"In short, IBM intends to skin SCO alive at trial."

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thingy, Nov 29, 2006.

  1. thingy

    thingy Guest

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061129034252692

    Not so much the tide has turned against SCO as here comes the 200foot
    high tsunami.........dear Darl's bad mouthing is coming home to roost
    big time....

    :D

    I cannot see how SCO's business will even survive the trial, Novell
    should get it pretty quick. If that fails SCO's business selling i386
    Unix should collapse anyway, I mean customers would need their bumps
    felt if they are still or contemplating rolling out platforms based on
    SCO.....then IBMs counter suits arrive....where is this vendor going to
    be at most 2 years from now? (apart from jail).

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Nov 29, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. thingy

    Peter Guest

    thingy wrote:
    > I cannot see how SCO's business will even survive the trial, Novell
    > should get it pretty quick. If that fails SCO's business selling i386
    > Unix should collapse anyway, I mean customers would need their bumps
    > felt if they are still or contemplating rolling out platforms based on
    > SCO.....then IBMs counter suits arrive....where is this vendor going to
    > be at most 2 years from now? (apart from jail).


    Is Microsoft still funding those crooks at SCO?


    (There was a story that MS was providing funds via some third party, as part
    of MS's dirty tricks campaign against Linux.)
    Peter, Nov 29, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. thingy

    peterwn Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > thingy wrote:
    > > I cannot see how SCO's business will even survive the trial, Novell
    > > should get it pretty quick. If that fails SCO's business selling i386
    > > Unix should collapse anyway, I mean customers would need their bumps
    > > felt if they are still or contemplating rolling out platforms based on
    > > SCO.....then IBMs counter suits arrive....where is this vendor going to
    > > be at most 2 years from now? (apart from jail).

    >
    > Is Microsoft still funding those crooks at SCO?
    >
    >
    > (There was a story that MS was providing funds via some third party, as part
    > of MS's dirty tricks campaign against Linux.)


    And / or MS has 'guaranteed' other outfits investing in SCO.
    peterwn, Nov 29, 2006
    #3
  4. thingy

    thingy Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > thingy wrote:
    >> I cannot see how SCO's business will even survive the trial, Novell
    >> should get it pretty quick. If that fails SCO's business selling i386
    >> Unix should collapse anyway, I mean customers would need their bumps
    >> felt if they are still or contemplating rolling out platforms based on
    >> SCO.....then IBMs counter suits arrive....where is this vendor going to
    >> be at most 2 years from now? (apart from jail).

    >
    > Is Microsoft still funding those crooks at SCO?
    >
    >
    > (There was a story that MS was providing funds via some third party, as part
    > of MS's dirty tricks campaign against Linux.)
    >
    >
    >
    >


    Nope, Baystar etc ran away. Also I am hoping if it can be shown that
    SCO used MS's money to fund such a malicious and unfounded attack and is
    damaging RH/IBM/Linux it could be argued that MS as a supporter of the
    action is also liable.....that would be neat....

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Nov 29, 2006
    #4
  5. thingy

    Adam Guest

    thingy wrote:

    > Peter wrote:
    >> thingy wrote:
    >>> I cannot see how SCO's business will even survive the trial, Novell
    >>> should get it pretty quick. If that fails SCO's business selling i386
    >>> Unix should collapse anyway, I mean customers would need their bumps
    >>> felt if they are still or contemplating rolling out platforms based on
    >>> SCO.....then IBMs counter suits arrive....where is this vendor going to
    >>> be at most 2 years from now? (apart from jail).

    >>
    >> Is Microsoft still funding those crooks at SCO?
    >>
    >>
    >> (There was a story that MS was providing funds via some third party, as
    >> part of MS's dirty tricks campaign against Linux.)
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Nope, Baystar etc ran away. Also I am hoping if it can be shown that
    > SCO used MS's money to fund such a malicious and unfounded attack and is
    > damaging RH/IBM/Linux it could be argued that MS as a supporter of the
    > action is also liable.....that would be neat....
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing



    It looks doubtful that will happen, as the main case looks like it will fold
    soon.

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061129165103775

    Now this MS-Novell-GPL thing, looks like that has legs.
    Adam, Nov 29, 2006
    #5
  6. thingy

    steve Guest

    Peter wrote:

    > thingy wrote:
    >> I cannot see how SCO's business will even survive the trial, Novell
    >> should get it pretty quick. If that fails SCO's business selling i386
    >> Unix should collapse anyway, I mean customers would need their bumps
    >> felt if they are still or contemplating rolling out platforms based on
    >> SCO.....then IBMs counter suits arrive....where is this vendor going to
    >> be at most 2 years from now? (apart from jail).

    >
    > Is Microsoft still funding those crooks at SCO?
    >
    > (There was a story that MS was providing funds via some third party, as
    > part of MS's dirty tricks campaign against Linux.)


    MS pulled the funding from the 3rd party....who then cat a cat fight with
    SCO.

    Old news. :)
    steve, Nov 30, 2006
    #6
  7. thingy

    whome Guest

    "thingy" <> wrote in message
    news:456dd02c$...
    > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061129034252692
    >
    > Not so much the tide has turned against SCO as here comes the 200foot high
    > tsunami.........dear Darl's bad mouthing is coming home to roost big
    > time....
    >
    > :D
    >
    > I cannot see how SCO's business will even survive the trial, Novell should
    > get it pretty quick. If that fails SCO's business selling i386 Unix should
    > collapse anyway, I mean customers would need their bumps felt if they are
    > still or contemplating rolling out platforms based on SCO.....then IBMs
    > counter suits arrive....where is this vendor going to be at most 2 years
    > from now? (apart from jail).
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing


    don't believe for a minute that ibm cannot be evil too.
    whome, Nov 30, 2006
    #7
  8. In message <>, whome wrote:

    > don't believe for a minute that ibm cannot be evil too.


    Sure. But nowadays its business is depending more and more on software
    released under the GNU General Public License. That kind of puts a crimp in
    the sort of evil you can commit--as Microsoft has been discovering with the
    fallout from its Novell deal.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 30, 2006
    #8
  9. thingy

    impossible Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    message news:ekm2kj$bcp$...
    > In message <>, whome
    > wrote:
    >
    >> don't believe for a minute that ibm cannot be evil too.

    >
    > Sure. But nowadays its business is depending more and more on
    > software
    > released under the GNU General Public License.


    Not true at all. Servicing open-source software is a very, very small
    part of IBM's business. As you well know, IBM holds 50,000 software
    patents, more than any company in the world. Last year alone it was
    granted 3000 software patents. It's core business is proprietary from
    top to bottom.

    > That kind of puts a crimp in
    > the sort of evil you can commit--as Microsoft has been discovering
    > with the
    > fallout from its Novell deal.


    IBM fights for its intellectual property rights every bit as fiercely
    as Microsoft. For instance, IBM is currently suing Amazon for
    violating a 1994 patent said to concern the creation of electronic
    catalogues, among other things.

    http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/10/24/ibm-amazon-update-markets-equity-cx_mk_1023markets05.html
    impossible, Dec 1, 2006
    #9
  10. thingy

    Earl Grey Guest

    impossible wrote:
    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    > message news:ekm2kj$bcp$...
    >> In message <>, whome
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> don't believe for a minute that ibm cannot be evil too.

    >> Sure. But nowadays its business is depending more and more on
    >> software
    >> released under the GNU General Public License.

    >
    > Not true at all. Servicing open-source software is a very, very small
    > part of IBM's business. As you well know, IBM holds 50,000 software
    > patents, more than any company in the world. Last year alone it was
    > granted 3000 software patents. It's core business is proprietary from
    > top to bottom.
    >


    Mmmm, if you say so ...

    http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/opensource/
    http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/index.shtml
    http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-sutorinterview.html

    "This highlights IBM's recent activities in patents and open source. In
    July 2004, we pledged not to assert any patents against the Linux
    kernel. Another example is in the area of Web services standards where
    we asserted that we would not make any claims. You should expect some
    other things from IBM in this area as the year goes by. We intend to be
    very creative."
    Earl Grey, Dec 1, 2006
    #10
  11. In message <>, impossible wrote:

    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    > message news:ekm2kj$bcp$...
    >> In message <>, whome
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> don't believe for a minute that ibm cannot be evil too.

    >>
    >> Sure. But nowadays its business is depending more and more on
    >> software released under the GNU General Public License.

    >
    > Not true at all. Servicing open-source software is a very, very small
    > part of IBM's business.


    How is that disagreeing with what I said, exactly?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Dec 1, 2006
    #11
  12. thingy

    impossible Guest

    "Earl Grey" <> wrote in message
    news:456f9257$...
    > impossible wrote:
    >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >> message news:ekm2kj$bcp$...
    >>> In message <>, whome
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> don't believe for a minute that ibm cannot be evil too.
    >>> Sure. But nowadays its business is depending more and more on
    >>> software
    >>> released under the GNU General Public License.

    >>
    >> Not true at all. Servicing open-source software is a very, very
    >> small part of IBM's business. As you well know, IBM holds 50,000
    >> software patents, more than any company in the world. Last year
    >> alone it was granted 3000 software patents. It's core business is
    >> proprietary from top to bottom.
    >>

    >
    > Mmmm, if you say so ...
    >
    > http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/opensource/
    > http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/index.shtml
    > http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-sutorinterview.html
    >
    > "This highlights IBM's recent activities in patents and open source.
    > In July 2004, we pledged not to assert any patents against the Linux
    > kernel. Another example is in the area of Web services standards
    > where we asserted that we would not make any claims. You should
    > expect some other things from IBM in this area as the year goes by.
    > We intend to be very creative."


    IBM has playing the open-source community for so long, you folks can't
    even tell anymore when you're being had. 500 obsolete,
    about-to-expire-anyway patents get tossed to you and you're giddy.
    impossible, Dec 1, 2006
    #12
  13. thingy

    impossible Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    message news:eko56v$50t$...
    > In message <>,
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >> message news:ekm2kj$bcp$...
    >>> In message <>, whome
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> don't believe for a minute that ibm cannot be evil too.
    >>>
    >>> Sure. But nowadays its business is depending more and more on
    >>> software released under the GNU General Public License.

    >>


    >> Not true at all. Servicing open-source software is a very, very
    >> small
    >> part of IBM's business. As you well know, IBM holds 50,000 software
    >> patents, more than any company in the world. Last year alone it was
    >> granted 3000 software patents. It's core business is proprietary
    >> from
    >> top to bottom.


    >>>That kind of puts a crimp in
    >>>the sort of evil you can commit--as Microsoft has been discovering
    >>> with the
    >>>fallout from its Novell deal.



    >> IBM fights for its intellectual property rights every bit as
    >> fiercely
    >> as Microsoft. For instance, IBM is currently suing Amazon for
    >> violating a 1994 patent said to concern the creation of electronic
    >> catalogues, among other things.


    > How is that disagreeing with what I said, exactly?


    For your convenience, I've restored all of my remarks (and yours) that
    you deleted. Maybe we're in agreement that IBM's primary software
    business is proprietary, that it commands far more software patents
    than Microsoft has ever dreamed of owning, and that it's vigorous
    defense of intellectual property through lawsuits is conspicuously at
    odds with the public-relations nonsense it peddles to the OSS
    community about the need for a warm-and-fuzzy "intellectual commons".
    You tell me.
    impossible, Dec 1, 2006
    #13
  14. thingy

    impossible Guest

    "impossible" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Earl Grey" <> wrote in message
    > news:456f9257$...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >>> message news:ekm2kj$bcp$...
    >>>> In message <>, whome
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> don't believe for a minute that ibm cannot be evil too.
    >>>> Sure. But nowadays its business is depending more and more on
    >>>> software
    >>>> released under the GNU General Public License.
    >>>
    >>> Not true at all. Servicing open-source software is a very, very
    >>> small part of IBM's business. As you well know, IBM holds 50,000
    >>> software patents, more than any company in the world. Last year
    >>> alone it was granted 3000 software patents. It's core business is
    >>> proprietary from top to bottom.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Mmmm, if you say so ...
    >>
    >> http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/opensource/
    >> http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/index.shtml
    >> http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-sutorinterview.html
    >>
    >> "This highlights IBM's recent activities in patents and open
    >> source. In July 2004, we pledged not to assert any patents against
    >> the Linux kernel. Another example is in the area of Web services
    >> standards where we asserted that we would not make any claims. You
    >> should expect some other things from IBM in this area as the year
    >> goes by. We intend to be very creative."

    >
    > IBM has playing the open-source community for so long, you folks
    > can't even tell anymore when you're being had. 500 obsolete,
    > about-to-expire-anyway patents get tossed to you and you're giddy.
    >


    Oh, and btw -- the part of my remarks that you conveneiently chose to
    ignore:

    >>> IBM fights for its intellectual property rights every bit as
    >>> fiercely as Microsoft. For instance, IBM is currently suing Amazon
    >>> for violating a 1994 patent said to concern the creation of
    >>> electronic catalogues, among other things.


    >>> http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/10/24/ibm-amazon-update-markets-equity-cx_mk_1023markets05.html


    Just where do you stand on IBM's lawsuit against Amazon for patent
    infringement? I didn't notice any references to this on any of the
    links you provided. Any implications here for open-source developers,
    you suppose?
    impossible, Dec 1, 2006
    #14
  15. thingy

    Earl Grey Guest

    impossible wrote:

    >
    > IBM has playing the open-source community for so long, you folks can't
    > even tell anymore when you're being had. 500 obsolete,
    > about-to-expire-anyway patents get tossed to you and you're giddy.
    >
    >

    Heh
    I think its you thats doing the spinning !
    They pledged to not assert any patents against the Linux kernel
    As contributors they can't anyway.
    Earl Grey, Dec 1, 2006
    #15
  16. thingy

    impossible Guest

    "Earl Grey" <> wrote in message
    news:456fc372$...
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> IBM has playing the open-source community for so long, you folks
    >> can't even tell anymore when you're being had. 500 obsolete,
    >> about-to-expire-anyway patents get tossed to you and you're giddy.

    > Heh
    > I think its you thats doing the spinning !
    > They pledged to not assert any patents against the Linux kernel
    > As contributors they can't anyway.


    Flailing over patent issues with the Linux kernel was SCO's folly.
    Microsoft is naturally still concerned about it's intellectual
    property in operating systems, and so maybe we haven't seen the last
    of the challenges, but the MS truce with Novell is at least
    encouraging. IBM, on the other hand, has no operating system of its
    own -- just a lot of proprietary hardware and software applications to
    sell, and an IT services business to develop ("just" meaning $100
    biillion or so in annual revenues) -- and so it's intellectual
    property lines are drawn a little differently. Both Linux and Windows
    are good for IBM's business -- thewy can afford to be agnostic. But
    read for yourself what IBM said in announcing its lawsuit against
    Amazon:

    http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/20481.wss

    "IBM said that Amazon.com has willfully infringed and continues to
    infringe on a number of key IBM patents, including:
    "1. US 5,796,967 - Presenting Applications in an Interactive Service.

    "2. US 5,442,771 - Storing Data in an Interactive Network.

    "3. US 7,072,849 - Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service.

    "4. US 5,446,891 - Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals
    and Activities.

    "5. US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue."

    These are just 5 patents out of the 40,000 IBM now owns. You can
    actually look them up online, if you're interested. You don't think
    this lawsuit is going to send a chilling message to all developers,
    open-source or otherwise? In fact, that seems to be the very point.
    "...When someone takes our property, without our permission through a
    license, we have no option but to protect it through every means
    available to us," said [IBM's] Kelly." On this much, at least, IBM and
    Microsoft are in complete agreement.
    impossible, Dec 1, 2006
    #16
  17. thingy

    Chris Hope Guest

    impossible wrote:

    [snip]

    [ibm's patents]

    > "5. US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue."


    WTF?!! How on earth do you get a patent for that?

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.com
    Chris Hope, Dec 1, 2006
    #17
  18. thingy

    Earl Grey Guest

    impossible wrote:
    > "Earl Grey" <> wrote in message
    > news:456fc372$...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>
    >>> IBM has playing the open-source community for so long, you folks
    >>> can't even tell anymore when you're being had. 500 obsolete,
    >>> about-to-expire-anyway patents get tossed to you and you're giddy.

    >> Heh
    >> I think its you thats doing the spinning !
    >> They pledged to not assert any patents against the Linux kernel
    >> As contributors they can't anyway.

    >
    > Flailing over patent issues with the Linux kernel was SCO's folly.


    No
    There were no patent issues in dispute in SCO vs IBM, just unsupported
    assertions of copyright infringement and breach of contract.
    Earl Grey, Dec 1, 2006
    #18
  19. thingy

    Earl Grey Guest

    Chris Hope wrote:
    > impossible wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    > [ibm's patents]
    >
    >> "5. US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue."

    >
    > WTF?!! How on earth do you get a patent for that?
    >


    You have to be first in line, or buy it off the guy who was.
    Earl Grey, Dec 1, 2006
    #19
  20. thingy

    impossible Guest

    "Earl Grey" <> wrote in message news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >> "Earl Grey" <> wrote in message
    >> news:456fc372$...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> IBM has playing the open-source community for so long, you folks
    >>>> can't even tell anymore when you're being had. 500 obsolete,
    >>>> about-to-expire-anyway patents get tossed to you and you're
    >>>> giddy.
    >>> Heh
    >>> I think its you thats doing the spinning !
    >>> They pledged to not assert any patents against the Linux kernel
    >>> As contributors they can't anyway.

    >>
    >> Flailing over patent issues with the Linux kernel was SCO's folly.

    >
    > No
    > There were no patent issues in dispute in SCO vs IBM, just
    > unsupported assertions of copyright infringement and breach of
    > contract.


    Pardon me for confusing one folly with another. Still, for some
    reason, you avoid commenting on IBM's patent suit against Amazon.

    http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/20481.wss

    "IBM said that Amazon.com has willfully infringed and continues to
    infringe on a number of key IBM patents, including:

    "1. US 5,796,967 - Presenting Applications in an Interactive Service.

    "2. US 5,442,771 - Storing Data in an Interactive Network.

    "3. US 7,072,849 - Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service.

    "4. US 5,446,891 - Adjusting Hypertext Links with Weighted User Goals
    and Activities.

    "5. US 5,319,542 - Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue."


    Is that a good thing for the cause of software freedom?
    impossible, Dec 1, 2006
    #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.

Share This Page