Slashdot Mirror
IBM's Counterclaim 10 Outlines 5 Ways SCO's Wrong
ColonelZen writes "My article at IPW reads: But, however slowly, the wheels of justice do grind on. The discovery phase of SCO v. IBM is now complete, and as per the court's schedule the time to raise Summary Judgment issues is now. And IBM has indeed raised them ... such that it is very possible that all of SCO's claims against IBM could wind up dismissed piecemeal in those motions. ... Yesterday, IBM's redacted memo in support of CC10 hit Pacer. ... This is 102 pages detailing five independent but overlapping, direct and powerfully detailed reasons why SCO's claims of Linux infringement against its code are nonsense."
Very sad that european courts can deal with utterly absurd claims so very quickly in corporate cases (and have done so for SCO's), while the SCOX vs. IBM and SCOX vs. Novell still drag on even though by the judge's comments it's clear they know the thing is a farce.
And this I believe is why IBM decided to take their time, go through the entire court process, despite the increased costs involved -- this time -- to make an example out of SCO. Otherwise, IBM would be inviting multitudes of other lame and unsubstantiated lawsuits from all sorts of "IP" firms with no products. IBM is spending the time and cost now grinding SCO into salt to send a clear message to anyone else in the tech/patent business -- Don't mess with us!
It actually shows a long-term kind of thinking which is sorely lacking in most of the corporate world today.
{ - Generic Guy - }
No, MS only bought "piece of mind". The SCOSource license was a hilarious bit of salesmanship: buy this just in case something we're suing about turns out to have evidence backing it up.
Here's a similar license:
http://btetc.blogspot.com/2006/07/mattsource.html
BTW I think MS might deserve a refund, having not got the "piece of mind" they were buying. That is to say: this maneuver backfired big time; IBM's response has laid waste to years worth of FUD, and Linux has 5 times the mindshare it used to.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
The problem with the previous argument is that SCO isn't suing Linux, it's suing IBM. For SCO's claims to survive Summary Judgement, they have to prove that:
1. IBM contributed the code
2. The code is protected
3. SCO owns the code
The reason their claims have been cut down from 294 to a mere handful is because they couldn't point to code they owned and code in Linux at the same time. Also, in your example, the sample text is VERY similar to the Harry Potter books. If you read IBM's exhibits supporting their motion, you'll see that even the code that is in both SRVX and Linux is less than one tenth of one percent. A more accurate example would be J.K Rowling suing another author because he used the word "The"...
Lawyers including judges need it that way.
What the hell happened to quick and speedy trials ?
Wait, so SCO actually had claims?
Of course they did.
SCO claimed that that had claims.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
IBM requested full discovery of all documents that mentio MS and SUN. There will be more lawsuits that IBM can initiate against MS from that pile. This gives IBM an excellent tool to leverage against sun and MS in the future.
This suit was a huge tactical mistake by MS. They already regret funding it and they will regret it even more in the future.
evil is as evil does
The rebuttal is pretty comprehensive, barring the section about the lines of memory allocation code, which is sort of passed over quickly (if I remember correctly, when the case started, Linus Torvalds had something to say about some malloc or other). Other than that, what matters now, and what the trial will probably concentrate upon, are the previous agreements between the parties, most of which are redacted from the summary.
Umm... What you've quoted says 'SCO is not entitled to enforce them'. What your PP said is the penalty for misuse is that the holder does not '[get] to enforce for as long as the misuse continues'. Those two statements are entirely harmonious. SCO doesn't get to enforce them. IBM have not said that SCO loses them. They've just said they can't enforce them.
Perhaps there's more in the document you don't link to that actually does agree with what you're saying, but if you're going to contradict and insult someone, it's common practice to actually use evidence in your favor.
(PS: I don't know anything about which side is true. I just have good reading comprehension. You might be right, but if you are you should actually have said why instead of selectively presenting evidence in favor of your PP's claim.)
Look out!