Home > SCO > SCO alters claim in IBM case, signs licensee SCO alters claim in IBM case, signs licensee Submitted by Tudy Parghel 2004-03-01 SCO 52 Comments The SCO Group Inc. was granted leave last week to amend its case against IBM Corp. Trade secret claims have been dropped, and replaced with copyright infringement claims, Blake Stowell, SCO’s corporate communications manager said Monday. About The Author Eugenia Loli Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker. Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 52 Comments 2004-03-01 7:34 pm They actually were allowed to change the whole reason/basis for the law suit?! 2004-03-01 7:37 pm …they change there reason for the law suit, as i remember correctly. this law suit is getting funnier every day. 2004-03-01 7:55 pm I remember reading recently about a woman who is suing the RIAA under laws used to prosecute members of organized crime organizations (extortion, etc)…can’t we sue SCO under the same laws? hmmm… 2004-03-01 8:03 pm “They actually were allowed to change the whole reason/basis for the law suit?!” IBM had the right to object to the change, but they didn’t. Me thinks the trap is layed for SCO. 2004-03-01 8:13 pm I just cannot wait until this mess is over. Regardless of who wins, nothing can stop Linux from moving full force. 2004-03-01 8:14 pm SCO’s pulled IBM’s AIX license for trade secert claims,So now by switching to copyright, can they still pull that?? IBM didn’t want to object, and filed brief with the judge to speed that point up. Of note the Judge Wells is handleing both SCO vs Novell, copyright claims, It maybe why she is taking a long time to come up with an unbaised judgement on SCO failure to comply with the Judges order of Discovery. 2004-03-01 8:20 pm SCO’s whole basis for demanding damages ($5 billion) was that IBM allegedly mis-appropriated SCO’s trade secrets. Look like SCO just blew their own case (not that they had one anyway, but…) 2004-03-01 8:49 pm If there ever was a case, SCO should have been more organized. Now it ~really~ looks like they are clueless. The honorable thing for them to do would be to drop the entire mess and refile at a later date when they are actually ready to present a case. Additionally they should publicly apologize to IBM and other parties regarding the now-dropped action. The worst thing SCO has done, IMO, was spouting off in public and threatening legal action against third parties before anything was proved or decided in court. No class… Bob 2004-03-01 8:53 pm SCO just continues to shoot itself in the foot everyday. Copyright infringement? At this moment, they cannot even prove they own the copyright because of the dispute with Novell. I can’t wait for the day when SCO closes up shop and stuff goes for sale on eBay. 2004-03-01 9:13 pm They keep changing their tune every little while. How long before the basis of the suit becomes “they’re bigger and more successful and won’t share but we 00wnz Unix”. I’m quite pleased with what is happening in Germany where they’ve been warned to put up, shut up or be fined. It would be nice to see this happen in America. 2004-03-01 9:21 pm :b 2004-03-01 9:27 pm do you think that people will be in a bidding war for a piece of software history or will it just sell like normal on ebay? 2004-03-01 9:30 pm Eugenia might mod me down for this (some of the language is foul). If she does, so be it since she only seems to mod comments down when absolutely necessary. I just thought some here might enjoy my silly SCO limericks. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=97784&cid=8357085 2004-03-01 10:04 pm “IBM had the right to object to the change, but they didn’t. Me thinks the trap is layed for SCO” Interesting. Why didn’t IBM oppose? What kind of trap could ibm lay? 2004-03-01 10:09 pm “Interesting. Why didn’t IBM oppose? What kind of trap could ibm lay?” Me thinks that, if IBM somehow stopped SCO from continuing this circus, then SCO, unable to continue with it’s legal action, would still be able to whine and spout FUD about their alleged intelectual property. Because the case wouldn’t be really, really closed. Now, SCO has been allowed to continue. If (when) they lose, they will have nothing more to add. They’ll be dead. 2004-03-01 10:12 pm Maybe it’s a plan to draw this out. Now they probably have to halt the IBM case to clarify the Novell case first. 2004-03-01 10:15 pm “They actually were allowed to change the whole reason/basis for the law suit?!” Yes, IBM sees no merit on SCO case, nor any reason to do anything. They just let SCO to make fool out of themselves in court They just have no reason to do anything, SCO hasn’t yet shown any *prove*. All they’ve gived is claimed lines without any single proof. And those lines doesn’t even cover vanilla kernel.org kernel. Funny, it is… 2004-03-01 10:17 pm “Interesting. Why didn’t IBM oppose? What kind of trap could ibm lay?” Copyright infringement requires stronger proof than trade secret violation, particularly if damages are expected to be awarded. Willful infringement is even more difficult to prove. Additionally, for copyright infringement, if I understand it correctly, damages can not be awarded if the defendant was not given the opportunity to mitigate damages: 1. SCO claims copyright infringement. 2. IBM says show the code and we will remove it. 3. SCO says we can’t show the code and claims $5 billion in damages based on the infringement. IBM can not now be accused of willful infringement, since they have never been told exactly what is infringing. Nor can SCO be awarded such a huge amount of money for the infringement, since IBM hasn’t been given the opportunity to correct the infringement, given that SCO won’t say what it is that infringes. SCO is up a creek without a paddle, but they had no choice, given the fact that they could produce no evidence to support their case. 2004-03-01 10:24 pm “SCO, unable to continue with it’s legal action, would still be able to whine and spout FUD about their alleged intelectual property.” What is so strange though, is how quiet SCO has been since the court appearance in January. In that last appearance, IBM used some of the quotes Darl had made publically to the press, in front of the judge. The lawyers must have since told the SCO folks to pipe down and keep their mouths shut, in case any of their other public statements come back to haunt the case. 2004-03-01 10:52 pm The Licensee the artical aludes to is EV1-Servers who purchased a Linux license from SCO – things are a bit wild over there right now — lot of angry users of their service also rigth now they are being slashdotted. Here is my take Reasons this was a really bad idea. 1.SCO has been the target of the MyDoom Virus’ DOS attacks (as well as other attacks) – EV1-Servers just painted a nice big target on their back sides and said to the small closed minds that did MyDoom “take a shot at us too”. Unlike SCO, EV1 probably has some real business left to lose. 2.Many people that use EV1 Servers do so because they liked Linux and selected them because they used Red Hat – Many of the people that selected them because of Linux – these people will now deselect them because of the SCO License. 3.Red Hat is in a law suit with SCO – Red Hat probably supplied them support – they just bit the hand that supplied support. 4.If indeed SCO’s license violates the GPL License that is on the Red Hat Linux. This can well embroil them in major legal battles – if SCO had sued them Both Red Hat and FSF (Free Software Foundation) have said that they will step forward to cover the costs of defense. If the copyright holders of the GPL Linux sue over violating the GPL license will SCO – cover their costs? 2004-03-01 11:31 pm How can copyright ingringment possibly ammount to $5 billion dollars, based only on a kernel? Most people don’t care about Linux itself when they use Mandrake or Red Hat or SUSE, this is fact. Most don’t even recognize the purpose of a kernel even. How can one of the smallest programs installed on any given system be worth so much? I could understand it if something like OO.o was the culprite, its a huge program. Maybe even something like Mozilla, or any of the larger actual tools used on Linux based systems. I just don’t see how SCO can claim such damages for a kernel. Also, how much did they pay for UNIX? How can they expect to win more money then they paid for the code in the first place? I echo the sentiments of many others here, I can’t wait for all this to be figured out and resolved. I have so many questions based on what SCO is claiming, so many things just don’t make sense… 2004-03-01 11:33 pm I think is important that the legalty of GPL etc is tested in court. So companies see that they will never have to fear that sutch a thing happens again. Let IBM and Novell prove that GPL is something that has value and can’t be messed with :p 2004-03-01 11:50 pm don`t you think ibm and novell have seen a bit more of the docs than SCO? I think they are working togetter now to bing SCO down, reason: Novell can put unix into linux and SCO payed 5 mil and Novell payed 100 mil, for UNIX. IBM have put money into SUSE.. se were I am getting @.. 2004-03-02 12:01 am In the markets Linux and UNIX are used in (mainly servers and workstations), you can bet buyers have a good understanding of what a kernel is. 2004-03-02 12:05 am 4:00 PM Pacific time Below is a direct quote from the SCO web site. Check out the third word in the sentence. “Customers can asses using UnixWare in their environment without making costly application program changes.” You can find the above statement here: http://sco.com/products/lkp/ See the third paragraph, first statement in the bullet list. I’ve heard of canning veggies, but how does one “can asses.” I did not know one could really use UnixWare to run an ass-canning machine. I’ve heard of BDI Linux running CNC machines, like mills and lathes, but never UnixWare. By the way, what does one do with a canned ass? I wonder – will SCO’s layers do a better job writing the legal statements needed to amend their lawsuit? 2004-03-02 12:28 am It was a little premature to buy a license without anything being proven in court. Businesses arent stupid and SCO must have shown this company something that really scared it. As a businessman I can understand this companies concern but eventually something will be decided in court. 2004-03-02 12:46 am <<< Novell can put unix into linux >>> Novell cannot put Unix into Linux. There are alot of other companies copyrights in UNIX that cannot be transferred. Novell can put there code into Linux but none that has the AT&T copyrights and other copyrights, this is per a Ransome Love article http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1492264,00.asp 2004-03-02 1:00 am How many of these people that posted on EV1’s forums are actual customers of EV1? Thats an interesting question because considering you can get a free user name and password to this site actually makes one wonder about such things. 2004-03-02 1:02 am You mean, like they showed at last year’s SCOForum? That piece of BSD code that got into Unix System V Release 4 minus the BSD license attributions? That piece of GPLed code that was rewritten from publically-available definitions and specifications? That piece of Unix 7th Ed malloc – 7th Ed, for pity’s sakes! – that SGI had put in, duplicating functionality, and that got thrown out – prior to the SCO Group’s claims – because it was ugly code!? Yeah, really frightening. “The Killer Clowns From Plan 9!” Maybe they just used the local stand-over specialists. Nusuth. EV1 Servers are losing customers, because they are now perceived as being without integrity. Wesley Parish 2004-03-02 1:27 am <<< EV1 Servers are losing customers, because they are now perceived as being without integrity. >>> I dont think they will lose many because most people dont just abandon hosting companies. Personally i dont see why the hand ful of people are getting upset because it doesnt affect them at all. Now if EV1 said that they were going to raise rates to compensate for their payments to SCO then I could see people getting upset. <<< You mean, like they showed at last year’s SCOForum? That piece of BSD code that got into Unix System V Release 4 minus the BSD license attributions? That piece of GPLed code that was rewritten from publically-available definitions and specifications? That piece of Unix 7th Ed malloc – 7th Ed, for pity’s sakes! – that SGI had put in, duplicating functionality, and that got thrown out – prior to the SCO Group’s claims – because it was ugly code!? >>> All those claims are made by the Open Source communities self proclaimed “law experts” and “unix historians” I will wait for a court of law to rule on it. All SCo has to do is convince 12 men and women that they are right and they win. Our opinions and writings will not even be taken into consideration and will have no impact. In court it depends on who is more believable. As Sontag said in an interview after the SCO Forum its Bruce Perens and Eric Raymonds word against theirs. If the code got thrown out or not is irrelevant. The point is it was still included. I will wait for a court ruling becaus stranger things have happened. 2004-03-02 2:58 am http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=6192&offset=120&rows=124 Sir Dohnert claims to have captured SCO’s interest regarding a fork of NMAP by none other than… Well, you’ll just have to guess. 2004-03-02 3:37 am The grounds of SCO’s lawsuit have changed somewhat as the case has progressed to the discovery stage, where the parties are arguing over what documents (paper or electronic format, including code), etc., each should have to produce. It is absolutely ordinary that each party is routinely allowed to amend its positions at this early stage, which is the reason IBM did not object. Each party’s court filings to this point are available on the Web, at Groklaw and other sites. What these documents show is that SCO’s suit against IBM as it stands now is based on two legal theories: 1. Technologies such as read-copy-update (RCU) and JFS are derivative works of Unix code to which SCO has legal rights, and IBM’s contribution of such works to Linux violated those legal rights. There are two sub-issues concerning theory #1: (a) Technologies such as RCU and JFS must be found to be derivative works of Unix, and (b) SCO’s contract with Novell must give it the legal rights to such derivative works. One important thing to note about theory #1 is that it does *not* involve what everyone seems to be discussing regarding this case, i.e., “cloning.” SCO isn’t claiming to the court that one can recognize original Unix code in Linux files. (This may seem amazing concerning all the public discussion, including some by SCO corporate executives, but see SCO’s attorneys’ statements in the most recent court filings and hearing transcripts. This is why SCO contends it needs IBM to produce all its AIX and Dynix source code – because, SCO says, what IBM contributed to Linux so little resembles any original Unix code that without the AIX and Dynix ‘roadmaps’ there is no way to trace it.) 2. IBM entered into agreements with SCO regarding something called ‘Project Monterey’ where, SCO contends, IBM agreed to provide SCO all the wonderful new technologies it was in the process of developing, like RCU and JFS. But IBM decided Linux was the way to go rather than SCO Unix, so it contributed these technologies to Linux, thus, SCO says, violating the Project Monterey agreements. The important thing to note about #2 is that for this theory to work, no copyright violation is necessary. All that is necessary is that IBM agreed to give SCO such technologies as RCU and JFS, then reneged on those agreements. Therefore, as the court case stands now, SCO is *not contending that Linux was cloned from its copyrighted Unix code*. Rather, it contends that technologies developed by IBM up to 20 years after IBM received its Unix license should be considered derivative works to which SCO’s contract with Novell gives it the legal rights; or, alternatively, that IBM entered into contractual agreements to give those technologies to SCO and reneged on the agreements by contributing them to Linux instead. I am not expressing any opinion whatever on the merits of SCO’s case or IBM’s defense. I just thought it was high time the actual issues before the court were explained, rather than continuing an argument that SCO isn’t making to the court, i.e., that copyrighted Unix code was literally copied into Linux. 2004-03-02 5:00 am It was a little premature to buy a license without anything being proven in court. Businesses arent stupid and SCO must have shown this company something that really scared it. This doesn’t make any sense. If SCO had some killer evidence, you can bet they would have a lot more than one licensee! You can also bet that IBM would have tried to settle out of court. For someone who allegedly doesn’t support SCO’s effort, you seem quicker to claim that they actually have a case every day. So, when are you going to make that nmap fork available on your website? 2004-03-02 5:09 am SCO stinx, I hope they lose the case, after spreading so much FUD. 2004-03-02 5:12 am I have posted my replies to your idiotic post on my own website. http://www.geocities.com/rjdohnert/techblog.htm as for the rest of your post: <<< Answer… NO! Why? Because… Speculation and trolling are your only qualities! >>> Can you guarantee me without a shadow of a doubt that SCO will lose this case? Answer: NO Why? because… You are not a jury. You dont know the history of these companies and you dont know if IBM did in fact contribute tainted code. The only one that knows this beyond a shadow of a doubt is IBM. <<< If it’s just that you are uneducated or even to lazy to do your homework, then ADMIT YOUR FAULTS, DO YOUR HOMEWORK, THEN COME BACK WHEN YOU ARE READY!!!!! Being able to realize your faults and LEARN from them is ONE OF MANY QUALITIES THAT AN INTELLIGENT PERSON HAS! You haven’t displayed these qualities yet. Sorry, but it’s true. >>> I admit my faults, its you who wont admit yours. Im not saying Im absolutely 100% right. You are working on speculation yourself and not fact. And while I admit, Groklaw started out as a good resource I find it now full of zealotry and very little facts. Not the fault of Pamela Jones mind you, she started out with a noble effort but as always the zealotrous self proclaimed UNIX experts ruined the site. Its not my fault, its not hers, blame it on yourselves. <<< You best quality currently is… —————-YOU ARE A KNOWN TROLL!!!!!—————- I see right through you (as I’m sure anyone with a brain does too). So, to make sure that EVERYONE will know who you are, I present the following. >>> Darn, you have a brain? coulda fooled me. And someone who posts a comment twice is what? Not a troll. At least I am getting involved politely. I have not been inflammatory to anyone except when i am provoked. Which, Im going to respond to criticisms and stupidity and ignorance with criticisms and stupidity and ignorance. In case you cant understand what i am trying to say in my blog then there is no hope for you. 2004-03-02 10:35 am dont speak for all of us, especially when you condone stupid shit like suicide. Sorry man thats taking it too far and i would certainly not wish death on anyone. Okay the guy is a bit of an idiot, and writing such a basic site using frontpage then claiming to be a developer is enough to give everyone a good laugh. roberto your entitled to your own views. Even if they be completely off of the mark. The groklaw comment made me laugh, right as soon as anyone goes outside of your viewpoint they must be wrong, wouldnt be nice if we are all as narrow minded as you. Then sco would have won, because all of those people on groklaw must be wrong. As for this, actual news story. repeat after me: “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, unless i cant find evidence to back my truth, then ill have to fabricate something new” heh heh 2004-03-02 11:45 am >All those claims are made by the Open Source communities self proclaimed “law experts” and “unix historians” I will wait for a court of law to rule on it. All SCo has to do is convince 12 men and women that they are right and they win. < What a ridiculous statement. The notion that 12 jurors will decide the fate of something they are completely ignorant about is really the last hope of SCO and its supporters. As to the so called “law experts” and “unix historians” remarks I’m sure Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens and alike have forgetten more about unix and its history than Mr Dohnert has ever known. 2004-03-02 11:59 am about the suicide thing, but it was a joke. I didn’t think you people take it so seriously. But then, maybe americans have different taste in humor than us europeans. It’s not like he is going to do that, it is just a joke, cmon, where’s the sense of humor? Well, I just hate it to see this guy start a war. He is this wannabe_different kind of person, he just doesn’t want to share the view on the facts with other people, even though his statements are ridiculous. He’s the kindof person that finds meaning to his life by trolling and starting flame wars in forums like here. I want a good explanation why he wants to attract the Open Source hate upon himself. What is he trying to prove? 2004-03-02 12:03 pm tudy im in europe aswell, its just a bit far to be taking the comment, i understand what your saying though. Time to get back to my work now anyway. 2004-03-02 12:41 pm EV1 is moving to Win 2003 servers, it is heavily promoting them and is used as a case study by MS: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/CaseStudy.asp?CaseSt… EV1 claim to currently have 18,000 servers, Netcraft reports that 11,000 are currently running Linux not the 17,000 that has been widely reported in the IT media reports. This seems to confirm that they are in the process of a move to Win 2003. MS is undoubtedly giving them a BIG discount. It is I suspect using its deal with EV1 to funnel money into SCO and fuel the FUD machine. You don’t need to be wearing a tinfoil hat to come to the conclusion that MS is money laundering through EV1 to pay for the SCO “licenses”. 2004-03-02 2:04 pm Visited the guys site, the funniest thing I’ve seen in years.. If you mean this site as a joke, then hats off to you !! If not, then.. err.. keep taking the tablets. All the best, Bob 2004-03-02 3:10 pm “I am not expressing any opinion whatever on the merits of SCO’s case or IBM’s defense. I just thought it was high time the actual issues before the court were explained, rather than continuing an argument that SCO isn’t making to the court, i.e., that copyrighted Unix code was literally copied into Linux.” Very nice. Most of us know this already. We are not the people SCO is addressing, and obviously they’re spending far more energy addressing ignoramuses in the press than they should be. Also, don’t forget they are asing for a *jury trial.* Why do you think they are blabbering around the press as much as they are? Where is the court going to find a jury that hasn’t been tainted by their big mouths? For example: What does SCO’s problem with IBM’s contract have to do with their letter to Congress? 2004-03-02 5:55 pm “‘I am not expressing any opinion whatever on the merits of SCO’s case or IBM’s defense. I just thought it was high time the actual issues before the court were explained, rather than continuing an argument that SCO isn’t making to the court, i.e., that copyrighted Unix code was literally copied into Linux.’ “Very nice. Most of us know this already. We are not the people SCO is addressing, and obviously they’re spending far more energy addressing ignoramuses in the press than they should be.” “Most of us” apparently does not include most folks posting to Slashdot and OSNews, nor does it include most (any?) members of the press who have written about this topic. Nor have folks like Eric Raymond, Greg Lehey, or even Linus himself paused to note, “Hey, they’re not saying we copied Linux from Unix anymore.” Dropping this legal theory is a seismic shift from “Those GPL commie freaks stole our IP!” to “Those cutthroat capitalist IBM bastards wouldn’t give us the great new IP [theory 1] like they contracted to do! [theory 2] that they derived from our old IP!” I just don’t think the fact of that shift has fully penetrated the public mind/discussion yet. 2004-03-02 6:23 pm this case is really messed up now. sco ibm with perhaps ms backing sco and ibm seeing future with linux. well with entry of statements from novel and also of redhat, this seems like circus now. but one thing is for sure. sco does not have any case to win. whether or not sco loses, open source will and should not be affected that’s perhaps most important thing for all of us. 2004-03-02 7:45 pm “Therefore, as the court case stands now, SCO is *not contending that Linux was cloned from its copyrighted Unix code*.” That was a good break down. Thank you for that, but I curious about this statement. It seemed to me that the SCO people went out of their way to try and prove it was copied line by line, but then in court they’re claiming something totally different? Am I understanding this right? If so, what’s you’re take on that? 2004-03-02 8:30 pm The “Linux was copied line by line” was only ever an oversimplified version of one of SCO’s original 3 grounds against IBM. That ground has now been dropped. However, you’re quite right, “the SCO people” (execs outside of court primarily) appear to have gone out of their way to try to give the impression that they believe parts of Linux were copied directly from Unix. The first possibility that comes to mind is that “Linux is copied from Unix and that is why we are suing IBM” is a much simpler thing to say and much more likely to capture press and public imagination than “IBM licensed Unix code that we later bought the rights to, and 20-odd years later IBM contributed some cool stuff to Linux that we contend you can trace back to that Unix stuff.” But I’m really just guessing – I make no special claim to understanding why SCO chose to couch their public pronouncements this way. 2004-03-02 10:54 pm “The first possibility that comes to mind is that “Linux is copied from Unix and that is why we are suing IBM” is a much simpler thing to say and much more likely to capture press and public imagination than “IBM licensed Unix code that we later bought the rights to, and 20-odd years later IBM contributed some cool stuff to Linux that we contend you can trace back to that Unix stuff.” Sounds like a reasonable evaluation. I’m guessing you’re not a criminal lawyer, but at which point can SCO no longer threaten the public with a claim that it’s not even making in court and is not the basis for its case against IBM, before they cross the line into extortion? Doesn’t the fact that they refuse to show their “evidence” and yet demand money from only the wealthiest Linux users seem, while refusing to even discuss licensing with lesser entities put them in at least close to that neighborhood? 2004-03-03 12:47 am Sounds like a reasonable evaluation. I’m guessing you’re not a criminal lawyer, but at which point can SCO no longer threaten the public with a claim that it’s not even making in court and is not the basis for its case against IBM, before they cross the line into extortion? Doesn’t the fact that they refuse to show their “evidence” and yet demand money from only the wealthiest Linux users seem, while refusing to even discuss licensing with lesser entities put them in at least close to that neighborhood? This is what gets me they spread all sorts of crap, about suing linux distributors, suing linux users, but can they ? they have no freaking right to sue. Afai understand sco has beef with IBM, 1) for the project monetary, no linux user has anything to do with this. This is purely between IBM and sco linux. 2) for IBM violating their copyright. (again this has f’all to do with linux users ) no 2. is a dead given that they will lose. and no 1, well it might stand up in court longer than the 2nd one. but sco cant chase after any other linux distro, exactly because their entire beef is with IBM, it has nothing to do with linux, or the gpl. So how can they threaten linux users ? It doesn’t make sense, Germany was right to tell them to put up or shut up. None of this court case makes sense its just nonsical rubbish spewed out by sco and has no relevance to what they are suing for. Honestly from the looks of it Microsoft tried every smear campaign in the book all of them blew up in their face so now they hire sco to spread this Shiite around. This case just baffles me, someone explain to me what any of the crap talking they have been doing for so long has any relevance to what they are actually going to trial for. If this is Microsoft’s work, someone should really create an echelon type system just to spy on what Microsoft is up to. As soon as a whiff of bullshit starts stirring we would all know about it. Maybe then they would punish Microsoft appropriately for monopolist tactics (by punish properly i would suggest making every vendor-lock in format they have be made open source d with a BSD license. Examples being word/excel etc. formats directs etc.. you get the picture, no proprietary formats say bye bye to the monopoly) also eugenia or any other mod can you mod all of my other posts /down just outright delete them (the ones that dealt with the comment about a certain poster, ive already clicked on the one im talking about to be modded down i would be grateful, thanks) 2004-03-03 12:50 am the sentance should have read: open sourced with a BSD style license. Examples being word, excel directx etc.. you get the picture, no proprietary formats say bye bye to the monopoly 2004-03-03 3:43 am “I’m guessing you’re not a criminal lawyer” Heh, no, I try to stay out of trouble. “but at which point can SCO no longer threaten the public with a claim that it’s not even making in court and is not the basis for its case against IBM, before they cross the line into extortion?” Until it no longer fits their legal strategy, I guess. Publicly asking folks to stop using Linux may be irritating, but it doesn’t really seem to quite fit the legal definition of criminal extortion. If IBM put something in Linux that is found to be a derivative work of Unix IP owned by SCO (even though 20-odd years intervened between IBM licensing Unix and developing technologies like JFS and read-copy-update), they would have a point, at least until whatever was found infringing was removed. “Doesn’t the fact that they refuse to show their ‘evidence’ and yet demand money from only the wealthiest Linux users seem, while refusing to even discuss licensing with lesser entities put them in at least close to that neighborhood?” To a certain extent it shows they aren’t crazy. Why sue (or even threaten to sue) someone with no money? This is a civil lawsuit brought by a business and thus represents a business decision. A business decision that had no prospect of resulting in financial reward would be a very strange one indeed. OTOH, refusing to tell those you’re accusing of infringement precisely what is infringing so they can cease doing it (or refuse to cease doing it and be sued) is unusual, yes. 2004-03-03 2:41 pm If everyone hasn’t heard by now, SCO has sued Autozone. I think there is one other new target too, I don’t know the other company yet. It’s not about kernel IP in this case, but use of SCO shared libraries violating contract. More of an EULA issue probably. One thing I’m not clear on, is how SCO got this evidence, unless they have some sort of inside info. Even if the transisition from Unixware (or other SCO product) to linux was covered on news, I doubt detailed info would be posted by Autozone. Very suspicious. This is nothing new, Caldera sued MS years ago over win 95, after buying DRDOS. Their business model is certainly at least partially based on litigation and fear. 2004-03-03 7:50 pm “This is what gets me they spread all sorts of crap, about suing linux distributors, suing linux users, but can they ? they have no freaking right to sue. ” Yep. It would be one thing if they were going to sue OSDN to either get the code changed or collect damages. But they come right out and admit that they make a list of the wealthiest corporations using Linux who, IF Linux actually contained stolen code, would have had no idea that they were infringing on SCO’s copyrights. And they’ve nothing to back it up, despite what they might believe, nothing’s been proven in court. There’s something very wrong about this.