[ Reply to This | # ]

As for sleeping, actually I've given * that* up altogether.

: )

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thank you very much for putting this all together. We need to make you a Defender of the Penguin shirt or something. :-D

[ Reply to This | # ]

That doesn't mean a thing (spending time selling is not actually closing a deal), apart from the fact that they don't seem to sell any real software anymore. I.e., their market is dead.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thorsten, not only that, but sending an invoice isn't a lawsuit either.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yes, pj deserves a lot of credit for the work going into this site.

It looks like IBM has decided to help with counteracting the FUD. The content of this ad is probably less important than the fact that IBM is running it. On the subject of computers, IBM has more credibility than the press. If IBM will publicly back linux, a lot of people will dismiss any noise in the press about some $70 million outfit in Utah making trouble for it.

The institutional investors who have bought into SCO in a big way will croak when they see this ad. IBM is opening a new front in the PR war. All the µsoft flacks in the world can't keep IBM from buying a megaphone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

https://rn.ftc .gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01

Demanding payment for a product that they have been given the legal ownerships rights to is as clearly a violation of law.

--Shaun

[ Reply to This | # ]

Rob Enderle at http://www.technewswor ld.com/perl/story/31479.html has concluded that the jig is up at IBM. They've been stealing poor little SCO's software.

This guy is an analysts analyst. http://scripti ngnews.userland.com/stories/storyReader$1541

"One of the strongest indications I have that SCO might win is that several of the financial analyst groups who work with me, after reviewing the SCO submissions, have concluded that SCO might actually have the advantage. These firms are relatively unbiased and, generally, if they do have bias, it would typically favor a company like IBM with which they have substantial interest as opposed to a company like SCO with which they don't."

This guy's got powerful friends in the industry. Laura DiDio, Daniel Lyons, Bill Gates and maybe even George W II.

"The other day I was asked what the odds were that SCO would win against IBM. On the basis of how the two parties were behaving, I offered a range of between55and 65 percent. I've spent a lot of my life watching litigation, and I believe that you can better tell the outcome by trying to determine what the parties believe and how believable they are than if you just try to dig through their rhetoric."

Enderle must be a great behavioral scientist. Psychoanalyzed the two parties.

"When the litigation first started, I personally had little interest in Linux and open source , even though I had covered it on and off for well over a decade. While it was clear the movement had engaged others, it hadn't yet engaged me. However, a few months ago, this changed because I started to get disturbing e-mail from people I had previously respected. When I tried to point out that SCO might actually be in the right, suddenly the attacks shifted to me in a very personal way in an apparent attempt to shut me up."

The poor little guy has been maligned. What a shame

"Were you to read the original AT&T license, which I did, you would find that it anticipated things like this and, if it is enforceable, protects against it. Let's pretend for a moment that we live in a country where you have the right to protect what is yours, regardless of whether you built it or, like SCO, bought it."

Let's pretend we live in a country where senior analysts have enough brains to read the amendments to a contract drawn up in the early seventies.

As is typical of today's "senior IT analyst" there is a complete lack of any verifiable, documented facts concerning the SCO-IBM controversy. So much for sources. As to methods there are gut emotional reactions. These guys generate word salad and try to pass it off as "IT analysis". They are to critical analysis what "script kiddies" are to programming. Dumb but dangerous.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who is ultimately responsible for protecting linux users/developers from these kinds of threats and abuses? FSF? Governments? Legal system? Or is there no license that can prevent unscrupulous (cashed up) companies from demanding money - and using the "buying the license is cheaper than going to court" approach?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Rob Enderle at http://www.technewswor ld.com/perl/story/31479.html has concluded that the jig is up at IBM. They've been stealing poor little SCO's software.

This guy is an analysts analyst. http://scripti ngnews.userland.com/stories/storyReader$1541

"One of the strongest indications I have that SCO might win is that several of the financial analyst groups who work with me, after reviewing the SCO submissions, have concluded that SCO might actually have the advantage. These firms are relatively unbiased and, generally, if they do have bias, it would typically favor a company like IBM with which they have substantial interest as opposed to a company like SCO with which they don't."

This guy's got powerful friends in the industry. Laura DiDio, Daniel Lyons, Bill Gates and maybe even George W II.

"The other day I was asked what the odds were that SCO would win against IBM. On the basis of how the two parties were behaving, I offered a range of between55and 65 percent. I've spent a lot of my life watching litigation, and I believe that you can better tell the outcome by trying to determine what the parties believe and how believable they are than if you just try to dig through their rhetoric."

Enderle must be a great behavioral scientist. Psychoanalyzed the two parties.

"When the litigation first started, I personally had little interest in Linux and open source , even though I had covered it on and off for well over a decade. While it was clear the movement had engaged others, it hadn't yet engaged me. However, a few months ago, this changed because I started to get disturbing e-mail from people I had previously respected. When I tried to point out that SCO might actually be in the right, suddenly the attacks shifted to me in a very personal way in an apparent attempt to shut me up."

The poor little guy has been maligned. What a shame

"Were you to read the original AT&T license, which I did, you would find that it anticipated things like this and, if it is enforceable, protects against it. Let's pretend for a moment that we live in a country where you have the right to protect what is yours, regardless of whether you built it or, like SCO, bought it."

Let's pretend we live in a country where senior analysts have enough brains to read the amendments to a contract drawn up in the early seventies.

As is typical of today's "senior IT analyst" there is a complete lack of any verifiable, documented facts concerning the SCO-IBM controversy. So much for sources. As to methods there are gut emotional reactions. These guys generate word salad and try to pass it off as "IT analysis". They are to critical IT analysis what "script kiddies" are to serious programming. Dumb but dangerous.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Just two companies bought SCO's license in the month or so since SCO offered it. Why will all the other companies pay their invoices now?

How is SCO's defence against the Red Hat complaint affected by threats of legal action included in their invoices? Will they avoid Red Hat customers, perhaps?

Does SCO have the resources to sue any of the Linux users that refuse to pay? Why doesn't SCO just sue one Linux distributor then?

It is very hard to take SCO's threats seriously, even if one is a true believer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Provides consulting services during the review process of a poorly founded negative piece on a vendor or its products and, should it be needed, showcases the research errors, statistical mistakes, and unfounded conclusions that often define such a piece."

Pretty self-explanatory. Makes me wonder why anyone would even publish something from him.

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.usps. com/websites/depart/inspect/falsbill.htm

[ Reply to This | # ]

Read the PC magazine article from not too long ago, and you'll get some clues about how SCO convince some reporters about how they're going to win.

I would speculate, conjecture, opine, guess, that it might go something like this:

SCO: What do you use on your computer

Reporter: Windows (or Mac)

SCO: UNIX is another operating system

Reporter: Right

SCO: SCO owns the UNIX operating system [shows recent copyright registration]

Reporter: OK

SCO: Here's some code in Linux that looks just like our copyrighted code.

Reporter: Hmmm, maybe

SCO: SCO also owns the contracts to sub-license UNIX [shows some tatty AT&T papers]

Reporter: OK

SCO: The UNIX contract also says if IBM put stuff into UNIX, they can't put in in other operating systems [shows some clause in tatty old AT&T papers. that seems to support it]

Reporter: OK

SCO: IBM moved JFS, RCU, blah blah, from Linux into UNIX

Reporter: So what do IBM say about this?

SCO: They make virtually no public comment. I guess they must be worried.

Reporter: And what do the Linux community say?

SCO: While some of them keeping launching DoS attacks on our web site. Eric Raymond says the DoS attacks need to stop, so we can get this resolved. Linus Torvalds has said he's not interested in contractual disputes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

sorry about that.

--Shaun

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does that seem a bit high for the percentage of total employees in sales?

I mean, it's not like they're a door-to-door double glazing or vacuum sales company.

How many employees toal do they have?

P.S.

My personal opinions, predictions:

- SCO will generously extend the 15 October deadline for the "bargain" price.

[ Reply to This | # ]

...by approximately one month.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO has 350 employees worldwide ("Mitarbeiter weltweit"):

http://www.sco.de/company/scopr ofil.html/

So, almost every third employee is working in the sales department. BTW, "sales representative" sounds to me like a PR description of a phone monkey in a call center.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here ya go, PJ...dunno if it is nice, I am not a graphics designer. Somebody can make it better, I am sure. :-D

http://linux-universe .com/images/temp/grok_logo.png

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

What are the movivating factors that drive the PRO-SCO camp...???? Are these folks, that are so "for SCO", truely against the GPL, or are they MORE against IBM? Do any other companies hate IBM so much that they would blindly support SCO? Do some technology companies fear IBM's portfolio of hardware patents on future technology designs (that GNU GPL LINUX will run on), *SO MUCH* that they would now be wanting to blindly help SCO? Is McBride's silent majority actually a corporate list of really RICH old/new IBM haters, or is it a list of really RICH haters of the GPL who have been incorrectly told, by SCO/Microsoft, that the GPL prevents anyone from creating an application and making REAL non-GPL money from it? Could some want KILL THE GPL and to FORK LINUX in a way so that it FORKS away from running on any future IBM hardware designs?

If these investors listed above (a who's who of Silicon Valley and Wall Street, including Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, major investment banks, and big institutions such as CalPERS and the World Bank), and any other anti-IBM forces out there, are *McBride's PRO-SCO silent majority* then, they don't sound or look any of the majority that live in my neighborhood.

[ Reply to This | # ]

FUD Duck: An analyst, journalist or blogger who relay or repeat FUD ( Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt ) based spin and propaganda without bothering to ask the obvious questions.

Example http://news.com.com/2100-1003- 5070527.html

An obvious question would be "Does any OEM vendor sheild it's customers from threat of third party software vendors lawsuit? NO. Microsoft has already lost several IP based lawsuits, including Timeline Inc( http://www.timeline.com/021903PR.htm ) and Eolas, does any OEM indemnify Microsoft users from threat of the outcome of these lawsuits? NO. Why should you expect Dell to offer such coverage?

The so called professional analysts and journalist who continue to fall for this kind of spin deserve branding as "bunch of FUD Ducks".

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ are you looking for a Groklaw image?

Just in case:- http://members.dodo. com.au/~monkymind/groklaw-sm.png

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some of the same people could equally well also own stock in companies in the anti-camp too. Presumably because they think there's a possibility of making money there too.

Please point me to a company who comes right out and says, we believe in SCO, we support SCO, we'll pay SCO for Linux IP licenses and announce it to the world... that would be more like what I would consider a pro-SCO camp, I think.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Eolas able to pursue MS Internet Explorer users? Are they doing it? If not, why not?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks Brenda. PJ asked...tis the least we can do for all the hard work she has put in.

I would have gone with the T-shirt myself. :-P

[ Reply to This | # ]

pj PLEASE post a link or an article that analysis this document. IF you sign (I know its a big if), there are MAJOR problems with this as a contract or legal document. DEMAND CHANGES if you feel you have to sign.

1. They can audit at any time "in a manner as not to interfere with Company's normal business activities." There is no definition of how long an audit can last. No definition for events that can lead up to an audit. Even MS gives you written notice, has you do a self audit, etc. before they send out an audit team. 2. The definition of systems is VERY misleading MOST SYSTEMS WOULD FALL IN THE HIGHEST PRICE CATEGORY. Think about it. With Linux even a simple desktop has an ftp server running. 3. "Company shall keep full, clear and acurate records with respect to Linux Systems" What documents? How often are they updated? Why doesn't SCO provide a template? When are they sent to SCO? Quarterly, Daily? Hourly? 4. Once you sign you can only use SCO IP in an "object only" form. This means no source code for ALL of Linux. If you want to recompile the kernel, to bad. Add a driver, tough. Develop an embedded system with your own device drivers added to the source, you can't.

This is just the tip of the iceberg on this baby. It's horible. All those lawyers you would think they could have at least reviewed this thing. Yuck.

BTW pj maybe you or somebody could answer a legal question here. At the end of this thing it is section 9.5 it excludes the "United Nations Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods" Why did they need to exclude that? What is it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

1) What is keeping SCO from suing Red Hat and other Linux vendors? SCO has given the dragon a good, solid poke in the eye, so why are they being so careful to avoid the garter snake?

I think there is something significant in the fact that SCO is going after end users and not vendors, but I don't know what it might be. Perhaps Red Hat will be sent an invoice and then, when they don't pay up, SCO will sue them as unlicensed users. Could there be advantage/risk minimalization to suing Red Hat in this way rather than as vendors?

2) The words barratry, extortion and fraud have been bandied about quite freely lately. I would like to know what these words mean in this case. If SCO really does send out invoices for the use of Unix in Linux (that are later shown to be unnecessary), is that in and of itself fraud? If they threaten a user with a lawsuit, is that extortion? If they bring suit against a user, is that barratry?

I guess I want to know where the line between civil and criminal liability lies. I'd also be interested in how personally liable SCO management is. It is fun to imagine Darl and co. in jail, but how realistic is that?

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.tmln.com/press.htm

http://www.theregister .co.uk/content/53/29419.html

Is Eolas legally able to pursue MS Internet Explorer users for keeping on using the patented technology? Yes. Will Eolas actually go though with it? Since Eolas has been granted a massive amount in damages from Microsoft, it is less likely that any future judge will grant them damages against users.

UC, Eolas win verdict against Microsoft in Web browser case; Federal jury awards $520.6 million in damages

http://www.ucop.edu/ news/archives/2003/aug11art1.htm http://www.ucop .edu/news/archives/2003/aug11art1qanda.htm

Note, from the outset, Doyle and Co have targeted this lawsuit specifically against Microsoft, IMO almost in punishment for Microsoft's Antitrust escape of the anti-competitive Netscape actions. Neither Eolas or University of California have shown any interest in pursuing a case against Netcape/AOL or Mozilla.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The sales reps they are refering to do not work directly for SCO. SCO is not bought directly from SCO but through independant distributors. They probably sent a letter to each one. Now they can say they are actively "selling" these things. Nothing is stop every on of these guys from just throwing it is the trash. Most resellers of SCO are actually value added guys pushing their own stuff that runs on SCO. Don't expect a sales call soon from anyone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My understanding of Timeline:

The reason is MS licensed something (patented) from Timeline

The license does not extend to people developing on top of MS's stuff

[ Reply to This | # ]

They're investigating IBM for what will likely turn out to be a few minor accounting hiccups, but they're doing nothing about SCO?

See if you get someone at the SEC to tell you that what SCO is doing is legal, or that, hey, this is how the free market is supposed to work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

See "Proprietary is no panacea, but the GPL protects"

http://lwn.net/Comments/37687/

Consider that LZH/GIF Unisys patents, Timeline Inc, Burst Inc and Eolas may be the tip of the legal iceburg. It's taken over seven years to prosecute the Timeline Inc and Eolas cases, but each has resulted in MASSIVE payouts. I wonder home many other companies out there suddenly feel if they have been screwed by Microsoft.

See the thread Challenges and Strategy Memo:Pushing GPL Licensing and Profit Motives,Game Play and Tipping Points in response to one of CNet/Zdnet's leading FUD Ducks

[ Reply to This | # ]

I can see quite a few reasons why SCO might disclaim the UNCCISG: firstly, by doing so they could be implying that what is taking place is not a "sale" and thus trying to escape any obligation of refund. In most countries, you are entitled to a refund if goods were not fit for the purpose advertised, irrespective of a seller's conditions.

There are some more specific clauses:

Article 35

(2) Except where the parties have agreed otherwise, the goods do not conform with the contract unless they: .... (b) are fit for any particular purpose expressly or impliedly made known to the seller at the time of the conclusion of the contract ...

or how about:

Article 42

(1) The seller must deliver goods which are free from any right or claim of a third party based on industrial property or other intellectual property, of which at the time of the conclusion of the contract the seller knew or could not have been unaware, provided that the right or claim is based on industrial property or other intellectual property

If the seller breaks this article then the buyer is entitled to a refund and compensation. Pop quiz: why might SCO be worried about this clause in respect of its Linux licence? ;)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Has anybody seen any new quotes from McBride recently?

It all seems to be Stowell guy in the last few days.

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www. linux.ie/pipermail/ilug/2003-September/006192.html

it would be nice if other lugs did the same. initially i tried contacting sco directly, but that seemed like it might cross a line in terms of asking for the invoice. announcing lists of linux users and offering to send full contact details to ibm, redhat or sco upon request seems like it might be a way to call their bluff without crossing that line.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO probably plans to send out invoices that carry all the weight of used toilet paper in a bulk mail campaign. It would be interesting to find out if any of the first 1500 threatening letters were ever sent with proof of service on the targeted companies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

" If SCO wins [vs IBM], even a little bit, they can continue their quest for fees from some Linux users. "

Not in respect of any IBM-contributed code. Damages paid from IBM would prevent SCO getting any damages from end users for the same stuff - you cannot "double dip." They would have to rely entirely on code other than SMP/NUMA/RCU/JFS, and given the SCOForum fiasco that looks very weak, even if you discount the great difficulties in trying to convince a jury to award damages against an innocent, good-faith purchaser of Linux.

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://tinyurl.com/m80v

is this the smoking gun br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

While we are talking about end-users. IBM thinks some SCO products infringe IBM patents. Do IBM potentially have a claim against SCO end-users? Even before the patent infringement issue is addressed in court? Do SCO indemnify their users against accusations of patent violation. I would like to see somebody's thoughts on this. I would especially like to see DiDio's - if anybody happens to be in contact with her, please ask.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

all are listed as "Source Code Deposited".

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.linuxia64.org/pressQA4.p df

So my question is as follows:

Since Caldera participated in Project Trillian, they presumeably know that the SMP code came from Intel and VA Linux. So why are they suing IBM? Did IBM add SMP code also, (or maybe re-write the VA Linux/Intel 64 bit code down to 32 bit code) or is SCO just smoking crack. Also, if they knew that the SMP code came from VA Linux/Intel and not IBM, did they perjure themselves or otherwise mess up their case?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Very interesting. Could be that Intel/VA got things start then every one jumpped in. Despite what this says, IBM could have added SMP code from SCO UnixWare.

One thing I don't get in all of this. Why would IBM do such a thing? They don't get any money from it. VA/Intel are the main SMP contributors. If you have a problem with the SMP code and want something different, just send an email. Why add code? What incentive did IBM have to grab stuff from SCO/Unix?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another question. Would it be possible for IBM to sue other members of the Canopy group? IBM owns lots of IP. Canopy owns lots of tech companies. If IBM went after a couple other Canopy members, that would really put the writing on the wall. Is there some legal barrier to their going after other Canopy Group companies?

And yes, PJ rocks. I still want to have her baby!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

But I think IBM is careful. I think they would prefer to win on the merits on the SCO case. And not risk being perceived as some kind of patent bully, which could presumably isolate them from their open-source supporters. I guess it's also possible that they think :

- there might be nothing to pursue,

- or it's simply not worth the effort,

- or may be they don't want to gut Canopy using patents (which incidentally could still leave open the possibility of gutting them using some other method).

If IBM are reading, just for the record, if IBM found genuine patent violations by other Canopy products, and pursued them, I for one, would not have my opinion of IBM negatively affected.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

From what I understand the one million lines of code SCO claims are those IBM technologies they claim derivative rights on (JFS, NUMA, RCU...) plus whatever code calls these procedures.

And on top of that they claim that more code was directly copied from SysV to Linux.

However I do not think that one million lines of code were copied from SysV, just that one million is infringing even though they don't originate from SysV.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The patent lawyers at IBM are smart enough not to behave like raging bulls in patent litigation; they prefer to settle things quietly (like they did with Sun two decades ago). I wouldn't mind if IBM started offering some patent licenses at other Canopy companies, to recover the cost of defence against SCO. The cynical part is that IBM likely has a case here!

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is my first post, so a VERY BIG THANK YOU to PJ for all of her hard work and entertaining discourse! I look forward to her posts (and the commentary) regarding the SCO stories.

Just a thought I had - depending on the accounting system, SCO might send out invoices, then book the revenue. In our system, revenue is booked upon generating the invoice, so . . . . 1000 invoice at $1500 would amount to $1.5 million in "revenue". I'd like to see the A/R reserve for those invoice, assuming they're sent out!

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://twiki .iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/TrillianProject

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

For heaven's sake, don't feed the trolls.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This number (100) probably includes all janatorial staff, execs, security guards, and the programer. Everyone is now a sales rep at SCO. He also implies that no one is buying Unixware.

nm

[ Reply to This | # ]

Secondly, if SCO ever want to go after normal linux users, all they have to do is turn to the http://www.linuxcounter.org project and they can have some 137K right there.

I'm #85934 ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

IANAL (usual yada-yada disclaimers, etc.)

What needs to happen is that as soon as there is any sort of confirmation that the first invoices have been received, a class action suit needs to be formed by commercial users of Linux (SCO has indicated they're not [currently] interested in non-commercial users) against SCO, asking for a declaratory judgement on the GPL and a permanent injunction on SCO's possibly fraudulent invoicing action.

Now here's where I flex my rather atrophied brain muscle, based on what I've read over the last few days on GROKLAW:

If my understanding is correct, the reason to do this is that once SCO actually sends the invoices/letters to a single company threatening legal action, then *any* commercial Linux user can claim that they are under immediate threat of litigation, and can ask for the declaratory judgement and the injunction. True?

I'm so ready for someone to hand SCO a nice, steamy, legal-sized cup of STFU, I can barely contain myself...

[ Reply to This | # ]

I would have thought the class action idea would better fit SCO's previous Linux customers, who are now asked to accept new license terms. I never got an answer how this ball could get rolling.

IANAL either, but I'm interested in 2nd question.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

So much valuable info is posted here today. I do appreciate it so much. As for trolls, I know what you mean, but in this case, I am glad to have the info about this analyst, and I am collecting and thinking of writing an article about it, so it helps me to see what everyone contributes.

On the license, I did write about it on August 6. SCO Archives is your friend. Also, there is an article on how MS dispenses its FUD using, among other things, "reporters" and analysts. Integral Capital owns a lot of Gartner, last I looked, and the head of Integral was on the Board of Gartner. I'm looking into that very subject currently, and Silver Lake.

Thanks for the wonderful ideas. And the icons. If anyone gets itchy to be creative, I'm thinking it'd be nice to have icons for the new site for different types of stories, like financial stories, antiFUD rants of mine, GPL, RedHat case, IBM case, licenses, etc. Or am I getting carried away? No pressure, but I just loved what you guys did.

[ Reply to This | # ]

sorry, I could not come up with any good(or bad) flames. nm

[ Reply to This | # ]

100 sales people

2 definite licenses according to them, and possibly a few more (Stowell is unclear)

Ratio of sales people to licenses?

[ Reply to This | # ]

> Ratio of sales people to licenses?

Over how much time?

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

They announced the Linux IP license, August 5 http://biz.yahoo.com/pr news/030805/latu094_1.html after suggesting it was coming for some time before that.

So approx 1 month.

To be fair, we don't know 100 have been on this since August 5, but as SCO had ample opportunity to hit the ground running.

How many in a year do you think?

They better get going, as they said there are 2.5 million servers to cover.

If each license were say 1000 machines, and they sold 2 licenses, they'd have covered 0.08% in the first month. At this rate, it'd take them 1250 months, or 105 years to cover the lot. (yep I know there's a lot of assumptions in there, which may not hold up).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Enderle's response contained the line "The real question is “was Linux from scratch or did it borrow from
UNIX” as SCO claims and evidently IBM admits (it was this admission that started this whole mess in the
first place, well coupled with a falling out between IBM and SCO)."

Does anyone here have an idea what Enderle is talking about here? Did IBM in fact stipulate (as Enderle
claims) that Linux borrowed from UNIX? If so, was the UNIX in question SysV, or was it BSD? I don't
remember anything about this in my reading.

[ Reply to This | # ]

In this case, I modified the letter to attack the idea that Rob had done "research" of any real kind. I've noticed that I get better results from my letters if I saying something nice in the first paragraph, but the best I could come up with for Rob was that he "seemed like a nice guy." Oh well.

Dear Rob,

I hardly know where to begin criticizing your Linux comments. You seem like a nice guy, but you clearly haven't done your research. One thing is certain, the "financial analysts" you claim have helped you understand the case didn't do their homework either. So let's go back to basics.

As you know, SCO was once Caldera Systems International. Caldera was one of the original Linux distributors, but they lost an enormous amount of market share due to bad PR, a so-so distro, and poor marketing. However, before they stopped distributing Linux, Caldera's programmers wrote a great deal of code for the Linux kernel, as you can see here:

http://www.sco.com/devel opers/community/contrib/ http://www.sco .com/developers/community/contrib/linux.html

Much more importantly, given SCO/Caldera's contention that IBM stole SMP (the ability of a kernel to run on multiple processors) from SCO, is the fact that Caldera bought an important kernel programmer named Alan Cox a dual pentium motherboard so he could SMP to the Linux kernel. SMP was available in Linux kernel 2.0 - though I don't know how reliable it was -long before the existance of the 2.4 kernel SCO is complaining about.

The issue was discussed on line several times prior to the SCO lawsuit. You'll note that the last one is an e-mail from a Caldera employee:

http://www.linux.org.uk/SMP/title. html http://joshu a.raleigh.nc.us/docs/linux-2.4.7_html/44549.html http://gr oups.google.com/groups?selm=44qe0m%24gno%40caldera.com

So how can SCO sue anyone for using SMP in Linux when they financed the effort to create Linux SMP?

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Here's a URL where you can read e-mail from a SCO developer discussing code on a Linux mailing list. Note his e-mail address:

https://external-lists.vasoftware.com/archives/linux-ia64/2000-October /000684.html

Note also that he takes his promises seriously:

http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=linux.smp.3A87FA64.88B6CBA5@sco.com

Do you think he's contributing without SCO's permission?

Here's another discussion of a SCO employee contributing to the Linux kernel. The employee's e-mail address is someplace in the middle, where credit is being given for the four contributions he made to the modern kernel:

http ://www.linux-sxs.org/pipermail/linux-users/2003-June/017827.html

In other words, as Caldera, SCO was initimately involved with creating the Linux kernal. They bought Linux programmers hardware, allowed their programmers to make contributions, and still brag about their contributions to Linux on their website. How in the world are they going to win a lawsuit claiming that copying the Old-SCO kernel code (which is reportedly vastly inferior to the Linux code) harmed them? How can they claim that they have what the lawyers call "clean hands?" It gets even worse for SCO. After Caldera bought the SCO code, they announced a plan to unify Linux and SCO Unix. (Stuff like this has been vanishing from SCO's web page very quickly.) Read it and tell me if you still thing SCO has a chance in court!

http://web.archive.org/web/200 10603045933/ http://www.cald era.com/images/pdf/volution/linux_unix.pdf

Also note this ZDnet article. Ex-SCO president Ransom Love talks at length about unifying Unix and Linux:

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2807197,00.html

So now we know that the owner of the SCO code had made a corporate decision to unify the two breeds of UNIX and put the end result under the General Public License. When Caldera got new management in the form of Darl McBride, they changed their name to SCO Group, stopped selling Linux, and announced their new IP licensing program. How in the world can they go into court and claim anything was stolen from them when releasing SCO's code to the public was once corporate policy?

This brings us to the Trillian project. Before buying SCO and changing its name, Caldera took part in this project along with IBM, Redhat, CERN, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, SGI, SuSE, TurboLinux and VA Linux Systems. This project was an effort to make sure Linux could run on Intel's Itanium Processor. Among other things, the Trillian Project made sure that Linux would run SMP on the Itanium chip. SMP, as you'll recall, is one of the things that SCO/Caldera claims was stolen by IBM during the course of Project Monterey. However, if you'll look at:

http://www.linuxia64.org/pressQA4.p df

which is a FAQ put out by the Trillian Project, you'll see that IBM didn't provide the project with SMP. The SMP was provided by Intel and VA Linux, (probably a re-write of the Alan Cox kernel code I discussed above.) IBM provided tools for testing and tuning, but did not provide any "enterprise" enhancements. Notice this last bit! IBM was involved in two UNIX efforts and didn't mix them. With Project Monterey they coded. With Trillian they provided testing tools.

Caldera was a late joiner. They were to provide a distribution, but little or no technical help. Caldera was considered a "premier" Linux company at the time, but the best they could do was join late and create a distribution? Meanwhile, RedHat provided an entire software toolkit!

Now this gets interesting - or does it? IBM was clearly hedging their bets. They were participating with SCO in project Monterey, and with Caldera in developing Linux for Itanium.

In August of 2000, Caldera bought SCO. According to LWN, SCO, in October of 1999, (nearly a year prior to being bought by Caldera,) "...entered into strategic agreement with TurboLinux to develop services for TurboLinux's TurboCluster Server and provide Linux Professional Services for TurboLinux customers. Old SCO also made a sizable investment in TurboLinux, Caldera and LinuxMall." (Old SCO, in this case, refers to SCO before it was bought by Caldera) You'll find that story here:

http://lwn.net/Comments/36053/

So what's a judge or jury to do with all this? Look at all the devasting questions a lawyer can ask:

How can old SCO develop services for Linux without knowing what's in the kernel? If there was infringement, why didn't they sue back then?

How does SCO/Caldera get off suing IBM for giving Linux SMP when they knew that the sixty-four bit version of SMP, which is what they're claiming IBM lifted from Project Monterey, was in fact provided by Intel and VA Linux?

How can they make any claim on Linux when Caldera provided Alan Cox the motherboard he used to implement the first version of Linux SMP?

How can they claim they didn't understand the GPL when they contributed code to the GPLed Linux kernel and planned to release SCO code under the GPL?

Perhaps worst of all, Caldera was a major Linux company, taking part in a major undertaking along with major players. If code was being stolen from SCO, wouldn't Caldera have been an accomplice to that illegal act, and doesn't that render their hands unclean?

Lastly, notice what the Doug Michels, president of old SCO, had to say about the Trillian Project in August of 1999:

"IBM has joined so many things over the years, it’s not funny. I don’t think it’s put a significant amount of money into Trillian and it’s a small amount of money to be part of a trend. It’s important to look at internal sponsorship in IBM. Monterey is supported by Bob Stevenson, who’s head of IBM’s server group and Lou Gerstner [IBM’s chief executive] has also bought it off as a strategic initiative."

"IBM is not looking at Trillian as an alternative to Monterey. The real interest in Linux is coming from all the software companies that sell databases and transaction based tools because they are frustrated that Microsoft more or less gives these things away as part of the Back Office bundle. So they say ‘if you give us a free OS, we’ll make money from it.'"

"Linux may be there sooner than 10 years, but I don’t see any efforts there yet. Trillian is not that type of project and I don’t see them adding enterprise class services or performance management capabilities. No one is doing it. SGI has made some noises and people are talking about it, but it’s not coming this week, next year or before Merced ships."

SCO's "partner" IBM was working on a major Linux initiative and SCO's management didn't care. Talk about a lack of due diligence! Also note the language Michels uses. Sound familiar? You'll find the story here:

http://www.vnunet.com/News/88805

And just so you'll have something to sink your teeth into, here are several URLS discussing the Caldera's participation in the Trillian Project.

http://www.cal dera.com/company/press/19991213trillian.html http://lwn.net/Comments/36053/ h ttp://mailman.ibssnet.com/pipermail/thelinuxshow/2003-June/000178.html http://web.archive.org/web/20000826223041/www.ia64linux.org/pressfinal.pdf http://www.linuxia64. org/gcc_summit.2001.06.06.html http://www.ecommercet imes.com/perl/story/21678.html http://www.nwf usion.com/archive/2000/86971_02-07-2000.html http://www.linuxia64.org/pressQA4.p df http://radio.weblogs.com /0120124/2003/07/08.html (about 1/4 of th way down) http://twiki .iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/TrillianProject http://www.linuxia64.org/

(Note the web-link to the Caldera IA-64 distribution at the last site on the list, which has been taken down on the Caldera side. They've removed an enormous amount of stuff from their website in the last couple months. This is not how honest people behave!)

However, you can use the sign-up link from Caldera/SCO for the SCO Linux Itanium processor NetFarm at:

http://www.sco.com/developers/ia64/

Ultimately, going to the web page below, we find out that SCO knows about IBM and AIX and Linux compatibility because they worked on it together along with Cygnus Solutions, (Cynus is a RedHat subsidiary which specializes in implementing the gcc compiler on new chipsets) EPC, Geodesic, Merant, Parasoft and Roguewave. http://web.archive.org/web/20011006104536/http://www.sco.com/monterey/aix 5l.htm Does SCO's case fall apart here? It sure looks like old SCO deliberately donated code to a Linux effort, expecting it to be part of the Linux kernel or some associated program.

To conclude, Caldera had a couple bad years, Ransom Love was thrown out and Darl McBride became president of Caldera. McBride changed the company's name to SCO and began the process of turning SCO from a company which shipped a product into a company which claims to own IP and charges others to license it. In other word, when McBride came along, the company changed tactics and stopped contributing to the Linux kernel or distributing Linux. Now they need a judge to put the worms back in the can so they can charge for the same IP they once donated to the kernel!!

But let's not forget that they don't own the IP. SCO has admitted that IBM has both copyrights and patents to RCU, NUMA, and JFS. Note that JFS is only one of several journaling file systems available to the Linux kernel. If it disappeared, very few people would even notice. NUMA is hardware. C code for connecting one program to NUMA is likely to resemble C code for connecting any other program to NUMA... I'd go on, but I'm sure you get the point. Rob, this is what real research looks like.

I've given you link after link of facts showing that SCO helped create SMP, proving that SCO contributed to the Linux kernal, planned under previous management to put their kernel under an "open source" license, did actual work on Linux compatibility, (doubtless requiring a look at the Linux kernel,) didn't do "due diligence," knows someone other than IBM contributed the SMP code, and clearly understood the ramifications of the GPL. Any one of these would be damaging to their lawsuit. Taken as a whole, these issues are a mortal blow. I don't know what your "financial analysts" looked at, but I doubt they looked very hard.

Did they look at the USL vs. BSD issues:

http://cm.be ll-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/930303.ruling.txt

or the comments real programmers have made on the code SCO revealed:

http://perens.com/Articl es/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html http://www.lemis.com/g rog/SCO/code-comparison.html http://www.catb.org /~esr/writings/smoking-fizzle.html

or Eric Raymond and Rob Landley's work on SCO's lawsuit (encyclopedias in themselves:)

http://catb.org/~esr/hack erlore/sco-vs-ibm.html http://www.opensource. org/halloween/halloween9.php

or the Groklaw archives, which cover all these issues and more? http ://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/stories/2003/06/24/scoArchives.html

Frankly Rob, your "financial analysts" were clueless incompetents who didn't do their research. (Either that, or they own stock in SCO) How 'bout next time you want to know what's up with a technical lawsuit you consult some lawyers and programmers? If nothing else, you won't sound like you get your news by reading press releases and talking to guys who own stock in the company you're covering.

Also, you might want to do something about the software on your site. It won't keep my line breaks.

Alex

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anyhow, it's still the question of a brave 3rd party (I know that the publisher of Linux Journal stepped forward as a "here, sue me first" gesture) getting in, pre-empting all of this.

And I disagree with earlier comments that the invoicing activities are not related to SCO v. IBM, since the claims that SCO are making in that case (i.e. GPL invalid, IBM being Unix licensee means that any work on Linux is likely derivative works under original AT&T contract) are the underpinnings of their action to invoice commercial users. If their claims are refuted (i.e. GPL valid, IBM is free to contribute code to Linux free of "derivative works" clause in AT&T contract), then their justification for invoicing is completely hosed.

Finally, what has me honked off most of all is that SCO's going about this as if their claim of "Unix in Linux" is a fait accompli, when as far I can tell, they've only shown that they're capable of stepping on their collective dicks repeatedly (pardon the metaphor, pj). They *have* to believe that someone's going to step up and call their bluff, don't they? It's like their in a car speeding toward a cliff and certain doom, and they're too busy looking anywhere but at the cliff's edge...

[ Reply to This | # ]

br3n

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.linuxgazett e.com/issue94/anonymous.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Great letter. I'm thoroughly impressed, not only with the content, but the fact that you were able to post such a long post to the comments!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perhaps it realy was a DOS, but why no big PR effort?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OK: IBM/Sequent developed some stuff for AIX (NUMA) that they did a cleanroom port of to Linux. IBM says they have a legal right to do this, and that their agreements and amendments with various UNIX vendors say they can. SCO is screaming that it's SCO's code, and citing a wierd interpretation of a "derivative work" and a couple of clauses out of several hundred PAGES of contracts, amendments, and such. Enderly is following the SCO party line.

[ Reply to This | # ]

" The quarter ended April 30, 2003, was our first quarter of profitability. If we do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in future quarters and our revenue from the sale of our operating system platform products and services continues to decline, we will need to further reduce operating expenses in order to maintain profitability or generate positive cash flow. If we are unable to generate positive cash flow from operations, we will not be able to implement our business plan without additional funding, which may not be available to us."

SCOsource is their IP income arm.

BTW. It strikes me that SCO is just VERY badly managed. Why are they lossing money? OK I know what you are thinking so before 100 of you reply with the obvious "their products suck response" please think. They make about $20-$25 Million in revenue. People ARE buying their stuff. OK you have 300 people working for SCO. Too many for sure for such revenue, but even taking this into account you still don't get a loss. (300 * $50K = $15 million) The cost of making the goods is low (box and disks). My question is, where is the money going? You want to make a profit just cut costs. Its harsh but hey its been done before. Why do they need 300+ people? Why are they STILL trying to sell ONLY via distrubtors and third parties. You can't buy ANYTHING directly from SCO. They have NO standards enforced on third party sellers.

Try this, its fun.

Try to find out how to buy UnixWare 7 or any other SCO product. You know, just act like a regular customer. I did a while ago trying to find out how much this stuff costs. Its like pulling teeth. Go to sco.com which directs you to how to buy which takes you to a list of sites. Start clicking and one after another does not even MENTION SCO products. None have prices. FINALLY you may find one that has a price. No demos. No screen shots. Very little description of the features of the products. I mean could they try HARDER to prevent you from buying their crap.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why is SCO acting as they do? Money.

How do you obtain that? You have some IP. Find someone who is violating it.

Why is SCO suing IBM and threatening end-users with invoices? Well according to SCO there is a lot of SCO's IP in Linux.

Who put that IP in Linux? According to SCO, the likes of IBM and a lot of individual contributors to Linux.

So, to go for the big bucks, you sue IBM. You can’t go after the individuals, there is no money. It does not make sense to sue Redhat or SuSE, they did not put the violating IP in Linux.

There is an alternative, you can extort money from the users of Linux.

What about GPL? According to SCO there is a flaw in the GPL. They can argue that they are not violating the GPL because you can still download the source from SCO. But there still is IP from SCO in Linux and they want compensation for that from the end-user of Linux, hence the invoices.

So in the end, all stands or falls with SCO's claim that their IP is in Linux.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Agreed but take it one step further. If SCO's IP is in Linux what is the remedy? $1Billion from IBM? $1500 from 2.5 to 8 million Linux systems? I think not.

There has to be a resonable remedy and resonable damages. Especially since it will be difficult to prove intent to harm from IBM. They probably didn't put the IP in Linux to deliberately damage SCO. So the reward to SCO will be less and the IP license from linux will probably apply only to linux that is actually USING the sco IP.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Read the comments

http://www.macdai lynews.com/comments.php?id=P1725_0_1_0

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

"I have a hunch that the unknown sequences of DNA will decode into

copyright notices and patent protections." — Donald E. Knuth

If that's the case perhaps all of this is scripted after all. Perhaps the "substantial similarities" in your article are simply evidence in support of the argument for intellegent design, this only leaves us to figure how Darl McBride could figure into such a plan...;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

the above letter is excellent "Rob this is what research looks like" WHACK! (dope slap to back of head). I got to tell you. I wouldn't want to be the guy who tries to determine where all this code REALLY originally came from.

[ Reply to This | # ]

> Mind if I use it myself whenever I see a FUD Duckie doing his or her thing?

Please feel free to use/edit/quote as you'd like. Just make sure the link to Groklaw stays somewhere on the page.

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://slashdot.org /comments.pl?sid=70218&cid=6385932

[ Reply to This | # ]

Developer vs. buyer: IANAL, but it doesn't make sense to me. Presumably, the buyer paid for a license because they gave credence to SCO claims, so they didn't *knowingly* paid a non-owner, but I don't think that even matters. They could have donated money to SCO out of the goodness of their heart. The developer could say, "Hey, if you're so gullible, could you pay me some, too?" but I really doubt they would have any more legal standing than before to demand payment. For comparison: can Linus demand payment from someone who buys Linux from Red Hat? How about someone gullible enough to buy it for $1000 from me?

Developer vs. SCO: I would think that if the developer can establish that SCO's "IP" in Linux (whatever it is) is an unauthorized derived work of the developer's (GPL) code, the developer would have a claim against SCO for unjust enrichment, but then they could just as well sue for plain copyright infringment. Unless... SCO's IP in Linux is an empty set, in which case there isn't any copyright infringment. Maybe they could still claim unfair competition. Which happens to be Count V in Red Hat's complaint.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It seems like it's nitpicking but it really is important that we don't follow SCO in talking about "IP." SCO is using that term specifically to confuse the issues.

One issue is possible SCO copyrights. SCO owns the copyright of System V which over ten years ago formed the basis of several operating systems. SCO showed two examples of Linux violations of its System V copyrights and those examples were exposed as false.

Another issue that SCO is trying to confuse with copyrights is their contract rights with IBM other people who licensed System V to make their own operating systems. The licenses had restrictions that SCO claims were violated. When SCO talk about millions of lines of code they are talking about this form of "IP", but they are hoping you confuse it with copyrights.

SCO is calling it's contract rights "IP" but you, Red Hat and the vast majority of Linux users did not sign contracts that SCO is the beneficiary of. You cannot violate that "IP" no matter what you do. You are simply not a party.

That's why we shouldn't follow SCO in saying things like Linux may have SCO "IP" in it.

If Linux has validly copyrighted System V code then there are legal remedies that should be taken. But given that the origin of Linux is public and SCO is 0 for 2 in demonstrating it is there, that possibility seems unlikely.

If Linux has code that violates SCO's contracts with IBM, again unlikely, that is an entirely separate issue that SCO is trying desparately to confuse with the copyrighted code issue. In that unlikely case, IBM has harmed SCO, not any Linux user and IBM alone would be responsible for repaying SCO for that.

We should not let SCO get away with using "IP" in a deliberately confusing manner. If they mean millions of lines violate SCO's System V copyright they should say that. If they mean millions of lines violate SCO's contract with IBM they should say that. They are two very different things.

IANAL.

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://tinyurl.com/m9vl

wow

[ Reply to This | # ]

That's the nature of the VAR distribution channel. Any company that sells through a network of resellers will either make buying direct prohibitively expensive (grossly inflated "list prices" that no one ever really pays), or procedurally impossible. That's how the resellers want it... they do not want their supplier selling direct or undercutting them.

The dynamics of this VAR channel are key to understanding this "linux license" thing. The "sales force" that SCO talks about selling its licensing program consists almost entirely of independent businesspeople whose entire expertise is selling in some vertical market. This one sells to schools, that one sells to car dealers, and so on. Selling software licenses horizontally, across industries, is not their game. They will want no part of this program. If the 'target' IS in their industry, they will not want to risk making the customer angry because someday they might be able to sell him something. If the customer is NOT in their industry, they won't want to spend time on it because there's no potential for follow-on business -- which is where all these guys make their money.

SCO is going to have to give the resellers a HUGE cut of whatever they collect to get these VARs to do anything at all with this program. And even then, my bet is that the resellers don't do squat with it. And I'm a bigger expert in this area than Laura DiDio is in any area.

[ Reply to This | # ]

That's also an excellent recent quotation for the question of whether or not Red Hat is being threatened.

But does anyone still take SCO seriously? This is the next paragraph in Brenda's link:

<Dan Kusnetzky, an analyst at market research firm IDC in Framingham, Mass., said the problem with SCO sending out any invoices is that the company's assertions haven't been proved in any courtroom. "I do find the whole situation somewhat questionable because it is not at all clear that The SCO Group owns anything that's inside a typical box of Linux," he said. "I think there's so much in question that it would not be reasonable or prudent for a company to give money to the SCO Group until all of this is settled.">

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Speaking as part of a panel session at the Australian Unix Users Group (AUUG) annual conference in Sydney yesterday, O’Shaughnessy faced a hostile audience, including FreeBSD developer and AUUG president Greg Lehey. At the event O'Shaughnessy was forced to admit the legal threat against Linux users remained."

It wasn't pretty.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.idg.com.sg/idgwww.nsf/unidlookup/8A82F436CD6D4CA4482 56D97000A5F6C?OpenDocument

Sorry folks!

[ Reply to This | # ]

A couple of points:

1. They aren't dependent on any "case" to prove that "Unix is in Linux". They just need to drop the NDA run around and provide file names, version numbers, and line numbers.

2. If IBM wins SCO (and all other persons acting in concert with them) will not be able to claim ownership of any code distributed under the GPL or ask for license fees from anybody. See IBM's Prayer for Relief (f)(v) and (f)(vi) below:

(f) granting IBM injunctive relief, enjoining and restraining SCO and its affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors and assigns and all others persons acting in concert with them, from further violating IBM's rights as described above, including in particular from (i) misrepresenting SCO's rights and IBM's rights to UNIX technology, such as that SCO can, will or has in fact revoked IBM's right to use UNIX; (ii) misrepresenting that IBM no longer has the right, authority and license to use, produce and distribute AIX and IBM's Linux-related products; (iii) publishing false and disparaging statements about AIX and IBM's Linux-related products; (iv) engaging in further acts of unfair competition; (v) claiming ownership rights over code made available under the GPL; (vi) collecting license fees with respect to code made available under the GPL; and (vii) further infringement or inducement of infringement of the '746, '211, '209, '785 Patents;

3. Stowell said "I don't think..." That's a guarded understatement. I don't know what makes him NOT THINK, but whatever it is, it sure does work!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Brenda, or somebody, please post URL to this story. TinyURL not working for me.

If was Stowell, I would be thinking, SCO better win the IBM case. If they don't, I'd be thinking about responsibility for all those public allegations about IBM - and I'd be thinking, gee, are those going to boomerang back to bite, right where it hurts.

Repost of earlier question: Anybody any new Darl quotes in last few days? If yes, please post URLs. Recently it's like all Stowell.

If was Stowell, and I was considering the possibility that IBM might win: I'd also be thinking about getting written instructions from Darl about exactly what I'm supposed to say.

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story /0,10801,84617,00.html?SKC=news84617

[ Reply to This | # ]

"It's not the user's fault" that the licensing issue has arisen, but users are caught in the middle, Stowell added. "It's the [software] distributor's fault and the open-source community's fault for allowing it to get in there," he said.

So he says this has nothing to do with the IBM contract case. Then turns around and makes a case for wrongs commited by the distributors and authors that are already conveniently named in Caldera's Amended complaint against IBM (for example Red Hat and Linus Torvalds).

I'm missing the part about why the users should pay for IBM's breach of contract or the negligence of the distributors and the authors (joint tortfeasors?), when Stowell is even prefacing his remarks by saying: "It's not the users fault".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Only 1 letter different, surely this has got to be the only real claim, with SCO patented weasel-speak of course. see 4/5 of the word.

remember MS and Lindows

nm

[ Reply to This | # ]

And I don't see Open Group suing IBM or Linux users.

Harlan, brenda's long link worked for me. I guess it might be a glitch on my end.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Laying hold of the IP licensing rights to both Unix and Linux (can the BSDs and OS X be immune from fresh infringements?) is a sizable part of any market for a server OS. That's even more true for non-X86 operating systems.

The DOJ and FTC have some nice advice about IP:

6. Enforcement of invalid intellectual property rights

The Agencies may challenge the enforcement of invalid intellectual property rights as antitrust violations. Enforcement or attempted enforcement of a patent obtained by fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office or the Copyright Office may violate section 2 of the Sherman Act, if all the elements otherwise necessary to establish a section 2 charge are proved, or section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

and:

Objectively baseless litigation to enforce invalid intellectual property rights may also constitute an element of a violation of the Sherman Act.

http://www.usdoj.g ov/atr/public/guidelines/ipguide.htm I'm interested in seeing if they answer Red Hat's complaint with rhetoric or counterclaims.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OK, it's obvious from this that somehow SCO needs to be handed a STFU order from the courts; even if/when they lose
their suit against IBM, they'll continue squawking about how their "IP" is in Linux. They must be stopped.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

--Shaun

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

As the stuff, and all their other licensing activities are bunched under SCOsource, they won't necessarily stop some clueless reporter from say thinking the revenue that came in as part of the MS deal (which isn't about Linux, despite what some articles say), as being Linux IP licenses.

[ Reply to This | # ]

For $20,000 dollars in royalties he might try to destroy every infringing PC in America. Senator Hatch Makes $20,000 From Songwriting

Stupid Evil Bastard

But then again, why would he want to disenfranchise Novell? They have supported his campaigns rather generously in the past.

His son will get paid either way....;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Glenn

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nice quote from the end:

Moral of the story? I don't quite know. Despite all the arm waving, SCO is still unable to let me throw money at them. They don't even have a prospective license for me to view.

I'm continuously pointed to the three sentences on their web site, which is all that even their salespeople know about the product.

How is it that they already have a fortune 500 customer, if they can't even sell the thing to me using advertised prices?

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM still has SysV code. Since Novell waived SCO's rights to enforce the termination on IBM's and Sequent's contracts I'm pretty sure that somewhere in IBM someone has been poring over the SysV and Linux codebases.

Whatever they've found they're not telling, but their legal filings and the recently announced advertising push are an indication.

Heheheh - "rocket scientists" takes on new meaning here as a lot of the systems for the Appollo missions were IBM, weren't they?

Harlan, mind if I add your "invalid IP" observations to the twiki's lawenforcement page (with attribution),

OR (preferably) you could add all the stuff (who to complain to, what to complain about) that you've researched.

PS I'm still looking for other angles on this, whether there may in fact be a trump card somewhere.

Bill Gates over a secret dinner promised McBride a high level job at MS after all is said and done? Like Beluzzo after Beluzzo almost destroyed SGI (and MS bought the GL patents for a song)?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm wondering if Stowell's statements about the Linux IP licenses being separate from SCO's IBM case, might be to float the idea of trying to abandon the latter.

I'm thinking maybe what they might be shooting for, now, could it be that SCO's latest strategy might be aiming for:

- wind down IBM case or delay it

- try and get away from the Red Hat declarative issue (we never planned to sue them), and delay everything else

- pursue the Linux IP license idea instead

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]