Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

IBM Doesn't Comply With SCO's Deadline 593

prostoalex writes "IBM refused to settle with SCO and comply with their deadline, expiring Friday the 13th. "We've got a strong defense case, and we're going to fight it", IBM representative is quoted."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Doesn't Comply With SCO's Deadline

Comments Filter:
  • I hate to say... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Associate ( 317603 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @10:50AM (#6204198) Homepage
    I hate to say this, but who actually thought IBM would give in to this undersized bully?
    • by littlerubberfeet ( 453565 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @10:55AM (#6204230)
      well, they didn't give in...

      IBM has been around for over 50 years now...They have a DoJ sized legal department that is now out for blood.

      My money is on Big Blue
      • Re:I hate to say... (Score:5, Informative)

        by norwoodites ( 226775 ) <> on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:15AM (#6204316) Journal
        50 years, more like 100 years, it was called something different 100 years ago but still the same IBM. It made counting machines used for the census.
        • Re:I hate to say... (Score:5, Informative)

          by tartanblue ( 125663 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:20AM (#6204337)
          Yeah, it used to be called Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company back in 1911. CTR merger in 1911 []
          • by saden1 ( 581102 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:50AM (#6204503)
            IBM is the result of a merger between three companies and those companies that spawned IBM existed since 1890's. IBM is one of the true Blue Chip companies in the world and there is no place safer to put you money.
            • Re:I hate to say... (Score:5, Informative)

              by cgleba ( 521624 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @02:38PM (#6205416)
              The part of IBM that has been around since the 1890s is Hollerinth:

     00 2/history/hollerinth.html

              The US Census was the birth of the punch card and indirectly, what we know of as IBM.

              IBM history is really fascinating. For instance, in the great depression Watson made the same mistake as Henry Ford -- over-production. IBM would have struggled hard like Ford did if it wasn't for Roosevelt's New Deal (which, incidentally, needed a *lot* of tabulating machines to account for it all).

              I could go on and on, but I suggest you get a good book such as "Computer: History of the Information Machine". The history of the computing industry is much like a geek soap opera.
            • by Ars-Fartsica ( 166957 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @02:46PM (#6205471)
              IBM has nearly gone out of business on a number of occassions Gerstner was brought in to save a company that was about to be broken up and sold in pieces to the first bidders. While it is a solid company now, it is still subject to wild fluctuations in price like all tech firms.

              In fact IBM is inherently no safer than any other stock. If you want safety, buy treasuries. The government can just print up more money if they need to pay you.

    • by James_Duncan8181 ( 588316 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:17AM (#6204324) Homepage
      I hate to say this. I have good karma and it makes me sound a bit immature. But...

      Suck it up bitches, I'm looking forward to seeing IBM rip you into small pieces and feed you to the dogs. I only hope that considerable finacial harm can also come to Daryl et al personally.

      And I don't think I'm alone in this viewpoint.

      • Re:I hate to say... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by EvilAlien ( 133134 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:29AM (#6204374) Journal
        You absolutely aren't alone... I think it is safe to say that SCO is well on its way to being the most hated company in the IT sector. Microsoft, step aside, there is a new whipping boy in town.
        • by kasperd ( 592156 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:45AM (#6204462) Homepage Journal
          SCO is well on its way to being the most hated company in the IT sector. Microsoft, step aside

          Maybe SCO can suceed on becomming the most hated company. But I don't think they suceed on becomming the most dangerous company however hard they try. If SCO loose the case, there'll probably be nothing left. So we can laugh at them and go back hating Microsoft.
          • Ah, that's good, I was hoping to not have to change my opinions. SCO will be #2 in my heart until they're gone. But MS will always be #1...makes me feel all warm inside.
        • Re:I hate to say... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by RoLi ( 141856 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @12:12PM (#6204627)
          You absolutely aren't alone... I think it is safe to say that SCO is well on its way to being the most hated company in the IT sector. Microsoft, step aside, there is a new whipping boy in town.

          Given the fact that Microsoft is financing SCO's anti-Linux crusade (or do you really believe that they pay millions for a license they don't need?), I can't agree with you.

  • by tucolino ( 654142 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @10:52AM (#6204205)
    Third round!! 50 bucks on IBM!!!
    • by corsec67 ( 627446 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @10:54AM (#6204220) Homepage Journal
      Well, considering that IBM has (more) money, and that their busines plann isn't:
      1. Sue
      2. ???
      3. Profit?

      I think that we all will agree that IBM just about has to win this case.
      • Lol, it's more like

        1. Annoyed by annoying fly buzzing around
        2. Swat annoying fly
        3. Profit?

      • Re:place your bets!! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Rob.Mathers ( 527086 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:01AM (#6204252) Homepage
        However, unlike other prominent lawsuits in the tech world, IBM actually has more than just a money-tree with which to pay lawyers. They actually have the law on their side (assuming that all the indications are correct and SCO's claim is BS, which I would rate at atleast 95% chance).
        • Re:place your bets!! (Score:3, Informative)

          by Arker ( 91948 )

          However, unlike other prominent lawsuits in the tech world, IBM actually has more than just a money-tree with which to pay lawyers. They actually have the law on their side (assuming that all the indications are correct and SCO's claim is BS, which I would rate at atleast 95% chance).

          SCOs claims are, at the very least, mostly bullshit. But think about it. Even if there is some element, somewhere, that's true, what would be their chances of winning against Big Blue? Practically nothing. IBM has the worlds

          • by Wavicle ( 181176 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @01:10PM (#6204927)
            I'm rather suprised more people aren't mentioning this. IBM has bankrupted more than one smaller fish in the past who tried to play them in the court room only to find themselves under a mountain of patent infringement lawsuits months later.

            When it comes to litigation, IBM is a prize fighter who knows where to hit and knows to hit there very hard.

            So there are three possibilities as I see it:

            1) SCO wants to be bought out. Darl McBride has mentioned this in the past as being a reasonable thing for SCO's shareholders.
            2) SCO wants a token settlement from IBM to use as a weapon for suing other companies who have Linux deployed without a Unix license.
            3) SCO has a solid foundation to their case.

            Hiring a well-known lawyer like David Boies (ahem, didn't the justice department win the battle but lose the war in their anti-trust suit against microsoft??) seems to imply either #1 or #2. Giving "experts" very small selections of code (80 lines?? give me a break!) for media propaganda suggests either #1 or #2.

            I guess agree with what you closed with, SCO probably doesn't even have a case to begin with.
          • Re:place your bets!! (Score:3, Interesting)

            by 73939133 ( 676561 )
            Even if there is some element, somewhere, that's true, what would be their chances of winning against Big Blue? Practically nothing.

            Don't be so sure. Juries are often technically incompetent, and they are easily swayed by the "this little guy got crushed by this big bad company" stories. SCO is betting that they can get across as the innocent little victim.

            The outcome of this lawsuit probably depends more on whether IBM can convince the jury that SCO is an out-of-control legal parasite than whether SCO
    • by jo_ham ( 604554 ) <joham999@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:08AM (#6204285)
      It's Ali in the ring.

      First round, first minute.

      SCO just lost 50 brain cells thanks to walking into IBM's fist.

      They're 49 brain cells in debt now.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 15, 2003 @10:54AM (#6204219)
    On Friday the 13th a black cat was found dead at SCO underneath a broken mirror.
  • SCO: I bet "Friday the 13th"
    IBM: I call.
    SCO: Umm..*looks at cards*
    IBM: *smiles*
    to be continued...
  • by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @10:55AM (#6204226)
    ... was later heard to comment, "Ha ha ha, they are SOOOO dead".
  • So, this is really the dead line for SCO..

    SCO managed to dig its own grave...
  • by telecaster ( 468063 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @10:56AM (#6204237)
    I'm sick of the money grubbing BS that's hovering around this case. It's clear that SCO is using the "open" in open source to try and challenge an IP issue because they know the court's never seen anything like this before. Also, the fact that M$ injects money into SCO is really suspect and deserves and out right investigation, because EVERYONE knows they [SCO] wouldn't be paying lawyer's for this FUD if they didn't have the cash.

    Everyone here knows that Linux is kicking the shit out of Microsoft on the server, and they [M$]know it's not long before it starts cutting into their desktop margins.

    This stuff is making me sick. It's a joke, it's friggin' "high-tech ambulance chasing".

    I can't wait until they lose and I hope IBM find's something suspect in the case so that they can reveal the true evil behind all this...
    • by KDan ( 90353 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:06AM (#6204277) Homepage
      To be honest I hope IBM counter-sues and sues Microsoft for being a party to this lawsuit by their blatant money-injection. That must be illegal in some way.

      Additionally, I must repeat what has been said before.. "I won't at all feel sorry for SCO when they get completely trashed in court." Also I think this whole case shows how desperate Microsoft has really become to try to spread FUD about linux, to resort to such crude and ineffective methods.

      • by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:22AM (#6204344)
        To be honest I hope IBM counter-sues and sues Microsoft for being a party to this lawsuit by their blatant money-injection. That must be illegal in some way.

        I wish that too, but it will not happen, unless direct collusion can be proven. I doubt it ever will. Remember, MS has the best, most experienced legal team in the business (they need it). There is no way to prove that they gave SCO money to pursue the case, even though that is almost certainly true.

        • by gini_ ( 93053 )

          I wish that too, but it will not happen, unless direct collusion can be proven. I doubt it ever will. Remember, MS has the best, most experienced legal team in the business (they need it). There is no way to prove that they gave SCO money to pursue the case, even though that is almost certainly true.

          They also seem to have the most arrogant and incompetent management in business. All that is needed is an innocent admission from SCO managers that MSFT actually engouraged them to pull this stunt in some me

    • ... because EVERYONE knows they [SCO] wouldn't be paying lawyer's for this FUD if they didn't have the cash.

      IIRC, David Boies et al. only get paid from the settlement. ie. If SCO loses, they get nothing. I honestly don't know much about that, and I'd like to know more, but I haven't been able to find the original reference I read it from.
  • by cperciva ( 102828 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:00AM (#6204244) Homepage
    I'm a bit confused here... do we want SCO to win, or do we want SCO to lose?

    Ok, SCO is a bunch of scumbags, so obviously we don't want them to win.

    On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you."

    I'm really not sure which outcome would be worse.
    • by rking ( 32070 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:07AM (#6204280)
      On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you."

      If SCO lose because their rights have not been infringed upon, as seems likely, then that doesn't say anything bad about the GPL at all. How could it?
    • ...of something strongly in doubt.

      First off, SCO has to prove that the code in question is in fact "theirs". Considering the rather incestuous family tree that is UNIX that is not so cut and dry.

      Additionally, there are allegations that SCO has been helping themselves to GPL'd code without credit or redistribution.

      No, the thing we're learning here is that if you really have an IP case against Linux or another GPL project than just be right out in the open. Document the code and PROVE your case. Don't hide behind lawyers, NDA's, horribly out of context quotes and vaguely threatening letters.

      And, oh yeah, it helps if you can at least stick to one story for greater than a week.
    • by LordLucless ( 582312 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:13AM (#6204300)
      IBM has contributed to Open Source far more than SCO has. If SCO wins (*snort*) the message being sent will be "Don't contribute to Open Source; you never know whose gonna claim that the code you submitted was really theirs".

      Nope, this is a no brainer, IBM all the way.

      Go blue!
    • by dachshund ( 300733 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:14AM (#6204310)
      On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you."

      And if SCO wins, it'll send a message to the world that you can't trust any GPLed product, because a contributor might suddenly determine that, oops, some of the code in it was "unintentionally" released-- and therefore, you never really had a license to use/distribute it in the first place.

      Of course, you really have to break this case into four separate decisions:

      1) Did IBM steal proprietary code from SCO in violation of an NDA, and include that code in their Linux release?

      2) Does SCO even own the copyrights to that code, or do they still belong to Novell, in which case the determination in (1) may or may not be important.

      3) Assuming (1) and (2) break in favor of SCO, does SCO have the right to sue Linux end-users for posessing/distributing Linux code, even if the end-users didn't know they were breaking the law? This turns on...

      4) Does SCO's distributing their own version of Linux (under the GPL) invalidate any copyright claims they might have made on code that was (without their knowledge) included in the Linux codebase? In other words, if you steal my code and hide it in a corner of the Linux kernel, can I legally be deprived of my rights to it just because I distributed a copy of Linux?

      Quite frankly, the best outcome is for SCO just to drop this nonsense.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      I'll have to disagree here. This case isn't about gpl, in spite of anything SCO has to say. It's a contract dispute over who owns something. Open and free software isn't about stealing anything.

      From the outside, a business perspective, lets look at what has happened. SCO 'owns' Unix. Unix was slowly descending into irrelevance, except in specialized markets. Linux, with GNU, and the other BSD's have brought *nix to the desktop, low end servers, set-top boxes, hand helds, etc. All over. Why? IBM and others
    • Win or lose? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:19AM (#6204329)
      If IBM illegally copied code that rightfully belonged to SCO,and is large enough to warrant real copyright protections, and it made it's way into linux, then we want SCO to win against IBM, and we want SCO to do the right thing, which is let us know which code it is so the linux world at large can work to remove that code from future versions.

      Furthermore, realize that we aren't obligated to remove it immediately; even if IBM copied it into, say, OS2, their customers would not be obligated to uninstall their software. SCO can claim damages, but claiming control over all of linux sure isn't going to happen.

      On the other hand, if scos claims are really baseless, we want them to die, because they suck.
    • by dcavanaugh ( 248349 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:32AM (#6204394) Homepage
      Very simple: SCO must die. Their downfall is not so much GPL as it is the overdependence on old technology that is now commoditized. Just how many dollars were they expecting to squeeze out of Unix, anyway?

      Would you have sympathy for M$ if their DOS business was threatened by FreeDOS, or would you tell them to grow up and spend a few dollars on R&D?

      I find it ironic that SCO/Caldera is the first company to be killed by Linux while simultaneously failing as a Linux company. Good riddance.
    • On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you."

      SCO's tactics are a study of ill will. What an honest company would do if they found their code in some GPL software is send an email informing the project leader. Then, certainly 99% of the time, the offending code would be removed from the project. End of story.

      SCO isn't protecting their code. They're attempting to blackmail another company

  • Drama (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:01AM (#6204251)
    Who needs drama/soaps on tv when you have a show right here..

    SCO and IBM's marriage isnt going well.
    SCO says IBM is cheating with another OS.
    SCO files for divorce.
    SCO takes IBM's keys to the house away
    IBM fights for the house.

    Oh how I will tune in next week to see what happens.

  • by 26199 ( 577806 ) * on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:04AM (#6204265) Homepage

    It seems the Friday deadline looked good to traders, the stock price jumped []... Yahoo has an article [], written on Friday, about the jump.

    Any bets on what happens to the stock price on Monday?...

    • Given the fact that the SCO share has risen from like $0.60 to $9 quite quickly indicates that either the market beleives in them, or the market sees this as some kind of lottery.

      One billion dollar would of course be jackpot. If they manage to get any money from IBM that is probably a bonus. The worst thing for the stock would probably be if SCO turned out reasonable and nice - wouldnt be much of a lottery left then.

      To answer the question: I dont beleive anyone beleived in a deal with IBM before 13th, so
    • Yeah, its going to crash as every single SCO executive sells every share they own and emigrates to some place with no extradition treaties with the USA.

    • Look at SCO's P/E ratios. SCO does not have a P/E ratio, because it is NOT making any earnings. The stock is thus, no matter how low it is priced, over-valued. Would you pay 50 dollars for a dollar bill just because millions of fuckwits were also paying 50 dollars for a dollar bill?

      If you want to invest in a company, SCO is not the one to invest in. Never invest in a company with a P/E ratio that's larger than the average in it's industry, and larger than it's P/E:G ratio (price/earnings to's ok if the stock has a high P/E as long as it's growing rapidly enough to accomodate that P/E).
      • Would you pay 50 dollars for a dollar bill just because millions of fuckwits were also paying 50 dollars for a dollar bill?

        If I had a good reason to believe that those same fuckwits would buy that same dollar bill one week later for $60, you bet I would.

        Unfortunately, most investors these days are looking at the short term for the quick buck, and probably don't even know what a P/E ratio is.

        In that case, you aren't investing in the company, but in the actions of the company's investors.
  • 04/24/00 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by minkwe ( 222331 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:05AM (#6204268) Journal
    IBM Chooses Caldera's OpenLinux eServer as First Linux Pre-load On Netfinity Servers
    eServer Pre-load Saves Customers Time and Money
    OREM, Utah--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 24, 2000--Caldera Systems Inc., (NASDAQ: CALD - news), the ``Linux for eBusiness'' leader, today announced that IBM (NYSE: IBM - news) will pre-load Caldera's OpenLinux eServer on its IBM Netfinity servers.

    The Netfinity servers may be purchased either pre-installed or bundled with OpenLinux eServer through IBM Direct. This is IBM's first Linux pre-load on Netfinity servers.

    IBM believes that Linux will help drive the long-term growth of the Internet by providing an open application platform that can harness leading-edge technologies and simplify customer choice. The common application platform will help ensure software interoperability across heterogeneous servers.
  • by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:05AM (#6204270) Homepage Journal
    Since I don't have the money to defend myself in court like IBM, I'd really like to comply with SCO's claims that not just linux, but a lot of other software infringes on SCO's claimed copyright. I'm just a bit puzzled as to how I might go about this.

    For example, I'm looking at a line of code in one of my GPL'd programs:

    i += j - n;

    Does this infringe on any code claimed by SCO? How would I know?

    The only way I can think of is that SCO should send me a copy of their code. I can easily write a little perl script that will compare every line of my code with every line of theirs, and I can rewrite anything that seems to be infringing.

    Can anyone think of another way?

    Since my code is GPL'd and on my web site, SCO could do it themselves. But they are probably pretty busy, so I'd rather do it myself. Anyway, recent history shows that when they find infringing code, they don't send the programmer a nice message so the code can be changed. SCO just sues them for big bucks. I'd much rather avoid this threat, and save them time, by eliminating any infringements myself.

    SCO doesn't need to send me their code. If someone at SCO would just package it up in a few .tgz files and post the URL here, I can download it and take care of it myself.

    Eagerly awaiting the URL ...

    • by Jaghound ( 560040 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:17AM (#6204322)
      i += j - n;

      Does this infringe on any code claimed by SCO? How would I know?

      I guess your post was written as a joke, but I am going to write a serious answer.

      "It's the comments, stupid!"

      If you read the what the reporters said about the code they were shown under NDA, they explicitly stated that they thought the code was identical because of identical comments. As comments serve no real purpose from the compilers point-of-view, chances of two comment lines taken from two different projects should be about zero.

      Interesting comparison comes from world of chess, where the reconrding of moves can _not_ be copyrighted (because nobody could then play those moves again), but the comments on those moves (like in a book) _can_ be.

      • Ah! I understand now. If I simply remove all the comments from my code, I won't have to worry about infringing SCO's copyrights.

        I can do that. All it takes is a little perl program. I can probably do it as a one-liner. And I'll be sure not to comment it.

        One thing that puzzles me, though. There is an old theory about the lack of comments in the original Bell Labs unix: Before sending it out to universities, the folks at Bell Labs ran it through a filter that deleted comments. This was later verifie
      • by norwoodites ( 226775 ) <> on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:50AM (#6204506) Journal
        I thought the Judge in the case of Bell Labs (Novell) vs BSD said that comments did not matter when it came to copyright terms dealing with code?
    • by MrHanky ( 141717 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @12:03PM (#6204575) Homepage Journal
      Does this infringe on any code claimed by SCO? How would I know?

      You can't. It could be obfuscaped, like some of the infringing code is, according to SCO. Now, I'm an expert crypotgrapher, so I know all there is to know about obfuskation (sp?). The most advanced crypot known to man is rot-13, which is unbreakable, at least for people who can't read or write. I did a crypotanalysis of the Linux kernel, and found nasty elements pretty fast:
      linux-2.4.21/fs/ufs/inode.c: ptr -= 1 << (uspi->s_apbshift + uspi->s_fpbshift);
      To the untrained eye, this means nothing, but using rot-13 on the letters s, c and o shows that s_fpbshift is actually s_scoshift!!! Very clever: it actually shifts code from SCO to FPB (probably a notable figure in the open source community, as only the best get to have three letter words for names). It looks like IBM is doomed, guys.
  • by beldraen ( 94534 ) <chad.montplaisir ... m ['mai' in gap]> on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:05AM (#6204273)
    It appears SCO is expanding their threats to everyone else [].

    Linux software companies could also become SCO targets. "Do we have potential issues with Red Hat, SuSE and other commercial Linux distributors--yes, we might," Sontag said, adding that chances for negotiating with such companies appear to be slim.

    • by aussersterne ( 212916 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:45AM (#6204460) Homepage
      Not only are there lines of SCO's code in Linux, but also derivative products based on SCO intellectual property have been created, Sontag said. Getting all of the protected bits out, assuming SCO's claims are valid, would be a huge chore.

      "Our biggest issues are with the derivative code," he said. "It would be almost impossible to separate it out."

      This is the first time that SCO has essentially admitted in the open what some have been saying all along: SCO does not believe that Linux coders can ever "clean" Linux up; simply replacing "infringing" lines of code with new code is not enough becasue they are trying to claim that Linux itself is now a derivative product of SCO Unix.

      The chances of this going away before SCO is utterly dead are zero. SCO has no intention of easily revealing the "matching" lines of code because they believe that they are irrelevant... as far as SCO is concerned, every line of code in Linux is infringing and it is essentially beyond repair. Since it is open-source, Linux can't license proprietary code from SCO. Ergo, the courts should essentially put an end to Linux in much the same way that they did with DeCSS code. At least, this seems to be how SCO sees it.
  • by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:06AM (#6204278)

    Of a case involving MCA Universal, Nintendo and Donkey Kong. []

    It ends up Universal didn't actually OWN the rights to Donkey Kong, but bullied several companies, and sued Nintendo anyway... and ended up paying 1.8 million for the trouble.

    Ryan Fenton
  • Sad and tragic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by christurkel ( 520220 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:09AM (#6204293) Homepage Journal
    SCO can't compete with Linux. Its UnixWare OS, while a fine middle level server OS, doesn't have the the scalability, hardware support or applications that Linux has. They know it. SCO couldn't make money selling its own Linux.
    So, it does what M$ could only dream of: launch a self destructive lawsuit in a last, desperate gasp of trying to save its business and destroy Linux, unleashing the greatest FUD attack witnessed yet. People are scared. M$, with its "license" pulls the strings, and watches with glee. "I told you so!" M$ will say. "You can't trust open source!"
    SCO needs to be destroyed. No bought or settled with, but crushed, utterly and completely. What they have done is unethical, immoral and (hopefully) completely without legal base.
    • Re:Sad and tragic (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TVmisGuided ( 151197 )

      SCO needs to be destroyed. No bought or settled with, but crushed, utterly and completely. What they have done is unethical, immoral and (hopefully) completely without legal base.

      Your wish is most likely granted, and it's going to be by SCO's own hand. Someone called them "the 800-pound gorilla" a while back, when I mentioned that they should be bought up. They may still be an 800-pound gorilla, but gorillas don't fare very well against a well-trained sharpshooter (read: IBM).

      What's going to destroy t

  • I just want to know (Score:5, Interesting)

    by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:12AM (#6204296) Journal
    When is the class-action countersuit going to begin?
  • by CPT Carl ( 222361 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:14AM (#6204306)
    Directly from the article:

    " The dispute between SCO and I.B.M. has not yet slowed the advance of Linux in the marketplace, according to industry executives. But the prospect that the suit may linger indefinitely can only add to the anxiety of corporate technology buyers.

    "They're really concerned," noted George Weiss, an analyst at Gartner. "The significance of this case is unclear, but there's no question it has gotten the attention of people." "

    SCO & MS are injecting some good ol' fashion Uncertainty & Doubt into the minds of corporate IT people considering a Linux project with IBM. Both SCO & MS have nothing to lose by bringing this case.

    Win: They get some $$ and stop IBM's new Linux business strategy
    Lose: They spread enough UD around to make buyers hesitate, thus still stopping IBM's Linux business.
  • Xenix (Score:4, Interesting)

    by -*MadMax666*- ( 613848 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:14AM (#6204309)
    Correct me if im wrong but didnt SCO aquire Xenix from microsoft some time in the eighties, Xenix then becoming SCO OpenServer. I wonder if this is a reason microsoft and SCO seem to be such good chum's. Also wouldnt it be embarasing if code from what was Xenix turned up in Linux!
  • by fidget42 ( 538823 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:19AM (#6204332)
    To date, SCO has signed new licensing deals with two companies. One is Microsoft; the other has not been identified.

    Could the other one also be Microsoft? Just thinking.
  • by GreatDave ( 620927 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:22AM (#6204342)

    Friends, I have seen the future.

    The SCO Group has three core businesses now. One is OpenServer and UnixWare, which as we all know, suck to high heaven and have never had more than 2% market share in the Unix market. They also hav-- er, had their UnitedLinux offering, but now that we have discovered just how much Darl McBride hates Linux, it's safe to say that SCO OpenLinux is history.

    That leaves us with SCO's newest business: SCOsource, their gambit in the lawsuit industry. Now, every time I think about SCO and the lawsuit and the questions being raised, I am reminded of a certain Texas energy trading company that is no longer among the living. SCO can't even confirm how much Unix IP they actually own. Novell says they have the patents as a certainty and some of the copyrights as well, and SCO won't say what they actually own. Meanwhile, SCO says that SCOsource is a key business unit, allowing them to record their extortion fees as regular income, suddenly making them a "profitable" company.

    Consider Enron. They inflated their revenues by trading energy that didn't exist and raping their customers for doing so. Now look at SCO. They're suing their customers, claiming infringement of IP that may not exist (they certainly won't confirm or deny the existence of it!).

    You'd think investors would have learned from the Enron incident, but nope. SCOX is over $10 for the first time in its history, and McBride and his FUD-spewing lawyer-demons are just waiting for the perfect opportunity to cash out. I just pray that justice is done and that this fscked-up company will be wiped off the face of the planet.

    • by minkwe ( 222331 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:39AM (#6204421) Journal
      Check this out [] ...
      My goodness, did people read the latest 10Q?

      You know those licensing deals that gave SCO its
      first quarter in the black? It issued 210K options
      at strike $1.83 to one of the licensees, priced them
      at half a million and accounted for it by reducing their
      license revenue!

      Those options are 2 mio in the money now and the
      owner will be looking to dump. Did you check out
      the insider trades info?

      People, you are being majorly scammed! [] []

      " In connection with the execution of the first license agreement, we granted a warrant to the licensee to purchase up to 210,000 shares of our common stock, for a period of five years, at a price of $1.83 per share. This warrant has been valued, using the Black-Scholes valuation method, at $500,000. Because the warrant was issued for no consideration, $500,000 of the license proceeds have been recorded as warrant outstanding and the license revenue reduced accordingly."
      • On Dec 16 of last year, VP Michael Olson purchased 30,000 shares at the rather low price of, um, one-tenth of a cent per share (must be nice to be an executive, eh?), and then turned around 6 months later and sold 6000 shares for about $52,000.

        So he made about $51,994 profit on a $6 investment, in 6 months. That's like a 433,000% profit, and we haven't even annualized it yet.

        Where do I sign up?

        Would I really have to sell my soul to get this deal?

  • by Bruha ( 412869 )
    Microsoft, pays SCO, Microsoft buys the leading AV solution Rav antivirus and announces they will discontinue the Linux product line. What's next they buy Netscape from AOL and say they're discontinueing the linux version and all the code that netscape put in now is not licensed to mozilla and the list can go on.

    Obviously the monopoly lawsuit has done nothing but bolster Microsoft into doing more drastic measures to ensure they're the only choice when it comes to running a computer.
  • Ok, let's play what if.

    Suppose there was a meeting. There were no notes taken of this meeting. No emails or memos were ever written that it even took place.

    The meeting was between Microsoft and SCO.

    Microsoft promises to keep SCO afloat...doling out money to them over the next 10 to 15 years. In small chunks. First up is to buy a license from SCO...totally out in the open. Saying that they just want to be on the up and up with any code they may write in the future.

    But in exchange for Microsofts funding, SCO must openly attack Linux...the only thing that Microsoft truly fears. They must attack Linux, and all the big companies that support it. They must stir up a huge shit-storm around Linux and spout off FUD like there is no tomorrow. This will put doubt in the eyes of future Linux adopters, investors and users while Microsoft gains an even larger foothold.

    But remember, there are no documents ever written to this effect. No emails that can be found or memos to be brought forward. No one even knows what is going on except the people at the top. No one has actually said "Linux must die". But this is the ultimate goal.

    Just a thought.
  • by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:36AM (#6204411)
    IANAL, but it was always my impression you couldn't claim trade secret protection and copyright protection. Copyright protection pertains to works that are explicitly meant to be published and trade secret for works whose publication would destroy their inherent value. Note most companies claim copyright on the object code not the source.

    It was a big legal brouhaha in the 70's and 80's on whether object code was copyrightable as it wasn't a human readable entity (yes it does depend on the human).

    My question is really does anyone know what tools are being used to build SCO unix products ? And, are there decompilers that could reasonably show that SCO stole GPL CODE.

    Lets face it the reason that SCO is being so secretive is they are the thieves hoping to pull a fast one on the world. Its pretty much obvious that SCO isnt protecting anything new or revolutionary. My guess is SCO had programmers that were either pressed to meet deadlines or got involved in a little intracorporate one upsmanship , and appropriated GPL code, thinking how could anyone notice.

    The SCO source is the big mystery here. If it can be shown that significant parts came from GPL or the open source community (i.e. berkely unattributed). Well there goes SCO down the toilet where they belong.
  • by LuiWoh ( 669674 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:43AM (#6204453)
    For a company that seems to hate Linux so much it is funny to see via Netcraft that Sco's site SCO.COM [] is running Linux. Seemed they used to use SCO UNIX but switched to Linux according to the graphs. [] Yet IBM, that pushes Linux runs on AIX. []
  • In a recent newsflash:

    In a surprise announcement, today, SCO head Darl McBride, announced that his company had hired former Iraqi front man Tariq Aziz to handle media inquiries about SCO's legal battle with IBM. SCO's president and chief executive officer seemed very upbeat at the announcement, stating that Mr. had oodles of related experience.

    Specious evidence, extravagant claims, hidden proofs, enormous odds.. Mr. Aziz has seen (or used) it all. He understands how it works, and he's shown himself able to handle even the most hostile media attention. We believe that he'll provide an excellent source of of knowledge and leadership.

    When asked about the questionable morals of Mr. Aziz's former employer, Mr McBride blustered.

    "This is about business -- not morals." said McBride. "Our job is to make as much money for our stockholders as possible within the bounds of the law. Mr. Aziz obeyed the decr... laws of his former country and we expect him to do the same here."

    Questions about Mr. Aziz's immigration and legal status were brushed off as "a telecommuting issue". When asked about the former Iraqi functionary's whereabouts, Mr McBride only mumbled something about being "one with the source code".

  • by whovian ( 107062 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @11:59AM (#6204557)

    SCO/STAN Holy sh*t, dude. They're calling our bluff!

    M$/CARTMAN YOU are soooo wasted. Screw you guys, I'm goin' home.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 15, 2003 @12:07PM (#6204594)
    When not anonymous, I work for IBM.

    The lawyers there are PICKY.

    When dealing with IP, before a project goes out the door, the lawyers go over the thing with a fine-tooth and make sure:
    a) We have legal rights to what we're about to put on the market.
    b) Everything we have legal right to, we've properly and appropriately protected. (Such as patented, if appropriate - it's not always.)

    When buying software from 'outside', the lawyers go through the license terms to make sure it's 'appropriate', and sometimes it's a pain in the neck. Sometimes it seems it takes so long to buy a new, never-before-bought piece of software that by the time you can get it, the need is gone.

    Before you can use Linux inside IBM, you need to take the online "Open Source Legal Course" (title probably abridged) and sign off that you have. The mini-course discusses the legal implications of the GPL, etc.

    None of these cases is exactly like the SCO case. But the legal folks are so darned diligent about IP that I can't see anything like what SCO alledges happening inside IBM. The place just doesn't work that way.
  • by virtigex ( 323685 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @12:27PM (#6204703)
    When SCO actually takes action against IBM (other than saber rattling) expect IBM to (counter)sue. If SCO attempts to yank IBM's license, which I believe is perpetual, they will be attempting to destory IBM's AIX business - something that is rather important to IBM. Since IBM maintans that SCO's lawsuit is groundless (and certainly unproven),the action will be unjustified.

    Even if SCO are right, revoking the licencse is the wrong thing to do. The correct thing for SCO to do is to sue IBM. If SCO ask for an injuction to stop IBM selling AIX, it will most certainly be denied because they have offered no proof. Revoking the license is wrong, because (unless the contract explicily states that SCO can do this) it will violate SCO's contract with IBM. In IBM's suit, IBM shows the contract and SCO revokation letter to the judge and jury and SCO loses.

    Two wrongs do not make a right, so SCO has to be careful to follow a clear and rational path to redress their alleged grievances. Their public statments already put them on shaky ground and can be used in any suit that IBM would want to bring. IBM are playing it cool and are not saying anything except denying SCO's changing allegations.

  • by canned polar bear ( 577077 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @12:41PM (#6204785)
    it's just too easy to point a finger at MS each time linux is attacked in some shape or form. Sun is actually getting hit alot harder by linux's popularity than MS. Second undisclosed company licensing SCO's "technology"?? hmmm Sun Micro?
  • by geoff lane ( 93738 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @12:59PM (#6204871)
    Remember, Linux is not the target, it's the means.
    SCO want to make money from licensing Unix, but the really major sellers of Unix based systems all bought perpetual licenses and have since enhanced their version of Unix in many ways. None of this makes any money for SCO. In fact because they have neither the ability nor the resources to duplicate the enhancements, SCO's sources are now almost worthless.

    But, if SCO could win in court, not only would they get damages, they could also ask for and probably get access to the code that IBM wrote which would be folded back into SCO unix. If IBM loses, SUN and HP would be next to be accused. The grand plan is to bring control of Unix back to and only to SCO with all existing licensing cancelled by the courts.

    Fortunately, SCOs case is weak, IBM can keep them in court from now to doomsday. As this will be heard in _civil_ court, damages can and will be adjusted depending on the actions of SCO. So far they have made _no_ attempt to minimize the damage to their IP. Very bad move and the judge will no doubt make a point of mentioning it...
  • SCO's allegation is that IBM violated a NDA and stole trade secrets, which they leaked to or inserted into Linux.

    IBM is closely involved in many businesses with all kinds of trade secrets. To settle, even for a penny, is to say "yes, we were careless with SCO's trade secrets". What would happen to IBM's lucrative services business if they settled? How many businesses would start worrying about what IBM might leak to a competitor or appropriate for their own benefit?

    They have to be like Caesar's wife: absolutely above suspicion.

  • by Skapare ( 16644 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @01:37PM (#6205041) Homepage

    From the article []:

    The case, regardless of its outcome, also points to a broader issue that will not go away: how to manage the meeting of two worlds of programming. The traditional kind produces proprietary software guarded by strict intellectual property laws of copyright and patent, while the fast-growing open-source movement, responsible for software like Linux, has thrived by freely sharing code and shunning the constraints of intellectual property.

    Excuse me?

    Software development was originally and traditionally open source. The first software came from academic researchers who had no need to sell software, and from computer equipment manufacturers who initially only viewed the market for selling hardware. There was no concept of proprietary software when the computer industry started. Eventually that was brought into the scheme of things as competitors came along, such as RCA [] when it first tried to clone the IBM mainframes. But all along, most academically developed software was free and open source. That tradition just became more noticed by businesses once critical mass (e.g. Linux) was reached that attracted everyone to it.

  • by Newer Guy ( 520108 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @02:29PM (#6205366)
    SCO's big problem may be with their UNIX itself. It's my understanding that the original Bell labs Unix was riddled with code from BSD. If that be the case, how does SCO know whether they even have legal ownership of the code they claim that IBM is infringing upon? In other words, if I steal something from you and then Joe steals it from me, does my (illegal) possession of it mean that I have an action against Joe? Frankly, I doubt it. This is a hot potato that could drag on in court for years...and cast a pall over Linux the whole time. ....which explains why Microsoft has put their nose into the muck here. IBM needs to be decisive and crush SCO like the insect it is...a cockroach that put into the wrong place can really 'gum up' the works.
  • by dmaxwell ( 43234 ) on Sunday June 15, 2003 @03:42PM (#6205897)

    SCO has been sent a Cease and Desist by one of the kernel hackers. The hacker is demanding FTP logs and other records so he can determine the degree of infringement against his copyright. He is promising that he will sue unless SCO ceases their claims against other parts of the kernel.

    Every contributor to the kernel can do this. I hope those scumbags get hammered for every penny they have.

"Yeah, but you're taking the universe out of context."