Slashdot Mirror
IBM Motion to Limit SCO Claims Granted
Kalak writes "IBM's motion to limit SCO's claims to those that have specific version, file and line numbers has been granted, in part. At the end of last year, SCO made 294 allegations. IBM asked for dismissal of 198 of them due to lack of this information, 1 SCO withdrew, 1 IBM withdrew from the request, and 185 of them have been dismissed from the case. This leaves 107 of the charges are left to be addressed by means other than lack of specificity (such as public domain, BSD code, who owns it, etc.) As usual, Groklaw, has discussion, as well as the Order and an excellent chart of the history of alleged violations has been created as well."
I hope that people appreciate the fact that IBM didn't just lay down on this suit and settle by dumping some money. They could have, and they can afford to do so. But rather, they are playing this out in a manner where there will be a ruling- a ruling where I predict Linux code will be vindicated.
I'll be an IBM customer for a long time due to this. And Whether IBM means it as some grand "do good gesture" or not is meaningless.
The resolution of this will mean that the US will not fall behind in Linux Development. Which they could- assuming the legality of Linux changed here- but not elsewhere.
Go IBM!
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
SCO are finished.
IBM saw the entire affair for what it is -- extortion. They also knows that if they cave into one, they'll be defending themselves till cow comes home.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Finally, some good news.
Looking at this ruling, and the other exceptionally clear rulings which have been handed down in this case so far, I really am glad that the SCO case was assigned to judges who really understand what it is they are doing. This has been an exceptionally slow case, but at least when progress in the case finally does occur, the progress is meaningful.
Apparently, you aren't familiar with IBM's legal reputation. Their legal department has been nicknamed the Nazgul . 'Nuff said.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
I don't think Linux "dodged a bullet" at all. but there are three groups of people with three levels of knowledge on the subject (I'm fast-forwarding 2 years here):
1) you, me, and everyone here know that SCO was totally baseless, IBM couldn't lose this case.
2) there are people who know what SCO, IBM, and Linux are, and that Linux and IBM won against SCO. They are the semi-literate tech bosses.
3) There are the PHBs of the world (and the sheeple), who don't know the Internet from IE, and don't know Windows from Word. They haven't heard of Linux or SCO.
MS rep comes around, does his "buy more licenses/longer contract" spiel. If the company has any interest in going to Linux, he'll work to dissuade them, via TCO, transition costs, and FUD.
Group 1 will respond with "SCO was total BS, and you know it".
Group 2 will be like "But IBM/RedHat/Novell won", and MS says "They got off b/c of a judge's ruling dismissing half the case"
Group 3 will only hear "IP issues, licensing dispute, still in appeal, very messy" and re-sign with MS.
The truth isn't as important as perception, unfortunately.
But Linux's great disadvantage is that it has no single voice speaking for it. So MS or whoever will be spinning the saga in a year or two as "hey, they were still looking, that's a lot of code", and make it out as a travesty of justice.
But in this particular case IBM will speak up as they are the injured party and if the "talking head" goes too far slander and libel cases will appear.
It may be a mountain of code but they can quote The SCO Groups claims of having "a mountain of evidence" and not needing discovery because they were ready to go directly to trial. Then of course the SCO Group demanded ever higher mountains of code to search through for the evidence they claimed to already have but which even given 3 years they haven't yet presented it to the judge.
'Those are the nazgul. Once they were human, now they are IBM's lawyers.'
Three of the claims IBM objected to were "negative know how". SCO argued that these were cases where IBM figured out how to contribute something to Linux because they saw how UNIX got it wrong. In other words, that IBM infringed SCO's intellectual property by not using SCO's source code. Wells expressed doubt about the argument -- calling it a "tenuous position" -- but accepted that there was good reason for not providing the source code.
The rest of the claims she allowed really weren't about coding at all. They were claims that IBM employees who worked on Dynix were contractually prohibited from working on Linux. Again, she wasn't ruling on the merits but agreed that this was a case where source code wouldn't be expected.
Finally, there are the items IBM didn't object to; the ones where SCO actually provided source code references. IBM has already said that it's planning to deal with these with a request for summary judgement.
Also on the chopping block, there's another motion on the table by IBM to scrap most of SCO's expert witnesses. It seems SCO was trying to use those witnesses to add a bunch more code to their "final" list of allegedly infringing material. It remains to be seen how much of that survives.
In a nutshell, it doesn't look like enough of SCO's case will survive long enough to make it to trial.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====