Slashdot Mirror
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.
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,
...they'd have to ask Novell's permission before they go sue IBM for Novell's copyrights. ;)
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Adding a copyright infringement claim? They wouldn't dare!
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!
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!"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
looks like it won't take long until we see something like this in courts.
The IT section color scheme sucks.
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..."
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.)
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
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.
Better than Flickr - Manage, Share, Archive
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...
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.
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
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.
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..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
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.
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:
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.
http://weeklywire.com/ww/02-23-99/slc_cb_a.html
http://www.lds-mormon.com/6303056a.shtml
Seems that Utah is scam central...
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
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
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.
As SCO's stock price continues to plumet amid growing speculation that their whole lawsuit lacks merit....
...My God, look at that stock price rise!
Wait, this just in...SCO has just upped the lawsuit agianst IBM to 100 trillion dollars...
(Back at SCO headquarters)
Darl: MUAHAHAHAHAHA
-------------
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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 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.
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
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
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
The SCO Group's stock symbol is SCOX not SCO.
The SCO Groups' market cap is $190M and falling
---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
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:
Duh! And Darl wants $5 Billion for this?!?! For what exactly? I can't wait for the stomping to commence.
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:
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.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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?
...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 (=
<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>
This user account is inactive account replaced by the PDA
Good to know you can't completely get away with talking so much BS.
SCO files for temporary restraining order against reality
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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,
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
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.
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.
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."
*****
Dear Mary,
I yearn for you tragically,
A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.