IBM Adds SCO Counterclaim Charging Copyright Infringement 743
linuxjack55 writes "According to Yahoo! Finance, IBM has filed yet another counterclaim against SCO, this time claiming that SCO 'infringed IBM's copyrights by distributing IBM's contributions to Linux after SCO had violated its Linux license by claiming a copyright on parts of Linux.' Like it or not, it looks like the GPL is going to get a full vetting in this case. It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL."
You reap what you sow. (Score:4, Insightful)
GF.
Re:You reap what you sow. (Score:5, Funny)
Right or wrong, who cares. It's going to come down to who has the most cash.
Re:You reap what you sow. (Score:5, Interesting)
So how come most of the trouble with software patents has come from small companies or even individuals with almost no money taking on big companies?
According to your theory, Microsoft should have blown Eolas out of the water right from the start.
Re:You reap what you sow. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because small companies are the actual innovative force in the technology industries and large companies simply rip them off. (Not that I think that all or even most patents are actually innovative.)
Re:You reap what you sow. (Score:5, Interesting)
to lose that case. It means they *own* the desktop, and no one can accuse them of monopolistic practices if they close their browser up to any third party extensions.
Re:You reap what you sow. (Score:5, Insightful)
That architecture is different than Netscape who carried their own rendering engine along with many other components as a bundle in their app. That difference in architecture is where the rathole regarding "taking IE out of Windows" comes from - removing the shell (as the CMU prof demonstrated) is relatively trivial, but if you object to the presence of the rendering engine, then the removal of that is not only painful but breaks other parts of Windows such as help.
Of course, it doesn't help that MS was also being an ass about this all.
Netscape (actually, I think it's other plantiffs such as Sun's Java) would complain that their ability to interact with the interfaces of these internal components was disadvantageous vs. Microsoft's own access and ability to enact change in the interfaces.
The remedy to this solution would have been hard to implement I think - you have to force Microsoft to publish and commit to a set of public interfaces and functionality, make them available to all comers, and create some mechanism through which MS can't have back-door entry. In practice, quite difficult to do, especially in areas like this, subject to significant evolution.
Once again, it doesn't help that MS was being an ass about this too.
OK, now flash forward to Eolas. For competitive reasons, MS got pulled into having plug-in interfaces. Later, they took the ball and moved it beyond where Netscape had already set it. Today, those public plug-in interfaces are the way that Real audio can be a pluggable replacement to Windows Media, or that Macromedia in some future Flash will become yet another option. Again, to a lesser extent, these kinds of plug in interfaces are what allows Sun to build a pluggable JVM (although I believe this is a pretty different mechanism).
So, if MS decides to lose the EOLAS case, that pretty much gives them carte blanche to slam the doors through the existing public interfaces shut and switch back to proprietary interfaces of their own, and their own control. In Soviet Russia, you don't plug into the brower, it plugs in to you (sorry, couldn't help it)! In a post-EOLAS world, poor Microsoft can't publish an API that allows Quicktime or Flash or RealMedia to appear in a window because they can't afford the license. But that won't stop them from doing a non-infringing implementation of Windows Media will it?
I think this is definitely NOT a case where the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Re:You reap what you sow. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You reap what you sow. (Score:5, Funny)
John Bobbet as Daryl McBride
Giant Killer Robots With Nuclear Bombs For Balls as the IBM legal team
Wilford Brimley as the caring and passionate Judge
The cast of Friends as disgruntled Linux users
Ryan Phillipe as the young Eric S Raymond during a flashback scene
That chick from voyager as the evil SCO lawyer
Danny Bonaduce as the hotdog vendor out on the street who has keen insight and good advice.
And a cameo by Sean Connery as the old prison guard that comforts Daryl after his first pooper invasion in the prison scene at the end of the movie.
Re:You reap what you sow. (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, Bobcat Goldthwait as Zed McBride sounds about right to me.
Re:You reap what you sow. (Score:4, Insightful)
After a certain point, having more money than your opponent is no advantage.
However, having more *sense* than your opponent is always good, and actually having a *case* is very, very valuable. And I think IBM's position relative to SCO on those issues dwarfs even their relative financial advantage (which, of course, sits at around 10,000 to 1).
Re:You reap what you sow. (Score:5, Insightful)
But, this will either solidify what we are all doing, or kill us off....
Re:You reap what you sow. (Score:3, Informative)
With a BSD license I can take the code, modify it, and sell binaries without providing source EVER.
With the GPL I can take the source, modify it, and sell binaries. BUT I'll have to give up the source to anyone who asks for the source. I can only charge, at best, the cost of providing the source ($10 ship/handling).
Try reading the licenses sometime.
Re:You reap what you sow. (Score:5, Informative)
Essentially, IBM is invoking section 4 of the GPL, which reads in part:
SCO has done a number of things that certainly violate the spirit and probably the letter of the GPL (extra licensing, etc. -- and if the rumors are true, they've backported Linux code into their proprietary Unixes). Under section 4, this terminates SCO's rights to distribute Linux. IBM has copyright on its contributions to Linux, therefore SCO has been distributing IBM's (and ever other Linux contributer's) code without a license. That's copyright infringement.
Re:You reap what you sow. (Score:3, Informative)
I read and re-read it and I can't make heads or tails out of what they are saying. Reminds me of this thread. Sure glad they aren't after me.
SCO disagreed with the GPL (and declared it void). That means they aren't allowed the benefits it provides (redistribution). They continued (probably still on their FTP site) to distribute Linux.
IBM has the
Re:You reap what you sow. (Score:5, Informative)
I can help you out with that. SCO is still distributing the Linux kernel sources from their ftp site. That kernel contains work contributed by IBM. IBM still has the copyright on that work.
The GPL says that if you can't meet all of the obligations of the license then you can't distribute a covered work at all.
SCO would not have been as open to this if they had ceased all distribution of Linux as soon as they started this foofraw. As it is, they left an opening for IBM and everyone who holds copyright on various components of the kernel to sue them. RedHat is nailing them for GPL violation as well.
I have empathy for other people. (Score:5, Funny)
Ouch, the graph shows that SCO dropped ~15% since that news broke.
Darl, I'll let you sleep on the couch in my basement. Note though that my cat is very fussy, you'll have to completely bury your turds in the litterbox or she'll get mad. Thanks, buddy!
That might not work (Score:5, Funny)
Darl's such a turd, your cat will try to bury HIM.
Re:That might not work (Score:3, Funny)
Darl's such a turd, your cat will try to bury HIM.
Already done... sort of. I was using pictures of Darl to train my cat to attack him, and the dumb cat ate the pages. After several hours of... processing, Darl re-emerged and was promptly buried. What's sad is that he was far more pleasant afterwards.
Re:That might not work (Score:3, Funny)
In Soviet Ru... oh, nevermind.
Re:I have empathy for other people. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, they're only up about 1000% on the year! Seriously, though, stock price isn't a great indicator of SCO's fortunes - there is so little stock available to trade (7.5 million float, over 60% held by insiders and institutions) that it doesn't take much wind to blow this thing up or down.
Re:I have empathy for other people. (Score:5, Interesting)
However, it is VERY pleasing to see that it dropped so much so quickly after news broke. That means that people are still at least somewhat sane. They know there's very little propping SCOX up, and that any bad news could cause it to fall fast, so lots of people have set it to sell very quickly at even the most minor of price drops.
Then Darl announces that he will sue ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking of turds.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Boies also represented the federal government in its antitrust case against Microsoft, Al Gore in his attempt to win a favorable Florida ruling in the 2000 presidential election, and Napster in its fight to defend its online music-swapping business.
I'm fine with the fact that you were a turd all your life and show it (Darl), but if you weren't and
Re:Profit from SCO's demise (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't look like the options are being sold on the major markets -- a few quick checks of public stock data show no options available for SCOX. Not surprising - it's a very low volume stock with very few shares outstanding.
That said, unless you can get some very long term options, I certainly wouldn't buy them. Until the case goes to trial (2005) the stock is going to vary wildly based on market perception. Presuming the trial goes as expected it would mean the stock would drop and your options are worth something.
Options are a very dangerous way to play the market -- you pay money for them and if the stock doesn't become worth more or less than the option price (depending on the kind of option you buy) then you lose all your money. You don't even have the stock to show for it -- which could at least revalue at some point.
Unless you're very market savvy, I'd recommend staying away from options.
Someone needs to do a lawsuit flowchart (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Someone needs to do a lawsuit flowchart (Score:5, Funny)
SCO responds. (Score:5, Informative)
This just in [infoworld.com].
I'll just let that... sink in.
Re:SCO responds. (Score:3, Insightful)
Do they understand the concept of ownership at all?
Are they really claiming that just beacuse a program runs in Linux that it is automatically their property?
Re:SCO responds. (Score:3, Interesting)
They have ignored the GPL from the beginning (and still are).
None of their press releases have made any sense (we have tried to make sense out of them ourselves by wondering if they are trying to make money off the deal before the stock goes into deeper shit than it already is).
They are claiming that Linux is their property because it is a derivitave work of their IP.
Re:Er.. reality check (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO responds. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they don't. But IBM does. There's a great quote from IBM later in the article:
That's a quote from somebody who genuinely understands the power of Free/Open Source software.
It's pretty clear that IBM's lawyers get the legal aspects of the GPL, too. I remember hearing a story about IBM when they were first considering going into Free/Open Source software. IBM, being IBM, didn't want to get involved without understanding the legal issues, so they asked their lawyers to look over the GPL. The lawyers came back with the opinion that it was a well written legal document. Their business background meant that they didn't understand why anyone would want to release their code under the GPL, but they agreed that it actually would achieve its goal of keeping the source open. IBM never would have used GPLed software if they weren't quite confident that the license was sound.
Re:SCO responds. (Score:5, Informative)
The distro has a license that may be unique and apart from the licenses of each individual file.
If they distribute their distro under a blanket GPL license then yes, they are effectively charging a license fee for code they have no rights to even if a single line of that code does not belong to them and are thus in violation of the GPL for their entire distro. Every individual who has contributed code to that distro may sue them for license violation.
How many people have contributed code to their distro? Richard Stallman, Bill Joy and Linus Torvalds, for starters, since it is a BSD/GNU/Linux distro. The entire KDE/Gnome teams as well.
If they have not claimed GPL over the entire distro than they must enummerate those files which are under a different license and take care that all linking and derivitive works therein comply with any GPL licensed code.
If they have not they are in violation of the GPL for each instantiation.
If you right a VB app Microsoft may own the VB runtime, but they do not own your code as a derivitave work. You own that.
SCO has effectively declared legal war on anyone who has contributed code to their entire distro.
Fight back.
KFG
Re:SCO responds. (Score:3, Informative)
"C++ is one of the properties that SCO owns today and we frequently are approached by customers who wish to license C++ from us and we do charge for that." March 4 2003
No point in trying to argue with delusionals.
Re:SCO responds. (Score:4, Informative)
SCO validates GPL and erradicates their own case (Score:5, Interesting)
a) SCO says the GPL is valid and that they are free to distribute under the terms of the GPL - thereby making IBM's claim superflous AND also making Linux (and any theoretical infringing code therein) available to all users under GPL with no need of licensing from SCO.
b) SCO says the GPL is invalid - thereby making IBM's couterclaim true - thereby making themselves subject to endless lawsuits for delivering code that they don't have a license to - thereby insuring the timely demise of SCO due to lack of legal funds.
SCO can't win. They can't have it both ways. They are in a very bad legal quagmire.
Paul Seamons
Little Solace Boise facing Ethics charges (Score:5, Informative)
I am always taken back when lawyers talk about Ethics, but I guess it has to be understood in a Arbeit Macht Frei sense
One of these days... (Score:5, Informative)
Now I haven't checked how many LOC Linux is, but the great great majority is NOT in any way copyrighted to SCO, even with their most absurd of claims. That means they need a valid licence to distribute Linux, and must abide by the terms of the GPL.
This in particular includes paragraph 2b:
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
and 6:
"Each time you redistribute the Program (...), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
However SCOs rights may or may not have been violated, SCO has no right to violate the rights of all the honest contributors to the Linux kernel. Their right to compensation comes from the legal system, not by stealing back. "Some of you (OSS developers) took our code and illegally licenced/distrbuted it, now we'll take yours and do the same!"
That's what their claiming. Not even that their the same people. It's like claiming "Well this one black guy punched me once, so now it's my right to punch any black guy I feel like!" That argument is only for the press - they'd be torn to pieces for it in court.
Kjella
Re:SCO responds. (Score:5, Interesting)
One wonders exactly which files they claim ownership of, and even if they refuse to identify specific lines of code that they believe are theirs they should be required to at least identify the files they are charging a license fee for before they can collect any money. That's basic contract law.
"Give us some money."
"What do I get?"
"We can't tell you. Ha, ha, ha!"
Right Sparky. Blow me.
If you have written a single line of code that is being distributed in a file that SCO is charging a license fee for and are under no contractual obligation to transfer rights of derivitive works to SCO, even if they do own the core operating system code they are still violating your license on your IP.
By law derivitive works belong to the actual author.
I wonder what would happen if everyone who has contributed legitimate code under the GPL to SCO's distro were to each file a suit for violation of their license terms?
More than wonder, I highly recommend it.
If you represent yourself pro se it will cost you some time, some stationary and the filing fee.
It will cost them a lawyer to respond, for each individual case.
Make the bastards bleed from one thousand little legal cuts. Even the expense of that many band-aids and bactine will hurt.
KFG
Re:SCO responds. (Score:3, Interesting)
More than that. He is saying that SCO owns copyright on all Linux code. Since they do not agree with the GPL terms for Linux, they can only distribute parts of it for which they own copyright. And he says they will continue to distribute all of it.
Re:USC-17 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:USC-17 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:SCO responds. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:SCO responds. (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, Darl didn't say it, Blake did. I know, it's a fine line, given that it's kind of hard to tell the siamese triplets (Darl, Chris, Blake) apart.
The copyright claim, while flat out untrue, is also contradicted by SCO's own previous statements. Even more interesting to my mind is the statement: "If we want to charge someone a licensing fee for using our copyrighted software that's gone into Linux, then we have that prerogative..."
Has Blake even *read* the GPL?
These guys really aren't making any sense a
IBM's Millions and Millions of Lawyers (Score:5, Funny)
How charming to think that the lying, snivelling legal lapdogs at SCO are going to get the Big Blue treatment.
Thanks Big Blue!
Duh...... (Score:5, Insightful)
yesh because with all the work IBM has done with linux in the past short years they obviously have no vested interest in making money off the GPL or linux(or GNU/LINUX or SCO/GNU/LINUX, whatever you want to call it).
this trial should prove to be interesting as long as it doesn't drag out for 5 years
Re:Duh...... (Score:3, Insightful)
should prove to be interesting as long as it doesn't drag out for 5 years
It won't. SCO will go belly up long before that.
Re:Duh...... (Score:3, Insightful)
What is wrong with that? Why is it bad if someone makes money from doing work? IBM does a lot of work makeing Linux better. They support and follow the GPL. They spend there money defending the GPL. Let's see.
1. write free software
2.???? No wait I got it, sell support for the free software an
No (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)
settle for measly pennies out of court? would ibm want that, or what good it would do for ibm to settle for measly pennies, and pennies paid to who?
they might realise that sco's claims have gone so far that settling the case(one way or another) wouldn't make as much sense as beating them silly in the courtroom would(because they need that for credibility and as a predecent and a warning against other silly idiots who might try the same).
Re:They're going to do this exactly: (Score:3, Insightful)
(ibm doesn't benefit from measly pennies from possible settlement with sco, where it can lose potentially much credibility if they let it off the hook, and they employ those lawyers anyways since they need them all the time just not as mercs for hire)
They may have to now (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't make IBM dismiss the counterclaim. Unless they go bankrupt or something, this is probably going to court - I think IBM doesn't want this sort of thing to happen again, and it appears SCO will be made an example/bitch.
Re:They may have to now (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, the officers and board of the company ARE individually liable for the actions of the company - both to the shareholders and to the rest of the world.
Although I do think the shareholders are MORALLY responsible for the actions of their c
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
They can't just dismiss IBM's lawsuit and every single person who has contributed code in the version that SCO is distributing has valid grounds for a lawsuit. SCO could conceivably face hundreds of lawsuits. They will not be able to unilaterally dismiss all of the lawsuits and I doubt that their pockets are deep enough to settle out of court with everyone who will hopefully file a copyright infringement law
Pump and dump now! (Score:5, Interesting)
Its interesting that IBM is getting behind the GPL, but I do think that this suit is just a press release, and I would be very supprised if it ever made it to court. If it were the case that Linux has SCO IP in the kernel, then IBM's case would have no merit. Also, I do not see where SCO is even in violation of the GPL. IBM says:
SCO violated the general Public License under which Linux is distributed. The GPL requires Linux distributors to permit customers to freely copy the software.
SCO's binary runtime license says nothing about source code nor distribution.
Re:Pump and dump now! (Score:3, Informative)
During your holiday on Mars, SCO insisted that every Linux user must pay SCO ~$700 for the fantastic yet undefined SCO IP in Linux. That's where SCO slightly deviated from the "freely copy" bit.
IBM rock and SCO paper.
Re:Pump and dump now! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pump and dump now! (Score:4, Insightful)
Hence if SCO knowingly distributed their Unix IP under the GPL they gave up their right to charge for it. the fact that they've been distributing the kernel since after they filed the lawsuit means that they are knowingly distributing their IP under the GPL,
No, their claim is that they're distributing their IP under their own license, and since their IP is entangled with the Linux kernel they're also distributing the Linux kernel under the GPL with some added restrictions.
THAT is where they get in trouble. Nobody cares how they license their own IP, or whether it's mixed in with Linux; the problem here comes when they slap their restrictions on other people's code in violation of the other people's licenses.
the fact that they've been distributing the kernel since after they filed the lawsuit means that they are knowingly distributing their IP under the GPL, and hence cannot charge a fee for it.
But they're not distributing it under the GPL -- it's under the GPL plus their own license. Again, the error wasn't distributing their *own* code; they have every right to do that, even under an impossible license. The error is distributing other people's code in violation of copyright.
Of course, they can fix this in a heartbeat -- just take their FTP server down.
Doing so violates the GPL and allows *every* contributor to the kernel who owns a copyright in the kernel to sue them for violation of the license.
And now, we're back in agreement.
Of course, the judgement would be for pennies; most of the people involved lost nothing due to SCO's infringement. The loss is due to other things, such as their libels.
-Billy
Re:Pump and dump now! (Score:3, Informative)
They have annouced they are selling/requiring licenses to GPL covered code.
A
Re:Pump and dump now! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, no, no. You miss the point. IBM has contributed a lot of it's own code that SCO could not possibly have claim over. These are two different issues. Further, everyone who has contributed any code that SCO distributed has had their copyright violated by SCO. And I'm not just talking about the kernel. Any applications that are GPL'd that SCO distributed with its distro. as well.
SCO = TOAST
Re:Pump and dump now! (Score:3, Funny)
I believe the correct syntax is
SCO == TOAST
Re:Pump and dump now! (Score:5, Informative)
The thing is, the GPL says you cannot have royalty generating IP in a GPL covered product. When SCO found out their IP was in there, they had to remove it. They had to RECALL IT! That's right, they had to recall their shipped copies of linux, not because their customers had no right to SCO IP, but because they don't have a right to everything else. E.g. you can't have GNOME because you have that under GPL, the violating IP means you don't have the GPL, and therefore SCO can't ship linux because of all the IP in there that does not belong to them. Of course the best example is not GNOME, but the parts of the kernel that are comingled with supposed SCO IP.
So when SCO indemnifies SCO Linux customers, they were saying SCO wouldn't sue them, but in reality, IBM now can! Those customers are using IBM IP without a license (because the GPL doesn't apply while SCO's royalty generating IP is in there with it!)
Re:Pump and dump now! (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL says that when you distribute the code via the GPL, you can not require additional restrictions along with the GPL in that distribution. (I'm not talking linux distributions (eg. Suse, Slackware), but the more general give something to someone else)
This does not prevent you from also incorporating your code in a product that you license/sell/whatever so long as it is only y
Thinly Traded Stocks... (Score:5, Informative)
WHen the volume is low and the bid/ask spread is wide, someone can (illegally) collude with someone else to make wash trades within the bid/ask spread to slowly walk the price upward. The price is completely unsupported so that when selling hits again, it free falls as it did today.
You can learn a lot about the risks of trading thinly traded stocks by reading the last few weeks of messages on the Yahoo finance board.
You are easily misled (Score:4, Insightful)
No, IBMs lawyers are quite decidedly on the side of IBM. If IBMs linux experiment fails, all bets are off.
I still remember when IBM was the big evil. I remember the geeks cheering when MSFT crushed OS/2 to secure Windows' place on the desktop. Hooray! No more IBM monopoly!
That is, of course, not to say that I dont find every bit of minutia about this nerd hissy fit absofuckinglutely enthralling.
IBM is like Godzilla. (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM owns patent on FUD. (Score:5, Funny)
Irony, thy name is IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
The company that is known for having more patents (hardware and software) than any other company in the world is now the poster child for and the paladin of those who believe such patents to be immoral in the first place.
Satire is dead! Reality is so much weirder.
Re:Irony, thy name is IBM (Score:3, Insightful)
Except the objections are to patents that are a) trivial and b) abused. While IBM's may be trivial, they are definitely not abused. This is the first time I can remember hearing about IBM using them, which seems to say that IBM believes they shouldn't be used except to take out kamikaze lunatics like SCO that threaten the entire industry.
WLTSIM comments on press coverage (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO are arming the opposition (Score:3, Interesting)
Hopefully other contributers to the kernel will start suing them too.
"Legion of fire-breathing IP lawyers" ?? (Score:5, Funny)
Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) It's IBM that's on the side of the GPL. It's fire-breath lawyers are on the side of whoever pays them.
(2) IBM is on the side of the GPL because they don't have much of a choice : they don't really have an OS of their own, and they had already invested millions in promoting Linux before this whole SCO idiocy.
This said, if IBM's lawyers reckon the GPL is a tool worth using in court, then you can be pretty sure it's a solid license, which is good news for the rest of us (read: IBM's money has paid for a very thorough review of the GPL for the rest of us. Thanks guys!)
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
They do have an OS of their own. In fact the have more than one. They have OS390 and AIX.
What is really happening here is that IBM missed the last paradigm change. When the PC market exploded with quality clones, IBM was always 6 months late and $1000 too expensive. IBM didn't manage to bring a really respectable PC product to market from the tim eof the IBM AT until the first ThinkPads hit.
The reality is that there isn't much money in either PCs or OS and Application Development. The real money is in enterprise hardware and consulting services. As long as the linux market continues to grow, IBM Global Services is sitting pretty doing implementations.
IBM has a lot to gain by using the GPL to win this (Score:3, Interesting)
IBM has worked long and hard to prove it's a friend of the open-source community.
This isn't as a charity act. They're doing this because open source advocates are influential in many large hardware and software purchases around the world [com.com]
Because IBM thinks this community is infl
Re:Correction (Score:5, Informative)
I like IBM's approach better than HP. (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM: "Free software wants to be free."
HP: "Pay us because free software is scary."
The stock price is going down at last! (Score:4, Funny)
Chart. [yahoo.com] As I write this, it's down nearly $3, or 17%, on yesterday's close. McBride and his cronies have less than an hour before the markets close to innovate another press release to try to pump it back up again. Grab some popcorn - this is gonna be fun.
Ransome Love talks about SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
Some interesting bits of information are that Caldera originally wanted to open source the Unix code they had purchased and that Ransom Love sold all of his shares in SCO when they announced the lawsuit with IBM.
Here's a nice quote from Love: "I don't believe that the suit is good for the company or Linux."
Attention! May I have your attention please? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Big news! More companies than EVER are purchasing our licenses!"
"You should see our new version of UNiX - it's got SAMBA!"
"All your Linux are belong to us..." etc...
After an annoucement like this, they're going to have to come up with some huge Newspeak-like announcement to get that stock price back up - and quick. Wait for it, Darl can't possibly shut his mouth now.
All we need now are reassurances that all goes well on the Malabar front...
heh (Score:3, Funny)
Groklaw (Score:3, Interesting)
A kick in SCO's hairy balls (Score:3, Funny)
The memo failed to state however, that the counterclaim was the latest strike in what IBM calls "it's long term plan to kick SCO's big'n'salty donkey balls".
You should probably thank SCO.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Obligatory Matrix Quote (Score:5, Funny)
Stowell tells a bald-faced lie (Score:5, Interesting)
"If we want to continue to distribute Linux to our existing customers, we can do that because we own the copyrights on that Unix software."
cf. Infoworld [infoworld.com]
GPL: It's the law (Score:3, Informative)
IBM got the idea from me (Score:5, Funny)
I will be insufferable for the rest of the day.
More than just a GPL issue (Score:5, Informative)
Hopefully, this will require SCO to reveal more evidence since IBM is claiming that SCO's current practices are causing damage. In related news, SCO stock continues to drift lower [yahoo.com] under heavy volume...
Who better? (Score:3, Insightful)
Brilliant strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
They keep making their copyright claims in press releases.
By IBM introducing copyright violations into the suit themselves, THEY FORCE SCO TO RESPOND. Also, IBM can get the code that SCO claims is in Linux in the discovery phase.
This thing is quickly going nuclear. I notice the stock's dump has started to level off, guess Melinda Gates is spending more pocket change...
More counter claims??? (Score:4, Funny)
Adding another counter claim screws up the symmetry completely.
On Who's Side (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they are not on the side of the GPL; they are on IBM's side. It just so happens that, currently, that IBM and the GPL have a common interest.
And never forget the lesson SCO has taught us: the business that is your friend today (IBM) can be your enemy in the future (SCO/Caldera).
Re:On Who's Side (Score:3, Insightful)
uh, which is the definition of "being on the side of". no one said it was permanent.
hostage situation (Score:4, Funny)
apologies to Kenneth Lay for stealing his joke.
Big Blue (Score:3, Funny)
IBM: I'm in your face, suing your dudes...
SCO: That's no fair!
IBM: noob
Yeah it's retarded but I am too damn tired to be funny.
IBM is asking for a declaratory judgement! (Score:4, Interesting)
Not only are they charging infringement of IBM's copyrights (several listed, with record numbers) they are asking for a declaratory judgement (another put up or shut up permanently request). Page 36 ...
And on Page 37, IBM reminds the court that there IS a controversy between IBM and SCO on these issues. (SCO can't try to weeezle out of the request for declaratory judgement like they did RedHat's)
SCO is SCOrewed!
Re:Schoolyard fun. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No, where's BOIES?!! (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know WHY this guy has ANY kind of reputation that is positive. He is either a horseshit lawyer, or he takes on loser cases. There is no third possibility.
Hell, the best sign for our side was that BOIES's name was tacked on...
Re:No it's not (Score:5, Insightful)
As another poster pointed out, SCO no longer has a choice. They cannot simply wave a magic wand and make IBM's countersuit disappear if IBM isn't interested in an out of court solution.
They may have been bluffing, but IBM has called them on it.
Re:lets see the goods... (Score:3, Insightful)
The funny thing is that SCO actually did it themselves this time. It's here [sco.com] at their IBM lawsuit web page [sco.com] (which they had't updated since June).
Enjoy!