The Score is IBM - 700,000 / SCO - 326 316
The Peanut Gallery writes "After years of litigation to discover what, exactly, SCO was suing about, IBM has finally discovered that SCO's 'mountain of code' is only 326 scattered lines. Worse, most of what is allegedly infringing are comments and simple header files (like errno.h). These probably aren't copyrightable for being unoriginal and dictated by externalities and aren't owned by SCO in any event. Above and beyond that, IBM has at least five separate licenses for these elements, including the GPL, even if SCO actually owned those lines of code. In contrast IBM is able to point out 700,000 lines of code, which they have properly registered copyrights for, which SCO is infringing upon if the Court rules that it repudiated the GPL."
Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad for SCO ok for MS (Score:3, Insightful)
While this maybe bad for SCO, those paying the the dance have more than got their money's worth.
They got some really big FUD going, plus the value of major distraction slowing down anyone following the play by play.
Clearly the long term play of MS is to get part or all of there free OS to be illegal. Illegal because they are TOOLS for ripping off copyright(s), or because they don't support legally mandated DRM, or because they they allow DRM to be by-passed, etc, etc., etc.
The only way around this is if more and more people use it and if the big box companies like Dell and Gateway ship boxes with Linux, etc.
Search results (Score:5, Insightful)
["It doesn't matter if it is only"] returned 45 results.
Google
["Even a simple one"] returns 15400
Google
["is vindication enough for me"] returns 6 results.
I accuse you sir of copyright violation! Even if those are only fragments of your text. It doesn't matter if it is only a few lines, or one, even a simple one is vindication enough for me.
Re:SCO stock (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been under a dollar a share for a few days now. If it continues, it could lead to delisting. Look for SCOX if you want to track it on a ticker. However, in the past SCO did a reverse split and they could always do another one and convert 2 or 3 shares to 1 and get back over a dollar a share to avoid delisting. Then again, Wall Street has frankly been insane in supporting this stock and I wouldn't be surprised at all by Monday or even today (early trends are actually up for the stock today) for it to be worth over a dollar a share again. I'm hoping for a delisting as that would hurt SCO immensely, but I'm not holding my breath. A stock market that has believed against all rational thought for years that SCO has some value is unlikely to be smart enough to realize by now that the game is almost over and start getting out while they can.
Re:Just 1 function..... (Score:2, Insightful)
From TFA: "The GPL, of course, grants IBM legal permission to copy, distribute and modify the software. Finally, SCO was a Linux company that distributed this code for years and encouraged the world and its dog to copy, modify, distribute, sublicense, whatever, this code, so they are estopped from suing IBM for doing what the GPL license SCO distributed under said IBM could freely do."
Re:SCO stock (Score:1, Insightful)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ha ha ha. Ha. Oh man, that's a good one.
That was my response too. When I read that line about investors being emotionally detatched, and making good calls I almost spit my coffee all over my laptop.
The market is one big lemming run. Some understand this and can win, and some deny this and will lose, but most folks are simply unaware and just run with the herd.
Premier case for a "Loser Pays" court system (Score:2, Insightful)
I would assume that this may conflict heavily with the current "Lawyers Always Win" effect we have now though.
Your post is just silly (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO was flat out lying. If I run a file comparison utility over several million lines of code, and I find 326 identical lines (most of which are things like #include ) and then say that IBM stole thousands of lines of code, I'm lying my @$$ off. It's similar to me saying you owe me a million dollars because you borrowed $5 for lunch one day. Or calling you a gay prostitute because your wife dragged you to see Brokeback Mountain. Or saying I have proof Jedi are real after watching the 'Star Wars Kid' video. (Do I really need to continue? How is gross exaggeration NOT flat out lying?)
Point 2.
It is interesting to watch SCO stock. My bet is that it goes down a notch, and it seems to be doing that so far today (but just barely). Investors tend to be just as stupid and emotionally attached to things as anyone else. (Succesful investors are less so, just like some of the better
Re:Bad for SCO ok for MS (Score:4, Insightful)
It's already known McBride tried to, um persuade Novell to join this little legal foray and they told SCO to get lost. It's already known SCO was told this is not a can of worms you want to open, again IIRC by Mr. Love of Novell. There is at least one of their own employees that have said SCO KNOWINGLY contributed code to Linux and the list goes on. So either McBride is a complete boob to ignore some really sound advise or he had other motivations.
So yeah, I know it's a bit tinfoilish to think Microsoft is simply manipulating another company via proxy but to me, right now it's the only thing that really makes much sense.
Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (Score:2, Insightful)
#define ENOSTR 60
Also, how would you describe ENOSTR? The IBM argument (which is valid) is that you would most likely describe it exactly that way. Also remember that Linus stated that some of the file was copied, but some was written. Even if the comments match, if the numbers are different then it is highly unlikely that it was a pure copy, as it would be far better not to change the numbers. (For example, if you redifined SIGKILL to 1, think of the annoyance you would cause to someone who accidentally hardcoded the number, or wanted to use kill -9)
As a sidenote: there isn't a whole lot of creativity in the comment, in fact it is probably uncopyrightable. Just the same way that "Jill sits on a chair" would be. There is creativity in code, but comments are not by themselves creative (this is why 2+2=4 cannot be copyrighted).
Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Insightful)
Novell needs every penny they can get, and it wouldn't surprise me if they sell whatever rights they still have to their new bed partner, Microsoft, who is then free to go after anyone (except Novell) for allegedly copying code from both Unix and DOS/Windows to Linux.
Re:Strange headline (Score:2, Insightful)
FTA:
"Worse, SCO claims control over code copyrighted by IBM, such as JFS, and others. SCO's own experts said SCO has no copyright infringement claim over those."
"Now, on the IBM motion and SCO cross motion regarding IBM's copyright claims, the GPL matters, in contrast to SCO's alleged 326 lines of infringed code, IBM owns about 700,000 lines of code that SCO has infringed, Marriott states."
Re:Linus says he wrote errno.h himself (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see anything here that implies Linus Torvald's credibility has been in the least bit impugned, and I think more people need to stand up and say that. This is exactly how rumors get started that can seriously impact an honest person's credibility, and all because of a poorly worded Slashdot description (that itself doesn't even question Linus' credibility).
Holly crap! (Score:4, Insightful)
Pheew! Geez whiz, so as my blood pressure normalizes I just wanted to ask
I mean this is actually false information, they are knowingly lying to everyone with each breath they take.
Just read this:
However, there is a group of software developers in the United States, and other parts of the world, that do not believe in the approach to copyright protection mandated by Congress.
The software license adopted by the GPL is called "copy left " by its authors. This is because the GPL has the effect of requiring free and open access to Linux (and other) software code and prohibits any proprietary use thereof.
This stance against intellectual property laws has been adopted by several companies in the software industry, most notably Red Hat. Red Hat's position is that current U.S. intellectual property law "impedes innovation in software development" and that "software patents are inconsistent with open source/free software." Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights. (see http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html [redhat.com] ).
I mean can't Red Hat for example sue them for libel? SCO is constantly insisting that GPL is anti-copyright, while GPL is only possible because of copyright law. They are misstating what GPL is about too by insisting that GPL does not allow any proprietary use (GPL requires that a distributor of GPLed code, follows GPL procedures, this is not about use.)
The Better posts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad the people who invested most in this circus won't really sue them because they knew full well this was only an effort to smear the reputation of Linux and other free software. The fact they won't sue is enough evidence of a conspiracy.
As for Darl, I would offer him a deal to walk free if he could produce enough evidence for the government to go after Microsoft's top execs. There is little gain in making him pay, but having enough evidence to do a couple arrests the top ranks at MS would be well worth it.
We must only be careful not to hit him from too many directions, but hit him very hard from a few. Unless he has a hope of walking free, he won't lead us to his bosses. It must be possible to offer him a deal.
Things like these should never be repeated. The people behind this must be stopped.
Msft and scox have already won (Score:4, Insightful)
Want to gloat about scox's share price being down, about scox not doing well financially? Fine, but remember this: scox's market cap is about twice as high now, as it was before the scam. And scox was as good as dead before the scam. Look at the financials, scox would have dead two years ago if not for this scam. Furthermore, darl and kevin mcbride are making out like bandits - each has made about two million since the scam started - not bad for small time Utah scammers. And remember, scox was a canopy company - not a real company. Canopy plays shell games with dozens of make-believe companies.
Msft financed the scam lawsuit, and msft got a great ROI out of the deal. The scam cost msft about as much as the cost to produce one TV commercial, and msft got a ton of grade-A FUD. The scox scam is nothing but about 1% of msft's continuing FUD campaign against Linux. Msft wants potential Linux users to know that Linux is a legal mine field. Msft also wants potential linux comtributers to know that they are risking a msft sponsered bogo-suit. Remember: just because the lawsuit is bogus doesn't mean the lawsuit won't cost over $50M in legal fees - and who wants that? Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to just not contribute to linux?
Re:SCO stock (Score:4, Insightful)
As to Wall Street's attitude, it's pretty clear that it has been wishful thinking all along. They despise open source, and Linux in particular, and despite every sign of a stock scam, they chose to back SCO on a course which can only lead to the bottom of the sewer. The investment community had been warned from the very start by the experts that SCO didn't have a case, and for Christ's sake, what kind of investment community backs a company whose sole business plan is extorting licensing fees based on highly dubious copyright claims that hadn't even be tested in court?
Re:SCO stock (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's talk about investor rationality and that "3% correction" you speak of.
What prompted that correction? Was it a well-reasoned analysis of market exposure, followed by an orderly transfer of assets from the stock market to another form of investment?
No. The stampede in Shanghai was caused by "a rumor about capital gains tax." [chinadaily.com.cn] Apparently, an unfounded rumor.
The dive in the Chinese market prompted a corresponding selloff in the U.S., the large volume of which prompted a technical "glitch" [ecommercetimes.com] in the NYSE's messaging system. That glitch caused an apparent instant freefall in the DJIA (apparently, backlogged trade messages from over an hour's worth of trading processed suddenly in 3 minutes)--which prompted panic selling.
So, no, I see very little to commend the cool nerves and clear thinking of the investing community.
The markets are fueled, first and foremost, on the tension between greed and fear. Never forget that.
Re:Premier case for a "Loser Pays" court system (Score:3, Insightful)
We already have a system where, if the lawsuit is frivolous or malicious, the instigator has to pay. You just don't hear about that because the media only reports on failings of our court system.If you change the system, lawyers will still win, because their skills are needed in court battles. I tell you what: next time you go into court, since you hate lawyers so much, don't hire one. We'll see how far that gets you.
Re:SCO stock (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO put enough fear into huge corporations such as SUN, HP and major web hosting companies such as ev1 that Linux adoption was hobbled for a time. As in war, the pawns (SCO) have finally been taken out, and the Queen (Microsoft) is still in a safe position.
Re:BLAH, BLAH, BLAH (Score:3, Insightful)