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.
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.
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" ;-) ?
Interviewer: The question is, "What would happen to the *Linux* case, if SCO would turn out to be right on this one?"
Random Techie: Umm...Linux and the GPL would be finished.
Interviewer: I'm sorry, the correct answer was "Monkeys will fly out of my ass"
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".
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
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.
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.
Their Lanham Act counterclaims in the lawsuit that SCO filed are directly referring to this type of behavior.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Right - but it will eventually touch the linux case as well, if it turns out to be a true assertion.
a) SCO would get money it desperately needs to continue fight its linux battle.
b) They might try and use it to cast a different light on IBM, as a company ignoring laws and contracts, when they return to the linux case.
c) And - that's the interesting question - is there a direct link between the two?
As for the injunction - if there is no direct evident link between the linux case and this issue, then SCO is in safe waters, because the injunction probably doesn't forbid them to mention IBM at all. It'll probably just say, that SCO is forbidden from issuing further claims on its linux case to the media. Something which they haven't done with this...
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
Unless the lawyers for the other side are incompetent, they will know more or less everything you might have to use against them well before trial. Either because it will be documents you are required to present to them, or because they'll have carefully crafted discovery requests and motions to figure out what you've got.
In this particular case, you'll find that IBM for instance have asked for summary judgement on some of SCO's claims because IBM claim they haven't produced any evidence. If successfull, those claims will never even reach trial. SCO's only way around that is to point out with specificity to the judge any shred of evidence they might have regarding those particular claims.
Which means that either IBM gets rid of the claims, or they get a detailed overview of what evidence SCO will be using to justify those claims during trial, allowing them to target the specific evidence in their further discovery and other preparations.
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"
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.
"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?
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.
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 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. =====
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.
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.
At a glance, this seems like purely an AIX issue
Heck, this doesn't even seem to be an SCO issue....
Even if IBM acknolwedges the emails -- all they say is that IBM might not own the AIX code. They don't say that SCO does! If it turns out that, say, Novell owns the AIX code instead of IBM -- that isn't going to help SCO at all. Announcing this on the SCOForum or wherever, and not in a courtroom discovery session... the point is just to spread FUD. And raise their stock value....
This news isn't SCO's "smoking gun" -- it's their "steaming pile of crap".
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
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:
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.