Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Caldera Linux Business

Did SCO Actually Buy What it Thought? 470

Int27h quotes The Age saying "Just before Christmas last year, Novell announced publicly that SCO had known for some time that it did not receive all rights and ownership to UNIX technologies, despite public statements to the contrary. Novell has made public correspondence between lawyers representing both Novell and SCO." Lots of links and commentary on what continues to be one of the strangest stories in the history of Linux.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Did SCO Actually Buy What it Thought?

Comments Filter:
  • by wawannem ( 591061 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:31PM (#7921493) Homepage
    I mean, other than the dolts that may actually be paying the licensing fees. But, I don't see any steep declines in RedHat, Suse, or Mandrake sales. People don't believe these guys and it will be a matter of time no before the press quits attending Darl and Co.'s press/phone conferences
    • Maybe you should be?

      If they bring up real data, you could be in for some trouble. I'd not be too cocky until I knew for sure that the kernel is clean of any SCO data.
      • by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:43PM (#7921657)
        So how many shares of SCO do you own?
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:44PM (#7921658)
        1. The burden of proof is on SCO to show that Linux has SCO data.

        2. They must then prove that it is data that they own, and have not authorized other companies to include in placed like Linux.

        3. They must then show that it is not code that they, themselves, did not release into Linux, by revealing all of the contributions that they made.

        Even then, they only have a case against whoever released it without autorization, and they can file a cease and desist to anybody who keeps distribuiting it after it is shown to be theirs.

        Of course, this does not help them, because once it is known which lines of code in the Linux kernel came from SCO, it's fairly trivial to re-write those sections. Since their case depends entirely on these lines being identified and cited, I'm sure most distro companies will even be able to put out a "de-SCO" application that will bring old versions into compliance.

      • by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:44PM (#7921668)
        I have a question about cleanliness of the kernel (no RMS shower jokes please;). SCO has stated that all versions after some version are tainted. i'll just say version X is the last clean kernel according to SCO since i don't know what the version number is. Recently SCO has been claiming the ABI is one of the infringing elements, correct?. So how is the ABI different in the clean version X and the "tainted" versions?

      • If the kernel has SCO code, then it will be replaced. Also, retroactive damages couldn't possibly be tallied onto SOHO users, just the big guns.

        SCO claims that the amount of code in question is simply too big to replace, which implies they are using Linux being a UNIX clone as a defense. I highly doubt rewriting simple bits and pieces would be as tough as, say, a disk IO layer.

        You have a point, though. The grandparent was a bit comfy in his dismissal.

        • by Flower ( 31351 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @08:13PM (#7923116) Homepage
          SCO hasn't even tried to work with the developers to remove the code. The developers keep asking what SCO thinks is infringing and SCO keeps demanding they sign a NDA which would effectively kill their careers in the *nix/OSS world.

          No, I don't see SCO getting much in retroactive damages and imnsho that isn't their plan. Actually fixing the problem kills their ability to license linux in the future. Byebye to the revenue stream they're betting the business on.

      • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @06:52PM (#7922416) Journal
        I'd not be too cocky until I knew for sure that the kernel is clean of any SCO data.

        Ahh, but that is how SCO's plan is brilliant. It is a logical impossiblity to prove a negative. Thus, there will never be concrete proof that there are no violations of SCO's copyright in Linux.

        Furthermore, you appear to have fallen for the other common trap, which is that there is SCO "data" in Linux. SCO put it there themselves. The real issue is the mythical existence of code that is somehow in violation of SCO's "IP rights".

      • Don't confuse what SCO is saying outside the court with what they are saying inside the court. Outside statements can't help them inside, but supply potential ammunition for the opposition. That's why IBM and RedHat have had so little to say.

        Inside the court, there has been no talk by SCO of "millions of lines" or "literal copying". They seem to be following the line that IBM's contributions to Linux, if based directly or indirectly on AIX, were improper. And that until IBM details what those contri
    • Isn't tomorrow... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Valdrax ( 32670 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:51PM (#7921742)
      Isn't tomorrow "put up or shut up" day for SCO?
      • Re:Isn't tomorrow... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Zeelan ( 533372 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @07:15PM (#7922625) Homepage
        There put up or shut up day is on the 12th... technicallly the 11th... but they should have turnned in what they have to trun in by Monday Afternoon. Sense they had 30 days from the day that the order was signed.

        Even then we will not see what it is for a while less some of the papers are filed in a more public area.

        you should read Groklaw.

        Chahala
    • by ignipotentis ( 461249 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:54PM (#7921780)
      But yet, their stock is still not taking a nose dive...
      • SCO's Stock (Score:5, Informative)

        by CmdrGravy ( 645153 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @06:17PM (#7922011) Homepage
        I've been reading a lot about SCO's stock, following a lot of interesting links on Groklaw.

        From what I can see the vast bulk of SCO's stock appears to be owned by either SCO or people and business from the Canopy group so the small amount of dealing going on from people not in those groups is pretty small compared to the dealing going on by people in the groups.

        This means that it's quite easy for Canopy and SCO to keep the stock price pretty high by simply trading it amongst themselves, specifically a lot of people have noticed that the stock begins to dive in the mornings but then before the close a number of trades will be made at very high prices leaving the stock with a high closing price.

        Anyone interested should look for the links and commentary on Groklaw since my memory and understanding isn't perfect.

        This has specific implications for anyone thinking of shorting the SCO stock because basically SCO and Canopy have pretty good control over what the stock does and that's bad news for people hoping that it will act as though it was largely owned by members of the public.
    • by NightSpots ( 682462 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:58PM (#7921828) Homepage
      Actually, by Novell's own admission, this isn't a clearcut issue, and in fact, my interpretation of the article suggests that while they (SCO) do not currently own the copyrights, they COULD petition to be granted ownership.

      The article says that Amendment 2 states that ownership of the copyrights is not transferred until/unless it is shown that ownership of the copyrights is required for SCO to fulfill the purchase agreement, ie: purchasing the rights to develop and deploy the original UNIX code. Obviously, the amendment leaves some play on both sides, but it's not entirely unreasonable for SCO to state (and then attempt to demonstrate) that ownership of the copyrights is required by them in order to defend against apparent illegal copyright infringment from a third party. In this instance, ownership of the copyright would allow SCO to defend its corporation and continue developing and deploying UNIX, and therefore may actually give SCO the rights it needs to claim ownership of the copyrights.

      This isn't a cut-and-dry issue at all. There's a LOT of play, and while I have tremendous faith in IBMs lawyers, there is definitely more than one scenario where SCO could come out ahead.
      • by foandd ( 629361 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @06:42PM (#7922300)
        While I agree that this is nowhere near the slam-dunk that the linked article makes out, there is a possibly important point here that people seem to be missing. If the amendment states that copyright is transferred only insofar as SCO needs it to fulfill the original contract (which basically allows them exclusively to sell that version of Unix), it still leaves SCO with a few problems:
        • The original agreement could be fulfilled by only granting copyright on the binaries (as a derivative work), not the source. SCO would need copyright on the source to sell it outright, but not to license it or create derivative works, which it appears possible is all the original agreement allows them to do.
        • They don't need exclusive copyright to do any of the things which the original agreements give them the rights to; shared copyright is enough (and contrary to what most people seem to think, nothing in copyright law requires it to be exclusive). While it may be possible (if doubtful) for them to claim that they need full rights in order to be able to license Unix, it would be hard to interpret things in a manner which shows that they would need exclusive rights. Even if SCO won this part of the argument, Novell would have an argument that the amendment's granting of rights to SCO does not remove them from Novell.
        • The original agreement grants SCO exclusive rights to license Unix; it does not guarantee they will do so profitably. Many arguments in favor of SCO's amendment two interpretation come down to "they won't make money if it's interpreted otherwise." Whether or not SCO manages to make money from it is immaterial. All that matters is whether or not they can license it, and even if you take Novell's interpretation as gospel, they can still do that.
        As you note, there's a lot of wiggle room here, but in terms of their assault on Linux I'd say most of it is not on SCO's side of the argument.
      • The article says that Amendment 2 states that ownership of the copyrights is not transferred until/unless it is shown that ownership of the copyrights is required for SCO to fulfill the purchase agreement

        Not exactly. It says that they get "All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies."

        In other words, they get the rights to use, sell, and license code related to Unix and UnixWare. It doesn't say they have exclusive rights to it.

        If I were to write a program, then sell you the rights to use it however you wanted, that wouldn't necessarily take away my rights to do whatever I wanted with it unless we both agreed to that in the terms of the contract.

        The amendment even goes on to say that should either party be involved in a buy-out of the copyrights (complete transfer of all rights) the other must be notified. This clearly indicates that the Amendment doesn't transfer all rights to SCO.
      • by bronxist ( 682058 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @07:00PM (#7922481)
        Nightspots says: ... but it's not entirely unreasonable for SCO to state (and then attempt to demonstrate) that ownership of the copyrights is required by them in order to defend against apparent illegal copyright infringment from a third party.

        If SCO does not own the copyright there is no need for them to defend it -- that's the job of the copyright owner. And if there is no need for them to defend it, apparently they don't own it.

        b.
    • I mean, other than the dolts that may actually be paying the licensing fees. But, I don't see any steep declines in RedHat, Suse, or Mandrake sales.

      Perhaps there is no decline but it is possible that sales have been harmed anyway. Maybe RedHat would have sold 10x as many boxes this year if it wasn't for SCO. Everybody - and I mean everybody, not just the advocates - has been saying that this was the "boom year" for Linux. Sales have been disappointing for a "boom year". Maybe SCO was a factor in that.

  • Obligatory (Score:5, Informative)

    by GnrlFajita ( 732246 ) <brad AT thewillards DOT us> on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:31PM (#7921495) Homepage
    Groklaw link here [groklaw.net], with analysis and more links.

    Where this story was posted yesterday, of course.

  • Groklaw (Score:5, Interesting)

    by donnz ( 135658 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:33PM (#7921512) Homepage Journal
    And of course Groklaw [groklaw.net] has had the full analysis for a while now, including the fact that SCOs filings missed mentioning this dispute, even going so far as to deny there was any ongoing dispute with third parties over Copyright...some pants combusting rather brightly over in Salt Lake City.
  • Maybe (Score:5, Funny)

    by pheared ( 446683 ) <kevinNO@SPAMpheared.net> on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:33PM (#7921514) Homepage
    But SCO must know that they bought the farm. On this we can agree.
  • Fraud? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by anachattak ( 650234 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:33PM (#7921515)
    So if they knew, or should have known, that their rights were not as expansive as they represented, and they knowingly misrepresented the scale of those rights to the persons they offered licenses, and those persons bought those licenses based on those misrepresentations.....sounds like a big fat old prima facie fraud case to me.
  • by strictnein ( 318940 ) * <strictfoo-slashdot AT yahoo DOT com> on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:33PM (#7921519) Homepage Journal
    SCO Group (NASDAQ SC:SCOX)
    17.05 -0.95 / -5.28%

  • for SCO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mr_tommy ( 619972 ) <(tgraham) (at) (gmail.com)> on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:33PM (#7921525) Journal
    SCO has gone to far now to simply back off, or admit they were wrong. They have invested their whole business in this, and have no option but to go forward and proceed with litigation. If they back of now they loose face and the business will probably crash. If they loose in court, they have the same situation, except they lost alot of money on lawyers instead.

    HOWEVER, if they win in the quirky US legal system, who knows. They might make alot of money, and keep on putting out super duper products :S
    • Re: for SCO (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:45PM (#7921672)


      > SCO has gone to far now to simply back off, or admit they were wrong. They have invested their whole business in this, and have no option but to go forward and proceed with litigation. If they back of now they loose face and the business will probably crash.

      Like they care. We're not really dealing with SCO, we're dealing with The Canopy Group, which chased the ambulance, bought the wounded body, and threw it into passing traffic in hopes of suing on the body's behalf.

      SCO is nothing more than Canopy Group's dirty bomb, deployed to extort money under the threat of wanton destruction. CG isn't going to shed any tears over the fate of the bomb.

      • Re: for SCO (Score:5, Funny)

        by brocheck ( 59415 ) <brocheckNO@SPAMsatlug.org> on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:56PM (#7921802) Homepage
        The Canopy Group sounds supsciously like Umbrella Corporation.
      • Re: for SCO (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PCM2 ( 4486 )

        Like they care. We're not really dealing with SCO, we're dealing with The Canopy Group, which chased the ambulance, bought the wounded body, and threw it into passing traffic in hopes of suing on the body's behalf.

        I really wonder. If we are to believe Ransom Love's recent comments [com.com], "Darl took [trying to indemnify people who had used both Unix and Linux] in a little different direction than we intended."

        On the other hand, Darl's dedication to making a buck for himself [thecopiernetwork.com] is well-documented.

    • Today's Lesson (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 ) *
      SCO has gone to far now to simply back off


      Today's Lesson: It's better to deny the truth as long as you can, putting off going down in a spectacular and brilliant fireball until it's inevitable than face reality, appolgise and make the best of it.


      Small wonder the rest of the world thinks americans are wackos. It's not just the way we do business, it's a way of life.

      • Re:Today's Lesson (Score:3, Insightful)

        by arth1 ( 260657 )

        Today's Lesson: It's better to deny the truth as long as you can, putting off going down in a spectacular and brilliant fireball until it's inevitable than face reality, appolgise and make the best of it.

        Small wonder the rest of the world thinks americans are wackos. It's not just the way we do business, it's a way of life.

        The world thinks you're wackos, yes, but not for the reason you think. It's not because you don't back down -- that's an admirable trait -- but because you do things for three reason

  • by The One KEA ( 707661 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:35PM (#7921543) Journal
    Novell's sudden assertion of their ownership of UNIX copyrights seemed to derail the SCO case in its early stages; it's nice to see that their explanation of this provides yet another nail in SCO's coffin. Way to go, Novell.

    Let's just hope that they remain Linux-friendly.
    • Y0uR s1gN4tUR3 h4S aN eRR0r : y()u sUr3ly w4Nt t0 sA`/ "@|\| Ub3r 3l33t", no7 "Ub5r".

      G33z, th0s3 y0uNG b0yZ r3alLy dO|\|'7 |<n0W ho\^/ t0 sP3LL...

    • As much as I'd like Novell to be right, it really isn't clear-cut at all who owns the Unix copyrights.

      The original Asset purchase agreement [groklaw.net] does not give SCO any copyrights, but amendment 2 [sec.gov] to the deal raises questions. SCO says this gives them copyrights, Novell disagrees.

      What does the amendment say?
      The section on assets excluded from the deal is:
      All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights
  • No, Thanks to IBM (Score:5, Interesting)

    by holzp ( 87423 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:35PM (#7921545)
    I don't think they thought they would be buying the World of Pain [forbes.com] they are walking into...
  • by frodo from middle ea ( 602941 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:36PM (#7921571) Homepage
    With all that legal mumbo-jumbo that goes in to a contract, is it little surprize that SCO , never really understood what they are buying ?

    Legal writing though very explicit and written typically in cover-all-bases fashion, is way too complicated to be understood by us mere mortals. (lawyers are not mortals, they are the undead). And SCO's boat was already sinking when they supposedly bought these rights, So the competency of their legal department is highly questionable. I bet they had some pro-bono lawyer working on this.

  • by Cosmik ( 730707 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:36PM (#7921581) Homepage
    I'd like to believe that SCO didn't exactly know what they were buying.

    This would still leave me with some faith in major software corporations, whereas the view of SCO knowing what they were buying and subsequently stirring up all this crap makes me want to wince.

    Then again, on second thought, why would I want to have faith in a company that can't read the fine writing? They try to get my to sign my life away each EULA I click by hiding things in the fine writing.

    It's like trying to barrack for a winner between Carrot Top and Rosanne Barr. Oh the humanity!
    • by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Thursday January 08, 2004 @07:24PM (#7922707) Journal
      The old SCO is now Tarantella. Caldera took over the name.

      The old SCO may have known exactly what they were buying. But the new SCO has to do a lot of detective work.

      It should be noted that Tarantella has recently expanded their product support for Linux. They wouldn't do this if they thought SCO had a case, and being the ones that acquired UNIX from Novell, they're in the best position to know.
  • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:37PM (#7921592) Homepage Journal
    So, in the light of these Linux lawsuits, where does this leave the rest of us? Probably a little safer than we thought we were. Novell is running long and strong on detail, SCO just as long and strong on rhetoric! When one lawyer quotes details and the other is doing little more than flapping his arms, I tend to go with the details.

    Effectively, SCO is maintaining it's stance that it is on firm ground, with assets well in hand, for the alternative is disaster. Deny reality as long as possible, hope stock price rises as gullible investers throw away money and sell (which SCO execs did) before reality asserts itself. Nice ploy, when you got nothing else.

  • by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06NO@SPAMemail.com> on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:39PM (#7921608)
    Darl, David, here is your great big can of whup-ass and your world of pain.

    "Thank you sir, can I have another?"

  • by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:40PM (#7921622)
    I just can't help but picture Darl, locked in his office, giggling his ass off while watching the stock ticker on SCO go up everytime he released some FUD.
  • by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:41PM (#7921626)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Grimlock88 ( 687600 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:44PM (#7921660)
    Has anyone given thought that perhaps this M$/SCO/SUN campaign is doing more harm that it appears. This is probably around the 100th article I've read about this. Reading 100 articles == not writing 100s of lines of open source software code. Darl knows that everytime he craps a turd, it distracts thousands of linux programmers from their job. Let's stop paying attention to this crap. Reminds me of the simpsons episode where the giant marketing characters come to life.
  • by Uma Thurman ( 623807 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:44PM (#7921661) Homepage Journal
    It's also certain that Novell doesn't quite understand what they sold to SCO either. Perhaps Novell would like to take a shot at selling SCO the same thing twice!
    • by furry_marmot ( 515771 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:51PM (#7921743) Homepage
      I agree. In fact, a question has been on my mind for a while which I haven't seen addressed on Slashdot yet.

      So, let's say SCO is right and Novell wrote a contract that says (simplified for the sake of argument), "SCO now owns everything having to do with Unix ever." Did Novell ever have the right to grant such to SCO?

      Given the amount of code put into the public domain, and given the number of products descended in one way or another from System V, is it even legally feasible for a company to claim it has gained all rights to something one, two, three generations back from my current product, and therefore owns rights to my product?

      I'm afraid this hasn't made any sense to me from the beginning.

  • by hellfire ( 86129 ) <deviladv.gmail@com> on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:44PM (#7921662) Homepage
    That loud whistling sound you heard, followed by the tremendous explosion and screeching of twisted metal... Yeah, well, that was SCOs stock price falling through the floor.
  • ...I heard that Arizona is trying to sell SCO London Bridge.
  • by kroyd ( 29866 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:54PM (#7921778)
    The current SCO group is just a renamed Caldera, which bought the Unix group from the old SCO, so it is wrong to say that "SCO didn't know what they bought", as the current SCO isn't the company which bought anything in the first place.

    Actually, the current SCO is probably just the 5th owner of the very diluted "Unix licencing rights" - AT&T first sold it to USL (Unix System Labs), which was bought by Novell, which resold the licencing rights to the old SCO, which sold off parts of the company to Caldera, which rebranded itself "The SCO Group".

    Of course, the current SCO management tries to confuse this issue, probably as they would rather have everyone forget all their contractual obligations with the previous owners.
  • More? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Otter ( 3800 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:57PM (#7921813) Journal
    Lots of links and commentary on what continues to be one of the strangest stories in the history of Linux.

    Sweet! More detail on Linux Developer Gets Laid [bbspot.com]!

  • by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @06:00PM (#7921845) Journal
    until it's revealed that Darl McBride was molested by Michael Jackson and this past abuse caused him to marry Britney Spears in a quickie Las Vegas wedding.

    You can only hope...
  • by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @06:05PM (#7921889) Homepage
    Woah!

    If what is being said here is true, then that must mean that the people at SCO are not liars, they're just embarassingly stupid!!

    You know? This is beginning to make a little more sense... but can the SCO people be put in jail for being ridiculously stupid and making people suffer needlessly from it?
  • by MadAhab ( 40080 ) <slasherNO@SPAMahab.com> on Thursday January 08, 2004 @06:08PM (#7921923) Homepage Journal
    sez the article:
    Amendment No. 2 provides an exception to that exclusion, but only for 'copyrights ... required for [Santa Cruz Operation] to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies.
    i'm a lawyer, but a caveman lawyer, so i know knothing of these modern lawyer ways BUT... it's possible SCO is trying to make an expansive claim on this point. it looks like the kind of thing that would have come about if SCO were trying to acquire more rights while constructing the deal, and Novell's lawyers were trying to deflect it by saying "you only get these rights to the extent you need them". this *could* actually give SCO the leverage for the copyright part of the suit, in a dirty underhanded that's-why-people-hate-lawyers kind of way. i mean, now that they're suing linux users, they kinda need all the rights they can get, don't they? the fact that their need is totally manufactured might not matter. these things are why there are lawyers.

    of course, SCO has yet to show that the whole copyright claim isn't just a big bucket of warm spit in the first place.

  • by i_r_sensitive ( 697893 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @06:39PM (#7922256)
    Just how vulnerable Linux really is, at least from a legal point of view.

    Really, is anyone satisfied that the legal future of Linux rests in the hands of SCO, IBM, Novell and the US legal system? We've all been waxing rhapsodic over IBM, and it looks like this news is going to make us do the same for Novell. But really, hasn't IBM wielded the big stick of IP enough to at least make us a little nervous? What about Novell, they signed an agreement which opened the door to this particular nightmare, not a glowing review of their due diligence, after all, one should at least contingency plan for this kind of suit when making such deals...

    Nor are their motives quite the same as the grass roots. I wouldn't even try to defend the thesis that IBM and Novell are not in it for their own best interests. I also don't see any reason to believe that their best interests are necesarilly Linux's.

    It's nice to see these guys in the white (or maybe just real light gray) hats, but it is trivial to change your hat. The enemy of my enemy != my friend, ally - perhaps, confederate - okay, but friend, I don't think so.

    The problem is none of the players have a mandated interest in promoting and protecting Linux, both are in it for financial motivations, when the wind starts blowing profits another way, both will jump ship as quick as they are able.

    What to do? I confess I don't know. It'd be nice for Linux/FOSS to maybe have an associated legal entity tasked with promoting Linux/FOSS in the market and protecting Linux/FOSS in the law. Ideally, a not-for profit organization. (A honest to goodness charity would be better, at least your legal defense contributions would be a tax deduction...)

    Ultimately, the nature of Linux/FOSS to not be beholden to anything/one has been one of the greatest strengths. It is part and parcel of the success we have seen since Linus released our obsession on the world. However, this lack has now come full circle as we are essentially forced to watch the legal fate of Linux/FOSS be placed in the hands of one company who wishes to smash it, two which seek to exploit it, and the US legal system.

    Joseph Stalin once said, "How many divisions does the pope have?" I can easily see Darl Mcbride saying, "How many lawyers does Linus have?" way back before this mess all started.

    Okay, I admit it, I've just been waiting for a reason to compare Joseph Stalin and Darl McBride.

    • by YoJ ( 20860 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @06:47PM (#7922361) Journal
      It illustrates how vulnerable linux companies are to legal wrangling; this is different than linux itself being vulnerable.
      • Linux itself is vulnerable. How do you figure it is not?

        Let's take your position, so now the Linux companies are either out of business or out of Linux. This is an improvement how? This advances any of the goals that various sectrors of the Linux community embrace how?

        Okay, maybe it won't eradicate Linux from the face of the Earth, but it will effectively reduce it to a hobbyist OS again.

        The enemy here has allready proven that they are better at manipulating the media machine. The ODSL for examp

  • Why did CNN, Fox News and the other big "news" outlets fail to report the purchase of SCO last spring by Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems of New Jersey? See anything unusual in this list of SCO senior corporate officers, not to mention the fact that "SCO" itself stands for "Senior Corporate Officers?"

    Darl McBride, President and CEO
    Darl Bench, CFO
    Darl Mott, Director
    Darl Yarro III, Chairman of the Board
    Darl Bawa, CTO
    Darl Sontag, Sr VP, OS Group
    Darl Broughton, Sr VP
    Darl OConnor, Sr VP
    Darl Bigbooty, Sr VP
    Darl Parrot, Sr VP
    Darl SmallBerries, Sr VP

    Their social security numbers are consecutive, and were all issued on the same day. Coincidence?
  • IAA Confused L (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stewball ( 83006 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @07:01PM (#7922492)
    I spent a few years drafting exactly these kinds of agreements, and having read the SCO/Novell Asset Purchase Agreement, including the dreaded Amendment Number 2, I have to confess, I don't know what SCO's lawyers were thinking.

    When you buy technology, you buy 2 classes of assets: (1) the tangible (which includes stored electrons) real-world implementations of the stuff, like copies of the software, units of hardware, copies of manuals, and so on; and (2) the intellectual property rights, including copyright and patent, embodied in the tangible stuff.

    The way I'm reading the contract (which could be wrong -- I took a pretty quick pass through it) Novell sold SCO the "stuff" without any of the rights associated with the stuff. In other words, because the stuff was software, Novell sold them pretty much nothing.

    When I've done these deals in the past, the purchaser either gets the associated IP rights as part of the deal, or a REALLY broad license to them. From the looks of things, SCO didn't even have the right to make copies of the stuff it bought. That's completely incoherent from a transactional point of view.

    That argues for 2 things: (1) SCO's lawyers really pooched it in this deal, which is certainly possible -- I've seen some really dumb language come out of high-end firms, and/or (2) SCO is right, and the agreement couldn't possibly mean what Novell thinks it means, because that makes no sense. SCO might not be able to get that enforced without a court action to do what's called "reformation" of the contract, where the court goes in and rewrites the contract to make it coherent. This is a really rare remedy, BTW, for obvious reasons.

    Please, someone who's read this document more closely, feel free to correct me.
    -------
  • by jonathanduty ( 541508 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @07:14PM (#7922621) Homepage
    I have to admit, we are beginning to see several new discoveries that put evidence to the claim that SCO is full of crap. But I have to wonder, back in late 2001 and early 2002, when SCO and their legal team were deciding if they wanted to start this campain, how could they not see these discoveries coming into the spotlight?

    They knew this data existed (hello, the linux kernel and all of the CVS logs are open source, they can be read by anyone)

    They have the same copies of the contracts as everyone else (Novel, Sun, ect)

    They had to know that a judge was going to make them produce evidence and this "We can't show the conflicting code" thing wouldn't fly with a judge.

    I worked for a dot-com that provided a service to Corporate Law Firms and I know that they go through a lot of trouble to do their homework. Some of these things would have not slipped their radar.

    So is all if this (including us tearing up SCO's claims) just part of their plan? Are we missing the real target of McBride and SCO? I find it hard to belive that SCO and their legal team are, or have ever gone "Oh Shit" since this all started. More like they are saying "This is going exactly to plan".

    Someone please shed some light

  • Blatent Ploy |OT| (Score:5, Interesting)

    by obsolescence ( 739345 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @07:23PM (#7922692)
    A not for profit's reaction to the debacle:

    Open Letter to SCO [accrc.org]

    Dear Sirs:

    It has come to my attention that you claim certain intellectual properties involved in the UNIX operating system and that you intend to prosecute those who violate those claims.

    To be more specific you claim that Gnu/Linux is a derivative of your Unix IP and as such is your IP. After extensive research on my own part and reviewing the considered opinions of those in the field of IP litigation I have concluded to my own satisfaction that your position consists of bullpuckey.

    As such I feel I should bring my company to your attention. My name is James Burgett and I am the executive director of a not for profit organization called Computer and Technology Resource Center (CATRC). We recycle unwanted equipment and give it to underprivileged people throughout the world.

    What I feel should come to your attentions is this: We install Gnu/Linux on over 1200 machines a year and we fully intend to continue. We send said computers to schools, not for profits and underprivileged people throughout the world. We have been doing so for over 3 years and I can safely say that all of them could be classed as "servers". On the basis of your pricing (assuming that our inevitable litigation extends past your discount deadline), my organization owes you at least $ 5,036,400 (5+ million).

    We also advocate the further distribution of your alleged IP by other agencies and governments at home and abroad and could quite possibly be held liable for a lot more. (I'm sure you can come up with a price for this.) We have also assembled many multi processor systems (By the way, what is your price for multiprocessor systems?)

    So based on an assessment of our operations and your claims. I have concluded the following:

    Your ownership of the IP is dubious at best (Novell copyrights, Unix system labs vs. UC Berkeley, distribution of all contested IP by you under the GPL while Caldera,.... etc.)

    Your ability to enforce your claims is laughable at best (you would have to deal with Novell's copyrights before you can sue anybody, then demonstrate that you did not release said IP as your Linux distribution and last that you have the right to those copyrights at all as they seem to violate some of IBM's patents. This combined with the fact that your lead attorney seems to be under investigation in Florida that may lead to his disbarment leads me to the conclusion that you are not a credible threat.

    Your only redeeming feature is your histrionic and ill-conceived rants, which admittedly have an enviable ability to generate press.

    As you represent no threat and can only bring us press, I humbly request that you use us in your act of corporate self-destruction.

    If you choose not to sue us I should inform you that I have been consulting with my attorneys about options for initiating lawsuits against you based on some of the fallacious claims made by you about operations such as ours that use Gnu/Linux. You have made direct accusations about Gnu/Linux and its users that could only be construed as accusations of theft.

    As I am not a thief and find your accusations harmful from both a personal and corporate standpoint I demand that you immediately cease and desist from your unsubstantiated statements or face litigation.

    In conclusion let me thank you for this wonderful opportunity to promote our message on your dime and fully expect to be giving away what you claim is your IP long after your company is dead and gone.

    Yours sincerely:

    James Burgett

    Executive Director

    Computer and Technology Resource Center

    Primary website: www.accrc.org

    email james@accrc.org

  • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @07:54PM (#7922969) Journal
    If you go to this page [groklaw.net]and read the paragraph headed: "10. In Section 4.16, paragraph (b), the last sentence (\"Buyer shall not ... Merged Product\") is amended to read as follows:", you will see that the amendment eliminated almost all right to sell new SVRx licenses. SCO only bought rights to sell the rights to use on additional CPUs to existing licensees.

    Given this limited right, why would SCO need ownership of the SVRx copyrights in order to exercise their rights under the agreement.

    Hence SCO did not get the SVRx copyrights. What SCO bought was really the UnixWare business. Not UNIX!

  • by dilute ( 74234 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @09:42PM (#7923811)
    What crap! First, there is a blatant typo in the most crucial provision of the asset agreement (saying "Section 1.1(a)" where they meant "Schedule 1.1(a)"). Then, in Schedule 1.1(b) (where the exceptions are listed), they flatly EXCLUDE ALL COPYRIGHTS from the asset transfer! Wow! SCO was represented by Brobeck, it seems - what were THEY thinking? And the schedules themselves are unbelievably vague, listing things like "some APIs" (honest to God!).

    Then they did an amendment to fix this all up, supposedly. What did SCO get then? Not much, arguably. Basically it seems to be a circular grant - all copyrights SCO needed in order for SCO to exercise the rights it acquired. But WTF did they acquire in the first place?

    Sheer incompetence on someone's part, it would seem.

    Since some court is going to have to give SOME meaning to this pile of turd, I would venture to say that what SCO got was in effect an agreement that Novell wouldn't assert against them any copyright (or trademark) that would prevent them from exercising commercial rights in UNIX. Maybe some judge will cut them a break and read this more generously, but I just don't see in this obfuscated verbiage an omnibus written transfer of all copyrights. I've got to believe this is (still) a HUGE cloud on SCO's title.
  • by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @10:21PM (#7924158) Journal
    This has to do with physcology.

    Mcbride would live the dream and have the "ring which binds them all", if you could own all OS's besides windows and make billions! We all would like to be moral and help Linux but many of us would go crazy at the thought of owning all this money and power. Mcbride himself feels he does not want to destroy Linux. He just wants a cut if its used in business.

    I am poor right now and I would admitedly be tempted. I might even make a compromise like what Mcbride did and allow linux free for non commercial users. Yes, I would be a jerk and might not go through with it, but a fast talking salesmen/laywer might make a difference.

    Remember the lawyers get paid only if this goes through. They do not give a shit about Unixware, Linux or SCO. They care about green dollars.

    People tend to believe what they want to believe.

    My guess is Bois sold Mcbride like a salesman and Mcbride thought something on the line of "shit! If Bios is right, I have a lottery ticket!". The thought would be tempted. When the 70 lines of BSD code were found, he went hysterical saying "AHA, I win!".

    Part of his makeup could of been influenced from the MS case of licensing doublespace disk compression for DOS. Caldera, now SCO group won 40 billion! After a win like that, it probably went to his head.
  • by Ridgelift ( 228977 ) on Friday January 09, 2004 @02:26AM (#7925885)
    So, in the light of these Linux lawsuits, where does this leave the rest of us? Probably a little safer than we thought we were.

    Does anyone remember that cocky photo on sco.com's webpage with Darl McBride saying "Just as there's no free lunch, there's no free Linux"? It was there a few days ago.

    It ain't there anymore.

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Working...