SCOrched Earth 436
mm0mm writes "Just hours after we read Darl's open letter on copyrights, Groklaw has another breaking update on SCO up on their website. SCO's Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Compel Discovery is now available. (original document here) The memorandum requests court to order IBM, the defendant, to provide evidence and support their case against ....IBM. :D When I was young, it was the plaintiff who was responsible for preparing enough evidence to present to the court, but in Darl's world, with army of lawyers who will be given 20% of the proceeds from the settlement or of 'a sale of SCO during the pendancy of litigation', apparently rules are different." Lawrence Lessig has a great piece reviewing Darl's nonsensical letter.
Hmmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Funny)
wtf. that's dumb. I'm calling the police.
mind helping me dial 911?
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Funny)
but they can't find the eleven.
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmmmm (Score:3, Funny)
There's nothing wrong with SCO's request. (Score:5, Funny)
And they should just, ah, hand that in with the TPS reports.
What's unreasonable about that?
Re:There's nothing wrong with SCO's request. (Score:5, Funny)
Daniel
Re:There's nothing wrong with SCO's request. (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, I think IBM should give it to them. SCO does have a 9-track tape reader set up, right? No? Well, IBM will gladly send the source over on floppies. 5-1/4" ones.
Online mentions in IBM filing (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO's team, on the other hand, probably starts chewing the rug everytime there's an update...
Re:Online mentions in IBM filing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Online mentions in IBM filing (Score:3, Funny)
Don't block the exit doors, the smarter employees will need out somehow.
Re:Online mentions in IBM filing (Score:4, Funny)
I would have thought the smarter employees had gotten out a LOOOOOOOONG time ago...
Horse poop isn't that bad. (Score:5, Informative)
WMD? (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps we should fill the SCO offices with these WMD's (which sound like biological weapons to me) and get Blair and Bush to declare war on them.
Re:Online mentions in IBM filing (Score:3, Funny)
How do you weigh hot air again?
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:Online mentions in IBM filing (Score:4, Informative)
Just tinfoil hatting a bit, but could IBM use this opportunity to badly hurt HP, their nearest competitor?
We all know HP has idemnified their customers on linux. Now, if IBM were to strike a clandestine deal with SCO, and 'confessed' that they have (God forbid!) leaked code into Linux, then it will strengthen SCO's claim on the ownership of Linux. And HP will be forced to pay a very damaging liability... while IBM quietly settles it out of court. Even if IBM have to pay loads, it would be a big calculated whammy to HP....
Re:Online mentions in IBM filing (Score:5, Interesting)
As for your tin foil hat theory INAL but if IBM were to do what you say and secretly settle with SCO then anyone forced to fork out a licence fee would have to take a look at the company that put the code there to retreive their damages. HP would probably get the damages etc right back from IBM in court.
IMO their behavior amounts to a bit of short term pain for the long term gain of reminding people why no one in their right mind sues IBM.
And hay.. if this finally gets the GPL court tested the rest of us may come out winners as well as it will remove a rather popular target to throw FUD at.
Re:Online mentions in IBM filing (Score:5, Informative)
OK, this is a misconception I keep seeing, and I would like to clarify.
IF SCO code is inside of Linux, it is NOT LEGAL for ANYONE to distribute Linux until the SCO code is removed.
If SCO code is in Linux, SCO doesn't own Linux. They just own the bits of code they own; the entire REST of the linux kernel still belongs to the individual authors.
The individual authors have only agreed to let the bits of code they own be released under the GPL. The GPL says that if you distribute GPLed code, you MUST be able to state that ANYONE will be able to redistribute the code with NO extra limitations besides those of the GPL (with the only exception being that people *may* be prohibited from distributing into countries where the code is illegal under local laws).
So: IBM *cannot* just settle out of court with SCO and continue on while HP gets whacked. If IBM gains the right to distribute the hypothetical SCO portions of the kernel, then HP automatically gains the right as well. And if HP does not gain that right, then that means *IBM does not have the right to distribute Linux at all* because they would be violating the license rights of every single kernel contributor EXCEPT SCO [and themselves].
In fact, it would mean that until that limited, GPL-incompatible SCO code is removed, *no one* would be able to distribute Linux legally. This is the problem. SCO can *never* collect license fees for any hypothetical code it has in Linux, from IBM, HP, or anyone else, because the instant that code is revealed to be real, it must immediately be removed from Linux, period.
Now, once it is removed, SCO could try to claim damages from HP for the time its code spent in Linux, but between the fact that in this hypothetical case 1) HP would be an unknowing transgressor and 2) HP was using code that IBM had in apparently good faith presented to HP as being owned by IBM, HP could brush off any lawsuits easily. When you add the 3) problem SCO failed to mitigate damages at all and 4) SCO very probably *granted* HP an unlimited GPL license to distribute SCO's "poisoned" code by distributing Caldera, HP would be able to laugh such a case out of court even more easily than IBM is going to laugh the current contract-based case out of court.
(And of course, all of this assumes SCO's "stolen" code is real. I see no more or less reason to take such an idea seriously than I see a reason to believe the works of H.P. Lovecraft are actually true.)
Doh! (Score:2, Funny)
Oh wait, FRITZ will do that for us. Thanks Microsoft!
Prosecution, your witness. (Score:3, Interesting)
You better believe they can't rely on the 5th! (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes, a defendant faces both -- a civil action may seek damages for conduct that, in fact, is criminal. A defendant could, at least in theory, refuse to answer a question on fifth amendment grounds to
I think we have just reached the point . . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
You are so mistaken . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Soon to be decided (Score:4, Interesting)
Hopefully the judge will take one look at this this [groklaw.net] and ask SCO exactly why they arn't prepared to say what they have on IBM.
Re:Soon to be decided (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Soon to be decided (Score:4, Informative)
Suspending other discovery is amazingly significant here. It means that the judge has decided that the SCO refusal to state their claim is the central issue of the case, all other issues are now secondary.
SCO will dissemble for as long as they can manage and on about day 30 will attempt to provide a second discovery almost as broad as the first. Then we will see whether they get one last chance or a dismissal of their claims.
I don't think there will be much FUD value after a dismissal, sure SCO can appeal up to other courts and try to keep the issue live for a couple of extra months. But the stock price will be in the tank. The analysts think the price will go down to zero. The short interest in the stock is 25% of the float already and doubled in the past month.
Re:Soon to be decided (Score:3, Interesting)
SCOrched Earth (Score:3, Interesting)
That's how discovery works in litigation (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That's how discovery works in litigation (Score:4, Insightful)
to do things like "support their case against [IBM]". They can't force IBM to do the
research/build their case for them because they refuse to disclose what specific sections
of code are in violation.
Re:That's how discovery works in litigation (Score:5, Insightful)
But isn't there a problem with this?
Say I am a fizzy drinks manufacturer. I want to know what Coca-cola's secret formula is. I start a case against them saying that they've copied my formula, and that they have to give me their formula so I can prove it.
I would imagine source code is esentially a trade secret. A competitor has asked IBM to hand over their trade secrets, because they may have copied theirs. Doesn't seem right to me. If SCO cannot provide some other proof that copying has occurred - for instance, evidence from an IBM employee - then I don't think they should be allowed to see IBMs trade secrets.
Re:That's how discovery works in litigation (Score:5, Interesting)
So, no worries... the legal system has considered these things.
Re:That's how discovery works in litigation (Score:3, Insightful)
But actually, it is about *Control* and lack of freedom. And control is won historically by propaganda, and today's modern propaganda is FUD. SCO is on a mission to drag this mess out as long as possible and generate as much FUD as possible. So, IBM could take them to court for trade secret violations. What would IBM gain? From SCO? SC
Re:That's how discovery works in litigation (Score:5, Interesting)
Groklaw pointed out the other day that for years, the AT&T Unix code had *NO* copyright notices for just this reason - they were trying to protect it as trade secret. It was only after the breakup when they were trying to 'marketize' it that the "THIS IS UNPUBLISHED SOURCE CODE OF AT&T" comment blocks went in.
Re:That's how discovery works in litigation (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, then you'll want to read Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Shreveport, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 107 F.R.D. 288 (D. Del. 1985). There, the court held that Coca-Cola's secret formula was not immune to discovery once the plaintiffs had made a showing of "relevancy" and "necessity." Of course, this did not mean that Coke's secret would then become a matter of public record. Courts have the power to issue protective orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to limit the dissemination of information procured through discovery. The court deferred ruling on the scope of such a protective order until the parties had time to consider and negotiate the issue.
That actually happened (Score:3, Interesting)
Any right to use the secret at trial is within the Court's subsequent discretion. Trade secrecy is NOT
Re:That's how discovery works in litigation (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you lay a proper foundation for your request? Does your product predate Coke? Did Coke's product change from something else to something that is close to your product? You do have to make a plausible argument for your claim that Coke stole your formula. In the case of trade secrets,
"Fishing" is not allowed. (Score:5, Informative)
You cannot request EVERYTHING. The stuff you request has to apply to the case.
That's why it shouldn't matter what IBM has in versions of AIX that were NOT released.
As for the stuff about demanding that IBM identify all the code it contributed to Linux........
That is what SCO originally claimed. SCO says that IBM contributed code that IBM did not have the righ to contribute without SCO's permission.
Now SCO is demanding to see the code that IBM contributed.
This is what is known as "Fishing". You demand EVERYTHING and hope to find SOMETHING that is actionable. And "Fishing" is not allowed.
Re:"Fishing" is not allowed. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That's how discovery works in litigation (Score:5, Insightful)
There are 2 reasons why IBM is right to refuse in this case. The first is that, in essence, SCO is demanding that IBM make their case for them. Under no sane theory of law is it the defendant's job to prepare the plaintiff's case.
The second is that such a non-specific request places an unreasonable burden on the side which is to supply the information. Just think of the mountain of documents a company as big and as old as IBM has, then think of being that guy that has to go through every one of them looking for anything that might, even in the vaguest way, be related to the case. Now think how much easier that job would be if they were asking for something specific.
SCO is treating discovery like a fishing expedition in which they have no idea what they might catch, or even if there is anything to catch at all. There's plenty of legal precedent that says that's not OK.
Re:That's how discovery works in litigation (Score:5, Informative)
That's true as far as it goes. Most of the costs of large-scale litigation are related to discovery, and endless and vitriolic fights about what will and won't be allowed in. EVERYONE starts out with the everything-under-the-sun requests, and then, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, and months and months of time it gets winnowed down to the at-least-marginally-relevant.
And as far as the Coca-Cola recipe example, there's a whole subset of fights (and procedural rules) about whether trade secret information can be discovered, and under what conditions, etc., etc. Those fights are the nastiest fights in most lawsuits between technology corporations. I could dig up the Federal and CA state rules on that, but I think everyone would rather I didn't.
SCO's noncompliance started this! (Score:5, Insightful)
"If" they fail to comply? SCO filed their Motion to Compel after IBM filed theirs.
IBM is annoyed because, among other things, IBM requested SCO's source code and a description showing what files and parts of files have been copied, in a form making it amenable for searching. SCO responded by printing out large chunks of Linux source code files and effectively said "it's in there, somewhere". (And then had the gall to complain about how much it cost them to print out that code!)
SCO filed their Motion to Compel Discovery in response and are basically saying "Well, we can't know for sure what infringement has occurred until we see the code from IBM."
On one hand, SCO claims in the media to have solid evidence of "line-by-line copying" of "millions of lines" of code, that discovery is progressing along and they're preparing to sue Linux end customers and bill Linux users, making them sound like an unstoppable legal juggernaut (and sending their stock price through the roof).
On the other hand, in the courtroom, they hang their head and say "we're not sure what all has been done to poor poor us", they whine about having to conduct three lawsuits at once -- their suit against IBM, IBM's countersuit, and Red Hat's suit -- and try to play one case off on the other and file delay after delay in all three cases, stalling for as much time as possible before they have to admit that, they have no case, no proof
Groklaw is an amazing read. PJ is smart, she's thorough, and has a great body of volunteers helping her with research into SCO's claims, transcribing legal documents, and tracking down old emails and newsgroup postings. Comparing what SCO says in the media to what they say in court, it's obvious that Darl McBride has a reality-distortion field [catb.org] that makes Steve Jobs' look like a weak soap bubble.
Jay (=
Re:SCO's noncompliance started this! (Score:3)
The difference is that Steve Jobs actually makes people believe what he says. No one believes Darl. At this point if he says the sky is blue, I'm going to have to double check him on that.
Darl gets his ass kicked. (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is my favorite quote from that article:
My comments on that quote: I'd be willing to bet that whoever challenged Darl to a fight would have actually done it, but Darl, upon finding out that he was about to get his ass kicked, chickened out.What do you think?
(1) These were some of the words off the magazine's cover. The entire title is: "Is SCO Group's Darl McBride THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN in the technology industry? With a lawsuit imminent, Linux users are about to find out.
--
Reference: "You May Be Next" by John Foley, InformationWeek, Nov 24. 2003, pp 20-22.
$CO sux0rz!! Linux r00lz!!
Re:Darl gets his ass kicked. (Score:5, Funny)
Now there's something I pay $699 to see.
Re:Darl gets his ass kicked. (Score:5, Funny)
Now there's something I pay $699 to see.
No, there's something I'd pay $699 to DO.
Re:Darl gets his ass kicked. (Score:3, Funny)
Now all I need to do is start a betting pool!
Now I know what step 2 in the 1, 2, 3 Profit list is!
Re:Darl gets his ass kicked. (Score:5, Funny)
Related to Earning Reports? (Score:4, Informative)
Any correlation? How would these moves affect their reports?
*dons tinfoil hat*
I thought the article was about the game (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I thought the article was about the game (Score:2)
It's still in beta-testing (I think), online multi-player, free to play, and is actually pretty darn fun.
SCOdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Since cases that do actually make it to trial take about two years, are we doomed to seeing everything out of McBride's mouth, everything on Groklaw, and every other passing thought about SCO for the next two years on slashdot?
I've been a member for a long time, and the content seems to be degenerating into a groupthink zealot factory with its own set of dogmas and censors.
This is a real question to this community so please don't join the groupthink mass and moderate this as flamebait just because it goes against the hive mind around here.
Thanks.
Re:SCOdot (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SCOdot (Score:4, Interesting)
Truer words haven't been spoken. Every slightest rant (no matter how small or insignificant the speaker is) against (insert holy technology here) is put on the front page for all to read and publically decry, but then every move by (insert evil entity here) is also posted so we can all rehash the same arguments again and again and complain that (far superior technology) is not number one.
Anyone know of a more balanced news site? I'm getting tired of reading about how Open Source will change the world every day and why I should convert my manager.
Re:SCOdot (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think this is the fundemental problem. This case needs to be talked about rationally and I think Groklaw (and in a way Slashdot) are providing a forum for this.
The problem to me is that SCO is obviously using the publicity to their advantage, both bad and good. Every time SCO is mentioned in the press, for good or ill, their stock starts climbing. And that's clearly what they are after. Everybody, including McBride, Yarro and their minions know the case is a fraud, but while the stock keeps climbing, it doesn't matter to them.
What we need to avoid is to talk about SCO just for the "tabloid" value inside the Linux community. You may have a point that some of this discussion borders on that, but as long as we keep to the purpose of revealing SCO's true intentions, then talking about SCO here is a good thing.
Re:SCOdot (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this is the fundemental problem.
Actually, the rise of the internet and ease of publishing in general, this *is* a problem.
People will seek out sources of information that *reinforce* their world-view. We will build these feedback loops and vertical chimneys where every group becomes more isolated from reasonable, objective opinion that they become convinced that anyone who disagrees with them is grossly misinformed and stupid.
I dont know what to do about it, I find myself reading websites and books that really just reinforce my own ideas.... in time, Idont know what the consequences of this behaviour will be. Polorization? Extremism? Where, how and who will faciliated comprimise and understanding?
Re:SCOdot (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems to me that SCO has almost outlived it's fifteen minutes of slashdot fame... It seems to me that the reason that SCO stories constantly pop up on slashdot and continue to attract comments is not because their legal actions are particularly interesting, or particularly stupid
Suggestions for Moderators (Score:4, Insightful)
Memo to moderators: Please stop moderating the same tired, old SCO-bashing posts or conspiracy theories as insightful or interesting, because they are neither. (I agree with the parent.)
In particular, do not promote any post whose content is basically "Darl is going to jail", because these posts are wrong. No SCO executive will do jail time, because it is not illegal to be a jerk. If you need further evidence that nobody is going to jail, consider that David Boies is now up to his neck in SCO. He may tiptoe on the fine edge of what is legal, but he's a smart enough lawyer not to go over.
Re:SCOdot (Score:5, Funny)
Darl speaks out of his mouth?
Well you learn something new every day . . .
Monkeys... trained monkeys.... (Score:5, Funny)
Check out this snippet from the footnotes at the end:
[1] Object or binary code is the code computers use and appears as a series of is and Os.
Someone please explain to SCO's attorneys that:
i != 1
and
O != 0
Don't they have ANYONE in their office who knows enough about computers to proofread this stuff?
Re:Monkeys... trained monkeys.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Monkeys... trained monkeys.... (Score:3, Funny)
I was thinking of Krusty's back-room writing team on The Simpsons, but that's even more hilariouser -- what are the odds!?
Re:Monkeys... trained monkeys.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Pardon me for answering my own post, but this continues to dumbfound me.
SCO is represented by attorneys who are arguing a suit over source code copyright infringement who do not understand computers well enough to correctly identify binary digits. It's bad enough that this wasn't caught by a proofreader and ended up in a document filed with the court; but even worse, SOMEBODY TYPED THAT IN TO BEGIN WITH! My guess is that someone googled a definition of binary code and misread the text of the definitio
When I see stuff like this (Score:2)
What it seems like is that there are some CEO's that will say anything for money-and they are gradually destroying the United States.
tell me : are IBM going to have to provide... (Score:3, Insightful)
are IBM going to have to show they did not do anything wrong or is SCO got to prove it ?
JJ
Well.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Lessig Misquoting McBride? Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
McBride's argument is grounded in the Constitution. (Well, close to the constitution. He quotes the text of the constitution to be:
Actually, the framers didn't say anything about "open source advocates.")
I only found the pieces that make up McBride's quote in his letter, not the whole thing in a single sentence. He has to at least quote the guy correctly, or credibility for the remainder of the response is lost.
Re:Lessig Misquoting McBride? Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,open-source advocates argue against copyright and patent laws, and whatever measures they take to by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Propaganda in additioned to flawed logic often resorts to poor writing style. Since the intent is to mislead and lie, paragraphs and sentences are constructed to misguide the reader with asser
Re:Lessig Misquoting McBride? Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
But you are right, on SCO's [sco.com] site the "open source advocates" do not apear.
FIRE!!! (Score:4, Funny)
I think I understand now... (Score:5, Funny)
IBM: "No, actually Mr. McBride, the GPL can only be applied by the copyright holder. Just like any other license."
Darl: "Umm, you mean... So the GPL... Hey, look over there!" *flees the country*
SCO's motion is bullshit.... (Score:5, Informative)
http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/Doc-86.pdf
It's "put up or shut up" time for SCO. Read and enjoy.
Darl does NOT deserve ANY respect. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what worries me about SCO: That their army of lawyers will wreak terrible legal havoc, not because SCO was right, or because SCO suffered damages--I strongly believe that neither of these is the case. Their army of lawyers will pull off Bill Gates style, "I don't understand your question," when the question is, "Does X concern you?" They'll pull off Bill Clinton style, "That depends on what 'is' means." They'll find loopholes and language in the law that nobody ever thought was there, with newly made-up implications that no legislator intended or thought would occur, to cause as much damage as possible to the Linux community and the free software community in general.
The longer I think about this, the more apparent it becomes to me that they do not want to profit from litigation. It's like the old story of people who are seated at both sides of a long table covered with the most wonderful foods in the world. The only problem is that the silverware is a yard long, and nobody's arm is long enough to fit their spoon or fork into their mouth. So somebody comes up with the idea that everyone should feed the person seated across from him. That way, everybody gets to eat. But Darl says, "What?! I will feed somebody else?! NO WAY! Sure, it means I won't eat but he won't eat either!!" That, I strongly believe, is the nature of Darl McBride, and the new SCO.
They do not want to profit. They do not want to rectify damages (which I strongly believe never occurred). They do not want to protect their copyrights (which I strongly believe were never violated). They are focused on one solitary goal, and that is to destroy (or damage, to the greatest extent possible) Linux.
Darl does NOT deserve ANY respect -- or SEX (Score:3, Funny)
Darl is a business masturbator.
*a religious sect related to today's Quakers.
Request SCO source (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO seems uneducated about IP rights (Score:5, Interesting)
Precedent: Rudolf Diesel patented the Diesel cycle engine in 1898. One of the reasons that the far less efficent Otto cycle (4-stroke gasoline) engine was/is more widely deployed is that Diesel would only license his patent for what he considered 'best use', requiring that Diesel engines must inject fuel continuously into the combustion chamber thoughout the combustion/power stroke.
This dictated a much lower power:weight ratio in early Diesel engines, which is appropriate to stationary power genaration but represented a distinct disadvantage for traction-power and automotive use.
Diesel's approach to license was probably not the most lucrative either for himself or society at large, however the *property right* granted by patent (and copyright) law let him make that determination.
To my mind whether commercial EULA, BSD, GPL, Artistic, all licenses fundamentally serve the purpose of allowing the *Author* a degree of control over the application and distribution of his/her work.
This is also how we get an OSS environment where two different Authors (say Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman) have the right to apply the same license (GPL) according to their own wishes.
Process rights are a good thing. SCO's making the best case it can but I really think it's going to backfire on them. Their rhetoric really doesn't stand up to analysis.
Pamela Jones and GROKLAW (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to point out that the work that Pamela Jones & Co. at GROKLAW is clearly of some real use to IBM in this case. another poster has already mentioned [slashdot.org] that IBM has specifically cited a transcription GROKLAW produced in their recent filing [tuxrocks.com].
I would also like to remind others that there's a little paypal donation button on the front page of GROKLAW [groklaw.net], as mauryisland pointed out elsewhere [slashdot.org].
click that button. give her a holiday bonus, just enough to make it hurt you a tiny little bit. and let's see just how robust PayPal's servers [paypal.com] are.
Are we in Soviet Russia? (Score:4, Funny)
Enough already! (Score:5, Interesting)
Then post to the main page when there's something really big coming, and otherwise let everyone else go on with the usual kernel rumours, Ogg design wins, etc. etc.
I enjoy GrokLaw a lot, and I'm (trying to) read /. for more general news items.
[Rant off :]
Darl "John Birch" McBride (Score:4, Insightful)
I Like Linus's Reply (Score:5, Funny)
The Glaring Flaw in Darl's GPL argument (Score:5, Informative)
In my experience, when somebody has a strong argument about why they have been wronged, the argument is fairly easy to make and usually reads clearly and with a logical flow. But since SCO won't put up or shut up regarding the allegedly pilfered code (and what little they put up was thoroughly debunked) -- Darl is stuck making this hard-to-follow argument about why his company's business practices are what the Founding Fathers fantasized about when writing the constitution.
So instead of getting clear and convincing evidence that SCO's code was stolen, we get this poorly written argument that the GPL is immoral and illegal.
Let me make a comment on the GPL that Lessig hasn't made, and that I think gets to the heart of why Darl's arguments are pathetic.
I think Darl would have a great case that the GPL is illegal if the terms of the GPL license conferred greater privileges to the software developer than do licenses that come with store-bought proprietary software. But the fact is that, under the GPL, the developer is voluntarily surrendering some of the rights he would gain under normal copyright. And he's not claiming any other rights beyond what's normally handed out under the copyright law.
This is where Darl's anti-GPL argument breaks down. He's given no convincing explanation why a software developer can't voluntarily surrender some, but not all, of the rights gained by copyright.
Frankly, the only reason everybody's not tearing gaping holes in Darl's open letter is that it's so poorly written that it's hard to know what the hell he's talking about.
How can IBM provide what SCO is requesting? (Score:5, Insightful)
So there's no way in the world I could even comply with such a request, since the information just isn't there.
IBM might well save every daily backup tape because they're so huge they can afford to without breaking a sweat. Maybe they should just dump every single tape for every single version of every operating system they have, and let SCI sort it out.
But I'm curious about the interim versions, since I would think that it would not be a copyright violation unless the code was in the distributed version
D
11000 resellers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Calling all software companies: Cordon Sanitaire! (Score:3, Interesting)
They agreed no one would cooperate with the Vlaams Blok to form a government, however profitable it might have been for each of them (practically or power-wise) separately.
With this "gentleman's agreement" they managed to keep the Vlaams Blok out of government. The agreement only worked on the basis of all partakers abiding by the agreement.
I hope the big software/consultancy companies out there will make up some sort of similar agreement between them, that no one will buy SCO whatever happens.
Let them perish in shame, let the shareholders and management lose all their money. That'll teach them.
Does anyone other than me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just another example of open source producing world-class professionals.
One question (Score:4, Interesting)
Darl's open letter claims that GPL and Free Software Foundation are hurting their Pure Software business model. On the other hand, many companies, including IBM and RedHat are making profit using GPL and Free Software. Why would any judge invalidate GPL and hurt corporations that adapt their strategies to changing markets just to satisfy corporations like SCO who base their business on outdated models ?
Same rules for everyone . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing here to see, move along. Seriously, let's get hysterical about the real stuff in this suit, OK?
In the United States, both parties to a civil action are permitted to "obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party." Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(b). Matter is subject to discovery if it is itself evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
To that end, parties may propund interrogatories (questions requiring written answers signed under oath), depositions, requests for documents and things, inspections of property and testing, and requests for admission. While there are limits to what can be obtained, pretty much everything relevant and not privileged is discoverable, even when it is incredibly expensive and burdensome to produce.
If a party doesn't produce it, the court may compel production by judicial order on pain of contempt or worse --the court may award sanctions and penalties, and ultimately can award sanctions that can go to the merits of the case, dismissing or awarding judgment for failure to comply.
It is and always has been the rule that a plaintiff is permitted to use discovery to compel production of smoking guns and killer evidence, even where the plaintiff (and particularly because the plaintiff) bears the burden of proof. That, by the way, is how Boies nailed Microsoft -- but for the expedient of discovery, the government probably would not have won its antitrust case.
Discovery disputes of this kind are routine in big ticket litigation. Nothing here to see, move along.
Sue SCO under DMCA (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words, SCO believes it owns AIX and Dynix, and that IBM used SCO's AIX and Dynix code to improve Linux.
On the other hand, SCO is or has been distributing software that was released under the GPL and BSD licences. They have voided their right to do so. They have allowed software released under BSD and almost certainly GPL licenses to be inserted into their Unix variant.
Under the DMCA and CA76, the FSF and UC can demand that they stop distribution of any Unix-like operating system until all GPL/BSD code is removed.
Suing SCO for violation of the Copyright Act might not be successful in court, but it could be. Even if the suit were to fail (or more likely, SCO go under before a trial), the publicity of such a suit would make it obvious that Open Source adherents are not anti-copyright. We just prefer a different EULA.
What's really wrong with SCO's position? I agree with Lessig:
In SCO's open letter [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org], they say:
Their argument is that the profit motive is what is important about copyrights. According to SCO, the intent of the author and his right to control the distribution of his work are a secondary side effect of the profit motive and our economy's need for him to profit from his work.
That twisted paradigm underpins SCO's business plan, their market strategy, and their case against IBM.
I believe it's time to sue SCO, in order to make clear that it's the author's right to control his work and who profits from it that matters, and not just his right to profit.
Advertisers, Take Note! (Score:5, Funny)
We have the answer! The staff of ATTORNEY DAVIS BOIES will sue anyone - AND WE MEAN ANYONE! - to get your message across. Don't have a case? That's okay, we don't care! We expect to lose.
Nothing will get your word out faster and with a more poigant stab than a lawsuit. We managed to get our three-quarter dead client SCO the front page of popular news site Slashdot over a hundred times this year alone!
Here are some quotes from our clients:
"We were just about to go under, so with the help of ATTORNEY DAVID BOIES, we went ahead and claimed ownship of the whole of UNIX! We probably won't win, but our stock is up thousands of percents!"
-Chris Sontagg, unnamed tech company
"I am a stupid monkey, but all up-to-date IT professionals know my name. Did I just say up to date? David, quick, patent that term so we can sue Red Hat!"
-Darl McBride, professional Ass Hat
You too can get the word out! Just call ATTORNEY DAVIS BOIES at 1-888-US-FRAUD!
IBM is missing a big opportunity here... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:IBM is missing a big opportunity here... (Score:3, Funny)
Punch Cards
They ARE machine readable, after all. . . .
IBM 2 SCO 0 Motions to Compel granted (Score:5, Informative)
SCO has 30 days to provide their evidence.
Both IBM motions to compel granted.
None of SCO's.
Boies & Heise were no shows.
Darl's brother Kevin argued.
Re:IBM 2 SCO 0 Motions to Compel granted (Score:5, Informative)
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
This is not quite correct. A party to a civil suit can refuse to answer any question (at trial, in a deposition, or an interrogatory) only if the answer might incriminate them. You can't refuse to answer for no reason. In practice, it isn't a viable option for companies like SCO and IBM to say "we are crooks, therefore we won't answer your interrogatory."
The fifth amendment privilege cannot, however, prevent you from handing over evidence. So if I seek a memo from you, and the memo indicates that you may have committed a crime, you have to cough it up. The amendment protects against forced testimony, not forced production of information already written down.
Yes, IAAL, but not a criminal lawyer.
Re:Look at Note [1] (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Look at Note [1] (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"violating the constitution" vs "unconstitution (Score:3, Informative)
Re:not nitpicking but... (Score:3, Funny)