|
|
| SCO Begs the Court for More AIX Code |
 |
|
Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:06 PM EDT
|
Now we know what SCO's Memorandum Regarding Discovery is. It's SCO begging the court once again to give it yet more AIX code, saying that " . . .because AIX's code does not contain any historical comments, or at least the AIX code provided did not, SCO has had difficulty determining all the portions of AIX that were taken from UNIX System V." Once again, they think it's probably the case that they could find more infringing code if they just had more AIX code, plus comments, revision control systems, interim versions of AIX and Dynix, design documents related to modifications and revisions.
SCO writes that they need IBM to hand these things over because IBM "appears to assert that to establish IBM's breach of the Agreement at issue, SCO requires specific evidence of derivation from UNIX System V lines of code through the versions of AIX and Dynix code to Linux."
That's what you told us you already had, bub, long before discovery began. It was SCO that raised that exact thought. Now that they can't find what they said they had, they are distancing themselves from the idea. But I remember the millions of lines of code, the line-by-line direct copying they've been telling us about for more than a year. That was no assertion of IBM's. That was then. This is now. Now SCO says that their theory of the case, the contract case, as they call it, is that any and every transfer from AIX or Dynix into Linux breaches the contract. It seems they can't find those millions of lines of code now, so they need the court to help them by forcing IBM to hand over more and more and more IBM code. Forget about copyright infringement. SCO now disingenuously says this: "IBM is apparently taking the position that in order for SCO to succeed on its contract claims, SCO must prove copyright infringement." SCO acts like that is just silly. We don't need to prove that, they say, but because of IBM's theories and their discovery demands, now we find we need more code so we can do our best to respond. They need it to show that AIX and Dynix are derivative works, don't you know. They asked Judge Wells for all this before, several times, and she declined to order it. Perhaps SCO hopes Judge Kimball will be a softer touch. "Without the listed items, SCO has spent countless hours, and sometimes fruitless effort, trying to track the improper use of UNIX System V code in Linux through AIX and Dynix," SCO says. In other words, they can't prove their public allegations to date, which raises the following legitimate questions: 1) On what basis did they file this lawsuit? and 2) Why did they tell the world they already had this evidence? (3) On what basis did they swear to the court that they had answered all discovery requests, if now they say they can't possibly do so without more AIX and Dynix code? They list all the things they have tried to identify, including tracking IBM's "public statements regarding its roadmap for building Linux and its technology contributions to Linux", but they need more help. If they are public statements, why can't SCO get them themselves? Perhaps because they alienated the community and have no Groklaw. Or maybe, like Samizdat's author, they are trolling, trying to use the court process to get information from IBM that others down the road can use in additional lawsuits or they can use in additional claims. No, they say it's because they need IBM to hand them a map. They think they can find hidden infringement somewhere, but IBM won't hand them the treasure map, and they can't find the elusive X where the treasure is buried all by themselves. It's an amazing document. They said they had proof, even without discovery, and now, in discovery, they indicate they don't have much of anything. My impression is that they've been sitting at a high-stakes poker game, with lousy cards, but pretending to hold Aces, only now it's time to show their cards.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: dogsbestfriend on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:09 PM EDT |
just one word: LOL!!!
are these guys serious?
okay, I admit the first comment should be corrections and omissions, but I doubt
this one has any, its not a transcript of a document...
:)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mark_Edwards on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:14 PM EDT |
Well put PJ !!
I wonder if IBM's lawyers are laughing as much as all of
us here on Groklaw...
I wonder if the poor suckers who forked out for SCO's
linux licence are following these court documents? I
assume they will be calling SCO soon asking for their
money back?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:19 PM EDT |
| SCO has enough rope, Hang 'em high. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:22 PM EDT |
You do have to wonder what SCO's response would be if IBM did turn over the code
for every version of AIX ever released and they still came up with nothing. I'm
betting they would still make claims that IBM's hiding something. Because of
their incredible greed and desperation, they are simply unwilling to accept an
explanation such as IBM writing new clean room implementations.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vruz on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:26 PM EDT |
This judge is going to feel like someone is pulling his legs.
SCO: We can't find no stinkin' infringing code
Judge: Are you serious ? What have you been doing all this year long ?
SCO: It's not my fault, it's IBM who's hiding their code
IBM: bwwwwaaahhh, hahahahahaha, yeah sure
*spanking noises*
---
--- the vruz[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:27 PM EDT |
I just wish the judge would make the rulings and we can be done with this. Sco
fails at selling unix, selling linux, hireing proper management, interpretation
of the constitution, interpreting the APA, having a case against <linux AZ DC
IBM Novell ...> but they have been successful in legal procrastination.
I hope that darl's next boss can hold off hiring him at least as effectively as
he has held off the facts. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:31 PM EDT |
I think the anology goes a bit too far. How do you even presume there is
'treasure buried' in IBM's code?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:33 PM EDT |
The only thing that comes to mind is simply:
This is the end, Beautiful friend
This is the end, My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes... again
Can you picture what will be, So limitless and free
Desperately in need... of some... stranger's hand
In a... desperate land
Lost in a Roman... wilderness of pain
And all the children are insane, All the children are insane
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:33 PM EDT |
SCO claims that any contribution from AIX or Dynix, even original code, is a
contract violation. Could that hold water? Of course there is no copyright
violation, but would a literal interpretation of the agreement suggest that ANY
contribution from AIX ("in whole or in part") is wrong?
I'm not sure, and I just want to put this out there. Otherwise, SCO is treading
in very deep water. To claim that interim versions are a product is stretching
it a bit... (every concievable idea of a programmer = software product)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:34 PM EDT |
The curious thing is this filing almost begs for summary judgement.
The SCO claim is essentially
(1) IBM contributed to Linux
(2) Some IBM contributions to Linux may resemble parts of AIX and Dynix
(3) some parts of AIX and Dynix may be System V
(4) They do not link (3) to (2) at all
I think IBM essentially concedes these points, just not the SCO interpretation
(and IBM points out other additional holes in the SCO interpretation)
SCO's memo, essentially seems to be saying the best that they can hope for, is
to find more of these things, not a new type of things (like System V in Linux)
In which case, it's not at issue (except if SCO were to prevail and then we talk
damages) whether these things happened 10 times, 100 times or 1,000,000 times.
The essential facts are the same.
Which seems to me to strongly indicate summary judgement is appropriate. Both
sides ought to bring partial summary judgement motions by this logic (of course
SCO won't because they know that they won't prevail)
If IBM prevail, then there is no point in doing further discovery on the extent
of these things, because they aren't infringements.
And if SCO were to prevail, then it would be investigating the size of IBM's
infringements.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:38 PM EDT |
"appears to assert that to establish IBM's breach of the
Agreement at issue, SCO requires specific evidence of
derivation from UNIX System V lines of code through the
versions of AIX and Dynix code to Linux."
Exactly.
IBM didn't do anything wrong, they have looked and didn't
find anything, so they ask you "where's the proof?"
Now you can't find it and you want IBM to find it for
you?!!
What planet are these guys from? I think this one is going
to fly like a whale and a bowl of petunias. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:39 PM EDT |
Here's another author that said the same thing. Pretty decent writeup for us
IANALs.
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/34144.html
-Anthem[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:42 PM EDT |
It seems to me that in question #3 above, PJ has made a very succint argument to
demonstrate that SCO has committed perjury. Hopefully, the Judge will see that
too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:47 PM EDT |
...that it makes a difference *how* one goes about creating something. IANAL,
but I have never seen any reference anywhere to any law that considers the means
of creation: AFAIK, copyright law only cares about the result.
Is there any case law saying that the court must consider the method of creation
when looking for copyright infringement?
And if this *isn't* about copyright infringement, isn't it about time that IBM
pointed out the side letter that explictly states that derived works are the
licensee's property, provided that they contain none of the oroginal UNIX code?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: icebarron on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:47 PM EDT |
Gone fishing ain't workin any more, gone fishing got a sign upon my
door, ya don't know what ya been missing till you've gone fishing at big
blue...
They can't prove anything yet. They see whole files have been copyed
intact from Unix to Linux, but they can't produce the evidence, with out
furthure fishing, and just because they want to know how we managed to make
Linux so good, there must be gold in them there lines of code. If only they had
all of it for their engineers to comb through...then Unix would be king
again....
I have not once in this lifetime witnessed a more pathetic and
boring bunch of worthless piles of human skin, than I have in the sco group of
idiots...
PLEASE Judge, let this farce be dealt with in a sane and
properly judical manner. Send them back to the pond that produced this
scum...
Dan
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ChrisP on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 08:52 PM EDT |
A minor point. Footnote 10 Page 17 says:
"IBM's initial production of AIX to SCO was in a non-standard format. It
was not until March 25, 2004 that IBM produced AIX source code in a format SCO
could use. ISO-9660 DVDs or CD-ROMs are the current standard interchange
format."
This explains the date discrepancy noted in earlier stories.
Were IBM playing payback for SCOG initially sending IBM scanned images of
printouts of source code? Evil thought :) but probably not. ISTR not being able
to read AIX CDs in Windows, and with no AIX machine handy I had to boot into
Linux to do that...<BG>.
---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W dammit, no-one paid me to say this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 09:00 PM EDT |
IBM has very clearly called TSG's bluff. Even if the judge hasn't been
following this case closely as of yet, he can count to zero TSG evidence.
IANAL, but that looks like IBM has not infringed and Linux does not infringe
on the few, if any, copyrights in SVRx that TSG owns. All the historical
AT&T UNIXs were previously released as open source.
I await the judge's partial summary judgement. TSG has made it easier for
the judge to rule in favor of IBM.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 09:07 PM EDT |
I've been reading Groklaw since last May and, like most here, am really sick of
this whole fiaSCO and wish the judge would simply dismiss with prejudice (did I
get that right?). But, I also want this to continue as long as possible and here
is why:
- I think it is safe to say we all derive enjoyment in the
humor value SCO provides us on a nearly daily basis.
- More seriously, think
about how this sham has galvanized the OSS community into action - PJ's Groklaw
is just the most amazing example of how we are stronger today than we were.
-
We have raised the bar on what sort of "evidence" a company will need in the
future to use litigation to attack OSS - we have made it a much more expensive
proposition so one hopes this will reduce the attacks.
- My favorite - Since
MS seems to have funded this FUD missile, isn't it wonderful how it has almost
totally backfired on them? The longer this drags out, the more SCO will become a
farce, the better OSS will appear, the more it will backfire.
What
do you all think?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: corwyn on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 09:09 PM EDT |
I've been following this from the start, I've kept my thoughts mostly to myself,
but now it's time to ask a few questions:
I may seem a conspiracy theorist, but does this look to anyone to be a situation
that SCO is fishing for AIX and Dynix code to possibly use to revamp Unix so it
can compete with, or replace Linux?
Does anyone think it's not beyond SCO to do such a thing?
I seem to remember a stipulation on IBM's part, when they were asked for AIX and
Dynix code, that it only go to SCO's lawyers and the Lawyer's analysts, but
would anyone put it past them to pass all this code on to SCO for SCO's use?
IMHO SCO is fighting a losing battle in court with it's copyright infringement
and breach of contract, but I wonder if this is all just a rouse to get
something they sorely lack, working code that they can possibly claim as their
own through contracts.
Just a thought.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: billmason on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 09:09 PM EDT |
Why has this lasted a year? It could have taken only a minute to have the
following discussion:
SCO: "We have proof that IBM copied code from SysV to Linux."
Court: "Cool, let's see it."
SCO: "Well, we need to see AIX first."
Court: "I thought you said you have proof?"
SCO: "We need to see AIX first."
Court: "Why? You have SysV code, and Linux is out in the open. What's the
problem?"
SCO: "AIX is a 'derived work.' They didn't actually copy code from SysV,
but from their own AIX."
Court: "I thought you said you have proof that IBM copied code from SysV to
Linux?"
SCO: "We don't."
Court: "Next case."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 09:13 PM EDT |
It is apparent from SCOG's motion that the 300 lines of code that it showed at
its SCOG forum plus the zillions oof lines that it wouldn't show except under
its NDA - these lines don't amount to a hill of beans as evidence in Federal
Court. SCOG's current motion stands out as a trial milestone, because it
includes for the first time SCOG's explicit admission that they don't have the
evidence to support their allegations.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: penfold on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 09:17 PM EDT |
My boss sent me a link about
McAfee being granted a patent for antispam technology.
I was wondering
if anyone is more familar with this? Last I heard, McAfee's SpamKiller product
was based on the open source SpamAssassin project. I am giving McAfee
the benefit of the doubt, but I am confused how this would affect those that use
the opensource SpamAssassin.
---
Blood from a turnip? That's easy!
Try getting SCOX to produce evidence! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 09:30 PM EDT |
I get the feeling all this is lawyer-speak begging Kimball to dismiss the suit
without sanctioning the lawyers.
SCO tried to scam IBM. SCO scammed Baystar and RBC's anonymous client. But
before all this, SCO scammed their own lawyers.
Webster, if I remember correctly, has already theorized that SCO's lawyers were
only trying to keep their clients out of jail. Now, it may be they're trying to
save themselves.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 09:33 PM EDT |
:::BOGGLE:::
Once again, I think it's time for the DEA to investiage TSG. They appear to
be improperly using controlled substances again.
...D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Glenn on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 10:00 PM EDT |
" I BACKGROUND
2. To gather evidence relevant to IBM's theory of SCO's contract claim,
under which IBM appears to assert that to establish IBM's breach of the
agreement at issue, SCO requires specific evidence of derivation from Unix
System V lines of code through through the versions of AIX and Dynix code to
Linux"
This is hardly what IBM is saying. IBM said "Match the specific lines of
System V code to the corresponding lines in Linux" Nothing about AIX or
Dynix at all. The judge is going to have to rule on this one way or the other.
Glenn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 10:11 PM EDT |
Among all the hysterics (which I enjoy as much as anyone)
I haven't seen anybody explicitly talk about the effect of this on the pending
IBM motion for partial summary judgement on 10th counterclaim (non infringement
with respect to Linux), and the dismissal/stay motion that SCO filed in response
to this claim
lamlaw.com has had some interesting writings about this.
I recommend you read the original, but my understanding of his oft repeated
point is:
1. If SCO argue there is no copyright dispute in support of their dismissal
motion, this would tend to undermine their defense to IBM's PSJ motion, so if
SCO's dismissal motion were not granted, they become more likely to lose the PSJ
motion.
2. If SCO present evidence in response to the PSJ motion, this would tend to
their dismissal motion, as it confirms there is a copyright dispute
To me at least, this memo seems to be the worst of both world's for SCO. As
they essentially argue there is a copyright dispute (undermining their dismissal
motion), but they also argue that they don't have any evidence to defeat the PSJ
motion.
It seems to me SCO has essentially abandoned their dismissal/stay motion
And instead we get them grasping at straws for their defense to the PSJ motion.
Opinions?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fava on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 10:23 PM EDT |
I think this is what IBM has been waiting for.
Over the last year SCO has never (to my recollection) actually stated their
theory of derivative works. I.E. that the whole of AIX is a derivative rather
than just the SysV parts. They certianly implied it many many times, however in
this document they finally express that theory.
Previously there was no point in IBM bringing up the issue because SCO had never
explicitly made that claim. Now that SCO has finally stated what they are
basing the case on IBM can now take the side letter, the echo newsletter and the
testimony from the BSDI case and put the whole issue of derivatives to rest.
In IBMs motion for a declaratory statement they said that they would be making
further declaratory motions regarding some of SCOs legal theories. I think that
this might be the trigger for these motions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 10:25 PM EDT |
| SCO seems to be claiming that they can't yet show that AIX is derivative of
SysV. Does that mean that all of the original SysV code had been replaced by
the time that the first version of AIX had been released to IBM's
customers? ---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but
set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from
Terry Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 10:35 PM EDT |
So, why doesn't IBM just formally concede/stipulate that they did contribute
specific lines of code from AIX and Dynix to Linux and just say they are taken
from their own additions to the derivative work. It seems to me both sides
agree that this is the case. Isn't this all SCO is claiming now, that IBM
contributed its own additions?
Wouldn't this speed things right through discovery? No more time wasted
requesting code from IBM. IBM just says we contributed code from AIX, but we're
allowed to do it. SCO can't stall anymore looking for infractions. All the
judge then has to decide is whether or not the contract says they can't
redistribute their own original additions to the derivative work. (In which
case IBM wins because of the contract clarification given that says only
portions of the derivative code with portions of the original code is not
distributable.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 11:19 PM EDT |
| some gentlemen in Columbia are owed licensing fees for SCOX' legal filings.
Considering what those lads consider "vigorous enforcement of their
rights" Darl should just pay up instead of fooling around with ludicrously
inadequate bodyguards. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 11:24 PM EDT |
``Consequently, it is difficult is not impossible to find the
original sources of the improper contributions of SCO's protected
code.''
SCO neatly chooses to ignore the most obvious
reason for their inability to find these original sources: There are any!
What the heck is it with people like McBride, Stowell, Brown, et al, that
they cannot admit that they aren't finding material to back their crackpot
hypotheses because there isn't anything to back them up. If this were
occurring in the courtroom, wouldn't the judge be telling SCO to ``Move on.
You've covered that''. I think it was Einstein who said something to the effect
of ``Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different
result''. At this point these folks are proving themselves to be downright
certifiable.
``Without the listed items, SCO has spent
countless hours, and sometimes fruitless effort, trying to track the
improper use of UNIX System V code in Linux through AIX and Dynix.''
(emphasis mine)
Is SCO trying to imply that their countless
hours of searching has actually come up with some infringing code? I'd bet that
IBM wants to see that code. Right now, in fact. They only been asking to see it
for the past year, you know.
--
RT
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 11:31 PM EDT |
First, SCO claims it is impossible to identify UNIX System V ideas that have
morphed substantially through their journey at IBM. If it is impossible to
identify those ideas, how much copyright protection can SCO claim (especially
considering the tenet that copyright is on *expression* not ideas); if the idea
is hard to track, I have a sneaky suspicion that the expression is very
different.
As such, I expect IBM to pounce on this in later filings, and claim SCO is
asking for something courts have stated in outside the realm of copyright (eg.,
Computer Associates vs. Altai).
Second, did anybody else ask WTF? about SCO's final note: something like
"IBM originally gave us code in a non-standard format, but has since seen
the error of its ways." LOL. Remember CDs of garbage TIFF files (from SCO
to IBM)?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Two Big Points - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 12:24 AM EDT
- Thanks - superb post - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 12:39 AM EDT
- Ah yes. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 12:46 AM EDT
- Ah yes. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 01:40 AM EDT
- "Non standard format" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 06:29 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 12:18 AM EDT |
Sounds like IBM is right. Case dismissed. Hey SCO .... UNIX is not Linux. There
is no UNIX code there. No matter how long you fish is a dried up pond you still
can not catch fish where there are no fish...
Go home game over![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 12:34 AM EDT |
I mean this abuse of due process has been going on for years now.
American
courts seem to be blind & deaf to abuse of their system.
I know of no other
country where this arrant nonsense would be seemingly entertained indefinitely.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Hmmm - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 12:44 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 12:35 AM EDT |
In the Feb. 6 hearing search for "I am just not certain I agree with
it." It is Judge Brooke Wells telling SCO their redefinition of
derivative won't fly.
Which means this will be denied, again and should win IBM the motion!
Yippee!!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grayhawk on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 12:41 AM EDT |
This case is nothing but a big farce and the SCO crowed are as dumb as a post.
Their claim is there is System V code in Linux and IBM put it there. So you
take the source of Linux and compare it to System V and see what shakes out to
first prove that there is System V in Linux. This of course failed since there
isn't any other than a few similar header files. So if there is no System V in
Linux then nobody put them there least of all IBM. If there is AIX or Dynix
code in Linux so what. AIX and Dynix code is not System V code and the code
from AIX and Dynix that might have been put there that supposedly is System V
would have shown up when they matched Linux source with System V source. They
then could have matched that to the AIX or Dynix source.
The problem is they never found any significant matching code in Linux at all to
their System V so the whole premiss just went out the window.
What a bunch of stupid sorry fools they are and greed has driven them to this.
It looks good seeing egg on their faces and I hope they get what they deserve,
utter destruction of their business and the fools that did it should be lowered
to the ranks of street sweeper. McBride and company should never be able to
hold another executive position with any company.
---
All ships are safe in a harbour but that is not where they were meant to be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 12:51 AM EDT |
I know Journalists seem to not ask the hardball questions some of us, so here
are a few easy ones for SCO's next conference call (June 10th if it doesn't
shift again)
(1) Does Linux infringe SCO's copyrights?
(2) Is the infringement all or partly due to IBM?
(3) What or How much evidence does SCO have of this?
(4) How many lines of code in Linux are involved?
(5) Has SCO shown IBM this evidence?
I'll be really disappointed if nobody asks these...
It should be easy to answer, none are aggressive questions
Given that most publications published SCO statements on these previously (when
SCO were doing press releases and teleconferences on this stuff), I think they
have an obligation to bring this information up to date with SCO's current
position.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Attention K&K - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 02:41 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: cheros on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 03:51 AM EDT |
Given that SCO is asking IBM for evidence (a sort of self-indictement approach),
how could they ever have started the claim?
Without evidence to start with, aren't we talking about rather libellous
statements? IANAL, but it strikes me as odd to start litigation without
something solid to base teh case on. Unless, of course, getting this rectified
wasn't maybe an aim at all..
Just curious..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 04:06 AM EDT |
We now know how low SCO is able to go. (Try to read
the previous sentence out loud as fast as you can :-)
So, to me, it is not unlikely that SCO wants all of
this code to... well... hand them other to some good
"friends". SCO has pretty much admitted their own
engineers had a look on AIX's code. Thinking that SCO
can give AIX's code to MS doesn't sound like a strech.
Am I paranoid here? Well, probably. But remember this:
history has shown that these kind of "tinfoil hat"
paranoia were not far from the truth. Remember Baystar
and MS for example...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stoneshop on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
| But I remember the millions of lines of code, the line-by-line direct copying
they've been telling us about for more than a year. That was no assertion of
IBM's.
And our dear Gregory Blepp, failing to join SCOG's collective
memory loss, did remember them too, quite recently. ---
Rik
IANALJLMOY
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lightsail on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 10:48 AM EDT |
I think I see the TSG need for all versions and development documentation for
AIX. Follow the TSG logic:
First, start with the AIX version that contains the greatest amount of SysV
code. Identify files that contain SysV code.
Go to next version of AIX, note files that are changed to remove SysV code.
Consider the entire changed file to be SysV code if it contains any portion of
SysV code- even a single character or even if it is completely replaced by new
code performing the same function.
Go to next version of AIX, note any further changes to remove SysV code and note
changes to files that already have SysV code removed. Consider any file that had
SysV code in it in any previous version of AIX to be SysV code.
Continue process to identify all files through every version of AIX up to AIX 5L
that had origins in SysV, but no longer have any original SysV code (IBM had
re-writing the code, removing all the SysV code). Declare that these files are
just obfuscated SysV files and still bound by original AT&T license even
though they contain no original SysV code.
Under TSG logic: Then match this list of files to the IBM contributions to Linux
and claim that SysV code is in Linux, though the code was written by IBM -- and
never was part of the SysV code base.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Latesigner on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
Would judge please shoot these guys and put them out of their misery ?
It's the only humane thing to do.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: GLJason on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 02:52 PM EDT |
| SCOG seems to think $5 billion at least, maybe as high as $50 billion.
That's a pretty decent return for their investment, which couldn't have been
more than $100 million. Wouldn't the judge or jury limit any possible
reward?
- Caldera purchases UNIX business from Santa Cruz Operation
with the intent of improving Linux to compete better with Unix. We don't know
how much they spent, but it is probably considerably less than the $100
million that Santa Cruz Operation paid Novell for their Unix licensing business
since it had gone downhill in the intervening years
- Caldera open-sources
UNIX V32 under a BSD-Style license, enabling copying and creation of derivative
works with only the requirement that copyright notices remain intact and no
financial gain
- Caldera's business model is failing. They hire a new CEO,
Darl McBride. Darl tries to find a nugget of gold in a crap of a company. He
greatly overestimates the value of his Unix rights
- Caldera changes it's name
to The SCO Group to cause confusion and launches a suit against IBM and a
campaign of FUD against Linux. They claim their $100 million investment in
a dying business that was made to improve Linux is worth $1 billion a week
from IBM because IBM improved Linux without them
- They purport to revoke
IBM's perpetual and irrevokable software license without giving sufficient
notice or time to cure any alleged breach.
- For some reason, IBM's
continued distribution of AIX is worth $1 billion per week when IBM only
paid AT&T $10 million for the perpetual and irrevokable license to do
the same. The reason they purportedly revoked IBM's license has nothing to do
with their AIX distribution which IBM had fully paid for, but with their failure
to keep secret part of UNIX SYSV. How is this tied to damages for them
continuing to distribute and support AIX?
- They claim IBM has acted
improperly in adding technologies from UNIX SYSV to Linux to make it
enterprise-hardened, therefore ruining the UNIX business, something SCOG had
only paid at most $100 million for. However, those technologies (RCU, JFS,
NUMA) are ones that were not present in UNIX SYSV. In fact, SCOG doesn't even
have a license to use those technologies themselves, let alone control someone
else's use of them.
In short, SCOG had purchased the UNIX rights in order
to do the very thing they are accusing IBM of doing now. They had little or no
part in the development of the technology they say they are the exclusive
licensor of, they only bought it from another company. They did not even have a
part in developing UNIX SYSV, let alone the technologies that IBM is accused of
incorporating into Linux. Technologies that SCOG has absolutely no right to and
will not make any money off of even if they are distributed with AIX and Dynix
since IBM's redistribution license is royalty-free. So they purchased the
ENTIRE UNIX business considting of 30,000+ licensees and are claiming that one
company's violations are worth 500 times what they paid for the entire business.
Where do their figures come from?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 05:24 PM EDT |
Recently in the press (mostly Linux but also Sydney Morning Herald) there have
been references to the SCO case as a shell game.
That is precisely what it is. There never was a case at the start; i.e. SCO had
no basis for its "stated" lawsuite. Instead I believe some group of
people (and not soley those currently at the SCO helm) got together to plan this
whole scam. They did not simply think this up after the happened to have
purchased Caldera. Also I think "investors" like RBC and Baystar would
have want to see some facts before committing what they did. Probably nothing
will ever come out about this; IBM will win but simply by "default".
In fact I can even see SCO saying "ok forget this - we made a
mistake".
The scope or objective of the SCO lawsuite against IBM firstly, but also the
other "patsies", was simply to manipulate the market. It is the value
of SCO stocks that is the real objective here I think. I am not sure exactly
what they hope to achieve - do they want to cash at the optimal point or be
bought with a high stock market value?
I cant tell.
I am sure that the lawsuites are nothing other than their right hand waving
about to distract attention while it is the left that performs the real magic.
What I kind of shocks me is the audacity they have to actually go through with
this - in public!
What this means is that they know that the legal system can be manipulated just
like the stock market, and they can do this with impunity.
So the end result will be a lot of court (and other's) time wasted - IBM will
win but gain nothing, and SCO will lose but someone will have made a fat profit,
and in 10 years time the SCO affair will be studied at business schools, perhaps
as a new business model.
And I haven't even mentioned the trend in patent madness...
aaaah!!! :-)
P.S.
This site is fantastic - both as mechanism for doing realtime research and also
for documenting so well a current affairs type of issue. It could be used as
model for other (investigative journalism???) issues.
Thanks groklaw
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Old story - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 09:00 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 06:49 PM EDT |
" . . .because AIX's code does not contain any historical comments, or at
least the AIX code provided did not, SCO has had difficulty determining all the
portions of AIX that were taken from UNIX System V."
AFAIK, they have not shown ANY portions of AIX that were
a) Contributed to Linux from AIX
and
b) Contained SysV code.
line by line, with specificity.
And they still havn't shown with specificity what SysV code is in Linux that
wasn't in AIX.
All the portions? How about "any of the portions?" This reeks of a
baseless fishing expidition. As I understand it, the courts are not supposed
to support baseless fishing expiditions (correct me if I'm wrong, please). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Correction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 03 2004 @ 11:43 PM EDT
- Say what? - Authored by: tangomike on Friday, June 04 2004 @ 04:03 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
