Slashdot Mirror
SCO Says 'Linux Doesn't Exist'
4A6F656C writes "In an article on LinuxWorld.com.au, Kieren O'Shaughnessy, director of SCO Australia and New Zealand, details SCO's plans for Australia, stating that they have 'prepared a hit list' and "would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP licence." In closing, he adds 'Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix'." UnknowingFool writes "IBM's lawyers have been busy the last few days. Groklaw has reported a number of different filings. On the heels of last week's motions (1) and (2) for summary judgement, they have filed more documents. First, IBM wants large portions of SCO's testimonies striken (removed) on multiple grounds. Deep in the motion, they call out SCO to produce the 'experts' that did the code comparison analysis. If IBM wins on most of these points, SCO will have very little left in the way of legal evidence. SCO answers on IBMs 10th counterclaim. IANAL but from I understand SCO says this copyright infringment that SCO has allegedly committed on one of IBM's patents is irrelevant to the case and the court doesn't need to decide on it. So SCO is saying that they can sue IBM for infringing on their Unix copyrights and patents but IBM can't counter sue on a specific patent. IBM also filed another memo to support summary judgement. As a matter of law, SCO has to produce evidence to backup its claims. This mountain of evidence SCO has claimed all this time: If they don't produce it, the court has to rule in IBM's favor."
These lines are the kicker (and send exactly the opposite message from the summary here on
Can anyone seriously say that they are really committed to victory in the courts if they have backpedaled that far on enforcing "their violated rights" down under?
Sig under construction since 1998.
Here's a question. IBM seems to be willing to go to the mat to defend open source and/or free software. Does this buy loyalty from you linux developers? Do you think they are getting more "good will" than they are spending in lawyers fees?
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Starts to talk nonsense..
"The only reason we are [pursuing a lawsuit against IBM] is to defend our Unix business; we are not a litigation company, we are about Unix on Intel," he said.
Accelerates..
"IBM has transformed Linux from a bicycle to a Rolls-Royce, making it almost an enterprise-class operating system.
Goes into overdrive..
"It took us 25 years to build our business and it took [IBM] four years simply by stealing code and then giving it away free."
and ofcourse finally..
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix,"
I wish more people like this existed to make my day.
Now that Darl has kinda been bitch slapped and doesn't really give us much juicy stuff in the press anymore, it appears that this dude is the new mouse that roars.
What happens to SCO Australia after SCO USA is pulverized? Do they and the rest of the SCO's go away too? Anybody know?
At some point, when a company's stock price drops low enough for long enough, it gets delisted, right?
So SCOX is now down to 3.64, the last time I checked:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&quicken=2
Does anyone know at what point they will be delisted?
This all started as a gamble for SCO. They thought for sure IBM would have just bought them to make them shut up.
That didn't happen then SCO thought maybe they could extort lots of money from Linux users.
That didn't happen so then they thought they could sue other companies to scare people into buying.
That didn't happen and now they are walking the Mile. Expect lots of sound and fury but in the end it will signify nothing.
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.
When SCO talks about Unix, what, exactly, are they talking about? Is there a "Unix" anymore? I know of AIX, Solaris, and the BSDs as the last remaining operating systems that are, I believe, Unix-derived (some of the AT&T code, some of the BSD stuff). I don't think even SCO's own products (Unixware, SCO) are so close to SysV that they can truly say to be the true "Unix" operating system.
:)
So when they say Linux is an unauthorized Unix, what Unix are they talking about? Besides, doesn't the original email from Linux talk about how Linux is a "Minix" clone, which in turn is a much scaled down version of Unix? Why doesn't SCO go after Minix too while they're at it. Or Plan9...that's very Unix-like.
Or Windows...oops, no, not that one. Besides, that's more VMS than Unix.
...the SCO suits' suit is as moot as gun-hugging Utah rednecks.
For a while by now I keep reading on /.
Australia to Get Software Patents and Anti-Circumvention Laws
Australia to Vote on Extending IP Laws
Australia-U.S. Trade Agreement Contains DMCA-like Provisions etc. and now "would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP licence"
What is happening with Australia? It looks like a backyard testing garrage for corporations, which reduce humans to consumers! Isn't Australia a democracy governed for the good of the people? Or it is a private lab where consumers must eat all the crap the big corporation is testing on them?
If they can shut themselves down fast enough, do they get to pocket the $61MM through a huge bonus plan? Or would the legal mess they're in let IBM and the like to go after the individuals?
This seems a lot like the situation DivX (the codec, not the video discs) was in when it was using the reverse engineered M$ MPEG codec. I guess that was somewhat of a legit case of copyright infringement (arguably), and this is just a case of a washed up company in a last ditch effort to generate revenues from litigation.
:-)
Anyways, remember what happened when M$ cracked down on DivX? It was re-written in a way that didn't use any of the (allegedly) infringing code and now it has become fairly well accepted as a fully legitimate commercial product.
I'm not saying that Linux should have to remove the code SCO is bitching about and I really don't believe there is even a legit copyright infringement case here, but just think if the Linux developers re-wrote a few pieces of code anyways and SCO truly had no case beyond any shadow of a doubt. This would alleviate the fear SCO has instilled in companies like EV1 (who caved in to buying SCO licenses) and yet others who are afraid to even give Linux a chance in commercial applications because of this SCO nonsense looming over Linux.
There is no doubt that whether SCO has a case or not they are damaging the Linux market share potential. This would be a good solution IMO, and I wouldn't be surprised if Linux developers already had something like this up their sleeves!
Someone has probably already made this DivX analogy, sorry if I missed it and please disregard this rant if so!
"It seems that when people become desperate they consult the gods, and when the gods become desperate they tell lies." -
Did you actually read any of your links. Except for the Halloween X memo the referred to articles are all conjecture. Not one of them has any hint of the facts. And the halloween memo, though interesting, has ~0% chance of being used in any legal preceding. The parent asked for proof, you responded with rumor and conjecture, try again.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Anyone know what the laws in Australia are on slander?
"IBM has transformed Linux from a bicycle to a Rolls-Royce, making it almost an enterprise-class operating system.
It took us 25 years to build our business and it took [IBM] four years simply by stealing code and then giving it away free."
This seems like a statement that could put one in jail. Claiming that someone stole from you without proof seems a risky move at best.
Yes SCO everyone does hate you. No one will ever want to business with you ever again. Suing customers is not the way to make people want to do business with you. By your actions you have made IBM look like a warm, friendly, and even cool company and the hero of the IT world. Yes the former evil empire now looks like Santa Claus while SCO's image is that of the Iraq information minister. I would say that SCO hasn't reached the level of the Anti-Christ. Frankly most people would expect the Anti-Christ to not be as incompetent as SCO. No not even level of Hitler. SCOs level of evil is about at the level of a pimple faced Neo-Nazi skinhead publishing newsletter out of his bedroom. Full of lies, stupid ranting, and a false sense of injustice.
Yes SCO you have sunk so low that you are not even really hated anymore. SCO you have sunk to the level of disgust. SCO has sunk to level of a guest on Jerry Springer.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Indeed. The fact that the courts even entertain these suits is a perfect example of how corrupt, skewed, and worthless our political and legal system is in the US.
As long as I have enough money in my legal fund and enough of a history with technical jargon-speak it seems I am given the opportunity to tank a competitor. Can you imagine if this sort of vampirism was practiced on private citizens?
Oh wait... the IRS, RIAA, and MPAA already have a copyright on the textbook which teaches this type of behavior.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The calm, cool, confident, and respectful manner in which IBM is handling itself in court is admirable; IMHO, this puts them head-and-shoulders above SCO's legal team.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
The whole SCO vs IBM case is beginning to feel and sound like the lengthy Microsoft vs DOJ antitrust case.
In the MS vs DOJ case, Microsoft clearly had a monopoly, they used it illegally, and they lost every round in court in displays of legal ineptitude. Remember Bill Gates terrible videotaped deposition? I used to wonder how Microsoft planned to win. And then...Microsoft got a new judge, a new Attorney General, a settlement agreement, etc. etc. and the who thing just vanished in a puff of legal smoke and Microsoft carried on as usual.
Now, we have SCO seemingly out on a long limb and IBM holding the saw and yet...the news today has the city of Turku in Finland abandoning their plans to switch to Linux in favor of Windows XP. SCO is losing every legal battle just as Microsoft did but perhaps they are winning the war which is all that really matters.