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.
If the judge grants the motion then SCO effectively has no case and the whole thing is over.
Over?? Wow, could this be the end of SCO?
What will we make fun of then? Hardly IBM, since they seem to be rapidly converting themselves into good guys - this story will probably elevate them to the status of demi-godhood.
Well, back to bashing Microsoft then I suppose ...
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
Nor does anyone. If there is a single judge that finds a single Linux user guilty of that bullcrap promoted by SCO, I vote that all the /. community go castrate him!!! (or simply force him to read out loud the whole source code... that could be a good punishment too...)
I mean... are there any "law officials" that actually know some stuff about programming and computers? IBM is just stating the obvious here, they shouldn't even have to do so.
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
Uhm no. This is not a "summary" judgement. And SCO isn't suing IBM for copyright infringement so I am kind of puzzled to see what this has to do with SCO suing IBM for *breach* *of* *contract*. I guess IBM must think it strengthens their hands for the coming contract fight.
So off to Groklaw to see what they have say...
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Well, Microsoft won't disappear due to this.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
IBM is a decades-old giant in the American business community with a reputation to maintain, and will most assuredly have done their homework before trying to make such a bold move. This stands in contrast to SCO, which has basically bet their whole company on the outcome of these suits, and is thus willing to try just about anything, no matter how desperate, to make their case.
Hmmm... I wonder what color parachute Darl has...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I'm most of the way through IBM's pleading of the counterclaims. I have one word:
Wow!
This is so well laid out that even a child of 6 could understand what it is that SCO has been up to these past 12 months. When I read IBM's lawyers' work, I want to jump up and dance with glee at the utter beauty seen within.
When I read the work of SCO's lawyers or any statements made by the buffoons directing them, I want to cry. It seriously makes my head hurt, trying to wrap my brain around the utter bullshit they continue to spout.
IBM has landed a crushing blow to SCO's claims. I predict that over the remainder of this week and through next we will see SCO's stock plummet back to its true value -- less than $1.
Happy happy happy
Joy joy joy
These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits.
Perhaps you are an attorney, but you must be new to the information technology IP industry.
Finkployd
While SCO certainly looks like a despicable villan, it wasn't all that long ago that I viewed IBM in exactly the same light. So you'll have to excuse me from participating while everyone else chants "go IBM". Let's also not forget Microsoft's position in this affair, supplying the cash so that SCO could wage this legal war.
Wouldn't it be a dream world if all the lawyers spent all their employers' money suing each other and left us alone to produce world class open source software?
It seems to me that open software is the only way to break the enternal circle of despising an abusing software company, waiting until it self-destructs and promptly promoting another one into the same position.
"These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits."
Really? Since SCO (nee Caldera) stock was practically worthless before this whole debacle started, I'd say getting rich by filing a groundless lawsuit is precisely what they have done.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
This motion in effect redirects the case back to the contract issues. During the life of this suite so far, copyrights tradesecrets, and other issues have been raise by SCO, when initially it was supposed to be only about contracts.
WHat in effect IBM are doing is, filtering out the irrelevent parts, and refocussing it on the Contracts.
Of course the copyright issues were a part fo the contract dispute, and if this motion is granted, and a declaratory judgement is made, it woudl certainly make it harder for SCO to spew more spruious comment in their favour.
Have a nice day!
While we were planning on adopting Linux as our new development platform, we have not.
So you're a law firm and you were looking at a Linux development platform. Uh, yeah. Right. You dirty little troll.
I trust that another would come along to take their place soon enough. That's the thing about life. There's never seems to be a shortage of a$$holes.
Good point. I think a lot of people forget that it was IBM's actions that originated the term FUD. Even though they've seen the advantage of walking the straight and narrow, doesn't mean that they won't come back and bite the F/OSS community in the future.
Just look at how many patents IBM has. AFAIK, more than anybody else. Their IP library is huge and could probably sue any large computing company for patent violation if they so choose.
It's good that they are taking the benevolent stance here, but let's just remember that Big Blue only has its own best intentions in mind when it comes down to crush time.
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits
Unless you are those particular attorneys that are filing groundless lawsuits.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
So this declaratory judgement that IBM is not infringing copyright is very tangent to the SCO vs IBM case. But of course, it would give very nice munition against the SCO out-of-court FUD, which is probably why IBM is asking for it. It might also have an impact on SCO vs google etc., I don't understand the issue well enough to judge this.
Also, that IBM is filing for this judgement now doesn't mean that the judge will rule on this next week. AFAI understand, this judgement will just be part of the final ruling on the case.
Correct, they are. Do you not think it possible that these intelligent wealthy people stand to become much more wealthy by spreading Linux FUD through these activities, regardless of what happens to SCO?
There has already been an alleged financial connection made between SCO and Microsoft which seems to be quite compelling. And you've just admitted first hand that your company is considering Windows 2003 over linux simply as a result of this case existing, under the assumption that SCO would be insane to do what they are doing if they didn't have a good case.
So you are right, they are intelligent. They've fooled you and your company. And they are more wealthy for it too.
The "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosephy does not work well in the long term. The "friend" has a way of comming back to bite you in the ass. Examples:
/.?
Stalin
Hussien
bin Laden
Pinochet
etc...
If you can't figure out what this has to do with the parent post, then why are you on
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
A victory by IBM on the motion for declaratory judgment would be fantastic, but it wouldn't be the end of this lawsuit. SCO is actually not making any copyright or trade secret claims against IBM as of their most recent amended complaint (which is centered on bizarre contract interpretations); IBM is simply trying to close that avenue down for them to try and use in the future. However, this is a Good Thing for other people, because if granted it will put the kibosh on many of SCO's other claims. If IBM didn't violate any copyrights, how could AutoZone? But it's not time to break out the champagne yet -- especially until the judge actually rules on the thing.
Man...don't refer to SCO by TSG. I know it stands for The SCO Group, but you're also spoiling the good name of The Smoking Gun...
Well, Microsoft won't disappear due to this.
No. They'll just pay someone else to try to sue Linux into obscurity.
Hahahah!
Ok... So a lawyer with a medium-sized corporation, and obviously isn't up on technology considering this priceless line, "it is simply unreasonable to assume that SCO's case is completely baseless. These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits."
So a lawyer who's not up on technology, gives a flying fuck enough to come to slashdot and post this, and takes a shot at groklaw while doing so...?
Maybe it's high-time to completely ditch anonymous postings, or maybe mod points just shouldn't be given out so easily.
Folks, unless they include something to give themselves some credibility, DON'T TAKE ANONYMOUSLY POSTINGS SERIOUSLY!!!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Well, Anonymous Cecil (if that's really what your name is, Darl), we have seen quite a bit of SCO bashing here on /. and on groklaw. We are intelligent, tech savvy people, and we didn't get where we are by not being able to smell a rat.
Lots of groundless lawsuits have been filed by many deceptive (and often intelligent) people. But these schemes don't always work out, expecially when the target is someone as powerful as IBM. SCO has simply underestimated their opponent.
And I have not read these "compelling pro-SCO" posts that you refer to. It also doesn't appear to be PJs style to simply delete differring opinions.
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
I'm asking, because it seems to me that Microsoft is at least as at risk of this type of lawsuit as IBM and other Linux companies. It's harder to peek inside Microsoft Windows and see what's inside than it is to peek inside Linux and see what's inside; Microsoft are also the world's most cash rich target, and if you're looking for a big payout, they're far more tempting than (say) IBM.
I appear to have a blog. Odd.
It's looking likely that they mean that SCO distributed SAMBA etc after breaking the terms of the GPL, but wouldn't it be lovely if there was GPL code illicitly stashed away in Unixware... now *that* would be satisfying ;)
25 years ago, if you told me that IBM would be the champion of the little guy, I would have told you that you were nuts.
So your argument boils down to: Intelligent, rich people don't file baseless lawsuits. Let's take a look at that claim with regard to stock prices and the actions of SCO's higher ups.
Before SCO filed the lawsuit in February of 2003, the stock was trading at about $2.50. At its height the stock price climed to around $22. That's an increase of almost 9 times. The upper management of SCO has been selling their stock like mad when the stock price was skyrocketing.
We have two facts:
1. The stock price has gone up enormously.
2. The upper management has profited from this enormously by selling stock.
Your claim is that intelligence people wouldn't file baseless lawsuits, (presumably because they'd never win, and thus wouldn't profit from it). Obviously the management HAS profitted from this lawsuit even before it's gone to court. The fact that the management is selling their stock doesn't mean the lawsuit is baseless, but it certainly throws out the "intelligent people don't file baseless lawsuits" argument. The motivation is most certainly there to file baseless lawsuits since it HAS inflated the stock price to outrageous levels.
AccountKiller
Normally, these motions are standard, but I think this one may fly since IBM is waiving the Novell / Old SCO APA claiming that Novell maintains oversight of the whole UNIX business and has told SCO to sit down and shut up. That alone may actually get this motion approved.
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
Even if the SCO's copyrights are ruled invalid, Microsoft still purchased a license from SCO. Considering Darl's claims that SCO owns "millions of lines of code" in the Linux kernel, couldn't Microsoft take this as an arguably legal way to circumvent the GPL, and pillage code from the kernel? If they were confronted about using the GPL'd kernel code in their proprietary products, Microsoft could say that they purchased the license to use the code in good faith, and "didn't know" that SCO didn't own the code. Scary...
" I'm an attorney in a medium size corporation. We have held off on adopting Linux."
As a 25 year IT professional and a director at a large corporation, let me assure you that we don't call the lawyers for stuff like this.
Because the lawyers won't answer your question anyway, and they're usually just plain wrong ("The GPL, according to my understanding of the law is only valid in the state of Delaware, or other communist nations")
So they're probably using Linux, but they're not getting you involved because (a) you can't help anyway (b) you'd stop progress (c) your verbal advice is almost certainly wrong.
But on the plus side, you probably drive a nice, safe, comfortable car, have 2.2 kids, and you're a real community asset.
Man, that would feel like sinking a three-pointer...
More like getting fouled on a three-pointer and thus making a four-point play!
Anybody can walk in on day one and say, "Their case is groundless" -- this is, in effect, what you do when you decide to fight it in the first case. It is another thing entirely to walk in and say, "Their case is groundless, and here is why, and here are their documents which support the argument."
IBM is probably saying (or implying) something like: "SCO has claimed to have met the court's requirements for discovery, so they've claimed to have provided all of the relevant documents in the case. In light of this information, we believe that the case is meritless, and here is why, and here are the documents to support it. Our argument is either correct, or SCO is in contempt of court for having failed to provide all of the information requested."
IANALOAP (...Or A Paralegal)
So what if their patent library is huge? Their revenue stream does not depend on income from litigous bastardism, so any lawsuits they brought about would probably be resolved quietly and without fuss. Having seen the costs and the backlash, IBM will not act in the immature, illegal, and incomprehensible manner that is the trademark of SCO in this case.
Ah, but the GPL is there exactly to make that irrelevant. It doesn't really matter *why* IBM releases something under the GPL, once they do it's done.
Now, is IBM in any way less or more capable of attacking or FUDing Linux because of it? They're certainly less able under the GPLs patent clause. Their own credibility is certainly worse off if they said "Linux good" then "Linux bad" as opposed to "Linux bad" the whole time.
Yes, IBM is a powerful player, they might not be OSS's friend forever, but I don't see how anything the community does could come back to haunt us. Anything IBM could do of FUD, litigation, lobbying and whatnot, they already can regardless. So, take it for what it is and enjoy it while it lasts.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There is more to this story than even the average computer guru knows. Most MSCE's don't even understand these things.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
It is simply unreasonable to assume that drug barons have no legal basis for their activities. These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by risking jail.
Wise up. SCO's claims ARE totally baseless and they are relying on people like you being fooled into the old "no smoke without fire" routine to fork out your cash. It's called "Fraud" and it happens every day, sometimes it's done by idiots, and sometimes it's done by clever people but it's still fraud.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
When, not if, when SCO loses it's case against IBM and finally stops flailing around then linux (and all free software) will have moved into attack positions. How many pointy-haired bosses and small business owners watched those IBM commercials during the superbowl and began to think "if IBM is doing it ..." and how many decision makers are looking at companies moving to free alternatives and saving money like AutoZone? It doesn't matter where linux came from or whether it's just a toy OS, large and small companies alike are using it successfully and they are saving money. This is reality. Right now it's just a small pebble at the top of a snow-capped mountain, picking up a bit of snow and rolling forward. Gaining momentum.
It's not about linux or copyrights. It's about information. Computer code (even the OS) is just information, it's not a product. To make it a product you must artificially control distribution. Information cannot be controlled.
For linux and free software to win, they only need to be allowed to play. If SCO wins this case they will put a major roadblock in the way of allowing the use of free software. But if SCO loses, then free software has it's foot in the door and momentum is already pressing hard to push the masses past the doorframe.
Free software, if allowed to grow, will change the business landscape. It will do what the DOJ could not, turn Microsoft into a services company. When free software becomes a major part of the business world and open source programmers are being paid to contribute their service of information to the industry, Microsoft will have no choice but to change (if they want to continue to compete). They will be forced to write software that interacts with free alternatives and more and more people will realize they have a choice in what OS their computer runs. Many may still want to run Windows for the same reason many choose AOL as an ISP, convenience. Having everything in front of you with simple wizards explaining all of it is a convenient service that many will pay for. But only if Microsoft can stay ahead of the alternative, only if they can provide some service that is not found in other software, only if they can compete with others on a level field.
Maybe one day we can look back at this case and say "this is where we turned the corner, this is where we toppled the greed of those who want to hoard information for their own benefit, this is where the river started flowing, a river where anyone can cup their hands and take a drink."
you're all figments of my deranged imagination
There have been SCO supporters saying that a Utah jury would be likely to support a home team David, being "bullied" by Goliath IBM.
This isn't neccessarily reasonable. Utah is home to a _lot_ of high tech people. IBM, Novell, EBay, CA, and dozens of other big names in tech have significant workforce in Utah. The local papers may paint a pro-SCO picture, but the reality on the ground is a little different. If the newspaper reporters bothered to peek into their own server rooms, they would find a bunch of Utah geeks cheering against SCO.
That doesn't make sense to me; if anybody was hoping for a settlement due to costs involved it would have been SCO.
IBM is using it's staff lawyers, they get paid if they are in court, or they get paid if they're standing arround the water-cooler talking football; any real costs of the case are trivial like filing, and copying fees. SCO on the other hand hired external lawyers, who are paid with cash, wallpaper(sco stock) and probably a percent of the proceeds in addition to expenses which are around what $300-$600 per hour per lawyer. If anybody was going to use expenses as an inducement to settle it would hae been IBM!
SCO should be like the small dog lying on it's back, with it's belly exposed trying not to piss itself to bad while hoping the big dog doesn't rip their belly open.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I think you guys are going down the wrong road here. IBM today is nothing like the company of the 1980s, that company is long dead. The uber-dominant IBM was dominant in the mainframe business, that business is practically non-existent today. The vast bulk of the machines IBM produces in that performance class are upscale clustered microprocessor based machines. IBM is mainly a consulting operation today.
The examples of friend becomming enemy are not the best. Stalin was always an aliance of convenience, Churchil and FDR both knew what he was and that he had allied with Hitler to invade Poland. Pinochet was installed by the CIA on the orders of Nixon and did exactly what he was meant to - murdered at least 30,000 opponents and established a dictatorship. This seems to be considered by the right to be a desirable outcome.
Saddam is a more complex issue since there the US decided he could not be allowed to lose the Iran-Iraq war he started. But nobody actually wanted him to win either. Bin Laden is an even worse example since he was the conduit for Saudi aid to the mujahadein, he was not the conduit for US aid.
The better conclusion to draw is that if a democracy intervenes in another country it should only support democratic regimes. The game that has consistently failled is the game of destabilising democratic regimes that pursue interests oppoed to the US and replacing them with dictatorships. If you look at all the operations of the CIA during the Eisenhower administration, the results have been completely counter productive. Meddling in Iran replaced an inconvenient Nationalist democratic government with a dictatorship under the Shah which inevitably collapsed under its own thuggery and corruption resulting in the current hyper-theocracy.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
They sound exactly like computer nerds, with the small difference of specializing in a different field.
I might have enjoyed that evening. But then I'm known to be weird.
You've actually come to an important realization. Everyone complains about asshole lawyers, but when you need to go to court, you definitely want the baddest asshole in the firm. And thus the cycle continues...
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
Do you think the soldiers of yore were "normal" people? They knew how to fight against their enemies, but often when there was peace, they started up wars again because it was the only thing they knew how to do. There are many similarities in their behavior to the behavior of lawyers now.
I much prefer the court system to resorting to violence to resolve disputes. Imagine IBM and SCO duking it out with private armies.
Powerful friends are good to have, but it's always good to remember that powerful friends have other friends as well... Who may not like you so much.
They needed to wait for the discovery from SCO to be completed. Now that they have that info from SCO since the judge forced SCO to divulge it, they have tailored a count in their couterclaim, the new declaratory judgment count, to knock out those issues which SCO has no evidence on. I suspect that these are the same issues that SCO wants to bifurcate out and have resolved later because they know they're going to lose. This is a very shrewd move on IBM's part. I would expect a motion for summary judgment on this count to be forthcoming from IBM. Note a motion for summary judgment is one where the movant contends that based upon the undisputed evidence in the record, they are entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law, i.e. there is no need for a trial based upon the undisputed evidence in the case. SCO is getting very desperate here. If summary judgment is granted on a significant portion of their case, their stock will plumet and they know it.
The NT lineage kernels owe their design to VMS, not Unix. This was largely a consequence of Microsoft hiring Dave Cutler, one of VMS's architects.
... and, yes, Microsoft has indeed scrupulously obeyed the terms of the GPL, in case you were wondering.)
There are commandline tools in most windows versions (e.g. ftp, ping, etc) that DO have a definite BSD lineage, but it doesn't go very deep. Superficial similarities do not deeper borrowing make.
Microsoft's justification (not, I think, their real primary reason) for licensing was actually the rather misnamed Windows services for Unix.
(Which, by the way, consists in large part of GPLed software
DNA just wants to be free...