Slashdot Mirror
IBM tells SCO to Put Up or Shut Up
Jeffrey Johnson writes "The whole SCO and IBM case is coming to a head with new filings from IBM accusing SCO of being 'grandiose' and saying it has 'effectively conceded' that it has no evidence of infringement. It asks for evidence to be produced or the whole case thrown out. According to experts this makes it make-or-break: either SCO has to outline exactly what the issues are with Linux or the whole sorry affair is over."
I'd rather have a world without IBM than IBM "saving Linux".
Karma: Terrible - and proud of it!
IBM - effectively the Microsoft of the 80s
Not so. IBM was called the benevolent dictator, and that since way before the 80s. I don't think I've ever seen Microsoft been called benevolent by any sane person...
I agree that it is good that IBM has been able to successfully defend itself from the lawsuit initiated by SCO. It is also good that SCO had the stupidity to sue someone with both deep pockets and a significant stake in Linux that was willing to fund their lawyers properly.
I am still disturbed however to be supporting a big, bad (well, in the past), corporation against the little guy. No matter how evil the little guy is in this particular case. Somehow the glee that infects the open source community from IBM's good strikes against SCO just don't sit well with me.
Well Darl was paid about $1M last year, a figure that many people (but not, one suspects, Darl) would consider riches.
Perhaps he will consider trying to make money the old fashined way next time, you know: create a product that people actually want and sell it!
I don't think SCO ever intended to SELL any "SCOSource" licenses -- you would expect them to register the domain name if they did, but SCO did not register it
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Hey, you could better than that.
I like it more when people really overdo the number of lawyers IBM could ever have.
Something like:
They will hide the sun
or: They could burry SCO under 10% of dead IBM layers. No need for courts.
or: IBM lawyers are so many that IBM keeps 90% of them in cryogenic chambers for future use.
or: IBM's uses so many lawyers that several small countries are now under contract to provide lawyers to IBM.
or: IBM lawyers are so many that they refer to them by serial number
I'm sure you can come up with better.
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
If I'm reading all these reports right, the summary judgement just concerns the copyrights / "stolen code in linux" claims that SCO had as part of their case, but dropped when the judge ordered them to produce evidence.
What the summary judgement means is IBM is pointing at the big swath of things that SCO claimed then dropped from the case, and asking the judge, "could you *pretend* SCO never dropped those parts, and give us the ruling you would have given if those parts of the case were still in effect, so that we can declare the matter closed and SCO can't make those allegations again later?"
So if the summary judgement's granted, IBM's case will still go on, since it has no bearing on the contract claims that SCO's lawsuit against IBM comprises at this point.
HOWEVER, if the summary judgement is granted, RedHat's case will suddenly start up, since (1) the copyright allegations and slander that the summary judgement concerns is *exactly* what RedHat's case is about and (2) when RedHat's case hit court, it was ruled that that case should be delayed until the IBM case is decided, so (3) since the part of the IBM case that RedHat was waiting on has been summary judgemented, they're free to persue the lanham act thingy against SCO.
Is the above the case?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
...to beleive that this is 'put up or shut up' I have more of a feeling that this will be like Moammar Quadaffi in the mid 80s amking threats to the US: "There is a line of death! You cross this line, you die!" IBM crosses "Ok, you cross this line you die!" IBM crosses... "Ok, you cross this line you die!" repeat as necessary until someone in juducial authority slaps SCO upside their empyty head. As much as I want it to be, I have a feeling this is far from over.
How many times does SCO have to be told to "Put Up Or Shut Up" before they actually do so? Courts, companies, third parties ...
Maybe obvious, but their silence speaks volumes.
Who doesn't like free music?
"Hey, we have no evidence yet. But if you give us a little more time, we are sure we will be able to find something that looks like evidence. Yes. Sure. Trust us."
morcego
Sure, this has cost them lots of $$, but they are going to emerge the champions of tech geeks the world over.
It cost them lots of $$? They are getting publicity that money can't buy. Geeks are cheering for IBM. I don't think it is any coincidence that IBM started their Linux advertising bliz after the suit was filed. They are spending millions on those commercials.
Chill dude. Timing is everything. After a year and two court ordered motions to compel, it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain (that leaves out Robert Enderle and Laura DiDio) that SCOG's shooting blanks.
A year ago, SCOG's duplicity hadn't even begun to sink into the consciousness of the "mainstream" analysts and publications. Now, almost every article you read raises questions about SCOG's evidence and integrity. Now, is the time to strike. If IBM had tried this a year ago, the "mainstream" publications would be questioning IBM's integrity, not SCOG's.
// TODO: fix sig
IBM has managed to make their support of Linux something that is to our mutual advantages.
We get enterprise level support and code contributions from IBM, they get to sell services, promote sales of IBM hardware, and to have the freedom from any one particular vendor.
Besides, it simply wouldn't be in their best interests to betray us, and if they did, the community would surely respond in kind.
Barring some new change in the markets that upsets IBM's Linux strategy, their current relationship seems to be stable enough and isn't very likely to change in the near term. Sure, there could be some radical management shakeup, wherein the top brass wind up replaced with "open source is un-American" types or some other bizarre change, but I consider that unlikely, at least for the time being.
I've never heard the benevolent dictator before to describe IBM, but I can believe it. In my own dealings, IBM hardware and software has always been highly praised. They build solid stuff. They support it _forever_ and a day. Documentation is second to none. But the IBM sales and marketting is a pariah. I've heard comments from other techs along the lines of "I wish I didn't have to deal with IBM's lawyers before I could use IBM's products".
The benefit of IBM going with open source is that you no longer need to deal with the sales people or the lawyers to get to the product. You speak directly with IBM's engineers. It's perfect. All the top qualities of IBM - the engineering, the attention to detail - without any of the biz crap you wish didn't exist.
NB: that's not to say every IBM product is a godsend. They've produced some absolute shit in the PC division (which includes their Intel/x86 based servers as far as I'm concerned). I'm sure there are other cockups too.
One thing I really respected about them is that they throw tons of money into research and development, even if that R&D doesn't seem to have a real financial payoff in the future. They basically just pay people to come up with and develop cool technological toys. Some are successful and make IBM tons of money. Others aren't and are just cool to have around. Still, it's not often you see a large company that dedicates a large portion of time and money to things that don't contribute to the bottom line.
However, woe be unto you if you cross them. As benign as they are, those fuckers hold a serious grudge. And for a very, very long time. They are still pissed about the whole OS/2 Warp debacle and won't use Microsoft products if they can get away with it. That's also a very large reason why they are pumping so much money into Linux. They'd rather the whole OS market be open and free than have Microsoft controlling it.
They are going to literally grind SCO's bones to make their bread. There will be no SCO by the time IBM is done.
-------------------------------------------------
This is not the way I see things. A small business is more likely to reflect the personality -- the values -- of its owners. Large corporations by their nature gravitate toward impersonal, dehumanising treatment of their employees, the surrounding community, even their customers. This was seen as a flaw of capitalism in general, but from where I stand, what matters is the size of a company.
Costco is large and not evil
Even Costco cannot look after its people the way Scrooge did after being visited by the three spirits. Managers are constrained by HR policies, memos from Legal, and paltry funding from the Comptroller. Big corporations stage supportive activities, but can no more care about an employee than I care about the ant I squashed on my way to work this morning.
I am grateful for IBM's action in this matter, but will always be wary of them starting to throw their weight around.
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
SCO is likely to produce more evidence to support its claims, said Blake Stowell, an SCO spokesman. On 19 April, IBM turned over 232 versions of its AIX and Dynix Unix source code as well as internal documents and memos from executives, he said. "Our lawyers are still going through much of the evidence IBM turned over as part of the discovery process. I'm confident that there is still other evidence that will come forward in order for us to be able to prove those claims," Stowell said.
In other words, SCO didn't have any evidence when they filed the suit, and this whole thing has been one massively expensive fishing expedition?
People scream at airline reps for every reason, but then would never think to pay an extra $25 on their next flight in exchange for proper customer service.
Well that's not entirely true. I used to pay a premium to travel on American Airlines because they treated me like a human being. And had even spaced out their seats so my knees weren't in the isle getting hit by every f*cking beverage cart. But ever since a few months after Sept. 11th they've really sucked. So except for spending my frequent flier miles I'll be going with JetBlue. They pay their employees badly and don't offer any of the niceties AA used to offer, but they also don't charge for the service I no longer get with AA. I wish I could pay for that level of service but it just isn't there on any domestic carrier. The same story could probably be told of American made cars and any other service or good this country can no longer provide to my standards.
A brief tip: if you haven't actually paid attention to the progress of the case and know nothing about the litigation process, you'll save yourself considerable embarassment by refraining from commenting on it.
IAAL, and I'm dumbfounded that the judge has not *already* bounced SCO's entire lawsuit for refusing to comply with two consecutive discovery orders. "20 business days?" It's already been over a year.
TANSTAAFL
all that would say is that they didn't come up with enough evidence to go to trial over it. there would be no ruling of anykind. just thrown out. anyone could come back later (and probably will) and sue anyone for linux copyright violations.
afaik, this suit is all over a contract dispute and the whole linux copyright is merely a major point in the contract litigation.
Today per-seat licenses, tomorrow the world, so to speak. Greedy SOBs.
Liberty in your lifetime
SCO doesn't actually think it is going to win this suit. They would like to - but they know they can't.
SCO is just acting as Microsoft's pawn here.
Microsoft gave SCO $50 million to help fight this and spread the seeds of doubt against Linux to delay what is inevitable - Linux will dominate business and government operating systems around the globe.
I am certain that Microsoft considers this money well spent. Afterall - how many corporations and government entities DIDN'T change over to Linux because of the fear this suit created.
However, woe be unto you if you cross them. As benign as they are, those fuckers hold a serious grudge. And for a very, very long time. They are still pissed about the whole OS/2 Warp debacle and won't use Microsoft products if they can get away with it. That's also a very large reason why they are pumping so much money into Linux. They'd rather the whole OS market be open and free than have Microsoft controlling it.
My wife was an intern at Microsoft during that shenannegan and has a LOT to say about it. We're both glad to hear that IBM hasn't let bygones be bygones on that one.
(She says that one thing that's ironic is that OS/2 was a much better system than Windows. I guess OS/2 got to play Betamax to Windows' VHS.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Looking back at the 4 year activity of SCOX stock and it becomes apparent what is going on. All that have followed this debacle are painfully aware of SCOX business behavior. But just to paint the picture a couple of factoids.
Four years ago SCOX stock exceed over $100/share. In january of last year the stock was on the verge of dropping below $1/share and ran the risk of being delisted (as penny stocks are on NASDAQ). So we have this brilliant claim the "Linux ripped off SCOX via IBM". We (the F/OSS community) worried about the possibility of this being a reality. I and others scurried to dig up as much factual and cogent info on who contributed what, as well as when and where.
It was of course determined that many of the former Caldera (pre-SCOX) employees/devs had contribute source work to the Linux kernel. It was further determined that there appeared to be nothing out of the ordinary about the manner in which this was done. Then the discussions regarding SCOX' focused on fixing any possible problem insofar as determining what tainted the kernel in order to cut it out and replace it.
SCOX didn't like this in the slightest. They refused to be specific because they claimed that it would invalidate their claim and leave them with no recourse. Though this was not taking to kindly by the F/OSS community but it was understandable, wherein one doesn't invalidate ones torts by giving away the evidence in this manner. So be it.
However glaring inconsistencies began to appear in SCOX' claims and contentions. All the while SCOX stock was rising. They played the industry press like a fine fiddle and the industry press bought it hook, line, and sinker. They didn't delve into the deeper questions but simply repeated SCOX' claims and essentially became a mouth piece for these idiots.
So the question arose - "what the hell is really going on here"? Speculations abound and over time it became apparent the SCOX my well be a player for a bigger entity - many saw M$ behind this. Then evidence of the PIPE deal began to come to light. A convuluted cavalcade of backroom conversations and a lot of money changing hands and all the while SCOX stock was rising.
At every turn SCOX shows that it has no conpunction whatsoever to legally and economically assualt any one or any thing that they felt would further their cause - but just what really was the crux of their jihad? Ok let's get serious here. It wasn't about being ripped off, it wasn't about securing their market channels and product line. It was about money - no real shock here. But the logic was baffling to both tech head, end-user, corporates, and financial analysts. All the while SCOX is making the rounds with the bigger players, those being for example IDG, The Yankee Group, and many others (including Harvard Business School lectures?).
But as in Germany that unquestionably stated to SCOX "put up or shut up" the time has come in America as well and we see that SCOX has little or nothing at all to present. It's not about holding your cards to up the ante. It's about holding your cards because you hand has nothing but junk and bluffing in hopes that the other guy will blink. Well IBM didn't blink - as if you would expect them to.
But what about all those poor dumb saps (bless their souls) that just wanted to invest in a company that would afford them a margin of profit on their investment? The majority of -l users don't understand the deeper issues of this technology. They see computing as a tool to use (and one that is often extremely complicated and intimidating from their point of view - I mean hell I just showed my mother the virtues of right click menus in WinXP for crying out loud).
At the start of this fiasco SCOX started at just around one dollar per share and rose to over $22/share. Not a bad investment from a strictly market perspective. But now it's dropping and at the close of business this Friday it is down to $4.754/share - ouch. This would be ok if their was any validity
I have a couple of friends that have spent time in prison (both for non-violent 'crimes' related to posession of certain plants.) Neither of them told any rape stories, but clearly they both needed to commit violent acts just to survive in prison--and neither of these guys were ever violent people.
One of them spent two years in a Georgia state prison. If you could get money from the outside you could get drugs easily from the DoC officers. If someone gave you a problem and you didn't fight back, you were immediately a target for anyone there that wanted to take advantage of you. If someone beats the crap out of you, you can rat on them, but then you're marked as a rat and everyone will be after you.
One day his watch was stolen by his cellmate and sold to another prisoner. The watch wasn't the big deal, it was the fact that everyone knew it was his watch and if he didn't do something about it, then he'd be a target from then on. So he ended up smashing his cellmate in the face with a padlock and then bashing several of his teeth out on the edge of his bunk. When they were questioned what happened both he and the guy that he beat up told the guards that he fell by accident. They still put my friend in solitary for a couple weeks, but no charges were filed against him.
It's a wierd feeling to have someone you know to be a friendly, intelligent, non-violent person telling you a story like this like they're simply describing a bad experience with tech support. It's easy to see how US prisons are creating violent criminals out of people that weren't necessarily violent before.
The conversation came up because he was talking about how he has to see a parole officer for the next several years. (for 10 years from the date he was released.) He said he'd never let them send him back--even if it meant they'd have to kill him to catch him.
Maybe you worked in a prison where these type of things didn't happen, but to say that all prisons are like that is definately false. Violence is a way of life in US prisons. It's not just GA prisons either. I've talked with more than just one person that has been to prison, and known two of them well enough to know that they aren't liars. Please don't try to bury the problem by saying it doesn't happen, or that we shouldn't talk about it. That's part of the problem.
Think about this: thousands of people go to prison for posession of marijuana every year. Very few of these people are violent. Most are no threat to anyone. And they are locked up with rapists, murderers, and people that are just mentally ill and violent because of it. Forgetting the whole matter of justice being served for a moment, what exactly is it that we are accomplishing by doing this?