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!

The Score is IBM - 700,000 / SCO - 326

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the that's-some-impressive-evidence dept.

Caldera 316

The Peanut Gallery writes "After years of litigation to discover what, exactly, SCO was suing about, IBM has finally discovered that SCO's 'mountain of code' is only 326 scattered lines. Worse, most of what is allegedly infringing are comments and simple header files (like errno.h). These probably aren't copyrightable for being unoriginal and dictated by externalities and aren't owned by SCO in any event. Above and beyond that, IBM has at least five separate licenses for these elements, including the GPL, even if SCO actually owned those lines of code. In contrast IBM is able to point out 700,000 lines of code, which they have properly registered copyrights for, which SCO is infringing upon if the Court rules that it repudiated the GPL."

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

heh ... pwned (-1, Offtopic)

linuxrocks123 (905424) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374235)

I've been waiting for this case to die for a long time :) ...first post?

SCO stock (1)

earthloop (449575) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374245)

It'll be interesting to watch SCOs share price now...

Re:SCO stock (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374315)

Dropping to $0 won't cause much of a splash as it's barely a step down. The big sucking sound as SCO's hot air vanishes will be notable though.

Re:SCO stock (5, Funny)

acidrain (35064) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374335)

I wonder how much sco.com will be sold for. Somebody should make it point to kernel.org, just as a lesson to the patent trolls.

Re:SCO stock (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374451)

sadly, it'll probably be bought by "Sony Computers Online"

Re:SCO stock (1)

bancho (621456) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374725)

Who would really want it? It's certain to have the stink of death on it.

Re:SCO stock (5, Funny)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374535)

100 lines, 12000000 lines, 10 lines, SCO wasn't flat out lying. They found something. That something might be enough to win the suit (maybe not a billion).

It would be interesting to watch SCOs stock. If it starts rising, it means investors are seeing it from their side, and seeing them as the winner here. Investors are detached emotionally, and will probably make a better call than any slashbotter.

Re:SCO stock (5, Informative)

sogoodsofarsowhat (662830) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374623)

Man...are you a shill for SCOX?

Surely you are kidding that SCOX might win. The 326 lines of codes:

#1 they dont hold Copyright on at ALL
#2 are in public domain
#3 are not even CODE!

Where as the 700,000 lines of code IBM is counter suing over ARE owned by IBM, ARE registered to them, and pretty much IBM has them by the short hairs.

As does Novell.

This is emotional to a lot of people yes. But we are also highly intelligent people who know quite a bit about this and how this came to be. While we may be emotional doesnt mean we are wrong!

Where as SCOX from day one has been wrong.

Go shill on the Yahoo board you will find no safe harbor here.

Re:SCO stock (4, Interesting)

badasscat (563442) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374641)

100 lines, 12000000 lines, 10 lines, SCO wasn't flat out lying. They found something. That something might be enough to win the suit (maybe not a billion).

They only win the suit if they can somehow convince the judge that none of IBM's licenses apply, including the GPL. And if they convince the judge that the GPL doesn't apply, then they are now liable for the 700,000 lines of IBM code that SCO has appropriated.

So, no, they can't win.

Re:SCO stock (5, Funny)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374689)

Investors are detached emotionally, and will probably make a better call than any slashbotter.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ha ha ha. Ha. Oh man, that's a good one.

Re:SCO stock (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18374807)


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ha ha ha. Ha. Oh man, that's a good one.


That was my response too. When I read that line about investors being emotionally detatched, and making good calls I almost spit my coffee all over my laptop.

The market is one big lemming run. Some understand this and can win, and some deny this and will lose, but most folks are simply unaware and just run with the herd.

Re:SCO stock (2, Informative)

kad77 (805601) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375219)

The market is one big lemming run. Some understand this and can win, and some deny this and will lose, but most folks are simply unaware and just run with the herd.

That is a pretty elitist statement. Given 3% correction in US markets a few weeks ago, and the subsequent actions of investors, you would be dead wrong in your analysis. bzzzzt, thanks for playing.

In case you were wondering my SCO stance: SCOX is scum and their board members, along with anyone else involved on their side from other organizations, should be criminally charged where possible in regards to this lawsuit.

Re:SCO stock (2, Informative)

richdun (672214) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375365)

That "correction" was a one day spike brought on by a bad day in Shanghai (which also spawned bad days elsewhere). It wasn't sustained or even broad enough to be a real correction. GP's point was proven by this more than anything - most investors just started selling cause they saw the Chinese selling. I guarantee there were people who watched the Shanghai markets closely that day and made money off the downturn, then more money the next day when it swung back up 1.5-2%.

Re:SCO stock (1)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374827)

I was think that myself. For every genius getting out of a bad position on the market, there has to be some idiot^Winvestor willing to buy it from him. That's how it works.

It's called speculating if you go in knowing it is a losing proposition and that you are gambling on the really slim chance for a big payoff vs losing your money. You're called an idiot if you buy into it with the absolute confidence that "it can't go any way but up!" Lots more idiots than speculators out there from my experience.

Your post is just silly (4, Insightful)

paladinwannabe2 (889776) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374889)

Point 1.
SCO was flat out lying. If I run a file comparison utility over several million lines of code, and I find 326 identical lines (most of which are things like #include ) and then say that IBM stole thousands of lines of code, I'm lying my @$$ off. It's similar to me saying you owe me a million dollars because you borrowed $5 for lunch one day. Or calling you a gay prostitute because your wife dragged you to see Brokeback Mountain. Or saying I have proof Jedi are real after watching the 'Star Wars Kid' video. (Do I really need to continue? How is gross exaggeration NOT flat out lying?)

Point 2.
It is interesting to watch SCO stock. My bet is that it goes down a notch, and it seems to be doing that so far today (but just barely). Investors tend to be just as stupid and emotionally attached to things as anyone else. (Succesful investors are less so, just like some of the better /. posts are emotionally detached).

Re:SCO stock (2, Insightful)

dattaway (3088) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374571)

SCO already had its last breath. Novell is now on the attack.

Re:SCO stock (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374991)

In the case of Novell, the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.

Novell needs every penny they can get, and it wouldn't surprise me if they sell whatever rights they still have to their new bed partner, Microsoft, who is then free to go after anyone (except Novell) for allegedly copying code from both Unix and DOS/Windows to Linux.

Re:SCO stock (5, Interesting)

nege (263655) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374791)

I wonder how much sco.com will be sold for. Somebody should make it point to kernel.org, just as a lesson to the patent trolls.

The internet version of severed head on a pike. I like it!

Re:SCO stock (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374853)

I wonder how much sco.com will be sold for.

Depends on if they own or lease their digs in Utah. Usually used office furniture usually goes pretty cheap in lots. Recyclers may be interested in all the shredded paper...

Re:SCO stock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18374867)

Have it forward to kernel.org after a splash page saying "Source Code: Open"

Re:SCO stock (1)

Freezy (1040368) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374599)

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=SCOX [yahoo.com]

Seems to have been going down for quite awhile. Not much reaction from the March 7th hearing yet, it seems.

Re:SCO stock (4, Insightful)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374603)

It'll be interesting to watch SCOs share price now...

It's been under a dollar a share for a few days now. If it continues, it could lead to delisting. Look for SCOX if you want to track it on a ticker. However, in the past SCO did a reverse split and they could always do another one and convert 2 or 3 shares to 1 and get back over a dollar a share to avoid delisting. Then again, Wall Street has frankly been insane in supporting this stock and I wouldn't be surprised at all by Monday or even today (early trends are actually up for the stock today) for it to be worth over a dollar a share again. I'm hoping for a delisting as that would hurt SCO immensely, but I'm not holding my breath. A stock market that has believed against all rational thought for years that SCO has some value is unlikely to be smart enough to realize by now that the game is almost over and start getting out while they can.

Re:SCO stock (2, Interesting)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374823)

...It's been under a dollar a share for a few days now. If it continues, it could lead to delisting. Look for SCOX if you want to track it on a ticker. However, in the past SCO did a reverse split and they could always do another one and convert 2 or 3 shares to 1 and get back over a dollar a share to avoid delisting... ...I'm hoping for a delisting as that would hurt SCO immensely, but I'm not holding my breath
As you suspect there isn't much hope for delisting. The stock has to be under $1 for 30 trading days for the company to get a warning. They then get 90 days to remedy the situation (for example, doing a 2-1 reverse split on the stock you suggested). It would be harder for SCOX to avoid a delisting if they slid under the other delisting criteria: having a market capitalization under $10 million (currently it is about $20.4 million). But as you, I'm not holding my breath for either one.

Re:SCO stock (1)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374883)

Ehum, small correction. I got the market capitalization value wrong. It is actually $5 million, not $10 million. Which makes it even more improbable. Sorry about the mistake.

Re:SCO stock (1)

muffen (321442) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374817)

It'll be interesting to watch SCOs share price now...
Down around 1% at the moment.

How a company with no case at all and a marketcap of 237,5M USD can be so stupid as to sue a company with a market cap of 140B USD is beyond me.
I mean, there simply cannot be another reason than to inflate the stockprice. Five years ago they were at $40, now they are at $2.50.

Re:SCO stock (1)

muffen (321442) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374977)

Need edit :(
Last post was wrong, was looking at the wrong stock (was looking at SCOR) :-/

Re:SCO stock (1)

Secrity (742221) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374857)

It's been under a dollar a share for the past week. How long before it gets delisted?

Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (2, Interesting)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374253)

At least the wikipedia article says so.

Is he lying or not? If the original unix comments are in there verbatim, it sounds unlikely that it was completely original.

I'm not saying it should be copyrightable or affect the suit at all, but it certainly bears on Linus' credibility, if he copy/pasted a header file then claimed it was a product of his genious.

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (2, Funny)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374293)

Umm, maybe he typed it himself.

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (5, Insightful)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374297)

Don't forget Linus had the Minix code to refer to when starting Linux. SCO claimed that this was one way Linux was an illegal derivative of Unix. However, as was pointed out by IBM and others, a simple list of #defines cannot be copyrighted.

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (2, Interesting)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374347)

No, I could see him writing "#DEFINE FALSE 0, #DEFINE TRUE !(FALSE)" and believe it.

But comments are written in human language, and it's unlikely that two people phrase a complex thought th same way. If you're grading programming assignments in university, and see the exact same comments in two student's works - it pretty much tips you off to cheating.

I don't know what Linus actually said - whether he copied from Minix, the wiki article says "Linus Torvalds, the creator and trademark holder of Linux, has denied SCO's claim, saying he wrote the code himself."

If he copied it from Minix, he didn't write it himself.

I'm not talking about IBM, SCO, or anything else. Is Linus a liar, or is the wikipedia article misrepresenting what he said?

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (1)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374587)

comments.. are not code.

Copying the standard "this header file defines the standard error codes used by the blah blah blah..." comment is not the same as copying code that implements those things.

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (-1, Flamebait)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374669)

I don't care if comments are code, copyrightable, or what.

The issue is: IS LINUS A LIAR? He claims he wrote it himself. If he copied it from another source, that claim is a lie. Now every other claim he makes publically, is in doubt.

Yes or no?

I don't give a fuck about splitting hairs about what a comment is or a # sign or what.

Can I trust what Linus says? Did he attempt to mislead the community?

You're obviously not a coder, are you? (5, Informative)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374839)

Okay, the errno.h file is a list of errors.

POSIX.1, the specification, says you need to support X list of errors, and these are their names.

POSIX.1 compliance was a goal of Linux. If you RTFA carefully (or TFS) you'll note that Linus used different values for those same constants. Which, BTW, is a bone-headed move in terms of compatibility with UNIX but still within the letter of the specification. So clearly he wasn't using one as a crib sheet for the other.

This is basically like, Linus wanted to bake some cookies, so he looked at the recipe for his Mom's cookies and made a grocery list. Now his Aunt Martha has her panties in a knot because she thinks Linus stole her grocery list, because it has the same ingredients in it, because Linus' grandmother is the one who taught both his mom and his aunt how to bake chocolate chip cookies. And this is before Martha even bothers to notice that Linux is buying butterscotch chips and way too much baking soda.

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (3, Insightful)

Wateshay (122749) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375327)

If you read TFA, you'll find that it doesn't say anything about comments in errno.h being copied. In fact, it doesn't even mention errno.h. Unless I missed something, the only reference to errno.h is in talking about the #define for EPERM. There aren't many ways to #define EPERM, so if there is similarity between the definition that SCO claims to own and the version that exists in errno.h, I think any reasonable person could understand how that could happen without Linus having copy-pasted the file.

I don't see anything here that implies Linus Torvald's credibility has been in the least bit impugned, and I think more people need to stand up and say that. This is exactly how rumors get started that can seriously impact an honest person's credibility, and all because of a poorly worded Slashdot description (that itself doesn't even question Linus' credibility).

MOD PARENT UP (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18374365)

Everyone knows the SCO vs IBM is false, the true story is did Linus copy parts of Linux? These 326 lines of code point to yes.

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (5, Informative)

tomknight (190939) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374389)

http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312 .2/1241.html [iu.edu]

From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Mon Dec 22 2003 - 16:36:47 EST
[snip]
"errno.h/signal.h/ioctl.h (and they are apparently the 2.4.x versions, before we moved some common constants into "asm-generic/errno.h"), and while I haven't analyzed them, I know for a fact that
- the original errno.h used different error numbers than "original UNIX"
I know this because I cursed it later when it meant that doing things like binary emulation wasn't as trivial - you had to translate the error numbers.
- same goes for "signal.h": while a lot of the standard signals are well documented (ie "SIGKILL is 9"), historically we had lots of confusion (ie I think "real UNIX" has SIGBUS at 10, while Linux didn't originally have any SIGBUS at all, and later put it at 7 which was originally SIGUNUSED.

So to me it looks like
- yes, Linux obviously has the same signal names and error number names that UNIX has (so the files certainly have a lot of the same identifiers)
- but equally clearly they weren't copied from any "real UNIX"."
[snip]

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (0)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374431)

The story says some of the matches are comments.

To me, a comment is more copyrightable than code, and a clearer indication of straight-up forgery.

There's only one way to write "#DEFINE SIGKILL 9"

There's a multitude of ways to describe what that means in any human language. If I saw comments that matched verbatim, I would certainly assume the source of those was CTRL-C, CTRL-V (or however the fuck you copy and paste in whatever flavor of linux you run)

That's big. That throws the whole of linux into doubt. If he copy pasted 300 lines from SCO, and that can be shown, now the doors open for people to start auditing and making their own claims.

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (1)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374465)

Comments in code are not copyrightable.

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374507)

Bullshit. Anything I write is copyrightable creative work, including this post, and including my description of a bubble sort in an old programming assignment from high school.

Besides, that wasnt my point. I don't care if its copyrightable. If comments match up 100%, its a clear indication of copy/paste, and a clear indication that (if true) Linus' claim he wrote it himself is false.

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (2, Informative)

'nother poster (700681) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374695)

Only if Linus is the one who copied it. error.h and signal.h now are not the same as they were, say 10 years ago, and there are a lot more people than Linus who have maintained and writen kernel code since Linux was first created. If someone did copy and paste some code, shame on them, but unless you are comparing the original linux header files I don't see how a copied comment in the 2.4 trees header files can be directly attributed to Linus without seeing who checked the code in.
 

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (2, Insightful)

corran__horn (178058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374945)

Not exactly, an example from errno.h:

#define ENOSTR 60 /* Device not a stream */

Also, how would you describe ENOSTR? The IBM argument (which is valid) is that you would most likely describe it exactly that way. Also remember that Linus stated that some of the file was copied, but some was written. Even if the comments match, if the numbers are different then it is highly unlikely that it was a pure copy, as it would be far better not to change the numbers. (For example, if you redifined SIGKILL to 1, think of the annoyance you would cause to someone who accidentally hardcoded the number, or wanted to use kill -9)

As a sidenote: there isn't a whole lot of creativity in the comment, in fact it is probably uncopyrightable. Just the same way that "Jill sits on a chair" would be. There is creativity in code, but comments are not by themselves creative (this is why 2+2=4 cannot be copyrighted).

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375347)

'' Comments in code are not copyrightable. ''

Well, actually things might be a bit different than you think.

Copyright is not on an idea, but on the expression of an idea. Things that have to be written the way they are written and cannot be written any other way cannot be copyrighted. If I ask you to write a program that performs task X, everything in your code that you had to write that way because X cannot be achieved in a different way cannot be copyrighted. Everything that you could have written differently is _your_ expression of the idea and can be copyrighted.

So strangely the bits that made your code valuable (the parts that followed my spec and made the code work as it should) cannot be copyrighted. The fluffy bits (like comments) that I could remove from your code without damaging it can be copyrighted.

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374729)

Doesn't matter what the story says, the lines they were discussing in the court room were not comments.

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18374937)

> There's only one way to write "#DEFINE SIGKILL 9"

And it isn't like that, it's like this

#define SIGKILL 9

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375021)

To me, a comment is more copyrightable than code, and a clearer indication of straight-up forgery.

There's only one way to write "#DEFINE SIGKILL 9"


"#define SIGKILL 9 /* Kill, unblockable (POSIX). */"

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375427)

And if anyone followed on, Linus says he got the values out of the Intel i386 ABI book, which would be a good place to get a lot of the comments as well. After all, a lot of the entries would be summaries from the book. And there are very few ways of saying stuff concisely. Heck, some of those values may have comments already put it!

Alphabetic order... (2, Interesting)

mengel (13619) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374783)

As the IBM guy points out in the hearing (online over at Groklaw, of course) the error values are in alphabetic order with increasing integer values.

Exactly what most people would do in building such a list of #defines...

Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (2, Interesting)

sconeu (64226) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375473)

Linus reaffirmed that in a story on Groklaw [groklaw.net] .

Just 1 function..... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18374259)

It doesn't matter if it is only 1 function that IBM has copied in there.

Even a simple one.

Just the fact that SCO has not been lying is vindication enough for me.

By the way they said it was about 250 lines of code when you take out all the #defines etc....

Mod parent troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18374445)

If you'd followed this case at all, you'd realize that SCO has done nothing BUT lie since day one of the case.

Re:Just 1 function..... (3, Interesting)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374531)

> It doesn't matter if it is only 1 function that IBM has copied in there.

RTFA. They are talking about function prototypes, not functions. Big difference. Without actually seeing what the beef is, SCO's claims could be as ridiculous as "int foo (void);"

> Just the fact that SCO has not been lying is vindication enough for me.

Where does it say SCO has not been lying? RBC, Microsoft, SCO and Baystar capital* have been in on this pump-n-dump since day one. As far as I'm concerned, they are all crooks and should be brought to court and tried as such. It's no different than Enron and the other MegaCorp swindlers.

[*] http://news.com.com/Fact+and+fiction+in+the+Micros oft-SCO+relationship+-+page+2/2100-7344_3-5450515- 2.html [com.com]
http://www.newsforge.com/comments.pl?cid=87796&sid =36545 [newsforge.com]

Re:Just 1 function..... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18374707)

ends up being a measly 326 lines of noncopyrightable code that IBM didn't put in Linux anyway.

The point is Linus lied. He claims he wrote the whole thing from scratch. SCO has just proven him to be a fucking liar.

That is the vindication I am speaking of.

Not that SCO does not suck, not that they are not full of shit (well shit - 326 lines) but the fact that Linus did not write Linux from scratch as he claims, that is what I mean about the just 1 function.

By the way, a lot was comments. write me a description of a function and then compare it to lets say 10 other descriptions, is it the same, EVEN THE FUCKING SPACING?

I would love to see the code.

Re:Just 1 function..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375087)

So you are commenting without having seen the actual code? If so, how can you even so boldly assert anything without potentially deceiving yourself?

Obligatory "300" quote... (4, Funny)

Captain Sarcastic (109765) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375249)

So you are commenting without having seen the actual code? If so, how can you even so boldly assert anything without potentially deceiving yourself?


Because this... is... SLASHDOT!

Re:Just 1 function..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375351)

You've missed the difference between Linux 0.01, written from scratch, and modern Linux, which has incorporated various items from the POSIX spec. Nobody lied... except for SCO, of course, but you already knew that.

Search results (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18374553)

Google
["It doesn't matter if it is only"] returned 45 results.

Google
["Even a simple one"] returns 15400

Google
["is vindication enough for me"] returns 6 results.

I accuse you sir of copyright violation! Even if those are only fragments of your text. It doesn't matter if it is only a few lines, or one, even a simple one is vindication enough for me.

Re:Just 1 function..... (2, Insightful)

Guaranteed (998819) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374613)

Parent should RTFA, or maybe just the GPL.

From TFA: "The GPL, of course, grants IBM legal permission to copy, distribute and modify the software. Finally, SCO was a Linux company that distributed this code for years and encouraged the world and its dog to copy, modify, distribute, sublicense, whatever, this code, so they are estopped from suing IBM for doing what the GPL license SCO distributed under said IBM could freely do."

Re:Just 1 function..... (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374649)

1) IBM didn't copy it in there
2) What is there is not one contiguous block of code
3) The lines that SCO do claim are theirs are not copyrightable
4) SCO has released these files under the GPL anyway
5) SCO hasn't proved it does own the lines in question
6) The code is question is less than 0.1% of Linux
7) Owning these lines of code does not mean they own any of the rest of Linux

8) Bankruptcy

Re:Just 1 function..... (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374683)

Another one

8) SCO agreed to IBMs use of these lines of code in Linux

Re:Just 1 function..... (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374765)

8) Bankruptcy

Which, when you think about it, won't actually stop them. All bankruptcy will do is clear the slate of debts, meaning their lawyers will not get paid much if anything, and will probably quit. If SCO survives bankruptcy, the tricks will be to a) find a new source of capital and b) find lawyers stupid enough to take on the case.

Re:Just 1 function..... (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375149)

Which, when you think about it, won't actually stop them.
You forgot:

9) IBM and Novell win counterclaims and the only fight left is how those two companies will divvy up SCO's carcass.

Re:Just 1 function..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18374717)

Thanks Darl, your opinion is noted.

Re:Just 1 function..... (1)

Secrity (742221) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374747)

Nobody except sco is saying that anything was copied. It has finally boiled down to sco pointing to these few hundred specific lines as being the infringing code, rather than the millions of lines as had been claimed. Now, IBM knows what the entire turkey fuck has been over. Personally, I believe that sco has been grasping at straws and that it will be shown that there was no infringement at all. Time will tell.

Case summary: IBM vs SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18374751)

Sorry, I know this is confusing.

Usually, in Slashdot stories, the large corporation is the evil bad guy and the small company or individual is the wronged party. The evil corporation produces an army of terrifying lawyers and destroys the individual in court on some trumped-up charge of copyright infringement or a patent violation. Usually, the RIAA, MPAA, the Republicans or Microsoft play the part of the evil corporation.

However, in this case, the large corporation (IBM) is actually the good guy! The smaller company, SCO, is the one making fraudulent IP claims regarding free software. When IBM wins the case, the findings will be good for free software and help strengthen Linux against allegations of IP theft.

Just to summarise:
- IBM = Good.
- SCO = Bad.
- SCO loses, we cheer.

I hope they get paid by LOC (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374281)

I hope they get paid by LOC 'cos thats a whopping $9,202,453.99 each!

Someone stop me...Can't help myself... (5, Funny)

FlatCatInASlatVat (828700) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374309)

IBM: All your code base are belong to us. You have no chance to survive make your time.

Re:Someone stop me...Can't help myself... (2, Funny)

funfail (970288) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375077)

For great justice at the court.

Re:Someone stop me...Can't help myself... (5, Funny)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375099)

What SCO thought would happen:

In AD 2003, War was beginning.
IBM: What happen!
IBM Lawyer: Some set us up the lawsuit! We get signal.
IBM: Main screen turn on! It's you!
SCO: How are you gentlemen. All your code are belong to us. You are on the way to destruction.
IBM: What you say?!
SCO: You have no chance to survive make your time. Ha ha ha.


What really is happening:

IBM: All your stock are belong to us.

Re:Someone stop me...Can't help myself... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375135)

SCO: We own one of the screws you built your base with. Now get lost or give us a gazillion dollars.

Strange headline (1)

verrucagnome (745834) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374313)

Isn't this a bit like saying Serial Killer 5 - Rest of World 6 Billion? Surely the point is that there is may be infringing code. And the article only ventures to say that "most of" the selected code is not copyrightable.

Re:Strange headline (1)

NecroBones (513779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374621)


I'd agree if it just pointed out that IBM has copyrights for the 700,000 lines of code, and is therefore safe as far as that code is concerned... But it went on to point out that SCO may be in violation of that code's copyright, so depending on the ruling, it could still be an apples to apples comparison.

Re:Strange headline (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374813)

Of the infringing code in question is things that are defined by the POSIX standard and aren't copyrightable.

Other points are JFS and RCU both of which are wholly owned by IBM.

Under SCO's theory if a piece of code is used on a unix system, that becomes the copyrighted property of SCO.

So if you wrote a filesystem (JFS, by IBM) and used it on a Unix system you would no longer own that filesystem.

And people call the GPL viral.

Re:Strange headline (2, Insightful)

Marauder2 (82448) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375067)

It's not saying there are 700k lines of code that is not being infringed upon, rather IBM is claiming that THEY own the copyright to 700k lines of code in Linux (things like JFS) that SCO is infringing upon.

FTA:

"Worse, SCO claims control over code copyrighted by IBM, such as JFS, and others. SCO's own experts said SCO has no copyright infringement claim over those."

"Now, on the IBM motion and SCO cross motion regarding IBM's copyright claims, the GPL matters, in contrast to SCO's alleged 326 lines of infringed code, IBM owns about 700,000 lines of code that SCO has infringed, Marriott states."

Re:Strange headline (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375293)

im not going to go into the whole saga on this but
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200507182 04313749&query=ritchie [groklaw.net]

This is a declaration by BRIAN W. KERNIGHAN who
1 Co wrote one of the standard bocks on C
2 worked on the team that create UNIX
3 (just picking another from the list at rhandom) a member of the National Academy of Engineering ("NAE"), to which I was elected in 2002, and I am currently a member of the NAE Peer Committee for the Computing Science and Engineering section.

TSCOG has no case FULL STOP

only a word for that (1)

Z80a (971949) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374317)

ouch!

copyrighted code! (5, Funny)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374321)

i have the following code copyrighted, get out your wallets and pay up or i will sue!

If (x){

Now that you have seen my copyrighted code, anyone who uses the above code in their programs must pay me a nickel!!!

Hold on, I just got a whisper from my patent lawyer, apparently some firm has trademarked the bracket ({) and my copyright is invalid. Carry on.

Re:copyrighted code! (2, Funny)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374485)

Noo! I don't want to use python all the time!

Re:copyrighted code! (1)

LordPhantom (763327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374509)

Lucky for you, I owe the patent on the method by which the top and bottom halves of each bracket are produced, and I reserved all trademark rights - you may proceed with your lawsuit!!!

Damn font (2, Funny)

Demona (7994) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374441)

Looked like "emo.h". Which would be more than appropriate.

The Wheel of Karma (1)

catdevnull (531283) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374449)

The wheel of Karma turns. Sometimes, you get roadkill.

Is it just me (0, Offtopic)

Alioth (221270) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374493)

Is it just me, or does Caldera's logo look like Mickey Mouse's ear (specifically, a sphere with a picture of Mickey Mouse on it, such that you can only see his ear) ?

The important point of the article (1)

doctor_nation (924358) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374497)

On this day, we learn from IBM's attorney, David Marriott that the "mountain of code" SCO's CEO Darl McBride told the world about from 2003 onward ends up being a measly 326 lines of noncopyrightable code that IBM didn't put in Linux anyway.
Emphasis added. So even though they came up with lines of code they claim infringe, those line are not copyrightable.

Re:The important point of the article (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18374589)

Can I have my $699 back now?

BIG IF! (1)

dafz1 (604262) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374503)

SCO may have 326 lines of code IF the judge in the Novell case say that the rights to the code were transferred to SCO via the Amended Purchase Agreement.

Bad for SCO ok for MS (2, Insightful)

hhawk (26580) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374513)

SCO was funded to do this "legal dance."

While this maybe bad for SCO, those paying the the dance have more than got their money's worth.

They got some really big FUD going, plus the value of major distraction slowing down anyone following the play by play.

Clearly the long term play of MS is to get part or all of there free OS to be illegal. Illegal because they are TOOLS for ripping off copyright(s), or because they don't support legally mandated DRM, or because they they allow DRM to be by-passed, etc, etc., etc.

The only way around this is if more and more people use it and if the big box companies like Dell and Gateway ship boxes with Linux, etc.

Re:Bad for SCO ok for MS (3, Insightful)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374939)

Well, barring for the moment McBride is a hugely bigger idiot than all of us can possibly imagine I really cannot shake the notion the SCO strings were and have been pulled by Microsoft. I know the theory about conspiracies but without Uncle Bills fingers in the pie, none of this really makes any sense.

It's already known McBride tried to, um persuade Novell to join this little legal foray and they told SCO to get lost. It's already known SCO was told this is not a can of worms you want to open, again IIRC by Mr. Love of Novell. There is at least one of their own employees that have said SCO KNOWINGLY contributed code to Linux and the list goes on. So either McBride is a complete boob to ignore some really sound advise or he had other motivations.

So yeah, I know it's a bit tinfoilish to think Microsoft is simply manipulating another company via proxy but to me, right now it's the only thing that really makes much sense.

Here are some of the lines: (3, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374561)

  1. if
  2. else
  3. {
  4. }
  5. return;
  6. continue;
  7. break;
  8. do
  9. /*
  10. */

Looks like SCO has the upper hand on IBM...

A Darl Lie on Red Hat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18374645)

Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights.


Having been suprised by the copyright charge and going directly to his link [redhat.com] to read it and confirmed my belief that there was nothing against copyrights there. Red Hat names some types of copyrights but says nothing against copyrights. In fact a search of the page for the term "copyright" returns the following and nothing else.

Copyright © 2006 Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved.


As far as lobbying congress to remove software patents, thank you Red Hat and I wish you the best of luck in getting the government to stop this insanely stupid practice that can only impede advancement in the art of software. Yes, I called it art and yes I know its also mathematics but keep in mind, most if not all art can be expressed mathematically. Now here is a question for government, what would have happened if someone were allowed to patent the process of applying paint to canvas, the shaping of clay or stone, the process of adding, subtracting or multiplying numbers? What if it was patented by Disney? Would the processes ever expire? Would they be forever "patent pending"?

Funny if it were fiction (3, Funny)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374691)

I'm having visions of future SCO moves prompted by their crack legal team:

1) Admitting an IBM model-M keyboard as evidence to the case.
2) Calling a monkey to the stand.
3) Yelling "objection" at random moments, even during recess.
4) Showing the court on the doll where IBM touched them.

Can we just throw out the case and stop with the wasting of money already?

Re:Funny if it were fiction (2, Funny)

analog_line (465182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375377)

You forgot the Chewbacca defense.

"If Chewbacca lives on Endor, IBM must pay us lots of money!"

SCO on the DMCA (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374773)

"It is paramount that the DMCA be given full force and effect, as envisioned by Congress." -- SCO

What a delightful combination of messenger and message. That should so be in somebody's signature. I'd take it, but I like mine the way it is.

Some of the Copyrighted Lines SCO claims it owns (0, Redundant)

ehaggis (879721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374821)

//This is a bug and needs to be fixed

and

//Copyright 1981 IBM

and

cout<<"Hello World<<endl;

and

cout<<endl;

Re:Some of the Copyrighted Lines SCO claims it own (1)

Kawolski (939414) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375245)

cout<<"Hello World<<endl;
I was going to point out that there's a missing quote mark until I realized that SCO doesn't own the right quotes, only the left quotes.

Behold the Power of the GPL ! (1)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374825)

Repudiate it (i.e. "strike it down") and it will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!

{gawd, I am such a geek ...}

Premier case for a "Loser Pays" court system (2, Insightful)

kad77 (805601) | more than 7 years ago | (#18374851)

SCO is another poster child for the US Civil Court system to adopt a "Loser Pays" rule to interrupt the flow of ridiculous lawsuits.

I would assume that this may conflict heavily with the current "Lawyers Always Win" effect we have now though.

gToat (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18375145)

SCO Legal Costs Winding Down? (1)

SixFactor (1052912) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375301)

From SCO's own March 1 PR [sco.com]

Legal and other expenses incurred in connection with the Company's litigation were $654,000 for the first quarter of fiscal year 2007, which was down significantly from costs of $4,010,000 for the comparable quarter of the prior year and down from costs of $2,220,000 for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2006. Because of the unique and unpredictable nature of the Company's litigation, the occurrence and timing of litigation-related expenses is difficult to predict, and will be difficult to predict in the future. While the Company expects to continue to incur legal expenses related to its ongoing litigation during the 2007 fiscal year, the Company's expectation is that those expenses will be less than they were for the 2006 fiscal year.

Perhaps they see the light at the end of the tunnel... and it's a train coming at them.

Why the disrespect for header files ? (1)

jomagam (512625) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375415)

TFA says: 11 of 12 files are header files, which aren't copyrightable. Header files don't do anything.

A header file can have complicated data structure definitions; it can define arrays that are used by other algorithms. Saying that a header cannot have copyrightable or even patentable information is wrong.

Chewbacca Defense? (1)

measured_flo (799013) | more than 7 years ago | (#18375457)

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200703102 04302343 [groklaw.net]

What SCO contends, Your Honor, let's talk about those. Your Honor, in effect what they have claimed is that the pitcher, player pitcher is 1, player catcher is 2, player first base is 3 and so on. That's what those #defines represent, associating a number and a shorthand for a position and claiming that somehow it renders Linux so substantially similar to UNIX that they enact and claim rights. And I respectfully submit, Your Honor, that the law is clear that short names of that sort and associating integers randomly with phrases like PP1 or EPERM-1 simply is not protectable under the doctrines laid out in our papers by Professors Kernagen and Davis in their expert reports. And in no case can it result when it's 320 lines of non-contiguous essentially random numbers with essentially shorthand phrases represents substantial similarity. Now, Your Honor with respect to misuse, briefly again, the facts here are simple. They claimed rights to more than a million lines of code in Linux. At the end of the day, there's 326 lines of code in which they have rights, and they have sought to exert the supposed monopoly they have and copyrights they claim to have over technology plainly owned by others. For the five reasons I set out, Your Honor, summary judgment respectfully should be entered in favor of IBM. Thank you.
WOW!
Burn Karma, Burn....
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?