SCO Says 'Linux Doesn't Exist' 739
4A6F656C writes "In an article on LinuxWorld.com.au, Kieren O'Shaughnessy, director of SCO Australia and New Zealand, details SCO's plans for Australia, stating that they have 'prepared a hit list' and "would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP licence." In closing, he adds 'Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix'." UnknowingFool writes "IBM's lawyers have been busy the last few days. Groklaw has reported a number of different filings. On the heels of last week's motions (1) and (2) for summary judgement, they have filed more documents. First, IBM wants large portions of SCO's testimonies striken (removed) on multiple grounds. Deep in the motion, they call out SCO to produce the 'experts' that did the code comparison analysis. If IBM wins on most of these points, SCO will have very little left in the way of legal evidence. SCO answers on IBMs 10th counterclaim. IANAL but from I understand SCO says this copyright infringment that SCO has allegedly committed on one of IBM's patents is irrelevant to the case and the court doesn't need to decide on it. So SCO is saying that they can sue IBM for infringing on their Unix copyrights and patents but IBM can't counter sue on a specific patent. IBM also filed another memo to support summary judgement. As a matter of law, SCO has to produce evidence to backup its claims. This mountain of evidence SCO has claimed all this time: If they don't produce it, the court has to rule in IBM's favor."
Backpedalling we a'go... (Score:5, Interesting)
These lines are the kicker (and send exactly the opposite message from the summary here on
Can anyone seriously say that they are really committed to victory in the courts if they have backpedaled that far on enforcing "their violated rights" down under?
Does IBM's actions buy loyalty? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is brilliant (Score:5, Interesting)
"The only reason we are [pursuing a lawsuit against IBM] is to defend our Unix business; we are not a litigation company, we are about Unix on Intel," he said.
Accelerates..
"IBM has transformed Linux from a bicycle to a Rolls-Royce, making it almost an enterprise-class operating system.
Goes into overdrive..
"It took us 25 years to build our business and it took [IBM] four years simply by stealing code and then giving it away free."
and ofcourse finally..
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix,"
I wish more people like this existed to make my day.
A new mouthpiece? (Score:1, Interesting)
What happens to SCO Australia after SCO USA is pulverized? Do they and the rest of the SCO's go away too? Anybody know?
Delisting SCOX (Score:2, Interesting)
So SCOX is now down to 3.64, the last time I checked:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&quicken=2 [yahoo.com]
Does anyone know at what point they will be delisted?
The Green Mile for SCO (Score:3, Interesting)
That didn't happen then SCO thought maybe they could extort lots of money from Linux users.
That didn't happen so then they thought they could sue other companies to scare people into buying.
That didn't happen and now they are walking the Mile. Expect lots of sound and fury but in the end it will signify nothing.
Proof it Exists --read in-- (Score:0, Interesting)
Linux was based on Minix. A UnixLite OS designed to run on PCs. However, it was really only a teaching tool. Andrew Tanenbaum repeatedly refused to add the new (legitimate) features the users and even developers asked for. Linus Torvalds set out simply to add functionality to his own version of Minix (the copyright allows use to do so for your own personal use, but you cannot sell or distibute it).
Over time, in adding functionality to Minix, Linus Torvalds found that he had created an entirely new kernel. I was very similar to Minix but used none of the Minix source code. Torvalds had originally called it freax, for "`free' + `freak' + the obligatory `-x'. The operator of the FTP server where Linus' new kernel made its debut didn't like the name and simply called it Linux (Linus + Unix). People seemed to like the name so it stuck.
Re:Does IBM's actions buy loyalty? (Score:2, Interesting)
Does Unix exist anymore? (Score:4, Interesting)
So when they say Linux is an unauthorized Unix, what Unix are they talking about? Besides, doesn't the original email from Linux talk about how Linux is a "Minix" clone, which in turn is a much scaled down version of Unix? Why doesn't SCO go after Minix too while they're at it. Or Plan9...that's very Unix-like.
Or Windows...oops, no, not that one. Besides, that's more VMS than Unix.
Re:Backpedalling we a'go... (Score:5, Interesting)
to who? SCO Australia Ltd?
Keep in mind that SCO is now bundling Linux licenses with it's Unix products, so every time they sell a Unix license they can crow about another customer finally recognizing the need to purchase a Linux license.
OTOH, this whole lawsuit thing has really hammered their sales figures into the ground, so that's *still* not very many Linux licenses to crow about.
Re:Does IBM's actions buy loyalty? (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple, for example, is going to get raked over the coals for not "giving back to the community" as long as they decline to offer OS X for x86 under the GPL.
Firstly, I see no reason WHY apple should offer OS X for X86 under the GPL, since the platform they took it from in the first place was under the BSDL. Secondly, they offer Darwin, the Unix part of OS X under a generally free license anyway. Thirdly, Apple give plenty back to the community in the way of OSS updates (look at the khtml updates they have offered back). All in all, OS X basically gets its niceness from the Aqua GUI, the Unix subsystem is pretty nice but Darwin on its own isnt anywhere near OS X. Aqua had no basis in free software, so I see no reason why Apple should offer this for free in anyway shape or form. And why should the RIAA offer anything to the community? Im honestly baffled as to why you think the RIAA owes the community anything.
Linux does not exist, therefore... (Score:1, Interesting)
Australia?! (Score:2, Interesting)
For a while by now I keep reading on /.
Australia to Get Software Patents and Anti-Circumvention Laws [slashdot.org]
Australia to Vote on Extending IP Laws [slashdot.org]
Australia-U.S. Trade Agreement Contains DMCA-like Provisions [slashdot.org] etc. and now "would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP licence"
What is happening with Australia? It looks like a backyard testing garrage for corporations, which reduce humans to consumers! Isn't Australia a democracy governed for the good of the people? Or it is a private lab where consumers must eat all the crap the big corporation is testing on them?
Re:Market Value (Score:1, Interesting)
If they can shut themselves down fast enough, do they get to pocket the $61MM through a huge bonus plan? Or would the legal mess they're in let IBM and the like to go after the individuals?
Remember DivX... (Score:1, Interesting)
Anyways, remember what happened when M$ cracked down on DivX? It was re-written in a way that didn't use any of the (allegedly) infringing code and now it has become fairly well accepted as a fully legitimate commercial product.
I'm not saying that Linux should have to remove the code SCO is bitching about and I really don't believe there is even a legit copyright infringement case here, but just think if the Linux developers re-wrote a few pieces of code anyways and SCO truly had no case beyond any shadow of a doubt. This would alleviate the fear SCO has instilled in companies like EV1 (who caved in to buying SCO licenses) and yet others who are afraid to even give Linux a chance in commercial applications because of this SCO nonsense looming over Linux.
There is no doubt that whether SCO has a case or not they are damaging the Linux market share potential. This would be a good solution IMO, and I wouldn't be surprised if Linux developers already had something like this up their sleeves!
Someone has probably already made this DivX analogy, sorry if I missed it and please disregard this rant if so!
Re:Does IBM's actions buy loyalty? (Score:4, Interesting)
IBM, on the other hand, is the 4 ton gorilla (ie, King Kong) in the semiconductor and hardware industries. They make somewhere around 90% of the ICs in the world, if I recall correctly.
Intel and AMD are toy companies in comparison. They may be cutting edge, but they're tiny. If you need an analogy, they are like id software. Top-quality stuff, highly respected, but generally not a major industry force. A major consumer force, yes, but not an industry force. They're a very specialized company, and don't seem particularly eager to try and diversify. EA and the other mega-developers view them as outsourced game engine R&D. IBM views AMD and Intel and, on the software side of things, the Open Source community, in the same sort of way. Cheap R&D.
Still, not a bad deal.
Re:This is brilliant (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Australia?! (Score:1, Interesting)
It's governed with the affirmed consent of the people. Just like the USA, if they want to vote for their own downfall, let them.
Re:SCO doesn't care about this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Does IBM's actions buy loyalty? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to respectfully disagree. If SCO had any shread of a case and IBM was using their hammer to get rid of that shread than you'd have a point. SCO hasn't presented ANY evidence that their claims are with merit.
Also SCO is "big enough" to hire competent lawyers, they don't have to be IBM class but they have to be better than what they've gotten so far. So it can't even be claimed that SCO didn't have the money to hire a good lawyer.
I usually take "big vs little" to imply that the "little guy" has at least a shread of "goodness" attached. They're argument somehow has merit and the big guy is forced to use their "bigness" to crush them. But that's not what's happened here. I get the distinct feeling that a second year law student could pick apart SCO's case, maybe not so eloquently as IBM's high priced(and very good) lawyers, but they'd still have no problem defending against this.
Hell what is there to defend against when SCO has presented NO evidence?
Australian slander laws? (Score:5, Interesting)
"IBM has transformed Linux from a bicycle to a Rolls-Royce, making it almost an enterprise-class operating system.
It took us 25 years to build our business and it took [IBM] four years simply by stealing code and then giving it away free."
This seems like a statement that could put one in jail. Claiming that someone stole from you without proof seems a risky move at best.
Yes SCO everyone does hate you. No one will ever want to business with you ever again. Suing customers is not the way to make people want to do business with you. By your actions you have made IBM look like a warm, friendly, and even cool company and the hero of the IT world. Yes the former evil empire now looks like Santa Claus while SCO's image is that of the Iraq information minister. I would say that SCO hasn't reached the level of the Anti-Christ. Frankly most people would expect the Anti-Christ to not be as incompetent as SCO. No not even level of Hitler. SCOs level of evil is about at the level of a pimple faced Neo-Nazi skinhead publishing newsletter out of his bedroom. Full of lies, stupid ranting, and a false sense of injustice.
Yes SCO you have sunk so low that you are not even really hated anymore. SCO you have sunk to the level of disgust. SCO has sunk to level of a guest on Jerry Springer.
Re:Does IBM's actions buy loyalty? (Score:3, Interesting)
It should. If they had bought out SCOX, then any 2-bit company would see that they could possibly get big money by suing IBM and hoping to be bought out so they would go away.
This way, SCOX is a dead as Carthage, its field sown with salt, etc... Nobody is going to try a nuisance suit like this against IBM for a long, long time...
I think that will make the shareholders very happy, with lots of good will towards the current IBM management.
Re:SCO still exists? (Score:2, Interesting)
As long as I have enough money in my legal fund and enough of a history with technical jargon-speak it seems I am given the opportunity to tank a competitor. Can you imagine if this sort of vampirism was practiced on private citizens?
Oh wait... the IRS, RIAA, and MPAA already have a copyright on the textbook which teaches this type of behavior.
Re:Does IBM's actions buy loyalty? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's pretty sad that a little jargon and a legal budget goes a long way into turning complete vapor into a lawsuit to try and destroy a reputation, isn't it?
Linux does not exist? (Score:4, Interesting)
I love IBM's lawyers... (Score:5, Interesting)
The calm, cool, confident, and respectful manner in which IBM is handling itself in court is admirable; IMHO, this puts them head-and-shoulders above SCO's legal team.
Beginning to sound like the M$ antitrust case (Score:2, Interesting)
In the MS vs DOJ case, Microsoft clearly had a monopoly, they used it illegally, and they lost every round in court in displays of legal ineptitude. Remember Bill Gates terrible videotaped deposition? I used to wonder how Microsoft planned to win. And then...Microsoft got a new judge, a new Attorney General, a settlement agreement, etc. etc. and the who thing just vanished in a puff of legal smoke and Microsoft carried on as usual.
Now, we have SCO seemingly out on a long limb and IBM holding the saw and yet...the news today has the city of Turku in Finland abandoning their plans to switch to Linux in favor of Windows XP. SCO is losing every legal battle just as Microsoft did but perhaps they are winning the war which is all that really matters.
Re:Backpedalling we a'go... (Score:3, Interesting)
If this guy really said "broke our duck" and intended it as a cricket reference then he has picked the most obscure way of getting his point across. I bet one of his underlings used it as a joke, to see if they could get the boss to say it.
For the yanks: cricket is like baseball, but even more boring.