|
SCO's Memo Opposing IBM's Motion for Decl. Judgment of Noninfringement |
|
Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 04:14 AM EST
|
Here's SCO's Redacted Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on its Claim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement (IBM's 10th Counterclaim [PDF] and Part 2. Yes. Loooong. And a four-part Appendix, as well, sideways on the page, which I hate, and they filed it so we need to OCR it, if anyone has the time.
Here are the four parts of the Appendix:This should be fun to read, though. So, let's have at it. I see in a quick read, and I'm only up to page 11, that they are becoming truly reckless. For example, SCO states this: Because Santa Cruz, the owner of UNIX copyrights at the time IBM decided to embark on its Linux strategy, had no involvement with Linux, IBM could not have reasonably relied on third-party Linux activities as a basis for entering the market. Isn't that breathtaking? SCO's Second Amended Complaint places IBM's involvement in Linux as beginning in 2000. The Caldera-Santa Cruz deal was in August of 2000. Groklaw has documented already Tigran Aivazian's contributions at least as early as 1999, while he was at Santa Cruz, and it was, he says, with his boss's knowledge and approval. And here's the 1999 CNET article Groklaw showed you earlier, about Santa Cruz adding the ability to run Linux applications on UnixWare and saying Linux was helping their business. And we know SCO's lawyers read Groklaw. So how do they dare to make such a statement? I am simply dumbfounded. As you see statements that you can rebut, by all means do so in your comments, with urls to proof. Evidently, reminders are required.
|
|
Authored by: Winter on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 04:39 AM EST |
Again, Linus is accused of copying Linux from Minix and Sun's Unix manuals.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. (someone
quoted that)
Rob
---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth
lies probably somewhere in between.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- It starts with the old Ken Brown line - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 04:46 AM EST
- GL coverage of Ken Brown - Authored by: Winter on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 05:00 AM EST
- Does SCO hold any copyright to Minix or Sun manuals - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 05:23 AM EST
- Quote on Opinion and facts - Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 06:36 AM EST
- Commentry on Part 1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 07:45 AM EST
- Re:Lasermoon - Authored by: kinrite on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 08:13 AM EST
- Re:Lasermoon - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 08:21 AM EST
- Re:Lasermoon - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 08:59 AM EST
- Re: Lasermoon - Authored by: papafox on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 09:49 AM EST
- Re: Lasermoon - Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 10:20 AM EST
- Correct link - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 11:03 AM EST
- Re: Lasermoon - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 02:08 PM EST
- Commentry on Part 1, Box 5 - Authored by: vonbrand on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 07:11 PM EST
- Commentry on Part 1 - Authored by: gfim on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 08:53 PM EST
- SCO was involved with Linux 'physically' from the 8th of December 1999 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 09:53 AM EST
- It starts with the old Ken Brown line - Authored by: belboz on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 11:17 AM EST
- Minor comments on part 2 - Authored by: brendthess on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 04:41 PM EST
- Linux certainly doesn't perform like Minix - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 08 2007 @ 01:18 AM EST
|
Authored by: Winter on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 04:40 AM EST |
So PJ can find them.
---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth
lies probably somewhere in between.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Winter on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 04:42 AM EST |
All the interesting news and opinions that do not fit SCO's filings.
Please make links clickable and use the HTML selections and the preview button.
Rob
---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth
lies probably somewhere in between.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 05:00 AM EST |
SCO writes at paragraph 120:
'Both IBM and Santa Cruz were
interested in attempting to leverage and strengthen their existing UNIX-like
operating system products as part of Project Monterey. The goal was to develop
and market a "family" of UNIX-like operating system products, headed by a
jointly developed "Monterey/64" operating system for the IA-64 Intel processor,
which would run on IBM's proprietary "Power" processor architecture and on the
IA-32 architecture.'
What was the issue SCO had with IBM and
the Power architecture some time ago? It was something about IBM's plan to use
something for "Power" SCO claimed to be unaware of. I don't recall the details.
Does the quote contradict SCO's previous statement?
--- --------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mpellatt on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 05:18 AM EST |
Page 12, Para A1:
In 1969, SCO predecessor-in-interest, Dennis
Ritchie and Ken Thomson of AT&T, cresated the UNIX operating system
("UNIX")
Note that it is not AT&T as a body corporate that
is claimed as a predecessor-in-interest by this language, but Ritchie and
Thomson as individuals.
I'm sure AT&T and the two individuals might have
something to say about that. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Arnold.the.Frog on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 05:26 AM EST |
... but I probably won't finish before tomorrow,
so I won't be greedy and do any more.
Part 2 and the appendices are up for grabs...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 06:26 AM EST |
The following statement copied from the pdf is truly alarming. First they
mean cracking and not hacking, thus showing that they know nothing about
computing. They are also totally unaware that an anonymous ftp transfer is
normal for downloading files.
SCO provided its
customers who purchased SCO Linux Server 4.1 with a password to enter at a log
in screen so that only they could access the source code via the
internet.
50.) After news of a bug in the website's security system
was reported on the internet websites, IBM exploited the bug to bypass SCO's
security system, hack into SCO's computers, and download the posted Linux
files.
So they intended to block access to Linux
source code, except to customers who had paid for the privilege. The GPL does
not permit this. It was also well known that they provided anonymous log-in to
their servers; it is a feature of internet sites to allow this for downloading
files.
But let us see how difficult it is to use this
"bug"
-bash-3.2$ ftp ftp.kde.org
Connected to
ftp.kde.org.
220 welcome to the bolug ftp server! -- contact:
info@redacted
Name (ftp.kde.org:chris): anonymous
331 Please specify the
password.
Password: type your email address here
230 Login
successful.
Remote system type is UNIX.
Using binary mode to transfer
files.
ftp> ls
200 PORT command successful. Consider using
PASV.
150 Here comes the directory listing.
drwxr-xr-x 4 0 0
4096 Nov 30 12:44 pub
226 Directory send OK.
ftp> cd
pub
250 Directory successfully changed.
ftp> ls
200 PORT command
successful. Consider using PASV.
150 Here comes the directory
listing.
drwxr-xr-x 4 65534 65534 4096 Nov 30 04:53
debian-incomplete
drwxrwxr-x 13 65534 65534 4096 Apr 04 2004
kde
226 Directory send OK.
ftp> cd kde
ftp> ls
200
PORT command successful. Consider using PASV.
150 Here comes the directory
listing.
drwxrwxr-x 25 65534 65534 4096 Oct 17 12:41
Attic
-rw-rw-r-- 1 65534 65534 1027 Oct 24 2002
README
-rw-rw-r-- 1 65534 65534 404 Apr 04 2004
README_UPLOAD
drwxrwxr-x 3 65534 65534 4096 Oct 01 2000
adm
drwxrwxr-x 3 65534 65534 4096 Mar 07 2005
contrib
..........................
..........................
<
br>
ftp> get README
200 PORT command successful. Consider using
PASV.
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for README (1027
bytes).
226 File send OK.
1027 bytes received in 0.000176 seconds
(5835227 bytes/s)
ftp> bye
221 Goodbye.
-bash-3.2$
Hardly rocket science, but obviously unknown to the present day
SCO. Anyone using the internet for a little time, would know this about the
internet.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IBM sought evidence for its Claims by Hacking into SCO's Website - Authored by: gormanly on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 07:00 AM EST
- IBM sought evidence for its Claims by Hacking into SCO's Website - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 07:09 AM EST
- ? - Authored by: roadfrisbee on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 10:48 AM EST
- incorrect - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 12:14 PM EST
- incorrect? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 01:00 PM EST
- yes, incorrect. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 02:35 PM EST
- yes, incorrect. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 05:01 PM EST
- incorrect? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 08 2007 @ 10:26 AM EST
- IBM sought evidence for its Claims by Hacking into SCO's Website - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 11:03 AM EST
- IBM sought evidence for its Claims by Hacking into SCO's Website - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 11:56 AM EST
- IBM sought evidence for its Claims by Hacking into SCO's Website - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 04:22 PM EST
- IBM sought evidence for its Claims by Hacking into SCO's Website - Authored by: Weeble on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 04:44 PM EST
- IBM sought evidence for its Claims by Hacking into SCO's Website - Authored by: troll on Thursday, February 08 2007 @ 05:11 AM EST
|
Authored by: thecolourblue on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 06:32 AM EST |
It seems SCO makes some fine claims here.
They begin by mixing in some facts with a lot of innuendo to suggest that Linus
stole SVr4 code to write Linux- they say Linux is UNIX-like, and Linus himself
said he wrote it using Minix, which is also a UNIX variant, and he looked at
some Sun (an SVr4 licensee) manuals and other books along the way. They save the
direct accusation for the appendix, where they state that Linus' development of
Linux involved "misappropriating Minix and other UNIX-like operating
systems". Why is their case not directed at Linus then? (I know there's the
money, but should the courts permit this?).
I was under the impression that SCO's claims about misappropriated code had been
limited to those where they had specified the code by version, file and line.
But here, they try to rely on arguments and an expert report to implicate all
the code in SVr and Linux. How can this be right? Surely the only code at issue
now in the case is the code which they specified in their earlier claims (I
understood only a few hundred lines survived)? But now they are making the claim
that Linux is substantially similar to SVr4.
Is this a new claim? Is it compatible with the court's previous orders for
specificity?
a
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 06:38 AM EST |
Footnote at the bottom of page 22:
.... Accordingly for
clarity Santa Cruz Operation is sometimes referred to herein as
"SCO".
Are these people joking???? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gormanly on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 06:47 AM EST |
Overview of SCO's "facts", with my own annotations, for those too busy to
read the whole PDF. (Substitute A for 1, B for 2 &c - GeekLog seems not to
support type="A" for ol or li elements):
- "UNIX Is Developed and
Licensed By AT&T" - yes, except that they don't develop it any longer.
Glad you've admitted that you don't develop or licence it
though.
- "Linux Is UNIX-Like" - yes, but GNU's Not
UNIX.
- "Linux Developers Had Access to Copyrighted Material" -
doubt it (unless you count the CD's they were listening to while coding),
but by all means show me the proof you have to back this up. Oh,
wait...
- "Linux Is Substantially Similar to Copyrighted Material" -
only in your crack-addled wonderland, where
"SCO's expert,
however, performed extensive non-literal
comparisons"
- "SCO Now Owns the UNIX Copyrights" -
don't think so. The Novell-Santa Cruz APA says you don't. Novell
told the court you don't. You don't get paid by any of the UNIX licensees. And
you haven't shown that you acquired anything from Santa Cruz anyway. Bzzzt, do
not pass go.
- "IBM Copies, Contributes To and Encourages the
Reproduction, Distribution and Preparation of Derivative Works Based on Linux" -
duh. And good for them too (in both senses).
- "IBM Has No
License To The Disputed Material In Linux" - other than IBM's own copyright
on that code. And the rights it has under the GPL. Under which terms SCO
distributed that code. Doh.
- "Facts Relating to IBM's Equitable
Estoppel Claim" - this section doesn't even make sense on its own terms. I
give up.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 08:00 AM EST |
Fascinating how virtually everything that resembles a claim with specificity in
this document has been redacted. Clearly SCO tremble at the prospect of many
eyes scrutiny of their claims -- having seen what became of them in the past.
However, I see that there are claims in this document that stem from their
expert witness, Thomas Cargill. Is there a reason why the claims here haven't
been disallowed as a consequence of various earlier decisions that disallow
certain expert testimony not disclosed to the court? Are these references to
expert testimony that SCO got in before the boom dropped?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 08:05 AM EST |
Seriously, given the blatant falsehood of many of the "disputed"
items, what are the legal ramifications? In other words, what happens if the
court finds these items are untrue? I don't see anything that says Hatch swears
these items are true, just that he "respectfully" submits them. Isn't
there an obligation as an officer of the court to not submit information that is
false?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lyndon on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 08:17 AM EST |
This I find strange. The appendix is a long list of points and what the
dispute / disagreement over them is. Point 38 is IBM stating that SCO asked
Novell to transfer the copyrights and that Novell declined. The response is that
"SCO disputes the assertion that it requested a transfer of UNIX copyrights from
Novell in preparation for this litigation. Novell owned no UNIX copyrights that
it could have transferred after 1995, and SCO did not request such a transfer."
I could just possibly allow the first sentence, accepting that SCO
didn't request the transfer specifically in preparation for this litigation, but
surely there is a letter in the public record that does request the transfer of
copyrights? Sadly I can't find this letter, merely references to 'a number of
requests' in Novell's counter claim
here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveCheckley on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 09:06 AM EST |
Footnote 4, on page 49, claims "SCO's copyright registrations in these UNIX
operating systems allow it to bring a copyright infringement claim that covers
copyrightable material that was originally introduced in prior AT&T UNIX
versions and later incorporated into the operating systems covered by such
registrations."
This seems to mean that SCO is claiming copyright on material that was covered
the either a BSD license or was in the public domain.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PTrenholme on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 09:24 AM EST |
I'm having a problem understanding the first sentence of SCO's
reply: First, SCO disputes IBM's implication that any pre-2001
"awareness" or actions of Santa Cruz regarding Linux is irrelevant to the
current litigation, because the current litigation is based on Linux 2.4 and
2.6.
Specifically, the "actions ... is irrelevant" part
seems to be claiming that they (SCO) are disputing a claim by IBM that Santa
Cruz actions before 2001 were irrelevant. Perhaps SCO ment to write "relevant,"
but, as written, they seem to be saying that such action are
relevant.
O.K., I suppose even good lawyers can get tired reading this
sort of thing. --- IANAL, just a retired statistician [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 09:38 AM EST |
I know the process is adversarial, but there must at least be some honesty in
the process in order for it not to break down. To file blatant lies, state as
fact known falsehoods, do it while swearing that you are speaking the truth, and
do this while supposedly an officer of the court makes a complete mockery of the
entire process.
Disagree, fine. But to intentionally deceive over and over again, and hope some
of it sticks, and have this behavior accepted by the judge seems to me an
abdication of responsibility to maintain an orderly and fair proceeding.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 09:39 AM EST |
Because they are lawyers. They are paid to tell bold faced lies. Besides what
will it get them, besides maybe, a stern talking to.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gormanly on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 10:12 AM EST |
A lot of this is going back to SCO's old argument that Linux wasn't ready for
corporate use before IBM came to the party:
124. In March
of 1999, during the course of the IBM-Santa Cruz joint Project Monterey venture,
IBM publicly announced its decision to embrace Linux at the LinuxWorld event.
IBM Ex. 21 at 4. Soon thereafter, IBM opened the Linux Technology Center to
make technical contributions to Linux. Ex. 104 at 30:5-7; Ex. 2 at 24:5 -
25:15. At the time, Santa Cruz owned UNIX and had no connection with Caldera,
which did then distribute Linux.
125. Mr. Frye, founder and head of the
Linux Technology Center, states in his declaration that, IBM decided to invest
in Linux due, at least in part, to the existence and activity of SCO [apparently
referring to Caldera, not Santa Cruz] and other commercial Linux distributors.
[...]
146. Prior to IBM's contributions to Linux, it was essentially a
hobbyist machine, not capable of handling enterprise workloads. IBM
systematically identified and set about correcting these deficiencies as part of
its Linux strategy. Ex. 287 at 31-32.
However...
SGI's XFS file system to
go open source, ZDNet News: May 19, 1999, 5:00 PM PT
SGI
Inc. is set to announce plans to give the Linux community the source code of
XFS, its 64-bit Unix file system. [...]
The decision is important for the
Linux community and for businesses thinking of adopting Linux [...]
A
journaled file system is crucial if Linux is to be suitable for large
mission-critical applications such as data warehousing. [...]
The
announcement was welcomed by at least one Linux distributor, with Caldera CEO
Ransome Love calling it terrific news. "We're happy to have SGI as part of the
open source family," Love said in a statement.
E-Commerce Times: Caldera and MacMillan USA to Push Linux to Corporations
Sep 27, 1999, 15 :16 UTC
"Caldera Systems, Inc. has entered
into a strategic partnership with MacMillan Publishing USA to market the
OpenLinux operating system (OS) to the corporate world..."
"MacMillan
brings a great deal to the Linux-for-Business table," commented Caldera Systems
president and CEO Ransom Love.
Where
's Linux going? October 28, 1999 Web posted at: 9:47 a.m. EDT (1347
GMT)
The performance clustering software and services
announced today by Linux vendor TurboLinux Inc. and a cabal of partners
including Unix vendor SCO Inc. takes the Linux market in an unusual and
somewhat risky direction, analysts said.
Hoping to vault TurboCluster
Server into such large corporate accounts as well as Internet service providers,
TurboLinux lined up partners including Santa Cruz, Calif.-based SCO to offer
consulting services for customers;San Francisco-based LinuxCare Inc. for
technology support; Carson City,Nev.-based CubixCorp. to provide server
hardware; Compaq Computer Corp. to provide developers with test platforms for
the clustering system; and Giganet Inc. of Concord,Mass., for ``VI'' software
that allows the cluster nodes to communicate with minimal overhead on the
processors.
A Conversation with Caldera's
Ransom Love By Marjorie Richardson on Mon, 1999-11-15
02:00
I talked by phone to Ransom Love, CEO of Caldera
Systems, on November 2, 1999. He told me he had called because Caldera was
making some major changes, and he wanted everyone to know about them. His
excitement about their plans was quite evident--the words flowed non-stop--and
it was contagious. [...]
Ransom: We want to give you an update on
the company, the products we will be announcing, some of the channel programs
and the overall new strategy. Actually, I wouldn't even call it a new
strategy, it is a more focused strategy of what we've been doing and planning
for sometime. We are now ready to roll it into public view.
First of
all, as you know, we have positioned ourselves as Linux for Business. We
want to focus it even more to where we think, Linux is going to play the most
important role and where we as a company can add the most value. Thus, we are
fine-tuning that focus to Linux for E-Business. We believe Linux is going to
play the predominate role in extending the Internet or e-business infrastructure
for corporations who are deploying Internet, intranet and networks, for ISPs who
are realizing they actually have to sell services and additional applications,
and for the traditional VARs. We have statistics, from our OpenLinux Tour
with IBM and Oracle, that shows 82% of all VARs are looking to deploy Linux
in these capacities. Linux is going to be the Internet platform that extends it,
and we want to be the company providing Linux for
E-Business.
Caldera Systems, Inc.
Files Registration Statement for Initial Public Offering OREM, UT -- January
10, 2000
Caldera Systems, Inc., a provider of award-winning
Linux products and services, announced today that it has filed a registration
statement with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) for an initial public
offering (IPO). [...]
The Company Caldera Systems, Inc.
enables the development, deployment and management of Linux specialized
servers and Internet access devices that simplify computing. The
company's solutions are specifically designed to meet the complex needs of
eBusiness. Caldera facilitates the adoption of Linux by providing
educational programs designed to help our customers develop, deploy and
administer Linux systems. The company embraces the Open Source model and
participates as a key member of many Open Source, industry standards and partner
initiatives, including Linux Professional Institute (LPI), Linux Standards Base
(LSB) and Linux International Group. Caldera primarily distributes its products
and services through its indirect distribution channel. Caldera's customers
include IBM, MTI Technology Corporation, AST Computers, First International
Computers, Cendant, Frank Kasper & Associates, Gates/Arrow, Ingram Micro,
MediaGold, Navarre Corporation, Support Net and Tech Data.
LINUX is a
registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.
Caldera Systems Names
Richard Wiltbank as Director of Sales in Europe, Middle East and Africa
(EMEA) OREM, UT-March 6, 2000
Caldera Systems, Inc.,
known as the Linux for eBusiness leader, today announced that it has named
Richard Wiltbank Director of Sales for Caldera Europe, Middle East and Africa
(EMEA). Wiltbank will lead the expansion of Caldera's award-winning OpenLinux
solutions, support and services directly to enterprise users in those countries
and beyond.
About Linux
According to International Data
Corp. (IDC) research, Linux-based operating systems were the fastest-growing
server operating environment in 1998, growing more than 190 percent in one
year and capturing more than 15.8 percent of the 4.4 million revenue shipment
server operating environment markets. Caldera's partnerships and alliances with
industry leaders-coupled with the demand for Linux for eBusiness-based
applications has created Open Source support from many industry leaders in
software and hardware manufacturing including; IBM, Sun, SCO, Citrix, Netscape,
Novell, Oracle and Corel. Caldera OpenLinux runs on Intel and Sun SPARC
platforms.
SCO and Caldera
Systems Extend SCO Professional Services to Caldera Customers Santa Cruz, CA
and Orem, UT (March 13, 2000)
SCO (NASDAQ: SCOC) and
Caldera Systems, the Linux for eBusiness company, today announced an
agreement to offer SCO Professional Services to Caldera customers, worldwide.
[...]
"This is great news for Caldera customers," said John Thomas, vice
president of Support Services at Caldera. "[...] We are continuing to see
larger companies interested in adding Caldera OpenLinux to their
infrastructure and would like the comfort of using SCO Professional
Services. Their reputation and experience will offer excellent service for our
customers."
"As Linux begins to serve as a platform for business
critical and mission critical computing, requirements for professional
services for this platform increase," said Dan Kusnetzky, program director for
IDC's operating environments and serverware research services. "SCO, having
already built a worldwide service infrastructure for its UNIX products, is in a
very strong position to support Linux."
SCO, Linux, and the Open
Source Movement As a corporate sponsor of Linux International, SCO
is a strong proponent of the Open Source movement, citing it as a driving force
for innovation and business opportunities.
SCO has strategic
alliances with LinuxMall.com, TurboLinux and Caldera and has taken equity
positions in all three companies. During the last year SCO introduced new
Linux and Open Source-related professional services. SCO is also a driving
force in raising funds and awareness for the Linux Standard Base
(LSB).
Caldera Systems
Premiers OpenLinux eDesktop 2.4 OREM, Utah - March 30,
2000
"Because we have pioneered Linux for eBusiness,
it's fitting that we're the first to deliver a Linux desktop product that fits
into the application server model," said Benoy Tamang, vice president of
marketing for Caldera Systems. "For years, businesses that wanted to offer a
choice of applications to their employees did so at a great cost. Not
anymore. OpenLinux eDesktop not only comes with powerful, native Linux business
applications, but the Citrix ICA client gives Linux users the power to choose
their applications. Finally, choice at an exceptional
value."
[...]
Caldera Systems is a leader in -- and supporter of
-- the Open Source movement. Please visit www.openlinux.org to download Caldera
Systems' technologies that have been open-sourced -- including but not limited
to -- LIZARD, Caldera Open Administration System (COAS), the NetWare Kernel File
System (NKFS) and the OpenLinux 2.2 port for Sun's SPARC(TM) and
UltraSPARC(TM)-based platforms.
(Mostly my
bolds)
So,
- Santa Cruz was helping push and support Linux in the
corporate space via its Professional Services division in 1999, by October at
the latest. This is confirmed in their 10-K for that year.
- Caldera
touted itself as the business-focused provider of Linux in every press release
in 1999 and 2000.
- By March 2000 Santa Cruz's Professional Services
division were supporting corporate deployments of Caldera's Linux
distribution.
- Caldera's CEO welcomed the porting from UNIX to Linux of
enterprise-level features including SGI's journalling file
system.
- Caldera in 1999 (a Linux company) worked with IBM and Oracle to
promote Linux to business, and trumpeted of the growth in Linux server
shipments, "the demand for Linux for eBusiness" and its partnerships and
alliances with IBM, SCO and Novell.
And, of course, Caldera == The
SCO Group [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 10:29 AM EST |
SCO defends itself against IBM's estoppel claims by asserting:
"IBM could not reasonably rely on the LINUX activities of Caldera Systems
Inc when that company did not own the UNIX copyrights."
This is a breathtaking high-wire act of legal argument by BSF.
BSF are asserting that an entity, Caldera, can
a) conduct business,
B) enter into agreements,
C) make commitments and representations in the business environment,
and then, by virtue of a later-in-time purchase of an asset (i.e., UNIX
copyrights, and that is disputed anyway), be free of any responsibility for
their previous actions.
Moreover, the entities (IBM) that relied on those actions are now culpable due
to the later-in-time event, and are subject to SUIT notwithstanding their
reliance on Caldera's previous actions, all because ?? of something that Caldera
did or purchased later-in-time. Has anyone ever advanced a more devious, twisted
argument?
I guess IBM needs to add a physicist to it's legal team to explain the problem
in BSF's logic -- i.e., that time actually moves in a direction that is called
"forward" for a reason.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tcomeau on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 11:15 AM EST |
SCO's argument is that AIX is a SVr4 derivative, and thus they control
it.
In the statement of facts, A 12 (p. 14) Cargill quotes The Magic
Garden
which says
"SVR4 merges four of the most popular
derivatives... The four
operating systems are: Berkeley Software
Distribution 4.3 (4.3BSD),
AT&T Unix System V Release 3, SunOS and
Microsoft XENIX System V."
So if SCO controls AIX because it
is a SVr4 derivative, does the University of
California control SVr4?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DustDevil on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 12:33 PM EST |
I haven't seen anyone else comment on this yet, so here goes...
On the issue of estoppel, they go to great pains to say that IBM could not have
relied on them because IBM began it's Linux activities before Caldera bought the
rights to UNIX. Ok, so they claim to be the successor in interest from
ATT->Novell->Santa Cruz->SCO as far as rights go, but reject that
theory as far as liabilities go? Am I missing something here? Seems to me to be
a dangerous argument to be making.
---
All comments are my own, not that of my employer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 01:45 PM EST |
I wanted to thank everyone for this interesting site which has provided me much,
including entertainment and hopefully a little enlightenment. I have watched
since coming looking for IBM-SCO news some months ago. Go IBM.
Additionally, IANAL, or even US, but doesnt the way SCO have presented arguments
on both sides of various fences make it very easy to gut their case, whilst
still ruling in their favour ?
And how if so, it is interesting how it came to this and wouldnt that also make
it more appeal proof ? :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 03:08 PM EST |
My understanding is that much of this is or will be inadmissible as and when
Judge Wells' rulings are upheld.
Will the Judge then just immediately go through it and strike those bits or will
IBM need to file another motion asking for them to be stricken?
Seems that "Linux is a derivative work" is a new theory of the case
(or a very old one they wanted to sandbag IBM with). Can they introduce a new
theory at this stage or will that be strikeable as well?
If bits are stricken, will this original version stay filed, with a
hacked'n'slashed version supplanting it as a later filing, or will it be removed
from the record entirely and replaced with a new version?
Thanks for any enlightenment.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 05:58 PM EST |
As near as I can tell, in section 1 SCO tries to spin a whole new definition of
what a standard is.
They seem to be saying that open standards only apply to a copy of the standard
itself, and that one cannot actually write anything to conform to that standard
without infringing on the rights of whoever wrote the standard.
I.e. "here's a copy of the FOO 'standard', you may copy it and distribute
the copies to anyone, but you cannot actually use it to write a FOO program. If
you do that you're infringing".
Which is, of course, perfectly consistent with their view of UNIX, AIX, Dynix
and Linux, not to mention how M$ views 'embraced and extended' standards, or 'de
facto' standards like OOXML or.NET.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brendthess on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 06:11 PM EST |
I believe that we can safely assume that SCO's redactions are mostly pointless.
Consider: In box 301 (in PDF 4), SCO redacts Paragraph 1.1(a) and Section
1.7 of the APA, both of which are public knowledge and can be found in the
legal docs here on Groklaw (as well as other places).
I think SCO's lawyers
have totally lost it, and are best depicted as a cross between Barney Miller and
the Keystone Kops. --- I am not even vaguely trained as a lawyer. Why are
you listening to me? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wwells on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 09:10 PM EST |
The one I love the best is:
239. SCO disputes IBM's suggestion that #define names simply define names for
values.
That is the definition of a define statement! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 10:27 PM EST |
<<As you see statements that you can rebut, by all means do so in your
comments, with urls to proof.>>
This is too easy.
135. At
the time when the Swartz memo was developed, Santa
Cruz was not involved in the
then-fledgling Linux Business.
The Swartz memo is here
and is dated Oct. 4,
1999.
A full 22 days earlier, on Aug. 13. 1999, the following
article
appeared:
SCO To Boost Revenue by Offering Linux
Services
"SCO will announce Monday that it will help companies set up
Linux computer systems, competing with IBM and a several
other
companies."
Which is how SCO was not involved in the fledgling
Linux
business.
Note the nice touch about competing with IBM in the
Linux
market. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Thursday, February 08 2007 @ 11:04 PM EST |
Someone sent me this link to
more examples of Tigran contributions. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|