Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > IBM Counter-sues SCO

Reply
Thread Tools

IBM Counter-sues SCO

 
 
The Flash
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2003

"Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bh2e4p$u3ejq$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
> T.N.O wrote:
>
> > "Jay" wrote
> > | But wait a moment ... the contents of a programmer's brain belongs to
> > | the programmer.
> >
> > Depends on your employment contract... if you sign that all works made
> > while employed by "company a" belong to "company a" then your wrong... I
> > have seen contracts like this all over the place.

>
> In my case my own company owns a lot of code and from time to
> time other companies get a copy of said code. But the said code
> gets maintained and improved outside of any contract over a much
> longer period than any individual contract.
>
> A client might get a copy of the code and source but they get no right
> to on-sell it to another company.
>
> All my contracts make that very clear. If you fail to take those
> steps then you are not a very competent contractor.
>
> >
> > | I think so. And programming is just written words with structure.
> >
> > what you think and what is law may be two entirly different beasts.

>
> And I always make sure that the legal contracts are correctly worded.
> If you don't, and just accept the default contract presented to you,
> then you are a fool.
>
> I ensure that what I think and what is the law are closely aligned.


Even if it wasn't included in your contract it is intellectual property and
thus covered by IP laws, unless you specifically include that you have
transfer you ownership of the IP used to develop / implement / etc that idea
you still have coverage.

This is another reason why it is critical that programmers document their
code well, it protects your IP.

I understand that SCO has a very solid case on the Linux / Unix
infringement, IBM's case is related to the AIX license issue and really not
relevant to the former.

I suspect once it comes out it will be easy for workarounds that don't
infringe however to play the legal game SCO needs to keep it quite until the
get a ruling, once done then damages and injunctions will start rolling. SCO
would not be the first to build a profitable company off the backs of others
and now it has a serious warchest and a major investor that is anti linux
who knows what.

Things that could happen, SCO could claim is '$199' for every copy of linux
EVER distributed by any vendor.
SCO could lock out all vendors bar those it appoints.
SCO could claim that Linux and SUSE etc have build company based on stolen /
unlicensed IP and thus derived income plus denied income to SCO,
consequential damages could be huge.

Even if SCO looses, MS still wins, it will have tainted Linux something
wicked and companies in droves will rethink their software models, Who
would consider build a business on a platform that can be ripped away from
you at any moment (real or imaginary) when the next punter lines up with a
Law Suite.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
The Flash
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2003

"Peter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> this quote is from Anthony Neville of Sat, 09 Aug 2003 23:06 :
> >
> > And if the code is proprietary, why would you expect its rightful
> > owners to know about it, or for that matter anyone else besides
> > the perpetrator?

>
> Either SCO knows that its code is in Linux or it doesn't.
>
> If it does know it is there, why is SCO still distributing Linux under GPL
> months after they claimed infringement?
> If SCO doesn't know the code is there, how do they know there is an
> infringement at all?
>
> Either SCO knows about the infringing code, or they do not. They can't

have
> it both ways


SCO know what the code is, IBM will know what the code is, under discovery
laws in the states this 'evidance' is sealed until the court case is heard.
(SCO must supplied the code to IBM in its discovery motions)

SCO owns legally the IP of the infringing code and can distribuite what it
owns.




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
T.N.O
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2003
"The Flash" wrote
| Who
| would consider build a business on a platform that can be ripped away from
| you at any moment (real or imaginary) when the next punter lines up with a
| Law Suite.

In saying that, Ms have also got in trouble for stealing code, and have
gotten away with it albeit just dragging it out for so long that the other
company just disappears.
Does any other company have that sort of cash? Maybe IBM could tie them(SCO)
up in court for a few years until they go broke and can no-longer afford to
continue with the court case.

I can't believe that I'm using this sort of tactic as a good thing...
blech...


 
Reply With Quote
 
lily
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2003

"The Flash" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:E3fZa.111094$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Peter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > this quote is from Anthony Neville of Sat, 09 Aug 2003 23:06 :
> > >
> > > And if the code is proprietary, why would you expect its rightful
> > > owners to know about it, or for that matter anyone else besides
> > > the perpetrator?

> >
> > Either SCO knows that its code is in Linux or it doesn't.
> >
> > If it does know it is there, why is SCO still distributing Linux under

GPL
> > months after they claimed infringement?
> > If SCO doesn't know the code is there, how do they know there is an
> > infringement at all?
> >
> > Either SCO knows about the infringing code, or they do not. They can't

> have
> > it both ways

>
> SCO know what the code is, IBM will know what the code is, under discovery
> laws in the states this 'evidance' is sealed until the court case is

heard.
> (SCO must supplied the code to IBM in its discovery motions)
>
> SCO owns legally the IP of the infringing code and can distribuite what it
> owns.



The FUD has worked on you
No they don't own rights to the disputed IBM code which has been contributed
to the Linux kernel
That is what the dispute with IBM (and no one else) is about.
SCO claims that the rights that they bought from Novell entitle them to
rights over IBM IP, the code for SMP RCU NUMA which are multiprocessor
technologies developed by IBM in AIX and contributed to the Linux kernel by
IBM.
SCO claim that this makes that code derivative work that they have
authoritative rights to. This and only this is the basis of their whole
claim.
Desktop users have no need of this code BTW and use kernels compiled without
these modules
For a good analysis including detailed interviews with SCO check out the
articles at http://mozillaquest.com/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jay
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2003
The Flash wrote:

> I understand that SCO has a very solid case on the Linux / Unix
> infringement, IBM's case is related to the AIX license issue and really
> not relevant to the former.


They do not have a solid case at all.
The fact that they are attempting to extort money instead of asking
people to remove any offending code demonstrates that.

>
> I suspect once it comes out it will be easy for workarounds that don't
> infringe however to play the legal game SCO needs to keep it quite until
> the get a ruling, once done then damages and injunctions will start
> rolling. SCO would not be the first to build a profitable company off the
> backs of others and now it has a serious warchest and a major investor
> that is anti linux who knows what.
>
> Things that could happen, SCO could claim is '$199' for every copy of
> linux EVER distributed by any vendor.


Rubbish. They will never be able to enforce such a claim.

> SCO could lock out all vendors bar those it appoints.


Rubbish. They haven't even got a case.

> SCO could claim that Linux and SUSE etc have build company based on stolen
> / unlicensed IP and thus derived income plus denied income to SCO,
> consequential damages could be huge.


Rubbish. There is no such entity as "Linux". And already German courts
have booted SCO in the bum and told them to **** off.

>
> Even if SCO looses,


Guaranteed.

> MS still wins, it will have tainted Linux something
> wicked and companies in droves will rethink their software models,


Rubbish. It is merely generating more publicity for Linux and raising
the idea in peoples' minds that something that threatens MS or SCO
must be worthy of their attention.

> Who
> would consider build a business on a platform that can be ripped away from
> you at any moment (real or imaginary) when the next punter lines up with a
> Law Suite.


Hardly any company builds a business on a computer platform.
A computer platform is usually a minor secondary consideration
for a company.

 
Reply With Quote
 
T.N.O
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2003
"Jay" wrote
| They do not have a solid case at all.

So you have seen all the evidence then?

| Rubbish. They haven't even got a case.

see above...

| Rubbish. There is no such entity as "Linux". And already German courts
| have booted SCO in the bum and told them to **** off.

Oh and because Germany did it, it must be true...

| > Even if SCO looses,
| Guaranteed.

See my first point.

| Rubbish. It is merely generating more publicity for Linux and raising
| the idea in peoples' minds that something that threatens MS or SCO
| must be worthy of their attention.

Actually it probably hasn't been seen by most non technically literate
people... I'll give you my mums phone number and you can ring her and ask
her what she thinks of it.

Should be good for a laugh.

| Hardly any company builds a business on a computer platform.
| A computer platform is usually a minor secondary consideration
| for a company.

Unless it is an IT company... say maybe an ISP?

For someone who claims to be all knowledgeable in pretty much everything,
you don't seem to think things through before you post them.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeremy Bentham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2003
Peter allegedly said:

> this quote is from Anthony Neville of Sat, 09 Aug 2003 23:06 :
>>
>> And if the code is proprietary, why would you expect its rightful
>> owners to know about it, or for that matter anyone else besides
>> the perpetrator?

>
> Either SCO knows that its code is in Linux or it doesn't.
>
> If it does know it is there, why is SCO still distributing Linux under GPL
> months after they claimed infringement?
> If SCO doesn't know the code is there, how do they know there is an
> infringement at all?
>
> Either SCO knows about the infringing code, or they do not. They can't
> have it both ways.
>
> Peter


Meanwhile...they won't tell anyone else what code is supposedly infringing!

Classic FUD attack.

Worthy of ignore for deployment and counter-suit for damages if you make and
sell Linux products/software.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jeremy Bentham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2003
The Flash allegedly said:

>
> SCO know what the code is, IBM will know what the code is, under discovery
> laws in the states this 'evidance' is sealed until the court case is
> heard. (SCO must supplied the code to IBM in its discovery motions)
>
> SCO owns legally the IP of the infringing code and can distribuite what it
> owns.


Unless they GPL'd it.....in which case, everyone owns it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jay
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2003
T.N.O wrote:

> "Jay" wrote
> | They do not have a solid case at all.
>
> So you have seen all the evidence then?


Precisely because the evidence is being hidden! That is
way their case is so weak.

>
> | Rubbish. They haven't even got a case.
>
> see above...


That is what I just said!
If you agree with me then why are you arguing?

>
> | Rubbish. There is no such entity as "Linux". And already German courts
> | have booted SCO in the bum and told them to **** off.
>
> Oh and because Germany did it, it must be true...


Well that is the home of SuSE isn't it?
It is true and it is relevant.

>
> | > Even if SCO looses,
> | Guaranteed.
>
> See my first point.


What was that?

>
> | Rubbish. It is merely generating more publicity for Linux and raising
> | the idea in peoples' minds that something that threatens MS or SCO
> | must be worthy of their attention.
>
> Actually it probably hasn't been seen by most non technically literate
> people... I'll give you my mums phone number and you can ring her and ask
> her what she thinks of it.


So where is the phone number?

>
> Should be good for a laugh.
>
> | Hardly any company builds a business on a computer platform.
> | A computer platform is usually a minor secondary consideration
> | for a company.
>
> Unless it is an IT company... say maybe an ISP?


Even an IT company or an ISP.
No company puts all their eggs in the one basket.

>
> For someone who claims to be all knowledgeable in pretty much everything,
> you don't seem to think things through before you post them.


Really?

 
Reply With Quote
 
lily
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-10-2003

"The Flash" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:m%eZa.111090$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Even if SCO looses, MS still wins, it will have tainted Linux something
> wicked and companies in droves will rethink their software models, Who
> would consider build a business on a platform that can be ripped away from
> you at any moment (real or imaginary) when the next punter lines up with a
> Law Suite.
>
>
>

Let us know when it happens.
If SCO wins it will have re defined derivative works and Microsoft XP will
be a derivative of BSD and VMS
And the flapping and oinking you hear will be a pork roast about to land on
your roof.
Their claim goes like this
IBMs AIX is licensed to use UNIX source by rights SCO bought from Novell
Therefore SCO owns code that IBM wrote for AIX
Therefore because that code is contributed by IBM to the Linux 2.4 kernel,
the whole Linux kernel is now a derivative work of the UNIX source owned by
SCO and SCO is entitled to charge Linux users whatever it likes.
It is typical American ambulance chasing speculative litigation.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oops...SCO used *Linux* (GPL) code in SCO Unixware...... steve NZ Computing 10 08-13-2005 09:20 PM
SCO v IBM decision is out. Howard NZ Computing 1 03-04-2004 12:50 AM
SCO, IBM battle heats up harry NZ Computing 9 11-15-2003 12:02 AM
How I see the SCO - IBM case and who is really to blame The Flash NZ Computing 16 08-27-2003 09:16 PM
SCO giving up on IBM? Howard NZ Computing 0 08-11-2003 09:02 PM



Advertisments