SCO Group Hires Boies After All 479
pitr256 writes "So it seems the SCO Group has decided to
hire infamous Anti-Microsoft lawyer David
Boies after all. This comes upon reversal of the SCO Group statement
according to Chief Executive Darl McBride of having not engaged Mr. Boies
to take legal action against our fellow Linux vendors. Now, CNet
News is reporting that not only is SCO Group investigating the Linux vendors
but that it is also going to investigate Windows, Mac OS X, and the BSD derivatives. So if your technology can't win on price
and performance, break out the lawyers and sue everyone. Does anyone else see
this as the end of SCO (Caldera) like I do? I certainly will never use anything from them ever again."
Possible outcomes (Score:2, Interesting)
The Old Days (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't this entire SCO suing [insert vendor name here] for using the UNIX IP remind anyone of the days when AT&T was getting in Berkley's face over using the UNIX IP - then Berkley rewrote the entire BSD so there was no AT&T UNIX code in there?
I don't know about Windows or MacOS, but I don't believe Linux or Open/Free/NetBSD use any copywritten UNIX IP code in their kernels. Do they?
Which Patents? (Score:4, Interesting)
Aren't *BSDs 4.4BSD Lite-derived? (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems to me that OpenBSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD are derived from 4.4BSD Lite -- which I believe is covered by the original BSD license. It would seem to me that trying to pursue something like that legally would simply be a great waste of time and money.
That being said, it does sound a bit like SCO has given up trying to make money the honest way and brought in the land sharks...
I love the irony. (Score:0, Interesting)
Now, he's a pariah. Bad David, Bad!
I absolutely adore this. It's quite funny.
You're even hypocritical enough to say "if you can't compete, sue"! Nevermind that Sun, Netscape, and the various states' attorneys lived by the same mantra when they went after Microsoft.
This is great. I love it. I hope they tear a swath of destruction across your beloved Linux vendors. It's only fair, since you all cheered him on when he went after MS.
Where's my knife, I need to cut through the irony.
Does he ever win? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ways to Shoot Yourself in the Foot (Score:1, Interesting)
BLAM!
SCO: Damn, I missed my foot. Here, lemme try that again . .
BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
SCO: There, that's better. Now I'll never be able to walk again!
Re:The Old Days (Score:3, Interesting)
not everyone cheered attacks on Microsoft (Score:1, Interesting)
No, not everyone.
I think that the DOJ case against Microsoft was motivated mostly by envy, greed, misunderstanding, spite and grandstanding. I think it sets a horrible precedent for allowing the government to decide matters which should be left to the market. (Trivial example: like whether and to what degree a web browser should be entangled with an operating system). I am not a fan of Microsoft software, and I don't think tax dollars should be used to pay for source-secret software, but I don't think Microsoft is evil.
Microsoft has done some things I think are bad, some of which are worthy of legal remedies, but that's beside the point I'm making here, which is that there is no single "pro-Linux" viewpoint on the Microsoft persecution / prosecution in which Boies was involved.
timothy
Re:Danger of "defensive" legal costs (Score:5, Interesting)
Quote from their site: SCO Linux 4.0 powered by UnitedLinux is the next generation enterprise class Linux operating system.
So, what's to keep Linus from asserting his copyright over the term "Linux" and not allowing SCO to use it?
Re:The Old Days (Score:4, Interesting)
My prediction: all the big dogs will cross license with each other (because if you dig deep enough I'm sure SCO/Caldera is infringing on some Apple/MS/IBM/Sun patent). The only thing I worry about is Linux and *BSD since the don't have any IP to hold over SCOs head to force them to cross license (maybe IBM will bitch slap them into not persuing the free unicies)
Re:System V init (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Which Patents? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's likely just plain-old-ordinary copyright and licensing issues. It seems that the argument would go that some people are using SCO software outside of the bounds of the license agreement that they originally agreed to.
I've heard some people assert that this means that SCO is asserting that they own 'ls', for example, and that nobody can use 'ls' without a license from SCO. That's only partially correct -- nobody can use *their version* without permission. But, that doesn't prevent the GNU people from writing 'ls' by themselves in a manner that behaves exactly like the SCO S/W.
I suspect that what they're really trying to target is people who use certain SCO software outside of SCO unix and aren't paying for the right to use it.
That being said, though, you gotta worry if a big chunk of SCO's revenue comes from lawsuits and not from new technology. It's 2003, for crying out loud -- how long can you milk 30-year-old technology?
Re:I am sick of the idiots on this board. (Score:2, Interesting)
Most people don't like the idea of what you are saying. Someone made something to make money!!!OMG!
Just because you have been getting it for free does not make it yours to take. Apply that to mp3, software, or patents.
God forbid your boss walk up to you and say "you know I should not pay you for your work."
Think about all the overtime you work, do you think you should be paid for it? There ya go, someone is stealing from you and you let it happen does that make it right? Should you try to find a way to get your due money? Is that wrong?
Sorry, I don't have a problem with them doing this.
Re:Danger of "defensive" legal costs (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting point. Actually, there's copyright, and there's trademark; trademark is a right that you have to exercise in order to protect it. I wonder if Linus has ever enforced the trademark, and if he hasn't, maybe he ought to give it some thought.
Re:GPL, Linux and software patents. (Score:3, Interesting)
Another thing that got me was the article's mention of "older versions of Windows" having BSD code. If I am not mistake, isn't the current NT/XP software still running off of some BSD-based network code?
I wouldn't be too worried.. (Score:2, Interesting)
For such a hugely hyped lawyer, he manages to make swiss cheese of the most open-and-shut cases. Now if they had hired Johnny Cochran, I'd be concerned...
So, what should we be boycotting? (Score:3, Interesting)
Caldera is the owner, right? And what about it's subsidiaries? Don't they have an embedded Linux biz, Lineo or something?
What these guys are doing is way worse then Amazon, and we (well, some people, not me personally) are boycotting them.
Buy them. (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that this is an opportunity for us open-source geeks to put our money where our mouths are.
Check info first (Score:3, Interesting)
And as lame as we might think this move is, I don't think (yet) that they really intend to try to collect direct payments. I think they'll use this as leverage in future negotiations with other software companies. If it stands up in court, you can't deny that it's a nice carrot AND stick to have when dealing with partners.....and competitors.
That said, if they really DO try to collect revenue, then yes, there should be some kind of market retaliation against the company. And parts of Linux would simply have to be re-written (using different concepts) to replace the infringing IP.
Re:The Old Days (Score:4, Interesting)
The issue is *NOT* Patents. It's all about copyright and licensing. Unix dates back to 1969 (see http://www.levenez.com/unix ), and software patents only go back to 1981.
So, the question is whether any software written by SCO (or really, anything that SCO now owns the rights to, since it was mostly written by Ma Bell) is ending up in software that somebody else sells. If the answer to that is 'yes', and that somebody else didn't pay SCO for the right to use that software *AND* their use isn't considered 'fair use,' then SCO probably has a cause of action.
I think this will eventually amount to not much. They're not going to go after redhat or Linus or Stallman or.... They may go after somebody who grabbed SCO source code, recompiled it for Windows and is running their app there without paying SCO for the right to copy the code. Or somebody who did the same thing for Linux.
IANAL (yet)
Re:Danger of "defensive" legal costs (Score:4, Interesting)
Linux Journal [linuxjournal.com] Monterey, California, August 20, 1997--A long standing dispute over ownership of the Linux operating system trademark has just been resolved. As a result of litigation brought by a group of five Linux companies and individuals against William R. Della Croce, Jr. of Boston, Massachusetts, Della Croce has assigned ownership for the registered mark to Linux Torvalds, the original author of Linux, as part of the a settlement agreement.
Or here Linux Explains Linux Trademark Issues [slashdot.org]
And yes, you CAN trademark a single word - Kleenex, Xerox, Coke, Pepsi, Palmolive, Dove, Ivory, Sunlight, Jello, Zest, Lexus, Honda, Isuzu, Nissan, Datsun, Kawasaki, Suzuki, Saturn - these are all protected trademarks when used to refer to a specific product, and cannot be used to refer to other products of the same general type or nature ...
can you avoid sco? (Score:1, Interesting)
Hmmm. Let's say they are going after patent infringement and were to be successful on all fronts (M$, BSD, Linux) then the only way you can use something not "from them" is possibly Old Line Unices or maybe VM or maybe VMS or some rather Siemens offering. A small and clique-laden market.
Anybody know if SCO owns a piece of the action on any closed Unices? VM is possibly safe, I don't recall SCO ever playing with Big Blue. What about VMS... was the SCO influence at DEC restricted to just their 'nix?
Could it be "you can run but you can't hide?"
Boies was the guy (Score:2, Interesting)
He's the unsung villian who turned Al into a laughingstock. If Boies had advised a statewide recount of ALL counties even a week after the election, he would have got it, and would have turned the election. Instead, he wanted just a few handpicked counties, something no one could go along with.
Of course, Al did follow his advice. For the want of intelligent legal advice, a kingdom was lost. Just in case you go through a divorce, don't sign until you're released from the debts (credit cards you don't want to pay. Boies isn't the only stupid lawyer admitted to the bar.
Unix software patents considered harmful (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, there are patents open on *nix: the famous example is patent no. 4,135,240, the setuid patent (this link [uspto.gov] may work), filed 1973, granted 1979.
I don't know if there were any post-assignation grants of ownership to the patent, or if Lucent (nee Bell Labs) still owns it.
A press release [sco.com] from SCO states that Boies, Schiller and Flexner has been retained in an advisory capacity, which isn't unusual when a company is trying to determine an IP strategy. We often forget that lawyers are often used for things other than suing people (such as, uh, determining under what statutes one may sue, who one may sue, contracts to enforce terms over which one may sue ... I'm not helping my case here, am I?). The press release (and this story [practical-tech.com]) indicates that the UnixWare and OpenServer libraries are affected. Unfortunately, their "Intellectual Property Pedigree Chart [sco.com]" is one of the least useful displays possible, since it appears simply to be the "History of UNIX" chart with some colored lines added. Hopefully, a full clarification by SCO will be forthcoming.
Re:Possible outcomes (Score:5, Interesting)
That, my fellow
The way I see it, if Caldera sues over any of their proprietary IP that they contributed to the kernel, etc., the terms of the GPL will govern (I hope
I suspect so. Caldera's active voluntary participation in development of various parts of the system, in its entirety, would probably preclude an attempt at enforcing copyrights that have become "tainted by the GPL." Here again, any IP infringement that was a direct result of Caldera's participation would carry an implied license under whatever license covered the particular system component that contained the IP.
Now, all bets, above, are off if they are going to seek enforcement of IP governing a part of the system in which Caldera did not participate. If the contested IP is merely copyrighted by Caldera and the developers can show that they did a true "clean room" reverse-engineering job, then Caldera will get nothing but legal bills and a LOT of bad press in the community. However, if the "independently-developed" infringing IP is covered by a PATENT, there is NO protection for the developers unless they can prove Caldera/SCO contributed that IP to the project.
Either way, I don't see how Caldera can POSSIBLY gain from this exercise. Many members of the OSS community are also in "buying official" positions out in the "meat world." Anyone want to let them know that if they pee in our Post Toasties(TM), we might just be inclined to return the favor by buying our respective companies' server software, etc, from their competition?
The real story (Score:3, Interesting)
If you read O'Gara's article carefully she says that she presumed that SCO was going to go after Linux users. She only talked to one person at SCO who thought the idea was retarded. He said going after Linux users would be "suicide." After that most people would probably decide they had presumed incorrectly but O'Gara likes to go with the most damaging thing she can presume even if it's wrong.
The day after the article SCO said: "SCO has no desire to take legal action against fellow Linux vendors."
But the rumour had already spread. Stupid reporters took O'Gara's speculations and said, "It was reported that SCO was planning to sue Linux users."
Here is a factual article:
http://www.practical-tech.com/business/b01162003.
I know this Darl McBride guy (Score:5, Interesting)
I knew this guy when he "worked" for Franklin Covey (see bio here: http://www.sco.com/company/execs/dmcbride.html ). He ran the e-Planning group, trying develop things from online planners to FC's desktop planning software.
I should say, "ran into the ground." Everything he did sounded nice on the long project plans that he and other around him made, and were full of COMPLETE FREAKING BULLSHIT, every time.
Darl McBride is a total symbol of all that is wrong with the tech world, especially during the dot-bomb era.
He knows dick-all, but sounds real good and smooth to other suits.
He was really hot on WAP (if that tells you anything!) and thought that people would pay to be able to check www.franklinplanner.com (FC's online planner - seemingly now not working) via their cell phones.
Dumb!
By the way, he also bought that technology (for the online planner) from two guys who were basically Cold Fusion script kiddies for $10,000,000 ... I spent some time talking to the guys who had to rewrite all the crappy code (non-componentized, no db abstraction, etc. etc. non-optimized). Those script kiddies must have laughed all the way to the bank.
I mean, can you believe it - buying an online planner! A good coder can whip up a basic one in a week solo!
Then they spent $250,000 - a cool quarter of a mill US - turning it into a Flash planner ... so it would feel like a desktop app on the web.
Maybe not such a stupid idea, but they executed it as a total one-off, again with no componentization, etc., so that their strategy (to customize this calendar for big corporate clients) was totally impossible.
Then his big plan was an app that aggregates all your data (mail, web, documents, contacts, etc.) into one big portal-on-the-desktop application. I forget the name of the company that he did this with, but again it was a total freaking failure.
FC stock, which had been trading at about $30 in the '98, '99 years, dropped like a stone ... not just because of Darl, of course, but almost certain contributed to by his total freaking cluelessness about anything technical that could actually make (as opposed to burn) money.
The one group of people that did get rich while Darl was at FC was the lawyers ... they had an insane contract with some top firm, running at something like $15,000 monthly retainer.
For what is anyone's guess.
But this really makes sense when I see he's now running SCO. Those dolts are so far gone their exit strategy is to sue the whole world. Maybe they invented the if statement or something, too.
Rest assured: with Darl McBride at the head of SCO they won't make anything innovative, new, good, or money-making.
But I supposed the lawyers are still going to be fine.
Unbelievable ... I never expected him to turn up there.
Re:Possible outcomes (Score:4, Interesting)
I personally won't buy a thing from them, again. I'm done with them. This is wrong.
This coming from a company that not only contributed to the Linux kernel, but the same company that OPEN SOURCED SCO!!! Where's the lawsuit against them?
Fortunately, this will bankrupt them, soon. I just hope it doesn't end up killing off Linux in its wake.
<really_think="on">
How can they sit on their "moral high horse" and actually have been a vendor of Linux as an OPEN SOURCE PRODUCT?!?!?!? It's pure hypocrisy, IMHO.
I think there should be a counter-suit in the form of a class-action suit from the other vendors, plus a FUD campaign against them for this.
I hope this doesn't do more for Microsoft against The Competition(tm) of Linux and Unix than M$ could ever do. What an opportunity for M$ to sieze upon!
They're nuts, this late in the game. What, no finding of fact or cease-and-desist order?!?!? I hope their lawyer continues to be the loser in all of this....
To me, this is an outrage!
</really think>