SCO Terminates IBM's Unix License 1065
AKAImBatman writes "SCO has terminated IBM's license to use Unix code. SCO is filing for an injunction that will require IBM to cease all sale of AIX as well as accrue damages for each day IBM continues to sell AIX."
Insanity! (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM customers are operating without a valid license? SCO does not
dispute that IBM possessed a valid license up through the end of Fri 13.
So any copies that IBM sold before that date are perfectly legal licenses.
Any court that even takes any other legal theory seriously will destroy
the entire US economy by creating uncertainty in ALL sub-licensed IP.
And I have just enough faith remaining in the US legal system to believe
that the judge will be bright enough to see the can of legal Whoop-Ass SCO is asking them to open.
Re:Insanity! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Insanity! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Insanity! (Score:5, Funny)
That's what I'm worried about. How many times have my battleships been sunk by friggen musketeers? sheesh...
Re:Insanity! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Insanity! (Score:5, Funny)
Future licenses (Score:5, Funny)
That is, of course, unless a judge does something like this:
Judge: So, um, SCO, you're claiming IBM stole your code, right?
SCO: Yes, and we will defend our intellectual property to the ends of the earth, to the moon and back, to the universe -
Judge: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, can we see this source code?
SCO: Um, well, if we showed it to you, you might steal it as well.
Judge: Huh?
SCO: You're in it too - we know it! How much did IBM pay you to betray us?
Judge: Are you on drugs? I just want to see the supposed code theft -
SCO: Master betrayed us! No - Judge is our friend! Nobody's our friend!
Judge: Case dismissed.
Microsoft: But - but we licensed the code.
SCO: (Holding legal documents.) Our presssssciousssss....
Now it all makes sense. (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks.
Re:Now it all makes sense. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Future licenses (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Future licenses (Score:5, Funny)
that destroying all copies is not necessarily
a bad thing.
Re:Future licenses (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO can do this if, and only if
I'm not a lawyer, this is a lawyer friend't assesment based on very little info and then translated through me, so take it with a grain of salt. But I think the general idea that SCO could not revoke the sub-licenses due to the damage to the market (as someone suggested) would be kind of moot, since SCO only has to demonstrate that THIS agreement allows such. Of course, IBM would be foolish to have allowed such a thing....
Re:Future licenses (Score:5, Informative)
{from article} SCO said that the termination of the AIX license means that all IBM Unix customers also have no license to use the software. "This termination not only applies to new business by IBM, but also existing copies of AIX that are installed at all customer sites. All of it has to be destroyed," Sontag said.
I think the courts will disagree with SCO. The term to apply here is called estoppel [lectlaw.com], which basically means that they can't retroactively change the terms of your license. IANAL. SCO can deny further use of the UNIX license to IBM for AIX, but that doesn't mean the copies of AIX that I am using now will in any way are "invalid".
Re:Future licenses (Score:5, Informative)
Sun had made a big bruja about how SunOS is the name of the OS and Solaris the entire package or something like that, but it doesn't really matter for our purposes.
Schumpter's Creative Destruction - Re:Insanity! (Score:5, Funny)
I guess this is what Schumpter meant by Creative Destruction.
It would of course be better if SCO is destroyed, but if IBM needs to be destroyed SO BE IT !!
I am all for a good fight !!!
P.S. I just hope Linux-spirit does not get destroyed in the uncertainity that will be spawned. What can uncertainity do? Just ask Alan Greenspan.
Re:Insanity! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now imagine the horror as every entity with a "licensed, not sold" product starts frantically researching how many companies their vendor licenses various bits from and calculating the odds of one of them getting into a pissing fight. You either get Congress going into emergency session to pass a law protecting the end users from being pawns in this new form of corporate blackmail or the economy collapses.
Re:Insanity! (Score:5, Funny)
They could stick their heads out the window and say "it looks like rain, better bring your umbrella"
Re:Insanity! (Score:5, Interesting)
That's an easy one. Congress can just use eminant domain, and nationalize all rights to *nix as a public right-of-way. Same as what they do for any roadways deemed necessary for the public safety, national infrastructure, etc.
Re:Insanity! (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I'd go with either OpenBSD or Linux. OpenBSD is proven to have rock solid stability, and recent Linux kernels are pretty good. And Solaris has good stability on the right hardware -- say, an Enterprise 10k.
If you write for 1 *nix, porting to other *nixes isn't that hard as long as you write your code in something portable, like ANSI C.
in related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:in related news... (Score:5, Informative)
NEW YORK, June 16 (Reuters) - International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE:IBM - News) on Monday said that the SCO Group (NasdaqSC:SCOX - News), which is suing IBM over intellectual property rights, has no right to revoke its license to its version of the Unix operating system, called AIX.
ADVERTISEMENT
Earlier on Monday, SCO said that it would revoke IBM's right to use or distribute its AIX software, saying that IBM had violated its agreement by adapting some parts of the AIX operating system to Linux, the free version of Unix.
"There's absolutely nothing new in this press release. SCO continues to make its claims. As we have said all along our license is irrevocable, perpetual and cannot be terminated," IBM spokeswoman Trink Guarino said, reading from a prepared statement.
Re:in related news... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the damn thing is paradoxically worded. And parts of it are crossed off and pencilled in. It's a real mess.
On top of that, It was signed in 1985 by AT&T and IBM. System V isn't even mentioned in it. Hell, they mention West Germany as a viable country to sell dirivitive code in!
SCO is listing it as evendence. But I don't see how it's even applicable considering that the origenal code that it was made in reference to has fallen into the public domain.
Am I wrong about this?
Please correct me if I am.
the article (Score:5, Funny)
I think whomever wrote this press release needs to do his/her research better...
-Sean
Leading like the sacrificial lamb... (Score:4, Funny)
They're leading the way for other companies who want to commit IP suicide.
I'm shocked. (Score:5, Funny)
I depend on Slashdot to give me some advance warning, preferably several weeks worth of daily articles with 500 posts, so that I'm not blindsided by issues like this.
I can see it now (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I can see it now (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm... I can see the next project at IBM being a supercomputer capable of playing an intricate game that requires thinking ahead many moves to counter opponent's moves... it'll be called "Deep Tort".
I am IBM, hear me roar... (Score:4, Interesting)
Plus, it would probably be a smart thing(tm) for SCO to publicly state what IBMs so-called infrigement is now that they're proceeding with directed action.
Don't get me wroing, I don't love AIX by any stretch of the imagination
-psy
Injunction Filed (Score:5, Insightful)
If IBM believes the license is perpetural, and the injunction is granted, IBM will file a counter claim for breach of contract, probably for the same amount of daily damages.
This means nothing. It's just more grandstanding.
Damages? (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, c'mon, there's at least as much legal ground to stand on, and at least I can call my psychologist as a witness....
So, this could be a blessing in disguise (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, better that IBM be the one to take on SCO rather than a group of Linux volunteers or users.
I just hope IBM doesn't cave. They've shown incredible lack of backbone in the past when push came to shove (OS/2 backing out of desktop market anyone?), let's just hope this isn't one of those times.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
that has to be ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:that has to be ... (Score:4, Funny)
It doesn't have any competition in that regard...
Poor way of phrasing it (Score:5, Insightful)
I could issue a press release saying that i had used my magical powers to turn Bill Gates into a toad, but that would not automatically make it true.
Re:Poor way of phrasing it (Score:5, Informative)
But according to many many sources including IBM, IBM does not have or need a license from SCO to use/sell AIX. AIX is derived ultimately from the Unix code, and needs a license to be called unix, but the rights to the UNix code are from Novell and the rights to call AIX Unix come from the Open Group. In fact I would say that at this stage of the game it would be difficult to say whether even novell or the Open Group would have any kind of right to stop the distribution of AIX. Presumably most of AIX is 100% IBM IP and anything which was not could be changed if it was really deemed necessary.
No matter what, the company now known as SCO never had any agreements with IBM whatsoever, unless perhaps they bought some software from IBM. Ultimately they have tried to use legal tricks and fiat to claim the rights over vast amounts of IP they have 0 claim to (every form of Linux and Unix) and it is not working so far.
IBM is used to being sued by loudmouth idiots and usually do not rise to the bait (for instance recall the people that were trying to claim IBM supported the Nazis during WWII even though they were actively supporting the allies by manufacturing arms and providing computing services, etc.). They have lasted this long by being careful what they say and do and maintaining their serious reputation. They will easily weather this FUDfest.
Jar Jar? (Score:4, Funny)
LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!! (Score:5, Funny)
Let's get it
Gotta wonder what's up (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, Big Blue's been strangely dormant on this. What gives? For one thing, the reputation of Linux--a codebase that IBM's banking a big chunk of money on--is at stake.
Leading? SCO? HAH! (Score:5, Funny)
"a leading provider of business software solutions"
Lets just redefine 'leading' shall we?
Where i work we are very seriously working towards ridding our machine room of SCO forever.
To this end, I'm taking suggestions as to innovative and torturous ways to take a SCO Unixware box down.
Note; we will be putting Linux on the boxes after SCO is removed, so please, no suggestions that involve damage to the hardware.
Re:Leading? SCO? HAH! (Score:5, Funny)
2) eat taco bell
3) next day, wipe ass with license document
4) mail to SCO
5) profit!
Discussion With The Court Clerk (Score:5, Funny)
*SCO walks into court clerk*
SCO: "We would like to sue a corporation today."
Clerk: "Which One?"
SCO: "All of them".
*clerk collapses onto floor*
Re:Discussion With The Court Clerk (Score:5, Funny)
SCO: You bastards! I'm holding this court liable for damages every minute that our filings are delayed.
Clerk: While you're waiting, you should reformat your 40,000 page complaint and 1,100 page briefs from MS word files to typed paped documents. We need those in triplicate, so you might want to send one of your lawyers out for carbon paper.
don't miss the McBride interview... (Score:5, Informative)
-renard
Re:don't miss the McBride interview... (Score:5, Interesting)
They're using an extremely broad definition of "derived". From that interview it's finally clear what they're trying to claim.
They're saying that they have rights to any technology that any Unix company ever added to Unix. So the JFS, for example, which was added by IBM to their Unix derivative, can't be added by IBM to any other software (including OS/2 I suppose, which is where the Linux version actually came from).
I really doubt that IBM was stupid enough to sign something that broad. In fact, it would be far more viral than the GPL. If I incorporate my proprietary code into GPLd software, I can still retain copyright to the code and continue to use it in my own projects. Apparently not so with SysV code.
Interesting interview notes (Score:5, Interesting)
In the various interviews and statements that have come out of SCO over the past few months, there has definitely been some conflicting information. In this most recent interview, I find a number of things peculiar, but this is what jumps out at me first:
Note how he says "entire programs"; the basis of the complaint is that code was copied into the Linux kernel. Apparently they are also claiming that some GNU tools and other programs are also "copied." From what I understand of the initial press releases, SCO was suing over certain multi-processor related functions of the kernel which apparently came out of Project Monterey, which IBM and SCO were a part of.
He does state in the interview that this is a lawsuit for breach of contract with IBM, and not copyright or patent infringement.
So, it is interesting that he is proposing taking Linux distributors (Red Hat, SuSE, etc.) and possibly other Linux users to court as well. If they are not on solid ground suing IBM over copyright infringement, how are they going to manage to sue all of the linux distributors and users on the planet for copyright infringement - since these distributors and users never had any contract with SCO.
For a final major thought, all of this "copied code" is appearing in both Sys V and Linux.. where does BSD come into play? Could the code from both places have been taken from BSD? Of course with the terms of the NDA that SCO makes you sign, I am sure that you couldn't compare the Sys V code to BSD, only Linux.
PS: Why hasn't someone run the Sys V and Linux code through a copied code detector program (like some college professors use to stop code copying on assignments). Obviously this would be a much larger scale project, but if SCO's UnixWare has such great multi-processor capabilities, they should be able to figure something out. And if there is so much copied code, it should be no problem to find it using this program. Show us the stats, at least.
Re:don't miss the McBride interview... (Score:5, Interesting)
"--if you look at the marketplace over the last two years, there've been 2 million servers shipped into the market. Our UnixWare price tag of $1,500 would have generated $3.5 billion in revenue for us."
By my count that would be 3 billion if they had a 100% market share. But considering their share is about 2%, from all the numbers I have read, that would leave them with a rather generous $6 million.
Re:Are there even that many lines of code? (Score:5, Informative)
[root@sether linux-2.4.20]# for i in `find
3333647
Re:don't miss the McBride interview... (Score:5, Funny)
The Death March Begins. (Score:5, Funny)
I'll just grab some popcorn and hope this will be as entertaining as advertised. SCO, put on a good show will you.
Re:The Death March Begins. (Score:5, Funny)
SCO needs to update their PR description (Score:5, Funny)
should be:
The SCO(R) Group (SCO), a leading provider of frivolous lawsuits...
Also,
About SCO
The SCO Group helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 8,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit http://www.sco.com
should be:
About SCO
The SCO Group helps several SCO executives in USA grow their declining SCO stock value everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 lawyers and 8,000 pending lawsuits. SCO Global Services provides reliable Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt to Linux and IBM partners and customers. For more information on SCO lies, damn lies and lawsuits, visit http://www.sco.com.
SCO is hard to believe here (Score:5, Interesting)
In order for IBM to be able to comply with certain actions, as I understand it, IBM would have to either:
A) Stop selling AIX.
B) Remove the offending code from Linux.
In order to do A), well, IBM would have to give up. In order to do B), IBM would have to have a copy of what SCO thinks is the offending code, review it, engineer suitable replacements, and submit patches to Linus. I don't think Linus would necessarily have to accept it for IBM to prove that it has done all it could. But, I believe we've read before, SCO didn't want to share its violated code until last week or so. If IBM didn't have access to that until last week, SCO was asking IBM to take their word for it. Doesn't sound very legal to me.
I've seen IBM work. Sometimes it's slow, but sometimes they can move a staff of 300k people so quickly the earth spins the other way. I've got to think that IBM has enough talent to replace many 60 line blocks and have them tested before 100 days had expired, if given a fair chance.
Last night, I had convinced myself that I thought it was reasonable for IBM to be dual licensing code they had written. I'm still not sure SCO has proven IBM has liberated code, but if it had, and it was originally IBM's, why not allow it?
By stating "IBM has clearly demonstrated its misuse of UNIX source code..." by "using UNIX methods to accelerate and improve Linux as a free operating system", is SCO saying that even if a completely disparate group of Unix virgin IBMers couldn't work on Linux without undermining the contract? That sounds awefully strict.
Re:SCO is hard to believe here (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM *has* a copy of the offending code. IBM has had a copy of the System V source code for years now. Anyone with a copy of both Linux and System V can easily find which lines they have in common.
Re:SCO is hard to believe here (Score:5, Informative)
That's true only in the strictest sense of the word. SCO is alleging that IBM has made simple modifications to System V code and imported it to Linux. If this is the case, then a massive grepping party at IBM wouldn't reveal the offending code. You'd have to have an army of people sifting through tens or hundreds of megabytes code in order to find out what SCO is talking about. And how similar are we talking here? Where is the line between similar code [slashdot.org] that's similar because of illicit activity and similar code that's similar because it's the best approach drawn? If the scheduler is similar, perhaps that's because that's the best way to write a scheduler. It started out as very straightforward and based on academic works.
I believe that SCO needs to be specific with the request, and any judgement against IBM needs to consider intent and practice. If a different team came up with the code, IBM shouldn't be liable. If SCO won't tell IBM what specific code is in question, IBM shouldn't be liable. If IBM legally
dual-licensed the code that IBM wrote, IBM shouldn't be liable (key here is, does the SCO / IBM contract allow dual licensing?).Pissing in the Well (Score:5, Interesting)
The court is going to have to struggle with this part/whole issue. If I had to guess, I'd say that if it hit a jury, the jury would tend to be fairly absolute -- as in, you copied this tiny bit, so now you're liable for the whole thing. A judge is probably going to weight the infraction versus the whole.
And I really don't know what the law is on this. Maybe a legal type can help us out here.
Re:Pissing in the Well (Score:5, Interesting)
They're claming much more than that now - in a recent interview [zdnet.co.uk] their CEO is now claiming the following:
"We're not talking about just lines of code; we're talking about entire programs. We're talking about hundred of thousands of lines of code...We're talking about line-by-line code copying. That includes not just the function but the exact, word-for-word lines of code. And the developer comments are exactly, 100 percent the same."
zerg (Score:5, Funny)
I would like some of what you are smoking. Please hook a brother up. Thanks in advance.
In related news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice to see Wall Street react appropriately to this news.
Take a hint from greenpeace? (Score:5, Interesting)
I heard a common environmentalist tactic was to have a large number of individuals buy exactly one share of a corporation they disliked, then show up en mass at the shareholders meeting, (they cannot be refused entry as a shareholder) and liven up the party.
AT&T may be getting in volved as well. (Score:5, Interesting)
From http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/06/16/24OPcrin gely_1.html:
I wonder what rights AT&T retained.
The fireworks will be spectacular... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anybody else get the impression that Big Blue is going to give SCO a bloody nose over this whole thing? I mean, come on, SCO! It should be obvious by now that IBM isn't going to buy you - they're going to sue you into bankruptcy, and then buy the rights to your code from your liquidators at a dirt cheap price.
Someone needs to give SCO a clue.
It gets worse (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
And today from IBM (Score:5, Funny)
The lawsuits ranged from countersuits regarding breach of contract, to unfair business practices, to acting not in the best intersts of shareholders, polluting the marketplace, unfair business practices, and illegal distribution of copywrighted materials.
IBM has also sent notices to the US and German attourney generals regarding SCO's breaches of international copyright treaties.
In the same announcement, IBM has denied that it employs ships stationed in international waters to attack and board any ship carrying SCO property.
On Tuesday, IBM plans to 'blacken the Utah sky' with paratrooping lawyers to persue the lawsuits.
More information will be released after Tuesday's paradrop.
Nobel Prize in Computing (Score:5, Funny)
(Currently working a project running on AIX - transitioning to Linux)
Stock quotes (Score:5, Funny)
down: SCO Group SCOX 10.93 -0.28
I guess that sums it all up...up: Intl Bus. Machines IBM 84.50 1.75
Today's MarketWatch (tm) (Score:5, Funny)
SCO CEO Darl McBride was quoted as saying, "In order to better leverage our technology IP and increase profits, we've decided to refuse to sell, license, or not sue anyone not directly involved with Microsoft's
SCO the sole UNIX owner (Score:5, Informative)
So yes, they want another UNIX war. Once their precioussss is described as the trunk of all Unices (and stating that almost all vendors contributed to Linux in the same interview) what follows is that replacing the infringing code is impossible. That's why RMS a few weeks ago aimed directly at invalidating the claim to the unix codebase by proving that its already in the public sector (remember his call for people who had or have access to the code? - some people ridiculed him for this, but he saw this clearly coming).
At any rate, SCO does not stand a chance with such ridiculous claims (and no Unix vendor, not even SUN would be happy if the court accepts Darl's interpretation of their IP rights). Read one of the best analyses here (please, someone tell me how do I make a link, coz this is going to be long):
http://forums.com.com/group/zd.News.Talkback/zd
Not filed for tempoary injunction!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
In most cases of alleged IP violations, the accuser will file for a temporary injunction, rather than waiting for the end of the trial after which an injunction may be granted.
The real implication is that to get a temporary injunction, SCO would have to convince a judge that they had a likelyhood of prevailing at trial. In order to convince a judge of this, they would have to back up their allegations against IBM with real facts.
Temporary injunctions could cause severe problems, so they are not issued on a whim. There must be real evidence and the defending side has the opportunity to refute that evidence.
So the real impact of SCO's actions is to spread more FUD, and keep the time at which they must present any real evidence far off in the future.
Re:Not filed for tempoary injunction!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Heard in the Distance (Score:5, Funny)
"What is that horrible sound?"
"That is the sound of the Black Steeds riding west from Armonk."
"The Black Steeds?"
"The Nazgul. They once were men. Now they are neither dead nor alive. They are IBM's attorneys."
Similarities... (Score:4, Funny)
Recommended reading! (Score:5, Informative)
Here appears to be another reason why, according to SCO's previous CEO (note the date):
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5406 [linuxjournal.com]
Some quotes from SCO (Score:5, Funny)
I can assure you that those villains will recognize in appropriate time in the future how stupid they are and how they have stolen OUR intellectual property.
They are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!""
-- SCO Minister of Information
SCO Reveals Stolen Code (Score:5, Funny)
They are currently trying to get the courts to uphold their patent of the semi-colon, a pair of parentheses, curly braces, and the crlf combination.
SCO has also filed a lawsuit against a 14yr old California student whose "Hello World" program infringes on SCO's patents. The student could not be reached for comments.
A Slashdot First (Score:5, Funny)
SCO Business Plan (Score:5, Funny)
2) Pull trigger
3) ???
4) PROFIT!!!
IBM got its start providing IT services to the US Census beureau over 100 years ago. Today it is tightly integrated into the business and government fabric of nations around the world. IBM hires the best and brightest MBA and Law school grads every year into their corporate ranks. With that combination of inteligence and connectivity, IBM is not a force you want to fight directly.
Beginning this year, IBM has appointed a new Chairman [eweek.com]. Mr. Palmisano has a history [com.com] of supporting [midrangeserver.com] Linux [eweek.com].
This is all the motivation IBM needs to finish migrating its non-x86 platforms all the way over to Linux and completely dumping that antiquated "Unix" stuff.
I see a lot of job opportunities for Linux hackers opening up at IBM shortly. Especially for people with both Linux and IBM mainframe or PPC experience.
Headline is erroneous -- article is a troll (Score:5, Funny)
Tomorrow on Slashdot: (Score:5, Funny)
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday June 17, @08:30AM
from the lets-get-ready-to-rumble dept.
AT&T Sues SCO
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday June 17, @08:31AM
from the it's-an-ambush! dept.
FSF Sues SCO
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday June 17, @08:32AM
from the wouldn't-be-a-party-without-us dept.
Apple Sues SCO
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday June 17, @08:33AM
from the just-like-an-*ssrape dept.
Novell Sues SCO
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday June 17, @08:34AM
from the opps-they-aint-lying dept.
Linus Torvalds Sues SCO
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday June 17, @08:35AM
from the ELVIS-HAS-ENTERED-THE-BUILDING dept.
Possible good outcomes. (Score:5, Interesting)
We need to find the actual injunction (I haven't found it yet) and actually read the thing, and as such this is purely speculative, but it opens up a nice posibility.
In the long run, the judge *must* find for or against the complaint, dismiss the complaint, or remand it to a higher court. It appears (although nobody seems to have the actual complaint) that the complaint is two parts. The first is that they used the code in Linux, and the second is that they are now distributing AIX without a licence to SCO's code. That second point is the one they would file the injunction on.
This boils down to a simple complaint: "We terminated their license, so they must stop using our property." If that were the entire complaint in the injunction, the judge would have to agree since the Supreme Court has upheld that rights of property owners is one of the key elements of freedom. Not being able to use your property is the loss of freedom.
That complaint is so fundamental that he could not simply dismiss the complaint. He therefore must rule on it, or the law, or remand it up the chain of command.
The judge could rule that SCO is correct, meaning that:
By ruling FOR SCO, the judge would not only put a penalty on IBM, but on everyone who uses it. While the simple case (no pay, no play) is reasonable, IBM's lawyers could easily argue that the damage to society and possible lives lost would outweigh SCO's property rights.
Ruling FOR SCO would set a precedent that Microsoft and others could quickly follow -- Revoke the licenses to each version of Office even faster, or include in new online music services a quickly expiring license. When the song goes popular, the license expires, and you must pay the new, higher rate. It would be extortion, except the SCO case would make it legal.
Conversely, he could be ruling that you *CAN* continue to use IP after terminating your license. This would have profound effects (I like some of them), including...
That can't happen either. The sectors of our economy dealing with IP would be blown away, and that would also have so profound negative effects that the judge could not rule that way.
So either way the judge rules in the end, he cannot justify the expense to society of ruling for or against them. A judge at the state level sould not put the entire nation's economy into such a state. That would mean he should remand the case to a higher level. The district cour
Re:Another URL (Score:5, Informative)
CNET story [com.com]
Re:Another URL (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Another URL (Score:5, Interesting)
That is something I have not heard SCO claim before. I was under the impression that they wanted to cut off future sales, but all past sales too? The insanity never ends at SCO.
Albert Einstein on the SCO case (Score:5, Funny)
Although we've never been able to prove the unified field theory, it looks like SCO is proving us the proof that Einstein was right about stupidity being infinite.
Re:Another URL (Score:5, Insightful)
Best,
Doug
Re:Another URL (Score:5, Insightful)
A "perpetual" contract means the parties do not need to renew their agreements.
e.g., My lease to the apartment I live in expires in two years, so this lease is not perpetual.
An "irrevocable" contract is one that one or more (usually, all) parties to the contract cannot back out of without due cause.
Basically, the contract remains valid unless certain obligations specified in the contract are not fulfilled, or unless following the terms of the contract would require breaking the law, etc., etc.
(Disclaimer: IANAL)
Re:Another URL (Score:5, Informative)
These contracts are not "take it or leave it" type things like EULA's are. You negotiate.
Re:Another URL (Score:5, Interesting)
If you make additions to a contract (and EULAs are such additions according to german law) both parties have to be able to see those additions before the contract is placed. Since this is rather seldom the case for EULAs these licenses are not even worth the paper they are printed on.
Regards Christian
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Another URL (Score:5, Funny)
SCO: Mr. Palmisano, please.
Operator: May I tell him who's calling?
SCO: Darl McBride, CEO of SCO
Operator: Oh, you again. *pause* He is still not taking your call. Would you like his voice mail?
SCO: *sigh* Sure.
[Flush][laughter]*click*
Re:Another URL (Score:5, Funny)
Operator: Thank you for calling IBM. How may I direct your call?
I saw this and assumed it would go more like this:
Operator: We get signal.
Captain: What!
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Captain: It's You!!
SCats: How are you gentlemen!!
SCats: All your AIX are belong to us.
A real-world DoS attack... (Score:5, Interesting)
-j
Re:On dear Lord (Score:5, Funny)
Re:On dear Lord (Score:5, Informative)
> related to Microsoft at all?
They are. Microsoft Xenix was sold to the original SCO who renamed it "SCO OpenServer" after carrying it as "SCO Xenix" for awhile.
Re:On dear Lord (Score:5, Interesting)
Worried about the uncertainty of AIX and Linux? Good thing we here at M$ have a great solution for you...
Re:Clarification? (Score:5, Informative)
I think it goes like this: SCO licensed Unix code to IBM. IBM incorperated said Unix code into AIX. IBM takes up Linux. Rise of Linux threatens Unix. SCO gets notion that Linux steals code from Unix, and places blame on IBM. SCO tries to revoke license to Unix code from IBM, thereby revoking it from AIX - all while suing over supposed stolen code in Linux.
At least, that's how it looks from here...
Re:Clarification? (Score:5, Informative)
How is this dumb-assed question "insightful"?
What I want to know is, how much "evidence" would they have to reveal to get this injunction (and does the judge have to sign the NSA
Re:Clarification? (Score:5, Informative)
What's at issue is that SCO is accusing IBM of putting AIX code into Linux, which is a violation of IBM's Unix license.
Or, in the words of SCO's lawyer:
Re:economic plan (Score:5, Funny)
You've obviously forgotten overused /. meme #405. It should be:
1.Buy someone else's IP
2.Fail economics 101
3.Sue
4.???
5. PROFIT!
Please keep this in mind next time you decide to come out from under your silly little bridge. Us big people have things to do.