Beta
×

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!

IBM Files For Declaratory Judgement In SCO Case

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the raising-the-hammer dept.

Caldera 390

Some Bitch writes "IBM has filed for declaratory judgement in the SCO case. They want the court to declare that "IBM does not infringe, induce the infringement of or contribute to the infringement of any SCO copyright through its Linux activities, including its use, reproduction and improvement of Linux, and that some or all of SCO's purported copyrights in Unix are invalid and unenforceable.". If the judge grants the motion then SCO effectively has no case and the whole thing is over." spafbnerf notes that "SCO has filed a motion for the patent infringement claim to be split into a separate case." fr0z adds a link to Groklaw's always-excellent coverage.

cancel ×

390 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724375)

that was too easy

Files For Declaratory Judgement (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724381)

Well, a few colleagues and I analyzed Files For Declaratory Judgement a few months ago. The upshot was that we were disappointed, as there are more powerful solutions hitting the market soon, and less expensive to boot.

In sum, I think that Files For Declaratory Judgement is overrated and would recommend against it at this time.

Its about time IBM (4, Interesting)

randomErr (172078) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724383)

I just wonder what took IBM so long to go for this? Was it matter of timing or did they have to wait for other judgements to clear first?

Re:Its about time IBM (4, Interesting)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724403)

I just wonder what took IBM so long to go for this? Was it matter of timing or did they have to wait for other judgements to clear first?

Both. They first had to play out just enough rope for SCO to essentially hang themselves. Let's hope the rope doesn't break.

Re:Its about time IBM (1, Funny)

black mariah (654971) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724429)

Lets hope it does. That way we can see SCO fall through the trapdoor unexpectedly and break both its legs when it hits the ground. Then they can get some more rope and hang them afterwards. >:D

Re:Its about time IBM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724461)

It'd be even better if there was a Rancor under the trapdoor :P

Re:Its about time IBM (-1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724492)

Or Wood Allen, and he's having sex with Diane Keaton. But then he notices the intrusion, and wants to talk.

Do you have any idea how hard it was.... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724420)

For IBM's lawyers to get the licensing issues ironed out so they could use the Imperial March while slow-motion walking into the courtroom? Or the schedueling and accomidation issues for a full marching band?

Re:Its about time IBM (0, Interesting)

andy666 (666062) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724438)

Apparently what took them so long was some complex legalities relating to a IP case from the early 90's that I forget the name of.

Re:Its about time IBM (4, Interesting)

SenseiLeNoir (699164) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724472)

Its more a question about timing. Whilst SCO et al, have been blasting away with their outlandish comments, IBM have been staying quiet, and feeding as much rope as possible. This way SCO cannot argue back saying the trail has been unfair to them.

As a side point, I recall someone on Groklaw mentioning that on the motion there is IBM referencing to SCO incorporating GPL code into UnixWare or Unix.

The statement was vague, and MAY have meant SAMBA, etc. However, considering SCO has provided the source code to UnixWare as part of discovery, it is likely they may have found something.

Re:Its about time IBM (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724535)

Is it true that SCO and RIAA are planning a merger?

Re:Its about time IBM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724653)

My girlfriends mother works for SCO and she says that the reason IBM wasn't doing this was because even though SCO was full of it that the legal costs were going to be a lot and that SCO was hoping for a settlement.

IBM 1 TSG 0 (0)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724385)

does this mean that we shoudl have IBM lawyers as friends?

Re:IBM 1 TSG 0 (4, Insightful)

dubious9 (580994) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724517)

Good point. I think a lot of people forget that it was IBM's actions that originated the term FUD. Even though they've seen the advantage of walking the straight and narrow, doesn't mean that they won't come back and bite the F/OSS community in the future.

Just look at how many patents IBM has. AFAIK, more than anybody else. Their IP library is huge and could probably sue any large computing company for patent violation if they so choose.

It's good that they are taking the benevolent stance here, but let's just remember that Big Blue only has its own best intentions in mind when it comes down to crush time.

Re:IBM 1 TSG 0 (5, Insightful)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724568)

The "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosephy does not work well in the long term. The "friend" has a way of comming back to bite you in the ass. Examples:

Stalin
Hussien
bin Laden
Pinochet
etc...

If you can't figure out what this has to do with the parent post, then why are you on /.?

Re:IBM 1 TSG 0 (3, Insightful)

IWorkForMorons (679120) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724592)

Man...don't refer to SCO by TSG. I know it stands for The SCO Group, but you're also spoiling the good name of The Smoking Gun... [thesmokinggun.com]

1p (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724387)

1p

My precioussss, preciousss lawyers! (4, Funny)

orthogonal (588627) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724397)

spafbnerf notes that "SCO has filed a motion for the patent infringement claim to be split into a separate case."

But, why?

I mean, if IBM gets the declaratory judgment, it'll wrap this all up.

Splitting off the patent infringement into another lawsuit will just drag this out for another year...

Oh!

Re:My precioussss, preciousss lawyers! (4, Insightful)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724437)

Uhm no. This is not a "summary" judgement. And SCO isn't suing IBM for copyright infringement so I am kind of puzzled to see what this has to do with SCO suing IBM for *breach* *of* *contract*. I guess IBM must think it strengthens their hands for the coming contract fight.

So off to Groklaw to see what they have say...

Re:My precioussss, preciousss lawyers! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724529)

It's more about SCO's persistent threats to sue Linux users for copyright infringement, without actually so doing, relying on breach of contract type claims instead (eg. against SCO customers/former customers Autozone and DaimlerChrysler). IBM's move is to ask the court to declare that SCO does not infringe any IBM copyrights.

An interesting move is that IBM has also newly registered some of its Linux Kernel copyrights, such as JFS support (see Groklaw for details) and added those to its GPL breach counterclaims.

Re:My precioussss, preciousss lawyers! (4, Informative)

Aneurysm9 (723000) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724561)

TSG is suing IBM for copyright infringement, see their second amended complaint. IBM is most certainly right to think that this would strengthen their hand in the contract fight as well. If they can obtain a declaratory ruling to the effect that Linux does not infringe any TSG copyrights then TSG was completely without basis for terminating their contract (if they ever had one).

Re:My precioussss, preciousss lawyers! (2, Funny)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724440)

Splitting off the patent infringement into another lawsuit will just drag this out for another year...

Yeah, but wouldn't it truly be justice if SCO loses their case, then by their own request gets the patent infringement issues transferred to a separate lawsuit and loses that as well? Man, that would feel like sinking a three-pointer, scoring a goal with a bicycle kick, or getting a monster spike in volleyball.

Re:My precioussss, preciousss lawyers! (4, Insightful)

SenseiLeNoir (699164) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724501)

This motion in effect redirects the case back to the contract issues. During the life of this suite so far, copyrights tradesecrets, and other issues have been raise by SCO, when initially it was supposed to be only about contracts.

WHat in effect IBM are doing is, filtering out the irrelevent parts, and refocussing it on the Contracts.

Of course the copyright issues were a part fo the contract dispute, and if this motion is granted, and a declaratory judgement is made, it woudl certainly make it harder for SCO to spew more spruious comment in their favour.

...and the whole thing is over!? (4, Funny)

gloth (180149) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724400)

but wouldn't life be just a little bit too bland without our favorite enemy?

Re:...and the whole thing is over!? (1, Funny)

DaHat (247651) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724424)

and that assumes that they don't appeal.

That's the great thing about the US court system, even if you have no case, you can still cause havoc in court for years!

Re:...and the whole thing is over!? (1)

millahtime (710421) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724433)

"but wouldn't life be just a little bit too bland without our favorite enemy?"

SCO is like Vader. What do we do once he's gone. Now granted, SCO is no where near as cool and powerful as Vader but they are our mortal enemy. And we both use a power like the force. Called the net.

Re:...and the whole thing is over!? (5, Funny)

orthogonal (588627) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724520)

SCO is like Vader. What do we do once he's gone. Now granted, SCO is no where near as cool and powerful as Vader but they are our mortal enemy. And we both use a power like the force. Called the net.

And Darl McBride is Linus Torvald's real father?

Richard Stallman is Yoda?

In your SCO-is-Vader cosmology, who's Jar Jar Binks?

CmdrTaco? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724537)

nuff said

Re:...and the whole thing is over!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724650)

ESR?

Re:...and the whole thing is over!? (5, Funny)

Pensacola Tiger (538962) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724673)

Jar Jar Binks = Steve Ballmer?

Re:...and the whole thing is over!? (4, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724441)

Well, Microsoft won't disappear due to this.

Re:...and the whole thing is over!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724516)

No, but Redmond's meat puppet might.

Re:...and the whole thing is over!? (4, Insightful)

sadangel (702907) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724614)

Well, Microsoft won't disappear due to this.

No. They'll just pay someone else to try to sue Linux into obscurity.

Re:...and the whole thing is over!? (3, Insightful)

m.h.2 (617891) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724515)

I trust that another would come along to take their place soon enough. That's the thing about life. There's never seems to be a shortage of a$$holes.

God no! (3, Interesting)

Ender Ryan (79406) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724554)

I know you were joking, and it was funny to :), but my serious answer to your joke of a question is, "God NO!"

Once SCO is fucking dead, we can get back to coding and building fun toys, and maybe some useful things too, with the Linux kernel, without this damn fiaSCO hanging over our heads. It would also be nice to see someone persue some sort of criminal investigation against the SCO execs, but I'm not holding my breath.

And even better would be Darl's head on a pike, but I don't think we do that sort of thing anymore, right? :)

disclaimer: no, I don't *really* want to see Mr. McBride dead, call off your snipers you crazy SOBs.

Good Lawyers.... (3, Interesting)

millahtime (710421) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724402)

Is it just me or are the SCO lawyers trying to drag this out as long as they possibly can. Talk about the lawyers staying on the payroll a long time. They are great lawyers at keeping on the payroll withough ever actually taking this anywhere.

Re:Good Lawyers.... (2, Interesting)

black mariah (654971) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724443)

Of course they are. Probably at the request of SCO's executives. The longer it goes on, the higher SCO's stocks are creeping...

Wrong (3, Informative)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724490)

SCOX [yahoo.com]

I shorted it at 17.96 in early January. I'm a happy camper if IBM wins this.

IBM adds the heat in sunny SCO office to the max. (4, Informative)

Hekatchu (684465) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724406)

SCOs motion to Bifurcate in IBM case seemed like bad panick reaction. As put in Groklaw earlier, it looks like they want to separate their case from the most hopeless things by dividing it into two. Now the judge can only guess, whether what IBM is asking, is the most hopeless part. IMO it is.

SCO, IBM, and my employer (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724410)

I'm an attorney in a medium size corporation. We have held off on adopting Linux.

Why, you ask? Well, despite the excellent information provided by groklaw, it is simply unreasonable to assume that SCO's case is completely baseless. These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits.

While we were planning on adopting Linux as our new development platform, we have not. The uncertain outcome of this lawsuit coupled with very steep discounts offered by Microsoft have pushed us to Windows 2003.

Also, in my perusal of groklaw, I have found that while it provides good information, it is also heavily censored. More than once I have read a compelling "pro-SCO" post that disappears not long after it appears. I can only assume that PJ is deleting them. In short, I don't think groklaw is giving us a very objective view of the situation.

-Cecil

Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (4, Insightful)

finkployd (12902) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724456)

These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits.

Perhaps you are an attorney, but you must be new to the information technology IP industry.

Finkployd

Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (3, Insightful)

iainl (136759) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724486)

"These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits."

Really? Since SCO (nee Caldera) stock was practically worthless before this whole debacle started, I'd say getting rich by filing a groundless lawsuit is precisely what they have done.

Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724500)

I'm an attorney in a medium size corporation. We have held off on adopting Linux.

No, you're a troll on a large size news website.

Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (2, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724508)

Maybe all the pro-SCO posts keep coming from anonymous cowards at IP address 216.250.128.12?

MOD PARENT TROLL (3, Insightful)

morelife (213920) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724512)

While we were planning on adopting Linux as our new development platform, we have not.

So you're a law firm and you were looking at a Linux development platform. Uh, yeah. Right. You dirty little troll.

Re:MOD PARENT TROLL (3, Informative)

jdc180 (125863) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724580)

First off he said he's an attorney, not a lawfirm.. and second he said that he worked at a corporation, you were quick to trigger the troll card.

You may disagree with his statement, but this is something that isn't being discussed at all. I believe this whole SCO thing is having an impact on linux adoption, it's silly to believe otherwise. Corporations like stability (insert windows joke here). The volatility in linux's future right now is a turn off, whether it's warranted or not.

Re:MOD PARENT TROLL (1)

Aneurysm9 (723000) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724589)

He never said he was with a law firm. He said he was an attorney with a medium sized company. I'm sure you've heard of such positions as, general counsel, inside counsel, etc.

Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (2, Insightful)

eclectro (227083) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724526)

These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits

Unless you are those particular attorneys that are filing groundless lawsuits.

Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer - TROLL! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724536)

Here's the typical "the case must have merit because the guys who filed it are smart" argument often given by the trolls on the Yahoo SCOX board. Yes, McBride has gotten wealthy by filing groundless lawsuits. He sued a previous employer that fired him for incompetence. It's called "greenmail", where the respondent would rather settle than face and expensive and costly trial process.

Another troll tactic used in this post is saying there are "compelling" pro-SCO information, without saying what it is. Hey, if there was such great pro-SCO stuff on Groklaw, repeat some of it here!

Troll! Dirty, slimey troll!

Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (5, Insightful)

Mordaximus (566304) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724543)

These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits.

Correct, they are. Do you not think it possible that these intelligent wealthy people stand to become much more wealthy by spreading Linux FUD through these activities, regardless of what happens to SCO?

There has already been an alleged financial connection made between SCO and Microsoft which seems to be quite compelling. And you've just admitted first hand that your company is considering Windows 2003 over linux simply as a result of this case existing, under the assumption that SCO would be insane to do what they are doing if they didn't have a good case.

So you are right, they are intelligent. They've fooled you and your company. And they are more wealthy for it too.

Re: SCO, IBM, and my employer (4, Interesting)

Mansing (42708) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724595)

In short, I don't think groklaw is giving us a very objective view of the situation.

While this may be true, I don't think there is any objective view on this case other than reading the actual filings. And as an attorney, I would expect you to reference not the commentary but the actual filings. If you did not, then I'm surprised.

very steep discounts offered by Microsoft

This statement is the true reason you have chosen Microsoft, IMHO. If you or your company's attorney had read the various filings, (as our attorneys have) then the lawsuit(s) would not enter into the decision making process.

These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits.

As the previous poster mentioned, you are new to this, aren't you? Perhaps you should read several recent cases revolving around technology intellectual property. The Rambus case would be a good starting point. I also contend (as many others do) that SCO's management never expected to have the court proceeding last this long. I suspect that the plan was to be purchased or to have the case settle of out of court.

While you may be an attorney, I have seen and heard IBM's attorneys Cravath. There are one of the best intellectual property firms in the US. If the Cravath attorneys believe that claims are meritless, then I would tend to believe them.

Objection! (4, Funny)

Royster (16042) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724601)

These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (-1, Redundant)

AftanGustur (7715) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724609)


I'm an attorney in a medium size corporation.

...

These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits.

-o-

Somehow I doubt you are an attorney, or that you have much real-world experience.

In business environment, the most important part is if the lawsuit fits whatever agenda it's filers have and it's mostly about politics.

Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (1, Funny)

forgotmypassword (602349) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724610)

More than once I have read a compelling "pro-SCO" post that disappears not long after it appears.

Too bad SCO had nothing compelling in the court room.

OOOOO Burn.

Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724613)

If SCO claimed that your company infringed its rights, and went after you, then I'm sure you'd want people to avoid doing business with you, which after all can only HELP YOU RAISE FUNDS.

Just fucking ignore SCO and go buy Linux. They're not going to sue you, they have no case.

Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (2, Informative)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724618)

>>Well, despite the excellent information provided by groklaw, it is simply unreasonable to assume that SCO's case is completely baseless.>These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits.

Wrong. Check their histroy. Scox has never been profitable by legitimate sales of products or services. All of scox's money has come from: 1) bogus IPO (still under investigation by SEC). 2) Lawsuit against MSFT. FUD money from msft and sunw.

hahaha, good one (3, Insightful)

Ender Ryan (79406) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724619)

Hahahahaha, I can't believe anyone was stupid enough to mod this up (neglecting to consider any astro-turfing conspiracy theories at the moment...)!

Hahahah!

Ok... So a lawyer with a medium-sized corporation, and obviously isn't up on technology considering this priceless line, "it is simply unreasonable to assume that SCO's case is completely baseless. These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits."

So a lawyer who's not up on technology, gives a flying fuck enough to come to slashdot and post this, and takes a shot at groklaw while doing so...?

Maybe it's high-time to completely ditch anonymous postings, or maybe mod points just shouldn't be given out so easily.

Folks, unless they include something to give themselves some credibility, DON'T TAKE ANONYMOUSLY POSTINGS SERIOUSLY!!!

MOD PARENT DOWN! Really a lawyer? (2, Interesting)

SenseiLeNoir (699164) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724625)

> "These are intelligent, wealthy people"

so were Enron, et-al.

You say you are an attorney? If my attorney made a decision on pure hearsay, i woudl fire him/her. You did not give us any facts, just the presumption that they must be a fine upstanding company. Well so is IBM, and IBM happens to be MORE than SCO. On that assumption you have decided to ditch Linux, and go for MS? Nice deal you got with them!

Groklaw is a site for us NON-LAWYERS. As an attorney, surely you dont need to go to Groklaw of all places right??? you shoudl be well versed on the facts. In fact you shoudl be CONTRIBUTING to the knowledge on Groklaw, not reading it!

I doubt you are a attorney, just a troll.

Good bye, and nice try.

Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (2, Insightful)

DrWhizBang (5333) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724629)

Well, Anonymous Cecil (if that's really what your name is, Darl), we have seen quite a bit of SCO bashing here on /. and on groklaw. We are intelligent, tech savvy people, and we didn't get where we are by not being able to smell a rat.

Lots of groundless lawsuits have been filed by many deceptive (and often intelligent) people. But these schemes don't always work out, expecially when the target is someone as powerful as IBM. SCO has simply underestimated their opponent.

And I have not read these "compelling pro-SCO" posts that you refer to. It also doesn't appear to be PJs style to simply delete differring opinions.

Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (1)

Sheepdot (211478) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724631)

If they were intelligent and wealthy, Caldera would still be around. They're not, their shrewd and ambitious, perhaps, but that's about where the "good traits" end.

I am a sysadmin in a very large corporation (2, Informative)

Moderation abuser (184013) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724634)

And we have Linux all over the place. Replacing Windows and elderly Unix boxes at an accelerating pace.

We're ignoring SCO. Completely.

Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724638)

Hey, my IP is in Windows 2003. Please could you send me $999 per CPU. Thanks, I'll be expecting the check in the post.

2006 To Do List for Internal Counsel (4, Interesting)

4of12 (97621) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724642)


We have held off on adopting Linux...it is simply unreasonable to assume that SCO's case is completely baseless.

I'm sure it's not completely baseless. But, the premise of a flat world isn't completely baseless, either. What I've seen from SCO to prove their point has been rather sketchy. You are entitled to your own opinion and to make business decisions accordingly. And, yes, it would be a shame if cogent, pro-SCO analysis were artificially suppressed. Perhaps you could point out some of those posts.

But here's something to think about for the future.

If your company loses money by delaying a Linux migration primarily because of the SCO suit, you might want to collect together evidence leading to that decision.

Should it ever some to light that the SCO suit were frivilous and possibly motivated by some third party that stood to gain by deliberately supporting a frivilous suit, then your company and others might stand to make up some of the lost revenue for being deliberately misled as part of a broader conspiracy that might not be legal.

If you're an internal counsel for your company, pursuing redress might provide you with plenty of work.

Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (4, Insightful)

farnz (625056) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724664)

A question for you: if a similar lawsuit was brought against Microsoft, would you abandon Windows 2003? If not, why not?

I'm asking, because it seems to me that Microsoft is at least as at risk of this type of lawsuit as IBM and other Linux companies. It's harder to peek inside Microsoft Windows and see what's inside than it is to peek inside Linux and see what's inside; Microsoft are also the world's most cash rich target, and if you're looking for a big payout, they're far more tempting than (say) IBM.

Life after SCO? (3, Insightful)

spellraiser (764337) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724411)

If the judge grants the motion then SCO effectively has no case and the whole thing is over.

Over?? Wow, could this be the end of SCO?

What will we make fun of then? Hardly IBM, since they seem to be rapidly converting themselves into good guys - this story will probably elevate them to the status of demi-godhood.

Well, back to bashing Microsoft then I suppose ...

damn (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724413)

SCO is dying :~(

Probably a good time to dump this stock

Re:damn (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724669)

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - washed out tech company SCO was found dead in its Utah home this morning. There weren't any more details.

I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss them - even if you didn't use their software, there's no denying their contributions to the technology field.

Truly an American icon.

Everything from 'If' to 'then' is unneeded. (5, Funny)

Jameth (664111) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724416)

"If the judge grants the motion then SCO effectively has no case"

Everything from 'If' to 'then' is unneeded.

Really? (2, Funny)

Amaruit (82587) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724417)

The whole thing could soon be over? Wow. I mean 2003 could be described as the 'year of the SCO'. A day without SCO news on slashdot is like.... I can barely remember what it was like before.

OMG OMG ROR LOLF (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724419)

CMDRTACO has JUST ADOPTED a GOAT!

Stating the obvious (2, Insightful)

Phisbut (761268) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724423)

IBM does not infringe, induce the infringement of or contribute to the infringement of any SCO copyright through its Linux activities, including its use, reproduction and improvement of Linux, and that some or all of SCO's purported copyrights in Unix are invalid and unenforceable

Nor does anyone. If there is a single judge that finds a single Linux user guilty of that bullcrap promoted by SCO, I vote that all the /. community go castrate him!!! (or simply force him to read out loud the whole source code... that could be a good punishment too...)

I mean... are there any "law officials" that actually know some stuff about programming and computers? IBM is just stating the obvious here, they shouldn't even have to do so.

IANAL, but... (1)

pr0nbot (313417) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724436)

If the judge grants the motion then SCO effectively has no case and the whole thing is over.

Surely this is never, ever the case? Can't SCO just counter in some way to drag the thing on and on?

To paraphrase MAD. (5, Funny)

Galileo430 (614516) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724444)

I'll catch you next time TORVALDS!!!

Next Up: SCO vs US Government

Re:To paraphrase MAD. (1)

MalaclypseTheYounger (726934) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724474)

Sure you're not quoting Dr. Claw from Inspector Gadget?

Next time Gadget!!! NEXXXXT TIIIIMMMEEE...

(ree-oowwwr) (I don't recall the cats name)

Re:To paraphrase MAD. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724590)

That motherfucker is ugly as hell. [midnightsociety.com]

Re:To paraphrase MAD. (1)

Jacer (574383) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724482)

Sadly, any thing that opposes the US government probably won't last long. Yessir, the days of the french, and the rest of the world are drawing near ane end.

GPL Infringement? (5, Interesting)

tiny69 (34486) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724446)

34. The viability of SCO's product offerings has depended in large measure upon the efforts of the open-source community in enhancing products and making them compatible for use across multiple software and hardware platforms. Indeed, SCO incorporated certain code licensed pursuant to the GPL into its proprietary UNIX products. SCO has also relied on independent developers in the open-source community, such as Linus Torvalds, in order to release upgrades of SCO' s Linux-based products.
Is IBM suggesting that they have found out during discovery that SCO is infringing on the GPL?

They certainly are (5, Interesting)

griblik (237163) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724599)

According to the filing as read by me on groklaw, SCO's attempt to impose extra licensing requirements puts them in breach of GPL section 5, which terminates their right to distribute under section 4. (ianal, could have read it completely wrong)

IBM has IP in linux that they have only licensed under GPL. If SCO has no GPL rights, they have no right to distribute the code, and they're therefore infringing IBM's copyright.

Re:GPL Infringement? (1)

Aneurysm9 (723000) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724623)

That's what it sounds like at first blush. I'd be careful reading too much into that though. It could simply mean that they included a program licensed under the GPL in their UnixWare distribution. It would be nice though to see TSG put to the choice of distributing UnixWare under the GPL or doing a massive rewrite to extract everything they've misappropriated.

This is no trifling ploy... (4, Insightful)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724447)

IBM is a decades-old giant in the American business community with a reputation to maintain, and will most assuredly have done their homework before trying to make such a bold move. This stands in contrast to SCO, which has basically bet their whole company on the outcome of these suits, and is thus willing to try just about anything, no matter how desperate, to make their case.

Hmmm... I wonder what color parachute Darl has...

Re:This is no trifling ploy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724542)

Hmmm... I wonder what color parachute Darl has...

golden

Re:This is no trifling ploy... (1)

MadBiologist (657155) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724553)

Puce...

Re:This is no trifling ploy... (1)

NoSuchGuy (308510) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724663)

Hmmm... I wonder what color parachute Darl has...
Maybe a Red Hat?

*scnr*

Checkmate, endgame (5, Insightful)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724452)

I'm most of the way through IBM's pleading of the counterclaims. I have one word:

Wow!

This is so well laid out that even a child of 6 could understand what it is that SCO has been up to these past 12 months. When I read IBM's lawyers' work, I want to jump up and dance with glee at the utter beauty seen within.

When I read the work of SCO's lawyers or any statements made by the buffoons directing them, I want to cry. It seriously makes my head hurt, trying to wrap my brain around the utter bullshit they continue to spout.

IBM has landed a crushing blow to SCO's claims. I predict that over the remainder of this week and through next we will see SCO's stock plummet back to its true value -- less than $1.

Happy happy happy
Joy joy joy

Re:Checkmate, endgame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724558)

IBM does not believe that its activities relating to AIX and Dynix, including any reproduction, improvement and distribution of AIX and Dynix, infringe, induce the infringement of, or contribute to the infringement of valid, enforceable copyrights owned by SCO.

any 6 year old who can parse that is pretty smart! i had trouble with the pledge of allegiance!

SCO is doomed (1)

iiiiaaan (763660) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724467)

I wonder if SCO have enough power to make this refused and leave this suit as it is (uncertain) so they can profit from it. Everybody knows that this make no sense, it is just a matter of how long SCO will profit from media coverage and letter they send (would call it spam) to forture 500 companies. Long live to free software (as in free speach). I'd like free beer as well.

MSFT und SCOX (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724470)

In the late 1970's Microsoft licensed UNIX source code from AT&T which at the time was not licensing the name UNIX. Therefore Microsoft created the name Xenix. Microsoft did not sell Xenix to end-users but instead licensed the software to software OEMs such as Intel, Tandy, Altos and SCO who then provided a finished version of their own Xenix to the end-users or other customers. SCO introduced its first version of Xenix named SCO Xenix System V for the Intel 8086 and 8088 in 1983. Today SCO Xenix is one of the more commonly used and found versions of Xenix.

Linux was based on Minix. A UnixLite OS designed to run on PCs. However, it was really only a teaching tool. Andrew Tanenbaum repeatedly refused to add the new (legitimate) features the users and even developers asked for. Linus Torvalds set out simply to add functionality to his own version of Minix (the copyright allows use to do so for your own personal use, but you cannot sell or distibute it).

Over time, in adding functionality to Minix, Linus Torvalds found that he had created an entirely new kernel. I was very similar to Minix but used none of the Minix source code. Torvalds had originally called it freax, for "`free' + `freak' + the obligatory `-x'. The operator of the FTP server where Linus' new kernel made its debut didn't like the name and simply called it Linux (Linus + Unix). People seemed to like the name so it stuck.

Let all the lawyers duke it out (5, Insightful)

seniorcoder (586717) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724478)

While SCO certainly looks like a despicable villan, it wasn't all that long ago that I viewed IBM in exactly the same light. So you'll have to excuse me from participating while everyone else chants "go IBM". Let's also not forget Microsoft's position in this affair, supplying the cash so that SCO could wage this legal war.
Wouldn't it be a dream world if all the lawyers spent all their employers' money suing each other and left us alone to produce world class open source software?
It seems to me that open software is the only way to break the enternal circle of despising an abusing software company, waiting until it self-destructs and promptly promoting another one into the same position.

Shoulda been a lawyer. (1)

GomezAdams (679726) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724497)

If I had been born without a conscience I could have been a lawyer instead of a geek. Law suits will never be outsourced. 8^D

Re:Shoulda been a lawyer. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724573)

Law suits will never be outsourced

Nope, that's already happening:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/art icleshow/578 987.cms

Good thing I love curry.

Where (even if outcome is obvious) is due process? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724513)

Let the big fish trickle some more money to the little fish, before this issue dies.

Booyah! (0, Funny)

basil montreal (714771) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724525)

I'm wearing blue stripes to work tomorrow!!!

I love IBM...

Not at all over (4, Insightful)

greppling (601175) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724527)

If IBM gets granted this declaratory judgement, this has very little impact on the whole case (from its legal side, that is). Why? Because in front of the court, while SCo has talked about copyright infringement, it has always stressed and recently completely moved it's focus on the contract dispute with IBM (alleging it violated its trade secrets).

So this declaratory judgement that IBM is not infringing copyright is very tangent to the SCO vs IBM case. But of course, it would give very nice munition against the SCO out-of-court FUD, which is probably why IBM is asking for it. It might also have an impact on SCO vs google etc., I don't understand the issue well enough to judge this.

Also, that IBM is filing for this judgement now doesn't mean that the judge will rule on this next week. AFAI understand, this judgement will just be part of the final ruling on the case.

Re:Not at all over (2, Informative)

dazed-n-confused (140724) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724633)

Also, that IBM is filing for this judgement now doesn't mean that the judge will rule on this next week. AFAI understand, this judgement will just be part of the final ruling on the case.

Exactly. Some people are confusing declaratory judgement (i.e. asking the judge to produce a definitive ruling on a matter... eventually) with summary judgement (i.e. asking the judge to throw the litigious bastards [sco.com] out of court now, because they have no case).

Time to hang Darl McBride and Bill Gates for fraud (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724569)

Well it has been proven that Bill Gates is spreading
lies and fraud using Darl McBride of sco.

M$ has no way to fight linux but use false claims.

Excellent, but . . . (4, Insightful)

maximino (767005) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724577)

A victory by IBM on the motion for declaratory judgment would be fantastic, but it wouldn't be the end of this lawsuit. SCO is actually not making any copyright or trade secret claims against IBM as of their most recent amended complaint (which is centered on bizarre contract interpretations); IBM is simply trying to close that avenue down for them to try and use in the future. However, this is a Good Thing for other people, because if granted it will put the kibosh on many of SCO's other claims. If IBM didn't violate any copyrights, how could AutoZone? But it's not time to break out the champagne yet -- especially until the judge actually rules on the thing.

I'm sorry to hear this (4, Interesting)

morelife (213920) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724598)

If the judge grants what IBM wants, the case will be over, SCO's stock price will have created much revenue for them, as did the investment by MS, Linux will have had doubt cast upon it needlessly, and there will have been no punishment for Darl.

I wish IBM would fight them in court, win, and countersue for further damages to prove the point.

There's a Good Thing that has happened as a result of the SCO saga to date:

the Linux development commmunity is now being a lot more careful about code re-use, attribution, credits, and licensing issues in redistributed packages.

Took the tip from [H]ardOCP, apparently (4, Informative)

Illissius (694708) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724612)

For all of you who were suggesting IBM do the same thing when [H]ardOCP did this against Infinium, well, they just did :).

Here's what the [H]'s website says about it:

IBM Amends Suit:
IBM has amended its counterclaim with a Declaratory Judgment action against SCO looking for a resolution to the current Linux lawsuit that is pending.


By seeking a declaratory judgement, which a judge could issue as soon as the discovery process is over and before the case goes to trial, IBM appears to be indicating that has conducted an internal analysis of SCO's claims and has found them to be without merit, said Jeff Norman, an intellectual property partner with the Chicago law firm Kirkland Ellis LLP.

This is basically the same thing HardOCP has done with Infinium Labs.


Bennett's lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court that the article did not constitute unfair business practices or competition, trademark infringement or dilution, common law or trade libel, trade disparagement or tortious interference.

/. suppression ;) (5, Informative)

griblik (237163) | more than 10 years ago | (#8724655)

For those of you who (like me) regularly check groklaw for updates and news, they've got a cut down headlines-only page.

http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page= Headlines [groklaw.net]

That page puts less stress on their server, so if you'd like to help reduce their bandwidth costs...

Not only that but about 9 more copyright items (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8724672)



They added 9 more copyright infringement items
to the list.

Time to lower the boom!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>