Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
IBM Caldera Government The Courts News

SCO Tells Courts What IBM Did Wrong 389

Posted by CmdrTaco from the are-we-there-yet dept.
linumax writes "It took more than two and a half years, but the SCO Group finally has disclosed a list of areas it believes IBM violated its Unix contract, allegedly by moving proprietary Unix technology into open-source Linux. In a five-page document filed Friday, SCO attorneys say they identify 217 areas in which it believes IBM or Sequent, a Unix server company IBM acquired, violated contracts under which SCO and its predecessors licensed the Unix operating system. However, the curious won't be able to see for themselves the details of SCO's claims: The full list of alleged abuses were filed in a separate document under court seal. The Lindon, Utah-based company did provide some information about what it believes IBM moved improperly to Linux, though."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Tells Courts What IBM Did Wrong More

SCO Tells Courts What IBM Did Wrong

Comments Filter:

  • What Next? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eln ( 21727 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:48AM (#13924199)
    So they've gone from saying Linux lifted huge chunks of code from Unix wholesale to saying that IBM shared "methods and concepts," oh and a little code too?

    What's next, they'll say some IBM employees might have had coffee with Linux developers? This still just looks like a fishing expedition by SCO.

    • Re:What Next? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Lord_Slepnir ( 585350 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:54AM (#13924258) Journal
      IBM shared "methods and concepts,"

      such concepts as:

      for( int i = 0; i < someValue; i++ ) {

      and let us not forget the rampent use of:

      while(1) {

      that's in the linux kernel

      • Re:What Next? (Score:5, Informative)

        by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:09PM (#13924387)
        Are you forgetting where they claimed that errno.h got lifted wholesale?

      • Re:What Next? (Score:5, Funny)

        by EnronHaliburton2004 ( 815366 ) * on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:25PM (#13924507) Homepage Journal
        while(1) {

        Well then, this is a good thing. Maybe SCO should realize that their kernel shouldn't contain an endless while(true) loop-- that explains many problems.

        • Re:What Next? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by oni ( 41625 )
          an endless while(true) loop

          well, it's not *good* coding practice, but I have seen people do that on purpose. They use break to get out of the loop. Personally, I would never do it. I like to imagine that chic track or whatever where jesus is looking over the guy's shoulder while he's on the computer, only in my case I imagine that Knuth is looking over my shoulder and would slap me on the back of the head if I wrote while(1)

          • Re:What Next? (Score:4, Funny)

            by rcw-work ( 30090 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @01:43PM (#13925178)
            I imagine that Knuth is looking over my shoulder

            I'm glad you have an imagination, because unfortunately Knuth probably isn't. The Daily WTF [thedailywtf.com] could be, however it might be a while before they get around to you [thedailywtf.com].

      • Re:What Next? (Score:3, Informative)

        by GiMP ( 10923 )
        Linux is written in C, not C++. You cannot declare a variable within the for loop.
        int i;
        int someValue;
        /* where someValue is initalized sometime before the following... */
        for( i = 0; i &lt; someValue; i++ ) {
        Besides, I think they will have more problems from the rampant use of:
        return(0);
         
        /* and */
         
        return(1);

      •         for( int i = 0; i someValue; i++ ) {

        Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

                for( int i = someValue-1; i !=0; i-- ) {

        You defend yourself agains SCO and, and you might even end up with fewer ASM instructions.

    • Re:What Next? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bedroll ( 806612 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:08PM (#13924381) Journal
      So they've gone from saying Linux lifted huge chunks of code from Unix wholesale to saying that IBM shared "methods and concepts," oh and a little code too?

      Well, you have to read what the intro says, the story says, and some history about the case. As I understand it, SCO is finally saying the ways that IBM abused it's contract with SCO. Notice the lack of Copyright claims in this statement. That's because the original case, regardless of what Darl liked to spew to the public, was about a contract violation. Whether that's still what the case is about eludes me right now, I thought they dropped the contract claims to focus on Copyright.

      It's been reported that IBM's contract with SCO stated that they weren't allowed to put technologies from their Unix into any other OS. This is not exclusive to those that weren't put there by IBM. That means that IBM could not use their "IP" in any other OS without consent from SCO. Many think that, if this stipulation were in IBM's contracts with SCO that SCO had a decent case against IBM.

      Then SCO started with all of the Copyright junk.

      If I'm reading this right, then this still would seem secondary and SCO still hasn't provided any evidence of Copyright infringement. They've just strengthened a case that few contested, and they've declared as less important.

      • Re:What Next? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by schon ( 31600 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:28PM (#13924533)
        It's been reported that IBM's contract with SCO stated that they weren't allowed to put technologies from their Unix into any other OS.

        It's also been reported that a fat guy in a red suit flies around the earth once a year in a reindeer-powered sleigh.

        What you miss in that is that *everyone* who was directly involved in the contract (which was with AT&T, not SCO, or SCOX) has said that it does not mean what SCOX says it means. This includes the $echo newsletter, in which AT&T explicitly clarified that the clause only refers to AT&T's code, not code owned by the customer.

      • One big problem for SCO AKA Caldera is.. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by the_rajah ( 749499 ) * on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:28PM (#13924536) Homepage
        that they released, as in GPL, their own Linux distro a while back. Once you release the code under the GPL, there's no taking it back. It's out there and available for anyone to use under the terms of the GPL. I am at a loss as to why this hasn't been hammered on to put an end to this sham/scam that SCO is trying so desperately to pull off. This release of the source code as Caldera eliminated in my opinion, lets IBM off the hook in that regard.

        Then, of course, there's that nasty little detail wherein SCO/Caldera never owned the copyrights anyway.

        • Re:One big problem for SCO AKA Caldera is.. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:48PM (#13924727) Journal
          If the code if infringing, you can't relicense it.

          If IBM were not entitled to include the code in Linux then it was never under the GPL.

          Or else I could just slap the GPL on the leaked Windows Source Code and say "ha, well it's GPL now"

          • Re:One big problem for SCO AKA Caldera is.. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Darth ( 29071 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:58PM (#13924826) Homepage
            If IBM were not entitled to include the code in Linux then it was never under the GPL.

            until SCO released it under the GPL, you are correct.

            Or else I could just slap the GPL on the leaked Windows Source Code and say "ha, well it's GPL now"

            the issue the grandparent was pointing out is that SCO distributed a GPL'd linux kernel containing the code they claim to own. As the (supposed) owners, they certainly would have the legal right to relicense that code and by releasing it as part of the linux kernel under the GPL, they have relicensed it.

            The only defense they could have is that they didn't know it was in there and shouldn't be forced to "accidentally" GPL code via an act of copyright violation. This doesn't fly, however, because they continued to distribute the linux kernel, and the code they claim is infringing in it, under the GPL for a year after they initially madethe claims. It's hard to say you didnt know it was in there when you've filed a lawsuit specifically about it.

          • Not quite (Score:3, Insightful)

            by TheConfusedOne ( 442158 )
            Your example fails on one point. In this case the person who claims to own said code was the one who released it under the GPL.

            Now they can try to claim that they didn't realize that they were licensing their own code but that's a hard sell especially when they didn't yank the code immediately off their site when they made the claim. You could download Linux from SCO's site for at least a year after their initial claim.
      • JFS, RCU, NUMA, aren't "unix" in anyway shape or form are they Unix or Unix technology.

        JFS was developed for OS/2 warp. Then ported to AIX and later Linux.

        RCU & NUMA though developed intially AIX have been ported to other OS's. The concepts have enhanced SMP operations.

        Concepts designed and developed by IBM. Concepts that don't require UNIX to work or any Unix code.

        So once again Where's the Beef?

      • Re:What Next? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Eric Damron ( 553630 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:46PM (#13924718)
        "It's been reported that IBM's contract with SCO stated that they weren't allowed to put technologies from their Unix into any other OS."

        This is what SCO is trying to imply by twisting the meaning of the contract. IBM and the OSS world is on to their little scam however.

        What SCO would like the court to rule is that any code that IBM included in any of the products covered by the original contract become derivative works and therefore is under the control of SCO.

        This is not what the authors of the contract intended and they have testified proving that it was not their intention or understanding that IBM would lose control of its own code if it added it to the products covered under the contracts.

        SCO has no real case.

    • Re:What Next? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Iriel ( 810009 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:10PM (#13924398) Homepage
      This still just looks like a fishing expedition by SCO.

      You obviously can't spell phishing. You forget that SCO is trying to pass themselves off to the courts as a reasonable group.
      </toungeincheek>

    • Re:What Next? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by IGoChopYourDollars ( 924633 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:14PM (#13924425)
      What's next, they'll say some IBM employees might have had coffee with Linux developers?

      It sounds stupid, but when large corporations have to put up "firewalls" between projects to deal with sensitive issues such as IP leakage, that's *exactly* one of the things they have to worry about.

      IBM knows all about the procedures that are necessary in these situations, which is what makes SCO's charges so brazen. But when you have teams of hundreds of Linux developers under tight deadlines and under pressure to get their bonus or an acceptable job performance rating, along with intense corporate pressure to deliver results, it wouldn't be surprising if one or two didn't decide to take a shortcut and help themselves to a little AIX code.
    • Um... are "concepts" protected by copyrights? Like, "Star Wars" is a copyrighted work, yes? I can't use characters from them, or specific artwork, etc. But can they sue me for using a concept similar to "the force" in my own story? The concept of a lowly farmboy becoming a hero? The concept of, I don't know, the villain turning out to be the hero's father? Does the copyright protect methods such as plot devices? Like the cliff-hanger, the surprise twist, or character development?

      If the court rules t

  • The hell? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rincebrain ( 776480 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:49AM (#13924206) Homepage
    So they finally release a list of what they think was put in Linux illegally, and we can't see it to rewrite the code to have a "legal" OS?

    How entertaining.

    • Re:The hell? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by supun ( 613105 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:00PM (#13924306)
      It because of the big throbbing brain of the OSS community. They release that information and the OSS community will pick their violations apart like they did in the past. It's like IBM has a free legal reasearch team.
    • legally speaking, couldn't someone just re-type the code? :)

  • Hopefully (Score:5, Funny)

    by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) * <bittercode@gmail> on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:49AM (#13924210) Homepage Journal
    Well hopefully this will help us get to the point where the court tells IBM what SCO did wrong.

  • Jay Leno (Score:2, Funny)

    by /ASCII ( 86998 )
    This sounds like a good candidate for 'Tonights Top-Ten list'.

    Aaaaand the number one Copyright infringement made by IBM is.... /* Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. */

    The crowd goes wild!

  • this is still going on? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by twiggy ( 104320 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:50AM (#13924225) Homepage
    Oh. This is still going on?

    I thought they had given a bunch of supposed code a long time ago that was supposedly "lifted" from them, and it was pretty much proven on all counts that prior art existed, etc etc...

    Won't SCO just keel over and die already?
    • Oh. This is still going on?

      Sure. Probably means the SCO management team hasn't had a good year and needs to liquidate some stock. Guys gotta live, and A penny dumped is a penny earned.

  • Linux/Unix (Score:5, Funny)

    by SpaceAdmiral ( 869318 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:50AM (#13924226) Homepage
    I notice the words Linux and Unix share many of the same letters. Guilty!
  • In a five-page document filed Friday, SCO attorneys say they have identified 217 areas .... A secret five page filing supposedly detailing 217 contract violations? Guess they didn't get into too much detail, eh?

  • The list... (Score:3, Funny)

    by laptop006 ( 37721 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:51AM (#13924233) Homepage Journal
    The character 'a'
    The character 'b'
    The character 'c' ...
    The character 'A' ...
    The character '{'

    You get the idea.

    But seriously, most of them sound very dodgy, and the JFS issue has already been looked over by people better then SCO.

  • Apple should just buy out SCO (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Somebody's got to own Unix, why not Apple and Steve Jobs? Jobs' number one priority is serving the customer.

    • From a long time Apple user .... "HA!!!"

      Personally I'd like to see someone buy the UNIX trademark and then donate it to Linus for safe keeping.
      • The UNIX trademark is owned by The Open Group [unix.org], and they do a pretty good job of defending it - better than Linus has done with Linux, some might say.

        What would really be good would be if the rest of the material relating to Unix, copyrights et al, were put into the public domain, once and for all. Then we could all read the Lyons book again!

    • Good idea, but what would apple do with sco? Another issue is what will happen to apple's image if they buy sco? I already get made fun of for using a mac at my university both in and out of the cs department.

      Now if apple (or anyone) bought sco and then if they actually own UNIX then release it to the open source community that would be amazing. Think about how linux, *bsd, or solaris could benefit from the development on a completely free OSS UNIX.
    • It somewhat hurts me to disappoint you, but even Apple the Company and Steve Jobs as its CEO are after one thing, and one thing only in the end:
        3. Profit!
       
      And form my point of view, there's nothing to get out of buying SCO except you're a bit of a masochist and like getting 0wned rigorously in front of a court over years, because of your own bold but impressively stupid and uneducated moves based on wild guesswork and thrive for a quick and massive buck earned.
    • Steve Jobs's number one priority is providing wealth for his shareholders, which is the job of all CEOs. He chooses to do so in a way that you like, but that doesn't mean what you like about it is the number one priority.
    • Somebody's got to own Unix, why not Apple and Steve Jobs? Jobs' number one priority is serving the customer.
      I think that's what SCO was hoping--that IBM would just buy them out instead of going to trial. Unfortuanatly for them, they have nothing IBM wants.

  • They just don't know when to quit, do they? (Score:5, Funny)

    by DrLlama ( 213075 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:52AM (#13924245) Homepage
    "The numerosity and substantiality of the disclosures" - Look out, they're languaging again!

    All kidding aside, I continue to find it astonishing that given everything that has gone on before SCO is still persuing this. I'd dearly love to see the 217 ways they've been wronged.

    It's getting downright pathetic....

  • I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ndansmith ( 582590 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:54AM (#13924255)
    Some of these wrongful disclosures include areas such as an entire file management system . . .

    Does file management system mean file-system, or the actual names and structures (i.e. folder tree) of the files?

    . . . others are communications by IBM personnel working on Linux that resulted in enhancing Linux functionality by disclosing a method or concept from Unix technology.

    Metod or concept? I would sure like to see the technical list, cause these generalities are putting ants in my pants.

    • Does file management system mean file-system, or the actual names and structures (i.e. folder tree) of the files?

      I think they meant Betty from accounting, who left SCO to work for IBM. She used to handle all of their filing processes.

    • Re:I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Col. Klink (retired) ( 11632 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:10PM (#13924401)
      File Management System means JFS, which IBM developed for OS/2 and later ported to AIX and Linux. Note that the Linux port was from the original OS/2 implementation and not from AIX. However, SCO's theory is that once something touched AIX, SCO's property rights to Unix infect it and travel back up the tree and down any other branches.

      And they call the GPL viral...

      • Re:I wonder (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @01:08PM (#13924920)
        JFS was originally developed for AIX, but it was so dependent on the kernel that it was cleanroom-implemented for OS/2, and then ported to AIX, replacing the old version of JFS.

  • First Time For Everything... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:54AM (#13924257)
    > SCO Tells Courts What IBM Did Wrong

    What you are witnessing is real. The participants are not actors. They are actual litigants with a case pending in a U.S. District court. Both parties have agreed to dismiss their court cases and have their disputes settled here! In our forum! The People's Court!

    Judge Yakov Smirnoff (Ret.) presiding.

  • Merry Christmas (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:55AM (#13924263)
    "SCO, whose Unix business continues to struggle, said it will file a final report on the alleged abuses on Dec. 22."

    This is a clear sign that SCO itself doesn't believe their list is worth the paper its printed on. There isn't a time of the year when people are paying less attention. It's like they're saying "Details at Christmas - in the meantime, enjoy your FUD."

    • Re:Merry Christmas (Score:3, Informative)

      by venicebeach ( 702856 )
      No, they didn't pick that date, the court did. This friday was the "interim deadline" for "Parties to Disclose with Specificity All Allegedly Misused Material Identified to Date and to Update Interrogatory Responses Accordingly". December 22 is set as the final deadline.

  • Attorney Conversation (Score:5, Funny)

    by thebdj ( 768618 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:55AM (#13924266) Journal
    SCO Attorney 1: You know this is a waste of time right?
    SCO Attorney 2: Yeah but those idiots are still paying us.
    SCO Attorney 1: How much longer can they pay us to do this?
    SCO Attorney 2: Maybe another year or two.
    SCO Attorney 1: What then?
    SCO Attorney 2: Well we will either win the case and be filthy rich while they are still broke, or we'll just apply for jobs with Microsoft and repeat the process with someone else.
    SCO Attorney 1: BRILLIANT!

  • What me worry ?? (Score:4, Funny)

    by DangerSteel ( 749051 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:55AM (#13924270)
    One day my linux license from SCO will be worth it's weight in gold ! actually I never really bought one, I only look that stupid....
  • I don't understand why behemoth IBM can't squash SCO, even after years of SCO BS. Is it the influence of Senate Judiciary chair Orrin Hatch (R-UT-dumbest-person-in-the-Senate)? Or is IBM playing cat & mouse to get SCO to legally document the boundaries of business operations under open source, especially as OSS IP relates to parallel proprietary IP? Both smart Armonkers and dumb Salt Lakers might play their parts in that legal game. But do IBM's boundaries coincide with those of the OSS community?

    • Re:Big Blue Marbles (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mykepredko ( 40154 )
      I used to wonder about that as well - but:

      1. They are getting a lot of good geek press/word of mouth. Fighting for Reasonable IP could be good business for them.

      2. They may want to make sure anybody else that tries a frivolous lawsuit to see what happens - not only will you loose, but you will be bled dry in the process.

      3. It may be a message to Gates to fight his own battles and not through proxies.

      4. Somebody is really pissed at Darl and want to see that the only job he is able to get after this is h
      • Well, that underscores my skepticism of the simple appearance of the longevity of this case. Because if IBM slammed SCO's apparently totally worthless claims into dust immediately, and publicly, all of those would have happened. Except #1, keeping the "lesson" in the buzz for years. But lack of closure also keeps SCO's "tenacity", "resilience", or other spin of "David" vs IBM's "Goliath" as a credit to SCO, in the lesson - for years. Which killing SCO after 6 months would not. Puzzling. I still think IBM is

    • Re:Big Blue Marbles (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Doktor Memory ( 237313 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:33PM (#13924580) Journal
      IBM has its own history of antitrust entanglement [lib.de.us], and I believe still operates under some of the consent decrees from that era. Launching a hostile takeover bid against a company that is current suing them for breach of contract would almost certainly invite a lot of the wrong kind of regulatory and legislative scrutiny.

      Also: IBM has more money than god: as of their most recent financial statements, they maintain a cash balance of $8,250,000,000 (That's billion with a B, folks.) While the expense of fighting off SCO might seem insane to you or me, and would bankrupt a smaller company, it's literally pocket change to IBM, and it is very likely that their board of directors consider making an example of SCO to be a worthwhile investment.

      Credibility in business contracts is a very important thing, and SCO is making a direct claim that IBM entered into a contract with them and proceeded to rob them blind. That's not a charge that any CEO is going to take lying down, and if they have to spend a few million dollars and a few years to have a judge authoritatively dismiss SCO's claim, it's probably worth it.

  • question that has to be asked (Score:3, Insightful)

    by scronline ( 829910 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:57AM (#13924285) Homepage
    WHO THE HELL CARES ANYMORE?!?! It's obvious that Darl McBride is a litigious bastard and that's how he...well, pretty much earns his living is taking people/companies to court. It's already been all but proven that SCO has no grounds and it's just dragging on now. Plain and simply, this whole move was NOTHING but a stock manipulation for corperate gain. It's also very probable that they were paid to do this by Microsoft and then left out to hang on their own when MS decided to sell off it's preferred stock because MS didn't like the way McBride was handling the situation. Hell, for all we know he approached MS saying "this is what we got, you want to help me fund it?"

    Either rate, the effects are all still the same. McBride sued IBM without any proof of wrongdoing. SCO has seriously opened itself up for a plethora of lawsuits with this action and once it's proven in court that there was nothing going on.

    • Re:question that has to be asked (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Vortran ( 253538 ) <aol_is_satan@hotmail.com> on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:31PM (#13924559) Homepage
      Let me crystallize this a bit more.

      Microsoft got a very big speed bump in the road to corporate adoption of GNU-LINUX and got rid of SCO for, what to them is, a little scratch. This was just the opening they needed to inject XP and Windows 2003 Server into corporate America.

      With the priceless FUD that was generated and the quiet handshaking between nouveau bedfellow, Sun Systems, Microsoft is in a much better position to foster hegemony in the corporate server marketplace which is their ardent desire. Microsoft got all this for chump change, and good ol' Darl was the chump. Microsoft tossed him out like used toilet paper when they were done with him. Darl's ship didn't go down instantly so he got to hang on to his job for a little while longer and prepare for a quiet departure into retirement.

      SCO used to be so damned cool, too. I remember when they had to send out memos to the staff to wear shoes adn be fully clothed when they were going to have an outsider visitor.

      Vortran out

  • Two things: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by schon ( 31600 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:59AM (#13924301)
    1. Considering that *everyone* who was involved with the Unix source licensing agreements has said that the licenses doesn't mean what SCOX claims it means (including AT&T publishing this in their $echo newsletter), how the hell does SCOX think they can push this past a judge?

    2. Even if SCOX were correct in this, and it was against the contract for IBM to give *THEIR OWN SOURCE CODE AWAY*, why does this mean I owe them $699 per CPU? If (as in SCOX's insane world) IBM did something wrong, and IBM has to pay them Five Brazillion Dollars, doesn't that mean that SCOX has already been paid, and they can't go after someone else for the same thing?
    • ...doesn't that mean that SCOX has already been paid, and they can't go after someone else for the same thing?

      Unfortunately, no. If SCO wins the case, they could (and almost certainly would) then argue that Linux was improperly licensed under the GPL, having the effect of REVOKING its use from everyone. They would then license it exclusively to those who had paid up. Anyone else would be infringing on their copyright, because they would be using an invalid license.

      • Re:Two things: (Score:3, Informative)

        by schon ( 31600 )
        they could (and almost certainly would) then argue that Linux was improperly licensed under the GPL

        How? The only person who could (possibly) revoke the right to something is the copyright owner. That's IBM.

        Unless you're arguing that SCOX *OWNS* the code (which they have just admitted they don't) then there's nothing they can do. I have it *WITH PERMISSION* from the copyright holder - if the copyright holder had other obligations that should have prevented them from giving it to me, then they can go after
    • schon wrote:

      If (as in SCOX's insane world) IBM did something wrong, and IBM has to pay them Five Brazillion Dollars

      Actually, Brazil uses the Real as their currency and five Brazilian reais would be about $2.25 American bucks.

      Jokes aside. This court case doesn't seem to be about money at all from IBM's side. They could have settled. They could have paid extortion fees. They could have gotten out of this mess much earlier and cheaper by just covering their own AIXsses. They have done much more for the sta

  • Groklaw got a story ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by linumax ( 910946 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:01PM (#13924323)
    and part of that story [groklaw.net] says:

    Yeah? We'll see. Or maybe only the parties and the judge will, but if they had found infringing literal code, there is absolutely no reason not to show it without seal, because if it's literal, it's out there in the public already. All Linux code is freely viewable by anyone on Planet Earth. The astronauts can look at it too. SCO may be afraid the Linux community will pull the rug out from under them before they can get to trial, if they tell us publicly what they think they have. Every time they tell us what they think is infringing, somebody proves they are mistaken. At best.

  • A Large Ball of Light... (Score:3, Funny)

    by lax-goalie ( 730970 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:01PM (#13924324)

    ...was reported [nbc29.com] in the sky over Virginia last night.

    Astronomers initially believed it was a meteor, but it was later determined to be SCO's case against IBM cratering spectacularly...

  • How much did they pay this lawyer? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:05PM (#13924355) Journal
    FTA: "The numerosity and substantiality of the disclosures reflects the pervasive extent and sustained degree as to which IBM disclosed methods, concepts, and in many places, literal code, from Unix-derived technologies in order to enhance the ability of Linux to be used as a scalable and reliable operating system for business and as an alternative to proprietary Unix systems such as those licensed by SCO and others." -- attributed to SCO

    Commenting on a disclosure in big words doesn't make the complaint any more valid. I mean, sure, I've a propensity to bloviate without regard to efficient communications strategies and verbal deployments utilizing synergistic vocabularistic qualities to increase comprehension.

    But, why can't they say "IBM broke our contract by using our proprietary ideas to make their software work as well as ours. They did it so much that it was obviously intentional and illegal." (note: I am not accepting this as fact)

  • Where do I mail the check for $699? Or more precisely, where do I mail $699 in Monopoly money? I was considering $699 in pennies, but then I thought about the shipping costs...

    Never thought I'd be saying GO IBM!!, but this is getting ridiculous.
    • >>I was considering $699 in pennies, but then I thought about the shipping costs...

      Well you could start some corispondance with them perhaps they will send you a business reply envelope that you could put 69,900 pennies in. You know kind of like the fun stuff you can stuff in credit card offer envelopes. like tuna....
      • Once it reaches like 10 ounces or something, I can't stick it in the mailbox, I have to go to the post office. but the idea of getting them to pay the shipping is tempting. Very tempting, actually. But do they get a bill for those envelopes you have to stamp, or do they pay up front? Because if they pay up front, I have to pay beyond the first or second ounce.

  • The documents are under SEAL (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HavokDevNull ( 99801 ) <eric AT linuxsystems DOT net> on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:08PM (#13924383) Homepage Journal

    According to http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200511010 0443634 [groklaw.net] the Docs are under seal, and as PJ puts it "there is absolutely no reason not to show it without seal, because if it's literal, it's out there in the public already." and "SCO may be afraid the Linux community will pull the rug out from under them before they can get to trial, if they tell us publicly what they think they have. Every time they tell us what they think is infringing, somebody proves they are mistaken. At best."

    IMHO SCO is just blowing smoke again, and trying to pump up the stock.

  • Once this has been thrown out and SCO have to cough up to pay
    all the lawyers (again) , no one will want to touch their products
    with a rose scented bargepole. Not that SCO unix is exactly flying
    off the shelves anyway. This is a last gasp of a company dying very
    publically, though I'm not sure that even the fat lady will
    bother to sing for them now.

  • I don't know if I'm supposed to be posting this on /. but I have some inside information. I had the priviledge of seeing some of the code that SCO says Linux stole, and I believe SCO has a very strong case. There were many instances where Linux took SCO's code almost verbatim. Many instances looked like this:
    for (i=0; i<size; ++i)
    {
    /*... omitted for vagueness ...*/
    }
    and often times:
    if ( /*... some condition ...*/ ) {
    /*... do something ...*/
    }
    Often times variable names, such would be changed, and the code in the middle was alwaysn altered to have different functionality, no doubt in an attempt to cover their tracks.

    I think if you saw the code SCO provided, you would see that Linux blatantly stole huge chunks of code almost verbatim.

  • Nightmare if SCO folds with case unresolved? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:16PM (#13924440) Homepage
    What happens if SCO goes bankrupt and nobody wants to go on paying their lawyers? Does the simply get abandoned, unresolved, leaving LINUX with a legal cloud over it? And the DiDios of the world warning businesses that if they use LINUX someday the acquirer of SCO's assets might successfully finish the suit?

    • Re:Nightmare if SCO folds with case unresolved? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by e6003 ( 552415 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:59PM (#13924837) Homepage
      No. If SCO was to declare bankruptcy then an administrator would be appointed to manage the assets, in place of the current team (McBride, Sontag et al). One of his first acts would be to settle the lawsuit SCO started with IBM and he'd have pretty much no choice but to do it on IBM's terms - such as a full and public admission that SCO never had a case, they were just blowing smoke etc. No-one will buy SCO because of IBM's counter-claims against them and also Red Hat's claims. If SCO lose or settle, then the trade libel claims Red Hat and IBM have made against them (for claiming they have found millions of lines of Unix code, that Red Hat's continued selling Linux is "painting a big liability target on their customers' backs" etc.) would be a slam-dunk. Anyone who bought SCO would inherit these legal liabilities and the massive fines that go with them.

      I expect IBM to refile its motions for summary judgement early in 2006 because from the evidence apparently filed here, SCO is still doing the same old dance about JFS, RCU and NUMA which no-one in their right mind believes are either copyright or contract infringing.

    • Nope (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rewt66 ( 738525 )
      Then SCO would be under new management (a trustee). The new management has to decide whether to continue the case or not. The new management cannot decide whether to dismiss IBM's counterclaims or not; only IBM can decide that. So if the trustee wants the suit to go away, he/she has to settle with IBM. Given the lack of urgency IBM has shown so far toward settling, any settlement would have to be on IBM's terms. This would probably include, at a minimum, SCO publicly stating that the entire case has be

  • Will list of violations to be unsealed? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:20PM (#13924468)
    The court has already asked that documents in this case not be sealed arbitrarily without valid reasons. I cannot fathom what reasons tSCOg could have for needing the list of supposed violations sealed. I hope IBM asks (at a minimum) for a redacted version to be made public.

    If not, I suspect the final list of supposed transgressions (in December if the schedule does not slip) and the battle over IBM's motions for summary judgments to be mostly sealed. We can then expect some spectacular media grandstanding from tSCOg, trumpeting the strength of their sealed case, before they finally go down in flames.

  • Oh Really... (Score:5, Funny)

    by eno2001 ( 527078 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:29PM (#13924549) Homepage Journal
    This is just as ridiculous as the Count from Sesame Street claiming that he has a list of IP violations in Linux in the SCO case. I can hear it now:

    "One! One IP violation!!! Hahahahahah! Two!! Two IP violations!!!! Ahahahahaha!!!!"...

  • SCO's complaint boils down to this ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by linuxguy ( 98493 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:53PM (#13924781) Homepage
    IBM stole its own code and put it in Linux. Now they owe us money for doing this.

    "The numerosity and substantiality of the disclosures reflects the pervasive extent and sustained degree as to which IBM disclosed methods, concepts, and in many places, literal code, from Unix-derived technologies ..."

    The last part "Unix-derived technologies" is where they give it away. According to their "understanding" if IBM wrote any code for IBM's AIX (based on sys V) that code became toxic the moment it touched the AIX system. All hope is lost for IBM to wish their own code as they please from that point on.

  • Remember: Today's SCO isn't the old SCO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by callipygian-showsyst ( 631222 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @01:44PM (#13925182) Homepage
    I'm saddened by what's happened to SCO's brand. SCO used to be a cool company. The name stood for the Santa Cruz Operation, and it was a smallish company of some very bright people who brought Unix to Intel Architecture: first 80286 and then 80386 architecure and beyond.

    It was that got me involved in Un*x, back in 1988 [robert.to]. I had decided it was time to move from the Long Island defense industry, and make a move to Silicon Valley. I started with Andy's "MINIX" and then paid the $1200 bucks or so for SCO Xenix, installed it on my 80386 PC (with an American Megatrends/Mylex motherboard!) and learned Unix (especially low-level matters like writing device drivers.) Shortly after, I was able to get a job with Olivetti Advanced Technology Lab in Cupertino.

    My job involved close interaction with the engineering staff at SCO--folks like Mike Patnode [mpsharp.com] (whose name sounds like a Unix command) and others who knew SysV inside and out.

    The company is completely different now. The same in name only. They're not in Santa Cruz anymore (a hippy beach resort in Central California)--instead they're in Utah.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close