IBM tells SCO to Put Up or Shut Up 364
Jeffrey Johnson writes "The whole SCO and IBM case is coming to a head with new filings from IBM accusing SCO of being 'grandiose' and saying it has 'effectively conceded' that it has no evidence of infringement. It asks for evidence to be produced or the whole case thrown out. According to experts this makes it make-or-break: either SCO has to outline exactly what the issues are with Linux or the whole sorry affair is over."
(sigh) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:(sigh) (Score:5, Funny)
IBM tells SCO to Put Up or Shut Up for the 23rd time (this time we really mean it, but if you don't we'll wait a few months and demand it again)
Re:(sigh) (Score:2, Funny)
Re:(sigh) (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know. Why are you?
Not put up or shut up; just shut up (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, this one actually is a bit different, and the headline is a bit misleading. What's been going on so far is that IBM has been saying, with varying degrees of politeness, that SCO needs to put up. The last couple of rounds have involved IBM getting the judge to say it for them. Now they're going to the judge and saying that since SCO has failed to put up, the judge should make them shut up. This is a big deal because it will decide the most important part of the case- SCO's allegations of copyright infringement- should the judge rule in IBM's favor. If IBM wins this motion, neither SCO nor anyone who buys their rights to UNIX will be able to sue for copyright violations in Linux.
Re:Not put up or shut up; just shut up (Score:4, Informative)
Not exactly, it means that IBM can't be sued for putting SCO's IP into Linux.
Other companies may be sued for doing this, or IBM may be sued by a different litigant for leaking their IP.
This is only regarding IBM's (alleged) improper contributions to Linux. Check Groklaw for all the details and the plain english translations...
IBM is saying, Dismiss, period! (Score:5, Informative)
SCO has advised the court that it has provided complete and detailed responses to the court's orders. If that is true, then summary judgement is appropriate because SCO has no evidence of IBM's alleged infringement (as SCO has adduced none). If it is not true, then summary judgement is appropriate because SCO has not only defied two orders of the Court, but it has also falsely certified that it has provided complete, detailed and thorough answers to IBM's interrogatories and the Court's orders.
It's not a "put up or shut up." IBM's saying that even if SCO's right, they're still wrong.
Re:Not put up or shut up; just shut up (Score:5, Informative)
No. The idea behind a motion for summary judgment is that the judge decides that there is no substantive factual dispute, so he can rule on who is right and wrong as a matter of law. Once the judge makes a summary judgment, the matter is treated just as though it had been decided by a jury. If IBM wins this motion (and any possible appeals) it is final. Somebody who buys SCO's rights in their bankruptcy liquidation won't be able to turn around and sue IBM over the same point, because it will already have been decided.
Equally important, IBM is asking for a ruling covering Linux as a whole. IBM is claiming that:
IOW, they're not only not guilty of violating any SysV copyrights from having contributed code to Linux, but they're not guilty from simply copying it. That would only be true if there were no code over which SCO has a claim, so an IBM victory will have the side effect of protecting anyone else from copyright infringement claims.
Re:(sigh) (Score:4, Informative)
put up & shut up (Score:5, Funny)
Re:put up & shut up (Score:4, Funny)
Put up OR shut up?
I'd suggest that the situation is most accurated describe by "Put up" implies "shut up", or (Put Up NAND Shut Up) NAND Put Up.
This gives two cases returing true:
1) Neither put up nor shut up: SCO keeps making noise, without producing evidence.
2) Both put up and shut up.
SCO produces all extant evidence, and they are consequently forced to shut up.
Re:put up & shut up (Score:4, Insightful)
You shouldn't have to worry about being beat up, killed, or raped in prison. Being in prison is punishment enough.
I think the powers that be prefer prison to be a terrible, terrible place because they think that it's a deterrent. Too bad these people haven't learned anything in the last... recorded history of man..
Re:put up & shut up (Score:4, Interesting)
One of them spent two years in a Georgia state prison. If you could get money from the outside you could get drugs easily from the DoC officers. If someone gave you a problem and you didn't fight back, you were immediately a target for anyone there that wanted to take advantage of you. If someone beats the crap out of you, you can rat on them, but then you're marked as a rat and everyone will be after you.
One day his watch was stolen by his cellmate and sold to another prisoner. The watch wasn't the big deal, it was the fact that everyone knew it was his watch and if he didn't do something about it, then he'd be a target from then on. So he ended up smashing his cellmate in the face with a padlock and then bashing several of his teeth out on the edge of his bunk. When they were questioned what happened both he and the guy that he beat up told the guards that he fell by accident. They still put my friend in solitary for a couple weeks, but no charges were filed against him.
It's a wierd feeling to have someone you know to be a friendly, intelligent, non-violent person telling you a story like this like they're simply describing a bad experience with tech support. It's easy to see how US prisons are creating violent criminals out of people that weren't necessarily violent before.
The conversation came up because he was talking about how he has to see a parole officer for the next several years. (for 10 years from the date he was released.) He said he'd never let them send him back--even if it meant they'd have to kill him to catch him.
Maybe you worked in a prison where these type of things didn't happen, but to say that all prisons are like that is definately false. Violence is a way of life in US prisons. It's not just GA prisons either. I've talked with more than just one person that has been to prison, and known two of them well enough to know that they aren't liars. Please don't try to bury the problem by saying it doesn't happen, or that we shouldn't talk about it. That's part of the problem.
Think about this: thousands of people go to prison for posession of marijuana every year. Very few of these people are violent. Most are no threat to anyone. And they are locked up with rapists, murderers, and people that are just mentally ill and violent because of it. Forgetting the whole matter of justice being served for a moment, what exactly is it that we are accomplishing by doing this?
No it isn't it is fun (Score:3, Insightful)
Was the criminal intrested in my rights of freedom when he robbed me at gunpoint? Invaded my privacy when he broke into my house? Tortured through rape? No? Then I don't care about him.
Those who say nasty prisons don't work forget to add that nice prisons don't work either. Holland is about as liberal as you can get with communisties being sentenced to being serviced by rapists. (I am still waiting for
Yeah! (Score:2, Insightful)
SCO's actions, IMHO, have been absolutely abominable...I'm glad to see IBM fighting the bastards.
Not that I think it will bring the whole thing to a close, but....
Re:Yeah! (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree that it is good that IBM has been able to successfully defend itself from the lawsuit initiated by SCO. It is also good that SCO had the stupidity to sue someone with both deep pockets and a significant stake in Linux that was willing to fund their lawyers properly.
I am still disturbed however to be supporting a big, bad (well, in the past), corporation against the little guy. No matter how evil the little guy is in this particular case. Somehow the glee that infects the open source community fr
Re:Yeah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Which suggests that you are biased against large corporations simply because they are large, and biased for small companies because they are small. There is nothing inherently evil about a large corporation - Walmart is large and evil, Costco is large and not evil. Walmart is a slave pit, Costco apparently pays pretty well and succeeds at creating a decent work environment.
Except in a few instances, it's not the corporation that's "evil", but the people running it, or their policies. It's time to get past that simplistic view of big is bad and small is good.
Bias based on limitations (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not the way I see things. A small business is more likely to reflect the personality -- the values -- of its owners. Large corporations by their nature gravitate toward impersonal, dehumanising treatment of their employees, the surrounding community, even their customers. This was seen as a flaw of capitalism in general, but from where I stand, what matters is the size of a company.
Costco is large and not evil
Even Costco cannot look after its people the way Scrooge did after being visited by the three spirits. Managers are constrained by HR policies, memos from Legal, and paltry funding from the Comptroller. Big corporations stage supportive activities, but can no more care about an employee than I care about the ant I squashed on my way to work this morning.
I am grateful for IBM's action in this matter, but will always be wary of them starting to throw their weight around.
Re:Yeah! (Score:5, Insightful)
We see this flip-flop with SCO. Caldera used to be a quite reponsible company, now they are 'evil'. IBM used to be 'evil', now they are 'good'.
This is a specific problem with large companies, because large companies are publically owned and hence involve a fiduciary responsibility of great importance to a lot of people. The management have a duty to the owners to maximise the profit potential of the company. When a company has a lot of capital, the value of 'ethical' practices pales in significance compared to the amount of profit potential.
In the case of small companies, the responsibility to maximise earnings is of secondary importance compared to maintaining valuable customer relationships. Often the owner is also the top manager, and hence he/she may decide to act 'ethically' without risking a breach of their fiduciary duty. Also, they will not be fired arbitrarily! To a certain extent, a small company's integrity resides in that of its (private) owner.
Re:Yeah! (Score:3, Interesting)
Well that's not entirely true. I used to pay a premium to travel on American Airlines because they treated me like a human being. And had even spaced out their seats so my knees weren't in the isle getting hit by every f*cking beverage cart. But ever since a few months after Sept. 11th they've really sucked. So except for spending my frequent flier mil
Re:Yeah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, though, if the little guy is evil and the big guy is good (even if he used to be bad too, but reformed himself) and the evil little guy foolish attacks the good big guy and the big guy, is forced to defend himself, then the big guy should have our support.
Now, the way out legal system is structured (and pretty much everyone else's, too, I think), it basically forces you to take no prisoners. You either obtain an out of court settlement or you go on to victory or defeat in court.
The real world comparison would be if the little guy is going to fight the big guy, and the rules of fighting, encoded in law, require that they both be locked in a cage and only one comes out alive, or neither ever comes out. Since the big guy didn't start the fight, which was wrongly called by the evil little guy, we can't really blame the big guy if he kills the little guy to get out of the cage.
So, IBM is likely to bankrupt SCO in this fight, and SCO will be destroyed. It's IP is likely to be bought by someone, probably IBM, or maybe a consortium of IBM, Novell, Red Hat, and others. SCO's few remaining employees will probably all wind up jobless, the innocent along with the guilty. IBM is not to blame for that. SCO is.
So, I'm openly rooting for IBM because they are the good guy, and I hope they utterly destroy the bad guy, necessary or not, even if they are a 600 pound gorilla and the bad guy is a 98 pound weakling.
You should *always* enjoy it when the bad guy gets his ass kicked, didn't you learn anything in the movies?
Re:Yeah! (Score:4, Funny)
This looks to me more like one of those videos on "When Animals Attack" where a retarded guy provokes a polar bear by poking it in the ass with a stick.
Re:Yeah! (Score:5, Insightful)
----
1) SCO picked this fight. No one forced them to sue.
2) Just because they're the "little guy" doens't mean they deserve to win.
3) IBM has actually been rather magnanimous to SCO, allowing them lots of extra time (in a few past motions), not quibbling about the small details (several things they could have objected to, they have overlooked), while at the same time (obviously) maintining a consistant position that SCO's position is inconsistant and absurd.
4) From my reading of both sets of filings, the reason IBM is doing so well is not that they've somehow railroaded SCO, it's that IBM has been able to keep all their legal filings consistant and SCO can't keep their story straight, and since SCO hasn't been able to do this, neither has their legal counsel. Thus, SCO has asserted a number of things which they ought not to have, and are losing as a result of their own misconduct.
5) IBM seems to have reformed. They're not trying to control the operating systems market, they're trying to make sure that no one can, ironically. So they won't be beholden to any one operating systems company, and open source software gives IBM all the advantages in being able to help people customize it to make use of IBM hardware.
I feel that "big corp" vs. "little guy" reasoning is too simplistic, if it were being used as the only criteria for deciding who to support, without reference to the facts at hand. I don't blame you for not wanting to root for some company's demise, though, I just wanted to lay out why I don't have so much of a problem with watching SCO get stomped in court.
Re:Yeah! (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing I really respected about them is that they throw tons of money into research and development, even if that R&D doesn't seem to have a real financial payoff in the future. They basically just pay people to come up with and develop cool technological toys. Some are successful and make IBM tons of money. Others aren't and are just cool to have around. Still, it's not often you see a large company that dedicates a large portion of time and money to things that don't contribute to the bottom line.
However, woe be unto you if you cross them. As benign as they are, those fuckers hold a serious grudge. And for a very, very long time. They are still pissed about the whole OS/2 Warp debacle and won't use Microsoft products if they can get away with it. That's also a very large reason why they are pumping so much money into Linux. They'd rather the whole OS market be open and free than have Microsoft controlling it.
They are going to literally grind SCO's bones to make their bread. There will be no SCO by the time IBM is done.
Re:Yeah! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yeah! (Score:3, Interesting)
My wife was an intern at Microsoft during that shenannegan and has a LOT to say about it.
Re:IBM, our great savior? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is some truth there, If it weren't for suing IBM, I doubt SCO would have been able to raise any money. SCO investors are gambling on some sort of payoff , and I bet suing small companies or FSF just would not produce any significant income even if they won.
-Em
Re:IBM, our great savior? (Score:5, Insightful)
If IBM weren't around, SCO still could (and almost certainly would) have picked on smaller players such as Red Hat, SuSE, etc. These small players don't have a great deal of money with which to defend themselves, and SCO could have probably bankrupted some of them before the fight was even over, and possibly even won one or more injunctions against the distribution use of Linux.
Fortunately, IBM was around, was promoting Linux in a big way, and SCO was foolish enough to take on the 600 pound gorilla and think it could win or at least be bought out at a handsome profit for its investors and executives. Too bad for SCO it turns out the 600 pound gorilla believes it can win and set a precedent and never have to worry about this again. As a result, IBM will seek to make an example of SCO, and make Darl rue the day he first heard the words "law suit."
Then, when it's over and SCO is in ruins, IBM may buy SCO anyway for pennies on the dollar and have both the court precedent and the IP in hand, rendering IBM and all of us safe from a repeat attack on Linux. It will probably also render IBM safe from being sued by anyone else, over anything, for a long time to come because they have demonstrated their willingness to fight instead of settle.
IBM tells SCO to Put Up or Shut Up (Score:2, Insightful)
About damn time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:About damn time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:About damn time (Score:4, Interesting)
Well Darl was paid about $1M last year, a figure that many people (but not, one suspects, Darl) would consider riches.
Perhaps he will consider trying to make money the old fashined way next time, you know: create a product that people actually want and sell it!
I don't think SCO ever intended to SELL any "SCOSource" licenses -- you would expect them to register the domain name if they did, but SCO did not register it [scosource.com]
Re:About damn time (Score:2)
Re:About damn time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:About damn time (Score:5, Funny)
It's precisely BECAUSE of the time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just goes to show... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About damn time (Score:3, Interesting)
I like it more when people really overdo the number of lawyers IBM could ever have.
Something like:
They will hide the sun
or: They could burry SCO under 10% of dead IBM layers. No need for courts.
or: IBM lawyers are so many that IBM keeps 90% of them in cryogenic chambers for future use.
or: IBM's uses so many lawyers that several small countries are now under contract to provide lawyers to IBM.
or: IBM lawyers are so many that they refer to them by serial number
I'm sure
Re:About damn time (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, just a rebadge lawyer joke. The Jargon file has an amusing entry about Lion Food [catb.org]
Two lions w
Re:About damn time (Score:3, Funny)
IBM: "Your honor, I know it's only been a month and we haven't even gotten through the discovery process of gathering evidence, but how about just cut the whole thing short because it's *clearly* a waste of time."
Judge: "Do you have any evidence to present that proves this conclusively?"
IBM: "Um, no. But SCO has had a whole 20 business days already! That's an entire month in regular people terms! Sure, we're still fulfilling requests for evidence, but
Re:About damn time (Score:5, Interesting)
IAAL, and I'm dumbfounded that the judge has not *already* bounced SCO's entire lawsuit for refusing to comply with two consecutive discovery orders. "20 business days?" It's already been over a year.
more importantly (Score:5, Funny)
Humble suggestion (Score:4, Funny)
Re:more importantly (Score:5, Funny)
Not long now (Score:5, Insightful)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=2y&l=on&z=m &q=l&c= [yahoo.com]
Last trade was 4.754. Hard to believe it peaked at 22.29, and with no real difference in strategy or product. The stock market is a strange and wonderful place...
Should Have Started With This (Score:5, Insightful)
That's actually exactly what's happening (Score:2, Insightful)
The 'Gee, do you guys have any EVIDENCE to support your claims?' bit is what's called, in the legal world, "discovery". This is one of the first phases of the trial and that's what they've spent the last year on.
Since Discovery is coming to a close, the 'getting tossed out of the courthouse on their butt' is the next step-- it's what a court would call "summary dismissal" and it's exactly what IBM has just requested the judge to do.
Re:Should Have Started With This (Score:5, Insightful)
1. produce the evidence
2. destroy their own argument
3. bankrupt SCO in legal fees
its taken this long...
If it was a short case noone would have cared about it and the benefits to Linux and FOSS wouldn't have occured...
jeez don't you read groklaw [groklaw.net] at all?
SCO's fair day in court (Score:5, Informative)
The judge has given SCO multiple, generous chances to cough up some evidence. Now that it has been a year, the judge can entertain a motion to toss out the parts of the case for which no evidence has been offered.
SCO will appeal if this happens. However, if IBM and the judge have crossed all their t's and dotted all their i's, the appeals court will refuse SCO's appeal.
Only once the appeal has been made and rejected is it truly over!
The wheels of law grind slowly, but they do get the grinding done eventually.
steveha
Re:SCO's fair day in court (Score:5, Insightful)
The American legal system is broken. Look at the treatment SCO got in Germany: one court application to put up or shut up, and they had to do it or else. Sanity prevailed.
In America, insanity prevails.
Anyone notice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, this has cost them lots of $$, but they are going to emerge the champions of tech geeks the world over.
Re:Anyone notice? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Anyone notice? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not so. IBM was called the benevolent dictator, and that since way before the 80s. I don't think I've ever seen Microsoft been called benevolent by any sane person...
Re:Anyone notice? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never heard the benevolent dictator before to describe IBM, but I can believe it. In my own dealings, IBM hardware and software has always been highly praised. They build solid stuff. They support it _forever_ and a day. Documentation is second to none. But the IBM sales and marketting is a pariah. I've heard comments from other techs along the lines of "I wish I didn't have to deal with IBM's lawyers before I could use IBM's products".
The benefit of IBM going with open source is that you no longer need to deal with the sales people or the lawyers to get to the product. You speak directly with IBM's engineers. It's perfect. All the top qualities of IBM - the engineering, the attention to detail - without any of the biz crap you wish didn't exist.
NB: that's not to say every IBM product is a godsend. They've produced some absolute shit in the PC division (which includes their Intel/x86 based servers as far as I'm concerned). I'm sure there are other cockups too.
Re:Anyone notice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, this has cost them lots of $$, but they are going to emerge the champions of tech geeks the world over.
There's nothing to stop Microsoft from becoming a company that geeks could love. They just need to learn the painful lesson that IBM learned (eventually): how to transition from a company that makes standards to becoming a company that contributes to them.
Re:Anyone notice? (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft can very easily be a normal and respected company. It's hard to imagine, but it's possible. It's very possible for MS to exist largely as it it nowadays. However, it would require a shift in income from licensing to support. Here's how:
However, I fear most of that is wishful thinking. Ah well, I'd give it a shot if given the oppurtunity.
Re:Anyone notice? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I fear most of that is wishful thinking. Ah well, I'd give it a shot if given the opportunity.
You're right both about what Microsoft could do and the likelihood that they'll do it. It's worth pointing out, however, exactly why they won't do it.
In a word: profit. While they could be a respected and healthy company doing what you mention, they would be operating on profit margins that are a tiny fraction of what they have now. Their business would become more similar to IBM's, who has profit margins that are less than one third of Microsoft's. Their stock price would decline by at least half, maybe more. Their relative importance in the I/T world would drop like a stone as well.
All in all, they'd go from being the big kid on the block, in many measures (profits, market cap, influence) to being just another player, and one without some of the diversity and breadth advantages of IBM, or HP.
Long-term, they're going to have to come down to earth, but don't expect them to stop taking the monopoly profits one second before the market forces them to.
In its heyday, IBM was also perfectly content to take the money until the DoJ got them to sign a consent decree that tied their hands in the mainframe market about the same time the market shifted away from big iron. Microsoft, of course, has realized that consent decrees and such only limit your actions if you choose to obey them, so it's going to require extra-market forces (like open source) to cut them down to size.
Re:Anyone notice? (Score:3, Interesting)
It cost them lots of $$? They are getting publicity that money can't buy. Geeks are cheering for IBM. I don't think it is any coincidence that IBM started their Linux advertising bliz after the suit was filed. They are spending millions on those commercials.
Re:Anyone notice? (Score:3, Interesting)
We get enterprise level support and code contributions from IBM, they get to sell services, promote sales of IBM hardware, and to have the freedom from any one particular vendor.
Besides, it simply wouldn't be in their best interests to betray us, and if they did, the community would surely respond in kind.
Barring some new change in the markets that upsets IBM's Linux strategy, their current relationship seems to be
Re:Anyone notice? (Score:3, Insightful)
Make no mistake, IBM is only interested in Linux because it can use it to make a profit. It couldn't care less if it's open source or not, only that Linux is free for them to put on boxes, thus, more profit for them.
Mirror anyone? (Score:2)
Not asking for the case to be thrown out.. (Score:5, Informative)
A partial summary judgement and a dismissal are entirely different. A partial summary judgement does not end the case.
What I'm trying to work out (Score:5, Interesting)
What the summary judgement means is IBM is pointing at the big swath of things that SCO claimed then dropped from the case, and asking the judge, "could you *pretend* SCO never dropped those parts, and give us the ruling you would have given if those parts of the case were still in effect, so that we can declare the matter closed and SCO can't make those allegations again later?"
So if the summary judgement's granted, IBM's case will still go on, since it has no bearing on the contract claims that SCO's lawsuit against IBM comprises at this point.
HOWEVER, if the summary judgement is granted, RedHat's case will suddenly start up, since (1) the copyright allegations and slander that the summary judgement concerns is *exactly* what RedHat's case is about and (2) when RedHat's case hit court, it was ruled that that case should be delayed until the IBM case is decided, so (3) since the part of the IBM case that RedHat was waiting on has been summary judgemented, they're free to persue the lanham act thingy against SCO.
Is the above the case?
Re:What I'm trying to work out (Score:5, Informative)
1) It establishes that IBM hasn't violated Unix copyrights.
2) It establishes that the behavior of using Linux doesn't violate Unix copyrights, since this is a behavior that IBM has indulged in.
3) It establishes that redistributing Linux doesn't violate Unix copyrights, since this is a behavior that IBM has indulged in.
4) It allows the Redhat case to move forward, since the copyright issues in the IBM case were the reason that the judge stayed that case.
5) It establishes that their is no copyrighted Unix code in Linux, which will help Redhat and Auto Zone.
DanW
Re:Not asking for the case to be thrown out.. (Score:2)
Re:Not asking for the case to be thrown out.. (Score:4, Informative)
Not really. What SCO claims in the media is "IBM stole our code and put it in Linux". Their COURT claims, however, are different. If you look at SCO's second ammended complaint [groklaw.net], Copyright infringement is the fifth cause of action, but they never directly accuse IBM of putting UNIX code in Linux (just "derivative works"). The rest of the claims are contract violation, unfair competition, etc.
Partial summary judgement on copyright infringement would be a PR nightmare for SCO (even though they'll spin it as though that's what they wanted), but I would expect the case to continue until SCO becomes the largest crater in Utah.
Interesting insights on Groklaw (Score:5, Informative)
IBM has documented SCOX's failure on two different orders to produce their evidence in discovery. They have also brought forth conflicting statements made by various lawyers and corporate types, the lawyers saying, "We have no further evidence" with the officers saying, "We will find more evidence as things go along". Even more damaging, SCO's filing lawsuits against so many other entities has caused other lawsuits to depend on the conclusion of this one, so there suddenly is no way for them to not go ahead.
I just hope that the SEC seeks criminal cases against SCOX board members over this one. That would do everyone well for the long term.
Assuming... (Score:2)
Darl's New Job (Score:5, Funny)
Not put up, but just shut up (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting clause... (Score:5, Funny)
"IBM further requests extensive injunctive relief from litigants, viz, their fields shall be burned, and sown with salt; their buildings torn assunder; their leaders beaten and hanged; their animals slain, and left unto the beasts; their wives enslaved and set to lamentation; their names and images expunged from the histories and chiseled from the monuments; and their children's teeth set on edge, yea unto the seventh generation. So shall vengeance be wreaked upon those who look with enmity upon Big Blue."
and don't forget (Score:3, Funny)
Ask not (Score:5, Informative)
No, it just asks for the Court to rule on Counterclaim 10. IBM has not asked for the case to be thrown out, nor have they suggested that SCOX produce more evidence.
They do point out that they have been asking for the detailed claims for almost a year now, and that the Court itself has twice had to order SCOX to provide them. Twice, SCOX has sworn to the Court that it has complied with those orders.
At this point, IBM is in the mode of saying that SCOX has had more than enough opportunity to come up with some adjudicable claims, and that the case should move forward with what is (or isn't) on the table.
In other words, read the frippin' linked documents before posting this stuff on the front page.
if they win? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:if they win? (Score:4, Funny)
Sometimes, there are more important and more likely things to be worried about.
Re:if they win? (Score:4, Funny)
Are you referring to female corporate spokespersons?
Is this really such a good thing? (Score:4, Funny)
What stories will go under the Caldera section now? "Caldera makes actual product"?
Article Text (Score:4, Informative)
----------
IBM slams 'grandiose' SCO, asks for whole farce to be called off
Latest court filings may be make or break for controversial Linux copyright case.
By Robert McMillan, IDG News Service
IBM has filed new documents in its legal dispute with the SCO Group, accusing SCO of having no evidence to back up its copyright infringement claims and asking the judge to throw a major component of the case out of court.
"For more than a year, SCO has made far-reaching claims about its right to preclude IBM's (and everyone else's) Linux activities," wrote IBM in documents filed with the District Court for Utah. "Despite SCO's grandiose descriptions of its alleged evidence of IBM's infringement, SCO now effectively concedes that it has none."
SCO has been unable to provide any evidence of copyright infringement during the discovery phase of the trial and the court should therefore render a summary judgement against SCO, IBM's filings say.
In March 2003, SCO filed a multibillion dollar lawsuit against IBM, accusing it of violating SCO's Unix intellectual property. SCO accused IBM of unfair competition, breach of contract, and of violating SCO's trade secrets. In late February this year, it dropped the trade secret allegations in the case, but added a claim that IBM had violated SCO's Unix copyright.
A few weeks after the trade secret claims were dropped, IBM sought a declaratory judgement in the case, a move that opened the possibility of a quick ruling against SCO. Lawyers following the dispute saw this as a sign of growing confidence on IBM's part.
By seeking a declaratory judgement, IBM was showing that it had not found any evidence to back up SCO's claims, said Jeff Norman, an intellectual property partner with the Chicago law firm Kirkland Ellis. Because the copyright claims form the crux of SCO's case, this week's filing for a summary judgement creates the possibility that the dispute could essentially be over in a matter of months, he said.
"IBM is saying to SCO: 'As a matter of law you're playing this so weak that no reasonable jury could find in your favor'," Norman said. "They must think that they have a pretty good chance of winning the motion, or you wouldn't bring it."
This week's filings could also force SCO to provide more compelling evidence of copyright violations, said David Byer, a partner with the patent and intellectual property group at Boston's Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault. "It is another way to try to focus the court on the evidentiary questions that have been battled about since day one, meaning who is going to produce what when," he said. "SCO needs to respond to this. If they don't respond appropriately, the case can get thrown out."
SCO is likely to produce more evidence to support its claims, said Blake Stowell, an SCO spokesman. On 19 April, IBM turned over 232 versions of its AIX and Dynix Unix source code as well as internal documents and memos from executives, he said. "Our lawyers are still going through much of the evidence IBM turned over as part of the discovery process. I'm confident that there is still other evidence that will come forward in order for us to be able to prove those claims," Stowell said.
Complicating matters for SCO is the fact that Linux vendor Novell also claims to own copyright to the Unix source code. SCO has sued Novell for slander in connection with this claim.
----------
Hope be with ye,
Cyan
This is not over (Score:2, Insightful)
What ever happened to the "for hackers by hackers" mentality? I think that World Domination was initially just a joke. But you can not dominate the world without a big fi
Let's not forget.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway what's the bet that they'll come out with some completly bullshit claims that are highly confusing to the average person who doesn't know much about linux, which sound faiguely plausible and are dificult to disprove legally without jumping through hoops. In the past SCO have proven to be masters of stalling with this sort of thing, I just hope they're running out of slimy tricks to weasel their way out of this sort of thing....
my $0.02
If this were a drinking game... (Score:5, Funny)
As much as I would like... (Score:4, Interesting)
About GD time! (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's this simple why has no-one done this earlier??
In other countries this was the first action taken! And it was successfull
US legislators (too often lawyers) have to be told to fix a system that seemingly only allows 'justice' for the (extremely) rich.
Re:About GD time! (Score:3, Interesting)
Chill dude. Timing is everything. After a year and two court ordered motions to compel, it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain (that leaves out Robert Enderle and Laura DiDio) that SCOG's shooting blanks.
A year ago, SCOG's duplicity hadn't even begun to sink into the consciousness of the "mainstream" analysts and publications. Now, almost every article you read raises questions about SCOG's evidence and integrity. Now, is the time to strike
Tally? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Tally? (Score:3, Insightful)
This request for a summary judgement is more, "You've been claiming for a year to have evidence. You've been told twice by Judge Wells to produce evidence. You've signed avidavits that you've produced all the evidence. But you still haven't produced any evidence." The point to produce evidence or to shut up has come and gone but you haven't produced any.
At some point the judge has
Whee! (Score:5, Funny)
You'll know this fiasco is over... (Score:4, Insightful)
Until then, expect SCO to grandstand some more until they can drain the last little bit of value out of the company before they retire to their homes in the Hamptons.
Meanwhile, the SEC and the Justice Dept. probably have armies of agents pouring over the finances of Oprah Winfrey and Cheech Marin.
The beginning of the end (Score:5, Informative)
This is unlkely to result in outright dismissal. But IBM is also moving, alternatively, for "foreclosure of factual defenses pursuant to discovery rule 37(b)(2)," That's the real "put up or shut up" motion. IBM is saying that SCO has had enough opportunities, after two court orders, to come up with specific evidence of copyright infringement. So SCO should now be barred from submitting any new evidence of infringement in future.
They'll probably get that. They cite all the embarassing background material, including press statements by SCO and an .MP3 of Darl mouthing off. IBM uses the words "fear, uncertainty and doubt" twice in its latest court filings. But what really matters is that two tightly focused discovery orders have failed to elicit evidence of copyright infringement from SCO. That's so unusual that a ruling by the judge that SCO has had its chance isn't unreasonable.
Not at all unexpected (Score:4, Informative)
From here, SCO will file an argument against MSJ, and the judge will rule according to a timeline specified by local rules. (Some districts do monthly motion hearings, some deal with them as they come).
At this point, since discovery is over, SCO will not be allowed to submit further evidence, only to argue what they have shown is enough to continue.
Typically, the plaintiff in a case like this will hold back evidence until just before trial. It's of course unethical to do so, but they will argue that it was not discovered until then. In civil court, unlike criminal court, last minute evidence is more often than not allowed. Judges are allowed to allow any evidence they see fit that will help bring the truth to light.
Expect this motion to be denied, and expect IBM to file for an extension to review the mass amounts of last minute evidence that SCO brought to the table. Also expect that there will be such a large amount of last minute evidence brought to the table, that a small amount of patently false information will get through. Frequently, you'll see things like e-mails without full header information, and other technically unsound evidence that will be contested at trial, but will allude to guilt.
When you pile a bunch of allusions together in civil court, you have a shot at winning. You don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, you only have to prove a likelyhood that the crime or tort has occured.
If you sign up for a pacer account, you can get access to the court documents for 4 cents a page. I don't know if this filing is online yet or not.
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
-chris
Likely to present evidence if they find any? (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, SCO didn't have any evidence when they filed the suit, and this whole thing has been one massively expensive fishing expedition?
Quick Summary (Score:3, Funny)
Please read PJ's article there for a much better analysis of events.
-------------
SCO: IBM infringes on our IP!
IBM: What are you talking about?
SCO: IBM took our trade secrets and our copyrighted stuff.
IBM: What trade secrets and copyrighted stuff?
SCO: We won't tell you.
IBM: Magistrate, make them tell us.
Wells: Tell IBM with specificity.
SCO: We need IBM's source code first!
IBM: Magistrate, make them tell us.
Wells: Tell IBM with specificity.
SCO: Ok we will.
SCO: We are dropping the trade secrets claim. It's all about derivative works
now.
IBM: Magistrate, they didn't tell us.
SCO: We need IBM's source code first!
IBM: Bull.
Magistrate: SCO tell IBM with specificity. IBM, give SCO the appropriate
source code at the same time.
SCO: We have complied with the court order.
IBM: There is no specificity.
SCO: We have complied with the court order.
Blepp: I have all the evidence in my suitcase!
SCO: Hold off on the RedHat case until IBM's counterclaim is settled.
RedHat: This is weak. Our business is being damaged while we wait for IBM's
counterclaim to be settled.
SCO: Dismiss IBM's counterclaim, please.
Blepp: Our strategy is not to show everything at once.
IBM: Judge, they told us they had given us everything. They promised us that
this was everything that they had that we asked for. What they gave us isn't
even close to proving copyright infringement of SysV in Linux. Please rule on
this counterclaim.
Hope Springs Eternal (Score:3, Informative)
After that, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to introduce record evidence that raises a genuine question of material fact. More than a bare minimum showing is necessary, but not much at all. Every reasonable inference goes to the non-moving party.
SCO will have to put up something at last, but they don't need to show their entire hand to survive this motion, and very little is required for them to survive. Don't be surprised to feel a bit queasy as you see little more than a hand-wave or two from SCO with pointers to record evidence, and then the judge saying, well, that's a question for the fact-finder to decide in a technical case.
Its all just a ruse (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO is just acting as Microsoft's pawn here.
Microsoft gave SCO $50 million to help fight this and spread the seeds of doubt against Linux to delay what is inevitable - Linux will dominate business and government operating systems around the globe.
I am certain that Microsoft considers this money well spent. Afterall - how many corporations and government entities DIDN'T change over to Linux because of the fear this suit created.
Yesterday's news, now and forever... (Score:5, Funny)
International Business Machines (NASDAQ: IBM) today announced a new court motion aimed at ending the lawsuit by One-Click Lawsuits - formerly SCO. The motion is aimed at ordering One-Click Lawsuits to release the details of IBM's alleged misappropriation of One-Click Lawsuits' alleged valuable intellectual property into Linux, IBM's legal.....
(In other news, on the same day...)
Microsoft today announced immediate availability of the Legacy Windows Compatibility Layer for the 4.8 kernel, with support for over 12 microprocessor architectures, others forthcoming. The LWCL allows enterprises completing their migration path towards Linux to retain their investment in custom code written for the legacy Windows operating systems. Microsoft's chairman and CEO, Linus Torvalds, said it feels good to have completed his purchase of 75% of what was arguably the world's most influential software company since the 1980's. He hinted at some of the more exciting changes occuring in the 4.9 development kernel, along with.....
Please please please... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheers.
Re:Funding SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
In short - because of this either/or, the GPL has not been tested in court, and essentially never will. You either accept it and abide by it, or deny it and pay up.
Re:Funding SCO (Score:3, Informative)
This is why the GPL is so beautiful, it's one of the most elegant hacks ever made.
Eben Moglen put it this way when he spoke at Harvard a while back...