Groklaw - Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:11 AM EST

In true Groklaw tradition, Ken Herron got creative and emailed me this wonderful chart. I love being able to see at a glance, first, what IBM said in it Counterclaims, second, what SCO initially answered, and third, what SCO now is saying in its Amended Answer. As always, many eyeballs make it easy to spot any errors, so here we go. New material is red text; deleted or moved is blue. For example, the original Fifteenth Affirmative Defense is now the Eighteenth, where it is greatly expanded.

IBM Counterclaims

SCO's Answer

SCO's Amended Answer

NATURE OF COUNTERCLAIMS

1. These counterclaims arise from SCO's efforts wrongly to assert proprietary rights over important, widely-used technology and to impede the use of that technology by the open-source community. SCO has misused, and is misusing, its purported rights to the Unix operating system developed originally by Bell Laboratories, then a research and development arm of AT&T Corp., to threaten destruction of the competing operating systems known as AIX, Dynix and Linux, and to extract windfall profits for its unjust enrichment.

1. Admits that the UNIX operating system was originally developed by Bell Laboratories, then a development arm of AT&T Corp., but denies the remaining allegations Paragraph 1.

2. IBM's counterclaims also arise from SCO's infringement of IBM copyrights and patents. Although SCO purports to respect the intellectual property rights of others -- and has instituted litigation against IBM for alleged failures with respect to SCO's purported rights -- SCO has infringed and is infringing a number of IBM copyrights and patents.

2. Admits that it respects the intellectual property rights of others, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 2.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction over IBM's counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(l), 1338(a) and (b), 1367, 2201(a) and 2202 and 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(l).

3. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 3.

4. The Court has diversity and supplemental jurisdiction over IBM's state law claims. The parties have complete diversity of citizenship, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. IBM's Lanham Act, copyright and patent claims arise under federal law.

4. Admits the Court has jurisdiction over the claims, but denies that IBM has any valid claims and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 4 not specifically admitted herein.

5. Venue is proper in this district, with respect to IBM's counterclaims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c), and 1400(a) and (b).

5. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 5

5. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 5.

PARTIES

6. Counterclaim-plaintiff IBM is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in the state of New York.

6. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 6

6. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 6.

7. Counterclaim-defendant SCO is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Utah County, Utah.

7. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 7

7. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 7.

BACKGROUND

A. Unix

8. Unix is a name used to characterize a family of operating systems that share common characteristics and meet certain well-publicized "UNIX" standards. The earliest Unix operating system was built by software engineers at Bell Laboratories, the research division of AT&T.

8. Admits that the earliest UNIX operating system was built by software engineers at Bell Laboratories, the research division of AT&T, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 8 not specifically admitted herein.

9. Over the years, AT&T Technologies, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T, and its related companies licensed Unix operating systems for widespread enterprise use. AT&T's Unix software has been licensed to many thousands of persons or entities.

9. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 9.

10. In 1993, AT&T sold its Unix assets -- then held by its subsidiary, Unix System Laboratories, Inc. ("USL") -- to Novell, Inc. ("Novell"). In 1995, Novell sold some, not all, of its Unix assets to The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., now known as Tarantella, Inc. ("Original SCO"), which is not affiliated with counterclaim-defendant SCO.

10. Admits that AT&T sold UNIX assets, through its subsidiary USL, to Novell in 1993, admits that Novell sold UNIX assets to The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., now known as Tarantella, Inc. ('Tarantella') in 1995, admits that Tarantella is not affiliated with SCO, but denies that Novell sold only part of its UNIX assets and further denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 10 not specifically admitted herein.

11. Counterclaim-defendant SCO played no role in the development of Unix. But it purports to have acquired Original SCO's rights to Unix in 2001. Based upon the rights it purports to have acquired from Original SCO, SCO has undertaken the scheme described herein.

11. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 11.

B. IBM and Unix

12. 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 XFER-000l5B) 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 - F, respectively.

12. Admits that in 1985 IBM acquired certain UNIX rights pursuant to license with AT&T, and admits that IBM and AT&T entered agreements as referenced in Paragraph 12, but denies that IBM's UNIX-related rights are characterized as 'broad,' denies that IBM has any remaining rights under the referenced agreements and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 12 not specifically admitted herein.

13. 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 version 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.

13. Admits that IBM developed a version of UNIX pursuant to license originally with AT&T and admits that IBM's version of UNIX is called AIX but denies that IBM properly exercised its rights and is without information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 13 and therefore denies the same.

14. Like IBM, Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. ("Sequent") developed a version of a Unix operating system known as Dynix. IBM acquired Sequent by merger in 1999.

14. Admits that Sequent, like IBM, acquired certain UNIX rights pursuant to its own license agreements with AT&T, all of which IBM failed to attach to the its counterclaim, and admits that IBM acquired the stock of Sequent and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 14 not specifically admitted herein.

15. On October 17, 1996, after Novell and Original SCO acquired AT&T's rights to Unix, 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, IBM acquired, for example, the "irrevocable, fully paid-up, perpetual right to exercise all of its rights" under the AT&T Agreements. A copy of this agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

15. Admits that Amendment X was entered into in 1996 by and among IBM, Original SCO and Novell, but denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 15.

C. Linux

16. Linux is an operating system that stems from a rich history of collaborative development. Linux is a dynamic and versatile operating system and is, for many, the operating system of choice.

16. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 16 and alleges that Linux is, in actuality, an unauthorized version of UNIX that is structured, assembled and designed to be technologically indistinguishable from UNIX, and practically is distinguishable only in that Linux is a 'free' version of UNIX designed to destroy proprietary operating system software.

17. The development of Linux began when an undergraduate student at the University of Helsinki, by the name of Linus Torvalds, set out to create a new, free operating system. In 1991, Linus Torvalds began developing the Linux kernel, the core of the operating system, and posting news of his project to internet newsgroups, along with a call for volunteers to assist in his efforts.

17. Admits that Linus Torvalds assembled the original Linux kernel but is without information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 17 not specifically admitted herein, and therefore denies the same.

18. With the internet providing for a distributed collaboration, other programmers joined to create code making up the kernel. Linus Torvalds directed the collaboration to a version 1.0 release of the Linux kernel in 1994.

18. Is without information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 18, and therefore denies the same.

19. In the years that followed, thousands of developers, including developers at IBM, contributed to the further development of Linux. Version 2.4 of the Linux kernel was released in 2001. IBM owns valid copyrights in its contributions to Linux, as illustrated below.

19. Admits that many developers have contributed software code to the Linux kernel, admits that IBM has contributed software code to the Linux kernel, admits that the first iteration of Version 2.4 of the Linux kernel released in 2001, but is without information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 19 not specifically admitted herein, and therefore denies the same.

20. The first commercial distribution of Linux was introduced in 1994 by Red Hat. Thereafter, other distributors, including SCO, introduced a number of commercial Linux products, which typically comprise the Linux kernel, the applications that the kernel runs (which, with the kernel, comprise a complete operating system) and whatever else the distributor chooses to combine into an easily installable product.

20. Admits that Red Hat has distributed one or more versions of Linux, which may include one or more versions of the Linux kernel, and admits that other distributors may have done so as well, including SCO, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 20 not specifically admitted herein.

D. Open-Source Software and the GPL

21. Linux is open-source software. Open-source software is free in the sense that it is publicly available, royalty free, and users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, adapt, and improve the software.

21. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 21, but alleges that Linux software contains other additional characteristics not identified in Paragraph 21, and further alleges that Paragraph 21 does not provide a complete definition of Linux.

22. Whereas traditional software licenses often reflect legal limitations restricting the use and reproduction of original works, the open-source community has taken a different approach to licensing. The open-source community, including SCO, resolved to license Linux so as to keep the source code publicly available. Due to the open-source nature of Linux, anyone can freely download Linux and many Linux applications and modify and re-distribute them with few restrictions.

22. Admits that software license agreements typically reflect legal limitations restricting the use and reproduction of works, admits that Linux is available for free download, admits that the license presently governing Linux (the General Public License) generally is oriented to keep source code publicly available, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 22 not specifically admitted herein.

23. There are a variety of open-source licenses, but the most popular is the GNU General Public License (the "GPL"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit H. The Linux kernel, and significant portions of the larger Linux operating system, are distributed under the GPL.

23. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 23 but denies enforceability or applicability of the GPL.

24. In fact, one of the most important decisions Linus Torvalds made was to develop the Linux kernel under the GPL and keep the source code freely distributable so others could build upon, modify, and develop programs for the operating system.

24. Is without information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 24, and therefore denies the same.

25. Whereas the licenses for most software are programs designed to limit or restrict a licensee's freedom to share and change it, the GPL is intended to guarantee a licensee's freedom to share and change free software -- to make sure the software is free for all its users. The GPL applies to any program whose authors commit to using it.

25. Admits that the GPL purports to guarantee the right to freely share and change free software, but denies that the GPL applies to an program whose authors commit to using it, denies enforceability or applicability of the GPL, and is without information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 25 not specifically admitted herein, and therefore denies the same.

25. Admits that the GPL purports to guarantee the right to freely share and change free software, but denies that the GPL applies to any program whose authors commit to using it, denies enforceability or applicability of the GPL, and is without information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 25 not specifically admitted herein, and therefore denies the same.

26. The GPL is designed to make sure that a licensee has the freedom to distribute copies of free software, receives source code or can get it if the licensee wants it, can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs and knows the licensee can do these things.

26. Admits that the GPL allows a licensee to distribute copies of free software, receive source code and change and use the software in new free programs but is without information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 26 not specifically admitted herein and therefore denies the same.

27. The Linux kernel is subject to the GPL as it is comprised of programs and other works that contain notices placed by contributing copyright holders permitting distribution under the terms of the GPL. The Linux developers' public agreement to apply GPL terms expresses in a binding legal form the conscious public covenant that defines the open-source community -- a covenant that SCO itself supported as a Linux company for many years.

27. Admits that Linux is licensed under the GPL and admits that Linux contains some notices placed by some copyright holders, but denies enforceability or applicability of the GPL and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 27 not specifically admitted herein.

28. SCO accepted the terms of the GPL by modifying and distributing Linux products. By distributing Linux products under the GPL, SCO agreed, among other things, not to assert -- indeed, it is prohibited from asserting -- certain proprietary rights over any programs distributed by SCO under the terms of the GPL. SCO also agreed not to restrict further distribution of any programs distributed by SCO under the terms of the GPL.

28. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 28.

E. SCO's Business

29. SCO was founded as Caldera, Inc. in 1994, approximately 25 years after the beginning of the development of Unix and three years after Linus Torvalds began the development of Linux, to develop Linux-based business solutions. In 1998, Caldera, Inc. sold its assets relating to its business of developing and marketing Linux to Caldera Systems, Inc., a newly formed corporation.

29. Admits that it was originally founded as Caldera, Inc., admits that in 1998 Caldera, Inc. sold certain of its assets to Caldera Systems, Inc., but denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 29 not specifically admitted herein.

30. SCO began its business as a developer and distributor of the Linux operating system. By 2001, according to SCO, it led the world's largest Linux channel with more than 15,000 resellers worldwide.

30. Admits that it has distributed certain versions of the Linux operating system but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 30.

31. SCO has developed and marketed software based on the Linux operating system and provided related services that enable the development, deployment and management of Linux-specialized servers and internet access devices that simplify computing. According to SCO, it was one of the first companies to tailor Linux open-source code from various sources into sound discrete products.

31. Admits that it previously developed and marketed software based on certain versions of the Linux operating system, and admits that it has provided certain Linux-related services, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 31.

32. Specifically, SCO has distributed and/or redistributed a number of Linux products, including SCO Linux server, SCO OpenLinux Server, and SCO OpenLinux Workstation. SCO has also distributed SCO Volution Manager, a web-based management solution system for managing and maintaining established versions of Linux (as well as Unix operating systems). Although SCO purported to suspend its Linux distribution after the commencement of this action, SCO has continued to make Linux source code available for download through its website.

32. Admits that it previously distributed or re-distributed SCO Linux server, SCO OpenLinux Server, SCO OpenLinux Workstation and SCO Volution Manager, and admits that SCO has suspended its Linux distribution, but denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 32.

33. The viability of SCO's product offerings has depended in large measure upon the efforts of the open-source community in enhancing products and making them compatible for use across multiple software and hardware platforms. Indeed, SCO incorporated certain code licensed pursuant to the GPL into its proprietary Unix products. SCO has also relied on independent developers in the open-source community, such as Linus Torvalds, in order to release upgrades of SCO's Linux-based products.

33. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 33.

34. In addition to distributing Linux products, SCO facilitated the adoption of Linux by providing education programs designed to help its customers to develop, deploy and administer Linux systems. Furthermore, SCO joined with other Linux vendors in UnitedLinux, an initiative to streamline Linux development and certification around a global, uniform distribution of Linux for business.

34. Admits that it previously distributed certain versions of Linux, admits that it previously provided Linux-related educational programs, admits that it joined UnitedLinux. but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 34 not specifically admitted herein.

34. Admits that it previously distributed certain versions of Linux, admits that it previously provided Linux-related educational programs, admits that it joined UnitedLinux, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 34 not specifically admitted herein.

35. On May 7, 2001, Caldera Systems was merged into Caldera International, Inc. (described below), which changed its name to The SCO Group, Inc. in May 2003.

35. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 35.

F. SCO's Open-Source Activities

36. Until it undertook the scheme described herein, SCO supported the open-source community. According to SCO, it fully embraced the open-source model.

36. Admits that it previously supported in some ways the open-source community prior to discovery of violation of its intellectual property rights by IBM and others, but denies the existence of any 'scheme,' and denies the allegations of Paragraph 36 not specifically admitted herein.

37. SCO Linux products encompass a range of software that uses a number of different licensing schemes, including open-source licenses and, in particular, the GPL. Components of SCO's Linux products (such as OpenLinux), including the Linux kernel, have been developed and made available for licensing under the GPL and similar licenses, which generally allow any person or organization to copy, modify and distribute the software, without royalty, in any form, including source code.

37. Admits that some of its products were previously made available for licensing under the GPL, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 37 not specifically admitted herein.

38. Due to the open-source nature of many of SCO's software products and the licenses under which it has developed and distributed them, SCO's collection of trademarks constitutes its most important intellectual property.

38. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 38.

39. At least until it undertook the scheme described herein, SCO contributed tools and technology to the open-source community. For instance, SCO incorporated open- source components in its product offerings to the betterment of its products, and gave away CD-ROMs containing its Linux operating system at trade shows and allowed it to be freely downloaded over the internet to encourage interest.

39. Admits that it previously engaged in certain Linux-related activities, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 39 not specifically admitted herein.

40. In addition, SCO fostered, and regularly contributed to, multiple open-source development projects in order to enhance the capability of SCO's products and services. In fact, SCO's business model depended upon incorporating contributions from the open-source community into products that it open sourced.

40. Admits that it has contributed to certain open-source development projects, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 40 not specifically admitted herein.

41. SCO also fostered and supported the development of additional open-source and Linux enhancements through the Open Source Development Lab and through participation as a key member of many industry standard and open-source initiatives.

41. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 41.

G. IBM and Linux

42. IBM is a participant in the open-source movement and has made a substantial investment in Linux business efforts over the last 5 years. IBM participates in a broad range of Linux projects that are important to the company and contribute to the open-source community.

42. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 42, but alleges that SCO was unaware of IBM's Linux-related investment prior to its formal announcements thereof, and further alleges that IBM secretly and improperly failed to disclose to SCO such Linux-related investments and its intentions with respect to Linux before and during Project Monterey.

43. Today, IBM has many Linux-related offerings: mainframes and servers that run Linux; memory solutions for Linux environments; a broad range of software offerings; services that include deployment of Linux-based e-business environments, migration of database applications and data to Linux systems, support for Linux-based cluster computing, server consolidation, and a 24-hour technical engineering support line. IBM has created a Linux Center of Competency that offers Linux training and support, applications testing, technical advice and a hands-on environment in which to evaluate Linux and Linux-based applications.

43. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 43.

44. Like thousands of other developers, IBM has properly contributed source code to Linux under the GPL. In fact, SCO has included IBM contributions to Linux in Linux products that SCO has distributed under the GPL. Like all recipients of SCO's Linux distributions, IBM is entitled to the protections of the GPL with respect to the IBM contributions, as well as any other contributions, included in SCO's Linux distributions, of which IBM is a recipient.

44. Admits that IBM has contributed source code to Linux projects under the GPL, but denies that such contributions were proper or legal, and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 44 not specifically admitted herein.

H. Failure of SCO's Business

45. Although it completed an initial public offering, SCO, unlike IBM, has failed to establish a successful business around Linux. SCO's Linux business has never generated a profit. In fact, the company as a whole did not experience a profitable quarter until after it abandoned its Linux business and undertook its present scheme to extract windfall profits from Unix technology that SCO played no role in developing.

45. Admits that it completed a public offering, admits that IBM has established its business around Linux and that IBM has received a significant amount of revenue and profit related to Linux, admits that SCO has never generated a profit related to Linux, admits that SCO has not generated profit until recently, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 45 not specifically admitted herein and alleges that IBM's Linux-related revenue is from its wrongful conduct in violation of SCO's legal and contractual rights.

46. In an attempt to revive its faltering Linux business, SCO acquired rights to the Unix operating system originally developed by Bell Laboratories and undertook the unification of the Unix and Linux operating systems. On May 7, 2001, Caldera Systems was merged into Caldera International, Inc., a holding company formed to acquire the Server Software and Professional Services divisions of Original SCO, including Original SCO's rights to the Unix assets it acquired from Novell and the Unix variant developed by Original SCO.

46. Admits that Caldera Systems, Inc. was merged into Caldera International, Inc., admits that SCO acquired rights to the UNIX operating system originally developed by Bell Laboratories, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 46 not specifically admitted herein.

47. Following its acquisition of Original SCO's Unix assets, SCO described its business plan as being to integrate its Linux-based products and services with its Unix-based products and services as a way of encouraging businesses to adopt the open-source, Linux-based operating systems.

47. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 47.

48. In pursuit of this strategy, SCO designed SCO Linux to permit existing Unix-based users to migrate to Linux. In addition, SCO marketed and sold a number of Unix products, including UnixWare, SCO OpenServer, Reliant HA, and Merge, and Caldera's Global Professional Services assisted customers in developing and deploying unified Unix and Linux solutions through consulting and custom engineering services.

48. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 48.

49. Like SCO's original Linux business, however, this enterprise failed. SCO has not been able to operate a successful, legitimate business concerning Linux and/or Unix. With apparently no other prospects, SCO shifted its business model yet again -- this time to litigation and threats of litigation, as is described below.

49. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 49.

I. SCO's Scheme

50. SCO devised a scheme to profit from the Unix assets that it acquired from Original SCO, though those assets were in no way developed by SCO. Although most, if not all, of the AT&T Unix technology that SCO purports to own is generally known, available without restriction to the general public or readily ascertainable by proper means, SCO undertook to create fear, uncertainty and doubt in the marketplace in regard to SCO's rights in and to that technology.

50. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 50.

51. Recognizing that there is little value in its Unix rights, SCO did not limit its scheme to that technology. Rather, SCO devised and executed a plan to create the false perception that SCO holds rights to Unix that permit it to control not only all Unix technology, but also Linux -- including those aspects generated through the independent hard work and creativity of thousands of other developers and long distributed by SCO itself under the GPL.

51. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 51.

52. SCO undertook to carry out its scheme by, among other things, (a) bringing baseless legal claims against IBM and threatening to sue other companies and individuals, (b) conducting a far-reaching publicity campaign to create the false and/or unsubstantiated impression that SCO has rights to Unix and Linux that it does not have and that IBM and others have violated SCO's rights and (c) otherwise seeking to condition the market to believe that SCO has rights to Unix and Linux that it does not have and cannot properly enforce.

52. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 52.

J. SCO's Lawsuit and Threats

53. On March 7, 2003, without any prior notice or warning that would have allowed IBM to understand SCO's claims and respond to them, SCO sued IBM alleging a host of meritless claims. In particular, SCO alleges that IBM has breached its contractual obligations to SCO by, among other things, incorporating and inducing others to incorporate SCO's intellectual property into Linux. In addition, SCO alleges that IBM has competed unfairly, interfered with SCO's contracts with others, and misappropriated SCO's trade secrets.

53. Admits it alleges that IBM has breached contractual obligations to SCO by, among other things, incorporating and inducing others to incorporate source code in the Linux kernel in violation of SCO's contractual and intellectual property rights, and that IBM has competed unfairly, interfered with SCO contract rights with others and misappropriated and/or misused trade secrets, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 53 not specifically admitted herein.

54. By its complaint, and the amended complaint it submitted on July 22, 2003, SCO asserts legal theories that are frivolous, such as that SCO has ownership rights with respect to all of the code in AIX. SCO seeks relief to which it is plainly not entitled, such as a permanent injunction terminating IBM's ability to possess and use the software products it licensed from AT&T Technologies, Inc., notwithstanding the fact that those rights are expressly "irrevocable" and "perpetual".

54. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 54.

55. In addition to instituting litigation against IBM, SCO sent letters to 1500 of the world's largest corporations threatening litigation. In its letters, an example of which is attached hereto as Exhibit I, SCO states, "We believe that Linux infringes on our Unix intellectual property and other rights". SCO further states, "We intend to aggressively protect and enforce these rights" against not only the companies involved with "the Linux development process" but also "the end user" companies using any Linux technology. SCO has made clear that it intends to bring legal action relating to Linux. For example, in a press conference on July 21, 2003, SCO stated that taking out a license with SCO was the "alternative to legal enforcement against Linux end-users".

55. Admits having sent letters to 1500 of the world's largest corporations, alleges that the letters are the best evidence of the contents thereof, denies that said letters threatened litigation and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 55 not specifically admitted herein.

K. SCO's Campaign of False Publicity

56. Following the commencement of its lawsuit against IBM and its barrage of letters threatening suit against others, SCO continued its campaign of falsehoods by further misrepresenting to the market the interplay of Unix, AIX, Dynix and Linux and SCO's and IBM's rights to these products.

56. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 56.

57. SCO has repeatedly made false public statements to the effect that it has the right and authority to revoke, and has effectively revoked, IBM's right to use AIX, IBM's version of Unix. For example, on May 12, 2003, Chris Sontag, a Senior Vice President of SCO, stated publicly, SCO has "the right to revoke the AIX license", and on June 16, 2003, SCO announced publicly that it had "terminated IBM's right to use or distribute any software product that is a modification of or based on Unix System V source code". Indeed, in an interview given by SCO CEO Darl McBride to Peter Williams of vnunet.com on June 25, 2003, SCO falsely represented that its contractual rights to "pull" IBM's contract are "bullet-proof". SCO has made similarly false statements relating to Dynix.

57. Admits that it has made certain public statements regarding IBM's rights to use AIX and Dynix, admits that it claims the legal right and authority to revoke, and has effectively revoked, IBM's right to use, license or distribute AIX and that it has so stated in certain statements, admits that it claims the legal right to revoke IBM's use, license or distribution of Dynix and has so stated in certain statements, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 57 not specifically admitted herein.

58. By way of further example, SCO has falsely stated that it has the right to control the use by IBM of all of Unix and AIX technology and to control the use by all persons and entities of Linux technology, which SCO contends is an illegal derivative of Unix. On June 16, 2003, SCO announced in a press release that "AIX is an unauthorized derivative of the Unix System operating system source code and its users are, as of this date, using AIX without a valid basis to do so". A SCO letter to Linux users, dated May 12, 2003, states, "We believe that Linux is, in material part, an unauthorized derivative of Unix. . . . We believe that Linux infringes on our Unix intellectual property and other rights."

58. Admits it claims that licensing and sublicensing agreements and related agreements with IBM give SCO the right to control certain uses of AIX by IBM, admits it claims that Linux is, in material part, an unauthorized derivative of UNIX and that SCO has so stated, admits it claims that as of and after June 16, 2003 IBM's right to further use, license or distribute AIX was terminated and that SCO has so stated, admits it claims that IBM customers who license AIX following June 16, 2003 are doing so in violation of SCO's rights and that SCO has so stated, admits it claims that certain uses of Linux infringe on SCO's intellectual property rights and that SCO has so stated, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 58 not specifically admitted herein.

59. SCO's campaign has not been limited to press releases and public interviews. SCO has also propagated falsehoods about its and IBM's rights in non-public meetings with analysts. SCO has solicited and participated in these meetings to misuse analysts to achieve wider dissemination of SCO's misleading message about Unix, AIX and Linux and to damage IBM and the open-source movement. In a luncheon hosted by Deutsche Bank analyst Brian Skiba, on or about July 22, 2003, for example, SCO falsely stated that IBM transferred the NUMA code from Sequent to Linux without any legal basis to do so and that IBM's actions were giving rise to about $1 billion in damages per week. In an interview in June 2003 with Client Server News, SCO misrepresented to analysts that IBM has improperly released "truckloads" of code into the open-source community.

59. Admits it claims that IBM has contributed certain Dynix code to Linux in violation of its contractual and legal obligations to SCO and that SCO has so stated, admits it claims that IBM's violation of SCO's rights are giving rise to damages as a result of IBM's improper profit from Linux and improper continued use of AIX, and that SCO has so stated, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 59 not specifically admitted herein.

L. Novell's Exercise of Rights

60. 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.

60. Admits the existence of the letter of June 9, 2003 but denies any legal or factual basis for the said letter and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 60 not specifically admitted herein.

61. 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.

61. Admits the existence of the letter of June 12, 2003 but denies any right in Novell to waive or revoke SCO rights and denies any legal or factual basis for the said letter and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 61 not specifically admitted herein.

62. Notwithstanding the fact that IBM's rights to Unix are expressly "irrevocable" and "perpetual" under Amendment X and the fact that Novell has exercised its right to waive, in any event, any contractual rights SCO claims IBM violated, SCO nevertheless purported to terminate IBM's licenses on June 13, 2003. Moreover, even assuming (contrary to fact) that IBM's rights were terminable, at no time prior to SCO's purported termination did SCO comply with its obligations under the AT&T Agreements to identify the specific acts or omissions that SCO alleges constitute IBM's breach, despite IBM's demands that SCO do so.

62. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 62.

63. Rather, SCO has continued to misrepresent that it can, or will, or has in fact revoked IBM's right to use Unix, without disclosing that IBM's rights to Unix are not terminable or that Novell has exercised its right to waive any contractual rights SCO claims IBM violated. In an interview with Information Week on or about June 12, 2003, for instance, SCO falsely stated that it has the right to revoke IBM's license and order the destruction of every copy of AIX.

63. Admits it has revoked IBM's right to further use, license or distribute AIX, pursuant to the express terms of the Software Agreement and related documents, and that it has so stated, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 63 not specifically admitted herein.

M. SCO's Refusal to Specify Its Claims

64. 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 May 5, 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 any of its agreements, and what SCO contends IBM should do to cure such violations. SCO refused. In fact, SCO's counsel indicated, in an interview with Maureen O'Gara of LinuxGram, that it "doesn't want IBM to know what they [SCO's substantive claims] are".

64. Admits that IBM sent letters dated April 2, 2003 and May 5, 2003 but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 64 not specifically admitted herein.

65. 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 influence leaders in the open-source community, including leaders of Linux kernel development, 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.

65. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 65.

66. While refusing to supply IBM with meaningful specifics regarding the alleged breaches, SCO has shown its purported evidence to analysts, journalists and others who are interested in seeing it. For example, at a forum held in Las Vegas on August 17-19, 2003, SCO made a false and misleading presentation concerning its claims against IBM, in which SCO purported to disclose examples of its evidence of alleged misconduct by IBM.

66. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 66.

N. SCO's Disparagement of AIX and Linux

67. In addition to purporting to terminate IBM's rights to use AIX, SCO has disparaged AIX as "unauthorized". In a press release dated June 16, 2003, SCO's counsel stated that "SCO has the right to terminate IBM's right to use and distribute AIX. Today AIX is an unauthorized derivative of the Unix operating system source code and its users are, as of this date, using AIX without a valid license to do so". In the same press release, Darl McBride, SCO's Chief Executive Officer, stated that "IBM no longer has the authority to sell or distribute AIX and customers no longer have the right to use AIX software". SCO has made similarly false and disparaging statements relating to Dynix.

67. Admits that IBM is currently without legal or contractual authority to use, license or distribute AIX or Dynix, based on its breach of agreement with SCO and SCO's resulting termination of IBM's AIX software agreement and related agreements and Sequent's Dynix software agreement and related agreements, and admits that SCO has so stated, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 67 not specifically admitted herein.

68. Here again, SCO's false and misleading statements have not been limited to AIX. In recognition of the fact that its claims against IBM are baseless, and in flat contradiction of the allegation of its original complaint (i.e., that this case is not about the relative merits of proprietary versus open-source software), SCO has now falsely stated, in effect, it owns and is entitled to collect royalties regarding Linux. For example, on July 21, 2003, McBride stated, on behalf of SCO, Linux infringes SCO's rights and, as "a viable alternative to legal enforcement" SCO is prepared to offer a license to SCO's Unix products that would, SCO says, permit lawful use of Linux.

68. Admits that SCO has offered a license to Fortune 1000 and Global 500 Linux users as a means of permitting lawful use of certain Linux products and that SCO has so stated, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 68 not specifically admitted herein.

69. SCO has misrepresented that IBM has infringed SCO's copyrights, and has threatened to sue IBM for copyright infringement, with respect to Linux. For example, at its 2003 SCO Forum, SCO represented that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of Unix, that IBM has infringed its rights in Linux and that SCO is entitled to damages and injunctive relief against IBM.

69. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 69.

70. SCO's false and misleading statements have also damaged the reputation and prospects of the entire open-source community. SCO's misconduct undermines the substantial public interest in the provision of software that is reliable, inexpensive, and accessible by the general public.

70. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 70.

O. SCO's Copyright Infringement

71. As stated, IBM has made contributions of source code to Linux under the GPL, some of which are identified below. IBM owns valid copyrights in these contributions, as illustrated below, and has identified them with appropriate copyright notices.

71. Admits that IBM has made contributions of source code to Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels under the GPL, but denies the applicability or enforceability of the GPL and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 71 not specifically admitted herein.

72. Notwithstanding SCO's allegations that IBM and others have breached SCO's intellectual property rights, SCO has infringed and is infringing IBM's copyrights in its Linux contributions.

72. Admits that IBM and others have breached SCO's intellectual property rights, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 72.

73. IBM granted SCO and others a non-exclusive license to these copyrighted contributions on the terms set out in the GPL and only on the terms set out in the GPL. SCO breached its obligations under the GPL, however, and therefore its rights under the GPL terminated.

73. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 73 and denies the enforceability or applicability of the GPL.

74. SCO has infringed and is infringing IBM's copyrights by copying, modifying, sublicensing and/or distributing Linux products after its rights under the GPL terminated. SCO has taken copyrighted source code made available by IBM under the GPL, included that code in SCO's Linux products, and copied, modified, sublicensed and/or distributed those products other than as permitted under the GPL.

74. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 74.

P. SCO's Patent Infringement

75. In addition to infringing IBM's copyrights, SCO is engaged in pervasive acts of infringement of no fewer than four of IBM's patents, by making, using, selling and/or offering to sell a variety of products, including but not limited to: "UnixWare", a Unix operating system for Intel and AMD processor-based computer systems; "Open Server", an operating system platform; "SCO Manager", a web-based remote systems management solution for management of Linux and SCO Unix systems; and "Reliant HA", "clustering" software that permits interconnection of multiple servers to achieve redundancy.

75. Admits that SCO licenses and distributes UnixWare, 'OpenServer,' 'SCO Manager,' and 'Reliant HA,' but denies infringement and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 75.

75. Admits that SCO licenses and distributes UnixWare, "OpenServer," "SCO Manager," and "Reliant HA," but denies infringement and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 75.

Q. Effects of SCO's Misconduct and Its State of Mind

76. As a result of the misconduct described above, SCO has not only artificially inflated its stock price and been unjustly enriched, but also it has injured IBM and, more broadly, the open-source movement. SCO's misconduct has resulted in damage to IBM's business, including its reputation and goodwill, has interfered with its prospective economic relations and has required it unduly to divert resources to respond to SCO's baseless allegations. SCO has injured the open-source movement, of which it was once a part, by fostering fear, uncertainty and doubt about its and others' rights to use Unix, AIX, Dynix and Linux.

76. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 76.

77. SCO's misconduct is especially egregious because SCO has implemented its scheme with actual knowledge or in reckless disregard of the fact that it does not have the rights that it seeks to assert (e.g., the right to terminate IBM's irrevocable and perpetual Unix rights). Moreover, SCO committed not to assert certain proprietary rights over or to restrict further distribution of any program distributed by SCO under the terms of the GPL.

77. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 77.

FIRST COUNTERCLAIM

Breach of Contract

78. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 77, with the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.

78. Repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-77, above.

79. SCO is licensor and IBM licensee of the right to use and sublicense Unix software, as specified in the AT&T Agreements, Amendment X and other similar agreements, all of which are valid contracts.

79. Admits that IBM continues to be obligated to SCO by confidentiality requirements and other provisions in the AT&T Agreements and Amendment X that, by their terms, specifically continue beyond termination, but alleges that IBM's right to use, license and distribute under the said agreements has been lawfully and properly terminated, and therefore denies that IBM has any right under the said agreements and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 79 not specifically admitted herein.

80. IBM has performed all its duties and obligations under the AT&T Agreements, Amendment X and other similar agreements.

80. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 80.

81. SCO has breached its express duties and obligations under the AT&T Agreements, Amendment X and other similar agreements by, among other things, purporting to terminate IBM's irrevocable and perpetual Unix rights and/or refusing to provide IBM adequate notice and opportunity to cure its alleged misconduct.

81. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 81.

82. SCO has also breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under the AT&T Agreements, Amendment X and other similar agreements by affirmatively seeking to deprive IBM of the benefits to which it is entitled under those contracts through numerous acts of bad faith, including, among other things, making false and misleading statements to the public about SCO's and IBM's rights under the same.

82. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 82.

83. IBM has suffered damages from SCO's breaches of contract in an amount to be determined at trial.

83. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 83.

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM

Lanham Act Violation

84. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 83, with the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.

84. Repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-83, above.

85. IBM sells and distributes AIX and Linux-related products and services in interstate commerce, and IBM sold and distributed Dynix in interstate commerce.

85. Admits that IBM sells Linux-related services in interstate commerce, but denies that IBM has or had authority to sell, license or distribute AIX in interstate commerce from and after June 16, 2003, and denies that IBM has or had authority to license, sell or distribute Dynix in interstate commerce from and after September 2. 2003, alleges that IBM rights in AIX and Dynix have been lawfully and properly terminated, and denies the remaining the allegations of Paragraph 85 not specifically admitted herein.

85. Admits that IBM sells Linux-related services in interstate commerce, but denies that IBM has or had authority to sell, license or distribute AIX in interstate commerce from and after June 16, 2003, and denies that IBM has or had authority to license, sell or distribute Dynix in interstate commerce from and after September 2, 2003, alleges that IBM's rights in AIX and Dynix have been lawfully and properly terminated, and denies the remaining the allegations of Paragraph 85 not specifically admitted herein.

86. SCO has made material false representations regarding AIX, Dynix and IBM's Linux-related products and services, which affect a customer's decision whether to purchase these products and services. Specifically, SCO has publicly misrepresented the legitimacy of these products and services by falsely representing that IBM no longer has the right, authority and license to use, produce and distribute these products and by misrepresenting SCO's own rights in and to Unix, AIX, Dynix and Linux.

86. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 86.

87. SCO has published its false statements in a series of widely-distributed press releases, press interviews and other streams of commerce, as part of its bad faith campaign to discredit IBM's products and services in the marketplace, to increase the perceived value of SCO's limited rights to Unix and to promote SCO's own Unix operating systems, UnixWare and Open Server.

87. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 87.

88. These statements are likely to cause confusion and mistake and have in fact caused confusion and mistake as to the characteristics of IBM's goods, products and/or services.

88. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 88.

89. As a direct result of SCO's false representations, all of which are in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125, IBM has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial. IBM is also entitled to damages and attorneys' fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).

89. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 89.

THIRD COUNTERCLAIM

Unfair Competition

90. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 89, with the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.

90. Repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-89, above.

91. IBM has invested over two decades and hundreds of millions of dollars in the creation and development of AIX. Through IBM's efforts, innovation and hard work, AIX has become one of the leading Unix operating systems, and IBM's products and services are sold and used throughout the United States. Similarly, IBM expended substantial resources to acquire Dynix and has invested substantial time and effort in developing its Linux-related products and services.

91. Admits that IBM has expended a substantial investment of time, effort, and money in development of AIX pursuant to the terms of its license with SCO and SCO's predecessors in interest, admits that AIX has become one of the world leading UNIX operating systems, admits that IBM's products and services are sold and used throughout the United States, admits that IBM acquired Sequent and thereby acquired Sequent's interest in Dynix, subject to the terms and conditions of Sequent's agreements with SCO and/or its predecessors, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 91 not specifically admitted herein.

91. Admits that IBM has expended a substantial investment of time, effort, and money in development of AIX pursuant to the terms of its license with SCO and SCO's predecessors in interest, admits that AIX has become one of the world's leading UNIX operating systems, admits that IBM's products and services are sold and used throughout the United States, admits that IBM acquired Sequent and thereby acquired Sequent's interest in Dynix, subject to the terms and conditions of Sequent's agreements with SCO and/or its predecessors, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 91 not specifically admitted herein.

92. SCO has intentionally, knowingly, wrongfully and in bad faith engaged in a public pattern of conduct aimed at depriving IBM of the value of its AIX, Dynix and Linux-related products and services and misappropriating the same for the benefit of SCO's Unix licensing business as well as SCO's competing Unix operating systems. SCO's misconduct is likely to result in confusion in the marketplace and has in fact resulted in confusion concerning AIX, Dynix and Linux.

92. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 92.

93. SCO has engaged in unfair competition by falsely claiming ownership of IBM's intellectual property as well as the intellectual property created by the open-source community; publishing false and disparaging statements about AIX and Dynix; making bad faith misrepresentations concerning IBM's rights to Unix, MX and Dynix; misusing and misrepresenting SCO's limited rights in Unix to injure IBM; and falsely accusing IBM of theft of SCO's intellectual property.

93. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 93.

94. As a direct result of SCO's unfair competition, IBM has and will continue to suffer damage to its reputation, goodwill, and business in an amount to be determined at trial. Because SCO's acts of unfair competition were and are willful and malicious, IBM is also entitled to punitive damages.

94. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 94.

FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM

Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations

95. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 94, with the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.

95. Repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-94, above.

96. IBM is actively engaged in the development, manufacture and sale of AIX and products and services relating to Linux, and IBM has sold and distributed Dynix. IBM has prospective business relationships with numerous companies and individuals to whom IBM has sold and/or licensed these products and services and/or to whom IBM seeks to sell and/or license these products and services. IBM also has prospective business relationships with business and individual members of the Linux and open-source software development, distribution, service and computing communities with whom IBM seeks to do business in various capacities, including through research and development efforts.

96. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 96.

97. SCO is fully aware of these prospective business relationships and the importance of the relationships to IBM's continued commercial success.

97. Admits it is generally aware that IBM has or may have certain prospective business relationships that IBM deems important, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 97 not specifically admitted herein.

98. SCO has intentionally interfered with these relationships through improper means, including by making false and misleading statements to IBM's prospective customers that IBM no longer has the right, authority and license to use, produce and distribute AIX, Dynix and Linux-related products. SCO has also misrepresented its own rights relating to these operating systems. The purpose of SCO's unlawful conduct is to injure IBM by driving prospective customers of AIX, Dynix and IBM's Linux-related products and services away from purchasing and licensing the same from IBM.

98. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 98.

99. Furthermore, SCO has intentionally interfered with IBM's valuable economic relationships with business and individual members of the Linux and open-source software communities by falsely and publicly accusing IBM of inserting "truckloads" of SCO's intellectual property into the Linux kernel and related software. Again, the purpose of SCO's unlawful conduct is to injure IBM by driving away these businesses and individuals from future open-source collaborations with IBM.

99. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 99.

100. IBM has suffered damages from SCO's tortious interference with its economic relations in an amount to be determined at trial. Because SCO's tortious interference with IBM's prospective economic relations was and is willful and malicious, IBM is entitled to punitive damages.

100. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 100.

FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM

Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices

101. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 100, with the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.

101. Repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-100, above.

102. SCO has engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices by, among other things, falsely representing that IBM no longer has the right, authority and/or license to use, produce and/or distribute AIX, Dynix and Linux-related products; misrepresenting SCO's and IBM's rights relating to these operating systems; and publishing false and disparaging statements about AIX, Dynix and Linux.

102. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 102.

103. SCO's false statements and misrepresentations were made in connection with SCO's solicitation of business, and in order to induce IBM and others to purchase products and licenses from SCO. SCO's statements and misrepresentations are likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding as to the qualities, benefits and characteristics of AIX, Dynix and Linux. SCO has misrepresented the qualities, benefits and/or characteristics of these products.

103. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 103.

104. SCO's misconduct was undertaken for the purpose of deceiving the marketplace and defaming IBM and has deceived and misled the public and IBM's customers; disparaged the goods, services, and business of IBM; and otherwise injured IBM's business in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 and the laws of other states.

104. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 104.

105. IBM has provided SCO with notice of its false and misleading statements, and has given SCO an opportunity to correct those statements. SCO has refused and has instead opted to make more false and misleading statements.

105. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 105.

106. As a direct result of SCO's unfair and deceptive trade practices, the public at large, including AIX, Dynix and Linux users, has been harmed by SCO's campaign to foster fear, uncertainty and doubt about AIX, Dynix and Linux. Moreover, IBM has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial. Because SCO's acts of unfair and deceptive trade practices were and are willful, knowing and malicious, IBM is also entitled to treble damages and/or fees pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h).

106. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 106.

SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM

Breach of the GNU General Public License

107. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 106, with the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.

107. Repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-106, above.

108. IBM has made contributions of source code to Linux under the GPL on the condition that users and distributors of such code, including SCO, abide by the terms of the GPL in modifying and distributing Linux products, including, for example, the requirement that they distribute all versions of software licensed under the GPL (original or derivative) under the GPL and only the GPL.

108. Admits that IBM has made contributions of source code to Linux under the GPL, but denies the applicability or enforceability of the GPL and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 108 not specifically admitted herein.

109. SCO has taken source code made available by IBM under the GPL, included that code in SCO's Linux products, and distributed significant portions of those products under the GPL. By so doing, SCO accepted the terms of the GPL (pursuant to GPL § 5), both with respect to source code made available by IBM under the GPL and with respect to SCO's own Linux distributions.

109. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 109.

110. SCO has breached the GPL by, among other things, copying, modifying, sublicensing or distributing programs licensed under the GPL, including IBM contributions, on terms inconsistent with those set out in the GPL; and seeking to impose additional restrictions on the recipients of programs licensed under the GPL, including IBM contributions, distributed by SCO.

110. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 110.

111. Based upon its breaches of the GPL and the misconduct described herein, SCO's rights under the GPL, including but not limited to the right to distribute the copyrighted works of others included in Linux under the GPL, terminated (pursuant to § 4 of the GPL). The GPL prohibits SCO from, among other things, asserting certain proprietary rights over, or attempting to restrict further distribution of any program distributed by SCO under the terms of the GPL, except as permitted by the GPL.

111. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 111.

112. As a result of SCO's breaches of the GPL, countless developers and users of Linux, including IBM, have suffered and will continue to suffer damages and other irreparable injury. IBM is entitled to a declaration that SCO's rights under the GPL terminated, an injunction prohibiting SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches of the GPL and an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

112. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 112.

SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM

Promissory Estoppel

113. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 112, with the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.

113. Repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-112, above.

114. SCO made a clear and unambiguous promise to IBM and others that SCO would copy, modify or distribute programs distributed by IBM and others under the GPL only on the terms set out in the GPL; and would not assert rights to programs distributed by SCO under the GPL except on the terms set out in the GPL.

114. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 114.

115. IBM and others reasonably, prudently and foreseeably relied upon these promises, such as by making contributions under the GPL and committing resources to open- source projects.

115. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 115.

116. SCO knew or should have known that IBM and others would rely and in fact relied upon SCO's promises and knew or should have known that those promises would induce and in fact induced action or forbearance on the part of IBM and others.

116. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 116.

117. SCO was and is aware of all material facts relating to IBM's reliance on SCO's promises including but not limited to IBM's contributions under the GPL, SCO's distributions under the GPL and the intent, meaning and import of the GPL.

117. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 117.

118. As a result of its reliance upon SCO's promises, IBM has sustained injuries and is entitled to an award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial. In addition to an award of damages, IBM is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, including but not limited to a declaration that SCO is not entitled to assert proprietary rights with respect to products distributed by SCO under the GPL except upon the terms set out in the GPL.

118. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 118.

EIGHTH COUNTERCLAIM

119. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 118, with the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.

119. Repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-118, above.

120. As stated, IBM has made contributions of source code to Linux under the GPL. IBM is, and at all relevant times has been, the owner of valid copyrights in these contributions, as well as of all the rights, title and interest in those copyrights.

120. Admits that IBM has made contributions of source code to Linux under the GPL, but denies the applicability or enforceability of the GPL, alleges that part of said contributions by IBM violate SCO's contract and intellectual property rights, and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 120 not specifically admitted herein.

121. IBM holds the following certificates of copyright from the United States Copyright Office (copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits O - U), among others:

Registration No.	Date of Registration	Title of Work
TX 5-757-696	August 15, 2003	IBM Enterprise Volume Management System
TX 5-757-697	August 15, 2003	IBM Enterprise Class Event Logging
TX 5-757-698	August 15, 2003	IBM Dynamic Probes
TX 5-757-699	August 15, 2003	IBM Linux Support Power PC64
TX 5-757-700	August 15, 2003	IBM Omni Print Driver
TX 5-757-701	August 15, 2003	IBM Journaled File System
TX 5-757-702	August 15, 2003	IBM Next Generation Posix Threading

121. Is without information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 121, and therefore denies the same.

122. Admits that IBM has placed copyright notices on certain of its AIX and Dynix contributions to UNIX, but denies it has the legal authority to do so, denies the applicability or enforceability of the GPL, and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 122 not specifically admitted herein.

123. IBM granted SCO and others a non-exclusive license to the above-listed copyrighted contributions to Linux on the terms set out in the GPL and only on the terms set out in the GPL. IBM made these contributions on the condition that users and distributors of its copyrighted code, including SCO, abide by the terms of the GPL in copying, modifying and distributing Linux products.

123. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 123.

124. SCO has infringed and is infringing IBM's copyrights by copying, modifying, sublicensing and/or distributing Linux products except as expressly provided under the GPL. SCO has taken copyrighted source code made available by IBM under the GPL, included that code in SCO's Linux products, and copied, modified, sublicensed and/or distributed those products other than as permitted under the GPL. SCO has no right -- and has never had any right - to copy, modify, sublicense and/or distribute the IBM copyrighted code except pursuant to the GPL.

124. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 124.

125. As a result of SCO's infringement, IBM has been damaged and is entitled to an award of actual and/or statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504 in an amount to be proven at trial. Because SCO's infringement has been willful, deliberate and in utter disregard and derogation of IBM's rights, IBM is entitled to enhanced statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504. IBM is entitled to costs and attorney's fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.

125. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 125.

126. In addition, IBM is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502, as SCO will continue to infringe IBM's copyrights in violation of the copyright laws of the United States unless restrained by this Court. IBM is also entitled to an appropriate order pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 503.

126. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 126.

NINTH COUNTERCLAIM

Patent Infringement

127. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 126, with the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.

127. Repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-126, above.

128. IBM is the lawful owner, by assignment, of the entire right, title and interest in United States Patent No. 4,814,746 ("the ‘746 Patent"), duly and legally issued on March 21, 1989 to Miller et al., entitled "Data Compression Method". A copy of the ‘746 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit V.

128. Is without information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 128, and therefore denies the same.

129. Upon information and belief, SCO has been and is infringing the ‘746 Patent within this judicial district and elsewhere by making, using, selling and/or offering to sell products, including UnixWare and Open Server, that practice one or more claims of the ‘746 Patent and therefore infringe that patent to the extent such infringing acts have occurred or occur during the effective period of that patent.

129. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 129.

130. Upon information and belief, SCO will continue to infringe the ‘746 Patent unless enjoined by this Court.

130. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 130.

131. IBM has been damaged by SCO's infringement of the ‘746 Patent, has been irreparably harmed by that infringement, and will suffer additional damages and irrevocable harm unless this Court enjoins SCO from further infringement.

131. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 131.

132. Continued manufacture, use, sale or offer for sale of the infringing products, including UnixWare and Open Server, or evidence that SCO was aware of the ‘746 Patent, shall render SCO liable for willful infringement, as well as active inducement of infringement of the ‘746 Patent, making this an exceptional case and justifying the assessment of treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, and the award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.

132. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 132.

TENTH COUNTERCLAIM

Patent Infringement

133. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 132, with the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.

133. Repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-132, above.

134. IBM is the lawful owner, by assignment, of the entire right, title and interest in United States Patent No. 4,821,211 ("the ‘211 Patent"), duly and legally issued on April 11, 1989 to Torres, entitled "Method of Navigating Among Program Menus Using a Graphical Menu Tree". A copy of the ‘211 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit W.

134. Is without information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 134, and therefore denies the same.

135. Upon information and belief, SCO has been and is infringing the ‘211 Patent within this judicial district and elsewhere by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell products, including SCO Manager, that practice one or more claims of the ‘211 Patent and therefore infringe that patent to the extent such infringing acts have occurred or occur during the effective period of that patent.

135. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 135.

136. Upon information and belief, SCO will continue to infringe the ‘211 Patent unless enjoined by this Court.

136. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 136.

137. IBM has been damaged by SCO's infringement of the ‘211 Patent, has been irreparably harmed by that infringement, and will suffer additional damages and irrevocable harm unless this Court enjoins SCO from further infringement.

137. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 137.

138. Continued manufacture, use, sale, or offer for sale of the infringing products, including SCO Manager, or evidence that SCO was aware of the ‘211 Patent, shall render SCO liable for willful infringement, as well as active inducement of infringement of the ‘211 Patent, making this an exceptional case and justifying the assessment of treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, and the award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.

138. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 138.

ELEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM

Patent Infringement

139. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 138, with the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.

139. Repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-138, above.

140. IBM is the lawful owner, by assignment, of the entire right, title and interest in United States Patent No. 4,953,209 ("the ‘209 Patent"), duly and legally issued on August 28, 1990 to Ryder et al., entitled "Self-Verifying Receipt and Acceptance System for Electronically Delivered Data Objects". A copy of the ‘209 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit X.

140. Is without information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 140, and therefore denies the same.

141. Upon information and belief, SCO has been and is infringing the ‘209 Patent within this judicial district and elsewhere by making, using, selling and/or offering to sell products, including UnixWare, that practice one or more claims of the ‘209 Patent and therefore infringe that patent to the extent such infringing acts have occurred or occur during the effective period of that patent.

141. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 141.

142. Upon information and belief, SCO will continue to infringe the ‘209 Patent unless enjoined by this Court.

142. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 142.

143. IBM has been damaged by SCO's infringement of the ‘209 Patent, has been irreparably harmed by that infringement, and will suffer additional damages and irrevocable harm unless this Court enjoins SCO from further infringement.

143. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 143.

144. Continued manufacture, use, sale or offer for sale of the infringing products, including UnixWare, or evidence that SCO was aware of the ‘209 Patent, shall render SCO liable for willful infringement, as well as active inducement of infringement of the ‘209 Patent, making this an exceptional case and justifying the assessment of treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, and the award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.

144. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 144.

TWELFTH COUNTERCLAIM

Patent Infringement

145. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 144, with the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.

145. Repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-144, above.

146. IBM is the lawful owner, by assignment, of the entire right, title and interest in United States Patent No. 5,805,785 ("the ‘785 Patent"), duly and legally issued on September 8, 1998 to Dias et al., entitled "Method for Monitoring and Recovery of Subsystems in a Distributed/Clustered System". A copy of the ‘785 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit Y.

146. Is without information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 146, and therefore denies the same.

147. Upon information and belief, SCO has been and is infringing the ‘785 Patent within this judicial district and elsewhere by making, using, selling and/or offering to sell products, including Reliant HA, that practice one or more claims of the ‘785 Patent and therefore infringe that patent to the extent such infringing acts have occurred or occur during the effective period of that patent.

147. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 147.

148. Upon information and belief, SCO will continue to infringe the ‘785 Patent unless enjoined by this Court.

148. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 148.

149. IBM has been damaged by SCO's infringement of the ‘785 Patent, has been irreparably harmed by that infringement, and will suffer additional damages and irrevocable harm unless this Court enjoins SCO from further infringement.

149. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 149.

150. Continued manufacture, use, sale or offer for sale of the infringing products, including Reliant HA, or evidence that SCO was aware of the ‘785 Patent, shall render SCO liable for willful infringement, as well as active inducement of infringement of the ‘785 Patent, making this an exceptional case and justifying the assessment of treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, and the award of attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.

150. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 150.

THIRTEENTH COUNTERCLAIM

Declaratory Judgment

151. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 150, with the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.

151. Repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-150, above.

152. SCO has breached its contractual obligations to IBM, violated the Lanham Act, engaged in unfair competition, interfered with IBM prospective economic relations, engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices, breached the GPL, infringed IBM copyrights and infringed IBM patents, as stated above.

152. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 152.

153. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, IBM is entitled to declaratory relief with respect to SCO's and IBM's rights, including among other things a declaration that SCO has violated IBM's rights as outlined above by breaching its contractual obligations to IBM, violating the Lanham Act, engaging in unfair competition, interfering with IBM's prospective economic relations, engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices, breaching the GPL, infringing IBM copyrights and infringing IBM patents, and is estopped as outlined above.

153. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 153.

154. Moreover, IBM is entitled to a declaration that (1) SCO has no right to assert, and is estopped from asserting, proprietary rights over programs that SCO distributed under the GPL except as permitted by the GPL; (2) SCO is not entitled to impose restrictions on the copying, modifying or distributing of programs distributed by it under the GPL except as set out in the GPL; and (3) any product into which SCO has incorporated code licensed pursuant to the GPL is subject to the GPL and SCO may not assert rights with respect to that code except as provided by the GPL.

154. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 154.

155. There is a justiciable controversy between IBM and SCO with respect to all of the issues described above.

155. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 155.

156. Absent declaratory relief, SCO's misconduct will continue to cause injury to IBM, the open-source community and the public at large.

156. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 156.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, acquiescence, and/or laches.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, acquiescence, and/or laches.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM's contractual right to license, distribute or use AIX or Dynix has been properly and validly terminated, and any claim based thereon is barred.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM's claims are barred by license.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM's claims are barred by fraud, illegality, collusion, conspiracy and/or lack of clean hands.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM's claims are barred by illegality, collusion, conspiracy and/or lack of clean hands.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped or otherwise barred as a matter of equity.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, by the doctrine of judicial immunity and by privilege.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM lacks standing to assert these claims.

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM's claims are barred or preempted, in whole or in part, by the laws of the United States.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM's own conduct, including that of its agents, contractors and partners, and/or conduct of third parties constitute superseding or intervening causes with respect to IBM's claims of damage or injury.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCO has acted legally and properly at all relevant times and IBM is therefore barred from any relief whatsoever.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM's purported copyright registrations are invalid and/or IBM has violated copyright laws in respect to its claims alleged and the claims based on, or related to, copyrights are barred.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
On information and belief, one or more of the copyrights at issue is, or may be, unenforceable by reason of IBM's inequitable conduct, acts or omissions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM is not, or may not be, the owner of the #746, #211, #209 or #785 Patents at issue.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM is not, or may not be, the owner of the #746, #211, #209 or #785 Patents at issue.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The patents at issue, and particularly the claims of those patents alleged to be infringed, are invalid and of no effect for failure to comply with one or more requirements set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including, but not limited to Sections 101, 102, 103 and/or 112.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The patents at issue, and particularly the claims of those patents alleged to be infringed, are invalid and of no effect for failure to comply with one or more requirements set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including, but not limited to Sections 101, 102, 103, 112, 116 and/or 256.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
On information and belief, IBM's claims under the patents at issue are precluded by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel based on the admissions and representations made by IBM in proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office during the prosecution of the applications of the patents at issue.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
On information and belief, IBM's claims under the patents at issue are precluded by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel based on the admissions and representations made by IBM in proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office during the prosecution of the applications of the patents at issue.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
On information and belief, U.S. Patent 4,814,746 ("the '746 patent) is unenforceable by reason of IBM's inequitable conduct, acts or omissions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"). The '746 patent, in a section entitled "Background of the Invention," cites one article directed to LZ78 data compression and indicates that it is representative of the prior art. U.S. Patent No. 4,814,746, column 1, lines 13-27. That statement is material, false and misleading and was known by IBM to be material, false and misleading. In fact, the single article cited in the '746 patent is not representative of the prior art. There are numerous other techniques such as LZ77, described in an article entitled "A Universal Algorithm for Sequential Data Compression," IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. IT-23, No. 3, May 1977, pp. 337-343. Other types of prior art data compression methods include run length encoding, arithmetic encoding and Huffman encoding. The falsity of IBM's statement is also reflected by the fact that in the period from December 9, 1975 to March 1, 1983, IBM itself obtained the issuance of at least 31 patents directed to data compression.

On September 22, 1988, during prosecution of the continuation patent application which led to issuance of the '746 patent, IBM filed an Information Disclosure Statement ("IDS") with the PTO. That IDS discloses European Patent Office ("EPO") patent publication 129439. The inventor of that patent publication was Terry Welch. The patent publication was published on December 27, 1984. Inexplicably, while IBM mentioned the United States counterpart of the EPO publication, it did not cite that counterpart in the citation of prior art. Thus, the face of the '746 patent does not contain any reference to the U.S. counterpart. That counterpart was U.S. Patent No. 4,558,302. That patent contains claims which overlap with the '746 patent. The Welch U.S. Patent No. 4,558,302 was filed 19 days after the '746 patent application was filed in the PTO. The closeness of these dates implicates 35 U.S.C. Section 102(g) and raises a serious question as to who was the first inventor of the claimed subject matter and who is entitled to the patent. The failure to cite the U.S. counterpart, the fact that IBM waited almost three years after the U.S. counterpart issued as a patent to even inform the PTO of the EPO publication, and the additional fact that IBM waited until after the claims of the '746 patent were allowed to file an IDS, were intended to deter the Patent Examiner from comparing the claims of the U.S. counterpart to the allowed claims of the '746 patent. These actions were material to the examination of the '746 patent.

IBM's IDS states that the U.S. counterpart patent "apparently is an improvement on the teaching of [another reference] and offers nothing more that would affect the patentability of the allowed claims in this case. These statements were material, false and misleading and were known by IBM to be material, false and misleading. These statements and the fact that IBM cited the EPO publication and not the U.S. patent counterpart had the effects of not only mischaracterizing the disclosure of the Welch patent application, but also of concealing from the PTO the overlap between the claimed subject matter of the '746 patent and the counterpart U.S. patent.

IBM withheld additional prior art from the PTO. In February, 1981, IBM published an article entitled "Message Compression Method." The article was published as an IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Volume 23, No. 9, pages 4197-98. That publication was material to the patentability of the '746 patent. IBM withheld this prior art with intent to deceive the PTO.

On information and belief, U.S. Patent 5,805,785 ("the '785 patent") is unenforceable by reason of IBM's inequitable conduct, acts or omissions before the PTO. The '785 patent, entitled "Method for Monitoring and Recovery of Subsystems in a Distributed/Clustered System," was filed on February 27, 1996, listing as joint inventors Daniel Manuel Dias, Richard Pervin King, and Avraham Leff. Applicants also filed an IDS on this date. The IDS listed 12 references that are all U.S. patents. No other references, including technical papers authored by one or more of the joint inventors were listed. A review of papers authored by the three inventors reveals several that are material to patentability. In particular, Avraham Leff's Ph.D dissertation, entitled "A Dynamic and Decentralized Approach to Management of CPU and Memory," published at Columbia University in 1992, is material to the patentability of the '785 patent application. the dissertation describes a system of resource management that does not require a centralized coordinator. Sites cooperate in transmitting important state information to each other. Decisions made at one site are then factored by other sites into subsequent decisions. Because this dissertation was material to the patentability of the '785 patent application, the dissertation should have been disclosed to the PTO during prosecution of the '785 patent application. IBM withheld this reference with the intent to deceive the PTO.

Inventor Daniel M. Dias appears as joint author on three papers that relate directly to the subject matter claimed in the '785 patent. These three papers appear to have been published at about the same time as the '785 patent filing date of February 27, 1996. All three papers list joint authors, none of whom, other that [sic] Mr. Dias, appears as an inventor on the '785 patent. "A Scalable and Highly Available Web Server," published in Proceedings of COMPCON '96, lists as authors, in addition to Mr. Dias, William Kish, Rajat Mukherjee, and Renu Tewari. "High Availability in Clustered Multimedia Servers," published in Proceedings - International Conference on Data Engineering 1996, lists as authors, in addition to Mr. Dias, Renu Tewari, Rajat Mukherjee, and Harrick Vin. "Design and Performance Tradeoffs in Clustered Video Servers," published in Proceedings - International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems 1996, lists as authors, in addition to Mr. Dias, Renu Tewari, Rajat Mukherjee, and Harrick Vin. All three of these papers describe concepts that can be found in the '785 patent claims, and thus Messrs. Kish, Mukherjee, Tewari, and Vin should have been listed as inventors on the '785 patent. IBM's decision not to list Messrs. Kish, Mukherjee, Tewari, and Vin as inventors of the '785 patent was with the intent to deceive the PTO.

U.S. Patent 5,129,080 ("the '080 patent"), entitled "Method and System Increasing the Operational Availability of a System of Computer Programs Operating in a Distributed System of Computers," filed October 17, 1990, issued July 7, 1992, and assigned to IBM, is material to patentability of the '785 patent, and should have been disclosed by IBM to the PTO. In particular, the '080 patent discloses high availability architectures, cooperative processing among nodes of a computer network, and fault recovery techniques. The '080 patent also discloses sharing of state information among the computer network nodes and global and local management. Because the '080 patent is material to patentability of the '785 patent application, the '080 patent is material to patentability of the '785 patent application, the '080 patent should have been disclosed to the PTO during prosecution of the '785 patent application. IBM withheld this reference with the intent to deceive the PTO.

On information and belief, U.S. Patent 4,821,211 ("the '211 patent") is unenforceable by reason of IBM's inequitable conduct, acts or omissions before the PTO. The '211 patent was filed on November 19, 1987 and issued on April 11, 1989. During prosecution of the '211 patent application, Applicants did not disclose any prior art references to the PTO through filing an IDS. On information and belief, Applicants were aware of prior art references that were material to patentability of the '211 patent, and which, therefore, were
required to be disclosed to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

More specifically, U.S. Patent 4,688,181 to Cottrell et al. ("the '181 patent"), filed April 30, 1986 and issued August 18, 1987, and assigned to IBM was material to the patentability of the '211 patent, but was not disclosed to the PTO. The '181 patent was cited by the patent examiner during prosecution of the '211 patent. Further, the '181 patent listed a number of prior art references that were themselves material to patentability of the '211 patent. These additional prior art references were not disclosed to the PTO during prosecution of the '211 patent. One of the prior art references cited during the Cottrell patent application prosecution is U.S. Patent 4,613,946 to Forman ("the '946 patent"). That patent was also material to the patentability of the '211 patent. Thus, the '946 patent, and the other references cited during prosecution of the Cottrell patent application should have been disclosed to the PTO by IBM. IBM withheld these material references with the intention to deceive the PTO.

On information and belief, IBM was aware of other references that were material to the patentability of the '211 patent, and with deceptive intent, IBM did not disclose these references to the PTO. For example, U.S. Defensive Publication T980,008 ("the '008 publication"), entitled "Interaactive Design of Character- Recognition Logics," filed July 19, 1976, published March 6, 1979, and assigned to IBM, is material to the patentability of the '211 patent, and should have been disclosed by IBM to the PTO. The '008 publication discloses generating graphic display of pattern locations and a menu of operations. The '008 publication also discloses using auxiliary operations in the menu to modify the sequence of input patterns. Because the '008 publication is material to the patentability of the '211 patent, the '008 publication should have been disclosed to the PTO during prosecution of the '211 patent. IBM withheld this reference with intent to deceive the PTO.

Other references of which IBM was aware and that were required to be disclosed to the PTO include U.S. Patent 4,731,606 to Bantz et al. ("the '606 patent), filed August 2, 1985 and issued March 15, 1988 and U.S. Patent 4,719,571 to Rissanen et al. ("the 571 patent"), filed March 5, 1986 and issued January 12, 1988, both assigned to IBM. Both the '606 patent and the '571 patent are material to patentability of the '211 patent, and both should have been disclosed to the PTO during prosecution of the '211 patent. IBM withheld these references with the intent to deceive the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

On information and belief, U.S. Patent 4,953,209 ("the '209 patent") is unenforceable by reason of IBM's inequitable conduct, acts or omissions before the PTO. The '209 patent, entitled "Self-verifying Receipt and Acceptance System for Electronically Delivered Data Objects," was filed on October 31, 1988. The '209 patent, in the section entitled "Background of the Invention," describes only two prior art references: U.S. Patent No. 4,757,33 to Allen et al. and U.S. Patent No. 4,757,534 ("the '534 patent") to Stephen M. Matyas el al.

The '534 patent is assigned to IBM. Stephen M. Matyasa, co-inventor of the '534 patent, is listed as an author of more than 100 IBM publications related to cryptography or data encryption. Mr. Matyas is also listed as an inventor on more than 70 issued patents in this field. Mr. Matyas is well known in the field of cryptography and data encryption at IBM. When the '209 patent application was filed, IBM knew that some of Mr. Matyas' activities were material to the patentability of the '209 patent. However, as noted above, only the '534 patent was l isted. IBM failed to cite other material prior art references associated with Mr. Matyas, including, for example, U.S. Patent 4,203,166 ("the '166 patent") in which Mr. Matyas is listed as an inventor. The '166 patent, entitled "Cryptographic File Security for Multiple Domain Networks," filed December 5, 1977, issued May 13, 1980, and assigned to IBM, is material to patentability of the '209 patent, and should have been disclosed by IBM to the PTO.

The '166 patent discloses a file security system for data files created at a first host system in one domain and recovered at a second host system in another domain of a multiple domain network. Specifically, the '166 patent discloses, a first host system that provides a file recovery key for subsequent recovery of a data file at a second host system. The first host system enciphers (modifies) the first host system plaintext to obtain first host system ciphertext as a data file. The file recovery key is used as header information for the data file. When the data file is to be recovered at the second host system, the file recovery key is provided at the second host system and the second host system transforms the file recovery key into a form, which is usable to decipher the data file. The second host system uses the transformed file recovery key to perform a cryptographic operation to obtain the first host system ciphertext in clear form (unmodified) at the second host system. Thus, the '166 patent should have been disclosed to the PTO during prosecution of the '209 patent. IBM withheld this reference with the intention to deceive the PTO.

IBM also failed to cite U.S. Patent 4,238,854 ("the '854 patent") in which Mr. Matyas is again listed as an inventor. The '854 patent, entitled "Cryptographic File Security for Single Domain Networks," filed December 5, 1977, issued December 9, 1980, and assigned to IBM, is material to patentability of the '209 patent, and should have been disclosed by IBM to the PTO. The '854 patent was filed concurrently with the '166 patent described above.

The '854 patent discloses that an operational key enciphered under the file key of the designated storage media, as header information, together with the host data enciphered under the operational key is written on the storage media as an enciphered data file. When the data file is recovered, the host data security device transforms the enciphered operational key header information under control of a host master key into a form which permits the operational key to be used for deciphering the enciphered data file to obtain the file data in clear form. Thus, the '854 patent is material to the patentability to the claims of the '209 patent. Because the '854 patent is material to the patentability of the '209 patent, the '854 patent should have been disclosed to the PTO during prosecution of the '2090 patent. IBM withheld this reference with the intention to deceive the PTO.

Matyas is also one of the authors of an article entitled "Cryptographic Key Authentication in Communication System" published by IBM in March, 1978. The article was published as an IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, March 1978, pages 3990-92. This publication discloses that message communication protection is obtained by enciphering a clear data message X at a host under control of a working key KS to yield a ciphered data message Y. At the receiving terminal, the enciphered data message Y is deciphered under control of the working key KS to yield the clear data message X.

Another article in which Matyas is an author is entitled "Terminal Control of Encipher and Decipher Data Operations" published by IBM in August, 1981. The article was published as an IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, August, 1981, pages 1334-1339. The publication discloses that in communication security applications where data is to be transmitted in a cryptographic session, between a host unit and a remote terminal controller unit, a data encrypting session key (KS) is required to be established in a form suitable for use at each unit. Data may then be enciphered under KS at one unit and transmitted to the other unit where it is deciphered under KS.

Thus, the above publications, published as IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletins, are material to the patentability to [sic] the claims of the '209 patent. Because these publications are material to the patentability of the '209 patent, these articles should have been disclosed to the PTO during prosecution of the '209 patent. IBM withheld these references with the intention to deceive the PTO.

The foregoing actions constitute inequitable conduct and render the claims of the '746, '785, '211 and '209 patents unenforceable. Discover in this proceeding is ongoing, and additional acts of inequitable conduct will be added to this defense at the appropriate time.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
On information and belief, the #746 Patent or one or more of the other patents at issue is, or may be, unenforceable by reason of IBM inequitable conduct, acts or omissions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCO has not infringed, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any valid claim of the #746, #211, #209 and #785 Patents.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCO has not infringed, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any valid claim of the #746, #211, #209 and #785 Patents.

TWENTY FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
On information and belief, IBM failed to mark patent articles covered by the #746, #211, #209 and/or #785 Patents at issue in the counterclaims. Any claim for damages is therefore limited by 35 U.S.C. Section 287.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
On information and belief, IBM failed to mark patent articles covered by the #746, #211, #209 and/or #785 Patents at issue in the counterclaims. Any claim for damages is therefore limited by 35 U.S.C. Section 287.

TWENTY SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
On information and belief, IBM failed to provide SCO with actual notice of IBM's allegations of infringement of the patents at issue, and therefore IBM cannot recover any damages for SCO's actions before the filing of IBM's counterclaims.

TWENTY FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
On information and belief, IBM failed to provide SCO with actual notice of IBM's allegations of infringement of the patents at issue, and therefore IBM cannot recover any damages for SCO's actions before the filing of IBM's counterclaims.

TWENTY THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM has not and cannot plead and meet the requirements for an award of enhanced damages or attorneys' fees.

TWENTY SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM has not and cannot plead and meet the requirements for an award of enhanced damages or attorneys' fees.

TWENTY FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCO has an express or implied license to practice some or all of the claims embodied in the patents at issue.

TWENTY THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCO has an express or implied license to practice some or all of the claims embodied in the patents at issue.

TWENTY FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Upon information and belief, IBM lacks standing to assert that SCO infringed some or all of the patents at issue.

TWENTY FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Upon information and belief, IBM lacks standing to assert that SCO infringed some or all of the patents at issue.

TWENTY FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCO states that IBM's request for treble damages and attorneys fees is barred because SCO acted in good faith, and this is not an exceptional case within the meaning of the Patent Code.

TWENTY SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM has failed to join one or more parties needed for just adjudication of the counterclaims, including but not limited to the Free Software Foundation and contributors to the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels.

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers | 193 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Response to Nr.11 is strange!

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:49 AM EST

Nr.11: they deny everything. So they deny that SCO-defendant acquired UNIX
rights from Tarantella in 2000?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Response to Nr.11 is strange! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:44 AM EST
- Response to Nr.11 is strange! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:43 AM EST
- Response to Nr.11 is strange! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:06 AM EST
Response to Nr.11 is strange! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 01:00 PM EST

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: RE on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:52 AM EST

Isn't it better, for readability and to see what the differences are to leave
the column "SCO's Amended Answer" empty of with the text "Same as
previous answer".

In that way you can see quikly what the answers are and what the differences
are.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Hygrocybe on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:27 AM EST
- Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: ram on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:27 AM EST
  - Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:46 PM EST

Confusing format...

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:54 AM EST

When the amended answer is unchanged, it would be better to
note "unchanged", when the amended response drops an answer
completely, mark it as "removed". Only otherwise, give the full text
of the revised version.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Confusing format... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:00 AM EST

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: Anonymous Coward on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:56 AM EST

Lets see, this is what I've seen in changes.
They moved the 15th afirmative defense to 18th, and expanded it drastically with
an explanation why.
They dropped the original 19th afirmative defense, most likely due to it being
superseded by the new 18th afirmative.
Adding in of a new 25th afirmative saying that IBM has no right to the usual
damages awarded (triple costs) since SCO has handled in good faith and this is a
normal patent case

For the rest it seems to be identical but the only comparator I've run is Eyball
Mk. 1.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Anonymous Coward on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:50 AM EST
Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:09 AM EST
Dropped old 15th and expanded old 19th - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 02:24 PM EST

Reminds me of a stubborn child

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:02 AM EST

IBM: "You went with the Open Source model for quite some time"
SCO: "No we didn't"
IBM: "You even participated in Open Source Initiatives as a key
player"
SCO (stomps it's foot on the ground): "No - we - didn't!"
IBM: "When you recognised that there's some money to make, you
finally chose to milk it off in court"
SCO (lays on the ground squealing with anger): "No we didn't, and - there's
- no - scheme!!!"
(may go on until child is sent to it's room with a detention of not watching TV
for some days)

Well, sometimes my children have the same attitude towards reality, but at least
they haven't sued me (yet)...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reminds me of a stubborn child - Authored by: AdultSupervision on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:11 AM EST
- Reminds me of a stubborn child - Authored by: LegalEaglet on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:58 AM EST
  - GPL arguments - Authored by: maroberts on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 02:30 PM EST

Re: Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers *readability*

Authored by: martimus on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:09 AM EST

I really like these tabular formations. It makes the comparison process much
easier and more comprehensible. Thanks for the effort.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I second that - Authored by: jgb on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:12 AM EST

LZ78 compression

Authored by: StringCheesian on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:26 AM EST

They're claiming LZ77, RLE, and huffman as prior art against LZ78?

LZ78 is based on LZ77, and to a lesser extent huffman. And RLE is a totally
different, and much simpler, approach to data compression.

It's like saying the Wright brother's plane is prior art that invalidates any
patents on the Boeing 747.

[ Reply to This | # ]

LZ78 compression - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:42 AM EST
LZ78 compression - Authored by: AJWM on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:46 AM EST
Software patents are bad - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:37 PM EST
- Software patents are bad - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 08:40 AM EST
Links - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:59 PM EST
- Links - Authored by: jdg on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:29 PM EST

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: belzecue on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:29 AM EST

Can we colour code the cells to flag changes? Yellow background for an answer
that has changed from previous? This would vastly speed up parsing the doc to
see what they altered (that's what we want to know).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Anonymous Coward on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:39 AM EST
- Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Anonymous Coward on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:48 AM EST

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:53 AM EST

How about color-coding them? Use e.g. red text where there are differences?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: DBLR on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:56 PM EST
- Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:22 PM EST

Paragraph 16 should sum up the whole SCO Viewpoint:

Authored by: SirFozzie on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:01 AM EST

" (SCO) Denies the allegations of Paragraph 16 and alleges that Linux is, in actuality, an unauthorized version of UNIX that is structured, assembled and designed to be technologically indistinguishable from UNIX, and practically is distinguishable only in that Linux is a 'free' version of UNIX designed to destroy proprietary operating system software." Translated to: "Help! They're doing what we're doing.... only they're doing it cheaper and better! We have a right to gouge the consumer as we see fit, and these hippy commies (who believes in sharing FOR FREE when you can sell them the equivalent of bottled water) are infringing on our God-Given right to profit. MAKE EM STOP, JUDGE.. MAKE EM STOP!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Paragraph 16 should sum up the whole SCO Viewpoint: - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:15 AM EST
- Paragraph 16 should sum up the whole SCO Viewpoint: - Authored by: Yobgod on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 02:27 PM EST
  - Paragraph 16 should sum up the whole SCO Viewpoint: - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:24 PM EST

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:12 AM EST

Yaal are awesome! I loved reading this, but I am a geek so that is to be
expected.

a couple things

93 what is MX?

155 what is justiciable?

TNX

Zeke

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: PJ on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:49 AM EST
Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: PJ on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:53 AM EST
- Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Electric Dragon on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:40 AM EST
  - Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Electric Dragon on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:42 AM EST

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: Mark_Edwards on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:20 AM EST

Did SCO lie on number 40???

IBM Said : "40. In addition, SCO fostered, and regularly contributed to,
multiple open-source development projects in order to enhance the capability of
SCO's products and services. In fact, SCO's business model depended upon
incorporating contributions from the open-source community into products that it
open sourced."

SCO's Reply : "40. Admits that it has contributed to certain open-source
development projects, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 40 not
specifically admitted herein."

but in their 10Q filed on the 6th March 2002 they had this paragraph....

"WE RELY ON INDEPENDENT DEVELOPERS IN THE OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY, SUCH AS
LINUS TORVALDS, IN ORDER TO RELEASE UPGRADES OF OUR LINUX-BASED PRODUCTS.

Many of the components of our software products, including the Linux
kernel, the core of the Linux operating system, are developed by independent
developers in the open source community and are available for inclusion in our
products without cost. Linus Torvalds, the original developer of the Linux
kernel, and a small group of independent engineers have in the past developed
and upgraded the Linux kernel. Neither Mr. Torvalds nor any significant
contributor to the Linux kernel is an employee of ours, and none of these
individuals are required to further update the Linux kernel. If these
independent developers and others in the open source community do not further
develop the Linux kernel and other open source software included in our products
on a timely basis, or at all, our ability to enhance our product offerings will
suffer. As a consequence, we will be forced to rely to a greater extent on our
own development efforts or license commercial software products as replacements,
which would increase our expenses and delay enhancements to our products. For
example, in the past we have sometimes been unable to upgrade all open source
components of a product in connection with a proposed release because these
independent developers had not yet made enhancements. Any failure on the part of
the kernel developers to further develop and enhance the kernel could also
stifle the development of additional Linux applications."

---------------------------------

mark.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Same for number 33 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:42 AM EST
Who is SCO lying to here? (The court or the SEC?) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:40 AM EST
Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: rgmoore on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 02:19 PM EST

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: Mark Levitt on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:22 AM EST

"8. Unix is a name used to characterize a family of operating systems that
share common characteristics and meet certain well-publicized "UNIX"
standards. The earliest Unix operating system was built by software engineers at
Bell Laboratories, the research division of AT&T. "

SCO's response to this claim from IBM seems to be the root of their deluded
world view.

They say:
"8. Admits that the earliest UNIX operating system was built by software
engineers at Bell Laboratories, the research division of AT&T, but denies
the remaining allegations of Paragraph 8 not specifically admitted
herein."

So, they deny the definition that The Open Group (who own the name UNIX) use.
They deny that UNIX is a published standard.

It seems to me they want to re-write history to make UNIX a single operating
system, written entirely by one company, and then licensed to others.

I.e., they want UNIX to have the same history as Windows or Netware.

You'd think they'd realize that its hard to rewrite history when the people who
lived are still around.

[ Reply to This | # ]

8 & 25 - Authored by: the_flatlander on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:16 AM EST
- 8 & 25 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:20 AM EST
Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: jdg on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:55 AM EST
- Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:21 PM EST

I propose another column

Authored by: maroberts on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:37 AM EST

Refutation of SCOs amended answers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scratch that - Authored by: maroberts on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:43 AM EST
I propose another column - Authored by: PJ on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:45 AM EST
- I propose another column of links to wiki pages - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:32 AM EST
- Information in response to SCO's points - Authored by: Khelmar on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 01:13 PM EST

A slight correction suggestion

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:56 AM EST

Thank you for the colour. It helps enormously.

To me, it looks like the old Nineteenth Affirmative Defense and the new
Eighteenth are the same, just the new has details while the old one is a general
vague allegation.

On this point, it's hard to know which side to cheer for. On the one hand, my
enmity is directed toward The Great Satan^W^WSCO Group; on the other, it's hard
to complain about someone actually pointing out to a judge that the patent
office has been rubber-stamping questionable software patents by the truckload.

Oh, well, it's a very minor sideshow that probably won't even get to trial, so
it's not worth worrying about overmuch.

They also dropped the Fifteenth Affirmative Defense (impeaching IBM's copyright
registration), and added the new Twenty Fifth (treble damages for patent
infringement are not justified).

[ Reply to This | # ]

A slight correction suggestion - Authored by: Tyro on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:13 PM EST

LZ78 compression

Authored by: StringCheesian on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:58 AM EST

[ Reply to This | # ]

Para 81

Authored by: jmc on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:59 AM EST

If SCO are denying that they terminated IBM's AIX licence in paragraph 81,
doesn't that mean the end of their new claims too?

Also in paragraph 53 they say that IBM has misappropriated trade secrets - I
thought they'd just dropped that idea?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Para 81 - Authored by: Anonymous Coward on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:12 AM EST
- Para 53 and 81 - Authored by: jmc on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:28 AM EST
  - Para 53 and 81 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:34 AM EST
    - To the Death... - Authored by: the_flatlander on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:48 AM EST
  - Para 53 and 81 - Authored by: Anonymous Coward on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:50 AM EST
Para 81 - Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:38 AM EST
- Para 81 - Authored by: jdg on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:30 AM EST
  - Para 81 - Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 02:45 PM EST
Para 81 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:00 AM EST

Fifth Affirmative Defense

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:09 AM EST

Fifth Affirmative defense - they drop "fraud" from the list. (Unless
that's just a typo in the transcriptions?)
But wasn't the fraud allegation used as part of the arguments to compell SCO to
disclose with specificity? So maybe the drop has some significance (at least in
SCO's mind)?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fifth Affirmative Defense -dropping "fraud" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:48 PM EST
- IBM's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 02:57 PM EST
Fifth Affirmative Defense - Authored by: jdg on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:13 PM EST

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: carey_pridgeon on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:19 AM EST

Perhaps before anyone colour codes the chart, we should ask SCO if they'd grep
it for differences. Although they'll probably then claim they wrote half of it,
and re-submit it in Sanskrit to 'obscure their copyrighted content', so perhaps
not :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Stinger on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:51 AM EST

Missing from counter claim arguments

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:43 AM EST

from http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2002/02/28/caldera.html

"In January (2002), Caldera, the latest owners of the "official"
Unix source code, decided to release some of the older versions (up to
"V7" and "32V") under an open source license."

"It was Caldera that, on January 23 of this year, disencumbered the entire
source code of Unix, up to and including the Seventh Edition (1979) and its VAX
port "32V" from which BSD had started the development that led to
4.0BSD. (32V is basically V7, minus some bits that were written in the PDP-11
assembly language, and the remainder was adapted to work on the VAX.) This seems
to mean that BSD Unix is, at last, fully disencumbered, even the few parts that
couldn't be used in the various BSD systems over the years due to residual
AT&T copyrights.

Interestingly, Caldera released it under the original BSD copyright."

Is this article factually incorrect, is it an accidental omission or has it no
bearing on the case?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Missing from counter claim arguments - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 01:28 PM EST

From the Eighteenth Affirmative Defense

Authored by: Kevin on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:44 AM EST

IBM's decision not to list Messrs. Kish, Mukherjee, Tewari, and Vin as inventors of the '785 patent was with the intent to deceive the PTO.

This statement shows abysmal ignorance of patent and publication practice.

It is conventional on a journal article or conference proceeding to list as co-authors anyone who participated in the work, in whatever role. For instance, the supervisor of a research group is normally included, and a graduate student's thesis advisor is always listed. In the software field, the paper may list also individuals such as testers, technical writers, support staff who did not directly invent the material at issue.

For a patent application, however, individuals who are not the inventors cannot legally be included. To include them can invalidate the application.

SCO's claim that authors of publications were omitted with intent to defraud is at best implausible. 'Ridiculous' would be more accurate.

---
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My surname is not McBride!)

[ Reply to This | # ]

From the Eighteenth Affirmative Defense - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:45 AM EST
- From the Eighteenth Affirmative Defense - Authored by: Tyro on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:25 PM EST
From the Eighteenth Affirmative Defense - Authored by: jdg on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:01 AM EST

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: technomom on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:42 AM EST

44. (IBM) Like thousands of other developers, IBM has properly contributed source code to Linux under the GPL. In fact, SCO has included IBM contributions to Linux in Linux products that SCO has distributed under the GPL. Like all recipients of SCO's Linux distributions, IBM is entitled to the protections of the GPL with respect to the IBM contributions, as well as any other contributions, included in SCO's Linux distributions, of which IBM is a recipient.

44. (SCO) Admits that IBM has contributed source code to Linux projects under the GPL, but denies that such contributions were proper or legal, and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 44 not specifically admitted herein.

SCO's response begs the question:

So were SCO's contributions of IBM code to Linux projects under the GPL proper and legal?

JoAnn

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Baldy on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:18 PM EST
Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:34 PM EST

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: JeR on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:45 AM EST

I looked through the entire document for changes, but what I found was in fact something that should by now have changed but isn't.

I see SCO still alleges it is "without information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph[s]" 128, 134, 140 and 146, which are all about the factual statements about the Patent Infringement Counterclaims. Is SCO still seeking a patent lawyer to help them with that part of the case? Apparently not. The EIGHTEENTH and NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE suddenly have all the information, so the original statements in 128, 134, 140 and 146 are all false or SCO is simply contradicting itself, again! (Speaking of which: does SCO actually contradict itself about the GPL within the filed documents, or only so in its actions and public statements?)
There seems to be an error in this 18th defense: "Because
the '080 patent is material to patentability of the '785 patent application,
the '080 patent is material to patentability of the '785 patent application,
the '080 patent should have been disclosed to the PTO during prosecution of the '785 patent application." Where does this error originate?
Another problem, where is the proof (i.e. where are the necessary exhibits) that shows the invalidity of patent '211? Isn't "On information and belief" a rather empty phrase in this context?
Another error: "Another article in[sic?!] which Matyas is [cited as?] an author is entitled "Terminal Control of Encipher and Decipher Data Operations" published by IBM in August, 1981."
I found this one quite funny: "THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
SCO has acted legally and properly at all relevant times and IBM is therefore barred from any relief whatsoever." What illegal acts did SCO perform at the irrelevant times?
And another thing: "FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
IBM is not, or may not be, the owner of the #746, #211, #209 or #785 Patents at issue." What is this all about? IBM is the owner of those patents. I gathered that the validity of those patents was SCO's patent lawyer's problem, not their accredition to IBM's inventors?!

(By the way, I think people should stop adding "IANAL" and similar comments to their posts. There are jyust too many people here that aren't lawyers. Or should I be inclined to believe that anyone who doesn't add "IANAL" or similar to his contribution is in fact a lawyer? Let the real lawyers please stand up and add "IAAL" or similar to their messages, and let the rest of us simply write what we want. It saves at least five characters in all of those messages from non-lawyers!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:50 AM EST
- Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: fb on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:18 AM EST
  - Speaking of civilized languages... - Authored by: OK on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:30 PM EST
  - civilized? - Authored by: xtifr on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:40 PM EST
  - OT: An uncivilized language - Authored by: red floyd on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:50 PM EST
  - OT: Perl - Authored by: darthaggie on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:38 PM EST
attacking patents is bad strategy - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:43 AM EST
- attacking patents is bad strategy - Authored by: JeR on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:13 AM EST
- attacking patents is done all the time - Authored by: mitphd on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:39 PM EST
- Nope: A patent is not valid unless it stands in court - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:26 PM EST

A tiny suggestion

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:47 AM EST

This table could be made much clearer with a tiny change: make the widths of
the last two columns the same (say, using width=30%). This should cause
identical text blocks to be formatted the same way, making the similarity
apparent.

Thank you for the good work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A tiny suggestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:00 AM EST
A tiny suggestion - Authored by: PJ on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:25 AM EST
- A tiny suggestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:56 AM EST
  - A tiny suggestion - Authored by: PJ on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:43 PM EST
- Here ya go PJ - Authored by: converted on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:44 PM EST
- How bout this one.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 12:26 AM EST
A tiny suggestion - Authored by: Tyro on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:31 PM EST

18th Affirmative Defence - Typo and Comment

Authored by: ChrisP on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:08 AM EST

First the typo. In the second paragraph discussing the 211 patent, starting
"More specifically, U.S. Patent 4,688,181 to Cottrell", the sentence
"These additional prior art references were not themselves material to
patentability of the ''211 patent." should be deleted as it is not in the
PDF. Looks like an accidental concatenation of the preceding and following
sentences, and doesn't make sense in context.

It's interesting that SCOG have done their best to reference prior art from IBM
as being the prime reason for rejecting the patents. I guess the idea is that
IBM cannot claim ignorance of its own IP.

---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W dammit, no-one paid me to say this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Building - Authored by: maroberts on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:06 PM EST

Why no mention of unix-systems standards...

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:45 AM EST

I would have expected that IBM would have mentioned the organization that
received the Unix trademark (an "open" standards organization), and
the fact that Linux strives to develop towards those standards does not make
Linux a derivative of SCO Unix, but a seperate product developed in conjuncion
with open published standards.

www.unix-systems.org

"In 1994 Novell (who had acquired the UNIX systems business of
AT&T/USL) decided to get out of that business. Rather than sell the business
as a single entity, Novell transferred the rights to the UNIX trademark and the
specification (that subsequently became the Single UNIX Specification) to The
Open Group (at the time X/Open Company). Subsequently, it sold the source code
and the product implementation (UNIXWARE) to SCO. The Open Group also owns the
trademark UNIXWARE, transferred to them from SCO more recently."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Noticed one IBM mistake about Linux

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:48 AM EST

My memory was that redhat wasn't the first Linux distribution. SLS was the
oldest one that I could remember, found a web site where someone re-posted an
old copy of SLS linux 1.03

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/historic-linux/distributions/sls/1.03/

From the changelog included the original release was:

# Peter
# pmacdona@sanjuan.uvic.ca

920901: Initial release (.96p4). Didn't use jump tables though.

921007: Release .98p0. Jump tables used.

I remember downloading it for free but I believe it was also sold. The
slackware version was originally based on SLS which was basicly discontinued.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Noticed one IBM mistake about Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:20 AM EST
Noticed one IBM mistake about Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:34 AM EST
- Noticed one IBM mistake about Linux - Authored by: alisonken1 on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:33 PM EST
  - Downloadable does not equate non-commercial - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:47 PM EST
Remembering old distros... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:40 AM EST
- Remembering old distros... - Authored by: scooterJRT on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:15 PM EST
  - Remembering old distros... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 02:24 PM EST
  - CDs? Luxury! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:31 PM EST
- Remembering old distros... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 01:57 PM EST
- Remembering old distros... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:40 PM EST

Another Good Summary

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:10 AM EST

Another good summary from hitandrunid2003 on the SCOX board from yahoo.

http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&a
mp;tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=91765

SCO's message control is amazing.

So much legal pressure on SCO (see my previous post #91759) - NINE legal fronts
with 3 different companies (and corporate budgets).

So much potential legal muscle arrayed against them untapped with the Redhat
legal fund (http://lwn.net/Articles/42374/) of $10mil?, the ODSL legal fund
(http://www.osdl.org/newsroom/press_releases/2004/2004_01_12_beaverton.html) of
potentially $50mil.

So many LOST legal battles: the German court prohibiting further Linux claims in
the absence of evidence and fining them $10k
(http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/02/HNscofined_1.html). (And them
subsequently shutting up permanently over there.) The motion to compell:
paraphrasing the judge -'when IBM is satisfied that you have complied with
discovery then we'll consider your motions'
(http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2003121122033016). The settlement on
the lawsuit against them from stock manipulation in their IPO
(http://bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/030918.mbx search for SCO Group).

The dubious SEC filings (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/sec?s=SCOX) where they fail
(until the most recent one) to list Novell's disputation of SCO's claims of
"ownership" of the codebase. All the while assuring the public with
statements that the issue with Novell was over, and the whole time Novell is
sending them letter after letter
(http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/legal.html) saying "au
contrair". Then Novell ratchets up the pressure to the point of invoking a
contractually permitted audit!

And while we are talking about Novell, let us not forget their and HP's legal
indemnifications (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1434896,00.asp and
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=22381).

And all the legal stumbles (go to www.groklaw.net, I can't link to all of them)-
claiming as infringing code that they themselves contributed to Linux (before
changing their name from Caldera), distributing Linux under the GPL while
simultaneously claiming that the GPL is unconstitutional, Kevin McBride (YES!
DARL's BROTHER!) admitting in court that they have no evidence (we need IBM to
provide it, you see!!!), Novell waiving their legal claim, per their contractual
rights, the licensing contract terms changing with a change of company
ownership, as happened when Caldera bought the Santa Cruz Organization (who
owned the contract) before changing their name to SCO Group, etc, etc.

That's all I've got, I'm spent. Thank you and goodnight!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another Good Summary - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:09 PM EST

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers (No. 67)

Authored by: Dave23 on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 10:57 AM EST

First: I have really enjoyed the immaculate dissection of the SCO/IBM suit here on Groklaw. Thankyou PJ for all your work.

Second: I'll add my two cents worth. My eyebrows raised when I saw SCO's answer to IBM's counterclaim paragraph 67. IBM is complaining about SCO principals' statements, and SCO essentially answers with a statement. (Emphasis mine in the quote below.)

A lovely bit of sophistry. (Essentially they are answering an irrelevant proposition in the first part of their answer by confusing a statement with the contested fact.) Another way of putting it is:

"(You say what we said is false, and) we agree with you that what we said is true."

My oh my. I presume that eventually SCO eventually will be compelled to cut out the that part of the response?

IANAL so I'd be curious as to how an advocate would handle this bit of White Knight's flimflam.

---
Gawker

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers (No. 57) - Authored by: Dave23 on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 01:12 PM EST
Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers (No. 67) - Authored by: Phong on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:51 PM EST

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 11:09 AM EST

8. Unix is a name used to characterize a family of operating systems that share common characteristics and meet certain well-publicized "UNIX" standards.

The nice thing about the SCO case is that they keep denying this important bit. Their case against IBM and their defense to the copyright infringement counterclaim fall apart when this assertion is proven. Splitting the UNIX trademark from the UnixWare source code was the best thing that Novell ever did.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:04 PM EST

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: DMF on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:02 PM EST

I can't imagine that SCOG is mad (or rich) enough to take on IBM head-up in the
patent arena, as indicated by their (new) AD 18.

Is it possible that this is a tactical move, intended to convince someone (like
the judge) that there is a possibility that they could prevail, maybe derailing
potential orders or summary judgement?

[ Reply to This | # ]

some of the patent arguments on target

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:11 PM EST

former patent examiner here.

Documents published by the inventor in excess of one year
prior to the filing date may be used against the
applicant; a classic example used in training is
3M declining to patent the post it note, because it was
productized several years after the inventor made the idea
semi-public.

If there were undisclosed publications relevant to
the examination, then this may bring into question the
validity of the application's prosecution w.r.t 35 USC 102(b) and 35 USC 102(e).

[ Reply to This | # ]

some of the patent arguments on target - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 01:27 PM EST
- some of the patent arguments on target - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 01:45 PM EST
some of the patent arguments on target - Authored by: jdg on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 02:58 PM EST
some of the patent arguments on target - Authored by: John on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 09:06 PM EST

(14) IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 12:22 PM EST

In 14th:

[Dynix] <- Sequent <- Unix (accepted by SCO)
IBM <- Sequent[Dynix] (accepted by SCO)

SCO: "and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 14 not specifically
admitted herein."

err.. there is nothing else to deny in there..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: grouch on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 01:00 PM EST

Are my eyes playing tricks on me, or are there no changes in SCO's answers, 1. -
156.? If those are unchanged, then the triple-column format just scrunches
things up. Two tables of two columns each, one showing the counterclaims -
answers, and one showing the highlighted changes in the affirmative defenses,
would be clearer, imo.

Fine and useful work, Ken Herron, in spite of the above nit-pick!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Scriptwriter on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:06 PM EST
- Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Scriptwriter on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:07 PM EST

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 01:08 PM EST

The first commercial distro was yaggsdril(sp).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 02:12 PM EST
- www.yggdrasil.com actually ;-) - Authored by: cybervegan on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:59 PM EST
- Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Harry Clayton on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:12 PM EST
  - Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Harry Clayton on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:16 PM EST

Analysis of 18th defense needed

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 01:29 PM EST

For someone more technically inclined than I, can someone look more closely at
SCO's 18th Affirmative Defense arguments? They may or may not have some valid
arguments here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

another possible typo?

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 01:32 PM EST

[ Reply to This | # ]

another possible typo? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 01:54 PM EST
- another possible typo? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 02:41 PM EST
another possible typo? - Authored by: Odin's Raven on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:17 PM EST

Item 122 ?

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 01:35 PM EST

122. IBM has placed or caused to be placed a copyright notice on these
contributions of source code to Linux under the GPL and has otherwise complied
with the copyright laws of the United States in this respect. IBM does not
permit the unauthorized copying of its Linux contributions.
122. Admits that IBM has placed copyright notices on certain of its AIX and
Dynix contributions to UNIX, but denies it has the legal authority to do so,
denies the applicability or enforceability of the GPL, and denies the remaining
allegations of Paragraph 122 not specifically admitted herein.
122. Admits that IBM has placed copyright notices on certain of its AIX and
Dynix contributions to UNIX, but denies it has the legal authority to do so,
denies the applicability or enforceability of the GPL, and denies the remaining
allegations of Paragraph 122 not specifically admitted herein.

IBM talks about: these contributions of source code to Linux under the GPL
SCO replies with: certain of its AIX and Dynix contributions to UNIX ( !?!? )

Why ?
What is the message here ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Item 122 ? - Authored by: phrostie on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:28 PM EST

Two suggested changes

Authored by: mdchaney on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 01:36 PM EST

Great job! Here are the two suggestions that I have for making it a bit more
readable:

1. Make the columns the same size:
<td style="width:33%;">
IBM
Counterclaims
</td>
<td style="width:33%;">
SCO's Answer
</td>

<td style="width:33%;">
SCO's Amended
Answer
</td>

2. If there's no change from "Answer" to "Amended Answer",
it would be far easier to have "same", "no change", or
something else simplistic in the "Amended Answer" column. Not to poop
on Mr. Herron's incredible work here, but the point is that we're interested in
the changes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

17 Linux development

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 01:43 PM EST

17. Admits that Linus Torvalds assembled the original Linux kernel but is without information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 17 not specifically admitted herein, and therefore denies the same.

So SCO cant even do a simple bit of searching on the Internet to track the development of Linux.

Sounds like most of their denials are either because they do not have any clues, or are to lazy to check.
[ Reply to This | # ]

17 Linux development - Authored by: Tyro on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:47 PM EST
- 17 Linux development - Authored by: PM on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:09 PM EST

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 02:12 PM EST

Hey, how did the author make this table?! I tried for 2 days
to get Open Office Writer to create a multipage table, only
to find out in the end that it's impossible! OOWriter is
limited to one page tables! Did the author use another
program, perhaps the dreaded M$ Word? Or is there some OOS
alternative that will create multipage tables? (be nice if it
could handle ttf's as well). A bit off topic, but still
relevant, I think.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 02:16 PM EST
Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:08 PM EST
- Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:19 PM EST
  - Works for me - Authored by: cybervegan on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:55 PM EST
    - Works for me - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 11:09 AM EST
Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: grouch on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:32 PM EST
Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: JanC on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:29 PM EST
Learn HTML - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:32 PM EST
Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:25 PM EST
Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:36 PM EST

New defense number 25:

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 02:40 PM EST

"SCO states that IBM's request for treble damages and attorneys fees is
barred because SCO acted in good faith"

HardyHardyHardyHardyHarHarHarBlahch!!!!!!

ROFLMAO....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table and cell size: readability

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 02:49 PM EST

make at least the second and third cells the same size, comparing by reading
over it gets so much easier then.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Outstanding work !

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:17 PM EST

I think the above summary table is outstanding ! Kudos to
those who have compiled it.

I love some of IBMs claims, specifically those concerning the
GPL and the "scheme" SCO is undertaking. I think IBM did a
great job on their work to prepare this. I'm a bit worried about
IBM's position on a few of those patents, but I don't think the
weakness in their patent case will give SCO any sort of
foothold with their case.

I don't see how SCO has any legal leg to stand on. The first
part of this case *has to be* them showing evidence of IP
contamination in Linux source. I love the fact that the judge
figured this out and is holding them to the fire on it.

It must be quite a job for a judge to understand all this stuff.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Outstanding work ! - Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:33 PM EST

One more thing... more claims ?

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:26 PM EST

I wish that IBM would have put in claims to the effect of :

- all the Linux source code since the beginning of time is
available at various websites for free downloading.

- Linux is developed using an open, publicly available check
in system. Who checks in what is always available for public
scrutiny.

- *IF* SCO technology has truly made its way into that source,
there should be bits and pieces of SCO IP in the Linux source
code.

- *IF* SCO techology has made its way into Linux source
code via IBM, there should be a traceable path from the IBM
developer to the source code via his/her file check ins.

- *IF* SCO technology has made its way into Linux source,
SCO should be able to easily identify it and share it with the
open source community.

- *IF* SCO is unable to find bits of SCO IP in Linux and if
SCO is unable to find IBM contributors, then there is no SCO
IP in Linux.

This is the crux of the case. If SCO IP is truly in Linux, then
SCO should be able to a) find it and b) communicate who,
what, where and when to the open source community. I'm
hoping that a judge recognizes this fact and holds SCO to
SHOWING US THE CODE.

[ Reply to This | # ]

One more thing... more claims ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:54 PM EST

Do judges visit websites ?

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:32 PM EST

I wonder if the judges associated with the SCO case ever visit
Groklaw ? I wonder if they know it exists ?

Some of the technology and background and terminology
associated with the SCO case must be quite intimidating to
someone who doesn't know anything about operating systems,
coding, source, etc. I wonder if they do background
research on the internet ? Where else would one look for a
detailed (not very concise) history of Unix, unix and Linux ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I suspect not. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:26 PM EST
- And IBM does. - Authored by: Boundless on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:08 PM EST
Do judges visit websites ? - Authored by: maroberts on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:27 PM EST

SCO doing homework?

Authored by: blang on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 03:34 PM EST

Someone at SCO is doing thir homework.
The affirmative defense of the patent claims was pretty long-winded, and they
even bothered looking for similar patents.

I don't know if that defense is BS or not, but it is unusual to see SCO doing
some real research and homework, and not just sputing drivel. Maybe the big
difference is that in patent claims lawyers and paralegals do the footwork,
while in the 'code comparison' part of SCO's case, they depend heavily on
charlatans like McBride, Stowell, etc. to provide Unix expertise. At least that
would explain the mindboggling incompetence SCO has shown so far.

Looks to me that the contersuit is handled by a completely different set of
lawyers, or Darl and his stock junkies have minimal involvement.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I like this one: SCO denies its own case?

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:14 PM EST

IBM 69. SCO has misrepresented that IBM has infringed SCO's copyrights, and has threatened to sue IBM for copyright infringement, with respect to Linux. For example, at its 2003 SCO Forum, SCO represented that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of Unix, that IBM has infringed its rights in Linux and that SCO is entitled to damages and injunctive relief against IBM.

SCO 69. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 69.

Emphasis added by me. Applying SCO's own lingua-twisting logic, does this mean that SCO denies that they have a case? :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

I like this one: SCO denies its own case? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 01:26 AM EST

SCO denies reality

Authored by: mobrien_12 on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 04:42 PM EST

8. Unix is a name used to characterize a family of operating systems that share common characteristics and meet certain well-publicized "UNIX" standards. The earliest Unix operating system was built by software engineers at Bell Laboratories, the research division of AT&T.

8. Admits that the earliest UNIX operating system was built by software engineers at Bell Laboratories, the research division of AT&T, but denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 8 not specifically admitted herein.

10. In 1993, AT&T sold its Unix assets -- then held by its subsidiary, Unix System Laboratories, Inc. ("USL") -- to Novell, Inc. ("Novell"). In 1995, Novell sold some, not all, of its Unix assets to The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., now known as Tarantella, Inc. ("Original SCO"), which is not affiliated with counterclaim-defendant SCO.

10. Admits that AT&T sold UNIX assets, through its subsidiary USL, to Novell in 1993, admits that Novell sold UNIX assets to The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., now known as Tarantella, Inc. ('Tarantella') in 1995, admits that Tarantella is not affiliated with SCO, but denies that Novell sold only part of its UNIX assets and further denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 10 not specifically admitted herein.

I can't believe SCO is being so stubborn... many of their denials are so trivial to disprove that it damages their credibility. For example

8. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark. The Open Group says what is Unix and what is not. NOT SCO.

10. Novell clearly sold only part of its UNIX assets. The Open Group holds a large chunk of it. Novell still holds all the patents. Even if you ignore the contractual rights Novell witheld in the sale, you can't ignore these other two points.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO denies reality - Authored by: phrostie on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:00 PM EST
- SCO denies reality - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:24 PM EST

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:24 PM EST

Re 33. The viability of SCO's product offerings has depended in large measure
upon the efforts of the open-source community in enhancing products and making
them compatible for use across multiple software and hardware platforms. Indeed,
SCO incorporated certain code licensed pursuant to the GPL into its proprietary
Unix products. SCO has also relied on independent developers in the open-source
community, such as Linus Torvalds, in order to release upgrades of SCO's
Linux-based products.

What about SAMBA that they now ship.

SCO 33. Denies the allegations of Paragraph 33.

Must be a lie. Judge please read.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: George_Wa_State on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:26 PM EST

Leave the table just the way it is.
It is fine, without any OTHER colors
and crap to junk it up.

It is easy to read. And the red and the blue
make it easy to find the differances. PERIOD!

All you have to do is scroll down untill you
see the red/blue and there you are. Simply stop
and see what the differances are.

And you do this over and over untill you reach
the end. You couldn't get much simpler and
elogant (sp).

The 33% on the table would make it LOOK better.
But it is not about looks. It is about content.

George
" No! I wont get down off of my soap box!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Except for those with color blindness - Authored by: jesse on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 05:40 PM EST
- Except for those with color blindness - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:03 PM EST
  - Except for those with color blindness - Authored by: Kevin on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 07:42 PM EST

Repeating and realleging?

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:18 PM EST

Just curious: What are the purpose of paragraphs 78, 84, 90, etc?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Repeating and realleging? - Authored by: Anonymous Coward on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 03:33 AM EST

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: roman_mir on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:27 PM EST

PJ - great job! Isn't it nice to see IBM mention GPL so many times? Especially paragraphs like the paragraph 74

SCO denies the following:

SCO has infringed and is infringing IBM's copyrights by copying, modifying, sublicensing and/or distributing Linux products after its rights under the GPL terminated. SCO has taken copyrighted source code made available by IBM under the GPL, included that code in SCO's Linux products, and copied, modified, sublicensed and/or distributed those products other than as permitted under the GPL. - this is just beautiful, IBM is using GPL to fight this battle, it could mean the first test of the GNU Public Licence in an actual court situation (prior to this all GPL related violations were settled outside of the courtroom.)

Many paragraphs after this one are also talking about GPL and its violations by SCO.

It is very good to see IBM specifically to be on the side of the Free Software in a court case.

However I am somewhat surprised not to see any mentioning of the GPL creator - RMS. IBM states that Linus created Linux in the nineteens but they skip an important step - creation of GPL itself and of the GCC compiler as well as other tools that made it possible to even have Linux on the first place. These tools were made FREE long before Linux and they were made for UNIX, which is interesting in itself. They were adhering to the UNIX open standards, which is also missing in the allegations as far as I can see.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: roman_mir on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 06:42 PM EST

Also it is nice to see IBM kick SCO in the nuts and tell them what they really are - not a company with a product but a bunch of cheats and thieves.

49. Like SCO's original Linux business, however, this enterprise failed. SCO has not been able to operate a successful, legitimate business concerning Linux and/or Unix. With apparently no other prospects, SCO shifted its business model yet again -- this time to litigation and threats of litigation, as is described below.

Even though they do not have to, IBM makes it clear to the judge that the Linux kernel developers were and are ready to mitigate any damages (non-existant damages they are) by removing the infringing code from the kernel source, but SCO did not allow that to happen. This is good - show to the judge that SCO is not willing to negotiate and work things out, they rather waste court's time and use these tactics to inflate their market value (in order to dump stock):

65. 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 influence leaders in the open-source community, including leaders of Linux kernel development, 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.

[ Reply to This | # ]

LINUX Recursive Acronym the best defence of all

Authored by: trekkypj on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:48 PM EST

Linux = Linux Is Not UniX

There. Now SCO can't claim that Linux is unix, because the very name of the OS
points out that tit is not UNIX.

Well it's a better argument then most of SCO's ones! ; )

....I know, I know.... not funny at all

It's 1:42 GMT and I'm hung over.......

---
"I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equally."
WC Fields.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So how many Unixes are there?

Authored by: ChrisP on Monday, February 09 2004 @ 08:58 PM EST

With all this fuss about what is or is not Unix, I went to The Open Group web
site http://www.opengroup.org/ and had a look.

Igorning versions I see:

Caldera - OpenServer
Caldera - Unixware
Cemprus - FTX
Compaq - True64
Fujitsu - Reliant UNIX
Fujitsu - Solaris
HP - HP/UX
IBM - AIX
IBM - OS/390
NCR - NCR Unix
NEC - FT-UX/V(EX)
NEC - UX/4800
SGI - IRIX
Sun - Solaris

That's 13 operating systems from 10 companies making 14 in all. No doubt there
were other Unix standard systems in the past, and some of the above seem to be
on the way out.

What does it all mean?

HP, Sun and IBM have about 90% of the declining Unix market between them. The
rest (general purpose OSs) will either die (True64, Unixware etc.) or find a
niche (IRIX/graphics, OpenServer/Point of Sale). The big 3 (and SGI :) are all
making a big move to Linux at the low end to maintain hardware sales. Linux
lowers customers' OS cost whilst maintaining OS quality, and this is more
important on low end hardware. High-end hardware is seriously expensive, and the
OS development costs can in part be subsumed into the high-end service contracts
you need to run an 16 or more way server.

As a low-end software only company, The SCO Group are particularly vulnerable.
They can't compete on cost with Linux, their niches are under attack, they don't
have any interesting hardware and their customers, and development community
were too obstinate to move to Linux earlier. Now they're like a stranded shark,
thrashing around and trying to bite the legs off anyone who gets close.
<enough rambling, it's late.>

---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W dammit, no-one paid me to say this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Table - IBM Counterclaims and Both SCO Answers

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 01:03 AM EST

The biggest changes are SCO's responses to the patent claims. Above all else, they are trying to have the patents declared invalid. The amount of effort they put into this, compared to the "Denies in its entirety" reponse to infringement per se, is illuminating.

Someone who is better than I at correlating dates should compare the publication dates SCO mentions to the patent application dates. Once filed, IBM could publish their work without compromising patentability (under laws in effect at the time). Likewise, "prior art" means just that--there is no obligation to include art developed after the patent filing.

If history is any indicator, it is unlikely that SCO can defeat one of IBM's patents--let alone all four. Patent claims are the ultimate "IP" weapon, and SCO appears to recognize that fact.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )