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.
I just wonder what took IBM so long to go for this? Was it matter of timing or did they have to wait for other judgements to clear first?
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Is it just me or are the SCO lawyers trying to drag this out as long as they possibly can. Talk about the lawyers staying on the payroll a long time. They are great lawyers at keeping on the payroll withough ever actually taking this anywhere.
Evolution or ID?
I'm an attorney in a medium size corporation. We have held off on adopting Linux.
Why, you ask? Well, despite the excellent information provided by groklaw, 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.
While we were planning on adopting Linux as our new development platform, we have not. The uncertain outcome of this lawsuit coupled with very steep discounts offered by Microsoft have pushed us to Windows 2003.
Also, in my perusal of groklaw, I have found that while it provides good information, it is also heavily censored. More than once I have read a compelling "pro-SCO" post that disappears not long after it appears. I can only assume that PJ is deleting them. In short, I don't think groklaw is giving us a very objective view of the situation.
-Cecil
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
Once SCO is fucking dead, we can get back to coding and building fun toys, and maybe some useful things too, with the Linux kernel, without this damn fiaSCO hanging over our heads. It would also be nice to see someone persue some sort of criminal investigation against the SCO execs, but I'm not holding my breath.
And even better would be Darl's head on a pike, but I don't think we do that sort of thing anymore, right? :)
disclaimer: no, I don't *really* want to see Mr. McBride dead, call off your snipers you crazy SOBs.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Law suits will never be outsourced
t icleshow/578 987.cms
Nope, that's already happening:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ar
Good thing I love curry.
If the judge grants what IBM wants, the case will be over, SCO's stock price will have created much revenue for them, as did the investment by MS, Linux will have had doubt cast upon it needlessly, and there will have been no punishment for Darl.
I wish IBM would fight them in court, win, and countersue for further damages to prove the point.
There's a Good Thing that has happened as a result of the SCO saga to date:
the Linux development commmunity is now being a lot more careful about code re-use, attribution, credits, and licensing issues in redistributed packages.
According to the filing as read by me on groklaw, SCO's attempt to impose extra licensing requirements puts them in breach of GPL section 5, which terminates their right to distribute under section 4. (ianal, could have read it completely wrong)
IBM has IP in linux that they have only licensed under GPL. If SCO has no GPL rights, they have no right to distribute the code, and they're therefore infringing IBM's copyright.
Warning: May contain nuts
> "These are intelligent, wealthy people"
so were Enron, et-al.
You say you are an attorney? If my attorney made a decision on pure hearsay, i woudl fire him/her. You did not give us any facts, just the presumption that they must be a fine upstanding company. Well so is IBM, and IBM happens to be MORE than SCO. On that assumption you have decided to ditch Linux, and go for MS? Nice deal you got with them!
Groklaw is a site for us NON-LAWYERS. As an attorney, surely you dont need to go to Groklaw of all places right??? you shoudl be well versed on the facts. In fact you shoudl be CONTRIBUTING to the knowledge on Groklaw, not reading it!
I doubt you are a attorney, just a troll.
Good bye, and nice try.
Have a nice day!
We have held off on adopting Linux...it is simply unreasonable to assume that SCO's case is completely baseless.
I'm sure it's not completely baseless. But, the premise of a flat world isn't completely baseless, either. What I've seen from SCO to prove their point has been rather sketchy. You are entitled to your own opinion and to make business decisions accordingly. And, yes, it would be a shame if cogent, pro-SCO analysis were artificially suppressed. Perhaps you could point out some of those posts.
But here's something to think about for the future.
If your company loses money by delaying a Linux migration primarily because of the SCO suit, you might want to collect together evidence leading to that decision.
Should it ever some to light that the SCO suit were frivilous and possibly motivated by some third party that stood to gain by deliberately supporting a frivilous suit, then your company and others might stand to make up some of the lost revenue for being deliberately misled as part of a broader conspiracy that might not be legal.
If you're an internal counsel for your company, pursuing redress might provide you with plenty of work.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Folks, this filing is a "Duh" -- not because it's valid, but because any competent attorney will file for a declaratory judgement. After all, the judge might grant it, and there's no harm in trying.
I don't think that they expect the judge to grant the motion, though. 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. SCO claims the copyrights and has documents the appear to show that. Novell has documents which might impose some limitations on the transfer, but it isn't clear that they apply in this case, or that they're valid. SCO has affadavits from the people who signed the original documents which appear to show that they intended to transfer the copyrights in full. That matter is currently under judicial review, and until it's resolved, that controversy prevents a declaratory judgement.
I expect the judge to deline to rule on the motion in the interests of allowing Novell v. SCO to proceed unimpeded. IBM's attorneys have to try, both because they might win, and because if the Novell case goes against SCO, then IBM will have it in the record that they asked for declaratory judgement earlier, and so can forestall some procedural objections from SCO in that case.
Knowing how full the world is of irony, and how the powers that currently defend Linux will someday seek to control it, it'll be interesting to see how we all feel about IBM 5 years from now...
I think you have some good arguments. However, there are a lot of short interests in SCOX that are held by people who *are* savvy in the tech field and know SCO's claims to be the crack-rock-induced pipe dreams they truly are. At some point, those people are going to cash in those shorts and what happens next?
I can hear the whistle as that bomb drops.
In light of that fact that SCO has dropped it's trade secrets claim over a month ago, I think this is much more important than you are saying.
I have some experience with the type of lawyers IBM hires as litigators in social situations - I was involved as a witness in a product conterfiting suit about ten years ago.
To make me feel at ease, here in Toronto they took me out to dinner (Shopsey's at Yonge and Front) followed by a show at Second City.
Over dinner, the conversation ranged over such fascinating topics as the low percentage of both Canadians and Americans that could name all the judges on the countries supreme court, the need for all engineers to have mandatory training in evidence collection, documenting and testifying, explanation of the correct terms to use in the deposition process, which of the firm's offices were best for aspiring new hires and how much BMWs cost in Canada.
During the show, one of the lawyers actually started taking notes, recording what he thought were inappropriately used registered statements in the show - during the intermission they debated on the differences between Canadian and US law and whether or not the useage would be legal in the US.
At the end of the evening, they were happy that they were able to "sneak in a few minutes" talking about business, as this would allow them to claim the evening expenses as well as the time spent over dinner and the show as billable hours.
All in all, I found it to be a pretty traumatic evening.
At no time did I get the feeling that these people were normal human beings. On a personal level, they can't function with normal human beings. On a professional level, they are more than competent and although they will bleed you dry.
But, if they are working for you, I'm sure they'll devote more than 100% of their waking hours to your case. So, I guess looking at it from this dimension, they are excellent friends to have.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
If IBM try to turn against the free/open source community then this court filing would turn into a weapon against them. IBM are saying to the judge, "we're 100% behind Linux and the GPL". It would be very hard for them to now turn against the free/open source movement.
Not at all. The GPL is a license to distribute copyrighted works but this isn't a paper-rock-scissors thing.
I may write code today to which I hold the copyright and may chose to distribute the code under the GPL. However, that doesn't mean that the code is then unencumbered by a patent held by someone else.
If, in the future, FOSS significantly threatens IBM's revenue stream then it may indeed be in their best interests to use their patent portfolio to quash competing products, irrespective of the validity of, or their continued recognition of, the GPL.
Trusted by cats.
A more likely and far *better* outcome would be if UNIX was declared to be public domain.
Remember that UNIX was created before the berne convention, and before the Berne convention things were *only* copyright if you included copyright notices. The UNIX source code had no such notices, and therefore was not copyrighted. If the code isn't copyrighted, then it's public domain.
If the code is public domain, then it's impossible to sue over copyright infringement or license violations.
SCOX is at $8.40/share
tick.. tick.. tick..
From an article today on Businessweek
Today is the first blow of many that will take SCO's stock back to the penny-stock pink sheet.
I'd tend to agree with you except it looks like SCO is trying to manipulate the price by buying back its own shares:
Form 8-K for SCO GROUP INC
11-Mar-2004
Other Events and Regulation FD Disclosure
Item 5. Other Events and Regulation FD Disclosure.
The board of directors of The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") has authorized management, in its discretion, to purchase up to 1.5 million shares of SCO's common stock over the next 24 months. The repurchase program is effective immediately. SCO has approximately 14.4 million shares of common stock issued and outstanding. Any repurchased shares will be held as treasury stock and will be available for general corporate purposes.
The repurchase program will allow SCO to repurchase its shares from time to time in accordance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission on the open market, in block trades and in privately negotiated transactions, depending on market conditions and other factors.
Forward Looking Statements
This report contains forward-looking statements regarding SCO's implementation of a stock repurchase program. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties. These risks and uncertainties may affect the timing and amounts of stock purchases under the program and other circumstances related to repurchases under the program. Purchases under the program are subject to the discretion of management based on market conditions and other factors including the trading price of SCO's common stock, availability of stock, alternative uses of capital and SCO's financial condition. Other risks and uncertainties related to SCO's business are described in SCO's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
That's what this case is actually all about. SCOX was practically a penny-stock when this started. Darl had no idea how to get them out of that hole by innovating, so litigation gave the stockholders the stock bounce they needed and demanded.
Now, the stock is dropping again. A buddy of mine (who is a broker) told me that the bubble will burst at about $4.50. At that poing, the drop to under a dollar will be very fast. Once that happens, these cases will go away because SCO will either have to hold it's remaining money to find another way out (wow! you mean innovate and try some R & D?!?) or follow this rabbit into insolvency very quickly.
Once the stocks hit >$4, Darl's "strategy" will be considered a failure, and SCO will fire him and seek another company to buy them (for virtually nothing) or stagger on as a dying company maintaining a shrinking customer base of legacy-UNIX systems.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
I was living in Honolulu, Hawaii and involved in a very cool polyamory group there called Pali Paths. Didn't really date this lady, we were more just friends who occasionally had sex, but I did hang out with her. Nicest person you ever met: sweet, funny, and little bit geeky, even seemed a little shy.
;-) and I read the whole thing, it was only seven pages.
She was a business lawyer, worked for the city. She said she liked that because she was really always fighting bad guys, and she could let her claws out without feeling bad. She showed me one of her briefs once (don't start
I remembered the case, from the media's point of view, the other guy was a bastard who was screwing over orphans or something like that. She tied his balls in a knot and handed them to him on a platter. Used his own arguments against him, proved he was screwed if they were valid or not. You should have seen her eyes light up as she described arguing this case. I could suddenly see the shark in her, and I was frightened. She was very good, and it was obvious she could be ruthless in court. I'm sure the world is a better place because she decided to fight for the (mostly) good guys.
I say mostly because Honolulu, and really all of Hawaii is an old boy's club. The government there is at least as corrupt as most.
I had some other lawyer friends there. They were activist types, one was fighting for fair water use rights, the other was in the Hawaiian Native Sovereignty movement. They were good, dedicated people, but they didn't have that shark mentality about them. Just remember that not all lawyers are bad people.
God only knows what this has to do with SCO, just thought I'd throw out my own bit of personal experience with lawyers. I guess it does sound like IBM is doing what she did, tying the SCO lawyers' balls in a knot, so to speak, and proving that their arguments are utterly without merit.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Waiting this long might have also helped to consolidate IBMs position in Linux land. A lot of Linux companies got badly hurt, but IBM has the reserves to wait it out. By delaying things a lot of IBMs competition gets wiped out or at least roughed up somewhat.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Rather than trying to divide the corporate world up into friends and enemies, we should consider all for-profit entities as being agnostic to Linux, and we should be agnostic in kind, for one self-evident reason: said entities exist to make money, and as long as Linux helps them achieve that goal, they will defend it (as parent notes).
These legal sparrings over Linux get perhaps at least most of the inspection the deserve, but let us not take sides. Remember that Linux was created for everyone, and each and every one of these companies is trying to bend it completely to their will. Whether Linux remains free is a side-effect (to them), and whether the GPL remains unchallenged is a corollary of whether it impedes future business for these companies now that they've chosen Linux for their platform of operations.
Writing this, I'm becoming pretty indignant about the whole thing. Nobody is taking my Linux away. We didn't give it to you; you're using it because we give it to everyone, and in case you hadn't noticed, your assaults do not result in a change in our behavior, nor will they ever. Linux cannot be affronted or destroyed, because it is not a stack of gold coins or a religion; it is reason, it is ideology. Trying to stamp it out is like trying to put postage stamps on packets.
Wouldn't it be interesting if, upon SCO's claims etc. getting tossed out, Microsoft turns around and sues SCO/Canopy for a return of the licensing fees they'd paid, in the sense that "since you guys didn't own the licence anyway - and there's that recent judgement that says so - we've given you money for nothing, you cheating liars, you told us you had a valid enforceable license that everybody needed to get! We wants our money back"?
Microsoft would have every right to do so (assuming their contract with SCO/Canopy doesn't have any clauses saying "once the money's handed over it's ours for good")?
Assuming there's no secret (and enforceable) agreement between MS & SCO to play nice after, assuming the "SCO is doing this on MS's behalf" conspiracy theories are true, there's really nothing to stop MS from abandoning their flunky running-dog after they've outlived their usefulness, is there? And, if there isn't a secret conspiracy and MS is just buying the licence (if only on an enemy-of-my-enemy-is-a-friend basis), once the judgement comes, won't MS have a *fiduciary duty* to their shareholders to claw back the money they've paid out to SCO since, heck, they got nothing for it?
Come to think of it, are there any minority shareholders within SCO/Canopy who can sue SCO/Canopy management for messing up their ongoing line of business (back in the Caldera days, OpenLinux was regarded quite well, wasn't it?) in a series of decisions that antagonised everybody and (will almost certainly?) lead to the collapse of their remaining business?
EV1 net has now publicly regretted getting their licence - if SCO loses their case, who on earth is going to want to buy SCO licences (or OpenLinux, for that matter) for any reason other than "maintenance while we quickly look for something else to migrate to" purposes?