The best use of this technology would to test the SCO LKP for stolen Linux code. Confirming that SCO had incorporated Open Source code that they had access to under the GPL would destroy their credibility and open them up to countersuits. The process would only have to reveal enough similarities to have subpoenas ordered for the actual code involved. Then we could prove the theft with SCO own source code.
I suspect that those who know that Linux code was used to create LKP would come forward once the code has been discover and posted for all to see.
Doesn't the fact that the earlier version is in public make any version built on that code also not able to be copyrighted. thus the code in system V is a derivative of a public work and thus public.
This is a open letter to the SCO Group and its CEO about your recent actions that are injurious to hundreds of individuals and companies.
The SCO Group has taken the position that Unix is a single operating system and that SCO Group is the sole owner of Unix. This is a false statement. The determination that an operating system is qualified to be called a Unix is made by The Open Group. The Open Group has certified many different operating systems as Unix. Truth: Unix is not the sole possession of the SCO Group and Unix is several different operating systems.
The SCO Group does own the Unix System V code. The Unix System V code has serious intellectual property issues that the SCO Group has overlooked:
1) Much of the code has been in the public domain, released by a license holder either through carelessness or choice. The SCO Group does not have any controlling right to that code.
2) Many universities' staff and student contributed to the early work done with Unix. Their IP has been protected by court decision. The SCO Group should recognize that publicly and not seek to rewrite history.
3) There are very details standards that apply to certain Unix functions, coding to these standards will create very similar code. Just because code within your Unix System V is similar to code in an open source does not mean it has been stolen.
4) Unix System V may have had the copyright marking from the origins of code removed by previous owners, either through error or on purpose. A diligent review of the actual source of the Unix System V source code should be done. The copyrights of contributors should be restored. The historical records are available to make the Unix System V accurate. The improper removal of copyright by the SCO Groups predecessors is the responsibility of the SCO Group, who needs to verify the origins of each portion of Unix System V source code. This is a sound copyright practice.
The suggestion to verify the source of code added to Linux is sound and is the practice of the Open Source leadership. The SCO Group has yet to provide a workable plan to identify any code that they clearly own that should be removed. The beauty of Open Source is the public access to the source. The source code of Linux is available to all. Any owner of code may that is infringing can have the code removed proving that they can prove ownership. Please show the SCO Group owned code in Linux that infringes on Unix System V, show clear ownership of that code, and it will be removed. The integrity of the Unix System V source code is called to task by those who have concerns about the Linux Kernel Personality. There have been allegations that actual Linux source code has been used to build this feature. The SCO Group should show leadership in IP matters by allowing a group of Industry leaders to examine the entire LKP source for stolen IP of Linux. The allegations are based on the SCO Groups involvement in developing Linux before, during and after the development of the LKP. SCO Group employees had complete access to Linux during the development process. The chance of IP contamination is huge. Only a thorough impartial investigation can give the SCO Group validation in this IP matter. The SCO Group must make the source available or be forever suspected of IP theft.
The definition of derivative works that the SCO Group has stated is very one sided and mis-leading. To state that a licensee gives up control of previously developed technology when it is associated with Unix System V is most likely not to stand up to legal scrutiny. Even the independently developed functions that are closely related to the core functionality of Unix System V, but remain clearly separate from the original source code are not derivative works if they do not contain Unix System V source code. It is improper to claim ownership of others IP without sound legal grounds. That the SCO Group suggests that the IP of other companies is part of the Unix System V, when the product was se
A hyperlink is an object in a browser window. Hyperlinks "send" commands to external systems. Commands are executed on a external system as a result of the click in browser window. Prior art that functions in the manner described, yet had not been labeled as object or embedded.
If hyperlink is used to launch plug-in, does that violate patent or demonstrate prior art?
What if hyperlink is "embedded" in image? Again prior art or violation of patent?
If browser is sending command to local progam(plug-in) which manages communication with external computer, does browser violate or plug-in? Should plug-in maker be sued for violation not browser maker?
This entire situation stinks: the Internet was all about getting information from external systems. Distributed computing existed prior to the Internet, Mainframes and terminals. Object oriented programming also pre-dated patent. Throw existing ideas together as a new patent. Example: Dumb Terminal- call limited resource system. Display- call browser window. Command Line - call computer object. Mainframe - external system. This now infringes on patent, except that existed 30+ earlier.
This seems to be a patent of the eletronic organizer with password protection. They existed at least a decade earlier than 1994. Since the inventor never built any actual product, he didn't infringe on any patents for electronic organizers. An electronic organizer is much closer to the credit card size that the patent states than a PDA. A broad reading of the patent could include a calculator with a memory function and printout, though the secure part would be questionable. I still am not sure how I shop or use a payphone by connecting my PDA to it without reading and entering stored information. A connection to a system to pass the data was a part of the function in the patent, wasn't it?
Darl is using a smoke screen: the million lines are not SCOX copyrighted, They were Sequent and IBM copyright. SCOX has a small chance of proving contract violation, but cannot prove copyright claim to Sequent/IBM code. Even winning the lawsuit does not give SCOX the copyright status to the donated code.
The SCOX copyrighted code that may be in the Linux kernel is most likely either BSD, previously published algorisms, an open standard or hardware vendor release. These are not exclusive to SCOX. If SCOX had actual hard evidence, they would be using it to prove the point with a small public display. Any public display of code would easily be connected to the actual source outside of SCOX, so no show without nda.
My feeling is that none of Linux is an actual copyright violation of SCOX copyright.
This entire situation is a Hail Mary to increase market cap of SCOX, then use that value to buy profitable companies. Once SCOX has converted the inflated stock into additional sources of income, they will settle and rename the company to reflect its new identity. They may even end up by donating UNIX to open source to make amends, once they have milked the lawsuit and publicity for every dollar possible.
Slashdot Mirror
The best use of this technology would to test the SCO LKP for stolen Linux code.
Confirming that SCO had incorporated Open Source code that they had access to under the GPL would destroy their credibility and open them up to countersuits. The process would only have to reveal enough similarities to have subpoenas ordered for the actual code involved. Then we could prove the theft with SCO own source code.
I suspect that those who know that Linux code was used to create LKP would come forward once the code has been discover and posted for all to see.
Doesn't the fact that the earlier version is in public make any version built on that code also not able to be copyrighted. thus the code in system V is a derivative of a public work and thus public.
Dear Darl,
This is a open letter to the SCO Group and its CEO about your recent actions that are injurious to hundreds of individuals and companies.
The SCO Group has taken the position that Unix is a single operating system and that SCO Group is the sole owner of Unix. This is a false statement. The determination that an operating system is qualified to be called a Unix is made by The Open Group. The Open Group has certified many different operating systems as Unix. Truth: Unix is not the sole possession of the SCO Group and Unix is several different operating systems.
The SCO Group does own the Unix System V code. The Unix System V code has serious intellectual property issues that the SCO Group has overlooked:
1) Much of the code has been in the public domain, released by a license holder either through carelessness or choice. The SCO Group does not have any controlling right to that code.
2) Many universities' staff and student contributed to the early work done with Unix. Their IP has been protected by court decision. The SCO Group should recognize that publicly and not seek to rewrite history.
3) There are very details standards that apply to certain Unix functions, coding to these standards will create very similar code. Just because code within your Unix System V is similar to code in an open source does not mean it has been stolen.
4) Unix System V may have had the copyright marking from the origins of code removed by previous owners, either through error or on purpose. A diligent review of the actual source of the Unix System V source code should be done. The copyrights of contributors should be restored. The historical records are available to make the Unix System V accurate. The improper removal of copyright by the SCO Groups predecessors is the responsibility of the SCO Group, who needs to verify the origins of each portion of Unix System V source code. This is a sound copyright practice.
The suggestion to verify the source of code added to Linux is sound and is the practice of the Open Source leadership. The SCO Group has yet to provide a workable plan to identify any code that they clearly own that should be removed. The beauty of Open Source is the public access to the source. The source code of Linux is available to all. Any owner of code may that is infringing can have the code removed proving that they can prove ownership. Please show the SCO Group owned code in Linux that infringes on Unix System V, show clear ownership of that code, and it will be removed. The integrity of the Unix System V source code is called to task by those who have concerns about the Linux Kernel Personality. There have been allegations that actual Linux source code has been used to build this feature. The SCO Group should show leadership in IP matters by allowing a group of Industry leaders to examine the entire LKP source for stolen IP of Linux. The allegations are based on the SCO Groups involvement in developing Linux before, during and after the development of the LKP. SCO Group employees had complete access to Linux during the development process. The chance of IP contamination is huge. Only a thorough impartial investigation can give the SCO Group validation in this IP matter. The SCO Group must make the source available or be forever suspected of IP theft.
The definition of derivative works that the SCO Group has stated is very one sided and mis-leading. To state that a licensee gives up control of previously developed technology when it is associated with Unix System V is most likely not to stand up to legal scrutiny. Even the independently developed functions that are closely related to the core functionality of Unix System V, but remain clearly separate from the original source code are not derivative works if they do not contain Unix System V source code. It is improper to claim ownership of others IP without sound legal grounds. That the SCO Group suggests that the IP of other companies is part of the Unix System V, when the product was se
Vague is defined within patent. See the " any algorithm " restriction.
They are preempting any modifications or workaround.
maybe the web needs a new protocol/language to invalidate this kind of landgrab.
Can I patent minor ideas that were overlooked and counter sue.
Patent covers "any algorithm that implements ". Damn clever! No one is allowed to do any thing that works around my patent; I called it.
How can you patent "any algorithm" that cover everythings? Build a new technology, Opps, that is a new algorithm. Pay up!
A hyperlink is an object in a browser window. Hyperlinks "send" commands to external systems. Commands are executed on a external system as a result of the click in browser window. Prior art that functions in the manner described, yet had not been labeled as object or embedded.
If hyperlink is used to launch plug-in, does that violate patent or demonstrate prior art?
What if hyperlink is "embedded" in image? Again prior art or violation of patent?
If browser is sending command to local progam(plug-in) which manages communication with external computer, does browser violate or plug-in? Should plug-in maker be sued for violation not browser maker?
This entire situation stinks: the Internet was all about getting information from external systems.
Distributed computing existed prior to the Internet, Mainframes and terminals. Object oriented programming also pre-dated patent. Throw existing ideas together as a new patent.
Example: Dumb Terminal- call limited resource system. Display- call browser window. Command Line - call computer object. Mainframe - external system. This now infringes on patent, except that existed 30+ earlier.
Names changed to make $$$?
This seems to be a patent of the eletronic organizer with password protection. They existed at least a decade earlier than 1994. Since the inventor never built any actual product, he didn't infringe on any patents for electronic organizers. An electronic organizer is much closer to the credit card size that the patent states than a PDA. A broad reading of the patent could include a calculator with a memory function and printout, though the secure part would be questionable. I still am not sure how I shop or use a payphone by connecting my PDA to it without reading and entering stored information. A connection to a system to pass the data was a part of the function in the patent, wasn't it?
Darl is using a smoke screen: the million lines are not SCOX copyrighted, They were Sequent and IBM copyright. SCOX has a small chance of proving contract violation, but cannot prove copyright claim to Sequent/IBM code. Even winning the lawsuit does not give SCOX the copyright status to the donated code. The SCOX copyrighted code that may be in the Linux kernel is most likely either BSD, previously published algorisms, an open standard or hardware vendor release. These are not exclusive to SCOX. If SCOX had actual hard evidence, they would be using it to prove the point with a small public display. Any public display of code would easily be connected to the actual source outside of SCOX, so no show without nda. My feeling is that none of Linux is an actual copyright violation of SCOX copyright. This entire situation is a Hail Mary to increase market cap of SCOX, then use that value to buy profitable companies. Once SCOX has converted the inflated stock into additional sources of income, they will settle and rename the company to reflect its new identity. They may even end up by donating UNIX to open source to make amends, once they have milked the lawsuit and publicity for every dollar possible.