Linked by Andrew Youll on Sat 8th Oct 2005 09:20 UTC, submitted by Yves R. Crevecoeur
IBM IBM has dropped its three remaining claims of patent infringement in a lawsuit against the SCO Group, which originally sued Big Blue in March 2003 over claims it broke a Unix licensing contract by moving technology to Linux.
Thread beginning with comment 41950
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: software checking
by on Sat 8th Oct 2005 18:32 UTC in reply to "software checking"

Member since:

You would have to read and understand every module (ok c does not do modules) and compare how it works, not what it looks like, with all the things you believe you have on your list of patented code.

No patents are involved in the suit. Only copyrights that they don't appear to own and "protected" methods and concepts.

That could take months or years and you still might miss something.

SCO did a review of the Linux code looking for infringement in 1999 and found nothing. They also appear to have done a dead man's walk-through or "spectral analysis" of both code bases and found code that didn't belong to them and claimed at SCO Forum that was their proof of infringement. This appears to be based on a code comparator that has been submitted for patenting. But Caldera, after speaking about their team of MIT rocket scientists, can't identify them or present the findings that are described in the patent application. None of that was presented to the court as evidence and IBM is still asking as of the hearing yesterday for Caldera to explain what this case is about.

IBM hired a well established expert to do the analysis and he found nothing infringing. Dr. Kernighan has also opined that this is an unfounded allegation on Caldera's part.

It would only be easy if large chunks of Linux source have been written using our old friends CUT&PASTE.

And cut and paste would be a copyright violation.

It would be easier to cut and paste Windows code into OS/2, or vice versa, since those two are more closely related than Linux and Unix, having started out from a common code base, which Unix and Linux didn't.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: software checking
by on Mon 10th Oct 2005 03:31 in reply to "RE: software checking"
Member since:

Windows and OS/2 started out from a common code base?

Source for this information?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: software checking
by dylansmrjones on Mon 10th Oct 2005 07:50 in reply to "RE[2]: software checking"
dylansmrjones Member since:

It's true alright.

Windows was meant to be OS/2 3.0 and NTFS has HPFS code in it.

Reply Parent Score: 1