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
Some Indemnification Bits for Historians
Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 05:03 AM EST

So I was cleaning off my dying hard drive, trying to salvage whatever vital materials I could before it gave up the ghost and headed for Hard Drive Heaven, and I ran across some things I totally forgot I had, things I'll be posting, to get them all on the record.

I had earlier written that Microsoft was the first to mention indemnification and Linux in May of 2003. I've found an even earlier sighting. Microsoft mentioned it in November of 2002, even before -- and just before -- SCO and the Gang started its attempted Rape-and-Pillage-Linux business model. The Indemnification Chorus sang later, but it was Microsoft's song.

Here's the proof. Take a look at this article from The Register, dated November of 2002:

The CEO of Microsoft Israel has played the FUD card against Linux, raising doubts about the provenance of the intellectual property in the software, and advising potential customers to seek indemnification from the supplier in the event of patent infringement.

Or at least we think that's what Arie Scope said in an article here last week... which provides a response to open source initiatives in Israel. These include proposed legislation on the use of GPL software by the government.

In the article, Scope says: "IBM is not developing its own version of the Linux OS. Rather than that it distributes Red Hat's version and clears itself from any liability in case the customer changes the code. I advise organizations to review the licensing agreement of Red Hat distributed by IBM, and ask the company for legal protection if it turns out that the OS infringes patents."

Is that not the most remarkable of coincidences? Why, he sounds quite like Darl, don't you think? The author of the piece, John Lettice, back then thought it might mean Microsoft was gunning for Red Hat:

One also wonders whether a lawsuit against Red Hat Advanced Server might just be sitting in a silo near Redmond, waiting for someone to push the button.

Remarkable deductive reasoning, I must say, but he was thinking way too small. SCO ended up suing IBM over Linux, wanting to set up a toll booth on all distributions of Linux, not just Red Hat's. The toll payments were for SCO, in their imaginings. Ka-ching.

But, you say, SCO doesn't have any Unix patents. Ah yes, but they've been such due diligence dunderheads they seem to have thought they did (or said they did) when they started. How do I know? Because when SCO sent a letter on May 12th of 2003 to SCO's partners, this sentence appeared: "This communication is about recent efforts SCO has made to license and protect our patents, copyrights and intellectual property pertaining to the UNIX operating system." So, there we are. The timeline goes like this, then:

  • July of 2002 - Darl McBride is hired and immediately starts studying up on SCO's IP assets, as you'll remember from the Wired piece on Darl as -- ha ha -- "the Linux Killer": "In 2002, when Darl McBride bounced into the top spot at SCO, he began studying its patents and other intellectual property assets..."
  • In November of 2002, Microsoft starts the FUD about Linux, patents and indemnification, as noted.
  • SCO sues IBM in March of 2003.
  • By the end of the quarter ending April of 2003, Sun and Microsoft had thrown millions at SCO for licenses, or at least that is the story, and they're sticking to it, and thus SCO could afford to sue the world.
  • In July of 2003, Ballmer says no one stands behind Linux. ("Can IBM give you a product roadmap for Linux? Can they deliver new features and fixes to Linux? Does it indemnify the intellectual property in Linux? No, no and no," he said....Many customers and analysts are also aware that there were issues around Linux, open source, and patent and intellectual-property issues, Ballmer said. At a Q&A after Ballmer's address, Chairman and Chief Software Architect Bill Gates said that Linux is not covered by many of the cross-licensing agreements in the software industry, leaving an opening for new IP disputes.)
  • In July of 2003, Bill Gates says Linux will have legal troubles for the next four or five years. Don't laugh. It's been three already.
  • The indemnification chorus begins to sing in July and are singing in harmony by August of 2003, with Laura DiDio taking the lead and calling on IBM to offer indemnification for Linux customers, a suggestion IBM declines.
  • Then Microsoft, according to the floated ^H^H^H^H^H^Hleaked Anderer memo, made sure that the first PIPE Fairy, Bay Star flew over Utah, so SCO could afford to rape and pillage some more. Not that they ever quite managed to accomplish that part of the assignment, but hope springs eternal, as the saying goes.
  • Microsoft in January of 2006 distributes an insert in the UK tech press on "Indemnification - Weighing the Risk," using the SCO case to make Linux sound very risky indeed.

And Vista still isn't ready. I wish they'd hurry it along, so SCO could fold up its tent, hop on its camel, and ride off into the sunset. So, there you are, full circle, for the historians, the last little Microsoft circumstantial piece.

This letter to partners from May of 2003 is a document that we don't have on Groklaw, because it predates Groklaw a day or so, but because we are striving for completeness, here it is now for history, SCO's Dear TeamSCO Partner Program letter [also at http://www.caldera.com/scosource/letter_to_partners.html]:

Dear SCO Partner:

As a SCO Partner, we thank you for your support and continued business. Because you are a valued partner, it is important that we make you aware of important SCO business decisions and announcements as soon as possible. As such, we wanted to make you aware of an important announcement made today.

This communication is about recent efforts SCO has made to license and protect our patents, copyrights and intellectual property pertaining to the UNIX operating system. As you know, on March 7, 2003 SCO announced that it filed legal action against IBM in the State Court of Utah, for misappropriation of trade secrets, tortuous interference, unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleged that IBM made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's new Linux services business.

As we have progressed in our discovery related to this action, SCO has found compelling evidence that the Linux operating system contains unauthorized SCO UNIX intellectual property (IP). Due to this discovery, we are taking three immediate courses of action.

1. The first is to send a letter alerting commercial users to the fact that legal liability for the use of Linux by businesses may extend to end users. Customers should start receiving this letter today. For your information, a copy of this letter may be found here.

2. The second action we are taking is to suspend all future sales of the Linux operating system from SCO until the attendant risks with Linux are better understood and properly resolved.

3. Finally, although this action affects future development and sales of SCO's Linux offerings, SCO will continue to support our SCO Linux and OpenLinux customers and partners who have previously implemented those products and we will hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding Linux. SCO will continue to honor all contractual obligations with existing customers including product updates, service, and support.

As many of you are already aware, SCO UNIX systems continue to sell well - including an increase in OpenServer sales over the previous quarter. Our UNIX products continue to support many of the world's largest businesses. In addition, new customer sales indicate that there is still no better option for rock-solid, dependable technology for their core businesses than our SCO UNIX solutions.

We are excited to be building on our SCO UNIX history as we roll out our next generation UNIX operating system and SCOx framework this fall. SCOx will allow small and medium business customers and branch offices to plug their existing applications into a Web services environment. Details of this strategy will be unveiled at SCO Forum in Las Vegas late this summer.

SCO remains committed to building new business opportunities for our partners such as you. We recognize that you have depended on us to provide reliable, solid technologies for your customers for over twenty years. We look forward to helping you and your customers meet your business needs for the next twenty years.

Sincerely,

Darl McBride
President and CEO
The SCO Group

The next twenty years? Um. Well, Darl was always good for a bit of hyperbole.


  


Some Indemnification Bits for Historians | 257 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Correction thread
Authored by: evbergen on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 05:17 AM EST
Corrections here, if any.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic things here, please
Authored by: evbergen on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 05:19 AM EST
And make a clickable link, if possible.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some Indemnification Bits for Historians
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 05:33 AM EST
For most of the uses of software ... at least, when you have a person at the keyboard and an Internet connection plugged in ... it's necessary to be able to maintain the software.

Microsoft do a tolerably-good though not perfect job with Windows; likewise IBM do a tolerably-good though not perfect job with AIX. Sun with Java, too.

And anyone who wants to have a go at it can try with Linux. Not perfect, either, but at least you are free to try.

If SCO took money for authorisations-to-copy for Linux, it would be expected that SCO would resolve the defects as they were found. I wouldn't resolve them.

I don't speak for anyone except myself; but personally, the idea of waiting for (and trusting) SCO would be enough to make me switch to FreeBSD. Or to write everything again from the ground up, from scratch.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some Indemnification Bits for Historians
Authored by: phantom21 on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 05:38 AM EST
Thanks PJ for your completeness and detail.

I'm hoping to see less of SCO (as a company and as an
irritation) in the future. I'm soooooooo glad you started
Groklaw for people like myself to be able to truly
understand the legal ramifications of their daily moves.

Mark

[ Reply to This | # ]

Few camels in Utah, but your timeline doesn't go back far enough
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 05:52 AM EST
Early 2000: stock market begins to dive, Canopy Group, heavily invested in Leneo
and Linux companies begins to drop. With lots of recent contact with Microsoft
re DRDOS, Yarrow contacts Microsoft with a plan (as Caldera did later with
Novell we know). Maybe a chance to "win some back".

Shortly after: Yarrow, probably realizing he has sins to cover with the Canopy
owners, needs money fast.

About same time: Stowell leaves Leneo, goes to work at Microsoft for a short
time, returns and takes position at Caldera with higher-level position.

About same time: Yarrow starts indemnity FUD at Leneo, gets Tibbitts to start
creating "indemnity plan" for embedded Linux to build license business
model. Yarrow transfers Tibbitts from Leneo to Canopy. Sparks, Harris, and then
Leneo CTO Bird probably help setup the plan. Harris takes over for Sparks, but
apparently all are on Canopy BoD. Yarrow starts Leneo shutdown after Leneo
technical people question purchase and dispersal of Unix code and Yarrow plans
for Caldera.

By misleading investors Yarrow walks away with millions from Leneo shutdown
despite being a "minority shareholder". Rumors of $100+ Mil gone to
Canopy, maybe as much as $121 Mil. Probably helps cover Yarrow sins at Canopy a
while.

Caldera begins pushing Linux developers who had been contributing to Linux out
the door, slows down development of OpenLinux, Yarrow forces high pressure
license sales which kills off the last of Lineo and sends Caldera into a
tailspin. Courthouse steps sale nets Canopy $15 million tax writedown, no cash.
Yarrow probably has that from other Leneo investors though, or at least loses
"need" to repay.

About same time: Caldera publishes Unix source code. Needed to set stage for
last bit of theft of trade secrets charge, but only after they half-heartedly
try to repeal release.

Shortly after: Yarrow realizes he must oust Harris and Love, only Tibbits has
corporate level knowledge but is immune by being Canopy attorney. Harris is
attorney but probably lacks full knowledge of Yarrow plans and has to shutdown
Leneo. Leaves the country.

Love leaves Caldera.

Caldera hires Darl (your timeline starts to kick in), in parallel, some cleanup
remains. Have to keep knowledge laden Sparks happy so Yarrow tosses him DRDOS
business.

Sparks forms Logisticial Devices to sell DRDOS, hires Murky probably to assist
in spreading filesystem and other FUD. Probably contact to O'Gara who he knows
can setup story and be ready to attack from the side. Probably contacts Mimms
who he knows can setup local press and get syndicate feeds for more. Both of
those from Leneo experience.

More to come no doubt, but then your timeline really kicks in

[ Reply to This | # ]

20 years????
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 06:06 AM EST
So within a short time after taking over Darl was already pretending to be SCO.
Years later they still can't prove it and refuse to try, relying on secret court
filings and hiding behind the judges instead.

Darl you are either a liar or an idiot, but provably a fool. You said you'd
offer proof, discovery is over: show it. The world isn't laughing and not
running away scared either, and some of us may end up sitting on a jury for your
fraud or other trial ....... hope you don't forget that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some Indemnification Bits for Historians
Authored by: stutchbury on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 06:24 AM EST
Microsoft in January of 2006 distributes an insert in the UK tech press on "Indemnification - Weighing the Risk," using the SCO case to make Linux sound very risky indeed.

Would be more accurate as:

Microsoft in January of 2006 distributes an insert in the UK tech press on "Indemnification - Weighing the Risk," using the SCO case (up to March 2004) to make Linux sound very risky indeed.

~Philip

[ Reply to This | # ]

That's what your hard drive was trying to tell you
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 06:30 AM EST
Read me! Read me!

Hope you didn't lose your other research.

---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some Indemnification Bits for Historians
Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 06:36 AM EST
1. The first is to send a letter alerting commercial users to the fact that legal liability for the use of Linux by businesses may extend to end users. Customers should start receiving this letter today. For your information, a copy of this letter may be found here.

The last two sentences have disappeared, as has the letter, from the version on SCO's website. I wonder why?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some Indemnification Bits for Historians
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 07:01 AM EST
The recent patch release for office that Microsoft shipped in response to a
patent case they lost - included the following in the FAQ's

Q: I thought that Microsoft’s indemnity policy meant that Microsoft stands
behind their software and limits my liability against a third party suing me for
intellectual property issues related to that software. Doesn’t Microsoft’s
indemnity policy protect me from actions like this?

A: Microsoft’s indemnity policy does cover your pre-existing installations with
respect to intellectual property claims in this case. Microsoft’s ability to
protect customers from future infringement claims depends on our ability to
change products to comply with court orders. Microsoft respects the intellectual
property of others. As such, Microsoft’s licenses specify that new installations
of affected products only be made with the appropriate patches applied

Now you could read the answer as meaning that if you don't apply the microsoft
patch you aren't indemnified - but you could also read it as saying that if they
are unable or will not issue a patch then you are on your own.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some Indemnification Bits for Historians
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 07:50 AM EST

As we have progressed in our discovery related to this action, SCO has found compelling evidence that the Linux operating system contains unauthorized SCO UNIX intellectual property (IP).

This letter is dated May 14, 2003. TSG filed their suit against IBM in March. Just how much could they have "progressed in [their] discovery" in two months?

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

You forgot to mention ....
Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 08:08 AM EST
In the meantime Microsoft has paid out billions of dollars for patent and/or copyright violations (some of which were perpetrated on a wilful basis). They've also (as mentioned above) foisted an incompatible patch on customers in the name of their 'indemnification' program, which also allows them to tell you to simply stop using the program you've bought and paid for.

---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Playing God with the Destruction of Linux
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 08:22 AM EST
.
---"By the end of the quarter ending April of 2003, Sun and Microsoft had
thrown millions at SCO for licenses, or at least that is the story, and they're
sticking to it, and thus SCO could afford to sue the world."

---"In July of 2003, Bill Gates says Linux will have legal troubles for the
next four or five years."

Bill's depositions on these points alone are going to be awkward if not
indefensible. You can bet he is glad Boi(s)e(s) is in no position to get at him
now, but the prospect of Marriott is no better.

It is interesting that they felt that they could not compete with Linux on price
and features alone. They had to create an alternative reality of code-stealing,
IP infringement, indemnification, litigation ..... These guys are little gods
used to acting with impunity and dictating to the world. They are going to have
to answer to IBM and Linux companies. Every juror will know about Windows viri
and how you can't buy anything but Windows on a new machine. Vista will be a dud
because there is only so much you can do beyond point and click. When it is all
over, someone else will own M$ and/or it will be fully interoperable. This is
not the pipe dream of the PIPE Fairy but it will have to swallow it anyway.



---
webster
-----------Free China

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some Indemnification Bits for Historians
Authored by: jsusanka on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 08:26 AM EST
Linux is just a beautiful thing.

No matter what these business clowns throw at it will always survive.

It is really like the penguins in march of the penguins when they all huddle
together to brave the winter and stay warm.

they survive and go on - the future is linux and microsoft is an old stale dying
company. Look at these linux distributions updating twice a year - we update to
fix bugs and to enhance/add features to the software not for a profit model.

I recommend selling your stock in microsoft as soon as possible.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Licensing - 3rd Party Patent
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 08:32 AM EST
If you're part of a Microsoft Licensing agreement for Office you've likely
gotten emails in the past week or so, and letters regarding a recent court case,
and a patent in MS Office XP-2003.

"It was recently decided in a court of law that certain portions of code
found in Microsoft Office...."

The "Action Required" portion tell you to install service packs from
now on, and "Action Requested" asked you filter back to past
installations and install service packs so you're not infringing.

While its nice MS provides a remedy, apparently, its up to the customer to do
all the leg work to solve the problem, uncompensated.

Nice idemification.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some Indemnification Bits for Historians
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 08:55 AM EST
This thread in a previous story seems very relevant to this topic. It discusses the motivations of everyone involved including the mysterious PIPE fairy.

Link

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some Indemnification Bits for Historians
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 09:26 AM EST
Antitrust anyone?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The sad thing is even Microsoft can't provide idemnification
Authored by: Benanov on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 09:44 AM EST
MS lost a patent lawsuit against a South American developer about how databases
interact with spreadsheets.

There's a patch for Office that's mandatory for all users to install--otherwise
they're infringing upon the patent and it doesn't look like MS will cover you if
you don't choose to install it.

Idemnification, my foot... :)

---
That popping sound you hear is just a paradigm shifting without a clutch.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dying HD?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 11:31 AM EST
PJ, a few days ago I thought my HD was dying, too. But I pulled the cable and
re-plugged it in, and it now seems to be running fine. (And has a fresh backup,
of course.)

So, sometimes a simple solution actually works.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Its't not over until....
Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 12:01 PM EST
PJ writes...
Don't laugh. It's been three [years] already.

Especially in the early days of this fiaSCO, I kept hearing that its not over till the fat lady sings.

But then PJ writes that early on in the fiaSCO...
The indemnification chorus begins to sing in July and are singing in harmony by August of 2003, with Laura DiDio taking the lead and calling on IBM to offer indemnification...
So I'm confused. How is it that this fiaSCO is still ongoing?

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could we call them Troll Booths instead?
Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 12:10 PM EST
That will differentiate them from Toll Booths that actually have redeeming
social value.

Troll Booth - any organization whose primary purpose is to extort money from
busninesses using otherwise worthless patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some Indemnification Bits for Historians
Authored by: Yossarian on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 01:07 PM EST
John Lettice:
"One also wonders whether a lawsuit against Red Hat Advanced Server might
just be sitting in a silo near Redmond"

I don't think the Microsoft had any intention to take
such direct approach for two reasons:
1) SCO plays a game of "head up I get a billion, head down
I lose SCO's worth, about 10 millions." MS pockets are
much deeper and it may lose much more in a direct fight
with Red-Hat.

2) Micrsoft is not out of the anti-trust woods. Crashing
a much smaller competition in the OS business can send
its case back to the anti-trust court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some Indemnification Bits for Historians
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 01:29 PM EST
“...on March 7, 2003 SCO announced that it filed legal action against IBM in the State Court of Utah, for misappropriation of trade secrets, tortuous interference, unfair competition and breach of contract.” tortuous interference??? Wow. That sounds bad! Did they get any pictures of UNIX on a leash? I am Sonicfrog (reinstalled OS, can't lind log-in psswd, in hurry, must go to work).

[ Reply to This | # ]

GPL3 Clause Makes Some Sense Now
Authored by: mram on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 02:18 PM EST
I think we were all looking at the signing clause to be against hardware
manufcturers like Tivo. Now I think RMS had someone else in mind - MICROSOFT.

I guess most of us here will agree that the days of MS's current business
strategies are numbered. They might pull it off for even five more years or even
a decade - but not longer.

MS has been cornered. They realized this in in the 2001-02 timeframe when IBM
pledged to support Linux. Meanwhile MS is already facing patent infringement
lawsuits for DRM (from Intertrust) and surely they know that there are many more
to follow.

On the other hand they look at IBM - capable of pointing any untoward mishaps
like this towards Redhat, who in turn can point their fingers at the
"community" at large. Obviously no one is going to seriously go after
open source developers - as there may be nothing in it at the end of the day for
them.

MS has only two options.

1) Follow IBMs footsteps and jump into the Linux bandwagon - which obviously
means settling for much lower profit margins than they are used to

2) Make IBM see that they just cannot have a smooth ride with Linux. A long
shot, but worth trying. After all whats a few millions of even billions for MS.

So they "hire" SCO to do the job for them. And we all know its not
going too well for them.

OK, we all know that this also buys time for Vista / Longhorn. Thats MSs primary
strategy. Longhorn / Vista is their Hotel California. Once you get in, they will
have locks all over to see that you can never leave - never migrate your data.

But then this whole European fiasco happens and all this unreasonable things
that they expect for MS - regarding opening up for interperability and
documentation.


So while MS may continue to suck money away from some not so weel informed folks
who go with Vista / Longhorn, in the long run things dont look rosy for them.

Which means they have to LOOK AT OPTION ONE - GO THE WAY OF IBM .

Most people have suggested that MS may prefer to go the Apple route - with BSD.
But I think Linux is better for them. They can always turn back and point
towards the community when they encounter patent trolls.

Okay this has been a long post without getting to the point - which is regarding
RMS being uncomfortable with digital signing of software.

When MS shifts to Linux, it is going to sign every binary distributed digitally,
every driver module. The kernel and whatever modifications they make will of
course be released under GPL. But they dont have to release the drivers. With
the edge they have over all hardware manufacturers, they will try to get into
agreements with all hardware manufacturers to not supply drivers - or supply
very inferior ones to anybody else. The drivers of course dont have to be under
GPL - the kernel can scream "I'M TAINTED" as loudly as it wants.

So I'm sure MS is in some corner working on porting everything they have to work
on top of linux, including development tools. On the face of it, it wouldnt even
look like any different from XP (or Vista).

RMS does not want MS to be able to pull this off.

Any thoughts?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some Indemnification Bits for Historians
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 02:31 PM EST
One day after the Register website published that Microsoft Israel article, the
same reporter was pointed to an even older article about how IBM was doing their
linux patent risk management.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/19/ibms_s_390_linux_guru/

The only difference is that IBM knew about the risks and didn't tell the public.
Microsoft knew about the risks and told the public.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ballmer's FUD
Authored by: rsmith on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 03:27 PM EST

It boggles the mind how stupid the bad guys' arguments sometimes are:

Can IBM give you a product roadmap for Linux?

I don't think even Linus has a roadmap. So what? Linux seems to be doing quite well without it. The roadmap for Windows is that you'll keep paying license fees over and over again.

Can they deliver new features and fixes to Linux?

Of course they can, just like anybody else. Of course features and fixes for windows always appear in a timely fashion. (do I really need to put irony tags here?)

Does it indemnify the intellectual property in Linux?

Extra points for anyone who can mention any software company that does this. The guarantee that comes with MS products is especially impressive.

---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft indemnification?
Authored by: GLJason on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 03:27 PM EST
First off, what does this mean in section 12 of the Windows XP license?
ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCT.
Secondly, it sounds like (from other posts) that MS will indemnify users against patent troubles, but only if they are up to date on patches. How is this different from how Linux would do it, other than SCO won't tell anyone what the problems supposedly are with Linux so they can be fixed?

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ, this is VERY important
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 03:36 PM EST
We need to get all of these facts carefully documented and ready for the
criminals trials which will start as soon as TSG's case is demolished. It is
crystal clear that we are dealing with a carefully contrived plan to subvert the
aim of justice for corporate gain. Once the FBI and SEC start their
investigations, we can then hand over all the proof to them. As we have seen, a
LOT of Internet based material dissapear as soon as people realize that the
information is embarrasing. When these people realize that they are facing jail
time for their embezzlement, they will try to scrub the 'Net of evidence.

This is far more than "just" a fight against FLOSS -- we are dealing
here with people who are actively trying to sabotage our freedom of speach. In
today's world, if you can control the flow of information, you can rule the
world. Locking everyone into a system that controls what we may read or say is
nothing less than pure Fascism.

TSG's cases make no sense, except as a FUD machine to smear FLOSS and free
speach. We CANNOT allow them to get away with it.

(bigbert - not logged in)

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Facts? - Authored by: DMF on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 12:11 PM EST
those who fail...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 05:23 PM EST
...to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I predict that SCO will get a
cash transfusion from a predictable entity soon.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Before the FUD will settle down...
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 06:35 PM EST
This case isn't about SCO vs IBM - that is just an apparency. The actions of
these two parties alone is insufficient to explain the absurdities we have
witnessed to date.

There is a third party actively working behind the scenes. It brought about
this case in the first place and is fuelling it, ensuring its continuance. This
is the explanation for the unexplainable in SCO's behaviour.

So the more incontrovertible evidence pointing back to the third party that can
be documented here, the better.

All it needs is for the PIPE fairy to switch off SCO's life support machine and
the small matter of SCO vs IBM will resolve rather quickly. And that will leave
the real culprit to be addressed.

So that is where our attention should be directed.

It's too easy for us to make a mockery of what is happening, or not happening in
the courtroom. That is what someone wants us to do. That keeps our eye off the
ball very nicely, thank you. SCO vs IBM is possibly the biggest wookie ever
conceived. And we're the ones watching it.

PJ, I'm glad your hard drive spat this one out. That is what it was trying to
tell you.


---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"PIPE fairy"?
Authored by: gfim on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 07:28 PM EST
Could somebody please explain what this means. I've seen it mentioned here a
number of times. Is it some USian expression?

---
Graham

[ Reply to This | # ]

On indemnification
Authored by: sk43 on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 09:02 PM EST
Q. Does commercial software like Unix provide protection against risks of
infringement of intellectual property and unlike Linux?

Darl McBride, quoted by InformationWeek (Aug 7, 2003):

"For the first time in the history of the industry, we have a major
operating system platform that's being pushed on end users and at the same
time the users take it, they're being told buyer beware--you own all the
inherent intellectual property risks with this product ..."

--------

AT&T 1984 UNIX Software License Agreement:

"AT&T ... make[s] no representations or warranties ... that the use of
any SOFTWARE PRODUCT will not infringe any patent, copyright or trademark.
AT&T ... shall not be held to any liability with respect to any claim
by LICENSEE, or a third party on account of, or arising from, the use of
any SOFTWARE PRODUCT."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some Indemnification Bits for Historians
Authored by: camelrider on Wednesday, February 08 2006 @ 11:43 AM EST
Re: Indemnification?
When the SCO-IBM case has reached its conclusion will Sun and Microsoft sift
through the ashes looking for refunds for the bogus licences they bought from
SCO?

[ 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 )