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.

16 of 440 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture by kfhickel · · Score: 5, Informative

    >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.

  2. I'm in the wrong business! by Greg+Larkin · · Score: 5, Funny
    Didja ever get the feeling that you should give up what you're doing and become a lawyer?!? Has anyone calculated the amount of money they are making off of the train wreck that is SCO, both on the offense and on the defense? My guess is that it's larger than the GDP of a lot of countries!

    Oh well, back to the code... :)

    --

    SourceHosting.net, LLC
    Ready. Set. Code.
    http://www.sourcehosting.net/
    1. Re:I'm in the wrong business! by ahodgson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, lawyers work their asses off, have to deal with other lawyers, and typically only get big money for representing morally bankrupt assholes.

      As opposed to computer people, who work their asses off, have to deal with end-users, and practically never get big money while working for morally bankrupt assholes.

  3. worthless linux licenses eh? by ezzzD55J · · Score: 5, Funny
    "SCO is also going to bundle its worthless linux licenses with its Unix operating systems."

    Shouldn't that be "... worthless linux licenses with its worthless Unix operating systems" ;-) ?

  4. Forbes doesn't like you. by underpar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)

  5. Skeptical..... by dartmouth05 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I am skeptical, and not just due to SCO's reputation for lying about their evidence and what they can or intend to prove. If SCO truly found a smoking gun, I don't believe they'd be shooting their mouth off to SCOForum or any other source--they'd wait until they got before a judge or jury and then hit IBM with it, so they'd be left scrambling in front of a fact-finder. Now, if there is actually anything to these e-mails, IBM has time to meet with their lawyers and work on spinning them.

    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.

  6. Re:Are traders really that dumb? by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One needs to know a lot about human psychology to do well in the market, just knowing a lot about business doesn't make one rich.

  7. On what planet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Yawn... by rewt66 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Can you say estoppel by BootSpooge · · Score: 5, Informative

    Great article at Groklaw about this very thing. Note it's from a year ago.

  10. This may not matter by BrianWCarver · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  11. Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  12. Being groklaw'd already by g00set · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is in the process of being groklaw'd already.

    --
    ... and furthermore ... I don't like your trousers.
  13. And what happened to Linux??? by ArtisteTerroriste · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  14. "Smoking" (when SCO says it). by Jaywalk · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The "smoking gun" may actually net some money for SCO, but keep in mind that SCO's press statements usually just mean their execs have been smoking something else. If the emails say what SCO claims and if that employee knew what he was talking about and if the emails can be used in court, then maybe IBM owes some back licensing fees on 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. =====
  15. Re:What would be the likely impact on Linux? by LuxFX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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'