|
|
| First Notes and Impressions from Today's Teleconference |
 |
|
Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:06 PM EST
|
OK. Here are my notes and my impressions. A more complete transcript will follow. I'll be adding to this story as I get things typed up, so keep checking back.
1. They say they will sue Novell if they try to put a Linux distribution in the market.
2. They intend to go forward now on a second front, against end users. First they will target a victim from among the 1,500 who got letters, within the next 90 days. They want a victim who represents the problem, as they see it, to make an example of. But that is only the starting point, not the ending point. It could be an HP end user. They intend to enforce copyrights in System V and in code they say is being violated stemming from the old BSDi settlement. My impression was that the SCOForum was such a bust, they had to come up with some new code somewhere and so the old BSDi stuff is being trotted out. They will show that code to end users down the road.
3. They seem to have about given up on the voluntary licensing program, although they say they are going forward on that one by one, tailoring invoices to companies after they look into what they are using. After that, if the company doesn't buy a license, it gets turned over to David Boies for litigation.
4. As for just ripping out the code and rewriting it, they say the Linux community can do that, but it'd be hard, in their view. Example, the snip of copyrighted code they showed and then it was taken out -- that solves that for the 2.6 kernel, Darl said, but not for the 2.4, which is being used by companies now and is still out there. So they will go after 2.4. (Is this stupid or what?) If they win the IBM case, then it's a "million lines of code" that would be hard to replace, but the community could choose to go back to the 90s and rip out SMP, RCU, etc. and slowly rewrite equivalencies.
5. Microsoft isn't funding the litigation, they sort of said, but they are "on the same side of the table with SCO", according to Darl, along with Wind River Systems, Sun Microsystems, and all other proprietary companies. The world according to Darl. Details to follow.
6. The $1 Million and the 400,000 shares were paid to Boies for prior contingency events, specifically, according to Bench, the $50 million equity funding and other events. In the future, there could be other such contingencies, such as licenses, the company being bought, successful litigation and then Boies gets more moola. Darl described it as a partnership between SCO and Boies, so he's up to his eyeballs. No excuses. His firm now owns about 2-3% of SCO. As SCO succeeds, so does Boies, said Darl. And, happily, I might add, vice versa. Lordy, me. Another speech by Darl to go today. How much can a girl take in one day? Then, right after the speech there will be a town hall meeting, which will be tonight's episode of The Linux Show. The show will start at 5:45 Pacific Time. That's 15 minutes earlier then it's usual start time. Checkout the announcement here. The announcement is about halfway down on the page.
First, here is what they said about Microsoft: Someone said to them that there have been suggestions in the Linux community that this litigation is being funded by Microsoft, that they have been coordinating with Microsoft and they commented like this: DAVID BOIES: "I have not had any conversation nor, so far as I know -- and I think I would know -- has anybody from my firm had any conversation with Microsoft or with Microsoft representatives. This has been entirely litigation that we have undertaken on behalf of SCO and obviously the recent equity transaction, [unclear] preferred transaction, as I think Darl indicated, will provide adequate financing for the litigation without looking to any other company."
DARL MCBRIDE: "SCO's perspective: We're 100% driving our strategy here. There is no connection with Microsoft on this. It is a favorite topic of the open source community. People love to talk about this, because there are natural interests here. Anybody that owns an operating system that thinks it shouldn't be for free would naturally fall on this side of the table that SCO is on. So it's not just Microsoft. It's Wind River Systems. It's Sun Microsystems -- essentially anybody who thinks their valuable intellectual property in an operating system should have a price tag on it naturally lines up with SCO on this." So, what do you think? Do you take that as an unequivocable no from either one of them? Boies said he has not had "any conversations" with Microsoft. But how tricky is he in his speech? I don't know. But I know he's a lawyer. Did he have email interaction instead? Letters? Was the "conversation" with SCO instead, who just told Boies about it? Some other intermediary? I have no idea. If someone gave that answer on a witness stand, they'd probably be told they hadn't been asked if they had had any conversations with Microsoft. Rather, they were asked if MS was funding it or coordinating with SCO. And Darl's answer seems even less firmly a no. He names three companies and says they are naturally on SCO's side. I take that as saying that if they haven't given them money, they are at least rooting them on. That means, of course, that Groklaw has just widened its scope of inquiry accordingly to include not just SCO but all other parties sitting on that side of the table. Here's a pretty accurate account of some other points from the event, while you wait for a transcript. With regard to SCO suing Novell and saying that they will enforce a non-compete clause, it is a bit hard to know for sure what they mean. There is no non-compete agreement in the record. They may be referring to clause 1.6 of the 1995 Asset Purchase Agreement, which you can read in its entirety here. However, as you will see, the interpretation they appear to be giving those words depends on Linux actually containing SCO's code, something that is yet to be proven and which many feel is unlikely ever to be proven. Alternatively, they may be thinking of Linux as being a derivative of Unix, which in my view it is not, but in the teleconference Darl said, "Linux is a knockoff of Unix." So perhaps that is his thinking.
If they mean the Unix code they claim is inside Linux, the next question (after they actually prove that claim, which they haven't yet) would be: how much do the four chunks SCO is claiming, SMP, RCU etc., constitute in the whole picture? To qualify for the clause to kick in, it would have to "constitute a primary portion of the value of the total bundled or integrated product", which arguably it would not, especially when you consider that not a lot of us actually use that code in the first place, let alone it being only a portion of the whole. Then there is another issue. This contract was between Novell and old SCO, not current SCO, so that is a further complication. To assert such broad claims when the picture includes such a lot of Ifs seems ...well, typical of SCO.
Here is the language I think they may be referring to:
"Seller agrees that it shall use the Licensed Technology
only (i) for internal purposes without restriction or (ii) for resale in bundled or integrated products sold by Seller which are not directly competitive with the core products of Buyer and in which the Licensed Technology does not constitute a primary portion of the value of the total bundled or integrated product."
Obviously, this is talking about Unix code, the code they were licensing, not Linux. You have to stretch quite a bit to even get what McBride might be thinking to imagine this as being applicable to Linux, because SCO wasn't licensing Linux and the wording is talking about the code they were licensing. Here is Novell's reaction: "Novell has seen the November 18 InfoWorld article in which SCO CEO Darl McBride refers to a supposed non-compete agreement between Novell and SCO. Mr. McBride's characterization of the agreements between Novell and SCO is inaccurate. There is no non-compete provision in those contracts, and the pending acquisition of SUSE LINUX does not violate any agreement between Novell and SCO.
"Novell has received no formal communication from SCO on this particular issue. Novell understands its rights under the contracts very well, and will respond in due course should SCO choose to formally pursue this issue." UPDATE From an alert Yahoo Finance comment here: "The Novell agreement contains language that anticipates Novell competing
directly against old SCO's core business:
'The right to nomination for election to Buyer's Board of Directors as set
forth in this Section 6.1 shall terminate in the event that Seller's core
products become directly competitive with buyer.'
" '6.2 Right to Maintain.(a) Until the earlier to occur of (i) Threshold Date;
"
(ii) Seller's core products becoming competitive with Buyer's core products
or (iii) the expiration of three years from the date of this Agreement...' "
"The part of the Agreement that everyone is focusing on just set the
conditions on Novell's license-back of Unix from old SCO. They're not
prevented from competing, just not allowed to sell [Unixware technologies]
under certain conditons."
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:21 PM EST |
So for end users, it's basically pay up or get screwed. Licensing would be
cheaper than a lawsuit, even if the user wins, right?
At what point do the Linux copyright holders jump into this, and/or the Free
Software Foundation?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:25 PM EST |
Looks like the power of the press release is fading. SCOX hasn't even returned
to the Friday close level.
Can SCO afford legal fights with Novell, Suse and BSD as well as IBM and Redhat?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mflaster on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:30 PM EST |
Yes, as PJ says, one thing that came out on the call (which I didn't realize)
is that this approx $10 million that Boies is getting is due to 20% * $50M
Baystar investment.
Wow, SCO raises $50M, Boies gets 20%?!?! What kind of ridiculous deal is
that!!! I want to be a lawyer!!!
Mike
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:31 PM EST |
Correct me if I am wrong:
Once again the message is pay up or we sue Linux users. I wonder how this will
go over in the RH vs SCO case?
Also SCO does not have any rights to enforce BSD copyrights.
SCO does not own any code in Linux.
SCO does not own BSD.
So it seems this is simply legal extortion.
It must be who SCO knows.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:33 PM EST |
I love you, PJ! You continue to entertain me for free!!! Can't wait to see more
on this. BTW, are you cute??!? We all want to know!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:33 PM EST |
What is really interested is in Jan. 2004, KPMG LLP will have to
"certify" the books of SCO. One question that they will have to ask
and then answer is "SCO a going concern"?
What is the potential downsize if SCO losses the lawsuites against IBM and
RedHat?
All the risks of the legal action must be disclosed. If not, the SEC will get
involved. Also the SEC can get involved at any time, if SCO doesn't disclose
this information. The discloses must be made at the earliest possible movement.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:33 PM EST |
If Boies, et al. are "partners," not just agents, it's time to
start suing them for all of SCO's egregious behavior. How long do IBM and Red
Hat have to add Boies to the list of defendants in the existing suits?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: roxyb on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:35 PM EST |
| It seems that as usual, Darl only has old information what
regards who is his
friends (IF he has any).
Check this article from Linux Devices for Wind
River's
current position on Linux:
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS2063676560.html
Or have they
sneaked up and support SCO now (feels
unlikely)?
Roland Buresund
---
--
I'm Still Standing...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:35 PM EST |
Given the change of business from IP creation to IP enforcement with a lawfirm
becoming an shareholder/owner/partner what are the limits a law firm can do in
partnership accoring to BAR/State/Federal rules etc?
At what point does the lawfirm open themselves up to being sued/censured for
there agressive actions in some cases and stalling in others?
When/If can IBM lawyers go after the firm as an interested party?
A subtle ogre
6. The $1 Million and the 400,000 shares were paid to Boies for prior
contingency events, specifically, according to Bench, the $50 million equity
funding and other events. In the future, there could be other such
contingencies, such as licenses, the company being bought, successful litigation
and then Boies gets more moola. Darl described it as a partnership between SCO
and Boies, so he's up to his eyeballs. No excuses. His firm now owns about 2-3%
of SCO. As SCO succeeds, so does Boies, said Darl. And, happily, I might add,
vice versa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:37 PM EST |
I'd love to know what legal theory supports SCO's intention of challenging the
BSD settlement?
AFAIK, the BSD settlement was a done deal before New SCO bought the Unix assets,
and they should have known about it had they done their due diligence. Nobody
forced them to make that purchase; if they didn't like the BSD settlement, they
shouldn't have bought the assets.
They seem to be saying that NOW they don't like what they bought, and they want
to improve their position by overturning an agreement that they weren't party
to in the first place.
Is the law so screwed up that SCO can pull this kind of stunt?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- So, how are they going to challenge the settlement? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:49 PM EST
- So, how are they going to challenge the settlement? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:53 PM EST
- So, how are they going to challenge the settlement? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 04:20 PM EST
- So, how are they going to challenge the settlement? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 05:41 PM EST
- So, how are they going to challenge the settlement? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 05:48 PM EST
- So, how are they going to challenge the settlement? - Authored by: Stephan Schulz on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:16 PM EST
- So, how are they going to challenge the settlement? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:36 PM EST
- So, how are they going to challenge the settlement? - Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 04:37 PM EST
- What about time limitiations? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:13 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Penguinisto on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:38 PM EST |
The fear of being stretched too thin is probably why they avoided going after
1500 simultaneous lawsuits in the first place.
OTOH, of that 1500 in potential victim pile they decide to pick, I suspect it
will be the one that has the least to do with technology, so as to avoid finding
themselves up against a clueful lawyer who could fight back, or possibly press
charges of extortion.
(...speaking of which, isn't there a precedent against this in the old
telephone 'directory' scam, where some local 'directory' company would
simply send invoices to businesses who didn't order any 'services' from them?
It may be an odd fit, but it may still fit...)
Anyrate, I suspect they want to set a precedent, and fast. If they can get one
sucke- err, company to pay up (which is cheaper than litigation), then they can
spread the word and get maximum return on their FUD. I even look to see them
spin it as proof of legitimacy for their crusade.
(...or perhaps they'll waive the 'license fees' in exchange for other
considerations, like acting as SCO's megaphone to the public and press?)
Why they're itching to sue Novell can be summed up in two words: Ray Noorda.
He's prolly the one engineering that one from Canopy, what with his temperament
and the details of his ouster from Novell lo those many years ago.
I think the reason the stock prices didn't jump immediately is perhaps one of
three reasons (or a combination?):
1) the news hasn't been shouted from the rooftops yet by the online
shil^H^H^H^H err, 'tech journals', and/or
2) folks have begun to look at McBride and Stowell as 'the boy who cried
wolf', and/or
3) investors may begin seeing that SCO is stretching themselves too thin, Boies,
Shiller and Flexner support be damned.
In all, it seems to me that this is their big, last play. They simply haven't
anywhere else to go with this, unless they sue Linus Torvalds or some noise.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:39 PM EST |
I'd be interested to hear more about Daryl's comments about that right on the
tail-end of discussing a corporate user (he would not name) he was going to sue.
It was like a strange non-sequitur where he was wanting to connect the two
without connecting them. Or maybe it was in his brain and it leaked out? I'd be
interesting in hearing what the wonderful JP says here. I didn't record the
call.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stanmuffin on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:41 PM EST |
So SCO is sending invoices after all? I'm sure it's just an empty threat
designed to please shareholders, but I'd be thrilled if SCO actually does it
this time. It would make it a lot harder for the Attorneys General to continue
ignoring the SCO scam.
And did SCO indicate that they'd actually wait until they won their IBM suit
before claiming end users are liable for use of SMP, NUMA, RCU, etc.? It
doesn't sound like SCO. But it's irrelevant anyway, as has been discussed
before. SCO has no copyright interest in the implementations of SMP, NUMA, RCU,
etc. beyond any actual SVR5 code which is in them, which is undoubtedly minimal
if it exists at all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:53 PM EST |
| Interestingly enough, I just got an email from QNX advertising a web seminar
entitled "Migrating from Linux to a Microkernel OS".
The email introduces
the seminar as follows:
"Realtime requirements, system modularity, and clear
IP ownership are just some of the reasons why embedded designers are
researching OS alternatives to Linux for deployed systems." (emphasis
mine)
Spreading the FUD...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:54 PM EST |
Someone buy them already and get it over with..
What rights does Novell currently still maintain over SCO? Can they revoke this
as well and make all of this moot?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Hell no - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 06:46 PM EST
- vs. Novell - Authored by: bobh on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:04 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 03:58 PM EST |
That completely contradicts previous statements. What piece of code are they
talking about that was ripped out? Or was that a hypothetical statement?
And from what I can tell they are claiming that anything that implements or even
talks about SMP is infringing so it would be very difficult to rip out.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Lev on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 04:09 PM EST |
Example, the snip of copyrighted code they showed and then it was
taken out -- that solves that for the 2.6 kernel, Darl said, but not for the
2.4, which is being used by companies now and is still out there. So they will
go after 2.4.
1. It was taken out before they ever showed
it.
2. It was taken out of 2.4.22.
3. Since it was under a BSD license, it
could have been legally left in with just copyright attribution fixed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MattZN on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 04:13 PM EST |
| I don't think I've so angry in my entire life. I'm seeing red! If it were not
for Groklaw and the knowledge that thousands of other people share my anger, I
think I would have gone nuts by now.
Thanks PJ! I'll bet you never thought
you'd be wearing a psych hat! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 04:14 PM EST |
1. They say they will sue Novell if they try to put a Linux distribution in
the market.
I asked this before, but no-one commented:
What
gives TSG any no-compete rights against Novell?
As far as I can tell,
Novell agreed not to compete with Tarantella (old SCO). Nothing in the agreement
allows Tarantella to transfer this right, so there is no no-compete agreement
with TSG.
Or did I miss something?
---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 04:17 PM EST |
...the old BSDi stuff is being trotted out. They will show that
code to end users down the road.
The ATT/BSD settlement was
sealed. Who can unseal it? I'm assuming that SCOG can't do it
unilaterally.
Is SCOG saying, "Hey! We just found some more really juicy
IP that proves that all your code is belong to us, but we can't even show it
to you even if we wanted to!"
---
Dim gstrIANAL As String
(Oh, Lord, get me off this project...) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 04:21 PM EST |
Isn't there a connection between Wind River and BSDi, and would that have any
effect no the settlement reached in USL v BSDi? (This is in regards to SCO
saying Wind River is on their side)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 04:35 PM EST |
When Microsoft licensed SCOsource for $18M, SCO's lawyers didn't even look at
the deal?
I find it suprising that in a deal that big, Boise would not be involved in it
given how much the firm is doing in other locations.
Not saying that M$ is behind the lawsuit(s), but I think that Boise has
definitely "talked" to them![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 04:43 PM EST |
Example, the snip of copyrighted code they showed and then it
was taken out -- that solves that for the 2.6 kernel, Darl said, but not for the
2.4, which is being used by companies now and is still out
there.
Linux developers use time-travel to steal
IP.
According to Darl McBride the following BitKeeper
changeset which was merged in June 2003 was in fact a direct result of the
leaked SCO forum slides. (for people with short term memory loss, that was near
the end of August 2003).
"Some sneaky Linux developer clearly went approximately 3
months back in time and hid the wrongdoings. Imagine if we show all our code.
Hordes of developers might actually go back to sneak our valuable IP into the
BSD codebase before the USL vs. BSDi case got settled. Which is yet another
reason why that case needs to be reopened. Clearly we will at some point show
our hand, so technically they have already seen it and gone back in time
and..."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 04:45 PM EST |
SCO targets a company with deep pockets, someone who can afford to buy them
out.
Problem is, the same company can also afford lawyers to fight them.
Whether the target company fights or buys SCO, either option is cheaper than
paying perpetual licensing, with its inevitable regular increases.
Seems like simple arithmetic to me. Someone tell me why I'm wrong.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 04:51 PM EST |
This is the thanks HP gets for sponsoring SCO's road show?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- HP sponsorship? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 06:49 PM EST
- HP sponsorship? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 11:56 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 04:53 PM EST |
So they're going to invoice and sue somebody in the next 90 days.
I'll believe it when I see it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 04:57 PM EST |
By denying it, sort of, Darl adds credibility to the impression they have these
big secret backers.
That is EXACTLY what he wants you to believe.
Just like he wants you to believe that the company is not stretched thin, has
real solid claims, has the silent majority behind him, and does not have a
laughing stock of a legal case.
SCO has no "backers" except those who profit from the stock going
up. That group would include SCO, SCO executives, SCO's lawyers, SCO's largest
shareholders (Canopy, BayStar, etc) and SCO's investment banker (Morgan
Keegan). That group does not include anybody else.
In any case, imagine there was some group of uninvolved-in-the-case
"backers":
(a) What practical effect would it have on a court case, let alone a long-shot
one? Absolutely none.
(b) Why should some uninvolved-in-the-case "backers" back SCO, when
they know they can have no effect on the court case, and the court case is a
long-shot? In other words, such "backers" would be sticking their
heads above a parapet for zero possible gain, zero possible effect on the
outcome, and a high risk of getting shot at.
What Darl is doing is a clever non-sequiter.
(a) He says X likes for sale software.
(b) He says Y dislikes Linux.
(c) He says X and Y have similar positions to us on (a) and (b).
(d) He says X and Y are not controlling us
While all the above might be true, it does NOT follow X or Y are actually
involved, or agree with SCO's position in the IBM case, etc. You are supposed
to draw that inference. Darl's point (d) is especially along those lines
("MS/Sun don't control us" so you are supposed to conclude
"SCO is not merely controlled by MS/Sun... SCO is merely strongly aligned
with them")
Changing topic slightly:
It's a fairly standard tactic in certain investment scams to claim: exaggerated
relationships, claim to have unnamed (or partly named) powerful backers, etc.
For example, in such type of scam a company might say "We are backed by
Chase Manhattan and by Arthur Andersen and by MCI, etc., etc." (this is
from a specific SEC complaint I read recently) - but when you investigate you
find Chase has never heard of them, and they once bought a handful of services
from Arthur Andersen and MCI.
While I'm NOT saying SCO falls into this (or other) type of investment scam - I
don't think Darl is above using a bit of misdirection or exaggeration.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ruidh on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 05:00 PM EST |
I've got to say that case is even weaker than the IBM case. At least in the IBM
case, they have contracts with lots of amendments and big words. What do they
have against end users?
Trade Secrets: Sorry, even if IBM violated SCO's trade secrets by contributing
code to Linux, that dosn't give them an action against an end user. Once a
trade secret is no longer secret, anyone may use it.
Patents: Dey ain't got none.
Copyright: It seems to me that they are vulnerable to a misuse of copyright suit
for filing for a Copyright on code which dosn't belong to them.
Unspecified "IP": Can't be enforced in a court of law.
Bad news they are hiding:
They've given up on getting the RH case postponed.
They can't find much (any) infringing code unless they can somehow unwind
the BSDi settlement. If that's the case, FreeBSD might be next.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gumout on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 05:00 PM EST |
Novell is a party to:
4.16(c) Seller further covenants that immediately following the Closing Date
neither it, nor any of its officers, directors or employees shall (i) take any
material action designed to promote the sale of SVRX products or (ii) provide
material compensation to any employee designed and intended to incentivize such
employee to promote the sale of SVRX products, except for actions incidental to
unrelated business activities of Seller.
IBM put a million lines of SVRX code into Linux thereby making Linux a
derivative of SVRX. Because of that action, SCO now owns Linux and therefore
Novell/SuSE is taking action to promote the sale of SVRX products. Any lawyer
worth his salt could have deduced this fact in short order without even
identifying the code in question. This deduction was even simpler to arrive at
than was the deduction that the GPL is unconstitutional.
I stand in total awe of Boies, Schiller&Flexner.
---
"If people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to
be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to
be sent up." --- Rush Limbaugh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jdos on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 05:00 PM EST |
I agree completely. Both denials were far short of categorical. So far that
for the first time I am growing suspicious about MS involvement. I haven't
subscribed to the conspiracy theories so far because MS' behavior looks
opportunistic rather than calculated. But I wouldn't be surprised if MS kicked
in another few million to keep the game going. That still wouldn't mean they
are "behind" this. Just more opportunism. All the same, they wouldn't want it
widely known if they were kicking in some money.
Which brings us to the
curious case of RBC. Has anyone noticed that RBC has dropped entirely off the
radar? Nobody mentions them anymore, and AFAIK IBM didn't subpoena them. The
RBC angle has always troubled me because big Canadian banks don't throw money
around like this. They just don't. And RBC is the biggest of the lot. The
investment came from the NY office of Dominion Securities (RBC's pet
brokerage/market player). These kind of people don't put their own money into
something like this unless they have a guaranteed payout. They are not
speculative investors. So either they are fronting for someone else (for a fee)
or they have an as-yet undisclosed deal to protect the $30 million. With
today's news about the messy shares/options/redemptions/legal costs arrangement,
the latter looks less likely. That leaves the fronting theory. Even so, that
doesn't mean they are fronting for someone. And if they were fronting
for someone, it might not be Microsoft. This invites watching. At some point
all will be revealed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: minkwe on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 05:03 PM EST |
| Doesn't it strike anyone the real reason why SCO is mentioning BSD code now is
because after SCOForum, they were informed to their dismay that all the code
they found matching between SysV and Linux was infact BSD code!
The only way to
maintain the lawsuit against IBM is to overturn the BSDi settlement.
These
quotes from the quote database show that SCO is desperate for a strategy at the
moment.
McBride also confirmed that the company has hired
high-profile attorney David Boies and his legal firm to investigate whether
Windows, Mac OS X, Linux and versions of BSD infringed on the Unix intellectual
property it owned.
-- Darl McBride, 2003-01-22
"We specifically
excluded the BSD-derived code", Sontag said. "There is post-BSD UnixWare source
code origined [sic] with SCO, and that is of issue."
-- Chris Sontag,
2003-05-15
According to SCO, these groups all found code in Linux that
purportedly originated in the Unix System V kernel and not BSD.
-- Laura
DiDio, 2003-06-13
"We're not talking about BSD code," he said. "We're
talking about high-end SMP code that has been donated in the past year or two
and has not made the rounds through BSD."
-- Darl McBride,
2003-07-21
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 05:13 PM EST |
| Wind River? That's interesting, because they recently discontinued BSD/OS. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 05:17 PM EST |
DAVID BOIES: "I have not had any conversation nor, so far as I know
"
Het said 'I have not had any conversation..", het didn't said het
wasn't involved in conversation with microsoft. He could for example give
advice...
and I think I would know -- has anybody from my firm had
any conversation with Microsoft or with Microsoft" representatives.
"
Het didn't say that 'nobody from my firm had any conversation',
but instead he said het would know if someone did.
Ciao
J
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 05:19 PM EST |
Did the APA require Novell to stop developing or marketing their NetWare 6.5
Operating System? I have to confess I'm not familiar with the product, but
doesn't that compete with UNIX? The last time I looked it claimed to support
things like LDAP, Perl, Apache, MySQL, Postgres, PHP, Rsync, Tomcat, & etc.
I don't remember seeing UNIX listed among the Netware minimum system
requirements.
The non-compete clauses contained in section 1.6 and 4.16 of the 1995 APA are
strictly limited to the assets that SCO licensed-back to Novell. Neither Netware
nor Linux were among the assets SCO acquired from Novell, or among those they
licensed-back to them.
Under the agreement Novell could use "the technology" they received
under the license-back to compete against SCO. They just couldn't use it to
compete against SCO's "core business". Old SCO's "core
business" wasn't Linux. Both Linux and SuSE were around in 1995 and
neither are mentioned in the APA. New SCO's core business seems to be baseless
IP litagation.
Both Caldera and Old SCO dabbled in Unix, Unixware, ventures like the Linux
Mall, and their own Open Linux as seperate non-competing products and markets.
You could murder these SCO/Caldera/SCOG guys with their own press quotes
comparing Linux to UNIX. Their own attempts to license their libraries for use
with Linux underscore that the products have their own unique ABI's and
application software suites. Linux is simply not compatible with software
compiled expressly for either Open Server or Unixware. Are they saying Novell
agreed to stop development and marketing of their Netware line of products, or
leave the computer software business? Why for example can't Netware have a SuSE
Linux Kernel Personality under the terms of the 1995 APA?
They seem to be making the same old implied claim - that Linux contains
misappropriated SVRX code. This really is beginning to have antitrust
implications. It's time they put up some evidence in public or in the courts on
that score.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 06:03 PM EST |
Okay,
Last night I posted wondering what kind of liability Boies was
incurring by his involvement, and the response was more or less "A lawyer has
alot of leeway when representing a client", indicating that it would be very
hard to implicate Boies in, say, some sort of a fraud
proceeding.
HOWEVER, now that he appears to be more, uh,
involved in the proceedings and is essentially a partner of SCO's (and,
as was pointed out elsewhere, has been involved in some of the PR schenanigans
like today), is he still as untouchable? It seems like he's doing more than
simply representing his clients interests before the court, he's actively
engaged in what can only be described as a scam.
Now can he be busted?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 06:51 PM EST |
|
Link [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 07:00 PM EST |
Has anyone wondered why SCO hired Bois and co. other than the obvious reason of
high profile? Why would a company involved in an IP litigation hire a law firm
that doesn't specialise in that field?
If, as many people suspect, Microsoft is behind SCOX and the the real reason for
the legal action is to discredit Linux, then perhaps Bois has been hired so that
he can be taken down as well.
I can just imagine some venal plotter at Microsoft saying to SCO "Ok
we'll support you on your case on the condition that you hire Bois to
represent you".
SCOX and MS then ensure over the following months that Bois is dragged further
and further into the case until the point where it blows up in everyones faces.
In the fallout, SCOX collapses (but not until after McBride etc. have dumped
their stock), and everyone involved gets publically humilated at the very least.
Who will ever hire Bois again after that?
Just a theory and it's probably got no basis in reality but then neither has
much of this case anyway[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Grim Reaper on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 07:01 PM EST |
Regarding Boies' statement that they are going to sue an end user in 90 days,
it seems to me likely that they are going to try and add the user to the IBM
case, based on the fact that SCO received until Feb. 4, 2004 "to file any
amended pleadings or add parties to this action"
Considering how badly they want to avoid the Red Hat litigation, I highly doubt
they will actually initiate separate litigation. They replaced the Red Hat
legal team with Boies' firm - probably because the other team wasn't willing
to play the lottery. This may also make it easier for them to consolidate, if
they can't get the Red Hat suit dismissed.
So I wonder what end user could best fit most of the complaints against IBM.
Could the end user be say an HP end user, considering that HP is now
"indemnifying"? That would their easiest way to drag HP into their
mess.
---
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, November 18 2003 @ 07:07 PM EST |
I think SCO will most likely sue a Canopy related company. That company will go
to court to help slow the matter, and then before anything substantial happens,
they will settle and pay up. SCO gets to include a one-time income (remember
Darl's 4 quarter profit?) and the other company records a charge. Then a while
later, SCO will license something from that company and money will flow back to
create revenue for the other company. After Darl got his bonus, it doesn't
matter how much SCO makes anymore.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 07:10 PM EST |
At what point could IBM and/or RedHat add Boies and his gang as co-defendants in
their lawsuit/countersuit? Boies is issueing the same damaging statements
without proof SCO is.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 07:34 PM EST |
"Microsoft isn't funding the litigation, they sort of said, but they are
"on the same side of the table with SCO", according to Darl, along
with Wind River Systems, Sun Microsystems, and all other proprietary
companies"
It seemed SCO is desperately seeking some moral support from the proprietary
companies. Or it is trying to create "Us vs Them" impression by
appropriating the assumed leadership role. So like Darl!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bapu on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 07:56 PM EST |
Sun Microsystems supporting SCO. Here is an interview regarding Sun's position.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1300505,00.asp
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:08 PM EST |
CRN has a new interview with Darl.
In it, he made absolutely sure he won't
get a dismissal in the Redhat case:
"Back to your question, yes
we'll probably now be taking action against the GPL and given the fact that
Novell has acquired SUSE and Red Hat has sued us we're likely now to be taking
actions if we so choose against the distributors."
That
sounds like a direct threat against RedHat!
---
-----
For
a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sjohnson on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:10 PM EST |
| I had an epiphany while waiting in the drive-thru getting diner. I think I know
whySCO is bringing up the spectre the old BSD lawsuit. Darl's quote back in Jan.
(I think) about why Boies was brought on board lead me to my epiphany. (OT: I
just love how that word rolls of the toungue.)
I think there there is some
restriction or obligation in the sealed settlement that SCO thinks some party
has violated. This supposed broach somehow empower's SCO in regards to the BSD
code in someway. This maybe be their new trump card they're going to spring on
whomever they sue in the next 90 days.
The only thing I see that's wrong
with my theory is that I can't see how SCO gets any benefit. Maybe somebody will
their own epiphany. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Empower them how? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:08 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:14 PM EST |
i think it was in may or june that i read a remark about the bsd license and
think it was mcbride that was saying it was released for educational/non
comercial use
i said at that time that sco was planning on going back to the bsd issue
and it has to do with how the code was released?
is there different restrictions on the versions that caldera/sco released
the answer should be in that
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- bsd - Authored by: Ruidh on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:44 PM EST
- bsd - Authored by: sjohnson on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 11:29 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 08:19 PM EST |
Men accused of rape hire women attorneys, SCO hires Bois.
I had high regard for Bois until his MS effort. He sensed no morals on the
issue. Instead of presenting the case of MS in broad strokes dripping with red
paint, he instead went after little, gentlemanly, provable points, losing all
outrage, and all proportion of MS' culpabiliy - effectively letting MS with
gentlemanly measures.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:06 PM EST |
This is beginning to worry me a bit. I have been a silent
reader here for some time and I have been encouraged till
now. Would a company really continue the way SCO is if
they didn't have some smoking gun tucked away somewhere?
I have finally taken the plunge with Suse 9.0 after years
of resistance and don't want my hope dashed. After my old
C= went by the wayside I stayed away from computing because
I hated proprietary stuff. I was used to hacking the OS of
my C= and burning my own EPROM'S. At my age this new stuff
is tuff to learn and now I worry my new found curiosity may
be ripped away by these creeps!!!!
Am I just paranoid? Sombody tell me thay will loose!!!
You can teach an old dog new tricks if you can wake them
up. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:16 PM EST |
So SCO is going to start suing end users.
I guess the IBM suit was going so well they thought they would start some more. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:31 PM EST |
I am wondering why an end user needs much of a defense if confronted by SCO.
Even a corporate user.
And why they would need to ask for Unix code to be shown at THEIR trial.
One would think that presenting, from some seeming sane sources what is normally
believed to be the known facts and heritage of Linux, presenting the confusing,
contrary, and inflamitory quotes from SCO execs and stating that since there
have not as yet been any court decisions or ACCESSABLE evidence proving SCO's
claims, which, except for unknowable evidence, seem to be quite ludicrus, how,
even if evidence is presented at this moment that proves otherwise, one could be
retroactively guilty in the matter.
Perhaps even matters such as the weight of the GPL need to be decided by a
court, but this still would not make one retroactively guilty.
One would wonder why a well written reply to the court would not stop the case
from ever going any further.
One likes to believe that it is only in Kafka novels that one is forced to
defend ones self against unknown charges.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:34 PM EST |
Mcbride in the CRN interview
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/
dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=46153
"It's funny when I talked to IBM earlier this year, before
we did anything, it wasn't even clear where the IP
problems were. We just said we were going to start
investigating IP issues"
seems an odd statment.
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:39 PM EST |
Listened to the Webcast and caught a number of lies and deceptions (what else
would you expect). How many did the rest of you catch?
1. He deceived the crowed regarding the SCOForum code removal.
TRUTH: the code was removed long before SCOForum, because it was bad code - even
though it was BSD code (i.e. not SCO - owned code).
2. He lied about their rights to Unix, by representing that SCO = Unix.
TRUTH: The Open Group owns the trademarks and definitions for what constitutes
Unix.
3. He deceived the crowd by representing Linux as being a Unix.
TRUTH: Linux is simply the kernel, and GNU/Linux (proper), and GNU stands for
"GNU is Not Unix". Neither Linux nor GNU/Linux is Unix
4. He misrepresented the origins of Linux
TRUTH: Linux is not based on System V code
5. He lied about Red Hat's financial status and their decisions with regard to
their desktop Linux.
TRUTH: There is still a free product, Fedora, coming out of a Red Hat-hosted
community project, it's just that Red Hat no longer supports it commercially.
6. He lied (or at least deceived the crowd) about SUSE's financial health
TRUTH: IIRC, SUSE has actually made a profit.
7. He lied about the Linksys affair, claiming Linksys accidently got their code
caugh up in the GPL
TRUTH: Linksys knowingly decided to base their product on the GPL, but then
decided not to honor the GPL by releasing their derivatives.
8. He heavily deceived the crowd on the free nature of Linux.
9. He failed the big honor test by failing to inform the crowd that, as much as
SCO claims the GPL infects and ruins "intellectual property," the
AT&T System V code licensing agreements are worse in their viral nature. Let
me repeat that: THE AT&T SYSTEM V SOURCE CODE LICENSING AGREEMENTS ARE MORE
VIRAL THAN THE GPL THAT SCO DETESTS SO MUCH! SCO is trying to use those
agreements to destroy IBM's "intellectual property" rights.
There were a lot of other lies and deceptions, but you get the drift.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bobh on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 09:45 PM EST |
| The lights are going to be on late tonight in Linden, Utah. This was a big-time
Media Circus we had today. They even trotted out the lovely and talented David
Boies.
The result? Stock price unchanged. It even started to dive late in the
afternoon before somebody stepped to arrest that.
There was no lift at all
from this massive hype-injection today. Which means that they have run out of
Greater Fools. All the people who can be fooled with smoke, mirrors, and hype
have been fooled. There are no more to be had.
So if you're Cohen, or
BayStar, or even David Boies, you are now staring at the reality that there is
no one out there who will buy, when the time comes for you to sell.
This is
the first time that Darl has had the experience of getting up on stage, doing
his dance, and then watching his stock do... nothing. Is Darl losing his magic?
Was the market not impressed that Mr. Boies himself appeared on the call? What
has happened? The Mighty SCO spoke today, but no one seems to be listening
anymore. Or if they are, they're not impressed.
Today was a sobering thing
for SCO. What they saw today was a message that the market is up-to-here with
SCO's empty threats and "gonna do's." They have maybe one more quarter to show
that they can actually do something besides prance on stage and talk
about how rough and tough and dangerous they are.
This would a good time for
IBM to sue them in Europe. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:14 PM EST |
I've been having this thought, that Free Software is revolutionary, but more in
the spirit of the Enlightenment than that of Marx.
I don't know, it just seems like something that's missed alot of people like
McBride and Boies and their ilk.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:18 PM EST |
Pls someone tell me what the SCO's IP is in this whole law
suit? It seems to me, they are enlarging their IP of Unix
that any Unix related knowledge and technics, i.e. I/O
interface, process management and others originally
invented at AT&T Lab., are theirs. If any Unix related
technics affect to their "IP" then M$ should also be sued.
M$ is the company which has taken whole money and IPs from
computer industry... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 10:29 PM EST |
http://www.windley.com/2003/11/18.html#a919
Curiouser and curiouser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 11:09 PM EST |
I think these prove that it's not about the APA (unless he's stretching it
beyond all recognition). He just thinks Novell should not compete with SCO at
all.
(Whether that's true is an entirely different matter, but it does seem to be
what McBride is claiming)
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1388297,00.asp
On another legal issue, McBride said that SCO Group is considering possible
legal action against Novell once it completes its recently announced acquisition
of SuSE Linux. SCO claims that it holds a non-compete agreement with Novell from
the time it purchased the Unix System V code from Novell, which had then denied
that claim.
Because Linux is a variant of Unix, McBride said he would consider Novell to be
competing once it ships a Linux version from its SuSE acquisition. "Our
core product is Unix; Linux is a knock off of Unix," McBride said.
"By any stretch of the imagination this would be a competitive offering to
our core product."
http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=16101237
"When SCO bought [Unix System V rights] from Novell, there was non-compete
language that would prevent Novell from competing against the core offerings of
SCO," McBride said during the conference call. "Linux is a knockoff
of Unix. There can't be a more straightforward reading [of the non-compete
clause]."
McBride noted that SCO won't retreat from its position unless Novell changes
its plans to buy the Linux distribution. "There's nothing [for us] to
respond to yet, but when the transaction is complete, they will be violating the
non-compete. And if they do what they say they will do--go out and compete [with
SCO]--then yes, we will take the appropriate measures to enforce that
non-compete."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 11:27 PM EST |
Okay, I'm listening to the Q&A, and all I want to say (well, in fact I am
saying but y'all can't hear me) is "What code?!? What concepts?!? What
methods?!? Present something that we can respond to! How can anyone respond to
these absurd, aetherial allegations?!"
I mean, WHAT, EXACTLY, IS SCO ALLEGING IS IMPOROPER?!?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 11:33 PM EST |
Didn't SCO say in their Red Hat court filings, that those 1500 letters were not
threats of litigation, just some sort of public education campaign about the IP
risks inherent in Linux???
In the new articles, they now say there were
warnings! And threats!
http://www.eweek.com/
article2/0,4149,1388297,00.asp
McBride said that 1,500 of the
world's largest enterprises had received warnings letters about their
Linux use from the SCO Group in May. His message today was that they now
should be on notice about possible legal action.
http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=16101237
SCO also plans to file a lawsuit against one large corporate
customer using Linux within the next 90 days, McBride said. That is, of course,
unless that customer purchases a SCO license, currently priced at $699 per
server.
Some observers had predicted that SCO would stay away from
litigation involving customers, but it looks like the Unix company doesn't want
its threat to be viewed as an empty one.
McBride said it's
likely the case will be filed against one of the 1,500 corporate customers
who were notified by letter about possible violations last spring, after the
company launched its groundbreaking, controversial case against IBM.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skidrash on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 11:37 PM EST |
SCO will not settle with HP's "Insurance company"
I bet most of HP's "insurance" is derivative-backed, and definitely
NOT through any traditional insurer.
How many fortune 1500 would be a large HP client with Linux installations and
NOT be an IBM client?
In such a case I bet IBM would twist their contacts' arms within the target
company to let IBM handle the case on their behalf.
As far as HP urging the target to settle I could speculate endlessly on that.
I suspect that internal politics would lead HP to back Linux against SCOX
(bottom-line, end-of-day <insert your own insipid management-speak> who
generates more income? HP's Liinux or SCOX groups?)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick Bridge on Wednesday, November 19 2003 @ 12:08 AM EST |
DARL MCBRIDE: "SCO's perspective: We're 100% driving our strategy
here. There is no connection with Microsoft on this. It is a favorite topic of
the open source community. People love to talk about this, because there are
natural interests here. Anybody that owns an operating system that thinks it
shouldn't be for free would naturally fall on this side of the table that SCO is
on..."
Interesting position to take since IBM owns the
following operating
systems:
All of these
operating systems are sold by IBM, so clearly IBM believes they should not be
gratis.
They also keep the source code locked up - indicating that they
believe it should not be libre software.
So whichever way you look at it IBM
must be on the same side as SCO?
I wonder if IBM will start suing itself? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 19 2003 @ 12:46 AM EST |
I've been looking through some of the files that SCO has identified in
discovery. Frankly, I'm incredulous. Nothing I've seen works so far for SCO.
Would you think that IBM has the man-power and expertise to debunk each one of
these files ?? What would the judge think after the first few hundred were
meticulously debunked and there's another thousand or so to go ?? Methinks SCO
is betting on a revolutionary interpretation of `derivative'. Your honor, IEEE
xxx.xxx.xxx Posix specification, which Linux obviously tries to conform to, is
in the frickin' ballpark of our Intellectual Property.
Deputy, can you bring those straight-jackets in ??[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: calibax on Wednesday, November 19 2003 @ 01:17 AM EST |
I really hope that SCO does start making noises about going after BSD,
particularly FreeBSD. That would certainly attract Apple's attention as Apple
used FreeBSD as their starting point for Mac OS X and it still has a large
amount of FreeBSD in it. And Apple has $4 billion in the bank.
How many law suits can SCO take on simultaneously?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 19 2003 @ 01:23 AM EST |
I searched google for "system V linux comparision" (note the typo) and the first
result is interesting.
http://www.ibuyernet.com/prod~id~465264~CALDERA_SYSTEMS_LA050-XX00-1.0.html
Is this the same license SCO is selling for $699?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Wednesday, November 19 2003 @ 01:32 AM EST |
| Here is a link to one person's take on Darl's speach at cdxpo.
The link was originally posted on slashdot. Its not a transcript but provides
some coverage until a transcript is available. Some interesting take-aways but
no earth shattering revelations. ---
Quietly implementing RFC 1925
wherever I go. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 19 2003 @ 02:31 AM EST |
Time for a new SCO parody...
SCO ISUZU
<SCO> Our software is so fast, it can subpoena billions of people in
seconds!
<Novell> He's lying.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 19 2003 @ 03:06 AM EST |
Eventually this will come to a head. Either:
a) they run out of funding and revenue before they go to trial
or
b) they go court and lose
Then what? I mean, what happens to the code, and whatever rights to it they may
or may not have from Novell
and AT&T.
Canopy certainly won't be able to sell SCOX as a going concern, and liquidating
the code rights in the case
of A, above will be impossible with litigation still pending, and in the case of
B, I presume IBM and RHAT
will be owed plenty in damages, with the shareholders holding toilet paper grade
stock, and the only
potentially valuable asset rendered less valuable than manure, by judgment.
So, what happens then?
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 19 2003 @ 03:19 AM EST |
Some very early study:
1. The industry leaders found TV Linux Alliance, standardize the APIs on Linux
Notice the contact person: Blake Stowell
http://www.jeaninemarie.com/ReplayExternal/company/pressreleases/pressr061201.ht
m
2. Microsoft stumbling in TV set-top market
http://www.cedmagazine.com/ced/2001/1201/id2.htm#3
3. MicroSoft co-founder Allen plays in the same game (is he a true ms renegade,
or working with MS to grab the set-top market). This is where Digeo comes in.
http://www.forbes.com/2002/04/01/0401moxi.html
4. SCO sends 6 subpoenas, 5 known right away, 6th revealed later as an
"insignificant" Linux set-top maker Digeo.
Just about everyone talks about Linus, Stewart and Richard.
5. Stowell says he doesn't know what the subpoenas are about (look at #1)
6. The receivers say they either didn't receive yet or that the subpoenas are
for documents, exept Digeo,
who, like Stowell, say they don't know what the subpoena is about.
7. Remember: the set-top market is potentially huge (45 million in US alone). No
Linux or expensive Linux would
result in all the competition whiped out in one blow.
8. Before joining Lineo, Stowell was supposed to have left to join MS and popps
up in Lineo and TV Linux Alliance.
I made some conclusions, but would like to see what the others would find and
not feed any ideas to them +
I don't have much time to study this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 19 2003 @ 03:29 AM EST |
So let me get this straight. They can't show the code because they're unsure
where the code came from and they don't know what code is infringing (even
though they know there is about a million lines of code, or about 20% of the
kernel). But they have no case if they can't show the code even if they don't
know which code to show, right? So what are they going to charge HP for,
lottering?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Wednesday, November 19 2003 @ 03:54 AM EST |
SCO just threatened to sue Novell if Novell completes its
purchase of SuSE. Novell should ask SCO for written confirmation of their
intentions. If SCO retracts or does not respond, Novell should publish SCO's
retraction or non-response.
Otherwise, Novell has a good case for a declaratory judgement that Novell will
not be breaching its non-compete contract by completing the purchase and
distributing Linux.
Novell should not wait for SCO to act. It is being damaged now by SCO's
threat, and should act now to stop further damage.
Novell should not raise any other issues in its complaint, and should
immediately depose McBride to verify what he was quoted as saying. Don't give
SCO any room to delay the suit.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick Bridge on Wednesday, November 19 2003 @ 04:03 AM EST |
| It occurred to me why SCO seems to think they can sue end users for "using" the
software (as opposed to copying/distributing).
The following was found in
RedHat's "CCM Public License":
c. Recipient understands that
although each Contributor grants the licenses to its Contributions set forth
herein, no assurances are provided by any Contributor that the Program does not
infringe the patent or other intellectual property rights of any other entity.
Each Contributor disclaims any liability to Recipient for claims brought by any
other entity based on infringementof intellectual property rights or otherwise.
As a condition to exercising the rights and licenses granted hereunder, each
Recipient hereby assumes sole responsibility to secure any other intellectual
property rights needed, if any. For example, if a third party patent license is
required to allow Recipient to distribute the Program, it is Recipient's
responsibility to acquire that license before distributing the
Program.
I was convinced such language was to be found in the GPL,
but having checked v.1 and v.2 I can only find this:
NO
WARRANTY
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO
WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE
THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND
PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU
ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO
EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY
COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE
PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL,
SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY
TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING
RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF
THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER
PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Section 11 refers to "quality and performance", but it
does state
"...WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
which could be
relevant.
Now I really want to know why I thought the above mentioned
language was to be found in the GPL.
Perhaps Groksters may remember where
this may be found? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 19 2003 @ 04:48 AM EST |
How about this scenario:
Google reportedly has thousands of servers running Linux.
SCOG sues Google, which is about to go IPO.
The suit drives down the value of Google.
M$, which reportedly is interested in buying Google, gets them for cheap.
M$ settles and pays up, giving SCOG a healthy infusion from the biggest honeypot
there is.
SCOG uses the fact that Google (i.e. M$) pays up as precedent for its IP cause.
Nah - too obvious - M$ probably needs to use strawmen - or do they?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2003 @ 03:20 PM EST |
> Example, the snip of copyrighted code they showed and then
> it was taken out -- that solves that for the 2.6 kernel,
> Darl said, but not for the 2.4, which is being used by
> companies now and is still out there.
One of the files is not derived from SVR4.
The other (the SGI code snippet) is *never* used on IA32 (Intel 32-bit, i.e. PC)
machines, and the rest of the comment is also wrong: the only machines that can
compile this code in object from into the kernel have stopped using these lines
since at least 2.4.20 (and by patches applied to older kernels too).
it's a blatant lie - I'd challenge him to find *one* company on the world
still using that code, regardless of whether there's any valid copyright
infringement claim (given the triviality -- if an algorithm cannot be expressed
in more than one way efficiently, even an *expression* of said algorithm cannot
be copyrighted).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
