Slashdot Mirror
IBM Asks Court To Declare Linux Non-Infringing
A Cyclic Graph writes "We finally have a redacted version of IBM's Reply Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment on Counterclaim 10 in SCO v. IBM. In short, IBM is asking the Court to declare that Linux doesn't infringe upon any of SCO's purported intellectual property. This document is the last word on that matter until the Court either declares there to be no doubt that Linux is free of infringement, or decides that that issue has to be decided by the jury. In their brief, IBM points out that SCO puts forth a convoluted set of non-answers referencing each other to disguise it's inability to answer IBM. Their set of cross-references is so complex that Groklaw readers graphed the claims to make what little sense of them they could."
They could sue for the company's real IP (i'm sure they have some, just none that linux copied) and release it under the GPL just to add salt to the wounds.
Moderation is not supposed to be used as an indicator of agreement.
Read http://news.com.com/SCO+seals+deal+for+legal+expen se+cap/2100-7344_3-5440361.html
The lawyers clearly have a vested interest in dragging this case out and, being a good family man, why should Darl complain?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
the creator of the graph could have done a better job, in the top portion which is a tangled mess, if my count is correct, there are 56 edges (counting the loops between 233 and 222, 27 and 187 and as one) and 43 vertices, Eulers corollary states that if |E| = 3|V| - 6, that is 56 = 143 (even if my count was off a bit this is clearly true) then that can be drawn on the same plane (no intersecting lines)... I didnt take the time to find a good way to redraw it, but I have proven it could be done... This depiction makes it look overly complicated (not that it isnt complicated enough)
BSD aren't currently faced with supporting completely undocumented and intentionally obfuscated (TPM-style) hardware.
In a copyright-free world, it could fall either way. MSFT might become insignificant and the rest of the world become more open. Or MSFT might survive by leveraging TPM as an alternative to copyright, with the help of hardware manufacturers who would rather sell to Microsoft's 90% market than OSS's 10%, and conveniently kill off the OSS community. BSD too.
We don't need to wait for a copyright-free world anyhow; Microsoft's big push towards Protected Media Path and TPM has little to do with protecting the MAFIAA companies, and much more to do with pushing hardware manufacturers to choose between Microsoft and FOSS by making it much harder to support both.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
A thing I like about the written arguments is that you get a real idea of IBM's lawyers style. I really get the nazgul reference after reading IBM's latest reply on the summary judgement motion on it's Linux activites; IBM truly can blacken the sky with it's legal arguments.
"Don't sue IBM" probably ranks somewhere close to "don't start a land war in Asia," as advice for a happy and successful life.
This sig all sigs devours
'' I'm not a lawyer and have difficulty understanding Legalese, but doesn't this sort of orchestrated fictionalization and avoidance of answering questions qualify as some kind of contempt of court? It struck me that SCO's attorneys had no respect whatever for the judge or the process. Redacted to its essence, I could hear a snotty voice intoning, "NYAH-nyah-NYAH-nyah-nyah!" Or does the judge have to put up with this kind of bratty behavior? ''
I think the judge doesn't care at all. He just looks through the papers, sees what in there is evidence (nothing), what in there refutes what IBM is saying (nothing), and ignores anything else. It's his job, and he is used to that. It's like if you gave me twenty lines of code that don't do what they are supposed to do, plus hundred pages of text claiming that your code actually works - those hundred pages won't confuse me, because I just look at the twenty lines and see they don't work. When you or I as a non-lawyer read SCOs nonsense, we are just confused. The judge isn't. He checks: Is it evidence? Does it refute IBM's claims? if it doesn't, it can be ignored.