SCO Calls IBM Countersuit "Unsubstantiated Allegations"

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.

-1 troll

[Sanity]

If I didn't know better I would say that this entire press release is a troll - and a pretty unconvincing troll at that:

We view IBM's counterclaim filing today as an effort to distract attention from its flawed Linux business model.

Flawed business model? Relative to what - SCO's ingenious strategy of using rediculous claims of IP infringement to pump and dump their shares while refusing to publicly disclose what the IP infringement actually is? Yup - SCO knows all about flawed business models.

If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license.

Guh?! Since when is the GPL license the problem - even if SCO's claims did prove to be true? And how exactly does IBM "move away" from the software license under which their primary operating system is distributed?

As the stakes continue to rise in the Linux battles, it becomes increasingly clear that the core issue is bigger than SCO (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), Red Hat, or even IBM

What - that a company can get away with lying about Linux in order to pump up their share price? Yeah, that is a problem that is bigger than SCO, Red Hat, and IBM, but perhaps [kuro5hin.org] they won't get away with it after all.

The core issue is about the value of intellectual property in an Internet age.

Would this be the same Internet that largely relies on Free Software?

In a strange alliance, IBM and the Free Software Foundation have lined up on the same side of this argument in support of the GPL.

Normally when different groups line up on the same side of an issue it suggests that there is something to it.

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.

And how long was SCO shipping Linux without raising an issue about IP infringement?

These guys have some serious nerve - I hope they get put behind bars for this crap.

SCO vs OJ

[Anonymous Coward]

This has really became the Nerd version of the OJ trial.

Unsubstantiated?

[jmkaza]

SCO's accussing IBM of making unsubstantiated claims? Did I wake up in Bizarro world this morning. At least IBM told them what code they were suing them for.

pot - kettle

[yorkrj]

This is an excellent example of "the pot calling the kettle black". I will have to remember this when my 1 year old nephew asks me what that phrase means.

Re:Where can I get SCO Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

we do. It's the GPL.

Re:-1 troll

[gspeare]

Guh?! Since when is the GPL license the problem

Since Microsoft paid SCO to make it the problem...pretty cool for them if the GPL collapses, hm?

Re:Try again...

[Rob Riggs]

kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-106.nosrc.rpm
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-133.nosrc.rpm
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-152.nosrc.rpm
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm
...
They have accepted and continue to accept [th GPL's] terms by having this Linux kernel source code on their FTP server.

Please look at that listing again, and if you don't believe the "nosrc" part, unpack the SRPMS and see for yourself.

Re:I've signed the NDA and seen the code in questi

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm going to take your comment at face value and assume you saw the code, saw line-for-line similarities between the Linux code and the SCO code, etc.

But what I don't see is how this proves SCO's case.

For example, does seeing the similarities prove that the code in question originated at SCO? No. It's more likely that both SCO and Linux copied code from a common source--quite possibly the author, who has the right to license the same code to two different groups user two different licenses.

Also, assuming SCO did author the code in question, would their case still be proven? No. They licensed that code to the Linux community under the GPL when they released their Linux distribution.

Unless you have answers for these very important points, SCO will lose. They will lose big.

Re:I've signed the NDA and seen the code in questi

[PseudononymousCoward]

With all due respect, what makes you so sure that they *will* win this?

SCO v. IBM is *not* an IP battle.

Let me reiterate: SCO v. IBM is *not* an IP battle.

It is a contract law dispute (read the original complaint). So unless the NDA allowed you to read the contracts that governed the IBM purchase from AT&T, and then the Novell purchase from AT&T, and then the SCO purchase from Novell, along with all of the side letter agreements, and you understand how the concept of 'derivative works' applies to software, as well as the legal admissibility of both that definition as well as the definition contained in said contracts, I am unsure of your ability to make such an assertion.

This doesn't mean that I think you are wrong. I am just curious on grounds you base your assertion.

Matt.

"Unsubstantiated Allegations"?!?

[rdean400]

Hello pot, this is kettle. You're black.

Re:Try again...

[aallan]

They're claiming 2.4.18 and later is infringeing...

Cool, we just all go back to RH7.2 then...

Al.

GPL failure- Not a problem

[nuggz]

I guess that SCO is basically screwed unless they can some how force the GPL to break-down in court

Not a problem if the GPL is ruled invalid, then SCO is committing a copyright violation for commercial gain.
If they are selling someone elses work, for financial gain, knowing they do not have a license to do so they could be in a LOT of trouble.
Isn't that actually criminal copyright infringement? Do you think the SCO execs would rather go to jail then lose a lawsuit?

Re:hohohoho.. that is hilarious

[zulux]

buying an SCO license with monopoly money..

Kidding aside, Microsoft did but an SCO license with 'monopoly' money just a few weeks ago.

And now SCO is attacking the GPL.

Now isen't that interesting.

Re:Deutsche Bank (that non-programmer)

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

I have seen news reports that their servers are running Linux. This Deutche Bank person is neither a programmer not an IT manager, he's a securities analyst ... a glorified stockbroker ...

""Our review of source code and documents appears supportive of SCO claims, though we are not legal experts and IP matters are not always transparent," Deutsche Bank Securities analyst Brian Skiba said in a research note Thursday after visiting SCO's headquarters in Lindon, Utah, Wednesday.

So he saw the same code snippets that the other analysts have seen, with no dates, file names or other means to see when they were developed.

Re:Grocklaw does it again!

[all_new_turambar386]

With these kinds of patents in their arsenal, and the stupidity of judges when it comes to patent infringement suits, I'd be effin' scared of IBM. It's a good thing they don't pull them out very often.

SCO is doomed. But not before the execs make millions in dumping stock.

Mass Small Claims Court

[mrjohnston]

Everyone is pissed at SCO. I am wondering if it would work to just have thousand/tens of thousands of people go and almost simultaneously file small claims court case against them. The amount (199-699) is perfect for small claims and we can all allege fraud and extortion, and sue for court cost (or maybe add on the attempted license fee too). In the suit we can say there is no proof to substantiate the license. If they show up you don't have much to lose and they have to show prrof so we would find out and remove the proof. If they don't you should be immune to further prosecution on that computer and they get stuck with many bills. If enough users file there is no way they could respond to this. Maybe this is far fetched, but I don't see why it wouldn't work. It would ultimately force SCO to quit this as we bleed them dry and they end up with almost no end users to try and charge without finally revealing their code and having it removed anyway.

Re:I've signed the NDA and seen the code in questi

[pubjames]

Noone in the linux community can prove where or who it came from, it just sort of miraculously appeared and noone took credit for it.

I doubt very much that this is the case. Linus does not accept anonymous additions to the kernal! And everything is logged. So you're talking out your ass I'm afraid.

The only reason we can't identify where it came from is because SCO won't tell us what the code is!

SGI Maybe the Guilty Party?

[HighOrbit]

You might be right. SGI is exactly what I was thinking. The article mentioned "another hardware vendor" (Who is not IBM or HP) that contributed Unix Sys V code for SMP. I immediately thought about SGI's recent work on NUMA to get Linux up to 32 processors. Can anybody substaniate or shed light on that? Apologies to SGI, I don't want to FUD you guys, but that seems to be where SCO is pointing.

Re:This needs sorting out

[WatchMaster]

Are "they" going to be wary? I am an IT head and I am not wary about deploying Linux systems. The license on my software says it is free. The US legal system allows me to sue anyone I want for anything I want. I can claim all kinds of things when I file a case with little or no ties to reality. Prevailing in a case is the difficult part - something that SCO has yet to do for any of its claims. In the end you have to have the preponderance of the evidence to win in court, or as SCO wants to do, instill enough fear to settle out of court. At this point it doesn't look like IBM is going to settle.

Why do you guys keep falling for this?!?

[-tji]

Isn't it obvious that SCOX is trying to whip up as much controversy as possible? They take their irrelevant little failed company, and thrust it into center stage based on all of their wild claims.

This drives up their stock price, increases the FUD in the business community, and makes their claims seem more legitimage than they are.

Whenever someone pushes back, they either make even wilder claims, or reverse the allegation back on the claimant.. SCOX: "Your claims that our case is unsubstatiated FUD is a blatantly unsubstantiated claim."

The only effective measure for the Linux community is to IGNORE THESE MORONS.

Re:This needs sorting out

[Anonymous Coward]

This case is threatening to be one in which only the lawyers come out of it with anything.

Wrong, SCO execs who sold shares at inflated prices come out with cash money

Re:-1 troll

[mikolas]

Well, if the GPL collapses, then *all* the copyrights in Linux kernel will go back to their original holders, that is the kernel shall no longer be freely distributable. Won't that make a good case against SCO if they still distribute the Linux kernel, not to mention the license fees they're trying to extor^H^H^H^H^Hcollect.

Duh

[mkweise]

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.

Gee officer, you've been standing there with your gun all this time, but you didn't point it at me until I started snatching old ladies' purses...

Re:-1 troll

[El]

Good point. I already have a box of Linux software purchased from Caldera (for about $50) sitting on my shelf. They are now telling me I need to pay them another $1399 to use that software? Doesn't that give me grounds for a consumer fraud lawsuit against SCO?

Re:Try again...

[molarmass192]

Even better, it's against clasue #3 of the GPL to not distribute the source code or at least post a notice offering the source code. Chaulk up another actionable violation.

Re:-1 troll

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of a business is increase shareholder value. Being ethical only matters to the extent it increases shareholder value. Treating employees well only matters to the extent it increases shareholder value. Shareholder value IS the bottom line even if it means the company dies.

Re:-1 troll

[Cognitive Dissident]

Yes, they have finally tipped their hand and admitted their real motivation in this case. They've all but cut and pasted from the Microsoft anti-Open Source rants we've seen from Steve Ballmer and Bill gates in the past. Is there a .DOC file or just HTML? If it's available as a .DOC the anal record-keeping properties of MS-WORD that have tripped so many other people up in the past might also catch MS and SCO in their game if it proves the link between MS and this anti-Open Source campaign. Heck, even if it's HTML you'd better read the souce and see if the comments indicate it was really written in Redmond.

The value of GPL as a 'business model' has absolutely nothing to do with their legal claims against IBM. The fact that they state it as if it is part of the case betrays that this lawsuit itself is just the vehicle that gets them the attention they want so they can propogandize for their real cause. They know they can't prevail legally. They are just going for the negative publicity to scare people away from Open Source products, and whatever possible delays they can cause with legal entanglements before they get sued into oblivion. SCO is executing the corporate equivalent of a suicide bombing.

Re:Yeah, Because...

[confused one]

Actually, I find it kind of amusing that SCO publically laid our four examples where it claims IBM "illegally" added stuff to Linux; and, IBM trots out exactly four patents SCO is infringing upon...

Think about that for a minute. Get it yet?

I bet IBM's got a whole slew of pattents it'll claim SCO infringes upon, if needed. They've just listed the four it can build a quick and completely solid case for. IBM has a massive IP inventory to fall back on -- The senior guys at IBM are thinking "Silly fools, you want to play IP games, then We'll play IP games!"

Please Copy "Let's Put SCO Behind Bars"

[MichaelCrawford]

Please copy my article "Let's Put SCO Behind Bars" to your own website. I released it under a Creative Commons license. I designed the page to be very easy to copy, with only very simple, valid markup, and no external dependencies like images or stylesheets. It even looks good in lynx!

• http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html [goingware.com]

Here's the introduction:

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM [sco.com] and filed by Red Hat [redhat.com] are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's [sco.com] menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives [sco.com] of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General [naag.org]. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

Thanks for your help.

Re:SCO vs OJ - juries

[DrCode]

What scares me is the thought of a jury made up of the usual non-techie types who don't even have a clue of what an operating system is. I wouldn't be surprised if SCO's lawyers filter out any potential jurors who've used Linux or done any professional programming.

Re:-1 troll

[spun]

And the way to maximize shareholder value is to artificially pump up the stock price, then bail out before the whole house of cards collapses? Funny, I thought maximizing shareholder value entailed long term business planning.

Re:Beginning to look Valid

[justsomebody]

It looks from the analysts comments as if the SCO claims have merit. Even a non-programmer can tell that two code blocks are identical. Most likely the code in question was copied and pasted in this case. This is too bad, but it underscores the importance of keeping others IP out of your IP.

Yeah, just as I can show you two pieces of identical code and you'll be able to see that they're identical.

What's more important is:
None of the analyst said it was shown historical proof that code belongs to them

Good thing I use Linux:)

Vindication for Mr. Stallman

[sphealey]

Over the last few years Richard Stallman has grown increasingly [precise | pedantic | annoying] in his insistance that all software that falls under his umbrella must be "free", and in exorcising packages and projects that he considered insufficiently free from the canon.

Up to this point, MHO was that while Mr. Stallman had a lot of good ideas, he was being a bit too fanatical in implementation, which I think was a fairly common opinion.

I must say that events of this week are causing me to reconsider that opinion. SCO's direct assult on the GPL seems to justify both Mr. Stallman's position on free vs. non-free software and also his fanaticism in keeping free software "pure".

sPh

GPL Collapse?

[mugnyte]

I've read the other responses. The GPL won't collapse. Here's why:

MS would love for Linux to go away. However, the power of OSS is that many minds can organize efficiently enough to create a workable product. After years of educationally-focused Unix-like software getting streamlined, studied, debugged and now ported, we've hit commercial grade server product. For free.

The GPL is the grease for that organization. It forces the trust to appear in the transactions working with this code. It also enables the rejection of people who won't play by the rules. We're simply watching a greed-based test of that right now with SCO. Sure MS is rooting for the SCO team, they need to sell against only SUN, HP and other moneymakers in the industry. They know how to undercut someone with production costs.

Linux's only production costs are in manhours donated. Come hither-dither, feast/famine, Linux has been at enterprise quality and will only improve as new theories and algorithms get tested and then put into the churning process for implmentation, testing, etc.

So if SCO's code is present in the current Linux, "derivative works" clauses be damned, we're going to end up with a free something as an OS. The machienery for creating such a beast is already well constructed. if we OSS'd the old BeOS, or the obscure other OS'es out there right now, it would quickly flower into a powerhouse. BSD isn't a derivative, so we're only a kernel away from another Nix flavor anyway.

That said, I believe this mess of a SCO press release per day (and all the FUD in it) and then the world's jabbering about it, will pass when the courtroom doors finally open. There just isn't any logic left in it anymore. Also, serious cases aren't tried in press releases. We're talking about simple sales numbers here. MS pays SCO, makes the next Munich sale. If this doesn't happen, the money well will dry up and the lawyers will pick the bones clean at SCO.

You can be sure, though, that this brain-numbing series of moves by SCO is not without support. 5 execs aren't doing this because they want their stock to simply go from 0.25 to 11.00 - this is an orchestrated effort to remove the trust/reliability and certainty in the Linux-is-an-option for corporate servers. Who benefits most? MS. By far. One could be very certain Balmer is getting an inside on the SCO moves word-by-word before we are. He's ready to play off of this.

If you need to check, ask for an MS sales rep to come by and give a little presentation for your next "long-range server upgrade" - for those in the $10mil and up range (they will check your company structure, sales and potential first). Those slides are hot off the press from that morning's sales meeting. And they say: "Linux is a liability because of the GPL." Almost verbatim SCO's press release.

mug

Re:SCO vs OJ

[Feztaa]

So they now want to charge fees for any restaurant that serves California burgers.

No, I would explain it more this way:

SCO has claimed IP rights to lettuce, so they are now threatening to sue anybody who has ever eaten a hamburger, regardless of whether that hamburger had lettuce in it or not (and it's likely that no hamburgers have ever had lettuce in them, but then the analogy breaks down). They're suing McDonalds (IBM), and Burger King (RedHat) is suing them.

Re:Beginning to look Valid

[defile]

None of these claims have any merit at all.

Two identical pieces of code can have a variety of explanations:

• A was copied verbatim from B (SCO -> Linux)
• B was copied verbatim from A (Linux -> SCO)
• A and B copied it verbatim from C (BSD IP checksum algorithm -> Linux, SCO)
• A and B both copied it from a reference manual/document/standard (hashing algorithm published in Practice of Programming by Kernighan & Pike)
• A and B implement an interface (the code may be part of a header file)
• A and B are not verbatim copies, just pretty similar (same algorithm, different authors)

Until they disclose more information, it can be total BS. The reviewers could even be outright lying.

These kind of claims are called "unsubstantiated claims".

Re:-1 troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Ridiculous.

Behavior that ensures the long-term success of a business is a good business practice.

This is called a pyramid scheme --- honestly, would *you* like to be the long-term owner of SCO stock or IBM stock (for example)?

Who's actually maximing the value of your stock?

One is actually an investment, the other, SCO, is a one-time get rich quick scheme for the upper management.

Re:SCO vs OJ

[yoshi_mon]

This shit is trouble, mark my words. The guys at the top of companies don't read slashdot either - keep that in mind.

I whould have agreeded with this before RedHat stepped into the ring and threw down the gauntlet as well. SuSe has pledged alliance as well and as I'm sure everyone knows, it's a bad idea to piss off the Germans.

Yeah, it has been a PITA but I think SCO's days of FUD generation are going to be numbered as the linux community decides in masse that since being nice won't work it's time to get dirty and fight fire with fire.

The Patent Game

[dhwang]

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.

Apparently, SCO doesn't know how to play the patent game. As anyone who's worked for a big company with large patent portfolios would know, the patent game works something like this:

Company A: You are infringing on our patents. We're going to sue you.

Company B: Oh yeah? Well, you are infringing on our patents. We're going to sue you back!

Company A: Ok. We'll let you use ours if you let us use yours (i.e. cross-licensing)

Company B: Sure, no problem.

For those of you still not clear on the concept is that it doesn't matter what particular patents you have but rather how many you have. In other words, how many cards do you have to trade? If you don't have enough patents cards to play, you are either going to get sued out of existence or you will be sent running with your tail between your legs.

Now, you would think that SCO would understand this game, having been around a while, so to speak, but then again, what is now called SCO hasn't really been around that long.

The thing that really gives away their cluelessness is that when most intelligent companies think of suing IBM, they don't think of easy money from deep pockets. They think about IBM's deep legal pockets, and how to deal when IBM comes back over the top with their countersuit. Even those loser companies that buy patents and try to sue people know enough to go after the easily bullied small fry before trying to take on someone who can fight back with a vengence.

Re:Try again...

[blibbleblobble]

"Please look at that listing again, and if you don't believe the "nosrc" part, unpack the SRPMS and see for yourself."

So they're guilty of 8 million counts of copyright infringement, one from each author whose copyrighted code they're illegally distributing without permission.

How does that help them?

Re:The MS link

[roystgnr]

I hope that this post was modded "Interesting" as in a "Look at that hobo with the tin-foil hat shouting about John Lennon and the KGB. Isn't that interesting." sort of way.

Yeah, you tell him! It makes much more sense to believe that Microsoft would shell out millions of dollars to SCO for a vague "intellectual property license" they won't need then to believe that they would do so as an attempt to fund an attack on some of their major competitors.

Because Darl needs to suffer?

[roystgnr]

Because at least five SCO executives need to go to jail for stock manipulation and fraud, and spend the next ten years as some bad men's wives?

But more seriously: How many lawsuits do you think IBM would be hit with in the next decade, if they were to reward this sort of behavior? SCO so far has made two basic claims: that anything IBM ever wrote and distributed with AIX is now a "derivative work" and belongs to SCO, and that Linux has a few copied lines of code which can only be identified in secret presentations that make it impossible to check which direction any copying went in.

There are probably hundreds of small companies that could make equally ridiculous claims and wild threats against IBM. If those companies believe that they'd have to actually win a case in court, then they won't even try. If, however, they believe that they can just make a lot of noise and get bought out for ten times what they're worth, then the ink won't even be wet on IBM's check for SCO before other moneygrubbers start getting in on the action.

Re:z/os is hardly big iron.

[Arker]

These systems woefully underperform modern UNIX

It all depends on the benchmarks you choose.

They won't win any awards for processing power per dollar, that's for sure. Their I/O bandwidth is extraordinary, however, and their reliability puts even Suns biggest boxes to shame.

For what they are designed for, they're still the kings.

Re:-1 troll

[Pharmboy]

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.

I have never been under the impression that IBM would switch everything over to Linux ever. They have a perpetual license for unix already. By embracing Linux, they are providing support for the best potential operating system for microcomputers, and eventually minicomputers. By modifying AIX to play nice with Linux, and contributing parts of AIX to Linux, they are insuring their future success.

So now you can afford their low end computers since you don't pay for unix, and as your needs increase, the movement to their big iron is less painful because the upgrade path is all IBM. I see no evidence that IBM will abandon proprietary OS's, nor do I see why they should have to. They will trim them down by using Linux on the low end (and mid end eventually) and pump $$ and support to the OSS community to help raise Linux to true enterprise levels. This reduces their R&D costs by virtually outsourcing it to the OSS community, increases interoperability for all its OSs, generates goodwill (justifiably), and unifies their product line, a plus for customers.

This sounds like a win-win to me.

/proc origins - Plan 9

[billstewart]

/proc is really a Plan 9 From Bell Labs [bell-labs.com] thing, though Linux quite reasonably picked it up.

Re:Shareholders value

[Bodrius]

Employees are remunerated for their work and time through money and other tradables.

They are not working there as a personal investment and because of faith in the company, at least they shouldn't. If they are not properly compensated for their time and work, they should ask for proper compensation or look for greener pastures.

Consumers are not investing in your company. They are investing in their own demand. They are remunerating the company for meeting that demand, which brings money to your company, but their loyalty is (psychological manipulation aside) to satisfying their demand. Or should be.

Businesses need to deal with these three groups to be successful, but that doesn't make them all equal in nature. Nor would that make them all shareholders by any linguistic stretch of the imagination. I'd love to see what kind of etymological magic is behind that.

Let's get our facts straight:

- Businesses are for-profit entities created to make money for the owners (stockholders).
- Employees are people making money by selling their work/time (human resources) to the company. If anything they are business partners of the company, not shareholders.
- Consumers are people who demand something and are willing to pay for it to whatever business best meets the demand.
- Businesses are successful if they, on average and on the long term, make money for the owners. This can only be done if they don't screw over their employees (losing their resources) or their consumers (losing their clients).
Yet we don't say the goal of the company is to follow those rules anymore than the purpose of human life is to take a bath, use the toilet or eat frequently. Those are just things you have to do if you want to successfully do whatever it is you're doing with your life. It's the environment of the game. It's a given.

The people behind the Enron scandal did a lot of illegal things. Some of them were illegal because they bankrupted the company and defrauded investors. Others were illegal because of entirely different, non-business, reasons.

Screwing over employees is wrong, and often illegal. Screwing over consumers is also mora than plain stupid. There's no reason to justify the immorality of one with the language of the other.