SCO Gives Friday Deadline To IBM 914
bcisys writes "Reuters is reporting that SCO is planning to revoke IBM's license to Unix this Friday unless IBM settles SCO's claim that parts of its Unix code are being used in Linux. 'If we don't have a resolution by midnight on Friday the 13th, the AIX world will be a different place', SCO President and Chief Executive Darl McBride told Reuters News. 'We've basically mapped out what we will do. People will be running AIX without a valid license.'"
Re:Yeah, yeah, whatever (Score:2, Informative)
Did SCO prove that IBM did it? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yeah, yeah, whatever (Score:5, Informative)
SCO claims part of its' code is being used illegally. It won't tell anyone which code, but it makes ultimatums about that code and threatens IBM. Why IBM hasn't filed an Article 78 proceeding / TRO
On to licences....
I cannot legally sell something I do not own. SCO's contention is that IBM did not have the right to sell licences because it did not fully own them. Decent threat, if real.
IBM should tell SCO in court to put up or shut up. Then, if SCO pulls the "unsubstantiated code" BS, IBM can get $$$ sanctions from a judge.
Re:I's like to know if... (Score:5, Informative)
"IBM believes that our contract with regard to AIX is irrevocable and perpetual and there is nothing further to discuss".
but they WON'T be unlicensed! (Score:5, Informative)
Except that licenses prior to this threatened expiration are still valid. SCO is really telling a bald-faced lie when it claims that it can de-license people who already have licenses.
They license it to you, they don't sell it to you (Score:5, Informative)
That is why the software industry has decided license software to you, because legally, when you license something to somebody, you can set whatever you want in the license, like "you shalt not reverse engineer this software", etc...
So, one would have to look at the license between SCO and IBM to be able to say if they can revoke it or not.
Re:here's an expanded list: (Score:3, Informative)
Caldera was (is?) funded by The Canopy Group, which was founded by Ray Noorda, a former Novell CEO. Caldera purchased the Santa Cruz Operation, owners of some bits of UNIX (exactly which bits is a matter of some debate). FWIW, Caldera has now officially changed its name to The SCO Group.
Clear as mud?
Re:A Valid License? (Score:2, Informative)
Not to be picky, but if a contract includes the words "perpetual and irrevocable license" I'd believe that it was perpetual and irrevocable, unless of course some terms of the contract specify a loophole around this.
But aren't they required to prove that IBM is in material breach before dropping their obligations under the bargain? Legally, wouldn't SCO have to prove in a court that IBM has broken the terms of their license, or at least shown enough evidence to get a temporary injunction (presumably to prevent further damage to SCO) against IBM to halt distribution of AIX until the matter could be brought to court? If these steps aren't taken, isn't SCO then violating some law concerning contracts or something?
I am the biggest not a lawyer of the bunch, thus my suspicions/desires are phrasd in the form of questions. :^)
There's a great article about this in The Enquirer (Score:2, Informative)
According to eWEEK's confidential source, SCO's coders "basically re-implemented the Linux kernel with functions available in the Unix kernel to build what is now known as the Linux Kernel Personality (LKP) in SCO Unix."
The evidence for this seems to be sections of exact identical code right down to the variable names and comments. Gee, where have we heard claims like this, recently?
and
IBM likely recoils from the thought of buying out SCO because -- aside from refusing to reward such flimsy blackmail -- it might want to avoid "owning" Unix. It's almost like an Egyptian mummy's curse, it seems.
Re:Yeah, yeah, whatever (Score:3, Informative)
Many such licenses call for arbitration. One of the advantages of arbitration is that you don't have to trot the trade secrets out in public...
Still not right (Score:5, Informative)
That's still not quite the full picture.
The Canopy Group is the majority stockholder in Caldera Corp, dba (that's "doing business as") "The SCO Group".
What Caldera bought was not "SCO" (the company formerly known as The Santa Cruz Operation), but that company's "Unix Business". While I haven't seen the documents, there's basically a bundle of rights, contracts, and licenses (the 30,000 contracts, though most are quite historical [iwethey.org], we've heard so much about). The original SCO continues as a going concern under the name Tarentella. Rather quietly, I might add.
Though Caldera voted at its stockholder's meeting this past May to officially change its name to "The SCO Group", the name change has not yet taken legal effect.
Oh, and Caldera is the company which co-developed the RPM packaging format with Red Hat, distributed GNU/Linux (under the GNU GPL) for nine years, and which, for the past three years, has distributed the very 2.4 Linux Kernel (downloaded my own copy last week). Um. Under the GPL, last I checked.
I'd recommend The OSI's Position Paper [opensource.org] and a compilation site I've had some involvment with, SCOvsIBM [iwethey.org].
Re:Biting the hand that feeds you... (Score:3, Informative)
> slashdotting-induced bankruptcy
Unfortunatly for this idea, sco (as well as most IT companys) host their servers on their own network in their own building.
This means they get internet connections like T1's and T3's
At this point you are usually not charged for bandwidth.
Its $2000
Granted filling their pipes and making their network useless (In and out) is still very amusing though!
But it wont cost them a penny more most likely
Re:is this extortion? (Score:5, Informative)
SCO lawsuit against IBM [sco.com]
Read Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C, in particular.
SCO can revoke the license for breach of contract. The procedure for doing this is not at all clear.
My question is: what is SCO going to ask a court to do? Is SCO going to ask for a preliminary injunction, or what?
The test for a preliminary injunction is: (1) the moving party's chances of success on the merits of their case and (2) the "balance of harm": how much harm that SCO suffers if they do not get a preliminary injunction, and how much harm IBM suffers if SCO does get a preliminary injunction.
On part (1), it's anyone's guess.
On part (2), the "balance of harm" strongly favors IBM.
SCO does not claim that IBM's distribution of AIX has harmed SCO in any way whatsoever. Thus, stopping the distribution of AIX will have zero effect on SCO's alleged suffering. In contrast, stopping the distribution of AIX will have an immediate, large, irreparable effect on IBM in the marketplace. It is grossly unfair to subject IBM to such a penalty without a trial on the merits first.
If not a preliminary injunction, what else could SCO do after Friday the 13th?
Disclaimer: IANAL
Disclosure: I am short SCOX
('disclaimer' and 'disclosure' mean subtly different things
Re:is this extortion? (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, Bell Labs is still part of Lucent. Not sure exactly which part of AT&T Lucent came out of though, nor do I know who approved their stupid "brown ring of quality"-looking logo either...
Re: Stop!! (Score:5, Informative)
IIRC, recently someone at IBM said that they believe their Unix license to be "in perpetuity". He may have said "irrevocable" as well, I'm not sure. If IBM truly does have a perpetual Unix license, then:
1) SCO probably can't revoke it;
2) If SCO claim they can revoke a perpetual licence, they'll be looking at being dragged through court;
3) If SCO actually can revoke the license, expect IBM to sue SCO to get the balance of their license fee back, which would be all of it. perpetual - 20? years = near enough perpetual...
4) Isn't this extortion anyway? Like SCO threatening to sue Linus if other people don't roll over? Like a hijacker saying, "I'll shoot this kid if you don't give me fuel"??
Re:Still not right (Score:5, Informative)
In the name of completeness (and to avoid an utterly contentless post) more about the Novell / Caldera connection: Novell purchased Digital Research in '91, primarily to market DR-DOS as a competitor to MS-DOS (which was just now gaining ground as a stand-alone product). This went nowhere, and the DR properties (including, apparently, the GEM desktop) were sold to Caldera. This was used as the basis for a lawsuit against MS for anti-competitive something or other. Caldera won and collected a fat check from MS. Then DR-DOS was spun from Caldera to Lineo and has now landed at Device Logics.
Many NetWare users and techies refer to this period as Novell's "What in the fuck are you doing" phase.
Re:Yeah, yeah, whatever (Score:3, Informative)
I am a lawyer and I don't get it.
SCO claims part of its' code is being used illegally. It won't tell anyone which code, but it makes ultimatums about that code and threatens IBM. Why IBM hasn't filed an Article 78 proceeding / TRO /order to show cause to stop SCO's baloney is beyond me.
Well ...
SCO isn't obligated to tell anyone other than IBM what code it is basing its suit on;
SCO is not threatening IBM. SCO has already filed suit against IBM;
An Article 78 Proceeding is NY law and brought against a government body or officer - SCO filed in Utah and is not a governmental agency, and;
Both a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Order to Show Cause are completely inappropriate when the parties are already involved in a suit over the subject matter. What is SCO to be restrained from, talking about their litigation in public? What would justify an Order to Show Cause, when there is no evidence before the court other than the complaint and reply?
On to licences....
I cannot legally sell something I do not own. SCO's contention is that IBM did not have the right to sell licences because it did not fully own them. Decent threat, if real.
That is more than a "decent threat, if real;" It's a harpoon to the heart.
IBM should tell SCO in court to put up or shut up. Then, if SCO pulls the "unsubstantiated code" BS, IBM can get $$$ sanctions from a judge.
SCO will have to "put up" in due course. That's what Discovery is all about. A defendant can't just waltz into court on day one, say "put up, or shut up" and have the case immediately dismissed for lack of evidence. And sanctions would only be appropriate if SCO didn't have even a colorable claim on which to base their suit, and was therefore abusing process. That's not likely.
Re: Stop!! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Stop!! (Score:5, Informative)
Have you read the OSI position paper that demolishes SCO's claims? Among other things, it states that not only did Linux acquire SMP, JFS and other things before IBM was involved, but also that SCO's own Unix doesn't have those things now. Well, not reliably, anyway. So, stating that Linux is only enterprise-ready because IBM illegally copied SCO's code is laughable at best...
Re:I see it from both sides (Score:3, Informative)
This is an indication that you should change your logo, your company, and your product. Being sad because your potential customers won't buy your product is an inappropriate business plan.
There is no revenge to be given here, because SCO/caldera was not wronged. They just didn't know how to market to thier audience, and did not show proper respect to the hordes of developers they tried to benefit from. They destroyed themselves, and now litigation is the only thing they can consider a viable business plan.
I, personally, think that IBM is going to release a monstrous legal team and savage them, once all the proper ducks are in a row. A massive countrsuit for retraint of trade is probably pending, and I hope a hostile (and unprofitable) takeover is being planned.
All IBM (and the Linux community) needs is the lines of source that SCO feels infringe - the merits of the case will be resolved within a day, and any infringement (if any really exists) will be removed by the end of the week. I'm reasonably sure I could replace 80 lines myself the first day.
Do they have fact checkers?? (Score:2, Informative)
Kind of makes me doubt the other facts in the story.....
Re:Friday the Thirteeneth! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I's like to know if... (Score:3, Informative)
The filing is an almost comically terse list denying all but the most indisputable claims that SCO makes.
Federal court uses what is called "notice" pleading. Basically, a plaintiff lays out its theories in the complaint, and the defendant denies them. The actual facts are fleshed out in discovery. Other jurisdictions require "fact" pleading, which mandates that you set forth the facts you will attempt to prove at trial in order to satisfy the elements of each count contained in your complaint.
Of course IBM will deny everything that SCO puts in a "notice" pleading complaint. An SCO complaint in a "fact" pleading jurisdiction would likely have been much more involved and likely IBM would have had a different response.
In federal court, you really can't look at the pleadings and make much of a judgment about what is going on. You need to have the inside scoop in discovery, such as viewing deposition transcripts.
JNG