decoration decoration
Stories

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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 02:20 PM EST

SCO's Chris Sontag announced today that folks around the world can soon purchase a SCO intellectual property license for Linux. The license is going to be offered outside the US. That's a little like hearing that Mad Cow Disease has arrived in your country.

According to ZDNet's report, anyone anywhere can now get a run-time license from SCO that "permits the use of SCO’s intellectual property, in binary form only, as contained in Linux distributions":

Companies outside the United States that use Linux now face the threat of legal action from the SCO Group, following the announcement Wednesday that SCO's licenses are available worldwide.

The first lawsuits are now only weeks away, according to Sontag. "I would expect within the next few weeks we will have a number of Linux end users who we will have identified and taken legal action (against)," Sontag told ZDNet UK. "We will probably see that ramping up over time."

"The lawsuits will be brought in various locations around the world," Sontag said. "We are going to start vigorously enforcing IP rights."
Isn't SCO ever going to figure out how the GPL works?

The article says it's possible that "the first round of lawsuits could include U.K. companies, but it was likely to focus on companies maintaining large Linux deployments with whom SCOsource has already had 'unsuccessful' discussions. These are likely to be high-profile companies, according to sources."

Presumably you know who you are. I'm guessing Germany is SCO-threat-free.

UPDATE: I don't have to guess. IDG's Robert McMillan has a great article on this new global push, and SCOfolk told him they won't offer it in Germany. They aren't allowed to even talk about it there. No, SCO is thinking of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and China by February 1.

China? $699 for an IP license in China. A country hardly world-renowned for respecting copyrights US-style? Have they gone mad? McMillan also reports that SCO will now be going after small to medium size companies, not just large companies. You can't help but get the feeling that they are desperately seeking someone, anyone, to please buy a license.

McMillan also spoke with Stowell and reports that he told him they "finally provided Big Blue with a list of files and individual code samples that, it claims, violate its intellectual property rights" and that the documents they didn't provide on time on the 12th will be provided by the January 23rd hearing date. Promises, promises. One other piece:

Monday's response included no examples of copyright violations, Stowell said. "We've not introduced copyright infringement as part of our case with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that it's a contract issue." . . .

In a declaration that accompanied SCO's response, the company's general counsel, Ryan Tibbitts, claimed that Linux's read copy update, journaling file system, enterprise volume management system, AIO (Asynchronous I/O), and "scatter gather" I/O code had been derived from either AIX or Dynix/ptx and therefore were improperly contributed to Linux.

"Tuesday's response makes it clear that, despite SCO's talk about line-for-line Unix copying in Linux, copyright will not play a role in the IBM lawsuit," said Bill Claybrook, an analyst with Harvard, Massachusetts, industry research company Harvard Research Group Inc. "It tells me, for one thing, that they're not trying to say that IBM copied code directly from System V to Linux," he said.
Not any more, he must mean. But I'm not so sure Stowell got it right. As I recall, IBM specifically asked for all code in Linux over which SCO claims any rights, whether or not the code was from IBM, in Interrogatory 12. That must include any code in Linux that SCO claims is infringing their copyrights, by definition, no? Where are the ABI files (errno.h etc.)? If they are not listed, SCO would seem to have admitted Linux doesn't infringe on their copyrights with those files. Alternatively, SCO has failed to answer the question. Maybe SCO would like to pretend it never said it. Or maybe Stowell got it a little bit wrong. I guess we'll find out in time.

The failure to file a copyright claim against IBM couldn't have something to do with the Novell letters and all those copyright registrations, could it? After all, on December 5th, SCO's attorney told the judge they would be adding a copyright infringement claim against IBM within a week:

"And by the way, Your Honor, I will proffer to the Court that we are filing a second amended complaint that has copyright infringement claims, and will be filed within the coming few days or no less than a week. And we'll put then fully in front of the Court the three buckets we have outlined here, contract, trade secrets and copyright."
McBride, Kevin that is, talked for days (well, it felt like days) about copyright in that hearing and even said the case was at the exciting point in new law where copyright and contract law meet. So what happened? Now, more than a month after the hearing, there is no copyright claim against IBM?

I'm guessing it's Novell. Groklaw broke the story about Novell registering copyrights for Unix on December 22, but at the 4th quarter earnings teleconference, McBride said they found out "over the last couple of weeks that Novell snuck into the Copyright Office and tried to file some copyrights. . ." So the timing seems right. Then, later that day, Linus recognized header files among those SCO claimed copyright ownership of as his own work product. But behind the scenes, Novell has been steadily corresponding with SCO. Who knew what a large role Novell was playing? Now Novell has released that correspondence, and it makes clear that they not only claim the relevant copyrights, they claim and have exercised contractual authority to waive all IBM's alleged violations. Could that be why SCO is scouring the globe, apparently looking for somebody new to sue?

I don't actually understand how SCO can sue anyone anywhere, including IBM, without getting past Novell first. Novell, according to one letter now made public dated October 10, waived "any purported right SCO may claim to require IBM to treat IBM Code, that is code developed by IBM, or licensed by IBM from a third party, which IBM incorporated in AIX but which itself does not contain proprietary UNIX code supplied by AT&T under the license agreements between AT&T and IBM, itself as subject to the confidentiality obligations or use restrictions of the Agreements."

Novell stands on its interpretation of the 1995 Asset Purchase Agreement, the Technology License Agreement, and Amendment 2, to the APA. On that basis, Novell in its June 9, 2003 letter said SCO had no right to unilaterally terminate IBM's SVRX Licenses and it waived SCO's "termination" of IBM's license. On October 10, Novell waived all SCO's purported rights to terminate SGI's license as well.

For another example of what a huge role Novell turns out now to be playing, Novell on October 7 reminded SCO in a letter about the "Technology License Agreement", which it says gives Novell the right not only to use the "licensed technology" itself, but also to "authorize its customers to use, reproduce and modify" it and to sublicense and distribute it "in source and binary form". This is part of the foundation on which Novell feels it can offer indemnification. They claim rights both contractually and under copyright law.

This, it now turns out, is a study in contrasts. We have SCO issuing constant statements and press releases (without telling the whole story, though, we now find out from Novell) and we have buttoned-lipped Novell, quietly taking care of business. Linux owes a great deal to Novell's willingness to go to bat for it. As Novell told SCO in its first letter to them, Novell is "an ardent supporter of Linux" and it shows. I, for one, will not forget it.


  


SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way | 349 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
SCO won't go global
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 05:28 PM EST
It's another lie. You can bet they aren't making any offers in Germany. SCO won't even let you buy a license in the US even if you offer them money. This has gone way beyond PR and right into fraud, long ago. What SCO executives are telling their investors has nothing to do with what SCO is intending to do.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - A little humor
Authored by: jbeadle on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 05:33 PM EST
From CES in Las Vegas. Courtesy of The Register(tm):

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/34878.html

"A second bit of comic relief comes to us from Jean-Baptiste Su of La
Tribune - a good friend of El Reg.

He found none other than SCO's Darl McBride on the CES show floor. Su noted
that McBride was "pretty dressed down" and without his usual
bodyguard. This made it easier to blend into the crowd, McBride told the
reporter.

It's nice to see that McBride is able to take some time away from his vigorous
IP pursuits. He was at the CES show with son, enjoying all the gizmos like the
rest of us.

And you thought your dad was embarrassing."

No doubt looking for SCO's next target(s)...

John

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 05:33 PM EST
Makes me wanna set up a Netware server for my apartment and relive the glory
days...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: shaun on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 05:34 PM EST
If there is no copyright infringement then SCO has no property to claim in
Linux. If they have a contract dispute then it with IBM and IBM only.

--Shaun

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bluffing -- again
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 05:35 PM EST
Yawn.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Barratry...?
Authored by: bruzie on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 05:38 PM EST
There's some interesting comments in the Slashdot story about this, e.g. Extortion being a criminal offense in Scotland (but not England and Wales). But like what has being said, they're not having much luck in the US, so what are the chances of doing anything in Europe where the laws are more restrictive?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: Stumbles on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 05:40 PM EST
For another example of what a huge role Novell turns out now to be playing, Novell on October 7 reminded SCO in a letter about the "Technology License Agreement", which it says gives Novell the right not only to use the "licensed technology" itself, but also to "authorize its customers to use, reproduce and modify" it and to sublicense and distribute it "in source and binary form". This is part of the foundation on which Novell feels it can offer indemnification. They claim rights both contractually and under copyright law.

That being the case, Novell having authority over source and binary code, then it is most appropriate that they Novell have the right to offer indemnification. IMO anyone else, does not have that right. Which again IMO why IBM and Redhat has so far not done so because they know it is not proper to do so.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Short answers
Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 05:43 PM EST
We've been focusing on what happens when Her Honor slams SCO for not being responsive to inquiries 1 and 12.

It dawns on me that the worst thing that can happen to SCO is not to have IBM complain that the responses are inadequate and have the Court agree, though. The worst thing is for IBM to accept the responses as complete and the Court agree, followed by a motion to unseal the enumerative responses (which would be very hard to claim as secrets.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 05:45 PM EST
We know from the latest accounting report that after about 6 months, SCO's USA
licensing program has made no money. So we can expect their new world-wide one
to be a least a big a failure.

By the way, I think the reason they sent out that letter claiming all those
files in Linux was to divert the press's attention from their accounting report
of the next day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell distribution.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 05:45 PM EST
So, the day Novell releases a Linux distribution under the GPL, the SCO game is
shot dead from yet another angle? SCO is just the very "trapped like a
rat" poster child, it seems.

Would a SuSE distribution serve equally well, if aquired after the Novell/SuSE
aquisition is completed?

We should start a maintained list of how many ways SCO is screwed. I'm losing
count.

1) Novell owns the copyright, SCO don't.
2) SCO released it's stuff under the GPL.
3) IBM owns what IBM makes, and is free to do what it wants.
4) Novell waives the proported violations by IBM or SGI.
5) ???

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 05:46 PM EST
My name is Nick Warne. I Live in Pompey, England (or UK, to 'Murricans).

I run Linux on 5 boxes at home (and as sysadmin/network admin as my job, snuck
two linux servers in at work to run local Intranet httpd).

Please send me a letter, SCO.

I wanna frame it and hang on the wall, like people do when they win ££££ ($$$$)
on the lottery.

Nick

[ Reply to This | # ]

china first hopefully?
Authored by: brenda banks on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 05:48 PM EST
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/01/14/HNscolicensing_1.html

SCO to take Linux licensing to SMB, international users
Some advise waiting for resolution of legal issues before paying license fees



By Robert McMillan, IDG News Service

SCO hopes to make the license available in countries such as Japan, South Korea,
Taiwan and China by February 1, but is not yet certain which countries will be
added, the spokesman said. "We're still doing a review of the legal rules
of being able to offer this license in other countries," he said.

---
br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 05:50 PM EST
The [SCO] license is now globally available. That's a little like hearing that Mad Cow Disease has arrived in your country.

Best. Groklaw quote. Ever.

Thanks,



JoAnn

[ Reply to This | # ]

Derived works: SCOG loses either way!
Authored by: arch_dude on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 05:54 PM EST
Stowell makes it clear that there is nothing in this case except the weird
"derived works" theory.

By now, we all know about ten different reasons why SCOG's "derived
works" theory is specious. However, I now think that even if SCOG
convinces the Judge that the theory is correct, they still lose.

If the true intent of all the AT&T license agreements was to actually
constrain the licensees to not disclose their code except to each other, then
the license is a clear violation of the US anti-trust laws, and specifically of
the 1956 AT&T consent decree. That makes the "derived works"
portion of all the licenses illegal and therefore un-enforcable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: RSC on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 05:59 PM EST
Just a quick point,

Based on SCO last "earnings report", how do they think they are
going to pay for even more law suits?

Will MS come up with more money to help them out. I can't see them being able
to sustain more than a couple of suits at any one time. And the way things are
going, this is drag out for years...

Perhaps all we need to sink SCO is get a few more deep pocked companies to file
a couple more suits against them.

Perhaps HP, or even one ot the infamous letter receipients might want to find
something offensive in the letter and slam them.

May be even Google might take a swipe before SCO hit them. Individually they
might not be able to dent the FUD, but have SCO fighing 8 or 9 suits, could be a
killer.

And of course, the old adage "fight fire with fire" does actualy
work some times. I have always been partial to poetic justice.

RSC



---
----
An Australian who IS interested.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: suppafly on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:05 PM EST
As I recall, IBM specifically asked for all code in Linux over which SCO claims any rights, whether or not the code was from IBM, in Interrogatory 12. That must include any code in Linux that SCO claims is infringing their copyrights, by definition, no? Where are the ABI files (errno.h etc.)? If they are not listed, SCO would seem to have admitted Linux doesn't infringe on their copyrights with those files.

Can that be used as a defense by linux people that may be sued later?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let the bloodletting begin!
Authored by: rand on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:06 PM EST
Can you say "barratry"?

Those Europeans, not to mention Engilsh and Scottish, have some strong feelings about shooting one's mouth off without proof. Remember the German Court's reaction?

---
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly an aircraft...they were the first to LAND an aircraft. (IANAL and whatever)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: ENormandy on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:08 PM EST
I know. I am happy with Fedora Core but it makes me want to go out and buy Suse
9.0.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:09 PM EST
The SCO Group has repeatedly demonstrated through its own statements a scant
understanding and respect of the terms of its AT&T UNIX codebase license
contracts and US IP law not to mention the terms of its contracts with Novell.
Now, the SCO Group wants to go on a global offensive where every country has its
own set of laws and where international Linux groups are lying in wait - Jumping
from the frying pan into the fire? I almost feel sorry for the SCO Group but
most of the time people create their own hell, the SCO Group included.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OSDL too
Authored by: rweiler on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:11 PM EST
SCO has a second headache if they actually try to sue an end user. Aside from
the fact that they aren't likely to make it to court until the copyright issues
are settled with Novell, any end user lawsuit is going to be expensive since
whoever they sue can dip into the OSDL fund. It was pretty clear that their
intent was to start out by threatening companies that couldn't afford the legal
fees and hope they roll over. With the OSDL fund in place, that isn't likely to
happen. So the probability that they will prevail is small, the probability that
the suit would proceed quickly is small, the probability that they can litigate
cheaply is small, and at the end of the day, even if they win, they won't
recover very much. That doesn't sound like a plan for success.

---
Sometimes the measured use of force is the only thing that keeps the world from
being ruled by force. -- G. W. Bush

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • & Baystar - Authored by: Cambo on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:18 PM EST
  • Hot air - Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 07:02 PM EST
    • Hot air - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 07:47 PM EST
      • Hot air - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 10:15 PM EST
    • Hot air - Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 10:09 AM EST
SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:20 PM EST
If SCO sends any letters to UK firms, I wonder how soon they will end up in
court for selling something that isnt theirs ?

In the end it is extortion, and as such it would be interesting if the UK
authorities get involved.

I mean, "We'll sue you for owning a product we did not sell you, which we
did not write, and we have no copyright over .. give us the money or we'll take
you to court"

I'm sure the UK courts would either throw this out for timewasting, or ask for
SCO to be investigated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don't forget the IBM counter-suit...
Authored by: koa on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:27 PM EST

Everyone keeps mentioning that SCO might have started down the road of focusing
on other fronts instead of IBM, but they really cannot pull away from the IBM
suit in any way; remember IBM counter-sued them, and they are sure as hell not
going to back down.

SCO cannot just say "sorry IBM, were gonna go after other
countries.."




---
...move along...nothing to see here...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another article on international licenses - SCO contradicts themselves on pricing
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:31 PM EST
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/01/14/HNscolicensing_1.html

The IP License for Linux is available at an "introductory price" of
$699 per server processor; or $199 per processor for desktop users, SCO said.
SCO would not say how long this pricing would be in effect, but pricing will
double after the introductory period, the SCO spokesman said.

Compare
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/?http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=52382

The licence will continue to be priced at SCO's introductory offer of $199 per
desktop and $699 per server processor as it has
since July, but this is now standard pricing. An annual licence has also been
introduced. '$699 dollars is now the fixed one off price for a single CPU
server,' Sontag told us. 'However, there has been a new pricing structure
introduced whereby users can purchase an annual licence for $149 dollars for a
single CPU server.'

[ Reply to This | # ]

How 'bout going local, first?
Authored by: rjamestaylor on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:33 PM EST
How can SCO go global when they haven't gone local, yet? I provided my name,
address, place of business, number of Linux-running servers, desktops, laptops
and PDAs in a letter to SCO asking for their guidance on SCO IP Licensing for
our situation. I even mentioned we had a couple Caldera licenses in the mix. Oh,
I did state I didn't believe SCO had a right under law to request my payment of
a license fee for Linux, but welcomed their explanation. And I signed the letter
as CTO of the company, which I was (at the time -- I left in mid September).

Response: Nothing. Heard nothing back.

The offer stands: SCO, come after me. I'm still using and advocating my clients
to adopt Linux for their business needs; one such customer just this month
bought a cluster of RedHat Enterprise Server 3.0 servers. I even download Linux
Distribution ISOs and make them available to others for download. Please, come
after me, SCO. In fact I teach kids to use Linux. Please...sue me, SCO!

---
SCO delenda est! Salt their fields!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:33 PM EST
It occurs to me that no one has seriously raised the question of whether
Amendment 2 to the APA is genuine. I found it odd from the start that Novell had
no copy in its files. Given the importance and scope of the document, I'd think
it very unlikely that Novell would somehow have no recollection of negotiating
and signing the document, or that Novell would somehow have misplaced all
copies.

Given that senior SCO management has shown no hesitation to lie, is it beyond
the bounds of possibility that SCO forged the so-called Amendment 2? It's not
like Novell letterhead would be hard to come by, since many of the current SCO
executives are former Novell employees. Given the arrogance that SCO has shown
to date, is it unlikely that are arrogant enough to submit a forged document in
the full expectation of getting away with it?

I think if I were Novell I'd question that document and insist that an
independent document examiner verify it as genuine.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Doug and Dinsdale
Authored by: rweiler on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:33 PM EST
It occurs to me that now that SCO has taken their show to London, Darl and Kevin
are looking more and more like Doug and Dinsdale Piranha.

First they threatened to sue if you gave them the money.
Then they threatened not to sue if you didn't give them the money.
Finally, they threatened to sue if you didn't give them the money.

Unfortunately for Darl and Kevin, this isn't likely to be the secret of
success.


---
Sometimes the measured use of force is the only thing that keeps the world from
being ruled by force. -- G. W. Bush

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Spiny Norman - Authored by: Cambo on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:40 PM EST
    • Spiny Norman - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 10:18 PM EST
  • Doug and Dinsdale - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 10:26 PM EST
What about the Caldera code in Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:34 PM EST
Aside from any unix->linux code claims, doesn't SCO have to list all the
contirbutions that they made to linux as a linux company?

Whether or not they are going to claim any unix code was copied into linux, if
they don't list those contributions, it seems like they are in violation of the
order.

Could the judge release their code into the public domain since they no longer
claim it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:36 PM EST
How will this sit with the judge?

"Your honor, we didn't have enough time to get all the info to IBM
because of the holidays, but we did have enough time to start planning a
global assault."

I will be very dissappointed if these guys don't server prison time for
wasting the public's time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It looks like TSG will have to sue Novell...
Authored by: jaynan on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:37 PM EST
... over that interpretation or cease to exist as a viable company. We'll get
some more entertainment out of them first, but the long drop into anonymity will
continue. For Darl & Company SCO v. IBM was the jumping off point, RHAT v.
SCO is the first sign the parachute isn't working, and now they are finding out
Novell owns the backup chute and won't let SCO pull the cord. Waiting at the
bottom are all the shareholders....and their lawyers.

I wonder who gets Darl's house when this is over?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Called SCO UK today to ask about Linux Licenses
Authored by: smtnet1 on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:41 PM EST
But the person I need to talk to (Richard Perkins) was out of the office until tomorrow, but they promised to have him call me back.

I asked for question suggestions on the yahoo message board and got the following, including a few of my own.

  • What is the UK cost of a linux license and where can they be bought
  • Can I see the text of the Linux License (without NDA)
  • What proof do SCO have that they have the right to license Linux
  • What SCO "IP" is in Linux, is it copyrights, patents, trade marks, trade sectrets.
  • Why wont you identify the infringing code so that it can be removed
  • Can I see proof (without NDA)
  • Didn't SCO GPL all of the code in Linux when they distributed it under GPL for years and from their website until a few weeks ago
  • If no "SCO IP" is proven to be in Linux, will SCO refund the license
  • Will SCO indemnify licensees (Linux and SCO UNIX) against IBM (patents) and Novell (copyright) claims
This is the list I have so far I would be happy to change or add any questions that are applicable. The SCO licensing scheme without proof is simply extortion. I have also contacted the Office of Fair Trading to raise a complaint about SCOs attemps to extract license fees from me and my customers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

UK Courts are not American Courts
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:42 PM EST
SCO might have thought that they could find some small company in the UK and sue
them, and the small company will pay thinking that it will be less expensive
than defending that action.

Couple of problems there. First of all, the loser pays the costs of both sides
in an action. This cuts down on the number of cases immensely, as it is much
less feasible to sue and then keep the action going until the defender runs out
of money. Untimately, if you are the loser you WILL pay the costs of BOTH
sides.

Secondly, the British legal system is much more restrictive about what a company
can say publicly about an action that might result in a jury trial. It's much
harder to try a case in the newspapers. Also the system is more restrictive
about contingency fees, not good news for SCO either.

[ Reply to This | # ]

TOP MARKS FOR SCO!
Authored by: anwaya on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:46 PM EST
I think the self-destructive bent of SCO's actions this week can only culminate
in the finest "out in a blaze of glory" corporate collapse ever.
There's no room for a last-minute pretense of dignity here, this is shaping up
to be a chain of operatically futile gestures on a global scale.

Who else could rise to the heroically pathetic act of even threatening China
with an Intellectual Property Rights lawsuit? None of us. Not one. I am ashamed.
And I bow to Darl, Chris, the analysts, and anyone else who can claim that they
were there to take the largest ever custard pie in the face - for SCO, for this
historic farce.

If this goes on, it will be time for me to claim that I drew the original Mickey
Mouse, in 1973, and assert that Disney has been faking it all these years.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: Rob_B on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:50 PM EST
Wasn't part of Redhat's suit supposed to head off all of these threats, and
allow this whole thing to be resolved early on?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Company Profile
Authored by: lpletch on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 07:05 PM EST
Carrying this over from last story.

Does anyone have a copy of an older SCO Group Corporate Profile.
I am curious about, when they stopped claiming UNIX, and If anything happened around that time to make them stop.

Although they do claim '...SCO's purchase of all UNIX intellectual property and copyrights from Novell." in this report.
SCO Names Wolf Bauer As Vice President of Engineering, Scott Lemon As Chief Technologist

---
lpletch@adelphia.net

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: hal9000 on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 07:20 PM EST
SCO has repeatly commented on a non-compete agreement
between themselves and Novell.

I have looked extensivly for any documents relating to
this agreement.

Can anyony point me to the relavent link.

--
Just the facts jack... Just the facts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's not crack after all!
Authored by: phrostie on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 07:21 PM EST
"That's a little like hearing that Mad Cow Disease has arrived in your
country."

That's it!
it's mad cow disease!
everything is falling into place!
it all makes sense now.

boy, what a releif.

it was not his own coolaid he was drinking.
he must have eaten bad beef.

---
=====
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 | # ]

Novell is threatening SCO's Cash Flow
Authored by: seeks2know on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 07:36 PM EST
I am still blown away by Novell's November 23rd letter to SCO.

In this letter, they lay the ground to totally undermine SCO's past and future revenue stream. As any finance student knows, cash flow is the lifeblood of any company.  Cut off the flow of cash and the company dies.  To really appreciate what's happening, let's dissect Novell's letter.

First of all, they remind SCO that they are prohibited from modifying SVRX licenses:
Section 4.16(b) of the APA specifies that SCO "shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend, modify, or waive any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior written consent of" Novell.
They follow this up by stating that Microsoft and Sun were SVRX licensees and take issue with SCO's announcements related to new licensing arrangements:
Novell has noted recent public statements by SCO indicating that SCO has unilaterally amended and modified SVRX Licenses with Sun Microsystems and Microsoft. These public statements also indicate that SCO may have agreed to a buy-out of Sun and Microsoft's royalty obligations under their SVRX Licenses.
Next they remind SCO that the APA prohibits them from entering into new SVRX license agreements:
Section J of Amendment No.1 prohibits SCO from entering "into new SVRX Licensees" except "as may be incidentally involved through [SCO's] rights to sell and license UnixWare software or the Merged Product."
Then they explain that SCO's Linux IP licenses would constitute new SVRX licenses - and thereby be prohibited.
With this prohibition in mind, Novell has noted SCO's recent introduction of its "SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux," in which SCO attempts to enter into new SVRX Licenses with Linux end users.
And, just to make sure that SCO does not get too creative, Novell reminds SCO that they cannot convert SVRX licenses into UnixWare licenses except under very special conditions. 
Novell requests that SCO identify and provide documentation for any allegedly valid conversions from SVRX to UnixWare under Section (f) of Schedule 1.2(b) of the APA.
Of course, being proper gentlemen, Novell does not accuse SCO of any wrongdoing.  At this point, they are simply auditing SCO per the terms of the APA. (Unlike SCO's approach, litigation will follow fact gathering and good faith efforts to settle the dispute outside of court.)

With a few (virtual) strokes of a pen, Novell has accomplished the following:
  • Placed a claim on 95% of the Microsoft and Sun license revenue (per the APA Novell gets 95% of all SVRX license revenue)
  • Made it almost impossible for SCO to sell their IP licenses to Linux users (worst case, Novell appears to be in a position to claim 95% of this revenue as well)
In any event, it appears that litigation between SCO and Novell is inevitable.  Novell will complete their fact gathering first, then choose an appropriate time.  Of course, SCO could launch a pre-emptive strike at any time.

Can SCO really afford to wage a major war on another litigation front?  And how can they even consider initiating new lawsuits against one or more Linux users?  With industry analysts stunned by their legal expenses in SCO's last conference call, what does SCO expect to happen to their stock value?

This is becoming fun to watch!

---
"Two things are infinite; the Universe and human stupidity - and I'm not sure about the Universe."
- Albert Einstein regarding The SCO Group's exec team

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO lies in December 19 ABI files letter
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 07:41 PM EST

SCO said some UNIX files were "copied verbatim" into Linux. That was a lie, as shown in my Commentary on the December 19 ABI Files letter.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Provoke more indemnifications?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 07:45 PM EST
Well, SCO got an indemnification out of Novell, so it seems to be they're
trying to provoke more.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don''t we WANT SCO to file more lawsuits?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 07:48 PM EST
It would drain their treasury more quickly and increase the chances of criminal
indictments.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does SCO have "Standing to Sue" or whatever?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 07:54 PM EST
IANAL &etc.
Federal law requires wouldbe plantiff litigants to demonstrate that they have a
right to bring a suit before allowing things to proceed. Is there a civil law
equivalent to the federal "Standing to Sue" requiement? My thought
was that if SCO were to sue me (yes, I run GNU/Linux; no, I have not paid SCO
for the right (I did pay SuSE tho)) I would attempt to have the suit thrown out
on the grounds that SCO has no right to sue me for a product I purchased from
SuSE. Aren't their hurdles that SCO must overcome to enable them to sue
another company's customer(s)?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Notable is the absence of the phrase "owner of the Unix operating system."
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 07:59 PM EST
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/01/14/HNscolicensing_1.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 08:04 PM EST
I actually think a Novell suit before the 1/23 hearing would be a bad thing,
especially if IBM can move for summary dismissal by then.

We know that is in SCO's best interest to delay as long as possible, and I see
a suit being brought by Novell as being a valid delay in the IBM case. (Much as
the IBM case was used as a delay in the Red Hat case.)

Novell vs. SCO would likely to go to trial - if SCO vs. IBM had to wait until it
did, we'd have to sit through at least another year of SCO's FUD campaign.
Consider on the other hand, the effect of SCO vs. IBM being dismissed with
prejudice in the next month.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 08:08 PM EST
I'll be an anonymous coward for the moment , (sorry :-) ).

I want to make a point that I haven't heard anyone else make. It may be
entirely obvious to everyone , I dunno.

SCO have identified in the past the technologies RCU , SMP and JFS as belonging
to them in some way. (They've said that the header files belong to them too,
but I'll assume that the decision of the ATT Vs berkley case still applies ,
and that the header files are uncopyrightable)

RCU and SMP are used in multi-cpu machines , and single CPU machines don't run
that code at all. JFS is a filesystem, All I can say about JFS is that I
haven't heard anyone admit to using it , ever.

The point is that if SCO is "offering" runtime licences for linux
because of what they claim is code that belongs to them , then almost all people
will not need to pay , as that code (RCU , SMP) is never loaded into memory
anyway. Its only used if you have multiple CPUs , and your average
computer-on-a-desk doesn't have that. (And as I said before , almost noone
uses JFS)

So don't pay SCO, you don't have to. (assuming SCO aren't a pack of lying
bastards, and you have a multi-cpu machine)

[ Reply to This | # ]

I already have one, thank you
Authored by: sbbeebe on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 08:44 PM EST
So, why can't a company who is sued, simply show up with the license they
already have?

I don't need to buy a license from you, because I already have a license. Then
SCO muxt prove that the license you have is invalid.

I guess I'm just a little simple when it comes to legal issues.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Didn't help the stock price today
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 08:45 PM EST
Closed down a little bit. No beneficial effect at all, unless you think it would
have closed down even more.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 08:47 PM EST
From London... SCO coming into Europe with its threats would simply alienate MS
customers here (we know who is paying the piper) and exacerbate the growing and
strongly held feeling that egovernment in particular should not be dominated by
one US corporation. SCO would secondly have to start litigating here and our
courts do not take kindly to vexatious litigation. SCO's actions are viewed
through a long lense as being the beginning of the end for its paymasters. A
few years maybe still to run, but these are desperate moves for a major
corporation to fund. Sad but dinosaurs always die off in the end.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 09:06 PM EST
IANAL but my understanding is that in the US SCO can sue up until a court tells
them they cannot. Court cases in progress dont count but once a verdict is in
presumably they cannot go against the verdict.

I wish they would do the country a favour and take their stock winnings and
close the company.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCO feels it's IP has been taken- JFS
Authored by: crythias on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 09:58 PM EST
This is so weird. I went looking and I just found out why SCO's targeting Kernel 2.4. IBM's JFS Page (JFS was merged into Linux in Kernel 2.4) and IBM's JFS FAQ which has this interesting tidbit:
Q1. What is the history of the source based use for the port of JFS for Linux.

A1. IBM introduced its UNIX file system as the Journaled File System (JFS) with the initial release of AIX Version 3.1.

That may be something. But let's read the REST of the answer:
This file system, now called JFS1 on AIX, has been the premier file system for AIX over the last 10 years and has been installed in millions of customer's AIX systems. In 1995, work began to enhance the file system to be more scalable and to support machines that had more than one processor. Another goal was to have a more portable file system, capable of running on multiple operating systems.

Historically, the JFS1 file system is very closely tied to the memory manager of AIX. This design is typical of a closed-source operating system, or a file system supporting only one operating system.

The new Journaled File System, on which the Linux port was based, was first shipped in OS/2 Warp Server for eBusiness in April, 1999, after several years of designing, coding, and testing. It also shipped with OS/2 Warp Client in October, 2000. In parallel to this effort, some of the JFS development team returned to the AIX Operating System Development Group in 1997 and started to move this new JFS source base to the AIX operating system. In May, 2001, a second journaled file system, Enhanced Journaled File System (JFS2), was made available for AIX 5L. In December of 1999, a snapshot of the original OS/2 JFS source was taken and work was begun to port JFS to Linux. [Emphasis mine]

I believe SCO thinks JFS went directly from AIX into Linux. IBM says no, it is actually from JFS2 which IBM made for OS/2 and, oh, btw, made it work with more than just one platform, and more than just 1CPU servers. And put JFS2 into AIX, as well as Linux. OF COURSE JFS2 is going to be in the source code of AIX. IBM put it there! (And they put the same code into Linux, but it came from OS/2 Warp, NOT AIX derivative.) SCO is trying to now say that JFS2 code put into AIX is now SCO IP, and therefore cannot be in anything else.

It can't be this easy, can it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 09:58 PM EST
The first person, or by lottery, lets pool all our money and support them so
they can get it postponed or what ever the word is until Novell and Sco settle
the Copyright issue.

Mike

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global .....
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 10:19 PM EST
SCO is the forefront of Global Quantum Ripoffography, This is their "trade
secret" to be kept away from law enforcement at all cost.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: tuwood on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 10:22 PM EST

   I, for one, will not forget it.

Nor will I!
I pretty much wrote off Novell several years ago after M$ took over their market share.  I for one as an IT manager will be watching their work with Suse and can assure you that they will be receiving some business from my company in the future.

Tony

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global
Authored by: Lindy on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 10:52 PM EST
With this news how would you like to have that internal sales job now?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • SCO Goes Global - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 03:15 AM EST
  • SCO Goes Global - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 11:49 AM EST
SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 04:38 AM EST
Just spoke to someone at SCO UK who was:-

- Claiming that there is in excess of 1 million lines of code.
- Claiming that proof exists to back up a claim.
- Unwilling to give his name.
- Unable to provide a price for it, claiming they had not been told yet.
<P>
I think a call to a few regulatory bodies including Hertfordshire Trading
Standards may be in order.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: cybervegan on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 05:01 AM EST
Want a Netware 5.0 installation CD, 2 server licences and
350 user licenses?

I'm sure I can persuade my boss - we 'upgraded' to windoze
2000 when it was fashionable, giving up 400-day uptimes
for 30 days in the process...

... and getting NDS-- (inActive Directory) into the
bargain. Oh, and gigantic memory leaks, too, courtesy of
the Compaq Storageworks SCSI driver. This server thought
it was a yo-yo.

The best feature, though, is the Windoze compatability -
worms and viruses are now supported by the server too!


---
Stand and fight we do consider
Reminded of an inner pact between us
That's seen as we go
And ride there
In motion
To fields in debts of honor
Defending

[ Reply to This | # ]

The way out for Darl
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 05:32 AM EST
... of course, there is an easy way of for Darl ... all he has to do is BLAME
THE AUDITORS!!! (take Enron, Adecco, Parmalat ... for example) So, this time
it's not Andersen, not PwC, not Deloitte, not Ernst & Young but KPMG that
will be left holding the bag.

I strongly suggest Darl to make the famous: "Nobody told me I couldn't do
that" defense.

Ben

[ Reply to This | # ]

Buy SCOX!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 05:35 AM EST
Not being an American, I'm wondering whether it would be worth buying a SCOX
share and then contacting the SEC regarding the misinformation that is presented
in the annual report and subsequent publications.

Would that work?

Thanks for the info - Ben

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Buy SCOX! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 07:08 AM EST
    • Don't! - Authored by: Jadeclaw on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 10:58 AM EST
  • Buy SCOX! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 02:59 PM EST
The German court order
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 07:51 AM EST
The German court order shows that there is something fundamentally wrong with the US justice system when dealing with such claims.

While SCO has to prove their claims before demanding anything from others in Germany it can lay waste in the US without having to point to hard facts confirmed by courts.

In the end this won't matter since SCO has to win the law suit anyway. But would SCO have to prove anything before being allowed to release PR statements and threaten users of Linux which has the serious potential to harm the business of Linux vendors then Darl's stock market adventures couldn't take place. This flaw in the US legal system is permitting Darl to rip off the stock markets on simple and unproven games of FUD. This doesn't happen in Germany. This German court order is protecting the interests of the accused and affected parties until they are proven guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty is missing in the US concerning this case (and some others). The media and a great deal of investors already think IBM is guilty just because SCO is spreading its claims aggressively yet nothing is proven. The damage is on IBM, Red Hat, Novell and everybody that is doing business with Linux. Linux stakeholders have to spend money and go to great efforts to protect their interests until the case is settled. And we all know that this case is still going to trouble us some months in the future.

Now, supposed this case is won by IBM. What happens next? Yeah, right. SCO stock prices nose-dive. Darl steps into a plane to some exotic island out of reach from the FBI, his short term gains from stock trading in his pockets and what about the IBM, Red Hat, Novell and so on? They will look in vain for someone who can compensate them for their just efforts to protect their interests against unproven claims.

People, this stinks. This is not a one time thing. There will be another SCO when this case is finished. And another. And one more. And so on. As long as accused parties are automatically guilty in the eyes of the media and stock trade investors there is no end to this kind of scheme. Innocent until proven guilty. This should be the leveling rule in the media and stock markets. This can only be accomplished by forbidding SCO to make claims or even speak about them until they have proven them in court.

kind regards from Brussels,

Tobias

[ Reply to This | # ]

Suing in England
Authored by: gbl on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 08:11 AM EST
They could, but SCO would have to find a local speciallised lawyer to prepare
the case and then a barrister to argue the case.

Should SCO be so unfortunate as to lose, the court will very likely require them
to pay the costs of the defendant as well as their own costs.

The courts, understanding that money has been known to disappear when bills
arrive may well require SCO to pay a reasonable amount into the court before the
case starts. Plus it's unlikely that the lawyers will work without upfront
payments.

All in all, it's a brave policy that SCO is advocating

---
If you love some code, set it free.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Suggestion for Linus
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 09:49 AM EST
Why doesn't Linus register the copyright for Linux?

I'm thinking that he could register the copyright for the last version of Linux
that does not contain any code other than the code he wrote himself.

[ Reply to This | # ]

And just in case Darl needed something else to get mad at
Authored by: PeteS on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 10:52 AM EST
HP Sets Record With $2.5B in Linux-Based Revenue

Wow - I guess Linux really is taking market share from SCO(/irony), but not because it used anything from SCO ;)

---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Goes Global but Novell May Block The Way
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 11:43 AM EST
This, it now turns out, is a study in contrasts. We have SCO issuing constant statements and press releases (without telling the whole story, though, we now find out from Novell) and we have buttoned-lipped Novell, quietly taking care of business.
Someone ought to compile a list of all of SCO's contradictory statements, juxtaposing the contradictions, and see to it the judge gets a copy. Not that she isn't aware of it already, but it would just be more ammunition for the court to use on these nuts.

---
What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Incestuous Fun
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 12:32 PM EST
Let me, for a moment, ponder forth a hypothetical...

Wouldn't it be grand if, in some evil alternate reality, IBM were to purchase
Novell outright?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Real Story Behind the SCO Story
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 18 2004 @ 12:21 AM EST
(Idontdowindows posting, forgot password):

Here is the real story behind the SCO story:
<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-01-13-patentscover_x.htm>

Briefly: it pays to sue in the current USA. Nevermind jobs are being lost to
overseas firms. But when Beechcraft started moving its airplane manuf. facility
to Canada because of liability claims in the USA, Congress passed a ceiling on
liability and the firm stayed.


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Files Slander of Title Lawsuit Against Novell
Authored by: Ilssear on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 03:51 PM EST
They are at it again... and this time Heise shows his face!!!

Complaint Requests Injunctive Relief and Damages Against Novell for Copyright Misrepresentations and Alleges Bad Faith Effort by Novell to Interfere With SCO's Intellectual Property Rights to UNIX and UnixWare

[ 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 )