Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders SCO, IBM To Produce Disputed Code
An anonymous reader writes "A NewsForge story [part of OSDN, like Slashdot] says a court ruling by Judge Brooke C. Wells in the SCO Group vs. IBM intellectual property lawsuit amounting to 'show me the code' was released today in the form of a nine-page document [PDF link]. For a change, the SCO Group had no comment, because Judge Wells told it not to issue any. The judge said SCO is to provide and identify all specific lines of code IBM is alleged to have contributed to Linux from either AIX or Dynix, provide and identify all specific lines of code from Unix System V from which IBM's contributions from AIX or Dynix are alleged to be derived, and provide and identify all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to."
maybe this is the beginning of the end. Hope those SCO licensing fees are refundable...
So is the fat lady warming up?
cheers, ben
Never miss a good chance to shut up -- Will Rogers
I hope they are thinking "put-up-or-shut-up" now, and clamp down on SCO's grandstanding...
On the plus side, maybe the stock will slide to the point that we can get a dozen shares for a quarter. I'd buy 'em out for that price...
If SCO can't produce the offending code? Perhaps Darl McBride and his lawyers would like a stay in a nice prison cell with a guy named Bubba for filing a worthless lawsuit. My guess is that SCO may claim that revealing this code would reveal a trade secret or something, so I expect them to fight back against this.
C:\>
To start off I am pretty confident that no code was stolen. However, should I have faith that the court will also see this? I mean what if something was overlooked. What IF say two lines of code were from SCO? Just evaluating all possible variables.
The title makes it look like both SCO and IBM is supposed to produce code as well, when in fact just SCO has to show proof. Bad Simoniker!! Bad!!
Dogg
...now SCO has 45 days in which to produce the offending lines of code before IBM calls to dismiss the case. This is the beginning of the end.
SCO, dammit!! Put up or shut up.
:)
It's basically over now. If SCO divulges the code in full and it's found to be infringing we can scrub the kernel. If it's not, then we can kick SCO's ass into oblivious.
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
The last announcement SCO made (re: the suing bit) had nothing to do with the disputed code, and they intentionally phrased it to seem like AutoZone was being sued for just running Linux.
SCO's tactics seem to be growing more and more deceitful and misleading..
[SCO] is hereby ordered to:
4. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to.
PDF: http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/IBM-109.pdf
I can't wait to see the answer to this one...
A fair ruling IMHO.
Its about time. Hopefully there isn't a way in which they can somehow "buy" extra time. This has got to end.
For a change, the SCO Group had no comment, because Judge Wells told it not to issue any.
It's about time...
This line is ours:
{
and so is this:
int i;
The Server that they have to post their PDF filings to runs Linux! (The webserver for the court.)
(*) More countersuits
(*) They won't
(*) Darl ends up sharing a cell with CowboyNeal
IAALS.
As per usual, Groklaw has the full treatment.
Basically, the court ruled SCO must put up within 45 days, while IBM must also give AIX (but not all versions) to SCO.
This is of course bad for SCO, who claims they need IBM to provide AIX before they can identify what is infringing. As IBM most likely won't be handing over AIX in the next 44 days or so, obviously SCO will not be able to comply.
It's a cute judgement, since it is fair to both parties while being devastating to SCO at the ame time.
It'll be interesting to see if they will play the 'we need the AIX code!' card again for the third hearing running.
The judge just got tired from reading the same arguments over this on /. all the time.
Will I (some random guy on the Internet) get to see it? I'm not talking about the the proprietary AIX/Dynix stuff, but the infringing code that they claim to be in the Linux kernel?
My (obvious) guess is no, but this comment really is a question to those who might know more.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
This is how it should have been done right from the start. The question is, what if SCO have a case and they prove it?
Every problem has a better solution when you start thinking it differently than the normal way.[Steve Wozniak]
So, can Linux distributors (or Linus himself) sue SCO for defamation? I'm sure that some companies have resisted purchasing Linux distributions in the past few months, in light of this court case...
SCOX went up after the ruling, though it fell over 10% during the day (the net is still down 8%), so it is a good thing :).
SCO may try to spin it as a positive for them, though I do not see how any of it can be positive...
S
I'm just waiting for common sense to hit the market (it kind of has already since it was down around $2 today).
Some interesting things in this order: SCO doesn't have to provide anything until IBM releases "about 245" products that make up the Dynix/AIX family to them. It also may have to provide the code to the OS's themselves. The judge state some prior cases as why SCO should be allowed to examine IBM's internal code.
SCO and IBM, under IBM list of orders, should come up with a list of the top 1000 relevant witnesses. Holy smokes.
This doesn't look like a SCO loss at all. It looks like a big court-ordered phase of "looking for more proof". Remember, this is the discovery phase, or so I've read.
wouldn't that be the first step SCO should have done in their little crusade?
"As a result of this newest court order, SCO now has another 45 days, or until April 17, to produce the disputed lines of code and explain them clearly to the court."
Darl: "we were working on our taxes and 2 days is *so* not long enough to make all of this up"
My other sig is an import.
grep -n "int i;" *.c
It's not quite "put-up-or-shut-up" for SCO. You see, there are some directions in the ruling for IBM as well (apparently not relevant to the story here at Slashdot). For example, under the heading "IBM", the ruling also says that SCO made a "good faith effort" to comply with the Court's prior order, and so the Court removed the discovery stay that it had previously ordered. There are quite a few things that the Court has ordered IBM to now turn over to SCO, such as certain releases of AIX and Dynix that SCO had requested. Actually, IBM is being told to turn quite a bit over to SCO, it's not really a "win" either way.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
How do all of you say "SCO"?
So you say the letters S-C-O or do you say like "skow".....
Kiss my shiny metal ass
...put up AND shut up. :)
I'd love to monitor SCO's web traffic right about now. I wonder if the Google search rates on "how to shortsell stock" and "SCO" have gone up. Or was it "Martha Stewart", "insider trading" and "legal defense" ?
-------------
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
There are quite a few things that the Court has ordered IBM to now turn over to SCO, such as certain releases of AIX and Dynix that SCO had requested. Actually, IBM is being told to turn quite a bit over to SCO, it's not really a "win" either way.
Yes it is. Because IBM has the same 45 days to produce this as SCO does to produce its evidence of infringement.
SCO has already stated in court that they cannot possibly comply with this without all the AIX code. Now, they are neither getting all the AIX code or the chance to use it to prove infringments, since IBM is hardly going to hand over the source at once.
(This is of course what the court intended by giving them a concurrent deadline. SCO must prove their case on their own hand, but IBM must still comply with discovery.)
If the court finds that stolen code exists in Linux, I want to know who put it there. That person will then have to create new code to replace whatever was stolen as his or her punishment. (Using a previous example: int i; replaced with int j;)
The order says SCO has to identify UNIX code in Linux Within 45 days... IBM has 45 days to make AIX/Dynix available to SCO. BIG DIFFERENCE!
My wife doesn't listen to me either...
"skow"
That way when you pronounce thier company's stock SCOX, it sounds like "scocks"
#include "IANAL.H"
...unbiased. She has asked that IBM provide the "approximately 232 products" and the source logs for them, as well as email and memos pertaining to them. She's basically allowing SCO to go diving for the information that they are after.
However, this is discovery and not trial so items obtained during discovery don't seem to always be admissable. It simply seems that Judge Wells is doing her best judicial duty to ensure that there can be no claim of mistrial due to denied evidence.
As well SCO has quite a ballgame ahead of them. The items requested from them were quite numerous and it seems that Judge Wells doesn't buy the "we can't specify it because it would violate agreements" argument that they are bandying about. (See item #5 on the order itself; where the code was distributed, to whom, and under what agreements.)
The end result is this order seems better for SCO than IBM, but then again SCO couldn't get much lower on hope than they were. I disagree with the allowance of the requested versions of Dynix and AIX and all source code for them -- perhaps I should simply sue Microsoft and insinuate that they have some of my code in their product. While I admire the discovery must be broad... that seems to be a bit too broad.
SCO wants to subpoena 7200 witnesses. Holy Christ. How, when, why? That many witnesses? Tell me there'd be some sort of expedited process to get the questions SCO is seeking answered -- that seems ludicrous, especially in light of the fact that SCO has repeatedly altered its complaints.
I also laugh at "considering SCO's good faith effort." What? WHAT? And THANK GOD she muzzled McBridge and his cronies. I just hope that she doesn't start putting the remainder of the case under seal so as to prevent the rest of us from knowing what's going on. You know SCO will suggest it at least once.
Talonius
My reality check bounced.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Why, yes it is:
I wonder which will come first, the end of SCO vs. IBM or the release of Half-Life 2.
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Time to place another round of short-sell orders! And only 2 days after the order at $13.00 kicked in. Oh, and hold off until right after my next round goes through, mmkay? SCO is such a low-cap stock that even a small herd of Slashdot weenies can affect it...hmmm...
On second thought, everyone go find a broker and short like there's no tomorrow. If we all work together, we can drive SCOX into the ground! Think of it as a chartiable contribution that'll probably earn a sizable return inside of a few months.
"In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
It's from Groklaw, but the DB server seems ready to crash!
... obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(i). A Court may also limit discovery if "the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(iii).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DIVISION, DISTRICT OF UTAH
______________________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Plaintiff,
vs
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.
Defendant
Case No. 2:03cv00294 DK
ORDER REGARDING SCO'S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
AND IBM'S MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY
On February 6, 2004, the Court heard arguments regarding SCO Group Incorporated's (SCO) compliance with the court's prior order of December 12, 2003. The Court also heard argument on SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery. SCO was represneted by Mark Heise, Brent Hatch and Kevin McBride. International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) was represented by David Marriot, Todd Schaughnessy, Chris Chow, and Amy Sorenson.
The Court having heard argument, having read the parties' memoranda, having considered relevant case law, and finding good cause shown, hereby enters the following Orders:
I. SCO
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant is hereby ORDERED:
1. To fully comply within 45 days of the entry of this order with the corut's previous order dated December 12, 2003. This is to include those items that SCO had difficulty in obtaining prior to the Court's previously ordered deadline of January 12, 2004.
2. As previously ordered, SCO is to provide and identify all specific lines of code that IBM is alleged to have contributed to Linux from either AIX or Dynix. This is to include all lines of code that SCO can identify at this time.
3. SCO is to provide and identify all specific lines of code from Unix System V from which IBM's contributions from AIX and Dynix are alleged to be derived.
4. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to.
5. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties. This is to include where appplicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date and under what circumstances such code was released.
II. IBM
In light of what the court considers SCO's good faith efforts to comply with the Court's prior order, the Court lifts the discovery stay it previously imposed.
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure states in relevant part: "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.... The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This rule has been interpreted broadly by the United States Supreme Court. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. V. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S. Ct. 2380 (1978). "[A]th the discovery stage, the concept of revelance should be construed very broadly." Gohler, IRA, er al. v. Wood er al., 162 F.R.D. 691,695 (D. Utah 1995). However, a court may limit discovery where "the discovery sought is
Based on the Court's decision to lift the discovery stay and because relevance should be construed broadly at the discovery stage, IBM is hereby ORDERED:
1. To provide the releases of AIX and Dynix consisting of "about 232 products" as was represented by Mr. Marriott at the February 6, 2004 hearing. The releases are to be provided within 45 days of the entry of this order. Following the production, SCO is to provide additional memoranda to the Court indicating if and how these files support its position and how they are relevant. The memorandum is to include with specificity, and to the extent possible, identification of
and starts "producing" the "infriging" code...
And I don't see why they couldn't disclose which line numbers we might want to glance at.
and pull one or two other "major" stunts like today... my gut tells me they're very close to contempt here. That would be a laugh.
Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files,IBM Doesn't Have to Go First
Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:28 PM EST
The order is in. She tells both sides to comply with discovery, but in the case of IBM, she specifically restricts the requirement that they provide AIX files to the 232 mentioned by IBM's lawyer, David Marriott, at the last hearing on February 6. SCO must demonstrate a need for more if they want more. But they don't get every AIX version from the beginning, as they had repeatedly requested. SCO has 45 days to comply fully with IBM's discovery demands. Remember, that is what IBM asked for, that SCO be given a date to comply.
SCO has 45 days to identify "all specific lines of code" they allege IBM put into Linux from AIX or Dynix; identify and provide "with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to; provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties, and this is to include "where applicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date and under what circumstances such code was released."
The previous discovery stay is lifted. IBM has 45 days to provide "the releases of AIX and Dynix consisting of 'about 232 products' as was represented by Mr. Marriott at the February 6, 2004 hearing." After that SCO can provide memoranda indicating "if and how these files support its position and how they are relevant." If they ask for more files, they are to explain reasons for such requests.. Then the court "will consider ordering IBM to produce more code from AIX and Dynix."
What it all means in practical terms is that the court didn't buy SCO's argument that it needed all of AIX and Dynix and it specifically rejected its request that IBM *first* provide AIX and Dynix, so that after that SCO could find what it needed. Since, obviously, IBM is unlikely to provide its side of the discovery order until the 45th day, SCO, under the identical 45-day requirement, will have to provide its answers to discovery before it gets to look at any more AIX or Dynix.
SCO is granted one request: that IBM turn over discovery regarding top management, including Sam Palmisano. Also Judge Wells asks that IBM turn over any nonpublic contributions to Linux that it may have made. She will learn more about Linux as the case goes along, and I believe she will find there aren't any such. SCO asked for source logs. Wells says fine, but SCO has to do the same for IBM. I don't remember IBM asking for source logs, but it is only fair.
She then asks both sides to explain how the new amended complaint impacts IBM's Motion to Strike. That's it. She would like the case to move forward, but she has done so in a way that is not a problem for IBM. SCO, on the other hand, has to provide what it told her at the hearing it can't provide without looking at all of AIX first. How they will do that remains to be seen.
We hope to have it transcribed soon. Here is the PDF from SCO's website. We should have a local copy soon, if you prefer to wait.
To refresh your memory, here is the transcript of SCO saying it is impossible for them to provide the discovery without getting AIX and Dynix first:
MR. HEISE: The reason I am maybe going more into the merits than I probably should in front of Your Honor is it directly ties into the adequacy of these interrogatory answers. The interrogatory answers detail exhaustively the contributions of AIX and Dynix that were made in there. There is no dispute about that.
They then in this letter that they wrote earlier this week said, Well, you didn't identify the line-for-line matching in every single place. There are two times when we did not do that in our answers to interrogatories. One is in table A of our interrogatories which we identified eight different files and we said the copying is complete throughout. We are not matching up the lines and I gave an example of that in the demonstrative aids when it says copying of Dynix slash into Linux, and you can s
For a while there the users were aiming for "last post."
A sure sign of a lame forum is if first and last posts were one in the same. Please tell me this wasn't the case.
Trolling is a art,
if SCO's IP is in the kernel? in about a half a day a new kernel will be available.
Is that the "oops my bad!" defense? You don't get a do-over if SCO wins. You'd basically have to start over from the 2.2 kernel, ensuring that nobody who works on the project has or had access to SCO's IP, including all derivitave works such as later Linux kernels. Basically everybody who worked on the kernel after 2.2 could be considered "tainted" by having seen SCO's IP.
If this is an allusion to "Die Bart Die", it's one of the most obscure Simpsons references I've ever (knowingly) seen...
Darl mentioned that "last summer" some Linux programmers admitted there was some stolen code in the kernel.
A really sharp female journalist from CRN asked what code was stolen and who these programmers were. Darl got tongue tied and someobdy else from SCO stepped in and said they couldn't comment on that.
This guy is way out there
Novell has been sitting on the sidelines sending polite setup letters for a while. Perhaps this is what they have been waiting for.
By suing Novell's customers (for which SCO has been providing an administrative service) SCO has:
1. Clearly defied a contractually valid direct order
2. Took actions and asserted rights not specified in the contract, and
3. Demonstrably harmed the product's (SysV licenses) future revenue stream.
Perhaps SCO thought the suit against Novell would somehow shield them from the reality that the only thing propping any of this up is their contract with Novell.
Here's to hoping for some "quick" justice.
Sorry, I meant: yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAWN.
I sometimes think that God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability. -- Oscar Wilde
So I see SCO coming in with a 3 x 5 card and IBM coming in with bags and bags of info as if from a scene in "Miracle on 34th Street" . The judge rules SCO is some kind of legal pyramid scheme and IBM is a real software company. Christmas is saved!
SCO has already stated in court that they cannot possibly comply with this without all the AIX code. Now, they are neither getting all the AIX code or the chance to use it to prove infringments, since IBM is hardly going to hand over the source at once.
Re-read the decision.. IBM has 45 days to produce AIX code. "Following this production SCO is to provide additional memoranda..." No deadline on that. The 45-day deadline is to produce "all lines of code that SCO can identify at this time."
"Also Judge Wells asks that IBM turn over any nonpublic contributions to Linux that it may have made. " Not sure what is meant or implied. Any help in translation? Not being funny, just trying to find out what this means.
Stay tuned for new sig...
(5) is good too. If I understand it correctly they'll have to tell the judge that they're still distributing linux 2.4.21 to the world under the license "GNU GPL", and we can all be on the list:
wget --http-user= --http-passwd= wget http://linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/update/RPMS.up dates/kernel-source-2.4.21-138.i586.rpm
"SCO is to provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties. This is to include where applicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date and under what circumstances such code was released."
Let's all help them out by posting our names, dates and the fact that the license is the GNU GPL and the circumstances is "public SCO FTP and HTTP server"
Belief is the currency of delusion.
This idea just popped into my head, in case someone has the balls to do it. If you have a company that could generate some sort of press attention by buying an SCO license, buy one and tell Darl that you'll be glad to attend a press conference with him to make the announcement. Then, when everyone's there with their tape recorders, cameras, etc. out and ready, get up to the podium, hold up the license, and announce to the world that you bought it so you'd have a nice momento to hang on your wall when this is all over and SCO has been pounded into the ground by IBM's legal team. After that, I figure you'll have about two minutes to begin making your case before utter pandemonium sets in. Don't waste those few minutes. Arrive well-armed with as many through legal analyses as you can gather, in paper form and on CD for easy cutting and pasting. You'll want these to give out to the reporters who'll be clamoring to know how you reached this conclusion. Be calm, professional, and thorough, and if you have the luxury, have an attorney waiting nearby who will then walk in on cue and answer any legal questions that may come up.
Then, sit back and watch the fallout.
Oh yeah, and you may also want to have a paramedic on hand to revive Darl, who will undoubtedly have had a heart attack by this time.
I must first meet my transwarp sub light vessel on the dark side of the moon. From there I must travel to a black hole which turns into a wormhole that leads to Star Cluster 154-T. From there I shift into the rare 5th dimension where I have hidden this Open Source Code to keep it from spreading all around the internet. Using supreme 256 bit encryption that cannot be scratched by a Beowulf cluster of Crays...I shall unlock these never before seen secrets for glancing at quicker than an eye blinks. That should suffice for showing my evidence, it worked in pre-school...
THEN we shall see who has their day in court!
P.S.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
-1 Overrated (Too many big words for me to comprehend)
Well, think again. Reportedly...
Daimler-Chrysler is a 15% shareholder in Deutsche Bank which provided the propup funds to SCO which is suing Daimler-Chrysler.
Novell has 20(?)% of its shares under the Norda Trust which is a majority (?) stakeholder in The Canopy Group which owns 37% of SCO (common stock) which is suing Novell.
My head hurts. I have to go get a drink.
cheers- raga
Is that the judge ordered IBM to give SCO all non-public contributions IBM made to Linux....which tells me the judge doesn't even know what Linux is. There is not such thing as a non public contribution to Linux.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the advantage of getting SCO onto a stupid Spike TV show?
Wait... maybe that's what this whole thing is... maybe it's some newfangled Reality TV Series! That would explain a heluva lot.
Tonight, after Surviving Average Joe in Eden is 'SCO: Litigious Bastards'. Follow the life of Darl and his cronies as he sees just how far he can push Big Blue and the tech industry at large! Tonight at 9!
Betcha FOX is behind it...
Blockwars: free, multiplayer, head to head, Tetris like game
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
Darn. I was hpinh a judge would order Infinium to produce an actual machine....
It is official.
Netcraft confirms: SCO is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO community when IDC confirmed that SCO market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all Linux distribution versions. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by falling dead last in a recent Linux distribution study.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
SCO UNIX is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time developers Simon Baldwin and Andrew Sharpe only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: SCO is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
SCO UNIX project leader Darl states that there are 7000 users of SCO UNIX. How many users of OpenServer are there? Let's see. The number of SCO UNIX versus OpenServer posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 OpenServer users. SCO UNIX posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of OpenServer posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of SCO UNIX. A recent article put SCO UNIX distribution at about 80 percent of the market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 SCO UNIX users. This is consistent with the number of SCO Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of half-baked SCO lawsuits, abysmal sales and so on, many development companies is going out of business and will probably be taken over by another company who will sell another troubled product. Now SCO is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that SCO has steadily declined in market share. SCO is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among dilettante dabblers. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
Fact: SCO is dying
Sorry - forgot to mention that :)
Stay tuned for new sig...
"Put up and Shut up"
I like it!
AC comments get piped to
Lawsuit
SCO has finally decided who they are going to file suit against.
Cheers
Z
I hope IBM delivers the code to SCO in the form of a truckload of paper printed in a greek font.
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.
The Fat Lady has been warming up on the SCO issue for so long she's as skinny as Calista Flockhart who has been ever so lovingly described as an "anorexic squirrel." :-)
Seriously, it's about time someone gave SCO the "prove it or leave" card. I hope that perhaps this can finally be closed! LET IT DIE, SCO!
- Code Dark
Sorry dude. You better pony-up the license fee quick!
... but so far SCO has managed to avoid any deadline. Quite an acomplishment, in my opinion. Not a positive one, but it sure shows
a) they are scared
b) their lawyers are scared
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Guess what? The Motley Fool said much of the same thing - SCO Digs a Deeper Hole. It concludes by saying "With declining revenues, increasing losses, and an expensive and damaging litigation policy, SCO looks like one of the best short candidates I've seen in a while."
This bullshit should have been setteled the first time they stood thier asses in court!.
The 45-day deadline is to produce "all lines of code that SCO can identify at this time."
Yes, and they already failed to do so during their last deadline, and then argumented that they cannot comply with the court's request without all of AIX, which they're not getting now.
If they did have something, they should've produced it prior to the last hearing. (actually, they should've produced this from the start)
So sure, if SCO now can show something (which they admit they can't), then the lawsuit can continue, and so can discovery.
If SCO can't show anything, they will face court sanctions. Most likely the case will get thrown out, or at least the claims of misappropriation.
The Linux server has recused itself, due to a potential conflict of interest. It has appointed its predecessor, an Apple ][gs, to handle the process for the rest of the case, and will take the opportunity to spend more time with its *NIX family, and perhaps will also take a vacation to Denmark.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
This is basically a I'll show you mine if you show me your's (code that is) type of situation.
And THANK GOD she muzzled McBridge and his cronies.
It seems that the author of the SCO-Monty Python parody was ahead of us on this one:
SCO Lawyer: (brightly) You haven't asked me about Pine, sir.
Judge: Would it be worth it?
SCO Lawyer: Could be....
Judge: Have you - (to McBride)SHUT THAT DAMN WORD PROCESSOR OFF!
May we never see th
I've read through the order three times now, and can't find where SCO has been ordered not ot comment? Can someone point that out to me?
if that is proven so, then there are two choices, license it, or remove it.
once it is removed- they have no issue.. i.e. if I'm using a red circle logo that makes coke uncomfortable, they send me a letter, asking me to stop.. I do so- then coke has no further case/issue-nnless they can prove I damaged them at the time....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I bet the infringing lines of code are:
10 PRINT "SCO RULE"
20 GOTO 10
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Time to shit or git off the pot!
I'm so tired of this. I hope to soon read that Daryl, finally looked into the abyss and saw the hopelessness of his position and put a gun in his mouth and did planet earth a favor.
Please Daryl, spare us the agony and do yourself in already!
Sorry dude, you had better pony-up the license fee quick!
once it is removed- they have no issue.. i.e. if I'm using a red circle logo that makes coke uncomfortable, they send me a letter, asking me to stop.. I do so- then coke has no further case/issue-nnless they can prove I damaged them at the time....
You're describing trademark infringement. A better analogy would be if you were bottling a soda based on Coke's secret formula which you obtained illegally. You can't at that point just say "my bad" and stop - you're liable for damages for the period where you were infringing. You're also not going to be able to just come up with a new formula. You already know Coke's secrets - you'd have to either license the formula or hire people with no knowledge of Coke's IP to come up with the new formula for you. For Linux, this could mean that anybody who has worked on the kernel since 2.2 would no longer be able to contribute since they have gained the knowledge from seeing and studying SCO's IP. Anything they do from that point on might be considered tainted, whether or not the code is copied line-for-line. It might also mean discarding everything since 2.2 and starting over from the point where the court determined the infringement started.
Than when the judge ordered them to do this back in December? Then SCO put up some 60 page doc?
I'm not sure what the secret to success is, but the secret to failure lies in trying to please everyone -Bill Cosby
help me out...i thought linux was open source....the OS of the masses...how can someone who bases their code on a foundation of open source code sue someone else...couldn't linus torvald (i think that is his name) step in and say no to this? maybe i am misunderstanding the open source concept...
IBM has 45 days to give SCO AIX but SCO must show all lines of code in 45 days to the court. How can they comply when they have already told the judge that can't until they get the code.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
So *that's* how you say, "shit or get off the pot," in 9 pages.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
You can hear it for yourself in the recording: http://sco.penguinman.com/2004-03-03-SCOX.torrent
Belief is the currency of delusion.
This happened earlier in court when they met in chambers. It was commented that IBM lawyers were looking smug coming out from that meeting. We suspected the judge had gagged Darl, but it wasn't confirmed until ~today.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Daimler-Chrysler is a 15% shareholder in Deutsche Bank which provided the propup funds to SCO which is suing Daimler-Chrysler.
SCO accidentally sues itself!
This is the first Slashdot story I've read that doesn't have a "Die SCO, linux forever" slant to it. Not that I support SCO or anything (I very much take the majority opinion here, that of SCO being wrong), I just find it interesting to see a mostly objective story on SCO for once.
Thursday March 4th, 2004: :-?
SCO sues Judge Brooke C. Wells for ONE HUNDRED BILLION dollars, news of which sends SCOX price soaring 10 cents per share to 11.69, at which time Daryll McBride sells the last of his holdings. Their evil scheme collapses and there is much rejoicing. Okay I am dreaming.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
This is, of course, after they disobeyed the court's previous order to produce the code within 30 days. I'd almost be willing to bet a million bucks that when April 17 comes around, they'll motion for an extension, and repeat it upon termination of that extension, essentially putting off production of the evidence forever. (But I don't have a million bucks.)
There was a lot to say in the trial, but I don't think the Japanese legal system offers as much chance for appeal in these kind of cases. They can try, but I think they will probably be politely denied all appeals.
> A better analogy would be if you were bottling a soda based on Coke's secret formula which you obtained illegally.
No, that one's wrong too. Coke's formula is a trade secret. That's a different animal from trademark, or patent, or copyright.
Not that the distinction matters. This is a breach of contract case with potential outcomes involving intellectual property. It's not an intellectual property case.
A post over on Groklaw also mentioned the possibility that IBM could, conceivably, have OFFERED a patch that was subsequently turned down for inclusion in the 'base' tree. Hence, it was a "contribution" (though not one that was accepted) and, possibly not appearing anywhere at the moment, would be "non-public".
The Groklaw post suggested that "intent to contribute" would have been a factor in the wildly flailing SCO claims. My take is that it IF such a thing ever occured then maybe, just maybe, IBM TRIED to put Secret SCO Source(tm) into Linux but failed (which obviously makes it a failure as a "Linux violates SCO Copyright" claim but might, during a full moon on a Tuesday during a solar eclipse, make a basis for a contract violation claim...)
Though this would also require that the patch have been submitted through "non-public" channels, too. Hmmm. Guess even this interpretation is a little weak...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
When, not if, SCO shuts down, I want to buy their used computers and install a different flavor of linux on each one then give them out.
Note that this sentence essentially assumes that SCO's "If A and B are linked into the same binary, then B is a derived work of A" theory is wrong. For this question to be even answerable, every chunk of code that SCO claims is a "derivative work" of System V is going to have to be a modified version of code that is already included in System V.
Somehow I don't think "We don't actually have any JFS, RCU, or NUMA code in System V, but under our theory we don't have to" is going to be a very good answer to this order, but it's basically the only answer SCO can give.
Superficially this order doesn't look like a big win for IBM, but since order 3 implies that Judge Wells doesn't believe SCO's ideas about "derivative works" and order 5 implies that Judge Wells does believe IBM's ideas about the GPL... well, that's about as good as the order could get without actually throwing out any of SCO's claims.
In an effort to try and recoup some of it's losses in the OS marketplace, SCO is opening their legal team to any slashdotter, geek, or leet script kiddies. These unpaid volunteers will be given access to all 232 versions of IBM's AIX. Because the response is expected to be tremendous, they'll have to submit a shipping and handling fee of $99.95 and sign a non-gpl-compatible, non-disclosure, non-sense agreement before they're allowed to see the code.
Of course the above is in jest, but I bet it will be quite a challenge to keep the source of all those AIX versions confidential from the eager eyes of the geek community. Is this stuff of any value today to IBM? Would sloppy court handling or an "accidental" publication by SCO possibly release anything of value to the tech community?
(I'm not talking about copyrights of course, that's a whole circle of hell Dante and I don't want to know anything about).
I took SCO's dropdown menu code from their website.. think I'll get sued for taking their "intellectual properties rights"?
I searched through Linux for SCO's intellectual property and found these purloined lines!
{
}
int i;
j++
static char buf[1024];
} else {
if (!status) {
for(;;)
int error;
void* addr;
return 0;
And anyone manage to find this in System V?
panic("bad_user_access_length executed (not cool, dude)");
I'm still looking for where it was stolen from, but man is that Wingdings hard to read!
Remember, SCO claimed that they couldn't provide any evidence of copyright infringement without access to the AIX code. Now, they are either going to have to do one of the following:
None of these alternatives favors SCO in the least. IBM's responsibility to make the AIX source "available" to SCO, IMHO, only shows that the judge has a somewhat morbid sense of humor, in that she seems interested in finding out exactly how tight SCO is willing to draw the noose around their own neck...
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
There are two different "IP" laws that may apply to the case. One is trade secrets, which is what the coca-cola formula is covered by. This has no effect on anyone except the party privy to the code/formula. This party (in our case IBM) would be liable for any damage caused by the breach of contract. In this case IBM could be fined quite heavily.
The other law that may be applicable is copyright. This applies to the copying and distribution of copyrighted stuff. As is the case with trade secrets, probably the only party that can be faulted is the party that copied the copyrighted code. With copyright infringement the infringed-upon party has to inform what the infringement is and try help mitigating the damages. If the infringing party acted in good faith and do their best to mitigate damage, there is a very small chance there will be any damage penalty. So, yes, in this case where SCO has done nothing to inform what the infringements are and if IBM are shown to not have blatantly copied code knowingly, even if SCO (against all probability) win the case, the result will probably be removal of infringing code and not much else.
As to your assertion that nobody can work on the kernel after having seen the code, this is just ludicrous. It is just plain untrue. If what you say is the case, does that mean that anybody who ever hear any copyrighted rock music can never write music? And anybody who has read a crime novel cannot write books?
-TN
Best. April. Fools. Joke. Ever.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
I work tech support for an ISP and got a call from a user of ours that was also a SCO employee. Needless to say his account has been flagged :)
He also asked if we used Linux at all and seemed rather disappointed when he found out we ran BSD.
What happens if in 45 days SCO produces proof that their copyrighted code IS in IBM's code? What will that mean for IBM, for the Linux community?
/. like to assume that SCO is run by idiots, it makes sense that the people in charge of a public company know what they are doing.
While it is certainly likely that SCO is just blowing smoke, I think we should consider the possibly that they are not wasting all this time/money for nothing. They knew when they started this nonsense that at one point they would have to prove their claims.
While we at
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!
"I'm a day late and a Daryl short."
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
It is therefore a "Shut up and put up" demand.
This sig no verb.
We chiefly looked at Sun and SCO as solutions. Sun hardware was just prohibitively expensive. So we went with SCO. In about a year, we migrated to NetBSD. By 1995 most things were moved over to Linux.
I'd had a personal copy of SCO Xenix for a 286 for a while.
So I have used, purchased and managed SCO systems.
I also went to school with some of the founders or SCO (back when it was in Santa Cruz). I'd foolishly passed up the opportunity to invest back then (1984).
Anyway, as you can imagine, as someone who had some (minimal) connection to SCO twenty years ago, I am not at all please by the litigious bastards they are now.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
I'll be interested to see when (or rather, if) MSNBC reports this on their site - they've been quite good at reporting on the case lately, since SCO has been filing lawsuits, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, we'll see who was behind the reporting.
Seems to me they've been quite quick with the last couple of stories, but nothing about this one yet.
Maybe we should all just pitch in and buy SCO out.. then ask Novell to OSS it.
Yes but SCO is trying to sue everyone who *drank* your coke, not you. This is obviously bogus.
ROFL. Check this guy's posting history. That's hilarious. You must work in a very boring job yet have internet access.
There are two conditions in the order that put SCO in an impossible situation.
1. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to.
2. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distribute to other parties. This is to include where applicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, and the date and under what circusmstances such code was released.
It sounds like they will have to explain why they released all that source code themselves under the GPL.
I love the smell of squirming lawyers in the morning...
Bah!
Too bad then that Microsoft only uses ++i
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
Her article on the day's SCO events. Posted before the Judge's order in teh IBM case.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
It went something like:
"Hey, Darl. I'd like to hear more about the pump and dump scheme we were talking about. I'm still a bit fuzzy on the part where you start suing Linux users, but even without that it sounds like you could definitely milk this for an appreciable return. Call my cel if you get back to the clubhouse before 3."
-- thinkyhead software and media
For Linux, this could mean that anybody who has worked on the kernel since 2.2 would no longer be able to contribute since they have gained the knowledge from seeing and studying SCO's IP.
:).
Being that the source is so widely available on millions of cdroms (non desctructable media owned by many individuals and copyable) and harddrives all around the world, if any SCO ip were to be in the kernel, it would basically become public domain (or at least common knowledge
Oh well...
There's more to say on this "loser pays" question.
Situation: I own a patent. SomeCorp is suspected of violating my patent. I sue. Thanks to their VASTLY SUPERIOR legal resources, I lose. Suddenly, I'm not only screwed out of patent protection, I'm bankrupt to boot.
The government awarded you the patent. Then the government setup a court system for you to use to get paid for your patent. Is it too much for the government to ask you in return to be certain your position is correct before you sue?
Patent protection is something that's "awarded" to you. It's a bargain to give you an incentive to invent and commercialize your invention as quickly as possible. You can't be "screwed out" of something you're not morally entitled to in the first place.
And, in a loser pays situation, how can someone have "VASTLY SUPERIOR legal resources"? If SomeCorp can spend $5 million on their lawyers, you can spend $5 million on your lawyers. You're going to win. They're going to pay your legal bills.
You are going to win, aren't you? You must be certain, because you brought the lawsuit. If you're not certain, then settle or don't sue at all.
In fact, if 'Loser Pays' was the norm, wouldn't that just influence every corp to take on an oversized legal team for every tort filed against them?
Not every tort. Only the ones where they think the facts are on their side. Only the ones they think they're going to win. The ones they think they're going to lose, they'll settle to minimize their costs.
That's as opposed to the current system, where the defendant tends to settle even when they're 100% right, just to avoid the legal bills.
And no, there's no incentive to take on an oversized legal team. Even if you win, there's no big payoff for having a big legal team, your expenses simply get paid.
Check this out.
Shit is really going to hit the fan for SCO.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
If someone would have Coke's secret formula, noone would profit from it. Coke is a brandname and that means something. They have produced a product for over 100 years that people have become familiar with and like. The Coke bottle shape is one of the most widely known human made items that can be identified by humans.
If someone had the secret formula that _started_ Coke's fame, they would only be known as a knockoff of Coke and not bought. You know when bottled H2O is more than the price of a soda, there could be no price incentive to try the ripoff item, etc.
Point being that SCO has no product. Noone wants to buy SCO product if it existed. Remember, SCO is suing to sell binary runtime licenses for a software program that they will not provide (distribute to) you, nor will they support that program. Its not going to happen in my lifetime. People want Linux, people do not want SCO products. Even if they existed.
Surely there was a larger file on SCO's website they could have linked to. The site is still up!
My Blog
I hope IBM delivers the code to SCO in the form of a truckload of paper printed in a greek font.
I remember hearing a story about a rock star who was ordered to pay a big fine for something, so he paid in truck-loads pennies to irritate the plaintif. After that a law was passed against doing that. But, I could not find verification of this story on the web.
Table-ized A.I.
Halloween X:
:)
MS is funding SCO. Evidence at OSI!
Absolutely amazing. If this is real.....some heads will roll
Time for the SEC is whoop some ass
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
...say now, you own a fire insurance on your house - you pay a small amount of money, to avoid the small, but extremely costly chance that your house will burn to the ground. If you were willing to take that risk, you wouldn't need insurance.
Now, let's say your house does burn, but the insurance company disputes the claim for some dubious reason and want to take you to court with their huge legal team. You may be fairly sure you're right, but there's a small but extremely costly risk you're wrong. Ups, you just got exactly the risk you were unwilling to take in the first place, and the insurance compnay knows it.
I much prefer the Norwegian system - by default, each pay their own bills. But the courts may *choose* to make the losing side pay - in part or in full. So if you bring an army of lawyers, they may compensate you for "normal" representation, but the excess is coming out of your own wallet. Seems to work rather well against frivolous lawsuits as well as for individuals vs corporations.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
On the contrary - regarding the AIX/Dynix code, IBM has been told to hand over the code that they themselves offered to turn over in the previous court hearing.
They has NOT been told to turn over the code SCO wanted - as they wanted all iterations of the code.
Over at the EV1 boards, all kinds of misinformation is flying about. The biggest misinformation is by the EV1 customers that are defending EV1 for funding SCO.
First, the reported price paid by EV1 is 1 million, not 28 million or 30 million.
Second, Linus is not the only one that can revoke rights based on the GPL. Linux is not the only copyright holder. There are hundreds, if not thousands of copyright holders inside the Linux kernel. nmap pulled their application due to violation of paragraph 4. And they have the right to do this, they don't have to ask Linus to do this for them.
Third, those that are defending EV1 are buying, hook, line, and sinker, the bull about EV1 defending their customers. It isn't EV1 customers that would get sued by SCO. It is EV1 themselves, the lessors of the servers, not the lessees. This is a rationalization, because you can't, or won't, accept the truth.
Fourth, one million is not pocket change. This is a big number for SCO, sorely needed funding now that the 50 million from Bay Capital is drying up, and now that Microsoft/Sun funding has finished affecting their books. Also, it lessens resistance. Previously, no one purchased licensing. Now EV1 has stepped in, and SCO can publicly cite them as a company that purchased a linux license. This gets rid of the "not me first" issue that companies may have. And enables the bean counters at the other companies to show another company as an example of why they should buy...
A great many EV1 supporters, from about page 3 of the forums onward, are stating that the posters who state they are going to switch hosting companies are going to move to another hoster who probably already paid SCO, but secretly.
FALSE.
If that is the case, then the SEC filings from SCO are fraudulent. With them being under a microsoft (sorry, slip) microscope, I doubt they would be blatent about fraudulent filings with the SEC. They have stated, that up until the March 3 filing, they have sold NO Linux licenses. As of the March 3rd filing, for the quarter covered in the March 3rd filing, they have a grand total of...hold onto your hats...one customer who purchased their Linux licensing product, with a total income of $20,000. That covers a payment of EV1, with the rest covered in deferred income, and no one else.
Fifth, taking a look at the size of Autozone and Daimler Chrysler, it is highly improbable that EV1 would have been sued. The excuse of legal costs vs. one million is bull also. It won't cost one million for EV1 to spend one day in court to tell the court that the ownership is under contest, and the court to postpone the case until the ownership is resolved. By then, at least a year, or maybe two will have passed, the offending code, if any, will long have been removed from the kernel, and there will be no case. According to the IBM case, the code will be submitted to the court within 45 days. If it goes public, it will be stripped in a few months from the kernel. If it stays sealed, IBM will be working internally to strip the disputed code from the kernel, and they'll have a major announcement in the next 3 to 6 months. Either way, the kernel is cleaned, and the case is over. And if not, IBM throws their weight behind the alternate kernel, GNU/Hurd.
One joker posted that Linux is dead if IBM loses. That shows a total lack of knowledge of the way the Linux kernel is put together. If IBM loses, by the time of the loss, there will be enough leakage of disputed code, and/or enough work done by IBM themselves, to clean the code of disputed sections. That's it.
And to the BSD troll, who I think is the same troll that stated that Linux is dead if IBM loses, sorry, there won't be a wholesale switch to BSD. As stated in the above paragraph, the kernel(s) will be sanitized if necessary. Also, and more importantly to your love of BSD, Darl is already on record as saying that BSD will be looked at after Linux is settled...that doesn't bode well for you position.
4. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to.
PDF: http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/IBM-109.pdf
I can't wait to see the answer to this one...
Almost certainly, SCO will claim those lines are industrial secret, and ask the judge to seal it (Giving access only to IBM).
So even if this advances the smilblic one step, it's not the great thing many think it is.
I.e. I think it is as good as impossible, we will be reading "SCO's" answer to this request.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Buy some SCO stock now! Before their next publicity stunt, which will make them go up again!
Clever signature text goes here.
It doesn't say that exactly, the 45 day deadline is for IBM turning over their source and for SCO to fully comply with the Dec 12th court order.
As I understand it, this doesn't end the discovery phase, so they could still amend the lines of infringing code. The trial is going to be dragged out for quite awhile yet. This is just one step, remember SCO has already complied fully with the Dec 12th order once.
I hadn't heard the joke about the second gotcha and was curious enough to google for it. You can read it here
Struggling to find a day everyone can make? WhenShallWe.com
If the judge buys their definition of derivative work, then the computing industry will collapse since OS manufacturers would then in theory own any code developped in their platforms.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
..asking for the code, poor b******.
If he's gonna start sieving through that he's gonna need Linus or someone to help him get a grasp of it.
Suicide may be on thew cards.
That's OK, I'm suing them for that!
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
We shouldn't be surprised considering how high the stakes are for MS.
How much of this kind of funding from MS would it take to make it worthwhile for AutoZone or Daimler/Chrysler to deliberately lose against SCO?
Could there be a plan to fix a victorious precedent for SCO? MS will want to make the most of its investment.
There's such a thing as good faith: if you claim I have infringed on your copyright by doing X (and you specify X), and I remove X and replace it with Y (which you have no claim to), then I have made a good faith effort to avoid violating your copyright. In the court's view, this is not an admission of guilt; it is a positive action.
Under no circumstances should SCO allow this to happen.
IANAL, which has that ever stopped me before.
This is not my sandwich.
I don't know how likely this is to be real, but it would certainly explain alot.
If Microsoft truly were funding this fiasco with the proported $100 Million (so far), then the strategy is not that of a pathetic dying company trying to hang on to some form of life.
Everyone asks what Darl and crew could possibly be looking for with this pathetic business strategy. Everyone wonders what SCO could possibly have up its sleeve that might pay off in the end.
Assuming this memo is real, SCO's strategy isn't to win at all... Tin foil hat on, the strategy would be pretty obvious:
No wonder SCO would be talking to Microsoft marketing as their next cash cow. All in all, a pretty clever Microsoft strategy, if true. You can also bet that if SCO can hold out for what Microsoft deems 'long enough,' that it'll be a strategy to be repeated, as long as US courts are willing to play along.
Pretty smart.
I thought after all this the Judge would have ruled to dismiss this case with extreeme prejudice. I am not a lawyer, but I wish I was to understand the fairness of this ruling. In the meantime SCO can just sue everyone on the planet?
I am waiting for the stock market to open to see what happens to SCO stock today. I hope it keeps going down for the next 45 days. Making them die slowly and painfuly. Only thing that would make me happier is if some of the SCO executives actually went to jail at the end.
Bill: Yeah, its gonna make me loads of Bills...har har har har
a few weeks later in court
Darl: Your honour, these are the specific areas that we are complaining about. As you can see we have our original code...
#Copyright SCO 1977
...
...}
#All rights reserved
#
init main() {...
As you can see, our header is at the top for licensing (honour starts scribling).
Now here is the Linux code (repeat from above minus SCO copyright)
Yer honour...
Honour: Mr McBride, the last time I looked you were not the copyright holders in 1977, so explain to me how you could have copyrighted code for a system that was owned by AT&T in 1977?
Darl: Ah, well, you see, your honour. Once we got the rights off of Novell for UNIX IP, we decided to change the copyright into our name and so doctored (lawyer stands up and requests an immediate recess...) the copyright...I'll think I'll stop there.
Honour: So if you are prepared to doctor the original code and present that rather than the orignal...
The clang of the prison door shuts tight...
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Only if the court will rule against SCO, they wil interpret the fact as court being biased and push the case somewhere else from the beginning.
There you are, staring at me again.
Punitive damages should generally be limited to some fraction of a defendant's wealth or based off of the value of the actual damage. So there is a limit on punitive damages, whether that exceeds a defendant's wealth or not.
Juries, near as I recall, decide guilt or innocence, and then, separately, decide on damages, including punitive damages. So it's not a "you're guilty, here's the $500M you asked for". There are cases where there are multi-million dollar lawsuits for and the plaintiff wins, but get's awarded $0.01!
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
The box itself is AMD K6 and at least 5-6 years old. The IT whiz who set this up - this is one of those "donate old equipment fer a good cause else it gets thrown away" situations - wanted to use RH 9. Too slow and he could not get the kernel trimmed down the way he wanted. Tried RH 8. Same deal. Finally he tried Caldera OpenLinux, was able to cut out various chunks of the kernel, recompile, and it works quite well. GUI is KDE 2 if anybody is interested. Blast from the past! And quite lovely.
Don't get me wrong. SCO is on my "when the revolution comes" list. May their homes be left desolate. May their fields be salted. And other delicious ancient curses from Egyptian and Akkadian literature. Our IT whiz agrees. [Oh, and he could not update online a few broken packages he found because those packages are on the SCO website(s)... he'll have to haul in a CD the old fashioned way.]
PS. While at my daughter's taekwondo school in the "parents wait here" section, chatted with an IBM employee who handles database apps for major corporate client. He pronounced SCO as [skoo] {where oo = long o vowel} rather than [es-sii-oo].
Actually, that someone would have to beat of customers with a stick! The formula that started Coca-Cola contained cocaine (the coca in the name) which has since been replaced with caffeine.
(This reply is on topic 'cause everyone knows that Darl, of The Scum Group, smokes crack.)
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
now we can get Skoal Chewing Tobacco on our side as well!
But that trick *never* works, bullwinkle...
Shift happens. Fire it up.
This makes sense. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
how many instances of "main(argc, argv)" and its variants do you think SCO will claim are theirs? i probably unknowingly infringe their code regularly without even having seen it.
i hope the judge'll look at something more substantive than line-by-line comparisons.
"Mister Potato-head --MISTER POTATO-HEAD! Backdoors are not secrets!" (War Games, 1983)
Seems fair enough, doesn't it?
printf("Hello world"); return 0;
Crimey
some but not all abbreviations are acronyms - acronyms are only those abbreviations not pronounced as words; for example, ASPCA is not an acronym but MADD is. This also implies that some abbreviations (not all) are pronounced as the individual letters rather than as a single word.
of course, that only moves the question to whether SCO is an acronym or simply an abbreviation....and brings up the separate issue of whether I am once again humor-impaired...
(forgetting the fact that this is /. for a minute)
Maybe we'll tell our friends' grandchildren about the great `IP' wars of the 2000s and they'll laugh. And then we'll tell them about our 64-bit processors with buffer overflow-protection and they'll laugh. And then we'll tell them that when they're older they'll like snogging and then we'll laugh.
I can safely say it wasn't.
http://mediagoblin.org/