SCO's case vs. IBM has nothing to do with copyrights or copyright infringement.
The only such claims have been made or hinted at in SCO's press releases or interviews.
Their case hinges on work that IBM owns the patents to, or owns the copyrights to (JFS, NUMA and one or two others) are considered "derivative works" of System V Unix. Which is weak at best.
SCO's suit is basically a breach of contract claim and items related to that.
If SCO had filed a copyright infrigement claim, there case would be weakened by not trying to mitigate the "damage" caused by the infringing code. In other words, work with the companies/groups/individuals to help get the infringing code removed. However, since no copyright infringement has been claimed in a court of law, I highly suspect that there is no copyright infringement whatsoever. Frankly, because, for SCO's benefit, they would at that point have to "put up or shut up", or the court would take a very very dim view of SCO's actions.
In fact, based on how SCO has acted (press releases, etc.), I highly suspect the courts will have a very very dim view of SCO and its claims already.
No claim of copyright was made in the suit of SCO vs. IBM.
There are four "causes of action", which basically boil down to a breach of contract, damage as a result of that.
Only copyright infringement claims or hints have been made in SCO press releases or interviews.
The SCO vs. IBM suit is not about copyright infringement in any way.
Additionally, if you just see SCO's press releases and interviews, and the responses to them, you are missing the main point of what SCO is claiming in a court of law. The original and amended suits that SCO filed can be found on the web, I do not have the links still, but they can be easily located by googling for em.
Ugh, my mistake, dunno why I had 4.4 GHZ on the brain.
It is a Pentium 4, only 3.2 GHZ CPU. Sorry for the error.
Wasn't near my home system when I wrote my post, and I believe I had read an article about a 4.4 GHZ Intel and AMD chip being worked on (not released yet) within the last few days. Lack of sleep, lack of coffee and new EverQuest expansion woes on the brain, definitely on the brain.
The funny thing is, I have never been into console games. Reason is, I also do a lot of net research, computer graphics, coding JavaScript (C and Java). System number 3 is my main gaming system, I use my others for my research and other work. Hence, I have tended to "accumulate" systems since the early 1990's. Not just for upgrading for games, but also for faster compiles, better handling and processing of larger higher-resolution graphics files, etc.
In looking at this card though, I wouldn't touch it. I can get more than adequate graphics
cards at the local hardware vendors I frequent, for very reasonable prices.
If anyone at SCO had knowledge of what was happening, and came to the reasonable conclusion that their company was "full of it", and did not take steps to help correct it, or didn't disassociate themsevles from SCO, then they are a party to the actions of SCO.
There is such a thing as personal integrity.
I have ceased to work at a company or two because their business pratices, when it came to their customers (and handling employees other than me) were reprehensible. These were both good paying jobs, but I could not continue to work there. I did, using the proper channels, make my observations and views on their activities known.
To their credit, I was not rail-roaded out nor was I "targeted", so to speak. The employment ended amicably, but I would never work for those companies again.
Again, for each individual working in SCO that had the knowledge of what is (or is not) going on there, it is solely a personal integrity issue.
I would question a former SCO employee on exactly why they left and what role or knowledge they might have regarding the SCO/IBM/Linux situation. If I found that they were in any sort of position to try to handle and correct it, and failed to do so, that would weigh heavily against them being considered for a position I might have to fill.
He has stock, was awarded stock and/or options when he took over as CEO last year.
And, from what data I have read, his stock is restricted (can't sell it) until 31 October 2003.
That being the case, Darl is just continuing his completely outrageous claims, lies, etc., to keep the stock price pumped up until he can sell his stock.
A number of other members of the board and senior execs have blocks of these restricted stocks as well, from what I recall.
So, the formula Darl is working on is to continue pumping the stock price by continuing to spew lies, unsubstantiated claims, etc. until he and others can dump their stock.
Mark my words, once that date arrives, 31 October 2003, and large blocks of stocks have been sold by the board members and senior execs, you will see a marked change in SCO's tune.
SCO is just "Lips flapping in the breeze, signifying nothing".
They way they don't get away with it is to "not pay them one thin dime" to begin with.
You could have a lawyer draft up a letter informing SCO they you received their invoice, and you are deferring action on it till after their court case with IBM is resolved. I am not
a lawyer, but you could probably get such a letter drafted for twenty to forty bucks (all official and everything) from a lawyer.
Reason: No proof has been provided that you own or use any code, intellectual property, copyrighted work, etc. that SCO lays claim to.
I figure, most of the people that receive invoices from SCO will do just that. Might even send them a picture of the mighty one fingered salute.
The only thing SCO could try, would be to send an "audit" team to your door. You pleasantly inform them that they are trespassing and, if they do not remove themselves from your property, they will be reported and removed for trespassing.
I could be wrong, but the handling should be simple for now and be sufficient until their case is heard in court or settled. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I do not see that it would take much to call SCO's obvious bluff regarding this "invoices". In fact, per what I have seen regarding the "audit" clause, if you actually pay money to SCO referencing that invoice, you might then be entering a contract with SCO, where you had no contract with them before (other than the GPL, maybe). So, I, personally, would not pay them a red cent as their conditions on the invoice would probably be very highly frowned upon by a competent lawyer.
There is no copyright "cause of action" in SCO's suit against IBM, none whatsoever.
There is "breach of contract" and "torturous interference" and two other items, but "copyright infringement" is not one of them.
You are right, that SCO's claim of their "IP" and their "control rights" to "derivative works" of their "IP" are confusing at best, but these comments are designed to fool the unwary.
The only place SCO has claimed "trademark" or "copyright" infringement (or hinted at this) is in their press releases or interviews.
"Patents" are also not in SCO's suit vs. IBM, it is mainly just a "breach of contract" suit.
People investing in SCOX stock, frankly,
are not doing their research.
The amount of legal headaches this action
is going to cost SCO, frankly, will kill
any extortion money... er... profits, they
might possibly get from it.
I do recall a poster to a previous SCO
article stating something about meeting
an SCO audit team with his glock at the
door (that is paraphrased I am sure, but
"glock" was definitely mentioned).
If SCO tries to enforce their "audit",
you can bet they will have their butts
dragged into court a number of times.
I was using teletypes in the early 80's
in the military.
Loud and clattery, definitely.
Did preventive maintenance on one once,
bare wire in the tape reader switch bit
my elbow, knocked my butt across the room.
After I recovered, I laughed.
I will say this, I was typing 40 wpm after
a semester in 7th grade (1973). Learning to
type on one of these (1980), I more than
doubled my typing speed. If I was cutting
messages regularly, 100 wpm and higher.
When I finished active duty, I was tested
at 80 plus wpm when applying for jobs as
a telex operator or typist temporary.
The great thing was (1986), because of my
typing speed, I was making $11 to over $14
an hour, just typing.
My first job out of the service was as
a telex operator. I worked with two other
operators and a supervisor. I would grab
the entire stack of outgoing messages,
burn them all, then grab the next lot, etc.
After a couple of days, the supervisor came
to me and told me I had to "pace myself".
When I asked "Why?", I was told that I was
not leaving any work for anyone else. I was
floored! I was doing the work of the entire
area!
It was kind of funny, in hind sight, as my
first introduction to the "real-world" after
five years of active duty in the military.
Maybe they finally realized, after
receiving ESR's letter, and poking in
for a peek at/., that they still were
distributing the Linux kernel from their
FTP site, and had to do a quick update.
I can't wait to see SCO's response, if they
will even respond, the sniveling "look what
IBM and the others are doing to us" cowards
that SCO is made up of.
From what I have read, SCO can prove the allegation that IBM did contribute NUMA, JFS
and SMP to Linux, in one form or another.
However, it would still be a moot point if
SCO doesn't get the ruling that these are
"derivative works". If they get it, only then
do they really have a case.
If that one point does not fly, and it will
probably come up in the initial hearings on
the case, then SCO will probably capitulate
quickly, and pray that IBM will be merciful
in its settlement in regards to IBM's counter-
suit.
IMHO, SCO's case is hinging on that one
tiny little straw, and that straw will surely
not stand the weight of court scrutiny.
SCO: (cringes) Yes? (trembles with fear, eyes find something interesting on the grown to look at.)
IBM:
1. You shut the hell up now.
2. We pay you a dollar and buy your entire company.
3. We remove the Board and fire all the executeives, every single one.
4. We turn over all the evidence of fraud, crinimal insider trading, etc. to the SEC and other interested government agencies.
5. All former SCO execus, employees and board members sign and abide by a non-compete agreement that prevent you from ever working in, starting or managing a software or hardware business for a period of 20 years.
6. If you do all this, we agree not to piss on your corpse in public. Deal?
SCO: Agreed... now, can you take that big elephant foot off my neck?
Yeah, and 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers, and only "hundreds" of customers
that like and use SCO products.
Man, that is piss-poor management to have all
of those people reselling and developing to only have "hundreds" of people that like and use your products.
With numbers like that, the management and Board of directors should be removed and then sued for gross criminal incompetence. It can't be legal to be that inept./wink
Yep, I spotted this a few days ago and remembered that SCO always places numbers of resellers and developers in the "About SCO" at the bottom of their press releases.
In press releases this week, their numbers were:
Resellers: 11,000
Developers: 4,000
All of these people to support "hundreds" of customers?
If that is the case, then SCO is probably the worst run corporation in modern times. This probably explains why they were losing so much money each quarter, until their extortion scheme... I mean, license strategy started.
This, amongst many other things Darl and the senior execs at SCO have said, prove to me, that they are habitual liars and that reality, to them, is what they say it is.
Even if it contradicts other recent statements or press releases.
I long passed the point where I concluded that 90 percent of everthing stated by SCO execs or in their press releases is a lie. Or, minimally, a bare minimum of truth, so that if all the facts were give, would prove to be much more false than true.
And the "((" before "ulong_t NULL)" is also invalid syntax.
I am not familiar with that particular piece of code, but it appears that a cast is being made to case "NULL" as a "ulong_t" datatype, but not sure, it might "more correctly" look like this:
Copyright infringement is NOT part of their suit against IBM.
The only place where SCO has alledged this, is in their statements to the press, in the form of "IP", etc.
To the best of my knowledge, they have not filed a copyright infringement case against ANYONE.
I have read SCO's original and amended suits against IBM, it is simply a contractual suit, generally breach of contract, and disclosing "trade secrets".
Which is really funny, because they specifically name NUMA, JFS and SMP in their lawsuit, refering to what IBM contributed to Linux. And that is funny, because SCO does not own or "control" that software at all. Most if it is copyrighted by IBM or by company that IBM bought (Sequent) or others, but NOT SCO.
SCO's entire case, based on their filed amended complaint, hinges on the court ruling that NUMA, JFS and SMP are "derivative workds" of Unix System V. But that is very highly unlikely, in my opinion.
Regards,
Fredrick
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, nope.
SCO's case vs. IBM has nothing to do with copyrights or copyright infringement.
The only such claims have been made or hinted at in SCO's press releases or interviews.
Their case hinges on work that IBM owns the patents to, or owns the copyrights to (JFS, NUMA and one or two others) are considered "derivative works" of System V Unix. Which is weak at best.
SCO's suit is basically a breach of contract claim and items related to that.
If SCO had filed a copyright infrigement claim, there case would be weakened by not trying to mitigate the "damage" caused by the infringing code. In other words, work with the companies/groups/individuals to help get the infringing code removed. However, since no copyright infringement has been claimed in a court of law, I highly suspect that there is no copyright infringement whatsoever. Frankly, because, for SCO's benefit, they would at that point have to "put up or shut up", or the court would take a very very dim view of SCO's actions.
In fact, based on how SCO has acted (press releases, etc.), I highly suspect the courts will have a very very dim view of SCO and its claims already.
Regards,
Fredrici
No claim of copyright was made in the suit of SCO vs. IBM.
There are four "causes of action", which basically boil down to a breach of contract, damage as a result of that.
Only copyright infringement claims or hints have been made in SCO press releases or interviews.
The SCO vs. IBM suit is not about copyright infringement in any way.
Additionally, if you just see SCO's press releases and interviews, and the responses to them, you are missing the main point of what SCO is claiming in a court of law. The original and amended suits that SCO filed can be found on the web, I do not have the links still, but they can be easily located by googling for em.
Regards,
Fredrici
Ugh, my mistake, dunno why I had 4.4 GHZ on the brain.
It is a Pentium 4, only 3.2 GHZ CPU. Sorry for the error.
Wasn't near my home system when I wrote my post, and I believe I had read an article about a 4.4 GHZ Intel and AMD chip being worked on (not released yet) within the last few days. Lack of sleep, lack of coffee and new EverQuest expansion woes on the brain, definitely on the brain.
Regards,
Fredrick
(Slaps forehead)
No wonder I have three computer systems in my house!
1) 1.1 GHZ, 500 MB RAM
2) 2.2 GHZ, 1.5 GB RAM
3) 4.4 GHZ, 1.0 GB RAM
The funny thing is, I have never been into console games. Reason is, I also do a lot of net research, computer graphics, coding JavaScript (C and Java). System number 3 is my main gaming system, I use my others for my research and other work. Hence, I have tended to "accumulate" systems since the early 1990's. Not just for upgrading for games, but also for faster compiles, better handling and processing of larger higher-resolution graphics files, etc.
In looking at this card though, I wouldn't touch it. I can get more than adequate graphics cards at the local hardware vendors I frequent, for very reasonable prices.
Regards,
Fredrick
I disagree.
If anyone at SCO had knowledge of what was happening, and came to the reasonable conclusion that their company was "full of it", and did not take steps to help correct it, or didn't disassociate themsevles from SCO, then they are a party to the actions of SCO.
There is such a thing as personal integrity.
I have ceased to work at a company or two because their business pratices, when it came to their customers (and handling employees other than me) were reprehensible. These were both good paying jobs, but I could not continue to work there. I did, using the proper channels, make my observations and views on their activities known.
To their credit, I was not rail-roaded out nor was I "targeted", so to speak. The employment ended amicably, but I would never work for those companies again.
Again, for each individual working in SCO that had the knowledge of what is (or is not) going on there, it is solely a personal integrity issue.
I would question a former SCO employee on exactly why they left and what role or knowledge they might have regarding the SCO/IBM/Linux situation. If I found that they were in any sort of position to try to handle and correct it, and failed to do so, that would weigh heavily against them being considered for a position I might have to fill.
Regards,
Fredrick
Ahhh, what does Darl get?
He has stock, was awarded stock and/or options when he took over as CEO last year.
And, from what data I have read, his stock is restricted (can't sell it) until 31 October 2003.
That being the case, Darl is just continuing his completely outrageous claims, lies, etc., to keep the stock price pumped up until he can sell his stock.
A number of other members of the board and senior execs have blocks of these restricted stocks as well, from what I recall.
So, the formula Darl is working on is to continue pumping the stock price by continuing to spew lies, unsubstantiated claims, etc. until he and others can dump their stock.
Mark my words, once that date arrives, 31 October 2003, and large blocks of stocks have been sold by the board members and senior execs, you will see a marked change in SCO's tune.
SCO is just "Lips flapping in the breeze, signifying nothing".
Regards,
Fredrick
Actually, Baghdad Bob sounds somewhat coherent compared to SCO/Canopy at this point.
These guys are too much. They must be bucking to write skits for Saturday Night Live or something.
Regards,
Fredrick
They way they don't get away with it is to "not pay them one thin dime" to begin with.
You could have a lawyer draft up a letter informing SCO they you received their invoice, and you are deferring action on it till after their court case with IBM is resolved. I am not a lawyer, but you could probably get such a letter drafted for twenty to forty bucks (all official and everything) from a lawyer.
Reason: No proof has been provided that you own or use any code, intellectual property, copyrighted work, etc. that SCO lays claim to.
I figure, most of the people that receive invoices from SCO will do just that. Might even send them a picture of the mighty one fingered salute.
The only thing SCO could try, would be to send an "audit" team to your door. You pleasantly inform them that they are trespassing and, if they do not remove themselves from your property, they will be reported and removed for trespassing.
I could be wrong, but the handling should be simple for now and be sufficient until their case is heard in court or settled. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I do not see that it would take much to call SCO's obvious bluff regarding this "invoices". In fact, per what I have seen regarding the "audit" clause, if you actually pay money to SCO referencing that invoice, you might then be entering a contract with SCO, where you had no contract with them before (other than the GPL, maybe). So, I, personally, would not pay them a red cent as their conditions on the invoice would probably be very highly frowned upon by a competent lawyer.
Regards,
Fredrick
Oh, yeah?
Well, my dad could beat up your dad! /sticks tongue out
Regards,
Fredrick
I believe most (or all) of his and other senior exec's stock is "restricted" until 31 October 2003.
That being the case, I have a feeling that it will be about as worthless then as it was before this hole SCO vs. IBM thing.
That being the case, I think Darl will be sporting a big pout when he goes to try and sell his stock.
Regards,
Fredrick
Uh, correction.
There is no copyright "cause of action" in SCO's suit against IBM, none whatsoever.
There is "breach of contract" and "torturous interference" and two other items, but "copyright infringement" is not one of them.
You are right, that SCO's claim of their "IP" and their "control rights" to "derivative works" of their "IP" are confusing at best, but these comments are designed to fool the unwary.
The only place SCO has claimed "trademark" or "copyright" infringement (or hinted at this) is in their press releases or interviews.
"Patents" are also not in SCO's suit vs. IBM, it is mainly just a "breach of contract" suit.
Regards,
Fredrick
Yes, of course.
People investing in SCOX stock, frankly, are not doing their research.
The amount of legal headaches this action is going to cost SCO, frankly, will kill any extortion money... er... profits, they might possibly get from it.
I do recall a poster to a previous SCO article stating something about meeting an SCO audit team with his glock at the door (that is paraphrased I am sure, but "glock" was definitely mentioned).
If SCO tries to enforce their "audit", you can bet they will have their butts dragged into court a number of times.
Regards
Fredrick
Yeah, too bad the stock price will die, probably sometime before the restrictions on the board's and senior exec's shares lift on 31 October 2003.
Darl will be crying that he couldn't cash in while the cashing in was good.
Couldn't happen to a "nicer" person.
Regards,
Fredrick
I was using teletypes in the early 80's in the military.
Loud and clattery, definitely.
Did preventive maintenance on one once, bare wire in the tape reader switch bit my elbow, knocked my butt across the room.
After I recovered, I laughed.
I will say this, I was typing 40 wpm after a semester in 7th grade (1973). Learning to type on one of these (1980), I more than doubled my typing speed. If I was cutting messages regularly, 100 wpm and higher.
When I finished active duty, I was tested at 80 plus wpm when applying for jobs as a telex operator or typist temporary.
The great thing was (1986), because of my typing speed, I was making $11 to over $14 an hour, just typing.
My first job out of the service was as a telex operator. I worked with two other operators and a supervisor. I would grab the entire stack of outgoing messages, burn them all, then grab the next lot, etc. After a couple of days, the supervisor came to me and told me I had to "pace myself". When I asked "Why?", I was told that I was not leaving any work for anyone else. I was floored! I was doing the work of the entire area!
It was kind of funny, in hind sight, as my first introduction to the "real-world" after five years of active duty in the military.
Regards,
Fredrick
Sunday, 24 August 2003 7:36am EDT.
In a way, you could say, that that kind of cleans up one of the messiest things on the Intenet, er... sort of.
Regards,
Fredrick
Wait, you forgot about Sun.
So, they would have 010 (binary) customers. Not that that looks much better, though.
Regards,
Fredrick
Yep, just confirmed, sco.com is not responding.
Maybe they finally realized, after receiving ESR's letter, and poking in for a peek at /., that they still were
distributing the Linux kernel from their
FTP site, and had to do a quick update.
Hehe.
Regards,
Fredrick
In a way, I do not want SCO to stop spewing their outrageous tripe and utter lies.
The more they spew, the more ammo it gives IBM, RedHat and any other potential litigant.
The number of contradictions, outright provable lies, etc. that SCO is putting out, are growing with each utterance.
I must add, that I do not like what SCO is doing.
But I say, "Let SCO keep spewing and, in doing so, damn themselves with their own words".
Regards,
Fredrick
Great, great letter! Weeeee!
I can't wait to see SCO's response, if they will even respond, the sniveling "look what IBM and the others are doing to us" cowards that SCO is made up of.
Regards,
Fredrick
From what I have read, SCO can prove the allegation that IBM did contribute NUMA, JFS and SMP to Linux, in one form or another.
However, it would still be a moot point if SCO doesn't get the ruling that these are "derivative works". If they get it, only then do they really have a case.
If that one point does not fly, and it will probably come up in the initial hearings on the case, then SCO will probably capitulate quickly, and pray that IBM will be merciful in its settlement in regards to IBM's counter- suit.
IMHO, SCO's case is hinging on that one tiny little straw, and that straw will surely not stand the weight of court scrutiny.
Regards,
Fredrick
IBM: O.K., here's the deal....
SCO: (cringes) Yes? (trembles with fear, eyes find something interesting on the grown to look at.)
IBM:
1. You shut the hell up now.
2. We pay you a dollar and buy your entire company.
3. We remove the Board and fire all the executeives, every single one.
4. We turn over all the evidence of fraud, crinimal insider trading, etc. to the SEC and other interested government agencies.
5. All former SCO execus, employees and board members sign and abide by a non-compete agreement that prevent you from ever working in, starting or managing a software or hardware business for a period of 20 years.
6. If you do all this, we agree not to piss on your corpse in public. Deal?
SCO: Agreed... now, can you take that big elephant foot off my neck?
Regards,
Fredrick
Yeah, and 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers, and only "hundreds" of customers that like and use SCO products.
Man, that is piss-poor management to have all of those people reselling and developing to only have "hundreds" of people that like and use your products.
With numbers like that, the management and Board of directors should be removed and then sued for gross criminal incompetence. It can't be legal to be that inept. /wink
Regards,
Fredrick
Yep, I spotted this a few days ago and remembered that SCO always places numbers of resellers and developers in the "About SCO" at the bottom of their press releases.
In press releases this week, their numbers were:
Resellers: 11,000
Developers: 4,000
All of these people to support "hundreds" of customers?
If that is the case, then SCO is probably the worst run corporation in modern times. This probably explains why they were losing so much money each quarter, until their extortion scheme... I mean, license strategy started.
This, amongst many other things Darl and the senior execs at SCO have said, prove to me, that they are habitual liars and that reality, to them, is what they say it is.
Even if it contradicts other recent statements or press releases.
I long passed the point where I concluded that 90 percent of everthing stated by SCO execs or in their press releases is a lie. Or, minimally, a bare minimum of truth, so that if all the facts were give, would prove to be much more false than true.
Regards,
Fredrick
Yeah, the ")" after "return" is invalid C syntax.
Compiler would hack up a hair ball.
And the "((" before "ulong_t NULL)" is also invalid syntax.
I am not familiar with that particular piece of code, but it appears that a cast is being made to case "NULL" as a "ulong_t" datatype, but not sure, it might "more correctly" look like this:
return (ulong_t) NULL; or
return ((ulong) NULL);
Regards,
Fredrick
Copyright infringement is NOT part of their suit against IBM. The only place where SCO has alledged this, is in their statements to the press, in the form of "IP", etc. To the best of my knowledge, they have not filed a copyright infringement case against ANYONE. I have read SCO's original and amended suits against IBM, it is simply a contractual suit, generally breach of contract, and disclosing "trade secrets". Which is really funny, because they specifically name NUMA, JFS and SMP in their lawsuit, refering to what IBM contributed to Linux. And that is funny, because SCO does not own or "control" that software at all. Most if it is copyrighted by IBM or by company that IBM bought (Sequent) or others, but NOT SCO. SCO's entire case, based on their filed amended complaint, hinges on the court ruling that NUMA, JFS and SMP are "derivative workds" of Unix System V. But that is very highly unlikely, in my opinion. Regards, Fredrick