Home > SCO > SCO Claim Reaches 5 Billion USD SCO Claim Reaches 5 Billion USD Eugenia Loli 2004-02-08 SCO 58 Comments Linux antagonist SCO Group is seeking to add $2 billion to its legal claim against computing giant IBM while changing the scope of the suit. About The Author Eugenia Loli Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker. Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 58 Comments 2004-02-08 10:33 pm Anonymous even more fun 2004-02-08 10:43 pm Anonymous They can ask for the moon right now, the judge doesn’t have to allow it, and is not particularly pleased with the sco g. for failing to do what it says it can do. They haven’t really provided any eviedence and every time the judge asks for them to provide it, they say they can’t until IBM shows their first, which is something you can’t do when you say to the public their are millions of lines of code, and can only find 17 for a judge to decide on. 2004-02-08 10:47 pm Anonymous Basically, after being compelled to present their proof, they’re saying to the judge “we can’t prove that IBM provided infringing code until IBM shows us the entire AIX code.” Apparently, the judge wasn’t pleased with SCO’s explanations of why they haven’t provided the evidence requested of them. So, SCO didn’t have proof of IBM’s copying, and yet launched a 3 (now 5) billion lawsuit against IBM…and now they’re changing strategy once the case is already before the judge…they’re starting to act like a headless chicken. SCO’s toast. 2004-02-08 10:53 pm Anonymous Well,I’ll grab my chair,a beer , some popcorns and watch the movie.Once again. I guess this time will be much more interesting. Say that IBM will come with “something” showing that to the judge. Will it stop this? Coz seriously , SCO should be changing their business,to something like a lawyer firm or something like that. They don’t have anything in common with IT world. I always wondered. If their claims are true , how this amount of money was calculated? Afterall they will charge everybody running Linux if they’ll win,right? Getting really tired of it… 2004-02-08 11:10 pm Anonymous /. had an article a couple days ago from Groklaw. What I got out of it is that it basically comes down to jfs and evms being the contention. I did not read enough to find out how SCO can sue IBM for something IBM developed. 2004-02-08 11:17 pm Anonymous Hi Other than trolls does really anyone believe sco is right about all these claims? regards ram 2004-02-08 11:17 pm Anonymous If I understand it correctly, SCO is claiming that even though IBM developed many of the files, they were originally put into AIX which they claim is a derivative of Sys V. Therefore, SCO actually owns the files because of this derivative status and IBM “illegally” put them into Linux despite the fact that they actually wrote them. SCO has a very warped concept of what a derivative is. After their lack of results of turning over to IBM all the infringing code, SCO is mostly going down now. I do not see how they have even the slightest of chances of ever getting anything out of this lawsuit. Head over to Groklaw.net for more info. There is an amazing wealth of information there about the many, many holes in SCO’s case. 2004-02-08 11:29 pm Anonymous Other than trolls does really anyone believe sco is right about all these claims? i wish they are not. but if ibm signed an contract wich says, that whatever they developed on their unix system and somehow has contact with the SysV code or uses portions of it or some other thing, then probalby sco has right. i have an hard time to belive ibm signing such an contract. but who knows? 2004-02-08 11:50 pm Anonymous This seems like another attempt to boost stock prices and muddy the waters a bit. This article links to another article: Commentary: The devil’s in the details http://news.com.com/2452-7344-5145035.html?tag=nl Basically where SCO is trying to play on the emotions of the people. Here is a great quote from the article, “A computer expert in North Korea who has a number of personal computers and an Internet connection can download the latest version of Linux, complete with multi-processing capabilities misappropriated from Unix, and, in short order, build a virtual supercomputer,” McBride writes. “When I talk about this, some people think I’m an alarmist. I have a different view–I think that this may have already happened.” “If lawmakers listen to McBride’s warnings, enemies of the United States could be forced to return to stockpiling PlayStation 2 consoles to satisfy their infernal supercomputing needs.” No, I do not take SCO seriously in anyway, shape or form. They broadcast one thing in the press and abuse leagal tactics for something other than their press claims. This rings more and more of “Pump and Dump”. This is getting very commical in a sick sort of way. I am just a little disgusted about the whole state of affairs. I fail to see why this hasnt been thrown out of court. 2004-02-08 11:54 pm Anonymous They haven’t really provided any eviedence and every time the judge asks for them to provide it, they say they can’t until IBM shows their first, which is something you can’t do when you say to the public their are millions of lines of code, and can only find 17 for a judge to decide on. You know, people have been saying SCO should put up or shut up for a long time. And they did: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040207022922296 They have a file by file breakdown, with line numbers, showing code snippets identical to the original Unix sources. Clearly this hasn’t been enough to satiate the anti-SCO hate machine, with claims that the Unix source was forged and so forth. 2004-02-08 11:55 pm Anonymous I forgot to mention, what do OSNews readers think will happen to the SCO stock prices? Do you think Wall Street will buy it or have people not seen the light of day? I think the stock prices could yeild some interesting information with respect to how SCO is getting viewed by the business community. 2004-02-09 12:09 am Anonymous Since SCO had released its own version of Linux and if the “infringing”, code was present in that distribution, would that not mean that the code is now GPL’d? 2004-02-09 12:20 am Anonymous (Images of sticking my pinky finger in my mouth aside…) SCO apparantly dropped the Trade Secrets claim (worth $1 Billion) because they couldn’t substantiate it well enough to proceed. Hence the actual claim is now $4 Billion. 2004-02-09 12:34 am Anonymous Since SCO pretty much is benching their company on the success/failure of this lawsuit, that they would plan it out. 2004-02-09 12:38 am Anonymous Hi No. you cannot simply release code along with gpl and claim that its gpl’ed anyway. You will have to explicitly allow it to be licensed under gpl which only the copyright holders can do. you cannot simply steal microsoft code and release it as gpl for example. you will also have to explicitly license any patents to be used under gpl or not use such stuff at all thats the first claus of gpl. so you if you are using gpl code you dont need to accept it. thats claus 5. only when you distribute gpl’ed code does the restriction that you will have to supply the source or agree to it comes into play. ram 2004-02-09 12:39 am Anonymous The russions use to buy all our Atari boxes cause they couldn’t make anything as good. Atari must have been the cause of the cold war? I’m not upset that a company treats us all like complete frickin’ idiots. I’m upset that we are just what they expected. They pumped thier stock, became rich and made a profit from a dying company. Sad part is we will never see them arrested since it is so hard to prove you were running a scam and not just genuinly stupid. 2004-02-09 12:46 am Anonymous There were hardly any SCO news for many weeks. I reckon it’s SCO’s last gasps. 2004-02-09 1:10 am Anonymous Bascule, What happened to millions of lines of code and thousands of files? We have a list of about seventeen files and a handful of lines. Ironic also that they are essentially dropping their case while they are adding copyright infringiment (weren’t they saying through December that this wasn’t about copyrights). Lastly they say that they need every revision list of AIX from day one to find out what they are claiming IBM put into Linux (who’s entire revision history is publically available) yet they give HP and Sun a clean sweep without looking at one line of their source code. Lastly, it is still a question of if SCO can seek indemnification for trademarks and copyrights that have nothing to do with them (BSD and Novell are what I’m speaking of here). Are you just playing devils advocate or have you been drinking the SCO kool-aid for the past year? 2004-02-09 1:17 am Anonymous “They have a file by file breakdown, with line numbers, showing code snippets identical to the original Unix sources. ” Bzzzt! Wrong! Try Again. Take JFS, for instance. JFS does not exist in any original Unix sources, nor any Unix sources that SCO claims to control. IBM developed JFS for OS2, originally. It was later that JFS was ported to AIX (IBM’s Unix) and Linux, separately. OS2 -> AIX OS2 -> Linux NOT OS2 -> AIX -> Linux So the JFS code that is now in Linux, did not come from ANY disputed SysV Unix sources. Notice that in the document requests which SCO have submitted to IBM, no mention is made of any OS2 sources. Now what about EVMS, which is more code SCO has placed before the court as being in dispute? EVMS is not in the Linux kernel now, nor was it accepted into ANY Linux kernel in the past. So why are SCO bellowing on about EVMS, much less submitting it to the courts as being code inserted into the kernel via IBM? RCU, or should I say, the idea of RCU, is in the Linux kernel and was originally introduced as a patch. But by the time it was patched into the Linux kernel, hardly nothing of the original patch was left. Further, SCO has a totally illegal definition of derivative works. The SCO definition of derivative works would be like Xerox-Parc, saying, since we were the first to develop graphical desktops with windows, icons, menus and pointers, we therefore own EVERY graphical desktop that came after ours, since every one that came after hours is a derivative work of ours. This is not a legal definition of derivative works, at least not in this country. Ford can not sue Chevy for infringing the design of the combustion engine, particularly when that design has been published openly for years now. Nor can Ford sue Chevy for designing their engines based on published standards and methods. Furthermore, SCO claims that IBM has violated their AT&T contracts, which is why SCO revoked the IBM’s Unix license. Part of the $5 billion in damages that SCO seeks, is to punish IBM for continuing to sell AIX, after SCO revoked the Unix license. How can SCO then get into court and claim they have no more evidence than these 17 files, yet have a right to revoke IBM’s Unix license? Add to that Novell’s claims on the original AT&T Unix licenses, and SCO is on very shaky legal ground indeed. Additonally, if Novell sold the Unix contracts to SCO lock, stock and barrel, then why does Novell get to collect 95% of any fees that SCO collects? So SCO has produced 17 files, the majority of which are not now in the Linux kernel, and never have been. Then SCO tells the judge, please allow us to go fish, because we KNOW if we can get our hands on AIX source code, then we will find more infringement. Yet, SCO claims that IBM copied SysV sources directly into Linux. If SCO owns Unix sources as they claim, can they not compare those sources to the publically available Linux sources which are mirrored all over the world and produce more than 17 files with an estimated worth of $5 billion? And what happened to all of those MIT professsors that found “millions and millions” of lines of infringing code in Linux? Why aren’t they in court? And how did “millions and millions” of lines turn into 17 files when SCO got in front of the judge? So can someone please explain to me how SCO has showed “code snippets identical to the original Unix sources, ” since I really do not see how anyone can claim that as being factual. 2004-02-09 1:17 am Anonymous A few more things Bascule, You must have forgotten that SCO originally claimed millions of lines of code copied from System V to Linux, ostensibly solely by IBM. Where are the file lists of these copies? They probably vaporized like the code example they displayed at their user’s conference. But that’s beside the point. All of the files that they listed in your hyperlink were from software written by IBM and companies IBM purchased that they added to their product to work with their UNIX implementation. There has not been a ruling as to what the term “derivative works” means nor have they been pushing the issue. Why can’t you see this as nothing more than a litigious smoke screen put up by this rogue company? 2004-02-09 1:20 am Anonymous Everyone seems to pounce on SCO for not showing the code but they still have yet to receive the code from IBM that they requested. Why would was/is IBM stalling on handing over the AIX code that the court requested. I am not trying to say that the case holds water I am just saying that people seem to point out all the weak parts in SCO’s case while ignoring all the weak points in IBM’s case. If IBM does win this case it will not be on the count of the selective hearing of the masses. That is ok, who expected the Linux community to look at both sides of an arguement anyway. 2004-02-09 1:32 am Anonymous “Everyone seems to pounce on SCO for not showing the code but they still have yet to receive the code from IBM that they requested. Why would was/is IBM stalling on handing over the AIX code that the court requested.” SCO files suit making wild outrageous claims. SCO refuses to tell anyone what was infringed. Then they go to a judge and say please give us code so that we can find something infringing. It begs the question why did they file suit in the first place if they did not have evidence? If you have no evidence, then you don’t file suit. You do not file a 5 billion dollar suit basesd on a hunch, or because you “psychically sense” there is an infringement. It is the plaintiff’s job to show the evidence, and show the code, not IBM’s. Now if all you have is 17 files, many of which are NOT EVEN IN THE LINUX KERNEL, why in the world should the judge let SCO go fish? Why should the judge not dismiss the case up front, with prejudice, due to the extreme weakness of the evidence that SCO has shown? 2004-02-09 1:42 am Anonymous “Why would was/is IBM stalling on handing over the AIX code that the court requested.” HAHA! IBM Stalling? HAHA! You are so funny! You should take your act on the road!! For how many months has everyone been asking for SCO to show us the code? And you say IBM is stalling? HAHA! ROTFL! 2004-02-09 1:43 am Anonymous SCO has yet to highlight the infringing code. It would be like a person filing a personal injury suit without saying what their injury is. They hypothetically knew what part of Linux was infringing before they filed the case, yet they won’t say. This is perposterous. Also, they don’t want the source code for the current AIX but the entire revision tree of AIX. You obviously have no idea what volume of data that entails. Last but not least, the judge told them to provide their evidence to IBM before IBM has to provide AIX to SCO. They have yet to comply with the judge’s decision. Judges don’t take too kindly to that. 2004-02-09 2:01 am Anonymous The bottom line is the same no matter how many thousand articles are written about SCO vs The World. A judge is going to make a ruling in this case, and until then everything else is just a lot of speculation without all the facts. It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what we think, the court is the only one that matters. It’s not the end of Linux even IF SCO should happen to win. 2004-02-09 2:02 am Anonymous SCO stated they needed the AIX source code to prove thier case and the judge did ask IBM to provide it. Last I knew IBM still has not met that request. 2004-02-09 2:07 am Anonymous No. you cannot simply release code along with gpl and claim that its gpl’ed anyway. You will have to explicitly allow it to be licensed under gpl which only the copyright holders can do. That is very true. However, the fact is that SCO/Caldera, which used to be a Linux company, did in fact contribute code to Linux under the GPL (most notably via Christoph Hellwig). It looks as if today they’re saying “we contributed this, but we didn’t really know what we were doing, so we’d like to take it back now and/or charge everyone who’s using that code.” They knew full well what they were doing. There’s plenty of record of this, too. Huh (IP: —.pm3-7.roc-pt.ny.localnet.com) Everyone seems to pounce on SCO for not showing the code but they still have yet to receive the code from IBM that they requested. Well, that’s because the judge ordered SCO to comply and present its evidence before IBM does so itself. They have to show the code, and they said that they knew what it was. So now they’re saying “we don’t really know the code but we know it’s in there, honest!” However, in doing so they are still refusing to comply by not providing all those thousands – nay, million lines of code they said they knew were infringing. In other words, SCO went fishing. They bluffed, IBM called their hand, and now the judge is forcing them to show it. 2004-02-09 2:13 am Anonymous “SCO stated they needed the AIX source code to prove thier case and the judge did ask IBM to provide it. Last I knew IBM still has not met that request.” IBM has met every request. The judge said SCO could not go fish until they showed what code was allegedly infringing. At the very last minute, after postponing showing the code, SCO shows up with 17 files, and changes the grounds of the suit to copyright infringement. The judge then decides to take a week on her decision as to what is to come next. (allow the grounds of the suit to change? disallow it? etc)No court or judge has ordered IBM to release any AIX code. 2004-02-09 2:37 am Anonymous From groklaw on FRiday 2/6: “Heise spoke first: said “IBM hasn’t provided AIX, and, prior to the 12/5 hearing, they had agreed to do so. Judge said that could be due to the 12/5 ruling. Heise repeated that they had promised to give such code before the 12/5 hearing and there is nothing from the highest level of IBM execs either, but on 10/28 claims that IBM said they would give a copy of Sam Palmisano’s notes. 2004-02-09 2:42 am Anonymous All the information SCO is requesting of IBM must be costing them a fortune. SCO is sending IBM on a fishing expedition for them. If SCO loses they should be required to compensate IBM for the man hours required to do their legal research for them. 2004-02-09 2:46 am Anonymous There will be no SCO to compensate anyone should they lose. They have bet the future for the entire company of this case, and that will be the end of it…. 2004-02-09 2:56 am Anonymous “Judge said that could be due to the 12/5 ruling.” BINGO!!! As was stated earlier: No court or judge has ordered IBM to release any AIX code. SCO shows up in court with no evidence and no code on 12/5. They then demand to see AIX source code. Judge says to SCO, if you have no evidence for your case we are at an impasse. Judge then decides, with IBM agreement (yes, IBM is going to give SCO every inch of rope SCO needs to hang themselves, before IBM squash SCO like a bug), that SCO will be given EVEN MORE time to come up infringing code from somewhere. Judge rules in IBM’s favor on 12/5, stating SCO may not go fish UNLESS THEY SHOW THE CODE and that IBM DOES NOT HAVE TO RELEASE AIX SOURCE CODE! This was on 12/5. So, the Judge is correct. IBM is under no court order to release AIX source code. SCO must first stop STALLING and show the code. Now that SCO shows up a day late and a dollar short and change the claim to copyright infringement, the judge has put off her next decision for another week. But it was the Judge herself who said, I will deny any further motions in this case, unless SCO first show the code. (And that included motions that IBM must release AIX code.) Now you may believe SCO’s lawyers if you so choose, but I trust the Judge more than I trust SCO. 2004-02-09 3:19 am Anonymous Mark Heise, representing SCO, insisted the company has “exhaustively detailed the improper contributions IBM made to Linux.” But to provide the “line by line” evidence IBM is now demanding, he said, would require Big Blue to released AIX and Dynix code — as SCO has requested in its own discovery motion. Wells interrupted: “The requirement of the court is that you provide those source codes; this is about your response to the order.” Salt Lake Tribbune Feb 7 2004 http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02072004/business/136590.asp 2004-02-09 3:20 am Anonymous Mark Heise, representing SCO, insisted the company has “exhaustively detailed the improper contributions IBM made to Linux.” But to provide the “line by line” evidence IBM is now demanding, he said, would require Big Blue to released AIX and Dynix code — as SCO has requested in its own discovery motion. [Judge] Wells interrupted: “The requirement of the court is that you provide those source codes; this is about your response to the order.” Basically, SCO has to show their evidence before the judge will consider granting their own motion to compel discovery – something which SCO isn’t guaranteed to get in the first place. They’ve been claiming for months that they have proof that IBM illegally contributed SCO’s IP to Linux, and yet now they’re saying that they don’t actually have the proof? 2004-02-09 3:21 am Anonymous http://www.dj28.com/files/imh0.jpg 2004-02-09 3:22 am Anonymous Sorry, above quote was from this Salt Lake Tribune link, as cited at Groklaw: http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02072004/business/136590.asp 2004-02-09 3:27 am Anonymous Wells interrupted: “The requirement of the court is that you provide those source codes; this is about your response to the order.” Thanks for backing up my point. That is exactly what the Judge said to SCO’s lawyer, which is why IBM has not been ordered to produce AIX code. The Judge told SCO they must first show the lines of code which they claim are infringing. 2004-02-09 3:30 am Anonymous Um, that argument was shot down the day after it was shown by Bruce Perens and quite a few other people. It seems this was some old BSD code, which therefore could be quite legally used in Linux. This isn’t new; it didn’t help SCO then, and it won’t help them now. In fact, SCO’s pretty much abandoned this particular venue. If I remember correctly, they tried to do some damage control by claiming this was just an “example” of what copied and/or obfuscated code would look like. http://www.perens.com/Articles/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/code-comparison.html SCO doesn’t have a case. 2004-02-09 3:33 am Anonymous revrus beat me by 23 seconds… Anyway, I think it’s becoming pretty clear that SCO’s been lying to us all along. I just hope that investors start to realize this so that their stock can go back down to what it’s worth – zero. 2004-02-09 3:37 am Anonymous Contrary to the titles on the slides, it shows comments, not code. Everything between the /* and the */ is called a comment. A comment is not code. Furthermore, it has already been established by experts that System V borrowed this code from a previous version of Unix that SCO has not claim to. 2004-02-09 3:39 am Anonymous “http://www.dj28.com/files/imh0.jpg“ That is so funny. I myself had been saying anyone could easily find SCO’s infringing code: grep -ilR Regents /usr/src/linux 2004-02-09 3:40 am Anonymous The Greeked “examples” were dealt with long,long, ago – So…SCO’s code demonstration, the one that it put up to convince its resellers of its case, comes from a version of Unix which first came out in 1979. The code was publicly circulated in the 1980’s, and explicitly released under the BSD license by [the company now known as] SCO at the beginning of 2002. SCO might well have a complaint that SGI did not properly give credit for the code it used. But there is no possible way the company can argue that this code’s presence in Linux is an infringement of its copyrights. Nobody who looked at both sides of the case with an open mind would be making an argument using the information you are posting. Happy trolling. 2004-02-09 4:17 am Anonymous “All the information SCO is requesting of IBM must be costing them a fortune” It may or may not be. IBM had an army of lawyers on the payroll, long before SCO showed up. Even if it is costing IBM, they must think it is money well spent. This case is no longer about SCO. 1. IBM is going to make an example of SCO, as a warning to others who may wish to play such games down the road. 2. IF, and it is a BIG IF, things play out in such a way that the GPL is somehow validated by this case, then that will put a very strong stamp of legality on, not just the GPL, but also on the part of IBM’s business model which surrounds/institutes/makes us of/ the GPL. Many still question whether the GPL is enforceable, in spite of what Moglen says. If this case ends up validating the GPL as legally enforceable, IBM (and alot of other parties) win big time. 2004-02-09 4:52 am Anonymous Okay, I understand the basics of the SCO suit. But to be honest, I have not been paying as much attention to it all as I would normally. Is there some website that documents every event of the SCO vs IBM saga from its beginning until now, and why what is happening is happening? Thanks. 2004-02-09 4:56 am Anonymous “Is there some website that documents every event of the SCO vs IBM saga from its beginning until now, and why what is happening is happening?” http://www.groklaw.net/ 2004-02-09 5:09 am Anonymous Thank you. 🙂 2004-02-09 5:33 am Anonymous SCO made the mistake of hiring stupid lawyers. I mean, I wouldn’t even hire them. Couldn’t they have choosen someone else to actually make their case seem like they would win? 2004-02-09 6:33 am Anonymous Um, that argument was shot down the day after it was shown by Bruce Perens and quite a few other people. It seems this was some old BSD code, which therefore could be quite legally used in Linux. Clearly sarcasm is lost on you 2004-02-09 7:18 am Anonymous “Couldn’t they have choosen someone else to actually make their case seem like they would win?” Presumably, a legal case is won or lost on evidence. 17 files of IBM IP, which came from AIX, is not really evidence here, unless you subscribe to SCO’s whacky definition of what constitutes a derivative work. Trying to pass off BSD code as infringed SysV code, also does not qualify as good evidence. Darl’s public comments to the press have already begun to come back and haunt this case in the courtroom. Changing the legal basis for the case, at the very last minute, becuase SCO could produce no evidence to support the initial charges, does not bode well for this case. In short, I really don’t think it would matter who the lawyer was in this case. Mainly becuase, there doesn’t appear to be much of a case here in the first place. The problem is not $h!t lawyers, but a $h!t case. 2004-02-09 10:14 am Anonymous “2. IF, and it is a BIG IF, things play out in such a way that the GPL is somehow validated by this case, then that will put a very strong stamp of legality on, not just the GPL, but also on the part of IBM’s business model which surrounds/institutes/makes us of/ the GPL. Many still question whether the GPL is enforceable, in spite of what Moglen says. If this case ends up validating the GPL as legally enforceable, IBM (and alot of other parties) win big time.” IBM wins no matter what. They may or may not care about users outside of the enterprise space. Enterprise users are going to be covered by indemnification agreements. So the big tech firms that do linux have to pay a small token license fee to SCO, big deal, how is that bad for them and their shareholders? If SCO wins, they can drive non-enterprise and unlicensed users back to Apple or MS. The money people would laugh all the way to the bank. 2004-02-09 2:36 pm Anonymous They’ve got a streaming Real video of him being an ass: http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/p.cgi/speakers.html 2004-02-09 2:40 pm Anonymous “So the big tech firms that do linux have to pay a small token license fee to SCO,” That will never happen. IF, and this is an even bigger IF, infringing code were found to be in Linux, then the code would be removed & no licensing fees will be paid to anyone. 2004-02-09 2:48 pm Anonymous Clearly sarcasm is lost on you Sarcasm in writing is a tricky thing – especially when done in an environment where there are people who would write something similar and mean it. 2004-02-09 2:58 pm Anonymous (Snippet stolen from unrelated linuxjournal story.) The Copyright Act, at 17 U.S.C. §101, is a little vague and doesn’t say anything at all about software: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. I don’t know if this means that a derivative work must be an evolutionary modification of what was already there, or if plugging something new into something old makes that “module” a derivative work (ex: NUMA, JFS, RCU). My naive takes is AIX is a derivative work but NUMA is not. Is anyone here a lawyer? 2004-02-09 4:14 pm Anonymous Several of their bigwigs have profited nicely from this smoke-and-mirrors act they’ve been playing out and I would like to see them, if ( I mean once) the courts rule against them to lose those profits, be forced to pay serious fines and even jo a little jail time. Darl likes to keep a nice tan and I’m sure we can find him a chain gang where he can show off his buff bronzeness while breaking a few rocks. 2004-02-09 6:40 pm Anonymous Just as stupid & drawn out. I wish this was happening in Europe it might be over by now. 2004-02-10 5:03 am Anonymous That SCO need not have access to the AIX source to prove that their code (which they have) appears in Linux (which they also have) is a fact not lost on the judge, I’m certain. The filings and action of the court would seem to indicate that this may be a principle reason that IBMs motion why the judge issued the discovery order to SCO. That SCO’s counsel would file the response that they did to the court, claiming they can offer no specific claims or evidence without seeing IBM’s source first, reflects more on the law firm than SCO, however. The filing was poorly worded, didn’t answer to the judges initial order, and, frankly, smacks of contempt. I give SCO credit for trying. The most important lesson about the law is that it has nothing to do with who’s right, or even within the bounds of the law. It’s all about who makes the best case for their point provided the circumstances. I think there’s some fairly convincing evidence that SCO is trying to pull a fast one — but it’s important to recognize that lying to a court / congress / a regulatory agency is just as successful as not. With a competent legal team, SCO could probably have some measure of success in this endeavor (they will never eke out licenses from Linux users, but they could squeeze some cash out of big blue). 2004-02-10 4:55 pm Anonymous That SCO’s counsel would file the response that they did to the court, claiming they can offer no specific claims or evidence without seeing IBM’s source first, reflects more on the law firm than SCO, however. No, actually it reflects entirely on SCO’s evidence, or lack thereof. All they have entered into evidence is that they have a hunch and would like IBM’s co-operation to prove it. The IBM laywer proposed that SCO does not need AIX / Dynix source code to verify if IBM breached their contractual obligations. Marriott demonstrated SCO’s amazing ability to verify a company’s guilt without access to their Unix deriviative. Without access to HP’s code and with full knowledge that HP was heavily contributing to Linux while in contract with SCO over HP’s Unix, concluded that HP has not breached contract. Therefore, they can perform the same analysis for IBM. It was not SCO’s law firm that made the conclusion, it was the company. The most important lesson about the law is that it has nothing to do with who’s right, or even within the bounds of the law. It’s all about who makes the best case for their point provided the circumstances. I disagree. We have seen small companies ill equipped to make a great case against Microsoft, but win none-the-less due to a little thing called evidence. It does come down to who is obeying the law and/or a contractual agreement. Alas, corruption within the US legal system due to corporations padding senator’s wallets is another issue altogether.