|
|
| SCO Clarifies, FSF Counters, and Groklaw Howls with Laughter |
 |
|
Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 12:50 AM EST
|
Well, we're definitely having fun now. Here's what Robert McMillan of Infoworld got Blake Stowell to say in clarification of its newest court document in the IBM case: "The Free Software Foundation is the only entity that can enforce the GPL so, in effect, IBM is barred from trying to enforce the GPL with SCO," wrote Blake Stowell, a SCO spokesman, in an e-mail response to questions. With regard to IBM's counterclaims that SCO has violated its patents, Stowell has this to say in defense: "If we're in violation of them, then just about every other vendor in the entire software industry is in violation of them. What they're claiming is something that is a common practice within the software industry." One lawyer interviewed by Infoworld sardonically reacted: "Arguing that (a patent) covers too many people isn't an effective defense."
Eben Moglen, that smoothie, says (and you can visualize for yourself the smile on his face): "The proper enforcer of a copyright is the copyright holder," said Eben Moglen, general counsel for the FSF. "IBM says, 'You're using a copyrighted work of ours in a fashion which is prohibited by the Copyright Act, and you're doing so without our permission. You owe us damages and you must stop.'" If the GPL is not a valid license, Moglen reasoned, then SCO itself does not have the right to redistribute Linux -- something it has done for years. "If SCO says the GPL isn't valid permission, then they have no valid permission," he said. "Redistributing copyrighted works without permission, we are told by the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America Inc.) and MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) every day, is stealing." Somebody needs to call the copyright police. There's stealing of IP going in in Lindon, Utah! Better yet, tell Senator Hatch. Heh heh. Only kidding. That might not be effective. Groklaw readers have been posting some helpful and some funny reactions too. Here's Bruce Perens' take on the GPL: Of course it's a license. But the point is that it removes no rights that are already yours under the default in copyright law. So it can be considered to be a straight copyright permission, like in the front of a book. Thus, it would need no compensation, no consent, etc. If you don't accept it, you get the default in copyright law, which is all rights reserved. So, if you were to invalidate the GPL, you would find you have fewer rights regarding the covered software, rather than more. Now, you can consider it a contract, in that it has "you agree" language regarding the act of creating a derivative work, etc. But if you don't accept it, there isn't a legal theory under which you should would have the right to create a derivative work. So, SCO would only make an infringer of itself if it succeeded in invalidating the GPL. Another reader tries sincerely to explain the GPL to Blake one more time: For the attention of Blake Stowell:
The GPL license itself is authored by the FSF. But the FSF is not the licensor of all GPL licensed code or other copyrighted works. In every case, a GPL licensed work contains a copyright statement, indicating the copyright owner. In many cases, the authors have indeed chosen to transfer their copyright interest to the FSF, in which case the license is from them, but this is not universal, by any means. Many contributors, including IBM, Intel, Red Hat, SGI and other big name contributors, choose to retain copyright themselves. In each case, the copyrighted work is licensed directly from them, under the terms of the GPL, without those licensors relinquishing their copyright. In those cases, the FSF is in no way a party to the transaction.
No need for us all to be serious about this, now that the heavy hitters have said what needs saying, so the rest of us can just have fun. One Grokker posted his view. He thinks SCO decided to tell "the world's funniest joke", a la the famous Monty Python skit, so that IBM's lawyers, when they read this Reply, would laugh so hard they'd die. That way, SCO wins by default. Another reader enjoys imagining how it was when IBM's lawyers first received the SCO document: Consider the scene in one of the conference rooms at Cravath, Swaine &
Moore: howls of laughter, guys in Armani suits and ladies in Von Furstenberg
originals rolling uncontrollably on the floor - "the GPL" (hee hee
hee) "is" (guffaw) "unconstitutional" (ha ha HA HA...)"Oh, that's hilarious!"
Another reader confesses that SCO has found us out, and there is some sinister code in the kernel: "void GPL ()
{
destroy (value [copyrights]);
for (j=0; j
{
if isproprietary(software[j])
{
destroy (software[j]);
}
else {
cause_sunspots();
kill (kittens);
}
}
}"
Oh, and another reader checked and reports that the 2.4.13-21 kernel source is still on SCO's FTP site. Another reacts to their "GPL violates the Constitution" argument: I can't believe they have the audacity to say that the GPL violates the
Constitution. What is next? GPL is un-American, it violates the Patriot
Act, it is a minion of al Qaeda, it is used by North Korea and Iran to build
nuclear weapons, it caused the fires in Southern Cal., it is responsible for
the downturn in the economy, it was the cause of 2000 presidential
debacle, it interferes with satellite communications like solar flares, it
leads to high infant mortality, it causes cancer, it is fattening and
increases your cholesterol, and it makes people ugly. I see it coming to a court document soon! Another reader says he thinks SCO owes him damages: "EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM’s claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."
I sprayed beer all over my keyboard and monitor when I read this. Can I sue SCO for damages? One more: And it also violates the International Law of the Sea, Murphy's law, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, and the principle of separation of church and state. Whereas any license sales that SCO gets will be fully compliant with P.T. Barnum's Law of Applied Economics. :-) So, that leaves...the GPL violates the law of gravity. And, on Slashdot, one reader wrote: The GPL makes Baby Jesus cry. So that's it from from Lake SCO-BeGone, everyone. Good night. It's been tons of fun.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Dave Lozier on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 01:14 AM EST |
Ack.. did the put their copyright notice on that function? LoL good grief.
---
~Dave[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 01:31 AM EST |
| Thanks, PJ. As my wife and two kids are sleeping I'm doing my best to stifle
gufaws and then it hits me -- the guys (there are no women there, right?) at
Forbes would be the most likely, outside of those in Lindon, Utah, to miss the
irony, cynicism and out-right ballderdash TSG is serving up. I used to respect
Forbes... Oh, how I love Bruce pulling the RIAA and MPAA onto our side --
reminds me of (this is arcane out side a select group) my favorite CCX'ers who
would shout, in 2NR, "Dead babies across the flow!" to punctuate their
arguments. Marvellous. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 01:47 AM EST |
The grotesque dimensions to which SCO has gone to attack the GPL has led me to
coin the word "SCOtesque" with the meaning:
"To so absurdly argue self-contradictory and impossible claims in the most
serious forum, a court of law, so as to cause informed and/or geekly readers to
lose control of bodily functions in quaking fits of laughter."
Thank you SCO for this Halloween treat.
We were expecting a more serious trick.
All rights, trademarks, etc. ceded to Groklaw for the use of term
"SCOtesque" in any manner seen fit to PJ, et al.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kbwojo on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 01:48 AM EST |
PJ, you must have missed the news. TSG is giving a name to the IBM case and
getting a new law firm. They have now hired the honorable law firm of Moe,
Larry, and Curly and named their case “Disorder in the Court”.
---
Q: How can you tell when TSG is lying?
A: Their lips are moving.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 01:48 AM EST |
PJ make sure you read this link (I didn't post it - if link didn't work, it's
in last discussion by "Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 01:42 AM
EST" title "SCO Aware of IBM's Plans: Evidence")
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20031027193958740&ti
tle=SCO+Aware+of+IBM%27s+Plans%3A+Evidence&type=article&order=&pid=1
5837
Caldera was aware of IBM's Linux plans in 1999
This seems to contradict what SCO says in their response.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Attention PJ - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 01:51 AM EST
- Attention PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 06:53 AM EST
- Attention PJ - Authored by: troy on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 10:37 AM EST
- Attention PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 11:20 AM EST
- Attention PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 11:01 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 01:50 AM EST |
I quoted from some of you, as you see. I didn't put names, because it would
take too much time to reach all of you, and I wanted this up quick. But if
anyone objects, let me know and I'll remove. And whoever wants his name
attached to his comment in the article, let me know also and I'll put it in.
Thanks. To email me, just click on the yellow envelope under the XML icons on
the left of the page.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 02:12 AM EST |
Attention PJ. Caldera aware of IBM support for Linux in June 1999
How do I know:
Read:
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9906/25/ibm.caldera.idg/
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/1999062400910PR
http://www.caldera.com/company/press/19990622ibm.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 03:00 AM EST |
| Slashdot is slashdotted. Thats a new one. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 03:08 AM EST |
| (IANAL, but I've watched every episode of Ally McBeal)
It's getting
increasingly obvious that SCO have no intention of ever letting this reach a
court room. Lost under all the legal trash is the simple contract case in which
SCO have so far failed to present any evidence. Legal arguments against
copyright law (and that's what attacking GPL would entail) apparently written by
Big Bird, will surely fail as the huge amount of existing case law supports the
status quo and GPL was written with the help of real lawyers.
So, what will
SCO do next? While the shares are still worth something I would expect a sane
management to start looking for a settlement. But in SCOs case... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 03:08 AM EST |
GPL is an acronym for general Public License. If we break this down:
General: Pertaining to all
Public: The people as a whole
License: Redundant in this context.
Ergo, the GPL must be public domain and not owned by anyone in particular. Thus
the GPL does not affect SCO.
(Definitions are selected from The Oxford English Dictionary to suit the case in
hand).
Does this help to explain some of SCO's arguments.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eric76 on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 03:22 AM EST |
They forgot to invocate the admiralty flag defense.
The court has no jurisdiction because of the presence in the courtroom of a U.S.
flag with gold fringe.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 03:55 AM EST |
As many people here have speculated, come Nov 1st, after
selling all their shares, the whole board would resign and
leave the reigns of the company to the janitor?
...joining Boies in the unmentioned "non-extraditionable"
country?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What's Next? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 01:41 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 04:13 AM EST |
It is truly amazing isn't it? The only frustration is that it might take a long
time for someone to be in a position to formally/legally say "you've been
lyin' son, so here's what we're going to do..."..
Found this today on the Yahoo/SCOX thread:
"There's an article by a lawyer at:
http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=1303_0_1_0_C
which draws attention to a clause in the Novell/SCO sale agreement that nobody
seems to have noticed before. Article IV, 4.16 (b) gives Novell the right to
compel SCO to waive any rights under the SVRX license, and if SCO doesn't
comply, Novell retains the right to waive those rights. The agreement does say
that. The article goes on to state that Novell has taken the necessary action to
waive the rights in IBM's case. If this is true, SCO's case against IBM is
hopeless. But go read the article , I'm not a lawyer."
Just tossing it into the mix in case it's useful. Thanks to all, PJ especially,
for all the hard work & humour.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 04:20 AM EST |
SCO have been distributing Samba as a part of their latest products, under the
GPL which anyone is free to do so long as they accept the terms of and comply
with the GPL
Since SCO have claimed that the GPL is invalid, have they taken away their own
rights to distribute Samba.
I personally would love to see a cease and dissist preventing them from shipping
their products due to GPL
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 05:05 AM EST |
I believe Ransom Love telegraphed their argument in recent interview
He said something like "Caldera had voluntarily complied with the
GPL". (He then went on to say that he didn't think they could argue the
GPL didn't apply, or something like that).
I therefore predict that SCO will say they never thought the GPL was enforceable
- and SCO merely voluntarily complied with it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 05:16 AM EST |
Just been reading through the document, and I was wondering: is there any chance
that SCO's refusal to recognize the GPL could force the judge to decide upon
the GPL's validity before this goes to trial?
It seems like an issue of fact - is the GPL legally valid and enforcable or not?
- that should be decided before the trial starts.
(Yes, of course I know that the GPL is a valid license. But since SCO doesn't
know that, according to the Answer anyway, it seems like they've made it a
matter of controversy over fact that can and should be resolved as a separate
issue before the rest of the case goes to trial. Or am I wrong?)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not yet - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 05:29 AM EST
- SCO's GPL Attack - Authored by: Ruidh on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 09:53 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: burySCO on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 06:00 AM EST |
Where's the " SCO's Reply to IBM's Amended Answer with
Counterclaims" .PDF from and how certain are we that it's real? It looks
more like satire than real claims. Any chance it could be a troll of some sort?
---
My jabber handle is burySCO@jabber.org[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 06:20 AM EST |
a post in the previous discussion entitled "What SCO believe" -
"Authored by: amcguinn on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 05:33 AM EST"
suggests SCO may misunderstand the GPL.
IANAL
I am beginning to think it is possible they misunderstand the difference between
trade secrets and copyrights.
Darl McBride said something along the lines that revealing the (allegedly
infringing) code would open source it.
That would be true for a trade secret (as it would no longer be a trade secret,
whether it's already lost it's trade secret status is another matter).
That would not be true for copyrighted code
I am wondering if they might therefore think that IBM revealing it's JFS code
knowingly (but contributing it to Linux), somehow means that IBM has lost their
copyright on the code.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 06:36 AM EST |
| This is a stupid question from someone in europe
who does not understand US
law.
Are the SCO/IBM cases due to be heard just
by a judge (as in the
Microsoft antitrust case)
or does this eventually go to a jury?
If these are
jury trials can one understand much of the SCO
logic as building a case of
"natural ownership" that
is clear to the man on the Clapham omnibus.
They
"bought"; this stuff:- its theirs... Could a jury
that has to choose
between those nice SCO folk
and the IBM monster be convinced to go in this
direction?
If so they just need to get some of the inuendo through the
initial filtering by the judge. How well will a judge
filter random claims from
SCO? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Grim Reaper on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 07:41 AM EST |
http://www.infoconomy.com/pages/news-and-gossip/group86791.adp
---
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil (1 Timothy 6:10); R.I.P. -
SCO Group, 2005/08/29[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 07:41 AM EST |
Somehow, SCO missed what would have been its most potent argument for
invalidating Amendment X.
One of the parties to Amendment X was the Santa Cruz Operation (the old SCO).
However, at the time of the signing, SCO wasn't old enough to sign a legally
binding contract. It hadn't reached the age of majority, nor was it an
emancipated minor.
Scott McKellar[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 07:55 AM EST |
PL is un-American, it violates the Patriot Act, it is a minion of
al Qaeda, it is used by North Korea and Iran to build nuclear weapons,
it Sadly, I think that SCO might be headed in that direction.
It wouldn't be too hard to put together an argument along those lines that would
sound convincing in some ears (Pointdexter, Ashcroft, Cheney). With a little
help from Microsoft lobbyists they could plant that thought in the "right" minds
and cause some real trouble.Cranky Observer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alizarin on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 08:16 AM EST |
If SCO succeeds in getting the GPL invalidated, I forsee a class action lawsuit
brought against them by all the Linux contributors whose software they
distribute (Samba and the kernel are the first 2 that pop into my mind) for
illegally distributing their software.
Smackdown![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 08:34 AM EST |
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12376
interesting
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: amcguinn on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 08:47 AM EST |
| The GPL can be valid in some sense and not in others. SCO are going to
have to
be a whole lot more specific.
Let's look at how the GPL might be challenged
in each of IBM's three
GPL-related counterclaims:
Sixth counterclaim: Breach
of the GNU General Public License
This is a straightforward breach of
contract claim, much like SCO's
against IBM. Just as IBM agreed to use SCO's
SysV code for internal
business purposes only, SCO agreed to use IBM's Linux
code subject to
the restrictions on redistribution defined in the GPL. Just as
SCO
claim IBM used the SysV code other than as agreed by using it to
improve
Linux, IBM claim SCO used the Linux code other than agreed by
publishing
it and claiming users needed a separate license from SCO to actually
use
it legally.
There are moderately plausible defenses here for SCO: SCO
have a signed
piece of paper from IBM agreeing to the SOFT-00015 contract, but
IBM have
no such piece of paper from SCO regarding IBM's Linux code. SCO might
claim
either that they did not knowingly agree to the terms of the GPL
regarding
IBM's code, or that they did agree, but the agreement was not with IBM
so
IBM have no standing, or that the terms are unfair, vague, or have
other
defects and are therefore not enforcable.
(Of course, later agreements
can and do override SOFT-00015 in various ways;
that's not my point
here.)
However, even if this counterclaim fails, that is not the same as
"GPL is
invalid", and the seventh and eighth still have to be
answered.
Seventh counterclaim: Promissory Estoppel
As described
earlier by PJ and also in some articles by actual lawyers,
this is a claim
involving "equity" that basically claims that SCO have
been acting unfairly:
they promissed that people could use
the Linux Kernel under the terms of the
GPL, IBM acted on the basis of
that promise as they could reasonably be expected
to do, and now SCO are
seeking to withdraw or revoke the promise.
This is a
less severe claim, but a much more difficult one to escape. It
rests not on SCO
having legally agreed to a detailed contract, but on SCO
having made public
undertakings to allow certain actions, which it is fair
to hold them
to.
Eighth counterclaim: Copyright infringement
This appears similar
to the sixth. It says: These identified
pieces of software are IBM's
copyright; SCO can copy them only with
license from us; The license they have
does not allow them to make derivative
works and distribute them under a more
restrictive license, but that is what
they have done.
Unlike the sixth, this
does not depend on the GPL being a valid contract
under contract law. IBM don't
have to show that SCO agreed to it, or that
there is a relationship between IBM
and SCO regarding SCO's use of Linux. They
do, on the other hand, have to show
that IBM own the copyright in question,
which is why the copyright registrations
are listed in this section.
The moderately plausible defenses to
counterclaim six therefore aren't useful
here. In fact the only logically
meaningful defense they provide is that
the code in question does not belong to
IBM: They admit "that IBM has placed copyright notices on certain of its AIX and
Dynix contributions to UNIX", but
otherwise deny that there is IBM copyright
code in Linux. They "deny the applicability"
of the GPL, but they don't explain
what other license applies to their use
of the code if the GPL doesn't.
So,
if IBM's counterclaim six fails, that could be headlined as "GPL found
invalid",
but it doesn't help SCO re: counterclaim 8, which is the normal
way that GPL
breaches are phrased. If SCO gets a miracle and successfully
claim that IBM
don't own the seven pieces of code listed, counterclaim 8 will
fail but that
will have no relevance to the GPL.
As an aside, I'm not familiar with this
kind of document, but SCO's response
appears to neither admit nor deny most of
the paragraphs. For example, where IBM allege in para 39 "SCO gave away CD-ROMs
containing its Linux operating system at trade shows", SCO "Admit that it
previously envaged in certain Linux-related activities, but denies the remaining
allegations of 39 not specifically admitted herein". So did they give away
CD-ROMs or didn't they?
It's a Linux-related activity, but they haven't
specifically admitted it, so
do they deny it? How does this move the case on at
all? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 08:49 AM EST |
SCO as Caldera included the GPL in some of their SEC filings. I foresee
difficulty in that as they now are repudiating the GPL in their answer to IBM
counterclaims. Once the stock tanks, I am sure that an investor’s attorney will
be waving that contradictory filing as fraud. Is their really safe place to hide
when the SEC to comes to get you? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 08:57 AM EST |
Copyright holders- Do you know who is distributing your work?
SCO is still publishing their Caldera Supplemental Open Source Software license
page for OpenLinux and the Open source software packages. The date is October
28, 2003. Imagine my surprise to read and I quote “Most components are licensed
under the terms of either the GNU General Public License or the GNU Library
General Public License.” A quick click on the Browse Source Packages shows that
this software is still being distributed.
There is another page that lists these supplemental open source packages that
SCO is distributing. It’s a long list. Several hundred open source applications
are being distributed by the SCO group. But they cannot be distributing these
files under the GPL, because they have stated that the GPL is an invalid
license. Please note I am not saying that the GPL is invalid, but I am
questioning the right for the SCO Group to distribute any software that has been
released under the GPL while having a public stance that the license is invalid.
If I were a copyright holder of software the SCO Group was distributing under
the GPL, I would be greatly concerned. Is the SCO Group complying with the GPL
for my software? If not, what license are they using to distribute my software?
The General Public license is a contract between the copyright holder and the
distributing party. The repercussions that a party to the contract does not
believe the contract to be valid should be very carefully reviewed by your legal
counsel. These questions may require the extraordinary step of contacting the
SCO Group to clarify their position in regards to the GPL and your copyrighted
software. A failure to respond by the SCO Group or a negative response could
lead to a need to ask a court to intervene to protect your copyright. Given the
SCO Group’s concern for intellectual property rights, you should expect a prompt
response, but the legal staff is very busy on several other matters, so the
response could be delayed.
References: http://www.caldera.com/soss/
http://www.caldera.com/soss/license.html
http://www.caldera.com/soss/info/contents.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 09:03 AM EST |
Isn't this SCO response to IBM's countersuit only due in Feb 2004? Did SCO
file early? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 09:05 AM EST |
Yep - SCO Calander Stuck on April 1st (April Fools Day)!
And because they don't understand the copyright on the 1st page of the calander
(SCO's Lawyers can't help them with an understanding...) they have decided,
under advise from counsel to go with it - every day! This has gone on for so
long AND at this point they are so lost with not knowing actually what day it
really is, as the only bearing they have is the calander that is stuck on April
1st, that... they are going with it for now (or until their Lawyers advise them
differently.
Fact - the Law firm SCO hired keeps getting paid with back-dated checks - All
dated April 1st!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 09:11 AM EST |
"EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution,
together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM’s claims
based thereon, or related thereto, are barred. "
Did they even bother to READ the constitution?
Congress has the power: (taken straight from the US Constitution)
* To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and
with the Indian tribes;
* To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited
times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings
and discoveries;
Congress chose to make a law which stated that people retain all rights unless
they give them up, and then they get to choose the terms assuming those terms
don't break any other laws. (They can't descriminate based on race for
example.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 09:18 AM EST |
| The foobar license would say nothing but "Hello World". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 09:22 AM EST |
Has anyone else noticed this lovely article over at always on?
http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=P1303_0_1_0_C
SCO v. IBM Part Deux
Much Sound and Fury, Little Enlightenment by Mark F. Radcliffe.
Essentially, Novell has a trump card in the current fight that it has played,
making SCO's claims null and void![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SteveS on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 09:29 AM EST |
I had asked this before but had not received an answer: Is SCO violating the GPL
by it's License offer? Isn't this a binary only distro? Or does the license
not include any product? (Just a piece of paper saying "OK, you can use it
now.")
If they are in violation for offering this license, Whether anyone has bought or
not, I would think that ALL contributors could issue a cease and desist - While
I don't think that this would stop SCO, I do believe that such a public show
could have a chilling effect on SCO stock speculation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 09:50 AM EST |
Did SCO's lawyers miss law school the day they taught the concepts re: the
court of equity as distinguishable from the court of law?
If so, they could still have read up on the topic at lamlaw.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 09:51 AM EST |
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=49420
well well well
i do believe some are finally catching on
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 10:09 AM EST |
I wonder. What do you imagine the effect on SCO's stock
will be if their information is no longer taken with the same
level of seriousness that it first was? At this point, I wonder
what the effect will be now that they're basically receiving
derisive humour in exchange for their claims. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: midav on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 10:54 AM EST |
| "If we're in violation of them [Software Patents], then just about
every other vendor in the entire software industry is in violation of them. What
they're claiming is something that is a common practice within the software
industry." Should I interpret it as claim that the whole idea of software
patents is bogus? Then if there was a thing of all SCOG's garbage I would like
to see upheld by the court, that would be it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 11:24 AM EST |
It has occured to me that the whole SCO mess might be Ray Noorda's final
revenge on Microsoft. Take some people you knew to be C players, gave them a bit
of misdirection about the great case they have against Linux and the GPL, and
turn them loose against the strongest opponent. Knowing that they will fail
miserably and, in so doing, lay down some case law that Microsoft would have a
very hard time overturning. A last service to mankind, perhaps, if the reports
of Noorda's poor health are correct.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jfindley on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 11:29 AM EST |
For all us laypeople can somebody lay out a brief outline of the legal steps
that occur in a case like this and what (if any) impact each step has?
More to the point; at what point does a judge review any or all of these
documents and at what point can they use their discretion (or can they?) to
throw this whole case out since it appears to be so ridiculous?
If these questions have been asked and answered elsewhere please point me in the
right direction.
JF[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 11:34 AM EST |
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/27/1067213195363.html
this was posted on yahoo stock board by koalityassurance
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sphealey on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 11:36 AM EST |
| SCO seem to be advancing the argument that they "own" Unix(tm). How does the
existance of the Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) for POSIX and
the ruling in Veeck vs.
SBCCI affect this argument? Entirely apart from The Open Group's ownership
of the UNIX(tm) trademark of course? sPh [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mdchaney on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 11:37 AM EST |
This is what we've been waiting for. A journalist who does quick, simple
fact-checks and exposes obvious lies. What is so difficult about this that Mr.
McMillan seems to be the only tech journalist capable of it? And he does a good
job, taking each of Blake's points and destroying them with quotes from two
actual attorneys (Blake is a press contact).
We need to keep a copy of this article, and send it to the nitwits who are
parroting SCO's press releases.
Michael[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: anesq on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 11:44 AM EST |
Wait. You guys have missed some of the most seriously funny parts of SCO’s
“defenses.”
Check The Ninth Affirmative Defense, “IBM’s claims are barred… by the doctrine
of judicial immunity….” The doctrine of judicial immunity is the concept that a
judge cannot be sued for her actions on the bench (i.e. you can not sue a judge
for ruling against you, or for that matter, saying bad things about you – this
makes sense; otherwise, chaos would ensue as every disgruntled litigant sued the
judge ruling against them). Last I checked, neither SCO nor any of its officers
are judges.
But wait, there’s more. The 15th Affirmative Defense: “On information and
belief, one or more of the copyrights at issue is, or may be, unenforceable by
reason of IBM’s inequitable conduct, acts or omissions before the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.” Now, every good intellectual property attorney
(and many other well informed people in general) knows that the US Patent and
Trademark office (part of the Commerce Department) handles patents and, um,
trademarks. Copyrights are handled by the Copyright Office, which is
technically part of the Library of Congress, an entity controlled directly by
the legislative branch.
Assuming for a moment that IBM did commit inequitable conduct, acts or omissions
before the PTO, it would be completely without precedent for such actions to
have any bearing on rights granted by a completely different department, in a
completely different branch of government.
I would chalk this up to a typo, but there is defense 19 as well, which clearly
alleges the same defense for the patents. It isn’t clear to me why SCO did not
raise alleged inequitable conduct before the Copyright Office as a bar to the
patents.
As a side note, the patent related defenses at the end of the list are pretty
standard.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 01:27 PM EST |
There is basically only one good explaination for this whole turn of
events...
Beer....lots and lots of beer...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 02:04 PM EST |
SCO "seem to have taken up huffing paint thinner" according to
SiliconValley.com
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/gmsv/7123744.
htm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 02:53 PM EST |
Seriously, I can't see any exit strategy for them (once the SEC gets involved)
but flight to a non-extraditing country. I'd like to know how much money the
members of SCO's board have in offshore havens.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 05:37 PM EST |
Everyone here seems to assume that when SCO say the GPL is unenforceable they
are referring to the requirement to open source the code.
What if they want to break the GPL another way.
What if they claim the GPL is revocable and they are cancelling the GPLicense
for SCO copyright code.
Sure people will rally round and replace the missing code but I suspect Open
Source software would be seriously wounded anyway.
Every time any of the hundreds of copyright owners with code in Linux was taken
over or bought out this would start again.
This couldn't happen could it?
Joe
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jonah on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 06:48 PM EST |
It has been said that the GPL is unconstitutional, unenforceable, un-American,
and, quite possibly, a tool of the terrorists. All this may be true, but it
misses the point. The primary problem with the GPL is that the GPL destroys
the value of everything it touches.
I once installed some GPLed
software on a computer for which I had paid over $800. Five years later,
when I tried to sell the computer, I found I couldn't even get $100 for it.
What had happened? Clearly, the GPL destroyed the value of that
machine.
And the use GPLed software is growing. As GPLed software makes
its way into more and more devices, we face the very real possibilty that we may
one day wake to find that nothing we own has any value left.
Don't
let the terrorists win! Contact your Congressperson today, and tell him you will
not stand by while the GPL destroys all the value in our society.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 28 2003 @ 07:54 PM EST |
If SCO has evidence of copyright infringement by other companies shouldn't they
be turning it over to the BSA, the DOJ, or the copyright holders? I mean SCO
claims they are the only ones which "respect others intellectual property
rights" - right?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
