Linux.com

Neato, soon it will be: who isn't being sued by SCO?

#

Apparently not Novell. According to The Register, Novell might be next because they violated a non-compete clause. This must have been one hell of a tele-conference!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/34060.htm<nobr>l<wbr></nobr>

#

IMHO:

MS = PuppetMaster
SCO+MouthPieces = Puppets

Reason - Stir the Pot - kick up the dust - bide some time!

Bottom line - Linux has MS scared (with good reason), paranoid, and the RedmondBorg mantra is droning away as usual - <b>WIN at ANY COST</b> - huuummmmmm!

#

Followed shortly thereafter by; who isn't suing SCO

#

SCO should have attacked the BSD settlement first, then if they won, IBM next.
Does this mean SCO admits the lawsuit against IBM is completely unfounded, unless SCO can overturn the BSD case?

#

Maybe it means they originally thought they had a case, and have since learned they don't.

Unfortunately, there are no honest sources of information to ask about there.

#

Nah, not if you want to maximize your pump and dump schema. They started with some big headlines and have had to outdo themselves every step of the way with outragious claims since then. This would be a logical step.

It in no way means they plan on getting anywhere, but it will probably (once again) pump up the stock price. Wow! TWO Rolls Royce for Darl please!

#

sco did exactly the right thing. darl is there as a pure ceo. it's his job to make profit for the investors and executives. he's done it. he's doing it. his pattern is pretty sound for that. i don't condone it, but it's amazing how many people miss the point.

#

Yes, Hitler also a nice leader only for benefit of Germany. hehe. Why we don't like Hitler then?

#

Because he was from Austria.

A german reader.

#

WWII Germany is an apt analogy, in the end Germany was devastated.

#

Darl does his best to keep the bottomless ship floating as long as possible. His 'tricks' are dirty nevertheless, yet farcical, but quite effective - in a short term. In a long term, of course, they're futile.

What IS funny about all this - that is Darl's future. Where is he going to work when it is over? Does he think he'll earn enough money to buy a well-guarded villa in Sicily? Or, probably, he's going to earn some pocket money spamming poor nigerians?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-))) He may act as a good CEO, but his reputation... It's down, I guess.

#

Ummm he's completely destroyed all long term prospects for Caldera, and admitted that in the SEC filings recently in fact, in search of short-term stock price inflation? That's what a CEO is supposed to do? Says who?

#

Are you saying that pump and dump is a valid way to make a profit?

#

//sco did exactly the right thing. darl is there as a pure ceo. it's his job to make profit for the investors and executives. he's done it. he's doing it. his pattern is pretty sound for that. i don't condone it, but it's amazing how many people miss the point.//

Is it the CEO's job to pump up the price falsely? I don't think so. Setting the company up for a fall is not in the best interests of shareholders.

#

The bsd stuff is almost a decade old now, they can't start enforcing IP a decade after the fact, it will be thrown out.
How desparate can they get.
SCO please just die gracefully.

#

I read about this and I think it's called the doctrine of laches or something similar. Basically if a company know about something and fails to take actions to remedy it for a period of time they can't all of a sudden start acting like it matters a whole lot to them.

What may complicate this is that the software has changed hands several times and the current owner has changed names and markets (confusingly to the same name as a previous owner of the software).

#

No, SCO shouldn't die gracefully.
SCO should die a painful, costly, scary death.

This type of IP trouble is what is going to continue to happen in the current realm (how many other IP claims/patents exist out there but are largly unfounded?).

Their painful, public death should be a harbinger of doom for anyone who wants to play the IP claim game with a handful of "fraud" cards and no real claims.

#

Despite the fact that the "bsd stuff is almost a decade old," SCO's is even older... they need to update their source code and effeciency - and what better way to do that, then to try to win a lawsuit??? Just my two cent opinion on "why". This holds for anyone or everyone SCO 'sues. Dieing with a fight, maybe, but this is just pure desperation!

-Cal

#

Um... Unisys didn't start asking for money for GIF's until way after they were standards on the web... so I think SCO (if the really did own anything in linux) could start enforcing IP long after if the wanted to.

#

Actually Unisys didn't collect any back-payments for gif... they only got money for programs developed after they started asking.

This is a different strategy from SCO who is saying the damage is done, we deserved to be paid for the harm that has come to us.

#

Unisys had a patent on the compression algorithm used in GIFs. BSD/SCO wouldn't involve patents. If SCO has any claim against BSD, it would be copyright, which is a totally different law and set of rules.

#

I dont care much about the BSD agreement. I am more concerned about the Novell/SuSE non compete agreement. If this was true shouldnt SCO have sued Novell for NetWare? That OS was in direct competition with UNIX on Intel and is still in wide usage today, Dwindling marketshare, but still in use. By SCO's own statement they should have sued Novell years ago they cannot seem to understand You cannot violate your own agreement when you want and then try to sue later and by allowing Novell to continously ship Netware without penalty means that yes, SCO violated their own non-compete agreement. SCO once again makes a bogus claims and and tries to broaden the scope of their aquisition of their UNIX rights.

#

A very good point<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we'll do some digging on this one. Thanks.

<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cp

#

I read on another site that part of the contract specifically says Netware excluded. And I also read from yet another site that the contract is specific to the source code and tech that goes into systemware 5. You'll have to look around, but I'm sure others will either confirm or set straight what the deal is.

#

If you read the agreement carefully, it says that Novell cannot use SYSV UNIX (licensed by SCO) to compete against SCO... The whole point is that Linux is not covered by the non compete agreement. The agreement says "Seller (Novell) agrees that it shall use the Licensed Technology only (i) for internal purposes without restriction or (ii) for resale in bundled or integrated products sold by Seller which are not directly competitive with the core products of Buyer and in which the Licensed Technology does not constitute a primary portion of the value of the total bundled or integrated product." "Licensed Technology" was Novell's SYSV UNIX assets, nothing to do with Linux.

#

It seems like a circular argument on their part... If they claim that Linux contains their technology then they can claim that Novell is violating the non-compete agreement. Voila! What a bunch of litigious losers.

#

Like IBM, Novell has a copy of SysV code. They can do a side-by-side comparison, and come up completely empty. This whole case is a failed attempt to get a buyout, that turned into litigation-for-hire for the benefit of Linux enemies. The only way that SCO goes anywhere with this is with a completely non-technical judge who completely unaware of the history of SysV vs. BSD, and IBM's lawyers won't let them get away with it.

#

Novell Netware is an Operating System. So is SuSE's GNU/Linux distro. I can't see what activity of SCO that could possibly be competing with.

#

Since MS uses BSD code in Windows network stack, I presume Darl's next subpoenas will be headed Bill and Steve's way. Keep digging Darl.

#

For evidence of this, use notepad to open C:\Windows\System32\ftp.exe

Once it it open, search for the word 'copyright'. You will see that this still has the 1983 copyright by the University of California's Regents. So there you go, Microsoft is using BSD code.

#

The Windows TCP/IP stack is *NOT* based on the BSD TCP/IP stack. MS bought the STREAMS-based TCP/IP stack from Spyder, Inc, and used that.

The few BSD tools that MS does use are things like ftp.exe and telnet.exe and the like. And, they include the full copyright notice. This is just what they are supposed to do, and they are allowed to do this under the BSD license. No harm, no foul, more people using good software.

Get it through your heads people: the TCP/IP stack in Windows is *NOT* based on BSD.

#

> The Windows TCP/IP stack is *NOT* based on the BSD TCP/IP stack.

Try to tell that to SCO! You're probably right, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that there are fragments of BSD code in there. Remember that, according to McB., it doesn't have to be a literal copy. It just has to sorta kinda maybe look a little bit like their code... sort of.

#

<A HREF="http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:OKPtQs1aiM8J:www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/6/19/05641/7357+%22Spider+TCP/IP+stack%22+windows&hl=en&ie=UTF-8" TITLE="66.102.11.104">here</a 66.102.11.104>



Enjoy!

#

Err, no longer uses BSD TCP/IP stack. At one time, they did, then swapped it out.

#

Yup, in Win9x I believe it was... The borrowed the code, dirtied it there it was.

#

Microsoft paid $24 million to SCO for licenses to unspecified unix stuff. That probably covers them until SCO runs out of cash again.

#

MS paid 50 million to license from SCO about 3 months ago... MS is safe

#

So they really do want to own all the software in the world. If they own UNIX, Linux, and then BSD, then they can also prove that they "own" all of Microsoft software too, since it is well known that Windows has a lot of BSD code, making it a "derivative work" of the ancient UNIX.

"Mr. Bill, bow before your New Master!"

#

Seeing as Apple's Mac OS X is powered by BSD, I can't imagine them being too happy, if SCO attacks the settlement.

#

...you can't just apologize and expect it to go away. The only thing that you can do is --- Tell a bigger lie! And voila! you become SCO, who is determined to ignore reality on nearly schizophrenic proportions.

The only way this ends is when SCO runs out of money. The only way to keep Microsoft from trickling petty cash into SCO's coffers is to get them embroiled in a new round of anti-trust.

#

I am not a lawyer, and I don't play one on the Internet, but I believe there is a legal doctrine that you cannot pursue the same lawsuit twice.

As AT&T's "successor in interest" to these contracts, SCO will be deemed to have settled this dispute when AT&T did. I don't believe a court will let them re-litigate a lawsuit that they settled, even if they are now unhappy with their settlement.

#

They settled out of court so it doesn't count.
However, settlements usually require all parties involved to refrain from going back to court for the same issue.

I'm not sure how it applies to SCO because they weren't involved in the original lawsuit.

#

The doctrine is called 'non bis in idem', but if I'm not mistaken the case was settled so it can be tried in court again.

#

What you are suggesting is still speculation at best, but it makes sense. Nullifying BSD is the shortest path to nail Linux and other BSD-based open source operating system.

However, if based on this argument entirely, I don't think SCO can claim damages; because clearly it cannot prove any wrongdoings on parties because they are in no position to see BSD and its derivative code is invalid since BSD was declared to have its legal status in a settlement from a court holding. Revoking the terms or even the entire settlement ruling, if possible, only proves SCO has rights over them again; but open source developers or enterprise users are not guilty because they are in no position to foresee that coming.

#

As far as Linux (at least the kernel) is concerned, SCO overturning the BSD settlement would not necessarily gain them much.

Linux was written from scratch based on publicly available specifications. Depending on how broad your definition of derivatave work is (I'm talking something resasonable here, not something Darl & co. would spew), Linux may not qualify. It certainly contains some BSD code but that doesn't necessarily make it a derivatave work.

#

This issue has been raised in the past. There is BSD code in Linux. The BSD license allows this to happen, and it has happened.

Of course, there's nothing morally or legally wrong in this for the non-SCO parties involved are concerned.

#

There is BSD code in Linux. The BSD license allows this to happen, and it has happened.

But the claim is about copyright.

The way to make the copyright claim stick is IF the BSD (and/or the USL) copyrights had been REMOVED and new ones in its place. The other way to make it stick is if the BSD licence was REMOVED and a GPL replaced it.

For such use to be legal you need to keep the BSD (USL if it applies) copyright and licence in the code THEN add the GPL terms.

Now....this code in question - is it correctly used?

#

Maybe I'm missing something here, but BSD had TCP/IP incorporated into it even before ATT Unix did. They developed it themselves. They were the front runner. They did it with Sockets. ATT developed it using the TLI interface. Much of what is in BSD was developed by Berkely. FreeBSD had to rip out the IPX networking to make Netware happy, but they did that. I don't see how SCO can make a case against BSD based on IP.

#

will join in the Anti-SCO crowd too, as thier slice of the pie is now at risk also.

#

hypothetically,
If SCO wins the BSD case then it can go after Apple for the Mac OSX.

wow, SCO can sue everyone I guess

#

If Apple go against $CO, I'll get a loan and buy the most expensive powerbook available, plus a G5, with pleasure!

#

(yes dear, it's true, check who owns what stock)

And Microsoft has everything to gain and nothing
to lose by SCOs behaviour, which of course is
why they keep pumping in the cash.

#

I think it's YOU that needs to check your facts. Yes, several years ago, Microsoft invested money in Apple, and recieved some stock (much of which, they have sold at a good profit). That is a FAR cry from owning Apple.

#

Microsoft had non-voting shares - meant nothng as far as 'ownership' goes.

#

And guess who SOLD those shares TWO+ YEARS AGO before the dot.com burst at 300% profit?

Microsoft corp currently owns 0% Apple stock...

BTW those were non-voting shares.

#

You mean their slice of the apple pie ?


  Peder

#

They were well aware of the BSD settlement before they purchased their Unix rights.

A settlement isn't a legal ruling that can be appealed, it's a binding agreement that the parties (wait for it) agreed to. When Novel settled the case, they effectively limited their Unix rights. Justly or injustly, once they signed off on it, it was a done deal and the merits of the case were forever buried. When old SCO bought Unix, they only bought what Novel sold, which was the Unix rights AS LIMITED by the BSD settlement.

If I own a piece of property, and I get involved with a border dispute with one of my neighbors which is resolved via a settlement. If I later sell my property, the person I sold my interest to cannot re-open the case with my neighbor because I never sold them any right to the disputed property, since I had waived any right I might have had to it in the settlement.

#

SCO acquired UNIX in 1995, one year after the AT&T/BSD agreement. They were fully aware of the status at that time and went through with the deal anyway. I suppose they will sue AT&T for devaluing UNIX prior to the acquisition or perhaps misrepresenting the value of UNIX when they bought in. SCO is just treading water and grasping at anything they can before they slip beneath the waves.

#

The argument, as I understand it, is that the "BSD" side has not lived up to its obligations, therefore opening a door for the "ATT" side. This sounds a little like the arguments made in the original case, when you think about it (It got tricky because ATT had not lived up to the terms of the Berkeley license on code that was clearly UCB's).

So, there is a theory that might get through the estoppel barrier. Or not.

-dad4x

#

The SCO Group "TSG" (Three Stupid Guys)
is *NOT* the same as the Santa Cruz
Operations "SCO".

This is insiduous, and even TSG keep
getting it wrong. I'm pretty sure they
do it on purpose, but....

#

After SCO acquired UNIX, they were then acquired by Caldera a few years later (and changing their name to SCO in the process). There's no way that Caldera would not have known about the settlement before they started buying out SCO.

#

It's running out. What do evil people do before they lose, but try to make themselves even more frightening?

All of you should pay close attention to this situation, because Microsoft won't be a rich, powerful company forever, and neither will IBM.

Remember, the people who used to run SCO were not abusive to people when they were doing well, and Microsoft is just the opposite.

As to this new notion of a lawsuit being overturned: What about the previous behavior of SCO toward the free-software community? Wouldn't their current behavior be viewed as malicious in light of all their former bombast about how great the Linux world was?

#

Now that Boies' firm has a very substantial (windfall) equity stake in SCO, can they be named as a principal in lawsuits? In other words where does attorney-client privilege end when the law firm has what amounts to a seat on the board?

#

Now that's a question I'd really like to see answered!

#

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=SCOX

Couldn't find them on the major holders list.

#

Maybe some big company like IBM should just swallow SCO up and fire all the people behind these insane lawsuits. I know they might be shooting for a buy-out to save themselves but (and keep in mind I know nothing of business law) wouldnt firing those particular people after said buy-out work?

#

The scenario you describe was SCO's Plan A from day one. The critters would regroup, buy up another company with a dubious IP portfolio, and do the same thing again. Only next time they'd be able to tell speculators they actually pulled it off before and made a small fortune. In case you missed it, Plan A (and B, C, D, etc.) has been cast aside.

#

Yes, yes.

IBM could fire everybody once a takeover happend.

Generally it's called post-merger rationalisation, aka firing everybody who a) You don't like b) didn't pucker up post takeover or c) Since it's a Wednesday... anybody wearing yellow... since you're in a sullen mood.

#

The guilty ones at SCO should not be just fired because they wear yellow or it is wednesday. They should be tied to the stake and burned IMHO. If they are just fired the can sell (or have sold) their higly inflated stock options and will make a killing financially. Instead they should be forced to live on wellfare for ten years after while they repay their debtors with code contributions to linux. (oh no, nobody would want to use those.., something else then).

#

Just got this from the website of the original SCO, now called Tarantella Inc :

"""Tarantella, Inc. (OTC: TTLA.PK), a leading supplier of secure application access software, today announced platform support for SUSE LINUX Enterprise Server and Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS as part of the new product release, Tarantella Enterprise 3 version 3.4. Tarantella has always supported Linux as an installation platform for Enterprise 3 software. The support of these two new platforms meets the growing demand for Linux in the enterprise."""

(full text : http://www.tarantella.com/news/releases/2003/7083<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> html)

I don't know about you, but i think it's quiet funny, if you look at it from the Caldera case standpoint...

#

I'm hoping that Novell, with its acquisition of Su.S.E. very well understood but management, will launch a pre-emptive suit against The SCO Group.

On the grounds that SCO Original was bought by Caldera, which an obscure part of the contract declared, would nullify any non-competition clauses;

  on the grounds that in an aspect of the supposed case that was raised in Europe, The SCO Group backed down rather than attempt to prove its case;

  on the grounds that this is in effect attempting to relitigate a law suit that was dismissed in 1994;

  and therefore, on the grounds mentioned above, The SCO Group would be unable to prove it was not involved in barratry amounting to contempt of court.

IANAL, but these seem like reasonable grounds for a pre-emptive strike by Novell - and frankly I'd like to see The SCO Group entangled in an industry-wide barrage of law suits, bringing all and any of their supporters crashing to the ground. Linux'd carry on the way it started, and there are enough high-quality F/LOSS projects around to complement it whenever an idle question is raised.

Wesley Parish

#

If I'm not mistaken unix intellectual property in the *BSD operating systems has already been tested and cleared in court.

It may have been AT&T who sued Berkley but I'm unsure.

#

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/gilbert.fernandes/usl_bsd<nobr>/<wbr></nobr> index.html

#

Welcome to 10 years ago.

#

If SCO or Darl McBride is not bluffing, then it looks like your prediction is right:

<A HREF="http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3110981" TITLE="internetnews.com">** SCO To Expand Its Lawsuit Beyond Linux ** </a internetnews.com>

#

they got nothing.

#

IMHO:

MS = PuppetMaster
SCO+MouthPieces = Puppets

Reason - Stir the Pot - kick up the dust - bide some time!

Bottom line - Linux has MS scared (with good reason), paranoid, and the RedmondBorg mantra is droning away as usual - <b>WIN at ANY COST</b> - huuummmmmm!

#

I know for a fact that SCO code has a ton of BSD stuff in it. Do a "strings" on any SCO binary, and that will become painfully obvious. It is also a fact that part of the FreeBSD license that allows SCO to fork off BSD code, also explicitly revokes the license if BSD bceomes liable. In fact, it is one of the few reasons a FreeBSD license can be revoked. Funny, you'd think with all that copying, SCO could have made their platform as stable as BSD?

#

because BSD came up with proof that AT-T violated their license by including BSD code in Unix withouot attribution. If the case is revisted then BSD has the right to counter sue for license violations.

#

what part of laches does Boise not understand

#

You can bet Darl McBride is going to sue the BSD community.

From the title "Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution" cited by ESR in "OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint":

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/k<nobr>i<wbr></nobr> rkmck.html

"[A] settlement was finally reached in January 1994. The result was that three files were removed from the 18,000 that made up Networking Release 2, and anumber of minor changes were made to other files. In addition, the University agreed to add USL copyrights to about 70 files, although those files continuedto be freely redistributed....

[.].. The newly blessed release was called 4.4BSD-Lite and was released in June1994 under terms identical to those used for the Networking releases.Specifically, the terms allow free redistribution in sourceand binary form subject only to the constraint that the University copyrights remain intact and that theUniversity receive credit when others use the code.Simultaneously, the complete system was released as 4.4BSD-Encumbered, which still
required recipients to have a USL source license. The lawsuit settlement also stipulated that USL would not sue any organization using 4.4BSD-Lite as the base for their system. So, all the BSD groups that were doing releases at that time, BSDI, NetBSD, and FreeBSD, had to restart their code base with the 4.4BSD-Lite sources into which they then merged their enhancements and improvements."

In case you missed it above:

"THE LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT ALSO STIPULATED THAT USL WOULD NOT SUE ANY
ORGANIZATION USING 4.4BSD-LITE AS THE BASE FOR THEIR SYSTEM."

Since the settlement was under Court seal, only The University of California, USL and successors know if this is absolutely accurate.

I will accept it as such.

Bet you a dollar to a donut that SCO has never seen the sealed
USL-BSDI settlement. HOW DUMB CAN THESE PEOPLE GET?

#

Why should SCO sue the BSDs? Do they expect to find money there? Of
course not. The money will come from the bolstering effect that this
kind of posturing has on their stock price.

They don't need to sue the BSDs for that, just make it look as if they will some time in
the future. If it really did pursue litigation, it would be over before it started: the
settlement of 1994 has been overtaken by a unilateral decision of SCO (then called
Caldera) in January 2002 to release all the code under an open source license. See the <A HREF="http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/" TITLE="lemis.com">mail message from Dion Johnson</a lemis.com> and the <A HREF="http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ancient-source-all.pdf" TITLE="lemis.com">letter from Bill
Broderick</a lemis.com> for more details. Yes, these are on my web site, not SCO's (I was one of
the recipients of the original mail message), but they're authentic. The content would be
substantiated in any legal proceedings.

#