decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Why SCO Started All This. No. Really.
Friday, October 10 2003 @ 10:18 PM EDT

Back in June, there was a protest by Linux users at SCO headquarters, which received some coverage in the press, including here on Groklaw. I now have a transcript of the conversation between SCO CEO Darl McBride and the protesters. I've also listened to the tape to verify the accuracy of the transcript, and you can do the same if you can play .ogg files, here. There are a couple of places where the sound isn't clear, so I've indicated that in the transcript.

McBride talks about a number of issues, such as SGI, whether SCO intended to sue end users or commercial only, how and when they discovered the alleged "infringement", Caldera's contributions to Linux, and whether Debian is a safe version of GNU/Linux to use because of its noncommercial nature. He also tells them that SCO isn't interested in suing individual users or even small commercial users. Its beef, he says, is with the "Unix vendor community", UNIX-licensing companies switching to Linux and donating code to Linux so they don't have to pay any more royalties to SCO for Unix code, "the vendors that are getting an economic incentive to reducing the amount of royalties that they pay by virtue of taking our property and putting it into Linux, then turn around and saying it's a free system." He mentions that they were talking about 64-way systems, not home users.

He also says they found "hundreds of thousands of lines of code that are infringing against our contracts." Note the plural on contracts. He claims the increase in functionality in Linux is because of "vendors" that SCO has "confidentiality agreements" with. Again, note the plural.

A lot has changed since June, but it's clear that when this began, SCO had in mind a very small pool of targets, UNIX vendors being a small group of companies. What stands out is that I think you'll see how polite the Linux group is, how friendly the conversation was even when strong points were being made by each side, McBride praising them several times and at the end thanking them for their input and calling them "awesome". How different this reality is from the ugly portrait he has tried to paint in the media of users of GNU/Linux software allegedly "attacking" SCO. And when you hear or read it, ask yourself, how accurate were news reports of this event? But judge for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Transcript of informal group chit-chat with Darl McBride

June 20, 2003

Members of the Provo Linux Users Group (PLUG), along with other Linux and Unix group members and concerned individuals in the area held a protest against SCO on June 20, 2003. This protest began in front of SCO headquarters in the afternoon. The official PLUG protest web site, with pictures and video, can be seen at

After protesting in front of the SCO corporate offices (on a cul-de-sac), many in the group moved to a more visible location, a busy intersection nearby. A little while later, Darl McBride stopped by for an informal chit-chat with the demonstrators on his way home. Here is what was said during the 23-minute conversation.

The Cast:

Darl: SCO CEO Darl McBride

P: Protester (the collective group, with various individuals asking questions)

C: Cameraman

Pleasant Grove Police Officer: Pleasant Grove Police Officer

Darl: So, how's the day going?

P: Oh, pretty well. We had more people than we expected. We talked to some of your engineers outside, and they're really nice people.

Darl(0:11): So how did all that go?

P: Oh, really well . . .

Darl(0:16): So you guys are just convinced that we're Satanic? Is that it?

P: No, no, no.

P: Just greedy, that's all.

P: We wouldn't use those words. We would use different ones.

P: We don't say Satanic, but we don't respect what's happening.

P: Yeah, I mean, we obviously don't know what's going on 100%. And, we feel like the whole world is being kinda kept out of the loop. But we, the number one reason that we're out here is because we feel that there's a lot of FUD going around about Linux right now. Businesses are trying to be scared off to using Linux. I mean, IBM might be at fault, and if they are, they should be punished for what they did. . .

Darl: So your whole basic concern is just the whole FUD side of the issue.

P: Right. Now people aren't going to use Linux because of this IBM lawsuit, when IBM is not the one that's hurt. We're the guys who actually program this stuff in our spare time.

P: We're worried about claims being made without any proof being shown, and it's ...

P: And we don't see the legal basis for an NDA to see the supposed code you're offering ...

Darl(1:08): Well, you know that's a good one. A lot of people have been concerned about the NDA. You know, the basis for that is we have these software agreements that we have made with large vendors around the world and it basically says "We have to protect the software code," and in order to basically license this you have to sign up to say, this is confidentially protected and you won't share this with somebody else. So, if we turned around and opened this code up, like if I showed you the code, I mean, I've got it right here. . .

P: Do we want to see that, or are we at liability? No, I'm dead serious. Are we at liability if we see that? I'm not kidding.

Darl(1:50): I'm not going to show you. But, the point is we found hundreds of thousands of lines of code that are infringing against our contracts. Okay? Now we went through the process, and everybody said, wait, if this is, just show us ten lines of code. If it's really that bad, just show us ten lines of code. We don't want to wait two years. See, your point about FUD, if there's something there, we want to see it right now.

P: Well, we can fix it ...

Darl(2:15): Well, exactly.

P: So, see, with IBM, your liability claim against IBM, if that's truly what you're seeking, it doesn't matter if we fix it and take it out, you can still show that IBM put it in there.

Darl: Right, so let me just...

P: So, what's the point of ...

Darl(2:27): So the point is this. Our agreements say that it's protected. Now by us going out and this becomes unprotected. ..

P: ...and rather than just saying where in the Linux kernel itself . . .

Darl: Like if I show you this side of the page, it's okay. I mean, this is Linux. This is out and everybody can see it, okay. But if you look at the other side that I'm not going to show you right now, this actually is protected code that nobody is able to see without, you know, being under one of our protected agreements. It's not about showing the code to keep it protected. It's just that it's protected.

P: Okay.

P: So why not indicate the lines in the Linux kernel without showing us your code?

Darl(3:01): Right. Because then by definition, we have exposed the code that is protected. Does that make sense?

P: It already has been exposed.

P: That's kind of redundant.

Darl(3:10): Exactly. By us coming out and saying where it is and what it is, that's where it becomes a problem.

P: A different question along the same lines. Caldera in the past has contributed a lot to Linux.

Darl(3:21): Right. But we haven't contributed our Unix code. That's the differnce.

P: But, according to... I read something about an engineer who used to work at Caldera that said the other day that said there was code that was, that Caldera did put ...

Darl(3:32): There is code that we have agreed to put in there, and we've had (unclear), but the code that we're finding infringing is not the code that we've agreed to contribute.

P: Why instead of following the model that AT&T set for this, that is showing what lines of code that is, at least giving an opportunity to remove the code, instead of suing for 3 billion dollars? There's a big difference. Because AT&T found similar problems with BSD, and you could see their motives. They really wanted that code out of there so that they could continue with their proprietary Unix.

Now the difference with SCO being that they're not concerned about that so much as they were waiting for code to be in there, and once they found it, they said "We're not going to tell you so that. We don't want to give you an opportunity to remove it so Linux can be free of Unix and Unix can be free of Linux."

P: Trojan horse ...

P: Why, instead of showing a certain amount of greed, and saying "We will sue for $3 billion, and we won't give the Linux community an opportunity to remove that code", why aren't you giving the Linux community an opportunity to remove that code? It just seems like the only motivation behind not telling that, and giving the opportunity to remove that, would be greed.

Darl(4:48): Well, I think going back to the economic side of it, the flip side of this argument is, so SCO is a company that for twenty years had Unix on Intel. They have a twenty-year legacy of selling that type of product line. And as you go into the turn of the century, Linux had moved along, and the 2.2 version of the kernel, you know, it was doing rather nicely, you could do two or four way systems together, and that was nice.

But what's happened, from Linux 2.4 that came out, what was it, January 2001 or so, to current, there have been millions of systems shipped into the marketplace, OK? And the code increase during that period of time -- I'm sorry, the functionality increase of Linux during that point in time -- has gone up dramatically. And, with respect to scalability, and ability to get high-end enterprise scalability, and a lot of the code increase has come, and the functionality increase has come, from the vendors that we have these confidentiality agreements with.

And so the question that came up earlier, was, you know, we're all working for free on this stuff. We have no problem with all of you guys that are working on this stuff for free. The problem we have on the economic modeling side of this, is the vendors that are getting an economic incentive to reducing the amount of royalties that they pay by virtue of taking our property and putting it into Linux, then turn around and saying it's a free system.

P: The same pattern was followed by AT&T, though, with BSD.

Darl(6:17): Yeah, but during that same period of time, there was still a lot of economic value to the System V code base.

P: Well, sir, if you don't mind my asking. ..

Darl: Sure.

P: What is the absolute definitive answer to the question of why can't we just take the code out? I mean what... honestly, Linux is my livelihood right now. That's where I've been making all my money. If that goes away, you put a family on the street.

Darl(6:42): Yeah, and we're not trying to get Linux to go away. We're trying to get damages that have been done to this company, a company that used to have a few hundred... You want to talk about economic damages. . .

P: Well, damages, I mean, you're damaging my livelihood now. Should I turn around and countersue?

Darl: There's hundreds of companies that used to work for this company that don't work here anymore. You know, revenue streams have gone from hundreds of millions down to 50, OK, 50, 60 in the last year, and so the question is, is intellectual property protectable, or not? Now we're in litigation, we're trying to get these things resolved. Now, you'll notice we haven't gone out and attacked RedHat. We haven't sued them.

P: You just threatened.

P: Sent out thousands of threatening letters.

P: 1500. (laughter in audience)

Darl: The point, the part of the concern...

P: I've read several quotes where it says that individual users of Linux could possibly in the future be held accountable.

Darl: So the problem then is when you have infringed code that is sitting there on the system.

P: I have a uniprocessor system at home. I'm never going to touch any of this other code. Why should I have to pay a license for UNIX where ...

Darl: We're talking about commercial users.

P: What's the difference?

Darl: We didn't send you a letter, right? We sent it out to commercial users.

P: But the FUD is that I've read, I don't remember if it was you or Sontag, that said that individual users might have to pay sometime. And that kind of trash talking, I mean, the thing with IBM I think should be completely separate.

Darl(8:05): Let me set one thing straight right now for you guys. We are not going after individual users. We're trying to say people who are commercially getting gain on this. And people who were getting commercial gain on Unix, and now they've gone over to this system. That is really where we have a major problem. That's where we're ...

P: What's to stop you from pursuing that venture in the future?

P: My company uses Linux, so are you going after my company?

Darl: So, the question. Again, our focus is not on end users right now. We believe that there has been an IP hot potato that has been passed down to end users. And we are trying to get that resolved with the Unix vendor community.

P: So, if I use Debian, which is a completely open-source distribution, nonprofit, why would I be possibly liable in the future for something, I mean. . .?

Darl(8:55): I can't... Again, when I look at Debian versus what we're talking about with enter... I would really draw the line on enterprise class Linux versus what you're talking about. Right? 'Cause I think that there's a huge difference. I mean, when I hear what you're talking about, the thing that is interesting is, I would argue the point which is that's not where we're trying to go. Okay. Because our real beef is where the thing has been highly commercialized. When you get a 64-way system, and my guess is that the one you're using at home is not a 64-way system, right? That is really where we have a lot of concern.

P: So, you opened, was it Unixware 3, or OpenSystem 3, I can't recall. It was back in 2000, you basically made that source code available to everybody.

Darl(9:37): It wasn't Unixware. We've never taken our System V code and made that available.

P: No it was system 3 of something.

Darl(9:42): It was very, very early versions of that go back into the '70's that predate the commercialized versions of any of the forms of Unix. So, again, we would agree that there's things out there that, we're not trying to round up all this stuff and say "Boy, every ounce of Unix that is out there is protectable and SCO owns all this stuff", and you know that's not what we're saying, our focus is on the commercialized ...

P: So, give me an example. If I create an embedded system, say an access point, or some motor controlling module, that uses a Linux kernel, is that infringing on SCO's intellectual property?

Darl(10:13): Yeah, that's hard for me to say right now with respect to what you just said about that.

P: Hewlett Packard has stated that they're supporting Debian. Would that be an infringing instance right there? It's major commercialized corporate backing. It's a non-profit distribution.

Darl(10:33): Here's what I would say. In May, we had a lot of folks that were very concerned that, you know, that this was a big FUD case, and you guys didn't even have any code inside Linux, and so we said, you know what? We went back and said from a legal standpoint we're going to open some of this up just so that people understand that there are direct files of System V showing up in Linux. Then we said, we're going to move on and go through the month of June, and show this to people. And we've been showing it. Had dozens of people who have seen it. And every day, more people roll into here in Lindon, and we show them the code.

And further what we've said is that when we get into July, we're gonna come back. We're getting feedback right now, and I would view this as a form of feedback, you guys are obviously telling us what you think. We're hearing feedback from users. (unclear) And then when we get into July... Pardon?

P: What about all of your copyright violations? Not abiding by the copyright on the stuff that you have profited from all these years?

Darl: We haven't seen those violations. But let me just finish up here...

P: Have you ever read the license you distributed it under?

Darl: I've said that as we move into July, what we want to be able to do is come out and state definitively, here's where we are. Here's how we want to try and move forward. And...

P: Suppose a company that's based in Lindon that makes a lot of money off of technology has a web server that runs Linux. Would they be in infringement of your copyright? Like SCO, or something

Darl(12:00): Again, back to web servers is not where I see the big problem.

P: (snickering in crowd)

Darl(12:09): When you talk about highly-scalable systems, and again, I'm not going to sit here today and say that that day in Lindon, Utah, on the corner of I-15 and 1600 North, we defined all the rules of this here. [laughter] What I'm trying to say here is the general approach here is ... individual use of Linux ...

P: ... guys, he says we're too close to the road here.

Darl: And commercialized Linux that has derived great benefit from folks that have Unix contracts with us is where we have a lot of problems. And our real goal as we get into July, we want to come out and definitively say "Here's how we're gonna try and move forward, and here's how we want to see things go forward."

P: So, how is it cut and dry where the infringement occurred? Do you have substantial proof that one company ...

Darl: Yeah.

P: What about SGI? I mean, they've contributed significant code to NUMA scalabilities, so how is it that you're going after IBM but yet SGI is free and clear for the time being?

Darl(13:09): We haven't said who's free and clear. What we have said is we have significant problems with IBM, we're working through those issues right now, and we hope to get resolution to those. But, ya know, we're working through these issues, we're dealing with them on a case-by-case basis, and we want to get resolution.

P: Have you ever read the GNU Public License?

Darl(13:30): Sure.

P: Well, what about 100 thousand lines of copyright infringement on your part for every, maybe, one line that there might allegedly be on anyone else's part?

Pleasant Grove Police Officer: Is there anything else here that we need to address?

Darl: I think we're okay. Everybody has moved over here [unclear]. I just stopped to say hi to these guys for a minute. I'm gonna take off right now, so I think we're fine. . .but I appreciate...

P: Before you take off, I was not able to get a very good picture of you off the web. Do you mind if I get another picture with you?


Darl(14:05): [unclear... laughter] You guys are awesome. I gotta go home, and you guys have a good weekend.

P: While you're grabbing a picture, I did have one other question. So, you've talked about how your intent isn't to go after end users, and how certain companies you're not expecting to prosecute, whereas other companies you are. We see this as sort of uncertainty as much as the fear and doubt that SCO is propagating. We would enjoy an on-the-record statement from your company saying more or less the things you just told us.

Darl(14:40): Yeah. I appreciate that. When you talk about fear, uncertainty and doubt, I mean, the point is that it is very certain that there is copyrighted code infringement violation problems we're dealing with here. And, it's also very certain that as we get into the next month, we want to try and figure out how to move things forward in a way that, you know, we can live together peacefully. We're gonna attempt to do that.

P: Is there anything that we can do as a ...

P: ... [unclear] unsettling with all the people you've infringed? All of the contributors to Unix, where you're not ... Where you're no longer honoring the GPL?

Darl(15:10): We haven't seen that.

P: Yea, of course. Because that's your own attorneys. . .

P: Do you hope that the Linux kernel becomes completely Unix-free? Completely free of any potential copyright violations or patent violations, and everything? Is that your ultimate hope right there? Do you ...?

Darl(15:30): Well, here's what I would say. I think on the Linux side, it's pretty clear that the processes are -- first of all, I think that the model here of you guys all being involved, and people all around the world being involved, and contributing in, and being involved as part of this community is outstanding. You know. Hats off. That's a very cool deal, OK?

The part that is concerning is that when the code goes into the kernel, there is in fact not a vetting process to make sure there's not code violations in place. One of the hopes that I would have coming through this process that we would all come out with is a mechanism whereby the code can be vetted, it can be safe, it can be secure, so that we don't have these kind of problems coming up in the future.

P: So is that a yes or a no? Do you hope that the Linux kernel is completely free of any violations whatsoever?

Darl(16:22): Sure.

P: How?

P: I have one other question.

Darl: That's what I think ...

P: How would this vetting process work?

Darl(16:28): Well, that's what I think needs to be understood and put together here with people that ...

P: Linux developers don't have any access to know what the other code, where things came from ...

Darl: Exactly, and that's where I think there's an opportunity to in fact work together on some of this. There's been sort of a "don't ask, don't tell" process over here which is ask for forgiveness, not permission, and to the extent that you can get some kind of an equilibrium here, where you've got proprietary here and you've got open over here. To the extent that we can come together, there some modeling there, I'm all for that.

P: Do you actually have any quotation that shows that there's a "don't ask, don't tell" policy? The only quotation we've seen is with respect to patents, which is the same thing any patent attorney says. With respect to copyright, I believe that what you're saying here is a gross misrepresentation, and that the Linux process is very much better than your wholesale copying of Linux into your source tree.

Darl(17:27): I think when we look at this, you'll find... You've seen a lot of people out there in industry today that are understanding that there are issues and problems with the very process by which Linux comes together.

P: As well as Unix, right?

Darl(17:40): And so, what needs to happen, I believe, in this process is that some of these things are put together more tightly.

P: Is BSD free of any copyright violations?

Darl(17:50): I can't answer right now. I haven't done the same kind ...

P: When you say you're not after the end users, are you interested in suing companies that sell Unix operating systems, Unix-like operating systems, not companies that use them or buy them?

Darl(18:00): We're just fundamentally not interested in tracking down end users like yourself.

P: Can I have that in writing?

C: I've got it on tape.

P: Here's my question. It seems from all the things I've read, and all the research I've done that SCO is more interested in trying to get money back for the damages than for actually cleaning up the Linux code and making sure that everything's put in its place. Is that true, or are you . . .?

Darl(18:28): As we get into July, we want to try and try and figure out methods how we can move forward. It's not ...

P: It seems to me that ...

Darl: There's no doubt we've had significant damages. That's not the only goal in this process.

P: It seems you could say lines this or this and this and this and this and this violate, send that out, it doesn't matter any of your problems, and just give people a chance to fix it. But it seems you're more interested in getting $3 billion, than in actually making Linux free of Unix.

Darl(18:54): No, I wouldn't say that.

P: After the dust settles, what becomes of SCO?

Darl: Well, I think SCO ...

P: Because, right now, I think lots of people feel, you know, [car ignition starting] Linux is what everyone uses these days, and SCO is doing this because Unix isn't selling. So after this lawsuit, I personally don't think a lot of people are going to be interested in buying SCO Unix, except people who already have a strong basis. . .

Darl(19:22): And right now we think... We already know what people are buying from us, and seven of the largest retailers in the world use SCO Unix. McDonald's uses SCO Unix. Biotech uses SCO Unix.

P: But a lot of people are moving to Linux. So, they're looking for reasons to replace...

Darl(19:37): And so the point is there used to be hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue here. It's obviously come down. In terms of how we go forward . . .

P: ... competition...[unclear]

Darl(19:47): So we need to step forward and say here's how we're moving forward with our version of Unix. Here's how we work with Linux. Here's how this thing moves forward.

P: How are you going to work with Linux?

Darl(19:57): Well, stay tuned in July. That's really what we plan to come out with.

Darl(20:00): Hey, I gotta run. Guys, I appreciate ya.

P: Thanks so much.

P: Thanks for talking to us.

P: Thank you.

P: And thanks for explaining to us.

Darl: Yeah, I mean I understand. It's a big issue. It's a big issue for all of us.

P: This is one of the biggest...

P: But you said that the copyright issues that you're violating, it's not an issue for you. . .

Darl: And it is one of the biggest problems in the industry, and that's why we all need to get it fixed together, and move forward.

P: Is that a commitment to fix your copyright violations?


P: That's a good question.

Darl(20:28): We feel very comfortable with where we are with our IP on this so ... [unclear]

P: [unclear] rampant violation of the GPL?

P: Will any third parties have a chance to go through the SCO source code and see if they've done violations of the GPL?

Darl(20:41): Yeah, well, again, our source code is protected material, so...

P: Like a third party that has...

Darl(20:46): Absolutely, [unclear] really ought to do that.

P: but the fact that they've shipped Linux for years, and now are not willing to abide by its license, which means that the years they've supplied it they've been in violation.

P: ...applies to Linux

P: They shipped Linux . . .


Darl: We obviously have problems. Now one issue here is a distribution is not the same as a donation, right? Somebody donated code that is protected by us through other agreements in there. When it goes in, it doesn't say "this was SCO protected code." We only found out about this a couple months ago. That's when we said "we've gotta stop this until we get this figured out."

P: How did you find out?

Darl(21:27): Well, what happened is after we filed the IBM lawsuit, we were in the process of ... This was... Clearly we found code that related to IBM. That is what led us to go into the lawsuit, and in the process of getting ready for that litigation, there was a deep dive that was going on, to comparing code bases in Linux and Unix, and it coughed up during that [unclear] process.

P: Isn't it possible that someone was just inspired by work they'd done for other companies? Isn't that reasonable?

Darl(21:50): It's reasonable, except when the comment codes are the same, the humor lines in the comment code are the same, and the typos in the comment code are the same, then you start getting beyond... Ya know, it was kind of like, I learned this one day at school ... It becomes more of the... Those, to me, are really the DNA of the code here.

P: But the question is, can you say which one comes first? For example, we know that we can see the change log on ...

Darl: Yeah, it's real clear.

P: Can we tell that SCO isn't the one that ...

Darl: Yeah. We've gone through this. It's really clear.

Darl: We want to get to a good solution.

P: ...IBM...

Darl: And we want to get this resolved, and ya know, we're working to that end, and I appreciate you, guys. You're on that end too.

P: The thing that we ask is that you just make it clear that you're attacking IBM, not us.

Darl(22:38): I appreciate what you're saying. OK.


P: Do you mind if we publish this? A transcript of this?

Darl: You know, I said everything that I said, so you know, I didn't put you under NDA, so obviously you guys will do whatever you're gonna do.

P: We'll try not to take it out of context.

Darl: I appeciate that.

P: Thanks.


Why SCO Started All This. No. Really. | 188 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Why SCO Started All This. No. Really.
Authored by: D. on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 02:03 AM EDT

Thanks to all for bringing us the transcripts of the interactions during the the

We must remember that SCOG/Canopy were prepared forthe Demo.
with pre-made signs and planned responses to the "accedental"


[ Reply to This | # ]

  • The signs - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 02:09 AM EDT
    • The signs - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 05:55 AM EDT
      • The signs - Authored by: Alex on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 11:07 PM EDT
Why SCO Started All This. No. Really.
Authored by: D. on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 02:25 AM EDT
Who made the signs?

Well, Canopy has an in house graphic artist.

Who happens to be on the Board of SCOG, and happens to be on the Board of the
Noorda Family Trust, and happens to be the President(?) of Canoply...


Your call.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCO Started All This. No. Really.
Authored by: ZeusLegion on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 02:32 AM EDT
McBride sounds a bit like Tom Arnold. Maybe Tom can portray him in a made-for-tv
docudrama ala Enron.

Tom's got a bit of experience with being arrested and going to jail so that can
only help.

Anyway, nice work digging this up, its interesting how easily it comes for
McBride to lie to people's faces and dodge questions in person and not just in
press releases or interviews with unethical or uninformed mediapersons.


[ Reply to This | # ]

The argument is BS
Authored by: rgmoore on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 02:43 AM EDT

The economic argument doesn't make any sense, though. IBM doesn't save on licensing by moving code from AIX into Linux. Their Unix license is, as they are always pointing out, perpetual and fully paid up. No matter how many copies of AIX they sell, they don't owe SCO a red cent. The same thing is true of the other big Unix vendors; they all paid lump sums to avoid having to pay a constant licensing stream for their rights to the SVR4 code.

Their economic benefit from Linux doesn't come from cheating SCO out of revenue. It comes from being able to pool their resources. Now instead of each company having to develop its own code, they have a single shared code base and each one has to pay only a fraction of the development and maintenance costs. That's a big win, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with SCO.

Behind every sleazy lawyer, there's a sleazy client.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCO Started All This. No. Really.
Authored by: rand on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 02:49 AM EDT
I think I've got it now. SCOG owns the COMMENTS.

Whenever they are confronted, asked to provide some real evidence, they claim
that "... the comment codes are the same, the humor lines in the comment
code are the same, and the typos in the comment code are the same...".
Algorithms are not mentioned. Methods are not mentioned. Just comments,
variable names, function names, all the things that are NOT necessary to the

It's a little like a restaurant: suppose you have purchased the recipe for the
World's Greatest Chicken Salad. You keep it a Deep Dark Secret, and sell lots
of sandwiches (but not as many as the guys you bought it from). The old owner
shared the Secret with a few franchisees, swearing them to secrecy, but you have
to live with that: you ceertainly didn't sell thenm the franchise. Then one
day you realize that a lot of fast-food joints are selling cheap chicken salad
sandwiches, and nobody wants your overpriced lunches any more. What to do? You
can't claim the patents on the recipe; you never owned them, and anyway, they
expired ages ago. Then *YIKES* you notice that everyone else is using recipes
suspiciously like your own. Obviously, someone spilled the chicken liver.
Quickly you grab the copyrights to the recipe, but there's a problem: you
really can't copyright a recipe; it's a process, and processes get patented.
No, but you can claim ownership of the original writers' jokes, observations,
and math homework on the back. You can claim ownership of the "artistic
expression' of the recipe. In short, everything that doesn't really matter to
a good chicken salad sandwich. Then you go after those greasy (as in spoon)
b*st*rds who gave away your livelihood. All the time trying to be nice to your
customers, of course.

I could go on, but I don't really trust metaphor and simile myself. Just
seemed appropriate this time.

Thanks, pj. I think I have an appreciation for how SCOG sees it all, now. Not
that I think it's going to do them any good .

(Please, dear Lord, let me hit the right button this time.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCO Started All This. No. Really.
Authored by: Nathan Hand on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 03:10 AM EDT

Thanks for the transcript, PJ. Everything confirms what we had already suspected or figured out from the court documents, but it's great to see Darl say it in his own words.

Darl: The problem we have on the economic modeling side of this, is the vendors that are getting an economic incentive to reducing the amount of royalties that they pay by virtue of taking our property and putting it into Linux, then turn around and saying it's a free system.

"Our property". Darl thinks the UNIX license grants SCO ownership of anything IBM included with AIX. He thinks SCO owns RCU and JFS. IBM thinks they own RCU and JFS. Worlds collide and chaos ensues.

Though it's clear Darl is still very confused about what Linux is. He says

Darl: And so the question that came up earlier, was, you know, we're all working for free on this stuff. We have no problem with all of you guys that are working on this stuff for free.

It's not about "working on this stuff for free". You can get paid to work on Linux (go ask any Red Hat employee). It's about Linux itself being free. He thinks Linux is just "free employees". He needs a beating with the cluebat.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCO Started All This. No. Really.
Authored by: brenda banks on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 06:16 AM EDT
one question they seem to avoid all the time is what about the linux coders
copyrights thaty sco is infringing on
they totally seem to feel they dont have to abide to the other words
they are talking to as i say do and not as i do
so in other words all the kernel coders gave it away and anyone can do as they
please.the license is unimportant.
linux coders are unimportant cause sco has spoken
cluebat wouldnt help but a lawsuit from coders would maybe wake them isnt
about money anymore it is about copyrights and in my opinion that aces there


[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCO Started All This. No. Really.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 07:22 AM EDT
<i>Darl(4:48): Well, I think going back to the economic side of it, the
flip side of this argument is, so SCO is a company that for twenty years had
Unix on Intel. They have a twenty-year legacy of selling that type of product
line. And as you go into the turn of the century, Linux had moved along, and the
2.2 version of the kernel, you know, it was doing rather nicely, you could do
two or four way systems together, and that was nice.</i>

Hmmmm, I thought Caldera, was not SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

ZDNet article and Sun ;)
Authored by: keanu on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 08:16 AM EDT
I read the following in this ZDNet article:
Linux began as a hobby Torvalds started in 1991 as a computer science student, but it has become serious software, key to the business strategies of some of the world's largest computing companies, including IBM, Oracle, Hewlett-Packard, SAP and Sun Microsystems.
Sun Microsystems? hehe, is the guy who wrote that really up to date? ;) I can't remember a statement of Sun that Linux is the key of their business strategies ;).

[ Reply to This | # ]

As the World Turns
Authored by: Grim Reaper on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 10:53 AM EDT
Listening to the audio and reading all the news articles, I am surprised at how
many people fail to point out that SCO's System V code contains a significant
amount of BSD code, and it is the same code that was at the center of the USL v.
BSDI case. This alone weakens most of SCO's position.

This also may bring to light enforceability problems with the AT&T
contracts. Unless the USL v. BSDI settlement resulted in BSDI surrendering all
rights, with respect to misappropriated BSD code, SCO may have a very difficult
time convincing a court that they have a legitimate right to demand windfall
payment for code USL ripped off.

To borrow a page from the book of SCO, SCO is basing their whole litigation on a
very shaky foundation, which is System V (a code base heavily tainted with BSD

I suspect SCOG's predecessors must have understood this, which could explain
why none of them would have been itching to open that Pandora's box. But
Canopy Group is so corrupt, they just had to do try.

After scaring Microsoft into submission, they got cocky and figured they could
do the same to IBM. This was a gross miscalculation. They did not even
anticipate the overwhelming flood of supporters lined up on the IBM side,
rushing to IBM's aid. In fact, based on McBride's own publicly demonstrated
delusion, it is beyond SCO to comprehend that so many people around the world
would selflessly devote their time and effort to helping IBM and Red Hat crush
SCO and their Canopy [pun intended]. Even their former CEO, Ransom Love, has
publicly lambasted them. Ah the SHOCK and AWE of it all.

Now they are reduced to complaining that bulletin boards all over the world are
painting them as the detestable organization they truly are. Such is life. The
silent majority on SCO’s side? Maybe McBride actually meant the silent monopoly
– but that we already knew.

There will be a day of reckoning for SCO.

R.I.P. - SCO Group, 2005/08/29

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCO Started All This. No. Really.
Authored by: jeanph01 on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 10:53 AM EDT
Hi PJ,
It's not related to the subject but I just want to thank you again for the good
work you are doing in the name of all of us. Your site is on my daily list of
site I visit with slashdot and newsforge.
It seem so much much fun that I'm starting to ask myself if I should not quit
my job in computers and become a para myself ! (joke)
Keep up the good work!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Light dawns
Authored by: jmc on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 11:05 AM EDT
What we have to do for customers - really.

Last week I "met" SCO stuff twice. Once was when they pushed out
their "authentication" blurb. I don't know if anyone has looked at
it but it relies on PAM being on the system to work properly and - guess what -
SCO's stuff doesn't have PAM on it, they'll have to either reimplement it or
steal it from Linux. Do I detect a slight hint of hypocrisy here?

The is mostly aimed at MS users (to propagate MS user names and passwords) and I
got the distinct feel that MS is backing SCO.

The second time was the following day when I had to put a spare drive on one of
our boxes to load Openserver 5.0.7 for a customer who insists on using it. Apart
from the fact that it was so slow that it had only got about 10% through by 5pm
after starting it at lunchtime, so I had to leave it overnight to complete, the
code was so clunky and horrible - the only things that work properly are the GNU
stuff they supply. (More hypocrisy?)

There is something very strange about "make" in that the SCO C
compiler dies if you have a "make" of a subdirectory within another
make. Anyhow it was fine with GNU make and I couldn't spare the time or see the
point in figuring out the problem.

And I should have mentioned that there was no SCO driver for the PCI Ethernet
card on that machine although Linux and everything else I've tried on it
including Solaris 9 didn't have any trouble with it. So more time wasted whilst
I dashed back and forth with floppies (you didn't think the CD writer would
work for a crazy moment now did you?).

Are SCO maybe saying that stuff was "mv"-ed rather than
"cp"-ed from SCO to Linux? That would start to make sense and
explain why they won't produce the alleged infringing code - it's been deleted
from SCO crapware....

John Collins
UK Linux hacker

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCO Started All This. No. Really.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 11:13 AM EDT
To those who think Darl's being honest and just deluded?

You decide.

1: "Linux Lottery"

2: irrevocable


Interview with Vnunet (part 3, June 27, I think). In this interview Darl
basically says Novell dropped out of the picture after SCO showed them amendment
2, and pretty much had no more to say. Ha. Ha.

SCO found amendment 2 on or about June 6. Novell sent SCO, not one but two
letters between June 6 and the interview.

These are referred to in IBM's response to SCO's complaint (which of course
meant that the public didn't know about these 2 letters, as IBM had not filed
their response at the time of the letter).


SCO's responses to IBM's discovery requests.

The more I think it about, the more deficient I think it is.

IBM repeatedly says *all* documents etc. SCO repeatedly says in their answers
"but not limited to" (suggesting there may be more)

IBM requests for specific details. SCO provides a huge mound of documents, with
no specific reference. In some cases, IBM contends the answers can not possibly
be found in the mound of documents as they are not of that nature.

I think that it's quite obvious that they didn't even attempt to answer these

Then we ask what did they provide? Sys V licenses, and all this huge heap of
source code.

Now, I'm thinking if that was what they presented, then the could have their
copies of Sys V licenses, etc. last year.

In the Forbes interview, Forbes says SCO had a special room prepared to nicely
present the licenses.

And if they prepared the room and copies, last year, the cost of duplicating the
documents, creating the room etc., would fall in a previous quarter.

Duplicating the relevant documents, answering questions properly in detail now
etc., would cost money.

5: Three teams, spectral analysis, MIT mathematicians. A lot has been said about
this already.

But why isn't ANY of this in SCO's response to IBM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

definitely some confusion here
Authored by: pyrite on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 01:10 PM EDT
Darl was talking about 64-way - that means a machine with 64 processors. I am
assuming he knows the difference between 64-way and 64 bit. Does he?

Then he goes on to say that SCO has been doing UNIX on Intel for 20 years, and
that this is part of the economic problem.

So the "problem" is with 64-way SMP, and SCO is losing money and
accumulating damages because their UNIX on Intel sales are being destroyed by IP

Is there such a thing as a 64-way Intel machine or am I missing something here?

If SCO does not want to mitigate their damages, by having the code removed, then
they will not get damages, provided that there is any infringing code.

The SCO has lost the right to distribute anything that is under the GPL. It's
official. The future looks really bleak for them right now.

So the UNIX code base reverts back to the Canopy Group when SCO goes under, the
Canopy Group starts another IP company, and the process starts all over again.
This is better than the OpenBSD security audit. It's the ultimate IP test.
Linux will come out clean, and shiny. The process by which Linux developers have
prevented infringement. will have been shown to be effective, perhaps more than
one time.

Uhhhh... Linux is uhhhh... going to uhhhh... replace Windows as the most
uhhhh..... popular OS within the next decade.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCO Started All This. No. Really.
Authored by: iMeowbot on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 04:55 PM EDT
And it looks as though into this weekend, Blake Baby is sticking to his story about the IBM and SCO contracts being something SCO can cancel. His l;atest volley appears in a letter to El Reg.

[ Reply to This | # ]

groklaw makes the news again
Authored by: brenda banks on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 07:13 PM EDT


[ Reply to This | # ]

Troll Alert
Authored by: Grim Reaper on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 09:05 PM EDT
PJ, there is an anonymous poster trolling and insulting numerous Groklaw
posters. The relevant postings are are at times 7:22 PM EDT, 7:26 PM EDT, 7:40
PM EDT, and 7:43 PM EDT. Not sure if there's more.

Maybe Groklaw needs mandatory registration for all posters - not that it would
comletely eliminate the problem, but it would at least minimize it.

R.I.P. - SCO Group, 2005/08/29

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT, from Yahoo SCOX forum :-)
Authored by: bob on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 09:45 PM EDT

From this post on Yahoo's SCOX forum:

By contrast, a search on Linux comes up with 12,427 hits, 1030 of them books, with 428 under software; 9946 were in Amazon Marketplace. Take that with a grain of salt, however, because it turns up hits under Toys, including a "Glitter Butterfly Soap Making Kit" from "Life of the Party". The only connection I can find to Linux is that the product appears on a "Listmania" list written by -- Pamela L. Jones. :-)

It's not a problem until something bad happens.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Comments And Code Are NOT Significant
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 11 2003 @ 09:57 PM EDT
Probably the reason that so much is being made of the ate_utils.c code now is: that it won't be very important at trial. This is true for a number of reasons:

Neither the comments nor the malloc.c code are a trade secret. The comments are non-functional elements. They provide no "independent economic advantage" over a competitors code. The malloc.c code exists in several freely redistributable versions of Unix and are hardly a secret these days. Lion's Commentary on the Sixth Edition was after all re-published with the SCOG's permission.

Prior to 1984 AT&T couldn't legally advertise, market, or sell Unix as a product or service. Under those circumstances talk of trade secrets is simply beside the point. Here are some books that revealed this "first fit" bin sorting technique, either prior to 1984, or prior to Ken Thompson's first work on Unix in 1969:

Knuth, D. E., The Art of Computer Programming Vol I: Fundamental Algorithms, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1968.

Knuth, D. E., The Art of Computer Programming Vol III: Sorting and Searching, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1968.

Wirth, N., Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J, 1976.

Aho, Alfred V., Hopcroft, John E., Ullman Jeffrey D., Data Structures and Algorithms, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1982.

Not everything in a copyrighted work is protected. "Title 17 section 102(b).In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

The ancient malloc.c code is a "first fit" bin sorting Algorithm that isn't protectable under copyright or patentable due to "prior art". This functional bit of code exists in several almost unchanged versions in various Unices. Even if there are myriad ways of writing this code, there is really no need to avoid using the best or clearest one(s) available in the programming language at hand. The fact that SGI made a few changes and added a copyright notice is the way it's usually done. For example, Franco Zeffirelli did the same with Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet in 1968.

The thing that is different here is that the SCOG is claiming that non-secrets that are not copyrightable have been openly published (thanks to SCO and or Caldera themselves). These things have been coincidentally given to a non-licensee, by a SVR4 licensee. We've all been here before:

The UC Regents in 930120.oppose.2.txt:

"COMMENTS. USL relies on a small number of identical comments, which consist of short, fragmentary phrases describing the function performed by a piece of code. They are not part of the code itself, have no role in the operation of the program and are not protectible as "original expressions of authorship. " (See second Bostic and McKusick Decl. Paras. 6.2, 14.1.A, 15.5; see also BSDI's Memorandum of Law in opposition to USL's motion and cases cited therein). Moreover, the range of expression in such comments is extremely limited since they are entirely descriptive of a narrow idea, i.e., the function performed by a small piece of code. For this reason as well, they are not protectible. See Altai, 1992 WL 372273 at 14; SEGA Enterprises, 977 F.2d at 1524, n 7."

BSDI's Memorandum of Law is contained in 930108.oppose.txt. Section II.B. cites a number of case law precedents that held: copying unprotected and purely functional computer source code is not a copyright infringement. e.g. Computer Associates v Altai Inc.

BSD Court Papers

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCO Started All This. No. Really.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 12 2003 @ 12:47 AM EDT
This would make a good Monty Python sketch. No. Really.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCO Started All This. No. Really.
Authored by: Glenn on Sunday, October 12 2003 @ 01:21 AM EDT
From this and other statements that the SCO group people have been making, it
is really clear that they just do not know what they are talking about. Darl,
Chris, Blake, just do not know the history of the UNIX code. They have not done
the math on the "millions of lines of code" that has supposedly been
dumped into Linux from the 2.2 to 2.4 kernels. And probably their lawyers are
even less knowledgeable of this.
I would rather believe that they are ignorant than malicious. Either kind is
dangerous. But is is also rather stupid to focus only on the things one wants to
believe and ignore everything else. It can cause a lot of people to get hurt.
Too many innocent ones.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Due Process.... [Please read]
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 12 2003 @ 03:26 AM EDT
After following the SCO->IBM lawsuit for the past several months, it just
occured to me how to demand that SCO itemize the code in the Linux kernel that
is infringing on their IP:

IANAL, but doesn't it seem kinda funny that SCO is so concerned about the
IP/source that is in the Linux kernel that they seem to think is there, yet they
have not filed for an injuctive order halting sites from distributing the Linux
kernel. I believe that this would represent a lack of concern for their IP, thus
meaning that they have not clearly demonstrated that they are concerned with the
'trade secret' status of their supposed 'know how' in the UNIX environment.

If there is a lawyer out there that reads this comment (and is in a position to
comment), please, please please tell me if this makes sense.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT question
Authored by: brenda banks on Sunday, October 12 2003 @ 09:30 AM EDT
when did caldera purchase unixware
what date in 2000?
when did sgi and ibm announce their donations to linux?
is it possible they bought unixware to lead up to this suit just because of
these donations?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 12 2003 @ 11:13 AM EDT
Well, I finally understood what they(Darl at least) are talking
about. Whole point is, as I understand from the conversation, if
I'd rephrase their word "IP infringiment", I'd call it "the

competence infringement". They say porting derived work of
Unix software to the other "sort of Un*x systems" is not allowed

even they are not SCO's. The competence is very important. If
someone has implemented some new things and/or written cool
stuff but they can't be patented, they might want the work to be
protced, so they call it IP. I understand it. I don't know if it can
be defined as the "IP" under the law system but I understand
what they are claiming. But, on the other hand, as someone
wrote in other article, the knowledge have been(or should be?)
shared in science so we are here now, as is computer software.
I completely agree with that. The Unix has been and being made
made with tons of contributed code from BSD and maybe GPL'ed
code. Those improvements in the System V were not done by
SCO alone. Almost all of most important key technologies that
recently invented and implemented into Unix and other Un*x
family, including Linux, are public domain. I guess the REAL
proprietery part that SCO did themselves in System V is very
small amount.
What they really need to do right now is figure out their REAL
proprietery code. They must be careful with this though.
Because the code may be modified or rewritten so they need to
figure out if it is derived work from public domain stuff or not.
Then check if IBM and other companies work are related to their
stuff or not. And if they are they can continue to play in the
court. If not pray.

-- Sorry for my English.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM can SERIOUSLY nail SCO if they want
Authored by: Grim Reaper on Sunday, October 12 2003 @ 09:32 PM EDT
For anyone who believes it's not worth checking the SCO LKP for misappropriated
GPL'ed code, read this:

R.I.P. - SCO Group, 2005/08/29

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCO Started All This. No. Really.
Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 11:58 AM EDT
groklaw hits the news today


[ Reply to This | # ]

reading back over old articles
Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, October 13 2003 @ 12:53 PM EDT
"However, the suit still makes no claims of copyright violation, which
several independent attorneys believe could lead to stronger claims than that of
trade secret infringement. After the Novell spat, SCO said it had not registered
those copyrights. Independent attorneys say SCO must register the copyrights
before basing legal action on them."
am i reading this wrong?
are they saying that if the copyrights had been filed before the claims would
have stronger standing than trade secret?
if so then if sco had any copyright why havent they filed it in the claims?
and why havent reporters picked up on this?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCO Started All This. No. Really.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 12:06 AM EDT
My question to Darl is easy:

You want Linux users to pay a licensing fee for IP that SCO alleges is in Linux,
but this claim is unproven. If they loose the court case with IBM, are they
willing to reimburse all licensees if the IP claims are not found to be true?
Are they willing to put there money (backed by Canopy, of course) were their
mouth is and guarantee that if the claims are untrue, then all licensees will
get 200% of the license fee back (to cover interest and false representation)?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCO Started All This. No. Really.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 16 2003 @ 12:28 AM EDT
SCO is now trying to coerce license fees from anyone.

I work at a Fortune 500 company. My cube neighbor got a call today from someone
else in the company that SCO tried to shake us down for Linux licenses on the
premise that because this is a big company we must have Linux in use somewhere,
so we should want to buy a bunch of Linux licenses just in case. One more time
for the SCO shareholders who seem to be a little slow in understanding -- our
big company should buy Linux licenses from SCO not because SCO knows we use
Linux (we don't -- AIX and Solaris, thanks), but that they suspect we might use
it based on nothing more than, um, their suspicions. Is this the better
business model that Darl talks about?

[ 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 )