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.
Life after SCO? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the judge grants the motion then SCO effectively has no case and the whole thing is over.
Over?? Wow, could this be the end of SCO?
What will we make fun of then? Hardly IBM, since they seem to be rapidly converting themselves into good guys - this story will probably elevate them to the status of demi-godhood.
Well, back to bashing Microsoft then I suppose ...
Stating the obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
Nor does anyone. If there is a single judge that finds a single Linux user guilty of that bullcrap promoted by SCO, I vote that all the /. community go castrate him!!! (or simply force him to read out loud the whole source code... that could be a good punishment too...)
I mean... are there any "law officials" that actually know some stuff about programming and computers? IBM is just stating the obvious here, they shouldn't even have to do so.
Re:My precioussss, preciousss lawyers! (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhm no. This is not a "summary" judgement. And SCO isn't suing IBM for copyright infringement so I am kind of puzzled to see what this has to do with SCO suing IBM for *breach* *of* *contract*. I guess IBM must think it strengthens their hands for the coming contract fight.
So off to Groklaw to see what they have say...
Re:...and the whole thing is over!? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is no trifling ploy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm... I wonder what color parachute Darl has...
Checkmate, endgame (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow!
This is so well laid out that even a child of 6 could understand what it is that SCO has been up to these past 12 months. When I read IBM's lawyers' work, I want to jump up and dance with glee at the utter beauty seen within.
When I read the work of SCO's lawyers or any statements made by the buffoons directing them, I want to cry. It seriously makes my head hurt, trying to wrap my brain around the utter bullshit they continue to spout.
IBM has landed a crushing blow to SCO's claims. I predict that over the remainder of this week and through next we will see SCO's stock plummet back to its true value -- less than $1.
Happy happy happy
Joy joy joy
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Let all the lawyers duke it out (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be a dream world if all the lawyers spent all their employers' money suing each other and left us alone to produce world class open source software?
It seems to me that open software is the only way to break the enternal circle of despising an abusing software company, waiting until it self-destructs and promptly promoting another one into the same position.
Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Since SCO (nee Caldera) stock was practically worthless before this whole debacle started, I'd say getting rich by filing a groundless lawsuit is precisely what they have done.
Re:My precioussss, preciousss lawyers! (Score:5, Insightful)
WHat in effect IBM are doing is, filtering out the irrelevent parts, and refocussing it on the Contracts.
Of course the copyright issues were a part fo the contract dispute, and if this motion is granted, and a declaratory judgement is made, it woudl certainly make it harder for SCO to spew more spruious comment in their favour.
MOD PARENT TROLL (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're a law firm and you were looking at a Linux development platform. Uh, yeah. Right. You dirty little troll.
Re:...and the whole thing is over!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IBM 1 TSG 0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Just look at how many patents IBM has. AFAIK, more than anybody else. Their IP library is huge and could probably sue any large computing company for patent violation if they so choose.
It's good that they are taking the benevolent stance here, but let's just remember that Big Blue only has its own best intentions in mind when it comes down to crush time.
Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you are those particular attorneys that are filing groundless lawsuits.
Not at all over (Score:5, Insightful)
So this declaratory judgement that IBM is not infringing copyright is very tangent to the SCO vs IBM case. But of course, it would give very nice munition against the SCO out-of-court FUD, which is probably why IBM is asking for it. It might also have an impact on SCO vs google etc., I don't understand the issue well enough to judge this.
Also, that IBM is filing for this judgement now doesn't mean that the judge will rule on this next week. AFAI understand, this judgement will just be part of the final ruling on the case.
Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct, they are. Do you not think it possible that these intelligent wealthy people stand to become much more wealthy by spreading Linux FUD through these activities, regardless of what happens to SCO?
There has already been an alleged financial connection made between SCO and Microsoft which seems to be quite compelling. And you've just admitted first hand that your company is considering Windows 2003 over linux simply as a result of this case existing, under the assumption that SCO would be insane to do what they are doing if they didn't have a good case.
So you are right, they are intelligent. They've fooled you and your company. And they are more wealthy for it too.
Re:IBM 1 TSG 0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Stalin
Hussien
bin Laden
Pinochet
etc...
If you can't figure out what this has to do with the parent post, then why are you on
Excellent, but . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:IBM 1 TSG 0 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:...and the whole thing is over!? (Score:4, Insightful)
No. They'll just pay someone else to try to sue Linux into obscurity.
hahaha, good one (Score:4, Insightful)
Hahahah!
Ok... So a lawyer with a medium-sized corporation, and obviously isn't up on technology considering this priceless line, "it is simply unreasonable to assume that SCO's case is completely baseless. These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by filing groundless lawsuits."
So a lawyer who's not up on technology, gives a flying fuck enough to come to slashdot and post this, and takes a shot at groklaw while doing so...?
Maybe it's high-time to completely ditch anonymous postings, or maybe mod points just shouldn't be given out so easily.
Folks, unless they include something to give themselves some credibility, DON'T TAKE ANONYMOUSLY POSTINGS SERIOUSLY!!!
Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of groundless lawsuits have been filed by many deceptive (and often intelligent) people. But these schemes don't always work out, expecially when the target is someone as powerful as IBM. SCO has simply underestimated their opponent.
And I have not read these "compelling pro-SCO" posts that you refer to. It also doesn't appear to be PJs style to simply delete differring opinions.
Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm asking, because it seems to me that Microsoft is at least as at risk of this type of lawsuit as IBM and other Linux companies. It's harder to peek inside Microsoft Windows and see what's inside than it is to peek inside Linux and see what's inside; Microsoft are also the world's most cash rich target, and if you're looking for a big payout, they're far more tempting than (say) IBM.
Re:Its about time IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
A good use for software patents (Score:3, Insightful)
25 years ago, if you told me that IBM would be the champion of the little guy, I would have told you that you were nuts.
Re:MOD PARENT TROLL (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (Score:5, Insightful)
Before SCO filed the lawsuit in February of 2003, the stock was trading at about $2.50. At its height the stock price climed to around $22. That's an increase of almost 9 times. The upper management of SCO has been selling their stock like mad when the stock price was skyrocketing.
We have two facts:
1. The stock price has gone up enormously.
2. The upper management has profited from this enormously by selling stock.
Your claim is that intelligence people wouldn't file baseless lawsuits, (presumably because they'd never win, and thus wouldn't profit from it). Obviously the management HAS profitted from this lawsuit even before it's gone to court. The fact that the management is selling their stock doesn't mean the lawsuit is baseless, but it certainly throws out the "intelligent people don't file baseless lawsuits" argument. The motivation is most certainly there to file baseless lawsuits since it HAS inflated the stock price to outrageous levels.
This May Fly - Thanks to Novell (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft still comes out ahead (Score:2, Insightful)
A mouthpiece? Puh-leeze (Score:3, Insightful)
As a 25 year IT professional and a director at a large corporation, let me assure you that we don't call the lawyers for stuff like this.
Because the lawyers won't answer your question anyway, and they're usually just plain wrong ("The GPL, according to my understanding of the law is only valid in the state of Delaware, or other communist nations")
So they're probably using Linux, but they're not getting you involved because (a) you can't help anyway (b) you'd stop progress (c) your verbal advice is almost certainly wrong.
But on the plus side, you probably drive a nice, safe, comfortable car, have 2.2 kids, and you're a real community asset.
Re:My precioussss, preciousss lawyers! (Score:2, Insightful)
More like getting fouled on a three-pointer and thus making a four-point play!
Re:Its about time IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody can walk in on day one and say, "Their case is groundless" -- this is, in effect, what you do when you decide to fight it in the first case. It is another thing entirely to walk in and say, "Their case is groundless, and here is why, and here are their documents which support the argument."
IBM is probably saying (or implying) something like: "SCO has claimed to have met the court's requirements for discovery, so they've claimed to have provided all of the relevant documents in the case. In light of this information, we believe that the case is meritless, and here is why, and here are the documents to support it. Our argument is either correct, or SCO is in contempt of court for having failed to provide all of the information requested."
IANALOAP (...Or A Paralegal)
Re:IBM 1 TSG 0 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:IBM 1 TSG 0 (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, is IBM in any way less or more capable of attacking or FUDing Linux because of it? They're certainly less able under the GPLs patent clause. Their own credibility is certainly worse off if they said "Linux good" then "Linux bad" as opposed to "Linux bad" the whole time.
Yes, IBM is a powerful player, they might not be OSS's friend forever, but I don't see how anything the community does could come back to haunt us. Anything IBM could do of FUD, litigation, lobbying and whatnot, they already can regardless. So, take it for what it is and enjoy it while it lasts.
Kjella
Re:Microsoft . The real reason MS licened! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is more to this story than even the average computer guru knows. Most MSCE's don't even understand these things.
Re:SCO, IBM, and my employer (Score:4, Insightful)
It is simply unreasonable to assume that drug barons have no legal basis for their activities. These are intelligent, wealthy people, and they did not get that way by risking jail.
Wise up. SCO's claims ARE totally baseless and they are relying on people like you being fooled into the old "no smoke without fire" routine to fork out your cash. It's called "Fraud" and it happens every day, sometimes it's done by idiots, and sometimes it's done by clever people but it's still fraud.
TWW
hmmm, a good spot for my paranoid delusions (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about linux or copyrights. It's about information. Computer code (even the OS) is just information, it's not a product. To make it a product you must artificially control distribution. Information cannot be controlled.
For linux and free software to win, they only need to be allowed to play. If SCO wins this case they will put a major roadblock in the way of allowing the use of free software. But if SCO loses, then free software has it's foot in the door and momentum is already pressing hard to push the masses past the doorframe.
Free software, if allowed to grow, will change the business landscape. It will do what the DOJ could not, turn Microsoft into a services company. When free software becomes a major part of the business world and open source programmers are being paid to contribute their service of information to the industry, Microsoft will have no choice but to change (if they want to continue to compete). They will be forced to write software that interacts with free alternatives and more and more people will realize they have a choice in what OS their computer runs. Many may still want to run Windows for the same reason many choose AOL as an ISP, convenience. Having everything in front of you with simple wizards explaining all of it is a convenient service that many will pay for. But only if Microsoft can stay ahead of the alternative, only if they can provide some service that is not found in other software, only if they can compete with others on a level field.
Maybe one day we can look back at this case and say "this is where we turned the corner, this is where we toppled the greed of those who want to hoard information for their own benefit, this is where the river started flowing, a river where anyone can cup their hands and take a drink."
Home team roots for Goliath (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't neccessarily reasonable. Utah is home to a _lot_ of high tech people. IBM, Novell, EBay, CA, and dozens of other big names in tech have significant workforce in Utah. The local papers may paint a pro-SCO picture, but the reality on the ground is a little different. If the newspaper reporters bothered to peek into their own server rooms, they would find a bunch of Utah geeks cheering against SCO.
SCO was hoping for a settlement? (Score:4, Insightful)
IBM is using it's staff lawyers, they get paid if they are in court, or they get paid if they're standing arround the water-cooler talking football; any real costs of the case are trivial like filing, and copying fees. SCO on the other hand hired external lawyers, who are paid with cash, wallpaper(sco stock) and probably a percent of the proceeds in addition to expenses which are around what $300-$600 per hour per lawyer. If anybody was going to use expenses as an inducement to settle it would hae been IBM!
SCO should be like the small dog lying on it's back, with it's belly exposed trying not to piss itself to bad while hoping the big dog doesn't rip their belly open.
Re:IBM 1 TSG 0 (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you guys are going down the wrong road here. IBM today is nothing like the company of the 1980s, that company is long dead. The uber-dominant IBM was dominant in the mainframe business, that business is practically non-existent today. The vast bulk of the machines IBM produces in that performance class are upscale clustered microprocessor based machines. IBM is mainly a consulting operation today.
The examples of friend becomming enemy are not the best. Stalin was always an aliance of convenience, Churchil and FDR both knew what he was and that he had allied with Hitler to invade Poland. Pinochet was installed by the CIA on the orders of Nixon and did exactly what he was meant to - murdered at least 30,000 opponents and established a dictatorship. This seems to be considered by the right to be a desirable outcome.
Saddam is a more complex issue since there the US decided he could not be allowed to lose the Iran-Iraq war he started. But nobody actually wanted him to win either. Bin Laden is an even worse example since he was the conduit for Saudi aid to the mujahadein, he was not the conduit for US aid.
The better conclusion to draw is that if a democracy intervenes in another country it should only support democratic regimes. The game that has consistently failled is the game of destabilising democratic regimes that pursue interests oppoed to the US and replacing them with dictatorships. If you look at all the operations of the CIA during the Eisenhower administration, the results have been completely counter productive. Meddling in Iran replaced an inconvenient Nationalist democratic government with a dictatorship under the Shah which inevitably collapsed under its own thuggery and corruption resulting in the current hyper-theocracy.
Re:IBM's Lawyer's as friends?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
I might have enjoyed that evening. But then I'm known to be weird.
Re:IBM's Lawyer's as friends?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft still comes out ahead (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, why would they want to pillage the kernel, even if they could? Let's ignore the technical difficulties involved in pasting code from one kernel to another kernel with a totally different architecture. A decision like that would have to be made at the highest levels, and the highest levels aren't about to admit that they have to do this in order to remain competitive.
Deep down, I think the folks running Microsoft believe in themselves. They really believe that Windows has the best integration and the lowest TCO. They really believe that they are generating products which drive economic growth and make the world a better place. They really believe that Linux is a tricycle trying to pass itself off to the business world as a Ferarri, and this is just one more storm to be weathered as they move towards Total World Domination.* So even if it were possible or legally savvy to do as you suggest, I don't believe that the folks running Microsoft would easily admit that Linux has something they don't. They especially won't admit that it has anything they cannot easily duplicate.
*Total World Domination is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corp.
These are the people who hold power (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you think the soldiers of yore were "normal" people? They knew how to fight against their enemies, but often when there was peace, they started up wars again because it was the only thing they knew how to do. There are many similarities in their behavior to the behavior of lawyers now.
I much prefer the court system to resorting to violence to resolve disputes. Imagine IBM and SCO duking it out with private armies.
Powerful friends are good to have, but it's always good to remember that powerful friends have other friends as well... Who may not like you so much.
Re:Its about time IBM (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows kernel owes little to Unix (Score:3, Insightful)
There are commandline tools in most windows versions (e.g. ftp, ping, etc) that DO have a definite BSD lineage, but it doesn't go very deep. Superficial similarities do not deeper borrowing make.
Microsoft's justification (not, I think, their real primary reason) for licensing was actually the rather misnamed Windows services for Unix [microsoft.com].
(Which, by the way, consists in large part of GPLed software