Slashdot Mirror
IBM Files For Declaratory Judgement In SCO Case
Some Bitch writes "IBM has filed for declaratory judgement in the SCO case. They want the court to declare that "IBM does not infringe, induce the infringement of or contribute to the infringement of any SCO copyright through its Linux activities, including its use, reproduction and improvement of Linux, and that some or all of SCO's purported copyrights in Unix are invalid and unenforceable.". If the judge grants the motion then SCO effectively has no case and the whole thing is over."
spafbnerf notes that "SCO has filed a motion for the patent infringement claim to be split into a separate case." fr0z adds a link to Groklaw's always-excellent coverage.
SCOs motion to Bifurcate in IBM case seemed like bad panick reaction. As put in Groklaw earlier, it looks like they want to separate their case from the most hopeless things by dividing it into two. Now the judge can only guess, whether what IBM is asking, is the most hopeless part. IMO it is.
SCOX
I shorted it at 17.96 in early January. I'm a happy camper if IBM wins this.
Here's the typical "the case must have merit because the guys who filed it are smart" argument often given by the trolls on the Yahoo SCOX board. Yes, McBride has gotten wealthy by filing groundless lawsuits. He sued a previous employer that fired him for incompetence. It's called "greenmail", where the respondent would rather settle than face and expensive and costly trial process.
Another troll tactic used in this post is saying there are "compelling" pro-SCO information, without saying what it is. Hey, if there was such great pro-SCO stuff on Groklaw, repeat some of it here!
Troll! Dirty, slimey troll!
TSG is suing IBM for copyright infringement, see their second amended complaint. IBM is most certainly right to think that this would strengthen their hand in the contract fight as well. If they can obtain a declaratory ruling to the effect that Linux does not infringe any TSG copyrights then TSG was completely without basis for terminating their contract (if they ever had one).
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
First off he said he's an attorney, not a lawfirm.. and second he said that he worked at a corporation, you were quick to trigger the troll card.
You may disagree with his statement, but this is something that isn't being discussed at all. I believe this whole SCO thing is having an impact on linux adoption, it's silly to believe otherwise. Corporations like stability (insert windows joke here). The volatility in linux's future right now is a turn off, whether it's warranted or not.
Here's what the [H]'s website says about it:
Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
For those of you who (like me) regularly check groklaw for updates and news, they've got a cut down headlines-only page.
= Headlines
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page
That page puts less stress on their server, so if you'd like to help reduce their bandwidth costs...
Warning: May contain nuts
The article is incorrect. The writer appears to have confused a 'declaratory judgement' with a 'summary judgement' - but it's the former, not the latter. It just means that this declaration is part of the remedy IBM is asking the court to provide, when the case finally comes to a conclusion and they win.
A summary judgement would be a motion for the Judge to declare that there is no need for a trial, that he can rule based on the facts already in evidence and stipulated. That's a very different thing, even though a lot of people seem to be confusing them.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Copied word for word from a comment posted in Dec. 2001, here. Look 4 comments down.
Untrue, Linus originally wrote a terminal emulator to access the university Unix box, it was after expanding this that he realised he had effectively started his own OS. It was driven by the limited nature of Minix but was not an expansion of Minix in any way, originally it was just meant to be a terminal emulator.
Close, Linus originally called it Linux on his own system but decided to rename it for release. Ari Lemmke decided the new name sucked and kept the directory on ftp.funet.fi as linux
57. ...In its first complaint, SCO principally alleged that IBM had
misappropriated SCO's trade secrets in UNIX System V....
60. ...SCO further persisted in maintaining for nearly a year the unsound claim
that IBM had misappropriated its trade secrets. Yet when pressed to identify a
single trade secret that IBM had allegedly misappropriated, SCO could not, even
after being ordered to do so by the Court. SCO finally (and properly) abandoned
this claim, upon which SCO's entire lawsuit was initially premised, in its
Seconded Amended Complaint.
72. Although its initial complaints against IBM did not include a claim for copyright infringement, SCO stated publicly after it filed suit that IBM had infringed SCO's copyrights, and threatened to sue IBM for copyright infringement with respect to Linux. For example, at its 2003 SCO Forum conference, SCO represented to attendees, including press and financial analysts, that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX, that IBM had infringed its rights in Linux, and that SCO was entitled to damages and injunctive relief against IBM.
73. At the December 5, 2003 hearing concerning discovery issues, SCO further represented to the Court that SCO would be filing a copyright infringement action against IBM "within the coming few days or no less than a week."
102. Yet despite an Order directing SCO, among other things, to "identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action action against IBM" by January 12 2004, SCO failed adequately to do so. In its supplemental responses purportedly submitted in compliance with the Order, SCO still failed to identify a single line of UNIX System V code that IBM allegedly misappropriated or misused.
103. In fact, finally realizing that it could no longer maintain the illusion that IBM had misappropriated its trade secrets, SCO dropped its trade secret claim altogether. SCO continues, however, to press equally meritless contract and other claims against IBM, despite being unwilling to identify the UNIX System V code that IBM allegedly misused in violation of any agreement.
This guy obviously is not a lawyer and has not even read the argument. He states that IBM would have to:
show that there's no controversy about SCO holding the copyrights to the UNIX code in question, and that's patently false.
Actually, that's *exactly* what they are saying. Because SCO has dropped all arguments of copyright infringement against IBM and is now pursuing contract suits. SCO has stated this is not about them violating copyright anymore. Mod parent down.
IBM is trying to swat a fly that used to be the size of a hummingbird. Less of an easy target, but still annoying. IANAL, but I don't see any reason why the judge wouldn't hand them the flyswatter.
If you unknowingly buy stolen goods, and the legal owner of those goods is discovered, you're still out whatever you paid for them. You have to seek compensation from the person you bought the goods from.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
SCO & IBM would be in some serious trouble if they showed any of the source code evidence to their own engineers rather than their legal experts.
Besides, SCO already had access to Dynix/AIX as part of Project Monterey.
According to the GPL, if IBM redistributes a GPL program, then section 7 of the GPL implies that IBM licenses its patents that cover that program to anybody who receives that program.