IBM Countersues SCO, And More! 1156
mr.crutch writes "Few details are available, but CNet is reporting that IBM has filed counterclaims against SCO. CNet also has an interview with Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik..." Jizzbug writes "Thanks to the folks of K5, we can all obtain our rights to use the Linux kernel from SCO, and without paying up to SCO's extortion. If kernel.org kernels aren't safe, sco.com kernels certainly ought to be." LWN has a copy of SCO's Linux License for your perusal. Bruce Perens is speaking of the dangers of patent portfolios to open source software, notable because IBM's counterclaims include patent infringement. And finally, a company is selling SCO Check, a tool to de-SCOify your Linux system, if SCO ever presents any evidence whatsoever of infringing code in Linux. Update: 08/08 00:16 GMT by T : SCO's public response to IBM's counterclaim is short and to the point. Among other things, it says "If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license." Given the other links in this story, perhaps SCO should go first on that count.
Another article,SCO can't respond to the bitchslap (Score:5, Informative)
In its 45-page complaint, IBM claims SCO Group's products violate four IBM patents and claims SCO Group doesn't have the right to revoke IBM's Unix license. IBM also claims SCO Group has violated the general public license, or the GNU GPL, under which Linux is distributed.
The Armonk, N.Y., computer giant seeks unspecified monetary damages and an injunction requiring SCO Group to stop violating IBM patents and refrain from misrepresenting its intellectual-property rights.
It also says that a spokesman for SCO wasn't immediately available to comment, I guess they haven't recovered from being bitch-slapped yet. I suppose that this means we'll also have the obligatory conference call tomorrow, or soon after, where Darl will blow some more hot air out of that ass that sits on his neck.
I choose the wrong job! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Litigate 'till CSO runs out of money? HAH! (Score:5, Informative)
Check out the history of the steel industry, the banking industry, the phone companies, power generation, the oil industry, the tobacco industry, etc. etc.
Re:Did SCO get to k5? (Score:2, Informative)
How to use the 2.4 Linux kernel safely and legally. (Diaries)
By Entendre Entendre
Tue Aug 5th, 2003 at 05:43:46 PM EST
And without paying SCO's extortion license fees.
Originally posted as a comment but so much fun I had to give it a little more promotion.
cd
mkdir silly_sco
wget ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Ser
rpm2cpio linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm > sco.cpio
cpio -i --file sco.cpio
bzip2 -d linux-2.4.13.tar.bz2
tar -xf linux-2.4.13.tar
You'll find the license agreement in linux/COPYING
Compile, install, enjoy.
Re:Litigate 'till CSO runs out of money? HAH! (Score:5, Informative)
sPh
the Kuro5hin instructions (Score:5, Informative)
"cd
mkdir silly_sco
wget ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Ser
rpm2cpio linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm > sco.cpio
cpio -i --file sco.cpio
bzip2 -d linux-2.4.13.tar.bz2
tar -xf linux-2.4.13.tar
You'll find the license agreement in linux/COPYING
Compile, install, enjoy."
K5 Page Text (Score:2, Informative)
How to use the 2.4 Linux kernel safely and legally. (Diaries)
By Entendre Entendre
Tue Aug 5th, 2003 at 05:43:46 PM EST
And without paying SCO's extortion license fees.
Originally posted as a comment but so much fun I had to give it a little more promotion.
cd
mkdir silly_sco
wget ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Ser
rpm2cpio linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm > sco.cpio
cpio -i --file sco.cpio
bzip2 -d linux-2.4.13.tar.bz2
tar -xf linux-2.4.13.tar
You'll find the license agreement in linux/COPYING
Compile, install, enjoy.
Re:Novell Still in play? (Score:5, Informative)
If so, then Novell certainly has the right to overrule SCO in a large variety of matters relating to those licensees.
Re:Another article,SCO can't respond to the bitchs (Score:3, Informative)
It's good to see IBM taking a stand here. They've got the resources to hit SCO on so many fronts that capitulation will become the only option. Think about it - IBM has a huge stake in the growing acceptance of Linux, so has everything to gain by squashing SCO like a bug.
k5 article text (Score:2, Informative)
Article at www.kuro5hin.org (Score:2, Informative)
SCO stock plummets. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's not in IBM Counter claims (Score:4, Informative)
From the CNET article:
Re:K5 mirror, per request (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oooh, the front page. (Score:3, Informative)
Patent Infringement claim only for SCO proprietary (Score:3, Informative)
In any case, IBM releasing GPL'd code that uses its patents doesn't give away its patent rights. But if you're using the code yourself you're fine; the use you describe is GPL-compliant.
Re:better and better (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Another article,SCO can't respond to the bitchs (Score:5, Informative)
My understanding is that IBM's Linux distribution policy is specfically crafted to make sure IBM doesn't lose the right to enforce it's patents, at least not on code they don't explicitly release.
Specifically, IBM doesn't actually distribute Linux, it partners with Suse and RedHat who do that for them. Sure they produce patches, but that's all you'll get from them, not the whole kernel.
So IBM has decided to give up the right to enforce the patent on, for example, RCU. They distributed the RCU patches as GPL. But if, for example, RedHat contributes some code to the kernel that contains IBM patented techniques, IBM can still enforce those patents because it never distributes non-IBM code.
Re:Whoop! (Score:3, Informative)
No, IBM is using different patents. In any case, I doubt SCO is using RCU, NUMA, etc., in their OS.
Suppose you write a new operating system designed for some specific purpose and the only code it uses from Linux is the code encapsulating those four IBM patents. The way I figure it, as long as you use the code in-house only or as long as you distribute the code under the GPL, there will be no patent infringement. Is that right?
Yes, as long as your new OS is a derivative of Linux, you effectively have a license from IBM to run and distribute the code. On the other hand, if you completely replace the original Linux code, it's not clear that your OS would still be a derivative of Linux, and it's not clear whether you have a license to run the code. I say it's not clear because no court has decided what the definition of ``derivative work'' means for software.
SCOX and shorting (Score:5, Informative)
This is not investment advice.
I finally found out why there are no shares of SCOX to short. As most everyone knows, shorting is the process where you sell a stock with the intent to buy it back later at a cheaper price. In other words, it is the opposite of buying a stock. Therefore, if the stock goes up in price, you are losing money; if it goes down you are making money... many /.'ers figure that SCOX will fall due to a variety of opinions.
In order to short a stock, there has to be some supply of the stock somewhere somewhere that can be sold... this supply of stock normally comes from stock used as collateral on a margin... somewhere, someone is borrowing money to buy more stock than they have money for, and using stock as collateral.
The problem being is that SCOX stock has climbed too quickly too fast and was once very recently a penny stock... thus brokers are unwilling to take SCOX as collateral... bingo, no SCOX stock available to short!
Just thought /.'ers would find that interesting.
Remember, this is not investment advice.
SCO's Bad Faith (Score:2, Informative)
Patent? (Score:2, Informative)
I think its getting awfully hot in Darrels office. (Score:3, Informative)
Second, I like this part:
"IBM's suit revealed that Novell on June 12 effectively forbade SCO from terminating IBM's AIX license. SCO said it revoked the AIX license on June 16. Novell maintained the right to issue such instructions to SCO under the terms of the Unix sale, the suit said."
So it seems like SCO is all of a sudden in a lot of sh*t, now that IBM, Red Hat, SuSE and Novel are all turning their guns toward them.
Re:SCOX and shorting (Score:1, Informative)
Shorting = borrow someone else's shares and sell them with the intent of buying them later when the price (hopefully) drops
Longing = opposite of that.
Re:better and better (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Glory Hallelujah, finally some good news. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:UnixWare Patent (Score:1, Informative)
The actual patents in IBM's suit are irrelevant here.
Re:Novell Still in play? (Score:2, Informative)
Pink Fairies Keep rising. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Whoop! - Found one: US Patent # 4,821,211 (Score:2, Informative)
Prior art mentions graphical menus in MS Windows, so it seems the distinction here is allowing seamless navigation from one program's menus to another's, but I can't wade through all the legalese.
Re:Novell Still in play? (Score:5, Informative)
From Groklaw [weblogs.com]
Re:We need to start planning now to buy SCO (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, they will be in chapter 11 when this is over. Their IP will be auctioned off to pay off the creditors.
Re:IBM != good for FS (Score:2, Informative)
And IBM have a history of using patents aggressively [forbes.com] when it suits them to do so.
Re:Litigate 'till CSO runs out of money? HAH! (Score:3, Informative)
Ran out of gas, ran out of job, ran out of Iran, everything... Those who think times are bad now don't KNOW bad times like the late 70's under Carter...
Speaking of inflation, I wonder how long it will take SCOX to drop back to the penny range? If they lose an injunction and are forced to stop shipping software, it will expose to all that they don't actually HAVE a product.
SCO is no longer a "going business concern". Meaning that they no longer have a product, that they market, that generates revenue, that minus overhead is profit...
The business model of buying dubious IP and then litigating has GOT to be stopped... But then, they took on MS and won... Now MS is helping them take on IBM. Go figure.
26 lines... (Score:3, Informative)
Giving credit where credit is due (Score:3, Informative)
I just added some command-line instructions to make clear the terms of the other license (the GNU license) under which the code in question is distributed.
Re:This paralegal has some good perspectives also (Score:3, Informative)
Check out this link for good research and analysis, as well:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/
Groklaw has been posting almost daily updates on this story since April, and recently is posting several updates per day. It's run by Pamela Jones, a paralegal who actually *reads* the court documents, the contracts, etc. and uses her experience to point out what she would flag for a lawyer as important, worthy of more research, etc. Good read.
Re:First time GPL as part of a court case? (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks to the support of John Gilmore [toad.com] and a very good lawyer, the case was resolved before we went to court. In the end, people were allowed to obtain source for the version of SMail that Amdahl shipped, and Amdahl agreed to follow the terms of the GPL (for SMail and any other GPL-ed code) from then on.
SCOs responses (Score:4, Informative)
Pathetic press release...
SCO's response! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:damn! (Score:1, Informative)
price to drop from $2.64?"
Easy--people stopped paying attention to the stock and volume dropped. Without news and enough trading to boost the stock up it did its natural thing and dropped.
"And how did the executives know that $2.07 was the lowest it would go?"
It's a cause and effect thing. When they issue the options, people know about that, and it shows confidence by the company insiders that the stock is going to rise. Once word gets out, interest in the stock rises again, people start trading it more, and the price goes back up. The executives didn't know $2.07 was the lowest, the fact that granted themselves options caused the rise that pulled it above that.
Boies is a little occupied right now it seems.. (Score:3, Informative)
David Boies is accused of ethics violations (Score:3, Informative)
Text of IBM's response/countersuit (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarc
Re:Hey now! (Score:2, Informative)