SCO Sues IBM for Sharing Secrets with Unix and Linux 914
bstadil writes "The information is still sparse but the expected lawsuits from SCO over Unix/Linux patent infringements has been filed."
SCO is asking for a billion dollars. News.com and Forbes are also covering the story.
billion dollars? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, really. SCO should worry less about suing over linux and unix and secrets, and more about putting out a product that doesn't suck so badly.
secrets (Score:2, Interesting)
no reply button
</rant>
I would ask what kind of secrets are worth 1 billion dollars, but then I guess they wouldn't be that secret, now would they?
Best quote ever, same old from SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously tho, IBM says nothing for linux to fear but FUD itself (literally). Caldera/SCO dropped every single ball they've EVER been thrown, so much so that every thread ever started or ended here is basically a litanny of their mistakes. Sun makes UNIX, they're still alive, IBM still makes AIX, they're certainly alive, poor SCO is dead in the water so they sue.
My guess is the next thing they'll do is sell all their IP to microsoft, and microsoft will use it as a giant club against other vendors. So it's in our best interests to see them stay afloat, otherwise some other patent-abusing, money hungry group of corporate bastards with more money will have all of their "intellectual property" and will actually have the cash to use it. IBM has the cash to hold things up in court long enough to A> Have the costs of the settlement (if ever reached) be deferred by inflation and B> Have the underlying patents they're being sued for actually expire.
Plus, IBM is the former evil empire, they have no qualms whatsoever using their vast horde of defensive patents to counter sue someone into the ground.
Re:secrets (Score:3, Interesting)
Secrets or damages?
Just do some make-believe math. Estimate the base of Linux users, multiply it by the cost of SCO licenses and pow, you're done.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
my immediate question is, Ford runs linux? on what?
and second question is, isn't SCO like... Caldera?
aaaanyway; I guess linux is taking away the marked share of UNIX boxes a lot more than it's headway into the desktop (windows) arena. fighting the wrong crowd, I'd say...
maybe microsoft will file a suit that says "we want damages because linux makes our business model un-profitable."
CEO Interview (Score:2, Interesting)
Biting off more than they can chew (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, just as I post my story submission to slashdot on this, no sooner than I reload the page after submitting it when the story appears from someone else. Doh!
Seriously, though, I think I'll repeat a comment that I made in my story submission. Does anyone else think that SCO has bitten off more than they can chew? I knew that they were going to make a move, but I thought for sure they were going to pick an "easy" target, like some small Linux distributor. About as big a company as I suspected they would hit was Red Hat.
Suing IBM was a huge mistake. Or more accurately: suing IBM first was a big mistake. They should have done what other companies have, which is take on the little fish in the pond hoping some will roll over and pony up the dough, before attempting to harpoon the whale.
Not that I'm unhappy about this turn of events, mind you. IBM, which has had more experience in dealing with IP rights and patents in the little finger of one of their lawyers than SCO has in their entire company, will pound them into the dirt. The sound you are now hearing is that of the death dirge for SCO.
Takeover (Score:5, Interesting)
gpl is seriously flawed (Score:1, Interesting)
At this point the GPL kicks in and says that since distribution is encumbered, the GPL does not apply to the software and distribution must stop unless it can be arranged under other terms that IP owners agree to. You can imagine that many Linux contributors wouldn't agree to distribution except under the terms of the license they agreed to.
For use the case is also bad. The company owning the patents may insist on licensing fees from all users, or that they stop using the product.
Of course, the Linux solution would be to reimplement around the patents, but it would pose a big problem until that happened.
Note that this can happen to proprietary software as well (Microsoft is being sued by a company in similar financial shape to Caldera/SCO that they licensed software from earlier), but the lack of redistribution means that individual users and institutions are much less liable to face financial harm.
Allege! (Score:5, Interesting)
Scorched Earth Policy (Score:2, Interesting)
SCO is clearly heading south businesswise, and sees this as a last ditch effort to make some money. They will clearly fail - thanks to RMS & Co, as well as Linux & gang, there is way too much prior art in this department (and yes, I know that this isn't a discussion about patents).
But that isn't the worrying part - what is really worrying is that SCO is poisoning the well to ensure that if they cannot survive (and now it is fairly clear that they won't), then no one else will, either. And sadly, given the way the corporate world works, this part of the strategy is likely to see much more success than the part aimed at making SCO profitable.
I wonder what we can do about this? Can someone sue SCO for infringing on Linux technologies in their own work?
Oh my god (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't IBM the company that owns patents on nearly everything related to computing, and a policy of only using them defensively? Like, the one company in the IT universe with the largest patent shield? The one with the horror stories about people challenging IBM with some submarine patent infringement, and IBM shows up with stacks of pages of submarine patents owned by IBM that the litigants are violating? What were they thinking? Maybe they just assumed that if they went after any small Linux distro, IBM would still consider it a threat, and step in with the patent shield?
And then beyond the practical concerns, there's the fact no one will ever take SCO seriously again:
Caldera claims that IBM has been unlawfully sharing trade secrets regarding Unix with the free-software community, Dow Jones said. Caldera's business has been hurt by the free Linux software that IBM has been supporting, Dow Jones said, citing Darl McBride, Caldera's chief executive.
I mean.. just.. owch. Could you imagine a more PR-insensitive thing you could possibly say? Where to start with the problems with this.. I mean, besides the fact it gives the impression to the uninformed that SCO created UNIX, or something. There's the fact that SCO has just told every admin in the world who got their start using BSD or linux-- many of whom, i'm certain, are now in purchasing positions-- that SCO should be owed damages for their existence. Not to mention that from talking to people I know who managed SCO UNIX for years, cursed its existence, and yearned for their company to transition to Solaris or BSD or Redhat, it would appear that SCO/Caldera's only worthwhile product at this point was... written by the free software hackers they are maligning here. I'm not much of a troll, but just reading that paragraph makes my fingers itch to flame.
And anyway, didn't SCO release the original UNIX code under the GPL at some point after they bought it? Did I just hallucinate that?
Also, I wonder if there's some way to tell bloomberg they made a small error here: Linux is a variant of Unix and isn't copyrighted.
I love their claims (Score:5, Interesting)
- "creating Unix on Intel processors needed expertise that SCO developed but IBM lacked"
- "It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach Unix performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of Unix code"
Apparently they didn't notice that IBM owns Sequent, which has been shipping 32-processor Intel boxes since the mid-90s... (e.g. http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/s
Re:Everyone Jumping On the Bandwagon (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't get your point. (Score:1, Interesting)
Those with propeitary or BSD licenses are no more sheltered from submarined patents than GPLed people. In fact, GPLed software offers one single protection that no other license has: With the GPL, since you are banned from releasing under the GPL software which contains patents that are not licensed to all comers, if the hypothetical "evil company" you mention releases a patent-tainted piece of GPLed software, then once they pull out the patent and say "pay me for this" they are immediately banned from distributing their own piece of software further unless they move it to a different license. If they have incorporated GPLed code into the GPLed software they released, then they cannot move it to a different license.
Anyway, why bother releasing a GPLed piece of software with a secret patent encumbrance? It's so much easier to just get a submarined patent on something obvious, then sue all the propeitary software makers who make software covered by that patent. You don't have to write or create anything yourself, plus you don't have to wait for people to adopt your piece of software since there are probably people implementing your obvious patent already, plus you are suing people who maybe actually have money.
Cohones or stupidity? (Score:3, Interesting)
The best quote in the CNET story is from the suit itself which says and I quote, "It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach Unix performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of Unix code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance, and coordination by a larger developer, such as IBM," So all that hard work all the developers and Linux did for the last 10 years were for nothing.
And there you have it. SCO is dead. How can SCO sell a Linux product anymore when they themselves are saying, "Hey, we don't know how Linux could have gotten so good. It must have been from misappropoation of our trade secrets."
Who in their right mind would buy anything from these losers?
Re:secrets (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I wouldn't be too surprised if some IBM engineers did use some knowledge they gained from Unix development when working on Linux.
However, first of all I see that as inevitable as it's pretty damned hard to unlearn technics. Secondly, I take big issue with the idea that the improvements that have happened in Linux are so amazing that SCO can't imagine them being done without this contaminated knowledge.
Maybe kernel 2.6 would take longer to come out, but most of what's happening would still be happening even without IBM. They're spending more money porting their middleware than they are on making Linux as a whole better (as they should to make their shareholders happy).
Re:Everyone Jumping On the Bandwagon (Score:2, Interesting)
McDonald's was sued and paid because of their willful negligence in disregarding an order from a health and saftey inspector.
But it is so much more fun to use a fragment of fact to make the court system look insane.
Re:This should do wonders for United Linux sales.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's see what SCO is claiming before jumping to conclusions. There might be some code for the Debian people to rip out and replace.
All IP is conflict of interest (Score:4, Interesting)
conflict of interest?
I think this is the biggest problem. All too often I encounter this false faith that concepts like "intellectual property" can happily co-exist with concepts like "free as in freedom". I don't think it can, and this article touches on a fundamental reason why it can't. From the very beginning SCO, and now Sun thought they were better because they were covered in the flag of "intellectual property" and free markets. But this is a fraud, "intellectual property" is not a free market property right. It is so dishonest, and so many people fall for it, that it makes me cringe to see it.
The last time in US history where people were so disillusioned was over slavery. Why in the world couldn't people just pull their head out and see that slavery wasn't a property right? Why? The plantation masters were so well educated, and so wealthy, and such intellegent executive business men, so Why? Why did they ignore the forces of the industrial revolution that were going to force them to change? Why did they push it to the point that millions(?) ended up dead?
The fact that the forces of the industrial revolution caused all hell to break out then, and now we are suffering conflict directly related to our society moving into the information age really bothers me. How far are they going to push it this time? What will they be willing to do when push comes to shove and there's trillions at stake?
This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't read the filings yet, but it sounds as if SCO's main claim is that IBM (and perhaps others) violated their non-disclosure agreements by allowing employees who had seen the Unix source code to work on Linux. However, Linux was developed first on the Intel i386 processor family, way back in 1991, at least five years before IBM took an interest in it. Linux follows MINIX, an even earlier published-source-code system that very clearly isn't derived from Unix - its architecture was very different.
SCO claims that Linux could not have become ready for the enterprise so quickly without use of art originating in Unix. They seem to ignore the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have been educated in operating systems programming, and that very healthy communities of scientific research exist for systems design, and that most of the enterprise-ready features originated in research operating systems and only later were ported to Unix.
They claim that the Linux libraries could not have been produced without input from Unix. But these libraries are written to a printed specification called POSIX, published by the U.S. government and available to the general public. The GNU C library, and many other Linux libraries, existed long before IBM's involvement. We also had printed "man pages" for Unix available in bookstores without restrictions on implementation of the documented facilities, and shelves of published documentation on Unix in every technical bookstore.
So, I think the claims I've heard are specious, and not enforcible in court. Why, then, is SCO doing this? They want to be purchased. This is the exit strategy for their investors, Canopy Group. IBM can buy them just to shut them up. Or Microsoft can buy them to use them to FUD Linux. And Canopy Group management figures they'll play the two against each other to drive up the price. But IBM management is smart enough to poison this particular well, by bringing counter-claims against SCO.
SCO is also party to the GPL, which invalidates their patent portfolio for any of their patents that happen to have been used in a Linux system that they distributed. Under the GPL terms, if you distribute your patented practice in GPL software, you must grant a license to everyone to make use of that patent in any GPL software, for any field of use. This is why SCO's initial claim seems to be focusing on an NDA rather than patents. And of course, the fundamental patents that apply to Unix would have expired some 15 years ago.
SCO can't claim that IBM (or anyone else) was hiding the Linux development from them, since Linux source is available and is part of SCO's own Linux product. They have been distributing the source code that they claim violates their own NDA as Caldera's main product for years. So, they are going to have a very small chance of making this case work.
We in the Free Software developer community must make it clear that we will not tolerate specious intellectual property claims on our software, even if those claims are directed to a user or industrial partner rather than an individual developer. The obvious first step that would occurr to any of us would be to shun SCO - not to do business with them, not to recommend them in our jobs, etc. SCO must have known that they'd be shunned for these shenanigans, and they went ahead with them anyway. This means they're writing off their entire software and operating systems business. SCO is owned by Canopy Group, I guess those folks are writing off their other software businesses, too.
I look forward to getting a look at the court papers, and being a witness for the defense or amicus curae in these cases. I'm sure I'll be joined by a lot of you. In addition, we may have our own infringement claims to make, if the SCO filing violates the GPL terms. I doubt there will be much left of SCO at the end of this.
These folks could have been good partners. Other people in industry were, and beat Caldera and SCO in the market. Canopy Group, their venture firm, were the real managers of SCO and Caldera. Front-men like Ransom Love were not the ones making real decisions. Their business failed, and others flourished, because Canopy Group never understood how to be our partners. They've chosen to screw us one last time on the way out the door. Let's do our best to turn it back on them.
Bruce
Nuclear weapons, software patents, terrorists. (Score:3, Interesting)
1) If you're a nation, you want nuclear weapons because they act as a deterrent against other nations using nuclear weapons against you. In
other words, you acquire them so that you never have to use them.
2) If you're a terrorist, then you want nuclear weapons because you want to use them on nations, or as blackmail. You have no nation yourself, and therefore are not vulnerable to nuclear retaliation.
Similarly, the two reasons for acquiring software patents are:
1) If you're a software manufacturer. You want some broad software patents that your competitors infringe on, so that your competitors won't able to sue you for infringing on their patents. This allows you to form treaty alliances called cross-licensing agreements.
2) If you don't manufacture software. Because you are in no risk of being sued for patent infringement yourself, you can sue other software companies without fear of reprisal. Hence the invention of the "IP Holding Legal Company", whose sole purpose is to purchase overbroad software patents and sue the rest of the industry.
There's an apocryphal story about the Microsoft lawyer who contacted the IBM lawyer, notifying him that one of IBM's products infringed on a Microsoft patent. The IBM lawyer agreed to meet with the Microsoft lawyer to discuss the situation. The IBM lawyer arrived, carrying a huge stack of papers, which he dropped on the desk with a bang. The pile of papers, he told the Microsoft lawyer, were the IBM patents that Windows infringed on, and the meeting was over.
In this case, IBM, Sun, etc are the legitimate actors. They are all software manufacturers with an interest in continuing to manufacture software.
SCO, on the other hand, has just in effect announced its intent to cease manufacturing Unix software, and reinvented themselves as a legal organization. They are sure to be overwhelmed with a massive IBM patent countersuit that destroys their ability to offer Unix, so all they will have as a revenue source is their ability to sue legitimate Unix vendors.
IBM is going to drive them into the ground, and I won't feel a drop of pity for them.
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:5, Interesting)
When I created the Open Source Definition and the Debian Social Contract that it came from, one of the explicit purposes of that work was to make guidelines that kept the IP that SCO is talking about out of our systems. Red Hat and Debian have followed those guidelines. SCO seems to believe we've never thought about this stuff.
Bruce
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:2, Interesting)
Not a big shock on second thought (Score:3, Interesting)
They have very heavy ties to both UNIX (via AIX) and Linux. It wouldn't be a big shock to learn that they've moved some top engineers between the two OSs. They've also got big pockets, and a large customer base which means -- if they lose -- you can dig deep into those big pockets.
IBM is also, arguably, among the least sympathetic of the big Linux players. They have a history of being a mega-corp who (in their own time) defined the acronym FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt). Perhaps SCO is hoping that the Linux community will be less whole-hearted in jumping to the defence of the once - anything - but - open - source megalith.
If IBM loses big, the size of the settlement/charge could shell-shock smaller linux companies into looking for a cheap out.
Running against SCO, however, is the fact that Unix is ancient.. Ancient enough that patents on it's basic design technology -- if they were patentable back then -- are going to be expired by now. This means that most of the violations are likely to be copyright violations -- and most of Linux's code base is not from IBM.
Happily, IBM is far from an early booster for Linux. By the time IBM jumped on the bandwagon, Linux already had a long and happy history of exponentional growth and improvement. SCO's claim that Linux couldn't have grown that fast without stealing code is going to have to swim against that tide.
Yo prove IBM liable for copyright violation, SCO is going to have to point to specific code that IBM stole from UNIX, and show that it was IBM that installed that code in Linux and not somebody else. That's going to be a difficult feat == especially given Linux's history and idea pool (the whole world).
IBM is well versed in litigation by attrition. Much like Microsoft, they took on the DOJ in the '70s -- arguably with more success.
SCO has a formidable opponent, and the possibility of massive profits if it wins big. Needless to say, I do not wish them luck.
Re:The Lawsuit (Score:5, Interesting)
(kind of ontopic)
In addition to the groups organized to freely redistribute systems built around the Networking Release 2 tape, a company, Berkeley Software Design, Incorporated (BSDI), was formed to develop and distribute a commercially supported version of the code. (More information about BSDI can be found at http://www.bsdi.com.) Like the other groups, they started by adding the six missing files that Bill Jolitz had written for his 386/BSD release. BSDI began selling their system including both source and binaries in January 1992 for $995. They began running advertisements touting their 99% discount over the price charged for System V source plus binary systems. Interested readers were told to call 1-800-ITS-Unix.
Shortly after BSDI began their sales campaign, they received a letter from Unix System Laboratories (USL) (a mostly-owned subsidiary of AT&T spun off to develop and sell Unix). The letter demanded that they stop promoting their product as Unix and in particular that they stop using the deceptive phone number. Although the phone number was promptly dropped and the advertisements changed to explain that the product was not Unix, USL was still unhappy and filed suit to enjoin BSDI from selling their product. The suit alleged that the BSDI product contained proprietary USL code and trade secrets. USL sought to get an injunction to halt BSDI's sales until the lawsuit was resolved, claiming that they would suffer irreparable harm from the loss of their trade secrets if the BSDI distributions continued.
At the preliminary hearing for the injunction, BSDI contended that they were simply using the sources being freely distributed by the University of California plus six additional files. They were willing to discuss the content of any of the six added files, but did not believe that they should be held responsible for the files being distributed by the University of California. The judge agreed with BSDI's argument and told USL that they would have to restate their complaint based solely on the six files or he would dismiss it. Recognizing that they would have a hard time making a case from just the six files, USL decided to refile the suit against both BSDI and the University of California. As before, USL requested an injunction on the shipping of Networking Release 2 from the University and on the BSDI products.
With the impending injunction hearing just a few short weeks away, preparation began in earnest. All the members of the CSRG were deposed as were nearly everyone employed at BSDI. Briefs, counter-briefs, and counter-counter-briefs flew back and forth between the lawyers. Keith Bostic and I personally had to write several hundred pages of material that found its way into various briefs.
In December 1992, Dickinson R. Debevoise, a United States District Judge in New Jersey, heard the arguments for the injunction. Although judges usually rule on injunction requests immediately, he decided to take it under advisement. On a Friday about six weeks later, he issued a forty-page opinion in which he denied the injunction and threw out all but two of the complaints. The remaining two complaints were narrowed to recent copyrights and the possibility of the loss of trade secrets. He also suggested that the matter should be heard in a state court system before being heard in the federal court system.
The University of California took the hint and rushed into California state court the following Monday morning with a counter-suit against USL. By filing first in California, the University had established the locale of any further state court action. Constitutional law requires all state filing to be done in a single state to prevent a litigant with deep pockets from bleeding an opponent dry by filing fifty cases against them in every state. The result was that if USL wanted to take any action against the University in state courts, they would be forced to do so in California rather than in their home state of New Jersey.
The University's suit claimed that USL had failed in their obligation to provide due credit to the University for the use of BSD code in System V as required by the license that they had signed with the University. If the claim were found to be valid, the University asked that USL be forced to reprint all their documentation with the appropriate due credit added, to notify all their licensees of their oversight, and to run full-page advertisements in major publications such as The Wall Street Journal and Fortune magazine notifying the business world of their inadvertent oversight.
Soon after the filing in state court, USL was bought from AT&T by Novell. The CEO of Novell, Ray Noorda, stated publicly that he would rather compete in the marketplace than in court. By the summer of 1993, settlement talks had started. Unfortunately, the two sides had dug in so deep that the talks proceed slowly. With some further prodding by Ray Noorda on the USL side, many of the sticking points were removed and a settlement was finally reached in January 1994. The result was that three files were removed from the 18,000 that made up Networking Release 2, and a number of minor changes were made to other files. In addition, the University agreed to add USL copyrights to about 70 files, although those files continued to be freely redistributed. 4.4BSD
The newly blessed release was called 4.4BSD-Lite and was released in June 1994 under terms identical to those used for the Networking releases. Specifically, the terms allow free redistribution in source and binary form subject only to the constraint that the University copyrights remain intact and that the University receive credit when others use the code. Simultaneously, the complete system was released as 4.4BSD-Encumbered, which still required recipients to have a USL source license.
The lawsuit settlement also stipulated that USL would not sue any organization using 4.4BSD-Lite as the base for their system. So, all the BSD groups that were doing releases at that time, BSDI, NetBSD, and FreeBSD, had to restart their code base with the 4.4BSD-Lite sources into which they then merged their enhancements and improvements. While this reintegration caused a short-term delay in the development of the various BSD systems, it was a blessing in disguise since it forced all the divergent groups to resynchronize with the three years of development that had occurred at the CSRG since the release of Networking Release 2.
SCO has always blown (Score:3, Interesting)
The executive team would get up in front of the employees at quarterly meetings and talk about how Linux was not a threat and that SCO UNIX on Intel was superior. Who's SCO's daddy now?
Also, this umm, friend of mine also reported rumors of the former SCO CEO being offered more money than SCO was worth back in 1999 from SUN for the company. SCO's CEO supposedly had harsh words for Mr. McNeely.
So, then Caldera buys SCO.
Don't forget that SCO spun off Tarantella at the same time-another failing company.
Then Caldera changes name to SCO Group. Now they sue IBM.
What a bunch of losers!
I hope that I get another call from SCO's "partner" program people about developing software for their platform. It will be a lovely discussion.
I wonder if The SCO Groups head Lawyer is still the same one from SCO (pre-caldera). He was an ex-SUN lawyer.
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:billion dollars? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be happy if they'd upgrade *anything* to make it not look like it did in freakin' 1989! They have to face it: Nobody (with a brand name and a company to feed) does Unix like Linux. Even *BSD, a company (depending on which one you're talking about) makes VAST strides over SCO. Sure, SCO's got uptime and a vast application library...but it's a BEAR when it comes back up, and the apps are all vertical and expensive.
I mean....here we are in 2003, and you STILL have to make sure your host hardware is compatible with SCO. How could they let this get so bad? Now they blame everyone else.
Yet, it's still better at what it does, than Windows: it doesn't stake a claim to your grandchildren's choice of operating system....and your cash...and theirs.
I started on a "Fortune" brand Unix box, but took up SCO for about a decade...I'm tellin' ya: it sucks. The management team is to blame. They charged for the Development System (cc and friends to you and me) and they even charged to ship their 'skunkware' disk, containing a lot of public domain stuff that worked FAR better than their own stuff.
I told them that charging $1100 for their source of programs and future was insane. And "They looked at me, uncomprehendingly, like cows at a passing train..."
Nobody listens when there's still time to dodge the oncoming semi.
SCO's Microsoft Past (Score:5, Interesting)
You might say, "What? Microsoft did Unix in the 80s? No! That's insane!".
Apparently Microsoft had been working on Unix in some respect for a while, until Bill had decided it had no future (or perhaps, just not a proprietary enough one), and (or so I infer) sold it or licensed it to the Santa Cruz Operation.
This would make for much irony if SCO won their little suit, but then Microsoft bought them to try to reassert control over what Bill once thought was irrelevant, and now clearly -is- the future.
The comments in the suit about IBMs AIX and its claimed collision with the Unix patents is pretty funny, since apparently one of the miseries of doing AIX design was going before a little review board that would judge the odds of your perfectly good code intersecting known non-IBM patents, and then making you break it until it didn't - or so goes one unfortunate's tale.
All of this is, of course, hearsay, so if you were there, just tell us what really happened, yes?
Weasels (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:unlearning technics (Score:2, Interesting)
That's what I was thinking. You, as a software developer, learn to code better. Reguardless of where you honed in on your skills, or learned of better ways to write a particular function, you're going to imploy them in new software you write whether you realize it or not.
You can't "unlearn" how to do something better, and it's pretty redundant to recreate the wheel.
I'm looking forward to reading up on what exactly SCO Group is clamining that IBM has given to the Open Source community. My guess is that it's very vague and hopefully won't hold up in court.
I also hope that IBM hasn't knowingly tainted the linux kernel with SCO's so-called IP.
Actually... (Score:1, Interesting)
It's about the only way I can imagine of salvaging their stock's value.
SCO has sold worthless shit for longer than Linux has been in existance. The notion that Linux had to steal technology from them to become successful is absolutely ludicrous.
Caldera/SCO's major product (Score:5, Interesting)
Caldera/SCO is one of those companies which I have absolutely no good will towards. Sure, someone had to sue Microsoft over the antocompetitive actions against DR DOS, but Caldera didn't even really pretend that the product was a real addition to their product line. They only bought it to sue Microsoft and after they settled, they sold it to Lineo.
Then they bought SCO and became the SCO Group. BTW, this was after they were sued by their shareholders for inflating profits before Enron broke.
Since they dislike the GPL, and can't find a good way to pretend that Linux is proprietary, their business model seems to be:
1: Buy dying products
2: Sue other companies
3: Win or settle
4: Profit
5; Sell dying product line to other companies
6: Profit again
If they were ethical, I would support them.... but I can find no ethics, or any other virtues....
Lets hope this is dismissed soon..
IBM could buy SCO (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's see, SCO's revenue is ~$20million/quarter and isn't the rule something like 4x revenue, so for $80million IBM could buy SCO thus killing the lawsuit and put SCO out of it's misery (and spare the rest of us all the FUD SCO is spreading).
Re:They lowered the boom (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:3, Interesting)
___________________
IBM Pervasive Chooses Trolltech's Qt/Embedded and Qtopia for its New Embedded Linux Reference Platform
IBM's Pervasive Computing Group is using Trolltech software technology for IBM's recently announced embedded Linux reference platform. "IBM's choice of the embedded Linux/Qtopia platform is a milestone for us and for embedded Linux," says Haavard Nord, Trolltech's CEO. "It sends a powerful message to the market: This platform is so good that IBM, a Fortune 50 IT powerhouse, has made it a part of its mobile computing strategy." Look out, world
___________________
What I dont understand is how Canopy group can allow conflicts of interest like this. You have SCO suing for "Unix Ownership". I'm assuming 1 gigabuck is a sizable business decision, in that you'd ask permission of your 'owners'.
Yet QT is stuck on the other end, and dealing with IBM. I dont much in terms of economics, but wouldnt this be a major Conflict of Interest on part of Canopy Group? In other words, something IBM could have this suit just dismissed (is it under summary judgement?).
Actually some good might come off this... (Score:3, Interesting)
But of course I agree with millions of other people that SCO should be bitchslapped hard, and repeatedly until they die. I would assume that UnitedLinux doesn't want to be associated with SCO anymore, how realistic is it to kick them out?
Re:IBM could buy SCO (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:IBM -- cross-license or die (Score:1, Interesting)
OSF/1 (later Digital UNIX, later Tru64) is based on Mach and 4.3 BSD, like NeXTSTEP. Mach with BSD subsystems is not freely distributable because of restrictions on 4.3 BSD. Apple updated to 4.4 BSD code, which allowed them to make Darwin open source.
Regardless of the details, all major commercial Unix variants have been developed with source licenses from AT&T, so arguably they may contain code or techniques, although anyone who has actually had access to the source code of any of these systems will tell you that there's nothing special there.
Re:IBM -- cross-license or die (Score:1, Interesting)
In your "nice fantasy" world you neglect that some of that code was derived from the original UNIX codebase, no matter how many ringers it's been through.
My first thougth was "what idiot suit at SCO thinks they can make a case for AIX being SYSV-derived?"
IBM suits that cut a check to SCO every year.
Re:Family History (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess the SCO/Caldera boss has been using the Palantir too often in communication with Seattle.
IBM should just buy them (Score:3, Interesting)
Its the old MS Xenix based Sco Openserver that sucks which is sco's main product. Customers only buy it today to run ancient apps written for it that are no longer updated.
Sco is worth close to 16 million according to some industry analysts. Its dieing.
If sco asks for billion to save its ass then it would make sense for IBM to just buy them for 16 million and get it over with. They would save alot of money and potential hassle in the future. No more future problems with them and also not to mention sco makes some money with consulting which IBM is already king in. IBM could gain more customers in return that would more then make up the ROI for purchasing them.
Re:Everyone Jumping On the Bandwagon (Score:1, Interesting)
That's what SCO is doing instead of system support (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for SCO/Caldera. Here's the current (3/7) from their website:
http://www.sco.com/support/security/
"Security
We are aware of the CERT CA-2003-07 sendmail issue, and are currently working on fixes for our supported distributions. We will announce the fixes via our normal channels:"
So now we know where their energies have been spent lately. Hopefully when they win and own UN*X outright we can expect the same great service.
Well we've been looking for an excuse to flush UW7 anyway. I'll sign this AC as I prefer not to get sued for quoting from their copyrighted, state of the art, "target us now", security support announcement system.
Re:billion dollars? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure a psudeo-capitalist troll will spout off with "they're doing what a good business should, they're doing this for thier stock holders, we should applaud them"
Really? Destroying the last vestige of goodwill that the company has is a good move? In one fell stroke annihillating any chance that SCO will ever be respected by the Linux community, on the off chance they can successfully sue IBM for some cash?
My company dropped support for SCO last year. Their hardware support is so horrible just putting a test machine together is more of a pain in the ass than its worth. The number of sales we would theoretically get doesn't justify the development and testing resources necessary. We would sell more copies of an _OS/2_ package than we would SCO (and we dropped OS/2 support around the same time).
We will NEVER support SCO again after this little move.
(my company == one of the top 5 software publishers)
SCO, this is stupid. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:4, Interesting)
We at PCLinuxOnline [pclinuxonline.com] decided to boycott SCO as soon as we heard this news. We have a big banner proclaiming this on our front page [pclinuxonline.com], and we are trying to get other Web sites, individuals and groups to join us. This needs to be a unified, community-wide effort if it is to be noticed.
This is more about AIX than Linux... (Score:3, Interesting)
If IBM was responsible for the advances, what possible use was Caldera in the UnitedLinux camp? Their only contribution could have been IP since they had no viable distro and no marketing and, frankly, not much credibility.
If Caldera was contributing to SMP, journalling, etc. then they have a difficult case to win. If they weren't, then why were they involved with UL in the first place?
This shouldn't be difficult to show given that IBM's contributions are open source. What will be interesting is discovering how much of SCO's IP might have been directly borrowed from the GPL.
IBM fix SCO Group right & proper... (Score:2, Interesting)
An Open Letter to IBM (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't care if you "settle" with SCO or fight, but please, do this one thing:
Buy UNIX.
If you don't, someone with lots of money from Redmond will. Mr. Gates owning UNIX will end it all.
Sincerely,
Tom
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:1, Interesting)
But from what I've read, the SCO filings don't even claim any specific violation yet! They can't even point to any specific lines of code that is in violation.
Instead it seems to be they are making broad claims that their patents are somehow critical to the entire development of Linux "in the enterprise" which are, pun intended, patently absurd.
Even if there is in some way some merit to a particular claim against IBM, I should think this filing would be thrown out by the court due to the frivolous nature of its expansive claims, and the obvious intent to misuse the courts for other than their intended purpose.
Throw it out, maybe even fine them a bit, but let SCO refile if they have any claim of any ACTUAL infringement by IBM they want to bring.
The Canopy Group is not the problem. (Score:3, Interesting)
When SCO bought Caldera, they bought into the Noorda franchise. . .
Don't blame the whole Canopy group for the idiots from SCO.
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:innacuracies possibly purjury (Score:3, Interesting)
Then they move to another point.
A reader couldn't help but thinking that JFS was one of the technologies transfered from SCO to IBM. The intent to mislead is crystal clear.
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:4, Interesting)
From my experience, I can say that we were *very* *very* careful not to cross Chinese firewalls and to respect very clearly IP boundaries. We had folks working on the same technology with different customers that I was *never* allowed to talk to even in the cafeteria. We had patent reviews to make sure that we weren't stomping on other folks' patents when we shipped products. And the only time someone tried to come after us for hitting their patent we found prior art for their patent, then they wound up paying a nice hefty sum because the IBM lawyers came to attention to their products -- do you have any clue how much money IBM makes off patents? It's awesome!
Total FUD (Score:1, Interesting)
Talk about FUD, this commentary is it. It doesn't even make a pretense at understanding why SCO is suing IBM or why they might think they can/should do so..
If the writter had bothered to look at SCO's commentaries or phoned in for their teleconference he would have noticed the word AIX, AIX, AIX over and over again... Hmm...
But I guess we can all forgive omissions in minor details when its so much more fun to just slam SCO/Caldera at any chance we can get because they like to get paid for their work.
So lets all just go buy Red Hat because they don't like money...
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:2, Interesting)
Is Ray Noorda behind this? Absolutely not. I live in the same neighborhood, and see him all the time. He's a great guy, but he's no longer at the helm of Canopy or anything else. He takes life pretty slow....
Canopy, on the other hand, is very likely directly involved. They're suing Computer Associates (through Center7, one of their portfolio companies), and now IBM (through SCO). And why not? Aside from Altiris, the only money Canopy has ever made is on a lawsuit: Caldera v. Microsoft. They pulled in $260M+ in a settlement, and I expect they plan to get IBM to settle for $100-200M, and call it good. If you can't sell product, sue for revenues. Pathetic, but I suspect there's a fair amount of truth to it.
I find Bruce's comment about SCO doing this to get IBM to buy them fairly uninspired. Who would buy such damaged goods right now? Granted, the lawsuit is more about violation of trade secrets (related to Unix, and of a recent date -- not the 30-year old ATT-related issue posted here) than anything else, the PERCEPTION (as evidenced by this message board) surrounds Linux and the OSS community generally. Unix is dying, and SCO just hammered the last nail in its Linux coffin.
They're desperate. They're weak. They're foolish and every other pejorative I could throw at them. They're going down, and are mean-spirited enough to try to take a few other companies out with them.
Rest in peace, SCO. Quickly.
Re:The Lawsuit (Score:3, Interesting)
WHO IS RAY NOORDA? I'll tell you... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ray Noorda was the primary driving force behind the initial success of Novell. Novell was founded in 1979 as NDSI - Novell Data Systems, Inc.. It had a Motorola 68000 based network server box for MP/M and CP/M client machines, and sold everything as a high priced package.
In 1983, the VC forced a reincoporation as just "Novell", and forced Ray Noorda on the founders as "adult supervision" (the VC in question was Safeguard Scientifics).
Ray Noorda changed the business model, and the product line, targeting the newly created IBM PC as both server and client hardware.
Ray Noorda was almost singularly responsible for the success of Novell.
Ray Noorda personally intervened, after the purchase of USL, to get the USL/UCB lawsuit settled. I spent a lot of time talking to him and Mike DeFazio, then VP of the UNIX Systems Group, a legacy executive from AT&T who came with the USL purchase.
Ray Noorda encouraged an executive to move on, after he issued a statement that he didn't like, when that executive stated that Novell/USG was "de-emphasizing UNIX on the desktop". I asked "If not UnixWare, what _Novell_ Operating System will computer users be running on their desktops?" His answer was "None. They will run Windows.". Ray Noorda stormed from the room.
Ray Noorda was to Novell what Thomas Watson was to IBM. He was its strong leader, who forged a stunningly successful company from ashes and raw clay.
Novell was incredibly successful under Noorda. It's stock split 4 times from 1987 to 1992, reaching a high of almost $60 a share before the last split. The closest it's come to that after Noorda was almost $50, in the
The one really big mistake he made was the purchase of Word Perfect; he did it because he believed that Microsoft was the enemy, and he needed to match product lines against them.
The mistake was in letting the Word Perfect founders know how he valued companies, when they were looking for an exit strategy after the incredible mistake of trying to turn technical support into a profit center. To maximize their "valuation", which Noorda based on PPE - Profit Per Employee - they threw all people not essential to the operation of their base business overboard. All the R&D people working on pen computing, all the human factors and other people who were working on ensuring the product was competitive with Microsoft Word, all of the people who worked on the VMS and UNIX versions of the product. How do you raise PPE? Increase "P" or reduce the number of "E"'s. And that's what they did.
What about funding Caldera? Caldera was funded by Canopy, a VC group answerable to The Noorda Family Trust, *AFTER* Noorda left Novell, *AFTER* Caldera was a going concern, *AFTER* some of the Novell/USG engineers, so fed up with the NIH of the USL side of things, started a "skunk works" project using Linux, and Mike DeFazio, VP of Novell/USG, and dyed-in-the-wool USL, got it shut down because it risked cannibalizing the UnixWare market. Rather than let the idea die, they left Novell and formed Caldera, funded out of the pockets of the two founders: Brian Sparks, to my knowledge, sold 50 acres of family land to fund it. Noorda came in after that, with additional funding from the NFT's Canopy venture fund.
Ray Noorda would not have approved of the cancellation of the Linux project inside Novell (while it was in house, we jokingly called it "LinuxWare").
Ray Noorda had a philosophy which Novell pays lip service to today, but which they no longer really follow: coopetition.
Coopetition is a word coined by Noorda as a combination of "cooperation" and "competition". It was realized in Novell by having 2 or 3 groups working on solving the same problem, and then letting the one that produced the best solution "win", and taking that product to market.
Having a "LinuxWare" project compete with UnixWare, and may the best product win, was the *very essence* of coopetition. Ray Noorda would have approved of it greatly.
When Noorda left as president, remaining on the Board, Novell ran on for a time on inertia, with an "office of the president". But the three people who were chosen for this task lacked sufficient vision, and couldn't carry off the duties of that office in keeping with the same philosophy and corporate culture. They were bean counters, which isn't bad in itself, but they didn't know the heart and soul of Novell.
Blame Caldera, if you must; I don't think that's exactly fair: they started with a good vision, and they got an incredibly bad rap when they initially didn't release source code for some things that they *couldn't* release source code on, because they were licensed from third parties. Yeah, this stuck to them, but I believe it stuck unfairly. I don't believe the people I knew who started the company would do this.
Blame SCO, if you must; I don't think that's exactly fair, either: my first job out of college was developing and porting communications software to around 140 different UNIX platforms, DOS, Windows, Mac, VMS, CP/M, etc., etc., and by far, SCO was always easy to work with, both as an OS, and as a company, and as people. I've had a number of very long talks with Doug Michaels, over the years; some one-on-one, some with one or two people, like Esther Dyson, present, and I hold him in *very* high regard. I don't believe the people I know at SCO would do this.
Blame USL, if you must: personally, that's my chief suspect. But SCO also has Microsoft investment, Microsoft code in their OS, and Microsoft board members. There are plenty of real villains to go around, and plenty of pseudo-villains who are likely just fighting for their jobs and their investments of money, time, and self.
But don't blame Ray Noorda.
PS: Novell, if you are reading this, you can have your soul back any time you want; it was never sold, only pawned.
PPS: IBM, if you are reading this, realize that, unrelated to this case, your soul is sitting on the pawn shop shelf next to Novell's; you can reclaim it any time you want, too, by internalizing your customer-facing philosophy.
-- Terry
Re:This is the end of SCO, for sure. (Score:2, Interesting)
So what? Since when is the value of your product guaranteed in the market? It's almost like they're complaining that their monopoly is being threatened!
If, as SCO claims, IBM was required to "obtain confidentiality agreements from its distributors and customers, and by 3 of the Side letter to obtain the same from contractors," how would it be if everyone who ever used Linux submitted a confidentiality agreement to IBM as its "customers" of some piece of code or other? "I hereby promise never to show anyone the source code of the driver for the Widget dot matrix printer even though they can freely access it on their own anyway," or something like that. That should satisfy the terms, right?
I feel like I should be surprised that SCO's trying to pull this, but I'm not. It's kind-of sad that businesses tend to surprise me only when they do something exceptionally cool; hardly ever am I surprised when they do something bad/evil/just plain stupid.