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.
>SCO claims to have found internal IBM e-mails
>
>This is a form of espionage which is illegal >without a court order.
Umm, RTFA, dude:
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.
This is a form of espionage which is illegal without a court order.
Except they found them in IBM E-mails turned over as part of the SCO vs IBM court case.
IBM bought a the rights long before SCOX even created.
SCO says they bought the rights to v3 and are using v4. If they didn't buy the rights to v4 I can acutally see SCO having a case here.
Remember, its important to read the article in full before coming up with reasoning as to why SCO is wrong
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.
Great article at Groklaw about this very thing. Note it's from a year ago.
The e-mails were part of discovery for the court case. That means IBM knows and has known about them for quite some time and yet continues with the countersuit and case in general without settlement.
To me, that means the rumors have no merit.
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.
kfhickel says > Umm, RTFA, dude:
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.
Nevertheless, you cannot go on fishing expeditions through discovery documents for alleged infractions that weren't part of your original complaint. Furthermore, and far more egregiously, you cannot share with the world information you found in confidence during discovery.
SCO has really screwed the pooch here. Darl is going to be found in contempt.
That said, it is hard to hold back when reporters come calling. Dan Lyons, in particular, is good at wheedling info that probably shouldn't be shared.
Thad Beier
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Well, IBM unfortunately mentions some taken over features explicitly on their own website:
t ry .html
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/aix/overview/indus
"About AIX 5L
[...]
This release also contains UNIX System 5 Release 4 (SVR4) standard components such as the SVR4 Print Subsystem.
"
If IBM indeed doesn't have a license for those, then I would doubt they would be allowed to include them. But in that context, IBM would also have been pretty stupid touting these features in public...
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?
AIX has run on PowerPC chips since 3.2.5, circa 1993. This was the PowerPC 601, in the RS/6000 7011 Model 250. (Earlier models of the 7011 used the truly awful RSC (RISC Single Chip) CPU, which was the 7-chip (or was it 9?) low-end POWER CPU wedged onto a single die.) Development of a certain OS from Cupertino was done with the aid of both POWER- and PowerPC-based RS/6000 systems from IBM, including IBM's compilers and a cross-linker to generate Mac executables with AIX.
Version 4 of AIX allowed AIX to run on non-Microchannel PowerPC machines, both RS/6000 and Personal Computer, as well as Microchannel POWER, POWER2 and PowerPC. Modern POWER3 and POWER4 CPUs are really high-end PowerPC designs with the POWER brand-name.
Version 5 of AIX is the 3rd version to run on PowerPCs. (Version 1 ran on Microchannel i86 machines (PS/2), and Version 2 ran on RT/PC (IBM's first RISC machine).)
That makes scox current price attractive for short sale. currently my message from etrade is that they can't find any shares to borrow:
Your sell short order cannot be processed. Short sales in this security are not allowed, as we were unable to borrow the shares. hmmm the market isn't as entirely clueless as most of us think.
this sig is deprecated
Excuse me!
You don't have to get your evidence from the conversations on Groklaw, but they have an extensive library of all the court filings. I don't know what kind of SCO troll you are exactly but it is clear that at this point SCO has shown exactly ZERO evidence of IBM wrongdoing! Just go to Groklaw and follow the "Legal Docs" link which are the actual court filings. I've read almost all of them.
The only chance that SCO has right now is for the judge to feel sorry for them and grant them discovery access to all AIX code dating back to 1985. But that would only forestall the inevitable and would in no way indicate SCO has a case. They have provided nothing to IBM in terms of copyright violations, thus IBM's motion for Summary Judgement that IBM's actions of any sort with Linux do not violate SCO's copyrights. Once they win on that one(which they will, again unless the judge simply puts it off to give SCO more time), the contract violation claim will go down in a heep of flames.
By the way, if the judge does grant SCO more discovery than he's either being overly generous or he's been bought. I would prefer to think the former. And no, there's no need to think he believes SCO. IBM's Summary Judgement request relies only on code that SCO has had total and complete access to, 1) the Linux kernel and 2) SCO Unix System V. Both are completely in the hands of SCO, they don't need AIX source code to show IBM is violating their copyrights. Since IBM has asked for the "mountain of evidence" that SCO supposedly had and has received exactly ZERO, ZILCH, NADDA, they will win the Summary Judgement claim!
So as a troll you've done well, you've wasted my time but that's all you've done.
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
Which begs the question... if it is on IBM's website, why did SCO have to find this through discovery? Why go through all those documents when you could just tell the judge to point their browser to IBM's page?
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
Stock price is based on a company's PERCEIVED value, not it's ACTUAL value. Sometimes perception is in line with reality; sometimes they're so far apart it's not even funny.
Perception is a function of human psychology; understand that and you'll have a better understanding of how people will react in a given situation.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
At first I was trying to figure out what Trademark law had to do with this. After a search or two, I found this info. Just an FYI for anyone who wants to know what the parent is talking about.
To the parent: thanks for the info! This may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. If the judge awards IBM damages for violation of the Lanham Act, IBM might just end up owning the Unix licensing business! (Through liquidation of assets during bankruptcy procedures, in case anyone's interested.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
It is in the process of being groklaw'd already.
... and furthermore
Unless the lawyers for the other side are incompetent, they will know more or less everything you might have to use against them well before trial. Either because it will be documents you are required to present to them, or because they'll have carefully crafted discovery requests and motions to figure out what you've got.
In this particular case, you'll find that IBM for instance have asked for summary judgement on some of SCO's claims because IBM claim they haven't produced any evidence. If successfull, those claims will never even reach trial. SCO's only way around that is to point out with specificity to the judge any shred of evidence they might have regarding those particular claims.
Which means that either IBM gets rid of the claims, or they get a detailed overview of what evidence SCO will be using to justify those claims during trial, allowing them to target the specific evidence in their further discovery and other preparations.
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.
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.
"In regards to the AIX code, yes we do"
Umm, no we don't. Just because Project Monteray was focused on a 64-bit Unix doesn't mean that IBM was restricted by a license to keeping AIX on a single platform. A number of the licenses are buried in Groklaw's "Legal Docs" link. I could go look, but it would surprise me greatly if the license refered to a hardware platform rather than the use of Unix System V for general IBM development purposes of AIX.
By the way, Project Moneterey didn't die in negotiation. It actually produced tangible code that IBM simply didn't release.
Lastly, if you read the court filings by SCO you will discover that they could win a court case against IBM for contract violation(VERY doubtful) and still lose the war. Nothing in SCO's lawsuit with IBM has anything to do with SCO's property rights vis-a-vis Linux. They never filed a copyright claim against IBM(with regards to Linux), they dropped their trade-secret claim, and they have never filed any patent claims. In other words, every word uttered out of SCO's mouth with regards to IP violations in Linux is completely and absolutely FALSE.
But you don't have to believe me, just read the court filings, they're (almost) all there on Groklaw.
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
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.
Buzzz! Wrong. PPC = an implementation of IBM's Power architecture. AIX has run on the Power architecture since the late 80s. (I first used AIX on a Power RT system in 1990.)
Project Monterey was intended to port Unix to Intel/HP's Itanium processors. Project Montery actually ran for several years; it fell apart when IBM realized that the Itanium processors were (1) not going to arrive on time, and (2) weren't going to have the power that Intel predicted.
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
Seriously, I think so too. I visited finance.yahoo.com a lot and when the site became unresponsive I become suspicious, so I checked out slashdot and there was the prominent link right to their chart generator.
Silly slashdot! Why not link just link directly to NYSE instead?
No, it is baloney.
Whoever gave that interview didn't read the contract properly - it states that SCO is the one who's not allowed to use the software on anything other than i386, not IBM.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=SCOX
56% of SCO's float is shorted. That's a very high number; indicating a very large number of people believe SCO is entirely full of sXXX. Further that float being so small indicates big buyers have sold SCO.
Correct. Project Monterey.
IBM backed out of the deal
Correct.
SCO claims IBM also backed out of their licensing agreement for SVR4 code.
Also correct - but that doesn't make the claim accurate.
AIX is now an SVR4 Unix and there is no licensing agreement for it.
INCORRECT. Read the Project Monterey contract - it says that either party may terminate the agreement, and if they do, that they keep the license: to wit:
I think SCO are claiming that IBM don't have a valid SVR4 licence, and that they have found SVR4 code in AIX. However, upon reading the project Montery contracts, it would seem that it is SCO that does not have the right to use code from the project outside an intel architecture, not IBM, who do not have that clause contraining them in the contract. ie IBM have every right to use SVR4 code and they know it.
Also, the Linux stuff which SCO are complaining about originated before and outside AIX, and was ported to AIX from the original source, and seperately ported to Linux from the original source...
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
The stock is being held high. I don't pretend to know what I am doing on the stock market but, when people are bidding $35 on a stock valued at ~$5, something is fishy. It's also interesting to see the stock jump 10% 10 minutes before closing every day as well.
The problems with that notion are:
this is civil and not criminal law;
even in criminal law, you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself--but if you do so the evidence is still generally admissible unless extracted under duress. Leaving a thumbprint on a gun or screaming "Oh my God, I shot my wife!" are both forms of self-incrimination, but generally both are valid evidence.
SCO isn't allowed to use discovery as purely a fishing expedition in the faint hope that they find some evidence that IBM has infringed their copyrights or breached their contracts. However, if SCO uncovers evidence of additional misdeeds as part of legitimate discovery, they're allowed to sue for the new stuff, too. (Again drawing an example from criminal law--for illustrative purposes only--if a cop pulls you over for speeding, then sees that you have a bag of cocaine on the seat beside you, then he can charge you for possession, too. On the other hand, generally the cop isn't allowed to randomly pull people over and search through their trunks on the off chance he might find some cocaine.)
In order to get to discovery, SCO has to demonstrate to a court that it has some valid reason to believe that IBM may have done the nasty things that SCO claims. The court then can compel IBM to release documents related to that issue. Usually this is a pretty low hurdle.
As an aside, SCO doesn't have to prove IBM breached their contracts. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities. The court looks at the evidence and takes the side that it finds most plausible--neither side must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt; that test is only applied in criminal law.
~Idarubicin
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Be that as it may, you should still be warned that Daniel Lyons is a SCO schill. And by "schill" I mean someone who would post untrue, defamatory material in order to discredit someone who pointed out that he wasn't exactly a bastion of journalistic ethics.
If you check my posting history, you will undoubtably note that I have followed his actions rather closely (and, quite frequently, stepped up to point out that he's full of crap).
For example, there was that article where he posted untrue, unsubstantiated and rediculous allegations about PJ of Groklaw, with reckless disregard for the truth, even going so far as to quote random trolls on the internet as sources!
Hell, even here, the editors don't generally post front page stories about the penis bird or whatever it is they're trolling about these days. While to begin with, Daniel Lyons was just acting as a lazy journalist, spouting off whatever SCO put into their press releases, after he was called on it, he began to work to discredit those who had so very well discredited him.
Unfortunately for him, he only proved that Forbes has no editorial oversight--that article, which I'm sure you could find via Google (Google cache link--I refuse to give Forbes page views if I can help it), had no place on any serious website. Let alone one purporting to carry "news."
So while I won't say that he's actually manipulating the SCOX stock price--IBM will have to ferret that out, as they have addressed it in their counter-claims--you should realize that whatever motives he writes with are not good ones.
In the mean time, I will do my part to remind everyone that Forbes apparently has insufficient editorial oversight, and should not therefore be considered a reliable source of information. Hell, if they told me it was raining outside, I do believe that I would go look for myself.
I can't do much, but I believe that I've cost them at least one potential customer already.
Sure,
Novell's Correspondence with SCO shows that Novell takes the position that Amendment 2 to their agreement with SCO only transfers UNIX copyrights that SCO requires in order to execute their licensing deals, and Novell says, none are required, so none are transferred. At the very least, Novell argues that SCO has to make a showing that such transfers are required, which they haven't done. Also, as a separate issue, Novell retained the right to basically veto SCO, which they have consistently done when it comes to IBM licensing issues.
Read the letters of June 9 and 12, 2003.
August 4, 2003
December 23, 2003
February 11, 2004
Like Digital Freedoms? Then donate to EFF before they're gone.