SCO Hints at *BSD Lawsuits Next Year, And More 971
osullish writes "The Financial Times reports that SCO is indicating it will sue an as-yet un-named Linux-using corporation within the next 90 days. Also mentioned in the article is possible action against Novell, which recently purchased Ximian and SUSE Linux."
Iaitos points to this rather stiffly-worded notice from Novell (on their site) regarding the non-compete agreement SCO claims would taint Novell's acquisition of SUSE:
PROVO, Utah Nov. 18, 2003: Novell has seen the November 18 InfoWorld article in which SCO CEO Darl McBride refers to a supposed non-compete agreement between Novell and SCO. Mr. McBride's characterization of the agreements between Novell and SCO is inaccurate. There is no non-compete provision in those contracts, and the pending acquisition of SUSE LINUX does not violate any agreement between Novell and SCO.Novell has received no formal communication from SCO on this particular issue. Novell understands its rights under the contracts very well, and will respond in due course should SCO choose to formally pursue this issue."
slavitos points to a ZDNet article covering the same ground, writing: "A characteristic SCO twist in the story: "McBride added that lawsuits likely will be preceded and possibly prevented by communications offering businesses an opportunity to get right with SCO. "We'll be communicating with users what our expectations are," he said.". Oh, that's helpful, Darl - and no, we didn't really expect you to be any more specific."
If your lips aren't yet too tired, ansak writes "PJ has done it again -- okay, "co-ordinated it" would be the better phrase. The transcript of SCOG's conference call is now available (and in danger of being slashdotted without slashdot's help, even!).
#include <std.thanks.to.volunteers.h>"
Another legal theory being thrown about is that SCO's lawsuit (the one against IBM, that is) all leads back to Sequent. Petrol writes "The Inquirer has a story about SCO's action against IBM. 'Sources close to the action describe a trail of code that might well be the target of SCO's ire against IBM and the Linux community.'"
I wonder what the airspeed velocity... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I wonder what the airspeed velocity... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wonder what the airspeed velocity... (Score:3, Funny)
Diagnosis (Score:5, Funny)
Yup... Paranoia's like that.
Re:Diagnosis (Score:5, Funny)
Note to mod's:
A yarn is a newengland colloquialism for a tall tale.
Re:Diagnosis (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Diagnosis (Score:3)
I think most of us came long ago to the conclusion that Emperor Darl has no clothes.
Re:Diagnosis (Score:5, Funny)
And lest we forget, paranoia is a symptom of cocaine psychosis [policecent...aining.com].
Put that pipe down now, Darl, before it's too late.
Re:Diagnosis (Score:5, Funny)
I know that it sounds a bit far fetched, but it might not be too far off the truth..
---
You will be surprised by a loud noise.
Re:Diagnosis (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, there are real clinical diagnoses that do fit McBride's behaviour, but there's not enough evidence to back these up as real.
The first is something called "Borderline Personality Disorder". It's hard to diagnose, very difficult to treat (so much so, many psychs won't even try) and from those people I know with it, seems to be related to random bursts of hostility and a very high level of denial.
The second is "schizo-effective disorder". This is not schizophrenia, although it is related. It describes a partial split with reality; being aware of what's going on, but simultaneously living in a world that exists only in the person's mind.
Three very common diagnoses for geeks are:
Bipolar disorder: There are 3 main types of bipolar, and 16 different subcategories. This has led some people to suspect that the people working on diagnostic tools have Obsessive Compulsive disorder. Bipolar people tend to work in bursts of high activity, with roughly equal periods of low/no activity. They also tend to drink heavily, as alchohol smooths the ride.
Higher Functioning Autism: Part of the (suspected, yet to be proved) Autism Spectrum. Typically, the person will be extremely brilliant at a very few things. They will be prone to information overload, and often learn quickly to focus on very specific things. They're oblivious to anything outside of that, or near enough. Because they are focussed, and often very passionate about those things they concentrate on, they're hard to get along with. They're often not good at reading body-language, or other subtle non-verbal communication. Likewise, they will often tread on the toes of those who don't comprehend HFA, because the non-verbal signals from an HFA person can be highly confused. Their brain doesn't recognise that type of communication.
Asperger's Syndrome: This is also believed (by some) to be on the Autistic Spectrum, and to be a milder form of HFA. Virtually everything that's true for an HFA is true for an Asperger sufferer, the difference is largely in the degree.
The national average for people with autism of some kind or other is about 1:100. The average in Silicon Valley is about 1:20, some say even 1:10.
I don't believe McBride is Autistic, to any degree. Nor do I believe he is bipolar. This matters only insofar as it means that he doesn't fit the common pattern for geeks or geniuses. In turn, this means he physically cannot comprehend the mindset of those in the industry.
If I am correct in believing him schizo-effective, then this may well explain his lawsuits. He doesn't understand the industry, and his split with reality makes it impossible for him to make rational decisions in response.
This is not an official diagnosis, by any means, but were he to be seen by a competent professional, then that's the conclusion I would expect. If I'm right, then Darl doesn't need to be running a company. Schizo-effective disorders can worsen with stress, so if I'm correct then his mental health will only worsen with the stress of the multitude of lawsuits, the price crash, the increasing suspicion of the media, and the perilously-low turnover.
Bipolar Disorder (Score:5, Interesting)
For those of us who are most definitely bipolar, there are other things that help to smooth the ride.
1. Regular sleep. Absolutely vital. If it's past 11PM, you're reading this, and you're bipolar, save a bookmark on this and come back and read it after you've had 9 hours.
2. Healthy diet. Plan a trip to the grocery store once or twice a week to get lots of fruit and salad; try to cut caffeine AND alcohol out of your diet.
3. Regular exercise. Do something regularly that helps keep your average activity level high -- such as biking or walking to work -- and once or twice a week do something that actually involves strenuous exercise, such as playing tennis.
4. Express yourself. Bipolar folks are typically more creative than non-bipolar folks -- something having to do with being able to see both sides of the issue. Pick an art -- an instrument you play, writing, painting, anything -- and improvise on it regularly. You don't have to record it, you don't have to let anyone hear or see what you do, you just have to do it to let that expression get out.
OK, and a beer now and then doesn't hurt. Unless you're an alcoholic bipolar. Then it does.
Well, anyhow, this works for me. And when I don't do it, it doesn't work for me. Any time you can avoid the ups and downs without using drugs is good.
Re:Diagnosis (Score:5, Funny)
We get it already, SCO (Score:5, Funny)
I'm also starting to hope that Boies will share the cell...
Re:We get it already, SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it very strange that Boies has reached this superstar status on the back of what is by any measure a lacklustre litigation record.
Boies first came to prominence in the Microsoft case. Athough the case was initially 'won' it was overturned on appeal. This has been Boies best result so far.
In the Florida recount case Boies lost what should have been a slam dunk case, demanding that the state perform a recount required by the election laws. Boies lost in this case because he was outmaneuvered by the Republican party lawyers who ran rings arround him.
Boies next took the Napster case, in this case he was successful in gaining a temporary stay of an injunction against Napster. But we later find this was only because one of the Appeals court judges was anxious that Napster survive long enough for the appeals court to be able to make a really important rulling in the copyright area...
I cannot think of a better council for SCO in this particular case. The court will require SCO to reveal the exact code fragments it claims are subject to copyright claims sooner rather than later. At this point the SCO case will quickly unravel since the fragments in question will be rewritten.
There are absolutely no grounds for supressing the specifics of the SCO claim. The whole point of the copyright bargain is disclosure in return for a limited term monoploy on exploitation.
Re:We get it already, SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
For one example, consider the Florida election. There was a legitimate dispute and a genuine recount needed to be made. But Boies and company didn't want a genuine recount, they only wanted a recount of selected counties. If they would have instead argued for a statewide recount, they would have gotten it with virtually no objection from the other side. And since the vote was so freaking close, statistics would have given them 50% odds of winning the election. But instead they argued over trivialities until the clock ran out.
Untrue. (Score:5, Informative)
Not true.
The NORC study shows that under the state-wide recount oredered by the FL SC, Gore would have won.
Under other, partial, recounts Bush won. Ironically, under Gore's prefered recount method, Gore would have lost.
You probably saw this in the news as "Recount Shows Bush Would Have Won", with perhaps a footnote at the bottom about how actually Gore would have won, unless you used one of the recount methods that was never seriously considered.
I think this is strange.
In all fairness to Boies (Score:4, Interesting)
As far as I can remember but is too lazy to look up right now, the Microsoft case wasn't so much 'overturned' on appeal as it was remanded back to a district court for a new trial. Due to Judge Jackson's publicly stating that Bill Gates was a lying bastard (I'm paraphrasing) the Court of Appeal (cannot remember which one) felt that Microsoft may not have recieved a fair and unbiased trial. It therefore ordered a retrial. However, in the meantime George W. Bush had not only won the election but also been inaugurated. His administration decided to settle the case rather than pursue litigation. (Incidentally, during the Reagan/Bush I administrations the joke was that the Justice Department never met a business practice it didn't like. It may seem the Bush II Justice Dep. sought/seeks to operate along the same line.) This outcome may be seen as 'losing' the case. I suppose it's a matter of opinion. However, the outcome can hardly be blamed on Boies.
Parenthetically, I disagree with the Court of Appeal assessment of what might constitute an obstacle or impediment to a fair trial: if a judge conclude after hearing the testimony of a person, that said person is a lying bastard then that is a conclusion based on fact, as opposed to a judge 'concluding' before any testimony that a person is lying bastard, which would seem be based on prejudice (or possibly prior personal knowledge, in which case the judge should recuse him/herself). The latter case obviously imperils an unbiased trial, but the former case? I don't think so. Why should it? The judge has heard the evidence and drawn a conclusion. In that way it appears to me no different than any other conclusion, based on fact, that the judge has to make in a particular case. It may not be very flattering for the person in question, bu massaging of egos is not necessarily the prime objective of litigation.
Re:We get it already, SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
When Boies left the Cravath partnership, it was somewhat of a scandal in the legal community. No one walks away from a Cravath partnership (so goes conventional wisdom) -- the average annual salary for Cravath partners is somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.0 million.
IBM has long been one of Cravath's largest and most loyal clients -- in fact, I noticed that Cravath is representing IBM in the SCO matter. I can't help but wonder if one of the main reasons Boies agreed to represent SCO is to go head-to-head with his former parters at Cravath. It wouldn't surprise me if that is his main motivating factor. Boies does not need the money or any more notches in his belt.
The fact that Boies lost a couple prominent cases speaks more to his willingness to take on tough cases with unpredictable outcomes that he finds interesting or challenging.
But do not write off Boies or dismiss him. Don't get me wrong -- I hope he loses the SCO case big time. But he is to be feared.
If so, bad idea (Score:5, Interesting)
If that's the case, I couldn't imagine a worse scenario for him - a client he can't control, and an opponent with unlimited resources and the resolve to smash him like a bug on the great IBM windshield.
I know /. seems to have a bit of groupthink going on here as regards SCO's success. That said, I really do think Boies best-case scenario is to drag things out long enough to get everybody on their side mucho dinero. But that's not going to impress the former partners.
Folding SCO's case everyone cashes out won't make him look good. Losing in court after the same will really make him look bad. Either way, it's a lose/lose situation in the prestige department - it's only in the rankings of "America's top ambulance chasers" that he'll increase his standing.
The only way I see him increasing his legal prestige is either winning in court or strongarming a great settlement. IBM has made it pretty clear that the chances of either of those is near nil. So while you may be spot-on regarding Boies' motives, I can't see what he's thinking. Or the whole thing could be coincidence.
Great post, btw.
Re:We get it already, SCO (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe it's because we're all mesmerized by his eclectic blend of haunting lyrics, thumping funk, and infectious grooves... Oh wait, David Boies? Nevermind...
Re:We get it already, SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
As a side benefit, the bigger and more grandious SCO's claims become, the less believable they become, and sooner or later the press will pick up on this.
Re:We get it already, SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
Breaking News... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Breaking News... (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, SCO is planning on bringing suit with God next. "This God person," SCO CEO Darl McBride is quoted as saying, "has used stolen SCO code repleatedly in the design of Creation."
Since Darl likens Linux users to drug users, and Darl wants to license Linux to said users, what does that say about Darl? Druglord! I knew it!
Re:Breaking News... (Score:5, Funny)
Then God gets pissed off because Darl called him a "person."
Of course, Darl could use "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God." as proof. No one back there knew what that a word was just four nibbles, and God should have recognized that "word" was used in SCO's Source.
Of course, God then gives proof of using SCO code by causing a segmentation fault right under Lindon, Utah. He wasn't too pleased with those Mormon people either, so it was like two birds with one stone.
Blind man with a bat (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Blind man with a bat (Score:5, Funny)
BLACK KNIGHT: I shall sue.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: I shall sue.
ARTHUR: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I will not pay a license fee for free software.
BLACK KNIGHT: I move for no man.
ARTHUR: So be it!
[clang clang clang]
[ARTHUR files a countersuit for four patents the BLACK KNIGHT is infringing upon]
ARTHUR: Now stand aside, you litigous adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT: 'Tis but a scratch!
ARTHUR: A scratch?! You have no evidence of infringement!
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I do.
ARTHUR: Well, show me then. I'm going to file another motion for discovery!
BLACK KNIGHT: I've had worse.
ARTHUR: Liar!
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on, you pansy!
[clang clang clang]
[ARTHUR chops off the BLACK KNIGHT's lawsuit at the knees]
ARTHUR: Victory is mine!
BLACK KNIGHT: It's just a flesh wound!
[headbutts ARTHUR] I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a looney!
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, all right, pay me $100M and we'll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy. [clip clop, clip clop]
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!
Re:Blind man with a bat (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Apple? (Score:5, Informative)
OS X was based off NEXTSTEP, which was based on Mach, which was a completely new kernel, with BSD ported to it.
But compared to Linux, i'd say it's less of a stretch to say that OS X is UNIX than Linux.
I don't mind if they go after Apple.. just one more company joining in the fun of beating SCO up.
Re:Apple? (Score:3, Informative)
However, it did base off of BSD. "Mach" is not a full kernel. It's something called a "microkernel"-- a very thin abstraction layer that rests between the hardware and the real kernel, so that the real kernel is more easily portable to different hardware. It's like the Windows NT HAL. On top of Mach, NEXTSTEP had to have an actual kernel, and for this they used BSD. Plus, as I'm sure RMS would tell you, an operating system is not just a kernel, and the base associated to
Re:Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure Apple would think differently about it. Mostly what the SCO fiasco is going to do is make a lot of noise for the press, keep a lot of court clerks busy, and move a LOT of money from computer companies to lawyers, money that could be used for product development.
Noone wants to get involved in litigation, no matter how fun it looks from the outside. It's too damned expensive.
Re:Apple? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM has a special ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)
*Yawns* so (Score:5, Insightful)
If the harrassment/lawsuit threats are already covered under the lanham act suit redhat/ibm (?) is bringing, then what line does SCO have to cross before redhat/IBM can start asking for injunctions, as opposed to having to wait until their lawsuits start?
And doesn't the SCO case verbal arguments begin on december 6? Once that happens, how long will it take for SCO's ball of yarn to fall apart?
Re:*Yawns* so (Score:3, Insightful)
When they do something that Microsoft does not like.
I hope that sufficiently answers your question.
Just more crap to try to support their stock price (Score:5, Insightful)
So now they're declaring that they're broadening the cases.
So far, they've only filed one lawsuit.
Until they file another, this is just PR crap.
Kind of amazing actually.... (Score:4, Funny)
Darl has taken trolldom to a higher level. Slashdot trolls can only stand agape and marvel at his trollish magnificence, hoping that one day they'll be 1/10th the troll he is.
Better be the first half of next year... (Score:5, Funny)
bodyguards (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't it clear why? Linux peguin looks quite friendly and isn't harmful at all, BSD daemon on the other hand...
Re:bodyguards (Score:3, Funny)
Re:bodyguards (Score:3, Funny)
Some people have told me they don't think a fat penguin really embodies the grace of Linux, which just tells me they have never seen a angry penguin charging at them in excess of 100mph. They'd be a lot more careful about what they say if they had.
-- Linus Torvalds
Finally an Answer!! (Score:3, Funny)
This must be the new SCO business model (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This must be the new SCO business model (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This must be the new SCO business model (Score:4, Funny)
It may be a good thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Kinda like the ents in the lord of the rings against Saruman.
S
Re:It may be a good thing (Score:3, Funny)
Watch out! (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
BSD network code (Score:5, Interesting)
Thought microsoft's TCP stack had a little of the *bsd stuff in it.
interesting tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:interesting tactic (Score:5, Interesting)
The new angle won't work any better. The settlement also protects THEM from BSD suing for stolen BSD code. If they attack it, the holders of that copyright can sue SCO right back.
Plus, you can't just void a contract that legally binds you because you don't like it. They are not the original people who entered into it, but it came along with the code they bought. If they don't LIKE that, they should have looked into it more closely before they bought it. It's called due diligance. If they CAN just nullify a contract for no reason, Novel should nullify their rights to the code.
Re:interesting tactic (Score:3, Insightful)
The new angle won't work any better. The settlement also protects THEM from BSD suing for stolen BSD code. If they attack it, the holders of that copyright can sue SCO right back.
IIRC, AT&T only settled after the judge turned down their request for a preliminary injunction because it was likely that their improper handling of the licensing had put the code into the public domain. If they open that can of worms again, chances are that they could lose the copyrights to much of Unix.
And wouldn't that
Re:interesting tactic (Score:5, Interesting)
Likewise, I'm guessing their ultimate goal in attacking the AT&T-BSD settlement is to establish ownership of some IP in *BSD. At this point SCO would establish that users of *any* free/open source OS owe them a licensing fee for using it. Contributing to open source then becomes a form of slave labor for SCO. If that doesn't kill open source, SCO milks the profits of other people's labor and, if it does kill open source, they're in better shape competition-wise than they are now because they only have to compete with the likes of Microsoft, Sun, etc.
Let me state that again on its own: SCO doesn't want to kill open source, they want to turn contributing to open source into a form of slave labor (no compensation) that benefits SCO.
Re:Sig (Score:3, Informative)
To all BSD users, (Score:4, Funny)
Where shall we meet to plan the complete and utter extermination of SCO?
Sincerely,
Tux
Important rule of litigation: (Score:5, Insightful)
There are plenty of examples of stupidity in suing a university.
How 'bout the 'copy-protection' that could be foiled by holding down the 'shift' key? (Sued a student of Princeton University; charges dropped after the University stepped in on the student's behalf)
There are THOUSANDS of cases a year where people sue medical students; just about every one ends up in the student's favor, because the university steps in. You can't get new doctors if you can't train new students; and part of the learning process is making mistakes.
And BSD is still techinically property of the Regents of the University of California.
Go ahead; sue them. Nobody looks kindly on a mad Chihuahua biting everyone that won't give it the world. Espescially when it starts nipping at schools. SCO has once again proven that they have nothing.
Re:Important rule of litigation: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Important rule of litigation: (Score:5, Insightful)
Particularly since the case has already been litigated and closed. Getting the courts to re-open a settled case is near impossible. The only claims that SCO owns are through the AT&T copyrights. If the courts allowed a losing plaintif to avoid negative judgement by selling the IP to another party there would be no way to achieve finality.
Courts tend to make finality of judgement a very high priority. Once a case is closed it is closed, the only way to reopen it is usually to show that there was something wrong with the process at the first trial, usually knowing use of false evidence, bribing a juror, judge etc.
I just do not see the courts accepting an attempt to re-open this case, particularly if the plaintif refuses to even specify what is allegedly infringing.
This looks like yet another SCO attempt to extract money through legal threats that are highly unlikely to succeed. It would be interesting to know the extent to which this type of threat would fall under insurance policies.
Re:Important rule of litigation: (Score:5, Informative)
Absolutely not.
The case would be brought on the basis of the same copyright claim as the earlier AT&T case. That claim has been rejected by the courts. The fact that the underlying copyrights have since been sold do not allow the new owner to re-open prior litigation. The copyrights were bought with the constructive knowledge of the previous litigation and its result.
If the courts did allow this type of claim they would never be able to get rid of copyright claims and defendants could never obtain a final judgement in their favor.
Peculiar and mercenary though David Boies may be, I think you can fairly safely assume that he has a pretty good grasp of the rules of civil procedure in the US courts.
Which is probably the reason why he is talking trash, threatening to sue rather than issuing a writ. He knows that if he was actually to make a claim he could get slapped really, really hard.
Given Boies ludicrous efforts in the Napster case it is safe to assume that Boies is capable of making legal claims in court that the courts rapidly reject as unfounded. Let us see if he goes one stage further in this case and makes a claim that is sanctionable.
I strongly suspect that attempting to relittigate AT&T would be considered sanctionable, there is absolutely no reason that a lawyer should believe a claim that was littigated and lost nine years earlier to be winnable without a material change in the circumstances. I don't see the sale of the copyrights to SCO through Novell as a material change here.
If Boies goes ahead with this it could cost him his license. The sums demanded are very significant.
Re:Important rule of litigation: (Score:4, Informative)
Forgive me but a blanket negation of an argument accompanied by abuse is hardly a good way to convince others.
If this is true, you'll have no difficulty providing me with case law in support of your argument.
I would not expect anyone to be idiotic enough to try litigating it. If indeed it is the case that you are correct then there should be many cases of people trying this dodge and succeeding because it would be a pretty useful one.
1.) The original case was settled out of court, therefore there is no case law or court decision to refer to.
Settling a case out of court would make the argument much stronger since it is a contractual agreement (actually stronger than a mere contractual agreement) that is independent of the fact being claimed. SCO's claim to the copyrights is the result of a later contractual agreement which is inevitably a weaker claim.
Under what circumstances do you believe that AT&T could enter into a contract that would invalidate rights that AT&T had already granted under an earlier contract?
3.) I'm not arguing that SCO's case is necessarily winnable. Simply that it's actionable and that they'd have a right to bring it before the courts.
The term actionable is meaningless. There is no legal claim imaginable that is not 'actionable' in the sense that it is possible to commence an action by issuing a writ. The only way that a claim could not be actionable was if SCO were declared to be a vexatious litigant and barred from access to the court in question.
Attack a settlement? How's that again? (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you attack a settlement, exactly? Get one of the parties to the agreement to reneg?
A settlement isn't something that can be appealed, as far as I know; and even if it could be, I'd bet certainly not by an uninvolved party.
Re:Attack a settlement? How's that again? (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if it could be appealed (and I forgot that it was a settlement, not a judicial ruling), we're long past the final date for filing an appeal.
As for an uninvolved party -- that's not true. AT&T sold all rights on the source code in question to Novell, who then sold it (with strings) to the company that is now SCO. So they are an involved party, albeit several purchases removed. Of course, that weakens their case -- they should damn well have known what they were and weren't purchasing, along with the legal entanglements involved. Failure to do so may very well be illegal, but in this case it would be the stockholders suing the company over failure of due diligence rather than the company suing anyone.
The more I read on this the more I wonder wtf is going on. It has long since passed the point of being rational. SCO may very well have a beef with IBM and contract violation, but it ends there. All the ranting and raving against Linux, BSD, and the rest of the industry is insane.
On an unrelated note, I'm glad to see IBM handling the case the way they are. I'm sincerely hoping that IBM is subpoening Canopus in order to pierce the corporate veil. This kind of intellectual property blackmail is exactly the kind of thing a large corporation doesn't want to see. It's very much in IBM's interest to burn the fields and salt the earth as a warning against anyone else who would try such spurious claims against them. They have to not only take down SCO, but also Canopus. And if the lawyers pull the same level of crap in the courtroom as they're pulling in the press then IBM will probably push to have them disbarred for conflict of interest, improper conduct, etc.
Anyone who has a legit complaint against IBM, Redhat, Linux, BSD, etc. should certainly pursue it in court. But so far SCO has failed to prove that they have any such complaint, and they appear to be throwing up a smokescreen to hide that.
Re:Attack a settlement? How's that again? (Score:3, Interesting)
You can't attack a settlement per se. I'm guessing that what SCO are planning to do is to litigate some of the issues that people believe were decided in the settlement.
Because it was an out of court settlement, you don't have any final decision. You don't have any case law arising out of it. If SCO thinks that they have legal arguments that will prevail, there's nothing at all to stop them refighting that case.
Whether or not they'll win remains to be seen, b
Re:Attack a settlement? How's that again? (Score:3, Insightful)
As somebody else pointed out, SCO is USL's successor in interest to the SysV code, so they actually are an interested party in the BSD case. Beyond that, they wouldn't actually be attacking the settlement, per se. Instead they'd be attacking the behavior of the other settling party by claiming that they weren't living up to their side of the bargain.
This might actu
Its over the dinosaur is dead (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO's stock has gone from a high of 21 to 14 today, its no longer reacting to the press releases. Even Forbes is now referring to the canopy group as shakedown artists. McBride and company are increasingly running out of people who will buy their story or invest in their stock.
The last time sco had a teleconference they managed a 50 percent bump in share price. This time they got a 1.5 percent bump. This is despite the fact that they have now widened their suit to include contractual control over Novell and BSD.
The big worry will be what happens when sco does give up the ghost. Theres alot of people that depend on the software to run their businesses. They had nothing to do with the lawsuit and will be hurt when the message does at last get to the brain of the beast.
Re:Its over the dinosaur is dead (Score:3, Funny)
Well, judging by how much code Linux has stolen from SCO, it shouldn't be hard for them to switch.
Re:Its over the dinosaur is dead (Score:3, Interesting)
This makes the IBM-Novell-SuSE deal make sense... (Score:3, Interesting)
missed one (Score:3, Funny)
Worst job in the world (Score:5, Insightful)
At least I hope this kinda of case does not go before a jury. Can you imagine the average smuck not smart enough to escape jury duty trying to make sense of all this? Worse trying to make sense of it while getting the info from two different camps?
If it is trial by jury we better hope for a really smart and level headed judge who can properly instruct the jury.
Can this even all go before a single court? If they are really going to sue IBM + Novell + Linux customer + BSD + Little fluffy kittens, we might end up with a dozen trials. That is not counting the appeals.
Oh well at least now with BSD in the firing line as well we will see an end to the posts claiming BSD is safe because of some previous case. When a mad man is loose with a gun, noone is safe.
Re:Worst job in the world (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you imagine the average smuck not smart enough to escape jury duty trying to make sense of all this? Worse trying to make sense of it while getting the info from two different camps?
The consequences of this for the technical community serve as an excellent argument for why smart people maybe shouldn't try to escape jury duty...
Re:Worst job in the world (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, but SCO's lawyers would make sure that anybody with half a technical clue was removed during jury questioning.
What planet are they on? (Score:3, Funny)
They keep on multiplying, getting in the way and serving no apparent purpose.
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
SCO is in a race against time (Score:5, Insightful)
But they've overreached. In fact, they've managed to do what even Microsoft has been unable to do so far; they are directly threatening almost everyone in the *NIX world, which will only bring the disparate camps together. There's big money behind Linux, and there are a lot of companies interested in keeping BSD alive as well.
The mouse that roared is going to get stepped on eventually. Whether they can make enough money in the mean time in order to carry on after their legal shenanegans are put to a stop is the real question. If they can't, I expect SCO to die quite rapidly as soon as they lose in court.
It is the sign of a person losing a dispute... (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO will be history by this time next year.
BSD Code Settlement (Score:5, Interesting)
If SCO attacks it, don't they also open themselves back up to claims against AT&T (which SCO would now have to defend) of stealing code from BSD and putting it into their codebase (UNIX, SVWhatever)?
My question would be, can they really open up that can of worms again? And if they do, don't they open themselves up to accusations of IP infringement? Would they have to then clean up the UNIX codebase to remove any infringement that the settlement allowed?
Ryan Stultz
Re:BSD Code Settlement (Score:5, Informative)
-
AT&T had a fairly weak derivative code claim
(surprisingly like the current SCO one, actually)
saying that even though all of the actual AT&T code
had been removed from BSD's Net-4 release, somehow by a process of transitive derivation it was still a
derivative work.
-
Berkely had a much stronger, classic copright case on the printed manuals for vi, netstat, etc. that would have required AT&T to apologize publicly, and hunt down and destroy all System V based User Guides (i.e ones for AT&T System V, IRIX, HP-UX, etc. etc.)
Berkely really didn't care to press their case except to make the AT&T one go away.As somone pointed out earlier, never sue a University with a good law school.
Re:BSD Code Settlement (Score:4, Informative)
The exact terms of the settlement remain secret, but Marshall Kirk McKusick wrote this nice history summary [oreilly.com].
If SCO really has any way to re-start the proceedings on this, I somehow feel Berkeley lawyers will have none of it...
War (Score:5, Insightful)
- JML
Admission of not having a case (Score:5, Insightful)
BSD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BSD? (Score:3, Interesting)
However, in any case, they're trying to strike at BOTH of the big free competitors to Unix. If they can somehow succeed, it could put the Big Hurt on free software in general.
Desperation (Score:5, Interesting)
Now with the attack on BSD, I think they are trying to get APPLE to bite. I doubt very much that Apple will bite, because Apple knows apples and this one is poisoned.
No company in their right mind is going to purchase SCO at this point. McBride and Co, have tainted with so much vile crap that it will be impossible for SCO to ever come out smelling like a rose. (enough cheezy oneliners yet?)
Anyway, the BSD attack is directed at Apple, and Apple should understand this.
Reminds me of a B5 quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Enter geeky conspiracy theory... (Score:4, Funny)
Man, do I need a life.
The a verage person just doesn't know. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, you have all these guys out there who are extremely suspecious of how Linux works. They just don't understand how you can get something for nothing.
Then SCO comes along and confidently says what they've been expecting all along.
"I knew it!" says average Joe, "Its SCO that's going to get the money for Linux! BUY BUY BUY!"
Now that more mainstream publications are exposing SCO for the con artists they are, they're losing that edge.
ATT (Score:3, Funny)
if IBM is the 800 lb gorilla that you don't pick a fight with then ATT is the demon you hope you never even *see* let alone start poking with a stick.
now the market is starting to turn on them as well...
the end is near SCO
Heed my words (Score:5, Interesting)
I've said this before, and I'll say it again...
Unless and until we all get off of our collective lazy butts and do something about this, there is absolutely nothing else that is going to stop it.
What this means is that US, the authors, movers and shakers in the Free Software community (not just us Linux folks, but you BSDers, too), have to attack back lest we risk loosing our hard work.
If we can not defend what is ours, then we will loose all rights to our work. How can this be put any more simpler. SCO is attacking our property and we are all waiting for "someone else" to defend it. This includes people like Linus and Andrew Tridgell (Samba) as well as the little folks like myself.
People, get this straight... if we do not attack back (using the courts), then we WILL loose our property and our community. We can't afford to wait for the IBM and/or RedHat cases to play out. We can't afford to let "someone else" deal with it. We MUST act today, now!
My proposed attack method is akin to a bee-sting. Except in rare cases (allergies), a bee-sting is not fatal, but 1000 bee-stings almost certainly will be. What we need to do is file 1000's of small claims against SCO in your local courts, alleging copyright violation. Seek the maximum allowed for your jurisdiction. Be prepared to show that your work was submitted to the Linux Kernel (or any other project that SCO is distributing like Samba) and that said project is indeed licensed under the GPL. Yes, you may need to consult a lawyer to be effective, but this is the price we MUST pay to attack SCO back, and be effective.
As long as our dislike of the legal system keeps us from using it, we WILL loose because of it.
Re:Heed my words (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to hit you with this, Perry Mason, but copyright violation cases do not get tried in small claims courts. Furthermore, unless you registered your copyright with a form TX at the Copyright Office, you can't sue for punitive damages, so you will have to demonstrate actual monetary losses in order to sue for compensatory damages, and since you are, presumably, not being paid royalties on non-existent sales of the kernel, you have no grounds for a suit.
And "lose" has only one 'o'. "Loose", as in "loose legal reasoning" has two.
Roadmap... (Score:3, Insightful)
Finally, the mainstream is slamming SCO (Score:5, Informative)
Under technology's top stories:
Novell slams latest SCO claims
SCO Hints at *BSD Lawsuits Next Year, And More
SCO CEO claims top spot on Forbes List of World's Most Hated Business Leaders
SCO doesn't have much longer to live. They've managed to get on not only techies' shit lists, but now the presses'
Only winner is Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has another year to gain market, and uses the bad image against us.
If SCO looses, it takes years to undo the 'image' damage, and Microsoft uses the bad image against us to gain market share...
Re:Time to create a pariah... (Score:4, Funny)
Again? But that trick NEVER works! (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft also had several BSD copyright notices in the past during boot-up. Reckon SCO will go after them, too?
In any event the BSD guys should be able to get the case dismissed immediately using the legal records from the original AT&T case. Hopefully they'd couter-sue for legal costs and time wasted.
Speaking of which, why haven't any Linux copyright holders sued SCO for copyright infringement yet? SCO obviously does not agree with the terms of the GPL and last time I checked they were still distributing the Linux kernel. It'd be great to see several hundred (or thousand) separate lawsuits filed in various states and countries...
Re:Nice quotes (Score:3, Funny)