is exactly what SCO is claiming. So what will matter, with respect to the copyright issue, is whether the judge will read it this way.

And (if I, a non-laywer, understand this correctly) with Novell saying they didn't get the copyrights and SCO saying they did, the judge will probably decide it on one of two bases.
1) If the judge decides that the text is clear, she will decide according to the clear meaning.
2) If the judge decides that the text is ambiguous, she will determine WHO WROTE the text, and decide in favor of THE OTHER PARTY.

We need to prepare for the possiblity that the judge decides in favor of SCO on this issue - either because the text seems (to a lawyer) to clearly transfer enough copyright to SCO for them to go after IBM (and other Linux distributors), or because Novell wrote it, so any ambiguities are their fault and must be decided in SCO's favor.

So lets have a plan B available to defend our turf.

There's lots of ammo, and for any particular piece of code you only need ONE shot to defend it.

- Portions of UNIX code released into public domain or under other licenses by SCO or one of its previous owners, or an owner of enough rights to do this. (Let's try to do this without resorting to SCO's distribution of Linux. They might get away with their claim that their ignorance of the inclusion of their code by others exempts it from the GPL, while their continued distribution of the REST of the code, now that they actually shipped some, is actually required for a while longer by the GPL.)

- Stuff freed by the BSD case.

- Stuff tracably separately written.

- Court decisions about recycling interface definitions for interoperability being fair use.

And I'm sure there are others.

However

[mcc]

IBM?! Give up assets? IBM? Free Unix forever?

IBM is committed to selling linux. This means what IBM can do is somewhat limited by the constraints of the GPL.

The GPL says that either everyone can distribute this freely to anyone else, and everyone who recieves it has the same right to distribute under the GPL as everyone else, with no restrictions (such as license fees). If not, no one has the right to distribute the file at all unless you get some alternate form of permission from everyone who contributed to writing it. This means one of two things would be the case if IBM owned the UNIX copyrights.

1. Linux is not in any way an infringement of the UNIX source code.
2. Linux is an infringement of the UNIX source code, and if IBM does not grant a free and open license to everyone under the GPL to use the infringing parts of Linux, IBM (and, technically, everyone else in the world) must cease to distribute Linux until those infringing parts are removed.

SCO has been effectively "untouchable" because they have no need for a long term strategy. They know that once the repercussions for their actions-- the failures of their lawsuits, etc-- finally come to pass, they will have long cashed in their inflated stock and run away. IBM, meanwhile, will still be here in 10 years time. That means no kamikaze attacks and no attacking your own revenue streams.

Of course, if what you're saying is that IBM probably won't be GPLing SysV in its entirity, then no, probably not, but who would want it if they did? IBM giving an asset away isn't poetic. I'd call it heart-stoppingly unimaginable. Irony is generally considered to be inherently poetic.

Re:You're all missing SCO's trick

[Flower]

What tricks? This isn't Perry Mason. What SCO does now dictates what they will be able to do later in the trial.

I don't know what you've been reading but IBM has been crucifying SCO's legal team with SCO's rhetoric. If anything, this case is proving to be an textbook example of why you never comment about pending and on-going litigation. Every word SCO utters to the media is going to come back to haunt them in the courtroom. What? Do you really believe that if Darl takes the stand that questions like "Where is that team of MIT rocket scientists?" or "You orignally said millions of lines but after discovery your company could only produce a fraction of that. yes or no?" won't come up?

And who are most people? It became obvious fairly quickly that this case would go on for a long time. Neither side can simply drop it.

Open Letter to Darl McBride

[borgheron]

Dear Sir,

SCO has done nothing but double talk for the term of this whole debacle.

To get us and the rest of the world to take your claims seriously you need to show the code *without* requiring an aggregious NDA which is overly broad.

In most copyright cases that I am aware of the primary goal of the plantiff seems to be to *cease being damaged*, but by specifically not showing the code in an acceptable forum, you, Sir, have allowed yourself to be *further* damaged.

You have failed to uphold your end of the case at every turn:

1) Refusing to show the code to the community with out requiring an NDA
2) Purposfully giving IBM 1 million pages of paper with a font so small that it is useless
3) Continually upping the damages which you have caused yourself, by not allowing us to remove the alleged code, if there is any.

Your case is the equivanlent of saying "I own something in your house and I'm going to charge you monthly rent for it, but I wont tell you what it is so that I can continue to extract fees from you". This is absolutely preposterous.

It is absolutely transparent to everyone involved in this case that you are out to capitalize on GNU/Linux's success by using this scheme. It is, to many in the community, a betrayal of monumental proportions that SCO/Caldera has done this when they were once one of the many companys involved in *promoting* open source.

I have a few challenges for you:

1) Show your code in plain daylight, my email is associated with my id here so all you need to do to reach me is click your mouse. We've been begging, no *pleading* with you in every way possible to show the code in a way which isn't an obvious sham (the aforementioned NDA).

2) For any files/code that is in common *prove* to us that it is infringment, unlike the trivial examples you showed at Las Vegas which weren't even SCO's, but come from BSD. Again... we've been hoping that you might do *this* to no avail.

3) Prove my assertion that you're only trying to leach off of Linux's success wrong.

I very seriously doubt that you'll be able to rise to all, not to mention even one of these.

GNU/Linux was built by us, and is maintained by us and would have surpassed UNIX sooner or later with or without IBM's input.

Good day,

Don't forget the implications

[Intraloper]

SCO is in a sticky position unless they can produce approximataly that entire million lines of code. If they say they have it, but dont produce it, they are in contempt of court in their own case. If they say thay dont have it, in statements before the court, they are then loading IBMs guns for them in the Lanham Act counterclaim.

What happened to Darl???

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at Darl's picture on the SLTrib article, he looks absolutely terrible. Worse than Brando showing up to shoot Apacolypse Now. It's almost as if... (horrors!) he's got Philipkahnosis!

Yes, this dreaded sickness attacks increasingly useless technology executives. It manifests itself by eating their soul, and as the infection spreads, it releases large amounts of noxious gas, resulting in a foul odor and a "puffy" or "bloated" appearance. Medical scientists believe that frequent contact with attorneys, tape worms, or other parasites may increase the risk of contracting Philipkahnosis.

Re:You're all missing SCO's trick

[shadowbearer]

*and* Heise stated in the courtroom to the judge some blather about 300 million or 400 million lines of code...

I somehow doubt the judge is all that amused. I'm sure she has evidence in front of her exactly how many lines of code there are, total, in Linux, AIX, and Dynix combined.

SB

Hilarious

[dvNull]

From the ZDNet Article

With the amendment, the suit also includes new allegations that IBM violated its SCO contract by improperly exporting Unix software to India

And this from SCO's site:

http://www.thescogroup.com/company/success/story.h tml?ID=60

Re:this is interesting (Utah and scamming)

[IronClad]

As someone who has lived in Utah and out, I would say that Utah doesn't necessarly have more serious scamming going on than elswhere, but they do have a uniquely multi-polar society with more than their share of gullible ninnies are comingled with another (though more typical) group of greedy perpetrators who never needed to evolve into intelligent scammers with such easy pickin's around.

The combo (clueless greedies + naive ninnies) makes for robust traffic in multilevel skin products and vitamins-that-promise-to-cure-cancer scams.

So Utah is not really more corrupt than other places, but it's different. I believe, for example, that the Olympic scam was typical of other Olympic venues when it happened at Utah, but the notable difference was that the whistle was blown and the (naive) local public reacted with admirable shock.

Darl seems to have emerged from this subculture of manipulators-among-the-naive, but with additional drive from his apparent megalomaniacal personality disorder: why peddle antioxidant vitamins when you can go for three, no five BILLION (with pinky-to-mouth).

No more planning going on here than with the pyramid scheme moguls. He knows he's a scammer (or else his answers at, say Harvard, would be less evasive.) I think that he simply hopes enough people are gullible or naive or complacent enough for him to get away with some fraction of the loot.

The real news is that the judge will rule shortly

[Animats]

The real status of this case is that SCO is under a court order to "describe with specificity" the infringing material, if any. IBM says SCO has not done so in their status report to the judge. SCO hasn't claimed otherwise. Both sides presented their motions in court today, and the judge will issue rulings on them in a few days.

If you read through the notes from the hearing, it's clear that SCO continues to refuse to, or is unable to, identify specific infringing code, and the judge doesn't like it. The judge said "The problem is, unless you identify those codes, then IBM is not in a position to have a response. We're at an impasse, and the case cannot continue with an impasse, that's why there was a court order". That's a clear indication from the judge. The judge isn't buying SCO's nebulous theory of general infringement.

Cravath is slowly boxing in SCO. Notice that the trade secret claim has been dropped. The copyright claim isn't in the case yet, and IBM can probably insist that it doesn't go in without SCO showing the original and the purported copy side by side.

Look for some rulings unfavorable to SCO shortly.

You fell in.

[Duhavid]

IBM *was* as you recall.

They signed the consent decree, then *abided* by it, and learned from it.

I didnt track all that as it happened, but I did read about it.

I also worked for a company that used a lot of IBM equipment. I started as a MS lover and looked down on IBM. In working with IBM ( and in watching MS through the years ), I have reversed on each of those positions. I grew to respect IBM's business sense and ethics ( at least what I could see of it ), and I learned to appreciate what IBM had to offer in the way of hardware ( I started thinking speed was all, I came away impressed with the business utility, business-minded-ness, and robustness of thier stuff ).

Now, if only MS would have such a change of "heart" as I perceive IBM had, the world would be a much better place. And they could stop being paranoid megalomanics.

As to giving away, in a sense, no, but putting Unix in the public domain *would* make sense, as it would forstall any future successor in interest from making similiar calculations, and would reduce IBM's risks. ( see also, the other posts about IBM's contributions to Linux )

It's our birthday, we'll *gollum* if we wants to

[Zenmonkeycat]

April 11, 2005: SCO and IBM go to trial
April 12, 2005: I get a birthday present when the judge tells SCO to go f*** itself with a rusty shovel.

"We rule in favor of the Defendant, and order SCO to pay an assload of money to everyone affiliated with Linux development in any way, shape or form. Furthermore, SCO sucks, and should, in the Court's opinion, find a suitable location to perform sexual acts upon itself with poorly-maintained garden equipment. And on part 2, subsection B, I find SCO in contempt of court, and therefore must pay damages to the court in the form of either a fully-trained attack monkey, or two nice dress shirts."

Which other party?

[nniillss]

2) If the judge decides that the text is ambiguous, she will determine WHO WROTE the text, and decide in favor of THE OTHER PARTY.

The question is: who is the other party. If I read it correctly, Darl Mc Bride represented Novell when the contract was signed. So would any errors have to be blamed on him or on Novell?

One hint as to the intentions of both parties in the contract could be the price. One might assume that Novell would not intentionally have sold rights worth billions for a mere few millions to Caldera.

Darl's shrunken head on a pike

[xixax]

Considering the amount of cash IBM have already wasted on this exercise, they may as well take Darl's shrunken head as a warning to anyone else considering fscking with their plans. Rather than being money wasted, the fiaSCO becomes a useful precedent.

Xix.

Darl's Millions

[the_flatlander]

"Of course, he's made millions selling SCO stock since this fiasco began, he'll never need to work again."

As luck would have it, Darlin' Darl the Dark, does not have any vested stock options to sell at this time. He draws a realtively small, (about 160K), salary and his stock options are held up pending a string of profitable quarters. Regrettably, IBM appears to have interceded in that endevour and the SCOundrels will not see another quarter. (read that either way: profit, or wrt time.)

The Flatlander

Re:Darl's Millions

[Zeinfeld]

As luck would have it, Darlin' Darl the Dark, does not have any vested stock options to sell at this time. He draws a realtively small, (about 160K), salary and his stock options are held up pending a string of profitable quarters.

That is not an obstacle. Turning that type of situation into liquid cash is what private bankers are for. Daryl will have a fancy derivative collar.

Copyright transfer is not automatic

[A nonymous Coward]

I have read, probably Groklaw, that copyright transfer is not automatic, and has to be done explicitly in writing at the PTO or whoever handles it. Reagardless of what that contract says is necessary, if SCO did not explicitly ask for those copyright transfers, and if Novell did not sign any over to SCO, then they were not transferred. My understanding has been that SCO has to explicitly state they need the copyright transfers, and why, and Novell has to agree. None of this has occurred.