IBM Doesn't Comply With SCO's Deadline 593
prostoalex writes "IBM refused to settle with SCO and comply with their deadline, expiring Friday the 13th. "We've got a strong defense case, and we're going to fight it", IBM representative is quoted."
I hate to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hate to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM has been around for over 50 years now...They have a DoJ sized legal department that is now out for blood.
My money is on Big Blue
Re:I hate to say... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I hate to say... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I hate to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hate to say... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cs.nyu.edu/courses/spring00/V22.0004
The US Census was the birth of the punch card and indirectly, what we know of as IBM.
IBM history is really fascinating. For instance, in the great depression Watson made the same mistake as Henry Ford -- over-production. IBM would have struggled hard like Ford did if it wasn't for Roosevelt's New Deal (which, incidentally, needed a *lot* of tabulating machines to account for it all).
I could go on and on, but I suggest you get a good book such as "Computer: History of the Information Machine". The history of the computing industry is much like a geek soap opera.
That's "Hollerith", not "Hollerinth" (Score:3, Informative)
Huh??? Plenty of safer places (Score:5, Informative)
In fact IBM is inherently no safer than any other stock. If you want safety, buy treasuries. The government can just print up more money if they need to pay you.
Re:Huh??? Plenty of safer places (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't think the world economy will follow? *Starting* with the Euro?
Re:I hate to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
They sold census-tabulating machines, that's true. It's not as if the Germans said "Hi, we'd like some machines to help us exterminate Jews please". Every nation takes censuses periodically, so there was nothing to raise a red flag.
You can't blame IBM for this, otherwise it just gets ridiculous... after all, Ford isn't responsible if a bank robber makes his getaway in a Ford truck, is it?
No red flag? (Score:3, Interesting)
From IBM and The Holocaust [powells.com] by Edwin Black:
pages 9-10
Re:I hate to say... (Score:3, Informative)
There's a "race" question even on modern day census forms, tho'. I remember filling mine in "other" since I'm not a member of one of the state-approved minorities. That question, in retrospect, was used to single out Jews, but at the time, I'm sure it appeared to be just as much the state's business as any other question on the form.
There was a Hollerith buil
Re:I hate to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, well, maybe, but until you've actually died rather than do something against your will, would you mind dropping the air of superiority?
Re:I hate to say... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I would mind. It's a personal point of pride to me that I have not committed any crimes against humanity.
Eichmann's defense was based, in part, on the old Nazi standy--"I was just following orders." And, indeed, if each of his actions stemmed directly from a order from a superior officer, it is possible (though not especially likely) that he may have escaped the
Re:I hate to say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Suck it up bitches, I'm looking forward to seeing IBM rip you into small pieces and feed you to the dogs. I only hope that considerable finacial harm can also come to Daryl et al personally.
And I don't think I'm alone in this viewpoint.
Re:I hate to say... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I hate to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe SCO can suceed on becomming the most hated company. But I don't think they suceed on becomming the most dangerous company however hard they try. If SCO loose the case, there'll probably be nothing left. So we can laugh at them and go back hating Microsoft.
Re:I hate to say... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I hate to say... (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the fact that Microsoft is financing SCO's anti-Linux crusade (or do you really believe that they pay millions for a license they don't need?), I can't agree with you.
Re:I hate to say... (Score:5, Interesting)
Before somebody out there calls me an idiot or worse, let me reply to my own comment and say that I've since noticed that yes, Services for Unix definitely does include GPL code. In binary and source form, per the license.
That's right. Microsoft actually ships GPL code and complies with the license.
noah
Re:I hate to say... (Score:3, Informative)
You insult my intelligence by posting such nonsense.
Even Microsoft itself has admitted that the license itself wasn't really the reason for the purchase, they have stated that they wanted to "support" SCO because they treat that valuable IP the right way.
So better check with your local MSFT-representative to get your FUD inline with the official pa
Re:Even if they "win".. (Score:3, Interesting)
I fail to see where MS would come out ahead with that quote going around the IT circles. In fact, it just makes linux more powerful in the court room.
Exactly where MS want's Linux to look strong, (anti-trust cases against Microsoft). The iminent SCO-death will also be used extensively by Microsoft as a warning to corporations about what happends to code that gets in bed with GPL software.
I.e. "Don't develop or use open-source code, it can kill your company". That example will be worth to Microsoft
place your bets!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:place your bets!! (Score:5, Funny)
1. Sue
2. ???
3. Profit?
I think that we all will agree that IBM just about has to win this case.
Re:place your bets!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:place your bets!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:place your bets!! (Score:3, Informative)
SCOs claims are, at the very least, mostly bullshit. But think about it. Even if there is some element, somewhere, that's true, what would be their chances of winning against Big Blue? Practically nothing. IBM has the worlds
Re:place your bets!! (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to litigation, IBM is a prize fighter who knows where to hit and knows to hit there very hard.
So there are three possibilities as I see it:
1) SCO wants to be bought out. Darl McBride has mentioned this in the past as being a reasonable thing for SCO's shareholders.
2) SCO wants a token settlement from IBM to use as a weapon for suing other companies who have Linux deployed without a Unix license.
3) SCO has a solid foundation to their case.
Hiring a well-known lawyer like David Boies (ahem, didn't the justice department win the battle but lose the war in their anti-trust suit against microsoft??) seems to imply either #1 or #2. Giving "experts" very small selections of code (80 lines?? give me a break!) for media propaganda suggests either #1 or #2.
I guess agree with what you closed with, SCO probably doesn't even have a case to begin with.
Re:place your bets!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't be so sure. Juries are often technically incompetent, and they are easily swayed by the "this little guy got crushed by this big bad company" stories. SCO is betting that they can get across as the innocent little victim.
The outcome of this lawsuit probably depends more on whether IBM can convince the jury that SCO is an out-of-control legal parasite than whether SCO
Re:place your bets!! (Score:5, Funny)
First round, first minute.
SCO just lost 50 brain cells thanks to walking into IBM's fist.
They're 49 brain cells in debt now.
and in other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:and in other news (Score:4, Funny)
...under a ladder. (Throws salt over shoulder)
IBM vs SCO Poker Game (Score:4, Funny)
IBM: I call.
SCO: Umm..*looks at cards*
IBM: *smiles*
to be continued...
An IBM lawyer... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:An IBM lawyer... (Score:4, Funny)
Bye bye SCO! (Score:2, Funny)
SCO managed to dig its own grave...
Sick of this crap... (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone here knows that Linux is kicking the shit out of Microsoft on the server, and they [M$]know it's not long before it starts cutting into their desktop margins.
This stuff is making me sick. It's a joke, it's friggin' "high-tech ambulance chasing".
I can't wait until they lose and I hope IBM find's something suspect in the case so that they can reveal the true evil behind all this...
Re:Sick of this crap... (Score:5, Insightful)
Additionally, I must repeat what has been said before.. "I won't at all feel sorry for SCO when they get completely trashed in court." Also I think this whole case shows how desperate Microsoft has really become to try to spread FUD about linux, to resort to such crude and ineffective methods.
Daniel
Re:Sick of this crap... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish that too, but it will not happen, unless direct collusion can be proven. I doubt it ever will. Remember, MS has the best, most experienced legal team in the business (they need it). There is no way to prove that they gave SCO money to pursue the case, even though that is almost certainly true.
Re:Sick of this crap... (Score:3, Interesting)
They also seem to have the most arrogant and incompetent management in business. All that is needed is an innocent admission from SCO managers that MSFT actually engouraged them to pull this stunt in some me
Re:Sick of this crap... (Score:2)
IIRC, David Boies et al. only get paid from the settlement. ie. If SCO loses, they get nothing. I honestly don't know much about that, and I'd like to know more, but I haven't been able to find the original reference I read it from.
Who are we cheering for? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, SCO is a bunch of scumbags, so obviously we don't want them to win.
On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you."
I'm really not sure which outcome would be worse.
Re:Who are we cheering for? (Score:5, Insightful)
If SCO lose because their rights have not been infringed upon, as seems likely, then that doesn't say anything bad about the GPL at all. How could it?
You're assuming ownership... (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, SCO has to prove that the code in question is in fact "theirs". Considering the rather incestuous family tree that is UNIX that is not so cut and dry.
Additionally, there are allegations that SCO has been helping themselves to GPL'd code without credit or redistribution.
No, the thing we're learning here is that if you really have an IP case against Linux or another GPL project than just be right out in the open. Document the code and PROVE your case. Don't hide behind lawyers, NDA's, horribly out of context quotes and vaguely threatening letters.
And, oh yeah, it helps if you can at least stick to one story for greater than a week.
Re:You're assuming ownership... (Score:2)
The court case will take years. For now, everything is going according to plan.
Re:You're assuming ownership... (Score:3, Interesting)
Evidence revealed? [theinquirer.net]
Re:Who are we cheering for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, this is a no brainer, IBM all the way.
Go blue!
Re:Who are we cheering for? (Score:5, Insightful)
And if SCO wins, it'll send a message to the world that you can't trust any GPLed product, because a contributor might suddenly determine that, oops, some of the code in it was "unintentionally" released-- and therefore, you never really had a license to use/distribute it in the first place.
Of course, you really have to break this case into four separate decisions:
1) Did IBM steal proprietary code from SCO in violation of an NDA, and include that code in their Linux release?
2) Does SCO even own the copyrights to that code, or do they still belong to Novell, in which case the determination in (1) may or may not be important.
3) Assuming (1) and (2) break in favor of SCO, does SCO have the right to sue Linux end-users for posessing/distributing Linux code, even if the end-users didn't know they were breaking the law? This turns on...
4) Does SCO's distributing their own version of Linux (under the GPL) invalidate any copyright claims they might have made on code that was (without their knowledge) included in the Linux codebase? In other words, if you steal my code and hide it in a corner of the Linux kernel, can I legally be deprived of my rights to it just because I distributed a copy of Linux?
Quite frankly, the best outcome is for SCO just to drop this nonsense.
Re:Who are we cheering for? (Score:2, Interesting)
From the outside, a business perspective, lets look at what has happened. SCO 'owns' Unix. Unix was slowly descending into irrelevance, except in specialized markets. Linux, with GNU, and the other BSD's have brought *nix to the desktop, low end servers, set-top boxes, hand helds, etc. All over. Why? IBM and others
Win or lose? (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, realize that we aren't obligated to remove it immediately; even if IBM copied it into, say, OS2, their customers would not be obligated to uninstall their software. SCO can claim damages, but claiming control over all of linux sure isn't going to happen.
On the other hand, if scos claims are really baseless, we want them to die, because they suck.
Re:Who are we cheering for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you have sympathy for M$ if their DOS business was threatened by FreeDOS, or would you tell them to grow up and spend a few dollars on R&D?
I find it ironic that SCO/Caldera is the first company to be killed by Linux while simultaneously failing as a Linux company. Good riddance.
Re:Who are we cheering for? (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO's tactics are a study of ill will. What an honest company would do if they found their code in some GPL software is send an email informing the project leader. Then, certainly 99% of the time, the offending code would be removed from the project. End of story.
SCO isn't protecting their code. They're attempting to blackmail another company
Re:Huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Only because they probably don't have any code inserted into Linux. But if they did, it would be under the GPL.
SCO clams that someone from inside IBM inserted their code into Linux
No, they are most definitely NOT claiming this.
They are claiming two things - first that "someone" put their code into Linux.
Second, they are claiming that IBM used "knowledge" of their OS to make Linux better.
The two issues are completely separate.
There are no allegations of code theft against IBM. Their sole complaint is "Linux hackers suck, so the only way that Linux could compete against us is if IBM helped them."
Now, if there really is SCO-owned code in Linux, SCO distributed that code knowingly. They know it's there, they know that the kernel is covered under the GPL, and they are still distributing it [caldera.com].
SCO is implicitly licensing their code under the GPL because they continue to distribute Linux. They must have agreed with the GPL, because nothing else grants them the right to continue distributing it.
even if they had never touched the GPL they still would have had code leakage
True, and thier actions state exactly how much any alleged code is worth to them.
The doctrine of laches says that if an injured party wants to claim damages, they must minimize the damages. Since SCO won't allow anyone to remove the alleged code (they refuse to say what the alleged code is, or where it is), then they are unable to claim injury.
By refusing to tell anyone what the alleged code is, they are effectively saying that any code that might be in the kernel is worthless to them.
Drama (Score:5, Funny)
SCO and IBM's marriage isnt going well.
SCO says IBM is cheating with another OS.
SCO files for divorce.
SCO takes IBM's keys to the house away
IBM fights for the house.
Oh how I will tune in next week to see what happens.
SCO stock at 28 month high (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems the Friday deadline looked good to traders, the stock price jumped [yahoo.com]... Yahoo has an article [yahoo.com], written on Friday, about the jump.
Any bets on what happens to the stock price on Monday?...
Re:SCO stock at 28 month high (Score:2)
One billion dollar would of course be jackpot. If they manage to get any money from IBM that is probably a bonus. The worst thing for the stock would probably be if SCO turned out reasonable and nice - wouldnt be much of a lottery left then.
To answer the question: I dont beleive anyone beleived in a deal with IBM before 13th, so
Re:SCO stock at 28 month high (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, its going to crash as every single SCO executive sells every share they own and emigrates to some place with no extradition treaties with the USA.
irrational exuberance on Wall-Street (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want to invest in a company, SCO is not the one to invest in. Never invest in a company with a P/E ratio that's larger than the average in it's industry, and larger than it's P/E:G ratio (price/earnings to growth...it's ok if the stock has a high P/E as long as it's growing rapidly enough to accomodate that P/E).
Re:irrational exuberance on Wall-Street (Score:3, Interesting)
If I had a good reason to believe that those same fuckwits would buy that same dollar bill one week later for $60, you bet I would.
Unfortunately, most investors these days are looking at the short term for the quick buck, and probably don't even know what a P/E ratio is.
In that case, you aren't investing in the company, but in the actions of the company's investors.
moron (Score:3, Interesting)
Would any of the men who've made themselves multi-millionares or billionares by investing in the stock-market think SCO's a good investment? Do you think Warren Buffet or Peter Lynch would even consider investing in SCO? Nope.
04/24/00 (Score:3, Interesting)
eServer Pre-load Saves Customers Time and Money
OREM, Utah--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 24, 2000--Caldera Systems Inc., (NASDAQ: CALD - news), the ``Linux for eBusiness'' leader, today announced that IBM (NYSE: IBM - news) will pre-load Caldera's OpenLinux eServer on its IBM Netfinity servers.
The Netfinity servers may be purchased either pre-installed or bundled with OpenLinux eServer through IBM Direct. This is IBM's first Linux pre-load on Netfinity servers.
IBM believes that Linux will help drive the long-term growth of the Internet by providing an open application platform that can harness leading-edge technologies and simplify customer choice. The common application platform will help ensure software interoperability across heterogeneous servers.
I'd like to comply ... (Score:5, Funny)
For example, I'm looking at a line of code in one of my GPL'd programs:
i += j - n;
Does this infringe on any code claimed by SCO? How would I know?
The only way I can think of is that SCO should send me a copy of their code. I can easily write a little perl script that will compare every line of my code with every line of theirs, and I can rewrite anything that seems to be infringing.
Can anyone think of another way?
Since my code is GPL'd and on my web site, SCO could do it themselves. But they are probably pretty busy, so I'd rather do it myself. Anyway, recent history shows that when they find infringing code, they don't send the programmer a nice message so the code can be changed. SCO just sues them for big bucks. I'd much rather avoid this threat, and save them time, by eliminating any infringements myself.
SCO doesn't need to send me their code. If someone at SCO would just package it up in a few
Eagerly awaiting the URL
Re:I'd like to comply ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this infringe on any code claimed by SCO? How would I know?
I guess your post was written as a joke, but I am going to write a serious answer.
"It's the comments, stupid!"
If you read the what the reporters said about the code they were shown under NDA, they explicitly stated that they thought the code was identical because of identical comments. As comments serve no real purpose from the compilers point-of-view, chances of two comment lines taken from two different projects should be about zero.
Interesting comparison comes from world of chess, where the reconrding of moves can _not_ be copyrighted (because nobody could then play those moves again), but the comments on those moves (like in a book) _can_ be.
Re:It's the comments, stupid! (Score:3, Funny)
I can do that. All it takes is a little perl program. I can probably do it as a one-liner. And I'll be sure not to comment it.
One thing that puzzles me, though. There is an old theory about the lack of comments in the original Bell Labs unix: Before sending it out to universities, the folks at Bell Labs ran it through a filter that deleted comments. This was later verifie
Re:I'd like to comply ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'd like to comply ... (Score:5, Funny)
You can't. It could be obfuscaped, like some of the infringing code is, according to SCO. Now, I'm an expert crypotgrapher, so I know all there is to know about obfuskation (sp?). The most advanced crypot known to man is rot-13, which is unbreakable, at least for people who can't read or write. I did a crypotanalysis of the Linux kernel, and found nasty elements pretty fast: To the untrained eye, this means nothing, but using rot-13 on the letters s, c and o shows that s_fpbshift is actually s_scoshift!!! Very clever: it actually shifts code from SCO to FPB (probably a notable figure in the open source community, as only the best get to have three letter words for names). It looks like IBM is doomed, guys.
Has Slashdot reported this? (Score:5, Informative)
Linux software companies could also become SCO targets. "Do we have potential issues with Red Hat, SuSE and other commercial Linux distributors--yes, we might," Sontag said, adding that chances for negotiating with such companies appear to be slim.
You missed the most frustrating and telling part. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Our biggest issues are with the derivative code," he said. "It would be almost impossible to separate it out."
This is the first time that SCO has essentially admitted in the open what some have been saying all along: SCO does not believe that Linux coders can ever "clean" Linux up; simply replacing "infringing" lines of code with new code is not enough becasue they are trying to claim that Linux itself is now a derivative product of SCO Unix.
The chances of this going away before SCO is utterly dead are zero. SCO has no intention of easily revealing the "matching" lines of code because they believe that they are irrelevant... as far as SCO is concerned, every line of code in Linux is infringing and it is essentially beyond repair. Since it is open-source, Linux can't license proprietary code from SCO. Ergo, the courts should essentially put an end to Linux in much the same way that they did with DeCSS code. At least, this seems to be how SCO sees it.
This really reminds me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of a case involving MCA Universal, Nintendo and Donkey Kong. [gamespy.com]
It ends up Universal didn't actually OWN the rights to Donkey Kong, but bullied several companies, and sued Nintendo anyway... and ended up paying 1.8 million for the trouble.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Corrections to my own post. (Score:3, Interesting)
The article you linked to also says that not only did Nintendo prove it, but years earlier, universal fought to prove that King Kong was in the public domain. "Yes it is!" "No it's not".
Kudos on the link btw.
Sad and tragic (Score:5, Interesting)
So, it does what M$ could only dream of: launch a self destructive lawsuit in a last, desperate gasp of trying to save its business and destroy Linux, unleashing the greatest FUD attack witnessed yet. People are scared. M$, with its "license" pulls the strings, and watches with glee. "I told you so!" M$ will say. "You can't trust open source!"
SCO needs to be destroyed. No bought or settled with, but crushed, utterly and completely. What they have done is unethical, immoral and (hopefully) completely without legal base.
Re:Sad and tragic (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO needs to be destroyed. No bought or settled with, but crushed, utterly and completely. What they have done is unethical, immoral and (hopefully) completely without legal base.
Your wish is most likely granted, and it's going to be by SCO's own hand. Someone called them "the 800-pound gorilla" a while back, when I mentioned that they should be bought up. They may still be an 800-pound gorilla, but gorillas don't fare very well against a well-trained sharpshooter (read: IBM).
What's going to destroy t
I just want to know (Score:5, Interesting)
They're putting the UD in FUD (Score:4, Interesting)
" The dispute between SCO and I.B.M. has not yet slowed the advance of Linux in the marketplace, according to industry executives. But the prospect that the suit may linger indefinitely can only add to the anxiety of corporate technology buyers.
"They're really concerned," noted George Weiss, an analyst at Gartner. "The significance of this case is unclear, but there's no question it has gotten the attention of people." "
SCO & MS are injecting some good ol' fashion Uncertainty & Doubt into the minds of corporate IT people considering a Linux project with IBM. Both SCO & MS have nothing to lose by bringing this case.
Win: They get some $$ and stop IBM's new Linux business strategy
Lose: They spread enough UD around to make buyers hesitate, thus still stopping IBM's Linux business.
Xenix (Score:4, Interesting)
I had to laugh. (Score:5, Funny)
Could the other one also be Microsoft? Just thinking.
If you own SCOX stock, you'd better read this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Friends, I have seen the future.
The SCO Group has three core businesses now. One is OpenServer and UnixWare, which as we all know, suck to high heaven and have never had more than 2% market share in the Unix market. They also hav-- er, had their UnitedLinux offering, but now that we have discovered just how much Darl McBride hates Linux, it's safe to say that SCO OpenLinux is history.
That leaves us with SCO's newest business: SCOsource, their gambit in the lawsuit industry. Now, every time I think about SCO and the lawsuit and the questions being raised, I am reminded of a certain Texas energy trading company that is no longer among the living. SCO can't even confirm how much Unix IP they actually own. Novell says they have the patents as a certainty and some of the copyrights as well, and SCO won't say what they actually own. Meanwhile, SCO says that SCOsource is a key business unit, allowing them to record their extortion fees as regular income, suddenly making them a "profitable" company.
Consider Enron. They inflated their revenues by trading energy that didn't exist and raping their customers for doing so. Now look at SCO. They're suing their customers, claiming infringement of IP that may not exist (they certainly won't confirm or deny the existence of it!).
You'd think investors would have learned from the Enron incident, but nope. SCOX is over $10 for the first time in its history, and McBride and his FUD-spewing lawyer-demons are just waiting for the perfect opportunity to cash out. I just pray that justice is done and that this fscked-up company will be wiped off the face of the planet.
Re:If you own SCOX stock, you'd better read this. (Score:5, Interesting)
My goodness, did people read the latest 10Q?
You know those licensing deals that gave SCO its
first quarter in the black? It issued 210K options
at strike $1.83 to one of the licensees, priced them
at half a million and accounted for it by reducing their
license revenue!
Those options are 2 mio in the money now and the
owner will be looking to dump. Did you check out
the insider trades info?
People, you are being majorly scammed!
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/030613/cald10-q.html [yahoo.com]
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/S/SCOX.html [yahoo.com]
" In connection with the execution of the first license agreement, we granted a warrant to the licensee to purchase up to 210,000 shares of our common stock, for a period of five years, at a price of $1.83 per share. This warrant has been valued, using the Black-Scholes valuation method, at $500,000. Because the warrant was issued for no consideration, $500,000 of the license proceeds have been recorded as warrant outstanding and the license revenue reduced accordingly."
Nice profit on that investment (Score:3, Interesting)
On Dec 16 of last year, VP Michael Olson purchased 30,000 shares at the rather low price of, um, one-tenth of a cent per share (must be nice to be an executive, eh?), and then turned around 6 months later and sold 6000 shares for about $52,000.
So he made about $51,994 profit on a $6 investment, in 6 months. That's like a 433,000% profit, and we haven't even annualized it yet.
Where do I sign up?
Would I really have to sell my soul to get this deal?
Re:If you own SCOX stock, you'd better read this. (Score:3, Insightful)
So who is it? Previously, I thought it must be a well-known company that wants to remain secret because it fears bad publicity from being associated with SCO. Perhaps someone like Sun, who might even believe that the suit is baseless but sees a license as a form of insurance.
Based on the 10Q, I see another possibility:
It's any wonder (Score:2, Troll)
Obviously the monopoly lawsuit has done nothing but bolster Microsoft into doing more drastic measures to ensure they're the only choice when it comes to running a computer.
Call me Scully or Muldar...but I think... (Score:5, Interesting)
Suppose there was a meeting. There were no notes taken of this meeting. No emails or memos were ever written that it even took place.
The meeting was between Microsoft and SCO.
Microsoft promises to keep SCO afloat...doling out money to them over the next 10 to 15 years. In small chunks. First up is to buy a license from SCO...totally out in the open. Saying that they just want to be on the up and up with any code they may write in the future.
But in exchange for Microsofts funding, SCO must openly attack Linux...the only thing that Microsoft truly fears. They must attack Linux, and all the big companies that support it. They must stir up a huge shit-storm around Linux and spout off FUD like there is no tomorrow. This will put doubt in the eyes of future Linux adopters, investors and users while Microsoft gains an even larger foothold.
But remember, there are no documents ever written to this effect. No emails that can be found or memos to be brought forward. No one even knows what is going on except the people at the top. No one has actually said "Linux must die". But this is the ultimate goal.
Just a thought.
How would you find GPL code in SCO ? (Score:4, Interesting)
It was a big legal brouhaha in the 70's and 80's on whether object code was copyrightable as it wasn't a human readable entity (yes it does depend on the human).
My question is really does anyone know what tools are being used to build SCO unix products ? And, are there decompilers that could reasonably show that SCO stole GPL CODE.
Lets face it the reason that SCO is being so secretive is they are the thieves hoping to pull a fast one on the world. Its pretty much obvious that SCO isnt protecting anything new or revolutionary. My guess is SCO had programmers that were either pressed to meet deadlines or got involved in a little intracorporate one upsmanship , and appropriated GPL code, thinking how could anyone notice.
The SCO source is the big mystery here. If it can be shown that significant parts came from GPL or the open source community (i.e. berkely unattributed). Well there goes SCO down the toilet where they belong.
SCO site still uses Linux (Score:5, Informative)
SCO Gets New High-Profile Rep (Score:5, Funny)
In a surprise announcement, today, SCO head Darl McBride, announced that his company had hired former Iraqi front man Tariq Aziz to handle media inquiries about SCO's legal battle with IBM. SCO's president and chief executive officer seemed very upbeat at the announcement, stating that Mr. had oodles of related experience.
Specious evidence, extravagant claims, hidden proofs, enormous odds.. Mr. Aziz has seen (or used) it all. He understands how it works, and he's shown himself able to handle even the most hostile media attention. We believe that he'll provide an excellent source of of knowledge and leadership.
When asked about the questionable morals of Mr. Aziz's former employer, Mr McBride blustered.
"This is about business -- not morals." said McBride. "Our job is to make as much money for our stockholders as possible within the bounds of the law. Mr. Aziz obeyed the decr... laws of his former country and we expect him to do the same here."
Questions about Mr. Aziz's immigration and legal status were brushed off as "a telecommuting issue". When asked about the former Iraqi functionary's whereabouts, Mr McBride only mumbled something about being "one with the source code".
a la South Park (Score:3, Funny)
SCO/STAN Holy sh*t, dude. They're calling our bluff!
M$/CARTMAN YOU are soooo wasted. Screw you guys, I'm goin' home.
Highly Unlikely (from an IBM-er) (Score:5, Interesting)
The lawyers there are PICKY.
When dealing with IP, before a project goes out the door, the lawyers go over the thing with a fine-tooth and make sure:
a) We have legal rights to what we're about to put on the market.
b) Everything we have legal right to, we've properly and appropriately protected. (Such as patented, if appropriate - it's not always.)
When buying software from 'outside', the lawyers go through the license terms to make sure it's 'appropriate', and sometimes it's a pain in the neck. Sometimes it seems it takes so long to buy a new, never-before-bought piece of software that by the time you can get it, the need is gone.
Before you can use Linux inside IBM, you need to take the online "Open Source Legal Course" (title probably abridged) and sign off that you have. The mini-course discusses the legal implications of the GPL, etc.
None of these cases is exactly like the SCO case. But the legal folks are so darned diligent about IP that I can't see anything like what SCO alledges happening inside IBM. The place just doesn't work that way.
Expect IBM to (counter)sue (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if SCO are right, revoking the licencse is the wrong thing to do. The correct thing for SCO to do is to sue IBM. If SCO ask for an injuction to stop IBM selling AIX, it will most certainly be denied because they have offered no proof. Revoking the license is wrong, because (unless the contract explicily states that SCO can do this) it will violate SCO's contract with IBM. In IBM's suit, IBM shows the contract and SCO revokation letter to the judge and jury and SCO loses.
Two wrongs do not make a right, so SCO has to be careful to follow a clear and rational path to redress their alleged grievances. Their public statments already put them on shaky ground and can be used in any suit that IBM would want to bring. IBM are playing it cool and are not saying anything except denying SCO's changing allegations.
MS isn't behind all this, it's Sun (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly his point (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly his point. Microsoft could have gotten any code it needed from FreeBSD, free and clear. They didn't need to license a single line of code from the dinasaur product that is SCO
Sun Microsystems could be the silent second party to this, financing it by buying a license they don't need just as Microsoft did. They may well be hoping to score a home run and sweep up all of the GNU/Linux refugess in the unlikely event a clueless judge or brainwashed jury react in SCO's favor, but unwilling to publicly alienate the Linux community should the gambit fail (and they they have to finally get on the Linux bandwagen all the way).
It is an interesting thought
This is about capitalist oligarchs seeking to destroy a cooperative economy of abundance in order to maintain their own dominance of a capitalist economy of scarcity. It is the ultimate in negative-sum policy
Watch the money, watch the code (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO want to make money from licensing Unix, but the really major sellers of Unix based systems all bought perpetual licenses and have since enhanced their version of Unix in many ways. None of this makes any money for SCO. In fact because they have neither the ability nor the resources to duplicate the enhancements, SCO's sources are now almost worthless.
But, if SCO could win in court, not only would they get damages, they could also ask for and probably get access to the code that IBM wrote which would be folded back into SCO unix. If IBM loses, SUN and HP would be next to be accused. The grand plan is to bring control of Unix back to and only to SCO with all existing licensing cancelled by the courts.
Fortunately, SCOs case is weak, IBM can keep them in court from now to doomsday. As this will be heard in _civil_ court, damages can and will be adjusted depending on the actions of SCO. So far they have made _no_ attempt to minimize the damage to their IP. Very bad move and the judge will no doubt make a point of mentioning it...
IBM can't settle because honesty has been impugned (Score:3, Interesting)
IBM is closely involved in many businesses with all kinds of trade secrets. To settle, even for a penny, is to say "yes, we were careless with SCO's trade secrets". What would happen to IBM's lucrative services business if they settled? How many businesses would start worrying about what IBM might leak to a competitor or appropriate for their own benefit?
They have to be like Caesar's wife: absolutely above suspicion.
proprietary is traditional? not! (Score:3, Informative)
From the article [nytimes.com]:
Excuse me?
Software development was originally and traditionally open source. The first software came from academic researchers who had no need to sell software, and from computer equipment manufacturers who initially only viewed the market for selling hardware. There was no concept of proprietary software when the computer industry started. Eventually that was brought into the scheme of things as competitors came along, such as RCA [club-internet.fr] when it first tried to clone the IBM mainframes. But all along, most academically developed software was free and open source. That tradition just became more noticed by businesses once critical mass (e.g. Linux) was reached that attracted everyone to it.
SCO has a problem here that no one has addressed.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Kernel hacker hits back. (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO has been sent a Cease and Desist by one of the kernel hackers. The hacker is demanding FTP logs and other records so he can determine the degree of infringement against his copyright. He is promising that he will sue unless SCO ceases their claims against other parts of the kernel.
Every contributor to the kernel can do this. I hope those scumbags get hammered for every penny they have.
Power through copy eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Puh-leeze. Any Operting System has to have certain features and capabilities. Of course there's going to seem to be some copying involved because everyone's working to the same goals.
There is NO advantage to SCO successfully prosecuting this case. First off, the "IP" that they're claiming and trying to protect so jealously is something that they bought fourth hand. They didn't even create it themselves.
Second, they've been gladly trying to make a business from others' IP and when that didn't work out they suddenly decide that they need to pursue licensing?
Licensing IP advances nothing. It's just making everyone pay over and over again for the same damn thing. To make matters worse they're pursuing this with all the class and aplomb of any eight-year-old shouting "I'll just take my bat and ball and go home!"
Re:I fear that IBM will win. (Score:5, Informative)
No it doesn't. Look at GNU Radio. You can use it to decode HDTV signals. Try finding non-free software that does the same thing. The linux kernel has VFS (Virtual Filesystem Switch) which acts as an abstraction layer allowing you to mount and use many different file systems in the same way. That's pretty original. Look at OpenBSD. It has encrypted swap space and random pids. What other OS has that? Look at apache. Before apache you couldn't have more than one website per box. Look at Gnutella, it was the first distributed p2p software ever. And the list goes on....
Re:I fear that IBM will win. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, OpenBSD is probably one of the LEAST innovative software projects. It has to be -- innovative means untested, which usually means insecure. Hardly appropriate for a system which strives for the ultimate in security.
Second, SCO's claims have nothing to do with originality of ideas. They have everything to do with alleged code theft. You will have that problem in any open-source project, period. If it's actually innovative, you may also run into patents, which are much more of a problem.
Third, nobody wants "innovative" software, if innovative simply means "different". This is the fundamental difference between a computer science research project and enterprise-class software (which is what Linux is quickly becoming). Rejecting compatibility, adding "cutting-edge" features, and creating a brand-new untested design are all symptoms of amateurism and are OK for college students, but not for serious use. Rejectng backwards compatibility and/or a proven design is just like saying "let's tear down New York City and rebuild it with wider streets in order to solve traffic problems." It's a rather childish suggestion.
Re:I fear that IBM will win. (Score:4, Informative)
How can you say this?
Although Linux originally started as a unix clone, it was derived from Minix which in turn was based on the unix methodology. But Linux has changed, grown, if it hadn't why would people now be using it?
Open source is different for exactly the reason that its open source, anyone can look it and they are free to change it. This means that the software is continually evolving - sometimes using multiple paths, with each contributing to the overall future of the software. Who knows what Linux will look like in another 10 years? but at least it can adapt, new hardware vendors can view the source and optimise their hardware/drivers ready for Linux and if needed the kernel itself can be changed to help accomodate them.
As other people have said any software can become tainted with other proprietry code, especially when you have source licenses from many
vendors used on one of your products.
Take for example the MSQL/Timeline patent issue.
How many people would be willing to start from scratch now? look how long the hurd has taken to emerge, and even now it uses code from Linux to help it take off.
Some would say that Gnome and KDE are just Windows wannabes, but for how long? again they will evolve over time as people demand new ideas and concepts.
So it's important that open source comes out of this mess as clean as possible because if it doesn't then important contributors may be scared off and thus reduce the speed at which the current open source movement is expanding.
This is purely a knee-jerk reaction by SCO^h^h^h Caldera to take as much as possible from our community when they realised that their business model had failed.
Re:An Idea (Score:3, Funny)
I say to show our support for IBM we wear our suits to work . . . wadda ya all think?
I think you're at the wrong web site. Suits, indeed. :)