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.'"
so... (Score:5, Insightful)
is this extortion? (Score:5, Insightful)
AIX License (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO's new business model? (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess SCO thinks that calling in the lawyers beats actually trying to compete on the merits of its products and services.
The problem with proprietary licence (Score:5, Insightful)
If the license of a subcomponent is revoked the whole thing may be in trouble. What if one of M$ subcontractor get in dispute with M$? Windows user is suddenly in license violations.
BFD. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, SCO, you lose.
One thing will be clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stop!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A Valid License? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the plus side, now IBM will be well positioned to counter-sue SCO for breach of the 'perpetual and irrevocable' contract. Maybe this is what IBM has been waiting for.
Re:AIX License (Score:3, Insightful)
However, those considerations are completely hypothetical. There is not a shred of evidence that SCO's allegations are true. SCO is just engaging in one big smear campaign.
Re:is this extortion? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the type of ridiculous stunt that only damages SCO's credibility. It is very unlikely that IBM signed an agreement with AT&T all those years ago that allowed AT&T to yank the license at a future date.
SCO should be very careful about the claims it is making.
Re:Yeah, yeah, whatever (Score:1, Insightful)
In your analogy, this would be like you buying a license for Microsoft Windows from Dell, and later Microsoft comes along, cancels their contract, and that makes your copy now illegal.
Re:Yeah, yeah, whatever (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a scare-tactic pure and simple, and anyone with half a brain will figure out (and likely already has) that SCO is running scared, talking out of their asses, and probably not going to be in business much longer. They're a company now run by lawyers and executive sleaze; no company can survive that for long.
Re:SCO can't really revoke it... can they? (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be AT&T. It is unlikely that SCO can affect IBM because any contract they have made with Novell is trumped by the prior contract with AT&T.
AT&T may under the terms of the contract be able to assign its interest to another party (Novell) and that in turn may be assignable. But SCO is bound by the terms of the earlier IBM/ATT contract.
Re:SCO can't really revoke it... can they? (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a feeling that this is less an attempt to force IBM to settle and more an attempt on SCO's part to confuse the market. SCO could stand to make some money if people thought they would be sued if they used Linux. FUD is the word. The irony is that IBM is the pioneer of FUD. The irony turns to cynicism when you notice that another side-player here is the high-priestess of software intellectual property: Microsoft.
I echo the sentiments of a number of posters here that IBM should call SCO's bluff. It's likely that the deadline will be extended to midnight on Friday in Hawaii. Then we'll here an announcement at 11:59 that SCO and IBM came to an agreement, the details of which will remain confidential. SCO will drop the Unix-in-Linux-or-is-it-really-Linux-in-Unix allegations. Within a month press releases will come from IBM further emphasising their redurced commitment to Unix and that Linux will be their main platform. By the time the Unix licence is up for renewal (in 5 years or so), neither SCO, nor IBM's interest in the licence, will exist and the whole thing will become an episode in future TV documentaries on the history of operating systems.
In the meantime, Apple will have vanished from the face of the earth [slashdot.org] because they thought they could get away with saying their new operating system was based on Unix. Such cheek!
News for Nerds: IBM can take care of themselves... (Score:5, Insightful)
If IBM thought SCO had a case, they'd slam them with a countersuit of a kazillion patents SCO violates and offer to settle. End of story. The fact that IBM is letting SCO buzz around like they do tells me that SCO has no case.
And I sure as hell don't think that IBM's lawyers were so stupid that the revocation of the licence from SCO would create any problem with current AIX licences (maybe with issuing new, but that's another story). My conclusion: More FUD, but let IBM debunk this and get back to something more nerdish.
Kjella
Re:so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:AIX License (Score:4, Insightful)
-- Rich
Corporate Stucturing (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO just messed with the wrong people... (Score:5, Insightful)
But forget about the guard force using SCO interns for target practice, you just threatened almost every Fortune 500 company with a datacenter to speak of. THEIR lawyers using your ass for target practice is much more scary. Telling folks with THAT kind of power to turn off their line-of-business systems will get SCO slapped around like a red-headed stepchild.
Re: Stop!! (Score:5, Insightful)
> You know what would be even cooler? If they took it to court, and they did have the evidence to prove it, and they won.
Problem is, SCO isn't acting like a corporation that has the facts on its side.
If they did, they wouldn't need deadlines like this; they'd be overjoyed to let it go to court, or to let IBM approach them with an offer.
Mod Parent Up! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DO NOT (Score:5, Insightful)
It is to laugh!
I wonder if all the script-kid 1337 unabombers out there will manage to obliterate SCO's presence from the Inet on Friday. Their whole corp website was unavailable in the recent past...
I don't think SCO understands that some of Linux's biggest fans are guys who 'make the wires work'.
A noteable aside.... (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO also won a license from Microsoft, which agreed to pay SCO to ensure that it would not violate intellectual property rights when developing software that works with Unix. But Microsoft's move was widely seen as an attempt to lend weight to SCO's attack on Linux, which Microsoft views as a threat to its Windows franchise.
This rather strong anti-Microsoft comment is coming off Reuters. Not Slashdot. This tells me that, despite what the Windows apologists may say, the public view of Microsoft closely mirrors some of the more cynical posts here. Such widely-held disdain spells doom for a corporation. Cash reserves and ruthless schemes will only go so far against it....
-----------
Re:Chill over Unix (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux
This presupposes that SCO is correct. Sort of like saying "Abbie Normal was charged with the murder of 12 infants today. Abbie is a 28 year old mother of 3, homemaker and serial killer."
I was under the obviously mistaken impression that Reuters did more than regurgitate press releases.
Surely an attempt to... (Score:2, Insightful)
Confuse the meaning of the word 'Unix'. Everything I have read on this topic - the OSI position paper, extracts of the original SCO suit, and all the SCO PR makes it sound like SCO are claiming that anything unix derives ultimately from their IP. Would there be any validity to that? I doubt it, personally.
This will obviously come and bite them in the backside before too long
Shares at 60¢ up to $8 (Score:1, Insightful)
to beef up the shares so they can make
a huge profit and then either sell off or
file for bankrupty after draining most of the
money out of the company before the shares
start going down the toilet.
The saga continues (Score:3, Insightful)
This seems a little like that kid in school that was always getting picked on and finally lashed out and did something really stupid then got his ass beat.
Hopefully, IBM will realize that SCO can't do anything but sit and fire off more lawsuits and will let SCO dig itself into so much legal debt that IBM will end up buying the UNIX IP (on the cheap) and letting SCO rot into nothing.
It is rather interesting that, of all days, SCO has chosen Friday (the 13th). Are they hoping someone at IBM actually cares? No, they are trying to get our attention. They're doing a good job of that, that and making an ass of themselves in the process.
Re:I's like to know if... (Score:5, Insightful)
In any other segment of the economy, I suspect, this is followed more as a tenet of the industry rather than an exception. IBM's response has been, I strongly suspect, reassuring the most important audience: their customers, shareholders, management team, and employees. Rather then entering into a childish public-affairs fiasco with SCO, I believe IBM has taken the high road, and deferred judgement to the courts, where it matters.
We shall see, in any case.
givin' a shout out (Score:1, Insightful)
a big "fuck you" to SCO on behalf of those people in the open source community that hereby vow to boycott you as long as you are a company.
Does SCO know what it's doing? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. It is not SCO that is going to determine the pace of this case. Upon trying to unilateraly cancel IBM's license a judge will step in and maintain the "status quo" until the dispute is settled.
2. If you bought AIX prior to SCO's accusations, then you still have a valid license. SCO cannot retroactivly cancell prior licenses on it's own whim. Can you imagine the havok that would cause in the business world as a whole if it were so? Can you imagine Novell announcing tomorrow that they are cancelling whatever agreement they had with SCO?
3. The mere fact that SCO is dragging IBM customers into this tells me that this is more a political manuever then a valid legal manuever. They are trying to get IBM customers to pressure IBM to resolve this fast, and fast means caving to SCO.
4. SCO has yet to prove harm. 80 lines of code copied exactly word for word, punctuation for punctuation means nothing without harm. The actual code has to do something particular that is germain to SCO and that the loss (or unlawfull distribution) has harmed SCO.
5. So not only does SCO have to reveal the offending code, it has to say when it discovered it and when it notified IBM and prove what type of harm was done. I find that hard to believe that 80 lines of code out of a code base of a million plus lines is going to fly just on its own.
6. There is no doubt that IBM is insured for all errors and ommissions on their part, that will protect their customers. As long as everybody was acting in good faith ... IBM believed they were in compliance, the Customers believed they were in compliance, the only damages that SCO will be entitled to are actual damages.
7. Actual damages will be a whole 'nother lawsuit and court proceedings. Probably take years to sort this out. But then, who doubts this is SCO's intent. To hold LINUX hostage for years.
8. If it turns out that SCO discovered this a while ago, and didn't immediately notify IBM, they themselves may have given up alot of rights in the remedy. I.E You just can't discover it and hold back a few years, then come forward and try and correct or remedy it.
Predictions ... When IBM makes its legal move, watch how fast SCO shuts up (gag order, restraining order. If IBM sees no need to capitulate, they will slap SCO silly with gag orders and restraining orders enjoining them from frightening IBM's customers.
I have a feeling it's not going to be pretty for SCO
Re: Stop!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One thing will be clear (Score:2, Insightful)
(Guy in White Shirt and Smart Tie): OK SCO, let's negotiate a settlement... ...while we build a REAL big ugly patent suit like you've never seen and give it to you hard.
(Leans to Guy in White Shirt and Smart Tie next to him, whispering):
I wonder who would win in a patent stand off, hmmm?
I feel bad for SCO employees (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope that the criminal stupidity of SCO management doesn't result in out of work SCO employees, but I strongly suspect that sooner or later the pigeons will come to roost, and guess who will get shit on?
Welcome to the Litigarchy (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't think you have a good case?
Then propose to your corporate enemies:
1) Pay up a settlement
or
2) Go to trial and we'll revoke all licenses we gave you, so that even if we lose the case, you'll have already lost in the marketplace.
Make sure you give a deadline that doesn't allow your corporate enemy any time to mount a legal defense, or get any court action, so that they are forced to do what you want.
Re:is this extortion? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it isn't extortion, it is barratry.
How about tortious interference [lectlaw.com]? IBM says it has a license in perpetuity and that's that. Okay, so why is SCO giving press releases about this bogus deadline instead of suing IBM? IBM could argue that SCO is intentionally trying to damage IBM's business, since (presumably) SCO is wrong about IBM's license.
or... (Score:5, Insightful)
*Note I'm talking Trusted Computing, not Palladium - Palladium is Microsoft's version of TCPA that will run on Windows - it's a moot point for things like AIX and Linux and such, since it's a Windows technology. TCPA on the other hand is platform neutral. Palladium may well have the "external control of systems" feature, but I don't know - Palladium isn't my problem, since I don't run MS systems. ~,^ On the other hand, I _look forward to_ TCPA, since it actually does offer the ability to increase security, and doesn't have any features to make me worry, especially not on an Open Source platform.
Escrow (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it even legal for SCO to pull their liscense without any ruling?
It seems silly to me that SCO can just yank the liscense as blackmail without proof (A court ruling) that IBM is in violation
IANAL
Biting the hand that feeds you... (Score:4, Insightful)
<amused sarcasm> And of course, it helps to with the amount of slashdot publicity to SCO, with probably large numbers of geeks either visiting/poking/etc the SCO webservers. </amused sarcasm>
I think that until SCO manages to clean up their act, we should make linking to their corp website mandatory on all related articles... make their bandwidth spike for weeks on end and perhaps we'll drive them into slashdotting-induced bankruptcy
And of course, my question is: without linux, how long would they have lasted anyways? I mean, how much crossed from linux back to unix. What about the apache project, etc? I'm just a linux geek myself, I've always avoided the unix end of things (justly so it seems) - so I really don't know much about it except for recent actions.
meanwhile at IBM (Score:1, Insightful)
In order to gain access to IP you have to justify a need to know which has to be signed off by a heirarchy of managers. Then, you *have* to take a class pounding you with what you can do with the IP you may get access to.
The IBM contributions for linux 2.4 are for the most part (if not exclusively) getting linux to run on the z900 mainframe. Contributions above & beyond involve linux 2.5 which you're not going to find anytime soon.
Friday the Thirteeneth! (Score:5, Insightful)
seriously would be interesting if IBM filed counter-suits, and as part of the discovery process requested the complete UNIX SVR4 source code and pedigries; with 10K patents in the basement I'm sure the lawyers at IBM could find a few infringements of their own.
Re:Escrow and more... (Score:4, Insightful)
These kind of things donâ(TM)t go unnoticed by IBMâ(TM)s clients. Theyâ(TM)ll worry about it and also if they use SCOâ(TM)s software at the same time thereâ(TM)s more to worry about it. A friend, who works for IBM said âoeour lawyers will take care of thatâ, they may, but until then IBMâ(TM)s business will suffer especially if combined with other issues like their accounting and profit reporting probed by SEC. The next stop for IBMâ(TM)s stock is around $76, down from $90 in the beginning of May this year.
Re:I see it from both sides (Score:2, Insightful)
SCO doesn't expect to win! (Score:1, Insightful)
Let's make some lame lawsuit against one of the biggest companies around for a ridiculous amount of money like $1 billion - now watch our stock rise 1400% while the speculators jump on our bandwagon hoping that IBM will either buy us out (profit $$) or settle the suit (easy big $$). Either way the stock will rise and anyone who bought in when stock was low is going to make a killing.
So the question is who is selling SCO stock on Friday cause I expect that the bottom will drop out real quick.
SCO dares IBM, slashdotters up in arms... (Score:1, Insightful)
My problem with this is in recent court decisions which make me wonder about the ability of our courts to rightly throw rubbish like this out the window. Instead, I read (on slashdot even) case after case about judges who somehow, despite all logic, find in favor of the asshole party. Whether it be the RIAA, MPAA, or even SCO, I have no doubt that there is a judge somewhere just sitting and waiting to declare in SCO's favor. It is all about jurisdiction these days. And it seems like whatever is right, just no longer works out in the tech world (minus a few notable exceptions).
I will be surprised if SCO loses! I know the facts well enough to understand SCO is ethically wrong (and even pretty much technically "wrong"), but I remember the lessons of 2600 and the DMCA and all the evils of the American court system. Trademarks, patents, copyright, blah blah, it seems technicalities are a way of life in this country. Intellectual Property somehow causes even the most reasonable of judges to inexplicably render the most retarded verdicts.
The real madness of all this is that SCO very well may win its case, and then we will really be in uncharted territory as SCO goes after Linux and its users like the RIAA does P2P and college students...
Do somethin creative instead (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Stop!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe I'm just blowing wind
Re:Stop!! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not buying out SCO that would be expensive for IBM. It's setting the precedent that this is a viable exit strategy. The suits would be never ending (although this this one is starting to seem that way)
Re:I see it from both sides (Score:5, Insightful)
"You guys" are your customers. If you can't keep your customers happy, you go under. If your customers are unreasonable and you can't reach a point where they can be satisfied, there may not be a market. You can't say that it's the customer's fault if you can't sell your product - it's the business's fault for not understanding the market. RedHat chose to play it 100% open source; Caldera didn't. That was apparently a bad business choice, to which they have no one but themselves to blame.
guess what... (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO plays lousy poker.
I was right all along! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now with these extortion tactics I seem to have been proved correct all along!
Re:Wait (Score:3, Insightful)
Keeping it a secret is both inappropriate and intented to force thier acquisition via litigation, not to solve any IP issues.
Re: Stop!! (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO claims that there is Unix code in Linux, put there by IBM in violation of their agreement.
To revoke the agreement they have to prove
1. That there is code in Unix that is also in linux
2. That the code was actual Unix code, put in linux, not vice versa.
3. That the code was put in there by IBM
4. That putting it in there was a violation of the agreement
5. That this is grave enough to terminate the agreement
If you even get to 5, it is hard to prove, because the damages done to IBM probable are well in excess of the damages suffered by SCO.
So I do think SCO just made it harder on themselves.
Re: Stop!! (Score:2, Insightful)
And the temporary restraining order? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Friday the Thirteeneth! (Score:3, Insightful)
Link from the previous slashdot story regarding this.
http://news.com.com/2100-1016-1015814.html
Oh and btw, It was my understanding that the open group was the one responsible for saying what is UNIX and what isn't. Weird that SCO "thinks" they can flip a switch and instantly make something not UNIX
I always knew they were retarded.
Re:They license it to you, they don't sell it to y (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, that does not invalidate their copyright - their copyright exists even without the EULA. However, any term of the EULA that goes above normal copyright law can be simply ignored.
Irrelevant (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dear SCO (Score:2, Insightful)