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."
Another URL (Score:1, Insightful)
http://marketwatch-cnet.com.com/2100-1016_3-101
Clarification? (Score:0, Insightful)
Now it begins... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Do you hear that, SCO? That is the sound of inevitability. That is the sound of your death. Goodbye, SCO."
Uh-oh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Does this mean that SCO now has a legal basis for suing Joe User for downloading a Red Hat ISO? Maybe I'm missing something here, but if not, this could be bad...
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.
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:Insanity! (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you are putting way too much stock in the economic influence of a few pear sheaped nerds....
The winner will be IBM (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the rule of the court.
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.
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:Insanity! (Score:0, Insightful)
"According to [scumbag] lawyers everywhere,..."
Judges work within the confines of the legal system designed by the legislative branch of government (federal, state, and local). Like anything you are going to have some crappy ones and some great ones. The great ones are usually the ones that the scumbag lawyers really hate because they make their job a lot harder.
Read Judge Harold Rothwax's book [amazon.com] and then come back here and tell me what is really wrong with the legal system.
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:So, this could be a blessing in disguise (Score:3, Insightful)
If IBM were going to cave they would simply have paid the extortion money or simply bought SCO out. IBM is pushing this towards litigation because they know that SCO's case is ridiculous.
SCO management is engaged in a "pump & dump" stock scheme. Nothing more, nothing less.
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.
Brilliant, SCO! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:who owns SCO? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who owns SCO? I have the impression that IBM should try buying it, if only to stop it from pissing everybody off.
That's the whole point. Most analysts think SCO is doing this simply to make themselves obnoxious enough for IBM to buy them. That's why SCO's stock goes up when they get obnoxious: buyers are betting that IBM will finally decide it's easier to pay to make it go away.
Re:Uh-oh... (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you mean a "legal basis"? They've certainly intimated that they could and might sue for such. However, you can sue anyone you like for anything you like. The sued can, of course, countersue for harassment, etc. In this case, I would expect IBM to file a counter-motion for an injunction against SCO saying IBM cannot distribute AIX. Regardless, SCO's attempted revocation of the AIX license does not affect the legality of Linux. It's merely SCO's retaliation (blackmail, if you will) for IBM not giving SCO what they want.
The judge is likely to make a quick decision (IANAL) between the two injunctions, as SCO is clearly costing IBM by their statements and IBM is clearly costing SCO by distributing unlicensed code (only one of those is "illegal", but which one?). Oh, the anticipation.
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:don't miss the McBride interview... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now SCO Must Show Its Cards (Score:4, Insightful)
Why JUST IBM? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not just buy SCO? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
This proves that... (Score:2, Insightful)
What do I care if SCO has problems with IBM?
I don't give a shit.
SCO's public suicide (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Insanity! More than the Weather Channel! (Score:4, Insightful)
So, SCO is doing something dangerous for their "case". Now, the David-against-Goliath case they think they've got is transforming in a David-against-GoliathS
I don't understand what they're trying to do. Do they want to run out of business? Or do they are simply stupid?
Re:Another URL (Score:5, Insightful)
Best,
Doug
All in all ... (Score:1, Insightful)
All media attention is positive, no matter if it's good or bad. How many would have talked about SCO these days if it wasn't for this?!?
I think the legal department of SCO should be given a medal of honor. Slick move. I've never looked at SCO's homesite and considered checking their system, but now
Re:Gotta wonder what's up (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, that's why I have my doubts about SCO's claims: they're going WAY public WAY early. If they had a solid case they wouldn't have to say crap, they'd just file their lawsuit and followup as needsbe. As it stands right now their story keeps changing. Looking at my unofficial scorecard thusfar we have:
* There may be some SCO IP in some userland apps
* IBM violated a contract between SCO and IBM
* IBM misappropriated code into Linux Kernel in a few places
* IBM misappropriated code into Linux Kernel in a a lot of places
* IBM misappropriated code into Linux Kernel in a few hundred thousand places
* SCO owns anything associated with UNIX since they claim the orig. AT&T licenses says that AT&T (and now SCO) own everything that the Licensees add to their own version of Unix (JFS: Developed by IBM, owned by SCO; NUMA: Developed by SGI (AFAIK), owned by SCO, etc). Sontag even hinted that SCO somehow has some ownership rights to Windows (and that the recent MS/SCO licensing agreement doesn't cover it).
Re:Gotta wonder what's up (Score:4, Insightful)
With SCO prancing around and running off at the mouth before the fight actually begins, there's not much IBM can do at the moment other than issue statements like "they're wrong." The second SCO is forced to actually put up its dukes and fight, IBM will then be able to land a haymaker and knock SCO out of the ring and up into the cheap seats.
SCO has limited resources here. IBM could just tie things up in the courts until SCO withers and dies. So, SCO's tactic is to make as much noise as possible now, before IBM can do diddly squat, and hope that IBM just buys them to make the whole thing go away.
I can't think of any other legal dispute recently in which one party has been so vocal. Usually, party A sues party B, and both keep pretty mum about it. With SCO screaming like a little girl in the press and pointing fingers at IBM, one has to think their tactic is to get this resolved in a back room, rather than in a court.
GNU Coding Standards (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
When will it end ? What does it mean ? (Score:3, Insightful)
How can a company who have themselves had comparitavley no input whatsoever into the development of System V and anything which has come from that claim rights from the millions of people worldwide who have actually created the programs and applications in question ?
I don't think for a second SCO will get anywhere with these aims either in the US or Worldwide but the fact they even consider they are in with a shot points to the fact that somewhere down the line all common sense has been lost. If one good thing can come from this it's finding out where the current laws diverge from common sense and taking some steps to ensure the work of millions of people and hundreds of corporations can't be held to ransom over similar issues in the future.
Re:Insanity! (Score:4, Insightful)
Does OpenBSD even _have_ SMP support? And Linux? If AIX is out, so is Linux. Neither OpenBSD nor Linux are anywhere close to a drop in solution. Not to mention the massive amounts of cash nessecary to replace the kind of big iron AIX generally runs on...
Re:Gotta wonder what's up (Score:3, Insightful)
The satisfaction I will feel upon SCO's realization that the hole can not be escaped will be only slightly diminished by the fact that even though the company will crash and burn, the officers will still get termination bonusses worth more than I will probably earn in my entire life.
Re:A Slashdot First (Score:2, Insightful)
In addition, it's one of the few cases that has a direct impact on almost everyone who reads Slashdot regularly.
Re:Future licenses (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh no, IBM would never have made such a licensing mistake [maxframe.com]
Re:Another URL (Score:1, Insightful)
D
Pay or fight (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess I can see SCO's strategy in making IBM's customers and shareholders worried. But I don't see it as a solid plan. They are pissing off some big players saying they wont have source code and assumably SCO would try bullying those customers to pay SCO for a license. I would love to see IBM see this through. I think their stockholders believe IBM will not cave as their stock is not doing well. Pouring a bunch of corporate resources into this, alienating nix customers, and creating a terrible public image cannot be good for a company and if I was a stock holder I would be pissed.
If IBM sees this through it should scare stockholders enough that companies will think twice about this sue to riches type business plan.