|
|
| SCO v. IBM: The Short Version, by toads_for_all |
 |
|
Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 06:23 AM EST
|
Some readers complain that the SCO v. IBM litigation is taking too long to be resolved, others that it's too complex, too hard to follow.
For them, here is the quick version, which made me laugh. It's by toads_for_all, and was originally posted on the SCOX Yahoo board, Msg: 241992. He was kind enough to let me share it with you here. In his little play, he imagines a conversation between SCO, IBM and Novell, which tells his version of the whole SCO v. IBM saga in less than 350 words. Feel free to build on his work or make one of your own. I bet one of you creative brainiacs could come up with a cute one about the discovery games.
***********************
SCO: It's about contracts.
IBM: But our contracts say we can do anything we want with our own code.
SCO: You have to treat any derivatives the same way as you would the original, like it's a part of it.
IBM: That's not how we read it. But to humor you, do you mean we have to treat derivatives like they belong to you?
SCO: Yes.
IBM: And not do anything with the derivatives that you wouldn't do with the original.
SCO: Um, yes, I guess.
IBM: But Caldera contributed parts of the original to Linux. Aren't we just doing what Caldera did, treating the derivatives the same way Caldera did the original by contributing parts to Linux?
SCO: Um, I mean, well, I guess.....Did I say contracts? I meant it's about copyrights.
NOVELL: But you don't own all the copyrights, we do.
SCO: Do not!
NOVELL: Look at APA Amendment 2.
SCO: We'd rather not.
NOVELL: See, it says you only get the rights needed to acquire Unix technologies.
SCO: What does that mean?
NOVELL: That we still own the copyrights to Unix. You own the distribution/development rights. What do you think it means?
SCO: That we own Unix.
NOVELL: Then why are you still paying us a huge cut of the royalties? Why did oldSCO let us execute Amendment X?
SCO: Ummm....we....they.....I know. It's about AIX on Power, Project Monterey! IBM is using code they wrote for Project Monterey! We own it all!
IBM: Are you sure? The Project Monterey agreement says that "Each party shall be free in all respects to exercise or dispose of any or all of its ownership rights in the jointly created Project Work without accounting to the other party."
SCO: So.
IBM: So we can do anything we want to with our own code. We can do anything we want with the jointly created code as well.
SCO: But you still tried to interfere with our trade!
IBM:How?
SCO: By making a superior product at a less expensive price!
IBM: But you contributed to it also. Aren't you guilty of interfering with your own trade?
SCO: You're trying to make us look stupid!
IBM: You don't need our help.
SCO: That's right!
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 06:32 AM EST |
I don't think Novell claimed to own the copyrights. For all Novell know or care,
AT&T may have donated them to the public domain or retained them for
itself.
Novell don't ever seem to have done or said anything that requires them ever to
have owned the copyrights.
With that said, excellent summary ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Novell and UNIX copyrights - Authored by: publius_REX on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 07:28 AM EST
- SCO v. IBM: The Short Version, by toads_for_all - Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 07:32 AM EST
- Reversal of USL vs BSDI injunction ruling and settlement is SCOxe (v IBM, Novell) goal. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 07:36 AM EST
- It is too short - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 12:02 PM EST
- SCO v. IBM: The Short Version, by toads_for_all - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 06 2005 @ 12:00 AM EST
- SCO v. IBM: The Short Version, by toads_for_all - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 05:10 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: alextangent on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 06:33 AM EST |
| Corrections? What corrections? All this belongs to Monty Python. It's derivative
comedy. -- An interested bystander
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 06:38 AM EST |
The "we have millions of lines of code to prove it" is
missing... (that line is doing double duty!).
Nick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 06:40 AM EST |
| The '1's and '0's that make up the code aren't really valuable.
Being able to
stop someone copying the '1's and '0's that make up the code isn't really
valuable either. Childish, or belonging to the Middle Ages where magic was
thought to work, maybe, but not valuable. We're beyond that now.
Being able
to take responsibility for the code doing something useful; being able to
warrant that it works (by being able to fix it when it doesn't), that might well
be valuable.
How do you learn ?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fudisbad on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 07:35 AM EST |
For current events, legal filings, restated financials and 10-Ks. Please make
links clickable.
---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
This subliminal message has been brought to you by Microsoft.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off topic here please - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 08:08 AM EST
- OT: Whose Patent Is It, Anyway? - Authored by: GelW on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 09:31 AM EST
- EFF looking for IP Attorney - Authored by: Morosoph on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 10:56 AM EST
- Linux History via Yahoo News - Authored by: SmyTTor on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 11:42 AM EST
- Ms. O'Gara, enough is enough! - Authored by: sgtrock on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 11:46 AM EST
- Yahoo message board - Authored by: troll on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 12:36 PM EST
- "SCO in the news" removed from their website - Authored by: Baud on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 01:20 PM EST
- Business Week: A Linux Nemesis on the Rocks - Authored by: Saturn on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 01:34 PM EST
- Problems ahead for Irish Backhanders? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 03:02 PM EST
- Life Insurance Corporation of India - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 03:13 PM EST
- Microsoft vs Eolas - new news? - Authored by: rharvey46 on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 03:15 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 07:55 AM EST |
SCO: Take on IBM? you've got to be kidding!
M$: It will be easy. Besides, we know a good lawyer that can help.
SCO: That will cost a lot of $$$
M$: Let us talk to some people...
SCO: We'll look stupid
M$: No you won't. Do what we do - Make a lot of noise, threats and press
releases, you will soon re-educate the public as to what the truth is.
PJ: Oh really! - we'll see about that....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 08:13 AM EST |
| Read it for yourself and decide
link
link
--
MadScientist
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Saturn on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 08:41 AM EST |
There's a couple of other walk on parts missing...
SEC: When can we have a 10K?
SCO: Sure. Err, its filed with the list of infringing code lines. We'll give it
to you soon. Once IBM have complied with our request for info. The delay is all
their fault.
NASDAQ: Thats irrelevant. Give the SEC the 10K now or we pull the plug on you.
SCO: Err. Right we need an accountant.
ACCOUNTANT: Wait while I look at your accounts.
<thirty seconds pass>
ACCOUNTANT: I've looked at your accounts, and it seems to me your accounts are
deficient.
SCO: All of them?
ACCOUNTANT: Yes. All of them. For the last 12 months. Can I have a pay check,
only I'd rather not wait for my fee, if you know what I mean.
SCO: Err. Right we'll redo the accounts.
NASDAQ: Do them soon. Very soon.
To be continued next week...
---
----------------------------------------
My own opinion, and very humble one too.
Which is probably why I'm not a lawyer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 08:58 AM EST |
..below the "GrocDoc" entry will IMHO be the perfect
place. ;o) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- no O'Gara? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 09:26 AM EST
- no O'Gara? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 09:46 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Woad_Warrior on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 09:40 AM EST |
A very amusing play. However with all the additions people are suggesting,
(albiet good ones) it's turning from a single act to a 10 act play with 3
intermissions for popcorn, soda, and milkduds. :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 10:21 AM EST |
(at the top)... SCO press conference. PRESS in this case can refer to any
number of journalists, of which PJ is an outstanding example. :-) So PRESS
includes Groklaw. And yes, I've ..um.. embellished a wee bit :-)
SCO: (to press) IBM's interfering with our business by contributing code to
Linux. We own UNIX, you see.
PRESS: What does that have to do with IBM contributing lines of code to Linux?
SCO: Well, we own all of UNIX, and IBM has AIX which is UNIX and they took code
from AIX and put it into Linux.
PRESS: They put YOUR code into Linux? How did they get your code?
SCO: Through a contract. Since AIX is a derivative of UNIX, we control the
rights to it.
PRESS: Didn't you also distribute Linux?
SCO: Well, of course we did. But we didn't know the code was ours.
PRESS: So you distributed your own code in Linux that you claim IBM put there.
What about the other Linux distributors?
SCO: Well, now that those distributions are all UNIX derivatives, we're going
to charge a licensing fee for the use of our code in all copies of those
derivative distributions.
PRESS: You think people will pay this?
SCO: Of course. And we're filing suit with IBM for doing this.
PRESS: What's going to incent people to pay this fee?
SCO: It protects them from our suing them.
PRESS: How do you know who is using Linux to sue?
SCO: We'll start with our own customers. That's what contracts are for.
PRESS: What about other contributors, like HP?
SCO: They have been proven to not be infringing.
PRESS: You have the proof of IBM's infringement?
SCO: Yes, millions of lines of it. And we have not one, but THREE teams of MIT
rocket scientists who've done spectral analysis on the code.
PRESS: First time I've heard of spectral analysis being used to look at
computer code.
SCO: It was a deep dive.
PRESS: (rolls eyes) How large is Linux?
SCO: Um... we haven't looked.
PRESS: So, let's back up a moment.
SCO: Ok.
PRESS: So this is code that SCO GROUP employees wrote?
SCO: No, actually IBM wrote the code.
PRESS: Can we see the code?
SCO: Only if you sign a Non Disclosure Agreement.
PRESS: Isn't the source already availble, since it's distributed with Linux?
SCO: Well, perhaps, but it's not in Linux legally, so we need to keep quiet
what lines those really are. And we don't want IBM to know what lines they are.
PRESS: Um, why not?
SCO: We need them to prove to us that they didn't do this, and to release their
code without an NDA could get us in trouble.
PRESS: But by your own statements, you control the rights to that code?
SCO: Yes.
PRESS: (puzzled look) I see. So you claim to control what IBM can do with code
they wrote themselves?
SCO: Yes, it's a derivative. And they've included methods and concepts, and
some code that is a direct violation of our copyrights.
PRESS: So this suit is about copyrights?
SCO: It's about a lot of things. Copyrights, Contract Rights, many things.
PRESS: What are you claiming?
SCO: Yes. Now, now more questions thank you.
...D (IANAL)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: producer on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 11:30 AM EST |
| Judge Kimball: Will somebody please wake him up. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 11:31 AM EST |
Royal Bank: And the beauty of it is that we only break American law.
Mountie: Money laundering is a crime in Canada too.
Rose Monie: I expect the Royal treatment because I am a graduate of McGill.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Rose Monie sings: - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 02:32 PM EST
- An old tale - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 05:37 PM EST
- Rose Monie sings: - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 02:32 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 03:19 PM EST |
I appreciate the compliments, glad you found it amusing.
--------------
toads_for_all[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Thanks all - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 05:10 PM EST
- Thanks all - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 10:54 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 09:06 PM EST |
* kitten is on the prowl
<cicada>
Bzz!
<kitten> *jumps* wth? *looks at
cicada*
<cicada> BZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!
<kitten>
*pad* *pad* *pad* *pad* <CHOMP!> *chomp* *chomp* *gulp*
* cicada
has left channel #meatspace (Ouch! No fair!)
<kitten>
purrrrrrrrrrr...
* kitten is on the prowl
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 06 2005 @ 04:37 AM EST |
| "Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their
property that they may more perfectly respect it."
Gilbert Keith
Chesterton [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 06 2005 @ 11:44 AM EST |
IT GUY: Well is IBM put in there code that "you claim" belongs to you.
Why did you not go to them with proof and work out something with them? Instead
of blackmaling you customers with those letters basicly calling any Linux user a
thief, and demanding payment?
SCO: What customers?
IT GUY: Well you got me there.
IT GUY: Where exactly is the lines of code you claim should not be in Linux?
SCO: There is millions of lines of code. We sware and will prove them up in
court at the right time.
IT GUY: Is that not called discovery?
SCO: What?
IT GUY: Should you not show the court and everyone else the proof that Linux is
yours now?
IBM: grrrrrrrr
SCO: There are millions of lines of code.
IT GUY: Where exactly?
SCO: We don't know IBM will not show us where they hidden it. There a big
meannie company you know. They will not do anything we say.
IT GUY: You know if you demain payment for something, that you claim it yours in
a letter, we should be able to see the proof it is your to begin with?
SCO: Why. You know Unix is ours?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 06 2005 @ 12:07 PM EST |
I was just listening to Car Talk. Maybe we need a cameo apperance by Margin
O'Error.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmartinek on Sunday, March 06 2005 @ 02:47 PM EST |
Oh. My. =)
BRAVO! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 07 2005 @ 12:25 PM EST |
Nice job, toads_for_all!
It also reminded me of a similar dialog I wrote last summer. Different focus, same form. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
