Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCO Amends Suit, Clarifies "Violations", Triples Damages

CmdrTaco posted more than 11 years ago | from the whole-scoop-o-sco dept.

Caldera 1347

Bootsy Collins writes "This evening on C|Net contains three new items. First, they've upped the damages they're seeking to $3 billion. Second, they claim that by making SMP technology generally available through Linux, IBM violated federal export controls and thus breached their contract with SCO through committing an illegal act. Finally, they elaborate on one specific technology they claim rights to which IBM inserted into the 2.5 kernel series -- the read-copy update memory management features which went in at 2.5.43. Unclear is why SCO thinks they have the rights to RCU, since the technology was originally developed by Sequent in the early 1990s."

cancel ×

1347 comments

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221447)

fp eat that, suckaz w00t w00t

first post (-1, Troll)

CyberPsyko (472791) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221448)

first post

Episode 10: Situation Report (-1)

Walmart Security (570281) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221451)

The aroma of premium Samâ(TM)s Choice coffee infiltrated my nose as I sipped a cup delicately. Robert would be arriving momentarily, and I would request a situation report. He and I are, of course, the guardians of a Walmart Supercenter located inside of the prosperous community of Jasper, Texas.

Weâ(TM)ve encountered Paul Cryer, who initiated litigation after his SUV impacted my elite patrol vehicle, and miscellaneous other members of the nefarious Three Pointed Conspiracy. Our integrity, however, is the origin of our strength. We will never abdicate our store. I digress.

"Peter!" exclaimed Robert, emerging from the door leading to the lawn and garden center.

"Robert," I smiled, "youâ(TM)re fifty seconds late. I will not accept such unpunctual behavior. What if a situation occurred in your absence?"

My protégé said nothing, instead walking to the vending counter and drawing a cup of coffee. I wouldnâ(TM)t punish him this evening. "How was your day?" I asked.

"It was fine," said Robert, "but you need to listen to this. There was a situation today at the restaurant!" You see, Robert is also employed by the prestigious Catfish Diner restaurant, which is regarded by many as the most elegant dining establishment in Jasper! Their all-you-can-eat seafood buffet, although expensive, is quite exquisite. I recommend it. Once again, however, I digress.

I turned to Robert. "What was the situation?"

"Well, this man came in," he said, "a man from Houston. It was strange, though, as the emblem on his car wasnâ(TM)t" â" Robert paused â" "I mean, he didnâ(TM)t seem to be a member of the Three Pointed Conspiracy. But, as we both know from experience, such terrible people are unable to conceal their true nature!"

"What happened?" I inquired, attempting to suppress my concern. Robertâ(TM)s safety was of an imperative nature.

"Well, it didnâ(TM)t become physical," he said, "so I didnâ(TM)t need to thrash him. People were obviously intimidated, though. I walked to his table.

"âWhat would you like this evening, sir?â(TM) I asked.

"âLook, man, is there any way you can get me some Starbucks coffee?â(TM)

"âStarbucks coffee? I donâ(TM)t believe we serve that, sir. Would you like some Community Coffee instead?â(TM)

"âI donâ(TM)t drink anything that gives me running diarrhea!â(TM) he said, raising his voice as if he were insulted. âI guess Iâ(TM)ll have some Coke. Anything to keep me awake so that I can get out of this anus of a city tonight.â(TM)

"I must admit that he was beginning to offend me. However, like an experienced waiter, I suppressed my anger. âYes, sir,â(TM) I said, and returned with his drink.

"âLook, man, Iâ(TM)m sure that all of your food sucks anyway, and you only serve a buffet. Itâ(TM)s probably something that I wouldnâ(TM)t even feed my dogs, but Iâ(TM)m desperate. So, Iâ(TM)ll have that.â(TM)

"âYes, sir,â(TM) I responded, âbut our food is excellent. In fact, it is superlative. Our seafood is delivered fresh once every week!â(TM)

"âThatâ(TM)s great,â(TM) he said, laughing, âbut tell your master chef not to screw me over too badly, aâ(TM)ight?â(TM)

"I must concede that I ignored the manâ(TM)s request. I returned with a plate and some silverware, which he snatched promptly from my hands. Fifteen minutes later, I returned with his tab. âHere, sir,â(TM) I said, âthank you for dining with us this evening.â(TM)

"âMy displeasure,â(TM) said the man, handing me a car key, âthis food was terrible, by the way. If this happened at any other restaurant, I would probably shoot the chef. My Lexus is parked outside. Bring it to the front door, please, and donâ(TM)t forget: there are two towels inside of the glove box. Use the smaller one to grip the steering wheel. Place the larger towel between yourself and the seat. I wouldnâ(TM)t want some incompetent like you to contaminate my vehicle.â(TM)

"Quite desperately, I stepped outside and located the manâ(TM)s automobile. I drove it to the front door. I was just being hospitable, you know. Then he stepped outside.

"âI see the grease on my steering wheel from here, you little bastard!â(TM) he exclaimed. I began to anticipate a quarrel. âYou didnâ(TM)t use the towels, did you?â(TM)

"âNo,â(TM) I quipped, âI didnâ(TM)t use the towels. Where are you from, anyway?â(TM)

"âIâ(TM)m from Houston,â(TM) the man replied as he entered the vehicle, âan excellent city, where everybody is just like me!â(TM)"

The pen1s b1rds have returned to Port Deposit! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221455)

Damn, my ascii pen1s b1rd is missing...

They must really be scared now. (4, Interesting)

rkz (667993) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221456)

They sound like a crazy old drunk, making up more and more unsubstanciated cliams, C|Net's article sounds like their getting tired off this too.

Re:They must really be scared now. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221492)

"they're"

Re:They must really be scared now. (1)

Read Icculus (606527) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221535)

I imagine that cnet wouldn't mind if this drags on forever. What with all the hits they're gettting from all the *nix heads they must be rolling in ad-money... or something. Although I didn't bother to RTFA, as it sounds like more of the same old garbage. If you've read one story about SCO's insane claims of IBM/Linux malfeasance, you've read em all.

Re:They must really be scared now. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221537)

Yeah no shit. I'm awaiting the day that SCO claims that Osama himself has submitted patches to the kernel and that Alan Cox colaborated with Saddam Hussain in the mid 90's.

Admittedly, I wouldn't mind seeing D'ohl McBride stood in a street corner shouting idiotic nonsense at passers by. At least then his actions would be socialy unacceptable and the authorities could lock him up. It seems that it is perfectly O.K to act like a paranoid loon if you're a CEO and your conspiricy theories are printed in an international news outlet. Then its O.K

If you were an SCO employee, would you feel at least a little concerned that your boss is aparently dilusional? I know I would.

Re:They must really be scared now. (-1, Offtopic)

rkz (667993) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221561)

LOL +1 Funny

Re:They must really be scared now. (-1, Offtopic)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221567)

Can we just move this SCO vs. IBM thing to a dedicated section or mailing list or something? I have a feeling it's going to be a long time before this is resolved and we've already had 3 SCO vs. IBM articles in 1 day.

Re:They must really be scared now. (0)

alan6101 (608135) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221574)

Makes me think of: "Look at me! I'm crazy spoon-head man! Give me some candy!"

Re:They must really be scared now. (5, Interesting)

Forge (2456) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221582)

Pore SCO. The funny thing is that "someone" has demonstraighted a major comitment to Linux by steping forward to pay Dr. Torvalds a full time salary to work on just the kernel with no obligations to any specific vendor etc...

My gues ? It has something to do with SCO's silly little lawsuite. See the story before this one.

Now here is the tall order SCO has to fill to compleat this case.

1: These specific lines were introduced into the Linux Kernel by IBM at this date.

2: That date must be after the comensment of Trilian.

3: That item was not in any IBM product before Trilian.

4: That item was not in BSD.

5: And finaly. That item was in SCO before the Trilian project.

That's a lot to prove and I doubt SCO will ever do it.

As Mud (1)

ArsonPanda (647069) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221463)

Unclear is why SCO thinks they have the rights to ...

Has *any* of this crap they've been flinging about been clear? They're on frickin crack.

Article text (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221464)

SCO suit now seeks $3 billion from IBM Stephen Shankland [mailto]
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
June 16, 2003, 9:20 PM PT

SCO Group has upped the ante in an amendment to its suit against IBM, seeking more than $3 billion in damages for alleged copying of proprietary Unix intellectual property into Linux.

In March, SCO Group [sco.com] surprised the world with a lawsuit seeking more than $1 billion against IBM in the case. An amended complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Utah added more claims against IBM, tripled damages to at least $3 billion, sought an injunction [slashdot.org] prohibiting IBM from selling Unix and detailed some accusations of technology moved to Linux.

SCO seeks at least $1 billion in damages from IBM's alleged breach of its contract with SCO; another $1 billion for breach of the Unix contract signed by Sequent, which IBM acquired in 1999 [slashdot.org] ; and another $1 billion for unfair competition. SCO also seeks more for misappropriation of trade secrets and punitive damages.

The amended suit also asserts that SCO holds copyrights to Unix, a point that could be key in future Linux and Unix litigation. Novell, which owned Unix intellectual property before selling it to SCO's predecessor, initially disputed SCO's ownership, but later relented.

However, the suit still makes no claims of copyright violation, which several independent attorneys believe could lead to stronger claims than that of trade secret infringement. After the Novell spat, SCO said it had not registered those trademarks. Independent attorneys say SCO must register the trademarks before basing legal action on them.

SCO has made no secret in recent months that it hired high-profile attorney David Boies [slashdot.org] to spearhead its case against IBM, but the company's legal representation in Utah courts is also noteworthy. The company retained Brent O. Hatch and Mark F. James of the law firm Hatch, James & Dodge. Hatch is the son of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a representative for SCO confirmed Monday.

The suit specifically blames Linux founder and leader Linus Torvalds for allowing proprietary Unix code into Linux.

"As IBM executives know, a significant flaw of Linux is the inability and/or unwillingness of the Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual property origins of contributed source code that comes in from those many different software developers. If source code is code copied from protected Unix code, there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact," the suit said. "As a result, a very significant amount of Unix protected code is currently found in Linux 2.4.x and Linux 2.5.x releases in violation of SCO's contractual rights and copyrights."

Torvalds said in an e-mail interview that the Linux developer community's process is transparent and called on SCO to reveal what its specific complaints are.

"It's not our side that isn't identifying the code. We'll work damn hard to identify everything they care to name," Torvalds said. "In fact, the source control system is out there in the public, and it identifies the source and the reason for patches," mentioning the BitKeeper [bkbits.net] repository he's used for the past two years to keep track of code in the heart, or kernel [cnet.com] , of Linux.

Torvalds sided with IBM over what rights Big Blue has over its code. "IBM, as the original sole author to a particular piece of code, has full copyright rights, and they (not SCO) can use the code they wrote themselves in any way they see fit," Torvalds said.

In its amendment, the Lindon, Utah-based company toned down some of the language questioning the abilities of the open-source community that collectively creates Linux by sharing code freely.

Gone is the statement, "Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. Unix was the software equivalent of a luxury car." Also missing is the statement, "It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach Unix performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of Unix code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance, and coordination by a larger developer, such as IBM."

But the original idea is still intact: Redesigning Linux for use by demanding business customers "is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (a) a high degree of design coordination, (b) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (c) access to Unix code and development methods; (d) Unix architectural experience; and (e) a very significant financial investment," the amended suit says.

The suit details much of the Unix and Linux chronology, but still missing from the complaint's history of Linux are discussions of SCO's involvement in Linux development under its previous names, Caldera International and Caldera Systems. Caldera, which raised $70 million for its Linux sales business through a March 2000 initial public offering, was a member of the Trillianproject to bring Linux to Intel's Itanium processor [slashdot.org] and helped found the Open Source Development Lab [slashdot.org] to make Linux suitable for high-end multiprocessor servers.

The suit also adds illegal export issues stemming from the worldwide availability of open-source software. SCO claims IBM has breached its contract by making multiprocessor operating system technology available "for free distribution to anyone in the world," including residents of Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya, countries to which the United States controls exports and maintain cmdrtaco's dog rectum fetish. The open-source technology IBM released "can be used for encryption, scientific research and weapons research," the suit said.

SCO also detailed one element of technology that it asserts IBM copied, the Remote Copy Update (RCU [sourceforge.net] ) system, for relieving some memory bottlenecks on multiprocessor servers.

The amended complaint includes an IBM copyright on the RCU technology that names the an engineer as the author, with work "based on a Dynix/ptx implementation by Paul Mckenney (sic)." Dynix/ptx was Sequent's version of Unix for servers with multiple Intel processors.

It appears that RCU indeed stems from work in Dynix/ptx. In a paper [rdrop.com] on his Web site, IBM's Paul McKenney says RCU was included in Dynix/ptx in 1994. And the Linux Scalability Effort's Web site says that RCU patches are "based on original DYNIX/ptx code (released by IBM under GPL)"--the GPL referring to the General Public License [fsf.org] that covers Linux. Torvalds accepted RCU into the Linux kernel [theaimsgroup.com] in October 2002.

Re:Article text (-1, Offtopic)

Disevidence (576586) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221503)

"maintain cmdrtaco's dog rectum fetish"

Again, lame and not funny. If you cannot be humourous, don't try at all.

And so, please mod parent down. Redundant.

Re:Article text (-1, Offtopic)

forsetti (158019) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221516)

Cmdr Taco has a dog rectum fetish? If it is in a CNET article, copied & pasted to Slashdot, it MUST be true!

Re:Article text (1)

logic7 (462356) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221534)

Just in case CNET gets slashdotted? :-) I guess that's rather unlikely.

Re:Article text (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221591)

Um. When the hell did Novell "relent" on its claims against SCO? SCO denying claims does not mean Novell "relented". Why do reporters write things without fact-checking? Or, maybe its some creative fact-adding by one of CNET's fine Microsoft-loving editors.

I've been away, so maybe this has been suggested (2, Interesting)

PhysicsGenius (565228) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221465)

Does anyone else find it suspicious that MS "leaks" a memo that says they must prevent Linux from succeeding "at any cost" and just a few months later we find SCO, inheritors of MS's Xenix code and still tied to them historically, casting doubts on the legality of Linux?

Has anyone checked to see who these lawyers are paid by and associat with? Could it all be a FUD champagne?

Re:I've been away, so maybe this has been suggeste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221557)

Could it all be a FUD champagne?

Is that like Moet or Bollinger?

Re:I've been away, so maybe this has been suggeste (5, Funny)

KeoghX (606705) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221566)

FUD champagne? Is that the kind with scary bubbles?

Something to consider... (5, Insightful)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221595)

Not only that, but there is also the cash infusion via the (re?)licensing of Unix from SCO to consider. I don't think it's an unfair suppository to make at all that Microsoft is viewing this as a high-risk low-cost gamble on SCO winning this fight.

Kind of wierd when you think that Caldera (now SCO) acquired DR-DOS to do legal battle with Microsoft only two years ago, but I suppose that just illustrates the shifting loyalties on the intellectual property battlefield. IBM is good and all, but one wonders how long they'd back Linux if a better opportunity comes along.

Re:I've been away, so maybe this has been suggeste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221597)

Hi , Troll

You amaze me. Your the most transparent troll ever, and you still manage to get modded up time and time again.

But, since your so lame, shaddup.

Revealed! Whole programs copied in Linux!! (3, Funny)

countach (534280) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221466)


In Unix, a zero length file is a valid shell script, that has an exit value of true. Thus, here is the whole program copied -- /bin/true!! A zero length file!! All comments identical!!

Re:Revealed! Whole programs copied in Linux!! (4, Funny)

cperciva (102828) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221556)

No. While a zero length file might be a functioning /bin/true, that isn't how it is implemented in SCO.

At risk of provoking another lawsuit:


# @(#) true.sh 1.4 88/11/11
#
#
# UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T
# Portions Copyright 1976-1989 AT&T
# Portions Copyright 1980-1989 Microsoft Corporation
# Portions Copyright 1983-1989 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc
# All Rights Reserved

# Copyright (c) 1984 AT&T
# All Rights Reserved

# THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T
# The copyright notice above does not evidence any
# actual or intended publication of such source code.

At least we know now what they're "smoking" (5, Funny)

edgrale (216858) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221467)


"There are two major products that come from Berkeley : LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence." -- Jeremy S. Anderson

Soon SCO will claim ownership for LSD too ;)

too late (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221527)

I already own

a b d e f g h i j k l m n p q r t u v w x y and z.

A patent solution to the SCO problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221469)

This kitchen recipe [google.com] .

Only 3 billion? (3, Funny)

Disevidence (576586) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221470)

Heck, why settle there? While were at it, why don't we ask for 30 billion? I mean if your going to make a spectacle, why not achieve high?

30 billion? 300 billion? 3 trillion?

Cmon SCO, make those claims WORTH something!

Re:Only 3 billion? (1)

datan (659165) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221495)

yeah...after all didn't the RIAA claim several trillion against some college kids? Why not do better than them?

Re:Only 3 billion? (1)

Disevidence (576586) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221529)

Exactly. RIAA are near enough to get on Jerry Springer, while SCO's claims are only enough to get them on a talk show with Ricki Lake. Pathetic!

Re:Only 3 billion? (2, Funny)

Asprin (545477) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221539)


YEAH!

What a bunch of slackers.

Actually, $50 Billion (story inside) (4, Informative)

akiaki007 (148804) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221575)

Story from Bloomberg...

BN 06/16 SCO Cancels IBM Contract, Seeks $50 Billion in Suit (Update4)

SCO Cancels IBM Contract, Seeks $50 Billion in Suit (Update4)

(Adds additional IBM comment in fourth paragraph.)

June 16 (Bloomberg) --- SCO Group Inc. canceled International
Business Machines Corp.'s contract for the AIX Unix operating
system and revised a lawsuit against IBM to seek as much as $50
billion.
The amended complaint also seeks an order forbidding the
sale of IBM's AIX operating system, SCO Chief Executive Darl
McBride said. SCO, which licenses Unix to thousands of companies,
sued IBM in March claiming it transferred Unix code into the
related Linux operating system in breach of IBM's contract. IBM,
the world's second-largest software maker, denies the claims.
``The meter is now ticking with respect to AIX and will be
ticking until we get conclusion to this,'' McBride said in an
interview. SCO is seeking from IBM ``any amount they get from the
AIX or related business lines'' while the case is pending, an
amount he said could run as high as $50 billion.
IBM's AIX license is irrevocable and there is nothing in
today's action that changes that, IBM spokeswoman Trink Guarino
said. IBM will continue to ship AIX and develop products, the
company said in a statement.
SCO shares fell 28 cents, or 2.5 percent, to $10.93 at 4
p.m. New York time in Nasdaq Stock Market trading after earlier
dropping 14 percent to $9.60. Shares of IBM, the world's largest
computer maker, rose $1.75 to $84.50 in New York Stock Exchange
Composite trading. They've gained 9 percent this year.

Impede Marketing

SCO's lawsuit might hamper IBM and dozens of other
companies' marketing of Linux, which Morgan Stanley and other
companies use to cut costs, analysts said. Today's move escalates
SCO's demands by expanding a previous demand of $1 billion in
damages and seeking an injunction against AIX, which SoundView
analyst John Jones said generated $2.8 billion in sales in 2002.
``For a fraction of that, IBM can buy SCO outright,'' said
Carl Hoagland, an analyst with State Street Corp., referring to
the demand for as much as $50 billion. ``Why bother to play these
games?'' State Street is IBM's largest shareholder.
Lindon, Utah-based SCO, worth about $134 million based on
today's closing stock price, bought Novell Inc.'s licensing
rights to Unix for $145 million in 1995. Novell, whose software
is used to manage computer networks, last month challenged SCO's
claims, saying Novell retains ownership of the Unix patents and
copyrights. SCO maintains it has legal entitlement to them.
SCO's suit was filed by attorney David Boies of Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, who represented the U.S. Justice
Department in its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. and
Vice President Al Gore in his dispute over the 2000 presidential
election results. Both Boies' firm and IBM are based in Armonk,
New York.
Linux, developed by Finnish developer Linus Torvalds, is
maintained and updated by a corps of volunteer programmers who
make it available for free over the Internet. Companies such as
IBM, Oracle Corp. and Red Hat Inc. make money from Linux by
selling computers, software and services related to the operating
system.
Unix was first developed in the late 1960s by AT&T Corp. Sun
Microsystems Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., IBM and other companies
over the years derived their own operating systems based on Unix.
Linux is one of the most recent Unix offshoots to emerge.
Microsoft Corp. is the world's biggest software maker.

--Jonathan Berr in the Princeton newsroom (1) (609) 750-4516 or
jberr@Bloomberg.net. and Dan Goodin in San Francisco, (1) (415)
743-3548 or dgoodin@bloomberg.net. Editor: Todd.

Re:Only 3 billion? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221576)

Why ask for 3 billion when we can ask for 3 _million_?

*raises pinky finger to corner of mouth*

IBM's view (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221471)

Three times nothing is still nothing.

Smelly (-1, Flamebait)

Cackmobile (182667) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221476)

I don't really follow whats going on as I don't know that much about Linux (i just use it).

It reeks of Microsoft trying to kill off linux and IBM in one go. I know its not direct M$ but what I understand from these otther stories is that something dodgy is going on.

Re:Smelly (0)

NoCoward (648971) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221494)

Yeah....its all Microsoft. I heard they deal drugs too to preschool children.

Re:Smelly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221559)

Microsoft control the illuminati!! /puts on tinfoil hat

What are they up to? (1)

datan (659165) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221478)

seriously...isn't what they are doing (abuse of judicial systems, shareholder fraud etc.) illegal? I mean...surely they must have *some* sanity left??? I just don't see what they're up to. Sooner or later, they're going to have to fold, then what then?

Open Letter to CmdrTaco (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221481)

Mr. Taco;

On behalf of the /. crowd, I am formally requesting that the Caldera/SCO widget be changed to a steaming pile of poo.

We feel that this is more appropriate.

Sincerely, /.

Re:Open Letter to CmdrTaco (2, Funny)

stud9920 (236753) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221593)

Better yet ! A small poo with legs and arms taunting at a giant blue whale/elephant

SMP? RCU? (4, Interesting)

Surak (18578) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221483)

What?

Since when did IBM have anything to do with SMP in the kernel?

And RCU is clearly a technology that Sequent designed for DYNIX/ptx. Sequent, as the link to RCU states, is now owned by IBM, so I suppose they'd have clear rights to this, no problem. RCU is also notoriously absent from SCO's product, so how they can claim ownership of the technology is beyond me.

I'm starting to think that the folks at SCO are on SERIOUS crack and they AREN'T SHARING. There's reason enough to hate them right there, forget all this Linux stuff. ;)

Re:SMP? RCU? (1)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221525)

Best yet: Alan Cox did much of the SMP work that lead to the 2.0.0 kernel on a machine he got from caldera!

Jeroen

Re:SMP? RCU? (2, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221530)

Actualy, SGI could be the other h/w mfr in the US they're after. SCO is probably after SGI, since SGI promoted and used NUMA-Flex architecture in multi-processor systems running IRIX and Linux.

Since SCO's going down anyway, they prolly think they'd sue everyone - some quirky sense of humor maybe.

Re:SMP? RCU? (1)

Flamesplash (469287) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221545)

Perhaps, but SGI is doing so badly there's nothing to gain from sueing them, other than maybe consuming the whole company. :P

Re:SMP? RCU? (4, Informative)

dschuetz (10924) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221549)

Since when did IBM have anything to do with SMP in the kernel?

I think they're complaining that SMP was a restricted technology, so by helping to add SMP to the Linux kernel, and making it freely available, IBM violated US export laws. By violating those laws, IBM is therefore in violation of the SCO / IBM license agreement (not sure how that connection was made), and therefore, all rights assigned to IBM are void, blah, blah, blah, blah.

They're asking a judge for an injunction now? Good. The sooner the judicial system gets a chance to take a formal look at this, the better.

Re:SMP? RCU? (4, Funny)

jone1941 (516270) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221586)

It's like playing the Kevin Bacon game! Can you claim IBM broke your license agreement in less than 7 hops? Yes? Well then you've got a case. Sad. It's just sad.

Re:SMP? RCU? (2, Interesting)

Shimbo (100005) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221562)

And RCU is clearly a technology that Sequent designed for DYNIX/ptx. Sequent, as the link to RCU states, is now owned by IBM, so I suppose they'd have clear rights to this, no problem. RCU is also notoriously absent from SCO's product, so how they can claim ownership of the technology is beyond me.

I'm guessing that they claim that their contract with Sequent gives them rights over the mods Sequent made to System V, and it can't be GPLd because the developers are 'tainted'. It's hard to believe IBMs lawyers would let that slip by though.

Re:SMP? RCU? (2, Informative)

SkArcher (676201) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221569)

More to the point, as noted in the OSI position paper on the lawsuit [opensource.org] (about half way down - search for SMP and you will eventually find the correct segment), Linux had working SMP before UNIX did, so this is a null claim.

I'm getting bored now, and $3Billion? Who are they kidding. Anyway, so far as I can tell, the arguement goes 'IBM wrote some code and put it into both UNIX and Linux'. So far as I can tell, there is no legal bar on them from doing so. Sure, they can't later take any modifications done to the Linux Kernel and put it into Unix, but as the originator of the code that is in Unix, they can do what the hell they like with it (and later putting it into Linux does NOT GPL the version of Unix, it just prevents them from later copying Linux changes back over)

Re:SMP? RCU? (0)

Farnite (670426) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221592)

Not only are they claiming ownership, they are upping the claimed damages against them because of it. Crack is definitly on their agenda.

SCO (3, Funny)

stephenry (648792) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221484)

I think i speak for everyone when i say:

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH MUAHAHAHA -gasp- MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

Next they'll be getting the U.N. involved!

Steve

Can you hear that sound? (0, Redundant)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221485)

Yes, that long wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee*splat*

That's the sound of one hundred SCO lawyers crashing hard on the ground and making all kind of nice little craters. Now, they know why IBM is nicknamed "Big Blue".

A good start, if you ask me.

Bye bye, SCO. We hardly knew you.

SCO is... (1, Redundant)

BJZQ8 (644168) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221491)

SCO is DYING to be bought out. They're grasping at whatever straws they can find, thinking that IBM the vampire slayer will finally drive a buyout stake through their black heart.

Re:SCO is... (4, Insightful)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221542)

SCO is DYING to be bought out. They're grasping at whatever straws they can find, thinking that IBM the vampire slayer will finally drive a buyout stake through their black heart.

I think IBM has found it's much more satisfying to slowly drain the blood from their prey over the course of many years of heated battle in a courtroom rather than go for a quick kill. Lawyers are very expensive and this will be a war of attrition. IBM will win simply because they will have the resources to stick this out for the long haul. They should be in NO hurry to settle this. Every day they delay is another couple hundred thousand dollars drained out of SCO's war chest by expensive lawyers.

Re:SCO is... (5, Insightful)

Crockerboy (611431) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221599)

IBM will win simply because they will have the resources to stick this out for the long haul.

It's sad really that this is the reason they will will, not because they are in the right or anything...

Re:SCO is... (3, Interesting)

killerc (462845) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221606)

Every day they delay is another couple hundred thousand dollars drained out of SCO's war chest by expensive lawyers.

Yes, but every day they delay squashing this problem is another day the FUD being spread by SCO chases away current and potential customers of AIX and their Linux server business.

don't sue me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221496)

I've implemented RCU for database locks in 2000, and didn't know what RCU was.

Another obvious patent....

IBM should countersue... (5, Funny)

joeszilagyi (635484) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221498)

...on grounds of comedy. This is starting to turn into an old Looney Tunes cartoon, where the SCO Coyote throws everything but the Acme kitchen sink at the IBM Roadrunner. Meep meep!

Re:IBM should countersue... (5, Funny)

testy (138681) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221601)

I disagree. IBM is more like the oncoming train that Wile E. McBridey sees in the tunnel, thinking it's the light at the end.

I purpose (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221500)

I purpose all new SCO articles be sectioned under comedy.

3 billion ? (2, Funny)

skinquad (671839) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221502)

$3 billion ? Sounds like the evil empire from Austin Powers. Stupid COrp.

SCO -5; Idiotic (0, Redundant)

jkrise (535370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221504)

It's not the billions they sue IBM for, it's the billions of pieces they'd get blown into, that matters.

Seriously, SCO resembles MS if it thinks increasing the lawsuit size improves their credibility. Sort of like .Net users - all hotmail users, millions of them. And yet, Hailstorm failed!

IMO, SCO's credibility is dropping on a daily basis.

As exciting as it is... (1)

sethadam1 (530629) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221505)

As much as this might have been a publicity scam, and as much as I've been enjoying this soap opera, I'm really getting sick of it now.

When is SCO going to get crushed like a lone sidewalk snail? I can't wait until someone sues the pants off of them.

And, as a matter of example, I hope the officers of the company have to serve time for this mess, if only to discourage other companies from pulling ploys like this.

feds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221506)

This is beginning to sound like what the federal government is doing to the "detainees" in cuba. Trying them and convicting them with secret evidence that their lawyers dont even get to see. these people will be put to death in a military tribunal convicted on secret evidence that they dont know about, that their lawyers cant tell (or dont know) them about, and that no one will ever see even in a thousand years probably because it dosent exist! just like SCO's evidence!!!

Ironic. (2, Interesting)

peatbakke (52079) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221509)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Caldera (SCO) donate an SMP motherboard to Alan Cox a few years back, for the expressed purposed of developing an SMP Linux kernel? Eeeh?

.. and verification: (5, Interesting)

peatbakke (52079) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221532)

Wish I had googled before posting, but here's the dirt:

http://www.linux.org.uk/SMP/title.html .. maybe IBM refined the process later, but it looks like SMP is in the Linux kernel as a *direct* result of Caldera's actions.

If this was a game of poker... (0, Redundant)

papasui (567265) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221512)

They would be bluffing and trying to buy their way out.

SCO drops some claims about linux (3, Insightful)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221518)

I found it interesting that they have dropped some claims about linux like the comment that it was like a bicycle compared to UNIX being a luxury car. I also find it funny that they cite IBM's Linux investment as evidence that they stole code. Wouldn't a big investment like IBM's indicate that they were doing NEW development as opposed to just taking it from somewhere else?

What I REALLY wonder about is all the idiots buying SCO stock, and why it's still hovering around $10 as opposed to the 1 cent it's really worth.

Slashdot - (5, Funny)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221519)

Hmm - five - six more articles maybe, and SCO will become the most posted/hated OS on Slashdot?

I wonder how Bill Gates will take losing the "Number One" spot here at /. ;)

Re:Slashdot - (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221610)

I hereby offer the following new nomenclature for SCO:

$CO

They have as much chance winning as IBM do for suing them for using a TLA as a company name.

$CO, $CO, $COing.... $COne!

2.5.x kernel not widely used (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221522)

No major distro ships with the 2.5.x kernel. If this code is proven to be tainted, it can easily be rewritten to avoid any legal issues.
The real question is will SCO submit to an audit of their UNIX for GPL violations?

Re:2.5.x kernel not widely used (0, Offtopic)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221570)

gentoo [gentoo.org] ..

failing that try here [kernel.org]

I run mandrake with a 2.5 kernel.

Just because... (-1, Redundant)

rampant mac (561036) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221523)

*Dr. Evil Voice*

SCO: We demand the sum... OF 3 BILLION DOLLARS.

I feel so dirty...

I should be a lawyer (3, Insightful)

nich37ways (553075) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221524)

Seems pretty easy, all you have to do is find some company with a rapidly declining market share and large ip base.

Then find some other big company that you have once done business with and sue them. Damn I wish I was a lawyer on this case, sitting back knowing I am earning a fat pay check while spewing as much crap as humanely possible to keep everything going.

But really now, does this make it any clearer wether SCO has a vaguely legitimate case on UNIX code been in the Linux Kernel?? I want to see that proved before I even try and understand why IBM is responsible for it..

More you say? (1)

zonix (592337) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221531)

So basically, they didn't think they had enough to go on already and had to make up some new stuff in their case against IBM? Oh, and then triple the damages to make it look more believable from their point of view? Dragging this along a bit more after IBM called their bluff?

BTW, don't I rememeber the RCU from school?

z

Can someone post a timeline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221533)

Can someone post a timeline of expected events for this case? How long can SCO spread FUD before they have to appear in court? How long will the case take? How long will an appeal take?...etc.

Any guesses would be great.

Thanks.

Hmm... (1)

kennyj449 (151268) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221536)

Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't researched this, but I'm pretty sure of it...

Didn't the 2.2 kernel have SMP support well before IBM became an active part of the Linux community?

I do seem to recall it being there, but it was quite some time ago.

Re:Hmm... (2, Informative)

Angry White Guy (521337) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221585)

SCO claims that the SMP jumped from 4 processors to 64, something that the linux community could not do on their own, mostly because none of us could afford a 64 proc machine (I know that I can't). So in order for it to run on it, somebody who has access to a 64 proc machine and a lot of experience with Unix source for said machine had to put up the work. Sco says that IBM did it, and did it illegally.

The development kernel? (4, Insightful)

realnowhereman (263389) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221538)

Further - how can SCO be upping there damages if the infringing code is in the development kernel; that has nowhere near as wide a circulation as the stable tree. In fact (if they were right -- although obviously they're not) surely their duty of care would be to say which parts of the development kernel are infringing so that they can be removed before they get distributed to the four winds?

Of course, I know who I'd like to distribute to the four winds.

Go Berkley! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221541)

I can't wait until SCO gets somewhere... and the Berkley joins in and invalidates and 0wnzs SCO like they did Novell when Novell tried to push the SysV IP.

Unix is a very inbred house; SCO's going to be hurting when the relatives show up.

Greedier (1)

corby (56462) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221547)

Unclear is why SCO thinks they have the rights to RCU, since the technology was originally developed by Sequent in the early 1990s.

Also from the article:

[SCO seeks]..$1 billion for breach of the Unix contract signed by Sequent, which IBM acquired in 1999

I know that Sequent used to OEM the SCO stuff, but how does SCO become a stakeholder in a contract between IBM and... itself?

Re:Greedier (2, Informative)

cperciva (102828) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221577)

The contract mentioned was between Sequent and SCO.

SCO does not own RCU! (5, Informative)

xyote (598794) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221548)

Even IBM doesn't own it. It's in the public domain. Because it was invented by IBM 3 times (hey, it's a big company). Once in the mid 80's in VM/XA Rel 2 (patent 4,809,168 now expired), once at Sequent which was acquired by IBM and where RCU was coined, and once as part of the K42 project at IBM research.

Highlights and changes in tactics (5, Insightful)

Badgerman (19207) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221551)

These elements of the article stood out to me as indicating changes in tactics or tactics that they're planning to use:

The amended suit also asserts that SCO holds copyrights to Unix, a point that could be key in future Linux and Unix litigation. Novell, which owned Unix intellectual property before selling it to SCO's predecessor, initially disputed SCO's ownership, but later relented.

IANAL - I wonder why they've inserted this now. Did they forget? Is this just clarification? Are they hoping to get some mindshare here? It's weirder since the suit makes no claims of copyright violation . . .

"As IBM executives know, a significant flaw of Linux is the inability and/or unwillingness of the Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual property origins of contributed source code that comes in from those many different software developers. If source code is code copied from protected Unix code, there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact," the suit said. "As a result, a very significant amount of Unix protected code is currently found in Linux 2.4.x and Linux 2.5.x releases in violation of SCO's contractual rights and copyrights."

I'm concerned this is getting personal (well, moreso). It casts doubt on Linus' competency and/or ethics, thus casting doubts on Linux, and I think may be a veiled threat towards Torvalds and suggest that in the future they may, as has been hinted, take action against him individually.

Redesigning Linux for use by demanding business customers "is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (a) a high degree of design coordination, (b) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (c) access to Unix code and development methods; (d) Unix architectural experience; and (e) a very significant financial investment," the amended suit says.

They either don't get how OS works or don't want to. Despite the changes, it pretty much the same thing - "Linux couldn't have gotten where it is without stealing. Which, by the way, is IBM and Linus' fault."

The suit also adds illegal export issues stemming from the worldwide availability of open-source software. SCO claims IBM has breached its contract by making multiprocessor operating system technology available "for free distribution to anyone in the world," including residents of Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya, countries to which the United States controls exports. The open-source technology IBM released "can be used for encryption, scientific research and weapons research," the suit said.

The only way I can sum this up is "If you use Linux, the terrorists have already won." This addition is rather odd, as if they are so worried, why wasn't this in the original suit? It smacks of exploiting the fear of terrorism and rogue nations for their own ends, and to me hints that their next strategy could be to focus on the idea that "Linx is unethical."

Overall? I expect it to get more personal and more nasty on the part of SCO. I expect them to target Linus more, and possibly other developers or groups.

The desperate ravings of a mad man... (-1, Redundant)

coupland (160334) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221552)

Unless you pay me ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS, I, Dr. Evil, will detonate a nuclear weapon at the earth's core... Mwah. Mwah-ha-ha. Mwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! Mwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Release the bass...

LOOKING FOR A LAWYER (1)

SubtleNuance (184325) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221553)

Ok, who wants to get seriously rich?

Have a look at this SCO price chart [cnet.com] -- How long will it take for a judge to get to make some rulings in this case? what kind of timeline are we looking at? If you short SCO stock, you could get seriously rich if SCO gets clobbered by a judge to the order of "we throw this out", or "there will be no injuction against selling AIX" etc etc. There is a serious bubble building here.. if you bet right, you could do seriously well in a short position...

It's the lawyers behind this... (1)

Windcatcher (566458) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221554)

I was talking to someone at work about this whole issue and he recommended targeting two or three of SCO's lawyers. It should be clear to all here that, whatever the outcome, SCO's lawyers are looking to make out like bandits. He felt that the only way to stop this kind of behavior was to pick two or three and make examples of them--i.e., make their lives such a living hell that every other "hired gun" out there would think twice about egging a company on to something like this.

His, thought, not mine (not saying I disagree, though :^) )

They accuse IBM of...software development (2, Interesting)

FearUncertaintyDoubt (578295) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221558)

But the original idea is still intact: Redesigning Linux for use by demanding business customers "is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (a) a high degree of design coordination, (b) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (c) access to Unix code and development methods; (d) Unix architectural experience; and (e) a very significant financial investment," the amended suit says.

Since when is "a high degree of design coordination" illegal? Does SCO have a patent on sound design and development practices? Or using expensive equipment? It sounds like SCO is complaining that IBM simply threw a lot of resources at Linux which ultimately makes Unix less competitive. Did SCO at some point buy a perpetual license to make money? Will GM sue Ford for using a wind tunnel to develop better cars?

Why did they wait so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221560)

If SCO are so sure (yeah right) of winning this, why did they wait so long for IBM to establish a brand around AIX before suing?

Surely there's somekind of time-based clause in law which stops people from trying on stupid stuff like this? And why increase the damages? It this RIAAmaths all over again - how do you quantify $3 billion in damages over what IBM did?

IMO, SCO aren't exactly reeling from IBM's actions, they just market shite and don't sell as much. Maybe they're jealous or something...

I don't un'erstan', padre... (3, Insightful)

zeus_tfc (222250) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221564)

I don't know all the history of Unix, Linux, etc. but from reading the comments in the past couple of stories, the consensus seems to be that SCO doesn't have a leg to stand on. There have also been repeated comments about IBM's lawyers.

So my question(s) is(are):

What does SCO hope to gain? Do they really think they have a chance against IBM's lawyers? Do they think they really have a case? Is this just some blatant attention-getting tactic?

I mean, we know IBM has a massive legal team, and money to burn on this issue, especially since there is MORE money at stake, so why would SCO even try this if they don't actually have a valid case as most of the slashdotters seem to think? Could they HAVE a valid case? If not, why this continued charade? Are they mad?

I'm confused.

IBM to SCO (4, Funny)

earthforce_1 (454968) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221565)


I see your 3 billion and raise you two more. Show your cards...

Godwin's law v2 (4, Funny)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221568)

... available "for free distribution to anyone in the world," including residents of Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya, countries to which the United States controls exports. The open-source technology IBM released "can be used for encryption, scientific research and weapons research," the suit said.

So IBM is helping terrorists and rogue states now? I think we need an addition to Godwin's Law [science.uva.nl] - "As a dispute goes on, the probability of one side claiming the other is helping terrorists approaches one"

Imaginative Slashdotters (1)

Platinum Dragon (34829) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221573)

If nothing else, this slew of SCO suicide articles is giving Slashdotters an opportunity to come up with as many metaphors for the coming annihilation of SCO as possible.

Might as well throw in another one; IBM HULK SMASH PUNY SCO HUMANS!

New Big Bad...... (1)

botzi (673768) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221578)

Recent statistiques shows that unless the /. editors publish some shocking story on DRM and the evil MS plans, in the week to come SCO will replace the Redmond giant on the top of the geeky "Big bad" list....
...unfortunately for SCO, this time they will top the Big Blue's Big Bad list, and that's likely to cause them a lot more troubles......;o))))

That is IT!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221584)

**Now** is the time to DDoS SCO.

(removing the space in 'zip')
wget sco.com/images/pdf/education/SCO_AEP_posterfiles.z ip

Non-Sequiters (3, Interesting)

clonebarkins (470547) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221587)

All of SCOs claims are non-sequiters. I would debunk them here, but OSI already did! [opensource.org]

Just chill (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221602)

Read the story and laugh. This is a mouse shrieking... Soon the elephant will demonstrate how its fear of mice has been greatly exaggerated.

Boosty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6221604)

Bootsy was JUST whining about not getting a submission accepted. Not he (she?) must feel proud. Hopefully this will shut him/her up from whining about story queue submissions! Sheesh

Three billion? (1)

Mikey-San (582838) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221605)

Why sue for billions when we could sue for ...

MILLIONS? /got nothing

Any lawyers care to comment? (1)

terzyva (154478) | more than 11 years ago | (#6221609)

IANAL, but my impression is that SCO really doesn't have a leg to stand on for this case. If there *are* any lawyers here, comments would be welcome.

First of all, the claim about revoking the Unix license for AIX sounds silly. Unless the contract specifically details conditions in which the rights to Unix are terminated, the alleged trade secret violations have nothing whatsoever to do with the terms of that completely separate contract. A company cannot unilaterally try to invent some quid-per-quo measure to punish someone who they think has wronged them, that's what we have courts for.

Also, what's up with the violations of export controls? In the unlikely case that this has merit, the government would have to sue IBM, and I cannot see any reason at all why SCO should be awarded civil damages due to IBM having violated federal laws.

Lastly, the Sequent code. Sequent wrote the code around 1994, IBM bought Sequent (presumably including the rights to whatever code was developed there), and submitted the code for inclusion in Linux in 2002. I don't understand what SCO is claiming here - do they think some magical Unix vapor has infused Sequent and directly caused the RCU code to be written based on those heady fumes? If so, they should patent that technology :-)

-Klaus
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...