Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Caldera Government Operating Systems Software The Courts Unix News

SCO Asks IBM To Make SCO's Case For It 459

Posted by timothy from the it's-just-simpler-that-way dept.
acousticiris writes "According to an analysis of Friday's memorandum from SCO on Groklaw: 'If I had to characterize it in a brief sentence or two, the sentence would be that SCO tells the court, "How are we supposed to know what code IBM misappropriated? It's up to them to prove our case for us."...' It's also interesting to note that in Friday's memorandum, footnote 4, SCO uses Eric Raymond's Jargon File entry for FUD to take pot shots at IBM (footnote 4). Evidently, Eric was not pleased, according to the updated entry."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Asks IBM To Make SCO's Case For It More

SCO Asks IBM To Make SCO's Case For It

Comments Filter:

  • Then the judge replies... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...ok, so how do you know they misappropriated *anything*? Case dismissed.

    --
    Finder.
    1-800-759-0700

    • Re:Then the judge replies... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ed Bugg ( 2024 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @01:01PM (#7314193)
      And that would actually be bad. Linux needs to be totally vindicated of containing any tainted SysV code, and there is finally a chance that the GPL will be uphold as a valid enforcabled license. The case being dismissed will not clear Linux just gives SCO more of a chance to spread even more FUD.

      • Re:Then the judge replies... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt AT nerdflat DOT com> on Sunday October 26, 2003 @01:10PM (#7314241) Journal
        Would you mind explaining how it can possibly be that the GPL is *NOT* enforceable?

        Copyright law says you are not allowed to distribute without permission from the copyright holder(s). It does not stipulate what you must do to obtain that permission. That is left at the discretion of those that hold the copyright. If I hold the copyright on material, and I insist that you abide by the terms a license that I dictate before you are legally allowed to distribute *ANY* of the code I wrote, that is my perogative.

        My having used the GPL does not cause derivative works to be copyrighted by me... You still own the copyrights on any lines of code that you wrote, but I still *DO* own the copyrights on any lines of code that I wrote as well, and if any of those lines happen to reside within software that you write, if you did not agree to the terms of the GPL, you are violating plain old ordinary copyright law.

        End of story.

        • Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bash the GPL. I'm just saying it's never been tried in court. That could be a good thing, a testiment on how good it is that no one has never tried to get it ruled invalid. But just look back in the comments on slashdot over the years and you'll see a lot of people and situations where it's come up and FUD spread that it's not enforcable. I myself would much rather see those people shutup and the FUD stop.

          Also it's my opinion that code from GPL projects are making

          • Re:Then the judge replies... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt AT nerdflat DOT com> on Sunday October 26, 2003 @02:07PM (#7314446) Journal
            the jaws of the GPL is that if a project becomes tainted like this then the tainted software must be GPL'd as well.
            The GPL cannot be made to apply to code without to copyright owner's consent, regardless of whether or not non-GPL'd software has contaminated a GPL'd work.

            What must happen in this case (assuming, of course, that some code exists in Linux which was never supposed to be there), is that SCO's code *MUST* be removed from Linux. Whether or not SCO wants it there is irrellevent, since SCO at best only hold copyrights on code that they wrote, they do not have the authority to dictate that their code must be bundled with code that other people hold the copyrights on. Because SCO is not cooperating in this matter, it technically is making *EVERY* single Linux distributor in violation of the GPL. SCO cannot legally distribute Linux without GPL'ing their code, but neither can anyone else (in the strictest legal sense of copyright law). This is unreasonable, and will *NOT* be looked on favorably by an unbiased judge.

            What is ironic is that SCO's case against IBM would have actually been a lot stronger if they had admitted to where the code was up front. They still would have been eligible for damages by the merit of their code being misappropriated, just maybe not as much as what they were saying. It is apparent that the only way SCO's case is likely to be worth as much as SCO wants it to be is if SCO keeps the code location secret. What SCO is overlooking is that you aren't supposed to use the evidence itself as a basis for determining the suitable penalty, you have to assess the raw damages in order to determine that. When they try to present this in court, SCO will be extremely lucky if the judge doesn't fine them for wasting the the legal system's time with a frivolous and unsubstantiated case.

            • You're assuming that there actually is code belonging to SCO there. That doesn't seem to be the case - certainly all evidence is negative, and this latest paper from their lawyers seems to confirm it. They now appear to be claiming that the code in question is not SysV code at all, it's AIX code that by their selective reading of the contracts is still supposed to be kept confidential by IBM, even though they own it. Which, of course, contradicts completely a lot of their past public statements, but those h

              • You're assuming that there actually is code belonging to SCO there
                Uhmm... yes. I specifically said so, in fact:
                "....(assuming, of course, that some code exists in Linux which was never supposed to be there)..."

        • Of course you're right. A ruling that the GPL was unenforceable would be as legally absurd as... a ruling that shrink-wrap EULAs are binding contracts, for instance. It's silly, and frivolous, and unfortunately the way the US Justice system seems to be going it just might happen if someone with enough money and connections wanted it to happen.

          Which is why the guy you're responding to is right as well. It wouldn't be a good thing for this case to just be dismissed. All signs are pointing to that being exac

      • And that would actually be bad.

        No it wouldn't. It would actually be the exact opposite.

        Linux needs to be totally vindicated of containing any tainted SysV code

        Given the impossibility of proving a negative, that might take rather a long time.
        • Given the impossibility of proving a negative, that might take rather a long time.

          I think that you might be confusing some things.

          For example, "all birds fly". This is universally affirming. All you have to do is find one bird that doesnt fly, and it is disproved. It still works when I say "no birds fly". I only need to find one bird that flies.

          What you probably meant was that it was very difficult to prove a universal proposition all together, whether, it is positive or negative in quantity. Ditt

  • fuck me harder! (Score:4, Funny)

    by madmancarman ( 100642 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @12:52PM (#7314151)
    It seems somehow fitting that SCO would link to FUD in the jargon file, since the previous entry in the jargon file is "fuck me harder" [catb.org]. After all, isn't that what SCO is doing to their shareholders?

    • Re:fuck me harder! (Score:4, Funny)

      by Jetson ( 176002 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @01:24PM (#7314266) Homepage
      It seems somehow fitting that SCO would link to FUD in the jargon file, since the previous entry in the jargon file is "fuck me harder". After all, isn't that what SCO is doing to their shareholders?

      Not yet. Right now they're playing the game of "See how big it is?" The people buying shares now won't see the ropes and whips until it's too late.

  • umm.. dont they have the source code? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ALpaca2500 ( 125123 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @12:53PM (#7314157) Homepage
    can't SCO get the linux source code, and compare it to their own closed source code, and see what is the same? i thought their claim was that IBM just dumped a bunch of their UNIX code into linux... wouldnt it be easy to find?
    • SCOs case against IBM seems to concern a transfer of technology (RCU etc.) that SCO seems to think belongs to them by a cause in a contract, even though SCO did not develop any of this code. Hence why SCO has to ask IBM for the code.

      Why does the term "possession is 99% of the law" come to mind for this case?

    • Re:umm.. dont they have the source code? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @01:09PM (#7314240)
      Actually their claim is more targeted than that.

      They claim specific rights to JFS as a derivitive work of UNIX, (which is like saying that your HKK turbocharger is a "derivitive work" of your Ford Mustang)and to a Linux SMP implementation.

      Everything else that they claim to have claimed has actually been press release FUD. (See Jargon File)

      The JFS claim rests entirely on the terms of contract and the legal definition of derivative works. No need to even look at the code since it is stipulated that IBM wrote the whole thing themselves.

      The SMP claim depends upon the code in a very particular bit of code which may, but does not need to be, implemented in any particular Linux kernel.

      This filing by SCO amounts to more FUD. I can't imagine it's going to fly. To make a claim you must provide evidence for that claim or go home. Defendant then defends against that evidence. If it isn't introduced as evidence, not need to defend. A claim is not evidence.

      They're not only smoking, they're eating random mushrooms at the same time and the judege should throw their tripping asses out of court until they come back clean and straight.

      KFG
      • This is what I don't understand at all. If this were the case with Windows, wouldn't every driver and DLL linked into the kernel space belong to Microsoft under SCO's logic? Most, if not all, of this stuff they are claiming is their's is implemented as loadable modules, right?
      • As I read that, they seemed to be saying that JFS was just one example of infringement among many. They seemed to be saying that IBM should know all the places thta they have infringed without being told because it was so obvious. For example says SCO, look how obvious it is that they infringed on JFS.

        IBM obviously can't go forward until SCO specifies all the points that SCO claims infringes. Even the debate that IBM can't release JFS is not specific enough. SCO needs to specify whether IBM can't release it because it has 10 lines that look a little bit like Sys V code or whether IBM can't release it because it was ported to AIX at one point.

        • Re:umm.. dont they have the source code? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Xabraxas ( 654195 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @02:34PM (#7314560)
          SCO needs to specify whether IBM can't release it because it has 10 lines that look a little bit like Sys V code or whether IBM can't release it because it was ported to AIX at one point.

          SCO is not claiming that JFS contains sys V code. They are claiming that they own JFS, even though IBM invented it, just because they use it for AIX. Their arguemnt makes no sense. Talk about viral licensing!

          • SCO has said that, yes, but not consitently. SCO said in their SCO Forum that there was line by line copying. They also mention copyright violation in their Amended Complaint.

            But really my point is that it doesn't matter what SCO says to the press. They need to say say this in court...

            In court, IBM can make sure they choose one story and stick with it. ;)

    • The issue isn't access to the source, the issue is that they're starting to falter and inadvertantly let it slip that they themselves have no idea what is infringing, if anything, nor do they have the resources to determine it, so they're hoping IBM will do their jobs for them. When they're getting to the point that they're supposed to serve up the meat and potatoes, they're finding their larder's empty and are now begging the dinner guests for food.
    • If you check my posts, you'll see that I am far from a SCO apologist.

      However, in this instance, I think Groklaw and others are misrepresenting SCO's filing. Not in terms of the derivative code issues--that representation is on target.

      But, SCO is not asking for IBM to show it where the infringing lines are.

      In IBM's discover, IBM asked SCO to be specific as to what is infringing. They also asked SCO to tell them who at IBM infringed and when. In SCO's response, they are saying that they do not know who had access to it and which specific IBM employee donated the code. They do say that once IBM answers some of SCO's discovery requests, then they will be able to answer the who/when. If you look at the relevant section Groklaw quotes from SCO, it says:

      As a result, some of the information IBM requested will be known only to IBM, so the specifics of who at IBM was involved with improperly contributing this code to the public, how they did so, and the like will not be known until SCO gets the information from IBM, the party who contributed the protected materials in violation of its contractual obligations.

      While I think SCO are a bunch of weasels who have probably not been specific as to lines of code. I do think that this particular objection to IBM discovery requests is quite reasonable and understandable. SCO isn't saying that IBM has to tell them what code was contributed just who did it how and when.

      I also think that we as a community have to be very careful about trying to view SCO's statements with an open mind so that we don't sound like total idiots to disinterested parties because I think that is a danger in this instance.

      I say that guardedly, view it with an open mind so we can understand what they are saying and debunk it.
      • While I think SCO are a bunch of weasels who have probably not been specific as to lines of code. I do think that this particular objection to IBM discovery requests is quite reasonable and understandable. SCO isn't saying that IBM has to tell them what code was contributed just who did it how and when.

        in theory, sco should be able to tell ibm who did it. all they have to do is check out the copyright notices in the code. for example in:
        arch/s390/lib/memset.c
        we have:
        /*
        * arch/s390/lib/memset.S
        * S390 fast memset routine
        *
        * S390 version
        * Copyright (C) 1999 IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH, IBM Corporation
        * Author(s): Martin Schwidefsky (schwidefsky@de.ibm.com),
        */
        so sco really just needs to identify which sections of code they think ibm help create with sco's "technology" and use the info in the copyright notices to inform ibm which employee has been bad. seriously just do the following:

        grep -ir ibm.com /usr/src/linux-2.4/arch/s390/*

      • The person who actually submitted the code is public information from lklm posts. So SCO, assuming that they actually have specific lines of code to claim, already know at least one name involved. Given those names, going up the chain for project leaders and managers and whatnot to see who actually gave the authorization is totally legitimate, but thats not what they're doing.

    • Re:umm.. dont they have the source code? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Curtman ( 556920 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @01:49PM (#7314374)
      Just for the sake of beating a dead horse, I'd like to remind my fellow Slashdotters that SCO isn't suing over SCO's code being included in Linux. They are suing IBM for including IBM's code which they say they have rights to. Same with SGI. JFS, NUMA, XFS, etc are not, and never have been in any SCO products. Groklaw is slashdotted, so I can't RTFA, but I'm assuming they can't compare Linux with IBM's code base, and thats the problem. Someone mirror TFA please. ;)

    • can't SCO get the linux source code, and compare it to their own closed source code, and see what is the same? i thought their claim was that IBM just dumped a bunch of their UNIX code into linux... wouldnt it be easy to find?

      The running theory on Groklaw is that there isn't any code in common (and not from BSD origins) between Linux and SCO's SYSV. So SCO can't perform the comparison on their own. Instead, SCO is claiming that there are similarities between Linux and IBM's AIX. SCO also claims that

  • SCO.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jeffkjo1 ( 663413 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @12:53PM (#7314159) Homepage
    In a desperate attempt to prevent interested parties from reading their crap, SCO has apparently taken it upon themselves to slashdot Groklaw. Impressive.

    If we can't read it we have to believe them!

  • Wait a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dreamchaser ( 49529 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @12:53PM (#7314160) Homepage Journal
    IANAL, but isn't the plaintiff required to point out exactly where copyright or trademark has been infringed? I think the burden of proof is on SCO.

  • My question is (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cnb ( 146606 )
    Why does SCO keep getting away with talking nonsense in both press and court?

    • Re:My question is (Score:4, Funny)

      by Camel Pilot ( 78781 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @01:13PM (#7314249) Homepage Journal
      I have the same thought.

      But I reminded of a Gary Larson's cartoon, where there are four panes one with a rattlesnake in the top left hand corner, a puffed-up puffer fish in the top right hand corner, a mad cat in the bottom left hand corner, and finally a wierdo wearing a trench coat, with a boot on his head, a child's
      pool floaty thing around his middle and carrying a bazooka and the caption reads: "How Nature Says, Stay Away"

      This I think applies to SCO.

    • Re:My question is (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nutshell42 ( 557890 )
      in court:
      Courts are slow and SCO is using all means available to slow it down even further

      in the press:
      Reporters aren't interested in the truth, they're interested in a story therefore an article "IBM's evil and has to pay $3000000000" will always seem preferable to "Obscure company in SLC sues IBM to avoid bankruptcy" just as "WMDs found in Iraq" is more popular than "Yesterday's article about WMDs was premature"

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @12:56PM (#7314171)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • SCO the victim? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @12:59PM (#7314184)
    Ya know, I just thought of something. These legal maneuverings by SCO are just SO absurd that the lawyers involved HAVE to know that. So I'm wondering - is SCO just being taken advantage of by unscrupulous lawyers, wanting to bilk stupid-ass SCO execs into thinking they can win anything?
    • Noo! It's not that simple at all. In fact, the SCO case is just a tiny piece in the Cosmic Masterplan (which I accidentally had a glimpse of, so I don't expect to live long). You see, one of these lawyers is a hunter and can't go hunting, because he's working hard on the SCO case. Because of this, a rabbit (a brown one) doesn't get shot, an eagle gets to eat this rabbit and will in turn not crash into a butterfly. At a very specific moment, the butterfly will flap its wings and thus cause the storm of the c
      • You know, the mice that were running the show in the first place ...
        • The mice got their Ph.D's[1] and are not active anymore. They are, however, instructing the schmice[2] that are running the show now (in order to get their degrees).

          [1] Actually the intergalactic equivalent of it
          [2] Practically indistinguishable from mice, except for the fact that schmice and mice can't crossbreed for some reason.

    • Ya know, I just thought of something. These legal maneuverings by SCO are just SO absurd that the lawyers involved HAVE to know that. So I'm wondering - is SCO just being taken advantage of by unscrupulous lawyers, wanting to bilk stupid-ass SCO execs into thinking they can win anything?

      1. The "unscrupulous" issues here relate to the tech, not the law. Most lawyers know little or nothing about computers, much less anything about Open Source. It's much more plausible to think that, if anyone was being dupe

    • Re:SCO the victim? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      My gut feeling is that SCO may have initially mislead the law firm of Boise and Co. Witness the fact that Boise's firm originally took the case on a contingency basis.

      It should now be quite clear to even the most feeble-minded lawyer that SCO has been gaming Boise's firm almost as much as the general public. Witness the fact that Boise's firm renegotiated their contract with SCO to be paid up-front. But I understand it's very difficult for a lawyer to "fire" a client, even if that client is a lying scum-s

    • No. It's pretty clear that in this case the unscrupulous business guys thought that they could make a lot of money by suing IBM and brought in the unscrupulous lawyers to press their case. See my sig for details. It's not clear whether SCO leadership ever thought that they really had a case or if they were just planning on using the lawsuit as part of a stock pumping scam. Either way it seems fairly clear that they have engaged in stock pumping whether that was the original intent of just a fallback pla

  • Why I'm not surprised (Score:5, Interesting)

    by linux_author ( 691402 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @01:00PM (#7314189)
    - when bottomfeeders and IP portfolios mix, one shouldn't be surprised by such actions... - sadder however, is that the U.S. court system allows this case to continue to be played out... - the big warning here is that no future technology endeavours or independent software developers are safe from venture capitalists, investment brokers, and reptiles that have passed state bar exams...

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Would us sending these slashdot stories to the major cable news outlets make a difference????

      Yeah, but you'd have to set your score threshold up higher for any no-tech to take /. seriously. Set it at +4 and all you'll be left with are ASCII cut&pastes of the article and all the "I for one welcome our code-stealing overlords" posts.

      I imagine if anything does come of the fiaSCO, it'll be that judges wind up a little more educated about code and IP, and come to the realisation that when one types code

  • ... in the pot-calling-kettle-black irony department?

    I'm reminded of this [slashdot.org] Slashdot piece on Microsoft claiming Apple is monopolistic.

  • This is just getting stupid. At some point, can't one side or the other just go all in per se, and call the other player out?

    If IBM's case is as strong as it appears, why are they drawing this out? Call their bluff and make them show their hand. It was entertaining for a while just for being completely ridiculous, but now it's tired. Put this horse down.

    • Re:A poker game gone wrong. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ed Bugg ( 2024 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @01:10PM (#7314242)
      That is exactly what IBM was trying to do. The case is in discovery and IBM had asked for exactly what lines of code SCO is saying they stole from SysV and put into Linux. When SCO wouldn't show the code IBM filed a motion to force them to submit it. This is SCO's reponse to that motion saying the motion needs to be denied because they are waiting for IBM to show them what parts of Linux came from SysV.

      Nifty eh?
      • Silly speculation, but I wonder if the IBM lawyers anticipated this move, SCO's attempt to make their case after discovery. Occam would say this is reactive maneuvering on SCO's part, though.

      • The case is in discovery and IBM had asked for exactly what lines of code SCO is saying they stole from SysV and put into Linux. When SCO wouldn't show the code IBM filed a motion to force them to submit it. This is SCO's reponse to that motion saying the motion needs to be denied because they are waiting for IBM to show them what parts of Linux came from SysV.

        Actually, if you read the thing carefully, I think what they're really saying is that it's not a matter of anything copied from SysV, but rather of

      • It makes sense to me; for SCO to show what lines of code were misappropriated there would need to be somebody at the company that understood computers. From what I gather, there's nothing but lawyers and MBAs left.

    • IBM's not going to rush this.... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They want McBride's head on a pike outside Armonk as an example to the next group of asshats who thinks they can shake down Big Blue.

      And the entire Canopy Group, too, if they can.

      So IBM's going about this very methodically, and they aren't missing anything.

      And get this: even if SCO's claims are dismissed, IBM's counterclaims will still have to be tried....

  • Could Microsoft be subpoenaed? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fished ( 574624 ) * <amphigory@@@gmail...com> on Sunday October 26, 2003 @01:12PM (#7314248)
    This case becomes more and more ridiculous. I wonder - could someone with appropriate standing subpoena information regarding SCO's $50 million to see if it really did come from Microsoft? If Microsoft were funding this, would that not be a pretty clear anti-trust matter?

    • Re:Could Microsoft be subpoenaed? (Score:5, Informative)

      by earthdark ( 582375 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @02:27PM (#7314534)
      Royal Bank of Canada invests in SCO. [com.com]

      It's been revealled that it was not MS but rather a Canadian bank.

      • They claimed it wasn't Microsoft. But they also [baystarcapital.com] list Microsoft among their top ten investors (#8) and Vulcan Ventures (Paul Allen, IIRC) as #1. It's on page three, the same page where they talk about confidentiality of the source of funds as among the advantages of their PIPEs.

        And even if the 60% of the money that didn't come from Baystar came through RBC, that doesn't mean it didn't start out the day in Redmond.

        -- MarkusQ

  • Looks like there will be a new edition to "Slashdotted" in the Jargon File, containing today's server logs just before the server undergoes complete and utter disintergration. Yay!


  • From the jargon file: "... SCO has become a nest of liars and thieves..."

    ESR is a man of carefully restrained, diplomatic judgements. Look at it this way, he is saying SCO is so bad it can only improve.

    Would you buy software from a company with this reputation?

  • FUD: /fuhd/, n. (Score:2, Redundant)

    by stankulp ( 69949 )
    FUD: /fuhd/, n.

    Defined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering [Amdahl] products." The idea, of course, was to persuade them to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the futu

  • Protection for SCO (Score:5, Insightful)

    by headkase ( 533448 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @01:38PM (#7314326)
    Remember when SCO was whining that the open source model didn't provide adequate 'protections' to SCO's business model? This was where they quoted Linus to the effect 'don't check to see if the code is patented' within the context of if you did, found the algorithm to be patented, and still used it then you would be liable for triple damages. And this - in SCO's view - allowed IBM to insert SCO "derived" code into Linux unfairly.

    Well what about the story that ran earlier today - Silicon Valley [slashdot.org] where in the linked NYTimes article on the second page it contains the following paragraph:
    In April 2001, after discussions with Microsoft fell apart, InterTrust filed a patent infringement suit contending that the company illegally used InterTrust's technology in its Windows Media Player and other products. The suit is pending.

    This just goes to show that there aren't any protections in the commercial area as well.

  • "ESR, meet libel law. Libel law, meet ESR." (Score:3, Funny)

    by adb ( 31105 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @01:39PM (#7314328)
    [There is no text; only Zuul.]

  • This case couldn't be any stranger... (Score:5, Funny)

    by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @01:40PM (#7314331) Homepage
    ...if SCO were being represented by Beavis and Butthead.

    Uhhh-huh-huh. He said infringer. Huh-huh-huh.

  • The analysis. [fys.ku.dk]
    Fridays memorandum [fys.ku.dk]

  • SCO's strategy. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @01:53PM (#7314387) Journal
    Combine this with the Licensing of Large companies first. SCO is going to try and bend the law a bit. My guess is that they will try and find a friendly judge (hence utah or federal court) and use parts of methodology patents. That is to prove that they are right, they will get a number of companies to license linux from them. They will use this to prove to a judge that other "technology smarter" companies know what is going on and the license is market-viable. This current stuff is simple stalling tactics by them, hoping that IBM lawyers will make a mistake.
  • Hey, Timothy, did you read the memo before citing it? Frankly, I hope not: if you did, then your headline is slanderous, instead of merely biased and deceptive.

    One of the straegies which IBM has been test firing in the press is boils down to "you can't identify the person who released this code. How can you prove that it isn't you?" Assume, for the moment, that SCO is telling the truth. (And whatever your individual biases may be, the court must assume that neither party is lying. Contrary to the Slas

    • Re:Gross mischaracterization (Score:5, Interesting)

      by etymxris ( 121288 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @02:25PM (#7314528)
      Fishing expeditions are not allowed. When you are the plaintiff, you have to have your evidence ready before entering court. Defendant has much more leeway in discovery. Otherwise, as PJ pointed out, you could simply file claims against random people, searching for any infringement anyone might have done. This would be abuse of the court system. It would be like allowing the police to preemptively search random people's homes without reasonable suspicion. Sure, they would find more evidence and prosecute more crimes, but the benefits do not outweigh the consequences.

      SCO shouldn't need evidence--everything is already laid out, "infringing" source code is known to all. But they have nothing, so they are abusing discovery to go fishing. IBM, on the other hand, can ask for pretty much anything, since they didn't bring action.

    • Gross mischaracterization (yeah, your analysis) (Score:5, Interesting)

      by DaveAtFraud ( 460127 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @03:01PM (#7314655) Homepage Journal
      I don't know how the hell you came up with this analysis but whatever you were smoking at the time must be really good stuff.

      1) SCO filed suit against IBM for allegedly contributing "millions of lines" of proprietary SCO code to Linux. Not the other way around.
      2) SCO supposedly had a team of people somehow vaguely related to MIT who supposedly ran pattern recognition analysis to identify the purportedly donated code.
      3) SCO has shown the code to several hundred people (at last count) who would sign a non-disclosure agreement.

      At this point SCO has accused IBM of a civil crime (breaking contractural and licensing agreements), has said they have proof. IBM has said, fine, show us the proof and SCO has come back with, "You know what you did so tell us and the court."

      Last time I heard, the burden of proof is on the accuser in both civil and criminal cases. If SCO can not provide evidence of the acts they have accused IBM of doing, *there is no case*. All IBM has done is call SCO's bluff and say, show me the code that you claim violates our agreements. At this point, it is up to SCO to show that a contract or license was broken; not continue spreading FUD about how tainted Linux code is and how IBM gave away their secrets.

      And yes I read both the motion from SCO and P.J.'s analysis of it on Groklaw. Did you?
    • Frankly, I hope not: if you did, then your headline is slanderous, instead of merely biased and deceptive.

      Are we reading the same headline, or are you retarded? The headline that says SCO asks IBM to make its case for it? What on earth could possibly be slanderous about that?

      Assume, for the moment, that SCO is telling the truth.

      Telling the truth about what, exactly? Did you read the article that the post referred to? It made it quite clear from a host of documented evidence that SCO can't stick to
  • All this pointless litigation is ...
    Getting bloody annoying!

    Make graduation from law school a hanging offence.
    Even though hangins to good for the shyster scumbags!

    AAAAAAGGGGG!!!!

    (The red mist at the mention of the word SCO
    made me post this damn comment in the wrong
    thread once already.)

  • on the onus of proof and civil trials (Score:3, Informative)

    by Teunis ( 678244 ) <teunis.wintersgift@com> on Sunday October 26, 2003 @02:49PM (#7314612) Homepage Journal
    IANAL and I'm not a US citizen. Anyways, now I'm not up on US law to ANY respect but from what I remember from the last time I saw was that US law in a civil trial does not operate under British code - basically it's not assumed that the defender is innocent until proven guilty.
    What this means in a civil trial is that proof can come from either party and that usually only sufficient evidence has to exist for an infraction rather than complete proof of infraction.
    Basically - SCO can do this.
    It's up to the judge on whether they can get away with it though.
    Civil trials do not work under the same rules as criminal trials.
    Actually I suspect (not sure) but they work under the Napoleonic code (guilty until proven innocent) which is the code a lot of US law is based on - or perhaps vice versa as (IIRC) a number of US founders were involved in Napoleon's government...
    • This is totally incorrect. In the United States, the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty, just as in a criminal case. The only difference between the two is that a civil case merely requires a "preponderance of evidence," whereas a criminal case requires that the jurors decide that the accused is guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt." Further, a civil case has a simple vote, whereas a criminal case require a unanimous decision.

      Napoleonic law is only used in Louisiana state courts. Federal c
  • Somebody on groklaw makes a reference to the cliche: You show me yours, and then I'll show you mine.. SCO, however, has perverted it a bit..

    . . You show us yours, and then we'll show you .... yours.

  • New logo idea for SCO (Score:4, Interesting)

    by KilobyteKnight ( 91023 ) <bjm.midsouth@rr@com> on Sunday October 26, 2003 @05:06PM (#7315166) Homepage
    I was thinking....

    In keeping with the Bill Gates as Borg theme, maybe Slashdot could create an icon to represent SCO of a Borg Sphere colored like the current Caldera icon.

    • Here you go (Score:3, Interesting)

      by oGMo ( 379 )

      OK, my GIMP skills suck, but I was bored (meaning I had something else to do :-)) and put these together anyhow:

      Just different filters; I couldn't decide which one I liked. HTH.

  • from the jargon entry... (Score:4, Funny)

    by the_real_tigga ( 568488 ) <nephros.users@sourceforge@net> on Sunday October 26, 2003 @07:48PM (#7315887) Journal
    ...
    prev: fuck me harder - FUD - next: FUD wars
    prophetic, even...

  • IBM is more of a chip-maker than case-maker (Score:4, Funny)

    by SethJohnson ( 112166 ) on Sunday October 26, 2003 @08:51PM (#7316227) Homepage Journal


    SCO should look to one of the cheap asian companies like Fudin or PowMax for their cases. IBM is gonna charge an arm and a leg and the resulting boxes won't be very portable. Plus, I don't think IBM does any of the cool mod stuff with windows or cathode lights.

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close