Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Operating Systems Software Unix News Your Rights Online

USL vs BSDI Documents 178

Posted by timothy from the shades-of-christmas-past dept.
Dibyendu Majumdar writes "Dennis Ritchie has posted some court papers from the lawsuit by USL against BSDI about UNIX intellectual property. Some of the SCO claims, such as identical comments in the code, etc. also occur in the claims made by USL. Interesting read in the context of SCO vs IBM case."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

USL vs BSDI Documents More

USL vs BSDI Documents

Comments Filter:
  • You want to talk about identical comments, read below.

  • Relevant Details (Score:5, Interesting)

    by grennis ( 344262 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @08:22AM (#6399323)
    From reading this story you might get the impression this case was ongoing or perhaps recent. But actually, this case was settled over 10 years ago (February 4, 1994). BSDI agreed to substitute a port of the University of California's in a release which became known as 4.4 BSD(Lite) for BSD/386.

    Interestingly, this settlement also contained this ominous clause : "Additionally, engineers will be completing the SCO binary emulation mode and completing the port of BSDI's operating system to the SPARC architecture." (Emphasis mine)
    • Over 10 years ago? Wow! I've been asleep for more than a year? I thought it was 2003. What happened? ;)

    • Re:Relevant Details (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ddimas ( 629883 )
      I thought the most interesting part was in one of the depositions BSD argues that all of the overlapping code (filenames, headers, comments) is due to compatibility issues and following standards. Seeing as BSD won this case, SCO may have a problem. Especially since BSD code is essentially public domain (which is why OS X is based on BSD code, not Linux).
      • All computer programs contain short explanatory comments annotating the code in which they are embedded.

        HA! All programs? Right... Haven't seen any "Must get this done, this weekend!" code, aparently.
    • There is so much of this rubbish going on these days that I can't help but wonder whether any company has sued its lawyers after being driven in a particularly unfortunate direction by their legal advice.

      Sure, lawyers will always claim the defense that they merely offer advice and that the company directors bear the full responsibility for having accepted it. But that's fundamentally dishonest for a professional. It's like saying that an engineer or architect can design a bridge or a building and that it
    • BSDI agreed to substitute a port of the University of California's in a release which became known as 4.4 BSD(Lite) for BSD/386.

      Just as a side note, BSDI WAS based on 4.4BSD-Lite. As was 386BSD (which birthed both FreeBSD and NetBSD). After the settlement, BSDI, FreeBSD and NetBSD all restarted development using 4.4BSD-Lite2 per the agreement. For FreeBSD this was the dividing line between the 1.X and 2.X series.

      With the advent of the release of 32V, people could once again distribute FreeBSD 1.X (why

  • Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by digitaltraveller ( 167469 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @08:23AM (#6399334) Homepage
    It must be a slow news day because I submitted this story 2 months ago and it was rejected. So I wrote a comment about it here [slashdot.org].
    The most interesting thing recently in this case is the Daryl McBride approaching CELF consortium, who haven't even distributed any code yet. I wonder how long this pr blitz will last until Microsoft is required to license another ancient unix patent.
    • Wish I had mod points... ouch! by the time I hit Reply, your post seems to have gone fown a notch! Looks like /. has some sort of arrangement with SCO, to promote FUD around here.

      Your earlier post, linked above, is 2 months old (??) Very curious indeed.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      So if it turns out the SCO lifted Linux code and included it into their version of Unix, what impact does that have on the Microsoft license? Wouldn't it be possible that SCO sold GPLed Linux code to Microsoft?

  • And The Interesting Part? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @08:25AM (#6399342)
    I feel the SCO vs IBM suit will end up the same as the AT&T vs BSD one: Duplicate code will be found, IBM will pay no damages but the duplicate code will be removed and everyone will move on. Assuming SCO's evidence is true, this will more than likely be the case since the UNIX concepts are widely known and no truly secret IP was "stolen".

    The major downside is if IBM found guilty Linux could to the way of *BSD: Small scale adoption with a large hobbyist following.

    Only time will tell.
    • I don't think this time the consequences would be so important because, as far as I know, the pieces of code SCO claims to own, are located in parts of the Linux Kernel that almost nobody uses, like JFS and NUMA.
    • I realise that American law is very weird but I have not seen any reason to believe that IF the code was copied, that it was IBM that copied it. It is equally reasonable to assume that it was SCO that copied it while they were actively supporting Linux. Maybe the code was taken from Linux and incorporated into SCO Unix... who knows?

      It is ridiculous to assume that without any evidence other than that there is duplicate code, it should be concluded that IBM copied it. Then again it is an American court..
    • The outcome of the SCO vs. IBM case will have little to no bearing on the adoption of linux. SCO is just trying to bully IBM into buying them out. Even if IBM loses, and loses big, the rest of us won't notice. If anything, this could even further linux development, in the off chance that IBM is forced to stop distributing AIX if they are found in violation of their license agreement with SCO.

      • Re:And The Interesting Part? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @09:20AM (#6399640) Homepage

        >Even if IBM loses, and loses big, the rest of us won't notice

        You're joking right? If SCO wins this by bamboozling a court with smoke and mirrors, they'll emerge rampant and engorged with IBM cash. Want to bet that they won't go after Red Hat and SuSE next? How about anyone manufacturing an embedded linux product? How about cease-and-desisting all sites hosting linux distros, and suing a few just to make the point? Once the big guys are gone and the precedents have been set, they can switch from throwing teams of lawyers against one target to throwing groups of victims to each lawyer they have. And they have a lot of lawyers.

        In fact, as far as I can determine SCO is a firm of lawyers. Suing people is what they do. It's all that they do. If IBM can't crush them, god help the rest of us.

        • SCO is alleging that IBM put AIX code into their linux products. They've already backed down from the claim that that code made it into the mainstream kernel. If they're raising it again they'll get nowhere. As far as I know, Red Hat and SuSE do not have contracts with SCO, so SCO doesn't have a leg to stand on. I'm not worried. You shouldn't be either, though SCO wants you to be (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). This case is nothing compared to the MS antitrust case, and we all know how much that chang

          • Oh, I agree that SCO doesn't have a case against any linux distributor, but that doesn't mean that they won't sue them. Given that they have no other source of income, their alternative is to meekly admit defeat, or (even more unlikely) actually do some real work.

            Consider, for example, what would happen if they went for Mandrake. Could Mandrake afford to fight them? I doubt it, they're living hand to mouth. They can either fight it and go into Chapter 11, pay extortionate terms and... go into Chapter

            • Consider, for example, what would happen if they went for Mandrake. Could Mandrake afford to fight them? I doubt it, they're living hand to mouth. They can either fight it and go into Chapter 11, pay extortionate terms and... go into Chapter 11, or... cut a deal in which they don't contest, in return for an agreement from SCO to ask for token damages.

              Then SCO goes after SuSE and Red Hat, waving their precedent.

              Uh...what precedent? Your scenario is that SCO settles with Mandrake, and there is no

              • >Your scenario is that SCO settles with Mandrake

                Not as such. My scenario is that they offer no contest in court, and summary judgement but token damages go in favour of SCO. It's not the same as a contested verdict, but it's meatier than an out of court settlement.

                What surprises me is why SCO didn't do this before going after IBM. They're either a lot smarter than us, or they are really, really dumb. I'm hoping it's the latter.

                • Because they would get counterslapped with a criminal copyright infringement case from every Linux distributor with code in the kernel. If SCO tries to claim that they have code in the Linux kernel that they themselves have distributed that is not under the GPL then they have been distributing the rest of the Linux code without permission (and are still doing so).

                  They cant go after anyone but IBM for anything or they would admit to criminal copyright violation by that very action.

            • Let's hope IBM mashes them into paste, and gets awarded their houses and first born sons in settlement.

              Houses maybe, but I heard that McBride and Sontag eat their offspring.

        • Re:And The Interesting Part? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by El ( 94934 )
          Relax. IBM strung along to DoJ for twelve years... how long do you think they can keep SCO in court? In fact, keeping the trial going while doing everything possible to increase SCO's burn rate until they go bankrupt may be IBM's strategy.
        • Want to bet that they won't go after Red Hat and SuSE next?
          I'll take the bet. If they are as you say (just money hungry lawyers, which they are), then they will only go after a company if it is profitable. SuSE is in another country where the laws are very different and difficult. It will be next to impossible for SCO/Caldera to persue them and very expensive. Same for any company outside the USA, such as Mandrake. Redhat can simply move their base to Canada or some other country. Issue resolved. The cost

  • So like some folks are saying... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AltGrendel ( 175092 ) <(su.0tixe) (ta) (todhsals-ga)> on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @08:26AM (#6399352) Homepage
    ...this has happened before and it will happen again. They (BSDI, SCO, et al) are thinking "free as in beer", I would guess, and are trying to grab the keg so they can charge everyone a Euro a glass.
  • I see very little sense in imagining all sorts of things and reading thru all sorts of notes, briefs and voluminous snippets. Isn't it SCO's job to do this, and tell the court (in the matter of their IBM case), the 1,500 corporates (to whom they sent the infamous letters) or the Linux crowd (whom they point fingers at without sufficient prrof or data)?

    Why should /.ers pore into these details every day? It almost appears as if we are doing all the legwork for SCO. Let SCO do all the imagining, when they say

    • It's ./ remember???? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by botzi ( 673768 )
      Why should /.ers pore into these details every day? It almost appears as if we are doing all the legwork for SCO. Let SCO do all the imagining, when they say something - then, let's debate it over here.

      You should not. Nobody is forcing you. However, don't you think that someone may actually find those interesting??????

  • Ummm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @08:27AM (#6399354)
    IANAL, but is USL SOL if SCO says BFD about IBM's IP?

    • Re:Ummm... (Score:3, Funny)

      by DrWhizBang ( 5333 )
      WTF?!

    • Re:Ummm... (Score:3, Funny)

      by Asprin ( 545477 )

      OMG!!! ROTFL!!! ICHBTYMBSCOCG! YPWSO, IMMLMTILDTJLCD! (*)






      (*) TRANSLATION FOR THE ACRONYM-IMPAIRED:

      Oh my gosh!!!
      Rolling On The Floor Laughing!!!
      I Can't Help But Think You Must Be Some Kind Of Comic Genius!
      Your Post Was So Outrageous, ..... I Must.... I....


      I can't remember the rest... this is stupid. Sorry.

  • ...have been on Ritchie's site for a L O N G time. You just notice now? What kind of UN*X hacker are you!?!

  • SCO sues USL for copying the suit file (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kosi ( 589267 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @08:35AM (#6399389)
    In this mad world, I'd not wonder much if SCO sues USL for using the same claims in their suit ...

  • Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The Mighty Git ( 27891 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @08:37AM (#6399403)
    "Moreover, the nonfunctional elements of the code, such as comments, cannot be trade secrets because these elements are minimal and confer no competitive advantage on Defendants"
    I realise that SCO is using the presence of identical comments as an indicator of copying rather than suing over the comments themselves, but it may mean that the comments cannot count towards the amount of code aparrently 'stolen'. But then this only matters if it comes down to a quantitative arguement (ie, 3% similarity is ok, but 5% means you're a thief).

    • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by schon ( 31600 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @09:07AM (#6399561)
      OK, so here's why I think there's so much concern (especially from SCO) over code comments..

      <mode type="conspiracy theory">

      One of the main points is who had the alleged infringing code first? Linux is publically auditable, but there is no such guarantee from SCO, as everything is closed-source.

      It's known that SCO employees (and management) read /. - and it's been posted several times that the way to check if SCO is lying is to take a snapshot of one of their releases, compile the code, and see if it matches the binary they distributed. (Of course, you'd have to make sure that they're using the exact same compiler and options, etc..)

      So, what's the best way around that? The comments! SCO can take two sections of code that perform similar functions, copy and paste the comments from Linux, and viola! instant "evidence" that can be presented to "prove" that the code in Linux is stolen, which can be compiled to produce the same binary that SCO released in the past.
      </mode>

      This would go a long way to explain why SCO is acting the way it is - NDA's to view publically available material, showing the alleged code primarily to non-coders, etc..

      It's something to think about.
      • pssssstttt... comments don't get compiled into the bytecode.

      • Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by coyote-san ( 38515 )
        But using the same argument, the Linux source tree is well documented and somebody could trace the evolution of these comments over time.

        What are the odds that hundreds of comments have slowly changed to become exact matches of the SCO code? Astronomical doesn't begin to describe it.

        If the comments are unchanged since their initial appearance, then we can't say anything either way. But unless these are the type of comments where coincidence is expected, e.g., quoting pertinent RFC sections when impleme

      • Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ebh ( 116526 ) * <ed.horch@org> on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @11:59AM (#6400748) Journal
        Linux is publically auditable, but there is no such guarantee from SCO, as everything is closed-source.

        The AIX and UW code bases don't have to be publicly auditable in order to be conclusively audited.

        IANAL, but if I were (for either side), I'd demand that the source repositories for both AIX and UnixWare be made available for examination during discovery. Were I representing IBM, I'd subpoena (or whatever you do during discovery) the UW repositories and demand that each block of allegedly copied code be traced back to its earliest check-in in any of the AIX, UW or Linux source repositories.

        Were I representing SCO, I'd subpoena the AIX source repository and proactively do the same thing, and if the vast majority of tracing didn't conclusively show the direct line of code transfer starting with UW, through AIX, thence to Linux, never getting out from under SCO's contract with IBM, I'd advise my client to drop the case and STFU.

        • I'd demand that the source repositories for both AIX and UnixWare be made available for examination during discovery.

          The thing is, this has nothing to do with AIX..

          The claims that SCO has against IBM have nothing to do with stolen code - they have to do with (nebulous) "IP" infringement.. (Read the lawsuit docs - they're not making any claims that IBM put the alleged infringing code in Linux, they're claiming that IBM used SCO's "IP" to make Linux better.)

          If the IBM lawsuit was about simple cut-and-dri
          • One of the initial claims by SCO is that there is no way that certain features could have legitimately been added to Linux--the OSS community simply didn't have the capability to develop them or the resources to test them. After they were reminded of OSDL and various corporate support, they changed their tack and started in with the claims about all the code in Linux that matches code in UnixWare, and the implicit claim that IBM had something to do with the UW code getting into Linux.

            A timeline could eith

      • It's a very interesting idea but it is unlikely to work if they tried to.

        Why? Because many companies licensed SysV from Sco to base their Unix on it, including IBM, so even if SCO doctored their source code IBM could say "wait a minute, this isn't the comments accompanying the code AT&T licensed us way back in the 80's" and then SCO is in deep shit for fraud.

        However, I thought that something like that may happen anyway if SCO get their way. When SCO supposedly yanked IBM's Unix license for AIX they as

  • Current SCO stocks (Score:2, Interesting)

    by harryk ( 17509 )
    has anyone been paying attention to the SCOX stock, and watched how it has been climbing. Does anyone else think that this all might just be a setup for the years to come.

    Think about it like this, its a win/win situation for SCO.

    a. If they win, they're set for some serious time to come, they can claim all kinds of proprietary rights and live off licensing - or be bought out by a larger corporation, ala IBM.

    -or-

    b. If they lose, (personal feeling) IBM will pick up the license from SCO and they'll be boug

  • From the ruling - Interesting parrellels (Score:5, Interesting)

    by beacher ( 82033 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @08:41AM (#6399416) Homepage
    I think we can expect to see more of this -

    Indeed, ignoring header files and comments (see below), the overlap in the critical "kernel" region is but 56 lines out of 230,9995, and the overlap elsewhere is 130 lines out of 1.3 million. However, as both sides argue (but to different effect), the nature of the overlap is more significant than its size.

    Comments have no role whatsoever in software performance. In summary, Professor Carson has examined the traits shared by Net2, BSD/386, and 32V, and detected a common lineage. Defendants argue that virtually all of these traits reflect publicly available code, copied comments, or overlap dictated by compatibility with industry standards. Professor Carson disagrees, and has allegedly identified at least some overlapping files that are irrelevant to program interfacing. (Carson Reply Aff. at 6(d), 8-15.)

    Plaintiff points to several different activities by the University of California that give this court specific jurisdiction over the Regents' alleged misdeeds. The first of these activities was the negotiation and execution of licensing agreements between Plaintiff and the University: "the University `reached out beyond' California and knowingly contracted to obtain and use . . . software developed in New Jersey"

    Second, Plaintiff argues that "unlawful act" jurisdiction is proper because Defendants have misappropriated trade secrets and infringed Plaintiff's copyright by licensing Net2 to UUNET. This act inevitably and foreseeably led to the downloading of Net2 by tens of thousands of users, whose use of Net2 foreseeably eroded the value of Plaintiff's trade secrets.

    Reading on.....

    -b

    • My favorite line from the ruling (Score:4, Interesting)

      by isn't my name ( 514234 ) <slash.threenorth@com> on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @09:09AM (#6399577)
      is the following. Very prescient.

      There is an enormous difference between an expert programmer sitting down with a pile of textbooks and disjointed segments of code to write out an operating system from scratch, and that same programmer downloading the operating system intact from a public network.
      • >"USL's current version of UNIX, SVR4, melds the most popular variations of Unix into a single operating system "that meets the needs described by various standards committees and vendor organizations." [snip] As aresult, approximately 50% of USL's current SVR4 is comprised of BSD code."

        I love this part (from the "AMICUS BRIEF BY DEFENDANT THE REGENTS")... 50% of it was BSD!

  • SCO owns C++ (Score:5, Interesting)

    by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @08:42AM (#6399421)
    Originally got this from yahoo message board:

    http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/m ai n/0,14179,2877578,00.html

    We get several dozen requests a month just to come in and see AIX
    or HP-UX code base. And C++ programming languages, we own those,
    have licensed them out multiple times, obviously. We have a lot of
    royalties coming to us from C++. It was interesting to see the
    depth of Caldera's intellectual capital.

    http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-02 _S tory03.html#C++_Issues

    C++ Issues

    MozillaQuest Magazine: C++ appears to be one of the properties
    that SCO acquired through Novell's acquisition of AT&T's UNIX
    Systems Laboratories and subsequent purchase of Novell's UNIX
    interests by SCO. At this time most Linux and/or GNU/Linux
    distributions include C++ compilers and editors. Is this
    something for which SCO currently charges? If so, just what
    are the current arrangements? If not, will C++ licensing and
    enforcement be added to SCO's licensing and enforcement program?

    Blake Stowell: C++ is one of the properties that SCO owns today
    and we frequently are approached by customers who wish to license
    C++ from us and we do charge for that. Those arrangements are
    done on a case-by-case basis with each customer and are not
    disclosed publicly. C++ licensing is currently part of SCO's
    SCOsource licensing program.

    MozillaQuest Magazine: How about GNU C++? Does GNU C++ use
    SCO IP? If so, could SCO license and/or charge for use of its
    IP in GNU C++?

    Blake Stowell: I honestly don't know.

    MozillaQuest Magazine: Does the C++ that currently is included
    in most if not all Linux distributions contain SCO IP?

    (a) If so, is that being done with or without SCO
    permissions/licensing?

    (b) If so, what impact/affect does this have on the ability
    of people to freely distribute and use copies of those
    Linux distributions? (Under GNU licensing, anyone may
    make as many copies of a GNU/Linux distribution as they
    please, freely distribute them for no charge and/or for
    a charge, and use a GNU/Linux on as many computes as they
    please -- at no charge. Etc.)

    Blake Stowell: Again, I don't know. That's something we would
    have to research.

    ``Be afraid. Be very afraid.''

    regards,
    alexander.

    P.S. Does anyone here know whether Microsoft was smart enough to include
    C++ (in addition to a rather mysterious "applications interface layer")
    in their recent license agreement with SCO ?

    http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt10557846 22 054/0616_marshall.html
    (SCO Owns Your Computer: "All Your Base Are Belong To Us", ...)

    --
    http://www.planettribes.com/allyourbase/AYB2 .swf

    • Re:SCO owns C++ (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Surak ( 18578 ) * <surak&mailblocks,com> on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @08:55AM (#6399478) Homepage Journal
      MozillaQuest Magazine: How about GNU C++? Does GNU C++ use
      SCO IP? If so, could SCO license and/or charge for use of its
      IP in GNU C++?

      Blake Stowell: I honestly don't know.

      MozillaQuest Magazine: Does the C++ that currently is included
      in most if not all Linux distributions contain SCO IP?

      Ummm...this guy's a droid.

      First off, MozillaZine basically asked the same question twice, and he didn't blink an eye. "The C++ that currently is included in most, if not all Linux distributions" == "GNU C++". Same question.

      And attacking GNU C++ would change the whole ballgame. FSF would now have a definite stake, and would probably have to countersue SCO.

      • Re:SCO owns C++ (Score:3, Informative)

        by Drathos ( 1092 )
        Um.. Read the post again. It's not a MozillaZine interview, it's a MozillaQuest "interview". MozillaQuest has a long history of BS, so take everything you read there with a gigantic grain of salt.. Why hasn't SCO's claim to C++ been reported elsewhere since March 4 when this was posted?

        Personally, I think that a claim to C++ would have a much wider impact than a claim to SCO code being put into Linux, were it true. Most UNIX/Linux code is still written in C, but the primary language in the Windows wor

    • Re:SCO owns C++ (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @09:03AM (#6399529)
      Bzzt, sorry. C++ is an ANSI standard, and ANSI have some pretty tough rules regarding standards submissions. SCO might "own" C++, but they don't own the C++ ANSI standard.

    • Re:SCO owns C++ (Score:4, Insightful)

      by norwoodites ( 226775 ) <pinskia@ g m a il.com> on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @09:12AM (#6399604) Journal
      Since C++ is standardized by the ISO and ANSI, I do not think any one owns them (the same thing with POSIX and the UNIX standard, hehe haha).

    • They might own Cfront (Score:5, Informative)

      by reynaert ( 264437 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @09:38AM (#6399754)

      He's probably talking about Cfront [wikipedia.org]. Never expect a suit to know the difference between a standard and an implementation :)

      Cfront was the first C++ implementation. It worked by translating C++ code to C (in fact, it started out as a simple preprocessor), and as a result it has all kinds of problems with fancier C++ constructs, such as exceptions, STL, and inline functions. According to Mozilla's portability guidelines [mozilla.org], the SCO and HP C++ compilers are still based on it.

    • If you go to the comments bit of the original ZDNet article (from August '02), you get lots of people saying how "sound" Caldera/SCO is.

      Viz:

      http://forums.zdnet.com/group/zd.Tech.Update/it / it updatetb.tpt/@thread@8089@forward@1@D-,D@ALL/@arti cle@8089?EXP=ALL&VWM=hr&ROS=1&

      http://forums.zdnet.com/group/zd.Tech.Update/it/ it updatetb.tpt/@thread@8256@forward@1@D-,D@ALL/@arti cle@8256?EXP=ALL&VWM=hr&ROS=1

      You also get Darl McBride saying that United Linux is sometimes the best solution

  • SCO Investors like rats leaving sinking ship (Score:5, Interesting)

    by isn't my name ( 514234 ) <slash.threenorth@com> on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @09:06AM (#6399558)
    According to the S-3 filing at SEC [sec.gov]

    Major investors are going to sell 305,274 shares of Common Stock. Some of them are obvious VC firms dumping all of their shares. (Besides Canopy, the largest single holding listed to be sold are two different firms selling 36,266 shares, which amounts to all of their holdings.)

    The Canopy Group itself will be unloading 174,340 of 5,492,834 shares.

    There are 13,334,886 total shares of common stock outstanding.
    • The stock has gone from $0.60/share to $12/share... I'd sure as hell be selling too, if I owned shares!

  • SCO own everything? (Score:3, Informative)

    by hobsonchoice ( 680456 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @10:08AM (#6399921)
    I think, maybe SCO don't care what happened with BSD.

    Perhaps I am totally misunderstanding their comments but I get the impression SCO seems to think they own C++ programming languages [yahoo.com] anyway.

    As to this case, SCO now allege that IBM's support for Linux is killing Unix, but not too long ago, SCO discussed Unix's feature in their SEC filings [weblogs.com].

    Meanwhile, definitely worth checking out, there's a new S-3 filing by SCO [sec.gov]

  • Some interesting parts (Score:4, Insightful)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @10:14AM (#6399966)
    Here are the parts that I found interesting:

    On USL's preliminary motion to stop distribution of BSDI on the basis of copyright infringement:
    Consequently, I find that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its copyright in 32V. Plaintiff's claims of copyright violations are not a basis for injunctive relief.

    The judge ruled that since many copies of 32V source code (books, manuals, etc) existed before USL applied for copyright on that code, it cannot bar BSDI from distributing Net2 because USL failed to protect its copyright. This kind of parallels SCO claims in that some of the code that has been revealed are trivial school book type code [linuxjournal.com] that most of the programming world alreay knows about.

    On USL's preliminary motion to bar BSDI distribution based on trade secret misappropriation:
    Since Plaintiff has failed to provide enough evidence to establish a "reasonable probability" that Net2 or BSD/386 contain trade secrets, I find that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim for misappropriation of trade secrets. No preliminary injunction will issue.

    The judge ruled that USL's previous work with BSDI and third parties negates trade secret since all work done is in the public domain. Since UNIX development occured in an open manner with research papers, books, and technical manuals publishing methodology, source code, and programming techniques of UNIX (some of which was published by USL and its predecessors), USL cannot claim trade secrets misappropriation and cannot have Net2 barred from distribution.

    SCO's release of Linux mirrors this. If SCO released the source code of Linux with their distributions, they cannot claim copyright infringement because they have essentially made the code open source. Some attorneys may claim that since SCO didn't know that the code was stolen from them, this doesn't negate their copyright. However, it is the responsibility of the publisher (SCO) to review any code before releasing it. Even if it was stolen, they still released it.

    After the ruling, it was basically over for USL. I don't know when SCO will drag it out. Hopefully IBM will countersue them into oblivion.

    • The whole ruling takes SCO's case, stuffs it into a pine box, nails the lid shut, and pushed it off a tall bridge.

      The reason they were able to buy up all those Intellectual Properties from USL was because USL knew they were worthless. It's like having Mediteranian avenue without Baltic.

      Up until now the Pirates of Caldara have been picking on large corrupt organizations. They bought DR-DOS and sued Microsoft. This is a bit different. They are trying to basically retry a court case thay was already lost.

  • A different precedent from 1994? (Score:3, Informative)

    by blyon3 ( 631129 ) on Wednesday July 09, 2003 @11:41AM (#6400646)
    In November, 1994 I was a plaintiff's expert witness in the
    case of Automated Securities Clearance(ASC) vs. Securities Application
    Applications (SAI), Inc. We (ASC) contended that SAI had misappropriated
    trade secrets by taking source code of the popular BRASS Nasdaq trading
    system and developing a competing product.

    By examining the source code of the 2 systems, I was able to find
    a very small amount (several hundred lines out of about 500,000) of
    identical code, some with identical comments, formatting, etc.
    However, in our case, we successfully argued that this small amount wasn't
    the extent of the damage, rather it was the dna fingerprint that
    proved that the original BRASS code was used as a "reference" for
    the competing product -- and that the extent of the misappropriation
    was well beyond the actual duplicate lines shown as evidence (especially
    since the identical lines were at a low-level infrastructure layer
    which we argued was necessary for anything else to work...)

    The judge agreed -- imposing an injunction on SAI, and as punitive
    damages imposing an additional injunction .... essentially putting
    SAI out of business. The case isn't 100% relevant given some pretty
    bad conduct of the SAI folks (ex-ASC employees) and the judge's finding
    that they had been "disingenuous" on the stand, but it does provide some
    precendent for small amounts of code being used to 'prove' a larger
    infringement.

    In particular, the judge found that identical comments do have value --
    representing 'trial and error', evolution, or labor that went into the
    original and that was used to advantage by the copier. This holds
    true even for copied 'dead code' that is never even executed.

    IANAL, but those interested should consult the records of the
    Superior Court of NJ, Chancery Division, Hudson County, Docket # C-28-94.

    In a strange coincidence, the lawyers for the defendant (SAI) were
    "Crummy, Del Deo, Dolan...." -- the same firm that was on the other side
    for the USL vs. BSDI case (I just noticed from Dennis Ritchie's links...)
    ~
    • I thought the USL case was sealed, but this seems to look like it was not.

      Also in your case what was the product? In this case the product is a UNIX like system or UNIX. Linux is a UNIX like system. So is BSD. So does this mean that BSD and Linux would have never existed without the existance of UNIX? Possibly. However UNIX is based on some open standards, POSIX is one. So if someone creates and OS that use / and compiles with POSIX standards and has a C compiler is it UNIX?

      Basically what this boil


      • The key differences here are:

        1) The product was a set of application programs, albeit a fairly complex one, instead of an operating system with known public interfaces, include-files, etc.

        2) The company (ASC) did convince the judge that it made all reasonable efforts to protect it's trade secrets by keeping the source code under pretty tight control. In the UNIX case, large amounts of the code were available/known to the public, so it seems unclear if any trade-secret protection could be claimed.

        It woul
  • And then THEY ruined EVERYTHING. I'd seen them before... releasing the code to cscope... contributing the occasional header file... SCO... the scratch on the roof of your mouth that would heal, if only you could stop tounging it. If I had a tumor I'd name it SCO. One day, between browsing Slashdot and coding some bit of C++ cleverness, I was going to just grab that bitch SCO and say "SCO you tourist! I NEED this! Now get the hell out!"
  • It amuses me that some of the lawers [bell-labs.com] in the case had names like Crummy and Roach.

    heh. How appropriate.

  • With software patents and international copyright law as it stands, would it even matter if SCO managed to win a suit agianst IBM for IBM's own code ( and then claim ownership of all modern operating systems including *BSDs )?

    I don't think anyone outside the US would follow along, since it would be sucide.

    The US legal system is quickly tying everyone's hands in the US, only after several companies are ruined will they think about changes in law.

    Oddly all our software will be written in India and the like

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close