SCO "Disappointed" by Red Hat Lawsuit 778
schmidt349 writes "SCO has issued a preliminary response to Red Hat's lawsuit, in which President and CEO Darl McBride advises that SCO will prepare a "legal response" to Red Hat's requests for injunctive relief. In addition, he promises that the countersuit that SCO will file may include "counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy." His final statement-- that Red Hat's "decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux--" is chilling in light of the business strategy that SCO has adopted in its sales of UnixWare licenses to actual and potential users of the Linux kernel."
good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't seem to remember SCO giving IBM much of a chance for "good faith discussions"
Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Conspiracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just disappointed...? (Score:2, Insightful)
Wtf? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say this is the pot calling the kettle black...but that just doesn't come close...
fud (Score:2, Insightful)
Redhat is doing a bit of justice for linux in general....
Darl can www.lickmysweaty.com (Score:1, Insightful)
What they mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
Red Hat's decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of SCO.
Litigation culture (Score:4, Insightful)
If they all just got on with building software instead of legal wranglings, everyone would be better off. It just seems that almost anyone can kick up a fuss half expecting to be bought off, just because it's easier and cheaper than lititgation.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:3, Insightful)
...
I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux.
Darl C. McBride
This man is talking out his ass.
Chilling (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever. If SCO proves their claims, then it won't be long before the Linux community re-writes those parts that IBM contributed and makes the Linux kernel "UNIX-free."
You'll pardon me if I'm not frightened.
SCO's double standards (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO still has not formally charged someone with copyright violation... Their only (related) suit on record is a "contract breach" with IBM. That makes great grounds for libel and fraud, considering they continue to distribute Linux code over FTP months after proclaiming this a crime against themselves!
SCO is disappointed -- too bad (Score:3, Insightful)
What a load of nonsense doublespeak.
They are ready to sue IBM and everyone else they can get their hands off but they chide another company for taking legal action against them first?
Typical. This will not hasten the demise of linux but in actuality will only hasten the departure of SCO from the scene.
Kudos for RedHat for having the balls to call these scumbags bluff.
Please ask this at today's conference call! (Score:4, Insightful)
It was my understanding that the Microsoft EULA is the "use" license for Word--Linux customers have made no such agreement with SCO.
In addition, Stowell admits that IBM holds the copyrights to the code in question (emphasis mine):
Someone please ask SCO this:
Since IBM has the copyrights to the code in question, what recourse can SCO possibly have against end-users?
If the contracts forbid these "derivative works" from being contributed to open source, what recourse do you have against end-users now that they have been? You don't own the copyrights for such code, and end users are not party to your contract with IBM.
Or do you realize that you have no claim against end-users, and as such are inventing a new kind of intellectual property called "control rights"?
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
A moral judge isn't necessarily a warranted assumption. All SCO needs is a somewhat viable legal theory to hang their case on. That isn't to say a "amoral" judge wouldn't find SCO's legal theories wanting but morality needn't enter into it.
Re:SCO quote (Score:5, Insightful)
The image that SCO is trying to put forward is that of course there isn't any problem that they're going after IBM (and threatening Linux end-users) because that group is in the wrong, but they're wounded that Red Hat is opportunistically and cynically using the court system to punish them for only trying to set things right.
It's not going to work, mind you, because this is the kind of crap long-term 'stable' investors will cut through, and the ones that are betting on SCO as a kind of crapshoot have probably already committed themselves, but if you're going to bluff (as I'm still suspecting is their activity) why go halfway?
Re:Had to expect this from them (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO squish RH? Maybe the other way around...
Re:Chilling (Score:5, Insightful)
Questions for Conf Call (Score:5, Insightful)
Note: Brazenly ripped off from a post on the SCOX Yahoo discussion board [yahoo.com]:
1. When you said there are thousands of files of "your" (ie SCO's) Intellectual Property in Linux, were you referring to IBM's copyrighted and patented code?
2. Isn't that a very liberal and deceptive use of the word "your"?
3. Were you intentionally trying to mislead investors, Linux users, and the general public by referring to it as "your" IP before your case with IBM even goes to trial?
4. Are you concerned that your deceptive use of the words "your" and "our(s)" will lead to class action lawsuits by investors?
5. Don't the clauses in ammendment X saying that IBM owns all work produced by IBM and that those works are not subject to the other restrictions in Ammendment X mean that IBM can donate its patented, copyrighted code to Linux?
6. If you and other SCO execs feel you have such a strong case, why have there been no executives cashing in options and holding them?
7. Assuming for the moment that IBM has violated your trade secrets, accourding to established IP law, wouldn't that simply mean that IBM was liable to you for damages, but that the 'secrets' are now out of the bag and there is no legal way to encumber Linux because of that?
8. Given the filing date on your copyright, isn't SCO enjoined from seeking statutory damages or fees and limited only to the much harder to prove actual damages in any copyright legal action against Linux?
9. How does SCO, a Unix company, expect to make use of Vultus, a web services company whose product works only in Internet Explorer for deployment on IIS servers as a slower than Java replacement for Java?
10. Sontag has publicly stated that JFS, RCU, and NUMA are copyrighted by IBM but that SCO has "control rights" over that code. Is that type of contract legal? Has the validity of such a contract ever been tested in court?
Compliments of martin_lvnv -
11. When was the last time you checked on the number of resellers and developers? Don't you think it might be time to update those figures?
Re:This is why the Big Guys let Red Hat sue first (Score:5, Insightful)
The more players that sue SCO, the more resources SCO has to devote to their litigation (lawyers are whores, but they ain't cheap), the LESS time left on their life support clock...
Linux is a multibillion dollar industry now. There are players who make money (Redhat), some make LOTS of money (IBM, HP), and others who have a dog in the fight (Linus, RMS).
SCO's market cap is tiny compared even to Redhat's... They are outnumbered, and the more suits get targeted at THEM, most preferably in a LOT of different locales (state courts where the case won't take years to get to trial), the faster this is brought to an END.
A lion can be brought down by a pack of hyenas. It's all the more easy when SCO isn't a lion, but a jackass... And tigers are pursuing them...
SCO already has taken money from MS and Sun. For MS and Sun to pump more into them would speak BLATANTLY of conspiracy. In MS's case, it could be a violation of their anti trust settmelent...
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
That should be at least as much a worry for SCO, though. As numerous people have pointed out, RedHat has a lot more cash than SCO does, and their basic business is burning through that cash a lot more slowly, so that if the lawsuit comes down to being a battle of attrition than RedHat is likely to win. Just because SCO is acting like a big bully doesn't mean that they actually have the resources to back that up.
I strongly suspect that what RedHat is worried about is looking good now. It's quite possible, even likely, that SCO's FUD is making some of RedHat's customers worry about their legal position, and if that's true than RedHat really has to do something about it. A willingness to launch a lawsuit to protect their customers' interests is exactly the kind of thing that will reassure those customers.
Some choice quotes . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users.
I love the way this is phrased. It sounds like it's the first they've heard of the term FUD. They're literally adressing every word of the acronym.
We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.
The risk is that SCO will sue you, of course.
Linux includes source code that is a verbatim copy of UNIX and carries with it no warranty or indemnification. SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.
"Yep, the claims are true. Really true. See how true they are. And we'll show this truth at a later date. If we need to."
And no warranty and indemnification . .
In any such meeting, we will provide example after example of infringement of our intellectual property found in Linux. Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.
"So, we'll provide a ton of examples, then control how you can discuss them. Trust us. You have to sign the agreement of course before we provide them"
If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request.
This makes me wonder what kind of NDA would be required to see the code anyway. It sounds like "we can show you this stuff if it never gets involved in a lawsuit, but we can sue the bejesus out of you anytime."
To my surprise, I just discovered that your company filed legal action against The SCO Group earlier today.
A Linux company suing SCO. Will surprises never cease.
Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy.
"We're going to try and turn this lawsuit into a new revenue stream for us."
I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux.
Pure threat. Red Hat isn't the only Linux out there. This sounds like A) A general threat and B) more of a "bring it on" attitude towards Linux in general - posturing.
I don't think much has changed. This is the usual mix of threat and PR work.
My two cents.
Re:This is why the Big Guys let Red Hat sue first (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess that legal disputes of this kind come with the size. The bigger you are, the bigger your pockets are. The bigger your pockets are, more people want to stick their hands (or claws) inside
Marko.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO blowing more hot air (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course Red Hat is going to countersue. The Linux kernel has a lot of code that THEY developed and spent money on.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, SCO seems to forget that it has no claims that it can enter into any resolution over. There are only two ways this can play out.
Either SCO can show there is infringing code and it has to be removed (as code licensed under GPL, which would be the other 99.999 percent of the code, cannot be distributed together with SCO licensed code), in which case SCO cant sell anything.
Or SCO cannot show there is any infringing code because any similar code comes from the same public domain/BSD/whatever sources, or is in SCO Unix because SCO took it from Linux in which case SCO cant sell anything.
Any negotiation besides "This is our contended code, here's the proof, now remove it" or "Hey, sorry, we're morons and we like to be very open about it" on SCO's part is bad faith negotiation.
SCO has nothing they can sell to any Linux vendor.
Re:Very smart move from Red Had (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Chilling (Score:2, Insightful)
I can claim ownership of Switzerland, too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to get anything out of making my claim, other than a free trip to the loony bin...
Prelim Injunction doesn't take long (Score:5, Insightful)
If Redhat loses in its attempt, THEN you are talking about a longer lawsuit and then you are also more likely to see, as IIRC Bruce Perens was recently quoted as stating, the cases betwixt SCO, IBM and Redhat settling.
This prediction of settlement I thought was one of this week's weirdest twists, and it hasn't been much commented upon. Are the issues so murky that Bruce thinks obtaining an injunction v. SCO is unlikely, and so like in the majority of cases which result in long, drawn-out court battles, all sides would then be more likely to settle and end the bleeding?
Re:Fuck you, Darl. (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets face it, thier OS is in trouble when it comes to the ranks of UNIX admins for installation.
Maybe for HP, IBM, Sun, SGI, the OS of choice is dictated by the machine, but for Intel based processors its the Admin who gets to call the shots 99% of the time. Hey
So what does this lawsuit do? Tell every admin that SCO is evil, and not to buy there product.
They are not giving up, and are going to try to milk this for what they can, because they are to deap in and they know it. No one in there right mind will buy SCO anymore. They are a black listed company.
I can't wait to see Sun start sending out mailings to SCUM
Re:Amazing (Score:1, Insightful)
Linux in good faith (Score:5, Insightful)
"Claims of infringement could require us to seek to obtain licenses from third parties in order to continue offering our products, to reengineer our products, or to discontinue the sale of our products in the event reengineering could not be accomplished on a timely basis."
So Red Hat requested to know what parts are infringement. The purpose is to either pay a fee to use, rewrite the stuff to eliminate infringement, or stop selling the stuff if they can't get it fixed quickly. They gave SCO 30 days to provide them with the kernel code, then decided to sue them since they were dragging their heels. This is smart. Red Hat depends on Linux (duh). They want to get this resolved. By stating clearly that they will simply rewrite the code in question, SCO balked and delayed. Red Hat's managers seem to have a good grip on how a business is run, and SCO just realized that once Red Hat makes a compliant kernel, the rest of the community will follow, and SCO will have no suit. This is the real reason they are hiding the code till trial. They won't have a case if it comes out sooner.
Independent Code Audit, Anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
If I had the appropriate UNIX sources, I'd do it myself. Somebody out there must have a copy of the UNIX in question.
The FUD will evaporate in the cold light of day.
How unseemly. Or hilarious (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdot Interview? (Score:4, Insightful)
How would you translate that to text? *fffffffwwwwwwwwppppp!!!*
Re:good faith discussions (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this holds true unless M$ leaps in with another handfull of $$$.
CU
Re:Amazing (Score:2, Insightful)
There can be a case for saying that given their area of expertise, and the importance of this component to their operations, they could reasonably be expected to know what they were selling.
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lies about a product is called marketing.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
Shooting from the hip this makes sense, but I can also imagine some twisted nasty consequences -- such as it would more easily give Microsoft some ammo to say "See, we told you so. Linux *is* a threat to our business so we're not a monopoly."
Re:Why doesn't RedHat just buy them? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you were the number one player in a product category, and a competitor less than one tenth your size announced a frivolous claim that you were violating their patent / copyright, you would in fact damage your credibility if you purchased them.
Also, SCO has little or no real chance of retaining market share if their IP claims are dismissed. This is real reason they are suing. SCO's product is simply inferior to a lot of open source products.
I think anyone even speculating on [name of large company here] buying SCO is being particularly foolish, as any investor seeing that speculation may be mislead and actually help to drive SCOX's stock price up.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:2, Insightful)
SCO: the day trader's best friend (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you know? It's one day later, the "apocalyptic statement" has been made, and SCO's stock price is up 5% for the day! Good call!
Re:Finally... (Score:1, Insightful)
The injunction serves to deny SCO the ability to spread FUD during that delay, no FUD, no profit. SCO then have a choice: accelerate the case or abandon it and I think we all know they don't want to actually appear in court.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO will have to prove in court that they have a right to make the claims they are making. When SUSE did this in Germany SCO backed down. Red Hat is making a similar move here.
There are only a few possible outcomes:
1. SCO shuts up, IBM trial goes on with out SCO's media parade.
2. SCO reveals their evidence
A. They have none, destroying the IBM suit and putting an end to all of this
B. They do have some but it's libelous, destroying the IBM suit and putting an end to all of this
C. They do have some, RedHat looks bad, IBM looks bad, Linux looks bad. SCO becomes blabbermouths in Germany again. Linus has a chance to remove offending code and we can all get on with our lives.
Nothing but good can come out of this move.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:2, Insightful)
I would happily give them some cash to stick it to SCO and I am sure many other would.
In addition if they set up a paypal fund I am sure that they would get a lot of cash, even in dribs and drabs of a couple of pounds at a time.
Re:Know what would be really funny? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod me flamebait all you want.
I have moderator points, but there is no "un-informed" or "grossly incorrect" comment label, so I am commenting instead.
And its a definate possibility, considering the linux community has no respect for IP laws in general, and IBM has no respect for fair business practices.
The Linux community does not believe in IP laws, but that does not make them code thiefs. They belive in a licience that does not allow any one person or organization to own any code they write.
So far all the linux community can defend itself with is name-calling.
When the names are applicable and correct, it is'nt name calling, it's FUD busting.
When SCO won't even disclose the nature or specifics of the accused infringments, the community has very little to defend itself from.
Or, how about this scenario? IBM settles out of court, admitting guilt. They license - and now own for all intents and purposes - linux.
You obviously have no idea how sofware liciencing works. If IBM settled, all that would happen is that SCO would get an ammount of cash for each copy that IBM sold. This would give them permission to use the code and Linux would remain unchanged. In the worst case, the code would be removed from all commercial distributions, but the GPL would still apply to the remainder of the code.
Eventually, one way or another, linux will be declared some corporations property. It's guaranteed. The more valuable it becomes, the harder people will fight and the more tricks they will use to make sure it does not remain free.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Linux is explicitly licienced to be Open, Free and without ownership. It will never become the property of any one organization.
Re:Where do I donate? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
In legal terms, a conspiracy is when two or more parties are involved in a "plan".
I think their angle here is that Red Hat is distributing SCO's code [their claim] and that code is being used by other developers in the community, and fed back to Red Hat to support their business. Thus, the whole community is conspiring to add value to Red Hat based on code that Red Hat should not have been using [again, SCO's claim, not mine].
If that's the angle they're using, then I think it's sound. But the problem is that it's based on the simple assumption that SCO can win their first and most basic point. That is, a company that has and continues to distribute code under the GPL can then sue another company for using it in compliance with the GPL. I can't imagine a case in which that's defensible.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the flow of money into Red Hat over the years huge amounts have come from IBM and no doubt will in this case as well if they need it.
This won't take much money anyway. SCO with a weak case/no case wants to stay as far from a court room as possible. Their battles to raise money are coming from media hype surrounding threats to go to court. They can't actually go to court on this stuff and win, they know this.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
If by 'truth', you mean the fact that SCO have successfully persuaded a bunch of gamblers that their attempts to blackmail IBM are worth a punt, then I agree, the market does reflect that.
The stock market is ALWAYS right - by definition.
What do you mean, right? An accurate reflection of the true value of a company, or a snapshot of what public opinion thinks it's worth at any given time. I suppose the latter is true, but whether it is also equivalent to the first is another question.
Whiney little bitches on a computer nerd website are NOT.
Clearly there's no reason to take any of your points seriously then.
Who should I believe, teams of informed and intelligent analysts who get paid to break down big business for the billionaire clients, or some geek in his mom's basement amped up on mountain dew?
Do you mean those same 'informed and intelligent analysts' who were hyping dot com stocks throughout the nineties? Absolutely, you should believe everything that they say without question.
I, on the other hand, will continue to recognize that they don't know all the answers, and when it comes to technology, they are often extremely poorly informed, or just don't get it.
As a consequence, I'll continue to listen to information from all sources, and assess and evaluate that information myself -- and if a slashdot geek living in his mom's basement and drinking mountain dew has useful insights, hopefully I'll be open minded enough to recognize them for what they are while you continue to get shafted by the analysts who make their living by taking advantages of suckers like you.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:good faith discussions (Score:2, Insightful)
You just proved, right there, that you are unqualified to judge operating systems.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that allegations of copyright infringement used in a court proceeding are a matter of public record. At that point, the code that SCO claims is being infringed is going to be public.
After all, one point about copyrights is to enable you to make things public without it being stolen.
I think that the reason SCO is not making their allegations public is to not expose them to the glare of publicity that can prove them groundless. And if they aren't groundless, to keep everyone from just replacing the code with code that didn't infringe.
This will force SCO to specifically list every piece of code they feel is being infringed. If they hold anything back and the judge rules against them, I doubt there is any way they can bring it back later.
Not Me! No long court battle! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not me. I hope they kick their asses swiftly and without mercy. It is more decisive that way. Let SCO wallow in the appeals process. The longer this is in the courts, the worse it is for Linux in general.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
<AOL> Me too! </AOL>
When SCO first started making these claims, everyone said "Why doesn't some big name come out and say 'You're full of shit'". And now RedHat has done that with this lawsuit. And the same folks are saying this is a bad thing.
*SIGH*
Re:How everyone can hit SCO back (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:good faith discussions (Score:4, Insightful)
This is so much true, it's frightening.
Personally I don't care for RH's distro all that much, but, I'll stand up and stand by them on this one. They are doing the right thing. This can only help us, even if it goes sour, this shows that we do really believe that we are entitled to the product that we are pushing.
You sir deserve a "Score: 1000, Actually Thinking" score.
P.S. I know I used the word "we". I'm not a developer and haven't found a way to contribute to the comminity yet, but I love the ideals of all this. Have have for 5 or so years now.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:good faith discussions (Score:2, Insightful)
Not being privy to the financial arrangement SCO has with its legal representation, I don't know that this statement is relevant.
Does anyone know whether SCO's high priced, high profile attorneys are working on a contigency basis? If so, they can fight this as long as David Boies thinks he can win. RedHat has no such luxury.
SGI, Apple next up? (Score:1, Insightful)
Perhaps a number of *nix vendors will sue SCO. Ever seen a group of ravens picking away at roadkill?
The sooner SCO stops twitching and dies, the sooner the world of *nix users can take a group piss on their tombstone and say "Good Riddance!"
Die, SCO, Die.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:good faith discussions (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many paths. RedHat is for the folks who need a centrally managed distribution because they pop and swap employees and environments.
We must welcome the teaming millions of former MSCEs with open arms. Only then will they invite us to show them the true path.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Insightful)
Minor factual error:
Didn't SCO say that only the 2.4 kernel infringed, not the 2.2 kernel? Caldera was contributing to and selling Linux distros well before 2.4 came out... did I misunderstand what you were saying?
I agree that if they did not know their own IP was in the code they were distributing, they retain rights to that IP. But under what license are they distributing the Linux kernel now? Ever since the moment they asserted the right to limit the use and distribution of their own IP as it is included in the Linux kernel, they lost the right to distribute everyone else's IP that is included in the Linux kernel.
I don't think that necessarily GPLs their code in the kernel (if any actually exists) automatically. But it does mean that they are violating the GPL every time they distribute a copy of Linux. So someone could file an injuction to prevent them from distributing Linux.
IANAL, YMMV, EIEIO.
Another reason for buying SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, this is the worrying one. I can see SCO going down the tubes and someone inimical to FOSS buying them solely with the idea of clobbering Linux and other Open Source software.
MS is the likeliest candidate, but it probably wouldn't be the only one. There are other software companies whose breakfast is being eaten by FOSS.
Re:Bizarre (Score:2, Insightful)
However distasteful the strategy, I'd expect there to be some logic behind it (even if broken). Many analysts have stated that this is all a strategy to get themselves acquired for many times what they're really worth (warning: trying to quantify that last one may involve a divide by zero).
But they supposedly hired David Boies to represent them. He's a very good lawyer (and very expensive). Somehow I don't think he wrote that letter. So what is he doing? Have SCO really hired him, or did they just pay him for a one hour consult so they could claim that he's working on the case? Krill
Re:good faith discussions (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider this a declaration that the Open Source Community does not negotiate with terrorists.
Be warned that this is probably just the beginning.
Re:Know what would be really funny? (Score:4, Insightful)
THAT is exactly what SCO is trying to accomplish here.
And it's why they aren't making copyright claims IN COURT, as they'd eventually have to identify WHAT it is they own the copyright on that Linux is infringing on.
Which they don't want to do.
This attack is an end run on the GPL, something no doubt Ransome Love (who HATED the GPL) helped cook up, whereby the code remains "free" but to use it free of FEAR, you have to buy SCO's license...
Re:good faith discussions (Score:3, Insightful)
Debian is too BSD'ish for my tastes in that I am much more comfortable with the System V style of system management and system layout having used the AT&T derived systems since '85. I had a SunOS box on my desk for about half a year back in '92 or '93, but was mostly transitioning from my AIX workhorse, to a new HPUX box at the time and never grew to like SunOS before it was replaced with Solaris.
I realize that lots of people disagree with me on this, but then I also prefer 'vi' over 'emacs'. Actually that is too weak -- as far as I can tell 'emacs' sucks utterly. Let the flames begin...
Re:good faith discussions (Score:5, Insightful)
To take an obvious counterpoint, when Unisys pursued their GIF patent claims, they didn't issue press releases saying they would destroy Amazon and Ebay.
Re:Why not Replace the "Copied" code (Score:2, Insightful)
They claim to own the concepts behind the code. They claim to own all works derived from their concepts.
If the code were replaced they would claim to own the replacement code as well.
And the fact they won't reveal the code isn't helping.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I mistaken, but should not corporations have the same constitutional rights as individuals?
You are mistaken, and a fool if you believe this. The preamble starts off like this:
And not like this:
The constitution gaurantees the rights of every person of the United States, but not companies, dogs, cats, corporations, etc. Corporations are not people.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
>This argument gets thrown around a lot but it can only be correct of SCO knowingly injected the code in question into Linux.
I think you may be wrong here. If someone tricked SCO into releasing their own work under the GPL, this would be a strong argument. For example, if the kernel sources weren't available to the whole world so that SCO couldn't check them, then SCO agreeing to distribute the kernel under the GPL clearly wouldn't bind them to GPL their own work which was (hypothetically) in there. Obviously, that's not the case here.
SCO is a software company, in the business of selling Unix and Linux. They have a duty to do due dilligence to ensure that their product is suitable for its intended purpose, and to ensure that no one openly copies their source code. Note that SCO is uniquely capable of that last.
SCO had full access to ALL linux source. They're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that they didn't know what they were doing. If they chose not to read what they distributed (remember, they're in exactly that business!), I think that they gave up the right to complain about GPL'ing what they chose to release. If SCO was a group of widows and orphans who couldn't possibly have made head nor tail of the programs, the situation would be very different.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that SCO continued distributing the Linux kernel (which they allege infringes something)AFTER they filed their suit. If that's the case, they have knowingly chosen to release their [copyright|trademark|trade secret|patent] whatever-it-is under the GPL, and the game's over for them.
Finally, (getting off topic a bit) the fact that they have chosen to prevent anyone (Redhat, Linus, IBM, usw.) from taking steps to minimize the damage done by any infringement looks very much like dealing in bad faith. If they should win in court, that's not going to help them collect damages. Judges get really nasty about dealings in bad faith.
Re:good faith discussions (Score:3, Insightful)
When Unisys went on a "pay us" tour, I seem to remember the OS community producing the following:
Likewise, when SCO finally pulls whatever "files" and/or "code" which is in violation, the OS community will remove the offending code and replace it with clean code which doesn't "violate" any of SCO's "rights" and people will get on with life and let SCO wither.
This is probably the ONLY reason SCO hasn't shone the code as they know that once shown and proven one way or another, the codebase will change to be legally correct and that's not what they want because they doesn't give them a leg to stand on.
In that particular view, they are, in a sense, impeding justice and preventing what they view to be offenders from "fixing their mistakes" as that would pull the soapbox right out from under them.