Red Hat Sues SCO, Sets Up Legal Fund 787
An anonymous reader writes "Red Hat has released a PR Newswire article stating that it intends to sue SCO Group to prove that it doesn't infringe any of SCO's intellectual property regarding the Red Hat Linux platform, and to hold it accountable for its actions and smear campaign. They've also announced the creation of a legal fund, to which they've pledged $1M US dollars to fight complaints such as these, called the 'Open Source Now' fund."
Excellent (Score:2, Insightful)
Great news that industry leading Open Source companies like Red Hat take action against SCO's asinine campaign.
Of course it's in Red Hat's business interest do something like this, but it's still a step in the right direction.
Question for lawyers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or can they? I honestly don't know...
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Question for lawyers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since SCO claims that Linux stole them $1b, I guess RH can sue SCO for $1b too, it seems just fair.
How do GPL and patents get along? (Score:1, Insightful)
not DRM globally, but for inter-company or inter-network communications? Then along comes Intertrust and sues you for breaching their patents? Sues who, exactly? Linux community? RedHat? IBM?
Here, check out these patents at http://www.uspto.gov
6,601,236 Cross platform program installation on drives
using drive object - IBM
6,601,059 Computerized searching tool with spell checking
- Microsoft
6,594,644 Electronic gift certificate system - Amazon
6,590,593 Method and apparatus for handling dismissed dialogue boxes
- Microsoft
There's 4 found in a couple of minutes. All were awarded in July. Show me the innovation in those, or something that isn't common sense, perhaps even being done many years ago? E-gift-certificates?? Seems like all they did was describe a gift cert, and then slap email on it. Amazon also has one-click shopping.
And finally, here's a great kicker. All they did was take something that commonly happens via hardwire network, change the hardwire to wireless, and then patented it.
6,601,040 Electronic commerce terminal for wirelessly communicating to a plurality of communication devices
- USA Technologies, Inc. (Wayne, PA)
How do those even qualify for patents?
And again, what if those are done in open source, whether BSD, GPL, or any other? You immediately step on someone else's patents, and then they lay claim to Linux and all of this SCO stuff starts all over again?
I'm just wondering what the plan is. RedHat's $1million is for open source based companies to "steal" patents?
And I definitely take offense when someone uses these idiotic patents to file suit against someone else,
whether it's IBM, MS, or anyone else.
Vip
Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
I almost think that not enough emphasis is being placed on this point. SCO should have notified of their intent to sue way, way, beforehand. What they did instead was basically say "Here's your month, and tell us how you're using Linux in each and every aspect of your company, and also pay us these fines." Sorry, can't do that. From a court's perspective, their claim of plagiarism may or may not be valid -- their method for going about this is definitely invalid.
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, they shouldn't have to pay it, but remember they are also threatened by SCO, we all are. IBM might not have trouble staying afloat if SCO wins, but what about the other smaller companies like Redhat?
I think they are playing things smart, by not only protecting their company but saving them money too!
Red Hat wants the Attention (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:2, Insightful)
You have to remember that IBM is a huge corporation and as such moves very slowly. Besides the fact that IBM already has legal action filed against it from the SCO Group. RedHat isn't already in litigation with SCO (despite the threats) and is in a better position to spearhead a suit for linux. They even did it in a way that, I hope, IBM would spend some of their billions to contribute to this fund.
--Thank You RedHat!
Hmmm...Subpoenas (Score:5, Insightful)
The end result should be that Red Hat will be able to wipe away the FUD, and get down to the bottom of what SCO really owns. Assuming SCO owns anything, Red Hat can then begin work on removing that code. Also, if Red Hat wins, they will probably get monetary damages, which always helps.
Go Red Hat!
(Now I suppose I should actually buy the distro instead of downloading the ISO's...)
-Mark
Re:Question for lawyers... (Score:2, Insightful)
Its not just the legalities for the users but the f'd up FUD against linux.
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:5, Insightful)
The important thing is that RedHat is trying to force SCO's hand rather than just waiting for SCO to start suing it or its customers. If there is infringing code, hopefully SCO will have to say what it is.
Re:Story on ZDNet too (Score:5, Insightful)
"We have asked the courts to declare no violation of intellectual property and trade secrets have occurred," Szulik said. "We've been patient, we've listened, but when our customers and the whole open-source community are threatened with innuendo and rumor, it's time to act."
They can count on all the money I can spare. We have waited for a long time for a Legal Fund to be formed and here is it, let's put our wallets where our mouth is and start helping our side with the real tool that can deliver this FUDfest to an end (in the end the truth or justice will not be the fundamental matter to settle this): money.
Re:Copyright matters (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Story on ZDNet too (Score:1, Insightful)
Somehow, I can't imagine these big companies needing our ten and twenty dollar contributions.
SCO was on a roll as long until ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The moment somebody didn't roll over and play dead, they were screwed. The whole thing will fall apart with SCO not being able to defend itself against a civil damages counter-suit. The Linux will probably will probably start a class action suit against SCO demanding trade-lost and punitive damages and it may come to criminal proceedings with SCO's CEO finhgting to stay out of "Club Fed."
Then SCO's share holders will want to hang him by his SCrOtum because SCO's client base will get offers to move over to Linux for free and share price will free-fall.
Want a prediction? SCO doesn't survive until X-Mass.
Re:Hey, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Went out and bought Redhat + sent in $10 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sure they are (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn straight.
Any open-source activity is like herding cats. Why should our opinion of the instant be any different. We are after all human. Well, except for the cyborgs and the uberlectuals. The AI's only think they are intelligent. But I'm digressing...
Re:RedHat sells other peoples Software. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the long run they probably reckon that surrendering some of their IP to linux is cheaper than continuing to develop and support 3 different operating systems/platforms for essentially the same hardware.
In short: IBM will float the bill only if it is in their own interest.
p.s. IBM pay my rent. They are ace. I love IBM. \0/
RedHat has the passion for this fight. (Score:5, Insightful)
RedHat speaks, lives, and breathes GNU. They understand the real issues at steak in this fight, while the team of lawyers at IBM are looking at the cost benefits of fighting vs. settling.
If SCO wins it's a disruption (big but not fatal) for IBM. It's a death nell for RedHat.
IBM may have the deep pockets, but if the ruling went against Big Blue they could always resort to options that leave Linux hanging in the wind. IBM has the resources to build a new operating system from scratch if need be.
And then there's the culture of OSS developers to consider. If RedHat doesn't throw down at some point, they will never be forgiven be the likes of the average
Re:Be careful what you wish for! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it would prove that it is illegal to make false claims about your competitor.
The Microsoft can sue anyone who uses a dollar sign in place of an s when referring to them.
No again.
Then
And a final no. This [cornell.edu] might help you.
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:2, Insightful)
Too much nostalgia from the Cold War, when superpowers didn't duked it out between themselves but through proxy nations (and war). I can't comment on the SCO/Microsoft part, but I don't think Red Hat's actions are "guided" by IBM. They're hurt by SCO's practices, and now is the time to answer.
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sure they are (Score:5, Insightful)
The larger company, the better lawyers it can afford and the longer it can keep up an expensive legal battle.
It may not be fair, but it is the way the legal system works.
It's the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.
What an unfortunate side effect of corporations legislated as humans.
Re:Question for lawyers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really, because they were never in any danger to start with.
But psychologically it's bound to be a big help. That's what they're suing over, essentially... the psychological damage SCO is trying to do by flinging around wild accusations that they can't back up, but which scare the bejeezus out of the PHBs that buy Redhat.
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe Red Hat thinks they'll win and get damages? The amount might not matter much to IBM, but might be a healthy sum for 100x smaller Red Hat. They could also get the IP rights SCO claims, which might be worth something to them.
Re:RedHat has the passion for this fight. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Open Source Now" to fund GPL Class action suit? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if the primary purpose of the new fund would be to finance a class action suit by kernel developers against SCO for GPL violations? Think of it - Many individual developers could not afford to bring suit on their own against SCO, but they could if they were part of a class action suit funded by RedHat.
The wording is kind of vague, but that is what the announcement implies to me.Re:Sure they are (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, they probably have no idea whether or not SCO has a case. This move is good, however, because it forces SCO to show their cards, like calling someone in poker to see if he's bluffing.
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Know what? (Score:3, Insightful)
In general, neither can I.
If they collect 2 million, and only need 1.3 million for legal fees, the rest goes into execs pockets.
Err, no, this is not a "RedHat Legal Defense Fund," this is an "OPEN SOURCE Legal Defense Fund" which is rather different. To quote the Redhat press release:
So this fund would also aid folks like MySQL, Apache, etc, and not just RedHat.
About Time (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course, the users who matter, businesses - at least some of them - have been getting scared shitless by the threat of litigation. In these uncertain economic times, who can blame them? Slashdotters may see through SCO's FUD, but we are rather a fringe group in society as a whole, and the average Pointy-Haired just sees "Lawsuit!" and thinks "Run."
Whether this be IBM-funded or a wholly Red Hat initiated effort (although the former seems far more likely, given the relationship between the two companies), it is much needed. Although the SCO FUD seems to have lessened somewhat in the past few days (I'm using that good ole indicator of Number of Slashdot Stories), the damage has been not inconsiderable.
And then the Open Source Now Fund - such a wonderful response to Microsoft's undertaking to underwrite any legal costs incurred by their customers as a result of similar disputes. The community was, I think, left reeling somewhat as to this rather clever attack on open source, an attack which exploited its distributed nature of development and limited accountability. Once again, a solution has been found. (I suppose, perhaps, Michael Robertson might have done something otherwise...)
Let's hope this whole mess is resolved reasonably quickly now. To be frank, questions ought to be asked of a country/legal system where a company can get away with such shocking behaviour for so long, but that, maybe, is for the aftermath...
iqu
no story (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Sure they are (Score:2, Insightful)
Last time they reported, Redhat had around $80 million, while SCO had only 10 million.
Why it makes sense for Red Hat to sue (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this is a great move. Furthermore it will speed up the process of getting the street thug Darl McBride into a courtroom, get this process over, and get the whole board of SCO up on securities fraud charges where they belong. Maybe the discovery process will even lead to Redmond, who knows?
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a second reason for RedHat to file it's own case against SCO: The SCO/IBM lawsuit is a complicated case that could go on for years. SCO could bury Linux under an avalanche of FUD by then. On the other hand, a lawsuit for declaratory relief could go much faster. In a realatively simple case, RH could simply say:
The nice thing about this is that -- especially if it avoids any contentious facts, it could be ammenable to a summary finding in a few mnths rather than waiting a generation or two for the IBM suit to wind it's way through the courts.
A declaration of GPLization of the code would pretty much absolve Red Hat of any claim by SCO. It might also leave SCO open to suits by Copyright owners of Linux that SCO has been in violation of the GPL by threatening users of that same code P>With a declaration that Linux is 'clean' visa-vis SCO, those secondary suits can afford to take the more leisurely pace that more commonly follow.
Re:Know what? (Score:2, Insightful)
I have, and I expect that it will be an independantly managed fund 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
The above release seems to indicate that it is not limited to the SCO case and it is certainly not limited to the Redhat vs SCO case (and may not pertain to the Redhat vs SCO issue at all). The funds will be used to help GPL developers and non-profit organizations. Sounds like a pretty good thing to me.
Now they are not doing it solely out of the goodness of their hearts - I'm sure the positive publicity will make them much more than a million in return. But that's business...
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Serious Linux companies are losing money due to SCO. SCO is basically taking business away from Linux. Sure, it's a big load of
2) I don't know if any of you noticed, but people make money out of air, epsecially hot air, this is what makes stock markets tick, and share rise: the added value of image - sometimes even more than what the real product is worth.
If you think of SCO's move in that term, the agressive move is just about that. People out there don't care that the idea is bogus, they just marvel at how brilliantly agressive the move is by itself. Apparently, that's enough to make your stock rise, which literaly means $$$ for SCO.
Now if you look at it from the PR stunt point of view, Red Hat is just jummping on the bandwagon there, not only because SCO's PR hurts Linux, but also because there is lots of money to be made there, stock market people love agressive behavior.
So poor Red Hat is not that little David standing up to Golaiath as it may first seem.
Sure, everyone pees in the pool, but not from the diving board!
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Red Hat may or may not be big enough to fight SCO however SCO will burn through money fighting them. This could be the first of several lawsuits brought against SCO because of its recent tactics.
3. SCO is trying to convince Linux users to purchase Unix licenses to protect themselves from lawsuits. This type of blackmail should not be tolerated and could end up hurting companies like Red Hat. It would stand to reason that Red Hat would wish to protect their customers and this lawsuit should create confidence within the Linux market. (Something people have been worried about)
I applaud Red Hat.
Re:RedHat has the passion for this fight. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just wondering, is that possible any more? I mean, with Linux and the *BSDs available in source, and with Microsoft's recent announcement about opening WinCE (source? api? or what?) what are the chances of being able to produce a whole new operating system without someone claiming some kind of IP violation?
Re:RedHat has the passion for this fight. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sure they are (Score:5, Insightful)
Red Hat: 1.142B link [yahoo.com]
Novel: 1.337B link [yahoo.com]
IBM: 139.9B link [yahoo.com] [yahoo.com]
One thing to notice, though, is that SCO's market cap is almost entirely dependent on a lawsuit built on what is (so far) very sketchy facts. If/when that bubble bursts, they could easily end up a penny stock (again).
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:3, Insightful)
We only need IBM because they are the ones being charged by SCO with the IP theft that started all this.
So Red Hat's case is basically a side issue, but it is damn important not to let SCO win this case in the media. Red Hat taking the offensive is important for this reason.
Re: SCO stock (SCOX) down 15% on the news (Score:3, Insightful)
It is interesting to look at the 5 year [yahoo.com] view.
Both RHAT and SCOX fell during in the dot-com crash. SCOX fell a little deeper and then has recovered a bit making their 2 year numbers appear a bit better than normal. RHAT held its value somewhat during the that same period.
From the stock report SCOX fundamentals appear better than RHAT. On the other hand SCOX stock risk appears to be much higher than RHAT.
The Consensus Recommendation on SCOX over the last few years has been from weak hold to sell. Currently there is no consensus on SCOX. The Consensus Recommendation on RHAT over the last few years has been from weak hold to buy. Currently the consensus ranges between a hold and a strong buy for RHAT.
For the record: INACFP (I am not a certified Financial Planner). On the news of RHAT's lawsuit, I purchased some RHAT stock. You should carefully read the prospectus and research the stats of any company before trading it. If needed, seek professional advice before acting on any stock advice.
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:3, Insightful)
If we assume that justice prevails, and the right side wins, then size and amount of money doesn't matter. Hence point 2 seems to suggest to me that SCO wastes a little bit of money beating Red Hat. This isn't good. That gives SCO a very important win under their belt. And Red Hat would not bring forward a case they thought they would lose just to get SCO to waste some money.
Red Hat must seriously think they have a case, and they have the size and money to win it. I hope they are right.
Why this Matters (Score:5, Insightful)
One kind of company sees the writing on wall. These companies realize what FLOSS is, and have redefined themselves under this new reality. These companies are usually content to compete on a level playing field in this respect. They are all trying to incorporate Linux and Open Source into their business, with various degrees of success. Most companies fit into this group: IBM, Novell, Oracle, SGI, Dell, etc.
The other kind of company will settle for no less than complete domination of the market on their own terms: Sun and Microsoft. Sun is interesting because it wants to play both sides of the fence, but I gather they would rather NOT share in the Linux goodness with their competitors if they can help it.
Microsoft will sit and deny that Linux is even viable until they are completely engulfed by it. Witness the Internet.
These enemies of Linux and Free/Open Source have discovered their anti-Linux efforts to be futile. According to leaked Microsoft documents, smear campaigns were in fact counter-productive. The interesting conclusion was that the best attack on Linux was a legal attack. Apparently Microsoft's market research shows that fear of being sued is the biggest deterrent to Linux deployments.
So this is their trump card. If they can stir up fear of litigation, they can point at Linux and say, "Look, no indemnification there! Buy us instead." SCO is just a pawn in this gambit - I don't think anyone expects them to survive the play.
By providing a legal fund to developers of GPL software, Red Hat begins to undermine these tactics used by Microsoft and Sun.
I like this fund because it appears to benefit the community as a whole and not just Red Hat customers. I sincerely hope that other companies pick up on this idea, and decide to contribute to the fund.
If anything, this gives us an idea of how we can provide indemnification to Linux users in general. Perhaps a general fund for all Linux _users_ would be appropriate, with the option to purchase a renewable policy against it (from a community run non-profit group). The community could evaluate claims against this "insurance" and assign legal resources to litigate it if needed. At any rate, owning a policy would guarantee a level of financial coverage. Non-policy owners could also get help, depending on circumstances and the merits of their case.
I see this as a way for the politicaly motivated community members to contribute where they might not be able to give code.
So? (Score:3, Insightful)
So should I shed a tear for them or what? I bet current stockholders are
fully aware of their gamble. And they enabled SCO and its employees to
sell stock at inflated prices. So they're to blame that SCO already made
a profit out of this farce. And they provided additional funds for SCOs
lawsuits.
SCO is transient, Apple is part of the landscape (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, because Apple will be making the news a lot longer than SCO will be?
Re:The actual complaint (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:3, Insightful)
No! IBM has all the prep time they need because they are the defendant and already (or shortly will) have the specific details the rest of us dont - it's called the Discovery Phase. This is the phase that the SCO vs. IBM suit is at now.
The only thing this may do regarding substantiating their claims is with the public. If the court documents in the RedHat vs SCO suit are released publicly rather than being sealed, then we can learn the specifics. SCO will of course fight to keep the details sealed in the RedHat case as well, so don't count on learning anything new.
Re:RedHat has the passion for this fight. (Score:3, Insightful)
You think non GPL stuff is somehow immune from this suit?
To Red Hat, the non GPL stuff isn't as important anyway. The GPL stuff is what their future is staked on, as a services company.
They need the GPL to prevent proprietary software companies from co-opting software and selling it as proprietary, bundling it with support. I know bundling has never been used before to kill smaller software companies in the tech industry, but it could happen, in theory, if there were some sort of monopolistic OS/app vendor with tons of cash in the bank. I know it's difficult to imagine.
It's a GPL Now Fund, not an OS Now Fund. They aren't protecting the Apache license, the BSD license (includes postgresql, openssh, etc. if I recall), or the X license (a project they ripped for their own commercial purposes).
They need to protect those things also, as Red Hat would be a lot less relevant without those projects.
I don't understand your "ripped" comment, after all, it's not like Red Hat made closed source modifications to X. The comment also implies that you don't like commercial use of open source code. If that is true, then why the hell would you care about BSD or similar licensed software, which has no protections at all from proprietary use?
Re:RedHat has the passion for this fight. (Score:2, Insightful)
Very good. After all, the BSD license is essentially designed to encourage people to copy the code and use it in new projects. Starting from BSD thus gives you a very good legal starting point. They've already won their lawsuit against ATT, so it's known to be free from copyright claims, and it's available under terms that make incorporating that code into your new OS very easy. I'd say that it's probably easier to make your own OS today than at any time in the past.
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:2, Insightful)
Cool. All we need now is any evidence that this is in fact the case. Any evidence at all.
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:3, Insightful)
You left out some of the nightmare scenarios if SCO wins the IBM case -- that Red Hat and other distributors contributed to the damage suffered by SCO and should pay, or that because of the wide distribution of the SCO trade secrets, Red Hat and other distributors must cease distributing the product until they have a version that is demonstrably clean (and any developers who have read the IBM-derived code are tainted already), or that Red Hat should bear the costs of upgrading all users of tainted kernels.
Re:Some clarification needed (Score:3, Insightful)
In the case of a trade secret - the only person they can go after is the person/company who had a contractural obligation to keep the secret. And once a trade secret is made public knowledge ... it's out of the closet! You can't stuff it back into the "SECRET" folder. If the trade secret recipe for Coca-Cola were published accidentally or by a disgruntled employee they couldn't prevent Timmy from producing "Timmy's Terrific Cola" with it. They could sue the person who revealed it, but they can't sue Timmy for using it. And if someone independently develops something identical ot your trade secret, you can't sue them and you can't get licensing fees.
In the case of copyright infringement, the law provides for recovery of damages from the person who actually does the infringing: the person who submitted the code would be the infringer, the distributor or project who accepted the code in good faith as original work would not be infringing. However, the owner of the copyright has a legal obligation to minimize the damages caused by infringement - as soon as they notice it, they have to notify any publishers of the supposedly infringing material EXACTLY what is infringing, and show their own copyrighted material as proof of the infringement. SCO has been claiming all sorts of "IP violations" on the part of Linux developers and distributors. If they want to claim copyright infringement, they have to show exactly what they are talking about. They knew about it for months before they mentioned it, by theoir own admission ... so they have not fulfilled their obligations under the law.
In the one copyright case I was involved in, the infringer had to retrieve and destroy all copies of the infringing material that were still under their control: all drafts, their printing plates and proof copies, and finished goods from their warehouses, distributor's warehouses, and unsold stock at the retailers. I don't know if it was legally not required, but it would have been ludicrous or impossible to track down and retrieve the stuff that was already sold - they still had to pay us damages for it.
In another I have only heard about, a novelist heavily adapted an out of print (author dead) but still under copyright novel. The owners of the copyright (the author's kids) recognized the ripoff, promptly contacted the publisher, who looked at the two works, said "Oh @!$~$!!!" and whooooosh ... that book was off the shelves, the infringer had to pay back the advance, and all royalties from copies already sold went to the copyright holders. It's impossible to prevent plagiarism, so the law makes a fast "oops!" possible.
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:2, Insightful)
Give money Redhat or SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps the anti-trust background and lawsuits of IBM's past made them wake up, and turn into a responsible company.
I don't know if "responsible" is necessarily the right word, but it's definitely true that IBM's anti-trust problems of 20+ years ago have had a major impact on the company's corporate culture -- and the effect was a very good one.
Everyone knows that if you want to be around for the long haul, what you need isn't just business, but *repeat* business. Find a way to hang onto the customers you have, and then focus on getting new ones. The obvious way to do this in the computer industry is with vendor lock-in, but IBM went down that road and found a world of hurt at the end of it. Since IBM was pretty much barred from playing the lock-in game, the company was forced to push open standards. In the process, IBM discovered that when you've got good technology, open standards and head to head competition can be very profitable.
Then IBM realized that its size and stature in the industry meant that it was possible for customers to buy IBM consulting and services even when they were buying competitors product, *and* that doing services not only gave IBM an entre to more easily sell its products, but also provided great insight into what it was that customers needed. Those realizations only came about because of the newfound understanding of the value of openness, but they really reinforced that understanding, because if you want to sell technology services, you have to be seen as somewhat technology agnostic, with a real do-what's-best-for-the-client attitude -- though everyone understands that, all else being close to equal, the IBM people will recommend a Blue solution. And customers are cool with that.
And that was IBM's big discovery: By being the vendor-agnostic integrator, you can give your own products a significant edge, and as long as you do good work, the clients will be perfectly happy with it. As long as they don't feel locked-in, customers *like* the security of a single technology provider, and no one else can play that game like IBM.
Linux, apache, etc., play right into this, because IBM can be "neutral" without giving business to competitors. IBM's consultants can push clients toward Linux-based solutions -- and OSS is clearly as open and non locked-in as you can get, right? -- while simultaneously building some great hardware that runs it better than anyone else's (z-series, anyone?), plus lots of great software to keep pushing the hardware requirements. And they make money on the hardware, and the software, and the services professionals that are quietly painting the entire I/T infrastructure Blue.
So, I wouldn't call it corporate "responsibility", exactly, but there's definitely an understanding in IBM that openness can be used as leverage to fend off the competitors while the company uses its massive resources to get and keep customers, and that this is ultimately a much more profitable and sustainable approach than trying to lock customers in, which just makes them want to escape.
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't remember where I got that one from: "capitalism is exploitation of man by man, while communism is the exact opposite".
Re:Is Red Hat big enough to fight? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO's response (Score:1, Insightful)
Hah! Look who's talking!