SCO Spreads Rumors About IBM Lawsuit 440
yeremein writes "SCO says it has found a new smoking gun in its battle with IBM. This 'bombshell' was not found in a court document; instead it came from a reporter's interview at SCOforum. The scoop? 'SCO alleges that since 2001, AIX has contained code for which IBM does not have a license. Moreover SCO claims to have found internal IBM e-mails in which IBMers acknowledge this shortcoming.' With the announcement comes a hefty boost in SCO's stock price." SCO is also going to bundle its worthless linux licenses with its Unix operating systems.
I heard (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I heard (Score:4, Funny)
Wizard of SCO (Score:4, Funny)
What would be the likely impact on Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
At a glance, this seems like purely an AIX issue - so even if IBM should get into hot water with that one (I'm not saying they are going to be), what impact would it have on the linux case? (Say, besides the fact that SCOs war chest for their lawsuit would get a big refill)
Re:What would be the likely impact on Linux? (Score:5, Funny)
Interviewer: The question is, "What would happen to the *Linux* case, if SCO would turn out to be right on this one?"
Random Techie: Umm...Linux and the GPL would be finished.
Interviewer: I'm sorry, the correct answer was "Monkeys will fly out of my ass"
Re:What would be the likely impact on Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
Notice that SCO hasn't addressed the cries of people who want to contribute things to people through the goodness of their hearts. For people who want to give something to people for free, SCO is saying "Eat your heart out."
Re:What would be the likely impact on Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, this doesn't even seem to be an SCO issue....
Even if IBM acknolwedges the emails -- all they say is that IBM might not own the AIX code. They don't say that SCO does! If it turns out that, say, Novell owns the AIX code instead of IBM -- that isn't going to help SCO at all. Announcing this on the SCOForum or wherever, and not in a courtroom discovery session... the point is just to spread FUD. And raise their stock value....
This news isn't SCO's "smoking gun" -- it's their "steaming pile of crap".
Re:What would be the likely impact on Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
a) SCO would get money it desperately needs to continue fight its linux battle.
b) They might try and use it to cast a different light on IBM, as a company ignoring laws and contracts, when they return to the linux case.
c) And - that's the interesting question - is there a direct link between the two?
As for the injunction - if there is no direct evident link between the linux case and this issue, then SCO is in safe waters, because the injunction probably doesn't forbid them to mention IBM at all. It'll probably just say, that SCO is forbidden from issuing further claims on its linux case to the media. Something which they haven't done with this...
Question for Lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
They already have (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They already have (Score:5, Informative)
To the parent: thanks for the info! This may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. If the judge awards IBM damages for violation of the Lanham Act, IBM might just end up owning the Unix licensing business! (Through liquidation of assets during bankruptcy procedures, in case anyone's interested.)
Barratry is illegal, too (Score:4, Insightful)
Barratry, fraud, libel -- there are a few terms for what new-SCO likes to pull.
What Darl and his crack pipe forget, as per usual, is that AIX5L is AIX + Linux compatability. Monterey was specifically related to an x86 port of AIX, which as far as I know was never done.
I seriously, seriously doubt that IBM's lawyers allowed AIX5L to be released without addressing the engineer's notes about any IP issues. It's perfectly normal to flag potential issues to management, and hardly a "smoking gun."
Anyone who has ever dealt with IBM's legal team knows damn well they cover all their bases. If someone mentioned the possibility of a problem, I am quite comfortable assuming IBM's lawyers followed up on it before proceeding.
Will somebody please just shoot SCO's "lawyers" already? There has been more than enough damage to the industry over their bullshit, and it's far past time for them to prove something, shut the hell up, or be arrested on barratry and worse.
Are traders really that dumb? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or perhaps I have it all backwards, but how can the stock go up 14% without this sort of thing happening?
Re:Are traders really that dumb? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, if the stock went up, it's a good 'investment' right? Even if it only goes up because investors think investors think it's a good idea, etc., in the end nobody may think it's a good idea but the stock goes up anyway :)
Re:Are traders really that dumb? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are traders really that dumb? (Score:5, Informative)
Stock price is based on a company's PERCEIVED value, not it's ACTUAL value. Sometimes perception is in line with reality; sometimes they're so far apart it's not even funny.
Perception is a function of human psychology; understand that and you'll have a better understanding of how people will react in a given situation.
Re:Are traders really that dumb? (Score:5, Interesting)
Highly variable stocks are easy to predict... they go up and down. Set your stops to buy low and sell high, and forget about it. Who cares why the stock is yo-yo'ing, it just is. Eventually you'll be holding a dud, but you might make many times the lost value of the stock on the difference over the course of the transactions. If you're particularly good, you might see that the pattern is about to break and pull out, but depending on that is gambling... but depending on continued variability is also gambling.
I'm in the wrong business! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh well, back to the code... :)
Re:I'm in the wrong business! (Score:4, Insightful)
Now I'm currently pursuing CompE, but there's apparently lots of opportunity for people with technical knowledge, good logical skills (they say that computer people often do well in law because of the type of logic involved), and good writing skills.
However, lawyers work their asses off, have to deal with other lawyers, and typically only get big money for representing morally bankrupt assholes.
Re:I'm in the wrong business! (Score:5, Insightful)
As opposed to computer people, who work their asses off, have to deal with end-users, and practically never get big money while working for morally bankrupt assholes.
worthless linux licenses eh? (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't that be "... worthless linux licenses with its worthless Unix operating systems" ;-) ?
Its about time (Score:3, Funny)
Seems unlikely (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Seems unlikely (Score:5, Funny)
Being groklaw'd already (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Seems unlikely (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:IANAL (Score:5, Informative)
Unless the lawyers for the other side are incompetent, they will know more or less everything you might have to use against them well before trial. Either because it will be documents you are required to present to them, or because they'll have carefully crafted discovery requests and motions to figure out what you've got.
In this particular case, you'll find that IBM for instance have asked for summary judgement on some of SCO's claims because IBM claim they haven't produced any evidence. If successfull, those claims will never even reach trial. SCO's only way around that is to point out with specificity to the judge any shred of evidence they might have regarding those particular claims.
Which means that either IBM gets rid of the claims, or they get a detailed overview of what evidence SCO will be using to justify those claims during trial, allowing them to target the specific evidence in their further discovery and other preparations.
Re:IANAL (Score:3, Funny)
If you extend your toilet bowl analogy, that isn't smoke coming off their claims, but steam. And that isn't a gun that is steaming, but a pile of... well, you get the picture.
Too Much DRA-ma (Score:3, Insightful)
When will these dickless wonders get the information that their M$ backing is gone, and nobody wants them around anymore. Fuck off, SCO.
Deja Vu... (Score:3, Insightful)
The license thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Forbes doesn't like you. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, just maybe, they're jerks. (girlish giggle)
Daniel Lyons is a shill for SCO. (Score:5, Insightful)
The article is surprisingly useless.
What do you mean useless? Lyons did his job as a paid shill for SCO and made sure the stock got pumped today.
While the lambs are buying into SCOX on the recommendations of SCO-paid shills like Lyons and The Enderle Troll (who just a few days ago called SCOX a great investment), the insiders and big holders are having a nice little lamb slaughter unloading their stock.
Note how SCO didn't go to court with their "new hot evidence", they went to a paid shill. Now, why is that?
Re:Daniel Lyons is a shill for SCO. (Score:4, Informative)
If you check my posting history, you will undoubtably note that I have followed his actions rather closely (and, quite frequently, stepped up to point out that he's full of crap).
For example, there was that article where he posted untrue, unsubstantiated and rediculous allegations about PJ of Groklaw, with reckless disregard for the truth, even going so far as to quote random trolls on the internet as sources!
Hell, even here, the editors don't generally post front page stories about the penis bird or whatever it is they're trolling about these days. While to begin with, Daniel Lyons was just acting as a lazy journalist, spouting off whatever SCO put into their press releases, after he was called on it, he began to work to discredit those who had so very well discredited him.
Unfortunately for him, he only proved that Forbes has no editorial oversight--that article, which I'm sure you could find via Google [66.102.7.104] (Google cache link--I refuse to give Forbes page views if I can help it), had no place on any serious website. Let alone one purporting to carry "news."
So while I won't say that he's actually manipulating the SCOX stock price--IBM will have to ferret that out, as they have addressed it in their counter-claims--you should realize that whatever motives he writes with are not good ones.
In the mean time, I will do my part to remind everyone that Forbes apparently has insufficient editorial oversight, and should not therefore be considered a reliable source of information. Hell, if they told me it was raining outside, I do believe that I would go look for myself.
I can't do much, but I believe that I've cost them at least one potential customer already.
Re:Forbes doesn't like you. (Score:5, Insightful)
Note in the last paragraph:
"Linux zealots will no doubt write off SCO's latest claim as yet another PR ploy."
Does that sound like unbiased journalism?
Re:Forbes doesn't like you. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm... supported by said zealots, like....
Like IBM [ibm.com] ?
Like HP [internetweek.com] ?
Like Oracle [oracle.com] ?
Like Novell [novell.com] ?
And primarily only used by zealots, like....
Like Amazon? [com.com]
Like Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and E*Trade [com.com]?
Like Autozone and DaimlerChrysler?
Like the 60% of all websites, which are powered by open source software? (admittedly, some Apache servers run on commercial unix, freebsd, and some even run on windows).
Yep... a bunch of slashdot obsessed zealots, who only need to....
So I say, it's time to wake up and realize that what this guy is describing is accurate.
Yes, Daniel Lyons is mostly likely accurate in reporting that FACT that SCO claims to have discovered new evidence.
Wether Danial's OPINION, characterizing it as a "smoking gun", turns out to be an accurate remains to be seen. So far, Daniel Lyons, Laura Didio and Rob Enderle have "cried wolf" many times and not once has a so-called "smoking gun" turned out to be of any consequence. Maybe, just maybe, it will turn out to be important. Until then, perhaps you should "wake up and realize" that Danial, Laura and Rob are themselves zealots who've published many alarmist articles about the merits of SCO's case.
Even if SCO finally has found some evidence to support their case... which is a pretty big "if" considering the history of their performance to date, the impact on Linux of a contractual obligation regarding code released in AIX, but not in Linux, remains to be seen.
In the meantime, zealots here on slashdot, on groklaw, and at Forbes, Yankee group and Rob's one-man-show, the Enderle Group will make their predictions.
Skeptical..... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason for SCO to release this info to the public now is to help the battle for public opinion, and if you want to do that, you should start with a source a bit higher up the chain then SCOforum, such as, say, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, or some other well reputed paper.
As usual (Score:4, Insightful)
It'll be interesting to see how this turns out, if it's anything, since my understanding is that during discovery you have to stick to what you're looking for. In other words, it's not a fishing expedition. This is definitely fishing.
But I'm not a lawyer, although I'd have little trouble standing up to SCO's lawyers in court...
What the email really said... (Score:3, Funny)
Yawn... (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you say estoppel (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can you say estoppel (Score:5, Interesting)
"The next generation of AIX--AIX 5L--takes AIX to the next level with advanced technology, a strong Linux affinity and added support for IBM's Power and Intel's future IA-64 processor-based platforms, making it the most open UNIX operating system in the industry."
-- http://www.sco.com/monterey/aix5l.htm
I wonder why SCOG removed that page, then got it removed from the wayback machine and google cache so fast after that story was up on groklaw.
Re:Can you say estoppel (Score:5, Informative)
The groklaw article reproduces a page from the sco.com website that explained what AIX 5L is and how it uses SCO technology on both Power and IA64 archs.
Doesn't really prove anything I guess, but it sure makes it difficult for SCO to look like they were getting robbed in 2000 when they were bragging about putting the stuff in AIX 5L in 2001.
Re:Can you say estoppel (Score:4, Informative)
Missing the important point... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that this is a nice end-run for SCO to allow them to claim that they have "sold" a whole bunch more of those Linux licenses (as part of a "package deal") in order to give that license some additional, but false, credibility.
As with everything else that comes out of SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me get this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
In most circles this is called self-incrimination. It is the duty of SCO to prove that IBM was involved in wrongdoing, not the other way around. If you dig deep enough into any companies documents I'm sure you will find evidince of many minor crimes. (come on kids, copyright infringement is easy to do and easy to overlook -- welcome to zero marginal cost of copying)
Shouldn't the whole damn thing be thrown out, on the basis that SCO never had a basis in the first place, and IBM incriminated themselves?
-- Bob
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:4, Informative)
The problems with that notion are:
this is civil and not criminal law;
even in criminal law, you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself--but if you do so the evidence is still generally admissible unless extracted under duress. Leaving a thumbprint on a gun or screaming "Oh my God, I shot my wife!" are both forms of self-incrimination, but generally both are valid evidence.
SCO isn't allowed to use discovery as purely a fishing expedition in the faint hope that they find some evidence that IBM has infringed their copyrights or breached their contracts. However, if SCO uncovers evidence of additional misdeeds as part of legitimate discovery, they're allowed to sue for the new stuff, too. (Again drawing an example from criminal law--for illustrative purposes only--if a cop pulls you over for speeding, then sees that you have a bag of cocaine on the seat beside you, then he can charge you for possession, too. On the other hand, generally the cop isn't allowed to randomly pull people over and search through their trunks on the off chance he might find some cocaine.)
In order to get to discovery, SCO has to demonstrate to a court that it has some valid reason to believe that IBM may have done the nasty things that SCO claims. The court then can compel IBM to release documents related to that issue. Usually this is a pretty low hurdle.
As an aside, SCO doesn't have to prove IBM breached their contracts. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities. The court looks at the evidence and takes the side that it finds most plausible--neither side must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt; that test is only applied in criminal law.
Meh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed, SCO says the company's biggest investor, BayStar Capital, has been pushing SCO to drop its Unix business altogether and simply become a litigation machine, bringing intellectual property-related lawsuits. But SCO insists it remains committed to selling Unix software--when it's not busy fighting people in court.
This may not matter (Score:5, Informative)
1. Contrary to some above misinformed posters, SCO didn't have to commit espionage to get internal IBM e-mails. The discovery process in a lawsuit like this involves both sides turning over mountains of documents and e-mails. I'm sure this is where SCO found this information.
2. Novell claims they still own UNIX. Novell says that SCO only has a (revokable) license to license UNIX to others. Novell has already exercised their right to revoke SCO's UNIX-licensing powers as regards IBM, back when SCO claimed to be revoking IBM's license. Novell effectively said, "We run the show here, SCO, and IBM is legitimately licensed in our book."
The point then is that if Novell wins their SCO case, then this "smoking gun" is actually a wilted flower. Novell can provide IBM with a license for AIX, if they actually need one, and any damages IBM might owe could be paid to their buddy Novell, not SCO. (This part I'm less certain about, and depends on the extent to which Novell wins their case.)
Anyway, as others have pointed out, this doesn't affect Linux at all, and as I'm pointing out, it may not even affect IBM's use of UNIX. Nothing to see here... Move along...
All sounds so familiar... (Score:3, Interesting)
OH YEA.. It was when they claimed their 'smoking gun' with the millions of lines of code they discovered that were exact copies with the headers changed/removed.
Now, remind me again what happend with all that?
I now firmly believe that Darl and his cronies are sitting in his office each week betting on wether Darl can inflate the stock price or not for a given time period. I can think of no other explination...
Doesn't Matter in IBM Case (Score:3, Insightful)
They would have to start another lawsuit with this claim. The current MB lawsuit is about misappropriation of code to linux, not about AIX at all.
So THIS smoking gun, means nothing to the lawsuit they are elluding to. AFAIKT
IBM patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a step back (Score:3, Interesting)
1. TSCOG claims that they are using source code that IBM never had a licence for.
well, if SCO never made them agree to a license, then why did they give them the code(if they did at all).
2. the wording makes it sound like they still have a valid licence for the older code.
Once again they have it backwards... (Score:4, Informative)
On top of that it says that both parties license extends beyond the end of the project, and is irrevocable.
But then it's still Novell's not SCO's, code (Score:4, Informative)
And that of course assumes that SCO's claims are otherwise valid, which is fairly unlikely given their record of mendacity.
And what happened to Linux??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Groklaw (Score:4, Interesting)
"Smoking" (when SCO says it). (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with Linux, or IBM's motion for a preliminary injunction. IBM has asked the court to find that SCO has found no UNIX in Linux. SCO's "smoking gun" says they found UNIX in AIX. Gee, big surprise. That's why IBM pays licensing fees for AIX. All SCO is claiming is that they should have paid more. Of course Forbe's -- impartial reporters that they are -- can't resist a gratuitous jab at "Linux zealots", but Linux just is not involved here.
Nothing to see here, just SCO blowing their usual smoke.
Ownership of UNIX (Score:4, Interesting)
It's funny how it went from "SCO owns UNIX" in the beginning of the lawsuit to "SCO holds some copyrights".
Can and will be used against you (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the reasons for this is that by talking, you're providing your opponents with ammunition to shoot you with. A couple of times now IBM lawyers have presented the judge with public statements by Darl McBride to support their own case.
Darl just can't keep stop talking. I can understand why - he's got his company share price to promote - but making detailed public statements about ongoing court cases has and will continue to bite him on the ass.
If he had half a brain, Darl would let his lawyers do the talking. That's what they are paid for.
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:5, Informative)
>
>This is a form of espionage which is illegal >without a court order.
Umm, RTFA, dude:
SCO says it discovered the e-mails in a mountain of documents IBM produced in discovery related to SCO's lawsuit against IBM over the Linux operating system.
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:4, Insightful)
And as for this:Nope. He didn't reveal any information that was released in confidence -- he revealed that they have such information. That's a completely different thing.
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:3, Insightful)
Libel perhaps? I'm assuming that like all the rest of SCO's claims this is baloney.
TWW
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:5, Insightful)
Not outside scope. (Score:4, Informative)
That's exactly what the original complaint was (ie, misuse of SCO code into AIX), so they're well withing their rights.
SCO has really screwed the pooch here. Darl is going to be found in contempt.
Bet?
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:3, Informative)
Your sell short order cannot be processed. Short sales in this security are not allowed, as we were unable to borrow the shares. hmmm the market isn't as entirely clueless as most of us think.
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:5, Informative)
56% of SCO's float is shorted. That's a very high number; indicating a very large number of people believe SCO is entirely full of sXXX. Further that float being so small indicates big buyers have sold SCO.
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:4, Funny)
*PLEASE don't take this as investment advice, or an offer to buy/sell, or a solicitation of any services. If you do then you're a frickin' retard.
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:3, Interesting)
Well - I don't know - SCO claims, IBM *has* a license for a preceeding version, but *not* for the version they are basing on now...
I don't know whether there is any truth in this, but if it SHOULD be, then IBM has done something wrong. And no matter how much I loathe SCO for what they're doing on the Linux side now, it's no reason to rip them off something in return.
Two wrongs don't make a right...
(I just hope, that this isn't true, but unlike a lot of their previous claims, they are putting up a VERY SP
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:5, Informative)
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/aix/overview/indus
"About AIX 5L
[...]
This release also contains UNIX System 5 Release 4 (SVR4) standard components such as the SVR4 Print Subsystem.
"
If IBM indeed doesn't have a license for those, then I would doubt they would be allowed to include them. But in that context, IBM would also have been pretty stupid touting these features in public...
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:3, Informative)
Which begs the question... if it is on IBM's website, why did SCO have to find this through discovery? Why go through all those documents when you could just tell the judge to point their browser to IBM's page?
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:3, Informative)
This is a form of espionage which is illegal without a court order.
Except they found them in IBM E-mails turned over as part of the SCO vs IBM court case.
IBM bought a the rights long before SCOX even created.
SCO says they bought the rights to v3 and are using v4. If they didn't buy the rights to v4 I can acutally see SCO having a case here.
Remember, its important to read the article in full before coming up with reasoning as to why SCO is wrong
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:3)
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:3, Insightful)
"SCO says it discovered the e-mails in a mountain of documents IBM produced in discovery related to SCO's lawsuit against IBM over the Linux operating system. "
No espionage involved.
It's all FUD tho.
"Indeed, SCO says the company's biggest investor, BayStar Capital, has been pushing SCO to drop its Unix business altogether and simply become a litigation machine, bringing intellectual property-related lawsuits. But SCO insists it remains committed to selling Unix software--when it's not busy figh
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:3, Interesting)
1) SCO received those emails under a court order.
2) SCO only licenses IBM to distribute AIX code on Intel platforms, not PPC platforms, and that is the crux of this announcement.
3) The reporter's forum is where this came out, not where this originated.
4) The fact this is AIX not Linux is interesting. Essentially, this has nothing to do with SCO patent claims against Linux.
M
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, of course SCO got emails. But do they say what SCO says they say? How do we know this? SCO says a lot of things
2) SCO only licenses IBM to distribute AIX code on Intel platforms, not PPC platforms, and that is the crux of this announcement.
Do we know this? SCO says so, but they say a lot of things
4) The fact this is AIX not Linux is interesting. Essentially, this has nothing to do with SCO patent claims against Linux.
This has never been about Linux, had it been, SCO would have nickled and dimed at smaller more edible Linux companies, not IBM.
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:5, Informative)
Umm, no we don't. Just because Project Monteray was focused on a 64-bit Unix doesn't mean that IBM was restricted by a license to keeping AIX on a single platform. A number of the licenses are buried in Groklaw's "Legal Docs" link. I could go look, but it would surprise me greatly if the license refered to a hardware platform rather than the use of Unix System V for general IBM development purposes of AIX.
By the way, Project Moneterey didn't die in negotiation. It actually produced tangible code that IBM simply didn't release.
Lastly, if you read the court filings by SCO you will discover that they could win a court case against IBM for contract violation(VERY doubtful) and still lose the war. Nothing in SCO's lawsuit with IBM has anything to do with SCO's property rights vis-a-vis Linux. They never filed a copyright claim against IBM(with regards to Linux), they dropped their trade-secret claim, and they have never filed any patent claims. In other words, every word uttered out of SCO's mouth with regards to IP violations in Linux is completely and absolutely FALSE.
But you don't have to believe me, just read the court filings, they're (almost) all there on Groklaw.
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:5, Informative)
Buzzz! Wrong. PPC = an implementation of IBM's Power architecture. AIX has run on the Power architecture since the late 80s. (I first used AIX on a Power RT system in 1990.)
Project Monterey was intended to port Unix to Intel/HP's Itanium processors. Project Montery actually ran for several years; it fell apart when IBM realized that the Itanium processors were (1) not going to arrive on time, and (2) weren't going to have the power that Intel predicted.
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, if you read the Project Monterey agreement, you'll find that it's SCO who was only licensed to use IBM's code on Intel. IBM was not restricted to any platform at all.
SCO got it wrong *again*.
this has nothing to do with SCO patent claims against Linux.
I'm sorry, but WHAT PATENT CLAIMS?!?!? SCO doesn't even *HAVE* any patents, let alone made claims against Linux.
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that:
1) SCO has never claimed any such thing in any court filing. Their court filings don't make anything approaching clear claims that A didn't receive a license for code B from C or anything else you would expect in such a claim.
2) IBM already had a license for SVR4 code at the time of montery
3) SCO didn't have rights to sell such a license in any meaningful sense
Now, IBM developers have been contributing a lot to the Linux kernel. Who do you think they got to write the kernel code? Probably a good chance that it was people that were familiar with AIX.
Actually that is explicitly not the case. There is a Chinese wall between the AIX group and the Linux group to avoid certain really copyright problems (none of which involve SCO BTW). Communication between them is controlled.
my point is that everyone should try and look at what's going on objectively because there is a lot at stake
Look at the threads from 2 years ago when this started. People here did look at SCO's filings very carefully. After many many repeated inaccuracies and lies in SCO's comments to reporters and inaccuracies which show an extreme lack of knowledge in their court fillings people rightfully treat their factual claims as false until proven otherwise. Similarly their legal claims have been nonsensical.
There is nothing at stake. Imagine if SCO had filed a wrongful death suit against IBM and everyone could show the supposed victim was till alive. Obviously SCO would get their day in court but no one would pretend there was any merit to the case; which is the proper way of dealing with this type of nonsense lawsuit.
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:5, Informative)
Correct. Project Monterey.
IBM backed out of the deal
Correct.
SCO claims IBM also backed out of their licensing agreement for SVR4 code.
Also correct - but that doesn't make the claim accurate.
AIX is now an SVR4 Unix and there is no licensing agreement for it.
INCORRECT. Read the Project Monterey contract - it says that either party may terminate the agreement, and if they do, that they keep the license: to wit:
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:4, Insightful)
Note that SCO has claimed since the start that they have a "mountain of evidence", yet they have yet to provide any of it to IBM, which is why in IBM's cross-complaint(effectively a counter suit), they are filing for a Declaration that they did NOT infringe on any of SCO's copyrights vis-a-vis any of IBM's work with Linux. The truth is shocking isn't it? With regards to IBM's Linux work, SCO NEVER filed a copyright claim against IBM, they never filed a patent claim against IBM, and they've dropped their trade-secret claim. In other words, SCO's whole case rests on a nebulous and purile reading of a contract. Which will very likely be thrown out soon after the judge gives IBM the win in their Summary Judgement on their copyright cross-complaint.
Secondly, the "news" article is sooo chalk full of mistakes that the reporter should be ashamed of himself. He's fallen for SCO's story hook, line & sinker. Note how he calls it a suit against IBM over Linux, well as I've pointed out above, SCO never filed any suit over Linux per-se, they filed a suit over a contract claim with AIX.
Furthermore, the story claims that the SCO suit was filed over code that SCO claimed was "stolen". The facts of the filing couldn't be further from the truth! SCO has never claimed ownership or ownership rights over any code IBM has contributed to Linux, at least in the court filings. They've made all kinds of statements in public.
So this latest claim is just more of the same. First, it could easily be falsely represented information from SCO. Nothing they have said in public has been true. If you can find one schtickel of evidence for SCO's public claims I'm sure they would love to have it because they have shown none themselves. You don't need to believe me, just go read the court filings. IBM would not have asked for Summary Judgement regarding their copyright claim if SCO had handed them ANY evidence of copyright violations. What was SCO's answer to the request for Summary Judgement? "We need more time, and we need more discovery." In other words, SCO knows they are royally screwed on the copyright claim.
Secondly, even if SCO has found evidence of License violations by IBM over AIX 5L. This in NO WAY affects Linux. Note that SCO's public statement isn't that they found code that IBM copied to Linux, it's a claim that IBM didn't have a License to use SVR4 in AIX 5L. SCO still hasn't presented any evidence of SCO code in Linux, and this new statement doesn't indicate otherwise.
In fact SCO has so tried to twist everything into a pretzel shape of their liking that I don't believe a single word they say. This article is very likely more of the same and the writer made himself part of the scam by publishing an article that completely misrepresents the original case and derides both IBM and "Linux zealots".
By the way, if you don't believe me that SCO has absolutely NO evidence go to Groklaw and follow the "Legal Docs" link. Than read the court filings by both IBM and SCO. While we aren't privy to the evidence submitted under seal, it is clear from the back and forth of the filings that SCO has shown no evidence of wrong doing by IBM.
Re:So Many Things wrong with this Picture (Score:3, Insightful)
For someone interested in shorting SCOX, a temporary bubble like this is a great opportunity -- as soon as the enthusiasm dissipates and everyone catches on that this is smoke & mirrors, the price will drop down to it's previous levels (if not further)
Nothing to see here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that this leaves IBM in an interesting position. It is remotely possible that the court could hold that IBM's license had been revoked or at least the terms exceeded as in Sun v. Microsoft. And they could rule that Novell did not retain the right
Re:Somebody violated the DMCA? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Somebody violated the DMCA? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we need a corollary to godwin's law referring to the invocation of the DMCA. It seems impossible to have a rational conversation after such an event. Let me have a go anyway: This has nothing whatsoever to do with the DMCA because it refers to copy protection circumvention, and cracking systems for the purpose of personal gain is covered by several other laws which have nothing to do with it.
Unless the documents were scanned and laid into a CSS-encoded DVD, the DMCA has nothing to say about it.
On what planet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:On what planet? (Score:4, Informative)
You don't have to get your evidence from the conversations on Groklaw, but they have an extensive library of all the court filings. I don't know what kind of SCO troll you are exactly but it is clear that at this point SCO has shown exactly ZERO evidence of IBM wrongdoing! Just go to Groklaw and follow the "Legal Docs" link which are the actual court filings. I've read almost all of them.
The only chance that SCO has right now is for the judge to feel sorry for them and grant them discovery access to all AIX code dating back to 1985. But that would only forestall the inevitable and would in no way indicate SCO has a case. They have provided nothing to IBM in terms of copyright violations, thus IBM's motion for Summary Judgement that IBM's actions of any sort with Linux do not violate SCO's copyrights. Once they win on that one(which they will, again unless the judge simply puts it off to give SCO more time), the contract violation claim will go down in a heep of flames.
By the way, if the judge does grant SCO more discovery than he's either being overly generous or he's been bought. I would prefer to think the former. And no, there's no need to think he believes SCO. IBM's Summary Judgement request relies only on code that SCO has had total and complete access to, 1) the Linux kernel and 2) SCO Unix System V. Both are completely in the hands of SCO, they don't need AIX source code to show IBM is violating their copyrights. Since IBM has asked for the "mountain of evidence" that SCO supposedly had and has received exactly ZERO, ZILCH, NADDA, they will win the Summary Judgement claim!
So as a troll you've done well, you've wasted my time but that's all you've done.
Re:Internal IBM emails? (Score:3, Informative)
To me, that means the rumors have no merit.
Re:'Internal emails' leaked...? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Smoking Gun (Daisy BB, that is) (Score:3, Informative)
AIX has run on PowerPC chips since 3.2.5, circa 1993. This was the PowerPC 601, in the RS/6000 7011 Model 250. (Earlier models of the 7011 used the truly awful RSC (RISC Single Chip) CPU, which was the 7-chip (or was it 9?) low-end POWER CPU wedged onto a single die.) Development of a certain OS from Cupertino was done with the aid of both POWER- and PowerPC-based RS/6000 systems from IBM, including IBM's compilers and a cross-linker to ge
Re:Leap of logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the Project Monterey Agreement [groklaw.net] - the limitation on specific archetecture applies to SCO, not IBM!
IBM was free to use "SCO's" code on any platform they choose, but SCO was not allowed to do the reverse. The rights of each party are explicitly spelled out separately. IBM gets to use SCO's code on any platform they choose (including PowerPC), SCO can only use IBM's code on i386.
There is no corresponding paragraph in the section entitled "License to IBM of Licensed SCO Materials and SCO Project Work"
Re:Leap of logic (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a very good point. It would be really rather funny if someone like Novell or AT&T could prove they own SRV4, and then gave IBM a perpetual, irrevocable license to match their other one.