Linked by Andrew Youll on Sat 16th Jul 2005 12:49 UTC
SCO, Caldera, Unixware SCO has denied that the recent leaked memo has undermined their case against IBM that Linux contains code from SCO UNIX,
Order by: Score:
Repeat after me
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 13:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Lawsuits are not a source of revenue. Make products people want to buy like everyone (or most everyone) else does.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Repeat after me
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 18:34 UTC in reply to "Repeat after me"
Anonymous Member since:
---

> Lawsuits are not a source of revenue.

Yeah?

Tell the following companies:

Rambus (DRAM patents)
Accacia Research (streaming audio)
Eolas (IE Plugins)
Amazon (1-click shopping)

Then you have guys like:

Sun (suing MS for 2Billion and showing a profit)
AMD (suing Intel for anticompetitive behaviour and proabably will get a settlement and show profit )
Real (for suing Microsoft and finllay showing a profit)
Novell (suing MS for 500Mill and showing profit)



The list goes on and on

Tech lawsuits are a part of doing business. Open Source is not about making money. Open source is a development model.

I can promise you that Oracle, IBM and MS are gearing up to sue MySQL and Postgres as soon as they start encroaching on the big boy's market.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Repeat after me
by archiesteel on Sun 17th Jul 2005 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Repeat after me"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

The difference of course is that SCO has no real other activities of any importance apart from the lawsuits. All the companies you named have real products to sell, and the bulk of their revenue still comes from those products.

As far as IBM/Oracle sueing MySQL/Postgres, I don't think this will happen as there would be little ground for a lawsuit in the first place - and IBM, unlike SCO, is not in a desperate situation. Not to mention that it currently enjoys being the open-source friendly company, having open up hundreds of its patents.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: Repeat after me
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 17:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Repeat after me"
SCO Unix is obsolete
by Anonymous on Mon 18th Jul 2005 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Repeat after me"
Anonymous Member since:
---

RE[4]: Repeat after me

No one wants to buy an operating system that is ancient and behind the times. SCO Unix can not even provide the drivers to run on modern hardware. The only new stuff in SCO Unix is stuff they taken from open source or free software projects.

Oracle 10g and 9i databases do not have a version for SCO Unix. Yet Oracle runs pratically on every commercial Unix except SCO. Why is this? It's because SCO Unix is obsolete.

Here are the list of platforms Oracle 10g runs on:

Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.3) for HP OpenVMS Alpha
Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.3) for Mac OS X Server
Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.3) for Linux x86-64
Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.3) for Linux x86 *Oracle Gateways 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.3) added 04-May-05
Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.3) for z/Linux
Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.3) for Linux Itanium *Oracle Gateways 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.3) added 04-May-05
Oracle Database 10g Release 1(10.1.0.3) for Solaris x86

Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.2) for Microsoft Windows (32-bit)
Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.2) for Microsoft Windows (64-bit Itanium)
Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.2) for Solaris Operating System (SPARC) (64-bit)
Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.2) for AIX5L
Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.2) for HP-UX PA-RISC
Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.2) for HP Tru64 UNIX
Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.2) for HP-UX Itanium
Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.2) for IBM z/OS


Oracle Database 10g Developer's Release

Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.2.0) for Power/Linux - Developer's Release
Oracle Database 10g Developer's Release for Microsoft Windows 64-bit Extended Systems (AMD64, Intel EM64T)

Oracle Database 10g Release 1 Client

Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.3) Client for Power/Linux New! (20-Dec-04)

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

>>This memo shows that Mr. Davidson's email is referring to an investigation limited to literal copying which is not the standard for copyright violations, and which can be avoided by deliberate obfuscation<<

Why would IBM literally copy ancient crappy scox code, then obfuscate that code; when it would be much easier to just write much better new code?

Why has scox publicly claimed, on many occassians, and with great fanfare, that ibm *litterally* copied millions of lines of code?

Why has scox refused to present this obfuscated code as evidence to the court, in spite of the fact that the courts have twice ordered scox to do so?

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

linux is an attempt to provide an open source clone of unix...

and ibm is a crappy company willing to take short cuts.

..TO my understanding, It's possible that AIX code that IBM developed got into linux as IBM worked with the OS to get it to run on every server. SCO claims that the new code (although not present in SCO unix) is under their ownership according to the terms of IBM's unix license... They also claim some of their SCO unix code got into the OS.


Do I think IBM leaked some unix code into linux? Yes. Do I think there is open sourced unix code in Linux.. Ofcourse, A LOT of linux code is from open source versions of unix.

Do I think SCO code is still in linux? No... SGI even put Unix code in linux but it never got into any main branch of linux--just their homegrown expirmental stuff. .. And I asume that happend with IBM as well, I'm sure all of that code was replaced.

Thank god shared and open sourced exsists or we would have never known if they did leak code or not!

Forthermore, those GNU gus.. RMS, whatever else they are are pretty quite.. They compared code and seem to be withholding many of their results and are looking for other ways to fight SCO.. Odd isn't it.. Their public statments are not always backed up by fact.

SCO is willing to risk going into bankrupcty to fight the lawsuits.. So apparently they have something.... I'm positive they are misrepresenting a lot of it especially the autozone and diamlerchrysler stuff and thenusing those lawsuits to try to get people to sign up for linux licenses... bastards

Reply Score: 0

zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why would IBM literally copy ancient crappy scox code, then obfuscate that code; when it would be much easier to just write much better new code?

You have no idea if scox code is crappy or not, unless you have seen it yourself, but your point is valid: scox did claim to have proof of millions of literally copied lines of code. The proof, as they say, will be in the pudding.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

>>
You have no idea if scox code is crappy or not, unless you have seen it yourself
<<

Scox's R&D budget is essentially zero. Scox has done very little to improve their products over the years. Almost all of scox's "improvements" come from scox including open-source products such as apache. Scox's revenue for their products has been declining steadily for years. Even acording to scox, almost all sales come from updating legacy products for existing customers. Scox's products are consistantly rated as second rate. SVR4, is an old system, which has been substantially improved over the years - but not by scox. Scox has never developed their own OS.

Compare this to IBM, a company which over 40 years developed an OS which is fairly advanced even by today's standards. A company which has developed over a dozen OSes, and currently markets several. By any measure, one of the greatest technology companies that has ever existed.

And IBM is going to go though the risk, and the trouble of stealing code from scox, and that obfuscte that code? Not likely.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes, one of the greatest companies... and for a time, a possibly unethical monopoly. The way I understand the history of computing, the reason we use Windows is because it ran on IBM PCs, and the reason we all run IBM PCs is that the business market as a whole didn't trust or take microcomputers seriously until IBM made their own PC.

They're a lot smaller (or at least comparatively) and less powerful now.

Reply Score: 0

no surprise
by JrezIN on Sat 16th Jul 2005 13:28 UTC
JrezIN
Member since:
2005-06-29

It's no surprise... Does anybody is actually taking legal actions against them? isn't illegal in US this kind of "bulling"?
What real product's SCO has these days (seriously)? or are they living of bulling and legal actions?

Reply Score: 1

Riiiiight....
by 1c3d0g on Sat 16th Jul 2005 13:29 UTC
1c3d0g
Member since:
2005-07-06

...tell that to the Judge, SCO. I'm sure they'll be very understanding...NOT! If anything, the only thing this memo proves is that SCO has been lying from the beginning. Isn't that what we've been saying all along?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Riiiiight....
by lord-storm on Sat 16th Jul 2005 13:36 UTC in reply to "Riiiiight...."
lord-storm Member since:
2005-07-12

Yep now how about we just now all turn our backs and let IBM fight dirty (within the law)...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Riiiiight....
by robertojdohnert on Sat 16th Jul 2005 20:16 UTC in reply to "Riiiiight...."
robertojdohnert Member since:
2005-07-12

" ...tell that to the Judge, SCO. I'm sure they'll be very understanding...NOT! If anything, the only thing this memo proves is that SCO has been lying from the beginning. Isn't that what we've been saying all along?"

That e-mail was shown by IBM to the judge already and he refused to dismiss the case. SCO's consultant did say that there are examples of code copied into Linux from UNIX. Obviously that was enough for the judge in the case.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Riiiiight....
by archiesteel on Sun 17th Jul 2005 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Riiiiight...."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Roberto, just because the judge didn't dismiss the case doesn't mean that a) the memo isn't damaging or b) that the judge believes that there was code copied. It certainly doesn't mean that SCO's case is looking good.

It seems your intense dislike of Linux is once again clouding your judgement. The odds are not in SCO's favor, in fact they're not even close. You'll have to start accepting this at some point.

Reply Score: 1

Title?
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 13:31 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

LOL I misread the title of this and thought it said SCO Bullshit...

:-D

Reply Score: 5

A sad story of SCO
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 13:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I remember using SCO UNIX in 90's. SCO was a respectable
company in California, at that time. Their UNIX was reliable, robust, easy to install. Then they sold UNIX to strange Caldera company, and it was the beginning of the end. Nowdays, no one counts on them seriously, they are practicaly vannishing into oblivion. Good by SCO.

DG

Reply Score: 1

It's Microsoft money at work
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 14:01 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

We all know Linux threatens Microsoft's dominance, it's hard to beat free, secure and reliable. All the things Windows lacks.

It's a real shame things got like this, but everytime we boot into windows we are contributing to the problem.

Linux should get it's act together and be more like Mac OS X, easy.

Reply Score: 0

Denial
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 14:03 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"DeNial" is NOT a river in Egypt....:)

Reply Score: 0

v Bullish ?
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 14:07 UTC
SCO always triumphs!
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 14:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Reminds me of a scene from Monty Python

IBM: Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left.
SCO: Yes, I have.
IBM: Look!
SCO: Just a flesh wound. [kick]
IBM: Look, stop that.
SCO: Chicken! [kick] Chickennn!
IBM: Look, I'll have your leg.
[kick]
Right!
[whop]
[IBM chops SCO's right leg off]

SCO: Right. I'll do you for that!
IBM: You'll what?
SCO: Come here!
IBM: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
SCO: I'm invincible!
IBM: You're a looney.
SCO: SCO always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then.
[whop]
[IBM chops SCO's last leg off]
SCO: Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw.
IBM: Come, Patsy.
SCO: Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

Reply Score: 5

When this whole thing collapses
by zombie process on Sat 16th Jul 2005 14:50 UTC
zombie process
Member since:
2005-07-08

I really hope they follow the money - how much more transparent could it be? It's *known* that microsoft is funneling money into SCO for, what, benevolent reasons? This is a massive campaign of pure FUD that has more holes in it than a dutch dyke -- yet the courts continue to pander to these idiots. Once upon a time, the burden of proof was on the side of the prosecutor. So far, all SCO has done is demand to see other people's source code. If there is stolen source code, hey, linux is wide open. All SCO should have to do is point to their code, and then point to the same code in linux. So far, the have not, and obviously never will.

What's next? Are they going to claim "prior art" to SMP? Maybe claim that SMP in the wrong hands is a terrorist threat? Sue under the DMCA? Maybe they could put their code to music, and have the RIAA go after Linux for biting their style? If the courts continue to entertain these ridiculous and frivolous lawsuits, it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Reply Score: 3

Anonymous Member since:
---

At least you and many other people can see what is going on. Smoke dissipaits and mirrors can be smashed.This whole thing stinks of desperation on SCO's part and more underhandedness on Microsofts.

As more than a technical expert,a consumer, I get really tired of all this. If I was running a company I would NOT use microsoft nor sco products.Take a look at the BSDs, Solaris,Linux and some of the other operating system choices available.

I would spend the money to educate and inform my employees in new methods.rail against the so called industry standards.Last time I looked we still lived in a free market society. Free to win or lose.To make choices based on our own uninformed unbiased facts.

People like this can take thier money,lawyers, and FUD and stick it where the sun don't shine.

AS CEO I would either keep my company privately held and traded.If not Id do public share buyback until I controlled the firm. Most boards of directors are powerless figureheads owned by the CEO or a few rich investors.

When a company is publicly held it has to answer to all the whiny stock and bond holders.This usually makes for financially wealthy initial company owners.Yet it makes for emotional and mental paupers. Besides most company officers don't care about feduciary duties.Just thier own pockets.

Let's all hope this falls apart for SCO soon. I have better things to do.

Reply Score: 1

SCO case virtually over
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 15:27 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Even with all the infused Microsoft money SCO's case is basically over. They don't have any ground to stand on and logically were not able to support any of their claims. The only thing they are doing over and over is ridiculing themselves. See: http://www.groklaw.net/index.php

Reply Score: 0

Desperate acts
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 15:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

You almost have to pity SCO ( Microsoft ) .. they can see the writing on the wall and in an act of desperation they are trying to hold back the torrent of a revolution ... a sort of anti-heroic last stand ...

One thing has to be said though .. this is amazing PR for IBM ... even if they spent six times as much money as they are on their legal fees ... it couldn't buy them the amount of positive press, grass roots cudos they are recieving

Reply Score: 0

Read Update on Groklaw
by rm6990 on Sat 16th Jul 2005 16:23 UTC
rm6990
Member since:
2005-07-04

This memo proves nothing, plain and simple.

Swartz did this study in 1999 and said he found code that was a match between Linux and SCO's Unix. In that memo, he very clearly said the code could have come from BSD. Then, in the next second, as if he had forgotten, he said it was disturbing that the code was copied from Unix into Linux. He said he would, however, allow Davidson to review the supposedly copied code since he knew the history of the code better.

Davidson's email in 2002 was a follow-up to Swartz's 1999 study. Davidson said in this email that there was no evidence of copyright infringement, and that all similar code came legitimatly from third parties (like Swartz said was possible). Examples of this are Berkely Packet Filter and X11.

So unless SCO can somehow alter the fabrics of time so that 2002 comes before 1999, this new memo from SCO means absolutely nothing. They are beginning to flail, that's all.

Reply Score: 1

Delaying for time
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 16:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

SCO is just trying to stall for time so they can make their code match Linux and then say

"Were ready to show you!"

Reply Score: 0

RE: Delaying for time
by transputer_guy on Sat 16th Jul 2005 17:02 UTC in reply to "Delaying for time"
transputer_guy Member since:
2005-07-08

Well that couldn't work, the new unix sourec compiles to a binary that won't then match the old binary, too obvious.

Actually if any source matched at all, and if both were compiled with similar compilers the binaries would substntially match too although the slightest compiler setting changes would lose that.

Reply Score: 1

I'm just waiting
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 17:13 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

to see what Laura Didio's take is on this. I always find analysts' point of view amusing.

Reply Score: 0

What this really show us?
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 17:48 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This is just a re-post. Nothing that someone didn't have said many times before.

1 - The law and punishment must be harder and broader for decision makers on companies;
2 - The direct and indirect income schema must be changed to better reflect the impact of decisions of such managers on companies life.

Just look what Carly, Capelas, Darl and many others did with the companies they directed. They didn't give a damn about the future of the company or theirs employees, partners or customers. And they still could grab loads of money from.

There are lots of people saying "Bad SCO", "Shame on you Broadcom" and the like, but they don't realise that what happened was a management fault, frequently well planned to give them an unreasonable amount of green bucks.

While these "smart" people are allowd to have unethical rewards regardless of the outcome there will be ever a new "SCO".

Just my US$ 0.01.

acobar

Reply Score: 0

X11 and BSD
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 17:50 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

to see what Laura Didio's take is on this. I always find analysts' point of view amusing.

She won't say anything, she's obviously too embarrassed from when she signed SCO's NDA and then came out of the viewing and started saying how SCO had a slam bam case. And how it was disturbing seeing comments and such the same in the code. Kind of sad, an analyst reporting on Linux that knows so little about Unix's heritage (things like BSD, X11 etc).

Reply Score: 0

v linux
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 18:00 UTC
RE: Title?
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 18:07 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I also read SCO Bullshit ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Title?
by orestes on Sat 16th Jul 2005 18:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Title?"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Same here.

Reply Score: 1

Where's the case?
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 18:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

You do have to wonder what SCO's case IS. They claim they have proof, it's been years and they haven't shown their proof. If they had proof that damning, it shouldn't take years to check with their lawyers about revealing it. Is IBM using crazy tactics such that they can't release the stuff without it harming their case somehow? I'm not a lawyer by any means, but it seems silly.

Not that I've followed the minutia very well, but weren't they earlier trying to prove there was copied code because nobody could have written a UNIX clone single-handedly? Ignoring the fact that Linus only wrote a primitive kernel in the six months, and ignoring that Andrew Tannenbaum wrote an entire UNIX-ish operating system in three years in his spare time?

Reply Score: 0

Wouldn't it be sad if.....
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 19:23 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Wouldn't it be sad if SCO's UNIX products were actually really good? No one will ever know because hardly anyone uses it or will use it in the future because of all this drama.

Or

Wouldn't it be sad if SCO was really honestly telling the truth, fighting for their lives and what they believe in while the whole world just thought they were evil?

I personally don't have any religious ties to any particular operating system so while I'm pulling for IBM like everyone else, if SCO managed to pull a miricle and win... I'd just laugh instead of killing myself like a lot of you people would.


I think this case is really interesting on so many different levels. You've really got to wonder what the hell SCO could possibly have up their sleeves or have for their motivation to keep going. They almost had the whole case dismissed because they won't prove anything yet. The whole world hates them now. They look like complete morons everytime more information comes out.

Yet they keep fighting and they seem prepared to drag the whole process out until the bitter end.

I think that's what keeps me interested in this story more than anything. Maybe they're just crazy like that. Maybe they really believe in what they're doing. Maybe they're being paid under the table to keep fighting. I'd really like to know the REAL reason why they're going through all this... but we probably never will.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Wouldn't it be sad if.....
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 20:26 UTC in reply to "Wouldn't it be sad if....."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Wouldn't it be sad if SCO was really honestly telling the truth, fighting for their lives and what they believe in while the whole world just thought they were evil?

I've been looking for any reason that they might have to be doing this and I keep coming up empty. They weren't evil until each of their statements and lies were countered by more-credible information. The point seems that if Linux is going to succeed at the expense of proprietary operating systems (Unix and Windows), then they're going to try to make sure that Linux winds up with a bit of mud on its face. Whether they are doing this as a proxy for Microsoft and Sun remains to be seen, but I think they've made it abundantly clear that there are people who are not happy with Linux's success and will engage in dirty tactics in response.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Wouldn't it be sad if.....
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Wouldn't it be sad if....."
Anonymous Member since:
---

leaked memos and emails from various people is considered to be more-credible information?

Apparently it's a little more credible than some people think since their lawsuits were not dismissed.

Reply Score: 0

What Makes Least Sense
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 21:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I have to agree that a lot of what SCO has said doesn't make sense. What made least sense to me was this paragraph:

"Even more importantly, this memo shows that there are problems with Linux. It also notes that additional investigation is required to locate all of the problems, which SCO has been continuing in discovery in the IBM and Autozone cases," said SCO.

At first, I thought the memo spelled trouble for SCO. Then SCO says people have it all wrong. They're taking things out of context. In fact, if you look real close, it's Linux that's in trouble! I swear I didn't follow any white rabbits down any holes, but it sure feels like I did.

So who was SCO's spokesperson that said those things?

Reply Score: 0

RE: What Makes Least Sense
by rm6990 on Sat 16th Jul 2005 22:23 UTC in reply to "What Makes Least Sense"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

At first, I thought the memo spelled trouble for SCO. Then SCO says people have it all wrong. They're taking things out of context. In fact, if you look real close, it's Linux that's in trouble! I swear I didn't follow any white rabbits down any holes, but it sure feels like I did.

So who was SCO's spokesperson that said those things?


Groklaw posted a 2002 email from an SCO employee stating he had done an analysis on Swartz's study from 1999.

Swartz in 1999 found some similar code between Linux and Unix, but he was not sure what the origin of the code was, so he sent it to Davidson.

Davidson analyzed the code and then sent that email to Darl McBride stating that the similar code between the two systems all came from third parties, such as BSD or XFree86.

So, in response to Groklaw posting the 2002 memo, SCO posted the 1999 memo. Which really makes no sense, because the 2002 email specifically says the 1999 results were false positives.

These people at SCO really make me laugh. ;)

Reply Score: 1

you think SCO is up to all of this?
by Anonymous on Sat 16th Jul 2005 22:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Do you think SCO leaked those memos on purpose just so they could get their name in the news all over the internet? I mean, the SCO story is old and no one seems to care much anymore...

Maybe SCO wanted some free advertising... I've heard of things like this before. It's very possible.

Reply Score: 0

Will there be criminal charges?
by Anonymous on Sun 17th Jul 2005 05:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

That's the only question left unanswered. We all know there's no Unix code in Linux. We all know they have no breach of contract case against IBM either.

It's been hinted that the SEC is investigating, probably waiting until these SCOundrels hang themselves on felony charges so they can make an example of them. I'd bet there's some SEC agent just dying to hang their skin on his wall. All those dodgy stock transactions are being recorded; you can be your life on it.

Reply Score: 0