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.
In sum, I think that Files For Declaratory Judgement is overrated and would recommend against it at this time.
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?
spafbnerf notes that "SCO has filed a motion for the patent infringement claim to be split into a separate case."
But, why?
I mean, if IBM gets the declaratory judgment, it'll wrap this all up.
Splitting off the patent infringement into another lawsuit will just drag this out for another year...
Oh!
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
but wouldn't life be just a little bit too bland without our favorite enemy?
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?
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.
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
"If the judge grants the motion then SCO effectively has no case"
Everything from 'If' to 'then' is unneeded.
The whole thing could soon be over? Wow. I mean 2003 could be described as the 'year of the SCO'. A day without SCO news on slashdot is like.... I can barely remember what it was like before.
For IBM's lawyers to get the licensing issues ironed out so they could use the Imperial March while slow-motion walking into the courtroom? Or the schedueling and accomidation issues for a full marching band?
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
I'll catch you next time TORVALDS!!!
Next Up: SCO vs US Government
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
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
In the late 1970's Microsoft licensed UNIX source code from AT&T which at the time was not licensing the name UNIX. Therefore Microsoft created the name Xenix. Microsoft did not sell Xenix to end-users but instead licensed the software to software OEMs such as Intel, Tandy, Altos and SCO who then provided a finished version of their own Xenix to the end-users or other customers. SCO introduced its first version of Xenix named SCO Xenix System V for the Intel 8086 and 8088 in 1983. Today SCO Xenix is one of the more commonly used and found versions of Xenix.
Linux was based on Minix. A UnixLite OS designed to run on PCs. However, it was really only a teaching tool. Andrew Tanenbaum repeatedly refused to add the new (legitimate) features the users and even developers asked for. Linus Torvalds set out simply to add functionality to his own version of Minix (the copyright allows use to do so for your own personal use, but you cannot sell or distibute it).
Over time, in adding functionality to Minix, Linus Torvalds found that he had created an entirely new kernel. I was very similar to Minix but used none of the Minix source code. Torvalds had originally called it freax, for "`free' + `freak' + the obligatory `-x'. The operator of the FTP server where Linus' new kernel made its debut didn't like the name and simply called it Linux (Linus + Unix). People seemed to like the name so it stuck.
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?"
SCOX
I shorted it at 17.96 in early January. I'm a happy camper if IBM wins this.
Maybe all the pro-SCO posts keep coming from anonymous cowards at IP address 216.250.128.12?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
In short, I don't think groklaw is giving us a very objective view of the situation.
While this may be true, I don't think there is any objective view on this case other than reading the actual filings. And as an attorney, I would expect you to reference not the commentary but the actual filings. If you did not, then I'm surprised.
very steep discounts offered by Microsoft
This statement is the true reason you have chosen Microsoft, IMHO. If you or your company's attorney had read the various filings, (as our attorneys have) then the lawsuit(s) would not enter into the decision making process.
These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits.
As the previous poster mentioned, you are new to this, aren't you? Perhaps you should read several recent cases revolving around technology intellectual property. The Rambus case would be a good starting point. I also contend (as many others do) that SCO's management never expected to have the court proceeding last this long. I suspect that the plan was to be purchased or to have the case settle of out of court.
While you may be an attorney, I have seen and heard IBM's attorneys Cravath. There are one of the best intellectual property firms in the US. If the Cravath attorneys believe that claims are meritless, then I would tend to believe them.
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, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Here's what the [H]'s website says about it:
Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
>>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.
Wrong. Check their histroy. Scox has never been profitable by legitimate sales of products or services. All of scox's money has come from: 1) bogus IPO (still under investigation by SEC). 2) Lawsuit against MSFT. FUD money from msft and sunw.
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
> "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!
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...
And we have Linux all over the place. Replacing Windows and elderly Unix boxes at an accelerating pace.
We're ignoring SCO. Completely.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
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."
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
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.
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.
Everyone files for declaratory (tell that SOB that he's full of shit!) or summary (we don't need no stinking trial, find me innocent right now!) judgement in civil cases. Judges almost never issue them. While it is emotionally good to see IBM responding in some way, this really doesn't indicate or change anything about the status of the case.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
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.
> These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits.
Are they more intelligent and wealthier than IBM and Novell?
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...
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.
Don't forget the Chewbacca defense!
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
" 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.
Crivens! I di'nae noo wee could have lawyers on our side! Aye if this be truue the SCOO laywers will be getting a right kickin' in nae time!
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
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.
if it weren't for those meddling kids and their penguin.
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.
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
Is it just me, or can anybody see a April Fool's joke on the way about this?! ;-)
Seriously, I would be very glad for all this mess to be finally over. Though I'm going to miss the fun times. Ah yes, opening up my browser and heading over to /. & Groklaw to see what outrageous claims SCO were making that day.
I agree with you and I've asked this question. However, the answer I get back from our lawyers is that Microsoft provides the target for lawsuits if something is wrong with Windows. We (large Aerospace company) become the target for lawsuits if there is a problem with the Open Source stuff that has no company behind it.
If parts of Windows were found to have been illegally copied from someone else's code (which has happened before), I don't see how the end users could be held responsible since they don't even have access to the source. Not only do they not have a duty to check Microsoft's source for infringing code, they don't even have the ability to do so. With open source products, the end user does have access to the source. Whether the user would be liable for infringement would vary depending on the circumstances, but it is at least more of a possibility. Although it looks like SCO has no case, this are issues that need to be addressed if someone were to come along and make SCO-type of claims and actually have evidence to back them up.
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
It reminds me of my last job interview: this guy asked me "Please tell us at least two Microsoft utilities you'd use for testing network connectivity?" Later I found out that he was looking for Ping and Traceroute commands. Funny but true. Hard to believe but there are clueless Windoze people out there who don't know any better...
They die so well...
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...
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.
There seems to nothing new here. Groklaw:
UPDATE: I have been reading the document itself now, and there isn't anything new on the GPL front. They asked for a declaratory judgment regarding the GPL in their earlier counterclaims. IBM is challenging SCO's copyrights. That seems to mean that they are defining this as a true copyright fight, not a contract dispute, something SCO has avoided so far. SCO will have to prove they own these copyrights now, no matter what the judge rules on SCO's Motion to Remand in the Novell matter. And they will have to show the code they claim is infringing and prove they hold copyright ownership of that code and that the copyrights they hold relate to the allegedly infringing code. Considering that they have publicly admitted that they don't own the copyrights to the allegedly infringing code, it will be interesting to see how they answer this. (emphasis added)