IBM Counter-sues SCO

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Buck Rogers, Aug 8, 2003.

  1. Buck Rogers

    Buck Rogers Guest

    http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5060965.html

    Big Blue files counterclaims against SCO
    By Stephen Shankland
    CNET News.com
    August 7, 2003, 1:05 PM PT

    IBM on Thursday filed counterclaims against the SCO Group in the continuing
    legal battle over the Linux operating system.

    In a 45-page document filed late Wednesday, IBM argues that because SCO
    distributed a version of Linux under the open-source General Public License
    (GPL), it can't claim that Linux software is proprietary. IBM also argues
    that SCO software violates four IBM patents and that the company interfered
    with IBM's business by saying it had terminated IBM's right to ship a Unix
    product, AIX.

    IBM is seeking unspecified monetary damages and an injunction to stop SCO
    from shipping its software. The counterclaims came as part of Big Blue's
    answer to SCO's amended suit and were filed in the same federal district
    court in Utah.

    "SCO has misused, and is misusing, its purported rights to the Unix
    operating system...to threaten the destruction of the competing operating
    systems known as AIX and Linux, and to extract windfall profits for its
    unjust enrichment," the IBM countersuit said.

    In a statement, SCO reasserted its position that Linux violates SCO's
    intellectual property rights in Unix and called on IBM to back up its faith
    in Linux by providing its customers with legal protection for using the
    software.

    "The continuing refusal to provide customer indemnification is IBM's truest
    measure of belief in its recently filed claims," SCO said.

    The patent claims will be expensive to handle, said Brian Ferguson, an
    attorney with McDermott, Will & Emery. "That's a real smart move by IBM,"
    he said. "I think that alone could cause some kind of early settlement
    negotiations that are going to really swing the pendulum around in IBM's
    favor--or at least to a situation of equipoise."

    SCO has sued IBM for $3 billion, alleging that Big Blue moved proprietary
    Unix code into Linux and breached the terms of its Unix license with SCO.
    Separately from the IBM suit, SCO has said Unix code was copied directly
    into Linux and seeks payments of as much as $1,399 per computer from Linux
    users.

    The bold initial lawsuit, followed by the equally bold threat that Linux
    users should pay or face potential legal action, has sent shock waves
    through the computing industry.

    On Monday, the top Linux seller, Red Hat, filed a separate lawsuit that
    seeks a legal judgment about whether Linux violates SCO's Unix copyrights.

    "What I'm getting a sense of now is there is an effort to counterpunch,"
    said Gartner analyst George Weiss, who has warned clients to take SCO
    seriously. "What I thought the (Linux) community should be doing is shift
    the initiative away from SCO and throw them off balance into a defensive
    posture. Until Red Hat started its counterclaim, all the initiative was
    with SCO."

    IBM said four SCO software packages violate four of IBM's patents. The
    patents cover a data compression technique, a method of navigating among
    program menus that use options that are arranged in a graphical tree, a
    method for verifying that an electronic message was received and a method
    for monitoring computing systems that are linked in a cluster.

    The infringing SCO software, IBM said, is its UnixWare and OpenServer
    operating systems, its SCO Manager remote administration tool and its
    Reliant HA package, which enables one computer in a cluster to take over if
    another fails.

    IBM argues in the counterclaims that SCO is prohibited from treating any
    code it distributed under the GPL as proprietary and that its current plan
    to require Linux users to pay isn't legal.

    "By distributing products under the GPL, SCO agreed, among other things, not
    to assert--indeed, it is prohibited from asserting--certain proprietary
    rights (such as the right to collect license fees) over any source code
    distributed under the terms of the GPL. SCO also agreed not to restrict
    further distribution of any source code distributed by SCO under the terms
    of the GPL," the IBM counterclaims said.

    The GPL is a license that Richard Stallman created in the 1980s as part of a
    plan to create a clone of Unix that anyone was free to use and modify. That
    project, Gnu's Not Unix (GNU), provided the legal and technological
    framework that Linux built upon. The GPL hasn't yet been tested in court,
    said Jeffrey Osterman, an attorney at Weil, Gotshal & Manges.

    "The argument that SCO has essentially destroyed its trade secrets by
    selling software to the public that discloses those secrets without
    restriction is very interesting," Osterman said.

    SCO's defense has been that it must actively and not inadvertently release
    proprietary code as open-source software. "It requires them to take the
    position they didn't know what they were selling, which, depending on your
    point of view, is a hard argument to make. You would tend to think you'd
    know what you're selling," Osterman said.

    IBM's argument is similar to those made by Eben Moglen, a Columbia
    University law professor and the attorney for the Free Software Foundation,
    which enforces the GPL; by SCO's former Linux business partner SuSE; and by
    a German Linux advocacy organization called LinuxTag.

    Though the GPL arose in a case involving NuSphere's handling of the
    open-source database developed by MySQL, that case ended in a settlement.

    IBM's arguments go to the heart of the GPL.

    "SCO has taken source code made available by IBM under the GPL, included
    that code in SCO's Linux products, and distributed significant portions of
    those products under the GPL. By so doing, SCO accepted the terms of the
    GPL, both with respect to source code made available by IBM under the GPL
    and with respect to SCO's own Linux distributions," the IBM suit said.

    Because the GPL prohibits SCO from asserting proprietary rights over
    GPL-covered source code, for example by trying to collect license fees,
    "SCO's rights to distribute the copyrighted works of others included in
    Linux under the GPL have been terminated," IBM said.

    IBM argues that SCO has breached the GPL by claiming ownership rights over
    Linux code; by seeking to collect license fees from Linux code; by copying,
    sublicensing or distributing Linux under terms of the GPL after its GPL
    rights ended; and by seeking to impose additional restrictions on
    recipients of Linux code.

    IBM said SCO has damaged its business in several ways: breach of its
    contract with IBM, breach of the GPL, unfair competition, interference with
    prospective customers, and unfair and deceptive trade practices.

    SCO has argued that IBM doesn't have the right to take Unix software IBM
    created--so-called derivative works--and move that software into Linux.
    IBM, however, labeled as "frivolous" SCO's argument that it has ownership
    rights with respect to all of the code in AIX.

    SCO said it revoked IBM's license to ship AIX in June. In its countersuit,
    Big Blue reasserted its position that its AIX license is irrevocable and
    perpetual but then added a new twist that involves Novell, the company that
    owned Unix copyrights until selling them to SCO's predecessor in 1995.

    IBM's suit revealed that Novell on June 12 effectively forbade SCO from
    terminating IBM's AIX license. SCO said it revoked the AIX license on June
    16. Novell maintained the right to issue such instructions to SCO under the
    terms of the Unix sale, the suit said.

    The letter Novell sent to SCO--included as an exhibit in IBM's
    countersuit--quotes a section of the contract under which Novell sold Unix
    to SCO's predecessor. Under that contract, Novell may require SCO "to amend
    supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or...assign any rights to,
    any (Unix System V) license to the extent so directed" by Novell. If SCO
    fails to do what Novell instructs, Novell "shall be authorized, and is
    hereby granted, the rights to take any action on (SCO's) own behalf."

    The Novell letter also reveals the price IBM paid to buy its perpetual Unix
    license: $10.13 million.

    SCO has said that under the terms of its contracts, IBM's Unix rights are
    perpetual and irrevocable only as long as IBM doesn't violate SCO's rights.
    Buck Rogers, Aug 8, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. [...]
    > SCO's defense has been that it must actively and not inadvertently release
    > proprietary code as open-source software. "It requires them to take the
    > position they didn't know what they were selling, which, depending on your
    > point of view, is a hard argument to make. You would tend to think you'd
    > know what you're selling," Osterman said.

    [...]

    Not necessarily in the case of a Linux distribution which is a hugely complex
    product consisting of thousands of pieces of code contributed by thousands
    of joe blow linux programmers untethered to any company legally
    responsible what its programmers do. I'm not taking a position on SCO
    here. I'm saying Osterman is mistaken where Linux distributions are
    concerned.

    Tony.
    Anthony Neville, Aug 9, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Buck Rogers

    Mainlander Guest

    In article <frXYa.10133$>,
    says...
    > [...]
    > > SCO's defense has been that it must actively and not inadvertently release
    > > proprietary code as open-source software. "It requires them to take the
    > > position they didn't know what they were selling, which, depending on your
    > > point of view, is a hard argument to make. You would tend to think you'd
    > > know what you're selling," Osterman said.

    > [...]
    >
    > Not necessarily in the case of a Linux distribution which is a hugely complex
    > product consisting of thousands of pieces of code contributed by thousands
    > of joe blow linux programmers untethered to any company legally
    > responsible what its programmers do.


    You assume but actually you have no way of knowing which of those
    programmers might be working for a company and sharing proprietary code
    from that.
    Mainlander, Aug 9, 2003
    #3
  4. "Mainlander" <*@*.*> wrote in message news:...
    > In article <frXYa.10133$>,
    > says...
    > > [...]
    > > > SCO's defense has been that it must actively and not inadvertently release
    > > > proprietary code as open-source software. "It requires them to take the
    > > > position they didn't know what they were selling, which, depending on your
    > > > point of view, is a hard argument to make. You would tend to think you'd
    > > > know what you're selling," Osterman said.

    > > [...]
    > >
    > > Not necessarily in the case of a Linux distribution which is a hugely complex
    > > product consisting of thousands of pieces of code contributed by thousands
    > > of joe blow linux programmers untethered to any company legally
    > > responsible what its programmers do.

    >
    > You assume but actually you have no way of knowing which of those
    > programmers might be working for a company and sharing proprietary code
    > from that.


    Yeah, that's a good point.

    Tony.
    Anthony Neville, Aug 9, 2003
    #4
  5. Buck Rogers

    T.N.O Guest

    "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.

    | I think so. And programming is just written words with structure.

    what you think and what is law may be two entirly different beasts.
    T.N.O, Aug 9, 2003
    #5
  6. Buck Rogers

    Jay Guest

    Mainlander wrote:

    > In article <bh1sad$u0l2m$-berlin.de>,
    > says...
    >> Mainlander wrote:
    >>
    >> > In article <frXYa.10133$>,
    >> > says...
    >> >> [...]
    >> >> > SCO's defense has been that it must actively and not inadvertently
    >> >> > release proprietary code as open-source software. "It requires them
    >> >> > to take the position they didn't know what they were selling, which,
    >> >> > depending on your point of view, is a hard argument to make. You
    >> >> > would tend to think you'd know what you're selling," Osterman said.
    >> >> [...]
    >> >>
    >> >> Not necessarily in the case of a Linux distribution which is a hugely
    >> >> complex product consisting of thousands of pieces of code contributed
    >> >> by thousands of joe blow linux programmers untethered to any company
    >> >> legally responsible what its programmers do.
    >> >
    >> > You assume but actually you have no way of knowing which of those
    >> > programmers might be working for a company and sharing proprietary code
    >> > from that.

    >>
    >> But wait a moment ... the contents of a programmer's brain belongs to
    >> the programmer. So if the programmer uses part of his brain to produce
    >> a piece of software for his employer it should not stop him from using
    >> other parts of his brain to produce something for someone else.
    >>
    >> And it just might be that the programmer created the piece of software
    >> as an open source contribution *before* doing something similar for
    >> the employer.
    >>
    >> If an author was to pen a few words for an employer (maybe a press
    >> release or speech) then cannot that author use those words again?
    >> I think so. And programming is just written words with structure.

    >
    > Legally, the ownership of program code written in the course of
    > employment belongs to the employer.
    >
    > In the case of the second example, the copyright holder has the legal
    > authority over the intellectual property concerned, likely the employer
    > again.
    >
    > In both cases it is recognised that neither programming nor writing
    > speeches represent the mere placement of words, the time and money
    > invested in writing applications is reason enough for IPRs to be attached
    > to it.


    However if you write a program in your own time (peraps for you own company)
    and decide to lend it to an employer then you should make sure that the
    employer understand who has the exclusive ownership of the code. This is
    especially important when as a contractor you are
    developing similar works for a number of clients.

    I have always made this very clear when contracted to do work.
    And most people don't mind at all because the reuse of code
    gives them a quicker and better result at lower cost.
    Jay, Aug 9, 2003
    #6
  7. Buck Rogers

    Buck Rogers Guest

    Anthony Neville allegedly said:

    > [...]
    >> SCO's defense has been that it must actively and not inadvertently
    >> release proprietary code as open-source software. "It requires them to
    >> take the position they didn't know what they were selling, which,
    >> depending on your point of view, is a hard argument to make. You would
    >> tend to think you'd know what you're selling," Osterman said.

    > [...]
    >
    > Not necessarily in the case of a Linux distribution which is a hugely
    > complex product consisting of thousands of pieces of code contributed by
    > thousands of joe blow linux programmers untethered to any company legally
    > responsible what its programmers do. I'm not taking a position on SCO
    > here. I'm saying Osterman is mistaken where Linux distributions are
    > concerned.
    >
    > Tony.


    I can't see how.

    You release the code, you release the code.

    Up to you if you "didn't mean to".

    Too fsckin' late.
    Buck Rogers, Aug 9, 2003
    #7
  8. Buck Rogers

    Buck Rogers Guest

    T.N.O allegedly said:

    > | 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 disputes are settled in court at more than $5,000 / day - plus the
    lawyers fees.

    The rich get 'justice' and the rest get fscked.
    Buck Rogers, Aug 9, 2003
    #8
  9. Buck Rogers

    Jay Guest

    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.
    Jay, Aug 9, 2003
    #9
  10. "Peter" <> wrote in message news:...
    > 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.


    I'm not about to justify SCO's actions because I think they are unjustified.
    I was attacking Osterman's lousy reasoning.

    Tony.
    Anthony Neville, Aug 9, 2003
    #10
  11. Buck Rogers

    The Flash Guest

    "Jay" <> wrote in message
    news:bh2e4p$u3ejq$-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.
    The Flash, Aug 9, 2003
    #11
  12. Buck Rogers

    The Flash Guest

    "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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 Flash, Aug 10, 2003
    #12
  13. Buck Rogers

    T.N.O Guest

    "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...
    T.N.O, Aug 10, 2003
    #13
  14. Buck Rogers

    lily Guest

    "The Flash" <> wrote in message
    news:E3fZa.111094$...
    >
    > "Peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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/
    lily, Aug 10, 2003
    #14
  15. Buck Rogers

    Jay Guest

    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 piss 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.
    Jay, Aug 10, 2003
    #15
  16. Buck Rogers

    T.N.O Guest

    "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 piss 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.
    T.N.O, Aug 10, 2003
    #16
  17. 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.
    Jeremy Bentham, Aug 10, 2003
    #17
  18. 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.
    Jeremy Bentham, Aug 10, 2003
    #18
  19. Buck Rogers

    Jay Guest

    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 piss 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?
    Jay, Aug 10, 2003
    #19
  20. Buck Rogers

    lily Guest

    "The Flash" <> wrote in message
    news:m%eZa.111090$...
    >
    > 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.
    lily, Aug 10, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Howard

    SCO giving up on IBM?

    Howard, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    338
    Howard
    Aug 11, 2003
  2. The Flash
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    505
    T.N.O.
    Aug 27, 2003
  3. harry

    SCO, IBM battle heats up

    harry, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    313
    Lennier
    Nov 15, 2003
  4. Howard

    SCO v IBM decision is out.

    Howard, Mar 4, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    316
    Howard
    Mar 4, 2004
  5. steve
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    567
    Bling-Bling
    Aug 13, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page