|
Erik W. Hughes' Dec. '04 Declaration - "SCO Never Repudiated the GPL" |
|
Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 04:38 AM EST
|
Here is the Declaration of Erik W. Hughes , the SCO employee who
has the unhappy task of having to rebut IBM's GPL allegations in its Redacted Memorandum in Support of IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims, among other things, and to persuade the court that SCO's didn't violate the GPL by its Intellectual Property License for Linux. He fervently states, in a moment of supreme irony, and for me great satisfaction, "SCO never repudiated the GPL." Well, we probably need to talk about that.
He also tells us this whopper: "Prior to suspending its sale of Linux-related products in May 2003, SCO had a promising Linux business . . ." A *promising* Linux business? Unfortunately, our credulity is strained by the fact that we well remember his CEO telling us that he devised the litigation path precisely because the company was about to go out of business. And Business Week told us SCO was losing $5 million per quarter "and its stock had slid below the $1 NASDAQ delisting price". Ah, irony. Here's a story about a judge who ordered an entire law firm, all 80 lawyers, to take an ethics class, as a sanction "for repeated misrepresentation of facts and the law". That's a fine idea. Perhaps they could have a class for witnesses too. Lesson 1: Judges expect you to tell the truth. Fibbing is considered out-of-place in legal proceedings, even -- quaintly to some -- morally wrong. Crossing your fingers behind your back doesn't make it OK. Kindly remember we are expecting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Lesson 2: Lying to a court can have consequences that you may not enjoy very much.
He also says IBM never notified SCO its rights under the GPL had terminated or that SCO was infringing IBM's copyrights. Under the terms of the GPL, no notice is required. The notice is built in to the GPL. Your right to distribute under the GPL is only provided to you if you accept the terms of the GPL and abide by them. If you violate the terms, your rights automatically terminate: "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
"5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it." By far the most intriguing aspect to this declaration is the sales figures. Look at paragraph 4, for example. They sold, from August 5, 2003 to May 31, 2004 45 units of SCO Linux Server 4.0. But 70 units were returned, for a net loss of over a thousand dollars. I gather a lot of folks sent their software back. These figures don't seem normal, so I am guessing a lot of folks got mad at SCO for their Linux litigation strategy and decided to show it that way. Get a load of this paragraph: "7. In accordance with its obligations to current customers, from May 14, 2003, until May 31, 2004, SCO sold 83 units of SCO Linux Server 4.0, for gross revenue of $9,209. During this same period, 79 units were returned, which resulted in a loss of $7,360, so net sales for this period were 4 units and net revenue was $1,849." 79 out of 83 units returned. No wonder SCO filed this as a paper document. It's embarrassing. What might the moral of this business story be? Don't sue your customers, maybe? Litigation doesn't always pay? I'll let you draw your own conclusions. SCO references an Erik Hughes declaration in its Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement (Eighth Counterclaim), but it dates it November of 2004, not December. I don't know if that means there have been two declarations or if one or the other is a typo. However, Mr. Hughes has apparently also been deposed, because he says this is to further his deposition. That sometimes means that something was said or not said during a deposition that the witness, or his lawyers, would like to fix. The whole point of this declaration is to try to say that SCO immediately stopped selling Linux, its entire product line, promptly after "discovering" that IBM had put "hundreds of thousands of lines" of SCO's code into Linux. Now, if they could just find them, so Judge Kimball would stop saying they haven't produced enough evidence to shake a stick at, we'd maybe start to believe them. Where, oh where can those missing lines of infringing code be hiding?
***********************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
Sean Eskovitz (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
THE
SCO GROUP, Inc.
Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant.
|
Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Hon. Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
DECLARATION OF
ERIK W. HUGHES
|
1. My name is Erik W. Hughes. As Director of Product Management for The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), I have personal knowledge of the following facts. I submit this declaration in support of SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on SCO's Contract Claims, in support of SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on IBM's Claim of Copyright Infringement (Eighth Counterclaim) and further to my deposition of May 11, 2004.
2. As reflected in the SCO press release attached as Exhibit A, SCO released the product called SCO Linux Server 4.0 on November 19, 2002. SCO marketed and sold this product for only a few months, from November 19, 2002, until May 14, 2003.
3. As I testified at my deposition, and as reflected in the SCO press release attached as Exhibit B, SCO suspended the sale and marketing of its Linux-related products, including SCO Linux Server 4.0, on May 14, 2003. This was shortly after SCO discovered that IBM had contributed SCO's copyrighted UNIX code to Linux without SCO's approval. After that date, SCO allowed only pre-existing customers to purchase such products in accordance with its obligations to those customers. Since May 14, 2003, SCO has not entered into any further obligations to sell Linux Server 4.0 or OpenLinux 3.1.1.
4. From August 5, 2003, until May 31, 2004 (the date of the last sale), SCO sold 45 units of SCO Linux Server 4.0, for gross revenue of $5,294. During this same period, 70 units were returned, which resulted in a loss of $6,473, so net sales for this period were -25 units and net revenue was -$1,179.
5. After August 5, 2003, there were 401 sales of SCO OpenLinux 3.1.1 for total gross revenue of $50,796. During the same period, 22 copies of this product were returned, so net revenue was $50,025.
6. As indicated in the SCO press release attached as Exhibit C, August 5, 2003, was the first date on which SCO offered its SCO Intellectual Property License for sale. SCO determined to offer this license only because IBM had misappropriated SCO's proprietary code and contributed hundreds of thousands of lines of that code to Linux.
7. In accordance with its obligations to current customers, from May 14, 2003, until May 31, 2004, SCO sold 83 units of SCO Linux Server 4.0, for gross revenue of $9,209. During this same period, 79 units were returned, which resulted in a loss of $7,360, so net sales for this period were 4 units and net revenue was $1,849.
8. As reflected in Exhibit B, and as reconfirmed in its letter of June 23, 2003, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D, SCO has never sought to sell a SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux to anyone who received a Linux distribution from SCO. Rather, SCO has agreed to hold its Linux customers harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding Linux.
9. SCO copied, advertised and distributed the Linux kernel and other related Linux software for years before 2003. At all times, SCO distributed the Linux kernel and other GPL licensed packages as expressly provided under the General Public License ("GPL"). SCO's Linux distribution complied with all of the conditions set forth in section 1 and section 3 of the GPL. No royalty or licensing fees of any nature were charged. SCO never repudiated the GPL.
10. Prior to suspending its sale of Linux-related products in May 2003, SCO had a promising Linux business with longstanding customers and pre-existing binding sales and service contracts. The Linux product line, including the operating system, services, support, professional services, education, and layered applications, had accounted for 5-10% of SCO's revenue.
11. Until December 31, 2004, SCO is required by contract to provide its Linux customers with password-protected internet access to certain Linux files. Promptly thereafter, SCO will delete all remaining Linux files from its internet servers. Thus, while SCO has not made any significant distribution of any Linux product since May 2003, SCO's Linux "distribution" will totally cease by the end of 2004.
12. Prior to the filing of its Counterclaim on August 6, 2003, IBM never provided SCO with any notice of its claim that SCO's rights under the GPL had terminated and that SCO was infringing IBM's copyrights.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
December 7, 2004
___[signature]____
Erik W. Hughes
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 04:47 AM EST |
So PJ can find them
---
IANAL
The above post is (C)Copyright 2005 and released under the Creative Commons
License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 04:48 AM EST |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
The above post is (C)Copyright 2005 and released under the Creative Commons
License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off Topic MS and codec patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 05:14 AM EST
- OT: Lawyers sent to Ethics Class - Authored by: chris_bloke on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 05:46 AM EST
- Novell's Memorandum in Opposition to Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss - Authored by: fudisbad on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 07:38 AM EST
- Software Patents - Dropped?? - Authored by: sjgibbs on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 08:01 AM EST
- I'm guessing the missing lines of code are in Iran - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 08:25 AM EST
- Off Topic - MS - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 08:37 AM EST
- On prions for oldgreybeard - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 09:16 AM EST
- Sir Billness - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 11:13 AM EST
- No sir - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 11:41 AM EST
- File-sharing restrictions? What about sending this technology list to Supreme Court too. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 11:18 AM EST
- O'Gara is "editor-in-chief"? - Authored by: skyisland on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 11:38 AM EST
- Off Topic - Ethics Classes for Boies et. al. ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 11:46 AM EST
- [OT] Patent scariness - Authored by: frk3 on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 01:09 PM EST
- Best article ever! - Authored by: Dav3K on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 05:38 PM EST
|
Authored by: Mark Levitt on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 05:00 AM EST |
11. Until December 31, 2004, I am required by contract to provide my Music
customers with password-protected internet access to certain song files.
Promptly thereafter, I will delete all remaining music files from my internet
servers. Thus, while I have not made any significant distribution of any music
product since May 2003, My music "distribution" will totally cease by
the end of 2004.
See, I commited copyright infringement, but only after getting someone to sign a
document saying I would. Oh, and it doesn't count because it wasn't
"significant."
Imagine if you could escape criminal prosecution be drawing up a contract that
obligates you to commit a crime! "But your Honor, I had to rob that bank. I
signed a contract that says so."
Sheesh.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 05:17 AM EST |
... didn't SCO continue to make the Linux Kernel available for download long
after the dates given? (accidentally or otherwise).
And what benefit - in terms of GPL compliance - does password protection give?
The GPL requires you to make the source code available without restriction
doesn't it? So highlighting the extent of password protection rather suggests
they don't get the point [to me].[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 05:43 AM EST |
"And here, Mates, we've got the Wild SCO Lawyer in its natural habitat: Hot
water! Crikey, look at 'im backpedal..."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 06:01 AM EST |
>"This was shortly after SCO discovered that IBM had contributed SCO's
copyrighted UNIX code to Linux without SCO's approval."
And what, Mr
Hughes, was that code? This code that you have just told a court that you have
personal knowledge of.
Not methods, not some nebulous derived intellectual
property. "SCO's copyrighted UNIX code".
Cite the code, Mr Hughes, or, I
most fervently hope, go directly to jail, do note pass Go, do not collect
2,000,000 share options. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Erik W. Hughes, perjurer. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 06:04 AM EST
- Erik W. Hughes, perjurer. - Authored by: MadScientist on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 06:48 AM EST
- "any third party" - Authored by: Minsk on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 06:58 AM EST
- "any third party" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 08:15 AM EST
- "any third party" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 09:42 AM EST
- Erik W. Hughes, perjurer. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 07:12 AM EST
- From the GPL - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 08:19 AM EST
- Erik W. Hughes, perjurer. - Authored by: julian on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 07:33 AM EST
- Erik W. Hughes, perjurer - probably not - Authored by: papafox on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 11:07 AM EST
- Sorry, the "expert testimony" won't wash - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 04:01 PM EST
- SCO contradicts itself AGAIN - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 12:53 PM EST
|
Authored by: Pogue Mahone on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 06:58 AM EST |
Where, oh where can those missing lines of infringing code be
hiding?
Perhaps they're still in Mr. Blepp's suitcase ...
Also
...
Mr. Hughes only claimed that the Linux business was "promising. He
didn't exactly specify what it was promising to do - go down the pan, perhaps?
;-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 07:07 AM EST |
There are a lot of people that do not know the difference between copyrights and
patents. Many think that Linux is bullet proof against patents infringment
because of the SCO case. But the SCO case is not about patents, it's about
copyrights and contracts.
I get the sense that no one cares about patent claims against Linux because the
SCO case. But we should be fighting against patents no matter what.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 07:27 AM EST |
Its not clear to me then, how SCO can claim compliance with the GPL. Are
they claiming compliance because they redistributed source with their
binaries... (clause 3a)
Because it seems clear to me they aren't providing
access to any third party (clause 3b) if they use password protection to
restrict access (bearing in mind the statement in the FAQ that "[third party]
means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still
receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer").
In other
words, if a user distributed to me SCO's offer when they redistribute the binary
(as they're entitled/required to do), and I then go to SCO and request the
source... I'm entitled to it. But they won't give me access to their system
unless I'm a SCO customer.
So how does that comply with the GPL?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 07:30 AM EST |
By labeling Mr. Hughes a perjurer ---a criminal offense---
Groklaw is placing itself in the crosshairs of a libel suit.
Groklaw is going to play fast and loose with someone's
reputation and sooner or later be hit with a suit.
A right to blog is not a right to smear private individuals.
I hope you're accumulating a nest egg for legal costs.
Subpeonas *will* fly --- it's almost inevitable that someone
will tire of these tactics.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Defense Fund - Authored by: linuxbikr on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 07:46 AM EST
- Defense Fund - Authored by: Minsk on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 07:56 AM EST
- Defense Fund - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 12:08 PM EST
- Defense Fund - Authored by: afeldspar on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 12:25 PM EST
- Defense Fund - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 12:46 PM EST
- Defense Fund - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 02:50 PM EST
- Defense Fund - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 08:54 PM EST
- Defense Fund - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 04:33 PM EST
- Defense Fund - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 05:55 PM EST
- Read the article, please! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 07:51 AM EST
- Defense Fund - Authored by: blokey on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 07:57 AM EST
- Defense Fund - Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 08:04 AM EST
- Defense Fund - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 01:19 PM EST
- Defense Fund - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 08:11 AM EST
- Defense Fund - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 08:55 AM EST
- Defense Fund - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 09:57 AM EST
- Defamation - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 10:03 AM EST
- Defamation - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 04:23 PM EST
- Defense Fund - Authored by: resst on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 10:08 AM EST
- Defense Fund.... and (OT) Blood in the water - Authored by: MajorDisaster on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 10:37 AM EST
- What a load of bunk - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 10:56 AM EST
- Defense Fund - Authored by: The Cornishman on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 10:57 AM EST
- Statement 9 or 11 is/are NOT entirely correct - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 11:07 AM EST
- Tiring of tactics - Authored by: AllParadox on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 11:56 AM EST
- Defense Fund - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 12:39 PM EST
- Aren't you supposed to post under the "official SCO resonse" thread? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 01:01 PM EST
- Another "Groklaw is not allowed to DISCUSS anything" troll... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 01:37 PM EST
- Actually, parent has a point - Authored by: emmenjay on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 06:26 PM EST
|
Authored by: AdamBaker on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 07:35 AM EST |
The comment in para 8
Rather, SCO has agreed to hold its Linux customers harmless from any SCO
intellectual property issues regarding Linux.
Isn't actually true. What SCO actually said at the time was that SCO Linux
customers needed an IP license for Linux but would get it for free provided they
put their heads on the chopping block by registering their copy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belzecue on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 07:48 AM EST |
"SCO marketed and sold this product for only a few months, from November
19, 2002, until May 14, 2003."
- since when is (five days shy of) 6 months 'a few months'?? Compare and
contrast 'a few months' with 'half a year'. Sounds bad, huh?
SCO rule no.1: "When things look bad... HEY! HEY, YOU KIDS -- GET OFF MY
LAWN!"
You get the idea.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jazzyjoe on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 08:00 AM EST |
My very first post on Groklaw...
<quote>
9. SCO copied, advertised and distributed the Linux kernel and other related
Linux software for years before 2003. At all times, SCO distributed the Linux
kernel and other GPL licensed packages as expressly provided under the General
Public License ("GPL"). SCO's Linux distribution complied with all of
the conditions set forth in section 1 and section 3 of the GPL. No royalty or
licensing fees of any nature were charged. SCO never repudiated the GPL.
</quote>
In all fairness, this can be interpreted as:
"We never violated/repudiated the GPL in any of our Linux activities before
2003".
Wouldn't this be true? I think it would. EWH could argue he isn't talking about
their activities *after* 2003.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 09:03 AM EST |
In accordance with its obligations to current customers, from
May 14, 2003, until May 31, 2004, SCO sold 83 units of SCO Linux Server 4.0, for
gross revenue of $9,209.
83 units of SCO Linux 4.0
for $9,209 works out to around $110 per unit. Someone must have gotten a
heck of a deal, as this TSG press
release indicates that the low-end distribution went for $599, and went up
from there.
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to it." --
Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Price break? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 01:22 PM EST
|
Authored by: WildCode on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 09:09 AM EST |
hmm, lets see
The
Inquirer
Heise
online(german) google translation
ars
technica
GrokLaw
Caldera
(question 7)
newsforge
and the list goes on[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 09:09 AM EST |
SCO
continued to distribute Linux over the net well into January 2004
"10.
Also under my direction, our team of programmers compared the IBM Copyrighted
Works to code we found available for download on SCO's website. On January 9,
2004, I observed while a member of my team accessed via the Internet the
following four SCO web pages, and downloaded code from these web pages:
(1)
http://linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/update/RPMS.updates;
(2)
http://Linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/SRPMS;
(3)
http://linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/update/RPMS.scolinux; and
(4)
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/server/CSSA-2002-026.0/SRPMS."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mossc on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 09:09 AM EST |
"11. Until December 31, 2004, SCO is required by contract to provide its
Linux customers with password-protected internet access to certain Linux files.
Promptly thereafter, SCO will delete all remaining Linux files from its internet
servers. Thus, while SCO has not made any significant distribution of any Linux
product since May 2003, SCO's Linux "distribution" will totally cease
by the end of 2004."
The sworn statements that they restricted access should be backed up with more
detail. IBM should subpoena TSG for this information.
Reposting......
Simple for the Judge to clear this up:
Judge: Do you acknowledge that the files were available for public download at
some point?
TSG: Yes
Judge: What day precisely was the access restricted?
TSG: Um, well, not sure
Judge: Do you have a sworn affidavit by the person who actually implemented
this
restriction?
TSG: No, but Sontag read something about it.
Judge: Do you have records of when your customers were notified they would need
accounts and passwords to access the downloads?
TSG: um, well no
Judge: Do you have any records that show this was ever required?
Do you have any evidence that you ever actually issued a registered user a
password?
Any customer that will swear to that?
Any server logs that show authenticated downloads?
Have you filed any criminal charges?
TSG: ???? (maybe some snoring from silver)
IBM: We do have several articles mentioning that downlaods were available on a
specific date, and thousands of internet uesers who have copies of the files
who will swear that they were able to download them without
password/authentication on specific dates.
Chuck[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 09:10 AM EST |
"Prior to suspending its sale of Linux-related products in May 2003, SCO
had a promising Linux business"
IMHO prior can mean "before" with meaning "until". So
unless he said *immediately* prior then I'd say that statement could be said to
be true, in a sense.
Doubtless it looked promising when SCO first started out on a Linux course.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 09:34 AM EST |
Interesting, recently SCOG has been telling the court
that they have never
offered a "Linux License", only a
Unix License. And yet, here in these
statements we have:
6. As indicated in the SCO press release
attached as Exhibit C, August 5, 2003, was the first date
on which SCO offered
its SCO Intellectual Property License
for sale. SCO determined to offer this
license only
because IBM had misappropriated SCO's proprietary code and
contributed hundreds of thousands of lines of that code to
Linux.
8. As reflected in Exhibit B,
and as
reconfirmed in its letter of June 23, 2003, a copy of
which is attached
as Exhibit D, SCO has never sought to
sell a SCO Intellectual Property
License for Linux
to anyone who received a Linux distribution from SCO.
Rather, SCO has agreed to hold its Linux customers
harmless from any SCO
intellectual property issues
regarding Linux.
Woops,
what happened to what was told to the court?
RS [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 10:15 AM EST |
6. As indicated in the SCO press release attached as Exhibit C, August 5, 2003,
was the first date on which SCO offered its SCO Intellectual Property License
for sale. SCO determined to offer this license only because IBM had
misappropriated SCO's proprietary code and contributed hundreds of thousands of
lines of that code to Linux.
This is the first time in a very long
time that the mystical mountain of misappropriated SCO code has been referenced
by somebody from SCO. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 11:09 AM EST |
8. As reflected in Exhibit B, and as reconfirmed in its letter of June 23,
2003, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D, SCO has never sought to sell a
SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux to anyone who received a Linux
distribution from SCO. Rather, SCO has agreed to hold its Linux customers
harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding Linux.
No,
Your Honor, we never sought to sell protection to the neighborhood residents.
Rather, we have agreed that those residents who purchased protection should not
meet with any unfortunate accidents. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 11:22 AM EST |
Linux Journal's product
review of SCO Linux 4.0. Note the part about "11 days to fix a remote root
vulnerability". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wait a minute... - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 12:11 PM EST
- UnitedLinux - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 01:16 PM EST
- UnitedLinux - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 03:37 PM EST
- UnitedLinux - Authored by: Tyro on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 04:01 PM EST
- UnitedLinux - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 04:38 PM EST
|
Authored by: jto on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 11:50 AM EST |
3. ... This was shortly after SCO discovered that IBM had contributed
SCO's copyrighted UNIX code to Linux without SCO's approval.
...
6. ... SCO determined to offer this license only because IBM had
misappropriated SCO's proprietary code and contributed hundreds of
thousands of lines of that code to Linux.
Am I missing something, or is
SCO now again claiming that IBM contributed SCO's code to Linux? I
thought they dropped this claim long ago and that now it was all about
contracts. The only code claim, or so I thought, was that IBM had contributed
AIX and/or Dynix code to Linux that it should not have under SCO's claim that
these are derivative works.
Since this declaration was dated December 2004,
you would think the author (and SCO's lawyers) would be aware of their current
claims and not make statements about items not at issue. Or I am just presuming
too much (yes, I know) that SCO and it's lawyers are
competent? --- Regards, JTO [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: maco on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 12:05 PM EST |
PJ: Lesson 2: Lying to a court can have consequences that you may
not enjoy very much.
<sarcasm>Yes, Sir Bill is an
excellent example of this.</sarcasm>
time after time we all have
witnessed people in court and in public (eg, Iran/Contra, Monica, WMD) blatantly
lie. PJ's story, with the lawyers taking an ethics class - not even a hand slap
and less than 0.001% of occurrances - actually makes it more
depressing.
one can feel strongly one should not lie, but it is stupid
to be caught off guard by prevarications, in court or otherwise. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: phands on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 12:14 PM EST |
Interesting then, that this is still on the SCOX web site.......
http://www.sco.com/copyright/
A little snippet....
>>
December 4, 2003
An Open Letter:
Since last March The SCO Group ("SCO") has been involved in an
increasingly rancorous legal controversy over violations of our UNIX
intellectual property contract, and what we assert is the widespread presence of
our copyrighted UNIX code in Linux. These controversies will rage for at least
another 18 months, until our original case comes to trial. Meanwhile, the facts
SCO has raised have become one of the most important and hotly debated
technology issues this year, and often our positions on these issues have been
misunderstood or misrepresented. Starting with this letter, I'd like to explain
our positions on the key issues. In the months ahead we'll post a series of
letters on the SCO Web site ( www.sco.com ). Each of these letters will examine
one of the many issues SCO has raised. In this letter, we'll provide our view on
the key issue of U.S. copyright law versus the GNU GPL (General Public
License).
SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the United
States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws. Constitutional
authority to enact patent and copyright laws was granted to Congress by the
Founding Fathers under Article I, § 8 of the United States Constitution:
<<
Does this mean that Erik just perjured himself?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 12:58 PM EST |
Long time reader first time poster.
<quote>
9. SCO copied, advertised and distributed the Linux kernel and other related
Linux software for years before 2003. At all times, SCO distributed the Linux
kernel and other GPL licensed packages as expressly provided under the General
Public License ("GPL"). SCO's Linux distribution complied with all of
the conditions set forth in section 1 and section 3 of the GPL. No royalty or
licensing fees of any nature were charged. SCO never repudiated the GPL.
</quote>
Does this mean that if there are lines of SCO code in Linux, then they have just
admitted to distributing them under the GPL?
End of case bish bash bosh, jobs a good'n![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 12:58 PM EST |
Well, technically, that statement about the "promising Linux business" might
be true. Sort of. Caldera did have a promising Linux business. If, that
is, they'd stuck it out and not gone whole hog into that "per seat" licensing
plan that they wound up adopting. That was the beginning of the end for their
promising Linux business.
Yes... I know it's a stretch but not far removed
from the sort of logical gymnastics that the SCOG seem to enjoy practicing [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Maciarc on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 01:29 PM EST |
And Business Week told us SCO was losing $5 million per quarter
"and its stock had slid below the $1 NASDAQ delisting
price".
Prior to suspending its sale of
Linux-related products in May 2003, SCO had a promising Linux business with
longstanding customers and pre-existing binding sales and service contracts. The
Linux product line, including the operating system, services, support,
professional services, education, and layered applications, had accounted for
5-10% of SCO's revenue.
Given their current status, I agree
with Mr. Hughes. Loosing $250,000 to $500,000 per quarter is quite a bit
more promising than their current status.--- IANAL and I don't play one on
TV, this is just an "anti-SCO Philippic." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 01:35 PM EST |
"What might the moral of this business story be? Don't sue your customers,
maybe? Litigation doesn't always pay? I'll let you draw your own
conclusions."
hmmmm, sounds a little reminiscent of the current RIAA/MPAA crusade...I think
they'll learn the hard way as well in the end.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DMF on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 03:21 PM EST |
"2. ... SCO marketed and sold this product for only a few months, ... until
May 14, 2003."
"4. ... May 31, 2004 (the date of the last sale) ..."
Doesn't matter who they sold it to, they did indeed sell it. Having a contract
(with existing customers) to perform actions that constitute violation of
another contract (GPL) does in no way excuse the violation of the other contract
(GPL).
For that matter, the May 14, 2003 cutoff described in 2) is itself well after
the 'realization' of IBM's alleged perfidy.
A clear reading of this declaration is that SCO DID KNOWINGLY VIOLATE the GPL.
IBM surely will find it useful.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 05:54 PM EST |
You know, I hate to say it, but the more I read Groklaw, the more BIASED I see
the reporting becoming. It is no longer "just the facts" as I remember it, but
is
now just the facts with whatever spin is decided to put on it.
I really
doubt that I will be reading Groklaw much longer for this simple
reason. Good
info, too much SPIN and seriously way too much of the Linux is
the holy grail
of computing" attitude. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 06:34 PM EST |
"IBM had misappropriated SCO's proprietary code and contributed hundreds of
thousands of lines of that code to Linux"
and:
"I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct."
Is he declaring under oath that IBM stole code from TSG? Can he be forced to
substantiate this allegation?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 07:33 PM EST |
SCO determined to offer this license only because IBM had
misappropriated SCO's proprietary code and contributed hundreds of thousands of
lines of that code to Linux.
Okay, is it just me, or
is this the first time that TSG has actually made the "hundreds of thousands of
lines copied" claim in an actual court filing, rather than to the media? If so,
can they now, finally, be forced by Judge Kimball to show IBM exactly
what lines of code were copied, per the two Orders way back
when?
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac
Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: WildCode on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 08:57 PM EST |
Definitions of "repudiate" that apply
The Compact Oxford Dictionary Definition
2 deny the truth or validity of.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
3 a : to refuse to accept; especially : to reject as unauthorized or as having
no binding force
The Free Dictionary
1. To reject the validity or authority of:
WordNet
2: refuse to acknowledge, ratify, or recognize as valid;
======
SCO has declared the GPL as invalid on atleast one occasion in its filings
Example:
from SCO's Answer to IBM's Amended Counterclaims(24th Oct 2003) and SCO's
Amended Answer to IBM's Amended Counterclaims (11th Mar 2004)
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The General Public License (“GPL”) is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and
IBM’s
claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 09:33 AM EST |
Aren't these two paragraphs totally contradictory?
4.
From August 5, 2003, until May 31, 2004 (the date of the last sale),
SCO sold 45 units of SCO Linux Server 4.0, for gross revenue of
$5,294. During this same period, 70 units were returned, which resulted in a
loss of $6,473, so net sales for this period were -25 units and net revenue
was -$1,179.
10. Prior to
suspending its sale of Linux-related products in May 2003, SCO had
a promising Linux business with longstanding customers and pre-existing binding
sales and service contracts. The Linux product line, including the operating
system, services, support, professional services, education, and layered
applications, had accounted for 5-10% of SCO's revenue. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eggplant37 on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 01:45 PM EST |
SCO has and continues to repudiate the GPL, to wit:
Open Letter on
Copyrights
From Darl McBride, CEO
I went looking again for the
December 4, 2003, open letter from McBride to the general public and found that
this is still available and published on their website at the above URL. I
remember reading that letter with my jaw in my lap, astounded that the Darl had
the cojones to write what he had. It is basically all the proof that IBM needs
for it's 8th Counterclaim.
I'll quote the section that repudiates the
GPL:
"SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates
the United States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws.
Constitutional authority to enact patent and copyright laws was granted to
Congress by the Founding Fathers under Article I, § 8 of the United States
Constitution:..."
Now, let's examine the definition of the word "repudiate."
Per www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: re·pu·di·ate
Pronunciation:
ri-'pyü-dE-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed;
-at·ing
Etymology: Latin repudiatus, past participle of repudiare, from
repudium rejection of a prospective spouse, divorce, probably from re- + pudEre
to shame
1 : to divorce or separate formally from (a woman)
2 : to
refuse to have anything to do with : DISOWN
3 a : to refuse to accept;
especially : to reject as unauthorized or as having no binding force b : to
reject as untrue or unjust
4 : to refuse to acknowledge or pay
synonym
see DECLINE
I'd say that the paragraph quoted from Darl's letter
directly fits both definitions 3 and 4 from Merriam-Webster. Now, if both
Hughes and McBride think that The SCO Group and it's representatives have not
repudiated the GPL and do not continue to do so to this day, I'd like to see
*their* definition of "repudiate." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|