|
|
| The Novell Letters |
 |
|
Friday, August 08 2003 @ 11:50 PM EDT
|
The IBM Amended Answer with Counterclaims is available on Pacer now. LWN has it up as text, for those of you who prefer text. Thanks for the tip, D. Note there could be OCR errors here and there, according to the page. And the Red Hat complaint is now available as text too.
The section I want to highlight is about two exhibits, Exhibit K and L, which are referenced in the document but not provided by Pacer or LWN, because they are paper documents filed with the court, not in the digital records.
I have the two letters now, which were faxed to me, both of them from Jack Messmen, CEO of Novell, to Darl McBride of SCO. What they say is that SCO has no contractual right to terminate IBM's AIX license, because, as earlier reported, it was a three-way contract, and one under which Novell retained the right to compel SCO to do pretty much whatever Novell wanted done respecting IBM's license rights. According to these letters, Novell told SCO not to terminate IBM's rights, and when SCO didn't comply, on June 12, Novell intervened and overruled SCO, which Novell says it had retained the right to do when it sold some, but not all, of its UNIX ownership rights. In other words, while SCO got some rights to UNIX, Novell retained veto power.
According to IBM's papers, the history goes like this: IBM bought its rights to use UNIX in the mid 1980s from AT&T Technologies, Inc. under an agreement called the AT&T Agreements, the plural being used because there were numerous amendments and further agreements by letter modifying the original agreement.
In 1993, Novell bought AT&T Technologies, Inc.'s rights under the AT&T Agreements. In 1995, Novell assigned certain (but not all) of these rights to The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., which is now known as Tarantella, Inc., "which is not affiliated with SCO."
Next, IBM got additional rights by means of Amendment X, which was signed by IBM, Novell and Santa Cruz, the original SCO, as IBM calls them, on October 17, 1996. It was under this Amendment X that IBM spent some $10+ million to acquire the 'irrevocable, fully paid-up, perpetual right to exercise all of its rights' under the AT&T Agreements.
OK, still with me? One of the rights Novell says it retained was the right to compel SCO to waive or revoke any of SCO's rights under the contract. This little detail is the nail that everything else can hang on. Cognizant of these rights, Novell sent two, actually three, letters to Darl McBride, and two of them are the exhibits K and L.
In the first letter, Exhibit K, dated June 9, 2003, Novell's Jack Messman wrote: "IBM paid $10,125,000 for the rights under Amendment No. X. Novell believes, therefore, that SCO has no right to terminate IBM's SVRX Licenses, and that it is inappropriate, at best, for SCO to be threatening to do so."
The letter refers to Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement, under which Novell said it retained the right, at their "sole discretion and direction" to require SCO to "amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or. . . assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect..." The letter reminds McBride that the agreement also provides that Novell retained the right at "its sole discretion and direction" to require SCO "to amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or . . . assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect" by Novell, and should SCO fail to comply, Novell retained "the rights to take any action" on SCO's behalf. Then it directs SCO to waive any right it might claim to terminate IBM's AIX licenses or to revoke any rights by June 12, 2003.
Comes June 12, and SCO has not complied, so Mr. Messman sends Darl a second letter, now Exhibit L, in which he tells SCO, in essence, that Novell noticed SCO had not taken the required actions, so Novell was exercising its right to act on SCO's behalf:
"Accordingly, pursuant to Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Novell, on behalf of The SCO Group, hereby waives any purported right SCO may claim to terminate IBM's SVRX Licenses enumerated in Amendement X or to revoke any rights thereunder, including any purported rights to terminate asserted in SCO's letter of March 6, 2003 to IBM."
This is not just a pukey detail. Or, you could say that contract law is all pukey details, but when you find the right little detail, you win the day. You know, when lawyers find something like this, it's sooooo satisfying. I'll bet they had a party. It's worthy of a glass of champage, no doubt about it. It means that when SCO told the world that it had revoked IBM's AIX license rights, it knew that Novell was contesting their right to do it, and under the contracts referenced by Novell, they had overruled SCO's desire to terminate those rights.
IBM then used this in their legal document to accuse SCO of false and misleading statements, upon which it built many of its counterclaims. First, IBM makes reference to the various documents on which it is relying, telling the history of the contracts and amendments to the contract, followed by the section of the complaint that refers to the exhibits (thank you, LWN, for providing text, so that I don't have to type my fingers to the bone one more night):
"BACKGROUND
"A. UNIX, IBM and AIX
"8. Beginning in the mid-1980s, IBM acquired broad rights to use UNIX software pursuant to a series of agreements with AT&T Technologies, Inc. These agreements, referred to as the 'AT&T Agreements', include the Software Agreement (Agreement Number SOFT-00015) dated February 1, 1985, the Sublicensing Agreement (Agreement Number SUB-00015A) dated February 1, 1985, the Substitution Agreement (Agreement Number XPER-00015B) dated February 1, 1985. the letter agreement dated February 1, 1985, and the Software Agreement Supplement 170, as amended by a letter agreement dated on or about January 25, 1989. Copies of these agreements are attached hereto as Exhibits A through F, respectively.
"9. In connection with the proper exercise of these and other rights
previously obtained by IBM with respect to UNIX, IBM began development of its own verion of a UNIX operating system, called AIX. Over the last two decades, IBM has expended tremendous resources on developing AIX, creating millions of lines of original code, incorporating it into its product lines and licensing the technology to thousands of customers worldwide. IBM continues to do so today.
"10. In 1993, Novell, Inc. ('Novell') acquired AT&T Technologies, Inc.'s rights under fhe AT&T Agreements. In 1995, Novell assigned certain (but not all) of these rights to The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
("Original SCO"), a California corporation now known as Tarantella, Inc., which is not affiliated with SCO.
"11. Thereafter, IBM obtained additional rights with respect to UNIX software. Pursuant to an agreement known as Amendment X, entered into by IBM, Novell and Original SCO on October 17, 1996, for example, IBM acquired the "irrevocable, fully paid-up, perpetual right to exercise all of its rights" under the AT&T Agreements. A copy of this amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit G. . . .
"H. Novell's Exercise of Rights
"32. On June 9, 2003, in response to SCO's actions, and pursuant to
its obligations under Amendment X, Novell stated its belief that SCO has no right to terminate IBM's UNIX License which is perpetual and irrevocable, and Novell exercised its retained rights to UNIX to put a stop to SCO's misconduct. Under Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement between Novell and Original SCO dated September 19, 1995 ('APA'), attached hereto as Exhibit J, Novell directed SCO to 'waive any purported right SCO may claim to terminate IBM's [UNIX] licenses enumerated in Amendment X or to revoke any rights thereunder, including any purported rights to terminate asserted in SCO's letter of March 6, 2003 to IBM'. A copy of Novell's June 9, 2003 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit K.
"33. When SCO failed to take the actions directed by Novell, on June 12,
2003, Novell exercised its rights under Section 4.16(b) of the APA to waive and revoke, in SCO's stead, any purported right SCO claimed to terminate IBM's licenses. A copy of Novell's June 12, 2003 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit L."
So, now it will be up to a judge to rule on this point, but where SCO sees wiggle room in all this is hard to fathom. IBM must see it Novell's way too, because they accuse SCO of false and misleading statements to the world about having "terminated" IBM's rights, despite having these letters. Making false and misleading statements about a company can get you sued. If the judge sees the contract the way Novell sees it, it gives substance to the tort counterclaims. Did I say substance? It's a touchdown. What also needs to be said here is that Novell really stood up to the plate and put its money where its mouth is. Champagne, anyone?
You know what I can't figure? How come none of the mainstream reporters are talking about this? Maybe they are and I missed it, but to me this is the headline news for the entire SCO-IBM contest regarding AIX. By the way, SVRX just means AIX, or more precisely System V UNIX and all revisions.
PS Sorry about the typo in the headline yesterday. I had to go out of town and struggled to get the story up at all. I knew everyone was chomping at the bit to see it. If I fix the typo now, your comments will likely get erased, so I'm leaving it the way it is until it gets archived. So, thank you for letting me know about it, those of you who did. I appreciate it and am letting you know why it isn't yet fixed. It will be.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 08 2003 @ 09:36 PM EDT |
| Just popped a bottle myself. This is going to be so satisfying...
Any idea how long this will take to get to court?
Paul[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 08 2003 @ 09:47 PM EDT |
| IBM accuses SCO of a lot more than "making false statements". In paragraph 37
they state that SCO acted "in order to artificially and improperly inflate the
price of its stock."
Is that not a fairly strong statement to make in a public document?
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 08 2003 @ 10:00 PM EDT |
With regards to the media, I think once this whole fiasco ends in our (the Linux
community's) favor, there is going to have to be some serious questions asked
about the anti-Linux slant of some major news outlets and their repeated use of
extremely biased "analysts".
Lins Zechesny[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 08 2003 @ 10:11 PM EDT |
Not just the "anti-linux bias," but the complete lack of skepticism of any kind,
as this little tiny company made ever-more grandiose pronouncements. It was like
watching those "Raelians" with their human clones... totally gullible
journalists treating this ridiculous hoax as some big Serious Thing.
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 08 2003 @ 11:15 PM EDT |
| Just to play the devil's advocate. The part I find troubling is that there is
only one asset purchase agreement (1995) but at least two amendments. The
original agreement says no patents or copyrights were transferred to SCO (1995).
Amendment number 1 has nothing to do with copyrights. An amendment number 2 -
that SCO claims is part of a larger financial transaction - changes the
intellectual property that wasn't sold to the Santa Cruz Operation. It was
modified to exclude from transfer "all copyrights and trademarks, except for the
copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the (1995)
agreement, required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the
acquisition of Unix and UnixWare technologies.(dated 16 OCT 1996). The terms
"asset transfer" and "acquisition" in a purchase agreement contract usually mean
"to own property rights". That is how the Copyright Office viewed it recently.
This means that some copyrights and trademarks definitely changed hands a year
after the original 1995 purchase agreement as a result of Amendment 2. SCO
originally acquired the line of business as some kind of agent/share cropper -
with no copyrights, trademarks,or patents of it's own. Under that sort of regime
Novell should have had a veto power over SCO's actions with respect to Novell's
licensees. Amendment no. X is dated and signed 16-17 OCT 1996 (same day as the
amended purchase agreement). It mentions that it replaces a former IBM, SCO,
Novell agreement dated April of 1996, and secures a royalty payment from IBM for
SCO. Novell apparently has unrestricted patent rights, SCO apparently has
unrestricted source code copyrights (or else paragraph 5 is a complete work of
fiction).
Copyright owners have several privileges. Copyrights can be subdivided and sold
seperately like any other personal property. Without an asset transfer document
that spells out what Unix copyrights (if any) Novell retained, I'd have to
conclude that the original 1995 asset purchase agreement provisions giving
Novell a veto became invalid when the copyright and trademark ownership
subsequently changed hands under the new purchase agreement - Amendment 2.
Novell could retain and license the three patents for use in any OS, but we are
discussing an IBM Unix source code license, not just three patents. How can
Novell transfer the copyrights to a new owner in a 1996 purchase agreement, and
claim veto power over licensing based on a title of ownership rights from a
superseded 1995 purchase agreement?
Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 08 2003 @ 11:16 PM EDT |
Thanks PJ. You da bomb!
Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 12:50 AM EDT |
Harlan: Is the amendment 2 the amendment where Novell lost (or never got) their
copy? You know the little Novell-SCO copyright incident.
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 04:36 AM EDT |
| I think the background sections are interesting if you compare the SCO and IBM
court documents.
Did you notice the difference between, UNIX operating system (SCO) vs "UNIX
operating systems" paragraph 18 (and son on) or "licensed certain operating
system software code to IBM" paragraph 60.
Paragraph 55 and 57 also interesting if you compare SCO's version to IBM's
response. SCO says "SCO was", "SCO had", etc. IBM throws into their usual terse
responses, a quick explanation of the difference between SCO and "The Santa Cruz
Operation, Inc.".
Would I be correct to get the impression for this part, IBM seems to be saying
something like: You seem to be talking, largely or completely incorrectly in our
view, about events in involving some other company entirely.
(and SCO's press release http://biz.yahoo.com/pr
news/030807/lath091_1.html about having shipped these products (accussed by
IBM of infringing IBM patents) for "nearly two decades", seems to compound the
error, no?)
Regarding the press, it's not like the whole background is not in the open. If
there's a fault, it's in the analysis.
This is my understanding of the sequence of events:
Some small company in Utah, with some rights to a version of some UNIX source
code, that doesn't own the UNIX trademark or certify UNIX products, suddenly
makes claims against (all???) UNIX implementations, and even have claims against
BSD, Windows, and Apple operating systems. They had never realized this before,
but suddenly wow! They only got these rights a few years ago, for a relatively
small amount (millions).
The small company claims to have rights to stop IBM doing a substantial part of
their business (AIX related), and they think IBM agreed to this.
The small company demands damages which are a multiple of the entire value of
their company. There is no explanation of why they picked this particular
number. Suddenly they realize they were out by a factor of three in the damages
demanded.
Insiders grant themselves options near the start. As the stock price rises,
insiders sell shares.
The industry disputes the small company's claims. This includes a party to many
of the small company's contracts, including with IBM.
The small company's evidence is secret, and won't be disclosed for open
examination. Some of those who have seen it, don't think it sufficient.
During the whole sequence, the small company makes a number of really strange
press releases (contracts v copyrights one, the IBM coutersuit one, the Red Hat
one referring to a letter they never sent, etc.), and appears to change its
claims (about number of lines of code, it being about Linux or not, and several
other things).
And yes, and as MathFox says, the small company suddenly found a contractual
document that the other side wasn't even aware of, and may never have been
implemented.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 06:33 AM EDT |
| Hi PJ,
Having read IBMs coounter-claim and some other stuff I'm much happier now that I
won't be needing an SCO Linux Licence. Some of it's just the usual tit-for-tat
patent lawsuit stuff, but the request for injunctive relief interests me.
IMHO, IANAL etc. It seems to me that two of the requests could be answered
quickly in court (preliminary injunction?) without reference to the source code,
namely, that SCO cannot terminate IBMs AIX license, and that the SCO Linux
license is illegal. Getting an early judgement on these would allow an awful lot
of people to breathe a sigh of relief. The rest of it could wait for the full
trial. Is there any chance of this happening?
IBM have picked their patents carefully to hit at SCOs major Unix products, one
for each. It makes me think, and reading the agreements it seems to be so, that
IBM since 1985 will have been given the source code updates and enhancements to
AT&T Unix SVR2 and its successors all the way up to the current Caldera/SCO
UnixWare. So IBM itself should be able to implement the various proposed source
code comparison schemes, and determine who copied what from and to where and
when. No wonder they don't seem to be concerned.
Chris Priest[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 08:04 AM EDT |
This was a pleasent surprise this morning! Thanks PJ, I needed this. :)
JustDave[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 08:09 AM EDT |
| quartermass,
A very nice sumation of the situation. One point the we must remeber is that the
small company in Utah is campaigning on two fronts, in the courts and in the
press. Much of their press campaign consists of bare allegation, and distortions
(if not misrepresentations) of the small company's own history.
D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 08:23 AM EDT |
Does this mean that without Novell IBM could have been be in trouble with the
AIX licensing issue?
Ph(i)Nk 0[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 08:23 AM EDT |
| The 2nd amendment should be the key as to whether Novell had the right to wave
and revoke any of SCO's rights. I'm still unsure whether the second amendment
is even valid myself since it was "found" after Novell disputed SCO's claims of
owning UNIX and Novell doesn't seem to think it has a copy. And if it was an
amendment to a 3-party contract, then wouldn't IBM have been involved with and
have a copy of that amendment? Is it available online anywhere?
http
://www.cbronline.com/latestnews/0e403214a3ec733a80256d7c0018cf5d
This was pointed out before and needs to be pointed out again. SCO continues to
claim they had the right to terminate IBM's AIX license.
"A SCO spokesperson yesterday claimed that Novell sold enforcement rights to SCO
along with Unix copyright and IP. "SCO absolutely does have the enforcement
rights to the Unix and UnixWare technology," he said. He added SCO ignored
Messman's correspondence to McBride because the company had already spelt out
the complaint and remedies."
What I tought was odd is SCO has not denied that Novell retained the right to
waive and revoke SCO's rights. SCO just keeps claiming that they own UNIX.
dentonj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 08:59 AM EDT |
| As mentioned before, I'm not a lawyer. I could easily be missing a lot or
misunderstanding.
But I think IBM is also saying between the lines:
1. UNIX is descriptive of operating __systems__ that fit certain criteria -
regardless of the particular implementation.
2. SCO, whatever rights it might have, apply to a particular implementation of a
UNIX operating __system__ and the AT&T source associated with that.
3. Lots of things follow from this... both in IBM's defenses and IBM's counter
claims.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 09:11 AM EDT |
| A question.
If SCO does sell it's SCO/Linux to anyone,
can the persons who contributed code to Linux under the GPL sue SCO?
Are there any open source attorneys willing to draft up a contributors case,
give instructions on how to file, and give this to all Linux contributors.
Then a lot of people could come and file against SCO from a lot of directions
and courts.
????
A[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 09:11 AM EDT |
| A question.
If SCO does sell it's SCO/Linux to anyone,
can the persons who contributed code to Linux under the GPL sue SCO?
Are there any open source attorneys willing to draft up a contributors case,
give instructions on how to file, and give this to all Linux contributors.
Then a lot of people could come and file against SCO from a lot of directions
and courts.
????
A[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 09:12 AM EDT |
| Phinko: We haven't seen any proof yet that IBM violated their AT&T/Novell/SCO
license contracts by sending "Unix derived sourcecode" to Linus. I think you
should read the comments of the analysts that have seen the "SCO infringement
show":
"Our review of source code and documents appears supportive of SCO claims,
though we are not legal experts and IP matters are not always transparent,"
Deutsche Bank Securities analyst Brian Skiba said in a research note Thursday
after visiting SCO's headquarters in Lindon, Utah, Wednesday.
"A direct and near-exact duplicate of source code appears between the Linux
2.4 kernel and Unix System V kernel in routines shown to us."
Skiba also pointed out that none of the allegedly copied code shown to him
was contributed by IBM.
"They said it was from another hardware vendor, but they didn't say who,"
Skiba told internetnews.com. "I think it's clear that they didn't mean HP
(NYSE:HPQ) or Sun (NASDAQ:SUNW)."
Most of the other analysts explicitly mentioned that they were unable to
determine the direction of copying.
SCO has to present a lot more evidence than is publicly known now to get a
positive verdict from a judge; it is far easier for IBM to prove their
counterclaims.
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
| A: I wouldn't be surprised if things like are allready happening. Linus, Alan
Cox and the other kernel contributors have been very silent lately. (It could be
they are just coding. ;) ) If you want to file a case seek advice from a lawyer
first; court fights are expensive, especially when you lose!
IBM mentioned in its counterclaims their copyright on some parts of the Linux
kernel and that SCO is infringing now by distributing the kernel from their ftp
site.
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
| Note that the Open Group is the owner of the Unix trademark and the "unix
specification" http://www.opengroup.org
unix systems vendors can have their version of unix certified as meeting various
unix standards; '95, '98, etc.
Of the various SCO unix offerings only Unixware is certified to use the Unix
trademark, and that is for the '95 spec. http://www.opengroup.org/ope
nbrand/register/ is where one can find a listing of all the approved users
of the trademark. Also on the Open Groups site is a discussion of SCO's
misstatemts.
D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 09:21 AM EDT |
| > A very nice sumation of the situation
While, I think missed many points. To continue, I also believe the events
include:
The small company also attacks the basis of the software license, and the
software product, which it was formed around, and formed part of its business
until just months ago.
The small company also appears to contradict itself (example: Does SCO offer
redistribution rights to Linux distributors - according to their FAQ no that
would violate the GPL - however but they want embedded OEMs to sign up for Linux
containing products)
The small company has claimed it is being benevolent by not suing its own
customers for previously buying the company's products (the statements about
holding previous SCO/Caldera Linux customers harmless).
And yes, it does appear to be a very active press campaign
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 09:38 AM EDT |
| > We haven't seen any proof yet that IBM violated their AT&T/Novell/SCO license
contracts by sending "Unix derived sourcecode" to Linus
But even if they had, is it clear that would violate the AT&T/Novell/SCO
contracts?
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 10:08 AM EDT |
Do you think IBM is stupid enough to run the risk of violating a license
contract? No, they have very strict rules of conduct. Read about them in a Slashdot interview with the IBM kernel hackers.
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 10:13 AM EDT |
Since the tripartite agreement was between IBM, Novell, and "Original SCO" aka
Tarantella, unrelated to today's SCO: how and when did today's SCO got the
rights from this agreement? I must have missed this part of the puzzle...
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Ph(i)Nk 0[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 10:19 AM EDT |
| The SCO Group was called Caldera, and they purchased the unix rights from The
Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. some time ago.
Cadera started doing business as the SCO Group in Jan. or Feb. this year,
formally started the name change a month or so ago.
D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 10:31 AM EDT |
| How important do the patents part play ?
IBM stated that SCO uses IBM patents found in their OS's:
"
1) data compression technique,
2)a method of navigating among program menus using options arranged in a
graphical tree,
3)a method for verifying that an electronic message was received and a
4)method for monitoring computing systems linked in a cluster.
To me they seem 'unworthy' patents, because
1) They are widely used for ages (e.g. a file browser)
2)They dont add a great value to somthing complex as an operating system.
You thibk IBM has a case on these patents?
Pete
Dawson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 10:31 AM EDT |
| How important do the patents part play ?
IBM stated that SCO uses IBM patents found in their OS's:
"
1) data compression technique,
2)a method of navigating among program menus using options arranged in a
graphical tree,
3)a method for verifying that an electronic message was received and a
4)method for monitoring computing systems linked in a cluster.
To me they seem 'unworthy' patents, because
1) They are widely used for ages (e.g. a file browser)
2)They dont add a great value to somthing complex as an operating system.
You thibk IBM has a case on these patents?
Pete
Dawson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 10:31 AM EDT |
| How important do the patents part play ?
IBM stated that SCO uses IBM patents found in their OS's:
"
1) data compression technique,
2)a method of navigating among program menus using options arranged in a
graphical tree,
3)a method for verifying that an electronic message was received and a
4)method for monitoring computing systems linked in a cluster.
To me they seem 'unworthy' patents, because
1) They are widely used for ages (e.g. a file browser)
2)They dont add a great value to somthing complex as an operating system.
You thibk IBM has a case on these patents?
Pete
Dawson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 10:35 AM EDT |
| This: http://www.opengrou
p.org/comm/press/who-owns-unix.htm
And: http://www.open
group.org/comm/press/unix-backgrounder.htm
From 1st link: Third paragraph
From 2nd link: First paragraph under "Status" explains what UNIX(R) is.
Compare these to paragraph 1 and 18 in SCO's Amended complaint.
Also from 2nd link read the 7th paragraph under "Allen Brown..."
anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 10:35 AM EDT |
| This: http://www.opengrou
p.org/comm/press/who-owns-unix.htm
And: http://www.open
group.org/comm/press/unix-backgrounder.htm
From 1st link: Third paragraph
From 2nd link: First paragraph under "Status" explains what UNIX(R) is.
Compare these to paragraph 1 and 18 in SCO's Amended complaint.
Also from 2nd link read the 7th paragraph under "Allen Brown..."
And here is another link:
http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix.ht
ml
anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
| If I had a lawyer and I were a Linux contributor (or a user -- which I am), I'd
be wondering what my rights are in regards to me accepting the terms of the GPL
and SCO violating it knowingly and maliciously and trying to extort me with its
counterfeit license scam.
Is a Class Action Lawsuit an unreasonable possibility for
contributors/end-users?
Z
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 10:38 AM EDT |
| Here's another good page
http://www.unix.org
/what_is_unix/flavors_of_unix.html
Check out the OS/390 section.
anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 10:41 AM EDT |
| > You thibk IBM has a case on these patents?
I don't know,
but they have many more thousands that IBM could look at, and haven't yet got
around to reviewing for potential infringements.
anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 10:46 AM EDT |
| If I were a big SCO/Caldera customer, I'd be asking a lawyer about them trying
to impose a new license on me when they already gave me stuff under the GPL.
If I were a Linux contributor, I might ask a lawyer to look at IBM's counter
claims on alleged GPL violations for hints.
I don't think I'd do anything too quickly, without talking to a lawyer, and
perhaps even after. It's not like IBM are not trying to address the alleged GPL
violations issue.
anon[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 10:57 AM EDT |
| New Darl quote:
http://newstribu
ne.com/stories/080803/bus_0808030006.asp
Stowell/OSIA:
http://www.slt
rib.com/2003/Aug/08092003/business/82585.asp
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 11:07 AM EDT |
http://www.slt
rib.com/2003/Aug/08092003/business/82585.asp
sn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 11:11 AM EDT |
| Pete: I don't exactly know what the patents specifically cover, however, the
last two (making sure an electronic message arrived, and checking whether a node
in a cluster is alive) do seem to me that they are quite important things from
their names.
These things can seriously affect performance and stability. Since Enterprise
level OS-es have high requirements against them in these areas, this is a pretty
big punch in the face (or rather lower) of SCO.
Now whether they have or don't have a case... since they have the patent filed,
they will affect the present case, no matter whether they are or are not really
original ideas.
Robvarga[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
| What's the catch?
I am just wondering, if SCO has something up in a hidden agenda;
1) Sueing and shouting at IBM
2) Offering rediculous licensing fee for Linux ($1500), meaning they not
intending on selling licenses at all
3) Still offering the sourcecode of their linux product through ftp
I mean, they must KNOW that they are going to lose. Now assuming the SCO
management and their lawyers arent idiots, it just makes me wonder what is
really happening out there?
Pete Dawson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 01:15 PM EDT |
| Pete,
THere are is a lot of specutlation as to why SCO/Caldera started this course of
action,
I suggest that you check the followng to find the "conspiracy week":
http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SCOvsIBMSCOLicensingJustSayNO
http://www.wikiped
ia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM_Linux_lawsuit
http://www.lamlaw.c
om/DOJvsMicrosoft/WrapAndFlow.html
http://mozillaquest.com/
http://lwn.net/
and the ever popular http://slashdot.org
Needless to say, SCO's motives are not clear...
D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
The current beneficiary of all this controversy is The Monopoly. Each day of
FUD is worth millions to them. Open Source is the future and everyone knows it.
As soon as Open Source Software is known to be as good, or almost as good as
proprietary software, a business would be at a competitive disadvantage not to
use it.
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 03:48 PM EDT |
| agreed about the FUD, but to nail Linux/open-source why sue IBM and not Red hat
in the first place? Redhat doesnt have the vast resources/experience IBM has. To
me:
1) They were determined to lose this case (perhaps stock related, or
compensated by MS)
2) Give open-source a bumb in the road (of course)
3) Perhaps for MS to study and test IBM involvement in open-source; this to make
preperations on their own legal efforts against Linux.
Basically, where it adds to is Microsoft behind this issue, as an IBM spokesman
has declared that too.
Pete Dawson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 04:10 PM EDT |
| Well, last I heard, MS paid either $70M or $7M for rights to UNIX, an OS it
obviously has no intention of turning into a product. Even their public
reasoning was idiotic and facetious.
Many critics seem to feel that it was pay-off money to destroy Linux. They're
probably right.
My guess is that SCO (or their lawyers) felt they had a good enough case (didn't
read the GPL) that they could coerce hundreds or thousands of companies into
paying the license based on FUD and the license does 2 things:
1. It says "Ok, if there's any of our IP in Linux, feel free to use it...
2. And SCO thinks "Sucker! By buying our counterfeit license, you just destroyed
your ability to do SQUAT with Linux!".
So they get illegal, unwarranted extortion money for a worthless piece of paper
that says "If you find some of our code, feel free to use it." but you couldn't
if you wanted to because their license and your purchase of it REVOKES your
rights under the GPL.
"I am a jealous license and thou shalt not behold any other license before me",
spaketh the Holy GPL. If you do, thunder crackles, rocks shatter and you'll be
on your knees shouting "Why hast thou forsaken me, O Linux?" but you'll know the
answer: You broke the Holy Covenant of the GPL by accepting SCO's worthless
license.
And I think maybe SCO was counting on that. That this entire scam is about them
making money of the wholsale destruction of Linux through FUD tactics, coercion,
misleading statements and outright lies.
They may have even been aware of the backlash but unless the SEC or another
government agency can nail the executives, the corporate entity pretty much
protects them and when SCO goes under, they'll all move to Vultus or Canopy.
Some already serve roles on Vultus' board.
Indeed, April 2005 is a long ways off and SCO is counting on nervous suits to
pony up the cash before October. Meanwhile, they continue to disparage everyone
and their long lost cousin and the resulting FUD drives up the stock which they
then sell off for a mint.
When all is said and done, SCO may be destroyed and Linux vindicated, but how
much damage will they cause in the meantime and what can be done to hold SCO's
corrupt executives responsible for their actions?
Just my 2 cents.
Z
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 04:38 PM EDT |
| It's just as possible that Microsoft's lawyers said, "Look, you've got forty
billion dollars in the bank, these guys are crazy, and you don't want to be in
court with Bois again, give them a few bucks and you'll save yourself years of
grief."
I don't say this looking to exonerate either Microsoft or SCO... it's just that
I think everyone who's seeing a conspiracy in all this hasn't really noticed
just how stupid and clueless McBride and Co. actually are. Darl, Stowell, etc.,
just don't seem to have considered at all the possibility that Linux coders and
users are something other than geek hobbyists who create substandard code while
relaxing between porno download sessions. The idea that the GPL was a real
license with real lawyers defending it, or that their company could be held to
the GPL, or even that their company had distributed GPL code seems entirely
beyond them.
They clearly went into this not knowing about the BSD/AT&T suit, or that
companies have been backing down in the face of the GPL for years. They just
said, "hey, look at the fools who were running this company before... They
haven't defended the IP for years!" and they never asked why.
I suspect this is why Opinder Bawa bailed. As the sole techie on the board, he
probably tried to explain what was going to happen and got shouted down, and I
suspect that when this is all over, we'll find that he did what he had to do -
gave sufficiently detailed warnings of the coming problems to shield himself
from liability - and got out.
I'd love to learn that Microsoft and SCO conspired to destroy Linux, but thus
far no such evidence has been presented. Who was it who once said, "Never
attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity?"
That's my SCO thought for the day. Enjoy.
Alex
Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
| > but to nail Linux/open-source why sue IBM and not Red hat in the first
place?
How about because a) RedHat doesn't have a billion dollars in the bank and b)
SCO doesn't have any leverage against RedHat.
Why all this FUD about indemnity? Because if the Linux distributers indemnified
their users, SCO could sue the distributers. I.e. a few law suits for lots of
money each instead of millions of suits each for a little money.
I don't even think SCO is trying to kill off Linux, and they have said that
publicly. To do so from their point of view would be killing the goose that's
about to lay the golden egg!
> Basically, where it adds to is Microsoft behind this issue, as an IBM
spokesman has declared that too.
Careful now :-) IIRC the IBM spokeman said that that was the personal opinion of
one of its managers (in Australia?). Official IBM chooses its words much more
carefully than SCO.
I don't go for the conspiracy theory myself. MS just seized an opportunity.
Ransom Love clearly 'got' Linux and the GPL. Darl and the current management
will be paying for a very expensive education in the meaning of the GPL and IBMs
UNIX contracts.
Chris Priest[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 05:01 PM EDT |
| Even in the obsene possibility that Boise's boys could somehow win, here's an
interesting perspective why corporations should not wait, and procede with their
Linux migration, ignore SCO threats:
http://weblog.infoworld
.com/lewis/2003/08/09.html
"I'll be generous and give SCO a 20% chance of winning. That adds a
risk-adjusted penalty of $140. Figure you'd pay the penalty five years from now,
so subtract about 5% per year (conservatively) due to the time value of money.
That cuts the penalty to $110, so you're talking about a risk-adjusted cost per
processor of $160. Still pretty cheap."
tamarian[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 05:10 PM EDT |
Another interestion bit of information:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1
104_2-5061548.html
D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 05:19 PM EDT |
| Those interested in pursuing a MS based theisis should do a google on the
"halloween documents".
A couple of years ago, Eric Raymond got ahold of a couple of very interestig MS
memos...
D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 05:48 PM EDT |
| While I often see people speculate whether Microsoft or Sun behind it... I have
to ask - If you're going to speculate, perhaps you might also speculate if it
would suit SCO to make people think that Microsoft or Sun was behind them?
I recommend you read that sltrib.com article again. Does it say SCO is actually
a member of the ISC alliance which they are supposed to be in some way aligning
themselves with?
My opinion is that you should not jump to conclusions without any hard evidence
whatsoever (there is no direct link being Halloween documents and SCO, just
speculation about a possible link).
Mightn't it also be a good idea to independently confirm the claims made in any
article which is based on opinions/statements of somebody at SCO or for that
matter a particular IBM __employee__
(IBM took pains to point out that his personal opinions only).
Isn't that the same kind of thing most have been saying about the 80 lines of
code presentation?
I don't buy the MS or Sun conspiracy.
MS have done nothing as far as I know, except for buy some license to some
software, unspecified but for their long established Windows-UNIX
interoperability product (can't remember the name, but it's been discussed
before) - and have a vague quote attributed to them early on the SCO saga.
Sun have said a lot, but even they said what they licensed from SCO was some
drivers software or source code.
It's SCO who have said these actions support their SCOsource
division/initiative/etc.
Perhaps McBride might sometimes be more revealing than he intended. Remember
this quote (last conference call about Red Hat): "some positive traction".
It's also worth remembering, that SCO's campaign has been largely waged in the
press, especially as regards Red Hat. If McBride thought he had "some postive
traction" - how do you think he thinks that he got it.
Finally as commented on earlier, I would opine: they seem to have partially
forgotten that they are not "Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.". They aren't the same
company, even though they may have a similar name, some of the same employees,
and some assets of the old SCO.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 05:57 PM EDT |
| And finally again :-) I remembered a couple of other points...
Regarding not being "Santa Cruz Operation, Inc." - read the press release in
response to IBM's countersuit (patent part). Remember, it must have been written
fairly quickly.
I would also opine that they seem to have forgotten SCO don't define or "own"
UNIX. Open Group does. Whatever rights SCO might have, would relate to the AT&T
software and/or source code for a particular implementation.
So it seems to me, almost like they've lost their corporate memory over what
UNIX is: and specifically getting UNIX certifications from Open Group, the
trademark footers regarding UNIX(R) on their press releases, how Novell split
UNIX trade marks from AT&T source, etc.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 07:02 PM EDT |
| Did a quick google on Microsoft SCO
Compare:
http://online.wsj.com/login?URI=%2Farticle%2F0%2C%2CSB1053297328410726
00%2C00.html
(original article)
http://www.eweek.com/
article2/0,3959,1094805,00.asp
http://www.eweek.com/
article2/0,3959,1109246,00.asp
(some Microsoft quotes here, more detailed than usual)
versus
the hint Microsoft Australia gives
ht
tp://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/os/story/0,2000048630,20274940,00.htm
versus
Stowell and Didio's comments (especially the bold bit at the top)
http://www.technewswor
ld.com/perl/story/31252.html
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 07:22 PM EDT |
License that code (not)...
Let us assume that since IBM has one of the largest most aggressive
intellectual property divisions in the world that they are not complete fools.
Let us look at DEFENDANT IBM'S ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT at
paragraphs 36 and 37 and we see:
36. Rather than particularize its allegations of misconduct by IBM and
others, SCO has obfuscated and altered its claims to foster fear, uncertainty
and doubt about its rights and the rights of others. In letters dated April
2,2003, and May5, 2003, attached hereto as Exhibits M and N, respectively, IBM
expressly asked SCO to advise IBM as to what SCO contends IBM has done in
violation of its agreements, and what SCO contends IBM should do to cure
such violations SCO refused. In fact, SCO's counsel stated, in an interview
with Maureen O'Gara of LinuxGram, that it "doesn't want IBM to know what they
[SCO's substantive claims] are".
37. SCO has obfuscated its claims and has hidden its supposed evidence
because the evidence does not demonstrate the breaches and violations that
SCO has alleged. Moreover, key developers and influential leaders in the
open-source comunity, including leaders of Linux kernel developmentors, have
stated publicly that they are prepared immediately to remove any allegedly
offending material from the Linux kernel. Rather than permit remediation or
mitigation of its alleged injuries (which are non-existent), SCO has declined
to reveal the particulars of the alleged violations in order to artificially
and improperly inflate the price of its stock.
Now let us look at RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS:
§ 918. (1) Except as stated in Subsection (2), one injured by the tort
of another is not entitled to recover damages for any harm that he could
have avoided by the use of reasonable effort or expenditure after the
commission of the tort.
(2) One is not prevented from recovering damages for a particular harm
resulting from a tort if the tortfeasor intended the harm or was aware of it
and was recklessly disregardful of it, unless the injured person with knowledge
of the danger of the harm intentionally or heedlessly failed to protect his
own interests.
Copyright disputes are subject to Federal Law and Rules of Evidence. It
is well settled in every Federal Circuit that the doctrine of "avoidable
consequences" (§ 918) is applicable to damages (not liability). In
egregious
cases complaints have even been dismissed.
IANAL but I am in full agreement with IBM and I believe that SCO has
been cooking it's own goose by refusing requests to be shown the offending code
so that it might be removed.
Should SCO win liability (Darl should recite 100 Hail Marys) I doubt
that it could ever enforce a license fee scheme subsequent to refused requests
for information to mediate and mitigate the harm done to its business.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">gumout[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 08:57 PM EDT |
| mathfox -remember I was just playing the devil's advocate, I don't really think
the AT&T/SCO copyrights are an important factor in the IBM trial. The contracts,
patents, and the GNU GPL will decide the matter. They are important to the
RedHat case though. I'm just worried that SCO might try to "make hay" over this
issue until the hearings begin in the trials.
The details of the Novell and SCO purchase agreement are very sketchy, and not
really public. The only documents we have are the ones provided to the SEC, and
as exhibits in the IBM case. You ask "Is the amendment 2 the amendment where
Novell lost (or never got) their copy? You know the little Novell-SCO copyright
incident?"
They must at least have a facsimile by now, because they say it appears to have
a valid signature.
The incident in question:
Novell CEO, Mr.Messman, publicly demanded proof SCO owned any copyrights or
patents:
http://www.
novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/pr03033.html
Bruce Perens sees royalties and Unix SVRx in a SCO SEC filing and jumps to a
conclusion that SCO is merely a Novell agent. He also assumes that they have
been lying (first impressions aren't always wrong though you know:-)
http://perens.com/Articles/S
CO/SCO_10-K.html
A Novell spokesman attempts to clarify the situation and leaves us in the dust
at the starting gate - looking for our copy of the contract. He says: "The SVRx
component of Novell's deal with SCO related to the existing Unix licensees
Novell had acquired when it bought the Unix licenses from AT&T. When Novell
entered into its agreement with the Santa Cruz Operation, it specifically
retained these customers and the revenue that flowed from them. They got an
administrative role for certain types of existing contracts we held, which were
explicitly identified in our agreement with SCO," he said."As such, the
interpretation that SCO was paying Novell royalties for Unix System V is
incorrect, and thus does not pertain to the current question of who owns the
copyright and patents to Unix System V", Lowry said. He goes on to say that SCO
had not responded to Mr Messmans request for proof of ownership.
http://www.eweek.com/
article2/0,3959,1112439,00.asp
I'll pause here to speculate and note some things. That "SVRx technologies"
could include royalties from patents, and not even necessarily mean copyrights.
Whatever the term includes it HAS to include Unix System V, regardless of what
the gentleman from Novell might have "meant to say" or "wished he'd said
instead". IBM was certainly an existing AT&T licensee that Novell acquired. IBM
never purchased a Novell/SCO Unixware or SCO OpenUnix license. The
SCO/Novell/IBM Amendment no. X recitals only mention Unix SVR3.2 (and never
mention SVR4). Both are System V, but the difference is like night and day. SVR4
had the BSD4.3, Xenix, and SunOS merges. Strangely, IBM may never have bothered
to license SVR4. The Open Software Foundation (included IBM) announced the
release of the industry's first open operating system - OSF/1 on 23 October 1990
it was meant to be an alternative to AT&T/Sun's SVR4. It was based on AIX
(and/or HP/UX) with backward compatibility to the SVR3 interfaces. Compliance
with the Unix or POSIX specification is really all that has mattered much since
that time. It's possible that Novell retained copyrights to SVR3 since SVR4 was
a seperate derivative property. Clearly there is a lengthy contract somewhere
that we haven't seen between Novell and SCO. You get tantalizing glimpses of
it's contents from time to time. Darl McBride will say they are meticulously
going through things chronologically, and that there are fifty pages of product
SKU's that are all seperately copyright works. He also makes references to
having "purchased enforcement rights" for the Novell patents. We also know that
SCO transferred the Unixware trademerk to the Open Group (who already owned the
Unix trademark). None of the details he or the gentleman from Novell mention are
in any of the SEC filings or exhibits I've mentioned.
Here's a very fuzzy pdf of the three-way IBM/Novell/SCO Amendment no. X, if your
head explodes easily just read sentence one of the recitals.
http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/pub/Main/SCOvsIBMReferences/ExhibitD.qxd.pdf
Subsequently Novell CEO, Mr. Messman got a copy of the Amendment 2 to keep and
call his own.
http://www.
novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/06/pr03036.html
Another retraction like that one isn't what we need.
dentonj: "I'm still unsure whether the second amendment is even valid myself"
Registration of the copyright transfer with the US Copyright Office is prima
facie evidence of ownership in the US Courts. Novell's admissions to the press
that it appears to bear a proper signature are also very helpful for SCO:
http://news.zd
net.co.uk/business/0,39020645,2135695,00.htm
Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 09:56 PM EDT |
| harlan,
Your last point about prima facie evidence isn't completely accurate in this
context.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 11:21 PM EDT |
| "To me they seem 'unworthy' patents, because 1) They are widely used for ages
(e.g. a file browser) 2)They dont add a great value to somthing complex as an
operating system."
That doesn't matter. Do you know that using the XOR function to invert data on a
display screen is patented? Yep! The most basic graphics operation of all. Both
Apple and MS pay this patent too. It was failure to pay this patent fee that put
Commodore Amiga out of business. Don't scoff at software patents because they
are basic or have been used for years. That is the power and tyranny of software
patents.
As to the few who don't believe MS is behind this whole mess, consider:
- MS has placed Linux at #2 on their list of threats to Windows Server.
- MS sent memos out to their sales staff telling them to undercut Linux at any
cost, even if they have to give Windows Server away for free for a short time.
- MS has been in court multiple times (and lost a number of times) for using
draconian tactics to coerce or coopt other businesses (CPM, Stacker, Netscape,
etc., etc.).
- MS got in trouble a few years back for stealing the source code to QuickTime
from Apple. They managed to push that off on a subcontracted firm to avoid
Apple's wrath, but still had to pay a stiff fine and avoid non-Apple versions of
QT for a few years.
- MS just settled with AOL over the Netscape fiasco, but managed to "talk" AOL
into dropping Netscape. They have discontinued the Mac version of Internet
Explorer and announced that the next version for Windows will be built into the
OS (like they tried to do with W98).
- MS is being fined by the European Commission for their illegal business
practices.
- I personally knew a programmer from Microsoft whose sole job was to calculate
how much new features planned for updates of products like Word would slow down
the program. He would then add delay loops into the current version to slow it
down more than the projected features. When the features were later added, the
loops were removed or cut down so that MS could claim that the code was not only
better, but faster too. He made good money at that job.
Don't tell me that MS isn't behind all this. It's JUST the sort of thing they
would do - use some idiots in another company to do their dirty work so they can
claim to have clean hands.
J.F.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 10 2003 @ 03:20 AM EDT |
| "That is the power and tyranny of software patents.".So if the SCO case is
settled, in favor of IBM, than Microsoft can themselves open up a can of patents
they have and attack Linux with it. I am sure Microsoft has many patents
themselves.
If IBM is able to stop further deployment of SCO'unix versions because of
infringed patents, it would created a precendent that Microsoft later on than
can use on Linux!
Like I said earlier, Microsoft is testing and learning from IBM, just to see and
plan their next move.
Pete Dawson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 10 2003 @ 05:47 AM EDT |
| "Like I said earlier, Microsoft is testing and learning from IBM, just to see
and plan their next move."
Of course they are! It's just another step for the "Evil Empire" on their path
to domination of the computer industry. They stoop to any low, dispicable, dirty
trick they can think of to get what they want. They're sacrificing SCO for what
they feel to be the greater good. Bet SCO thought MS was their savior earlier...
now they release they were just cannon fodder.
J.F.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 10 2003 @ 04:38 PM EDT |
| I've been away from this for a couple of days so this comment is going to cover
a few things out of order
I'd love to see any direct quotes that say SCO are asking OEMs to buy embedded
licenses - looking at the SCO web pages it seems to me they are asking the end
users to and I think some reporter along the way has invented the OEMs bit as it
never seems to be a direct quote.
I spotted a useful quote about the code viewing spectacle "Looking around the
Net, I found close variants of the code, with the same comments and variable
names, in sources other than Linux distributions." (http://www.linuxjournal
.com//article.php?sid=6956). Note that this doesn't say that those other
sources didn't base their code on code that had originally been copied from Unix
to Linux but makes it much less likely.
Finally the patents issue - yes patents are a huge potential problem for free
software - mainly because so many of them are of dubious validity but expensive
to disprove. I'd be rather surprised if MS dared to sue a Linux distributor for
patent infringment though as it could open up the whole anti trust thing
again.
Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 10 2003 @ 05:38 PM EDT |
| pj: "Your last point about prima facie evidence isn't completely accurate in
this context."
No, thinking, typing, and communicating all at the same time is too much for me
sometimes:) Communication is like Algebra, where even if you provide the correct
answer, you still get it wrong if you don't show all of the steps used to get
there.
What I was saying throughout (both replies) was that: I can't even guess what
the Asset Purchase Agreement says. I can't make heads or tails out of the
extracts I've seen in the press. I had stated in an earlier thread here at
Groklaw that the contract(s) MEAN whatever a Court decides they do at this
point. The copyright dispute was a comical sideshow that was orthogonal to the
claims made in SCO's complaint.
Thanks to Novell's letter waiving SCO's termination rights, either SCO's whole
case against IBM is moot at this point, or evidence concerning the Novell-SCO
Purchase Agreement will have to come in somehow. I'm dying to see what's in the
Purchase Agreement, so it'll probably come in, but remain under seal. If you can
(1) cure an actual breach of contract, and (2) a request for $3 billion in
damages and (3) no other party gets sued in-turn, AND you accomplish all of that
with just a waiver letter signed by a gentleman that isn't even licensed to
practice law,.... it just might be the dawning of a new golden age! Whatever
secrets the Purchase Agreement holds must be shared!.....;-)
Obviously, if I don't know what's in the Agreement, I can't begin to answer a
question about the validity of the Amendment. My comments were just more
observations, and not intended as proofs.
At first glance, Amendment 2 outlines the assets that are excluded: "all
copyrights and trademarks, EXCEPT for the COPYRIGHTS and TRADEMARKS owned by
Novell as of the date of the agreement, required for SCO to exercise its rights
with respect to the acquisition of Unix and UnixWare technologies." It would be
nice to see those terms defined. We know that Novell transferred the "Unix"
trademark to the Open Group, but that the Open Group credits SCO for
transferring the "Unixware" trademark to them. The original asset transfer
excluded all trademarks, so if Amendment 2 is spurious, there must be some other
document that grants uncontested rights to that trademerk to SCO. The only other
purpose that Amendment 2 serves is to transfer or assign copyright ownership. We
know that SCO used it in their recent copyright registration. The Copyright
Office doesn't even validate parking, let alone contract documents. One of the
statutory privileges of registration is that it gives the holder of a registered
copyright the benefit of doubt. Registration is considered prima facie evidence
of ownership in any US Court. If SCO has somehow misappropriated either the
trademark or copyrights then Novell will have to go to a court to get them
restored.
Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 10 2003 @ 05:43 PM EDT |
| Here's a couple of real old article from January, that I thought very
interesting:
http://www.sys-con.co
m/linux/articlenews.cfm?id=381
http://www.ecommercet
imes.com/perl/story/20717.html
To reply to Adam about embedded - users or OEMs:
I look at SCOsource web pages. It was unclear to me.
Next:
http://www.eetimes.com/s
ys/news/OEG20030806S0025
contains two comment attributed to a "company spokesman", although not actual
specific quotes, that it's OEMs not users.
Also: McBride did fly to Japan, to try to talk to CELF (which would be OEMs) -
so older articles on this might give some insight as to SCO's position.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 04 2003 @ 07:11 PM EST |
You are soooo good!
Thanks for all your work here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
