decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO Asserts Its Rights to Almost Nothing ™ ~ by Darkonc
Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:16 PM EST

Of course, we all laughed when SCO filed a demand with the court that IBM hand over "all documents concerning IBM's contributions to the Linux 2.7 kernel," including "development work," knowing as we did that there is no Linux 2.7 kernel and that there are no plans to have one. I note that this must mean that no Linux community person is willing to help them with their litigation, so they have no one to ask such questions, or they would have known better. And they clearly didn't do any research either, let alone find any "infringing code" in the 2.7 kernel, which raises questions in my mind as to whether SCO is following the discovery protocol established by the court.

Groklaw's Darkonc, on the other hand, was inspired by SCO's demand to look at matters logically, from SCO's point of view, and he thinks he has figured out how SCO thinks it can win the SCO v. IBM litigation after all. What better on a Saturday than a good laugh? Enjoy.

**************************

SCO Asserts Its Rights to Almost Nothing™
~ by Darkonc

SCOG's accusations that IBM has made infringing contributions to the Linux 2.7 codebase make perfect sense to me.

SCOG's contribution to the Unix codebase have, in fact been little more than Nothing. The Linux 2.7 Codebase, on the other hand consists of Precisely Nothing -- or a little bit less than what SCOG has contributed to the Unix Codebase.

In other words, the Linux 2.7 Codebase is a proper subset of SCOG's UNIX contributions. As such the Nothing that is in the Linux 2.7 code base was clearly lifted from SCOG's Almost-Nothing contributions to the Unix code base.

This, of course, places IBM's claims to have contributed "Nothing inapproprate" into Linux in a completely different light and, in fact, supports SCOG's contentions of inappropriate contributions into the Linux code base.

IBM, being a large company, probably has many employees that produce either Absolutely Nothing or Almost Nothing. Although IBM may attempt to prevent these employees from producing Nothing, they are still responsible for the infringing Nothing that their employees produce.

Although IBM has a license to use this Nothing internally, employees who not only produce Nothing, but also contribute that infringing Nothing (or even Almost Nothing) to Linux are doing so in Violation of IBM's contractual Methods and Procedures right to use Nothing only for internal purposes.

SCOG demands disclosure of the notes and emails for the IBM employees who have (or may have) contributed Nothing, Almost Nothing or Nothing Inappropriate to Linux, in probable violation of IBM's contractual obligations.

Despite some Public sentiment to the contrary, SCOG firmly believes that the courts will find that it owns Nothing (or Nothing substantial) in Unix, and hopes that the courts will in time (a very long time) make an appropriate award. SCOG is willing to litigate for as long as necessary (or even as long as possible) to reach this almost almost certain result in its lawsuits with IBM. Protestations to the contrary by certain SCO Bashers who shall remain unnamed (Hi PJ!) are little more than slanderous rumor mongering.


  


SCO Asserts Its Rights to Almost Nothing ™ ~ by Darkonc | 176 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off Topic thread here
Authored by: Leccy on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:26 PM EST
Post your OT comments here:



---
To err is human.
To really mess it up takes a software patent

[ Reply to This | # ]

That's wonderful!!
Authored by: jbeadle on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:36 PM EST
It also reminds me of the "Light Sucker" analogy. Thanks for the
yuck!!

-jb

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: Tufty on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:38 PM EST
Punctuation, spelling etc NOT the plan!


---
There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!
Now I want its hide.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Asserts Its Rights to Almost Nothing ™ ~ by Darkonc
Authored by: geoff lane on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:38 PM EST
May I be the first to point out that nothing can and has been copyrighted. For example 4:33 by John Cage. This isn't even just a bit of fun. Recently another composer, Mike Batt, almost ended up in court accused of plagerism because of the piece, "A One Minute Silence". Batt settled out of court for 100,000 pounds.

For those who may think that this was an April Fools joke, here is a news report.

---
I'm not a Windows user, consequently I'm not
afraid of receiving email from total strangers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Asserts Its Rights to Almost Nothing ™ ~ by Darkonc
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:40 PM EST
I have Nothing to contribute to their case.


--- vruz


[ Reply to This | # ]

Homer's Odyssey
Authored by: Tufty on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:44 PM EST
When Odysseus is captured by the Cyclops and gives his name as Nobody!


---
There has to be a rabbit down this rabbit hole somewhere!
Now I want its hide.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Asserts Its Rights to Almost Nothing ™ ~ by Darkonc
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:44 PM EST
And of course SCO still ends up with their original contributions, even if you
take away everyone else's contributions from the 2.7 kernel. After all, we know
that Nothing from Nothing, leaves Nothing.

And, as usual, the SCO are standing on Nothing. And physics being what it is,
Nothing seems to stop them or slow them down. To them, there's Nothing better.

I can think of nothing more to add... so we still have nothing.

...D

[ Reply to This | # ]

And lets not forget, copyright on "nothing"
Authored by: dyfet on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:59 PM EST
Clearly if you can have a copyright on "silence", as upheld recently by courts http://www.slashnot.com/article.php3?story_id=99 !!! then you can certainly have a copyright on "nothing", especially a specific "nothing", like linux 2.7. So yes, under this analysis, even the SCO copyright claims can start to make sense...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Asserts Its RiThe "Nothing"
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 05:04 PM EST
Is this "Nothing" of which you speak already copyrighted/patented as
the great evil in the "Never Ending Story" ? Something that consumes
all leaving nothing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

...in pictures...
Authored by: fb on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 05:11 PM EST

Just recalling a Gahan Wilson's famous cartoon. Many people in vestments, prostrating themselves before an empty pedestal.

One bystander asks another, "Is Nothing sacred?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Asserts Its Rights to Almost Nothing ™ ~ by Darkonc
Authored by: mrcreosote on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 05:16 PM EST
Nothing good can come of this......

---
----------
mrcreosote

[ Reply to This | # ]

Please Cease and Desist:
Authored by: MeinZy on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 05:30 PM EST
I feel compelled to come to SCOG's defense, as a matter of principle. Groklaw
has exposed the totality (Nothing) of SCOG's IP contibutions. Retraction of
such valuable, proprietary intellectual property and a commitment to never
mention such again is the only hope of avoiding subsequent legal recourse.

You have been warned!

---
Zy -- 'Square peg in a round Earth' - But working on those corners

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bepp's Briefcase explained
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 05:58 PM EST
So the millions of lines of infringing IP are the blank lines, and the linux
'experts' have foolishlishly been looking at the lines with marks on them? No
wonder linux still infringes.


This will cut many FOSS programmers to the quick, not being able to leave white
space without using SCO IP.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is getting expensive
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 06:07 PM EST


I need to start buying keyboards in bulk, or make sure that I'm not drinking
anything when I'm reading Groklaw.



---
Wayne

http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/

[ Reply to This | # ]

I've found the problem!
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 06:33 PM EST
Obviously SCO wants to claim all rights to the intellectual device /dev/null.

They seem to pull their logic from there, and have obviously placed most, if not all, of their intelligence into said device.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Asserts Its Rights to Almost Nothing ™ ~ by Darkonc
Authored by: phrostie on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 07:29 PM EST
OMG!

that almost made sense!
ROTFLMAO!

---
=====
you can fool some of the people all of the time.
you can fool all of the people some of the time.
it's setting them straight that is %&#$@
http://pfro

[ Reply to This | # ]

I worked for IBM for many years.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 08:43 PM EST
I contributed Absolutely Nothing™ to the Linux during my time there.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 09:12 PM EST

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • - Authored by: AntiFUD on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 02:21 AM EST
AT&T has a copyright on Nothing
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 09:14 PM EST
If SCO claims to have intellectual property in Nothing, then they are merely
following AT&T's copyright of Nothing from the 1980s.

The Unix command /bin/true always exits with the value 0. Historically, this was
implemented as an empty Bourne shell script: the shell in this case would
default to exiting with value 0. For some versions of System V, AT&T slapped
copyright notices on everything. This included the empty /bin/true file. Thus,
Nothing is indeed copyright by AT&T.

Obviously, since SCO thinks that they own the AT&T code, they also think
they now own this copyright on Nothing.

P.S I haven't been able find a copy of an AT&T/USL /bin/true with the
copyright notice. Can anyone link such a file to this thread?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does this mean it is April 1 all over?
Authored by: oldgreybeard on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 09:49 PM EST
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Asserts Its Rights to Almost Nothing ™ ~ by Darkonc
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 11:26 PM EST
They already did this to death in The Neverending Story.

[ Reply to This | # ]

For their first witness....
Authored by: mrcreosote on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 05:56 AM EST
they call Sgt Schultz.

"I know nothing! NOTHING!"


---
----------
mrcreosote

[ Reply to This | # ]

The damages will be huge
Authored by: PeteS on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 06:30 AM EST
As the Nothing contributed by IBM has been sold to many customers who bought
nothing from IBM over the decades.

We insist that we be reimbursed properly with an amount to be determined at
trial, but no less than the assets of all the Earth, for every occasion on which
IBM sold nothing to it's customers.

PeteS


---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity

[ Reply to This | # ]

There is prior art
Authored by: PeteS on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 06:36 AM EST
Some years ago, there was an ad for 'The gift for the person who has
everything'. It was an empty jar - a jar of Nothing [tm].

I hope the original holders now sue SCOX for infringing on their copyrights to
Nothing [tm].

PeteS


---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity

[ Reply to This | # ]

Move along, move along… Nothing to see here :)
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 07:16 AM EST
SCO's train wreck of a case....

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Asserts Its Rights to Almost Nothing ™ ~ by Darkonc
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 09:23 AM EST
Of course what damages could SCO realistically expect out of all of this?
"Nothing" :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sigh
Authored by: jplatt39 on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 09:27 AM EST
I'm sorry. I cannot accept that Nothing is EVER inappropriate for unwritten
software. I can't accept that IBM has contributed anything except _appropriate_
Nothings to 2.7.

[ Reply to This | # ]

If IBM pierces the corporate veil ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 02:09 PM EST
I suggest they look for proof that Microsoft has been whispering Sweet Nothings
in SCO's ear.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So We Can No Longer Do Nothing on Weekends??!
Authored by: hsjones on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 03:46 PM EST
Wow, I'm in big trouble... So far, I have done Absolutely Nothing today! Now I
find that I'm infringing on SCO's ownership of Nothing.

Guess that means I need to do Something before sunset.

Crap... What are weekends for after all?!?!

[ Reply to This | # ]

I found it, SCO claimed copied code!!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 05:17 PM EST
Yes, can you believe me... it has been in front of our eyes for this long time,
and nobody has noticed it? Or we are extremely blind or we dontn't have the
Intellectual level SCO seems to have... what kind of fools we have been!!!

Try this to count the number of infringing lines:
cd /usr/src/linux
for f in `find -type f | grep -v '.o'` ; do cat $f;done |grep '^$' -c

The result? :709968

This is for my 2.4.31 not pristine kernel source.

No wonder how can they say there are millions of lines of infringing code, just
think about all the kernel in 2.4 series...

_Now_ I recongnise where the infringing code is.

Also, I can see I have been infringing "their" IP since I wrote my
first program, I should be ashamed of my behaivour...



Ivan
-------
PS: for those who dont't know what the shell code above does, it counts the
number of lines that are empty in almost all source files, aka: SCO
"Nothing TM" IP

[ Reply to This | # ]

Just wait for SCO's next development
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 05:33 PM EST
A logical development to "nothing"" (in context to software) is
how do you produce it.

We probably need "newlines" between the nothings.

A unix peculiarity to the production of a new line is different to WINDOW$.

Both use the ASCII codes but UNIX has a extra code.

Enter the "LF" line feed & the "CR" carriage return.

Unix uses just the LF , BUT windows uses both.

So WIndows uses the "enter key" which produces a "carriage
return" & a "new line/line feed".

FYI ,the utilities unix2dos, & dos2unix converts the file as required.

So now , UNIX & LINUX use a different "method and concept" .

That sounds like SCOspeak!

OH dear! Whats next!

Roger


[ Reply to This | # ]

Sign seen in the IBM 2.7 lab
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 06:39 PM EST
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

We the willing , led by the unknowing,
are doing the impossible for the ungrateful.
We have done so much for so long, with so little,
we are now qualifiedto do anything
with nothing.

/Arthur

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sign seen in Darl's office
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 13 2005 @ 06:49 PM EST
Around here i'm very responsible,
every time something goes wrong.
i'm responsible.

/Arthur

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yes, I laughed when you reported that
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 14 2005 @ 06:38 AM EST
I laughed at you for asserting that there 'never would be' a 2.7, when Linus has
clearly stated that there will be, but that he's not going to open the tree just
yet.

I laughed at you for asserting that all contributions are made in public, when
people can and do supply private contributions - or at least descriptions of
them - straight to the kernel maintainers to ask if they would be suitable for
inclusion in future versions.

And I nearly laughed up a lung when I tried to imagine how else you think anyone
would refer to the next version of the Linux kernel *other* than by calling it
2.7.

So, yes, please do continue with this thread, it is indeed most mirthsome.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Asserts Its Rights to Almost Nothing ™ ~ by Darkonc
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 14 2005 @ 07:35 AM EST
Just remember that the whole universe came to be out
of nothing. SCO must realize this and believes that
if they own all of the nothing then they will own
everything at some point. What a great plan!

[ Reply to This | # ]

"UC Berkeley... We Have a problem..."
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 14 2005 @ 09:12 AM EST
Even if this "was" the real reason for SCO (Yes I know this is a joke)
wouldn't UC Berkeley setlement cover the "Nothing" (blank lines, extra
white space, etc.) in the Unix code?

I mean what college student hasn't added a little extra white space here and
there to increase the length of their documents/code?

Just a thought....

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Asserts Its Rights to Almost Nothing ™ ~ by Darkonc
Authored by: BassSinger on Monday, November 14 2005 @ 03:13 PM EST
I am reminded of an old Gahan Wilson cartoon in which many people are festooned
with ceremonial robes and surrounding a pedestal which is empty. All of the
robes have a large "N" on them. There is an "N" on the side
of the pedestal. But the pedestal is empty. As the people are bowing down to
the pedestal, one says to another, "Is Nothing Sacred?"


---
In A Chord,

Tom

Proud Member of the Kitsap Chordsmen
Registered Linux User # 154358

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Asserts Its Rights to Almost Nothing ™ ~ by Darkonc
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 14 2005 @ 05:53 PM EST
Now that was funny, but its scarry how true it feels.


But in reality whitespace realy isn't nothing at all
it is one of the following ascii characters
DEC 32, HEX 20, or OCT 040

But then maybe SCOG thinks they own the ASCII code too

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Asserts Its Rights to Almost Nothing ™ ~ by Darkonc
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 15 2005 @ 11:36 AM EST
oh come on, all these cliche's and no one came out with:

"NOTHING ventured, NOTHING gained" ?

oops, pardon the DEC 32

[ Reply to This | # ]

2.4.7 intended?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 01:46 PM EST
They probably meant to ask for 2.4.7.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )