Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

SCO Claims Ownership of ELF To Court 227

l2718 writes "In the most recent punch-counterpunch of the SCO v. IBM case, IBM is claiming that SCO is trying to vastly expand their claims beyond what they alleged in their list of material allegedly misused by IBM filed last December, using their expert reports. For example, two years ago we covered SCO's claim to own ELF, the main executable format of Linux. Apparently they are have finally made the same claim to a court of law, after the deadline for making such claims. From IBM's memorandum: 'The final disclosures identify 19 Linux files relating to the ELF specification, as well as excerpts from several specification documents. Dr. Cargill far exceeds this claims ... asserting infringement of the entire ELF format ... also ... for the first time, claims to the ELF magic number.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Claims Ownership of ELF To Court

Comments Filter:
  • Ugh... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Solra Bizna ( 716281 ) on Friday June 09, 2006 @12:14PM (#15502998) Homepage Journal

    This is the first time I've ever seen an article on Slashdot that came close to making me vomit. Aren't these guys dead YET?!

    -:sigma.SB

  • Is SCO Insane? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by loxosceles ( 580563 ) on Friday June 09, 2006 @12:20PM (#15503065)
    What is SCO's plan?

    Originally there were the jokes... 1. claim copyright on core portions of linux, 2. ? 3. Profit.

    It seems like 2. will never end, and how they'll accomplish 3. is still quite unknown.
  • Re:Is SCO Insane? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kfg ( 145172 ) on Friday June 09, 2006 @12:32PM (#15503146)
    3. is still quite unknown.

    SCO is a ninja. They are not actually expected to survive. The only important thing is if they can successfully pull off the hit before they go down.

    KFG
  • by w33t ( 978574 ) on Friday June 09, 2006 @12:41PM (#15503236) Homepage
    I had always thought that wars of attrition happened because two sides were so evenly matched that neither could gain an advantage. In this respect it would seem that attrition is the most "fair" type of warfare.

    However it now seems obvious to me that the concept of attrition can also arise and be used in very unfair and inequal ways.

    I find this behaviour reprehensible
  • Magic Number? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by byteherder ( 722785 ) on Friday June 09, 2006 @12:50PM (#15503329)
    From the headline, "claims to the ELF magic number."

    This my sound like a dumb question but, "What is the ELF magic number?" and "Why is it important?"
  • by TristanGrimaux ( 841255 ) on Friday June 09, 2006 @12:51PM (#15503342) Homepage
    as Windows Vista is postponed again!

    ---
    Donde Ser Geek No Duele [blogspot.com]
  • Re:Ugh... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by RafaelGCPP ( 922041 ) on Friday June 09, 2006 @12:51PM (#15503343)
    Crap! I don't know if I moderate this funny or insightful...
  • Re:Disgrace (Score:5, Insightful)

    by titzandkunt ( 623280 ) on Friday June 09, 2006 @01:02PM (#15503433)

    "...It's like living near chernobyl--I'm going to get infected! I wish the judges would get a clue and just throw everything out...."

    Point 1: Radiation isn't infectious.

    Point 2: The judge in the SCO/IBM case is being very, very, very careful indeed not to give SCO any grounds for appeal when they ultimately get spanked.

    Patience, grasshopper...
  • by flooey ( 695860 ) on Friday June 09, 2006 @01:04PM (#15503447)
    SCO must be hoping that IBM will eventually prefer to settle in order to cap the losses, as shareholders won't tolerate IBM paying out forever over something that won't earn so much as a dime.

    If so, I think they picked the wrong target. IBM is doing great in this, as every time one of these ridiculous things hits the newsstands, IBM gets more press about being the good guy, defending Linux against corporate attacks. Plus, it's Big Blue, I'm sure their legal budget can absorb this without batting an eye (and SCO is most likely going to get pegged with IBM's legal fees when the case finally finishes, right before they declare bankruptcy).
  • "(SCO) can't be bargained with.(SCO) can't be reasoned with. (SCO) doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And (SCO) absolutely will not stop, ever, until (it is) dead."

    If I understand the movie you are referencing, aren't you giving the aliens a bad rap in this case? Even Ripley considered Burke worse than the aliens, "At least you don't see them fucking each other over for a percentage."

    Now if you were to compare SCO with Burke however...
  • by Ash Vince ( 602485 ) on Friday June 09, 2006 @02:03PM (#15503968) Journal
    I hadnt really though about what the endgame to all this would be until now. But this is probably a very good point.

    Microsoft must have realised they had a problem in having a 7 year gap in releases. They were worried a lot of companies may have switched or considered switching when the security side of XP started taking a battering as malware writers as such started to get to know all it little holes they left.

    So they needed a tactic to make Linux look dubious from a mass deployment point of view for the same period. This was especially true when they found out that alot of stuff like WinFS was not going to be ready in time. Combine this with the specs for what Vista would actually contain were starting to look thinner and thinner. Meanwhile various linux developers have read the Vista specs and are trying to implement their versions, some of which may actually be available first (This is quite easy as no company can bring the same number of developers to bear on a problem as the Open Source Movement as a whole)

    So their solution was to shop around for a company teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and offer the board a huge cash payout. this would keep the company afloat long enough for the various execs to find other work or reach retirement age. And if SCO get fined I doubt anyone at SCO or MS will care as the damage has been done, and the goldenhand shakes will be protected in the pension fund. (Personally if I was a SCO exec I would still want MS stock as a payout)

    The real problem is that the american legal system is such a crock of shit that this tactic will probably work, and the case will still be running until one side stops throwing money at it. Being that IBM have put themselves in a position where they cannot back down (They backed Linux 100%) this will hopefully be if SCO give up.

    But I do still worry that the (SCO) lawyers prevail and this results in all the Open Source resources I mentioned earlier being directed at rewriting a large chunk of the OS the same way MicroSoft has. In the case of MicroSoft this was because harsh deadlines caused poor design decisions. This is probably just MicroSoft's way of trying to cause similar problems to appear in Linux (or Linux 2) as the rewrite is hurried by the number of smaller companies that now rely on Linux (Mine Included as we use Linux to host almost everything).

    In the situation of worrying about losing your day job if you dont get your hobby programming done quick enough, the hobby programming will suffer in quality. Less Time to complete a task = More Mistakes in it's implementation.

    That could buy them decades being the only half decent OS supplier for the x86 platform again, just like the 80s. This would result in the development costs of Windows being halved as they stopped having to worry about quality to anywhere near the extend they do now.
  • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday June 09, 2006 @02:04PM (#15503974) Journal
    It doesn't seem like SCO can afford to pay IBM's costs, at what point can IBM start filing personal suits against SCO executives? At what point can stockholders start filing suits against SCO executives?

    Any shareholders that haven't dumped their stock now deserve to lose their shirts on this. I have no sympathy with people whose idea of a wise investment is a company with insanely absurd claims whose whole business plan is to set up a protection racket.

  • by Jason Earl ( 1894 ) on Friday June 09, 2006 @02:11PM (#15504056) Homepage Journal

    Yes, Caldera's strategy was stupid back in the day. Heck, both SuSE and Caldera had a better distribution than Red Hat, but Red Hat cornered the market by giving software away and selling services. However, you can always change your business model. SuSE did after Novell bought it. For years SuSE was essentially in the business of selling YaST.

    Not to mention the fact that with both Caldera and Novell having common roots Caldera could easily have been the Linux company that Novell snapped up, had it not been for the fact that the two companies were already locked in litigation.

  • You should contact IBM's legal team. Even just a written statement may be helpful in nailing SCO on their illegal behavior.
  • Re:Oh come on! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Phillup ( 317168 ) on Friday June 09, 2006 @02:55PM (#15504380)
    check out the .zip spec, the original 16-bit .EXE spec, the .gif spec, and a number of others.

    You had me right up to the point where you used a whole bunch of stuff invented after Unix as proof.

    So, I think the first question should be: When was ELF created?
  • by bstadil ( 7110 ) on Friday June 09, 2006 @05:07PM (#15505572) Homepage
    May I suggest you as a minimum post you comment over at Groklaw. We know for a fact that the lawyers at IBM reads that.
  • by schon ( 31600 ) on Friday June 09, 2006 @05:41PM (#15505836)
    Yes, Caldera's strategy was stupid back in the day.

    Compared to today?!??!?!?!

    They have the same type of morons running it now as they did then. Why do you think they'd be able to make a go of it now?

    SuSE and Caldera had a better distribution than Red Hat

    Yes, and all this does is go to prove that your original statement is wrong.

    If having a superior distro wasn't enough to keep them afloat, what on earth would make you think that they would succeed now?

    However, you can always change your business model.

    Only if you realize that your business model is what the problem is. Caldera is managed by people who can't understand that they are the ones who are the problem.

    Also, they *DID* change their business model: in 2003 they decided to become a litigation company, only they picked a fight they couldn't win, in the hopes that their target wouldn't call their bluff. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    They failed in the Linux business because they're managed by idiots. They're failing in the litigation business for the same reason. No amount of good luck can compensate for that.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...