|
| Authored by: RoQ on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 12:28 AM EDT |
It could be that with SCO, in contrast to Nike v. Kasky (or is it Kasky v.
Nike?), they may not have the wherewithall to settle, and would ride such a
commercial free-speech case all the way to the bitter end.
I for one
think that SCO's predictable move w.r.t. Red Hat is a fine development, since
now someone who reads GROKLAW should try and contact the Red Hat legal team and
turn them on to the outstanding research that PJ and company have put
together.
I knew this site was awesome, the first time I stumbled on it
back in June...
RoQ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Grim Reaper on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 12:48 AM EDT |
Here's what I posted under a different topic:
Regarding McBride's motion to dismiss the Red Hat suit, here's one of the
places where Darl McBride mentions Red Hat by name:
"CRN: Have you talked to Red Hat?
McBride: Yes. We approached Red Hat [about licensing source code libraries] and
they thought [our claim] was interesting. They said they'd talk about it, but
then called back and said we'll pass [on licensing the source code from SCO].
[Red Hat Chairman and CEO Matthew] Szulik said copyright issues scare him. But
Red Hat has had a free ride. In its IPO filings, one of the warnings to
investors stated clearly that Red Hat may be violating IP and one day they may
have to step up and pay royalties. Why not? Every time I ship a copy of my
operating system, I pay royalties to Novell and Veritas. There will be a day of
reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done. But we're focused on the IBM
situation."
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=41480
Not SCO is trying to claim there was no threat to Red Hat. Lies! Lies! Damn
Lies![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: fava on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 01:01 AM EDT |
| SCO's initial public response to RedHat contained the
threat:
"Be
advised that our response will likely include
counterclaims for copyright
infringement and conspiracy."
Have they now abandoned that since
there is no actual
controversy? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 01:08 AM EDT |
1. The conference call the day after Red Hat filed suit would be a good place to
look. McBride mentioned Red Hat by name several times.
Including alleging that Red Hat's products infringe SCO's copyrights.
Including alleging that Red Hat had painted a liability target on their
customer's backs (or words to this effect)
Possibly more... Use the transcript on GROKLAW. Somebody more diligent than me,
can look up the specific quotes.
2. More allegations:
http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-10_Story02.html
MozillaQuest Magazine: In an interview Darl McBride did with CRN's Paula
Rooney, that was published yesterday, he said "There will be a day of
reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done." Just what did Darl mean
by that? (Link to CRN article in the Resources section at the end of this
article.)
Chris Sontag: What he meant was that if SCO prevails in their lawsuit with IBM,
companies like Red Hat and SuSE may need to revisit their distributions and
remove any UNIX system code from their distributions and compensate SCO in some
way for the software code that they benefited from by using our UNIX code.
...
MozillaQuest Magazine: If so, could you please explain what Red Hat and/or SuSE
have done or are what they doing for which there "will be a day of
reckoning"?
Chris Sontag: We are using objective third parties to do comparisons of our UNIX
System V [SCO-owned Unix] source code and Red Hat as an example. We are coming
across many instances where our proprietary software has simply been copied and
pasted or changed in order to hide the origin of our System V code in Red Hat.
This is the kind of thing that we will need to address with many Linux
distribution companies at some point.
...
-MozillaQuest Magazine: Also, to the extent that this is SCO-owned code, is this
stuff that IBM gave to Red Hat or did Red Hat somehow grab it from some other
source(s)?
-Chris Sontag: That is a good question that we would need to ask the Linux
vendors when the time is right.
...
MozillaQuest Magazine: The Red Hat and SuSE people with whom I have discussed
the Caldera v IBM matter say that:
(a) As far as they know there is no proprietary SCO-owned code in their Linux
distributions and products, is this correct?
Chris Sontag: No, this is not correct. We are finding SCO-owned code in their
distributions
3. A day of reckoning:
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/breakingnews.asp?ArticleID=41480
CRN: Have you talked to Red Hat?
McBride: Yes. We approached Red Hat [about licensing source code libraries] and
they thought [our claim] was interesting. They said they'd talk about it, but
then called back and said we'll pass [on licensing the source code from SCO].
[Red Hat Chairman and CEO Matthew] Szulik said copyright issues scare him. But
Red Hat has had a free ride. In its IPO filings, one of the warnings to
investors stated clearly that Red Hat may be violating IP and one day they may
have to step up and pay royalties. Why not? Every time I ship a copy of my
operating system, I pay royalties to Novell and Veritas. There will be a day of
reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done. But we're focused on the IBM
situation.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 01:10 AM EDT |
1. The conference call the day after Red Hat filed suit would be a good place to
look. McBride mentioned Red Hat by name several times.
Including alleging that Red Hat's products infringe SCO's copyrights.
Including alleging that Red Hat had painted a liability target on their
customer's backs (or words to this effect)
Possibly more... Use the transcript on GROKLAW. Somebody more diligent than me,
can look up the specific quotes.
2. More allegations:
http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-10_Story02.html
MozillaQuest Magazine: In an interview Darl McBride did with CRN's Paula
Rooney, that was published yesterday, he said "There will be a day of
reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done." Just what did Darl mean
by that? (Link to CRN article in the Resources section at the end of this
article.)
Chris Sontag: What he meant was that if SCO prevails in their lawsuit with IBM,
companies like Red Hat and SuSE may need to revisit their distributions and
remove any UNIX system code from their distributions and compensate SCO in some
way for the software code that they benefited from by using our UNIX code.
...
MozillaQuest Magazine: If so, could you please explain what Red Hat and/or SuSE
have done or are what they doing for which there "will be a day of
reckoning"?
Chris Sontag: We are using objective third parties to do comparisons of our UNIX
System V [SCO-owned Unix] source code and Red Hat as an example. We are coming
across many instances where our proprietary software has simply been copied and
pasted or changed in order to hide the origin of our System V code in Red Hat.
This is the kind of thing that we will need to address with many Linux
distribution companies at some point.
...
-MozillaQuest Magazine: Also, to the extent that this is SCO-owned code, is this
stuff that IBM gave to Red Hat or did Red Hat somehow grab it from some other
source(s)?
-Chris Sontag: That is a good question that we would need to ask the Linux
vendors when the time is right.
...
MozillaQuest Magazine: The Red Hat and SuSE people with whom I have discussed
the Caldera v IBM matter say that:
(a) As far as they know there is no proprietary SCO-owned code in their Linux
distributions and products, is this correct?
Chris Sontag: No, this is not correct. We are finding SCO-owned code in their
distributions
3. A day of reckoning:
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/breakingnews.asp?ArticleID=41480
CRN: Have you talked to Red Hat?
McBride: Yes. We approached Red Hat [about licensing source code libraries] and
they thought [our claim] was interesting. They said they'd talk about it, but
then called back and said we'll pass [on licensing the source code from SCO].
[Red Hat Chairman and CEO Matthew] Szulik said copyright issues scare him. But
Red Hat has had a free ride. In its IPO filings, one of the warnings to
investors stated clearly that Red Hat may be violating IP and one day they may
have to step up and pay royalties. Why not? Every time I ship a copy of my
operating system, I pay royalties to Novell and Veritas. There will be a day of
reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done. But we're focused on the IBM
situation.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 01:21 AM EDT |
4. You may want to check previous conference calls (other than the one after Red
Hat filed suit), as they are previously mentioned by name in them.
5. http://www.computerweekly.com/Article123961.htm
SCO reiterated its claim that Linux is an unauthorised derivative of Unix and
denied that it was attempting to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end
users.
"We're confident of our claims, and we're happy to address any of the
allegations that are found in this lawsuit," said SCO spokesman Blake
Stowell.
6. http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-5060134.html
"Red Hat's lawsuit confirms what we've been saying all along--Linux
developers are either unable or unwilling to screen the code" that goes
into the Linux kernel, McBride said. "Red Hat is selling Linux that
contains verbatim and obfuscated code from Unix System 5."
...
McBride said businesses that continue using Linux without a SCO license can
expect legal action. "We're absolutely, 100 percent going to fight for
our intellectual property rights," he said. "If we don't get there
with licensing, we will have to move to enforcement actions."
...
"The reality here (is that) IBM and Red Hat have painted a Linux liability
target on the backs of their customers," he said. "Due to IBM's and
Red Hat's actions, we have no choice but to fight the battle at the end-user
level."
McBride also was unusually blunt in attacking open-source software, saying the
general public license (GPL) format that Red Hat and other Linux sellers rely on
is fundamentally flawed from a business and legal perspective.
7. SCO press release
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030804/lam110_1.html
SCO has consistently stated that our UNIX System V source code and
derivative UNIX code have been misappropriated into Linux 2.4 and 2.5
kernels. We have been showing a portion of this code since early June.
SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end
users. We have been educating end users on the risks of running an
operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX. Linux
includes source code that is a verbatim copy of UNIX and carries with it
no warranty or indemnification. SCO's claims are true and we look
forward to proving them in court[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 01:37 AM EDT |
8. Red Hat named in SCO vs IBM
9. http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-16-NDA_Story02.html
MozillaQuest Magazine: Y'all have been making statements recently to the effect
that you will show SCO-owned code in the kernel.org Linux kernel and the
GNU/Linux OS to people that y'all select and that you will do it under a Non
Disclosure Agreement (NDA), is that correct?
Blake Stowell: We have stated that we will be willing to show SCO's Unix System
V Code compared to Linux both in some distributions (including Red Hat) and in
the Linux kernel. We will do this under strict non-disclosure with interested
parties at our corporate headquarters.
10. http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5059547.html
Although McBride said in his letter that a conspiracy charge against Red Hat is
likely, SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said it won't be the priority. "We
will focus much more on the copyright claim," he said.
11.
http://www.techworld.com/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=displaynews&newsid=333
In response to Red Hat's charges, SCO reiterated its claim that Linux is an
unauthorized derivative of Unix and denied that it was attempting to spread
fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users. "We're confident of our claims,
and we're happy to address any of the allegations that are found in this
current lawsuit," said SCO spokesman Blake Stowell.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 01:42 AM EDT |
Nike vs Kasky does NOT apply.
In that case Nike executives were making comments about socially and politically
relevant topics, which they claimed lifted their speech from strictly commercial
considerations. Even Nike did not argue that false advertising should be
protected by the 1st amendment.
SCO's speech is purely commercial.
Their attempts to link their activities to RIAA type activities is specious
since RIAA showed has proof when requested that the IP in question was theirs.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 01:57 AM EDT |
12. http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/18_10/emergingtech/21446-1.html
The SCO Group Inc. of Lindon, Utah, claims the 2.4 and 2.5 versions of the Linux
kernel is embedded with code on which SCO holds intellectual property rights.
"We believe it is necessary for Linux customers to properly license SCO's
[intellectual property] if they are running Linux ... for commercial
purposes," said Chris Sontag, an SCO senior vice president. Using any
Linux distribution can cause liability, regardless of vendor, the company
claimed.
13. http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/2244721
Moving quickly to put its own spin on the situation, SCO spokesman Blake Stowell
told internetnews.com late Monday, "SCO has consistently stated that our
UNIX System V source code and derivative UNIX code have been misappropriated
into Linux. We have been showing a portion of this code since early June. SCO
has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users. We have
been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an
unauthorized derivative of UNIX. Linux includes source code that is a verbatim
copy of UNIX and carries with it no warranty or indemnification. SCO's claims
are true and we look forward to proving them in court."
...
"We have identified numerous files of unlicensed UNIX System V code and
UNIX System V derivative code in the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels," said
Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource, the
intellectual property licensing division of SCO.
...
McBride called the fund "misguided" noting that SCO never intended
to enforce its copyright on end users, just vendors.
"We would suggest they increase the size of the fund dramatically,"
McBride said. "With over 2.5 million servers running infringing Linux 2.4,
the price of indemnification is measured in the billions of dollars."
14. http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/31166.html
SCO spokesperson Blake Stowell told TechNewsWorld that the software company is
asking Linux users to purchase the licenses because it knows its Unix source
code has been incorporated into Linux.
15. http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/31301.html
Despite the open-source community's growing opposition to SCO's claims and
call for licenses to use Linux, the company stood firm on its defense of its
intellectual property rights and warned again that it might take legal action
against commercial Linux users that do not purchase its license.
"SCO will remain on course to require customers to license infringing
Linux implementations as a condition of further use," a company statement
said. "This is the best and clearest course for customers to minimize
Linux problems."
...
"Our hope is that all of them will be [taking out licenses]," he
said. "I don't think that any of them want the alternative, which is
litigation."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Dick Gingras on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 02:39 AM EDT |
| Here's a link to
the Yahoo article containing SCO's response to the Red Hat suit, including
letters from SCO to Red Hat.
"Linux includes source code that is a verbatim
copy of UNIX and carries with it no warranty or indemnification."
In the
same article, from Robert Bench's letter to Red Hat's counsel, Mark
Webbink:
"At the time of your letter, we had expected the possibility of
a global resolution of SCO's intellectual property claims against all
Linux-related companies that would have likely included Red Hat."
Again
in the same article from McBride's letter to Matther Szulik, Red Hat's
CEO:
"I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than
good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in
Linux."
Seems to me that if SCO was trying to negotiate with Red
Hat over Linux' "verbatim copy of UNIX" code, then Red Hat's preemptive suit is
valid.
Something to follow up on: In the August 5th SCO
teleconference, Lee Gomez of the Wall Street Journal asked some pointed
questions on what code infringes, who the NDA signers were and what members of
the Linux community had seen SCO's examples of infringing code; all the
questions were sidetracked by Sontag, who said he would provide the answers
later. It would be interesting to find out from Gomez if he received those
answers.
---
Dick Gingras - SCO Caro Mortuum Erit! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 03:11 AM EDT |
One more thing, US supreme court did not decide Nike v Kasky (Kasky won at the
CA supreme court, Nike appealed, so even though Kasky filed the initial
complaint, at the US supreme court it was Nike v Kasky)
But the US supreme court did not decide the case, and the California decision
(holding Nike liable for commercial speech when talking/advertising about 3rd
world working conditions) stands as the highest-level decision to date.
Don't know how that translates to De fraud law or Lanham (fed law).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 07:00 AM EDT |
As one unfamiliar with US court proceedings (apart from episodes of
"Matlock" and "Ally McBeal" shown on Finnish TV :-), I
wonder will the judge now consider whether the case goes forward based only the
Red Hat complaint and SCO's response, or does Red Hat now have a change to give
the judge comments on SCO's reply?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What next? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 08:09 AM EDT
- What next? - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 08:37 AM EDT
- What next? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 12:36 PM EDT
- What next? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 09:17 AM EDT
- What next? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 11:44 AM EDT
- What next? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 04:51 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: fb on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 09:10 AM EDT |
| Until now I've been skeptical about any direct connection between SCO's
plans and Microsoft. However, given the 10Q, that skepticism is eroding.
One
thing is starting to bug me, though. Is it possible SCO hired Boies
exactly because of his former adversarial relationship with MSFT, as a
misdirection ploy, to distract attention from a covert relationship between SCO
and MSFT? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- MSFT/Boies - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 03:48 PM EDT
- MSFT/Boies - Authored by: J.F. on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 05:26 PM EDT
- MSFT/Boies/Canopy - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 07:18 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 09:28 AM EDT |
In this
open letter, Parish reiterates an open source business model he previously
proposed to Caldera under Ransom Love.
Thanks
again,
http://timransomsfeeblemind.blogspot.com[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 09:37 AM EDT |
|
no comments except to say in the article
they
will have a hard time with this if the fud attacks customers of redhat then it
is lies?
regards br3n ---
br3n [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BubbaCode on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 09:48 AM EDT |
In case this hasn't been thought of or arranged, pj or someone needs to collect
this all (pj already said she was collecting) and then actually send it off to
RedHat. We all assume they read Groklaw or have simular information, but it
can't hurt and they may need the help.
Just a thought.
BTW. God knows I and my company feel that they have threaten developers that
use Linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BigTex on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 09:59 AM EDT |
This info may be helpful to both RedHat and re: the alleged DOS
I noticed that Linux is no longer avail for download from SCO. We need to not
only collect links but make PDFs of the pages that are helpful for later use
incase the link disappears. I know we will still have the cache but nothing
like seeign the "real McCoy"
1. SCO drops Linux, warns Linux users
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0515scodrops.html
2.
July 31, 2003
Mark Webbink, Esq.
Sr. Vice President and General Counsel
RED HAT, INC.
1801 Varsity Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
VIA FACSIMILE: (919) 754-3700
Dear Mr. Webbink:
This letter is in response to yours of July 18, 2003 to Darl McBride, President
and CEO of The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO").
Before responding to your request, it is important to place your letter in
context. Your letter follows on the heels of Red Hat's S-3 filing of July 7,
2003, in which your company revised its risk disclosure statement.[1] In
addition, SCO is currently engaged in litigation with International Business
Machines Corporation ("IBM") regarding its role in the development
of the Linux operating system. At the time of your letter, we had expected the
possibility of a global resolution of SCO's intellectual property claims
against all Linux-related companies that would have likely included Red Hat.
This effort has apparently stalled, through no fault of SCO.
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=115476
3.
Interesting statement regarding DOS:
The outage prompted Netcraft to declare that SCO was again the target of a DoS
attack. However, the outage was actually due to preventative measures taken by
SCO and its hosting service to mitigate the effects of future attacks, according
to company spokesman Marc Modersitzki.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/08/26/HNscodown_1.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 10:07 AM EDT |
O.K., so a motion to dismiss is de rigueur, so it's no surprise. The torque of
the hypocrisy and weaselspeak, however, is awe inspiring. Like a figure skater
or a spoked wheel, these prevaricators are spinning so fast that you can't tell
which direction they are going in. Every delay provides more opportunity for
FUD. Also, I doubt their dream team does defense work pro bono.
Thanks
again,
http://timransomsfeeblemind.blogspot.com[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 10:09 AM EDT |
This motion plays into our hands PR-wise.
"Red Hat want the question of whether Linux includes SCO code to be
decided in court. SCO don't."
amcguinn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 10:25 AM EDT |
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/16/HNscodismiss_1.html
A spokesman for SCO said its move was simply a logical response to an
unwarranted lawsuit. "We're just denying the things that Red Hat has
claimed in its complaint," said Blake Stowell, a SCO spokesman on Monday.
"We've never publicly stated that we planned to sue Red Hat or threatened
to sue Red Hat… it's never been our intention to sue Red Hat and we
have no plans to do that."
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0916scomoves.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Alizarin on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
| Slashdot had a blurb this morning
about the same subject. Interestingly enough there was a comment by
somebody who supposedly is a real live lawyer!
Yeah I seem to post alot of
stuff here that comes from /. but I hope it just offers a different perspective.
Sometimes there are some really good comments there or interesting insights...
or even some humor [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BubbaCode on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 11:03 AM EDT |
If SCO is only going after "users" of Linux isn't RedHat also a
"end user" of Linux as well as a distributor. I feel pretty
confident that Linux is on a few desktops at RedHat :) Wouldn't being able to
USE Linux be an esential part of thier business? Isn't there an "actual
controversy" there?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
I believe Red Hat's request for declarative, also addresses the issue of
whether Red Hat's customers are infringing SCO copyrights or trade secrets.
SCO have, and continue to, threaten Red Hat's customers.
BTW also some comments on this filing at www.lamlaw.com[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: sarsen on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
PJ,
What's next for Redhat? What the next step(s) in the process. Just curious.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 12:47 PM EDT |
While they probably have filed this, it is looking to me like another media
stunt.
Copies of the filing do not seem to be available yet from the court.
Red Hat have not yet seen the filing
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3078051
CNET and others are able to quote from the filing, which suggests SCO sent a
copy to their favorite media outlets.
The filing is supposed to have happened on 15 September, and is also mentioned
in their 10-Q which was also published on 15 September. Even if the dates are
coincidental, it suggests a high degree of coordination to get the legal filing
mentioned in an also SEC filing document due on the exact same day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: skidrash on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
If we're collecting threats I recall reading a large number of threats from
Sontag.
"those 1500 companies need to talk to their lawyers."
Can a threat be any clearer, yet not be an explicit "see you in
court"?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 01:42 PM EDT |
The SCO reply is very weak. That is a good sign. If they had stonger
arguments, they would have used them.
I think this lawsuit is very bad news for SCO, because the only way they can
fight it is to prove their charges against Linux by showing the code they claim
is copied, and of course they can't do that.
Question: how soon is SCO going to have to show the code? Can they wait til the
trial, and how long would that be?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Chris Cogdon on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 02:29 PM EDT |
TSG had already filed for an extension for it's response to the RedHat suit. If
they filed for an extension just to counterclaim what they have, then they're
clearly playing the 'draw it out as long as possible' game.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 02:41 PM EDT |
| What seems funny to me is that Red Hat (and linux in general) hasn't suffered
much loss to their business. So, in their motion, SCO should have said
something like Red Hat doesn't have a case because their business has not been
injured despite our best efforts to harm them by spreading lies, half truths and
derogatory statements.
Also, what's the money for that SCO pays to Novell?
It seems that they have an interest in existing Unix ip/source/etc/whatever.
However, they don't seem to be active in pushing for SCO. Why? Is SCO trying
to find some way to make money that they don't have to fork over to
Novell?
Troy [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: skidrash on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 02:51 PM EDT |
ALSO, their attempts to wrap the RIAA flag around themselves were for the most
part a lowball attempt to say "we'll sue you".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 05:28 PM EDT |
SCOX has been much more forthcoming about plans for legal action against end
users.
If the Red Hat suit fails to meed substantive issue criteria, would it be
possible for Linux user(s) to file a similar suit for declaratory judgement?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
I lam sure this blog is invaluable in assembling the threats of litigation made
by SCO. In order to assist in the litigation, we can even help prove damages
caused by these threats.
I suggest we try and document instances when IT purchasers, be they business or
consumer, have been intimidated by SCO FUD and threats of litigation and
actually made a "safer" choice of software or delayed a decision
pending the outcome of this controversy.
Many of you work in IT and may be aware of such decisions. This could be
accumulated and projected state-nation or world wide to show the actual damage
in $$,000,000 that Linux companies are enduring. I'm sure IBM can quantify
their missing or delayed sales.
Someone out there must know of some courtworthy methodology we could use to
garner this information and give the court a good meaty dollar figure for the
damages SCO is causing.
by anonymous only because I do not have my new Groklaw password here at my
office computer, i.e. webster.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Alex on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 06:16 PM EDT |
Does Red Hat have a case that SCO's actions are hurting it.
Yes. The proof is very simple and does not require that any of SCO's
discussions of Red Hat be considered.
Let's imagine that ABC Web Hosting has an IT budget of $100,000. They expect to
spend 68,000 on hardware this year, and the rest on server software and support.
All of the money not reserved for hardware goes to supporting Red Hat on ABC's
twenty big servers.
ABC's pointy haired bosses, who don't understand the technical issues
involved, decide to pay SCO the $699 per server license because they read one of
Laura Didio's article's and got scared.
The PHB's negotiate a 10% volume discout and the money to pay SCO comes out of
the IT dept's budget. How much money does RedHat lose?
Alex[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
<B>* Answers wanted please - Please somebody explain *</B>
Sequence so far:
1. Red Hat files complaint
2. SCO requests extra time to respond
3. When response due, SCO files motion to dismiss
Questions:
(a) Did SCO also file a response at same time as motion to dismiss - or is
motion to dismiss their *entire* response?
(b) If SCO's motion to dismiss is denied, will SCO get another chance to
respond to Red Hat (or SCO already have one filed)?
(c) If SCO's motion to dismiess is denied, and SCO get another chance to
respond to Red Hat - have they just bought themselves another delay?
In other words, I realize the motion to dismiss has to be addressed first. But,
if it is denied, what happens next?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Riddle me this - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 07:29 PM EDT
- Riddle me this - Authored by: fava on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 07:53 PM EDT
- Riddle me this - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 08:11 PM EDT
- Riddle me this - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 07:46 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 07:22 PM EDT |
Someone over at Slashdot noted that Darl hasn't been selling stock himself yet,
and wondered what Darl was getting out it all. I posted this response there, and
I'm reposting it here for everyone to enjoy:
Darl gets a big fat payoff if he can deliver four straight profitable quarters.
Most of it is in stock, which means he'll have to keep up the fiasco for
another quarter or two to cash out.
At that point, I think we can expect him to leave SCO. If there is any SCO left
to leave. Maybe the final legal showdown will be Darl v. Ralph, to be filed in
late 2004 or early 2005. We all know how much Darl loves to sue his employers.
Anyway, this means the SCO v. IBM case is not likely to ever make it to court
because there's *no* motivation for Darl to go that far.
In the meantime, he'll do whatever it takes to show profit on the next two or
three 10-Q's. He'll slash personnel, support, anything, doesn't matter how it
affects SCO's long term prospects, as long as he shows profits each quarter.
He'll try to get people to pay for SCO IP in Linux licenses NOW, not after the
case is resolved in court, because he doesn't care what happens that far down
the line.
He needs the money on the books and in the 10-Q next quarter and the following
one. He's got two profitable quarters in a row, though he probably wouldn't
have made it this quarter without cutting personnel and associated costs. Two
more to go, and he's golden.
If he hasn't done it already, we can expect some *extremely* creative
accounting over the next two quarters. Or more money from MS. MS, according to
the latest 10-Q (available at SEC), has apparently purchased those
"expanded licensing options" that were mentioned in the April 30
10-Q.
Darl's biggest fear is that something will shut down SCO and/or it's FUD
machine within those next two quarters. If he sounds irrational and afraid,
well, that's because he is. He can't pull any more profits out of Germany.
Australia, Austria, and Poland are lining up to gag him in their countries. Red
Hat's trying to do the same in the U.S. Of course, none of this matters much as
long as no court decisions are reached within the next 3 quarters. Which means
delay, delay, and delay will be SCO's legal strategy going forward.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 16 2003 @ 07:36 PM EDT |
As far as I can tell, Boies has never WON a major case. He lost to Microsoft
after all in the "settlement". The whole firm is out of Miami and
is weak in the IP area.
-anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 03:27 AM EDT |
SCO/RedHat:
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3078051
Linux (general):
http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/ebusiness/story/0,2000048590,20278616,00.htm
http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-6296_11-5068103.html
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/31574.html
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/31586.html
-r :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 03:29 AM EDT |
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7145&mode=thread&order=0
-r :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 04:08 AM EDT |
This is so good, I'm going to post part of it here. The original is by M. Drew
Strieb and posted on the Linux Elitists mailing list:
http://zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/2003-September/007329.html
"A quick call indicated that indeed, SCO was ready to transfer me to a
sales rep for the licenses, and in fact, the person was extremely kind
and helpful. I had a few questions regarding my specific business needs,
and how those would be addresed in the license, which s/he was willing
to answer on the phone, or email to me after checking with the product
manager/lawyers.
Here's the kicker.
Sales reps are currently authorized to take your credit card information
and sell you a 'license' over the phone, but are apparently unable to
actually send you a copy of said license.
It seems odd that I should be able to 'sign' something over the phone
without having actually had theh opportunity to view it. If the license
itself is a grant, and not the contract, then shouldn't the terms of the
contract itself require that I at least know what I'm getting in return
for my hard-earned (sometimes) bucks?
The sales rep was very helpful, and obviously had some notes which
produced answers to many of my questions, but his phone assurances
that I was in the clear (after a license purchase, of course) cannot
be misrepresented as legal assurance. For all I know the license states
that my grant is invalid if I spend more than an hour a day watching TV,
or ever have eggs for breakfast (stupid examples to make a point)."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 04:39 AM EDT |
UPDATE: CRN Interview: SCO CEO Defends $1 Billion Lawsuit Against IBM
SCO: IBM Trying To 'Destroy' Unix To Push Its Linux Agenda
SCO Sues IBM For $1B Damages Over Unix Intellectual Property In Linux
By Paula Rooney, CRN
"McBride: We're either right or we're not. If we're wrong, we deserve
people throwing rocks at us."
Maybe this would make a good temporary addition slogan?
Groklaw: Throwing stones at Darl McBride since 2003.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 08:09 AM EDT |
Given that SCO has said "there is no controversy", couldn't RedHat
just respond "well, if SCO says there is no controversy, surely they
can't object to a court order that says "no controversial claims"
".
Given that RedHat's primary business is selling linux, that means SCO is now
barred from making public claims about linux :-)
Wouldn't it be nice if the judge agreed :-)
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 09:34 AM EDT |
Stowell - our IP in Linux, but we have no argument with Red Hat
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Sep/09172003/business/93136.asp
"We really view Red Hat's suit as being unnecessary," SCO spokesman
Blake Stowell said Tuesday. "Our only argument is with IBM; we have no
argument with Red Hat, no contracts with them, and we have not made legal
threats against them.
"We have only said that we want to protect our intellectual property
and that our intellectual property was making its way into Linux," he
added.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 12:07 PM EDT |
http://www.harktheherald.com/article.php?sid=95051&mode=thread&order=0
SCO, which said it never threatened to sue Red Hat, says Red Hat's real motive
for suing is to protect the free, but allegedly improper, distribution of Linux
operating systems that contains SCO-controlled source codes.
...
That's because Red Hat, unlike IBM, has "never had any license from SCO
providing access to SCO's trade secrets or other confidential information, and
to SCO's knowledge, has not stolen or misappropriated any of SCO's trade
secrets or other confidential information," SCO said.
...
SCO said Red Hat's fears were premature because any further action by SCO would
depend largely on the outcome of its lawsuit with IBM.
"We've had issues with Linux, but never attacked Red Hat," said SCO
spokesman Blake Stowell. "Unlike commercial end-users, Red Hat is a Linux
distributor and therefore won't have to pay license fees."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 01:28 PM EDT |
(From an Amway vs Proctor anf Gample decision)
A four-factor test applies to determine whether representations constitute
commercial advertising or promotion:
(1) the representations must be "commercial speech";
(2) they must be made by a defendant who is in commercial competition with the
plaintiff;
(3) they must be made for the purpose of influencing customers to buy
defendant's goods or services; and
(4) they must be disseminated sufficiently to the relevant purchasing public to
constitute "advertising" or "promotion" within that
industry.
The Supreme Court has defined "commercial speech" as speech that
proposes a commercial transaction. Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S.
60, 66, 103 S. Ct. 2875, 2880, 77 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1982).
**********
So ... which of SCO's communicaitons propose a commercial transaction? Perhaps
the letters advising companies to license SCO products would count. Publishing
the "buy now or face legal consequences about Linux" on the web
page, accompanied by a barrage of press releases, could count as commercial
speech. They are CERTAINLY proposing a transaction - that of passing your money
to them in exchange for a nebulous license - and in the process saying that
Linux is tainted with their nebulously defined "IP". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: skidrash on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 03:11 PM EDT |
Yes and this too is invalid.
IBM has the copyrights to all those things.
RH is using them legally, with permission from the copyright holder. SCO can't
sue RH for that, whether IBM broke contracts or not.
If IBM broke a contract with SCO RH is neither responsible or liable, and no
decision against IBM can be relevant to RH. (AFAICT).
What possible relation could an IBM contractual violation have to filing suit
against RH? There's no such thing as "IP violation". There are
contract violations (this covers trade secrets), copyright violations and patent
violations
"the IBM suit addresses these issues" is complete misdirection.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: amcguinn on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 04:51 PM EDT |
| Blake Stowell, Quoted by Demir
Barlas of Line56 on September 10
"The code we claim is ours will have to
be taken out and Linux would roll back to the 2.2 version of 2000, or Linux
customers and companies will have to pay us a licensing fee."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BigTex on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 06:02 PM EDT |
To a Layman this sounds like a brilliant strategy. SCO's position is that RH
cannot sue because they are not being accused of anything. Therefore until the
IBM case is heard/settled the code stays hidden and the FUD continues. By saying
RH is just an innocent victim they have taken the position that only IBM is
guilty and then SCO doesn't have to show their code before they have too in the
IBM case...months away.
Not bad!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
SCO's web site currently contains statements that suggest Linux, including by
implication Red Hat products, infringe on SCO's rights. I think this pertains
to the lack of controversy argument that SCO is trying in Delaware.
http://www.sco.com/scosource/description.html
This new SCO license is a binary, right to use SCO Intellectual Property in a
distribution of Linux. It is applies to commercial uses of a Linux operating
system that contains a 2.4 or later version of the kernel, and cures the IP
infringement issue for binary use only. Customers who purchase this license are
held harmless by SCO for past infringements, as well as the on-going use of the
infringing code.
...
The license does not grant any rights to use SCO IP in source format, nor does
it grant any distribution rights. It is therefore inadequate to cure
infringements for distributors, or any entity that uses, modifies or distributes
Linux source code.
Since the license pertains to SCO IP that the end user already received in the
unauthorized Linux distribution, the SCO license doesn’t include a
media kit.
http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicensefaq.html
Since the license is needed only by commercial users of a Linux 2.4 kernel and
later version, does that imply that non-commercial users and earlier versions of
the Linux kernels are non-infringing?
Major portions of UNIX® System V and derivative works began appearing in version
2.4 of the kernel. Prior versions of the kernel are largely unaffected. All
distributions of Linux 2.4 and later versions of the kernel contain major
infringments, regardless of whether Linux is being used in a commercial or
non-commercial environment. At this time, SCO is focusing on the commercial uses
only.
...
Why doesn’t SCO offer an IP License for Linux to the Linux
distribution companies so that they can bundle SCO IP with their Linux
distribution?
The SCO compliance program is an end-user program for the right to use SCO IP in
binary format. The IP License for Linux does not grant distribution rights, nor
does it grant any rights associated with source code. SCO doesn’t
offer a license to cure the infringement on the part of the Linux distributor
because SCO’s source license agreement directly conflicts with the
GPL.
http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html
Many customers are concerned about using Linux since they have become aware of
the allegations that Linux is an unauthorized derivative work of the UNIX®
operating system. These customers unknowingly received illegal copies of SCO
property and many are running critical business applications on Linux. Some
customers have asked their Linux distributors to indemnify them against
intellectual property infringement claims in Linux. The Linux distributors are
unable to do so because of the terms and conditions in the General Public
License (GPL).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 07:40 PM EDT |
SCO's web site currently contains statements that suggest Linux, including by
implication Red Hat products, infringe on SCO's rights. I think this pertains
to the lack of controversy argument that SCO is trying in Delaware.
http://www.sco.com/scosource/description.html
This new SCO license is a binary, right to use SCO Intellectual Property in a
distribution of Linux. It is applies to commercial uses of a Linux operating
system that contains a 2.4 or later version of the kernel, and cures the IP
infringement issue for binary use only. Customers who purchase this license are
held harmless by SCO for past infringements, as well as the on-going use of the
infringing code.
...
The license does not grant any rights to use SCO IP in source format, nor does
it grant any distribution rights. It is therefore inadequate to cure
infringements for distributors, or any entity that uses, modifies or distributes
Linux source code.
Since the license pertains to SCO IP that the end user already received in the
unauthorized Linux distribution, the SCO license doesn’t include a
media kit.
http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicensefaq.html
Since the license is needed only by commercial users of a Linux 2.4 kernel and
later version, does that imply that non-commercial users and earlier versions of
the Linux kernels are non-infringing?
Major portions of UNIX® System V and derivative works began appearing in version
2.4 of the kernel. Prior versions of the kernel are largely unaffected. All
distributions of Linux 2.4 and later versions of the kernel contain major
infringments, regardless of whether Linux is being used in a commercial or
non-commercial environment. At this time, SCO is focusing on the commercial uses
only.
...
Why doesn’t SCO offer an IP License for Linux to the Linux
distribution companies so that they can bundle SCO IP with their Linux
distribution?
The SCO compliance program is an end-user program for the right to use SCO IP in
binary format. The IP License for Linux does not grant distribution rights, nor
does it grant any rights associated with source code. SCO doesn’t
offer a license to cure the infringement on the part of the Linux distributor
because SCO’s source license agreement directly conflicts with the
GPL.
http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html
Many customers are concerned about using Linux since they have become aware of
the allegations that Linux is an unauthorized derivative work of the UNIX®
operating system. These customers unknowingly received illegal copies of SCO
property and many are running critical business applications on Linux. Some
customers have asked their Linux distributors to indemnify them against
intellectual property infringement claims in Linux. The Linux distributors are
unable to do so because of the terms and conditions in the General Public
License (GPL).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 10:08 AM EDT |
1. Another threat against RH. RH case not covered by IBM according to SCO.
http://www.vnunet.com/Analysis/1140828
My understanding is that SuSE says it is protected from anything you are
claiming. Have you got a comment on this as you are part of the UnitedLinux
consortium?
I have reviewed the agreements we have with SuSE. I would not characterise them
in any form whatsoever as providing SuSE with any rights to our Unix
intellectual property. They are dead wrong on that issue.
What you are saying then is: if there is Unix code put into Linux by IBM, and
SuSE is using Linux, they would therefore be liable by default?
Yes.
Would that also be true of Red Hat?
The same issue in terms of inappropriate intellectual property in Linux being
distributed by any commercial distribution would provide them with the same
issue. So Red Hat, SuSE or any other commercial distribution would have equal
liability.
2. http://www.vnunet.com/News/1142810
Red Hat maintained that it is especially concerned about the impact of SCO's
claims on many of its customers.
SCO has already sent letters to 1,500 large companies using Linux warning them
that they may be held liable for using any version of Linux that contains SCO
code.
"SCO has brought our customers into this process. It is threatening them
with extortion from unfounded and baseless claims and we had to step forward on
their behalf to establish the truth," said Szulik.
For its part, SCO has reiterated that its claims are true, that it looks forward
to proving them in court and may now file additional lawsuits.
3. I think there are some Stowell quotes where he says the
end-users/invoices/SCO-IP licenses are independent of the result of the IBM
case, and even SCO would pursue this even if SCO lose the IBM case.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
