SCO May Countersue Red Hat, SuSE Joins The Fray 622
uninet writes "The SCO Group, Inc. today released a statement concerning the lawsuit filed against it yesterday by Red Hat, Inc. The release quotes Darl McBride, SCO's President and CEO, as being 'disappointed' with Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik for not being 'forthcoming' about Red Hat's intentions in a previous discussion."
Reader psykocrime adds "According to this SuSE press release, SuSE has publically announced their support for RedHat's actions against SCO. Quoting from the press release: 'SCO has already been halted in Germany and we applaud Red Hat's actions to help end their activities in the US -- and beyond. We applaud their efforts to restrict the rhetoric of the SCO group -- and the FUD they are trying to instill -- and will determine quickly what actions SuSE can take to support Red Hat in their efforts.'" Read on for a few more links.
Vladimir writes "What no one has really touched upon is that the SCO vs. IBM court date is in April 2005, which could mean that the resolution of this case could be somewhere in 2006-2007, by which time Linux or any other OS may be irrelevant. People please keep your wallets in your pocket. Also, this lawyer has a long analysis of SCO extortion attempts and debunks a lot of their FUD."
Besides which, Omega writes "VNUnet has a story on how the economic analysis firm The Butler Group predicts that even if SCO can demonstrate there is offending code in the Linux kernel, it could easily be replaced."
They always countersue (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing to see here, move along...
Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel! (Score:1, Informative)
We will prepare our legal response as required by your complaint
As anyone with the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader can tell, this does not say or even implies anything about counter-suing.
Buying the SCO-licence in Germany not possible (Score:5, Informative)
It looks like there is absolutly no chance to buy the SCO licence for Linux in Germany at the moment.
Maffia (Score:1, Informative)
what sun thinks (Score:5, Informative)
In the early 1990's, Schwartz said, Sun chief executive Scott McNealy agreed to spend several million dollars to take a broad license with AT&T, essentially granting Sun legal rights equivalent to ownership of Unix code.
"As a result of that decision in 1993, we can do whatever we want (to the code)," Schwartz said. "We can drive forward and indemnify our customers too," a basic responsibility of any intellectual property provider, he said.
Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel! (Score:3, Informative)
kthxbye.
Re:See the code (Score:5, Informative)
SCO states that IBM had to protect not only the licensed source code but also the code IBM wrote to make a derivative work from the source code.
Is this a repeat of the Rambus wars... (Score:5, Informative)
January 2000 Rambus files patent infringement lawsuit against Hitachi
June 2000 Rambus settles lawsuit against Hitachi
August 2000 Rambus files patent infringement lawsuit against Infineon
August 2000 Micron files patent infringement lawsuit against Rambus
August 2000 Hyundai files patent infringement lawsuit against Rambus
Sept. 2000 Rambus files patent infringement lawsuit against Micron and Hyundai (Hynix)
May 2001 Rambus lawsuit against Infineon dismissed, fined US $3.5 million
August 2001 Rambus faces class-action lawsuit for fraud
hey what did you buy? (Score:3, Informative)
and how did you make the case to buy this thin air with your company's CFO?
Copyright infringment looks for damage by the infringer..did you put code in linux?
Re:Can someone explain what 'shorting' is? (Score:3, Informative)
In a nutshell, it's the reverse of a "normal" stock trade... you actually SELL first, THEN buy later.
ex: I believe SCO is going to tank, so I 'sell' 100 shares today at $3 each. In one months, which is how long I bought my short for, I then buy the stock for $1 and (minus commissions, minus the fees for the 3rd party who has to cover the month where I didn't have the stock I sold) I make money.
Re:Is this a repeat of the Rambus wars... (Score:5, Informative)
January 2003 Rambus wins appeal; court throws out fraud claims, interprets patents favorably to Rambus, and remands for new trial.
Re:SCO (Score:3, Informative)
Tuesday August 5, 12:43 pm ET
SCO Provides Commercial Linux Users With Run-Time, Binary License to Run SCO's Intellectual Property in Linux
# LINDON, Utah, Aug. 5
from Yahoo biz release [yahoo.com]
Now the article continue that it is a run time only license to comply with the GPL which is why I requested for comments on is this stretching the GPL asking to use the kernel in binary form only and not giving the option to remove offending code. Basically hijacking the kernel.
Re:See the code (Score:3, Informative)
Re:An insult on the US justice system... (Score:2, Informative)
A few are taking adv. of SCO's inflated Stock (Score:3, Informative)
Improper analogy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:An insult on the US justice system... (Score:1, Informative)
The LinuxTAG case was basically a putup-or-shutup complaint and SCO folded immediately. The RedHat case is much more complicated containing 7 individual complaints and SCO won't have the option of just folding.
Re:See the code (Score:2, Informative)
From the previously mentioned lawyer's analysis:
If SCO wanted to have any infringement removed from Linux, they could help do that. But, SCO is refusing despite direct requests from many parties including RedHat, IBM and Novell. They just insist upon a purely illegal activity and little else. It is important to note that disclosing the so-called areas of infringement would not lessen their claims against IBM for contract violations nor violations of trade secret. Those claims against IBM stand on their own without the withholding of key information. The same is true should SCO want to charge RedHat or any other party with copyright infringement. Fixing Linux now does not eliminate any claims or charges that rights have been infringed in the past.
The only "case" that releasing the infringing code would damage is SCO's threatened lawsuits against Linux customers. It would not hurt their case against IBM (the only suit they've actually filed to date).
So would it hurt their case against Linux customers?? Nope. Because they have no case against the majority of Linux cutomers, private or corporate.
Again, from the analysis:
The threat to Linux customers is totally without a legal foundation. And, SCO has deliberately misrepresented those laws in order to extort money from Linux customers. There is no question of that. That is a fools move. It is a fools move because it imposes upon SCO significant legal liability for harm caused to the Linux market. The RedHat law suit refers directly to this problem in its discussion about the tortuous and willful interference with business relationships between RedHat and its customers. SCO (and without any reasonable legal basis) contacted Redhat (and IBM) customers and threatened legal action if they did not pay money. It does not matter what the money is ostensibly for. Linux customers do not need a copy of Unix from SCO to run their computers. In fact, the statement from SCO clearly suggests that Linux would continue to be used. The only benefit to the customer would be not being sued by SCO. Well. For money, anyone can make that offer. And, if you have a legal basis for filing a law suit, that would be business. But, if the legal basis is missing, it becomes extortion.
The point is that by persuing Linux customers SCO has opened the door to litigation against itself. Those acts are widely viewed as illegal if no basis for a lawsuit exists. And most people outside of SCO believe potential suits against Linux customers to be baseless (like suing the NYTimes for releasing a chapter of Harry Potter--they made the IP public, but that doesn't implicate NYTimes readers in the crime). The infringing code never comes into play in the case of SCO vs. Linux customers.
And the case infringing code does effect--the SCO vs. IBM case for IP violations--wouldn't be damaged by exposing the infringing code. That case is about the release of trade secrets and intellectual property into the public domain, an issue that can be proven independant of corrections made to Linux code after the infringing code is divulged.
Please read before you post.
Taft
Here are some examples of SCO work in the kernel (Score:3, Informative)
CREDITS:E: sp@caldera.de
arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.0 16 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.01 18 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.02 21 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.03 29 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
drivers/net/slip.c: * from Jim Freeman's <jfree@caldera.com>
drivers/net/tlan.c: * Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>: TLan_PciProbe() now uses
drivers/char/drm/drm_context.h: * 2001-11-16 Torsten Duwe <duwe@caldera.de>
drivers/scsi/ips.c:/* 4.00.06a - Port to 2.4 (trivial) -- Christoph Hellwig <hch@caldera.de> */
drivers/scsi/advansys.c: Erik Ratcliffe <erik@caldera.com> has done testing of the
drivers/sound/esssolo1.c: * up. Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
drivers/sound/esssolo1.c: * Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
drivers/sound/maestro.c: * v0.15 - May 21 2001 - Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
drivers/sound/rme96xx.c: Marcus Meissner <Marcus.Meissner@caldera.de>
drivers/sound/nm256
drivers/sound/sonicvibes.c: * Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
fs/freevxfs/vxfs_olt.c:&nbs p; printk(KERN_NOTICE "vxfs: please notify hch@caldera.de\n");
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc. <greg@caldera.com>
net/ipx/af_spx.c: * Jim Freeman <jfree@caldera.com>
You're using the WRONG analogy... (Score:3, Informative)
Now, having made this distinction, I'll make a further observation that makes your analogy invalid. The Linux kernel people as a whole didn't take the IP in the first place. The closest analogy to this if you WERE to try to apply a "theft" model on the whole thing would be this:
In this case, the party (or parties) that is actually guilty of the act of infringement is the only one that will face fines and damages- the rest of the people distributing Linux will be ordered to remove the offending IP (which is the very thing we've been TRYING to do anyway...) or license it accordingly and will be given a reasonable amount of time to decide and act on the order.
Re:See the code (Score:3, Informative)
More info here:
Linux Dispute Keeps Escalating [thestreet.com]
Don't forget, SCO is also under SEC investigation for financial misdoings. "The consolidated complaint alleges certain improprieties regarding the circumstances surrounding the underwriters' conduct during the Company's [SCO's] initial public offering and the failure to disclose such conduct in the registration statement in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended." This is not a company on the up & up, it's not impossible to imagine a shady dealing with MS to ensure uncertainty in the Linux camp.
With the current SCO pricing strategy the TCO argument for Linux goes out the window. Technically speaking it's more expensive to run a Linux shop than an NT/W2K shop. MS now wins the cost argument handsdown; interesting how that happened. Also note that the MS deal gives $5M to SCO for the next 3 quarters. With the cost of payroll at around $5M this is enough to keep the company afloat. The additional $8M initial amount can be used to mitigate deferred revenues and other long term expenses. This deal is fishy, I expect someone is going to get hurt real bad and it might just be Microsoft.
Re:Solaris Is Going Away (Score:4, Informative)
Dumping it would be 'bad' by any measure. The best thing that I'd personally like to see happen is them merging Solaris and Linux.
Linux has a lot of quick & dirty hacks, it supports a ton of consumer hardware, etc., solaris is more of a stable-well-thought-out OS, that lacks some of that 'agility' that Linux has.
Re:SCO's Secret Formula (Score:2, Informative)
However, it's forbidden from breaking the law, or various contracts, to gain it. It can't pay some guy under an NDA at Coke to spill the formula. It can't pay a cat burgler to break in and steal it.
However, it can reverse engineer the formula, it can read it out of a book Coke accidently left it in, (Which, BTW, has basically happened...at least the formula they were using in the fifties...they left it in a book.), they can pose as tourists and take the tour with super high-power cameras photographing everything, etc. As long as they do not violate criminal or contract law, Coke would have no grounds for anything.
Likewise, if someone else broke into Coke, and stole the formula, and posted it on Usenet, Pepsi is perfectly free to use it.
You can't 're-secret' a trade secret...if a single person stole it and used it, without telling anyone, part of the damages they agree to, when caught, might be to sign an NDA, so it might remain a trade secret. But once the cat is out of the bag, it's out of the bag. Coke could get massive damages from the person who stole it and posted it to Usenet, but that's it.
In fact, 'trade secrets' are just a logical extension of the law...they let you get damages from someone who broke the law (or your contracts) and, although they didn't 'steal' anything, still has made off with a significant advantage of yours. And that's the only person you can go after...someone who broke the law or your contracts.
Meanwhile, anyone who didn't commit the crime but ended up with the 'secrets' is perfectly free to do whatever they want.
If there were any trade secrets put in Linux, they are no longer trade secrets and are freely usably by anyone on the planet however they want.