The SCO Debacle

[Buck]

There have been several articles written about SCOs recent Rambus-like legal haranguing techniques. One article I found of interest regarding this topic:

_____________


Technician, Steal Thyself
SCO, Not IBM, May Have Put Unix Code Into Linux Instead?
By Robert X. Gringely
JUNE 5, 2003

"There is something about institutional memory, the way organizations do or don't remember things."

_____________

The article concludes with an intersting bit about AOL.

 

[Buck]

Here is another article on the topic, but this time from SCOs perspective. This is an interview with Darl McBride, the CEO of SCO.

_____________________

Why SCO Decided To Take IBM To Court
By David Becker
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
June 16, 2003, 4:00 AM PT

"The System 5 source code, that is really the area that gives us incredible rights, because it includes the control rights on the derivative works that branch off from that trunk." -- Darl McBride

 

[Buck]

For any interested, further opinions on the SCO topic (from Mr. Gringely once again):

______________________


What Goes Around Comes Around
The Only Clear Winner in This SCO Versus IBM Case is Microsoft
By Robert X. Cringely
June 19, 2003

"What SCO owns (forgetting for the moment Novell's contrary ownership claim and perhaps AT&T's) is the copyright on this particular work as applied to UNIX. But Linux is not UNIX, so applying the same ideas -- even the same code if it comes originally from an upstream source -- is not necessarily copyright infringement."

"Microsoft is smart and quick. They are no doubt angling to take advantage of this new chaos in the software industry."

_______________________

I know I'm the only one posting in this thread, but I figured there must be a few others who have at least enjoyed, if not been amused, reading the information that has been written regarding this topic.

 

[Buck]

Red Hat Sues SCO Over Linux Threats
By MATTHEW FORDAHL, AP Technology Writer
August 4, 2003

"SAN JOSE, Calif. - Leading Linux...distributor Red Hat Inc. sued the SCO Group Inc. Monday, calling accusations of copyright infringement against the open-source operating system "unfair and deceptive actions.""

 

[Howell]

Thanks for reporting the reporting Buck.

 

[Buck]

You're welcome Howell.

 

[blakerwry]

I've found some of these articles interesting. I still find it amusing that things are still a mystery... if SCO hasn't come out with plain statements saying something to the effect of "this, this, and this are ours and they are copy/pasted here, here, and here by XXX corp. We want royalties for our property or removal of the infringement" then I'd say they have a case...

At the moment I'm seeing "IBM put code in linux". I don't see the key points of what was copied, who owns it, and when/where it was done.

right now it seems as though this is just another baseless suit.

 

[Mercutio]

The issue in question is this:

SCO owns the COPYRIGHT to Unix and the original SysV codebase. It doesn't own any patents. Copyrights and Patents are different things.
IBM, Sequent and SCO were collaborating on a next-generation UNIX product for IA64 called Monterey. As things tend to do, it fell apart.

Sequent had some AMAZING technology in Multiprocessing PC-based systems (I used 'em when I was in college). IBM ate Sequent and released patented/released some of Sequent's technology as part of AIX (IBM SysV). IBM, being the largest holder of patents in the world, saw no reason to discontinue the trend.

As it happens, the Monterey group had worked on some things that were similar to what IBM released in AIX.

Later, IBM released portions of the same technology to as improvements in Linux.

SCO (generally) claims that 1. All improvements to SysV not made by Sun (which bought itself free some time ago) belong to SCO. 2. IBM improved SysV first, therefore the technology in question is "SysV". 3. This issue is even more clear because SCO was part of Monterey, too, so they can identify the code in question.

IBM's response is that they own the patents and there's no obligation to give them up, that different programmers implemented the SysV code and Linux code (i.e. there wasn't a copy/paste) and that IBM's agreements with AT&T and Novell (previous holder of the copyright) are such that they have no contractual obligation to SCO to do anything.

(IBM, btw, was probably the single largest reseller for the old SCO and its products. New SCO is basically the same company as Caldera, the "linux company" that wanted to charge per seat licenses for Linux. Anyone see irony here on any level?).

 

[SteveC]

SCO wants $699 for a single CPU license for Linux users.

 

[blakerwry]

if it turns out that SCO has a valid point and that their property is being infringed upon, what is are the chances of people paying for the use of SCO's intelectual property? I would think it'd be cheaper to re-code the pieces of the kernel that are suspect.

 

[Fushigi]

IBM exec: SCO lawsuit a bump in the road

IBM files counter lawsuit against SCO

 

[Buck]

SCO wants $699 for a single CPU license for Linux users.

By the way SteveC, your avatar fits this post perfectly.

 

[LiamC]

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030811

 

[zx]

Thanks for the links Buck. Very interesting.

 

[e_dawg]

SCO is going to get an asskicking from IBM and Red Hat. They will die from the legal fees alone unless MS decides to bankroll them as they have a huge incentive to keep the FUD around Linux alive.... SCO has sealed its fate in the marketplace. Who will ever buy SCO products/technologies after this?

 

[Buck]

SCO is going to get an asskicking from IBM and Red Hat. They will die from the legal fees alone unless MS decides to bankroll them as they have a huge incentive to keep the FUD around Linux alive.... SCO has sealed its fate in the marketplace. Who will ever buy SCO products/technologies after this?

I don't think that SCO planned on staying in the market place. They need to bring some type of monetary value to their company so that they can have a reasonable buy-out. Creating this mess, though, won't help.

 

[e_dawg]

Can you say "sell short"?

 

[Buck]

On the lighter side of this debacle:

____________________

BBSPOT
SCO Group To Shoot Babies
By Jeff Heard
Monday, August 11

“Lindon, UT - The SCO Group announced the launch of a campaign to shoot 1% of all babies born in the US.”

"The announcement brought cheers from SCO's chief investors and supporters, including the Gartner Group, and the BSA (Blind and Shortsighted Alliance). The organizations hailed it as "A brave, innovative step in the fight against intellectual piracy.""

 

[LiamC]

Nigerian SCO

http://arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/03q2/nigerian-sco.html

 

[e_dawg]

Time to ignore SCO?
By Fran Foo, ZDNet Australia
20 August 2003

"Can SCO demand licence fees for Linux?

Sure. But just because someone demands money doesn’t mean you should pay them.

SCO has sued only IBM, remember, not you, and is demanding at least US$1 billion in economic damages. IBM didn’t reach for its chequebook yet. Why should you?

Simply by being an interested and aggressive defendant with deep pockets, IBM is now effectively shielding Linux users from damages, even without an indemnity provision in the GPL."

 

[Howell]

SCO undercuts its Linux case
The conflict took an odd turn Monday in Las Vegas, where SCO is hosting a conference for its Unix users. During a slide show presentation on the lawsuit, SCO executives displayed identical lines of code from Linux and from SCO's flagship version of Unix, known as System V. They wanted to show that the Linux code was an illegal copy of System V.

An audience member took pictures, which were published on the website of a German computer magazine. Although some of the lines had been rendered in Greek letters for the presentation, technologists studied the pictures and translated them back. The result, they said, was code dating back as far as 1973, before SCO came into being.
More specificly: http://perens.com/Articles/SCOCopiedCode.html

 

[Howell]

SCO Preparing Legal Action Against Customer


SCO shifts focus from suit to wares

 

[Buck]

Nice links guys, thanks.

 

[LiamC]

Eric S. Raymond weighs in - heavily!


http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11168

 

[Mercutio]

.

 

[Mercutio]

Well, I most assuredly suck.

 

[timwhit]

Well, I most assuredly suck.

That's what the preview button is for Merc...tsk tsk tsk

 

[Fushigi]

Bruce Perens picks apart SCO's claims.

 

[fool]

SCO's complaint against IBM, with play by play commentary from Rob Landley and Eric Raymond.

Halloween 9, It ain't necessarily SCO

 

[Fushigi]

Judge tells SCO to put up or shut up.

 

[Buck]

Thanks for the link Fushigi; nice updated material.

 

[CougTek]

We might finally see the end of that circus soon.

 

[blakerwry]

"SCO must prove existence of Santa Claus in 30 days"
http://bbspot.com/News/2003/12/sco_christmas.html

 

[Tannin]

I'm a bit late in the day, but great link, Fool. It leads to all sorts of interesting stuff. Thankyou.

 

[fool]

Your welcome Tannin.

Just realised that Groklaw hadn't been linked here.

 

[Fushigi]

Linus weighs in with a priceless quote in this article.

 

[Buck]

Nice Fushigi. I like that quote from Mr. Torvalds too.

 

[Howell]

The SCO Group Inc. today plans to launch its first lawsuit against a Linux user for alleged violations of SCO's intellectual property, SCO CEO Darl McBride said yesterday.

http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissues/story/0,10801,90686,00.html

 

[sechs]

So are the per-hour lawyers running the company now? They're the only ones making any money....

 

[Howell]

heh heh
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5170073.html

A Microsoft Word document of SCO's suit against DaimlerChrysler, seen by CNET News.com, originally identified Bank of America as the defendant instead of the automaker. This revision and others in the document can be seen through powerful but often forgotten features in Microsoft Word known as invisible electronic ink.

A feature in the word-processing software tracks changes to documents, who made those changes, and when they were made. These notations typically are invisible to someone reading a Word document. But as some lawyers, businesspeople and politicians have learned the hard way, Word can also display so-called metadata in the document--including the original version and all subsequent changes. This information is available by viewing the document under "original showing markup" or "final showing markup."