Slashdot Mirror


13-Year-Old Linux Dispute Returns As SCO Files New Appeal (theinquirer.net)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from THE INQUIRER: Now-defunct Unix vendor, which claimed that Linux infringed its intellectual property and sought as much as $5 billion in compensation from IBM, has filed notice of yet another appeal in the 13-year-old dispute. The appeal comes after a ruling at the end of February when SCO's arguments claiming intellectual property ownership over parts of Unix were rejected by a U.S. district court. That judgment noted that SCO had minimal resources to defend counter-claims filed by IBM due to SCO's bankruptcy. "It is ordered and adjudged that pursuant to the orders of the court entered on July 10, 2013, February 5, 2016, and February 8, 2016, judgement is entered in favor of the defendant and plaintiff's causes of action are dismissed with prejudice," stated the document. Now, though, SCO has filed yet again to appeal that judgement, although the precise grounds it is claiming haven't yet been disclosed.

39 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. Zombie by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can't someone kill this zombie process

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:Zombie by MrKaos · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can't someone kill this zombie process

      No, it's maintained by systemd now.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    2. Re:Zombie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      They tried and that's why SCO filed the appeal, apparently they own the rights to 'kill', 'killall' and derivatives.

    3. Re:Zombie by mikael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've seen it happen a lot on servers. It usually happens because the process is already suspended while waiting for a resource to be freed. Like trying to get an exclusive lock on a network shared file after the connection is lost. As it is waiting for a response from the network, it's put in a suspended state. But since there is no connection, there's never going to be a reply. So it just waits and waits.

      Sending a kill signal might nudge it closer to the afterlife and get local resource freed, but when remote resources on network servers are tried to be released, it locks up.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:Zombie by Phreakiture · · Score: 2

      while ps -ef | grep sco | grep -v grep
      do
      pkill -9 sco
      done

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    5. Re:Zombie by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Some of the people here, some of the ones I communicate with off-list, have had in my home, and have visited in my travels - some of them, have children that are younger than these shenanigans from SCO.

      At this point, I'll give SCO $500 just to go away. I don't want them getting any money but I'll give it to them if they promise to go away and never return. The suit certainly is no longer about being backed by Microsoft in order to discredit Linux or open source. That horse has already left the barn and Microsoft is doing "okay" at getting used to it. It can't be about money, they can't possibly think they're going to come out ahead after all of this.

      So, what the hell is the point? I really can't think of a good reason for them to be even bothering with this - or any other suit. I can't think of anything to be gained from it - it's not like they're going to win this or any other suit they try to throw at anyone. Someone, somewhere, is urging them to continue. Why? I believe they were still facing a suit from one of the other players - just so it buries them deep enough that they should be dead.

      Actually, shouldn't they be dead in the water already? Who is paying for the lawyers? I guess we'll have to wait for that to come out, just like we'll have to wait for the papers to come out that explain their next argument. Someone, somewhere, must think there's a chance of succeeding and is willing to foot the bill, at least for this? Maybe? Who? Why?

      Since day one it has looked, at least to a layman, like it was not going to go anywhere. I still haven't been billed my $699 for my copy of Linux. In fact, at last count, I was streaming more than 140 different versions (some are older versions - older LTS and things like that). Boy am I gonna owe 'em a hefty sum of money when they win! *snickers*

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:Zombie by Ixokai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It hasn't really been about "them" getting anything for awhile now, is my perspective. There's a certain pile of cash and the lawyers want it and they'll get it (ahead of other creditors) by actively perusing lawsuit.

      I just thought the pile ran out, but if that lawfirm filed again, clearly there's money somewhere they can grab.

      This stopped being about anything but billable hours... years ago.

    7. Re:Zombie by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll give SCO $500 just to go away.

      Well, it's a good thing it's not up to you then. That's precisely what IBM is refusing to do, because that gives these slimes a precedent and an opportunity to go after potentially softer targets. Good on IBM for not taking the easy way out.

      You're over-thinking this. This is absolutely still about money. It's just lawyers on contingent (meaning no one is paying them) just putting in a minimal amount of effort and expenses to file a few more court documents, hoping for a big miracle payday. Sure, the odds are low, but when the potential payout is massive, why not?

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    8. Re:Zombie by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Informative

      basically no process can die on its own.
      once exit() is called its the job of parent to read the exist status. If the parent process does not do it then the process remains a zombie.

      Usually the fix for the leak is to kill the parent. Doing so allows init to read the parents exit status, and the now orphaned children are then adopted by init which will read their status and clean them up.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    9. Re:Zombie by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      At this point, I'll give SCO $500 just to go away.

      That's $199 short.
          Signed,
          Darl.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Zombie by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      Since we're apparently being pedantic here, they're not going to go away for $500 either.

      The point I'm making is that it's not a good idea to settle, because that just encourages more of the same behavior.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    11. Re:Zombie by macs4all · · Score: 2

      I've seen it happen a lot on servers. It usually happens because the process is already suspended while waiting for a resource to be freed. Like trying to get an exclusive lock on a network shared file after the connection is lost. As it is waiting for a response from the network, it's put in a suspended state. But since there is no connection, there's never going to be a reply. So it just waits and waits.

      Sending a kill signal might nudge it closer to the afterlife and get local resource freed, but when remote resources on network servers are tried to be released, it locks up.

      IMHO, there's a special place in Hell for Developers that write code that waits for a handshake, but then don't put some sort of a reasonable timeout in the code. Really, even if we're talking about waiting for something to respond through a Dialup connection, if that resource isn't available in a couple of hours, it probably is safe to assume it ain't comin' back.

      So, unless you're writing code to collect data from outer space, there's absolutely no reason to "wait forever" (and even then, "forever" is too frickin' long)...

    12. Re:Zombie by macs4all · · Score: 2

      What about server whose job it is to sit and wait for clients to connect? Does that need a timeout?

      You don't read so well, do you?

      I specifically limited that hypothetical "special place in Hell" to those Devs. who were writing code that waited for a HANDSHAKE.

      If you don't know the difference between that scenario and "waiting for a login", (which, BTW, is NOT what a "Server" "sits and waits for"), then you obviously shouldn't be commenting on my Post in the first place.

  2. Garlick and wooden stakes needed ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

    to prevent this blood sucking vampire from rising again. Can we ship some to the IBM lawyers ?

    1. Re:Garlick and wooden stakes needed ... by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The first point here is to figure out the individuals behind this and who's sponsoring them. Then publish who they are and see if they still are interested in pursuing the matter.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Garlick and wooden stakes needed ... by TWX · · Score: 2

      The lawsuit was dismissed "with prejudice", and the lawyers still filed an appeal. Apparently the only thing these lawyers understand is physical violence. Wooden stakes might help.

      I would be very much amused if they're held in-contempt and thrown in jail for a couple of months.

      You know, just long enough to have some moderate real-world consequences.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  3. Re:SCO actually got a bad deal here by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nice to know that Darl still reads Slashdot.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  4. March 31 by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 4, Funny

    A bit early to be publishing these April 1 Zombie Apocalypse stories, no?

    1. Re:March 31 by Teun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The licensing was taken care of, Miscrosoft purchased legal protection from SCO for their UNIX tool-kit for windows,.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    2. Re:March 31 by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Informative

      Microsoft was basically the only company to buy a "unix license for linux" from SCO back in the day (mostly to keep the fight going and undermine their competition) so suing them now would be idiotic even by SCO standards. Don't bite the hand that fed you and all that.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  5. Follow the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who is funding the appeals at this point?

    1. Re:Follow the money by StormReaver · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The sleezy law firm representing SCO and Oracle contracted with SCO to represent them through all appeals for the up-front payment of $20M that SCO paid.

  6. Re:SCO actually got a bad deal here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Apart from the fact that SCO NEVER owened the code they showed you're doing fine. Novel PROVED that they owened it and even got a judgement to show it.

  7. Re:SCO actually got a bad deal here by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

    The source code they pointed to was header files. You know POSIX API interface header files. Besides most of the claims they made had been shot down beforehand in the BSD/Unix lawsuit decades prior.

  8. Re:SCO actually got a bad deal here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Interesting take on reality.

    This might give you some pointers on what they did show, why they didn't own it, and why trying to claim copyright on POSIX APIs is a daft thing to do.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO/Linux_controversies#SVRx_code_allegedly_in_Linux

    However code was (allegedly) found that had been illegally copied into SCO's Unix products from Linux as part of it's Linux Kernel Personality feature.

  9. Re:SCO actually got a bad deal here by nikkipolya · · Score: 5, Informative

    If I remember correctly, you are talking absolute non-sense Mr. Daryl McBride.

    The few infringing lines of code that they claimed and showed were actually UNIX header files and some API's. Novell clarified that UNIX header files and API's are in the public domain having been transferred to UNIX Sys Labs. SCO showed code from 'Berkeley Packet Filter' which then was shown to be under the BSD license. Then they went to show some macro definitions for silly things like MAX, MIN. When it got clarified by Torvalds that there were very very few ways to implement those silly macros in the *right* way, SCO just went mum. SCO refused to show anymore infringing source code and went about selling legal protection from "we want tell you" product. Intel, IBM and a few other companies pooled some money and told small and medium companies that the pooled money would help them defend against the stupid cases SCO was threatening to file against them if they did not pay their legal protection fees. Miscrosoft on the contrary went ahead and purchased legal protection from SCO for their UNIX tool-kit for windows, in order to help fund SCO in their legal litigation and there by undermine Linux.

    Basically SCO lacked the ability to innovate and tried to become a troll.

  10. Court document on groklaw.net by bartjan · · Score: 2
  11. The Turd That Won't Flush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    SCO is like a turd that won't flush. No matter how many times you bury it in paperwork, just when you think it's finally gone ... then it comes bubbling up again.

  12. Re:US Justice System Failure by mikael · · Score: 2

    It was funded by various other OS vendors to create FUD to slow down the adoption of Linux.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  13. Here we go again! by some+old+guy · · Score: 2

    If it doesn't get summarily dismissed (highly likely) and becomes as entertaining as Caldera v. IBM, I wonder if pj will resurrect Groklaw.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  14. Re:SCO actually got a bad deal here by Revek · · Score: 2

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story/03/12/22/2356243/linus-blasts-scos-header-claims
    They claimed basic header files.

  15. SCO is unreliably, deniably dead by Lotus456 · · Score: 2

    I know, didn't we just have a funeral for these clowns?

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/03/01/154214/sco-is-undeniably-reliably-dead

    --
    "It's a good computer... for I to BM on!" - apologies to Triumph, the insult comic dog
  16. Re:SCO actually got a bad deal here by silentcoder · · Score: 2

    Of course the uncopyrightable nature of API's have irked many a corporation before, and seems to particularly irk them when Linux is involved in any way. Just look at the current Oracle/Google case over Java vs Dalvik.

    The sad reality is that crime and lawsuits are, by a massive margine, the largest profit centers there are - so pretty much every corporation ends up doing lots of both. Just making products customers want to buy will make you rich... but it won't make you THE RICHEST - and nothing less will do for the kind of people who run them.

    - One way to think about it: if all crime was done by one company, that company would make more money every year than the top 50 fortune 500 companies combined. Thats a massive percentage of the entire global GDP. There's absolutely no way all that money can be laundered unless two other things are true (it's literally mathematically impossible for them to be false):
    1) Every major corporation must be including a fairly significant chunk of that money in their annual earnings (where it already looks legitimate).
    2) Pretty much every large bank is complicite in the laundering of the rest. So when companies like HSBC get caught laundering money for terrorists, don't be shocked - they are not doing anything that every other bank wasn't doing as well - they just got caught.

    Of course the pretty sucky part of having damn near a quarter of all global profits made from crime is that crime has victims - but since nearly every single victim is poor, who cares about them right ?

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  17. Re:SCO actually got a bad deal here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hmmm, actually not a true statement. I work for the US Courts and a surprising many of them are at least technically literate; of course there are some that are complete Luddites and have no business being on the bench in this day and age. Then there are some (thinking 2nd Circuit) who know a surprising amount about the technology and how to employ it in the courts. We have judges using the iPad to review filings, their dockets, orders, and pleadings while commuting to work. When you have life tenure on the bench sometime the only way to get them off the bench is on a stretcher or in a body bag. Posting anonymously because I work for the US Courts in the technology division; I have a 5 digit /. id but I want to keep my job.

  18. Re:Zombie (the "d" in systemd) by Provocateur · · Score: 2

    The d in systemd stands for defunct, as originally intended.

    The court case will determine if it stands for "die, already"

    The planets are in alignment. Slashdot will be forced to print a dupe of a 13 year old story, on April Fool's Day no less, which triggers a fresh 13-year cycle of dupes that really aren't. And we have SCO to thank. Whodathunkit?

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  19. Re:What if? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

    The joke is that the original claims from Caldera had some truth. It's just that someone went insane and thought they could sick up IBM for money.

    If you go back to the very beginning you'll find that what was happening was that some unscrupulous consultants were porting applications from SCO UNIX to Linux by copying the SCO shared libraries to Linux systems without a license. Somehow, by a convoluted system of chinese whispers this got misunderstood as "Linux contains UNIX code", and some crazy person at Caldera's eyes lit up with flashing dollar signs.

    And the rest is hysteria.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  20. Re:SCO is now Xinuos ? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

    No, TSCOG is still TSCOG, bankrupt.

    They sold SCO UNIX and UnixWare to Xinuos.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  21. Re:Requests to Slashdot's Management by tom229 · · Score: 2

    After all that, fix the God damned mobile site. My slashdotting is entirely done on my phone using the desktop interface. Not because I dislike the mobile interface look, but because it lacks similar functionality. Minor things like not being able to collapse comments makes it almost unusable. The first rule of mobile interfaces is they need to have the same functionality as the desktop. It's no surprise the hipsters at dice didn't know this. Now let's move forward.

    --
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  22. Re:SCO actually got a bad deal here by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Informative

    SCO was ordered by the court THREE TIMES to show their source code to the court. That is a different thing than a PR dog and pony show. SCO whined. Stalled. The court had to order them three times.

    Eventually the court give SCO a third and final deadline. Dec 22, 2005. Disclose ALL allegedly misused materials in Linux by then.

    What did we get? A lot of hand waving and nonsense. Nothing substantial.

    After months more arguing, the court tossed out 2/3 of that. Of the remaining 1/3, the magistrate judge (Wells) was quite skeptical. But technically it wasn't crazy enough to throw out with the other 2/3, so SCO could keep it, although they probably wouldn't get anything out of it.

    A side show in this matter was that SCO did not own any copyright in Unix in the first place. Years later, by 2007, the court finally concluded that SCO didn't even own any copyright in Unix. So they have no standing to sue in the first place. (eg, I can't sue you for stealing Jane's tires. Only Jane has standing to sue you for that.)

    There are many more facets to this entire fiaSCO. And none of them are good for the SCOundrels.

    On the Friday before SCO's scheduled trial to start on Monday in Sept 2007, where after years of saying they wanted to get their day in court, SCO declared bankruptcy. On the eve of the trial that would give them their supposed victory. And SCO was still financially solvent.

    Everything about this entire farce stinks to high heaven.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.