Slashdot Mirror
SCO Spreads Rumors About IBM Lawsuit
yeremein writes "SCO says it has found a new smoking gun in its battle with IBM. This 'bombshell' was not found in a court document; instead it came from a reporter's interview at SCOforum. The scoop? 'SCO alleges that since 2001, AIX has contained code for which IBM does not have a license. Moreover SCO claims to have found internal IBM e-mails in which IBMers acknowledge this shortcoming.' With the announcement comes a hefty boost in SCO's stock price." SCO is also going to bundle its worthless linux licenses with its Unix operating systems.
IBM was making out with Linux in the bathroom!!!! YEAH, I know!
comes a hefty boost in SCO's stock price
boost in perspective
SCO claims to have found internal IBM e-mails
This is a form of espionage which is illegal without a court order.
IBM does not have a license
IBM bought a the rights long before SCOX even created.
reporter's interview at SCOforum
The definitive source huh?
AIX yes one word
How about IBM drop AIX like a bad habit and go full swing into linux. Where's your lawsuit now?
Those monkeys flying from Darl's sphincter lately will be shown to have been stolen from the Wicked Witch of the West. E-mails between the Lollypop Guild and the Lullaby League will prove it.
For a minute there I though they were going to die off quietly after everyone had cashed out. More entertainment to read while browsing at work!
What would happen to the *Linux* case, if SCO would turn out to be right on this one?
At a glance, this seems like purely an AIX issue - so even if IBM should get into hot water with that one (I'm not saying they are going to be), what impact would it have on the linux case? (Say, besides the fact that SCOs war chest for their lawsuit would get a big refill)
Isn't this libel by SCO? Unless they can show substantial evidence, they are tarnishing IBM's reputation for personal gain. Even then, this is the type of thing that should be restricted to court. Would IBM be able to sue for wrongful damages?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I don't mind fueling the spam wars buy actually getting fake home/life/cat/dog/car insurance, but fueling this stupind SCO/Unix/Linux war is ridiculous!
Karma whoring
Or perhaps I have it all backwards, but how can the stock go up 14% without this sort of thing happening?
Oh well, back to the code... :)
SourceHosting.net, LLC
Ready. Set. Code.
http://www.sourcehosting.net/
Shouldn't that be "... worthless linux licenses with its worthless Unix operating systems" ;-) ?
... I was getting DTs from my lack of SCO news
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
...for the next round of major FUD slinging. SCO must have been reminded to do so by the USA presidential election campaign commercials. :P
SCO's announcement today that Darl McBride shits gold nuggets caused the SCO stock price to double!
From the Forbes article linked in to the story:
"SCO says it discovered the e-mails in a mountain of documents IBM produced in discovery related to SCO's lawsuit against IBM over the Linux operating system."
It appears legit, then.
And we all thought the litigation was over. Put away the streamers and throw out the cake.
SCO have discovered about 5 or 6 "smoking guns" and they never turn out to be anything. Still, it hasn't been groklaw'd yet so we can't be sure what's going on. ;-)
---
We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience
the only difference between slashdot and Sco is that Sco actually turns a profit.
/. sued someone?
Sweet Zombie Jesus, what color is the sky in your world? SCO has been hemmoraging cash for years - the only reason they haven't declared bankruptcy is the infusion from MS (so they could continue their frivilous lawsuits.)
And "the only difference"?!?!?!? When (exactly) was the last time
and I'm not familiar with laws on discovery ... but if I'd found the "smoking gun" that was going to win me my case, I'd keep it under my hat, and then reveal it (in true John Grisham style) just when it looks like my case was going down the pan.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
No RTFA. The emails were part of the discovery process with the current lawsuit.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The documents were handed over during discovery, or at least, that's what it says there in the article.
This means neither corporate espionage nor the DMCA will be involved.
I have been following this stuff as best I can, but somewhere along the road, I lost track. Has SCO actually finished a trial with any of the groups it's sued? How can they afford the legal costs of adding suit after suit with no resolution? Will they be able to afford their legal department if they lose any of these cases?
Live free or die
Please, let this soap opera end for the love of God. If i wanted to see bad acting and finger pointing on a daily basis, I'd stay home from work and watch Guiding Light or Days of our Lives.
When will these dickless wonders get the information that their M$ backing is gone, and nobody wants them around anymore. Fuck off, SCO.
Read the only personal Runyon page out there.
SCO claims IBM didn't have a license to use SCO's SVR4 product, which it obtained during the abortive "Project Monterey," to enhance its [Linux][AIX] offerings. SCO says it will be able to prove this through IBM's own internal documentation consisting of [records of contributions to Linux][e-mails concerning AIX licensing].
It's the death rattle.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
Didn't they bring this up last year, when they "just discovered" it again? Come on, SCO, this is old news! Tell us some truth we don't know!
This sig no verb.
Did you notice that all of the related articles about Linux have a negative slant? They also didn't link to IBM's reply to the charges. The article is surprisingly useless.
Maybe, just maybe, they're jerks. (girlish giggle)
The only reason for SCO to release this info to the public now is to help the battle for public opinion, and if you want to do that, you should start with a source a bit higher up the chain then SCOforum, such as, say, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, or some other well reputed paper.
I wonder how the hell SCO could have found IBM INTERNAL emails/memos.
"Hey Sam, it's Darl, you mind forwarding me the companies email for the past 10 years? Oh and while you're at it, have a guy sort out all the post it notes from the trash and forward those to us as well. Thanks. Tah Tah"
I think we need a corollary to godwin's law referring to the invocation of the DMCA. It seems impossible to have a rational conversation after such an event. Let me have a go anyway: This has nothing whatsoever to do with the DMCA because it refers to copy protection circumvention, and cracking systems for the purpose of personal gain is covered by several other laws which have nothing to do with it.
Unless the documents were scanned and laid into a CSS-encoded DVD, the DMCA has nothing to say about it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I wonder if there's any possibility that some information was "leaked" just to manipulate the stock price. It'd be awfully convenient to acquire it for a lower price and then be able to sell it for a profit after the information reached the press.
Their Lanham Act counterclaims in the lawsuit that SCO filed are directly referring to this type of behavior.
Even if the supposed 'proof' email is admissible in court, how much damage can be gained by a port to a different CPU? (PowerPC). Plus, I think the PowerPC AIX development was underway BEFORE r5 (AS400-type machines ran PowerPC chips)
I would think at best a modest fine could be garnered from this.
This announcement was more likely the act of a desperate corporation trying to get their stock out of the basement.
Never understood the appeal. Mod him down and move on folks...
---
We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience
This has nothing to do with Linux, although I'm sure SCO will try to make it sound as if it does.
It'll be interesting to see how this turns out, if it's anything, since my understanding is that during discovery you have to stick to what you're looking for. In other words, it's not a fishing expedition. This is definitely fishing.
But I'm not a lawyer, although I'd have little trouble standing up to SCO's lawyers in court...
Do you have ESP?
They are doing so well legally, that the Daimler-Chrysler case got tossed, except that they are allowed to try the claim the response took too long. The judge in the Novell case told them he saw no evidence the copyrights were transferred to SCO in accordance with federal law. The 'Millions of lines' of SCO code copied verbatum into Linux has deteriorated into some bizzare 'non-literal copying' legal theory which means IBM's motion to declare there is no SCO copyrighted code in Linux appears to have a very real chance of being granted. Just where is this heap of evidence Darl? The only heap produced by SCO seems to fall under the catagory of fertilizer.
geez... maybe I forgot to adjust my tinfoil hat properly for today's particular alignment of the sun and planets but I would never have thought to question that e-mails said to have been given during discovery were indeed given during discovery.
After the WMD ficaso hasn't the term "smoking gun" been redefined to mean "imcriminating evidence (that we would like to find)"?
As long as those monkeys land on the desk of a prosecutor who's got political aspirations, or an SEC head should he actually be something more than theif himself, I'll look foreward to the house falling on Darryl.
1) We need to make sure those convicted of securities violations can't collect their paychecks. The head of Fog Cutter pled guilty will collect more than a million bucks for a job he won't be showing up to (they don't let you work for the company in prison) and get a multimillion dollar bonus. If I stole from the shareholders of the company I work for, I doubt the executives would be so generous to me.
2) We need to start taking them down like they were drug dealers and lived in crack dens. Foot on the neck. Booked in with bruises and minor cuts. Sometimes shot for menacing the TV with a remote control. None of this turn yourself in crap.
3) They need to be in general population.
"Who put wrote that code here? It's just as shitty as SCO's system!"
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Wake me up when SCO actually says it in court. What they say to the press is so disconnected from reality that I refuse to bother worrying about "what if" this one happens to actually be true.
Why don't SCO And Linspire join forces, along with an army of fingernails and chalkboards. And some of those things they sell on mexican streetcorners that click loudly when you shake them.
Great article at Groklaw about this very thing. Note it's from a year ago.
As an IBM employee, I can say that this would have had to be deliberate and in all likelihood illegal. IBM is really touchy about email, and all messages are stored in encrypted-up-the-butt Lotus Notes databases.
Seems to me that this is a nice end-run for SCO to allow them to claim that they have "sold" a whole bunch more of those Linux licenses (as part of a "package deal") in order to give that license some additional, but false, credibility.
Somehow "drinkypoo's law" doesn't have the same ring...
They're like those "MIT rocket scientists" - figments of the overactive lizard portion of Darl's brain.
Oooooo what a boost. A fill $.65. WOW! I guess I hit the lottery on this one. What with all my 10 shares of SCOX* I'm in "high cotton". And that smoking gun, Whoooo hoooo! SCOX might reach $5.50 after all this is over with.
"happy days are here again...."
* understand me, I would rather blow John Kerry than own SCO stock.
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
Believe it when you see it in court, and nowhere else. If we took them at their word, we'd (most of us I suspect) all be $699 poorer by now. To my recollection there has not been a single release from SCO which has not been spun or otherwise doctored the straight goods into something more palatable for current and potential SCO investors (if there's such a thing).
In most circles this is called self-incrimination. It is the duty of SCO to prove that IBM was involved in wrongdoing, not the other way around. If you dig deep enough into any companies documents I'm sure you will find evidince of many minor crimes. (come on kids, copyright infringement is easy to do and easy to overlook -- welcome to zero marginal cost of copying)
Shouldn't the whole damn thing be thrown out, on the basis that SCO never had a basis in the first place, and IBM incriminated themselves?
-- Bob
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
Your point is good, but I'm not sure that invoking the 'drinkypoo law' will carry much weight around here.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
But this is unrelated to the alleged Linux IP violations that lead to the fishing expedition in the first place. Certainly there must be limits on what you can do with evidence handed over this way, otherwise the courts would be a tool for corporate espionage.
No, the stock market isn't about SCO being right or wrong - it's all about guessing how the market will react despite facts.
For instance, ENRON sucked rocks, but the market itself kept it pumped up - resulting in some people making lots of cash. Of course, many people lost lots of cash.
Most people want to be in the first group, and to avoid being in the second.
Regardless of SCO being right of wrong, it's all about money. That's why businesses lobby congress and the president - corporations do NOT care about being right or wrong for America - they care about making globs of money.
Look at how Google got tons of crap from Wall Street after they stated that they wanted to do good for society! Heck, do you know of a business school that permits students to concentrate on ethics??? Fuck no!
"All your codebase are belong to us"
I think the most insightful, or at least amusing, thing I've read about this case lately was found at the bottom of the forbes article:
Indeed, SCO says the company's biggest investor, BayStar Capital, has been pushing SCO to drop its Unix business altogether and simply become a litigation machine, bringing intellectual property-related lawsuits. But SCO insists it remains committed to selling Unix software--when it's not busy fighting people in court.
First of all, it's SCO word that such an agreement existed between IBM. Second, given the Novell case, SCO doesn't even know what it owns and doesn't own with regard to Unix. They may not have rights to SVR4.
While searching documents provided by IBM for the Linux lawsuit, SCO claims to have found "smoking gun" e-mail messages in which IBM employees acknowledge that IBM was using SVR4 on PowerPC-based systems without a proper license.
Okay, so we have an email saying that an employee put SVR4 on an PowerPC. So? Take away their SVR4 license.
McBride says IBM ignored that restriction and used SVR4 to build a version of AIX--AIX 5L, released in 2001--that runs on IBM's proprietary PowerPC microprocessor. (SCO claims that until then, AIX had been based on Unix System V Release 3, an earlier version of Unix.)
That's quite a leap of logic from some employee using SVR4 in an illegal way to putting into AIX RL5. It's like that "And then a miracle occurs . . ." proof.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
These could become the red swingline staplers of the new millenium. Print licenses on toilet paper, tissues.
This may not matter if the Novell-SCO litigation goes in Novell's favor. But here's the points:
1. Contrary to some above misinformed posters, SCO didn't have to commit espionage to get internal IBM e-mails. The discovery process in a lawsuit like this involves both sides turning over mountains of documents and e-mails. I'm sure this is where SCO found this information.
2. Novell claims they still own UNIX. Novell says that SCO only has a (revokable) license to license UNIX to others. Novell has already exercised their right to revoke SCO's UNIX-licensing powers as regards IBM, back when SCO claimed to be revoking IBM's license. Novell effectively said, "We run the show here, SCO, and IBM is legitimately licensed in our book."
The point then is that if Novell wins their SCO case, then this "smoking gun" is actually a wilted flower. Novell can provide IBM with a license for AIX, if they actually need one, and any damages IBM might owe could be paid to their buddy Novell, not SCO. (This part I'm less certain about, and depends on the extent to which Novell wins their case.)
Anyway, as others have pointed out, this doesn't affect Linux at all, and as I'm pointing out, it may not even affect IBM's use of UNIX. Nothing to see here... Move along...
Like Digital Freedoms? Then donate to EFF before they're gone.
That would require the moderators to shoulder the onerous burden of reading the article, themselves. Mod first, read later..
Weapons of Mass Analysis
This tactic sounds soo familiar.. Where did I hear that again? .. Umm....
.. Oh yea.. they went to court and had NOTHING.
OH YEA.. It was when they claimed their 'smoking gun' with the millions of lines of code they discovered that were exact copies with the headers changed/removed.
Now, remind me again what happend with all that?
I now firmly believe that Darl and his cronies are sitting in his office each week betting on wether Darl can inflate the stock price or not for a given time period. I can think of no other explination...
bork bork bork!
Maybe the drinkypoo corollary would sound better than drinkypoo's law?
Generally most copyright violations these days are violations of the DMCA, simply because it's the latest attempt to define copyright.
Also, while I'm being pedantic, CSS has nothing to do with "copy protection circumvention", it's an access control not copy control. Both are (to my surprise, I knew about the access control thing and someone recently put me right about copy controls) protected by the DMCA, but the DMCA is about far more than just circumventing copy and access control mechanisms.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This kind of tinfoil speculation gets modded up to 5?! The article SAYS they were given in discovery. And WHY would IBM give them forged emails that would make them look guilty?
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
The article is surprisingly useless.
What do you mean useless? Lyons did his job as a paid shill for SCO and made sure the stock got pumped today.
While the lambs are buying into SCOX on the recommendations of SCO-paid shills like Lyons and The Enderle Troll (who just a few days ago called SCOX a great investment), the insiders and big holders are having a nice little lamb slaughter unloading their stock.
Note how SCO didn't go to court with their "new hot evidence", they went to a paid shill. Now, why is that?
Belief is the currency of delusion.
...until they get into court. They oughta put SCO in front of Judge Judy, she'll rip 'em a new one and then some.
I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
They were part of the ton of paper IBM handed SCO as a part of the discovery in the current lawsuit.
....be ye wary those that suggest a legal tangle with IBM. It should be well known that that the army of lawyers IBM employs are not to be messed with.SCO are tools, we know that. If they want to burn through their last bit of cash, yeah, start it up with IBM...things will not go well.
That's exactly what the original complaint was (ie, misuse of SCO code into AIX), so they're well withing their rights.
SCO has really screwed the pooch here. Darl is going to be found in contempt.
Bet?
Okay, I'm done wiping the tears of joy from my eyes. ./ gave me my good laugh for the day and helped further my belief that SCO are just a bunch of money hungry whoremongers.
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
I'm not sure what "hefty boost" they're talking about. Follow the link and have a look at their stock - it's still nearly worthless (at least compared to what it was). In fact, because of how much it's tumbled, the default display (at least over at Yahoo) is logarithmic. Look at the linear scale and see just how hefty this boost really is.
"I am Dr. Freud, but you may call me.siggy."
If they did find stuff like that, it would not matter in the Multi-Billion dollar lawsuit at all.
They would have to start another lawsuit with this claim. The current MB lawsuit is about misappropriation of code to linux, not about AIX at all.
So THIS smoking gun, means nothing to the lawsuit they are elluding to. AFAIKT
Scott Carr
IBM has already asserted that SCO's code contains some violations of IBM patents, so if SCO pulls out this gun, IBM may well pull out a cannon.
so SCO starts making noise again? This is too much just to be a coincidence. It seems M$ is yanking Darl's strings again.
i wanted to mod some of these so bad, but there are a few things that need to be posted.
1. TSCOG claims that they are using source code that IBM never had a licence for.
well, if SCO never made them agree to a license, then why did they give them the code(if they did at all).
2. the wording makes it sound like they still have a valid licence for the older code.
The real issue here is that SCO notified IBM that they were revoking IBM's SysV license which is required for IBM to ship AIX. IBM's license says that it is irrevokable(sp?), and so they have ignored the revokation notice, especially with Novell's support.
Note that this leaves IBM in an interesting position. It is remotely possible that the court could hold that IBM's license had been revoked or at least the terms exceeded as in Sun v. Microsoft. And they could rule that Novell did not retain the right to waive the revokation. In this case, IBM does not have a license and the distribution is probably some form of infringement on SCO's rights under the contract. However, this seems to me to be a very remote possibility, and extremely unlikely.
Nevertheless, I am sure that executives mentioned it and discussed ways of mitigating the risk. SCO has found this to be a smoking gun, but the only issue here is that it shows that IBM was discussing worst-case scenarios.
SCO is just up to their old games. Nothing new.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Every time SCO rolls the dice praying for a 7. They get snake eyes.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Being a legal assistant, let me assure you that though this is a bit far-fetched, all the article says is that it's discovery, and discovery doesn't mean that it came from the records department of IBM. It "could" have turned up durings some investigators interview with a disgrunted ex-SCOer, or some other questionable source.
To get the most complete picture possible, attorneys will pull in discovery from as many sources as possible. Then through comparison it's determined how reliable those sources are and which, if any, of them will actually be presented in court.
But, SCO does have a history of grasping at straws...
Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
This is bad news for IBM but the situation as it pertains to Linux is unchanged.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
And after that, they'll buy Novell. Then, they'll lay claim to the Linux kernel itself and threaten to shutdown kernel development work with patent suits.
How about this paragraph at the end:
Indeed, SCO says the company's biggest investor, BayStar Capital, has been pushing SCO to drop its Unix business altogether and simply become a litigation machine, bringing intellectual property-related lawsuits. But SCO insists it remains committed to selling Unix software--when it's not busy fighting people in court.
Says a log for what they see as being important.
you can bet that it is at least a gross exageration of the truth, at a minimum.
More than likely, it is an outright, bald-faced lie.
Well that's okay, you can call me "drink". I wish I had gotten here a little sooner, because "drInk" is already a slashdot user. (If I knew how to get ahold of him, I would ask if I could have his account, which he doesn't seem to use.) I've been known as "drink" on the 'net since 1991, when I got an account on gorn, a UUCP Node, and followed it up with an account on deeptht.armory.com...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It is in the process of being groklaw'd already.
... and furthermore
I also consider it rather likely that IBM stopped negotiating with SCO about the r4 code when it bacame clear that it would be easier and cheaper to just rewrite the changed code from scratch.
Until and unless I see more from SCO than random mutterings, I'm not going to think too much about it. I don't have any stock to short.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Unless of course they are rewarding you for being the fall guy and protecting the company from further scrutiny that might put more people and money at risk.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
Would it be possible for us to have a class action lawsuit against SCO if they lose the case?
Can we as a community seek damages against SCO for all their FUD they are spreading? Surely you can't just go do this and not have anything done about it.
Wait you are in the US....
I am honestly wondering why SCO hasn't be sensored yet, if that's the correct term.
It can be proven, I'm sure, that they have lied to the media regarding their claims, and it doesn't take on long to speculate as to why. Given the amount of absolute bullshitting they've done, I wonder why a judge in one of the cases or the stock exchange itself hasn't sensored them yet.
Not mute them, just make them filter their "press releases" through an independant body.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
There is a healthly discussion on this over at Groklaw. After reading through the Montery contract it was SCO that was limited to only using IBMs work on platforms other than x86.
On top of that it says that both parties license extends beyond the end of the project, and is irrevocable.
Even if it is true it is IBM's problem not Linux's and just goes to show that closed sourceness doesn't guarantee that the software you use doesn't infringe any copyright contrarily to what SCO seemed to imply by decrying taht open sourceness doesn't guarantee it either.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
SCO's claim against AIX based on the inclusions of SVR5 code is only valid if it's SCO's to license. While SCO does have the right to issue SVR4 licenses, it seems quite probable, and is likely to be made final by a court soon, that SCO does not/i> own SVR4 copyrights at all. Novell retained them. So if there is an aggrieved party with a cause of action against IBM, it's Novell. But if Novell decides that there's no problem, then SCO is SOL.
And that of course assumes that SCO's claims are otherwise valid, which is fairly unlikely given their record of mendacity.
...it's jusr Darl and his uther bruther Darl talking out their asses. No sense getting in a tizzy over this until it is submitted to the court as evidence as to why discovery should continue.
/* increment counter a */
the smoking gun is probably:
a++;
As seen on Wired: Get a free desktop PC
Who on earth cares what McNugget tells a paid stooge of Lyon's caliber? So now its AIX that contains....
'millions of lines of line-for-line copied code'.
Paint up the stock price and dump those shares, boys. See any insiders buying this turnip?
BFD.
SH
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.
looks like we slashdotted yahoo... thats impressive
Whats most interesting about this story (and I'll reserve ANY judgement until I see it in court - I'm still waiting for SCO's copyright claims to be filed since Dec 2003, and that was promised in open court!) is whats NOT being talked about. What happened to Linux? In this instance certainly, and more generally all during SCOForum, SCO has been talking about Unix, and ignoring Linux. I think this is a great show of their final admittance that their Linux claims/cases are bogus. In regards to the "smoking bullet", they just didn't "find" this stuff today, they have had it for a while I'd assume, and I haven't seen any amendments in court. Not to mention, discovery is almost finished, and I would bet there are contradictory documents (affidavitts, deps) SCO has certified that say nothing of this. Didn't IBM ask SCO already (and they replied) regarding violations of SCO code in Linux, Dynix, and AIX?
This Groklaw report from SCOForum conference came down the pipes of one of the LUG mailing lists I belong to. Apparently they mentioned the IBM/AIX "bombshell" in private interviews during the same conference. I wonder why they didn't announce it on the stage?
-R
I heard that joke on the Daily Show. They were interviewing college kids about Ralf Nater.
DS: "Finish this line, 'When Nater becomes president...'"
Kid: "Uhh... America will be on the right track."
DS: "No, thats wrong. The right answer is, "Monkeys will fly out of my ass".
This has nothing to do with Linux, or IBM's motion for a preliminary injunction. IBM has asked the court to find that SCO has found no UNIX in Linux. SCO's "smoking gun" says they found UNIX in AIX. Gee, big surprise. That's why IBM pays licensing fees for AIX. All SCO is claiming is that they should have paid more. Of course Forbe's -- impartial reporters that they are -- can't resist a gratuitous jab at "Linux zealots", but Linux just is not involved here.
Nothing to see here, just SCO blowing their usual smoke.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Linux Community, smoking guns found: 2032
SCO, smoking guns found: 1
Oh yeah, we're in big trouble.
Um, dude, speaking of reading comprehension, I think maybe you need some practice too. The entire next subsection is entitled "License to IBM of Licensed SCO Materials and SCO Project Work".
Groklaw has changed the nature of lawsuits revolving around OSS
Forbes has yet to come to grips with it
Reminds me of the way the Kremlin is portrayed in a 1980's spy novel
Someone needs to beat them with the clue stick.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
If they spent as much time on product development as they do researching lawsuits, they might be a company that has quality products.
Quid Pro Quo, nothing more, nothing less.
Bush announces (last year) that "we found WMDs in Iraq".
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
This is not something I believe for a minute!
This new claim is just the latest twist in a tangled story that began in March 2003 when SCO sued IBM, claiming IBM's programmers stole code from Unix, to which SCO holds some copyrights
It's funny how it went from "SCO owns UNIX" in the beginning of the lawsuit to "SCO holds some copyrights".
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
I know everyone wants to succeed. You don't want to be a complete failure, all the time. But the fact is SCO Group is on it's way out the door. It might very well just become one big team of lawyers, and it might get sold off for razor blades. Who knows?
What is obvious is they are on a sprial, downward.
The medical term for this condition is "brain death". Sometimes you just let go, and remember the good ole' dayz when Utah was a desirable state to live and work in...
Score, -1, disinformative. The DMCA is not a general copyright act. It includes two major divisions. One sets up rules which exempt ISPs from liability for copyright violations provided they jump through certain hoops -- this is a tricky way of avoiding 1st amendment scrutiny while mandating those hoops (which amount to the ability of a copyright holder to obtain the equivalent of a permanent restraining order against an alleged infringer without the benefit of a hearing). This is 17 USC 512. It's clearly unconstitutional prior restraint, but the Golden Rule says otherwise. The other major provision is the anti-circumvention section, 17 USC 1201. This is what disallows bypassing access controls or manufacturing, trafficking in, or marketing devices which allow bypassing of access or copy controls. Curiously, the 512 provisions don't apply to the 1201 provisions -- that is, a copyright holder can't send a valid takedown notice to an ISP based on a user making available a tool which bypasses technological prevention measures. None of this has any bearing on SCO v. IBM at all.
"There are a lot of people on here that are just going to blindly dismiss it. Also, I don't give two shits about SCO, my point is that everyone should try and look at what's going on objectively because there is a lot at stake."
... just what they file in court.
You cannot be objective when you do not have any of the facts.
So far, the ONLY thing you have is that SCO said something to a reporter.
SCO has, in the past, told reporters that millions of lines of Linux code was stolen from SCO.
Until SCO takes this to court, I'm going to believe that they're spewing more crap.
"Now, IBM developers have been contributing a lot to the Linux kernel. Who do you think they got to write the kernel code? Probably a good chance that it was people that were familiar with AIX. IBM is going to have to prove that there was a clear seperation of Linux developers and developers exposed to the SVR4 and Project Monterey code. Otherwise the Linux code is at risk too from this new discovery."
Too many "probably"'s and such in that statement. Again, without any FACTS, it's just worthless speculation.
It isn't up to IBM to prove that they're clean, it's up to SCO to establish that IBM is dirty. So far, SCO has failed to do that time and time again. Despite having all the Linux source code.
"If you look at what happened, SCO and IBM teamed up to work on a 64 bit version of Unix for 64 bit intel processors. IBM backed out of the deal and in doing so SCO claims IBM also backed out of their licensing agreement for SVR4 code."
And, again, SCO has claimed that millions of lines of stolen code were in Linux. It doesn't matter what SCO claims
"Yet AIX is now an SVR4 Unix and there is no licensing agreement for it. This aspect of the case doesn't seem unreasonable enough to not give SCO the benefit of the doubt enough to let them have their day in court."
How many days in court are YOU willing to give them?
Hint: Look up the word "barratry"
he has a good point :)
One of the reasons for this is that by talking, you're providing your opponents with ammunition to shoot you with. A couple of times now IBM lawyers have presented the judge with public statements by Darl McBride to support their own case.
Darl just can't keep stop talking. I can understand why - he's got his company share price to promote - but making detailed public statements about ongoing court cases has and will continue to bite him on the ass.
If he had half a brain, Darl would let his lawyers do the talking. That's what they are paid for.
One certain thing is that SCO has lost none of its appetite for litigation. To date the firm has sued IBM, Novell (nasdaq: NOVL - news - people ), AutoZone (nyse: AZ - news - people ) and DaimlerChrysler (nyse: DCX - news - people ). Also, SCO has been sued by Red Hat (nasdaq: RHAT - news - people ). Now SCO threatens to bring a new complaint against IBM.
Indeed, SCO says the company's biggest investor, BayStar Capital, has been pushing SCO to drop its Unix business altogether and simply become a litigation machine, bringing intellectual property-related lawsuits. But SCO insists it remains committed to selling Unix software--when it's not busy fighting people in court.
doesn't sound very pro-SCOG, to me...
Here's a url for that quote you have:
http://www.freeos.com/articles/2985/
"IBM puts stuff it learned from Monterye into AIX (according to a quote from an IBM VP I posted above)."
The point is, was there anything ILLEGAL or IN VIOLATION OF A CONTRACT about any of that (if it did happen)?
You don't know because you haven't seen the contracts.
All you have is a statement from SCO to a reporter about it.
And, again, SCO has previously told reporters that there were millions of lines of stolen SCO code in Linux.
Until this is presented in court, with the contracts, there is no reason to believe SCO is doing anything more than spreading crap. Just like their claim of millions of lines of stolen code.
"They also claim that AIX is awesome Linux maye one day not suck as much. AIX got even better because of Monterey, Linux got much better through, who knows."
Yes, we all know that. That was what SCO was originally going on about to the reporters. Linux improved so fast that there MUST be stolen code in it.
Then SCO claimed that they had FOUND the stolen code. Millions of lines of it.
"That "who knows" is the issue because IBM was a big part of Linux getting to where it is now. So was SGI (mulitprocessor scaling) which was also an SVR4 licensee."
*sigh*
I know that there is no way to discuss a matter with a conspiracy nut.
SCO has made all those claims to reporters before.
When called to support them in court, SCO could not support a SINGLE claim.
But stay with your speculation. I'm sure it makes you feel more intelligent and objective.
Meanwhile, SCO will be unable to produce a single line of stolen code or a single contract that was violated. Those will be the facts.
But a fact never stopped a conspiracy nut.
There -is- a corresponding paragraph entitled "License to IBM of Licensed SCO Materials and SCO Project Work":
I never said there wasn't. What I *did* say was that there is no limitation on IBM to only use the licensed code on a particular platform.
Please show me where it says otherwise.
The DMCA consists of five divisions (titles). The very first is to implement the WIPO treaties, which includes but isn't specific to the provisions on access and copy controls. It covers though the general WIPO agreements to harmonize copyright law with those treaties. To quote the summary:
It also clarifies the law on a range of issues from online broadcasting to contractual agreements between content makers and publishers particularly in the movie industry.That makes it a general copyright act in my book.
Why don't you read the whole thing here?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Um, dude, speaking of reading comprehension, I think maybe you need some practice too. The entire next subsection is entitled "License to IBM of Licensed SCO Materials and SCO Project Work".
Umm, dude, speaking of reading comprehension, it's *YOU* that needs some practice, specifically because the last paragraph in my post said: There is no corresponding paragraph in the section entitled "License to IBM of Licensed SCO Materials and SCO Project Work"
Really - go and check - I'll wait.
See, now don't you feel stupid by pointing out that there's a section called that, right after I explicitly said the exact same thing? Especially when the reason I said the exact same thing was to call your attention to the fact that there it contains no platform-limiting paragraph?
1. The license grants contained in this section shall apply to all SCO Third Party Licensed Materials (...) the IA-32 Product and the IA-64 Product. (This doesn't quite get the exact meaning across, but it's especially clear from the capitalization that IA-32 and IA-64 are in reference to the products being licensed and not to architectures.)
2. (...) SCO hereby grants to IBM a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty free, perpetual and irrevocable right and license to (...) (i) prepare or have prepared Derivative Works (...) limited only as specifically described in Section (e) below. (Still nothing about an architectural limitation, and granting the license to make derivative works is a strong feather in IBM's cap that they were allowed to port it. But it gets better.)
Here's a section you didn't quote, the aforementioned section (e):
(e) Source Code Sublicensing
With respect to either party's Licensed Materials and Project Work contained in the IA-64 Product (as described in applicable Project Supplements), both parties rights to sublicense Source Code to third parties under the sections (c)(2) and (d)(2) above, shall be limited in the following manner: When IBM sublicenses the IA-64 Product containing Licensed SCO Materials and/or SCO Project Work in Source Code form or when SCO sublicenses the IA-64 Product containing Licensed IBM Materials and/or IBM Project Work in Source Code form, the parties shall not grant the third party the right to further grant source sublicenses to the other party's Licensed Materials or Project Work. Further, when licensing such Source Code, both parties shall only grant the right to create Derivative Works required for the following purposes:
1. Maintenance and support;
2. Translation and localization;
3. Porting, optimization and extensions;
4. Any other Derivative Works agreed to by SCO and IBM.
So on the one hand you've got the contract explicitly stating that IBM was allowed to prepare and distribute Derivative Works, and even that they could in turn allow sublicensees of those Derivative Works to port them, while on the other SCO is saying they never gave IBM the right to port it themselves?
Shyeah, right. Let's see if they can make the judge buy that line of FUD.
Looking at their quarterly income statements, balance sheet, and cash flow statement, you can see that they will need a good story to convince investors that they are not the smelliest turd on Wall Street. And their July 31, 2004 data is just about to drop another stinking pile of bad news on an already shitty company.
Too bad someone like Lyons doesn't read the financial sections of Yahoo! instead of hanging on Darl's every word.
But I guess only zealots read Yahoo! financials.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Whoops, hit reply too quickly.
Sorry, I did say that there wasn't - and there isn't.
There is a *SECTION* but it doesn't say anywhere in there that IBM is limited to using the code on a particular platform.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
What SCO is spreading is nothing but Rumor, Gossip, and Bullshit. Just like from day one of the IBM lawsuit. Thats their entire arsenal, not one bit of fact anywhere.
The remains of this carcass will have nothing to pick over. The legal vultures might starve.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Novell claims they still own UNIX. Novell says that SCO only has a (revokable) license to license UNIX to others.
I thought SCO had bought from Novell an *exclusive* license to market the unix code for Novell, subject only to limitations from previous contracts (which would limit the rights that Novell had to give them).
As such Novell couldn't just arbitrarily turn it off, since SCO paid for it, and Novell couldn't issue new licenses without turning it off.
Novell has already exercised their right to revoke SCO's UNIX-licensing powers as regards IBM, back when SCO claimed to be revoking IBM's license. Novell effectively said, "We run he show here, SCO, and IBM is legitimately licensed in our book."
If so hurrah!
But I haven't seen anything other than your post to indicate that this is the case.
Perhaps I just missed it, since I haven't been following Novell v. SCO, nor as closely as I'd like SCO v. IBM.
Can you point me to it?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Whats most interesting ... is whats NOT being talked about. What happened to Linux?
If SCO can show that IBM is using code SCO owns without the proper license, the next step is to show that IBM contributed that code to Linux without having the right to do so.
Other than that I don't see any impact for Linux.
But last time I looked SCO was only claiming that IBM contributed its OWN code to Linux, but that the IBM-written code was contaminated by being a "derivative work" of copyrighted Unix code, over which SCO gatekeeps the rights. A long chain for SCO to forge, which currently has at least two links cooking in the court system.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
...until I see or hear it come from someone who isn't Daniel Lyons. That guy has consistently been on about how "Linux-loving crunchies" should "wake up" because "these guys in Utah are no dummies"... "What SCO wants, SCO gets"... "SCO is on to something"... etc., etc., ad infinitum... As far as I know he has only once briefly entertained the possibility that SCO might be anything but a bunch of shining, white knights, and as far as I'm concerned his copy is of absolutely no value. Unless, that is, you have caged birds or want for toilet paper.
Making the world a better place, one psychotic episode at a time.
Barratry, fraud, libel -- there are a few terms for what new-SCO likes to pull.
What Darl and his crack pipe forget, as per usual, is that AIX5L is AIX + Linux compatability. Monterey was specifically related to an x86 port of AIX, which as far as I know was never done.
I seriously, seriously doubt that IBM's lawyers allowed AIX5L to be released without addressing the engineer's notes about any IP issues. It's perfectly normal to flag potential issues to management, and hardly a "smoking gun."
Anyone who has ever dealt with IBM's legal team knows damn well they cover all their bases. If someone mentioned the possibility of a problem, I am quite comfortable assuming IBM's lawyers followed up on it before proceeding.
Will somebody please just shoot SCO's "lawyers" already? There has been more than enough damage to the industry over their bullshit, and it's far past time for them to prove something, shut the hell up, or be arrested on barratry and worse.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
didn't this whole bloody SCO mess start because their operating systems were no damn good and the linux licences were their best chance of making money?
Oh well, I suppose one more abrupt and self-contradictory U-turn from McBride isn't going to scare off any investors or customers who haven't already bailed out..
It's clearly a trap.
Step 1: Sell "Linux Licences" with SCO UNIX software.
Step 2: Find company who bought & runs SCO UNIX, thinks SCOs Linux claims are bogus, and runs Linux in addition to SCO UNIX.
Step 3: Sue customer for violating licence agreement.
Step 4: ???
Step 5: PROFIT!
Based on your reply, you are not a professional in the legal field. I can see you are confused by what discovery is, where it comes from, and how it's used.
Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.
If IBM burned to the ground in a similar manner, who would be affected?
Just my way of helping you understand who's important here -- and who's not.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
What's funny about this to me, is that no matter how many times the law firm of Santa, Cruz & Operation et. al decides to sue someone the only losers are SCO and the poor schmuck who happened to have the story linked on /.
i can promise you, that there isn't a single piece of paper handed to sco from ibm that hasn't be examined to the Nth degree. so i completely ignore their claim of "discovering" anything given to them unintentionally. until they hand overf said memos i think their bullshiting. and we all know sco's record of handing over evidence to back up their claims.
this darl character is a big big wanker plain and simple. and did anyone RTA? does this journo have sco stock or something, way to talk up this bullshit statement.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
In the SCO case specifically, "smoking gun" basically means nothing more or less than "Darl's going on a fishing expedition and he's just bought some bait".
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
That would explain a lot. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
We need more mod categories. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
MS's market is worth about (raises pinky) one beeeellion dollars a month, so stopping a 1% drop in that is worth $10 million a month to them, short-term.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I sometimes wonder if he bothers to read conflicting evidence. His articles all sing the same song, are universal in their denial - and damning-with-faint-praise is as close as he gets to "balance".
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Cockroaches? (-:
I quite enjoyed the Linspire Flash ad, even if their actual setup (running as root? morons!) sucks.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
On this news, SCO's stock jumped five points as more clueless, mostly stupid investors with learning disabilities threw more of their money away.
I swear just about the time you swear SCO has screwed up so much that their stock will permanently stay tanked Darl pulls another rumor out of his ass and sends their stock up 12.33%. Unbelievable.
But you haven't formulated it properly:
The possibility that a discussion that touches in any way on so called Intellectual Property (IP) will degenerate into a flame war on the DMCA approaches 1.
I suggest we call this the Drink-Factor corollary, as I deserve credit for doing the hard work. =)
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
They (SCO) really should stick to their pipe. This is getting more and more dangerous for them.
...that sounds like the right company. )-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...whole thing laughable and disappear tomorrow.
Hostile Takeover
You can't sue yourself, and then they can release all of SCO's code under the GPL and laugh at the whole thing from afar...