decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Analyst Forrester Changes its Policies -- Will the Media Follow?
Monday, October 06 2003 @ 09:35 PM EDT

Forrester Research has decided a change of policy is in order, after Microsoft funded a comparison study between the cost of developing certain applications on Linux and Java to a Microsoft-based approach and then used the results to say total cost of ownership was higher with Linux. The policy change was announced in a letter written by CEO George Colony and posted to its web site. They won't allow comparison studies like this to be used publicly any more. IDG gives some details:

"The survey was widely seen as a blanket statement about the cost of ownership of the platforms, rather than a more qualified statement about their relative costs for running certain types of applications, according to Forrester analyst John Rymer, the author of the report.

"'There was a huge outcry about the Microsoft study,' said Rymer, who blamed the way the media covered the report for much of the criticism. "Microsoft cheaper than Linux:" That was the basic headline. There were a dozen variations on that. Obviously, if you read the report, the conclusions in the report are much more qualified than that,' he said.

"In addition to Microsoft having funded the study, critics also took exception to the small sample size (12 companies) that Forrester's results were based on, as well as the study's methodology."

Ah, the sweet smell of FUD going splat. It seems Microsoft was using the study to sell reporters, and a lot of the media just chewed and swallowed. But when their headlines were read by more careful and knowledgeable folks -- that would be us -- the outcry followed. Here's what Microsoft was doing, and as you read it, file it under "This is how FUD is done" so we can react appropriately every time FUD lifts its ugly head from the mud:

"In Microsoft's case, the study was offered as the latest data point in the company's 'fact-based' campaign against Linux, an initiative promoted by Microsoft's general manager of platform strategy, Martin Taylor.

"'Martin Taylor went out and visited with a bunch of reporters, and he was referring to the study and using it to advance his case that Linux doesn't have a lot of advantages,' said Rymer. 'George (Colony) was uncomfortable with this'."

As are we all, friend, as are we all.

FUD only works if you let it. That "outcry" is us at our best. And as you see, FUD can never stand the light of day, so all we have to do is shine the light in the nicest way possible, and FUD wilts and dies. Now, as for the media, let's just keep educating them in a pleasant way, and the analysts too. Microsoft's entire business is built on the proposition that they know more than the rest of us do about tech, and with FUD, they try to capitalize on a lack of accurate information. Maybe that proposition worked when they started the business, because there weren't a lot of folks who understood computers, which gave rise to Clippy and other obnoxious MS hand-holding. But a lot of us are technically adept now. The world has changed.

FUD is MS holding the media's hands and handing them a pre-written story, which any reporter is glad to have, because they are always struggling to meet deadlines and sometimese having an uphill time of it understanding the issues, being usually generalists rather than specialists. PR is based on recognizing that need and filling it.

But reporters can learn, and one thing is for sure: most reporters will tell the truth if they know it and if they are sure they are on solid ground. That's what they want to do; it's a job description, after all.

Forrester is to be commended for what they have done. The beauty part is that with the internet, FUD has become just another name for shooting yourself in the foot, because the light always shines here, thanks to those of us who don't just read the news and accept it as true when we happen to know better and are willing to devote a little time to patiently and politely correcting the record.

Groklaw is, therefore, preparing a list of questions for reporters to ask SCO. We are preparing it as a public service, because we recognize that there is a need for some help with this very complex story. We also recognize that FUDsters are at work, that Microsoft is actively working on a campaign against Linux and pushing their view on reporters as if it were "fact-based", and we intend to present clarifying information on Groklaw to counter the FUD.

The list of proposed questions for journalists will be posted here within the week, and to you reporters who read Groklaw, welcome, and we hope our list proves useful to you. If you need anything else, just ask and we'll try to provide whatever it is you need. If MS or SCO bends your ear, you might want to give us an opportunity to fill you in with The Rest of the Story.




  


Analyst Forrester Changes its Policies -- Will the Media Follow? | 120 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Here's a Question for SCO.
Authored by: Chris Cogdon on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 10:43 PM EDT
You (SCO) commented that IBM's refusal to Indemnify its customers is a sign
that your case against IBM and Linux is strong. However, when HP offered to
indemnify its Linux customers, you ALSO commented that it was a sign that your
case agaist IBM and Linux is strong.

Which is it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst Forrester Changes its Policies -- Will the Media Follow?
Authored by: pyrite on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:12 PM EDT
It's hard to know how to solve a problem if you don't know what that problem
is. I think this is a very positive thing, to have people take the
responsibility for providing accurate information to the best of their
abilities.

No one knows for sure what is going to happen with the SCO vs IBM and SGI and
Linux situation, but the more accurate information we can get, the better.

One thing I thought of was that regardless of how much developement went on
between kernel versions 2.2 and 2.4, those changes could be undone within a
fairly short period of time. So at this point, no one should really worry about
installing Linux, because if the complaining party had mitigated the
circumstances and asked for the code to be revised, that would have already
happened. So this talk of suing people for the period of time during which they
were using the alleged IP, that period of time, if it was determined that
someone were to be compensated for that period of time, that period of time is
now over.

At this point, because the infringing code allegations have not been
forthcoming, any period of time during which an organization could be found
liable would be limited to the time that it would have taken to fix the problem,
had the problem been known in the first place, and both parties would have taken
the necessary steps to solve the problem.




[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst Forrester Changes its Policies -- Will the Media Follow?
Authored by: ZeusLegion on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:15 PM EDT
"You've stated in various sources that SGI has infringed your rights by
including your code in Linux without authorization and that replacing any such
code, which you have not yet proved exists, isn't enough. Considering that you
cannot force your code on others who do not wish to use it, what exactly WOULD
be enough and, if you truly believe infringing code exists, why haven't you
filed any copyright infringement claims?"

"Isn't it true that you hope to convince the court that your code, which
you have yet to prove exists, cannot be removed so that you can force a tariff
on Linux users? Is this not the true reason you have declined to reveal which
code you allege is infringing and declined to take up the Open Source
Community's offers to remove any such code and thus stop said infringing? Is it
not true that you intend to argue that ANY code that may remotely belong to you
has caused irreparable harm and that removing it will not solve the problem but
pickpocketing Linux users with a 'cover charge' will?"



---
Z

[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst Forrester Changes its Policies -- Will the Media Follow?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:33 PM EDT
With due respect, I don't consider this FUD. FUD = Fear, Uncertainty Doubt.
Things like you might get sued for using X, or using Y might wipe all your data,
would be FUD, especially if baseless.

Poor unethical marketing? Maybe. FUD? No.

Regarding SCO questions (somebody can post the links, they have been on Groklaw
before). My questions are two parters

1. (a) Does SCO allege direct copying of code by IBM?

(b) When you showed Bill Claybrook of Aberdeen Group your examples of alleged
infringement under NDA, he was told (reported in 2 separate press reports), that
you did not have evidence of direct copying by IBM. According to these press
reports, SCO later called him, said they had "misspoken", and SCO
did have evidence of direct copying by IBM. However In September, Blake Stowell
of SCO, when discussing what would happen if SCO lost the IBM case, said SCO had
NEVER alleged direct copying by IBM.

If SCO says "yes" to (a): How do you explain your comments in
September

If SCO says "no" to (a): How do you explain calling Bill Claybrook
up, to make sure he was told SCO did have evidence of direct copying by IBM.


2. (a) In a Salt Lake Tribune report, Blake Stowell of SCO is quoted as saying
that SCO had asked for an extension in the IBM case, because IBM's patents
where not on file with the US patent office, as far as SCO could learn. Is this
correct?

(b) If SCO says "yes", we entered the 4 patent numbers in the USPTO
database, and here are the patents. They can be viewed online, or I can give you
a print out. Now what specifically do you think you are missing? Why does the
court record show different reasons for the extension?

If SCO says "no", so why did you tell Salt Lake Tribune that?


3. (a) You claim IBM's JFS, RCU, NUMA, SGI XFS, etc., as infringements based on
your interpretation of derivative works and you also say that SCO's
distribution of these items in Linux under a GPL license doesn't legally GPL
them because you weren't aware of them?

(b) If SCO says "yes", how do you explain this offical SCO press
release by Ransom Love welcoming SGI open sourcing XFS, and these 2002 marketing
brochures by SCO that tout these features as benefits of Linux


4. (a) You say the GPL is invalid and/or illegal?

(b) If SCO says "yes", then on what basis are you distributing
Samba, Skunkware, GCC, etc. which all come with a GPL license controlling
distribution by the various copyright holders?

If SCO says "no" what is your defense to IBM's copyright claims,
the other Linux copyright holders rights in Linux, and how do you explain your
past comments and press releases about the GPL.


5. I'm lazy, similar questions come up about the stock sales plan and timing,
threats to Red Hat, etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst Forrester Changes its Policies -- Will the Media Follow?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 12:24 AM EDT
Important questions for TSG:

Why did you not present any evidence in the suit brought against you by Linuxtag in Germany, instead accepting the inevitable injunction that was served against you, and as a result of failing to comply with which you were subsequently fined 10,000 Euros? If you do have evidence of, as you have previously stated, "millions of lines" of infringing code, why did you feel unable to provide just one example in support of your claims when challenged in a court of law? Surely it wouldn't have been necessary to show all of the lines of infringing code you alledge?

Why have you consistently refused to show any evidence of infringement when challenged by many separate parties (including the FSF and Red Hat) when their stated intent was to remove any infringing code you pointed out and thereby cease the harm that you claim?

At one point, you publicly stated that any revelation of specifics to back up your claim would be used to "wipe off the fingerprints" (presumably a reference to the expected removal of infringing code), and at other times publicly stated that it would be "impossible" for all the infringing code to be removed, because there is so much of it. Which is it? If it is the first, can you explain how all of the CVS archives maintained in many, many places worldwide (including at TSG and Red Hat, both presumably subject to discovery) could be expunged so as to be beyond the reach of legal discovery? And surely if the "fingerprints were wiped off" the harm to TSG alleged would cease? If it is the second reason, why has no evidence been presented publicly?

When you presented an example of what you claimed was "obfuscated Unix code in Linux" at SCO Forum, with examples side by side, did you realise at the time, before it was widely pointed out, that the code you claimed as being from "Unix" was actually (c) somebody else? If you didn't know this at the time, this suggests you don't know what is really yours, so how can we be expected to believe that you know what you were doing when you claim other examples of apparent copying? And if you did know at the time, and, as subsequently suggested "this wasn't a real example, just a demonstration of how obfuscation can be detected" why did the slides get edited before being posted on your own website, to remove the originally claimed "Unix" code and leaving only the Linux code fragment?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where does it end?
Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 12:33 AM EDT
In an interview published on C|net, SCO CEO Darl McBride made the statement,
"...AIX, which is our licensed version of Unix..." in describing
IBM's AIX product. This statement implies that SCO considers AIX to be a
derivative work of System V in its entirety. Does SCO consider all licensed
derivatives of System V such as AIX, Irix, HP-UX, etc. to be SCO intellectual
property regardless of which company developed specific features? Does this
assertion of intellectual property rights extend to other Unix-like operating
systems such as Linux and the various BSD operating systems? If the assertion
of copyright ownership does not extend to these works in their entirety, what
specific, objective criteria can be used to determine which parts are to be
considered SCO intellectual property and which are not?

---
Quietly implementing RFC 1925 wherever I go.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst Forrester Changes its Policies -- Will the Media Follow?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 12:34 AM EDT
Recently Laura DiDio commented that you were aware of
infringing SGI code, and were planning to litigate it,
since a year ago. Does that mean that you set up your
executive stock-selling plans with full knowledge of the
coming lawsuits, or is Ms Didio not telling the truth?

Which of you is the liar?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst Forrester Changes its Policies -- Will the Media Follow?
Authored by: fava on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 12:40 AM EDT
You (SCO) are always talking abour your IP being in Linux.
IP is a meaningless term by itself, can you clarify if you
are talking about copyright, patents, trademarks or trade
secrets?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst Forrester Changes its Policies -- Will the Media Follow?
Authored by: rand on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 12:56 AM EDT
"'There was a huge outcry about the Microsoft study,' said
Rymer..."

Anyone else suspect that the policy might not have been changed otherwise?
"Yeah, we're doin' the right thing now; them complaints was way off-base
but we see th' light anyway."


---
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly...they were the first to LAND.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst Forrester Changes its Policies -- Will the Media Follow?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 01:03 AM EDT
This SCO press kit questionnaire is brilliant and exciting.

It is handing over to even the laziest journalist a gi-normous elephant gun to
take with them to their next encounter with the SCO hyenas (apologies to
elephants and hyenas everywhere).

One thing reporters love is to rip the bad guys a new $$$hole -- like a
gladiator taking down his foe while the crowd chants for blood. For this to
happen, first they must identify who's the perceived bad guy (the tide has
turned now, thankfully), then they need the sharp cutting tools required for the
slice 'n dice. Groklaw already provided the first tool (reply to Darl) and is
about to provide the final one. And it's a doozy.

McBride must be worried now. That Groklaw thing looked pretty harmless to start
with, eh, Darl?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another theory on questions
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 01:16 AM EDT
If you ask a tough question, SCO will respond with contradiction, broken logic,
etc. Yes, these can be damaging in the long run. You might also shut the
journalist out of SCO's comments in future.

Fun, but I think there's a more useful approach.

Remember how many SCO comments get used in court filings?

ENCOURAGE SCO TO SPEAK THEIR MIND

1. Does Red Hat infringe on SCO's IP?

2. If yes, is it a copyright, trade secret or patent infringement?

3. If yes, what do you think Red Hat need to do to resolve this issue?

4. You say SGI's IRIX license may be terminated on October 14. Will it?

5. What do SGI need to avoid having their license terminated?

6. What should SGI do once their license is terminated?

7. Blake Stowell said SCO is looking at, and I quote, "enforcement
options", regarding SGI. What do you have in mind?

8. If you terminate SGI's IRIX license, and they keep selling IRIX, what will
you do?

9. Microsoft Windows includes some tools such as Telnet, FTP etc., that were
originally developed on UNIX. Are these derivative works? Does Microsoft's
license cover these? What do Microsoft need to do to come into compliance?

10. Apple includes a UNIX-like Kernel. Does SCO have claims against these? What
do Apple need to do to come into compliance?

11. The SGI fragment that you claim infringes, and which SGI have submitted a
patch to remove, was approved for the Linux kernel by HP. Are HP liable? Is
this, or are there are other, violations by HP? What will SCO do to enforce this
claim against HP?

12. In your May letter you said there may be infringement issues with Linux.
What do Linux users need to do to come into compliance?

13. Safeway's CIO is quoted as saying SCO can "stick it", as
regards purchasing a SCO Linux IP license. That would make Safeway infringe in
your view, right? What you going to do about Safeway if they continue to
infringe?

14. Google who have a 10,000 machine Linux cluser, and from recent comments
indicated they aren't planning to purchase SCO Linux IP licenses. THat would
make Google infringe in your view, right? What are you going to do about Google
if they continue to infringe?

15. You say you said you jhave terminated IBM's AIX and Dynix licenses, and
that customers are using these without a valid legal basis. What do you think
that these customers have do to come into compliance with a legal basis? What if
they keep using AIX and/or Dynix, what are you going to do about this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst Forrester Changes its Policies -- Will the Media Follow?
Authored by: Alex on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 02:37 AM EDT

How can you claim that revealing the infringing code will result in code being
cleansed before a judge can see it when the Linux source code has been released
on millions of Linux install CDs?


Alex

[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst Forrester Changes its Policies -- Will the Media Follow?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 03:12 AM EDT
I think Ms. Didio is getting upset with SCO for some reason, delayed pay check?

"In order for SCO to thrive, they've got to sell a product," she said, referring to SCO's current focus on its IP. "Certain organizations may not want to do business with them because they caused a conundrum here that the industry probably didn't need."

TechNewsWorld.com< br>

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sco questions?
Authored by: kbwojo on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 03:49 AM EDT
Blake did you made the following statement about your request for a four month
delay in the IBM case?

SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said Tuesday that he understood the extension is
being sought "for the purpose of gaining documents from IBM related to the
patents they claim. . . . Some of the patents aren't even filed with the U.S.
Patent Office, as far as we can learn."

link to article were statement was made
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/oct/10012003/business/97397.asp

So you did delay your case because of this?

Did you know that If anyone went to the US Goverment Patent and Trademark web
site these patents and all relevent information about them can be found in 5
minutes?

Do you expect us to believe that a tech savvy company such as yourself could not
find the same information?

Just to set your mind at ease here is how easy it is.

Just go to the Patent and Trademark website http://www.uspto.gov/
Just click on the nice link that says "search" located beneath the
word "Patent".
Now all you have to do is click on the nice little link "Patent Number
Search".
Now all you do is type in the following Patent Numbers from IBMs' complaint and
hit "Search".

4,814,746
4,821,211
4,953,209
5,805,785

Tada, you now have the information that you want in five minutes. I would hope
you noticed that they have filed all patents with the U.S. Patent Office. See I
just saved a four month delay on the case.

Thanks to Anonymous reader at newsforge for providing the information that
created these questions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interesting "open letter" from former Novellite
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 04:41 AM EDT

Well-heeled opponents of open-source software allege that it is incapable of yielding the quality, innovation, integration and completeness of proprietary software. To see through this utter nonsense, one needs only to imagine the world we would inherit today if the disciplines of physics, chemistry and biology would have been governed by proprietary interests. It is a gross understatement to conjecture that science today would be defective, primitive, chaotic and full of intellectual black holes if insights had been governed as private property for the last five centuries.

The model of open science is "communistic" in the sense of community ownership--or rather community stewardship. But innumerable highly successful organizations and institutions in America are founded upon the ideal of community stewardship--including our democracy itself.

http://news.com.com/2010-7344- 5083904.html

Clifton Hyatt

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anyone post this one yet?
Authored by: tleps on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 05:45 AM EDT
Just saw this:
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/22431.html

"SCO Group, which holds the patent rights to much of the Unix code"

Another slightly confused writer... but most of the story is O.K.

Thomas

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Question For SCO
Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 07:08 AM EDT
ok if we owe you for using 'your alledged code'
what do you (sco) owe the linux developers for the use of their code you have
profited from many years of using?
br3n

---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

Articles like this make me think
Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 08:31 AM EDT
http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,3959,1309203,00.asp
i know it is old news but it bears repeating
br3n

---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Windows only PC's?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 08:42 AM EDT
Sorry for the OT here especially if it's already been dealt with, but in case
it's not yet been pointed out: If this becomes standard practice, it could make
it exceedingly difficult for us to run GNU/Linux in future. (BIOS/Windows
integration). Perhaps this deserves to be made known here PJ? Thanks.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5086853.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Questions I posted several weeks ago...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 08:57 AM EDT
Here is a copy of an email message I sent to Mr. Tom
Weiss, one of the many reporters to interview McBride
during all of this. I think the questions are still good:

Mr. Weiss,

Thank you very much for your article, "Q&A: SCO's McBride
on his open letter to the Linux Community."

I was disappointed that you did not ask Mr. McBride
questions regarding removing SCO's code from Linux. The
open source community has made it very clear that nobody
wants SCO's intellectual property in Linux. This has been
stated repeatedly in posts, articles, and open letters to
SCO and Mr. McBride: identify by file and line number the
code that is in question and it will be removed.

Please ask Mr. McBride the following questions on my
behalf and on behalf of the whole open source community:

1. If the Linux community has agreed to remove any SCO
intellectual property from Linux, why hasn't SCO taken
advantage of the opportunity by providing file names and
line numbers to the Linux development community?

2. Since all of the Linux source code is openly available
for public viewing, why is it necessary to require a
Non-disclosure Agreement before identifying any infringing
code?

3. Can SCO survive as a viable company if a
non-infringing version of the Linux kernel were released
-- a kernel that doesn't infringe on SCO's intellectual
property? Does SCO need Linux intellectual property
revenues to continue doing business?

4. In your open letter to the open source community you
refer to the fact that Linux is considered "free"
software. Members of the open source community use this
term with regards to their rights to innovate and
cooperate on software projects. Is it inconceivable to
you that quality, enterprise software could be developed
under those circumstances, especially when the community
is millions strong and has been working on Linux for over
ten years?

5. Companies like IBM and HP are reporting that they have
built a solid business model around open source software.
Why did Caldera (now SCO) fail to do the same?

6. Considering the role Caldera (now SCO) played in Linux
development between 1999 and 2002, is it possible that SCO
has overlooked its own contributions to the Linux kernel
as it alleges infringement by others? Certainly there are
plenty of examples of former Caldera/SCO executives
touting plans to merge UNIX into Linux?

7. SCO has claimed ownership of intellectual property in
the Linux kernel, but that ownership has certainly been
called into question by IBM, Novell, and members of the
open source community, among others. Based on your
understanding of "playing by the rules" of business, as
you addressed in your open letter, how is sending out
invoices to companies and businesses who have not bought
anything from SCO "playing by the rules?"

8. When SCO was ordered by a German court to either show
evidence of infringement in the Linux kernel or pay a
fine, why did SCO decide to pay the fine? Wouldn't
showing some of the infringing code have bolstered your
case, not to mention saving your company over $10,000?

9. You certainly don't have a policy of not commenting on
pending litigation, so what will SCO's response be to
claims that SCO's products infringe on four of IBM's
patents? Will you be removing the offending code from
your products or are you considering honoring IBM's
intellectual property?

10. If RedHat wins a declaratory judgement that its
products do not infringe on SCO's intellectual property,
will you still continue to pursue licensing fees from
RedHat's customers? They're still using the Linux 2.4
kernel, right?

Again, Mr. Weiss, thank you very much for your time and
thank you for your hard work covering this turbulent
industry.

Best Regards,

Israel J. Pattison

[ Reply to This | # ]

Are your lawyers competent?
Authored by: ChrisB on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 09:15 AM EDT
No, wait; that's not the question I wanted!

A little build-up first: Your amended complaint against IBM cites the 1985 side letter between AT&T (the original UNIX owner) and IBM in two places. In paragraph 112 of the complaint, you cite paragraph 9 of the side letter to show the confidentiality that IBM had agreed to; in paragraph 118 of the complaint you cite paragraph 5 of the side letter to attempt to show you have the right to terminate the UNIX agreement IBM's AIX product is based on. So you, SCO, are obviously aware of this side letter and agree that it modifies the software agreement.

Paragraph 2 of the side letter reads, "...we [AT&T] agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you [IBM] are owned by you. However, ownership of any portion or portions or SOFTWARE PRODUCT [UNIX] included in any such modification or derivative work remains with us." Paragraph 9 of the side letter (which you explicitly cite in your complaint) also says that IBM is permitted "...developing or marketing products or services employing ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques relating to data processing embodied in [UNIX]..."

So, if JFS, RCU, etc. are not derivative works, IBM owns them and can contribute them to Linux if they desire. If JFS, RCU, etc. are deriviative works, then since IBM wrote them the side letter (which SCO knows about) says that they own them even if they contain UNIX know-how and techniques, and therefore IBM can contribute them to Linux if they so desire.

So the question: Given these sections of the side letter SCO included as Exhibit C in the Amended complaint, which sections you did not cite in your complaint, how is the SCO v. IBM lawsuit not totally frivolous, especially causes of action 1, 2, 4 and 6?

(References: SCO Amended Complaint, http://www.sco. com/ibmlawsuit/amendedcomplaintjune16.html;
SCO Amended Complaint "Exhibit C" - 1985 side letter, http://www.sco.com/scosourc e/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf)

Chris

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unix spec question
Authored by: fb on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 09:35 AM EDT
According to the Open Group, the definition of Unix is held by them and is set out in the Single Unix Specification.

Is it your view that any system conforming to that spec infringes on your intellectual property? How is that view affected by the fact that the Unix trademark and specification are owned by the Open Group?

In your view, what does it mean that Linux does not conform to the Single Unix spec?

[ Reply to This | # ]

M$ IE to change
Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 09:40 AM EDT
http://tinyurl.com/q0nw


---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

Read Carefully
Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 10:15 AM EDT
http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31771.html%5C
no comment from me

---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

What happens next in Red Hat?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 11:23 AM EDT
If the judge denies SCO's motion to dismiss the Red Hat case, what happens next
there? Would SCO get another chance to file a defense on the specifc allegations
in RH's complaint?

p.S.
Assuming the SCO's motion is denied, I guess SCO's PR might be something like
"The Delaware court in the litigation between SCO and Red Hat, has denied
a motion to dismiss, and ruled that there is an actual controversy, that needs
to be addressed in court, over SCO's allegations that Red Hat's products
infringe SCO's IP. Darl McBride, CEO of SCO, said 'We are very pleased with
this decision. As the court has ruled that there is indeed in a case to answer,
we are now able to, and look forward to the next stage of the case, where we
intend to prove that SCO's allegations are true.'"

[ Reply to This | # ]

HP is sponsoring the road show
Authored by: mdchaney on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 11:39 AM EDT
I just called Blake Stowell at SCO and asked if HP was sponsoring the road show.
He said that they definitely were. I asked why their name wasn't on the web
site. His response was that they had asked to have it removed from the web site,
but they were definitely still a sponsor.

HP just lost a laptop sale.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here's a couple:
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 11:53 AM EDT
Given your claims that the Linux kernel contains over 800,000 lines of SCO-owned
code, and the fact that this code is already open to the public, could you
possibly show a few hundred lines of code to the Linux community without any
sort of NDA?

Why does your NDA disallow people examining the code from writing anything down,
effectively preventing them from independantly verifying the truth of your
claims?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst Forrester ChanDid SCO reply to Groklaw's Open Letter to SCO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 12:20 PM EDT
Did SCO reply to the Open Letter from Groklaw to SCO? If so, where is it? If
not, why not?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst Forrester Changes its Policies -- Will the Media Follow? - blacklight
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 01:56 PM EDT
The Forrester Group needs to look out for its own credibility, because nobody
else is going to do it for them. There are few things that are more devastating
to analyst firms than a total loss of credibility.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst Forrester Changes its Policies -- Will the Media Follow?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 03:10 PM EDT
There's a few questions I'd like to see asked. Of course, I know the real
answers, but it would be interesting to see the SCOed versions.

Assuming all of your allegations regarding Linux are upheld, the GPL is declared
invalid, and SCO becomes the only legal distributor of Linux (which appears to
be your current goal):

(a) What are SCO's plans for further Linux development? Does SCO have a
development team capable of providing future upgrades to the Linux kernel in a
timely manner?

(b) What does SCO plan to do to compensate the kernel delelopers whose work
SCO will effectively have appropriated? Is SCO prepared to defend itself
against potential copyright infringement suits brought against it by kernel
contributors?

(c) The Linux kernel currently contains patented code that is freely
licensed under the terms of the GPL. Without the GPL, how does SCO plan to
legally distribute the Linux kernel? Will licensing the appropriate patents
increase the cost to purchase Linux from SCO? What will be done in the event
that a patent holder refuses to grant a license to SCO?

(d) Will SCO indemnify their customers from potential copyright and patent
infringement claims in the event that they arise?

(e) SCO has made comments in the press about merging the Open Source
development model with proprietary code. How exactly is this supposed to work
if potential developers are only given a binary-only use license? Who will
retain ownership over derived works? Why does SCO think that they will be able
to attract developers without the protection of the GPL? What safeguards will
SCO have in place to make sure that developers contribute untainted code?

(f) Linux is really just a kernel, not a complete operating system. Does
SCO plan to annex other GPLed projects? If SCO's control of the Linux kernel
marginalizes it, and another kernel, such as GNU/Herd takes it's place how will
SCO maintain any kind of revenue stream? Will the current litigation only be a
stopgap solution to SCO's financial problems? With Linux out of the way, will
Microsoft continue to license SCO's intellectual property?

etc. etc. Basically, even if SCO gets everything they want, they and their
investors are left with nothing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst Forrester Changes its Policies -- Will the Media Follow?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 03:34 PM EDT
Since we're bashing MS today (and yes, they certainly do need bashed) I will
point everyone to an hilarious article that I found:
http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=thirdpartycodecau1060857133&area
=news

The article is titled "Third-party code causes half of Windows crashes,
says Microsoft "

Billy's boy, Microsoft’s chief security strategist, Scott Charney, sez
"Microsoft code is not to blame for half of all crashes in the Windows
operating system."

Sounds like a serious condemnation of Windows architecture to me- what systems
programmers are going to slap together an OS that allows its applications to
crash out the system whenever they want? This is why I use Linux and BSD- they
are far more robust than Windows. And no dopey security expert has to make
excuses for them failing all of the time, because they don't fail all of the
time.

I hear MS uses Linux on several of its own critical web servers, because its own
crappy OSs are not up to the job. No wonder.....

But let's be fair here- should we blame MS Windows for crashing it when it's
that pesky 3rd party applications code that causes so many of the
crashes?<G>. Gates and Co. comes up with some great excuses- in
elementary school, Billy must have told his teachers some real whoppers about
why he didn't bring his homework in.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst Forrester Changes its Policies -- Will the Media Follow?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 08:17 PM EDT
Copied from the yahoo scox board ...

In May '99, when SGI contributed XFS to Linux, this is what Ransom Love,
then-CEO of Caldera, said:

"This is terrific news and we're happy to have SGI as part of the open
source family," said Ransom Love, president and CEO of Caldera Systems,
Inc. "There's a great need in Linux for business to have that
enterprise-class file technology and storage capability. Daily, we have
enterprise customers asking for these solutions - particularly where graphics
are concerned. With SGI's contribution and expertise in journaling, throughput
and data integrity, we can meet the file sharing/storage needs of those
customers with the best technology available. That SGI would make this
contribution to the open source community says a lot about their vision and
business acumen."

( h++p://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-05-20-029-05-PR )

Caldera becomes SCO & ditches Linux for Unix, and, all of a sudden, XFS
becomes a 'derivative work' and an illegal contribution.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Old Question remembered thanks to the Road Show
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 10:35 PM EDT
Remember all those horrible misquotes attributed to RMS, Linux, ESR, and other
Linux or Free Software personalities? How about we ask some questions about
what their sources were, if they believe in accurate reporting, and why the
quotes were never corrected. In fact, according to this site:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/dcarpeneto/sco.html

"At least to me. Turns out SCO is broadcasting these from their SCO source
pages, however I had not seen these up to
this point."

Apparently they have added IBM FUD as well.

Should be gold for anyone wanting some hard questions.

While I'm here, I might as well point out some of the more humorous sections of
that story:

"I now know how retro SCOs OSes are. Riotous, riotous stuff. How they had
the ya-yas to declare Linux an infant
OS in need of their IP is beyond me. Upcoming features? PAM. files larger than 2
gigs. NFS over TCP. The 80's called, they want their features back."

*snicker*

[ Reply to This | # ]

Analyst Forrester Changes its Policies -- Will the Media Follow?
Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 10:41 PM EDT
Question for journos re SCOX stock price...

Mr McBride/Stowell/etc., short interest in your stock has almost doubled between
August and September, and has now reached a figure that can only be described as
feverish and spectacular. Given that short interest is an indication that
investors expect a stock price to fall instead of climb, isn't this a sign that
investors have no confidence that SCO will prevail in court?

(1) Settlement Date
(2) Short Interest
(3) Avg Daily Share Volume
(4) Days to Cover

(1).....(2).....(3).....(4)
Sep. 15, 2003.....894,777.....327,845.....2.73
Aug. 15, 2003.....458,520.....267,924.....1.71
Jul. 15, 2003.....391,346.....204,006.....1.92
Jun. 13, 2003.....276,810.....686,127.....1.00
May 15, 2003.....33,397.....54,870.....1.00
Apr. 15, 2003.....37,437.....55,726.....1.00
Mar. 14, 2003 .....84,150.....114,525.....1.00
Feb. 14, 2003 .....35,651.....17,187.....2.07
Jan. 15, 2003 .....35,966.....14,710.....2.45
Dec. 13, 2002 .....38,677.....14,671.....2.64
Nov. 15, 2002 .....40,114.....9,370.....4.28
Oct. 15, 2002 .....40,458.....12,212.....3.31

source: Nasdaq, http://tinyurl.com/m4w8

[ Reply to This | # ]

Qs about invoices
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 12:28 AM EDT

Why are you yet to send invoices for binary licences of SCO technologies to the 1500 known Linux users?

A reason recently given by SCO was that there has been "sufficient uptake of licenses". How many licencees make up this sufficiency?

Why should shareholders be satisfied with your willingness to gain only "sufficent" revenue?

Why have invoices not been sent in countries where there has been no uptake of licenses, such as Australia?

Is this because of interest from overseas regulatory bodies, such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission? What views do SCO anticipate from US regulatory agencies?

Does SCO have a legal exposure if it invoices holders of UNIX source code licenses from AT&T, USL or SCO? Has it already gained an exposure in sending the 1500 letters, some of which were received by source code licencees? What steps are SCO taking to mitigate this risk, such as apolgising to companies which were mistakenly sent the letter.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic. New Ransom Love Quotes on Putting Unix IP into Linux
Authored by: Alex on Wednesday, October 08 2003 @ 12:41 AM EDT
This is a little off-topic, but here's another Ransom Love quote on adding
stuff that came from Unix to Linux:

"The concept is, on the components that we cannot or choose not to -- from
a business perspective -- publish under GPL, we will publish under other types
of licenses which may give access to the source, but not necessarily under the
same terms as the GPL. So there are components of the UNIX kernel, there are
components of other things, that we might provide in a much more open fashion so
that our customers can have access to the source and make the necessary changes
that they need. So it gives them protection. The concerns that people have about
Microsoft would not be the same in our case. Now in some of the technologies the
changes would come back to Caldera because we intend to maintain them as a
benefit to the customer and a benefit to Caldera."

"Absolutely. There are things that we can and will contribute, which I
think are fairly significant. Where we want to augment Linux itself -- the
underlying infrastructure -- we will probably use the GPL license. We would
almost have to if you want to have that accepted as an integrated part of the
underlying bits and bytes. There are layers above Linux that we may provide back
in open source that may not be GPL'd. Again, it depends on what the business
objective is that our customers need -- what it is that they're wanting. Case
in point, some underlying infrastructure for Volution -- our management layer on
top -- we use the BSD license. The reason we did that is because it was at such
a level that the GPL license would force a lot of our partners who want to
develop a new set of technologies, to expose components of their infrastructure
that they consider proprietary and they weren't willing to do that. So they
would rather have a BSD license ... so we used BSD. We will use the appropriate
license with the appropriate technology, to accomplish the specific business
objectives that we have in regards to that technology."

These are from an interview here:

http://www.consultingtimes.com/LovePub.htm


Alex

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )