Novell Claims Ownership of UNIX System V 1179
Bruce Perens writes:
"We knew that SCO's attack on Linux was a lie. But we never dreamed of the big lie behind it.
"This morning, Novell announced some of the terms of the company's 1995 agreement to sell its Unix business to SCO. The shocking news is that Novell did not sell the Unix intellectual property to SCO. Instead, they sold SCO a license to develop, sell, and sub-license Unix. The title to Unix copyrights and patents remains with Novell. To back up this assertion, Novell refers to public records at the Library of Congress Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent Office.
"In their announcement, Novell refers to recent letters from SCO asking Novell to assign the Unix copyrights to SCO. So, apparently SCO's management team knew that they did not own Unix while pursuing their sham campaign against Linux.
"Along with this revelation, Novell is reiterating its support of the Linux and Open Source developer community, and its status as a partner in that community. Novell rejects SCO's accusations of plagiarism. Novell management says they do not intend to stand in the way of the development of the Linux kernel, its companion GNU system, and other Free Software.
"It would be an understatement to say that this leaves SCO in a bad position. The company has loudly and repeatedly asserted that they were the owner of the Unix intellectual property, all of the way back to AT&T's original development of the system 30 years ago. They've lied to their stockholders, their customers and partners, the 1500 companies that they threatened, the press, and the public. Their untruthful campaign caused the loss of sales and jobs, and damaged Linux companies and developers in a myriad of ways. And now, SCO will be the lawsuit target. SCO's quarterly earnings conference call is this morning, at 9 AM MST (11 AM EST, 8 AM PST). Call 800-406-5356, toll-free, to participate. You might even get to ask a question. It should be fun to watch them try to weasel out of this one.
"Microsoft executives also have egg on their faces. The company self-servingly rushed to buy an SCO license one business day after the threat letter, bringing a senior attorney to the office on a Sunday to tell the press how much Microsoft values intellectual property. Microsoft's management could have taken the time to analyze SCO's claims, if the company had wanted this license for practical and technical reasons. Their decision to buy when they did must have been motivated by a desire to add to SCO's fear campaign. Of course they'll grab any opportunity to spread fear about Linux, but this time Microsoft bought a pig in a poke.
"SCO management, if they insist on standing in the way of a train, could still claim that software they developed in the years since 1995 is being infringed by the Open Source developers. That claim, always a dubious one, will be difficult to take seriously now that their prevarication throughout this campaign has come to light. SCO would be well advised to drop their suit against IBM in exchange for IBM's agreement not to counter-sue. But IBM might not feel that charitable toward SCO.
"In contrast to SCO, Novell's made a friend among the Free Software developers. We're always happy to see people using our software. But a real partnership between an IT vendor and our community is an equal partnership, with the company donating services and new software in exchange for the value it receives. Novell has already placed important software under Open Source licenses. Today, the company has done us a tremendous service, by stomping upon an obnoxious parasite."
Only one possible response (Score:5, Insightful)
Like everyone else I got all got all pissed off with Caldera/SCO for their petty, vindictive & malicious behaviour. But now look at 'em... the management team will never work again in corporate America, the company will be bust quicker than you can say "busted flush", and the shareholders (if there's any justice) will be left with nothing. How hilarious!
Re:SCO replies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only one possible response (Score:5, Insightful)
If only that were true. Unfortunately, private enterprise does a poor job of recognizing a loser manager when it sees one. Even if you take your company into the toilet, you've got experience and a bunch of connections to get that next job.
Re:Conference Call - Don't do it (Score:5, Insightful)
You won't today be hearing a full-out apology to the OSS community, if ever at all. They might just quietly drop the whole thing while they figure out the next best lawsuit.
Colocated Linux Servers - From $60/mo [aktiom.net]
That's right... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is SCO's responce. And that's just why everyone hates them. Becuase the "formed" specifically to sue everyone they can get their hands on and not to do business.
This is just like the guy patenting "online aucitoning" and suing eBay. Its a load of shit. The sad thing is that its a growing industry.
Computing History (Score:4, Insightful)
The plot twists and turns are making this into a very intersting story.
Re:future (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that clears it with Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
And congrats from Novell, coming late but well. I imagine it took them this long to go "What the hell is SCO talking about? Did we royally screw up? Let our bloodhou^H^H^H^Hlawyers review all the contracts we made."
Kjella
Re:SCO replies (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I thought "Contracts" were a method for doing business in good faith with people, not just something to be used for frivolous lawsuits....
And in even later news.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Going up against IBM in an IP suit means that you have nothing to lose. SCO is a rapidly sinking ship trying whatever they can to stay afloat, last I checked Novell still had something to actually lose.
Kjella
SCO Response Contradicts their own website! (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO is the owner of the UNIX Operating System Intellectual Property that dates all the way back 1969, when the UNIX System was created at Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the patents, copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX System
I.e. they're fucked.
Many kudo's to Bruce Perens for his obvious behind the scenes lobbying and to Novell for trying to pamper the community (hope they succeed, they're a cute, insignificant little friendly, furry, huggable company and deserve a profitable niche in todays market).
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
It is called "Open fire with the main armament from point blank range".
Re:Perens and Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to be a tin-foil-hat conspiracy nut to see an obvious connection there.
Re:Novell's press release (Score:3, Insightful)
So, the issue goes away. Unless SCO disputes the ownership of the copyright.
Ratboy.
Re:Perens and Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
Conspiracy theory is one thing; claims supported by factual evidence is another entirely, and this particular case falls directly under that aegis.
It just makes him, and by extension us, look rather childish.
No one can make "us" look childish, unless the looker is intrinsically biased towards foolish stereotyping and generalizations...and if so, who cares?
The evidence is circumstantial at best, and that simply isn't good enough to go around making unsupportable claims.
We're not in court. Common-sense has a place here, and motives can be divined. What possible motive do you see as a counterpoint for MS' involvement with SCO at this time?
All in all, the use of "conspiracy theories" doesn't make you look childish, but it does cast doubt on your ability as a critical thinker, at least in this case.
Doesn't change the IBM suit. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:An interview with SCO CEO here (Score:3, Insightful)
The contract between SCO and IBM must be ancient by now. It's very doubtful that any "high-end" technology in the SysV code back then hasn't long since been cloned in Linux. At any rate, according to Novell, McBride is still lying when he says it was SCO's intellectual property, though it might still have been covered by any agreement with IBM.
And IBM took the same team that had been working on a Unix code project with us and moved them over to work on Linux code. If you look at the code we believe has been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an entire section -- and in some cases, an entire program.
As has been pointed out many times before, this could be any one of a number of technologies developed by IBM for use in AIX, that would not fall under the agreement. For example, JFS.
Re:"you repeatedly asked us to transfer ownership" (Score:5, Insightful)
I know your joking, but once a company lies to the court, fakes videos in court, and has dead people sending letters to the Attorney General of Utah, can you trust them not to do anything that's illegal?
Microsoft has proven without a doubt they are one of the most immoral, corrupt, and untrustworthy companies in the world. After their trackrecord of lies and illegal acts it really couldn't be a surprise to anyone that Microsoft was behind this whole thing.
Fraud (Score:1, Insightful)
Since their letter slowed the Linux movement for many companies and individuals (at least theoretically) and forced many of us to waste valuable time explaning and defending our good decisions to our bosses, it thus caused loss of revenue. It was maliciously intended to do so, and it was known at time of writing to be a lie.
Isn't a class action lawsuit called for here?
If FUD were actionable, and precedent was set that corporations were held liable for such behavior, it might lessen the lies coming out of Redmond. Might.
But either way, it would generate huge amounts of good press to spend a few months pursuing SCO for redress. SCO's lawsuit against IBM could even succeed and not derail a class action suit against SCO which might cost them more than the IBM suit yields.
Slander? Fraud? Conspiracy? (Yet to be proven with Microsoft, but an internal memo might show up.) Are any of these actionable?
Re:Lying to their shareholders is an SEC Offense (Score:5, Insightful)
The first thing the SEC will look at is "WHO sold stock during this time?". Was this lawsuit simply a trick to get the stock price to jump up a little higher, sell and come out, or short it now, and come out?
As Rush would say, follow the money trail....
All they had was "unlimited reprint rights"? (Score:2, Insightful)
But the possibility that SCO was so brain-damaged by greed or desperation that they thought they could assert ownership over something they only licensed "reprint rights" for has me flabbergasted.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Cool. So now might be a good time to short it, since it will probably fall back to where it was before this whole thing started.
Re:An interview with SCO CEO here (Score:2, Insightful)
This would then be a contract fight over how much free reign IBM has with the code it wrote. The results would come down to "Did IBM write the code for SCO, or did it write the code for IBM and use it as a part of the SCO project?" It has interesting implications for independent contractors who write toolkits they use for all their projects.
It's all in the timing Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
This morning would be the best time to do so because SCO is already comitted to a press conference that they cannot cancel or delay.
lock, stock and two smoking barrels.
Oh, man I sooo want to source a class-action libel suit against SCO.
Re:could still be a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Migrating away from Linux would be a mistake. This is probably the most concerted, well thought out, and dangerous attack against Linux that has ever been launched. It did not succeed. The people who are adopting Linux for the first time (corporate red-hatters), will not understand the vagaries of the constant gear-changing behavior of the open source community at large. We all use particular software, often for "religious" reasons, such as my use of Mandrake because it's not a US based Linux distro. If you go down the list of why people use BSD, Debian, etc., you'll have a laundry list of geopolitical, IP law, and every other sort of activism expressed in what is installed on our PCs and servers.
I realize that it may be distasteful to some of us to support something precisely because of popularity, but if we truly care about the freedom that open source represents, then we should try to make sure that as many people as possible get a chance to try the red pill. That means sustaining the open source revolution, which is, as far as the rest of humanity is concerned, a Linux revolution.
Indeed, if the open source community retracts from Linux, and kills its gathering market momentum, we will have accomplished what the world's most best IP attorneys bankrolled by the world's most evil corporation could not achieve. How does one defeat Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt except by choosing to be unafraid?
Still (Score:4, Insightful)
It is probably of little (business) interest to them anyway.
Of course, SCO might still then have a case against IBM, but Linux would be safe.
Re:Linux is safe, even if IBM is not (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes and no. It's clear that SCO cannot persue claims against Linux users. However, it sounds as though they think they have an exclusive contract with Novell. As such, Novell can claim damages. Yes, they are sounding friendly to Linux at the moment, but I would imagine that any exclusive contract would include the requirement that Novell undertake lawsuits to protect that arrangement - so Novell may be faced with a "sue Linux users or be sued for breach of contract" deal.
Re:SCO replies (Score:4, Insightful)
It's different because SCO's agreement with Novell is a contract that can be renegotiated or terminated (non-sequitur: I wonder if Novell can use SCO's claims regarding Unix to claim breach of contract and yank those "exclusive rights"?) whereas Novell's rights under copyright are in extent until the expiration of the copyright -- that's 100 years for corporations, thanks DMCA!
When SCO is nothing but a bitter memory, Novell can contract those "exclusive rights" to IBM, Sun, Microsoft, or say "the heck with it" and release the code into the wild under an open-source license.
Jay (=
To emphasize: SCO says they *do* own copyrights (Score:5, Insightful)
I also listened in on the conference call; wanted to ask a question but didn't get a chance.
The parent poster already said this, but given the size of the post and the fact that it was being written during the call (and thus somewhat stream-of-consciousness in style), I wanted to emphasize one thing: SCO's CEO McBride stated during the call that they're confident that they do own the copyrights (which would mean Novell's claim of ownership in the press release must therefore be false, if SCO were correct).
the sincerest form of flattery... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Conference Call - Don't do it (Score:0, Insightful)
Seriously, that was the single most boring conference call I've ever had to listen to in my entire life. The usual stuff, most of it you've heard here already. What I did find interesting was the claim that Novell owns the copyright to Unix and, still, Word Perfect. We shall see, but it would be a startling new development if WP is now open sourced software. Makes me a little stiff in the pants almost. I'm glad to see that the movement is finally taking hold with backing from some major players. Finally we can cease being player haters.
Re:"you repeatedly asked us to transfer ownership" (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd suggest to you that what you just described could be ANY fortune 500 company. Put IBM where I removed the word Microsoft, and suddenly it could be a marketing campaign to get Linux into the spotlight.
Just sayin', not EVERYTHING wrong in the world is MSs fault
Re:SCO replies (Score:2, Insightful)
If memory serves, only the copyright OWNER can sue for infringement. (That's why FSF hopes to have GPL code assigned to it.) If SCO has an exclusive contract, and IBM infringed the code, then SCO has to take its case to Novell. Only Novell can sue IBM. If Novell fails to do so, then SCO has to sue Novell for its damages under the theory Novell improperly devalued an asset it sold to SCO.
This is why SCO want's the copyright. With ownership, the whole of the Linux world becomes a target. Not just IBM. With ownership, and only with ownership, do those 1500 letters have any meaning at all.
Now, that only covers the Federal case of copyright infringement. SCO can go after IBM for breaking its license contract with SCO, under the theory they redistributed code covered under that license.
Now this becomes a purely SCO v. IBM thing. If IBM broke the contract, it is totally responsible for 100% of the damages caused to SCO. Nobody else can be held financially responsible for IBM's actions.
If IBM loses and code was found redistributed, SCO may well go to Novell next. But, now, Novell has the fact that IBM made SCO whole for its damages. Novell need not pursue an issue for which SCO has already been made whole. If we assume there is an exclusive contract with SCO, anything Novell might win would pass to SCO execpt the expense of a Federal copyright litigation. I doubt Novell would be so inclined.
Bottom line, those 1500 FUD letters were totally, absolutely, bogus.
Re:And.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:TV (Score:2, Insightful)
Dont forget M$ the black hand.
show me the money, McBitch! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hints, horeshoes and hand granades are all useless in court. What wonders and marvels does he have that have yet to be expressed in any SCO product besides Caldera Linux? It's not there.
Why is it that they don't point to it explicitly? Surely it's not to protect publically publishes source code, nor can they care much about actual damages if they don't send specific cease and dissist orders. Anything they point to can be rewritten without trouble. The only reason is that it's not there.
It's not here, it's not there it's not anywhere. The whole case is some kind of weird sham for the M$ PR department.
Still want that $100 one time fee, McBitch? Yeah, that's what I thought. Why don't you go buy me a happy meal and we'll call it even.
Re:Constantly shifting FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
FWIW- A rep from Tarantella has come forward and said that they own no UNIX IP of any sort. But damned if I can find a link to it now. Help anyone?
That little bitty circle-R there seems to imply a copyright.
Well, in fairness, the circle-R is for registered trademark and needs to be included regardless of who owns that trademark. SCO has been better lately of attributing the UNIX trademark to The Open Group, but not before getting smacked for lack of attribution [lwn.net].
Re:SCO replies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just in .. new SCO claim (Score:5, Insightful)
Their problems with IBM may be a contract dispute but they've been actively claiming IP rights to all kinds of things to discourage Linux use. This may have something to do with the Monterey project and IBM pulling out of that. If so SCO may have a case if IBM used some of that work in Linux but this has nothing to do with System V work previous to that project. As such Linux wouldn't be in any bind except with respect to work provided by IBM with regards to the Monterey project. If SCO is claiming IBM violated rights with respect to Unix System V work, the IP rights of which are held by Novell, than SCO is going to get crushed like a bug.
Re:Still (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that Novell is betting their future on Linux and OSS. Novell will be releasing NetWare 7 next year (hopefully) and they have stated that you will be able to choose the Linux or NetWare kernel at installation. Novell is working on migrating away from legacy NetWare and on to Linux for their services.
So it is indeed in Novell's business interest to ensure that:
1) Linux is not encumbered with IP issues
2) The reputation of Linux is not tarnished
Novell has a lot riding on this.
Re:Novell's press release (Score:3, Insightful)
Since Novell is a Linux ally, the way that they would enforce any copyright violations, if there are any, would be to find any alleged violations, and work with Linus and others to track down how they got in, and replace the offending code if any exists. That's generally what the FSF has done many times when it turned out that someone infringed the GPL; they worked it out quietly.
Re:Partial "transcript" (not verbatim) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:AT&T (Score:4, Insightful)
Why stop there?
According to SCO's response, "SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor."
Protecting their code is understandable, but "methods and concepts" is dangerous ground. If a court interprets this the way SCO hopes they do, then the owners of Multics IP could turn around and sue SCO. This could work all the way back to the guy who first came up with the idea of binary representation for instructions and data in digital computer systems, at which point no-one can write a simple "hello world" program without violating someone's IP.
And all of this comes to us via a system that supposed to foster innovation. It's not hard to see that something is seriously messed up.
Re:Sue Linus? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, trade secrets don't have any legal protection, but you don't have to disclose anything to the public. The only way to protect a trade secret is through contracts, made with everyone that the secret code comes into contact with. If you make these contracts, then you can sue for damages if the secret is leaked (assuming you were smart enough to put that provisio in your contract).
SCO seems to want to have it both ways; they want the legal protection of a patent, and the ability to sue people associated with Linux for patent violations, but they also want to not disclose anything about their technology. In essence, they seem to want to sue Linus for something he had no control over, and no way to know that he was doing anything wrong (if there was any wrong committed; it could be that, as a poster on the LKML noted, the similarities are like having "her bosom heaved in anticipation" in two different cheesy romances; the similarity is coincidental and rather likely, given that the two OSes implement similar concepts).
Note that although they can't have patent protection on their software, SCO may still be able to sue IBM for contract violations. If IBM did indeed leak SCO's code into Linux or elsewhere, they could be liable for damages (although almost certainly not $1 billion; no sane judge or jury would award that much to a company who hasn't sold that much software over the past few years, even when it was dealing in Linux itself and thus getting the benefit of IBM's supposed evil machinations)
As an aside, does anyone else find it perversely enjoyable to refresh the Yahoo ticker constantly and realize that for every cent SCOX loses, the bastards who started this whole thing are probably out tens of thousands of dollars?
SCO Exec Threatens Linus with Lawsuit (today!) (Score:2, Insightful)
Specifically, the threat made by SCO's chief executive Darl McBride today:
McBride added that unless more companies start licensing SCO's property, he may also sue Linus Torvalds, who is credited with inventing the Linux operating system, for patent infringement.
Stunning. Simply stunning.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)