Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Caldera Operating Systems Silicon Graphics Software Unix

SGI Code Changes Not Enough, Says SCO 399

Posted by timothy from the no-mr-bond-I-expect-you-to-buy-licenses dept.
yeremein writes "According to this vnunet.com article, SCO's code changes Update: 10/04 20:51 GMT by T : (This should read "SGI's" rather than "SCO's.") removing arguably System-V-related code from SGI's Linux submissions is 'not enough.' According to Blake Stowell of SCO, 'Making minor amendments to its XFS file system doesn't cure the breach. SGI must do more as outlined [in the August letter] to cure all of their breaches.' But later on in the article, we learn what was outlined in the August letter: 'We don't believe that SGI has taken all of the steps necessary to cure all of the breaches, and in fact in our letter to them, we state "SGI's breaches of these agreements cannot be cured."' So SCO essentially told SGI, 'You're in violation of our contract and unless you remedy the violations, we'll pull your UNIX license. Oh, BTW, you can't remedy the violations.' This looks to me like the clearest example yet of how SCO is acting in bad faith." Read on below for another snippet of SCO strangeness.

An anonymous reader writes "As many are aware, SCO has sought (and got) a 4 month extension to its IBM lawsuit. According to the Salt Lake Tribune: 'SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said Tuesday that he understood the extension is being sought "for the purpose of gaining documents from IBM related to the patents they claim. . . . Some of the patents aren't even filed with the U.S. Patent Office, as far as we can learn."' I thought this was worth looking at, and quickly found that the patents in question are 4,814,746, 4,821,211, 4,953,209, and 5,805,785 - which can be found by typing in their numbers in this USPTO form."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SGI Code Changes Not Enough, Says SCO More

SGI Code Changes Not Enough, Says SCO

Comments Filter:

  • SCO's code changes? (Score:3, Informative)

    by danb35 ( 112739 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:00PM (#7133826) Homepage
    I assume that should read "SGI's code changes" at the beginning?
    • Why is SGI changing anything?
      I thought all of SCO's claims were baseless. If SGI is changing things, then that implies that they aren't?
      Why go through all of the trouble?

      • Re:hold on (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Trepalium ( 109107 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:38PM (#7134043)
        Because, like most companies (and individuals), SGI doesn't like being involved with lawsuits unless it has no other choice. They're damaging financially and publicly, even if you win. SGI is also proving that they're willing to try to remedy any "harm" that has come to SCO before going to court for it. SGI can show that they tried to fix it, but can't really be faulted if SCO is foaming at the mouth and cannot be reasoned with.

        • good friggin point (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Ender Ryan ( 79406 ) <TOKYO minus city> on Saturday October 04, 2003 @07:39PM (#7134772) Journal
          SGI can now demonstrate in court that they tried their best to remedy the situation, which is completely frivolous BTW, and have done everything in their power to correct a perfectly honest mistake, if you could even call it that, as the ONLY code SGI donated that was even possibly not theirs, was code that was already in the public domain.

          I really believe SCO is going to get squashed in court, but it's always possible that our ridiculous court system will let this shit fly.

          It's ridiculous that SCO is still allowed to continue this nonsense considering the obvious insider trading going on, etc.

        • Re:hold on (Score:3, Interesting)

          by MuParadigm ( 687680 )
          Yes. One might be tempted to call it "excessive" due diligence, but that will not hurt when it finally goes to trial, if ever.

          Which brings up the question, does SGI even *have* enough cash on hand to make them worth suing? Given SGI's reliance on government contracts, would any federal agencies be willing to file an amicus brief on SGI's behalf, supporting SGI's contentions on the basis of its mitigatory actions and the government's reliance on some SGI systems?

          Perhaps SGI's "excessive" mitigatory actions

          • Re:hold on (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Doomdark ( 136619 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @11:07PM (#7135565) Homepage Journal
            Frankly, I can't understand why SCO would pursue this into court at this point in time.

            Finding reasonable sane logic in SCO's actions is often challenging... but in this case they are probably really trying to help their IBM case. They are trying to portray wide-scale "stealing" of their "intellectual property"; no matter how contrived the example is, they are just trying to show well-known big computer companies that are supposedly feeding Linux developers with stolen goods. Knowing how little real evidence SCO has I guess they must try to bring in all cases for which they think they have anything resembling evidence... and this just shows how desperate they are.

            Thus, from their point of view SGI probably is more collateral damage, small fry, whatever you want to call it, and IBM (plus other wealthy Linux-using co's) is the main target.

      • Re:hold on (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Zocalo ( 252965 )
        I believe that SGI did actually find some code that infringed upon SCO's IP, but I'm damned if I can find the article I read that in. I suspect that this might be the same code that was briefly in Linux, but was ripped out because it wasn't good enough. I have not seen anything to support this though, so it's pure speculation based on:
        • SCO showing some Linux code that it claimed infringed its IP
        • That code being tracked back to SGI
        • That code being shown to have been removed from the kernel for being too

        • Re:hold on (Score:4, Informative)

          by B'Trey ( 111263 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @05:15PM (#7134217)
          SGI found some code that seemed likely to have come from old Unix code. The code has almost certainly been released under the BSD license, so it was extremely unlikely to have been infringing in that sense. However, there may have been an issue with the proper copyright notice being included with the code. Additionally, the functionality of the code was provided by other other, original code in a different location, and the second implementation was superior to the code in question. SGI removed the old code.
        • It was System V code that SGI did indeed add to Linux -- but it was in the public domain already, anyhow, so no harm no foul. Unless you're SCO.

          I believe the SGI letter details this, though I'd heard it independantly earier.

          • Re:hold on (Score:3, Informative)

            by MuParadigm ( 687680 )

            It actually hasn't been declared public domain, yet, but if taken to court, it probably would be. The code is part of the same code base that the judge in the BSD case said ATT probably wouldn't be able to protect. It's also been include as an example in a number of basic C programming manuals, including Kerighan & Ritchie.

            So while it's not *literally* public domain, it's unlikely that the code samples provided by SCO so far would survive a public domain challenge.

            In any event, the code was definitely
  • I only hope that they can be adequately punished by the law.

    I am certain, however, that those in charge of the company (which I will not name, as one should not name the devil) will make of with wads of cash after running their stock scam, and all anyone else will get is an end to a great deal of pain and suffering.

    I only hope that I'm wrong (it's happened before, once or twice)
    • You know what i think is fun?
      When this finally blows, everybody will act surprised. People will start making references to scandals of the past. But i am sure it will be news to the world even thought it's been discussed in Slashdot (and other places) to the point where i know more about SCO than my sister.
    • IBM, Sun, SGI, RedHat, the EFF and *ALL* Linux users need to file a class action suit against SCO.

      SCO is doing all this shit just to pump up their stock so the asshole executives can cash in and bail.

      Let's sue *THEIR* asses for a change.

      Lets see: frivoulous lawsuits, defamation of character...any lawyer wannabes want to add to the list?

      • Re:Time for a class action! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jameth ( 664111 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:20PM (#7133944)
        The problem is, it'd be a suit against SCO. The executives are gonna get off clean. SCO will just cease to be, and all the honest investors will get screwed.

        The only people who can make a class-action suit work are the investors who are getting screwed, and if they knew that, they wouldn't be getting screwed right now.

        That's why the legal system needs to change in regards to corporations.
        • SCO will just cease to be, and all the honest investors will get screwed.

          Honest investors? It may be an old-fashioned view, but doesn't investing in a company by buying shares imply that you agree with the company's aims and ethos and wish to support its business?
          • I meant, specifically, those who have been suckered by SCO's hope, as a group separate from those who are in on the stock scam and busy cashing out.
            • I meant, specifically, those who have been suckered by SCO's hope, as a group separate from those who are in on the stock scam and busy cashing out.
              Fine. Lets assume that they invested 2 years ago on some form of hope. If so, then they should have bailed by now. If investors from about 6 months ago, they would have made a killing. If investors from 3 months ago, they can still have doubled/tripled their investments. But once it was shown that this was a scam, they should have been selling. If they are, wel
    • [O]ne should not name the devil

      I've heard that, if you say "Litigious Darl" three times in a dark room in front of a mirror, a mysterious check will be drawn onto your bank account. Wooooo.....

  • SCO is holding out... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Distan ( 122159 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:02PM (#7133833)
    SCO is willing to go for broke on this one. Removing the code is really irrelevant, because they want to collect on all the "back damages" they believe they are owed.

    If SGI put SCO code into Linux, and then individuals with no connection to SGI used that code, SCO wants to be able to hold them liable for past usage, even if the code was completely expunged from the current tree.

    Rational? It doesn't matter what we think. In the end, it will come down to an old man in a black robe.

    • Re:SCO is holding out... (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Oh, you mean the Reaper when he picks up Darl McBride.

      Yeah, I am putting my bets on him too.

    • Re:SCO is holding out... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The One KEA ( 707661 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:10PM (#7133887) Journal
      I think the entire situation has reached the point of useless posturing, where no matter what the people who what the hell they're talking about, SCO will always have a glib answer that doesn't make any sense.

      Sooner or later they'll wither up and die, but not after their backers have milked it for all it's worth.

      • Re:SCO is holding out... (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        SCO will always have a glib answer

        What version are they running? maybe there is a bug!

      • I think the entire situation has reached the point of useless posturing, where no matter what the people who what the hell they're talking about, SCO will always have a glib answer that doesn't make any sense.

        What they are claiming to own glib, which they definitly didn't write, now?
    • We'll see how strong SGI is in this one, but it would be an easy shuck 'n jive to have this in place to use against IBM once THAT trial gets underway.
    • SCO is willing to go for broke on this one

      Maybe I am splitting hairs but it is not a question of willingness, since there is no other option available.

      The equity of SCO (this is different from their CAP value) is only a few millions, that will vanish in penalites imposed by the courts, notably since Redhat has no reason to settle this case.

      This means that shareholders has an option of play the roulette and get somethng albeit with low likelyhood of succes or get nothing with certainty.

      Which one woul

    • Re:SCO is holding out... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Oloryn ( 3236 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:35PM (#7134022)
      If SGI put SCO code into Linux, and then individuals with no connection to SGI used that code, SCO wants to be able to hold them liable for past usage, even if the code was completely expunged from the current tree.

      I think the key to understanding SCO's claims is that they don't go at this from a 'what do the facts warrant?' perspective. Their question is more like 'What legal theory can we claim that will result in what we want: revenues from our vaunted Unix intellectual property?'. Once that theory is set, they then go on to twisting the facts to fit their theory. Given how popular 'perception is reality' thinking seems to be among corporate execs these days, I'm not sure I'm really surprised.

    • Re:SCO is holding out... (Score:5, Informative)

      by tlk nnr ( 449342 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:56PM (#7134127) Homepage

      If SGI put SCO code into Linux, and then individuals with no connection to SGI used that code, [snip]

      You can stop now. The intersection of individuals with no connection to SGI that used ate_alloc is empty: I heard that the only systems that used the offending lines were beta hardware that was never shipped to customers. Additionally, certain parts were never working, because ate_alloc assumed 1-based numbers and other parts of the implementation used 0-based numbers...

    • Rational? It doesn't matter what we think. In the end, it will come down to an old man in a black robe.

      Actually, if it goes to trial, it will come down to a jury. SCO can and presumably will insist on a jury (Stowell suggests as much here [newsforge.com]). This may be SCO's hope. The randomness of a jury decision gives them a real chance of winning (a la OJ) in spite of the facts. It's a scary thought.

    • Re:SCO is holding out... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by zurab ( 188064 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @05:22PM (#7134251)
      What kind of a judge could possibly issue that kind of a ruling? Imagine now, if nVidia accuses ATI of violating its IP and demands all ATI customers to pay nVidia $699 within 3 months, or $1499 afterwards. Chances of this kind of ruling, even if SCO pulls out a miracle and proves something, are somewhere in between -0 and +0.
      • " What kind of a judge could possibly issue that kind of a ruling? "

        You know I have said the same thing about many past rulings. I think everybody here realizes by now that the American Justice systems is pretty much a crapshoot.

        Although I think it's totally insane it would not surprise me if some judge pulls a Kaplan and holds all linux users liable.
    • Rational? It doesn't matter what we think. In the end, it will come down to an old man in a black robe.


      With an in depth understanding of technology, the Internet and the history of Unix ... :-)

    • Re:SCO is holding out... (Score:5, Informative)

      by schon ( 31600 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @07:36PM (#7134758)
      Removing the code is really irrelevant,

      No, it really isn't.

      because they want to collect on all the "back damages" they believe they are owed.

      If SCO wishes to collect any damages at all, then they MUST (as in _ _MUST_ _!) take steps to stop the alleged infringement as soon as possible - whether they believe it "can" be stopped or not. (Legally, they have to do everything within their power to stop SGI from continuing any infringment.)

      The only way it can be irrelevant is if the code in question holds no value - which SCO is demonstrating; by not giving anyone the chance to remove any alleged infringing code, they are stating that their code is worthless, and you can't claim damages for something that's worthless.

      It doesn't matter what we think. In the end, it will come down to an old man in a black robe.

      The law (both written and case) states quite clearly that SCO must take steps to end any alleged infringement. Any "man in a black robe" can't rule any other way.

    • SCO can't collect for back damages, even if they are right on all points, because they didn't register their copyrights until they started suing everyone.

      Remember that whenever you hear them claiming that mitigation doesn't take care of past infringements. They can't demand financial damages for past infringements since their copyrights weren't registered. All they can request is mitigation, and financial damages for the period of time after their copyrights were registered.

  • nonsensical (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Camel Pilot ( 78781 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:04PM (#7133845) Homepage Journal
    Some of the patents aren't even filed with the U.S. Patent Office

    How can you have a patent without be filed with the patent office?

    • easy (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:07PM (#7133868)
      Just like you can own code you never wrote, bought or saw.

    • Re:nonsensical (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      because there are countries other than the good old USofA where these products are also in widespread use.

      Some other countries even have their *own* patent offices!

    • Re:nonsensical (Score:2, Insightful)

      by hendridm ( 302246 )

      >> Some of the patents aren't even filed with the U.S. Patent Office

      > How can you have a patent without be filed with the patent office?

      I like how you synonymized the "U.S. Patent Office" with "THE patent office".

      • um Sorry for being u.s. centric but in this case SCO is a US based company (unfortunately) and they are suing US based companies (for now) it would seem somewhat reasonable that the pertenent patents would be file with the good ole USofA patent office..

        • Except that the US has trade agreements with numerous other countries that include, among other things, promises to mutually respect each other's patents. Furthermore, prior art is not limited to 'prior art owned by US citizens.' If IBM can prove a certain technology that SCO claims to own was in use in, say, Japan, years beforehand, SCO's claim in invalid.
  • Can someone tell me if IBM has suffered in the form of sales of it's AIX product due to having the license terminated?
    • You know, I see just the opposite.

      At the company I work for, (and I've heard others doing the same), they're easing back on Linux for mission critical applications and instead buying AIX boxes.

      There is no rationality to that at all. After all, IBM is the only one who's actually been sued. Perhaps they have more faith in IBM's legal department than they do in their own.

      Slightly OT: I just had a couple of P-series boxes get back-ordered for about a month. My rep told me that the Department of Homeland

  • Yawn (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Blah blah, we need more media exposure to pump our stocks, blah blah, nothing you do will ever clean the Linux kernel of our code because we ARE UNIX, blah, blah, looking forward to federal slam me in the ass prison, blah, blah, insert mindless dribble here.

    And if you're reading this, you owe us money.

    Darling McSly

  • arbitrary idiocy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by potpie ( 706881 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:06PM (#7133860) Journal
    It seems that SCO is just trying to piss off the Open Source community. Breaches that can't be remedied? How exactly is this possible? Programs can be written hundreds of different ways. I think SCO is making up its rules as it goes along, much like a race I participated in during 5th grade. I clearly won, but my opponent then seated himself and said, "er... you have to sit down too, so I win!" That's no good.
    • It seems that SCO is just trying to piss off the Open Source community.

      Paging Captain Obvious! Paging Captain Obvious!

      Was it just today you had this epiphany?

  • Just hold in... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phorm ( 591458 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:08PM (#7133871) Journal
    I'm hoping that any of the smaller less lawyer-friendly companies suffering from SCO's claims can hold in long enough for this to blow over . It seems that nothing but time is going to get rid of SCO and their outrageous claims, which this current claim confirms.

    Basically, SCO is asserting that "you're f**ked no matter what you do", which for anyone who is thinking of at least trying to remove possible infringments is stating "why bother."

    Nothing is going to stop SCO but time. For every legitimate counter-action and counter-claim, they'll simply come up with more and more unbelievable and unreasonable rebuttals. Until SCO gets taken down in court, there's not much anyone can do about this unfortunately. The fact that SCO execs are dumping stock like hot potatoes proves that they don't believe they have a chance... but that won't stop them from maintaining their current stance of idiocy and oppressiveness.

    • Re:Just hold in... (Score:3, Informative)

      by penguin7of9 ( 697383 )
      Basically, SCO is asserting that "you're f**ked no matter what you do", which for anyone who is thinking of at least trying to remove possible infringments is stating "why bother."

      And if SCO's claims weren't so ludicrous, that would be a perfectly reasonable position for them to take. For example, if you were copy half of the Windows NT source code and shipt it as a free product, well, of course, you'd be in violation of various coyrights and you'd be "f**ked no matter what you do".
  • SCO want's SGI to remove the entire XFS system code and even that may not be enough for SCO since everthing that has even the most remote connection to UNIX is a dervztive. I have a UNIX Primer book in the bookshelf next to me so this message is probably a UNIX derivative and anyone who reads it will need to pay a licensing fee to SCO.
    • Hmmm, using this logic (which SCO appears to be using), then even if SCO did say what code was infringing, and it was removed from Linux, then that new work would be considered a derived work as well and subject to the $699 Licencing fee. Oh Joy ;-)

      SCOs business plan seems to be "If it ever so much as looked at/like Unix, then you owe us money"

  • For the lazy = No karma, thanks. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:10PM (#7133890)
    Here are the USPTO links, for ease of consumption:

    US Patent 4,814746 [uspto.gov]

    US Patent 4,821,211 [uspto.gov]

    US Patent 4,953,209 [uspto.gov]

    US Patent 5,805,785 [uspto.gov]

  • Like SCO would have made $3b in sales, HA! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by k12linux ( 627320 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:10PM (#7133891)
    I'd love to know how SCO thinks they would have had tons more sales if not for Linux. Do they actually belive that UnixWare would have been used instead on all the current Linux servers out there?

    That doesn't make sence since the vast majority of Linux systems in use don't require any of the features SCO is claiming rights to.

  • Haiku (Score:4, Funny)

    by Texas Rose on Lava L ( 712928 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:11PM (#7133899) Homepage Journal
    You're running a scam
    Any AC can see that
    Go back to Utah

  • Oh, for God's Sake ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:12PM (#7133908)
    Would someone please just break through SCO's firewall, "borrow" the System V code tree, run the comparisons, and publish them for all the world to see? Then we can quickly put this matter to rest and then move on to the inevitable next phase: "Sue the pants off SCO for integrating Linux code into UNIX while disobeying the GPL". *sigh*

  • Doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)

    by justsomebody ( 525308 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:13PM (#7133914) Journal
    As it looks it will never be enough.

    And looking at two factors:
    1. SCO is not willing to take any approach to solving problem (FSF approached them, they didn't answer), nor willing to take any solution as creditable
    2. SCO is currently making more money than it would if problem would be solved

    the only solution is to take this to court as soon as possible. Then everything will matter again. Until then just let SCO bark as it does.

  • So they just want blood or what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ricin ( 236107 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:16PM (#7133927)
    From article, citing SCO letter: "unrestricted disclosure, unauthorised transfer and disposition, and unauthorised use and copying"

    In other words, you must bleed, SGI (or at least pay up to my pinkie's desire). They seem to think they're district attorny or something. Clue to SCO: you're involved in a CIVIL case.

    Once again no actual info such as "remove this" or "do that". They don't even want to make a solid case it seems. Or they're really the deranged cult that some portray them as.

  • the real issue is material damage (Score:5, Insightful)

    by budGibson ( 18631 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:17PM (#7133934)
    According to this slashdot story [slashdot.org] appearing Thursday, the SCO code had already been put in the public domain by SCO. As such, it is hard to imagine what the material damage to SCO is. It seems hard to imagine that they could go after end-users with that.

    Now, that said, they might be able to construe a breach of contract with SGI out of it. What does SCO gain there? Well, one loss is certainly clear. They will no longer get the license revenue from SGI for IRIX. So, this might be a revenue trimming strategy.

    SCO is also pursuing this strategy with AIX. Ultimately, deligitimizing all of the commercial unixes might just push faster toward Linux adoption.
    • Personally I think SCO just killed commercial UNIXes, unlike SCO... SUN, HP, IBM, and SGI all sell boxes as well as software. Their (Commerical UNIXes) primary interest is the hardware not the software. They now see the risk envolved with SVR4, its best for them to have the software out in the open, but in a way that no one else can get competive advantage but just copying the work, HELLO GPL! Then let the hardware compete on its own merit. But SCO, don't make boxes, it only sells a quite bad UNIX, linux is
  • SCO: "All your toys are belong to SCO. Don't like it? Go cry to your mommy. Now fork over your lunch money."

    Some while later...

    SCO: "bu... bu... bu... but... why do I have to go to my room without my licensing fees? It really was my code! Mine! Mine! Mine!!!"

    So far it looks like the folks defending themselves directly against SCO (see the counter filing that SCO has violated terms of the GPL) are reading from the same playbook as the arguments a lot of folks have been making in discussions

  • The only Real Remedy... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blcamp ( 211756 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:22PM (#7133957) Homepage
    ...Is for the rest of the industry to go Class Action on these bastards.

    It's clear that these people want to destroy *nix, destroy the GPL, the Open Source community... the whole concept of Intellectual Property altogether. Not to mention (but I will) that they don't intend to stop until rob all monetary value of any software and/or services derived therefrom.

    It's war. SCO declared it, and is actively on the attack. They intend to vanquish their enemies... us. To win this war, you defeat them, crush them... DESTROY them.

    IBM, SGI and the rest of SCO's declared enemies should join forces and take these people down... and crush them so badly that noone else should ever even THINK of pulling this nonsense again.

    • Re:The only Real Remedy... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Nucleon500 ( 628631 ) <tcfelker@example.com> on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:49PM (#7134095) Homepage
      The real problem is that the legal system is simply too slow! Everyone here knows SCO will be laughed out of the courtroom, but unfortunately, that won't happen for at least a year, and in the meantime, SCO can continue to cause damage. The software marketplace moves much, much faster than the courts, so there's a window of probably two years when one can destroy an industry and get rich off their stock with no consequences.

      Is there any way IBM or RedHat can get a "STFU" order (as other countries have) in a reasonable timeframe?

      • Depends on the reply to the Red Hat case... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Svartalf ( 2997 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @05:28PM (#7134276) Homepage
        ...and whether or not the judge thinks SCO's blowin' and goin'. That weak response from SCO in regards to the initial filing probably won't float, especially with Red Hat's reply to the response. SCO's got very little rope left from which to hang itself with the Red Hat case- the only way they're going to not get a declaratory decision on them very shortly is if they come back with an actual strong response to the recent Red Hat reply.

        I don't see them doing it.

        Based on Red Hat's claims in the filing, a temporary injunction is likely to be handed down from the court since there IS controversy and they ARE obviously guilty of what Red Hat's claiming if they can't come up with conclusive proof of their public, business statements.
    • It's war. SCO declared it, and is actively on the attack. They intend to vanquish their enemies... us. To win this war, you defeat them, crush them... DESTROY them.

      +1 Fanatical.

  • It's too bad... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by k12linux ( 627320 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:26PM (#7133982)
    ...that we can't legally force SCO to release their "evidence." I'd love to see a kernel with all "violating" technologies removed. Then see 99% of the Linux servers out there switched to it even if it means something like changing file systems.

    Then I want to let SCO try to prove in court that "thier" code was required for Linux to thrive. It would also show a judge that SCO's potential customer base for UnixWare was a tad smaller than SCO likes to claim.

    This would be better than replacing the code short term. It would show that the technologies which SCO says customers would have purchased UnixWare to get were in fact virtually irrelevant.

    • No need for you or user to do that "examine code".

      IBM and SGI have both code pieces, and since IBM is having legal dispute with SCO, well, your wish will be granted during trial, and looking how big IBM is, I think they will be very exact code tree examination.
  • are belong to us. And don't try to fix it, cuz all your code will still belong to us. BWAHAHAHAHAH!

    Where's a tactical nuke when you need one?

  • It's finally coming together (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Behind every delusion there is a seemingly rational thought process. Usually reality is twisted to fit, but here goes:

    SCO owns Unix (not really, but...). Unix is worth ??? billion in sales each year. It is ours, since we own Unix. We are generous, so those who put it on disk can have a few bucks for the trouble.

    Since we own Unix, and own all derivatives of Unix, (original AT&T contract) the derivatives, such as RCU, XFS, etc are ours too.

    Some lowlifes such as IBM and SGI DARED to give away what is ou

  • What SCO Really Wants (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Royster ( 16042 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:45PM (#7134073) Homepage
    Three things really: Revenue. Royalties. Cash.

    They couldn't figure out how to make money selling Linux, so the new management sought a new strategy -- make money whenever someone else sells Linux.

    As a result, they're not interested in any outcome which dosn't give them a cut. They want to monetize Linux so that they are the toll takers.

    It's like the story of the goose that laid the Golden Egg. Any attempt by SCO to exact a toll on Linux installations will cause implementers to move to BSD. Like the Internet, Free Software will route around any attempt to collect royalties. Collecting a toll will kill Linux, but the code will live on.

    Not that SCO's legal arguments will put them in a position to collect the royalties they covet. Their legal arguments are as incompetent as they are laughable. Their derivative works ideas are contrary to copyright law as interpreted on this planet. They don't understand how they are bound by the GPL becuase they distributed Linux under it for years and made their IPO on the strength of Linux's promise. Plus, IBM's undead lawyers will be drinking their blood over patents.

  • SCO will not sue SGI (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bstadil ( 7110 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:45PM (#7134075) Homepage
    As you are probably aware the lawfirm of Boies plus whatever other name they have as partners has taken the SCO case pretty much on contingency.

    You do not go after someone with shallow pockets on a flimsy claim on a contingency basis.

    They might be rodents but they are not dumb rodents.

    Adding SGI to the IBM claim makes the issues harder for SCO as both IBM and SGI can point the other party if they need to. SCO can't just claim that One or the other did somethng they have to be specific, so it adds legal risk with pretty much zero legal upside.

  • You Know (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @04:50PM (#7134097)
    The net effect of this maybe to just invalidate any license SCO grants in the future.

    As a customer when I buy commercial software, I understand I am buying a license. If I buy a copy of office at Staples or CDW, I am buying a piece of software thats mine within the terms of the license. I have never heard of Microsoft retroactively terminating a license.

    SCO is establishing a history of terminating, irrevocable licenses. If your'e company X, you now have to think twice about enterring into any license agreement with a company that has shown such little regard about honoring agreements. If you are a current licensee and SCO has terminated your license you can certainly argue that they have established a history of frivolously and fraudulently doing so.

    The net effect of SCO's litigation, and out of courtroom antics may very well be to effectively nullify their ability to enforce their property rights in an economic manner. Now, if I were a SCO shareholder and all of a suddent SCO weren't able to enforce license agreements or Sell new SCO server licenses I might look into pursuing the board and officers of SCO for violation of fiduciary duty. But thats just me.
    • If you bought a copy of Office and warezed copies of it on the internet with your licence key microsoft are more than likely to disable your key from future updates and if they found out who you are you would be lucky to just have the licence revoked.

      In this case just because you have the right to use a bit of source code I have licenced to you does not mean you have the right to sub-licence it to someone else.... (I am ignoring here about code already in the Public domain etc).

      James

  • Can these people be arrested & imprisoned plea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by konmaskisin ( 213498 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @05:39PM (#7134322) Journal
    The antics of these corporate kingpins are getting pathetic and laughable. But they are serious. Just becasue it's not as much money as Enron doesn't mean the fraud, lies, and manipulation of the stock market aren't just as illegal.

    I hope someone is documenting (with suitable domain name: www.SCO-fraud.org) and tracking all the letters and corporate statements they are making (digital voice recording of their statements during their "road show" will be useful and revealing I am sure).

    The state of Utah (SCO HQ) and or other jurisdictions should be charging the company with public mischief and fraud: if not now then some time in the future.

  • There's GOT to be outside influence here... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by debest ( 471937 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @06:08PM (#7134431)
    Like everyone here, I don't believe that there is a case. I could care less if IBM breached a contract with SCO: it won't affect free software once the infringments (if they exist) are released to be fixed. In any decision, I cannot fathom a scenario where SCO will be allowed to "win" in their battle against Linux.

    Likewise, I also agree that the SCO execs are "pumping and dumping". Whether they will get away with it or not, time will tell.

    But I think that the main source who is pulling the strings has GOT to be Microsoft. They have figured out that throwing FUD at Linux has not, and likely will never, help. Plus their lawyers have examined the GPL and likely come to the conclusion that it is completely unassailable.

    Linux has been making steady progress and slowly taking market share from Microsoft. This comes at a time when MS has to start charging more for their products in order to grow revenues (since they have essentially no room to grow in terms of customers) and when they have virtually no new products of note ready for release in the next couple of years! This is a prime time for customers to look into Linux adoption.

    How can MS stem the tide? They can't start directly hurling the legal scare tactics (probably get even Ashcroft looking at them in disapproval for that), so they quietly get the SCO execs on board, and get them to do their dirty work for them? Anyone think this is plausable?

  • The offical Full-Of-Crap-O-Meter (Score:5, Funny)

    by jimmars83 ( 654100 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @06:13PM (#7134448)
    Results for google search:

    "linux is full of crap".......... 0 hits
    "apple is full of crap"......... 0 hits
    "microsoft is full of crap".... 9 hits
    "toilet is full of crap".......... 2 hits
    "SCO is full of crap".......... 92 hits!

    So it's official, SCO is 46 times more full of crap crap than a toilets are.

  • SCO v SGI. Winner is: Microsoft. (Score:3, Informative)

    by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Saturday October 04, 2003 @06:50PM (#7134592)
    msft isn't shoveling millions of dollars to scox for nothing. Darl needs two more profitable quarters before his 600,000 options vest.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close