decoration decoration
Stories

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

Username:

Password:

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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Lawyers Everywhere Say Huh? Rubbish. Weird. A Stretch
Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 05:03 AM EST

The legal community is starting to react, and after a brief pause while they probably called around to make sure that what they'd read wasn't a hoax, they are starting to regain their ability to speak.

SCO really said it. It's not a parody or a hoax. They really said the GPL is unconstitutional and unenforceable and void and/or voidable.

Well, they also said IBM's patents were invalid too, and what are the odds of that being true? Slim? Or none? We'll start with Eben Moglen, the attorney for the Free Software Foundation:

"It's just rubbish," said attorney and Columbia Law School professor Eben Moglen. "There's nothing about giving permission to copy, modify or redistribute that violates the U.S. Constitution or any other law of the United States."


IBM reacted too, in the same Stephen Shankland article, and you can almost hear them chuckling:
"IBM strongly believes in its counterclaims and looks forward to trying its case in the court of law," where IBM will address SCO's specific claims, such as the GPL issue, spokesman Mike Darcy said.
IBM is way cool. So understated. So sure. In contrast, the unfortunate Blake Stowell, having to do PR for the SCO funny farm, did his best, saying that Congress, not the FSF, regulates copyright. Um. Oh. 'Kay.

Shankland asked whether SCO was offering indemnification on Samba, a GPL product they are releasing in their current software offerings. Well, hem and haw. No. They are not. Bravo for asking the right question, Mr. Shankland.

TechNewsWorld has more stunned legal eagles reacting to SCO's GPL position. Jeff Berkowitz, at Finnegan Henderson, said that SCO's response shows that the two sides in the dispute are "digging in their heels."

Either that, or it shows one side is getting wildly desperate. Here's what he said, in part:

"I'm sure they did sufficient research to raise those defenses -- they're not woefully inappropriate," he said. "But some of them appear to be a stretch. It's just unusual to see these sorts of defenses under the facts in this case."
High praise, indeed. "Not woefully inappropriate." What is that, would you say? A D minus? or a D plus?

Phil Albert, with Townsend and Townsend and Crew, said SCO's position that the GPL was unconstitutional is "weird" and that SCO is shooting itself in the foot.

He must be new around SCOville. I think they must be up to the knees at least, by now. They ran out of feet some months back. Here's more from the head-scratching Mr. Albert:

"For SCO to say 'We're in possession, but the license is not valid and is unconstitutional' -- that leaves them in the position of copyright infringer," Albert said. "That's kind of the inconsistency."
Yup. Kind of.

Consistency? He wants consistency? He's looking to the wrong party for that, as we old timers can attest. Unless consistently stoooopid about the GPL counts. And here I've been giving them remedial classes in the GPL since May, too. They just are not applying themselves.

And another lawyer on hearing the news thinks it's so ridiculous, they must have been misquoted:

"It appears to be a totally bizarre argument," said James Boyle, a professor at Duke University's law school (Durham, N.C.). "It's hard to imagine what they're thinking." . . .

Boyle of Duke University argues that while federal copyright law prevents IP owners from protecting their property too much -- users can make a single copy of a software program, for example -- it makes no provisions regarding owners who want to protect their property less.

"How can copyright law pre-empt a copyright holder who says, 'I don't want to limit people's ability to reproduce?'" Boyle asked. "The GPL people are the people who own the code. They can do with it whatever they want. . . . From the outside, it appears so bizarre and so ridiculous that I fear their argument is being misstated," he said.
Poor David Boies. He's in danger of going down in history as the lawyer who couldn't understand the GPL. He needs to jump overboard and start swimming for shore before he loses all credibility in the legal profession. Never mind the sharks. Just jump and swim for it, David. That's my advice. But hey, I'm no lawyer, so feel free to ignore me, by all means. But because I do grok the GPL, you might want to think it over very, very carefully and consider your options. You're on a slow SCO boat to nowhere good. A good name is better than money. It's in the category of precious things no amount of money can buy. So, jump, David! Jump!

  


Lawyers Everywhere Say Huh? Rubbish. Weird. A Stretch | 215 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Where they got that wierd idea about the FSF
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 06:00 AM EST
I think they must have read Rob E.'s piece in Forbes last week, and somehow
concluded that those he refered to as "Linux's Hit Met", the FSF,
were responisble for enforcing ALL gpl'd software?

Idiots.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stuff
Authored by: ZeusLegion on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 06:10 AM EST
Speaking of Rob Enderle, isn't about time we started calling him by the name
everyone else is going to?

Here's a hint: It rhymes with FUD.

So much for your analyses, Mr. Enderle. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

For SCO, the End is Nigh.



---
Z

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Stuff - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 11:10 AM EST
    • Stuff - Authored by: rand on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 11:41 AM EST
      • Stuff - Authored by: Jadeclaw on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 01:49 PM EST
    • Stuff - Authored by: Trepalium on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 05:58 PM EST
  • Stuff - Authored by: tanstaafl on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 06:07 PM EST
Lawyers Everywhere Say Huh? Rubbish. Weird. A Stretch
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 06:20 AM EST
Is there a possibility that SCO clients will ask them to indemnify them against
the potential fall-out? Shouldn't SCO book provisions for this eventuality?
Will this not drive down their stock value?

In addition, I still find it weird to find a stock soaring to the hights it does
while hampered by a lawsuit with such an enormous impact.

Ben

[ Reply to This | # ]

What sticks...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 06:31 AM EST
This is throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

You must be desparate...

Hans

[ Reply to This | # ]

Napster recast - and a research question
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 06:31 AM EST
Napster violating all those music copyrights, and trying to come up why it was
okay for them to profit by doing so...

SCO violating all those Linux contributors' copyrights, and trying to come up
why it was okay for them to profit by doing so...

Who is the lawyer defending this cr*p in both cases?

What's worse, is SCO only started doing this AFTER appointing Boies (whereas
Napster basically started from inception). You'd have thought that he would
have learned from his Napster experience. Did he?


RESEARCH QUESTION: Is he is using the same/similar arguments to defend SCO's
copyright infringements as tried for Napster? I seem to remember anti-trust
being tried in Napster's defense too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Effect on RedHats case
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 06:33 AM EST
If SCO has raised the stakes against IBM by getting the Judge to have to rule on
GPL, copyright, the American constitution, reality and so on, can they not claim
that Red hats case is now covered by the IBM case and should be dismissed ?

They would then claim to be vindicated and push the share price up again

John D

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyers Everywhere Say Huh? Rubbish. Weird. A Stretch
Authored by: geoff lane on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 06:42 AM EST
Boies, Schiller & Flexner must be wondering exactly when they employed Lionel Hutz (who formally practised in Springfield) and which of them allocated him to the high profile SCO case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sharks
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 07:05 AM EST
"Never mind the sharks. Just jump and swim for it, David"
The sharks wouldn't worry him, surely. Professional courtesy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Sharks - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 12:42 PM EST
  • Sharks - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 04:41 PM EST
Lawyers Everywhere Say Huh? Rubbish. Weird. A Stretch
Authored by: Glenn on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 07:17 AM EST
"Never mind the sharks. Just jump and swim for it, David"

That is all that SCO needs, a lawyer to jump ship. Then they could delay
again. This would be forever. Which law firm would want to take this case on
now? The best thing that any of the non-SCO lawyers have said about this is that
it is not "woefully inadequate". Professional courtsey?
<chuckle>

Glenn

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyers Everywhere Say Huh? Rubbish. Weird. A Stretch
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 07:28 AM EST
Boies won't bail. Twenty percent of nothing is tempting enough that anyone will
stay for the duration.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyers Everywhere Say Huh? Rubbish. Weird. A Stretch
Authored by: mnichols on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 07:51 AM EST
Wouldn't it be better for SCO to try to get the judge to declare that they own
everything* and that anybody who says otherwise is a communist and trying to
destroy the american way of life. This way the IBM would come off as communists
and the patents thing would be moot as they would own them.



*not to interfere with the everything MS owns.

mojo

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyers Everywhere Say Huh? Rubbish. Weird. A Stretch
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 08:19 AM EST

SCO offered no details in its court filing, but it said in a statement, "Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. copyright law says that Congress can regulate copyrights, not the FSF or any other organization."

Did the SCO lawyers go to sleep and let McBride out again? The FSF doesn't regulate copyrights; they simply enforce those they own, just as any other software author or copyright holder does. What morons.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Stowell Quotes
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 08:22 AM EST
New Stowell and Perens quotes in Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sl trib.com/2003/Oct/10292003/business/106360.asp

"Apart from the patent issues, SCO views the GPL issues as much more significant," company spokesman Blake Stowell said Tuesday. "SCO's copyrights still stand. Congress has drawn a boundary between proprietary and open source."

I wasn't aware of this line/law that Stowell refers to, can anybody point it out???

SCO using IBM code in violation of copyright? Not worth addressing?

In its countersuit, IBM also contends that by once distributing programs under the Linux GPL, SCO itself incorporated IBM's source code contributions into its own Linux versions. SCO has denied the allegations as "frivolous."

[ Reply to This | # ]

The unimaginable has happened
Authored by: minkwe on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 08:23 AM EST
I guess their desperation is evident.
http://www.eetimes.com/ sys/news/OEG20030902S0030

But others questioned the argument's merits and legal analysts insisted that the likelihood of SCO making such a case before a judge is slim. "It appears to be a totally bizarre argument," said James Boyle, a professor at Duke University's law school (Durham, N.C.). "It's hard to imagine what they're thinking."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Smear with a Cause
Authored by: phrostie on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 08:47 AM EST
last night i had a brain storm(maybe it's the solar storm).
SCO is asking for a Jury trial. by putting as much contradicting BS in the
media they can eliminate any well informed jurer canidate.

---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://pfrostie.freeservers.com/cad-tastrafy/
http:/

[ Reply to This | # ]

David Boies - never won a major case
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 09:13 AM EST
He's a light weight ex-government employee.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another article - SCO's patent defense
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 09:14 AM EST
http://ww w.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Oct/gee20031029022414.htm
In regards to IBM's contention that SCO has violated IBM patents, SCO makes the argument that the patents may not be valid due to their far reaching nature. SCO spokesperson Blake Stowell believes the patents cover a common practice which would make other companies in violation of IBM's patents as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyers Everywhere Say Huh? Rubbish. Weird. A Stretch
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 09:24 AM EST
Looks to me that a lot of people outside the FOSS movement are realising how
much they depend on the GPL right now. These people will start to hate the very
idea of attacking the GPL. The reputation of FOSS is now rising one notch
because of SCO's stupidity.

Whe the lawsuit is over, the GPL will have won a well earned reputation of a
battle tested license. The reputation of FOSS will rise another notch.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So when's the huge march on SCO HQ?
Authored by: renef on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 09:25 AM EST
GPL
FSF
-----
SCO
FUD

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another interpretation
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 09:31 AM EST
http://www.linuxworld.com/story /35679.htm - I think this is probably Linuxworld's own interpretation, rather than something SCO said:

As often in this pre-trial phase, SCO did not see fit to offer any actual details backing up its assertions. But the general thrust of its argument appears to be that under the GPL, mere human beings - American citizens - arrogate to themselves the right to give permission to copy, modify, or redistribute intellectual property, while that kind of regulation of copyright, according to SCIO's contention, can and must only be done - per Article 1 Section 8 of the US copyright law - by Congress itself.
And no, it doesn't make any more sense to me (actually even less sense) than any of the other bizarre versions or direct SCO quotes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's continued GPL Mistake
Authored by: lightsail on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 09:34 AM EST
SCO still distributes software using the GPL license. Their precious SysV is
supplimented with a large amount of Open Source software by SCO. The argument to
void the GPL is not Linux specific. By actively using any GPL software, SCO is
making another possible fatal misstep.

It still remains to be seen, if the SEC will take notice that SCO has a anti-GPL
position. This conflicts with the filings that Calderea has made in the past.
Will the SEC be troubled by this about face?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyers Everywhere Say Huh? Rubbish. Weird. A Stretch
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 10:04 AM EST
Thanks for the link to http://www.eetimes.com/s ys/news/OEG20030902S0030
"Privately, in meetings we've had with them, some very large companies in the IT industry have told us that they have a lot of problems with the GPL," said the SCO Group spokesman.
If you replace "very large companies in the IT industry" with "Microsoft" this statement becomes
"Privately, in meetings we've had with them, Microsoft have told us that they have a lot of problems with the GPL," said the SCO Group spokesman.
Just thought it intriguing.
Joel Stobart

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where is Boies?
Authored by: inc_x on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 10:08 AM EST
Boies did not sign of on this response, did he?
I only see Heise and Zack mentioned.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Where is Boies? - Authored by: midav on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 11:55 AM EST
  • Where is Boies? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 12:29 PM EST
  • Where is Boies? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 02:49 PM EST
Stalling for time
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 10:09 AM EST
Good Morning;

I figure SCO is simply stalling for time. My undertsanding
(very limited) is that during discovery both parties not only
go through identifying where they have discrepancies and
how, but also identify what they both agree upon. At least I
think that's part of discovery. Anyways, if SCO disagrees
with most, if not all, of what IBM has claimed, then they
prolong the whole business right? At that point IBM has to
ensure they take all angles into consideration preparing
defences. SCO might not even have any more of a plan
than what has already been suggested numerous times.

Just a thought.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not a quirk in in System!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 10:34 AM EST
The systen worked just as it was entended.

One man one vote and each equal.

In this "Federalized Republic" the people do not elect

the president the states do and They are Not equal.

jog

[ Reply to This | # ]

Humor, sadly reflecting the truth.
Authored by: lightsail on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 10:54 AM EST
“Holy conundrums, Batman, SCO in a classic lose-lose situation.”

“Exactly, Boy Wonder, if SCO fails to overturn the GPL, IBM’s contributions are
upheld and the Linux binary licenses that they sold are infringing. But if SCO
overturns the GPL, Every Unix and Linux that SCO ever sold is infringing as
every OS that SCO ever sold has some open source components under the GPL
license.”

“This looks like the end of SCO’s reign of evil, Batman; we can retire knowing
good will triumph.”

“Not so fast, Robin, These perverted, devious minds that run the SCO Group are
likely to continue to torment good folks for years before True Justice ends this
perversion.”


Patiently waiting for SCO last Gasp

[ Reply to This | # ]

But do I get the point yet?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 11:00 AM EST
I must be slow. I'm not sure how SCO benefits if they succeed in getting the GPL declared equivalent to Public Domain -- something my reading of the GPL could never allow to happen under cy pres (and yes, I'm painfully not a lawyer). Let me see if I understand correctly what steps they expect to follow thereafter:
  1. GPL == Public Domain
  2. therefore, Linux kernel (before 2.4), GNU tools, GCC etc. etc are all public domain
  3. Someone (with a capital S) puts SCO proprietary code into Linux, even without SCO's knowledge.
  4. Presto! Change-o! Now the Linux kernel (post whatever 2.4 included the "proprietary" code) has suddenly become SCO's exclusive IP.

Did I get it? Why does my head hurt so much?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Speaking of consistency...
Authored by: Dark on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 11:01 AM EST
I started laying IBM's counterclaims and SCO's answers side by side, and I'm getting some weird results.
  • In point 2, SCO denies that it has instituted litigation against IBM.
  • In point 4, SCO denies that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
  • In point 11, SCO denies that it acquired the original SCO's rights to Unix in 2001.
Is this just sloppiness on their part or am I misreading things? I'm comparing Groklaw's copy of their answers with SCO's copy of IBM's claims.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let's stick to SCO stuff
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 11:17 AM EST
I don't like W either - but this isn't the right place to be discussing it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO has invoked the Chewbacca Defense
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 11:29 AM EST
Well, I had suspected it before but now its official, SCO is going to use
the Chewbacca Defense. Here's a little background:

"Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, Puff Daddy's accusers
wouldcertainly want you to believe my client was carrying a stolen gun
onDecember 27th, and they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity
myself.But Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final
thing Iwant you to consider.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from
theplanet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But
Chewbaccalives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not
make sense.Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to
live on Endorwith a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make
sense.

But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to
dowith this case. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do
withthis case. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer
defending amajor record company producer and entertainer and I'm
talkin' aboutChewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I
am not making anysense. None of this makes sense.

And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating
andconjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No.
Ladiesand Gentlemen of this supposed jury it does not make sense. If
Chewbaccalives on Endor you must acquit.

I know he seems guilty. But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca.
Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why
am I talking about Chewbacca when a man's life is on the line? Why? I'll
tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not
make sense you must acquit. Here look at the monkey , look at the silly
monkey.

The defense rests."

[ Reply to This | # ]

[OT] Redhat is doing well today...
Authored by: cfitch on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 11:45 AM EST
As of 10:40 CST, they are up 0.63.

Not too shabby!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyers Everywhere Say Huh? Rubbish. Weird. A Stretch
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 11:47 AM EST
There shouldn't be any surprises here. The supposed-big-deal SCO attorney
(Boise?) represented Napster and Al Gore. Napster ended up in bankruptcy and
look who's in the White House. What amazes me is that people are actually
buying SCO stock in hopes of reaping a bonanza from the legal wrangling.

Creigh Shank
miami, Florida

[ Reply to This | # ]

Estoppel?
Authored by: danb35 on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 11:55 AM EST
From the news.com.com.com article, quoting a SCO statement:
Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. copyright law says that Congress can regulate copyrights, not the FSF or any other organization.
If this claim applies to the GPL, it applies equally to every other license in the history of copyright law. If SCO is actually arguing this, then they should be barred from trying to enforce any license agreements. Do they really believe this?

It's nonsense, of course. First, the Constitution only describes the powers of the government; it doesn't purport to state rights, powers, or abilities of non-governmental entities. Second, nobody is trying to "regulate copyrights" with the GPL; they're just (as has been said before) allowing the use of their copyrighted material under certain conditions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyers Everywhere Say Huh? Rubbish. Weird. A Stretch
Authored by: DFJA on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 11:59 AM EST
Some of you guys, like SCO themselves, miss the point here. You (and they) talk
about the American constitution. What has this got to do with things? OK,
supposing SCO do win and it is deemed unconstitional. Then GPL software becomes
unusable in the USA.

So that leaves about 96% of the population of the planet still able to use GPL
software as before, being completely unaffected. Those of you unfortunate enough
to live and work in the USA could simply move to, say, well, just about anywhere
really and carry on using and developing GPL software. The poorer nations of the
world understand this, and this is why open source software is very popular in
countries like Brazil, that have emerging IT economies and realise that Open
Source Software is extremely good for their economies.

Of course this doesn't consider the possibility that SCO might try and get the
GPL invalidated in other jurisdictions too, and if it is invalidated in one then
that increases the chance that it will be invalidated in others too. But there
are many countries around the world that would take a very dim view of such
action - Germany, Korea, Japan and China spring to mind as being obvious ones.
They simply would not let such a catastrophe happen in their jurisdictions - it
would simply be too costly to their economies.

The question all Americans should be asking is, if this happens, what will
happen to the entire idustries in the US that depend to a greater or lesser
degree on the success of the GPL? They will have to either die or move elsewhere
in the world. This would be gravely damaging to the US economy (certainly in
some regions) and it is really not in your interests to let this happen. There
is quite a lot going on here in Europe too, and if we end up having to carry the
Open Source Flag as a result of an unfavourable decision by some court a long
way from here, we would welcome all American Open Source refugees with open
arms.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyers Everywhere Say Huh? Rubbish. Weird. A Stretch
Authored by: apessos on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 12:16 PM EST
Either this is a brilliantly played game of chess or they are being payrolled to
test the GPL and try to find a weakness.
I somewhat doubt they don't have the mental cognitive ability to understand
what they are doing. Despite some of the things that have been sai,d I think
they are more intelligent then they are letting on.

Don't look at what the left hand is doing, look at what the other hands is
doing...

I so hope I'm wrong.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is in bug dudu
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 12:57 PM EST
Okay here it goes.
SCO says GPL is invalid. GPL states if you don't agree to this license you have
no rights to distribute GPL code.

Some one should ask the question to provide a legal document that proves their
legality to distribute any GPL'ed software (let's say, uhmmm SAMBA).

They have one of two choices.
1) They say that simply stating GPL is invalid does not ivalidate the license as
long as there is no court ruling to back this up, thus they provide SAMBA under
GPL.
2) They say all GPL'ed code becomes Public Domain and all Copyrights in GPL'ed
software become invalid, thus there is no violation from SCO.

I guess I am a month or so ahead of this to come out of a SCO law office.

Hahaha, I don't want to think about all the twists and twitches that would
result out of this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What SCO should _really_ address
Authored by: geoff lane on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 12:58 PM EST
Over in TMCNet there is an article NEC Announces Availability Of Global Navigator 5.0 Monitoring Solution For Call Centers.

It describes how call centre software that used to run on SCO UNIX has been ported to Linux (which must have taken all of a day or two.)

Now, the entire reason that call centres exist is to provide low cost services. If the Linux version of the software allows the center to operate with even a slightly better profitability it will rapidly drive out the higher cost platform.

SCO could loose a lot of installations because of this. It's something that SCO should be spending money on avoiding but it seems that the tiny chance of huge amounts of money in the far future is more attractive than a boring steady business plan.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New article, new quotes
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 01:56 PM EST
New Article:

http://www.newsfactor.com /perl/story/22583.html

New quotes from Eben, etc., as well

[ Reply to This | # ]

DiDio Duh
Authored by: Clay on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 02:23 PM EST
In an article on Yahoo today Laura DiDio says that the SCO case must have merit
because Bois took it on pro-bono, and if a big, smart, well known attorney like
that would take it well it MUST be legit.

ha. how about they just don't get the GPL and made a mistake?

Some other good stuff in the article like why UnitedLinux might kick SCO out.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nf/20031027/bs_nf/22561

---
---------------------------
newObjectivity, Inc. supports the destruction
of all software patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jump Boies jump
Authored by: ijramirez on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 02:55 PM EST
I can see Mr. Boies got to the judge and telling him:
"You honor, we have been representing SCO for the past 11 months but in
spite of our advise to SCO principals to refer all comments about this case to
our legal firm, they refuse to keep their mouth shut. Our clients are no
different than a patient who refuses to follow their doctor's medical advise.
They have created a situation where our firm has become the laughing stock of
all legal firms in the USA. We want out of this mess and we are hiring an
independent law firm to represent us in a lawsuit against SCO for all the
damage they have done to our firm."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can Boies Jump Ship?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 03:28 PM EST
Wouldn't doing so violate any lawyer-client bonds? I've heard of lawyers
getting disbarred if they cause their clients to lose (or somesuch).

[ Reply to This | # ]

speaking of "SCOville" ...
Authored by: rpjday on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 04:12 PM EST
absolutely not law-related, but PJ's reference to "SCOville"
brought to mind the following:

http://www.victoryseeds.com/information/scoville.html

i'm trying to come up with an appropriate joke.

rday

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here is what SCO really means
Authored by: ProfDumb on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 05:47 PM EST
Look, Boies may be stupid, but he can't be that stupid. Here is what I think
SCO is really going to argue in court.

First, they aren't going to try to overturn the whole GPL, just narrow portions
of it that might apply to this case.

In particular, they are concerned with the argument that by distributing Linux
code that contains IBM's "stolen" fragments, they lose the right to
sue IBM.

They could argue that a strict interpretation of the GPL could be used to trick
folks into giving away their IP:

First, say I steal IP from you (and let's say that you are a company that also
distributes Linux.) Then, I sneak that IP into Linux. Then I claim that you
can't sue me, because by distributing your own IP in Linux you just gave it
away to the world! Ha Ha Ha!

This explains why they want to argue that "copyright trumps the
GPL." You can't steal my copyright by inserting my IP into Linux.

Now, IBM might counter: but you continued to distribute Linux even after you
"discovered" the alledged theft. SCO will rebut with the argument
that they shouldn't be driven out of the Linux business just because IBM stole
their code. This would be a form of blackmail: "I steal your code, you
point it out, now you have to leave the business! Ha Ha Ha again."

This argument might fly (or might not.) But it is not as stupid as "the
GPL is totally invalid and so here we are distributing copyrighted software
without a license." The argument is: we have a valid license, but some
narrow provisions of that license cannot be enforced in the exact way that IBM
claims.

So, why do they currently make a broad, vague apparently stupid claim that the
"GPL is invalid"? First, to spread FUD to try to scare IBM into
settling. Second, as a matter of strategy, a country boy like Boies knows that
looking stupid often pays off: your opponent isn't ready for the actual
argument and so you catch him off guard.

In conclusion: let's not be caught off guard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

David Boies: Ladykiller
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 05:55 PM EST
Speaking of David Boies, the lead partner of the law firm that is representing SCO, is having some troubles down in Florida. He faces three charges of ethics violations based on his involvement in a bizarre legal battle between the owners of two Palm Beach lawn-care companies.

"His ethics are appalling," Carol Lewis said.

"Everybody says Boies is a genius, but I don't see it," her husband said. "I see Goliath falling."

This comes from the wife/husband team that is one of the parties to the lawsuit where the charges stemmed from.

Even so called "geniuses," as he was once described, have human downfalls. He was thrown out of Northwestern University for having an affair with a professors wife, which he openly acknowledges.

No, I don't have too much respect for Mr. Boies. Regardless of the outcome, he will win. Months after the decision, he will still be raking in the millions. Some reptiles are extremely resilient.

Here's the link to the ethics charges article:

http://www.judicialaccountability.org/articles/Deboisgorelawyerbeforebar.htm

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyers Everywhere Say Huh? Rubbish. Weird. A Stretch
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 29 2003 @ 10:37 PM EST
It does make sense why they are after GPL. It is because their master, M$Soft,
is done stealing from *BSD. M$soft now want's to steal from linux. So, strategy
is to get at least last 3 years work on linux as public domain and then steal as
much as you want. That's why m$soft money is flowing to SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Use your brain - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 02:09 AM EST
License does not equal copyright
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 30 2003 @ 09:07 AM EST
SCO and its lawyers seem to have trouble differentiating between license and
copyright. The license is merely the tool the programmer is using to control
copying of his program. It does not grant him copyright. The Constitution does
that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyers Everywhere Say Huh? Rubbish. Weird. A Stretch
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 01 2003 @ 06:12 AM EST
Look at the overall picture! To follow SCO logic you must first learn to think
like SCO. Caldera had the best intentions for its nitch market but lost
investor confidence and was on the verge of throwing in the towel. Intel was
getting ready to release the next generation processors and one company,(old)SCO
was unloading its IP at yardsale bargain because IBM wasn't going to promote
another operating system that had no mass market appeal. IBM doesn't have to
do anything that promises to never be profitable, but that left (old)SCO with
nothing to say but "Thanks for the memories". Well, Someone up
there in Utah felt that Caldera had leverage in the operating system that IBM
had just pledged a billion dollars towards improving/marketing, and (old)SCO was
selling the needed intel unix IP to create a SUE IBM scenario. To make this all
happen you have to have the right people and these people must love money and
doing anything they can to get it. The right people must be able to think they
know what is right and everyone else is wrong...perhaps people who believe that
baptism for the dead makes complete sense.

[ 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 )