SCO Calls IBM Countersuit "Unsubstantiated Allegations" 972
dacarr writes "Yahoo currently hosts a press release from SCO that basically calls for IBM to "move away from the GPL"." Lycoris tries to dodge the flood of idiocy from Utah. Another non-programmer has seen SCO's presentation, and without attempting to verify the facts through his own research, reported on it. One reader buys a SCO license. SCO justifies their continuing illegal distribution of the Linux kernel.
No time restraint on patents (Score:5, Informative)
SCO has shipped these products for many years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these products."
IANAPA (Patent attorney), but as I understand it, the holder of patent can choose when to enfornce the patent. "Because we have been" is NOT a legal argument.
Grocklaw does it again! (Score:5, Informative)
The patents are at:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P
After reading the actual countersuit filing, it looks like an even bigger, more comprehensive smackdown than even was speculated yesterday. IBM is fully ready to press SCO's GPL transgressions, talks at length about the failure of SCO's business, makes clear in several locactions the difference between Old SCO (Tarantella) and Caldera/New SCO, they even mention that some of SCO's claims have exceeded the statute of limitations. IBM has clearly been tracking SCO FUD and mentions specific quotes from SCO execs that are damaging. They also reiterate that IBM's UNIX license is perpetual and irrevokable, but they also say that even if that wern't the case SCO still can't revoke IBM's license because SCO has not followed the agreement on the procedure to revoke the license. SMACK, SMACK, SMACK!
Re:SCO vs OJ (Score:5, Informative)
I see this guy has already been modded Flamebait, but he is so right about this. What's really messed up though, is how ONLY people who read slashdot seem to know anything about it. I'm serious - I've tried to bring up SCO's situation a couple of times and no one knows what the hell I'm talking about. Even other programmers where I work have no clue that anything has happened at all.
This shit is trouble, mark my words. The guys at the top of companies don't read slashdot either - keep that in mind. I guarantee you that large companies that use Linux are pissing their fucking pants over this thing right now, considering the fact that the execs are going to have no fundamental grasp of the reality of the situation.
IBM's SCO Filing Available As Well (Score:2, Informative)
Highlights include "20. Although it completed an initial public offering, SCO has failed to establish a successful business around Linux. SCO's Linux business has never generated a profit. In fact, the company as a whole did not experience a profitable quarter until after it abandoned its Linux business and undertook its present scheme to extract windfall profits from UNIX technology that SCO played no part in developing."
In case of Perl Guy /.ing (Score:2, Informative)
Try again... (Score:5, Informative)
NcFTP 3.1.5 (Oct 13, 2002) by Mike Gleason (ncftp@ncftp.com).
ncftp> o ftp.sco.com
Connecting to 216.250.140.126...
ftp.caldera.com Ready.
Logging in...
Welcome to SCO's FTP site!
This site hosts UNIX software patches, device drivers and supplements
from SCO.
To access Skunkware and Supplemental Open Source Packages, please
connect to ftp2.caldera.com.
** Please read the following export notice **
Please note that the electronic transfer of this data to a destination
outside of the United States constitutes an export (as defined by the
U.S. Bureau of Export Administration) and is authorized ONLY to the end
user. Any subsequent re-exportation of this data requires that the end
user obtain an additional export license. Also note that it is illegal
to re-route Caldera product to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea,
Sudan or Syria and that you must file a special license if you intend
to re-route goods to the embargoed regions of Serbia or the Taliban
controlled areas of Afghanistan. Placement of this order constitutes
an agreement to comply with these stipulations.
Anonymous access granted, restrictions apply.
Logged in to ftp.sco.com.
ncftp / > cd
ncftp
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-106.nosrc.rpm
k
kernel-sou
kernel-source-2.4.1
ncftp
Which means that regardless of whether or not "SCO feels that the GPL is too weak to stand up in court," is moot. They have accepted and continue to accept it's terms by having this Linux kernel source code on their FTP server.
Any code in kernel 2.4.19 that is 'infringing' is actuall not, because SCO knows about so-called 'infringing' code in there, yet they continue to distribute it, meaning they have effectively GPLed whatever code is in there, regardless of who actually put it in there (most likely, according to various sources, a Caldera employee!)
Re:Er, what IBM counterclaim? (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This needs sorting out (Score:3, Informative)
Apparently you haven't been reading the news this week (or, for that matter, TFA). Both Red Hat and IBM have "challenged" SCO in the form of lawsuits, and many companies have publicly stated their objections to SCO's tactics, including SuSE and Novell.
Re:-1 troll (Score:3, Informative)
You should know better :-). SCO's announcements ARE trolling - trolling for more pump-and-dump breathing space.
It's just getting more obvious to the rest of the world.
SCO is learning the hard way that "you can fool some of the people some of the time ... ", etc.
SCO insider trading... (Score:5, Informative)
Yahoo's SCO Page [yahoo.com] has the money SCO execs have made by pumping the share price and setting automatic sell limits. When you consider how low the stock was its amazing that they put limits of $12 or more for a sell.
Re:Try again... (Score:2, Informative)
You don't understand what "stand up in court" means, do you?
No contract ever exists without mutual acceptance of a relationship. (You offer, I accept, we each get something, we have a contract.)
A contract "doesn't stand up in court" when one of the parties that agreed to the contract (SCO) decides that they don't like the terms of the contract, take the other party to court / are taken to court by the other party, and the court decides that part of the contract won't be enforced.
Re:My thoughts... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Try again... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No time restraint on patents (Score:2, Informative)
IANAL, but my understanding is that when it comes to intellectual property, failure to defend that property is grounds for de facto loss of rights to that property. This is one reason companies like sending threatening cease and desist letters to poor people who post cheap parodies: it's as much about establishing a pattern of protecting their IP as anything else.
Re:No time restraint on patents (Score:2, Informative)
Trademarks will lose their power if violations are not pursued. Trade secrets become public domain when revealed, there is no way to unring a bell. SCO are clearly hoping that the "IP" term confusion will work to their advantage, and that readers (especially decision makers) will be unaware of that patents and trademarks have very different legal protection and that their statement about previous non-enforcement is vacuous.
This is the danger of lumping largely unrelated concepts (from a legal standpoint) under a common name and treat them as a whole instead of as the very distinct beasts they are.
Re:My thoughts... (Score:3, Informative)
They are saying go get linux somewhere, they are giving the code away. Then, buy this license so you can use our proprietary code in your copy of linux.
They are not trying to license all of linux.
A simmilar situation would be, if Linux has no infringing code, but SCO does offer something you want to use, you can go get linux for free, license some stuff from SCO, and integrate it into your copy of linux. You are not allowed to redistribute this tho, because you do not have ownership of the SCO code.
This is in fact what SCO alleges happened. Excepted someone started to distribute, and it got integrated into the main kernel.
Re:No time restraint on patents (Score:3, Informative)
Your understanding is wrong. The only intellectual property you lose through non-enforcement is trademarks.
Re:This needs sorting out (Score:2, Informative)
You say "[nobody] is preparing to challenge SCO and get this resolved", but that's utter crap. Many, many requests have been made to SCO to reveal the infringing source code.
SCO doesn't actually want to reveal it, because they know that it will be replaced with clean code almost instantly. The fact that they're unwilling to talk about which code infringes shows that they are dealing in bad faith. Their purpose is to damage Linux and (attempt to) extort protection money from the gullible.
Until SCO tells the community what code infringes, there is nothing that the community can do. You seem to be trying to blame the people on this side of the fence, who would like nothing better than to resolve the problem. It is SCO that is preventing any real solution. Their purpose is *not* protecting their IP. If it were, the problem would already have been resolved.
And as far as "having implications at some time in the future" -- also probably incorrect. I have downloaded a copy of the Linux kernel from SCO *well after* they filed their IBM suit, so they have knowingly given me their code under the GPL. I can now transfer that code to anyone else I choose, also under the GPL. So I am safe, and anyone I work for is safe. Hell, anyone I even vaguely KNOW is safe; I can email the file to anyone that asks.
You also call it "a seemingly large problem", but it really isn't. Even if the GPL doesn't hold up in court (unlikely), it'll probably take about two weeks for all infringing code to be removed as soon as it's revealed.
But, hey, if you feel safer, you go right ahead and call SCO and offer to pay them their protection money. The head of Linux IP Licensing, Mr. Barnum, will call you right back.
Re:I've signed the NDA and seen the code in questi (Score:5, Informative)
what about your earlier response? The one you posted in the "Linux annoyances" article?
I quote:
Linus blatantly stole our IP and is, in essence, trying to distribute a warezed version of our UnixWare.
By the time this book is in print, you're biggest annoyance will be the thick black cock in your asses, as we'll see your entire IP theft ring behind bars.
Re:Grocklaw does it again! (Score:4, Informative)
Which is exactly why IBM has been silent this whole time. Saying anything during a suit can be damaging or give your opponent an advantage. What I'd really like to see would be the faces of IBMs legal department when they first got wind of this whole SCO joke. I'll bet in the history of law a lawyer has never contorted his face so much whilst laughing.
Re:Try again... (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL is eminently enforceable because it doesn't take away any rights. It only grants rights.
An author licensing you his software under GPL is basically saying: "I'm giving you the right to distribute (and/or modify) my code (something you CAN'T do with ANY copyrighted material) under the condition that you make the source available and that you make the copies available under the same license I'm providing you with."
By distributing the code in ANY form, you, yes you, agree to the restrictions, because otherwise what you are doing is illegal. Period.
Re:No time restraint on patents (Score:3, Informative)
There's no such thing as intellectual property. There's copyright law, trademark law, and patent law. They're different. You seem to be thinking of trademark law; you have to vigorously defend a trademark in order to keep it.
Re:I've signed the NDA and seen the code in questi (Score:1, Informative)
And if I've got a bill of sale that proves you sold that bike to me, it's mine (e.g. the GPL SCO licensed it under)
All you've managed to do is prove there's a bike in my garage.
Until SCO is forced to reveal the code in question in court, we can't even begin to search for the original authors of the source code (under this NDA, would it be legal for you to publically ask "who wrote this code...here, here, and here?") So that issue is basically on hold until the trial.
Luckily, SCO was nice enough to license all of that code under the GPL to their customers, who then have the right to incorporate it into the Linux kernel for everyone. Thanks for the free bike, guys!
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Informative)
They obviously have not read the GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Stowell admitted that his company was still providing Linux source code and security patches on its Web site in order to fulfill support contracts with customers, but he disputed Kuhn's claim. "If our IP [intellectual property] is being found in Linux and that's being done without our say, then I don't think that the GPL can force us not to collect license fees from someone who may be using our intellectual property," he said.
Um, yes it can. The GPL explicitly says so.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Jay (=
(Who is to say that Caldera-now-SCO didn't authorize it? Wasn't Ransom Love and his whole crew basically forced out in favor of the current Chief Sleazebag Officer and his ilk? I wonder what Love has to say about all of this; I smell an interview opportunity...)
Re:I've signed the NDA and seen the code in questi (Score:3, Informative)
As far as the bike analogy goes - if your bike "shows up" in my garage because you planted it there, and then you say I stole it, you're not only lying, but you're slandering me by calling me a thief and you're also guilty of conspiracy to frame me. SCO is doing all of this and more.
Also, one last thing - keep in mind that just because SCO might actually have a case does NOT mean that they will win, not by a long shot. They obviously have no idea what they're doing or what they're talking about when it comes to patent infringement (hint: patent owners have the right to choose when and how they enforce their patents), and for all of their talk about how wrong the GPL is, they are still distributing the kernel sources from their own FTP server right now, without securing them via any sort of authentication mechanism. No password, no public-key handshaking, nothing.
So, as much as I doubt that SCO even has a case, I'm willing to grant the possibility that they might, but they're destroying it themselves via their own unprofessional actions and statements. Not only that... but they decided to go after IBM for an IP case. IBM, the company that out-litigated the Department of Justice. And we're not even talking "convinced a Republican president to call off the DoJ hounds" out-litigated - we're talking "spent more money and had better lawyers" out-litigated. So, even if they are in the right (which I personally seriously doubt) they still don't get to win necessarily, just because of our amazing legal system here in the USA.
And, even though Boies may be famous, he is an ex-IBM lawyer. He's also under review in Florida [cnsnews.com] and may be disbarred.
All in all, I've got my popcorn ready. I've always got FreeBSD to fall back on if things get too out-of-hand.
"FUD" terminology makes it into IBM brief! (Score:3, Informative)
"Although most, if not all, of the UNIX technology that SCO purports to own is generally known, available without restriction to the general public or rapidly ascertainable by proper means, SCO undertook to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the marketplace in regard to SCO's rights in and to that technology."
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Informative)
Umm AIX is being moved toward working better with Linux over the network, but it's not being phased out anytime soon. There are two other OS IBM won't be abandoning anytime soon either - z/OS and OS/390. That's the big iron stuff. AIX is mostly for the minis these days. Linux is for the micros.
They are putting a lot of work into making sure everything plays nicely together, but they are certainly NOT going towards using Linux exclusively.
Re:C&C, Tsu (Score:2, Informative)
Precious section from the IBM countersuit (Score:3, Informative)
Go, IBM, go!
[emphasis mine]
Re:-1 troll (Score:4, Informative)
Re:-1 troll (Score:5, Informative)
If the GPL goes away, you still have the free ability to use the software -- but no ability to redistribute the product or create derivative works.
Re:No time restraint on patents (Score:3, Informative)
You'll need to correct that understanding.
Non-enforcement is not grounds for loss of rights for copyright and patents. Non-enforcement can be grounds for reduced punishment ("I didn't know your honor, and I promise to stop immediately.") You can go years and years without enforcement, then suddenly start.
Trademarks can be invalidated if not enforced. In theory a trademark is supposed to differentiate a product. If everyone calls vinyl floor covering "linoleum," regardless of actual brand, the trademark has lost it's power.
Shareholders value (Score:4, Informative)
The biggest problem with Enron (as a business) was not that the employees lost their jobs, but that the shareholders lost their money, and the company went down (so they won't be getting their money back).
The biggest problem with the SCO business model is that it depends on flimsy claims of IP infringement, outrageous compensatory demands that have not been backed yet by evidence, and the hope someone will buy them out. It doesn't depend on any of their ACTUAL PRODUCTS, and it actually kills some of their product lines (the Linux side), antagonizes their users and the developer community, and not a few business partners.
Re:-1 troll (Score:3, Informative)
And don't forget OS/400, which I forgot in my original post. That's for the iSeries minis, formerly called AS/400s.
IBM is big on linux right now, no doubt about it, but when folks say stuff like it's their only OS they are way wrong.
EFFI: Beware of SCO's Linux-scam. (Score:1, Informative)
Here's your state Attorney General's address & (Score:3, Informative)
Re:-1 troll (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Uh-oh. (patents #6,362,836 and #6,104,392) (Score:3, Informative)
Santacruz Operation has since changed their name to tarantella:
http://www.tarantella.com/
The current SCO is actually Caldera systems
It didn't occur to me to look for it under that.
Here's two more:
first one [uspto.gov]
second one [uspto.gov]
Re:SCO is to sue Novell over Unix rights (Score:4, Informative)
Actually a change of ownership of the patent is usually registered with the Patent Office. I can't recall if it is a legal requirement.
But changes of ownership are actually pretty rare. Most times that a patent is 'sold' by a company that is still in business you instead keep ownership of the actual patent and sell the resale and enforcement rights.
Novell is almost certainly right in its claim it still 'owns' the patents, although AT&T may well still hold title. The issue is what rights have been transferred. Clearly SCO holds a very substantial interest but it is unlikely to affect IBM since IBM has a prior contract with the original owners of the patents.
IBM are pointing out a very basic principle of patent law. IBM signed a contract with AT&T. That cannot be affected by subsequent contracts signed with Novell and now SCO.
IBM is also pointing out a very basic fact of the computer industry, if you get into patent disputes with a company that sells the same stuff you do the guy with the longest patent portfolio wins. I was very surprised that the countersuit mentions only 4 patents, I had expected more like 40, or perhaps this is only the start.