IBM Files For Declaratory Judgement In SCO Case 390
Some Bitch writes "IBM has filed for declaratory judgement in the SCO case. They want the court to declare that "IBM does not infringe, induce the infringement of or contribute to the infringement of any SCO copyright through its Linux activities, including its use, reproduction and improvement of Linux, and that some or all of SCO's purported copyrights in Unix are invalid and unenforceable.". If the judge grants the motion then SCO effectively has no case and the whole thing is over."
spafbnerf notes that "SCO has filed a motion for the patent infringement claim to be split into a separate case." fr0z adds a link to Groklaw's always-excellent coverage.
IBM adds the heat in sunny SCO office to the max. (Score:4, Informative)
MSFT und SCOX (Score:2, Informative)
Linux was based on Minix. A UnixLite OS designed to run on PCs. However, it was really only a teaching tool. Andrew Tanenbaum repeatedly refused to add the new (legitimate) features the users and even developers asked for. Linus Torvalds set out simply to add functionality to his own version of Minix (the copyright allows use to do so for your own personal use, but you cannot sell or distibute it).
Over time, in adding functionality to Minix, Linus Torvalds found that he had created an entirely new kernel. I was very similar to Minix but used none of the Minix source code. Torvalds had originally called it freax, for "`free' + `freak' + the obligatory `-x'. The operator of the FTP server where Linus' new kernel made its debut didn't like the name and simply called it Linux (Linus + Unix). People seemed to like the name so it stuck.
Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
I shorted it at 17.96 in early January. I'm a happy camper if IBM wins this.
Re:My precioussss, preciousss lawyers! (Score:1, Informative)
An interesting move is that IBM has also newly registered some of its Linux Kernel copyrights, such as JFS support (see Groklaw for details) and added those to its GPL breach counterclaims.
Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer - TROLL! (Score:5, Informative)
Another troll tactic used in this post is saying there are "compelling" pro-SCO information, without saying what it is. Hey, if there was such great pro-SCO stuff on Groklaw, repeat some of it here!
Troll! Dirty, slimey troll!
Re:My precioussss, preciousss lawyers! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:MOD PARENT TROLL (Score:3, Informative)
You may disagree with his statement, but this is something that isn't being discussed at all. I believe this whole SCO thing is having an impact on linux adoption, it's silly to believe otherwise. Corporations like stability (insert windows joke here). The volatility in linux's future right now is a turn off, whether it's warranted or not.
Took the tip from [H]ardOCP, apparently (Score:4, Informative)
Here's what the [H]'s website says about it:
Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. Check their histroy. Scox has never been profitable by legitimate sales of products or services. All of scox's money has come from: 1) bogus IPO (still under investigation by SEC). 2) Lawsuit against MSFT. FUD money from msft and sunw.
Re:Not at all over (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. Some people are confusing declaratory judgement (i.e. asking the judge to produce a definitive ruling on a matter... eventually) with summary judgement (i.e. asking the judge to throw the litigious bastards [sco.com] out of court now, because they have no case).
I am a sysadmin in a very large corporation (Score:3, Informative)
We're ignoring SCO. Completely.
/. suppression ;) (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page
That page puts less stress on their server, so if you'd like to help reduce their bandwidth costs...
Re:I'm sorry to hear this (Score:1, Informative)
They are countersuing for damages, and not just lawyer fees. See the ammended counterclaims at groklaw [groklaw.net].
Re:Life after SCO? (Score:5, Informative)
The article is incorrect. The writer appears to have confused a 'declaratory judgement' with a 'summary judgement' - but it's the former, not the latter. It just means that this declaration is part of the remedy IBM is asking the court to provide, when the case finally comes to a conclusion and they win.
A summary judgement would be a motion for the Judge to declare that there is no need for a trial, that he can rule based on the facts already in evidence and stipulated. That's a very different thing, even though a lot of people seem to be confusing them.
Re:MSFT und SCOX (Score:5, Informative)
Re:MSFT und SCOX (Score:5, Informative)
Untrue, Linus originally wrote a terminal emulator to access the university Unix box, it was after expanding this that he realised he had effectively started his own OS. It was driven by the limited nature of Minix but was not an expansion of Minix in any way, originally it was just meant to be a terminal emulator.
Close, Linus originally called it Linux on his own system but decided to rename it for release. Ari Lemmke decided the new name sucked and kept the directory on ftp.funet.fi as linux
Re:Checkmate, endgame (Score:2, Informative)
The stock price goes up or stablizes. When you "cash in" a short, you have to buy the stock you shorted. Often sell offs are slowed by people getting out of shorts.
What it basically says... (Score:5, Informative)
57. ...In its first complaint, SCO principally alleged that IBM had
misappropriated SCO's trade secrets in UNIX System V....
60. ...SCO further persisted in maintaining for nearly a year the unsound claim
that IBM had misappropriated its trade secrets. Yet when pressed to identify a
single trade secret that IBM had allegedly misappropriated, SCO could not, even
after being ordered to do so by the Court. SCO finally (and properly) abandoned
this claim, upon which SCO's entire lawsuit was initially premised, in its
Seconded Amended Complaint.
72. Although its initial complaints against IBM did not include a claim for copyright infringement, SCO stated publicly after it filed suit that IBM had infringed SCO's copyrights, and threatened to sue IBM for copyright infringement with respect to Linux. For example, at its 2003 SCO Forum conference, SCO represented to attendees, including press and financial analysts, that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX, that IBM had infringed its rights in Linux, and that SCO was entitled to damages and injunctive relief against IBM.
73. At the December 5, 2003 hearing concerning discovery issues, SCO further represented to the Court that SCO would be filing a copyright infringement action against IBM "within the coming few days or no less than a week."
102. Yet despite an Order directing SCO, among other things, to "identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action action against IBM" by January 12 2004, SCO failed adequately to do so. In its supplemental responses purportedly submitted in compliance with the Order, SCO still failed to identify a single line of UNIX System V code that IBM allegedly misappropriated or misused.
103. In fact, finally realizing that it could no longer maintain the illusion that IBM had misappropriated its trade secrets, SCO dropped its trade secret claim altogether. SCO continues, however, to press equally meritless contract and other claims against IBM, despite being unwilling to identify the UNIX System V code that IBM allegedly misused in violation of any agreement.
Re:Wrong (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wake up and smell the coffee (Score:5, Informative)
This guy obviously is not a lawyer and has not even read the argument. He states that IBM would have to:
show that there's no controversy about SCO holding the copyrights to the UNIX code in question, and that's patently false.
Actually, that's *exactly* what they are saying. Because SCO has dropped all arguments of copyright infringement against IBM and is now pursuing contract suits. SCO has stated this is not about them violating copyright anymore. Mod parent down.
IBM is trying to swat a fly that used to be the size of a hummingbird. Less of an easy target, but still annoying. IANAL, but I don't see any reason why the judge wouldn't hand them the flyswatter.
Re:To paraphrase MAD. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:...and the whole thing is over!? (Score:0, Informative)
Re:Checkmate, endgame (Score:3, Informative)
SCO undertook to create fear, uncertainty and doubt in the marketplace in regard to SCO's rights in and to that [Unix] technology.
This has to be the first time I've seen jargon [astrian.net] actually fit concisely and neatly into a legal text!
Go IBM...
Re:Microsoft still comes out ahead (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Its about time IBM (Score:3, Informative)
Besides, SCO already had access to Dynix/AIX as part of Project Monterey.
Re:Patents still matter (Score:3, Informative)
According to the GPL, if IBM redistributes a GPL program, then section 7 of the GPL implies that IBM licenses its patents that cover that program to anybody who receives that program.
Re:Microsoft . The real reason MS licened! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Patents still matter (Score:2, Informative)
True. But that doesn't hold harmless a hypothetical third party (e.g., "me") who inadvertently incorporates an obvious-to-anybody-except-a-patent-examiner algorithm that IBM, for example, holds the patent rights to.
The GPL would require that IBM provide patent relief for code that it writes and incorporates into a GPL distribution. I don't think that permission would leak over into code written by somebody else that may contain other patented algorithms that, arguably, IBM may not have wished to license.
That should hold even if both pieces of code were in, e.g., a Linux distro available for download from IBM if a reasonable claim could be made that the offending code was included without the patent holder's knowledge or permission.
Read the Update ! (Score:2, Informative)
UPDATE: I have been reading the document itself now, and there isn't anything new on the GPL front. They asked for a declaratory judgment regarding the GPL in their earlier counterclaims. IBM is challenging SCO's copyrights. That seems to mean that they are defining this as a true copyright fight, not a contract dispute, something SCO has avoided so far. SCO will have to prove they own these copyrights now, no matter what the judge rules on SCO's Motion to Remand in the Novell matter. And they will have to show the code they claim is infringing and prove they hold copyright ownership of that code and that the copyrights they hold relate to the allegedly infringing code. Considering that they have publicly admitted that they don't own the copyrights to the allegedly infringing code, it will be interesting to see how they answer this. (emphasis added)