|
|
| Darl Goes to Harvard - My First Quick Impressions |
 |
|
Monday, February 02 2004 @ 08:48 PM EST
|
I watched the webcast and while I lost the stream once or twice, I heard the bulk of it. No doubt others will fill in the blanks, and I took some pictures off the screen which will at least give you a flavor when I get them up. Soon. UPDATE: Here is the webcast Harvard has made available. The big news is that they say they will start to sue copyright end users by February 18. The other news is that he asked the audience if they had gotten infected by MyDoom, and he pointed to one guy who beautifully answered, "No, I use Linux, so I wasn't affected," and the room laughed. Darl wasn't happy about that and it was clear he didn't like the questions about the ABI files. He said that Linus claimed only two, and there were the rest they can sue over, though they still plan to contest Linus' claims in court. Someone mentioned an article that had lessened his credibility on the other ABI files, that it had said it looked like they had distributed them under the GPL. And it was like he turned dark and stormy and paced and tried not to show his anger. But it showed. Then he said that the BSDi settlement was about those same header files, and they know what is in that sealed settlement and we don't, but there were three kinds of files addressed in that settlement: files that had to be removed, files that had to have copyright notices put on them, and files that were ok. They claim that the files they will be suing over lack the copyright notices, plus some files that were supposed to be removed, IIRC. And the DMCA says it's a violation to strip off copyright information, so I gather they intend to go after end users for "stripping off" copyright information on those header files. Ridiculous and cynical as that may sound, that is their strained plan. No doubt they figure the DMCA gives them muscles that AT&T didn't have back when the original case was before the courts. But those are the files. Sontag hinted that they might add copyright claims to the IBM case over those same header files at some point.
My overall impression was that they were very uncomfortable. It began with calls for civility, which turned out not to be necessary. Everyone was polite. But clearly Harvard had gotten a lot of complaints, judging from their remarks. They have invited Chris Stone of Novell to speak there in three weeks on February 23. Details will be on their website. They continued to repeat the same untrue "facts" about the GPL, that it forces you to give your software away free, blah blah. I hardly think explaining it one more time will help them, since it's clearly volitional. They've got their story and they're sticking to it. Darl said when you go to court, the rubber hits the road. I assume he means by that you have to get it actually sorted out with facts. He was asked how he can sue without having established copyrights, but he danced around without answering that directly. No doubt that rubber will hit the road when he sues the first end user. Clearly they have something in that settlement agreement, which Noorda was a party to, and the rest of us were not, and they plan on springing it on a startled and totally innocent end user soon, who will be befuddled as to how he is responsible for complying with a sealed agreement he isn't a party to and doesn't have a clue what it says. Of course, they don't tell you what it says. They would rather surprise you. Well, good luck, cowboys. We'll see how it plays in a court of law. He tried to answer Eben Moglen's illustration about going to Barnes and Noble and buying a book and having SCO leap into your living room and say, I'm suing you for reading that book. He said it's more like you get the book without paying for it and then you make copies and give them to 500 friends. He said that is how it is with Linux. Companies get one copy and make tons more. The part he misses is that the writers of the code have no problem with that, so it would be more like if I write a book and say you can read the book as often as you like and you can copy it and give it to whomever you wish. If I, the author, say you can, who is to say I can't? Well, SCO would like to. Of course, they said the opposite too. Lots of conflicting remarks. And they both looked like they were trying to ease out of a saloon filled with cowboys who thought they'd stolen their cattle. Immediately at the close, although the moderator said all could stay around and chat, Darl couldn't be seen in the frame any more. Just poof. UPDATE: Here's a mainstream
account on InternetNews, "SCO Receives Icy Reception At Ivy". And UserFriendly couldn't resist. Update 2: Later, in November, Groklaw was able to obtain and finally publish the BSDi settlement agreement, and after that, when it was no longer a secret, one no longer heard about it from SCO.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: rand on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:12 PM EST |
"...they plan on springing it on a startled and totally innocent end user
soon..."
Yeah, and no doubt the Regents will be just thrilled to pieces to have their
sealed agreement opened back up.
---
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 | # ]
|
- Darl Goes to Harvard - My First Quick Impressions - Authored by: Weeble on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:28 PM EST
- Darl Goes to Harvard - My First Quick Impressions - Authored by: Terry on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:34 PM EST
- Darl Goes to Harvard - My First Quick Impressions - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:54 PM EST
- Harlan: Please Expand - Authored by: Ed L. on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:32 PM EST
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 11:08 PM EST
- Hmmmmm. But.... - Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 01:00 AM EST
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 02:59 AM EST
- Thanks. - Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 03:28 AM EST
- Thanks. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 05:26 AM EST
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 05:10 AM EST
- Unfortunately - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 08:53 AM EST
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 09:53 PM EST
- Unfortunately - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 06:23 AM EST
- Only four fronts? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:01 PM EST
- Only four fronts? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 06:33 AM EST
- Where are the Regents? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:44 PM EST
- Anybody left out? - Authored by: Stefan on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 10:25 AM EST
- Darl Goes to Harvard - My First Quick Impressions - Authored by: dmomara on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:32 PM EST
- The Regents and the settlement - Authored by: valdis on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:22 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:18 PM EST |
so........ does that mean that all you have to do to avoid the wrath of the SCO
group is to add copyright statements attributing the University Regents of
California to those files? Heh, that'd be amusing.....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:19 PM EST |
I bet he felt the heat after that. . . .
And yet somehow after what a year? there's no evidence.
How do we keep hearing things from him? It's a wonder nobody's stapled his mouth
shut.
Soon the courts will . . I can't wait. I hope they have live broadcasts of THAT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Scriptwriter on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:19 PM EST |
This is the same stuff we've been hearing over and over again, except this time
they went up against a bright, well-prepared audience (including a number of MIT
students) who weren't afraid to ask the tough questions. They should have
expected the reaction they got.
My favorite part was from an MIT student (I forget the name, something like
Chris Johns) who said that as an act of civil disobedience he had given everyone
in the audience a Linux CD, and if Darl was interested he'd be glad to give him
one too after the presentation. That got a big reaction from the crowd, but not
as far as I could tell from The Darl.
---
He who sells / What isn't his'n / Is headed for / Some time / In prison /
Burma-Shave
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Same stuff, different day, different effect - Authored by: Weeble on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:31 PM EST
- Same stuff, different day, different effect - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 09:19 AM EST
- Same stuff... [MIT student's article link] - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 02:21 PM EST
- Same stuff, different day, different effect - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 12:13 AM EST
- Same stuff, different day, different effect - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 01:29 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: star-dot-h on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:21 PM EST |
Old / New SCO should be suing Caldera who were clearly infringing on System V
Unix copyrights and derivative works before Caldera bought Old / New SCO...or
did I miss something?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:22 PM EST |
Huh. Maybe the poor guy that said that he "wasn't affected" will be
the first to have his head roll when they sue the end users. Now that would be
irony in the extreme:)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:22 PM EST |
Will this video be made available for download anywhere? I would really like to
watch it. I have a few doctoring ideas. :)
Void Main[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PM on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:31 PM EST |
One of Darl's planks in suing end users is breach of DCMA on removing copyright
notices.
As retrospective legislation is generally frowned upon, it seems doubtful that
DCMA is breached if any copyright notice was removed before DCMA was enacted.
This is probably irrevelant as SCO is going to have to show it owns the
copyrights which is going to be tricky when suing end users. This is especially
when Novell claims the copyrights too (not to mention the mile long chain of
'even if' links that SCO has to negotiate with complete success).
By the way, it has never occurred to me that reading a shoplifted book was a
breach of copyright, especially when I am ignorant as to its shoplifting.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:38 PM EST |
"They say they will start to sue copyright end users by Feb. 18."
No they won't.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- ABI - Authored by: radix2 on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:06 PM EST
- Bluffing again - Authored by: Jude on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:07 PM EST
- Bluffing again - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:17 PM EST
- Bluffing again - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:29 PM EST
- Bluffing again - Authored by: John on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:23 PM EST
- Bluffing again - Authored by: jdg on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:48 PM EST
- 2/04/2004 - Authored by: Lev on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 11:19 PM EST
- Volunteers - Authored by: rjamestaylor on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 11:05 PM EST
- My bet - and why 2/18 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 11:38 PM EST
- Bluffing again - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 06:04 AM EST
- Bluffing again - Authored by: dcs on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 07:57 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: k4_pacific on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:39 PM EST |
In George Carlin's Braindroppings, among the random thoughts was a list entitled
"A few things I like". One was "A man who obviously doesn't know
what he's talking about, but won't admit it."
I think that is the real appeal of this case, and why I keep coming back to this
website. Apart from my love of Linux, I just like watching Darl and his cohorts
continually scrambling around to give the impression that they are not
completely and embarassingly full of baloney. Plus, it provides a lot of
insight into the politics of the IT industry which proves useful in my job. (or
possibly counterproductive, as my boss's boss thinks Microsoft is but the bee's
knees)
Thank you PJ, keep up the excellent work.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mflaster on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:42 PM EST |
So he's very upset that copyright notices have been removed - but aren't many
users moving around binaries? I doubt that the BSD settlement required there to
be copyrights inside the binaries... :-)
Mike
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:44 PM EST |
I would just need to tranfer it to another medium from digital tape. I would
also volunteer to transcribe parts if anyone wants.
let me know.
Mike A.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ.. Please let us know how to proceed. - Authored by: Turing_Machine on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:06 PM EST
- Yes, I know - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:11 PM EST
- Webcast info in a different thread - Authored by: Terry on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:20 PM EST
- Please, no Real - Authored by: Nick on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:45 PM EST
- Please, no Real - Authored by: vida2 on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:55 PM EST
- Please, no Real - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 11:03 PM EST
- Please, no Real - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:57 PM EST
- Please, no Real - Authored by: Harry Clayton on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 11:00 PM EST
- Please, no Real - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 01:23 AM EST
- PJ - I taped the lecture, if anyone wants it - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 12:16 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:52 PM EST |
| Is the webcast archived anywhere? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:58 PM EST |
AFAIK, there is still no proof of any sort that these simple header files were
copied from either BSD or UNIX code. Have I missed something, or is Darl Logic
just saying "if Linus doesn't claim them explicitly, they are ours"?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jgb on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 09:59 PM EST |
| Maybe I'm obtuse (I'd like to think not), but this has me puzzled. Perhaps I
misunderstand. If so, please set me straight.
Darl et. al. are going to sue
end users because some of the header files in the distribution they received, as
end users, lacks copyright notices? And causation is flowing backwards here? It
is like I go to a bookstore and buy a book, but unbeknownst to me, the title
page with copyright, etc. is missing. Should I be sued, or the person who ripped
out the titlepage? Let's leave aside the obvious questions, such as "Was there
ever a title page?" and "Was the title page removed before it was illegal to do
so?". Let's grant Darl the benefit of every doubt. How can I, as buyer of a book
with a missing title page, be punished for having a book with no title page?
This is especially weird, since few users ever even look at those headers, so
they cannot be held responsible for inspecting them, and would not know what to
look for to determine if anything is missing. How can someone be held liable for
something one did not cause, and cannot reasonably be expected to be aware
of?
Or am I missing something? ---
-jgb-
SCO exists as a negative example to others. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jrc on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:21 PM EST |
PJ,
You are amazing. I just got home from Harvard and have not even started typing
up my notes, and you already have a post! I'll type up my thoughts now, along
with some questions that the group asked after the session ended.
- JC
---
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:24 PM EST |
I haven't watched it yet but I hope someone asked how SCO will pay for two
lawsuits (IBM, Novell) with even more coming. That's a big drain on a bank
account that's not getting refilled any time soon.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 10:45 PM EST |
A smooth operator, him and his sidekick. They looked (to me on Realplayer,
anyways) polished and rehearsed, and if not giving the most truthful answers to
the various questions, neither did they blow up and bluster at the audience. McB
was quite good at dodging questions and manipulating them to fit his purposes.
Maybe it was the particular forum, but I was struck by how calm the whole thing
was, and also how sparsely attended (I would have thought the whole of MIT and
the FSF would have flooded the room). I could imagine how, in the context of a
darkened conference room, McB's patter could easily convince any non-technical
*cough* Rob Enderle *cough* "analyst". In this business, as we notice
increasingly, perception and impressions are everything, not petty things such
as facts and truth. It reminded me of the Steve Jobs "Kool-Aid"
effect, or more disturbingly, of GW Bush's WMD arguments.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 11:48 PM EST |
PJ says "The big news is that they say they will start to sue copyright end
users by February 18".
I didn't see the talk. Does he actually say
that they will bring a
copyright infringement action, or just that they will
sue an end-user?
I'm guessing that the end-user suit will be against
one of the 6,000
UNIX licensees SCO's been talking a lot about recently, and
the suit
will have a muddle of claims similar to their claims against
IBM:
mostly Breach of Contract, with the only actual intellectual
property
claim being one for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets. Once
again,
there will be no trademark, patent, or copyright
claims.
Looking through SCO statements since the "suit within ninety
days"
announcement in November, I don't see anywhere that they
specifically
say that they will sue someone for "copyright infringement".
Instead
they say they will sue an end-user, and there will be some sort
of
infringement alleged, and there is copyrighted material involved.
Strictly
speaking (Clintonially speaking, one might say), all of that
also describes the
complaint they filed against IBM, even though it
does not include a copyright
infringement claim.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Monday, February 02 2004 @ 11:52 PM EST |
| Isn't the deadline for adding claims to the IBM case on Wednesday, 2/4? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shock106 on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 12:06 AM EST |
"And the DMCA says it's a violation to strip off copyright
information..."
Wait a second they stripped the copyright information off of the SGI code they
stole and claimed as their own on those slides showing the "stolen"
code.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 12:30 AM EST |
| It is wort noting that February 18th is the 90 day deadline that SCO set
themselves on the November 18th in a press release.
See http://www.techweb.com
/wire/story/TWB20031118S0003.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jrc on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 12:46 AM EST |
I attended the session with Darl this evening at Harvard, and have typed up
some of the points I noted as being important. I did not get it all, nor did I
try: I assumed that the videofeed would be made available. I hope that others
at the presentation (or who watch the feed) will correct me where I erred. Now
off to bed... I am in awe of PJ's ability to stay up to 3 AM.
Enjoy!
KEY TAKE AWAYS
Summary of IP Claims: SCO
owns all Unix. Linux could not have become and enterprise class OS without
assistance of Unix vendors who have SCO Unix licenses. SCO licensees all have
confidentiality agreements. Therefore someone broke the confidentiality, and
Linux has infringing code. (Somehow I don't think those syllogisms would
withstand the scrutiny of a Formal Login 101 class, let alone a good
lawyer.)
Summary of GPL Claims: The GPL goes against Eldred v.
Ashcroft in the sense that it fails to provide individual (economic) incentive
to create new software. The GPL passes any copyright risks onto the user through
the "no warrantee" clause.
A Taxomony of their Claims:
SCO is
pursuing copyright Slander with Novell. It is pursuing breach of contract with
IBM, and may pursue straight copyright claims against other parties. SCO is
claiming that x% of Linux is OK, and y% is not. They want licenses to use the
part that is not okay, and deflected questions about how that IP could be
removed from Linux, even if going back to 2.2 would be okay. The only road they
want people to see is their IP licensing program.
OUTLINE OF
PRESENTATION
1. Value of Intellectual Property Market in
Software
2. Copyright and Eldred v. Ashcroft
3. History of Unix
4.
What SCO owns
5. Linux: how it grew too fast
6. Open v. Proprietary
Software
7. SCO v. Free and Open Software
PRESENTATION
NOTES
Darl as Illusionist: Seeing Darl brought a key insight
into his character: he is an illusionist, a person who distracts his audience
and leads them away from the activity that he does not want them to see. At
numerous points during the presentation, he turned to the audience to direct
attention away from the rational issue at hand and towards a emotional reaction.
If I were an analyst, I would watch for this technique and immediately ask what
he does not want you to see or ask.
Source of Insecurity: The
assertion that copyright laws might be outdated scares SCO, which makes sense
for a company that is staking its business on a lawsuit over contracts which
govern their IP acquisitions. Darl's presentation made it clear that SCO is not
just pursuing a breach of contract case with IBM; it is trying to bring law and
order to the wild west of a new age when intellectual property makes up the
majority of corporations's assets.
SCO Owns it All
Darl
asserted that SCO owns all rights, title and interest to Unix.
SCO
owns:
- all Unix SysV source code
- all agreements to Unix
Vendors
- all SysV copyrights, 8 pages of copyrights, plus amendment a
year later,
- all claims violation of Unix Licenses, with over 6000
contracts claims for damages
- all SysV derivative works, "the control of
derivate code is owned by SCO"
Greed is Good: Darl
cited Eldred v. Ashcroft to support his assertion that individual incentives are
best way to forward public good. He confused free software as being solely "free
as in beer," and continued his unfounded claims that the GPL is a slipperly
slope to a world in which no one gets paid for their ideas and a Napster-like
theft of all intellectual property will govern life in the frontier of the
"digital age." (and I hate that term, digital age....)
All Your Nixes
Belong to Us: Darl put up a tree with the trunk as SCO Unix. The branches
included the following Nixes:
- BSD on same branch as AIX.
- DataGen DG-UX
- SGI IRIX, Siemens
SINIX
- HP-UX
- Sun Solaris
- Fujitsu ICL
DSR/NX
- Sequent DYNIX/PIx
- SCO Openserver
- SCO
UnixWare
Linux 2.2: The Hobbyists' OS. Yup, those were
Darl's words. In 1999, he claimed that Linux was merely at a "hobbyist" level.
He claims that it took 25 years to build Unix into an enterprise level OS with
32 processor capabilities, NUMA, and high reliability, but it only toook Linux
from 1999 to 2003 to get from the 2-processor SMP capabilities of kernel 2.2 to
the 32 process capabilities of 2.6. He conveniently left out the part about
Caldera sponsoring that work, but I did not get called on to ask about it....
Believe it or not, Darl believes this point to be at the center of the lawsuit.
He repeated this point several times. Why he believes that Linux could not have
grown up on its own is beyond me.
No Free Beer For Everyone: Darl
continued his confusion of free as in beer in a discussion of copyright law in
the context of FOSS software. He does believe that a developer has the right to
GPL his or her work; he just does not want that work to contain any SCO
copyrightable material (which seems to be everything related to Unix since
1969...). He defined Copyleft as "the opposite of Copyright. Copyleft is a free
work, that you don't charge a fee for..."
GPL's No Warrantee Exposes
End User to Risk: Darl claims that the no warrantee language in the GPL
exposes the end user to the liabilty for using the product, instead of just the
liabilities that arise during the use of the product. In other words, that the
end user would responsible for (to be very specific) infringing on SCO's
copyright. Darl also claimed that David Boise (yes, the silent one) said that
SCO would be taking an end user to court by Feb 18. I seem to get the inkling
that the DMCA would also come into play, because the infringing works that SCO
is citing (the header files) lacked the copyright header information that had
been specified in the AT&T/BSDi agreement.
Boxed Sets are Fair
Game: Sontag also made clear that boxed editions of Linux are fair game for
lawsuits, as they still infringe.
Indemnification Plans Are
Farces: Darl characterized all the indemnification deals from vendors as
being marketing stunts, requiring the user to pay a separate fee. But he only
addressed the corporate ones...
Specious Terrorist Claims: For
good measure, Darl threw in some claims about cyberterrorism and civil
disobedience, claiming that SCO was "working with Washington" to ensure that
export controls are added to OSS. Because there is currently no way to prevent
Linux from getting to DPRK or Libya. Hmm... As one MIT student put it, most
Crypto was developed in Canada. Not to put to fine a point on it, if a country
can acquire nuclear weapons technology and fissile material, do you really think
a few laws governing software export controls is going to prevent them from
getting a copy of Unixware or Linux? Gees....
Slashdotted phone.
I have not checked, but Darl claims that someone put his name, address, and home
phone on Slashdot during the Superbowl, leading to a DoS attack on his home
phone line. If this is true, someone tell the babies that this is not a game.
Not cool, especially as it just plays into SCO's hands.
SCO as
Sherriff in the Ole' West. Darl characterized the current situation with
Linux and OSS as the wild west, where cyberterrorists, civil disobedients, and
renegade developers are violating the laws and slowing the progress of science
(and the accumulation of wealth through licensing of ideas). SCO is just trying
to bring law and order back, and will use bounties and other methods to make
that happen. In other words, they somehow view themselves as the lone whitehat
in town, who needs to take on the whole gang of outlaws and bring justice back
to the realm. Hmmm... there must be a name for this complex in the DSM IV. I
wish I knew it.... I have a feeling that the whitehat is going to get overun by
the cavalry, who will take away the star badge and his gun.
Open v.
Closed. Darl picked up an IBM ad from a newspaper and agreed with IBM's
asssertion that the war is over open and closed. But Darl cleverly did his
magician thing and turned it into free versus paid software. He also cast RMS as
the enemy of the economic growth of the intellectual property market, going so
far as to display a picture of RMS with a quote that "proprietary software is
antisocial and should'nt exist" on one side of slide and the $289 billion IP
valuation of the software market (in 2007) on the other half, with the quote
that "IP is a power tool for economic development" from the WIPO. Sigh... Would
someone please explain the history of science to Darl! Darl did add that he had
great respect for RMS's ethos and mission, which he characterized as not being
done until all software is free. Darl then asked: what happens to society if
that $289 billion is zero? It would be bad for the tax base, as well as for
the incentive to create more and more software. As one law student mentioned
afterwards, what about the billion that IBM has invested in its open source
business, and the billion it got back? Does that not count towards the $289
billion figure?
Blustery Challenge to Sam: Darl challenged Sam
Palmisano to put his 10,000 patents in the public domain and Darl will do the
same. Only Darl doesn't have any patents to release, only code that is secret --
well, the stuff that not in Linux. And all IBM's patents can already be read
online. Hmm.
Q&A NOTES
Header Files are a
Problem: Darl knew that Linus had said that he wrote 2 of the files, leaving
(for Darl) 70 out in the open. Chris Sontag went on to claim that the
AT&T/BSDi agreement left three groups of files: those that had to be
removed, those that had to have copyright headers affixed to them, and those to
which nothing had to be done. Chris claimed that the header files that SCO cites
belonged to the middle group, and that SCO could use the DMCA to pursue claims
against those who violated the terms of the court agreement. That should be
interesting: a sealed court agreement being used to prosecute people who
allegedly used existing code which predates the DMCA...
But SAMBA is
fine. When asked why they continue to distribute GPL'd software like Samba
when they say that the GPL is unconsitutional and against US copyright law,
Sontag only said that they will distribute software which they believe has clean
IP.
SCO Claims to be Mitigating Damages: Darl claimed that SCO
was acting to mitigate damages. It had shown the code in August with "clearly
replicated" code under NDA. As a result, Linus said that the code had been
removed. (small causality problem there, no?). Darl claimed that SGI also
removed code when it had been confronted with the evidence. (that's not what I
remember reading in SGI's letter). Darl thenclained that there are millions of
lines of infringing code in Linux, and that SCO had provided that code to IBM.
And of course, the header files: Chris and Darl then mentioned that SCO had sent
out a letter in January, and that the deadline for responding was last Saturday.
So they are acting to mitigate damages, at least as far as their confidential
agreements with their licensees allows. Right. Novell as a Nuisance
Suit: Darl characterized the suit with Novell as simple and quick, something
that should result in a immediate permament injunction to prevent Novell from
claiming copyright over Unix. Chris pointed out that all the change of control
clauses expired two years from the signing of the agreement, so Novell's claims
to own Unix IP are moot. Darl separately (and earlier) explained that Novell was
claiming to have a perpetual "license" to use Unix and resell it (giving
legitimacy to SuSE), a license they would not need if they owned Unix. Darl
claimed Novell was talking out of both sides of its mouth.
A
Taxomony of their Claims: SCO is pursuing copyright Slander with Novell. It
is pursuing breach of contract with IBM, and may pursue straight copyright
claims against other parties. SCO is claiming that x% of Linux is OK, and y% is
not. They want licenses to use the part that is not okay, and deflected
questions about how that IP could be removed from Linux, even if going back to
2.2 would be okay. The only road they want people to see is their IP licensing
program.
Sending Vitamins and Spa Treatments to Dennis Ritchie and
Ken Thomson: In the context of copyrights and their term of 70 years plus
life, Darl made an aside than on analysis reveals a strange mental space. Darl
said that they were sending vitamins and spa treatments to Ritchie and Thompson.
Then he backtracked and said it was through the money they had paid for Unix.
But my nose is itching. To put it in the words of another person I spoke with,
why would the thought about keeping the inventors of Unix alive even be in
Darl's mental space? Is there some reason that the Unix copyright would be
linked to Ritchie and Thompson's lifespan? Isn't it all in AT&T's name? I
wonder, and I wonder if anyone else wonders, too....
---
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Feudalism - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 01:36 AM EST
- Feudalism - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 01:46 AM EST
- Feudalism - Authored by: whitehat on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 03:10 AM EST
- Feudalism - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 02:18 PM EST
- Feudalism - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 06:39 PM EST
- Notes from Harvard - Authored by: reuben on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 01:48 AM EST
- Answers to McBride's Rhetoric: Linux took only 4 Years because it was Open Source - Authored by: jdg on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 01:52 AM EST
- Notes from Harvard - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 01:52 AM EST
- Economics and SCOG do not mix? - Authored by: jdg on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 02:13 AM EST
- Novell's "Change of Control" argument is wrong. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 03:18 AM EST
- Notes from Harvard - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 03:53 AM EST
- Re. last paragraph - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 07:16 AM EST
- Notes from Harvard - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 07:59 AM EST
- Munchausen by Proxy - Authored by: mhoyes on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 10:21 AM EST
- Addendum: Header Files - Authored by: jrc on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 11:17 AM EST
- Addendum: Boxed Sets - Authored by: jrc on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 11:23 AM EST
- Notes from Harvard - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 11:53 AM EST
- Notes from Harvard - Authored by: pooky on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 12:48 PM EST
- Notes from Harvard - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 01:12 PM EST
- Notes from Harvard - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 10:19 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 01:03 AM EST |
might have a hard time convincing a judge that copyrights being on these files
were so important that they were left off for so many years before there was
ever a suit?
---
br3n
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw
sco is just as believable as raelians[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 01:50 AM EST |
Think of it from their prospective what is easier to serve up to a world-wide
audience on-demand? That brings us down to a few file formats and atleast Real
has a player for many Unices. Also, you can get involved in the Helix community
and things are not as "closed source" and "closed standard."
Real is actually working on that whole issue while still trying to stay in
bussiness with M$ continuing its anticompetive practice of bundling MediaPlayer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TerryL on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 05:29 AM EST |
| The big news is that they say they will start to sue copyright end users by
February 18.
Assuming they get past the 6th Feb hearing in a state to
sue anyone... they need to establish some credible claim to the rights to sue
anyone I think.
didn't like the questions about the ABI files. He said
that Linus claimed only two, and there were the rest they can sue over, though
they still plan to contest Linus' claims in court.
Did Linus only claim
2? I thought he claimed all of them but maybe only mention 2 in particular - I
must go back and dig out that article again and re-read it.
they know
what is in that sealed settlement and we don't
Very true, but I assume
the agreement was sealed for a purpose and if he is to use what is in there he
has to, in effect, un-seal that agreement - wouldn't that put him in the
position of contempt of court; breach of contract; infringing copyright;
something? Given how cross-eyed they seem to read everything anyway, I suspect
all that would come out would be a dozen or so other ways they can be shown to
be wrong, wronger than wrong and, probably just plain daft.
No doubt they
figure the DMCA gives them muscles that AT&T didn't have back when the
original case was before the courts.
So, this DMCA is applicable
retrospectively? I mean you can go back and re-write legal history using
it?
Ahh well, it'll soon be Friday and then we'll see how things pan out.
I'm not holding my breath for it all to be over on Friday, I suspect it will
drag on, that eventually we'll get through all the tail dragging - they'll
probably stretch the judges patience to almost snapping and then we'll move on.
They may get to their discovery requests, and we'll see more dragging.
Eventually it will all come down to what I think is the basic question, "do
they have any claim on code IBM added to the original AT&T code and can they
tell IBM they can't use it in Linux". The question then will be "is what's in
Linux the same code, is it different code, and if it's different is it
contaminated by some sort of cross infection of personel".
I think they may
be hoping to get lucky somewhere along the line, but at the very least they hope
they get to cash in on shares and options (and maybe book rights and film rights
after that).
No, I think this all has a ways to run
yet...
---
All comment and ideas expressed are my own and do not
necessarily reflect those of any other idiot... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: apessos on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 06:12 AM EST |
"He said it's more like you get the book without paying for it and then you
make copies and give them to 500 friends."
Just a quick comment. This implies an illegal act. Where a more accurate
description is this, a bookstore offers a book for free. You take the book and
since it is free and allows for you to copy it, and you happen to like the book
and think your friends will as well, you make copies from them to enjoy it.
But you aren't taking it without the bookstores permission. They freely give it
to you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 08:16 AM EST |
"Immediately at the close, although the moderator said all could stay
around and chat, Darl couldn't be seen in the frame any more. Just poof."
Was there a puff of smoke? A smell of brimstone?
Did he have a reflection?
:)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Poof - Authored by: Sri Lumpa on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 02:08 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 09:00 AM EST |
No doubt that rubber will hit the road when he sues the first end
user.
No, their BS is going to hit the fan, and it's all going
to get thrown back into their faces.
---
What goes around comes around,
and it grows as it goes. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 09:52 AM EST |
Excuse me?
Darl was QUOTED Many times always with different time limits.
Before the end of the month and before the end of the year were thing he DID in
fact say...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mhoyes on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 10:24 AM EST |
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the AT&T/BSD settlement just an
agreement, and not a court order. Additionally, it was not a public settlement,
so how can anyone be held accountable other than the original parties to the
agreement? It is almost as if Darl wants to sue an end user just so he can
prove that the GPL doesn't protect the end user.
meh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Scriptwriter on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 02:21 PM EST |
Eric is the MIT student who announced during the webcast that he had passed out
copies of Knoppix to people attending the presentation. He put up a web page
about the experience:
http://web.mit.edu/jonas/www/faim/
I've mirrored it in case the page gets slashdotted, since as I type this the SCO
dog-and-pony show is currently the top story on Slashdot:
http://www.penguinsinthenight.com/scriptwriter/jonas.html
My page doesn't have the pictures but it also might have a better response time,
since I have no intention of posting this URL on Slashdot. :)
---
He who sells / What isn't his'n / Is headed for / Some time / In prison /
Burma-Shave
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 03:44 PM EST |
I do not understand how SCO can think they can get away with this type of
action. They say they are not going after Linux, then they change they minds
and do it in a random matter.
Getting the UNIX copyright should be first. Then prove the UNIX code is in
LINUX. That logical and is the way the US laws are structured.
As for the GPL. Any author of modified GPL code must licence that code under
the GPL. But if the author create his own code then in the USA (where Freedom
of choice is a rule) the author can use the GPL or use another existing licence
or create his own licence. And the governement can not force the author alter
the licence, that the LAW. That is, the government can not make "Open
Source" illegal. Even if SCO want it.
They say they will charge for LINUX licence, but show no proof of ownership. At
first, they push the date and push the date and now they still are in the
process of setting up the licence in other countries. All without proof of
ownership. They say we are going to SUE someone and again they keep pushing the
date to the future. What Gives???? I think the governments around the world
should tell SCO to "Put up or shut up for ever". And make it so if
SCO does not put up then they get no second chance.
What gives, with SCO trying to use the DMCA??? The DMCA states that you must
have proof of copyright or be an agent of the true copyright owner before you
can invoke the DMCA. SCO has ask the government for copyright of UNIX but they
do not have copyright yet. Also, at this time being they have "NO"
proof of UNIX code in LINUX (court judgement). Which means they have no
standing to use the DMCA!!!
They are lawyers. So what's with McBride brothers???? How can they win! Or is
this the secret they do not want to win only discredit LINUX. If so, should the
FTC jump all over them, with fines and possible jail time for the CEO.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hughesjr on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 03:46 PM EST |
| And this
article from internetnews.com is awesome! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 05:34 PM EST |
First, IANAL (and English is not my native language),
but the article gave me an idea for a SCO plan:
1) Go to court with ridiculous case.
2) Talk a lot about indemnification
3) Corporations sees ridiculous case, agrees to indemnify.
4) Bring out new case about something else. (DMCA?)
5) Win new case in court, cashing in the indemnification.
Not knowing the US legal system, I would be interested
in knowing what could give them enough money to make it
worthwhile? (Sueing endusers over copyright removal would
not give them enough to pay Boise et al even with
indemnification at work?)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 08:50 PM EST |
Mr. McBride mentioned something about a handout ("pamphlet" by his
words?) abt. IP in the webcast.
It would be nice if somebody who attended posts the content (if he was aware
enough to ask for permission do to so yesterday - i doubt it)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 03 2004 @ 11:28 PM EST |
Chris Sontag did bring up an excellent analogy in this. He compared the
purchase of a house that you did not build to the purchase of the UNIX
business.
For the sake of argument, I will be calling the "intellectual
property" the "house", and "licensing" I will call
"renting".
He is exactly correct. However, he did not go deeply enough into the statement.
As the "owner" of the "house", they have the right to
"rent" it out, live in it, use it, etc. However, the designer of the
"house" holds the copyright to the plans, and SCO does not have the
right redistribute these plans without the designers' permission. Furthermore,
the designers are fully allowed to release these plans, if they so choose, to
others... unless the original contract stated that the designers may not do so
(until change of ownership).
Finally, just because another "house" looks like the one that SCO has,
does NOT mean that the plans were stolen. It simply means that another designer
had similar ideas (possibly "inspired" by the look of the original
"house"), and created a plan that met the same function.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 12:44 AM EST |
http://web.mit.edu/jonas/www/faim/
A good read.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 01:15 AM EST |
Darl talks about the importance of copyright, and how copyright laws must be
preserved...
...using a COPY of a copyrighted Dilbert cartoon
Did he have permission to copy it?
It's about 12 or 13 mins in to the video[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 01:47 AM EST |
Didn't SCO distribute linux? What are the ramifications of that?
And if the outcome of the trial involves removing certain code from linux, do we
then call that version kleenix? :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 12:57 PM EST |
He is quoted in a press release, being interviewed by a journalist, giving a
key note speech or speaking at a press conference.
Did I miss any? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rmcjr on Wednesday, February 04 2004 @ 02:16 PM EST |
IANAL - As a publisher, I am very familiar with standard copyright law, and you
are only entitled to receive actual damages - not punitary damages nor legal
fees from the other party - if you do not register your copyright of your
published works within 90 days of original publication date with the US
Copyright office.
So what is SCO going to actually win if AT&T/BSD did not register their
copyright within 90 days? $5 per user that they can prove used Linux?
What good would it do to sue an end user for $5?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
