IBM Asks Court To Declare Linux Non-Infringing

A Cyclic Graph writes "We finally have a redacted version of IBM's Reply Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment on Counterclaim 10 in SCO v. IBM. In short, IBM is asking the Court to declare that Linux doesn't infringe upon any of SCO's purported intellectual property. This document is the last word on that matter until the Court either declares there to be no doubt that Linux is free of infringement, or decides that that issue has to be decided by the jury. In their brief, IBM points out that SCO puts forth a convoluted set of non-answers referencing each other to disguise it's inability to answer IBM. Their set of cross-references is so complex that Groklaw readers graphed the claims to make what little sense of them they could."

Re:Where I have I seen this before?

[Araxen]

If they can't straight forward answer the questions the case should be thrown out. The judge so far has been pretty smart to call SCO on this kind of stuff. Hopefully the judge calls them on their BS again.

If you ever wondered what this case was about

[LoveMe2Times]

Go look at the latest postings on Groklaw. There is a *ton* of redundancy between the various filings, but that's legal wrangling for ya. Anyway, if there was ever a time to actually go and read through this stuff, now's the time. I personally recommend the transcripts of the lawyers arguing the motions before the judge.

These filings show that IBM sees this whole thing was a baseless land-grab effected by a change in management. The estoppal and waiver arguments are so convincing and indisputable that you'd think a stock-holder lawsuit would be forthcoming. I mean, both Caldera and Santa Cruz had significant Linux business for significant periods of time. Presumably the shareholders held stock in part because of this. Apparently not enough to get rid of the board and management upon commencement of these shenanigans, but hopefully enough to make some noise once a verdict comes down.

In a similar vein, did SuSE stock get converted to Novell stock, or were they bought out with cash? If it got converted, then former SuSE stock holders may very well file a suit for the MS deal. Overall, in both cases, in seems curious that the stock holders seem helpless. If these companies were traditional F/OSS enemies, there'd be no surprise, but will people who bought stock in a Linux company really support being a traitor? I mean, really, these aren't people who bought stock in an oil company or GM. It's like investing in a solar power company or something you do at least in part for the principle of it.

What about us IBM shareholders?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not in favor of a bunch of lawsuits but IBM should press the point that the sooner it's ended, the sooner they can sue to recover their costs. If SCO keeps this charade up much longer, they'll go out of business before it's over and IBM will be left with their own hefty legal fees and no recourse but to pass that on to their shareholders.

SCO has no interest in a timely end to this trial and I question their ability to cover IBM's costs. Seems to me like SCO is screwing IBM's shareholders.

Re:Nine references deep...

[IgLou]

*Unconvincingly* Well, real programmers never get caught in infinite loops! *cough cough*

Back on topic, I have this nagging feeling that somehow SCO thought they could technobabble this through court and the judge would just nod and go, "uh yeah, sure". What bugs me about all this was that I can't help but to feel that this lawsuit was a means to make money for SCO, much like the RIAA lawsuits. I feel like litigation now is a legitimate means to add to your bottom line.

Re:What about us IBM shareholders?

[renegadesx]

I think they may be able to afford IBM's legal fees and stay alive if they fire enough people. Mind you, the lawyers representing them could buy out SCO and continue litigation, best to keep it dragging. Just say IBM's legal bill is $2 million and they have $4 million in cash reserves, best leave it until SCO is just dry, then SCO will be forced to liquidate stuff and sell stuff, that way they cannot come back. After this basically backfiring (as expected) Microsoft will not pick them up, neither will Novell or IBM, once it is official in courts that SCO's IP (if it really is SCO's) is basically useless in litigation after trying EVERYTHING the lawyers wont pick them up either. Leave them run themselves out, it will force SCO in to liquidation

Re:Nine references deep...

[Adambomb]

I feel like litigation now is a legitimate means to add to your bottom line.

just feeling that now? wow man.

Re:This could set an interesting precident

[zcat_NZ]

"Without copyright the GPL would be unenforceable. It would also be unnecessary."

Completely untrue.

Without copyright, companies could (perhaps would have no choice but) release binary-only software with strong "product activation" which could take a while to crack. The next version of Microsoft windows and all future propriatory software would require hardware TPM. Hardware manufacturers would stop documenting anything at all, because they have no other protection for their designs.

And they'd be completely free to take and modify previously open-source code to do it.

Without any copyright protection, OSS would be dead in fairly short order.

Re:If you ever wondered what this case was about

[civilizedINTENSITY]

However, that fiduciary responsibility can be mitigated by a statement of principle made at the time of going public. "We exist to earn our shareholder's profit, but also to earn for our shareholder's the following non-monetary values." Things like a bank who won't invest in weapons manufacturing, or banks that do invest in ecologically correct business.

Re:Better example on page 30

[Technician]

In internal documents, SCO developers acknowledged that "

SECTION REDACTED
The mere fact that some or all of the 2.4 kernel may have predated SCO Linux 4.0 does not mean that

SECTION REDACTED
If the term

SECTION REDACTED
then sections of the JDC assignment provisions would be rendered superfluous. As stated, the JDC

SECTION REDACTED
If SCO were correct that

SECTION REDACTED
would be rendered superfluous because SCO's reading of the

SECTION REDACTED
would necessarily exclude such materials from assignment.


Wow, why was this document chopped to bits? Anybody know?

Re:Summary is wrong

[LoveMe2Times]

The reasons that I recommended the oral arguments:

1) It's a nice way to get a summary of the argument, the counter-argument, and the rebuttal without wading through multiple filings.

2) As I mentioned, there's lot's of redundancy in each written filing (there's still some repitition in the oral arguments too), but thanks to the time constraints they don't repeat the arguments ad nauseum.

3) Reading the judge's reactions and comments is valuable, I find. Reading the judge when she says (to SCO's guy), "Why are you standing up? You don't get to say anything more." To which he replies, roughly, that he was hoping she'd ask his opinion, which she does not dignify with a response, IIRC, provides real entertainment!

4) Given that they're before a judge, they try and explain things somewhat more simply, with some analogies that don't make it into the written briefs.

5) Given the back-and-forth nature, and putting names with the words, I find it easier to pay attention and keep it all straight. It's also nice to know who says what as you develop a sense of each lawyers' personality, which helps as you read more transcripts.

That said, for the written versions, it's great to read the footnotes. The footnotes always have some of the most interesting material, IMHO. The oral arguments often allude to things which are explained in the footnotes, like *why* the case SCO refers to doesn't support their claim or is "inapposite." Anyway, YMMV.