Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
Sue Me? Sue You? SCO, Linux & Unix
Share
Print
CommentsOn May 12, 2003, <SLASH HREF="http://www.sco.com/" ID="55eb696142d947d7d11246bf939e9489" TITLE="" TYPE="LINK">SCO</SLASH> tried to <SLASH HREF="http://www.sco.com/scosource/letter_to_linux_customers.html" ID="425687e7ed00b201266796ff70e7e989" TITLE="" TYPE="LINK">break all ties with its Linux past</SLASH> and declared war on the entire Linux community. Specifically, underneath the legal language, SCO claims Linux includes Unix code stolen, or directly developed, from their SCO Unix code. "Therefore legal liability that may arise from the Linux development process may also rest with the end user." Therefore, "Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing violation of our intellectual property or other rights."
This is a complete turn around from March when SCO CEO Darl McBride said SCO's IBM law suit had nothing to do with Linux or open source. Right. The long and short of it now is that SCO is coming after Linux companies and users with hammer and tongs."
McBride immediately
backed off, saying, according to an Information
Week report, that SCO doesn't really want to sue Linux
users and it wants companies to voluntarily comply with
SCO's intellectual property requirements. As for the
language in the May 12th letter? That's only there because
their in-house counsel and their law firm, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, made them do it. "We're the messenger in
this case."
Most people will see this as a difference that makes
no difference. While McBride was trying to make nice with
users, Chris Sontag, SCO's VP and general manager of
SCOsource was busy
on the interview circuit, serving notice to
Linux companies, particularly SuSE and Red Hat, that they're
next. In particular, Sontag has made a
point of saying that, despite the UnitedLinux
agreements, after reviewing SCO's SuSE agreements, "I
would not characterize them in any form whatsoever as
providing SuSE with any rights to our Unix intellectual
property."
SuSE is telling its customers not to sweat SCO's threats. Joseph Eckert, SuSE's VP of corporate communications, says "the UnitedLinux code base -- jointly designed and developed by SuSE Linux, Turbolinux, Conectiva and SCO -- will continue to be supported unconditionally by SuSE Linux. We will honor all UnitedLinux commitments to customers and partners, regardless of any actions that SCO may take or even allegations they may make."
Eckert goes on, "SCO's actions are again indeed curious. We have asked SCO for clarification of their public statements, SCO has declined. We are not aware, nor has SCO made any attempt to make us aware, of any specific unauthorized code in any SuSE Linux product. As a matter of policy, we have diligent processes for ensuring that appropriate licensing arrangements, open source or otherwise, are in place for all code used in our products."
The SCO Splash
Few people expect SCO to win in the courts. Tom Carey, a partner at Bromberg & Sunstein, a Boston intellectual property boutique law firm, who doesn't expect the case to even make it to court, says, "If you've ever played hearts, there's a tactic called 'shooting the moon.' That's what SCO is trying to do. This is a very low possibility, high reward strategy that has a ripple effect that goes far beyond IBM and impacts the Linux community as well."
What kind of impact? Dan Kusnetzky, IDC vice president for system software research, observes, "Typically when you talk about FUD it's about one vendor talking about another product to get them to buy their product. This is the first time that I know of where a vendor basically put out notice that they're coming after everyone: Hardware, software, and customers."
The result of this, he believes, will be to "slow down the adoption of Linux in the US. The main winner will be Microsoft, or possibly Sun with Solaris on Intel or the BSD community." The big loser will be Linux.
Linux users see all of this too. And, they're outraged. Indeed some of them are challenging SCO to sue them too.
Sue Me? Sue You!
They're looking at this the wrong way. I expect that in a few days or weeks SCO will reap what they've sowed and be sued over and over again by other companies.
I am not a lawyer, but SCO has just told their UnitedLinux business and technology partners that the distribution they made together, based primarily on SuSE Linux with considerable help from SCO German Linux developers who had moved from SCO to SuSE, is illegal. And, clearly, SCO is threatening them with legal action. If you were in their shoes, wouldn't you consider suing first?
But there's more. SCO has also threatened Red Hat, Penguin Computing, HP, Dell, Sun, and dozens of other Linux-related companies' customers. Given this, I won't be a bit surprised if one or more of these Linux companies got SCO to court first.
Who did what with the code?
But there may be more reasons that SCO will be looking at legal troubles. Even before Caldera bought out SCO's Unix, SCO was adding Linux functionality to UnixWare.
Specifically, SCO added Linux compatibility to its Unix properties with operating system packages like UnixWare's Linux Kernel Personality (LKP). The LKP enables UnixWare to run Linux binaries.
So SCO was adding Linux functionality to its own Unix products, and was also considering bringing Linux functionality to its older OpenServer Unix. Given SCO's own reasoning, could all this Linux functionality be added to Unix without introducing Linux code into Unix?
Look at the history. When Caldera first bought SCO in August 2000, it suggested that it was going to open source a good deal of Unix. That never happened.
But what Caldera did do, as described in a Caldera white paper dated March 8, 2001, with the then new tag-phrase of "Linux and UNIX are coming Together" by Dean R. Zimmerman, a SCO writer, was to try to merge the best features of both operating systems. Early on there's a line that fits perfectly with open source gospel. "For a programmer, access to source code is the greatest gift that can be bestowed." And then, getting straight to the point, Caldera declares: "Caldera has begun the task of uniting the strengths of UNIX technology, which include stability, scalability, security, and performance with the strengths of Linux, which include Internet-readiness, networking, new application support, and new hardware support. Caldera's solution is to unite in the UNIX kernel a Linux Kernel Personality (LKP), and then provide the additional APIs needed for high-end scalability. The result is an application 'deploy on' platform with the performance, scalability, and confidence of UNIX and the industry momentum of Linux."
Isn't this exactly what SCO is accusing IBM of doing? In SCO's March filing, SCO states, "Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment."
Isn't this what SCO had said they were doing? I don't see any significant difference. Do you?
Who really owns the Code?
Clearly, before its latest management team arrived, SCO was striving to merge the best of Unix and Linux together. Before former CEO and co-founder Ransom Love left the firm, SCO made a point of telling the world that they were an active open source contributor to Linux; one of the founding members of the Linux Standard Base, a group dedicated to Linux distributions and application comparibility; and, of course, they were a major player in the creation of UnitedLinux.
So, given SCO's cross-breeding of Linux and Unix, is it not possible that if there is GPL code within Unix? This remains unproven, but if it turns out to be true, couldn't that code have been put there by SCO programmers? After all, SCO still refuses to say exactly what Unix code was incorporated into Linux.
But what about putting the shoe on the other foot? How much did SCO borrow from GPL protected Linux for their Unix operating systems? UnixWare, at the least, was given the power to natively run Linux programs with the LKP.
Is that a violation of the GPL? I don't know. No one has ever claimed it was. But then, until recently SCO wasn't claiming that that Linux was using Unix's intellectual property. By opening up this can of worms, it's possible that SCO may, in the end, find that instead of controlling Linux's intellectual property rights, they'll find themselves out of business and Unix's intellectual property rights under the GPL.
This story was originally published by Practical Technology. The opinions it contains belong solely to its author and may or may not be shared by NewsForge staff or OSDN management.
Comments
on Sue Me? Sue You? SCO, Linux & UnixNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Sounds like all the big dumb execs, need to go back to grade school.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030519/36/e0c0l.html
They're using it to ensure interoperability and maybe they have been caught copying a line or two too many and SCO is demanding their pound of flesh.
If, for example, Microsoft pays a $billion or so for access to this code, part of the reason is the exclusivity. They already have the same access to everything under GNU/Linux and the BSDs that the rest of us have. If then IBM, for example, buys the actual code to silence SCO, and then releases it under the GPL to end the dispute forever, Microsoft, having just paid a $billion for licensing, is damaged to the tune of that $billion...because they were "coerced" into spending money for something that is then made free and the value of their investment becomes zero.
I think Microsoft is planning to peel off that money to protect the concept of IP, rather than to protect themselves from any sort of lawsuit. If the code owned by SCO becomes GPLed, the end of proprietary operating systems is at hand for all practical purposes.
The exclusivity is the exclusion of anybody who hasn't paid money from examination of the SCO Unix source code. If it somehow becomes GPLed, or even public domain, there's not much left to the expensive proprietary operating business model.
Now, a company like IBM, that is staking much of its Unix future on Linux, might not care whether or not the SCO owned code was released to the world under the GPL, and I can see where they might decide to buy the full rights to and ownership of the code from SCO, just to shut them up. If they did that, then I'd expect to see them do something similar to what Sun did with the StarOffice code, or maybe even release the whole thing under the GPL.
But if Microsoft can prop up SCO by paying for a license they don't actually want or need, the SCO can continue to pursue a strategy of harassment as Microsoft's surrogate.
Just because Microsoft didn't need the license for OS development doesn't mean they can't gain an advantage by paying for that license. It's a poison pill to prevent IBM from buying the Unix code and releasing it.
hs
Who knows, maybe they're thinking of replacing the NT kernel with Unix. They've already announced they're going to overhaul the Win32 API by 2005, and enterprise apps can be supported via the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net virtual machine.
For the sakes of those Caldera--->SuSE coders, I hope the code in question is just "glue code," easily subsumed under the "fair use" provisions in copyright law. Otherwise, someone's continued employment at SuSE could be in jeopardy.
As for SCO, they may be liable for all sorts of damages that their rude behaviour has caused, but UnixWare source code will never be GPL'd. The worst that could happen is that SCO is enjoined from distributing UnixWare until the offending Linux code is removed. That would be suitably embarrassing for a company that seems determined to show the world their ass.
Who are the major shareholders?
How about an investigation and report of each of the shareholders owning 5% or more of SCO?
Let's see who is really behind the lawsuit.
In SCO v. Linux... This might very well benefit everyone who is doing anything with Linux now.
Since SCO was, before now, not restricting innocent 3rd party use of any LINUX related IP... then the innocent 3rd party users/customers of LINUX distributors could be free from any financial responsibility that could otherwise, if the courts hold that SCO's IP is extended to all of LINUX, be OWED to SCO. LINUX could still live and users of LINUX could still use LINUX (in it's currently acquired/purchased state for as long as they want...) without SCO being able to do anything about it. This is because of apparent or ostensible authority "agency" Law (mixed in with the content and meaning of the LINUX GPL that SCO is still party to)!
In the absence of any yet ruling from the court as to the current status of SCO's IP claims against IBM or any ruling from any action directly against LINUX... the status quo concerning LINUX may continue to exist when you combine "apparent or ostensible authority" with the fact that SCO has had extensive involvement with LINUX (exposing them to the LINUX GPL)... then, by the virtue of fact that SCO having distributed LINUX and with SCO still a contract member of the LINUX GPL governed UnitedLinux, MAY mean that any and all LINUX users are free to use LINUX (as downloaded or distributed by any LINUX distributor) because of apparent or ostensible authority granted by SCO via SCO's involvement in LINUX (thus freeing any user of a need to comply with the rumored 15,000 letters that SCO may have sent out to some corporate users of LINUX).
It could be implied that any web site or distributor of LINUX acted with apparent or ostensible autority (as an agent) granted by the LINUX GPL, and thus SCO, freeing the innocent 3rd party customer (any LINUX user) of any financial liability owed at any time to SCO by the nature of the LINUX GPL and any license governed by the LINUX GPL... as the fact is that SCO contributed to GPL LINUX for many years (as a knowing and willing party to the LINUX GPL)! SCO and the LINUX GPL may be now one and the same because of the history of the deep SCO relationship with LINUX (and her GPL)!
This conclusion appears valid, and if so... it would mean that it would be very difficult for SCO to enforce any liability or any premium from any innocent 3rd party user of LINUX (to date - until the court could rule on their IP claims whereupon the situation could or might not change, depending). Apparent or ostensible authority may have been the reason why SCO has been sending threatening letters to companies that may or may not be using LINUX (who would be innocent 3rd parties in this SCO v. LINUX scenerio). AND when thoughts of defensive action by these innocent 3rd parties is contemplated to an extreme... these innocent 3rd party users of LINUX could maybe find cause, and maybe be a valid cause, for the receivers of such threatening letters from SCO to sue SCO for harrasment).
This is a mouthful but read up on apparent or ostensible authority AND read the LINUX GPL and what conclusions are then reached.
From:
http://www.crmlaw.com/articles/agency.htm
"However, there is a doctrine in the law known as “apparent agency” which can defeat those expectations and impose liabilities where none were anticipated or intended. The doctrine was defined most recently in a significant decision by the Illinois Supreme Court in Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois Inc., 188 Ill. 2d 17, in the following excerpt:
“Apparent authority, also known as ostensible authority, has been a part of Illinois jurisprudence for more than 140 years. … Under the doctrine, a principal will be bound not only by the authority that it actually gives to another, but also by the authority that it appears to give. … Where the principal creates the appearance of authority, a court will not hear the principal’s denials of agency to the prejudice of an innocent third party, who has been led to reasonably rely upon the agency and is harmed as a result".
From:
http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selecte<nobr>d<wbr></nobr> =2411&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C
apparent authority
n. the appearance of being the agent of another (employer or principal) with the power to act for the principal. Since under the law of agency the employer (the principal) is liable for the acts of his employee (agent), if a person who is not an agent appears to an outsider (a customer) to have been given authority by the principal, then the principal is stuck for the acts of anyone he allows to appear to have authority. This "apparent authority" can be given by providing Joe Slobovia (who has no authority to contract) with materials, stationery, forms, a truck with a company logo, or letting him work out of the company office, so that a reasonable person would think Joe had authority to act for the company. Then the contract or the price quote given by Joe and accepted by a third party is binding on the company. Apparent authority may also arise when Joe works for the company, has no authority to contract, but appears to have been given that authority. Beware of the salesman who exceeds his authority or the hanger-on who claims to work for the boss.
See also: agency ostensible authority
agency
n. the relationship of a person (called the agent) who acts on behalf of another person, company, or government, known as the principal. "Agency" may arise when an employer (principal) and employee (agent) ask someone to make a delivery or name someone as an agent in a contract. The basic rule is that the principal becomes responsible for the acts of the agent, and the agent's acts are like those of the principal (Latin: respondeat superior). Factual questions arise such as: was the agent in the scope of employment when he/she ran down the little child, got drunk and punched someone, or sold impure wheat? There is also the problem of whether the principal acted in such a way as to make others believe someone was his agent-this is known as "apparent" or "ostensible" authority. When someone who is or is not an employee uses company business cards, finance documents, or a truck with the company logo, such use gives apparent authority as an agent.
See also: agent authority respondeat superior scope of employment
From:
http://wcc.dli.state.mt.us/TOOLS/Agency_Ostensibl<nobr>e<wbr></nobr> <nobr> <wbr></nobr>.htm
Agency: Ostensible
Glover v. Cranford/St. Paul Guardian/State Fund/UEF [4/12/02] 2002 MTWCC 22 Under Montana law, an "ostensible agency is created when the principal intentionally or by want of ordinary care causes a third person to believe another to be his agent who is not really employed by him." Youderian Const., Inc. v. Hall, 285 Mont. 1, 7, 945 P.2d 909, 912 (1997), citing §28-10-103, MCA. "Ostensible authority is that which a principal, intentionally or by want of ordinary care, causes or allows a third person to believe the agent to possess." Youderian, 285 Mont. at 8, 945 P.2d at 913.
Glover v. Cranford/St. Paul Guardian/State Fund/UEF [4/12/02] 2002 MTWCC 22 Where the purported principal makes no representation and takes no action which would lead a reasonable person to believe that it is in a joint venture with an individual who is attempting to subcontract for the salvage of a building, and the subcontract is extended without the belief that the subcontractor is acting on behalf of the alleged principal, the subcontractor is not an ostensible agent of the one alleged to be a principal.
From:
http://www.som.hw.ac.uk/buslm1/ComLaw2/Agency.htm
"3. Ostensible Authority
Authority which has not been actually been given to the agent, but which he has been held out as having.
Arises where:
(a) Agent has had express authority which has been withdrawn, but third party has not been notified of this.
(b) Agent is in position where certain authority would be implied, but principal has limited this and third party is unaware
of the limitation. "
From:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/<nobr>2<wbr></nobr> 33/brosfram.html
BUYERS, BEWARE: THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT'S ABROGATION OF THE APPARENT AUTHORITY DOCTRINE LEAVES PLAINTIFFS HOLDING THE TAB FOR TORTS OF FRANCHISEES—MOBIL OIL CORP. V. BRANSFORD
Re:One Legal Concept that SCO has overlooked.
Posted by: Wouter Vanden Hove on May 20, 2003 05:25 PMI know many GNU/Linux-users have difficulty calling GNU/Linux GNU/Linux. But this is the first time I see about the LINUX GPL instead of the GNU GPL.
So one could call the GNU GPL that applies to Linux using the term LINUX GPL...
The fact remains that SCO has swam in the holy waters of this license and can never be divorced from it and it's broad intent.
I had presumed that SCO's management wanted to stay in business. I was wrong. In the end, SCO's owners and some members of the management team may end up with money from being bought out. I can not believe that they'd ever get anything out of the courts. But, they've done it, of course, by destroying their OS business. Win, lose or draw, SCO is dead. And, back a few months ago I just couldn't see that they'd burn down theit own company.
Steven
AT LEAST Microsoft is buying into a crappy out-dated rendition of unix and not something that is actually suited for many of today's needs (which is WHY SCO went into the Linux biz in the first place, or has that bit of history been over-looked?).
Re:What was somebody saying about Microsoft?...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 20, 2003 05:19 AM"SCO Clears Linux Kernel but Implicates Red Hat and SuSE"
http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-10_Stor<nobr>y<wbr></nobr> 01.html
>:-\
Re:What was somebody saying about Microsoft?...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 20, 2003 11:23 AMhs
Re:What was somebody saying about Microsoft?...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 21, 2003 01:36 AM1) How much is Microsoft paying for these licensing rights?
2) What use will microsoft be making of the IP rights they are purchasing if any.
3) If they are not using said IP rights does this purchase constitude a subsidy to SCO aka Microsoft donating a part of their war chest to keep the FUD rolling.
Re:What was somebody saying about Microsoft?...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 22, 2003 03:49 PMIn my opinion.
The community must bid up ... ˇˇˇ free UNIX !!!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 20, 2003 05:19 PMRegardless of the issue of the Linux/SCO source code, tell me again why I should ever do business with your company, SCO?
Consider:
* SCO is acting on the advice of David Boies, who is, shall we say, no fool.
* SCO's story keeps changing, and they refuse to provide evidence of their IP violation claims, making it difficult for the FLOSS community to mount a defense, or even to rally behind a specific issue. (I see confusion and conflicting analyses in these forums, but only generalized outrage, no plan of action.)
* SCO will (according to current word) be licensing Unix IP to MS. Sounds like what's good for MS is good for SCO.
* Time is on SCO's side; they have little (nothing?) to lose in a protracted legal battle, and a great deal to gain. (Hence the aptness of the "hearts" metaphor.)
If a settlement of the IBM suit occurs just a year from now (even if SCO is destroyed as a company in the process), but the name "Linux" is so tainted in business and government circles that no one will touch it, that's not a "victory" for anyone but MS. SCO's recent actions seem like an extremely sneaky (but pernicious, and potentially effective) smear/suicide campaign to me.
I'd be happy to be wrong....
Andrew D. Hwang
As for the long term...
Linux, and open source, are the ultimate long distance runners. This race will continue with Linux wearing down the opposition thru the next 100 (and many more) years. In the USA the pactice of cross licensing Software Patent portfolios, with only big players benefited, results in the process being feudalistic and monopolistic to the benefit of a few and an overall negative benefit for everyone else.. Anyway, these Software Patents will expire someday and at this point in time Linux (and every other OS and software project) will grow stronger.
This long term - short term it looks like this SCO thing is just a small bump in the road.
Those companies (and individuals) who have already adopted Linux aren't going to dump it in favor of another flavor of Unix, or switch to Windows on SCO and Microsoft's "say so." The existing user base has seen a multi-year campaign of FUD from Microsoft, and has watched in dismay as Caldera's true colors were revealed. They existing users can see what is happening and they know they aren't at risk. It may even motivate them to accelerate their migration from SCO and Windows to Linux.
As to growth through capture of new users, the fact that existing users aren't abandoning Linux will not go un-noticed. The IP issue will become another FAQ to be answered for corporate and government decision makers, but that's all.
Microsoft's FUD campaign hasn't slowed down the rate of adoption/migration thus far. It is true that technical superiority drives much of the move away from proprietary OS, and it is true that the GPL license has helped Linux capture more mind/market share than the similarly excellent FreeBSD.
But don't overlook anger and resentment as factors either. There are a lot of people who view Microsoft as a "crooked outfit," and even more who, while they might not agree that Microsoft operates as an outlaw company, do agree that their business practices are predatory and unethical. These people don't like spending their own, or their company's, money with a firm they don't like -- and when coupled to a suspicion that the products are both shoddy and ridiculously over-priced -- that will continue to drive the same steady rate of migration we've been watching for several years despite the new SCO/Microsoft partnership for FUD.
Finally, don't overlook the political dimension. No matter what your political persuasion is, there are some facts that cannot be denied. During the election of 2000, the Microsoft Anti-Trust case was an issue (albeit a minor issue) in the Presidential campaign. Gore said that he would continue to pursue the case started by the Clinton DoJ. Bush announced his abivalence toward the case. Gates then supported Bush over Gore, and pumped considerable soft money into the GOP/Bush campaign. And while some controversy continues over the electoral vote, Gore's lead in the popular vote count has never been disputed. Which means there are more Americans who voted for a candidate who intended to pursue breakup of Microsoft than voted for the candidate who intended (and who ultimately prevailed) to take a dive in court. Some of these people feel cheated, and are bothered by some of the electronic balloting systems they'll encounter in 2004. They also suspect Microsoft is behind some political/electoral skullduggery. This won't help make them receptive to more SCO/Microsoft anti-Linux FUD.
All-in-all, I suspect this will come to be regarded as a foot-note in the story of Free software's voctory over proprietary operating systems and the GPL and Linux will emerge stronger as a result of this test. Microsoft's infusion of cash to SCO through license fee and cooperation on Active Directory will be determined to have merely delayed the inevitable for SCO and to have hastened the demise of Microsoft by further reducing their dwindling cash reserves during an economic downturn.
The economy cannot return to 1992~2000 growth rates within two years. Microsoft is having to discount heavily, having to live on investment income that has taken a big hit, and on cash reserves. The money pumped into SCO will have to be replaced, and it isn't likely to be replaced through sales earnings, or investment income in a down economy. That leaves four options: liquidation of investments, liquidation of reserved stock, downsizing, or borrowing heavily. Exercise of any one of these four options will trigger reduced confidence in Microsoft among investors...and another round of selling, downsizing and or borrowing.
50 years from now, college economics courses will devote about a week to the collapse of Enron and Microsoft in the opening years of the 21st Century, and 200 years from now it will have become a part of economic theory alongside the South Sea Bubble and the Tulip craze.
The goons behind Caldera were hoping for a quick score, but it doesn't look like they'll get one. Most likely this suit will drag on for years. Boies is no fool because he's getting paid every week, not a 40% contingency.
If IBM rewarded SCO for making this absolutely scurrilous claim, it's quite likely that this same gang (Noorda, McBride, Sontag, Stowell) would use the proceeds to buy some other patents or copyrights and play the same blackmail game all over again. IBM is correct to take a principled stand against these jerks. Their legacy will be that they paid high powered lawyers to take down the entire Linux and Unix communities, in an attempt to make a quick financial score for themselves, and lost.
Point taken.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
However, I also meant that Boies doesn't strike me as the type to pursue a wholly worthless case just for money. Not that I've met him...just an impression. Maybe he *is* just another opportunistic lawyer, taking SCO for a ride. In the worst case, though, he must see some strategic advantage SCO can gain from a suit against IBM. That's cause for concern.
"Just in the past couple years major corporations have tried to claim patents on hyperlinks and browser frames. There are at least two companies separately claiming patents on the technologies used by JPEG. You may have noticed that people are still using the web, and posting and downloading graphics files."
Yes, though the analogy isn't entirely reassuring. The web is ubiquitous, GNU/Linux is not. The average user is not going to stop using the web over some patent-infringement claims. However, it seems to me that an organization considering migration to GNU/Linux might decide otherwise if there were a perception -- even a baseless one -- that there's something legally questionable about Linux. I don't know what kind of IP claims a company might make over hyperlinks, but it sounds on the surface like a crass, after-the-fact attempt to cash in on popular technology. By contrast (as I understand it), SCO actually does have some *legally* recognized IP rights to Unix. Thus, the charge against IBM, however specious, may have a veneer of truth to someone not well-versed in technological issues (say, a judge:) -- or an IT manager:)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
"Their legacy will be that they paid high powered lawyers to take down the entire Linux and Unix communities, in an attempt to make a quick financial score for themselves, and lost."
I hope, in the not-too-distant future, to drink to the accuracy of your vision!
--ADH
SCO, I am sure, doesn't see the distros as the real target. Neither Red Hat's nor SuSE's pockets are not deep enough to make them a useful target. But they have to take a tough stance so that a court will believe they're serious.
If I were a top exec at IBM, I would pretty soon start talking to SCO to find out how much they wanted to surrender their so-called property rights. It does not really matter that SCO's claim has little merit.
If IBM fails to do that, it will show that they think they can clobber SCO in court. But that is a strategy full of risk, and big money hates risk. If for some reason SCO spurns settlement, that's when I would start looking for Bill Gate's footprints. SCO's suit makes no sense except as extortion from IBM.
The unfortunate losers are SuSE and Red Hat, who are caught between the combatants and have little leverage either way.
*shrug*
<A HREF="http://news.com.com/2010-1071_3-1007758.html" TITLE="com.com"> News.com Article </a com.com>
The offending code (which, interestingly, they refuse to identify) has likely been available for SCO to review for YEARS. Why didn't they tell the developers "hey, you can't use this" when the code first became available?
I can't imagine that any sensible court would find in favor of SCO if they haven't attempted to resolve the problem outside of court first. Open Source developers WANT to write code that's free of IP restrictions; tell them what's proprietary and they'll be glad to rewrite it. If it has been independently developed but happens to be very similar so SCO's code, then SCO must prove that the developer was influenced by access to SCO's code. If there are patent issues, SCO needs to prove that something is in violation of their patent. Why won't SCO reveal which patent is in violation?
Come on, SCO, we can't fix it if you won't talk to us. Or are you just after the money?
Come The Revolution, We Shoot These People First
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 21, 2003 06:59 AMRe:Come The Revolution, We Shoot These People Firs
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 21, 2003 10:28 PMShow me? Sue me?
Shoyu! Sue you?
Ki-ko-man, Ki-ko-man Cal-de-ra, Cal-de-ra
Show me? Sue me?
Shoyu! Sue you!
Kikomaaaaan Calderaaaaaaa!
It's hilarious if you've seen the flash movie first.
What's more to the picture than meets the eye ?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 24, 2003 03:51 AM1) As previously suggested, it would be interesting to find out who really is behind SCO's stand. That should be perfectly feasible examining who the principal shareholders are, or who of those have teamed up in a recent past or present.
2) A much simpler explanation is that either the board or the share holders have found out - or have been led to believe - that the company is going down. During the rough waves they've been riding over the last years, the company has gradually been taken over by Arthur Anderson-style accountants, consultants and lawyers, managing by spreadsheet rather than by real-life knowledge of the trade or sector, in the process laying off or chasing away many engineers,sales and visionaries. In a desperate, and final bid to cash in on what they have got left,these people are now resorting to other means than selling software or services : they are taking it to court. The US has become a very litigeous society indeed.
They know they don't stand a real chance against IBM. IBM is the company with the most patents in the world. Their archives may reveal more than enough interesting stuff to actually sue the living daylights out of SCO. Consequently, they are now going after Red Hat, Suse and the likes.
Anywhich way it turns for SCO, they will disappear They have lost focus and control. Not ever has a lawsuit saved a company from extinction or take-over. Whatever settlement - if any - they will obtain, it will just be enough to pay for the stupendous severance pays of a number of top executives, their lawyers and accountants. In no way whatsoever will it put SCO back on tracks, or be of any benefit to the people still working there.
Just my five cents,
Everyone seems to think this is an effort to stop Linux for Linux sake. There is more here than meets the eye. SCO is scared to death of Netware for Linux. Imagine that combination! This would even scare Billy Boy.
SCO has already done serious damage not only to Linux itself but to Linux vendors and end users alike. By creating FUD (and arguably, demanding money with menaces), they are making it difficult for clients to continue using Linux at present, and certainly to deploy new installations, while hurting sales by IBM, Red Hat, SuSE et al.
A countersuite for damages caused by this could be launched by those affected, the scale of which would be more than enough to keep Boies & co. engaged for a long time and could drive SCO into the ground financially without any lawsuit actually being won. How about it?
Gather the evidence
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 19, 2003 09:19 PMAs for the GPL'd UNIX thing, the incorporation of GPL'd code into SCO's UNIX products or the incorporation of SCO's UNIX code into their Linux products does not cause automatic GPL coverage. It does, apparently, give the other copyright holders the justification for suing SCO for violating the GPL, however.
#