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!
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.
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
Or perhaps I have it all backwards, but how can the stock go up 14% without this sort of thing happening?
>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.
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
The boost is a 14.5% increase in their stock price (as of 11:30am). That's hefty indeed. Anyone who has been holding their stock in SCO has no idea how to invest. Those who have been buying it when it's low precisely for days such as this when SCO releases yet another batch of their FUD, are quite shrewd.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
Well - I don't know - SCO claims, IBM *has* a license for a preceeding version, but *not* for the version they are basing on now...
I don't know whether there is any truth in this, but if it SHOULD be, then IBM has done something wrong. And no matter how much I loathe SCO for what they're doing on the Linux side now, it's no reason to rip them off something in return.
Two wrongs don't make a right...
(I just hope, that this isn't true, but unlike a lot of their previous claims, they are putting up a VERY SPECIFIC claim this time; but yes - they are holding back the actual evidence behind it, as usual).
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
FTA
"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. "
No espionage involved.
It's all FUD tho.
"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."
The same Baystar that claims that SCO must return its investment as SCO has been misleading them?
"goatse? What's that? Anyone have a link?" - AC
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.
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.
Great article at Groklaw about this very thing. Note it's from a year ago.
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...
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.
Actually, this is a big deal, and here's why:
1) SCO received those emails under a court order.
2) SCO only licenses IBM to distribute AIX code on Intel platforms, not PPC platforms, and that is the crux of this announcement.
3) The reporter's forum is where this came out, not where this originated.
4) The fact this is AIX not Linux is interesting. Essentially, this has nothing to do with SCO patent claims against Linux.
M
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.
And I'd be out of a job too, so lets not go there.
SCO also needs to meet at least a 50/50 burden of proof. Is that even possible when discussing two consecutive revisions of System V? What kind of built-in doubt will be naturally included with any suitable "smoking gun"?
This also begs the question of why would IBM even bother? Whatever they had at the time MUST have been more sophisticated than whatever SCO/Caldera had.
Also, if there was some value in assimilating SVR4 wouldn't this be the sort of thing that would be of PR value and thus public knowledge?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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!
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.
For someone interested in shorting SCOX, a temporary bubble like this is a great opportunity -- as soon as the enthusiasm dissipates and everyone catches on that this is smoke & mirrors, the price will drop down to it's previous levels (if not further)
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
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
At this rate, SCO will be able to tell M$ they own windows code too.
Wasn't there an article just the day before about SCO changing profit direction from sueing to real products and services engineering?
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!
The same Baystar that claims that SCO must return its investment as SCO has been misleading them?
Indeed. And while Darl and Company publically pawn off the "litigation machine" issue on BayStar, I'll bet BayStar is fine with that, as they are getting exactly what they want with this latest volly of SCO FUD, note that SCOX is on the rise...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
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
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.
I used to work for IBM. There are plenty of pissed off temporary staff and contractors (and even full timers) who would be quite happy to cut and paste from Notes to Hotmail. Mark
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
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.
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...
And as for this:Nope. He didn't reveal any information that was released in confidence -- he revealed that they have such information. That's a completely different thing.
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?
except for the fact that discovery evidence is not supposed to be on the public record. Even though SCO may be right about this (theoretically) they've possibly f-d themselves by going to the media with it before the courtroom.
Speak for yourself.
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.
Sure, of course SCO got emails. But do they say what SCO says they say? How do we know this? SCO says a lot of things
2) SCO only licenses IBM to distribute AIX code on Intel platforms, not PPC platforms, and that is the crux of this announcement.
Do we know this? SCO says so, but they say a lot of things
4) The fact this is AIX not Linux is interesting. Essentially, this has nothing to do with SCO patent claims against Linux.
This has never been about Linux, had it been, SCO would have nickled and dimed at smaller more edible Linux companies, not IBM.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
How are their claims this time any more specific? I'd say they're even less.
First, they're not even claiming a number of lines. (And I'd be willing to bet that they have licensed IBM code previously.)
Second, they haven't filed suit.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
How about you having a look at the car before telling the world that Ford should stop their car manufacturing and concentrate on bicycles?
In other words: you have apparently never ever been near a system running AIX. Stop your own fud before attacking SCO/IBM/$corp
Geek rants since like... 2000 or something.
That makes scox current price attractive for short sale. currently my message from etrade is that they can't find any shares to borrow:
Your sell short order cannot be processed. Short sales in this security are not allowed, as we were unable to borrow the shares. hmmm the market isn't as entirely clueless as most of us think.
this sig is deprecated
This is a form of espionage which is illegal without a court order.
If you read the article, you would know that the email were part of the discovery they had gained legally.
IBM bought a the rights long before SCOX even created.
For a different version of Unix, SVR3 not SVR4. Their rights to use 4 was based on several conditions that they no longer meet. They have made about 180 million on AIX software since then. (not counting hardware). I hate SCO as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean that this is not valid, none of us know yet.
I am not saying SCO has anything, but they might, again, if you bother to actually read the article. It would not be the end of the world for IBM either way, as they are pushing toward Linux on all hardware. We need more info before jumping to conclusions or karma whoring.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
so SCO starts making noise again? This is too much just to be a coincidence. It seems M$ 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
Though, now that it's gone above $5, it's possible to short it again.*
*PLEASE don't take this as investment advice, or an offer to buy/sell, or a solicitation of any services. If you do then you're a frickin' retard.
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?
So is the v4 code publically available, then ? How did IBM supposedly get their titanium-tipped blood-encrusted awe-inspiring talons on it, if they don't have a license ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Libel perhaps? I'm assuming that like all the rest of SCO's claims this is baloney.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Every time SCO rolls the dice praying for a 7. They get snake eyes.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
LOL that's an excellent point!
SCOX is probably only rising as the senior traders are on holiday and the juniors think they see a chance to make a quick buck and a name for themselves buy trading SCOX.
Wait till the summers over - things'll get back to normal then.
"goatse? What's that? Anyone have a link?" - AC
The specific implementation that is supposedly owned by SCO, or a compatible implementation made by IBM itself ?
A small, but significant difference :). After all, Wine implements the Windows API (poorly, but still...), but it's not copyrighted or in any way owned by Microsoft.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
At most the lawyers will get a warning. These kinds of leaks happen all the time to get on the good side of the public and stockholders.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
On your last point "The fact this is AIX not Linux is interesting. Essentially, this has nothing to do with SCO patent claims against Linux." may not be completely accurate, or at least it's not fair to make that assumption so quickly.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
"Nevertheless, you cannot go on fishing expeditions through discovery documents for alleged infractions that weren't part of your original complaint."
Sure you can. That's the whole point of discovery. That's why you have the power tio amend your suits after discovery.
Why is uninformed tripe like this modded at 4, Informative? Any frickin' law student would know better.
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.
I read this as SCO was given the information by IBM but I may be wrong
All spelling mistakes are due to solar flares...honest
He didn't reveal that they have such information, he claimed they have it--just like ownership of UNIX, BIGNUM lines of infringing code, etc. Certainly no one would ever accuse Darl of actually releasing information. ;)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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.
The problem is IBM was exposed to the code through a joint venture. To then prove that they came up with it on their own even though they saw SCO's code isn't easy to prove. Or in most cases beleivable. I'm flashing back to how Vanilla Ice was trying to explain how his rif was different from other songs that he copied.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
bit-torrent?
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Sure, of course SCO got emails. But do they say what SCO says they say? How do we know this? SCO says a lot of things
No doubt, no doubt. The original poster's point was that SCO could not have access to these emails without a court order. I fairly pointed out this is how they received them.
Do we know this? SCO says so, but they say a lot of things
In regards to the AIX code, yes we do. One of the major thrusts behind project monterey was to bring Unix to the PPC platform, and the project fell through in the negotiation stage.
This has never been about Linux, had it been, SCO would have nickled and dimed at smaller more edible Linux companies, not IBM.
I wholly disagree with this statement for purely financial reasons. If SCO could prove a part of the kernel belonged to them, every device, server, computer, etc. running linux would be fair game. The extent to which SCO would be able to make claims like this depends wholly on the amount of code they are able to prove in court has been included in the product. If you add on top of that the fact a $3B claim against IBM would put individual stock prices in the $450 range. This is all about making money off Linux, and the road to the 'payoff' goes through AIX.
M
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
Most likely it is not baloney. SCO and IBM were mixing things up pretty good for many years. IBM may have missed an i dotting/t crossing and may have realized it later. I would guess that SCO has some sort of grounds to go after IBM on this mix-up. I doubt that it has ANY relavency to linux or any of their other cases.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
Read the Project Monterey Agreement - the limitation on specific archetecture applies to SCO, not IBM!
IBM was free to use "SCO's" code on any platform they choose, but SCO was not allowed to do the reverse. The rights of each party are explicitly spelled out separately. IBM gets to use SCO's code on any platform they choose (including PowerPC), SCO can only use IBM's code on i386.
There is no corresponding paragraph in the section entitled "License to IBM of Licensed SCO Materials and SCO Project Work"
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
"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?
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.
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.
People on Groklaw have also noted that the agreement says that SCO can't take the Project Monterrey stuff and put it on a non-Intel processor. The agreement does not say that IBM can't put the code on another processor. (Note that I did not verify this wording in the agreement myself, so if you don't want third-hand info, head to Groklaw, read the agreement, and make up your own mind.)
looks like we slashdotted yahoo... thats impressive
According to the article, they recieved it when they were working with The Santa Cruz Operation (not to be confused with SCOX) on Project Monterey. Of course, you'd know this if you read the article. The real question is why they needed IBM e-mails to discover this, when IBM has supplied them with AIX source code already. Should be a simple matter to check the differences between SVR3 and SVR4, and see if those same differences show up in AIX, should it not? IF this is true, then this might be the first solid claim SCOX has against IBM. Maybe...
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
That's a very good point. It would be really rather funny if someone like Novell or AT&T could prove they own SRV4, and then gave IBM a perpetual, irrevocable license to match their other one.
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".
IBM paying off SCO in any way whatsoever would indeed mark the end of Linux.
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. =====
Actually, I bet this turns out to be another SCO "bad" interpretation of a contract. After all, that's what they're famous for "irrevocable != irrevocable" for instance....
As for Linux, IBM put THEIR code into linux - not SCOs. Unless SCO can show UNIX code in Linux, and then prove that they own Linux, then IBM do not have any problems at all. Given also, that Novel have a right to "cancel" any SCO Unix related law suit, I'd find it very hard to imagine a sitution where SCO wins. IBM is just going through the motions with them to get a court to say that Linux is free. If they'd wanted to get the case dismissed, they would have a while back, but they're holding back on all their aces.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
Linux Community, smoking guns found: 2032
SCO, smoking guns found: 1
Oh yeah, we're in big trouble.
Again, IBM's original licensing for AIX code was on a 32-Bit Intel platform. You may be greatly surprised that this was included in the terms of the deal, but it is the truth. I encourage you to look it up yourself since you claim to have access to those documents.
IBM wanting to expand the range of their licensing arrangement is what I understood to be the basis of Project Monterey. All parties involved produced code, no doubt, and I am certain one reason for that is so that all parties could have some IP claims to whatever was built to run on the 64-bit chips.
But IBM got up and left the table when it came time to talk licensing. Not being party to those negotiations I cannot comment on what happened, but I suspect it was an issue of royalties.
In regards to your last point, I reserve judgement on the trial until the eventual outcome of the case. Say it ain't so, but the good guys don't always win.
SCO and IBM have each received millions of documents and things always emerge when you read other people's emails. This fact alone make predicting the outcome of a trial almost impossible prior to completing discovery - which also includes depositions, motions for additional evidence, etc. It is *easy* to find misworded statements, argue they indicate intent, and construct a series of events to prove a point with that much documentation involved.
M
--the lawsuit could still be there. Given relativity, all crimes are committed in the past when it comes to the justice system. You could promise to the nice trooper you will never speed again, and currently you are sitting on the side of the road at rest, not speeding at all,but you'll still probably get the ticket.
There's statutes of limitation laws, big variable there though. I don't know what if any of them apply to patents, copyrights or to contractural disputes. I don't think much if any though, if you did it in the past and it was illegal then and they call you on it and can prove it in court, you lose.
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".
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.
Except that:
1) SCO has never claimed any such thing in any court filing. Their court filings don't make anything approaching clear claims that A didn't receive a license for code B from C or anything else you would expect in such a claim.
2) IBM already had a license for SVR4 code at the time of montery
3) SCO didn't have rights to sell such a license in any meaningful sense
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.
Actually that is explicitly not the case. There is a Chinese wall between the AIX group and the Linux group to avoid certain really copyright problems (none of which involve SCO BTW). Communication between them is controlled.
my point is that everyone should try and look at what's going on objectively because there is a lot at stake
Look at the threads from 2 years ago when this started. People here did look at SCO's filings very carefully. After many many repeated inaccuracies and lies in SCO's comments to reporters and inaccuracies which show an extreme lack of knowledge in their court fillings people rightfully treat their factual claims as false until proven otherwise. Similarly their legal claims have been nonsensical.
There is nothing at stake. Imagine if SCO had filed a wrongful death suit against IBM and everyone could show the supposed victim was till alive. Obviously SCO would get their day in court but no one would pretend there was any merit to the case; which is the proper way of dealing with this type of nonsense lawsuit.
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.
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.
What SCO is claiming is that IBM put SVR4 code in AIX. So if IBM put "THEIR code" into linux, wouldn't that be THEIR AIX code?
Open Source Java DAO Generator
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.
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!
You really don't want to do that anyways... SCOX is so thinly traded the precentage of shorted stock at 56% short squeeze will be quite a problem.
In fact.. theres a good chance that a lot of what people thought were SCO "painting" was actually short squeeze in progress.
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:
Warning: I am not an investment expert. Do not consider anything I have to say here as worthy investment advice!
Quoth the parent:
For someone interested in shorting SCOX, a temporary bubble like this is a great opportunity
Short shares in SCOX are nearly impossible to find unless you're a major player. The chances of becoming an overnight bag-holder are ridiculously high, too. Personally, I can't understand anyone being willing to hand over $5/share if they took the time to see what has happened with SCOX in the past year.
Logic is a wonderful thing but doesn't always beat actual thought. -Terry Pratchett
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
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
SCO only licenses IBM to distribute AIX code on Intel platforms, not PPC platforms, and that is the crux of this announcement.
Actually, if you read the Project Monterey agreement, you'll find that it's SCO who was only licensed to use IBM's code on Intel. IBM was not restricted to any platform at all.
SCO got it wrong *again*.
this has nothing to do with SCO patent claims against Linux.
I'm sorry, but WHAT PATENT CLAIMS?!?!? SCO doesn't even *HAVE* any patents, let alone made claims against Linux.
Except that everything SCO has said, at least up to this time, has been bogus!
Note that SCO has claimed since the start that they have a "mountain of evidence", yet they have yet to provide any of it to IBM, which is why in IBM's cross-complaint(effectively a counter suit), they are filing for a Declaration that they did NOT infringe on any of SCO's copyrights vis-a-vis any of IBM's work with Linux. The truth is shocking isn't it? With regards to IBM's Linux work, SCO NEVER filed a copyright claim against IBM, they never filed a patent claim against IBM, and they've dropped their trade-secret claim. In other words, SCO's whole case rests on a nebulous and purile reading of a contract. Which will very likely be thrown out soon after the judge gives IBM the win in their Summary Judgement on their copyright cross-complaint.
Secondly, the "news" article is sooo chalk full of mistakes that the reporter should be ashamed of himself. He's fallen for SCO's story hook, line & sinker. Note how he calls it a suit against IBM over Linux, well as I've pointed out above, SCO never filed any suit over Linux per-se, they filed a suit over a contract claim with AIX.
Furthermore, the story claims that the SCO suit was filed over code that SCO claimed was "stolen". The facts of the filing couldn't be further from the truth! SCO has never claimed ownership or ownership rights over any code IBM has contributed to Linux, at least in the court filings. They've made all kinds of statements in public.
So this latest claim is just more of the same. First, it could easily be falsely represented information from SCO. Nothing they have said in public has been true. If you can find one schtickel of evidence for SCO's public claims I'm sure they would love to have it because they have shown none themselves. You don't need to believe me, just go read the court filings. IBM would not have asked for Summary Judgement regarding their copyright claim if SCO had handed them ANY evidence of copyright violations. What was SCO's answer to the request for Summary Judgement? "We need more time, and we need more discovery." In other words, SCO knows they are royally screwed on the copyright claim.
Secondly, even if SCO has found evidence of License violations by IBM over AIX 5L. This in NO WAY affects Linux. Note that SCO's public statement isn't that they found code that IBM copied to Linux, it's a claim that IBM didn't have a License to use SVR4 in AIX 5L. SCO still hasn't presented any evidence of SCO code in Linux, and this new statement doesn't indicate otherwise.
In fact SCO has so tried to twist everything into a pretzel shape of their liking that I don't believe a single word they say. This article is very likely more of the same and the writer made himself part of the scam by publishing an article that completely misrepresents the original case and derides both IBM and "Linux zealots".
By the way, if you don't believe me that SCO has absolutely NO evidence go to Groklaw and follow the "Legal Docs" link. Than read the court filings by both IBM and SCO. While we aren't privy to the evidence submitted under seal, it is clear from the back and forth of the filings that SCO has shown no evidence of wrong doing by IBM.
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
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.
1) SCO received those emails under a court order.
Does anyone know if it's legal to base a second claim on documents obtained through discovery of a first claim if the first claim turns out to be without merit? That is, can you file one claim that allows you to do discovery and then file a raft of subsequent claims?
It does seem very strange that IBM would be basing such a massive portion of its business on unlicensed software when that license or hell, the whole company could have been acquired for a relatively modest sum. I'll be very curious to see what IBM's response to this is.
"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"
Their initial complaint against IBM mentions project monterey. Then there's thiw quote in the complaint from an IBM VP.
So there's your connection between monterey code and aix code."2) IBM already had a license for SVR4 code at the time of montery"
Which SCO revoked.
") SCO didn't have rights to sell such a license in any meaningful sense"
Actually, according to Novell, the only thing SCO got was the right to be the administrator of unix licenses. They would charge a fee, anything above that would go to Novell. So, according to Novell, SCO did have the rights to sell SVR4 licenses.
"Actually that is explicitly not the case. There is a Chinese wall between the AIX group and the Linux group to avoid certain really copyright problems (none of which involve SCO BTW). Communication between them is controlled."
And in the face of legal concerns, they will have to show that what they did was enough and effective and that before the wall was errected, the linux developers didn't have knowledge of SVR4 code.
"There is nothing at stake. Imagine if SCO had filed a wrongful death suit against IBM and everyone could show the supposed victim was till alive. Obviously SCO would get their day in court but no one would pretend there was any merit to the case; which is the proper way of dealing with this type of nonsense lawsuit."
Unfortunately, this isn't that simple.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
Whether the revokation is enforable or not is a different matter.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
he has a good point :)
POWER and RT PC were two different systems. The IBM RT PC (introduced 1986) was the Research Oriented Microprocessor (ROMP) architecture: 16/32 bit instructions, 16 GPRs. The RT PCs used a separate National Semiconductor floating point processor. The POWER (Performance Optimization With Enhanced RISC) architecture was introduced in 1990. It had 32 bit instructions, 32 GPRs, and native floating point.
The two architectures did share a lot of concepts, since both came from the 801 architecture. ROMP was the poor man's 801.
and whether all terms and conditions have been adhered to is a mater for a court to decide.
I don't even know why I bother participating. I don't really care what SCO does but this whole "IBM is our hero" mentality disturbs me. IBM is doing what it's doing for IBM not for open source. The linux kernel is not the sum and total of open source software. You only have to look at some of IBM's involvement in the Apache Group to see that when IBM can take things internally and stop sharing code, they will.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
And Novel promptly revoked the revokation of an irrevokable licence.....
It gets madder and madder.....
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
People on Groklaw have also noted that the agreement says that SCO can't take the Project Monterrey stuff and put it on a non-Intel processor. The agreement does not say that IBM can't put the code on another processor. (Note that I did not verify this wording in the agreement myself, so if you don't want third-hand info, head to Groklaw, read the agreement, and make up your own mind.)
Maybe I was a bit unclear. From groklaw, it appears that an agreement existed between IBM and SCO. SCO interpreted the agreement to mean some completely different than it is stated so it's only SCO word (and interpretation) that the IBM agreed not to use SVR4 on non-IA64 computers.
It's almost parallel to the dispute with Novell. Novell says the amendment that SCO is touting does not mean Novell sold Unix to SCO. SCO is saying that it does.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Well, so far, in more than 20 press releases in the last year, SCO has been always lying and spreading FUD. Every single time. Not one exception. So this time I will need rock-solid proof before I even read the article.
Why I am spending my time replying to some naive people thinking that SCO may say the truth, I don't know.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
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.
IF IBM bought Novell I see absolutely no reason why they would need to buy SCO, what with owning the UNIX codebase (not the trademark) and all.
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
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...
Sorry, my typo. I used the RS/6000 (POWER architecture) starting in 1990 through 1996; in 1991 I also used an RT/PC (yuck!).
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
I don't really care what SCO does but this whole "IBM is our hero" mentality disturbs me.
I see, and where (exactly) did I say that?
Methinks you have a bigger reading comprehension problem than SCO does.
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.
Which SCO revoked.
/.
/., because I said so.
/., you must stop posting on /.
/., you must agree with everything I said.
Well, I'm gonna revoke your right to post on
There, I just did it. You are no longer allowed to post on
Seeing as how you are adamant that because SCO 'revoked' something it has no right to is binding, then when I revoke your right to post on
Oh yeah - I also revoke your right to disagree with me - so even if you talk about this with anyone outside of
Feel a little silly now?
Unless your specifically talking about SVR4 code in AIX your wrong. Here is the relevant part of the licensing agreement from "Amendment X"(found as an Exhibit in the "Legal Docs" section of Groklaw),
"the royalty relief described in Section I of this Amendment No. X shall apply only to use or distribution of the Software Products and Sublicensed Products in the IBM operating system referred to currently as AIX, any prior version or releases of AIX and derivative or follow-on version to AIX on the Power or Power PC or Power2 architectures or derivative or follow-on architectures irrespective of the names of such versions."
Now granted this is for the use SVR3.2 in AIX, but it's clear from this that IBM was doing development on Power PC NOT Intel. So your right it is limited to a single architecture(or it's follow-on, and tell me that's not ambiguous) but it was Power PC NOT Intel. In which case, of course I'm wrong myself in believing it was limited to a single hardware platform. Furthermore this specifically allows IBM to develop a 64 bit PPC version.
As for my last point, the only thing that you could possibly take exception to is my assessment of SCO's chances in their CONTRACT suit to be "VERY doubtful". Everything else in that paragraph is not speculation. SCO never filed any IP claims against IBM with respect to Linux, they filed purely a contract claim. They have presented IBM with no evidence of copyright violation. Unless SCO provides evidence of copyright violation, that particular piece of the case will NEVER reach a jury. SCO didn't need the millions of documents, nor the e-mails, and "intent" isn't relevant. SCO simply needed to compare Linux to Unix System V and provide said "mountain of evidence" to IBM which IBM requested they do. They haven't done so and yet have filed a declaration that their answers to discovery are "true" and "complete". So I stand behind my statement that ALL SCO's public statements on IP violation have been false.
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
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.
Also 3) SCO Unix was not as promising as a new Unix-like operating system called Linux which many Unix players started to take notice.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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.
IBM may have missed an i dotting/t crossing and may have realized it later.
Pretty unlikely.
An organization who makes a shit-load (metric) of cash from their IP doesn't let anything in or out of their organization without someone from their legal department digging into it to the foundations.
I work for a company who makes most of its revenues from IP and I can't even send out a proposal for work without having it checked for IP disclosure.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Given other responses to this thread I'll be surprised if IBM dignifies this with a public response. Hell they're probably having a hard time picking themselves off the floor they're laughing so hard.
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
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
Now granted this is for the use SVR3.2 in AIX, but it's clear from this that IBM was doing development on Power PC NOT Intel. So your right it is limited to a single architecture(or it's follow-on, and tell me that's not ambiguous) but it was Power PC NOT Intel. In which case, of course I'm wrong myself in believing it was limited to a single hardware platform. Furthermore this specifically allows IBM to develop a 64 bit PPC version.
On this issue, let's call it even and admit neither of us is a lawyer. 'Royalty relief' could mean so many things I don't really want to touch it.
With public statements on IP violation, I am right there with you with saying their public statements are all wrong. With regards to the case, I still reserve judgement on the basis that prolonged discovery can lead to all kinds of mischief.
M
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.
I tried to short it this morning on Vanguard and it got rejected. I guess they ran out of shares to lend. :)
That's strange because I shorted a few shares yesterday and it worked fine.
I must sheepishly admit that I tried to short before I even saw the article, you can either call me dumb for not looking, or smart for assuming it was FUD without having to look.
Actually, I excerpted only the part that was relevant to the question of the CPU architecture. The "Royalty relief" is clearly spelled out in the contract as well and has nothing to do with IBM violating any Licensing agreement with respect to SCO's recent statements. It had to do with how much IBM was to pay SCO for use of the licenses after a given period of time.
As for the court case, you can believe whatever you want.
Since this discussion started over the believability of SCO's public statements, either they're previous ones or their current ones, I'll take your acquiescense on the public statements as agreement SCO is full of it and is just blowing smoke again.
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
Don't bother, people who have bought SCO-shares don't read /.
Move Sig. For great justice.
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.
In a way I soft of feel sorry for the old SCO. The thought that Project Monterey was going to be a cash cow for them. They where hooking up with IBM to write then next generation of Unix and they where going to get the Intel side of it. What a deal. The world changed and Linux became Unix. No more big deals getting money every year Linux made Unix in to a commodity instead of a cash cow. Sort of like the little computer store I worked in many, many years ago. If a computer cost $1500 we sold it for $3000. Hey that store went out of bussiness because computers became a commodity so SCO will also. Of course that was the old SCO before McBride. The current one can suck wind for all I care. They could have been a major Linux player but the blew it.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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....
There's a place for these accusations - a courtroom. When SCO take this to court, I'll start listening.
Personally, I am wondering when IBM is going to take SCO to court.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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
But it was SCO that ended it first...they sold the company to Caldera and the Engineers working on Montery left to start a new company...IBM just choose not to pick up the contract with Caldera...no use crying about it.
That would explain a lot. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
There is a Chinese wall between the AIX group and the Linux group to avoid certain really copyright problems (none of which involve SCO BTW). Communication between them is controlled.
[sarcasm] And we all know those chinese will pirate anything . . . [/sarcasm]
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
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.
I'm not sure if you're serious, but . . .why take them to court when you're already there with them, and you can just countersue?
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
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.
When the whole "millions of lines of code" thing is buried (when SCO collapse), the next time someone comes up with a dubious IP claim, there will be thousands of people saying "what, like SCO?".
IBM is simply answering the lawsuits from SCO. They have not begun to hit them where it will hurt. IBM likes to follows teddy's advice: Speak Softly and carry a big stick. So far, they have been whispering.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Their initial complaint against IBM mentions project monterey. Then there's thiw quote in the complaint from an IBM VP.
And what specifically was taken from SCO's contribution to montery and added to Linux. No one is questioning the existence of montery or that code was contributed by SCO. What is being question is whether any of that code ended up in Linux. A copyright claim can't be this vague.
2) IBM already had a license for SVR4 code at the time of montery"
Which SCO revoked.
Since both IBM and SCO bought their license from the same place SCO doesn't have authority to revoke IBM's license. This is like you and me buying an album and I revoke you license.
"Actually that is explicitly not the case. There is a Chinese wall between the AIX group and the Linux group to avoid certain really copyright problems (none of which involve SCO BTW). Communication between them is controlled."
And in the face of legal concerns, they will have to show that what they did was enough and effective and that before the wall was errected, the linux developers didn't have knowledge of SVR4 code.
Nope burdon of proof is on the prosecution. SCO first has to
1) show the existence of SVR4 code in Linux
2) show that said code came as a result of IBM's contribution
3) As well as the fact that SCO has any standing at all to sue IBM even if they contributed the entire SVR4 codebase line for line to Linux
Then the chinese wall can be questioned to determine IBM's degree of culpability. SCO has yet to show any of the above.
We're really not in philosophical disagreement, I think you just aren't aware of the currrent status. Totally understandable, since so much can change day to day, and there is so much information out there on all these different cases, it is difficult to keep track. Indeed, my info might already be out dated, or I might just be confused. We might also be in complete agreement, just not understanding one another.
That being said, while IBM might amend its cross-complaint and add more stuff to it, the cross complaint is pretty much it. To further explain, a cross-complaint is just the same as suing someone, but it happens within a case where that person is already suing you. So IBMs complaints against SCO will be settled in the same court case. It doesn't make sense for IBM to hold annything back that might be relevant, saving it for a rainy day as it were. Besides which, once this current case is resolved, there might not be a SCO to go after anymore.
On the other hand, if IBM has claims against SCO that are completely irrelevant to the current case, than IBM would have to bring those matters seperately. Indeed this is what SCO's lawyers (the new patent guys that were recently added) argued should be done with IBM's patent claims. They tried to sever those claims from the main case to be tried seperately.
Anyway, I hope this clears things up a bit. If I misunderstood you, please accept my apology. Oh, and you're definitely right about the speak softly thing. IBM hasn't given out many press releases or commented to journalists a great deal on this matter. When they need to say something, they say it in court.
SCO's attempt to have the case tried in the media probably has more to do with their attempts to manipulate their stock price, which is most likely the real goal of the lawsuit.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
...that sounds like the right company. )-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing