Slashdot Log In
Novell Claims Ownership of UNIX System V
from the batter-up dept.
Bruce Perens writes:
"We knew that SCO's attack on Linux was a lie. But we never dreamed of the big lie behind it.
"This morning, Novell announced some of the terms of the company's 1995 agreement to sell its Unix business to SCO. The shocking news is that Novell did not sell the Unix intellectual property to SCO. Instead, they sold SCO a license to develop, sell, and sub-license Unix. The title to Unix copyrights and patents remains with Novell. To back up this assertion, Novell refers to public records at the Library of Congress Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent Office.
"In their announcement, Novell refers to recent letters from SCO asking Novell to assign the Unix copyrights to SCO. So, apparently SCO's management team knew that they did not own Unix while pursuing their sham campaign against Linux.
"Along with this revelation, Novell is reiterating its support of the Linux and Open Source developer community, and its status as a partner in that community. Novell rejects SCO's accusations of plagiarism. Novell management says they do not intend to stand in the way of the development of the Linux kernel, its companion GNU system, and other Free Software.
"It would be an understatement to say that this leaves SCO in a bad position. The company has loudly and repeatedly asserted that they were the owner of the Unix intellectual property, all of the way back to AT&T's original development of the system 30 years ago. They've lied to their stockholders, their customers and partners, the 1500 companies that they threatened, the press, and the public. Their untruthful campaign caused the loss of sales and jobs, and damaged Linux companies and developers in a myriad of ways. And now, SCO will be the lawsuit target. SCO's quarterly earnings conference call is this morning, at 9 AM MST (11 AM EST, 8 AM PST). Call 800-406-5356, toll-free, to participate. You might even get to ask a question. It should be fun to watch them try to weasel out of this one.
"Microsoft executives also have egg on their faces. The company self-servingly rushed to buy an SCO license one business day after the threat letter, bringing a senior attorney to the office on a Sunday to tell the press how much Microsoft values intellectual property. Microsoft's management could have taken the time to analyze SCO's claims, if the company had wanted this license for practical and technical reasons. Their decision to buy when they did must have been motivated by a desire to add to SCO's fear campaign. Of course they'll grab any opportunity to spread fear about Linux, but this time Microsoft bought a pig in a poke.
"SCO management, if they insist on standing in the way of a train, could still claim that software they developed in the years since 1995 is being infringed by the Open Source developers. That claim, always a dubious one, will be difficult to take seriously now that their prevarication throughout this campaign has come to light. SCO would be well advised to drop their suit against IBM in exchange for IBM's agreement not to counter-sue. But IBM might not feel that charitable toward SCO.
"In contrast to SCO, Novell's made a friend among the Free Software developers. We're always happy to see people using our software. But a real partnership between an IT vendor and our community is an equal partnership, with the company donating services and new software in exchange for the value it receives. Novell has already placed important software under Open Source licenses. Today, the company has done us a tremendous service, by stomping upon an obnoxious parasite."
Conference Call (Score:5, Funny)
Oh my god, you /.'ed the conference call.... You bastards! ;-)
Re:Conference Call - Don't do it (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.aktiom.net/)
You won't today be hearing a full-out apology to the OSS community, if ever at all. They might just quietly drop the whole thing while they figure out the next best lawsuit.
Colocated Linux Servers - From $60/mo [aktiom.net]
Re:Conference Call - Don't do it (Score:5, Informative)
(http://perens.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 07 2006, @08:49PM)
Bruce
New Number and Code! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://augustz.com/)
800-946-0719
they then ask for a code after a bit of a wait and will not connect without it.
Code is 728441
Enjoy the call!
Re:New Number and Code! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://perens.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 07 2006, @08:49PM)
Bruce
Re:New Number and Code! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://perens.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 07 2006, @08:49PM)
Bruce
Re:New Number and Code! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://honeypot.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday November 15, @11:49AM)
Re:New Number and Code! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Friday November 01 2002, @10:02PM)
Re:New Number and Code! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Conference Call - Don't do it (Score:5, Informative)
(http://fight-a-dui.com/)
The SCO claim is that:
" In the last 18 months, we found that IBM had donated some very high-end enterprise-computing technologies into open-source. Some of it looked like it was our intellectual property and subject to our licensing agreements with IBM. Their actions were in direct violation of our agreements with them that they would not share this information, let alone donate it into open-source. We have examples of code being lifted verbatim.
And IBM took the same team that had been working on a Unix code project with us and moved them over to work on Linux code. If you look at the code we believe has been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an entire section -- and in some cases, an entire program. "
They don't actually say they own the code (in this excerpt), but rather, that they have licensed it to IBM. As I'm sure you know, there are often agreements made that allow corporations to sublicense works; although Novell owns the code itself, if they granted SCO the right to license it (as they apparently have), and SCO licensed it to IBM (as they apparently have), IBM is still responsible for using it legally.
Still (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday December 06 2004, @10:11AM)
It is probably of little (business) interest to them anyway.
Of course, SCO might still then have a case against IBM, but Linux would be safe.
On the Contrary (Score:4, Interesting)
If the truth is as it now appears that SCO really has very little IP interest in the original Unix core, and Novell actually owns what IP remains, then of course they can release any possible legal liabilities for Linux as it is and even release versions of their Sys V property under a free license. Novell would be very wise to do something like this because there isn't much commercial value remaining in this IP. I claim that the commercial value would actually increase after they released all the old stuff under GPL or compatible license. Anyone wanting to create a commercial derivative product still has to come back to the original owners for a commercial license, and the GPL branch will bring experimentation and resources to both.
Re:Still (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that Novell is betting their future on Linux and OSS. Novell will be releasing NetWare 7 next year (hopefully) and they have stated that you will be able to choose the Linux or NetWare kernel at installation. Novell is working on migrating away from legacy NetWare and on to Linux for their services.
So it is indeed in Novell's business interest to ensure that:
1) Linux is not encumbered with IP issues
2) The reputation of Linux is not tarnished
Novell has a lot riding on this.
Re:Conference Call - Don't do it (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday October 25 2002, @11:31PM)
Good point. But this would also make it a pure license/contract issue between SCO and IBM - SCO does evidently not hold copyright or patent rights to the code, so they can't go after SuSE or any other GNU/Linux distributor, vendor or user.
If IBM broke the license, SCO can get damages. But unless I'm missing something it seems like they can not go after any other party for using or distributing said code. That makes the threat letter a bit puzzling, to say the least.
Re:Conference Call - Don't do it (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday May 02 2003, @12:35PM)
For years now, I've wondered just why anyone would choose to stick with SCO Unix when so many other versions existed, most of which are cheaper and/or more stable. When I heard that they were releasing their own Linux distro, I figured they had finally seen the end of the tunnel, and were migrating their apps to move into the application market... Of course, I didn't realize they were so bad off that trying to sue the next quarter's revenue was all they had left!
SCO should be given the same respect that they so clearly show the rest of the community. I hope IBM's 400-pound gorilla legal-team squashes them into jelly.
UNIX trademark and Unix code (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Conference Call - Don't do it (Score:4, Interesting)
This looks like something the SEC should be looking into. Making false claims in a lawsuit is one thing - lawyers are expected to be liars in court. Making false declarations on financial statements is something else.
Re:Conference Call - Don't do it (Score:5, Informative)
17. All commercial UNIX "flavors" in use today are based on the UNIX System V Technology ("System V Technology").
18. SCO is the present owner of all software code and licensing rights to System V Technology.
Just in .. new SCO claim (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday April 11 2005, @10:38AM)
http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2003/
Re:Just in .. new SCO claim (Score:5, Insightful)
Their problems with IBM may be a contract dispute but they've been actively claiming IP rights to all kinds of things to discourage Linux use. This may have something to do with the Monterey project and IBM pulling out of that. If so SCO may have a case if IBM used some of that work in Linux but this has nothing to do with System V work previous to that project. As such Linux wouldn't be in any bind except with respect to work provided by IBM with regards to the Monterey project. If SCO is claiming IBM violated rights with respect to Unix System V work, the IP rights of which are held by Novell, than SCO is going to get crushed like a bug.
Re:Just in .. new SCO claim (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://bioinformatics.ucsf.edu/bwtaylor)
SCO's reply states: "Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with."
This gives them no possible cause of action against anyone in the Linux community other than organizations that willingly entered into a contract with SCO. Moreover, it means that their entire case here can only be against IBM, for trade secret infringement of code that SCO itself published, which is not going to work. Yet SCO, by trying to claim trade secret protection on elements of the version of linux that they were shipping still violates the GPL clause 6 "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
Would some kernel contributor wake up and sue SCO for copyright infringement, please.
Re:Just in .. new SCO claim (Score:4, Informative)
(http://bioinformatics.ucsf.edu/bwtaylor)
The GPL requires SCO, as a DISTRIBUTOR of object code versions or modified source versions on linux, to licence the work as a whole under the GPL. The GPL and trade secrets are not compatible because GPL section 6 forcloses any additional restrictions such as an NDA and the GPL grants the whole world a licence to have the unmodified source. SCO's lawsuit is completely frivolous unless they have not agreed to waive the trade secret status on the unix code that is incorporated into linux. But if they haven't waived it, they have violated the GPL for years by distributing linux (regardless of whether they did so knowingly, though for three months they can't even make this defense). Thus any copyright owner of code in the linux kernel (ie any contributor) should be able to sue SCO for willful and unwillful copyright infringment.
Imagine the soilation of SCO's underwear if Red Hat filed copyright infringement in the US, Alan Cox filed copyright infringement in the UK, Linus Torvalds filed copyright infringement in Finland, SuSE filed copyright infringement in Germany, and so forth. I would think the firm that IBM has retained would probably be very interested in taking such cases on a contingency basis for the very purpose of making this litigation as painful as possible for SCO.
The claims don't match the "code" (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Wednesday January 03 2007, @11:08AM)
(The best explanation so far [I believe from here on SlashDot]: IBM coders used cut and paste instead.)
Partial "transcript" (not verbatim) (Score:5, Informative)
(http://farnorthracing.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 21, @10:50AM)
8.3 million in revenue from SCO Source licencing.
6000 licences.
They intend to increase these licences as they "agressively protect our intellectual property rights"
1/3rd of their projected earnings is from licencing, the rest is from OS products.
Lots of rah-rah "our best quarter ever" "we have eliminated all long-term debt"
The core business is still selling SCO UNIX
(which as an aside, means that you really cannot afford a wave of consumer hostility, can you?)
Looking to provide "subscription-based" services.
They have cash in the bank.
Their prime focus is defending themselves against Linux.
A nod towards the Novell thing - "SCO owns the UNIX contract rights" not the UNIX trademarks or IP.
A list of customers is presented... British Army just bought an asset/lifecycle management system for helicopters based on SCO UNIX
"SCO Source" is their new shakedown unit. 2 big licencees - one is secret, the other is Microsoft. Microsoft bought a licence for "Microsoft services for UNIX" putting UNIX source into Windows (?)
IBM is NOT the secret licencee.
They claim 3 code teams found violations where their code was in Linux, independantly.
No mention of what code, where.
Ahhhh... something makes sense now. Their Linux sales were tanking hard - they were making more money off SCO UNIX. So they're out to go toe-to-toe with Linux (a big part of which is anti-Linux FUD)
Q&A now starting:
First question mentions Novell release and asks for explicit listing with the code violations. They claim IBM has them (?)
Claim Novell blew them off; that there was a meeting yesterday that Novell skipped.
They refuse to publish the violations publically.
Next question is about how long the SCO Source revenue stream is likely to be. So far, they claim two contracts. No way to quantify how many contracts are in the pipeline.
What is happening Jun 14th re IBM/AIX? They will revoke the AIX licence. Details will follow.
Next question is from a capital company, asking about aquisitions. They want to get into web services, interact with Java and
They claim 2.2 million SCO servers - original business plan was to migrate those to Linux, and they lost money doing that. So now they want to keep those people on SCOX (at $1500 a server)
Nothing about why those people should stay on SCO when they have Linux readily availible....
Mr Wall Street thinks SCO is going to gain some short-term cash.
They think that their stock price spike reflects market confidence in SCO vs Linux
Another venture capitalist.... wants to know if licence deals will drive SCOX product sales.
They used SCO Source to raise capital instead of going to veture capital.
Next question asks for an estimate on legal costs. So far they are below their legal budget, but they are in for the long haul and are ready for countersuits.
Next caller wants to know why SCO was asking for transfer of UNIX copyrights from Novell and why they were denied. SCO doesn't seem to know what they own. They claim they own the UNIX copyrights, based on a contract review of the Novell contracts. They feel they can go toe-to-toe with Novell and win that fight too.
Next question wants to know if SCO has abandoned Linux sales. They claim lots of people are putting Linux implementation on hold, and that Linux "leadership" is dismissive to SCO IP rights. SCO is probably done with Linux. Caldara upgrade path is SCO UNIX.
That's it.
DG
Re:Partial "transcript" (not verbatim) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Conference Call (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.bsharitt.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 14 2007, @09:28PM)
Re:Conference Call (Score:5, Informative)
http://biz.yahoo.com/cc/0/30510.html [yahoo.com]
Re:Conference Call (Score:4, Informative)
They apparently had a source license deal with Microsoft.
About the current situation, he says check the website.They are going to terminate the license to IBM in 100 days.They blame code violations
They seem totally unapologetic about mailing fortune 500 companies about IP violations.
Re:Conf. call stats (Score:4, Informative)
Summary of the salient points that affect Linux:
"We looked at the agreement with Novell, we think we own the UNIX copyrights, they think they own it, we think we've got the better claim. We've got good legal backing, we're prepared for countersuits, we intend to see this through. We're not interested in going back into the Linux market, and intent to recommend our other products to Caldera Linux users as an upgrade path.
We like Open Source, we think it's great, but we don't like how the code just turns up out of nowhere [sort of defeats the point if code can't just turn up out of nowhere...].
We intend to retract IBM's AIX UNIX license at the expiry of our contract with them."
Staying Power (Score:5, Informative)
I got in just before the Q/A session. I took rough notes. I'm not skilled in the art of dictation, so you should assume the following is a fictional drama loosely based on reality, which happens to be extremely dificult to read. The part about Novell doing a no show at a scheduled meeting yesterday is interesting... Apologies to non-native-English speakers-- I'm too busy to clean this up.
Questions denoted "Q:", answers denoted "A:".
By the way, SCO is pronounced as one syllable, "sko", with a long "o". Hence SCO X is pronounced "sko-ex" and SCOsource "sko-source". ick...
Q: About the IBM suit: when will you put out info regarding allegations?
A: there are two parts:
1) in discussing with IBM, they've been made aware, we continue to work path with IBM...
2: novell announcment, response from 1500 letters has been significant, lots of companies asking what is going on, "am i running compromised?, is it illegal , who do i talk to?" we have people get their own legal opinions, second, we have invited people that have licenses with us, who are concerned, to come in, under nda, to be glad to go thru things we found. in novell case, they called last week about letter, we said we can sit down with them. set to meet Novell yesterday at 11AM and Novell didn't show up, then they sent out a letter saying SCO won't meet with them, and issues the press release.
Q: the info wrt allegations will not be made public?
A: correct
Q: comment on visibility of SCO source revenue stream. How long expect it to be a contribution to revenue. others?
A: started last quarter, had 8.2 million in revenue. SCOsource 1/3 of this. signed 2 contracts so far...
Q: any way to quantify?
A; range is very broad. for the coming quarter roughly 1/3 of revenue from SCOsource...
Q: will you be able to disclose other contracted party in future?
A:
Q: what happens on June 14th with IBM? About their AIX license?
A: we will revoke their AIX license if no resolution. exact details, not ruling out, can't say definitively,
Q: do ou anticipate coming to a resolution before 6/14?
A; that question is for the other folks...
Q: Nice quarter guys... can you share [question doesn't sound interestng to Linux folk, but is about busines stategy]
A: [Answer is very long-winded-- speaker is happy to answer this one]
Q: [question from same person about business particulars]
A:
Q: [ditto]
A:
Q: [question about SCO X and SCOsource contract values in relation to new products]
A: [... he incidentaly mentions SCO is debt-free and has cash]
Q: [how much money set aside in defending IP claims?]
A: we have a lot of "staying power" [
Q: is legal structure based on contingency [A: yes] and does it include countersuits? [A: yes]
Q: Novell said this morning SCO asked Novell to transfer UNIX IP...
A: We haven't mentioned "copyright" or "patents". Everything we listed is about the contracs [with IBM]... that is our focus. There was confusing language with Novell/SCO agreement... this doesn't make any sense... how do you transfer IP without the copyright?... like selling a book w/o the words... some Novell people said this makes no sense... they concluded "if SCO wants this Novell wants it too"... legal people read contract in entirety... it's clear we [SCO] own the copyrights...
Q: Suspension o
real Unix owner (Score:4, Funny)
Re:real Unix owner (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Monday July 29 2002, @08:50AM)
Will the real Unix owner, please stand up, please stand up...
or, "Who owns the code code to the Unix source? SCO does.
who me?
yes you.
Couldn't be
Then who?
Novell owns the code to the Unix source
who me?
Yes you.
continue...
Ah, shit, why don't we just call it all open source and be happy.
Re:real Unix owner (Score:5, Funny)
May I have your attention please?
Will the real UNIX Owner please stand up?
I repeat, will the real UNIX Owner please stand up?
We're gonna have a problem here..
Y'all act like you never seen linux source code before
Jaws all on the floor like Bruce, like Linus just burst in the door
and started whoopin that SCO's ass worse than before
they were first with the source, throwin it over IBM (Ahh!)
It's the return of the... "Ah, wait, no way, you're kidding,
he didn't just say what I think he did, did he?"
And Novell Man said... nothing you idiots!
Novell Man's dead, he's locked in my basement! (Ha-ha!)
Kernel lovin men love Novell too
SCO UNIX, I'm sick of it
Look at them, walkin around suing users' you-know-what
Flippin the you-know-who, "Yeah, but he's so cute though!"
Yeah, SCO probably got a couple of screws up in the head loose
But no worse, than what's goin on in their corporate boardrooms
Sometimes, I wanna get on Slashdot and just let loose, but can't
but it's cool for Cowboy Neal to spread his lie caboose
"My source is on your lips, my source is on your lips"
And if I'm lucky, you might just give it a little kiss
And that's the message that we deliver to little kids
And expect them not to know what an OS's source code is
Of course they gonna know what linux sourse is
By the time they hit fourth grade
They got the Discovery Channel don't they?
"We ain't nothing but hackers.." Well, some of us are slackers
who cut other people open like smashed crackers But if we can hack a dead OS and take our source
then there's no reason that a man and his penguin can't recourse
But if you feel like I feel, I got the antidote
Men here wave anti-SCO flags, sing the chorus and it goes
I'm UNIX Owner, yes I'm the real Owner
All you other UNIX Owners are just lying loaners
So won't the real UNIX Owner please stand up,
please stand up, please stand up?
Re:real Unix owner (Score:5, Funny)
Re:real Unix owner (Score:4, Funny)
(http://web.abnormal.com/)
1) AT&T
Easy right? No. There is Bell Labs and AT&T switching (whatever its called this week) who both maintain different versions. There is the terminal company that was spun off (TTY maybe?). Many compaines that came out of the bell breakup do have full rights to use and resell Unix [TM] even tough "main" control was sold off.
2) AT&T and Sun sort of did some cross breeding and Sun did get full rights to that as well. So add Sun to the list.
3) Cray computer company has a full license but they no longer exist but SGI and Sun own the remains. So add Sun to the list again.
4) Sun bought the rights from SCO or Novel for like $80 million. Full unquestionalbe rights. Add them in again but there was a reason they wrote the check.
5) SCO (who bought some rights from Novel or was it the other way around and aren't they related at some level anyway?)
6) All early bell licenses have rights and most of them have different rights. Many schools have rights. OU for example has license rights that few other schools had but the rumor is they used their 1st Unix tape to spiff up a Christmas tree.
7) UCB. They ended up in court. Ended up with rights and still pulled the old stuff out. They might have more rights though since Sys V was a blend between their stuff (through Sun again) and AT&T.
8) M$ had some rights that they blew away because of some pesky judge being insightful to their business model. Just how much those rights were released could be left as an exercise for a new judge but the last ruling may have done away with the 1st ruling. Opps.
9) Cowboy Neil might be in there somewhere too. I'm sure of it...
Re:And.... (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday December 07, @02:37PM)
SCO can sue IBM for breach of contract. IBM can lose. It'll not make a blind bit of difference to anyone except IBM and SCO and anyone else who signed a contract with SCO.
Anything generically aimed at Linux now is FUD.
Re:And.... (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday December 07, @02:37PM)
Re:And.... (Score:4, Informative)
SCO® owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux® by any UNIX vendor.
Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights.
SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights. SCO's complaint specifically alleges breach of contract, and SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees.
We formed SCOsource in January 2003 to enforce our UNIX rights and we intend to aggressively continue in this successful path of operation.
SCO is a registered trademark of The SCO Group.
UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.
Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Wednesday May 21 2003, @01:51PM)
Finally, SCO being put in its place. I just wonder why this took so long for Novell to bring up.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
My feeling on that is rather simple, actually. They had to make for 100% damn sure that they were right in what they were gonna say to the public. They've probably dumped millions into lawyers over the past few weeks / months to make for SURE that SCO is / was wrong. THAT is probably what took so long.
Or maybe it's just they're not doing all that well since M$ took over the Network arena.
Oh... right, I forgot... M$ has been giving money to SCO...
Hmmm...
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.sigsegv.cx/)
It is called "Open fire with the main armament from point blank range".
It's all in the timing Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.bcgreen.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday March 19 2005, @02:57PM)
This morning would be the best time to do so because SCO is already comitted to a press conference that they cannot cancel or delay.
lock, stock and two smoking barrels.
Oh, man I sooo want to source a class-action libel suit against SCO.
Novell Press Release Text: (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.bcgreen.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday March 19 2005, @02:57PM)
PROVO, Utah -- May 28, 2003 -- Defending its interests in developing services to operate on the Linux platform, Novell today issued a dual challenge to The SCO Group over its recent statements regarding its UNIX ownership and potential intellectual property rights claims over Linux.
First, Novell challenged SCO's assertion that it owns the copyrights and patents to UNIX System V, pointing out that the asset purchase agreement entered into between Novell and SCO in 1995 did not transfer these rights to SCO. Second, Novell sought from SCO facts to back up its assertion that certain UNIX System V code has been copied into Linux. Novell communicated these concerns to SCO via a letter (text below) from Novell® Chairman and CEO Jack Messman in response to SCO making these claims.
"To Novell's knowledge, the 1995 agreement governing SCO's purchase of UNIX from Novell does not convey to SCO the associated copyrights," Messman said in the letter. "We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights. Apparently you share this view, since over the last few months you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO, requests that Novell has rejected."
"SCO claims it has specific evidence supporting its allegations against the Linux community," Messman added. "It is time to substantiate that claim, or recant the sweeping and unsupported allegation made in your letter. Absent such action, it will be apparent to all that SCO's true intent is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Linux in order to extort payments from Linux distributors and users."
"Novell has answered the call of the open source community," said Bruce Perens, a leading proponent of open source. "We admire what they are doing. Based on recent announcements to support Linux with NetWare services and now this revelation...Novell has just won the hearts and minds of developers and corporations alike."
Text of the letter from Novell to SCO:
Mr. Darl McBride
President and CEO
The SCO Group
Re: SCO's "Letter to Linux Customers"
Dear Darl:
As you know, Novell recently announced some important Linux initiatives. These include an upcoming NetWare version based on the Linux kernel, as well as collaboration and resource management solutions for Linux.
Put simply, Novell is an ardent supporter of Linux and the open source development community. This support will increase over time.
It was in this context that we recently received your "Letter to Linux Customers." Many Novell business partners and customers apparently received the same letter. Your letter compels a response from Novell.
As we understand the letter, SCO alleges that unnamed entities incorporated SCO's intellectual property into Linux without its authorization. You apparently base this allegation on a belief that these unnamed entities copied some UNIX System V code into Linux. Beyond this limited understanding, we have been unable to glean any further information about your allegation because of your letter's vagueness.
In particular, the letter leaves certain critical questions unanswered. What specific code was copied from UNIX System V? Where can we find this code in Linux? Who copied this code? Why does this alleged copying infringe SCO's intellectual property? By failing to address these important questions, SCO has failed to put us on meaningful notice of any allegedly infringing Linux code, and thus has withheld from us the ability - and removed any corresponding obligation - to address your allegation.
As best we can determine, the vagueness about your allegation is intentional. In
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
Because SCO's earnings call is THIS morning.
This isn't just a smackdown, this -- today's release, the Perens-for-the-Prosecution piece on Page One of SlashDot, along with the divulging of the Conference Call Phone Number (nice one, that!) -- is a highly-coordinated strike meant to drop a tactical nuke down their shorts. This is calculated to not just damage SCO but make their Corporate Headquarters a Dead Zone for the next Three Thousad Years.
Nice Work, everyone! Proud to be a small part of it, even if only as a witness.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Cool. So now might be a good time to short it, since it will probably fall back to where it was before this whole thing started.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.earlrobinson.com/)
At this price, the company is now worth about $100 Mil. At $1.40/share, it was worth less than $20 Mil. At either price, SCO is overvalued, but a buyout would be chump change to most SV players. Sun probably would gain the most, they could move anybody left on sco to solaris86, and use sco's customer list/services biz to push new solaris and raq sales. They'd also save a little cash on thier license for UNIX(TM).
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights.
However, in the press release about the stock holder's conference call, they state this:
The SCO Group (NASDAQ: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX operating system...
Sounds like SCO is doing a little backpedaling in the Yahoo article. :-)
Re:No, _I_ own Unix! (Score:4, Funny)
(http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 27, @07:07AM)
Novell reveals that after the SCO license deal, they actually sold the UNIX patents to MS to rais capital.
Tomorrows news:
MS admits that it thought any UNIX IP was worthless, and sold it to a .com startup, which has since gone bust. The UNX IP in question was then awarded to a now out-of-work janitor somewhere in the silicon valley at liquidation, in compensation for a lack of salary. A hunt for this individual is now in progress...
Re:Best Kirk Douglas gladiator type voice (Score:4, Funny)
Novell's press release (Score:5, Informative)
"SCO continues to say that it owns the UNIX System V patents, yet it must know that it does not. A simple review of U.S. Patent Office records reveals that Novell owns those patents.
"Importantly, and contrary to SCO's assertions, SCO is not the owner of the UNIX copyrights. Not only would a quick check of U.S. Copyright Office records reveal this fact, but a review of the asset transfer agreement between Novell and SCO confirms it."
Of course, this doesn't address the "source code theft" issues, but hopefully this will shut SCO up about the UNIX IP issues.
Full text of release (Score:5, Informative)
Novell Challenges SCO Position, Reiterates Support for Linux
PROVO, Utah -- May 28, 2003 -- Defending its interests in developing services to operate on the Linux platform, Novell today issued a dual challenge to The SCO Group over its recent statements regarding its UNIX ownership and potential intellectual property rights claims over Linux.
First, Novell challenged SCO's assertion that it owns the copyrights and patents to UNIX System V, pointing out that the asset purchase agreement entered into between Novell and SCO in 1995 did not transfer these rights to SCO. Second, Novell sought from SCO facts to back up its assertion that certain UNIX System V code has been copied into Linux. Novell communicated these concerns to SCO via a letter (text below) from Novell® Chairman and CEO Jack Messman in response to SCO making these claims.
"To Novell's knowledge, the 1995 agreement governing SCO's purchase of UNIX from Novell does not convey to SCO the associated copyrights," Messman said in the letter. "We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights. Apparently you share this view, since over the last few months you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO, requests that Novell has rejected."
"SCO claims it has specific evidence supporting its allegations against the Linux community," Messman added. "It is time to substantiate that claim, or recant the sweeping and unsupported allegation made in your letter. Absent such action, it will be apparent to all that SCO's true intent is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Linux in order to extort payments from Linux distributors and users."
"Novell has answered the call of the open source community," said Bruce Perens, a leading proponent of open source. "We admire what they are doing. Based on recent announcements to support Linux with NetWare services and now this revelation...Novell has just won the hearts and minds of developers and corporations alike."
Text of the letter from Novell to SCO:
Mr. Darl McBride
President and CEO
The SCO Group
Re: SCO's "Letter to Linux Customers"
Dear Darl:
As you know, Novell recently announced some important Linux initiatives. These include an upcoming NetWare version based on the Linux kernel, as well as collaboration and resource management solutions for Linux.
Put simply, Novell is an ardent supporter of Linux and the open source development community. This support will increase over time.
It was in this context that we recently received your "Letter to Linux Customers." Many Novell business partners and customers apparently received the same letter. Your letter compels a response from Novell.
As we understand the letter, SCO alleges that unnamed entities incorporated SCO's intellectual property into Linux without its authorization. You apparently base this allegation on a belief that these unnamed entities copied some UNIX System V code into Linux. Beyond this limited understanding, we have been unable to glean any further information about your allegation because of your letter's vagueness.
In particular, the letter leaves certain critical questions unanswered. What specific code was copied from UNIX System V? Where can we find this code in Linux? Who copied this code? Why does this alleged copying infringe SCO's intellectual property? By failing to address these important questions, SCO has failed to put us on meaningful notice of any allegedly infringing Linux code, and thus has withheld from us the ability - and removed any corresponding obligation - to address your allegation.
As best we can determine, the vagueness about your allegation is intentional. In response to industry demands that you be more specific, you attempt to justify your vagueness by stating, "That's like saying, 'show us the
Re:Novell's press release (Score:5, Interesting)
After turning this over in my head a bit, I think you're right. SCO can go after IBM for breach of contract, but it would be Novell that would need to begin procedings to remove the code from Linux.
This assumes that the code in question is part of the SysV UNIX code that SCO bought from Novell. If it is something that SCO developed after the fact, it could be a different story. But since SCO has been begging Novell for the copyright to the SysV code, I can only assume that isn't the case.
Constantly shifting FUD (Score:4, Informative)
(http://noseserver.caltech.edu/~sisk)
Really? 'Cause that's not what you said before, you bunch of assholes. Last month, it was patents, copyrights, AND trade secrets. Then they got outted about the patents, and the fact they don't own any (Novell and Tarantella do I believe). Then it was copyrights and trade secrets, according to Darl [computerworld.com]. Now, they drop the copyright argument, after Novell decides to shame them, and evidently are down to trade secret.
Of course, if he's punting the copyright argument, that puts linux out of damage, or should.
Naturally, they're still lying, since they don't know how to do anything else. My favorite line from their press release today:
"SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor."
Really? They do? That little bitty circle-R there seems to imply a copyright. I wonder if the Open Group will bitchslap them the way Novell just did, since they own that trademark. Anyone can call any product Unix if Open Group says so, and SCO ain't got a thing to do with it. The only way to make the above sentence true is to substitute UNIX with OpenUnix. Now, the only thing they can hang on to is if IBM put some project Monterrey into linux. That's it, and good luck SCO.
I mean, I understand lying and all to get some cash through FUD, but they're losing their skill at it, because their latest is just bunk through and through.
Lying to their shareholders is an SEC Offense (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://jm-smith.com/)
If this is true (and it almost certainly is
And, as others have pointed out, the civil damages and liability resulting from this fraudulant deception against SCO and those personally involved in the deception could well be quite staggaring. These people could well end up broke and in prison.
This, of course, assumes the government actually chooses to enforce the law this time. As we saw with the Microsoft Anti-Trust case, that is certainly not a given.
Regardless, however, it does vindicate GNU/Linux and free software in the extreme, and it does demonstrate the depths of depravity that Microsoft (who was quite transparently pushing this and financing it via a license they clearly weren't required to get) and its shills, such as SCO, will sink to.
The best revenge is living well, indeed, living better than those who have wronged you. Even if SCO were to get off scott free (unlikely), clearly, anyone running FreeBSD (which could theoretically have been targeted with a similiar FUD campaign) and GNU/Linux are living quite well (in the technical arena at least), certainly much better than the poor sops running Unixware and SCO, and arguably quite a bit better than those running the product of SCO's master in Redmond. We should take joy in that fact (but not let it slow down the counter suits and prosecutions from those who were more directly wronged by SCO's illegal and unconscionable behavior).
Re:Lying to their shareholders is an SEC Offense (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.tanningbeds.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @07:23AM)
The first thing the SEC will look at is "WHO sold stock during this time?". Was this lawsuit simply a trick to get the stock price to jump up a little higher, sell and come out, or short it now, and come out?
As Rush would say, follow the money trail....
"you repeatedly asked us to transfer ownership" (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://stodge.blogspot.com/)
Re:"you repeatedly asked us to transfer ownership" (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday October 29 2002, @10:47AM)
I know your joking, but once a company lies to the court, fakes videos in court, and has dead people sending letters to the Attorney General of Utah, can you trust them not to do anything that's illegal?
Microsoft has proven without a doubt they are one of the most immoral, corrupt, and untrustworthy companies in the world. After their trackrecord of lies and illegal acts it really couldn't be a surprise to anyone that Microsoft was behind this whole thing.
Re:"you repeatedly asked us to transfer ownership" (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't trust them with a broken horse collar. And I don't even have a horse.
AT&T (Score:4, Funny)
(http://budcub.smugmug.com/)
Re:AT&T (Score:4, Insightful)
Why stop there?
According to SCO's response, "SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor."
Protecting their code is understandable, but "methods and concepts" is dangerous ground. If a court interprets this the way SCO hopes they do, then the owners of Multics IP could turn around and sue SCO. This could work all the way back to the guy who first came up with the idea of binary representation for instructions and data in digital computer systems, at which point no-one can write a simple "hello world" program without violating someone's IP.
And all of this comes to us via a system that supposed to foster innovation. It's not hard to see that something is seriously messed up.
An interview with SCO CEO here (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdolt.org/)
" In the last 18 months, we found that IBM had donated some very high-end enterprise-computing technologies into open-source. Some of it looked like it was our intellectual property and subject to our licensing agreements with IBM. Their actions were in direct violation of our agreements with them that they would not share this information, let alone donate it into open-source. We have examples of code being lifted verbatim.
And IBM took the same team that had been working on a Unix code project with us and moved them over to work on Linux code. If you look at the code we believe has been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an entire section -- and in some cases, an entire program. "
Re:An interview with SCO CEO here (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.micromux.com/)
The real FUD here is that SCO is trying to claim the Linux codebase is fundamentally a copy of UNIX System V. From SCO's original letter:
"We believe that Linux infringes on our UNIX intellectual property and other rights."
Oops... Clearly SCO does not own the IP to UNIX, this belongs to Novell. SCO is a merely a clearinghouse for managing the UNIX licensing. These words may come back to haunt them.
The new code developed jointly between IBM and SCO could be in question here, but this does not warrent a mass mailing to everyone in silicon valley. There will be reparations made, SCO has misstated the facts.
More FUD can be found here [sco.com]. The Stallman quote is most telling, "There is very little new stuff in Linux.". Stallman is not implying that Linux is a copylefted UNIX (as SCO would have you believe), but rather that Linux borrows the UNIX paradigm (pipes, processes, small programs for each command, etc.).
Don't be surprised when IBM, HP, Novell and others slap SCO a classaction lawsuite putting them in violation of their glorified UNIX policeman title.
show me the money, McBitch! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://lists.clickers.org/linuxsig/index.html | Last Journal: Friday December 07, @12:48AM)
Hints, horeshoes and hand granades are all useless in court. What wonders and marvels does he have that have yet to be expressed in any SCO product besides Caldera Linux? It's not there.
Why is it that they don't point to it explicitly? Surely it's not to protect publically publishes source code, nor can they care much about actual damages if they don't send specific cease and dissist orders. Anything they point to can be rewritten without trouble. The only reason is that it's not there.
It's not here, it's not there it's not anywhere. The whole case is some kind of weird sham for the M$ PR department.
Still want that $100 one time fee, McBitch? Yeah, that's what I thought. Why don't you go buy me a happy meal and we'll call it even.
TV (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.awesomeplay.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday November 10 2005, @04:51PM)
Re:SCO (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.google.org/)
Re:Fire in the hole... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://perens.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 07 2006, @08:49PM)
Bruce
This is golden... (Score:4, Funny)
(http://timgray.blogspot.com/)
what's next in this saga?
Re:This is golden... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 27, @07:07AM)
Novell discovers that they don't actually own the IP anymore. They sold it to MS a while back when they were short of cash.
Next week we'll find out who MS sold it to.
The week after, we'll find the relevant patents on eBay, and an intense bidding war going on between MS and IBM.
W00t!!! (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Thursday May 04 2006, @03:31PM)
Proud Novell Admin, pimpin' to keep Bill in business.
Re:W00t!!! (Score:5, Informative)
You probably can support Novell by joining Novell Forge [novell.com] and helping write some opensource software.
Thanks Novell. First for UDDI and now for this.just don't change your mind.
Also this development begs the question "What exactly did Microsoft buy from SCO?"
Unix (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Tuesday April 12 2005, @11:12PM)
At this point, I'm not sure if I want it to be owned by everybody or by nobody, but at least being "owned" by two is better than by (a bad) one.
Only one possible response (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.vanitydomainsarelikeso20thcentury.org/)
Like everyone else I got all got all pissed off with Caldera/SCO for their petty, vindictive & malicious behaviour. But now look at 'em... the management team will never work again in corporate America, the company will be bust quicker than you can say "busted flush", and the shareholders (if there's any justice) will be left with nothing. How hilarious!
Re:Only one possible response (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
If only that were true. Unfortunately, private enterprise does a poor job of recognizing a loser manager when it sees one. Even if you take your company into the toilet, you've got experience and a bunch of connections to get that next job.
SCO replies (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday October 23 2006, @12:44PM)
The following statement is being issued by SCO (Nasdaq: SCOX - News):
SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor.
Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights.
SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights. SCO's complaint specifically alleges breach of contract, and SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees.
We formed SCOsource in January 2003 to enforce our UNIX rights and we intend to aggressively continue in this successful path of operation.
Re:SCO replies (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday August 05 2004, @01:40PM)
Re:SCO replies (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless, of course, what SCO means by having the "contract rights" to Unix involves having the exclusive right to license the source (but if so, why didn't they say so?). And, how exactly would posessing the exclusive right to license be different from copyright itself?
Re:SCO replies (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.crystalwind.org/)
It's different because SCO's agreement with Novell is a contract that can be renegotiated or terminated (non-sequitur: I wonder if Novell can use SCO's claims regarding Unix to claim breach of contract and yank those "exclusive rights"?) whereas Novell's rights under copyright are in extent until the expiration of the copyright -- that's 100 years for corporations, thanks DMCA!
When SCO is nothing but a bitter memory, Novell can contract those "exclusive rights" to IBM, Sun, Microsoft, or say "the heck with it" and release the code into the wild under an open-source license.
Jay (=
Re:SCO replies (Score:5, Interesting)
This wouldn't make it a copyright violation, but a contract violation that could have a serious ripple effect. We can't know until Novell or SCO releases the relevant terms of the contract.
Re:SCO replies (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I thought "Contracts" were a method for doing business in good faith with people, not just something to be used for frivolous lawsuits....
There is one valid point left... (Score:4, Informative)
The claim that Linux was ripping off SysV code *before* IBM started doing open-source development is now much shakier, because even if SCO is right about this, they have no legal rights to pursue it- as far as we know, they have no contractual relationship with any of the other Linux companies. Novell might, but they've shown where they stand on the issue. Therefore, SCO's letter to the 1500 companies could get them in huge trouble if they turned out to be lying about the code ownership, and would be construed by the courts as an attempt to extort licensing fees. (We all know this, but what matters is making a judge understand.)
Re:SCO replies (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://members.cox.net/rbstrickland/)
Well, that's an incentive to NOT do business with them.
Number Changed (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday July 14 2003, @02:14PM)
Re:could still be a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 05 2006, @10:36PM)
Migrating away from Linux would be a mistake. This is probably the most concerted, well thought out, and dangerous attack against Linux that has ever been launched. It did not succeed. The people who are adopting Linux for the first time (corporate red-hatters), will not understand the vagaries of the constant gear-changing behavior of the open source community at large. We all use particular software, often for "religious" reasons, such as my use of Mandrake because it's not a US based Linux distro. If you go down the list of why people use BSD, Debian, etc., you'll have a laundry list of geopolitical, IP law, and every other sort of activism expressed in what is installed on our PCs and servers.
I realize that it may be distasteful to some of us to support something precisely because of popularity, but if we truly care about the freedom that open source represents, then we should try to make sure that as many people as possible get a chance to try the red pill. That means sustaining the open source revolution, which is, as far as the rest of humanity is concerned, a Linux revolution.
Indeed, if the open source community retracts from Linux, and kills its gathering market momentum, we will have accomplished what the world's most best IP attorneys bankrolled by the world's most evil corporation could not achieve. How does one defeat Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt except by choosing to be unafraid?
What did Microsoft buy ? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Tuesday January 13 2004, @04:16PM)
And most importantly, how much did they buy it for ?
Re:What did Microsoft buy ? (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Wednesday November 10 2004, @06:46PM)
Re:What did Microsoft buy ? (Score:5, Interesting)
1500 threatening letters to companies using Linux. That amounts to a whole lot of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. SCO's claims don't have to be true to do the kind of damage the MicroSoft wants done to Linux. After all, didn't MS warn companies that they might get sued for using Linux? Convenient.
Re:What did Microsoft buy ? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Thursday August 05 2004, @01:40PM)
Apparently they have some product in the pipeline which would be easier to create with the unix source... probably interoperability or that text-mode windows server we were hearing about
Re:Learn your metaphors - cat out of the bag!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://perens.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 07 2006, @08:49PM)
Thanks
Bruce
Re:future (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday November 02 2004, @12:06PM)
Re:SCO Statement on Novell's Recent Actions (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://jearl.0catch.com/)
That's just pure unadulterated @#$!!. SCO sent out threatening letters to 1500 companies many of whom don't have contracts with SCO. If this case is about breach of contract then what in the heck is SCO doing intimidating these customers.
The fact of the matter is that SCO is simply trying to run up their share price so that SCO management can make a buck on the implosion of their company.
Why did Novell wait til now? (Score:4, Interesting)
How the heck did SCO buy "Unix" without buying the copyrights? Why have they been in discussion (dispute?) between SCO and Novell for the past several months? Novell's letter has qualifiers like "to our knowledge" when it says SCO doesn't own the copyrights. It sounds like the Novell-SCO agreement has been flawed all along and nobody knows what the real situation is.
I think there are yet more layers to this madness waiting to be unpeeled.
Inquirer article includes text of Novell letter (Score:5, Informative)
Heh, I submitted this seemingly seconds before it was posted by Michael.
The press release link at Novell in the story appears to have been replaced with a blank page, at least for now. This story [theinquirer.net] at the Inquirer includes a copy of the letter that Novell's CEO sent to SCO's CEO Darl McBride. Good stuff.
Stock (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.allumbrados.com/)
Down 4% since the market opened this morning, half of that in the last 20 minutes.
NASDAQ: SCOX [nasdaq.com]
Computing History (Score:4, Insightful)
The plot twists and turns are making this into a very intersting story.
does this remind anyone of wrestling? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.geocities.com/scotthallexpress/Bio.html | Last Journal: Wednesday June 30 2004, @10:25AM)
Next week they'll be a tag match to determine the UNIX championship...in the cage!
hehe.... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://perlmonks.org/ | Last Journal: Friday June 20 2003, @01:34PM)
IBM and SCO start out, with IBM teasing a test of strength, SCO begins, but gets scared and immediately tags in Microsoft.
Microsoft and IBM go at it, with Microsoft gaining the upperhand. IBM is almost down and out, when a diving tag in to Novell.
HOT TAG!
Novell clears house, and the crowd is going wild, SCO gets back up, and they start double teaming both until
CHAIRSHOT!
Bruce Pearns jumps out from the side, and knocks Novell out!
JIM ROSS: "OH MUH GOD! THEY'VE BEEN DOUBLE CROSSED!"
Linux is safe, even if IBM is not (Score:5, Interesting)
eniac (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
The exact same thing happened when Sperry (the company that bough Eckert and Mauchly's company, which made UNIVAC) was sued for rights to the ENIAC patent (that Mauchly and Eckert at the time held). No one had contested that Eckert and Mauchly had designed the first electronic computer, but instead had hooked onto details in the patent file. Ironically, IBM was in a very similar position as it is with the SCO/Linux problem. IBM has cooperated with open source to a great degree, just as it had licensed Eckert and Mauchly's products and was seen as a supported of the "dark side" by SCO, just as they were seen by those trying to strip E & M of their patents.
History really has a funny way of repeating itself
Re:eniac (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, it was "Remington Rand" which bought out Eckert and Mauchly. The "Sperry Rand" merger happened later.
No one had contested that Eckert and Mauchly had designed the first electronic computer.
Honeywell claimed that the Univac patent was invalid because the design was derived from the work of Atanasoff and Berry.
Novell the champ? Or the new SCO? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://ghazan.hazara.org/)
Novells the champ I suppose here, it will win enormous support form the Linux community on this issue if it can really torpedo SCO, but the big fish is Microsoft. Their link to SCO absolutely must be revealed, I think IBM Suse Redhat Novell and others will have an easy time suing Microsoft back on this if the connection is properly revealed.
This issue must be shut ASAP, because it might be causing jitters among ignorant corporate decision makers and consultants. People like Linus should come out to the public after SCO's claims have been squashed, to get the word out that Linux's license is robust and will not drown the way some other UNIXen did.
And finally it would make Novell a hero to release the whole UNIX under an opensource license, preferably GPL, since they're contemplating moving to Linux anyway. These guys have been really innovative for the Internet and the practically invented the LAN for the masses, they should be supported. Their support in these tough times shows the principles behind the free software movement are not simply financially motivated, but are based on ideals that UNIX users and developers anywhere in the world can relate to. Microsoft couldnt fight that.
Well, that clears it with Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
And congrats from Novell, coming late but well. I imagine it took them this long to go "What the hell is SCO talking about? Did we royally screw up? Let our bloodhou^H^H^H^Hlawyers review all the contracts we made."
Kjella
Founder confusion? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.jroller.com/page/shareme/Weblog | Last Journal: Tuesday September 03 2002, @07:25AM)
You would think he would have warned the SCO Group board about their own stupidity, no?
Re:Founder confusion? (Score:4, Interesting)
Since it's lose-lose for Canopy (and Noorda) I guess the only thing to do was to stay mum. After all, he's really only a VC now.
*Could have knocked me over with a feather to see TrollTech on Canopy's list as well...
Have SCO stolen code from Linux ? (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO profit due to UNIX licensing (Score:5, Interesting)
Their stock price is down today, so maybe The Street finally sees that the reality of the situation is that their operating systems division is failing. It is ironic that SCO made a profit selling licences to something that Novell now claims it 'owns' but I really cannot make sense of this mess any more. So maybe I just misundersand how SCO can sell licenses to something that Novell opwns the copyrights to.
SCO Response Contradicts their own website! (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO is the owner of the UNIX Operating System Intellectual Property that dates all the way back 1969, when the UNIX System was created at Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the patents, copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX System
I.e. they're fucked.
Many kudo's to Bruce Perens for his obvious behind the scenes lobbying and to Novell for trying to pamper the community (hope they succeed, they're a cute, insignificant little friendly, furry, huggable company and deserve a profitable niche in todays market).
Re:SCO Response Contradicts their own website! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://perens.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 07 2006, @08:49PM)
Bruce
Stock Performance (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.davidkrider.com/)
SCO 's Stock Performance [cnet.com]
I think it's high time that the SEC got involved here.
Re:insider trading (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday January 21 2002, @10:12AM)
SCO's response to Novell (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO Statement on Novell's Recent Actions
Wednesday May 28, 10:15 am ET
LINDON, Utah, May 28
SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor.
Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights.
SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights. SCO's complaint specifically alleges breach of contract, and SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees.
We formed SCOsource in January 2003 to enforce our UNIX rights and we intend to aggressively continue in this successful path of operation.
So if.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone know how much revenue they derive from licensing the source code?
Re:Ransom Love? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://perens.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 07 2006, @08:49PM)
Bruce
Interesting reply from SCO (Score:3, Informative)
"SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights." [yahoo.com]
So what the hell does it involve?
Where's the talk of IP infringement now?
It seems SCO's lawsuit and SCO itself are finished.
SCO Conference call - Liston online! (Score:4, Informative)
They're Investor Relations Page [sco.com] says, you can listen here. [sco.com]
Here's a blurb from their page;
You may also join via listen-only web cast by clicking on the url located at http://ir.sco.com/conference.cfm or www.companyboardroom.com.
Novell? You listening? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/~Asprin | Last Journal: Wednesday November 05 2003, @03:24PM)
One hand doesn't know what the other is doing (Score:3)
Conference call stats (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.idlewords.com/)
I had no trouble getting in, by identifying myself as an individual investor.
He claims "not just a line or two of code problems [in Linux], but significant code problems."
"Millions of lines of code showing up without anyone warrantying [sic] where the lines of code came from"
No mention of Novell yet.
On the phone with SCO now.. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://xaxxon.slackworks.com/)
They are talking about the MS SCO licensing deal. Not much info.
They're talking about the IBM lawsuit.. just that they sued them, didn't specify the amount. Said that in June they'd revoke the AIX UNIX license.
Talking about the Linux letter.. that they sent to everyong. Said they found code violations -- not saying what code. Said 3 teams came back with "significant code problems". Said they were legally advised to send letters to enterprise users of Linux to advise misappropriation of code.
Regarding Linux: "Millions of lines of code without knowing where they came from" -- almost a quote. Very close. Grrr.. pissing me off.
Q&A session coming soon...
Re:On the phone with SCO now.. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://group18.hopto.org/)
Behold the Power of Slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://chronx.com/)
"Last year we had 7 callers for our earnings, this year we have over.. 240 callers on the line"
Behold the Power of Slashdot.
Slashdotting a Telephone.
-Colin
SCO Letters (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be very interesting to see the letters that SCO sent out. If they weren't worded very carefully, and they include assertions of IP rights that SCO in fact doesn't own they could definitely trigger a rash of lawsuits.
When I was working in this field we were VERY careful when we went trolling for license fees. Something like:
Dear Sirs:
It has come to our attention that you may want to consider licensing the following patents (list numbers here).
Signed
XYX Patent Attorney.
No claims of infringement etc. Just a word to the wise. The recipient would then decide what sort of position they were in and respond with something like:
Dear XYX:
We are interested in #47, and would like to offer a license to our #53 in exchange.
(In other words, yeah, we might be doing #47, but we think you are doing #53)
-or-
We are not interested. (Prove it).
-or-
We invented that long before you patented it and here is a copy of our documentation of the fact.
And so on.
This could get a WHOLE LOT NASTIER (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, SCO is about to get their asses sued off by some very angry competitors, and what if they decide to squeal that the whole thing was Microsoft's idea in the first place?
Oh brother, this could get NASTY.
Even if Microsoft was just suckered in by the potential to do damage to Linux, SCO can make it very embarassing to Microsoft. This could be a lot more fun to watch than previous lawsuits.
Still on the phone with SCO (Score:5, Informative)
(http://xaxxon.slackworks.com/)
First question(sounds like a
Only under NDA because of ongoing litigation.
What about the Novell announcement this morning?
Novell called last week re: the letter. Time set up yesterday morning at 11am. They didn't show up for the meeting. Later sent the letter -- saying SCO should publish the offenses.
"Is my linux illegal?"
SCO says people should talk to their own lawyers.
Come June 13 if no resolution with IBM -- revoke AIX license.
Details are not being disclosed. Not saying they can't sell AIX -- no real answer.
Blah blah blah about uninteresting stuff.. web services strategy and stuff.. stuff about acquisitions. Blah blah..
They just said they used to be moving people from UNIX to Linux, but when they did that, they lost a lot of money, and they basically said the customer got the same thing in terms of services. So now they're switching them back for a lot more money. Wow. That's ballsy.
Haha. sorry. Little stuff I find funny.
They say they're sort of looking at buying companies in the 4-5 million dollar (up to maybe 10 million dollars) range. Apparently their stock is doing pretty well.
How much will it cost to go after infringers? Is that being budgeted for?
structure with legal council for staying power -- pursuing and defending claims. First quarter of activitiies -- came in below budgeted amount. Set up for the long haul. Feel good about the legal structure.
Is that legal structure related to contingency?
Yes
Does that include counter suits?
Strucutred so that depending on how those come int hat they may be included in it.
I have no idea what that means.
Novell said SCO execs had asked for UNIX copyrights. It was denied. Why was this denied?
Stuff with IBM isn't related to copyright or patent. Focused on contracts. "By an order of magnitude" more powerful than copyright or patent. Language in contract between novell and SCo was confusing -- as they looked at it and said "this doesn't make sense".. SCO thinks it's confusing -- they call 'em up cuz SCO knows 'em. "If SCO wants it, then we want it too." As SCO brings in attorneys, they do a review on it and read the contract in its entireity -- SCO says they own copyrights -- that they can enforce that and the patents. Talked to all parties in agreement -- two people in NOVELL, two in SCO -- CEOs and legals of each side. Says intent was everything was transferred to SCO. Maybe some little things that are common.. Feel confident that they have the copyright and patent rights.
Suspension of linux sales -- given small amoutn of money from linux sales -- do you forsee SCO returning to selling Linux?
We would only return to Linux once the issues were resolved with Linux and "the community". SCO seems to be getting further away from that path (of selling linux). Claims are very strong and valid and customers are saying "time out here" begfore we do this big linux implementation, we nee to understand what's goign on. Linux leadership -- we like a lot of stuff about open source.. blah blha -- our intellectual property was being abused. Having more problems with that. Fruther from going back to Linux than closer.
What woudl you recommend for previous caldera users looking for an upgrade path? What recomendations?
Linux is "UNIX on Intel" UnixWare, and openserver. UnixWare can go anywhere linux can go. Lost ground while chasing the linux dream?
To emphasize: SCO says they *do* own copyrights (Score:5, Insightful)
I also listened in on the conference call; wanted to ask a question but didn't get a chance.
The parent poster already said this, but given the size of the post and the fact that it was being written during the call (and thus somewhat stream-of-consciousness in style), I wanted to emphasize one thing: SCO's CEO McBride stated during the call that they're confident that they do own the copyrights (which would mean Novell's claim of ownership in the press release must therefore be false, if SCO were correct).
I think this says it all (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.atheos.net)
SCO exec sells stock after price surge
By Stephen Shankland
CNET News.com
March 13, 2003, 5:05 AM PT
URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-992394.html
SCO Group Chief Financial Officer Robert Bench sold 7,000 of his 245,000 SCO shares Monday, two business days after the Unix software company's stock price surged on news of a billion-dollar lawsuit against IBM, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
SCO's stock closed at $2.21 on Thursday, a few hours before the lawsuit alleging that IBM misappropriated SCO trade secrets was announced. On Friday, the stock surged 40 percent to close at $3.10, and Bench filed to sell shares Monday at $3.06. SCO's stock since then has slipped down to close at $2.40 on Tuesday. SCO formerly was named Caldera International but changed its name to reflect the fact that most of its revenue came from Unix products acquired in 2001
SCO's Response sounds Juvenile (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://spacex.com/ | Last Journal: Monday February 09 2004, @01:48AM)
Novell responds to SCO responds to... (Score:4, Interesting)
Their current claim about contract breaches means that Linux is not part of their suite, which means that they are open to being sued in Europe for libel(sp?).
I would so dearly love to hear what the Lawyers are going to say about their claims that Contracts are stronger than copyrights, given that copyrights are a binding and do form a kind of contract.
Conference call highlights (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.lunenburg.org/)
They mentioned potential $3B in revenue from SCO/X, based apparently on everyone who owns a SCO server buying an equiavelent number of SCO/X boxes at $1500
Oh fuck it... (Score:3, Funny)
Free love!
Stocks (Score:3)
(Last Journal: Friday December 01 2006, @10:51AM)
Sorry, but it's irrelevant. (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe IBM can get the complaint dismissed since it contains incorrect statements. But maybe SCO can argue that the misstatements don't affect the core of their argument. My understanding is that if A sues B claiming 10 causes of action, and 9 of these are without merit, B could still be held liable for the 10th.
I was on the call. Here's my take (Score:5, Informative)
I came in a bit late, but I don't think I missed much, as the SCOSource bit wasn't discussed until later. Also, I got in on all of the questions. I was disappointed that Bruce Perens didn't get to ask a question.
From what they said in the beginning and from the answers to the questions (most of which were fairly typcial financial questions from financial analysts, btw) here is what I got out of it. Be advised that this is just one person's interpretation of what SCO is saying and that IANAL.
1. The suit against IBM doesn't depend upon IP ownership via copyright or patents, per se. It is a suit based on breach of contract between SCO and IBM. The original contract (license) between IBM and the then-owner of the rights included a stipulation against sharing this code or IP. Needless to say that any alleged releasing of this code under the GPL would qualify. SCO has the right to sue, because it purchased the license rights from Novell.
2. The language of the rights transfer from Novell to SCO seems to have been considered rather unclear by SCO about whether the actual IP ownership (copyright and patents) of UNIX(tm) had been transferred. After much research by SCO and it's counsel, they believe that they do, in fact, now own the copyrights and pertinent patents to UNIX(tm). Included in the research was discussions with lower-level contacts within Novell and with the principals of the earlier deal, many of whom no longer appear to be in power at Novell.
3. While it's true that the suit against IBM doesn't derive any legitiamcy from IP ownership (see 1), due to SCO's belief that it owns the IP of UNIX(tm) SCO believes that future lawsuits may be brought against anyone infringing on what SCO believes to be their IP, with or without a license agreement based on copyright or patent laws.
4. SCO now feels confident that a court proceeding to settle any dispute between SCO and Novell would be resolved in their favor.
My personal conclusions:
A. While Novell's stance certainly helps against SCO's activities (at least it buoys morale and adds a corporate voice against SCO), it is not the end of the IP issue. It seems that SCO is prepared to legally assert it's claims to the IP ownership, despite this morning's announcement by Novell.
B. Novell's announcement will marginally help against the FUD created by SCO's actions. However, I believe that only the most ardent and brave Linux supporters in corporate management will feel better enough to proceed if they were at all concerned. The rest will put off any decision to switch because there is still too much uncertainty and risk to their own stature and careers.
C. The FUD about Linux will continue until the alleged violations are made public enough to allow either a solid refutation or code replacement.
And in related news . . . (Score:4, Funny)
(Last Journal: Thursday April 28 2005, @11:53AM)
Not to nitpick (Score:3, Interesting)
Sue Linus? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I doubt there would be grounds to sue Linus even if there was clear-cut evidence of patent infringement in the Linux kernel. Linus didn't put the supposedly offending code in there, but he's still liable? SCO seems to be really grasping at straws here; they know that the bluff has been called. I just hope they don't manage to do any more FUD-based harm to Linux before they die a merciful death.
I'm not a lawyer, so nobody use this as legal advice. If you want legal advice, go pay a lawyer.
Re:Sue Linus? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
On the other hand, trade secrets don't have any legal protection, but you don't have to disclose anything to the public. The only way to protect a trade secret is through contracts, made with everyone that the secret code comes into contact with. If you make these contracts, then you can sue for damages if the secret is leaked (assuming you were smart enough to put that provisio in your contract).
SCO seems to want to have it both ways; they want the legal protection of a patent, and the ability to sue people associated with Linux for patent violations, but they also want to not disclose anything about their technology. In essence, they seem to want to sue Linus for something he had no control over, and no way to know that he was doing anything wrong (if there was any wrong committed; it could be that, as a poster on the LKML noted, the similarities are like having "her bosom heaved in anticipation" in two different cheesy romances; the similarity is coincidental and rather likely, given that the two OSes implement similar concepts).
Note that although they can't have patent protection on their software, SCO may still be able to sue IBM for contract violations. If IBM did indeed leak SCO's code into Linux or elsewhere, they could be liable for damages (although almost certainly not $1 billion; no sane judge or jury would award that much to a company who hasn't sold that much software over the past few years, even when it was dealing in Linux itself and thus getting the benefit of IBM's supposed evil machinations)
As an aside, does anyone else find it perversely enjoyable to refresh the Yahoo ticker constantly and realize that for every cent SCOX loses, the bastards who started this whole thing are probably out tens of thousands of dollars?
Stock is tanking... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://zoid.com/ | Last Journal: Monday October 18 2004, @11:24PM)
SCOX 2:35pm 7.12 -1.59 -18.25% N/A N/A 7.12 7.29
Linus a target too, accoreding to SCO CEO (Score:3, Informative)
(http://members.cox.net/rbstrickland/)
McBride added that unless more companies start licensing SCO's property, he may also sue Linus Torvalds, who is credited with inventing the Linux operating system, for patent infringement.
Yawn (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
SCO hasn't said what the code is.
They haven't said what the routines are in general.
They haven't even indicated the amount of code involved.
Wake me when SCO says something that can be [disproved|proved].
-- this is not a
Well, that about wraps it up for SCO. (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @05:31AM)
Class action, anyone?
-jcr
SCO's "Contact US" (Score:3, Funny)
(http://blog.slowplanet.net/ | Last Journal: Wednesday September 19, @03:31PM)
1-888-GO-LINUX to 1-888-NO-LINUX.
But, that's just me, and I'm dumb.
UNIX is a registered trademark (Score:3, Informative)
(http://suppafly.livejournal.com/)
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.
HOW DOES IT FEEL, DARL? (Score:3, Funny)
(http://heronsperch.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 01 2005, @09:00PM)
1) Misled your shareholders.
2) Misled your customers.
3) Made your company a laughingstock with your stupid assertions and accusations.
Please enlighten us.
GJC
And in even later news.... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Going up against IBM in an IP suit means that you have nothing to lose. SCO is a rapidly sinking ship trying whatever they can to stay afloat, last I checked Novell still had something to actually lose.
Kjella