PDA

View Full Version : SCO to rape and plunder consumers worldwide


Array
08-05-2003, 11:50 PM
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030805/latu094_1.html

ZeroNeuro
08-06-2003, 12:01 AM
This means that if studios who use linux act NOW they only have to pay a bargain price of 670.00 per cpu for all of their 1200 linux based render nodes and for every workstation in their... *whistle* Sorry, Dreamworks, ILM....

More to add to the drama:
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2003/press_sco.html

Leonard
08-06-2003, 12:32 AM
Oh my goodness this is so dodgy. :)

This is the disturbing part:

"To further protect the integrity of Open Source software and the Open Source community, Red Hat has established the Open Source Now Fund. The purpose of the fund will be to cover legal expenses associated with infringement claims brought against companies developing software under the GPL license and non-profit organizations supporting the efforts of companies developing software under a GPL license. Red Hat has pledged one million dollars to be provided as funding in this initiative. For more information please e-mail opensourcenow@redhat.com."

Get ready for a long, drawn-out pissing war.

Leo

Array
08-06-2003, 12:33 AM
the nice folks at IBM and Steve Jobbs must be fuming right now....how many millions of dollars do these companies "owe" the SCO?

BoydLake
08-06-2003, 02:35 AM
Well, IBM and Red Hat pretty much raped SCO first it appears. It's not surprising they'd fight back. That they (SCO) are offering consumers a way to avoid liability is better than taking them for a ride legally. If they get lumped into Red Hat and IBM's lawsuit, it could be a lot worse for them. This gets more interesting by the minute.

moovieboy
08-06-2003, 04:33 AM
Okay, as someone who'll admit to only knowing Linux by name and its growing popularity, is there anyone who wants to set the stage here for this whole SCO/Red Hat throwdown? And, I see why IBM would be entangled, but why mention Apple? Are all UNIX's part of this scuffle?

Signed, "Curious in L.A." :D

-Tom

Leonard
08-06-2003, 04:35 AM
I'm not totally familiar with the situation, but it could be that OS X is affected because it's based on FreeBSD, which has similar bits from Linux. I could be mistaken - anyone else clarify on this?

L.

MCronin
08-06-2003, 05:04 AM
Well, according to the article it only cover Linux 2.4 kernels and 2.5 kernels, so Apple has nothing to fear, at least they shouldn't. Most effects houses are probably in the clear as well as RedHat 7.2/7.3 is the distro of choice, and those until recently shipped with 2.2 kernels.

Also note it seems to only cover binary distributions (unless I am misunderstanding, it could mean the code can only be distributed as binary) so if a company builds a newer kernel from source (as a company like ILM probably does) they might be in the clear.

The bits SCO is on about may not even be integral to Linux, for all I know. Maybe some companies could even remove them from distribtion all together, or comapnies could build without them. These open source guys adapt quickly, I'm sure once they know exactly what the problem is they'll figure out a way around the IP by removing or rewriting the code in a not so far off kernel release. This will probably end up being a pretty hollow victory for SCO.

My guess is that SCO is doing this because their market share has eroded greatly over the last few years with so many major companies shunning Unix in favor of Linux, but I could be wrong. I haven't been following it.

ZeroNeuro
08-06-2003, 05:07 AM
Well I am not sure what the kernel in BSD is based on. But BSD Unix is a commercial venture.

However, we will all be affected by this. How many servers, routers, internet service providers, or domain name servers do you think are running the 2.4 or 2.5 kernel? Thousands most likely. This could cause the cost of using the internet to skyrocket so that these companies can protect their interest and afford the licensing fees. This is a rediculous move. It is like GM selling you a car that they used parts from a Porsche, and Porche trying to get the end user to pay for the use of the parts they already bought from GM. It is utterly deplorable to target people who had nothing to do with the infringement. It is a move that makes me sick. Instead of targetting the people who used the linux kernel in question for their distributions, they are attacking the people who received the kernel unknowingly! This move has to be the most draconian practice I have EVER seen from any company. Making me assume that they are only doing this because they want to cash in on the gullibility of the end user and the popilarity of the linux operating system. Put this into perspective. This could potentually cost Dreamworks alone 4 million dollars if SCO is allowed to charge the end user.

Cheers
Ritchie Roberts

MCronin
08-06-2003, 05:28 AM
Well I just read a bunch of stuff and apparently all the disputed code involves SMP. So even if you are running a 2.4 or 2.5 kernel on a single CPU there's no reason to pay them a dime.

malducin
08-06-2003, 05:37 AM
Well a good summary is the SCO vs Linux decision matrix, or conversely you can just check a lot of stories at Slashdot:

Linux vs. SCO: The Decision Matrix (http://www.cybersource.com.au/users/conz/linux_vs_sco_matrix.html)

The whole thing started as SCO claiming there was some copyrighted code included in the kernel. The first claim was 60 lines of code as evidence and you had to sign a draconian NDA to see the evidence, which some people said it was iffy. It would be easy to see anyway when the offending code was put as you could check that via CVS, or actually Bitkeeper since that is what Linus uses. There were even claims that maybe even Caldera programmers might have introduced some of the code themseleves, perhaps accidentally, but once its out there and GPL its too late.

Then SCO tried to claim that they own rights to all Unix derived code so potentially they could charge fees for every *nix out there. Heck at one point the language was so vague that they could charge fees from all *nix, BSDs, Mac OS X and even Windows (which uses the BSD TCP stack like most opeating systems). Heck they were even laying claim to code not derived from the original Unix at all, for example the code that IBM inherited from Sequent when they bought them (I belive the RCU part or REad Copy Update). SCO also revoked AIX license but IBM didn't budge.

BTW the BSD kernel is based on, surprise the BSD kernel.

ILM has modified a bit the kernel shipped from RedHat and compile their own. But SCO's claims is that actual pieces of code are in violation. The code would have to be stripped, so it coves all source ditributions. so yes SCO could demand fees from ILM, Dreamworks, you and me, etc.

The SCO bits are very integral since they improved the performance of Linux. You sure could run Linux without some bits but it wouldn't be so nice. Heck they ar even claiming that SMP support in Linux is in violation. So does NUMA, so anyone doing high performance computing is screwed.

Hopefully the scourge of SCO will be removed soon.

ChrisK
08-06-2003, 05:48 AM
Well, talk is cheap. I don't even believe that they're really intending to win any lawsuit, nor that they want to sell any licenses.

In my opinion, SCO knows that it's a dying company and outrageous news like these are issued to help to rise stock prices. And meanwhile the execs can sell their stock (http://www.quicken.com/investments/insider/?p=SCOX&tag=1) .

This'd be what I call scam.

Tell me, I'm a bit unclear on this:
- Have they even filed their "pre-announced" lawsuite against IBM yet?
- Have they substantiated their claims already? - I think not.

Chris

Goon
08-06-2003, 03:44 PM
The last time this came up a month ago, it appeared that SCO didnt even own the UNIX code, they were just a licensed distributor.
Also they had released their own version of Linux, which means anything that they added was put under the Open Source licencing. So they cannot sue for anything that they added, which is likely where the infringing code came from.
They gone about intimidating companies in order to extract fees from them, but it is pretty much a frivilous suit, which they are in no hurry to actually enter, because they have NO case.

<<Older thread here>> (http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77013&highlight=linux+sco)

And finally the Open Source license requires that no infringing code be present in a release, so whoever added those lines is required to take them out, and the linux community will promptly replace them with acceptable code, should SCO actually ever tell them precisely which sections are at fault.

Rhs_CG
08-07-2003, 01:19 AM
" The bits SCO is on about may not even be integral to Linux, for all I know. Maybe some companies could even remove them from distribtion all together, or comapnies could build without them. These open source guys adapt quickly, I'm sure once they know exactly what the problem is they'll figure out a way around the IP by removing or rewriting the code in a not so far off kernel release. This will probably end up being a pretty hollow victory for SCO. "

Therein lies the problem. While SCO hoots and hollers about everyone and their dog stealing linux from them, they have not yet shown where these alleged infringments exist. The closest I have seen is SCO officials declaring that it (the infringment) exists in the code. I think that the reason they havn't released exactly what is infringing is because they don't want the Open Source Programmers to find an alternate solution to whatever SCO seems to have placed in the kernel.

I think this is a whole lot of bull, as is the timing. Look how many huge companies like ILM, Dreamworks, etc that just made huge investments in Linux. SCO is just trying to pump money out of peoples pockets before their lawsuit finally falls apart beause of all the holes in it. Almost as bad as that guy sueing Pixar over the 'Mr. Ray' thing.

BoydLake
08-07-2003, 01:58 AM
At this point it might be hard to sort out, but here's an opinion from CBS' Marketwatch.com:


http://tinyurl.com/j91f


"Laura DiDio, an analyst with the Yankee Group, said that a bigger issue than whether SCO prevails in its IBM suit is why IBM and other companies supporting Linux will not indemnify customers against potential claims from SCO.

DiDio argues that IBM's failure to protect its customers sends several signals to the market, including that Linux is not ready to become a mainstream computer operating system, and that there is a chance that SCO's claims against IBM just might have some validity.

"Every other software and hardware vendor provides indemnification for its products," DiDio said. "IBM is saying it doesn't want to take that chance because SCO might win.""

It's easy for some to just point the finger at SCO and whine about them making a fuss, but their original claim against IBM appears to have teeth. That claim is essentially that while contracting for IBM SCO (or an entity since purchased by SCO) built code for IBM's own flavor of Unix, AIX. Since then, in an effort to push Linux into the forefront, IBM (according to SCO's claim) used line for line code built by SCO in the Linux Kernel and other areas of the OS. Whether or not the code in question is essential to Linux operation is not the issue, what is, is that IBM may have given to Linux what was not theirs to give. And if they did that, you should all be pointing the finger at them, because something like this could actually kill Linux dead in it's tracks.

I'm not an expert on Linux, so I don't know what you'd have to do to circumvent the code at issue, but maybe that could be done.

It's kind of silly to take sides, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume SCO has no valid claim and Big Blue is in the right here. Time will tell.

BoydLake
08-07-2003, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by Rhs_CG
Therein lies the problem. While SCO hoots and hollers about everyone and their dog stealing linux from them, they have not yet shown where these alleged infringments exist. The closest I have seen is SCO officials declaring that it (the infringment) exists in the code. I think that the reason they havn't released exactly what is infringing is because they don't want the Open Source Programmers to find an alternate solution to whatever SCO seems to have placed in the kernel.



So, you expect them to just give their intellectual property away? It's kind of silly to expect them to roll over and give up because people are used to having things given to them for free.

Also, if you require SCO to show the code in question, how could you create alternative code without SCO being the source of the alternative?

BoydLake
08-07-2003, 02:32 AM
Here's more early info including quotes from an interview with an SCO representative:

http://news.com.com/2100-1016-999371.html?tag=nl

mpc823_99
08-07-2003, 03:17 AM
There's quite a lot about this over in slashdot almost every day.

SCO fires back at RedHat (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/08/06/0322219.shtml?tid=106&tid=123&tid=130&tid=185&tid=190&tid=99)

SCO targets Gov and TiVo (http://slashdot.org/articles/03/08/06/2232223.shtml?tid=106&tid=123&tid=185&tid=187&tid=88&tid=99)

SCO wants $699 for Linux (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/05/1721238&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=185&tid=187&tid=88&tid=98&tid=99)

Takes little research to figure out how scummy SCO and McBride are. They have presented no evidence for their claims and want you to pay as, essentially, insurance. Simple extortion. This lawyer has a good outline of the case LAM Law (http://lamlaw.com/).

I hope SCO goes down quick, though I'm afraid they won't. McBride and his cronies are known for having lawsuits as their business model.

mpc823_99
08-07-2003, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by Boyd Lake
So, you expect them to just give their intellectual property away? It's kind of silly to expect them to roll over and give up because people are used to having things given to them for free.

Also, if you require SCO to show the code in question, how could you create alternative code without SCO being the source of the alternative?

You can't be serious. This is akin to SCO accusing you of stealing an art work from them. When you ask, "which one?", they say they won't tell. Worse, if you want to know, you'll have to sign their NDA, which puts you in a worse position than you were in.

First, all the code they are claiming was stolen is already out in the public domain (i.e., it's part of the open source Linux), they just have refused to identify it. This means there are no trade secrets anymore. Second, claiming a programmer can't write new code which performs the same functionality without relying on the "questionable" is patently false. Surely everyone here can create new art, even if they were inspired by someone elses. This is not covered by copyright nor patent laws.

beaker
08-07-2003, 05:27 AM
SCO(then Caldera) did the same thing with M$. They bought up Dr. Dos just so they could sue them for Anti Trust(They filed suit days after they purchased the company). M$ paid them off and they were happy. They were really only in it for the payday otherwise they would have never settled for just money and not any governmental enforcement of M$.

DePingus
08-07-2003, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by Boyd Lake
Also, if you require SCO to show the code in question, how could you create alternative code without SCO being the source of the alternative?

The first step to correct the problem is to REMOVE the offending code. In order to do this that code has to be identified. The next step is to either replace that code with original content or configure the remaining code to work without it (as it had apparently been doing before kernel version 2.4). Either way the code has to be identified. There can only be two reasons why SCO won't identify the code. (A) The whole claim is bullsh!t; Or (B) They don't want it fixed. Why? As someone already pointed out, to make money.

Those rat bastards! :shame:

ZeroNeuro
08-07-2003, 06:07 AM
If this goes to court all they will ask SCO to do is either identify the code so people have the option of removing or changing it, or allow replacement kernels to be distributed to the users.

Of course. Then we get into the part where... heh if you didn't change the code in your kernel would you tell them?

BoydLake
08-07-2003, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by DePingus
The first step to correct the problem is to REMOVE the offending code. In order to do this that code has to be identified. The next step is to either replace that code with original content or configure the remaining code to work without it (as it had apparently been doing before kernel version 2.4). Either way the code has to be identified. There can only be two reasons why SCO won't identify the code. (A) The whole claim is bullsh!t; Or (B) They don't want it fixed. Why? As someone already pointed out, to make money.

Those rat bastards! :shame:

Once a lawsuit is filed, one can't reasonably expect the plaintiff to spill the beans before his day in court. That's the biggest reason for not identifying the code publicly. It's ridiculous to expect them to show their hand hand before it's time to call the bet ... Duh! Otherwise they of course jeapordize their case. Oh, and shame on them for being in business to make money..... as if no one else is!

BoydLake
08-07-2003, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by mpc823_99
There's quite a lot about this over in slashdot almost every day.

SCO fires back at RedHat (http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/08/06/0322219.shtml?tid=106&tid=123&tid=130&tid=185&tid=190&tid=99)

SCO targets Gov and TiVo (http://slashdot.org/articles/03/08/06/2232223.shtml?tid=106&tid=123&tid=185&tid=187&tid=88&tid=99)

SCO wants $699 for Linux (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/05/1721238&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=185&tid=187&tid=88&tid=98&tid=99)

Takes little research to figure out how scummy SCO and McBride are. They have presented no evidence for their claims and want you to pay as, essentially, insurance. Simple extortion. This lawyer has a good outline of the case LAM Law (http://lamlaw.com/).

I hope SCO goes down quick, though I'm afraid they won't. McBride and his cronies are known for having lawsuits as their business model.

At least they are offering a way for consumers to find legal shelter which is what IBM is NOT doing for them. If you can't or won't protect your customers from liability, maybe you shouldn't be in the business. That seems to be the lesson to be learned from this.

BoydLake
08-07-2003, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by mpc823_99
You can't be serious. This is akin to SCO accusing you of stealing an art work from them. When you ask, "which one?", they say they won't tell. Worse, if you want to know, you'll have to sign their NDA, which puts you in a worse position than you were in.

First, all the code they are claiming was stolen is already out in the public domain (i.e., it's part of the open source Linux), they just have refused to identify it. This means there are no trade secrets anymore. Second, claiming a programmer can't write new code which performs the same functionality without relying on the "questionable" is patently false. Surely everyone here can create new art, even if they were inspired by someone elses. This is not covered by copyright nor patent laws.

Yes, but if I start a new artwork and derive all the pertinent ideas from an already created piece of art.... then it's not all mine is it? In addition, the code solutions and technologies in question are much more specific and objective in nature. A few lines of code in the Unix/Linux kernel can mean millions in capital revenue. So, it's not an altogether perfect analogy.

Of course Linux is public domain..... how it became such is the issue. IBM had no right (if they did what SCO claims they did) to release the code in question to the Linux community. It's sure that much of Unix has been public domain for awhile. From what I'm reading, SCO seems to have a case that may be provable, so I'm expecting there's more than public domain property in question here.

Oh, and if someone accused me of stealing artwork and showed me how months before bringing it to court, what's to keep me from doing all that I can to destroy any evidence of it and cover my tracks? That makes their case harder to prove now doesn't it?

beaker
08-07-2003, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by Boyd Lake
Oh, and shame on them for being in business to make money..... as if no one else is!
Being in business to make money means making products and selling them. Not strategically aquiring technologies and patents that you can sue everyone for and extort money from businesses. I put it in the same catagory as con artists who get hurt just to sue people for fake injuries and car accidents.

Why are you so much on Caldera's side. Just go out and read the hundreds of articles out there on the web. 99% of them say that SCO's case is B.S. and full of holes. They are only suing to make money because their business is failing. They are hoping IBM will settle with them in order to shorten the case and they can make a quick payday. Some of the code they are suing for is related to SGI SMP code also, but you don't see them suing SGI because their broke. No point suing a company with no money.
http://slashdot.org/search.pl?query=SCO

mpc823_99
08-07-2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Boyd Lake
At least they are offering a way for consumers to find legal shelter which is what IBM is NOT doing for them. If you can't or won't protect your customers from liability, maybe you shouldn't be in the business. That seems to be the lesson to be learned from this.

From the SCO website -
"End users who purchase this license will be held harmless against past and future copyright violations of SCO’s intellectual property in binary format in Linux distributions"

All they're saying is they won't sue you for infringing on their rights. They haven't covered your butt for someone else suing you concerning Linux. Yet, somehow IBM should protect you from any possible lawsuit, but SCO shouldn't? That seems incongruent.

In addition, SCO hasn't proven there are any IP violations. They're asking you to trust them that they're there, won't tell you where they're at, but if you pay them they'll let you off.

SCO is attempting extortion, plain and simple.

mpc823_99
08-07-2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Boyd Lake
Oh, and if someone accused me of stealing artwork and showed me how months before bringing it to court, what's to keep me from doing all that I can to destroy any evidence of it and cover my tracks? That makes their case harder to prove now doesn't it?

But they haven't shown how IBM "misappropriated" any code. And pointing to the exact code won't make their case any more difficult to prove. The source code for Linux is everywhere, including in SCO's possession. If the (supposedly) offending code were replaced, it's not as if all the original code everywhere vanishes. Everything is done in the open. It does not make their case any more difficult to prove by actually indicating where the offense is.

UrbanFuturistic
08-07-2003, 03:14 PM
I find Boyd's point of view on this 'interesting'. Considering the extreme shakiness of SCO's claim, I hardly think they're just trying to 'make money' from a concerted scheme of extortion and FUD spreading. Considering their original statements claimed that they wouldn't be going after consumers (and, lets face it, in the likely event that the case falls on its arse they're on some very dodgy ground legally speaking if anyone's fool enough to pay them before the case) their continuous shifting of ground is just an example of how untrustworthy they can be.

On SMP code and the Zaurus
What SMP code? There's no such thing as a multi-processor Zaurus, so precisely how they're planning to prove there's licenseable code in my (non-ix86 architecture) Zaurus ROM I don't know.

On contributed code
IBM contributed code to a common codebase on which SCO is based, the simple showing of similiarities in code between SCO and Linux is not proof enough as IBM may have contributed the original code and therefore own the copyright, not SCO.

This is a scam based entirly on fraud. If SCO wanted to prove their case the first thing to be done would be to get in an independent body (who, yes, could sign a NDA so as not to release any code) who could verify their claims. The only logical reason as to why they haven't done this is that they are lying.

Sorry Boyd, but it's time to check your facts.

regards, Paul

Goon
08-07-2003, 04:07 PM
Boyd: the part that I am so upset about is SCO trying to make linux be distributed as an executable, with the source code in their possession. I may be an idiot, and feel free to tell me so, but I'm interpreting this as an attempt at a hostile takeover of the linux code, something which has been independantly developed by thousands of coders out of their own generosity. That i consider extremely wrong, and it disgusts me to see them trying to profit off of it.
If they succeed they could very well kill the linux movement.

As to not wanting to ruin their case by notifying the coders of the offending codes, for a lawsuit, they have to notify the offending party as to what their offence is and give them the chance to correct the issue. They can still sue for past grievances, but to deny the ability to correct these issues is not permissable.

MDuffy
08-07-2003, 04:53 PM
If you look at the reports, it doesn't look like IBM took something SCO wrote or gave them and then released it. Instead what happened is that IBM signed a contract with AT&T years ago that says that AT&T owns derivative code of UNIX. Novell bought UNIX rights from AT&T, Caldera bought some of those rights from Novell, and Caldera bought SCO and renamed itself to SCO. Now, IBM develops some new technologies and implements them in UNIX. They decide later to implement those technologies again in Linux, likely with the same coders who implemented them in UNIX. What SCO is saying, is that SCO owns all that code that IBM developed and wrote at IBM because it was added to UNIX. IBM didn't release code that SCO had written, they released code that they themselves had written and developed.

What the courts are going to have to decide is whether the draconian contracts that AT&T formed with IBM are even legally enforceable, whether those rights from AT&T had passed to SCO, whether IBM has the rights to use a separate and original code base to develop code for both UNIX and Linux, and whether the code they wrote for UNIX is indeed considered a derivative product.

And the technologies in question that SCO has talked about aren't even used on desktop PCs; they are for large servers and clusters. If you are running Linux at home, chances are that you aren't using any of the code that SCO has talked about so far. Yet SCO wants you to pay them $700 for each of your Linux machines by Oct 1st, or $1400 thereafter.

SCO is just trying to generate money for their execs and lawyers at the expense of the shareholders and the UNIX and Linux communities. They haven't been able to make money selling their UNIX products, so they are looking for ways to milk whatever money they can out of their assets without much caring if they destroy the assets in the process. Checking out SCO's SEC filings and the articles related to those filings bears this out.

This isn't about someone stealing IP from SCO that they had created or bought. It is about SCO trying to assert ownership of control over someone else's IP, and extort all Linux users in the process. They also want to completely destroy Linux in whatever way they can so that they hopefully gain market share simply through the vaccum that the destruction of Linux would create. But they are destroying their brand name and trust in the UNIX market in general in the process, and the only winner here is going to be Microsoft, who will entrench their monopoly a few percentage points further.

I guess we'll all know one way or the other in a few years when this conflict is settled in court.


Michael Duffy
mduffy@ionet.net

lone
08-10-2003, 04:29 PM
the title for this thread is great!

UrbanFuturistic
08-12-2003, 05:20 PM
Bloomberg/The Salt Lake Tribune: SCO Execs Unloading Shares (http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003081201426NWBZCD)

retenez mon choc :rolleyes:

Rats, sinking, ship.

regards, Paul

kid tripod
08-12-2003, 06:37 PM
The whole thing is silly, for the reason that for a while after this started you could download the 2.4 kernel source from SCO's site (as part of their distro) with the offending bits, except explicitly covered by the GPL.

Essentially then, whether IBM did wrong or not is irrelevant. SCO distributed that code under GPL as well, as do all linux distro makers, thus making it free.

gmask
08-12-2003, 07:21 PM
Dale Williams claims to have copyrights on ones and zeros so watch out everything using ones and zeros is potentially infringing on his copyright!

On a serious note.. havign talked to a few people who work for companies with large installs of Linux they are more or less willing to stare down SCO. They are apparently a small company without the money to take on every single commercial user of Linux with a lawsuit.

BoydLake
08-12-2003, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by gmask
Dale Williams claims to have copyrights on ones and zeros so watch out everything using ones and zeros is potentially infringing on his copyright!

On a serious note.. havign talked to a few people who work for companies with large installs of Linux they are more or less willing to stare down SCO. They are apparently a small company without the money to take on every single commercial user of Linux with a lawsuit.

...who have hired David Boies (of election 2000, and MS antitrust fame as well has having worked for IBM on many cases). With litigation clout like he has, it doesn't exactly look like SCO is cowering in the corner. Interestingly enough Boise is facing off against his old firm who still represents IBM. SCO also recently publicized some news regarding some who are apparently willing to pay the license fee:

http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030811/1456000943_2.html

Oh, and one more thing.... if you own say several thousand shares of a stock for which you paid $1/share ..... when it goes to $15/share...... SELL THE STOCK! Smart people do it all the time.

Time will tell if this SCO exec profit taking is really the rats leaving the ship, or not. It may just be profit taking which in the case of a massive stock rise, aint all that uncommon.

gmask
08-12-2003, 07:41 PM
>>>With litigation clout like he has, it doesn't exactly look like SCO is cowering in the corner.

I'm just paraphrasing what someone told me .. he said that SCO would rather get companies to license rather than sue and in his companies case they are willing to wait to be sued ..if for no other reason out of principle. Would it then make sense for those companies who are getting sued by SCO to sue Redhat for selling them a product that they do not actually have the rigths to??

Of course if they get millions dollars out of one settlement they can dump all that back into sueing th elargest install bases and fund more sueing.. sue--EEE!!!

>>Oh, and one more thing.... if you own say several thousand shares of a stock for which you paid $1/share ..... when it goes to $15/share...... SELL THE STOCK! Smart people do it all the time.

Hmm.. I think I'll pass on that capitalist fantasy.. I dunno might be a smart move... I wish I had money to invest in Redhat when they went public but befor ethey dotcom crash.

BoydLake
08-12-2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by gmask
I'm just paraphrasing what someone told me .. he said that SCO would rather get companies to license rather than sue and in his companies case they are willing to wait to be sued ..if for no other reason out of principle. Would it then make sense for those companies who are getting sued by SCO to sue Redhat for selling them a product that they do not actually have the rigths to??

<snip>

Hmm.. I think I'll pass on that capitalist fantasy.. I dunno might be a smart move... I wish I had money to invest in Redhat when they went public but befor ethey dotcom crash.

Fantasy? Well, had you owned SCO stock before they filed suit and sold right before IBM's countersuit, that's the profit you'd have made. Even now after the IBM countermeasures, SCO stock is a $9/share which is still way up compared to $1.

I agree that SCO isn't really after consumers, they are throwing threats around to get attention and worry the Linux community putting pressure on IBM.

It's an interesting take to think about the Linux community taking action against IBM/Red Hat for putting them in legal jeopardy, but the current case of course would have to be decided first. It would be nice if it could result in a clear legal decision (either way) so as to avoid the possibility of future legal problems with open scource.

If the judge dismisses the case with prejudice then SCO fades away........ If IBM loses and pays penalties to SCO, then who knows what happens from there. And then there's all that could happen in between. The worst is a private settlement that clears up nothing, and leaves everyone in the dark.

gmask
08-12-2003, 08:09 PM
>>Fantasy? Well, had you owned SCO stock before they filed suit and sold right before IBM's countersuit, that's the profit you'd have made. Even now after the IBM countermeasures, SCO stock is a $9/share which is still way up compared to $1.

Yes the fantasy is that an average investor will pick a stock that will grow in such proportions but that doesn't allways happen does it? It would be pretty risky to invest in SCO at this point with the hopes that their lawsuits will inflate their stock.

If one had invested in Redhat at the right time I think the money would have turned over something like 15000 percent.. assuming you cashed it in before it took a nose dive... now therw was a fantastic stock.

Anyway it's kind of like saying you picked the winning horse after the race has finished.. that's why peopel get in trouble for insider trading.

BoydLake
08-12-2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by gmask
>>Fantasy? Well, had you owned SCO stock before they filed suit and sold right before IBM's countersuit, that's the profit you'd have made. Even now after the IBM countermeasures, SCO stock is a $9/share which is still way up compared to $1.

Yes the fantasy is that an average investor will pick a stock that will grow in such proportions but that doesn't allways happen does it? It would be pretty risky to invest in SCO at this point with the hopes that their lawsuits will inflate their stock.

If one had invested in Redhat at the right time I think the money would have turned over something like 15000 percent.. assuming you cashed it in before it took a nose dive... now therw was a fantastic stock.

Anyway it's kind of like saying you picked the winning horse after the race has finished.. that's why peopel get in trouble for insider trading.

Yeah, I think we're going in circles with this one.... monday morning quarterbacking, hindsight 20/20.... gotcha uh-huh...

UrbanFuturistic
08-12-2003, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by Boyd Lake
...who have hired David Boies (of election 2000, and MS antitrust fame as well has having worked for IBM on many cases).

Considering the case against Microsoft was damn near watertight and should have brought them to their knees, I hardly think he's got as much litigation clout as [b]hyperbole[/u]. There's also the slight issue that in a high profile case like this he stands to make a lot of money whether SCO win or lose so that's hardly an indication of how good SCOs case is either. He's just a golddigger on the back of a golddigger.

The fact of the matter is that this 'case' is nothing more than fraud and lies. If SCO were even remotely seroius about this they would have released which examples of code they claim to be theit IP and the code could have been rewritten in a day.

I honestly don't see why you're defending SCO on this when every other person on the planet is against them. I mean, you don't find stories like the above unless the majority of corporate America thinks they've stepped over the line.

Maybe you're of the opinion (like some feckless turds are) that Linux users are all software pirates who are after an easy ride... a view which I solidly resent having paid for M$ Windows since DOS6.0 and Win3.1, M$ Visual C++, Borland C++ Professional and a whole lot of other shit besides (including boxed SuSE Linux).

Quite frankly, SCO are trying to charge for code that isn't even there (SMP code in a single CPU PDA? Where? Show me this code!) and are trying to sell licenses for code that they haven't even proven is legally theirs to sell. This is the big company equivelant of this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/67/32254.html)

I don't know why you're defending SCO so much, maybe you want to make a living by fraudulently sueing people instead of getting a job, or maybe you work for M$ (not one of whose OSs have worked well enough for me to go back to them... or even bother trying XP) or SCO (whose 'OS' sucked from the beginning).

Either which way, the executives of SCO can have my money when they prise it from my cold, dead hands.

Paul

KayosIII
08-18-2003, 02:28 PM
SCO vs IBM....
SCO's beef with IBM revolves around the notion that all of IBM's work on AIX is a derivative of derivitive the AT&T Unix code base SCO currently holds market rights to. The code in question comes from subsystems of the OS which have BEEN ENTIRELY BUILT FROM SCRATCH BY IBM and of which no such functionality existed in AT&T's code. The contracts between AT&T and IBM do not define what a derivative work is - However a side note in the 1985 contract explicity says that IBM owns copyright over code created by IBM... This gives IBM a very strong case - There are two possible weak spots in their case...

1) One of the technologies in question NUMA - was developed by Sequent which did not have the same agreement with AT&T that IBM did.... IBM has since aquired Sequent but SCO might be able to attack the code that Sequent developed prior to the aquisition.

2) There was a joint project between SCO and IBM called 'Project Montory' - It was to develop a Unix platform for the Itanium processor - Since this was a flop - The project was cancelled and IBM opted for Linux and the Itanium2....

SCO vs LINUX
It seems highly likely that Some parts of the AT&T unix may have made it into the Linux tree (as apposed the AIX subsystems that IBM ported). It seems - from people have actually seen the code that SCO was offering as proof.

The code in question was type that is taught in university courses found in Computer science Textbooks and really not part of the core part of linux. The linux team have kept a very comprehensive record of which code came from whom so finding and replacing the disputed code would not be too serious an issue if they knew which code SCO was claiming violated their copyright.

SCO has neither revealed the code or proved that it belongs to them - Without doing either of those things their actions amount to scaring people into giving them money.

KayosIII
08-18-2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Boyd Lake
Well, IBM and Red Hat pretty much raped SCO first it appears. It's not surprising they'd fight back. That they (SCO) are offering consumers a way to avoid liability is better than taking them for a ride legally. If they get lumped into Red Hat and IBM's lawsuit, it could be a lot worse for them. This gets more interesting by the minute.

When I first heard Darl McBrides case I thought there might be something too it but the fact is that their is simply no evidence to back his arguements... Furthermore basic facts about Linux have been misrepresented in the SCO case - SCO in this case is CALDERA - a company that sells linux - bought the company originally called SCO and later changed its name - They know better.....

KayosIII
08-20-2003, 12:38 AM
http://lwn.net/Articles/45019/

Part of the source that SCO has been claiming violates copyrights has been to leaked... The origins have been traced already - read and decide for yourself.

UrbanFuturistic
08-20-2003, 04:42 PM
Arse, beat me to it :p

regards, Paul

KayosIII
08-21-2003, 12:55 PM
Furthermore It appears that the (Over A million Lines) of code covers all those submitted by SGI, IBM, SUN etc + files covered by the BSD License.

http://www.perens.com/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html

UrbanFuturistic
08-21-2003, 05:48 PM
It should be noted, that some of the example code has already been removed from the forthcoming 2.6 kernel as 'ugly' and only applied to Itanium processors anyway (in malloc.h I think) asides from it being released under a BSD license (and some claim is part of an original BSD implementation that was proven in court not to infringe on AT&T code ~30 years ago).

To qute Linus Torvalds "they are smoking crack" (http://lwn.net/Articles/45503/).

regards, Paul

-=TF=-
08-23-2003, 09:19 PM
http://www.awtrey.com/common/dolls2.jpg

:bowdown: www.welovethescoinformationminister.org :bowdown:


LOL!:applause:
lars

trthing
09-03-2003, 03:49 PM
SCO to send out Linux invoices

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/cnet/stories/5070583.htm


Public licensing may be SCO's next legal target

http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030902S0030



Check your mailboxes!!! ;) Say bye to GPL!!! :wavey:

Grosserfrosch
09-03-2003, 06:06 PM
I'll search for the relevant bits online, but here is my best-friends legal opinion(working towards his masters in Law, specializing in copyright law)

Almost all agreements IBM enters into with other corporations, including AT&T, are non-transferable. Something IBM learned to do shortly after they started.

Secondly, SCO is required, by law, to allow the offending parties(in this instance, IBM) a chance to rectify the infringement.

Thirdly, IBM retains copyrights to all code that they write, the part about Caldera/SCO owning the rights because it was originally written for UNIX is not valid, due to the fact that Caldera/SCO would only retain those rights as pertaining to UNIX, not Linux.

Fourthly(?), end-users are already indemnified, its just the code contributors who could get in trouble. It was determined quite a while back that only the creator of a software could be held accountable for his software. For a user to be sued, it would be comparable to you getting sued for watching a Hong Kong DVD knockoff. Since 1/3rd of ALL DVDs sold in the US are actually knockoffs, this would include a great deal of people.

Fifth, if it is found that SCOs claims are false, IBM will countersue, which will probably finish off SCO. Also, any companies that have paid to have them selves indemnified will be entitled to a refund, and SCO will probably be brought up on consumer fraud charges.

SCO is staking their entire future on this. They are staking the futures of every decision-maker in the company.

CGTalk Moderation
01-15-2006, 07:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.