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."
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...
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
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
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