Slashdot Mirror
IBM Files for Partial Summary Judgement vs SCO
Armchair Dissident writes "The Register is reporting that IBM has filed for partial summary judgement against SCO. Groklaw also has the story, and is saying that SCO was still offering the disputed code for download as recently as August 4 2004. If this is true, then - according to Groklaw - SCO's case must surely be scuppered. Again."
Even if they offer a "download" of the disputed code, how do we know they didn't just copy some random code which did exist in the kernel?
If the judge basically doesn't extend SCO the benefit of the doubt any further on any of this, how long might it take for the whole thing to be completely dead, stop quivering, be visibly a corpse? How long can SCO continue to drag the threat out before it's dead?
Xenu loves you!
It's really cool to see how the things that we're pointing at here on Slashdot (like the still-available linux downloads) and going "wtf, SCO can't do that", we're finding eight months later IBM suddenly bringing this thing up in a legal finding and going "SCO did this, they can't do that".
It's funny, IBM's legal team doesn't miss anything but they seem to always wait until the most opportune time to bring it up. Meanwhile even if SCO's case hadn't been baseless in the first place, they seem to be doing absolutely everything possible to sabotage it short of bribing the judge.
Hey wait a minute, bribing the judge.. hmm...
You know, something just occurred to me. I think I know what SCO might be up to. Have you ever seen "The Producers"?
Are like the atom bomb. If you use them you lose your ability to use them in future.
they could offer a $50/year licensing fee to other open source companies that use their patents
The GPL prohibits this.
I must admit that I have gotten a bit tired of SCO stories (weird, huh?), but I can't remember seeing a ruling that has killed parts of SCOs case.
So, can somebody please summarize: Which parts of SCOs is dead now, by court rulings?
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Reading the documents filed by IBM and by SCO I am constantly amused by the fact that I have no clue at all what SCO are getting at in there filings but the IBM filings are crystal clear and make perfect logical sense.
The best bits of this filing I think are the pages and pages of testimony from ( by the looks ) almost everyone involved in drawing up the and signing the original contract who all say unanimously
"This contract certainly does not provide SCO with the rights it says it is provided with, this was discussed at the time and all parties were agreed that it was not the case since to do otherwise would be so blatantly silly that no one would ever sign such a contract."
Also the way IBM have culled SCO's many accusations to the single matter of the contract dispute and then ( in my opinion ) thoroughly destroyed that even more effectively than they destroyed SCO's previous claims is very impressive and kind of suggests that this has been IBM's plan all along and everything is moving very smoothly for them.
SCOX (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=scox) is up almost 10% at of 10:30 EST. It must be true! Why does this stock move paradoxically to the news?
the technical term for being -1 for lawsuits, is a 'vexatious litigant'.
H.ere in Britian if you waste too much of the court's time, the court can declare you to be a vexatious litigant, and you lose the right to file suits. This would do wonders for SCO's share price!
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
With all the court fees, lawyers, and FUD that SCO is costing IBM, I would think it'd just be cheaper to buy them. There, now we most certainly own the code.
---
Those who can, do
Those who can't, teach
Those who don't know how, supervise
It's basically a gathering ground for trolls, where they post links to specific Slashdot posts that they want to be modded up (generally something that is trollish) in order to get lots of attention to it. Visiting the site itself won't hurt you, just don't click on the Slashdot links on the site unless you have HTTP referers disabled since apparently (according to the original post) Slashcode picks that up now and puts you on a moderator-banned list.
The Register claims "IBM goes on to argue ... that IBM was allowed to do what it liked with derivative works."
This is NOT what IBM's motion claims. In fact it's the exact opposite of what IBM was arguing. IBM's motion claims that the agreements with AT&T applied only to "derivative works" as defined by the US copyright office and truck loads of case law. "Derivative works" here having it's naturally understood meaning that the work must contain part of the original(or some substantial simularity).
So basically IBM was saying that they aren't allowed to distribute the source code to ALL of AIX or Dynix or any part that CONTAINS System V code, but they can distribute any of the code from these that belongs only to IBM(called homegrown code in the motion).
Since noone is claiming that IBM has given away all the code to AIX and Dynix, and because SCO has basically given up any pretense of showing code in Linux that might have come from System V AND because the only code SCO has actually pointed to belongs ENTIRELY to IBM which is expressly NOT derivative code, than IBM is well within their rights to distribute it.
In other words, "It belongs to us and we can do with it what we like, now piss off."
As opposed to "Sure part of it belongs to you but the contract says we can do with it what we like, so piss off". If this was the case I would be backing SCO here, but since it isn't, I want SCO to fry.
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
I am so amused, I can't resist. So, from one AC to another: If you read the FAQ, you'd know you don't have to moderate. You just turn it off in your profile, if you had an account. Us ACs don't have profiles, of course, but don't need'em, we don't moderate either. BTW, here's another cool thing: NO ONE is going to read this (except maybe you, poster).
The new motion is about IBM/SCO contract issues. That doesn't directly affect anybody else. Only the copyright claims matter to unaffiliated third parties.
or some other pro-Linux company.
Wait. Wait. Here me out. I am just playing the devil's advocate here to bounce an alternative theory off of the group. I do not think this is true, but 'what if' ...
This is the scenario:
I know, too many steps.
It is easy for many /.ers to think of Microsoft as the evil giant seeking to destroy Linux. What if this case is more like a legal vaccination? The SCO case could be used to create legal precendents to make it more difficult to attack Linux in the future. That which does not kill you makes you stronger.
To repeat, I do not think this is what is happening, but I do find it interesting to consider the possibility.
Agreed. If IP Law was an olympic sport these guys would be gold metalists.
I wonder if this planning went way back to the IBM/Novell/SuSE investment back at the time that Novell bought SuSE. What better way to cement a valuable ally with the rights to Unix. Damn they're smart.
Why can't SCO Claim.
1) we didn't know it was there
Because they're still distributing it themselves.
2) Once we found out it was released everywhere by IBM the horse was way out of the barn.
Irrelevant. If you want to try to claim damages, you MUST do everything in your power to stop infringement.
3) IBM'S "illegal" actions have boosted the Linux market place
Again, irrelevant. How popular something is has no bearing.
4) To stay competitive we have to release a copy of Linux, under GPL, to be competitive.
That does not logically follow. Damages have no bearing on you continuing to be competitive or not.
5) But all of this is a result of the fruit of IBM's "illegal" actions so they still owe us damages.
By continuing to distribute it themselves, they are declaring that the value of the infringement is $0.00. There are no damages to be awarded.
Here's what SCOX should have done:
Once they discovered the 'infringing' code, they must immediately stopped distributing the material themselves, then contacted the responsible people to arrange for damages (which they claim was IBM.) In doing so, they must (as a matter of law) identify the lines of code that are 'infringing'.
They should then contact every distributor of Linux they know about (I'm guessing that a notification sent to Linux, kernel.org, along with a press release might be acceptable in this case), and notify them of the status of their claim, the lines of code that were at issue, and demand that they cease distributing the 'infringing' material.
Failure to follow these steps means that they can't claim damages.
There is *NO* (as in zero, nil, nada, zip, bupkiss) valid legal reason to not follow these steps, and many valid legal reasons they should.
The only answer as to *why* they didn't is as follows:
Either 1) they know they have no case, or
2) their lawyers don't know anything about the law at all, and should be disbarred and charged with fraud.
Notice who they got to compare Linux and SVRX (and AIX and Sequent) code against each other?
A REAL LIFE MIT scientist... and not just any fictitious MIT scientist.... but Dr. Randall Davis, Director of Research for CSAIL.
i read that and said to myself... wholly fscking shit... THAT is funny.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Wow, you've bought into SCO's position regarding their distribution of GPL'd code.... that it was improperly added by a third party and their subsequent distribution does not obligate them to honor the GPL's terms because they were deceived.
Not at all.
I'm saying that:
- The GPL itself CLAIMS not to apply to code illegitimately inserted.
- That leaving no way for companies that are in the position SCO claims to be in to defend IP they did not intend to release will result in companies that otherwise would release SOME of their code under GPL chosing to release NONE, for fear of compromsing the REST of it.
This would greatly reduce the amount of code released under GPL. So the issue needs to be addressed - if nothing else, to eliminate the ambiguity.
1: Regarding "greatly hamper the adoption", you're just dead wrong. Take a look around. Adoption of GPL code is progressing very well. Linux is growing dramatically.
Yes it's progressing. But I claim it will progress faster if the issue is addressed than otherwise.
Meanwhile, let's see how the results of the SCO suit affect the progress - especially if the "meeting GPL obligations legitimizes past 'theft'" doctrine is accepted by the courts.
2: The primary purpose of the GPL is to ensure freedom to modify and distribute original and modified code. That is why the GPL exists, not to enhance adoption by companies with particular proprietary interests.
It is also there to encourage the release of code to that commons. By guaranteeing your not locked out of future revsions of your own code it encourages that release. But if it puts at risk code you didn't intend to release, it discourages release.
I claim we can have both those cakes, not just one.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Whether you're looking at funding, or you're looking at market tactics , they are the exact same thing.
Master's of Business Administration is not a respectable degree in China or India. Only in America, and that's not going to last. It got us here, but times have changed.