Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 05:44 PM EDT |
For German readers, do we know when the court issued the judgement, and would
this have anything to do with the SCO site's outages? Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 05:48 PM EDT |
August 28, last Thursday. You do the math. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
busted
this is getting to where it is getting serious
they cant afford to ignore this
and do you think the manager wants to go to jail for them?
i love it
br3n brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 06:11 PM EDT |
I'd like to hear what Ms. Didio has to say about this ;-) KPL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 06:11 PM EDT |
I should mention that I'm trying to get more details and will post them when I
succeed. I don't know how the courts in Munich work, but in the US, you
sometimes know what an order will say before you get the actual order.
Sometimes you don't, depending on the type of court, type of case, etc. That's
what I'm trying to determine: when did SCO know this was coming? Or did
they? pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 06:15 PM EDT |
KPL me too i really want to hear how she puts a spin on this
hopefully someone can get a quote on her personal reaction brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 06:18 PM EDT |
My vote is for throwing the SCO manager in prison for 10 days with all of those
(other) unsavory criminal types. Too bad Darl can't be forced to join
him.... wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 06:23 PM EDT |
Hey PJ- you wrote:
"That's what I'm trying to determine: when did SCO know this was coming? Or did
they? "
Linuxtag threatened a suit against SCO in late May (28th I think). And followed
through with their threat in early June. If the articles that I have read are
correct, SCO was bound by court order not to mention their lawsuit against IBM
on their European website. Guess they didn't take that court order too
seriously <G>.
What I am trying to find out is the amount of influence that Suse has with
Linuxtag; publicly Suse has supported the RH lawsuit so I am wondering if they
are pulling the strings here. Linux is entrenched firmly in Germany (govt. and
business entities as well as users), and I think this signals the end of SCO's
European operations. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 06:26 PM EDT |
Here are a few links regarding the fight against SCO in Germany:
http://www.i
nfoworld.com/article/03/05/29/HNnovellsco_1.html
http://www.suse.com/us/company/press/press_releases/archive03/sco_redhat.ht
ml
http://www.theinquirer.net/?art
icle=10018
http://www.eweek.com/
article2/0,3959,1113018,00.asp wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 06:32 PM EDT |
Well, those links didn't paste properly, so here they are again:
http://www.i
nfoworld.com/article/03/05/29/HNnovellsco_1.html
http://www.suse.com/us/company/press/press_releases/archive03/sco_redhat.ht
ml
http://www.theinquirer.net/?art
icle=10018
http://www.eweek.com/
article2/0,3959,1113018,00.asp
The article from The Inquirer is a riot- shows the text of an e-mail that one of
the Linux kernel developers sent to SCO, threatening legal action because of
copyright infringement. SCO might consider switching to the excavating
business- they seem to be very adept at digging a big hole for themselves.... wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 06:46 PM EDT |
The question in my mind is, did they know about the *order* in advance? For
example, here in the US, if you are at trial, you might be told by a judge in a
matrimonial case that thus and so is how the order should read, and the order is
actually submitted by one of the parties' lawyers for signature by a judge. In
the Surrogate's court, you just don't know until you read about it in the paper
or get it in the mail. This can vary by state and by court. So, what I'd like
to know is, was there a court appearance or something whereby SCO had advance
information that this was about to happen? Like before before the 'attack' on
the 22nd? pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 07:58 PM EDT |
SCO to jail, SCO directly to jail, do not pass go...
yay. Alex Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
Unofficial traslation on Yahoo SCOX message board:
http://tinyurl.com/lx25 Greg T Hill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 08:21 PM EDT |
John, if you read the whole translation, it explains. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 08:21 PM EDT |
Seems like further penalties may be sought. I think $3 billion has a nice ring
to it ;-) Greg T Hill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 08:29 PM EDT |
There are at least two Australians over here, trying to stop their laughter and
delighted with the way the Germans are starting to act firmly against this
maverick firm of utterly disgraceful destructionists known as SCO !! Can't
someone stir the US legal system up a bit to move faster ? This whole stupid
mess needs resolution as fast as possible because Linux is now on the verge of
massive uptake.
For the interest of the readers, our primary Australian telecom organisation
Telstra is now moving firmly towards Linux and is sending shockwaves through the
local area - particularly those involved with Windows application software.
Telstra is opting for choice and interoperability as well as stability and
security and have been testing things under the name of 'Project Firefly'.
Telstra's chief information officer, Jeff Smith, has firmly stated that Telstra
will eventually move to Linux. Their desktops are intended to be StarOffice,
the Gnome interface and the Mozilla browser. To quote Jeff: "We'll deploy what
we want, where we want and when it makes business sense". Hmmmmmmmmm - this is
not the philosophy of a very large monopoly which says "Upgrade, we need the
cash flow !" I know the Linux supporters will enjoy this one - we rather
like it. Dr Tony Young[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 09:22 PM EDT |
It is hard to say too much with so little to go on, but one thing is clear,
namely that this is local only. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 09:28 PM EDT |
You could have followed some of the other links posted on the whole thing. In a
nut-shell, the German branch of SCO on their own German web site had the same
statements as on their parent American site. The German Linux folks took them to
court to get an injunction to force them to remove those statements as they had
not been proven in a court of law. The German courts ordered the German SCO
Group to remove the offending web pages from the German web page. The German
branch of SCO removed some, but not all the slanderous material and was
reprimanded by the courts. The German SCO finally removed all the material from
the German web page, but since they hadn't done so within the time frame the
German courts gave them, the German Linux folks asked that the German SCO Group
be declared in contempt of the German courts and be fined. The German courts
have now finally agreed, declared the German SCO Group in contempt of the German
courts and that they now pay a fine over their German web page.
Clear enough? J.F.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 09:31 PM EDT |
Yes, thanks J.F. If you have a url, throw it on the pile, will you? Following
links in German is harder than you think. : ) pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 09:50 PM EDT |
pj wrote:
"This can vary by state and by court. So, what I'd like to know is, was there a
court appearance or something whereby SCO had advance information that this was
about to happen? Like before before the 'attack' on the 22nd? "
Here is a summary of this article (http://www.linuxworld.com/story
/32697.htm):
"June 4, 2003
Summary
The German subsidiary of The SCO Group Inc. has temporarily shut down its Web
site after a local Linux user group received a restraining court order against
the U.S. software group, but plans to reactivate the site shortly."
I believe that there was a court appearance in which SCO was threatened with up
to a 250,000 euro fine if they mentioned this case on their European website. I
looked at their Euro website earlier this summer, and there was no mention of
the lawsuit.
Here are a couple of paragraphs from the Linuxworld article:
"We deactivated our Web site on Friday while we continue to scan for any
statements or references to Linux," said Hans Bayer, managing director of SCO
GmbH in Hamburg, Germany. "We decided to wait for the new corporate design that
the parent company is preparing for all its Web sites worldwide before we
reactivate ours."
On May 23, lawyers for LinuxTag e.V., an association representing largely Linux
program developers, told SCO's German subsidiary to retract its claims regarding
ownership of Linux kernel code by this Friday, May 30, or make its evidence
public. "
This information agrees with all of the other articles I have read on the matter
(most of them NOT appearing in the American press). What was extremely
interesting about this situation is that SCO was called on their nonsense- told
to produce evidence of IP theft or shut up- and they shut up, but hardly a word
was mentioned in the US mainstream IT press about this. If it was reported in
the US, I saw no mention of it- and I have been keeping up with the news on this
matter.
It has only been in the last week or so that any accurate reporting has been
done in the US IT press on the SCO lawsuit (with decent stories on ZDNet and
Computerworld).
If you read between the lines of this article, it seems the orders for defying
the German court must have come from Utah- evidently SCO HQ must have finished
that "new corporate design ... for all its Web sites worldwide." <G>. I
think SCO is playing a game here, to see just how far they can push this before
someone gives them a bloody nose. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 09:55 PM EDT |
John,
SCO has an office in Germany and is actively doing business there (although
maybe not so much anymore). That office is subject to German law. The
www.sco.de site is in German and is aimed primarily at German companies.
I don't think SCO can hide behind the U.S. First Amendment when it's pretty
clear their use of the .de TLD is aimed almost exclusively at the German
audience. The fact that that site redirects to the U.S. is irrelevant.
SCO's case there is already irreparably damaged; they were called on the bluff
and folded the hand. Dick Gingras - SCO caro mortuum erit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 10:06 PM EDT |
Just an observation- has anyone noticed that whenever SCO is NOT in the news,
that they do something stupid to GET in the news?
Why the heck mention their lawsuit on a German website if the German courts have
ordered them not to? I don't see this as a rational response of any sort- not
even in a determined FUD campaign. This is either a mistake (maybe the web
design boys at corporate had not been informed about the German court order), or
SCO has not a clue what to do at this point. Maybe they were trying to see if
they could get away with the court order- but if that is the reason, WHY? So
their German mgr. gets 10 free days in jail?
I'm sorry, but I am not seeing a rational game plan being used by SCO. It's
almost as if they had some sort of plan at the start, but they didn't get the
reaction they hoped for (buyout by IBM?), and now they don't frickin' know WHAT
to do. The bozos-in-charge at SCO seem to be doing one silly thing after
another.
The more I see, the more I think SCOs lawsuit was an attempt to get an IBM
buyout- if they were SERIOUSLY going after IP violations, why hire Boies, who is
not an IP lawyer (IBM, in contrast, has some very good patent lawyers who would
shred, slice and dice Boies if this ever went to trial). When that failed
utterly, they started to "improvise." Only problem is- the people doing the
improvising are dopes. And M$ threw them some cash to keep up the nonsense,
because it fits very well into the M$ FUD plans.
It will sure be interesting to read any of SCO's internal documents regarding
this fiasco if they are ever made available. At least one book will be written
about this! wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 10:35 PM EDT |
> It will sure be interesting to read any of SCO's internal documents regarding
this fiasco if they are ever made available. At least one book will be written
about this!
Maybe we can get Tracy Kidder to write "The Soul of the New Machinations"!
(For the younger set, Kidder wrote "The Soul of a New Machine" in 1981,
documenting the birthing of Data General's MV-8000 32-bit minicomputer". It's an
excellent tale of how technology gets done.) Dick Gingras - SCO caro mortuum
erit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 11:31 PM EDT |
The German law that SCO has been fined of being in [contempt?] of is the
following:
http://transpatent.com/gesetze/uw
g.html
more specifically §14 of of this one.
[Basically: §14.1 The [firm] that spreads allegations against another
[firm/product], which damages or hinders the other [firm/product], must in case
the allegations aren't proved, pay damages to the damaged party. The damaged
party may also demand that the allegations stop].
pj / get someone versed in law and fluent in German to translate ;-) Kim
Petersen[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 01 2003 @ 11:38 PM EDT |
As to the question of SCO being called before this fine, i'd guess that the fine
is the result of the following [press release from the 6/6]:
http://www.linuxt
ag.org/2003/de/press/releases.xsp?id=4 Kim Petersen[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 12:14 AM EDT |
Someone volunteered last time, and he did a great job. Unfortunately I lost his
name and his brother in law. I couldn't even give him credit for his work.. If
you're out there Christian....
But Kim, it seems you can read German, and so if all you are lacking is the
legal, plunge on in, and I'll do the rest. If you feel like it. We're all
volunteers here. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 12:25 AM EDT |
It seems that on 6/6/03,
https://www.sco.de/s
cosource/letter_to_partners.html had the following letter or maybe a german
translation.
Letter To SCO's Partners
SCOsource
Subject: SCO Suspends Linux Activities
Dear SCO Partner:
As a SCO Partner, we thank you for your support and continued business. Because
you are a valued partner, it is important that we make you aware of important
SCO business decisions and announcements as soon as possible. As such, we wanted
to make you aware of an important announcement made today.
This communication is about recent efforts SCO has made to license and protect
our patents, copyrights and intellectual property pertaining to the UNIX®
operating system. As you know, on March 7, 2003 SCO announced that it filed
legal action against IBM in the State Court of Utah, for misappropriation of
trade secrets, tortuous interference, unfair competition and breach of contract.
The complaint alleged that IBM made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy
the economic value of UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's new
Linux services business.
As we have progressed in our discovery related to this action, SCO has found
compelling evidence that the Linux operating system contains unauthorized SCO
UNIX intellectual property (IP). Due to this discovery, we are taking three
immediate courses of action.
1 - The first is to send a letter alerting commercial users to the fact that
legal liability for the use of Linux by businesses may extend to end users.
2 - The second action we are taking is to suspend all future sales of the Linux
operating system from SCO until the attendant risks with Linux are better
understood and properly resolved.
3 - Finally, although this action affects future development and sales of SCO’s
Linux offerings, SCO will continue to support our SCO Linux and OpenLinux
customers and partners who have previously implemented those products and we
will hold them harmless from any SCO intellectual property issues regarding
Linux. SCO will continue to honor all contractual obligations with existing
customers including product updates, service, and support.
As many of you are already aware, SCO UNIX systems continue to sell well –
including an increase in OpenServer sales over the previous quarter. Our UNIX
products continue to support many of the world’s largest businesses. In
addition, new customer sales indicate that there is still no better option for
rock-solid, dependable technology for their core businesses than our SCO UNIX
solutions.
We are excited to be building on our SCO UNIX history as we roll out our next
generation UNIX operating system and SCOx framework this fall. SCOx will allow
small and medium business customers and branch offices to plug their existing
applications into a Web services environment. Details of this strategy will be
unveiled at SCO Forum in Las Vegas late this summer. (For more details, see:
www.sco.com/2003forum/.)
SCO remains committed to building new business opportunities for our partners
such as you. We recognize that you have depended on us to provide reliable,
solid technologies for your customers for over twenty years. We look forward to
helping you and your customers meet your business needs for the next twenty
years.
Sincerely,
Darl McBride
President and CEO
The SCO Group
r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 12:31 AM EDT |
"As we have progressed in our discovery related to this action, SCO has found
compelling evidence that the Linux operating system contains unauthorized SCO
UNIX intellectual property (IP)."
That'll be 10,000 Euros please. r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 02:27 AM EDT |
I wonder when the next things come. One or two such things in Germany just to
test how far judges in Germany like to go, and SCO.de is history. :-)
Why mess exactly with the government in Munich, which itself decided to move
over to Linux? :))) Robvarga[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 03:39 AM EDT |
The Tarent GmbH has a Q&A about the court case on their website: http://www.tarent.de/servlet/is/576
8/ (in German)
The text translates roughly as:
Q: When and where did tarent obtain a temporary injunction (t.i.) against SCO?
A: The t.i. was obtain on 05. June 2003 at the court [Landgericht] Munich I and
delivered to SCO on the same day.
Q: What is the subject of the t.i.?
A: The court [Landgericht] Munich I has prohibited SCO to make or spread in
business communications the assertions
1. that the software "Linux" contains illegally obtained intellectual property
of SCO,
2. that end users, who use the software "Linux", may be liable for injury of
protection of intellectual property [Schutzverletzung geistigen Eigentums] of
SCO, and/or
3. that the software "Linux" is an unauthorised derivate of UNIX,
unless this is provably true.
Q: What is the legal basis for this prohibition?
A: SCO contravened against §14 of the law against unfair competition
[Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, UWG], whereby defaming
["Anschwärzen"] of goods or services of competitors may be prohibited if
the made statements of facts [Tatsachenbehauptungen] are not provably true.
Q: Who did SCO react?
A: SCO did at first take off the web only some of the web pages containing the
statements that were objected to [beanstandete Äußerungen], later the
whole German site [Angebot].
Q: What happens if SCO does not obey the t.i.?
A: Tarent can proceed against offences by using distraint [im Wege der
Zwangsvollstreckung] and request at court disciplinary fines [Ordnungsgelder] of
up to 250.000 Euro or disciplinary detention [Ordnungshaft] of up to 6 months.
Since SCO (at first) did not remove from their website all pages containing the
statements that were objected to, did tarent request a disciplinary fine of
10.000 Euro.
Sorry for the clumsy translation. I put some of the original words and phrases
in brackets since I don't know whether they have specific translations.
BTW, I tried to find out SCO's side of the story, but their website was down
again. :-) Thorsten Winterer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 04:14 AM EDT |
http://www.eweek.com/
article2/0,3959,1234465,00.asp
think they may be catching on? brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 04:14 AM EDT |
Maybe they expect, that no lawyer or judge will look at their website outside of
European business hours. Robvarga[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 04:38 AM EDT |
What happened to Didio? This story in the E-Commerce Times
Indeed, Yankee Group analyst Gardner said he believes Linux has yet to reach its
full potential. The OS increasingly is in use as both a server platform for
enterprise or hosting use and as an embedded platform for set-top boxes and
other consumer electronics. Its multitier architecture allows for horizontal
scaling and enables administrators to link many low-cost servers, he noted. r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 04:46 AM EDT |
http://www.eweek.com/
article2/0,3959,1234465,00.asp
"For example, SCO asserts that more than 829,000 lines of its proprietary
symmetric multiprocessing code has been duplicated in Linux."
Anyone know just how many lines of SMP code there actually are in 2.4?
This claim seems unlikely to me (and what a
surprise that is, eh kids?). Steve
Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 04:55 AM EDT |
" > It will sure be interesting to read any of SCO's internal documents
regarding this fiasco if they are ever made available. At least one book will be
written about this!
Maybe we can get Tracy Kidder to write "The Soul of the New Machinations"!"
Actually, I'll vote for pj to write the definitive SCO book when this is all
said and done. This generation's Tracy Kidder (and yes, I've read that book,
it's great) Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 05:22 AM EDT |
John thanks. i am really simplistic in my response cause of being a non tech
type but every word is true that linux is my way of being in control instead of
MS being in control brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 05:25 AM EDT |
http://www.theinquirer.net/?art
icle=11321
nothing new in this one just another link brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 05:33 AM EDT |
ecprod, remember that the press often rewords what SCO says in a way that
reflects the impression SCO wishes to give, rather than what they have said
precisely. SCO alledge direct copying of SysV code (e.g. the discredited
examples) and then separately, but in such a way as to maximise the confusion,
talk of "unauthorised derivatives" or "code which uses our IP." The press then
conflates the two.
It was pointed out in an earlier Groklaw post ("SCO's Math Is Off, Or Maybe It's
Their Ethics") that if you add up the number of lines in all the files which
reference SMP *at all* you get about a million. i.e. SCO's argument is that
since they "own" SMP, any file which references any smp function is an
"unauthorised derivative" of SysV. Similarly for RCU and JFS. In the latter
cases, they don't even dispute IBM owns the copyrights on those technologies
(see an interview with SCO in mozillaquest) but assert they have "control
rights" by virtue of the ATT contract. Unfortunately there is no such thing as
"control rights" in IP law; that is to say, no contract between SCO and IBM can
create an obligation on a third party. If IBM owns the copyright on JFS it can
give it to anyone it likes. If giving it to Linux breaks a contract with SCO
(and even this looks very unlikely,) SCO can get damages but it can't invalidate
IBM's actions as a copyright holder. Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 06:16 AM EDT |
I don't know why SCO should care about 10,000 euros. Why not pay it and keep on
FUD'ing Linux? After all, Microsoft, Sun and (likely) HP are giving SCO
millions.
SCO could even spin it as standing up for the free speech and free trade. The
market apparently likes to hear SCO say such stupid stuff, so their shares may
even get a boost. paulb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 06:36 AM EDT |
paulb: SCO has to care because the maximum penalty is 250.000 euro and/or 6
months detention. And that is per transgression of the injunction. So it would
soon start to hurt them very much.
They have to pay 10.000 euro simply for not pulling the offending web pages
quickly enough. Putting such pages on their web site again will cost them much
more. Thorsten Winterer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 06:51 AM EDT |
They have to pay EUR 10,000 because of one letter sent out by Darl on 6th of
June, when the put-up-or-shut-up date was May 30th.
That's first violation.
Next violation's retribution would be harsher.
The subsequent ones ever more harsher.
The leading manager of SCO Germany would quite soon be fed up with Darl's
sending him to prison every once in a while, or interfering negatively with his
quarterly balance, and quit the company and issue some press claim about it. Robvarga[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 07:07 AM EDT |
From what I understand is this related to www.sco.de only and the fine is
basically for contempt of court. www.sco.de is operated by the german branch of
SCO (SCO Germany) and this seems to be a seperate legal entity from SCO Inc. and
as such they don't seem to be liable for actions of SCO Inc. only their own
actions.
See also the http://worldwatch.l
inuxgazette.com/article.php?sid=49 report from june 6. inc_x[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 07:07 AM EDT |
"and quit the company and issue some press claim about it."
And maybe a few "sensitive" internal memos to go with it?
We can hope. :-) KPL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 07:38 AM EDT |
inc_x:
If you look at Über uns (About us), you see, that the Company data mentions
Lindon, Utah, US as the main seat of the company (Hauptsitz), and the The SCO
Group GMBH only mentions a Seat in Germany (Sitz Deutschland), with Executive
Officer Hans Bayer.
This is not what I would call an independent legal entity, although they may not
be liable for everything done by SCO US. But certain sanctions may come into
existence if they try to waive liability, such as discontinuing the selling of
SCO products as a representative of SCO US, and instead they would be able to
sell it only as a reseller.
IANAL, of course, but I think that this approach to it is quite possible to
keeping SCO.de at bay. Robvarga[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 07:39 AM EDT |
just a thought here.when did sco buy the copyright licenses? can they go
retroactively to assert rights before they owned this copyright (that they say
they have but not proved yet)? brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 07:43 AM EDT |
SCO in Germany: I've found a pdf of the preliminary injunction in "the other"
case against SCO:
http://www.univention.de/
uploads/verfuegung.pdf
Summary: SCO.de is forbidden to say that Linux illegaly contains SCO's
intellectual property and/or that end-users are liable for using Linux. They can
be fined up to 250000 euro (US$ 270000) and their CEO can be jailed. MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 07:45 AM EDT |
> Remember, SCO's argument is that no licensee has any right to contribute to
Unix w/o first getting SCO's permission.
This is something that I've wondered about it.
Sontag said removing all the IBM stuff would be a good place to start, in
remedying the infringement.
Now let's say you are IBM. Potentially you can contribute code to Linux of three
types:
1. IBM's code that was previously used in conjunction with AIX (although of
course, you are argue that your entitled to use your code how you want).
2. IBM's code that was previously used in conjunction with Dynix (again you are
argue, you are entitled to use your code how you want).
3. IBM code that is brand new, never used with AIX or Dynix.
Now I can see that SCO would argue that IBM shouldn't be doing 1 and 2 (although
IBM of course disagree)
What I can't see is how SCO can argue that IBM shouldn't be doing 3.
Do SCO think that they have rights to restrict IBM from doing totally new
stuff?
If yes, do SCO think their right to restrict IBM from doing totally new stuff
extends only to Linux, or to any new IBM project? (and yep, this doesn't seem
right or logical to me)
If no, wouldn't SCO demanding removal of all IBM stuff potentially exceed any
remedy for infringement? If there is any code of type 3, that would be code
that SCO has no claim to. quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 07:54 AM EDT |
Just a comment about press coverage on the SCO issue:
I am slightly confused regarding WHY the US IT press covers news like the
Linuxtag suit so dismally. I started reading some of the British IT magazines
about 5 years ago, and was often surprised at some of the anti-MS events being
reported on in Britain that never made it to our shores. A case in point was
when the British courts got tired of the MS licensing BS, and gave consumers who
didn't like Windows 98 but were forced to buy it the right to return it for a
full refund. At the time, some US users were trying unsuccessfully to do the
very same thing. Not a word about the British decision in US periodicals.
Now we are seeing events which happened in Germany 3 months ago, and which have
a great bearing on the SCO lawsuit, not being reported in the US IT Press. Is
this just lack of diligence on the journalists' part? Cultural centrism? Or is
there a real attempt at FUD-ding by the mainstream IT press as well? wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 07:58 AM EDT |
hack story
http://www.pcpro.co.u
k/news/news_story.php?id=46845
Maybe somebody ought to contact Matt Whipp, author of above, and send him the
NetCraft graph and GROKLAW links, re: hacking
Germany
http://www.theinquirer.net/?art
icle=11321
Re: Germany - I wonder if this will appear in SCO's next 10-Q, in the litigation
section. quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 08:15 AM EDT |
Quatermass, don't look too hard for justifications for everything SCO claims!
Code of type (3) could be affected if IBM had signed a contract which says "we
promise not to write code for any product which competes with UNIX", but (a) as
far as anyone can tell they didn't and (b) even if they did, damages liability
would be restricted to IBM and SCO could not demand the code be removed.
Yes John, I also read the analysis saying that the lines of code was a count of
code contributed by Unix licensees. Given the number of times the line count has
changed in SCO's statements, perhaps they're trying every possible way of
counting? ;)
I'm aware of what SCO's argument is, I just have great difficulty seeing how it
could possibly hold up, given the side letters from AT&T disclaiming interest in
derivative code and that they have conceded that, for example, *IBM owns the
copyright to JFS*. JFS for Linux is not a derivative work of SysV since it is a
port of the clean-room JFS for OS/2. There is precedent on the meaning of
derivative works in software, as documented in Groklaw, and it's not on SCO's
side.
SCO has plenty of legal theories, such as their bizarre argument vs the GPL,
which is so feeble as to beggar belief (I've seen better legal attacks on the
GPL in Slashdot talkbacks ;) but they either revolve around nebulous phrases
like "control rights" or consist of bald assertions without supporting argument.
Witness the statements they made, for example, when Novell blew a hole in SCO's
right to revoke IBM's AIX license. Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 08:22 AM EDT |
"3. IBM code that is brand new, never used with AIX or Dynix.
Now I can see that SCO would argue that IBM shouldn't be doing 1 and 2 (although
IBM of course disagree) What I can't see is how SCO can argue that IBM shouldn't
be doing 3. Do SCO think that they have rights to restrict IBM from doing
totally new stuff?"
Apparently SCO thinks that if ANYTHING was developed by IBM or Sequent and put
into AIX, that SCO owns rights to control further use of that code as a
"derivative work". That is NOT how USA copyright law works regarding derivative
work ... and my reading of the contract cited by SCO doesn't support their
view. Tsu Dho Nimh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 08:30 AM EDT |
SMP was mostly developed witout IBM's involvement and the following link has
information concerning the development of SMP in Linux:
http://www.opensource
.org/halloween/halloween9.html
Here is the most relevent part of the document concerning SMP:
82. The first versions of Linux evolved through bits and pieces of various
contributions by numerous software developers using single processor computers.
Virtually none of these software developers and hobbyists had access to
enterprise-scale equipment and testing facilities for Linux development. Without
access to such equipment, facilities and knowledge of sophisticated development
methods learned in many years of UNIX development it would be difficult, if not
impossible, for the Linux development community to create a grade of Linux
adequate for enterprise use.
Linus Torvalds had an Alpha processor system donated to him by Digital Equipment
corporation in 1994. One of the first things Transmeta did when they hired him
in 1996 was put him to work upgrading the SMP version of Linux, which Transmeta
used extensively. Beowulf systems date back to 1994, and became widely
publicized in 1998, predating IBM's first Linux product (DB2).
SCO itself supported the rise of enterprise Linux for years before joining the
UnitedLinux effort, which is headed by SuSE. Here's a recording of an hour-long
keynote speech given by Dirk Hohndel, CTO of SuSE, in February 2001, entitled,
Open Source and Enterprise Computing.
Linux has moved into areas which SCO has not historically participated in, and
enterprise computing is only one of them. When was SCO in a cell phone, or in a
supercomputing cluster? IBM put Linux in a wristwatch. When has SCO put any of
its products in a wristwatch?
One of the larger niches Linux has taken over without the help of IBM is
Computer Graphics Imaging (CGI), used to produce computer animation and special
effects in hollywood. Traditionally, this has been a proprietary Unix stronghold
dominated by Silicon Graphics (SGI) with its "Irix" version of Unix. Over the
past few years, virtually all of Hollywood's CGI modeling, rendering, video
capture, editing, compositing, and playback tasks [8] have migrated to Linux, as
detailed in the article Linux Invades Hollywood. This is an area where SCO has
never been, and never publicly expressed any plans to go, and has been
technologically completely incapable of surviving in.
The move is industry-wide, not just a single company. Dreamworks moved from SGI
to Hewlett Packard Linux systems, prompting Ed Leonard, Dreamwarks Animation
Lead Technologist to give a keynote speech at the O'Reilly Open Source
convention. George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic moved from SGI to Dell
Linux, and Steve Jobs' Pixar switched from Sun Solaris to commodity Intel based
Linux systems from RackSpace.
Pixar is an especially important pioneer in the computer graphics industry, the
first fully computer generated movie, Toy Story, and going on to box office
success with Bug's Life, Toy Story II, Shrek, Monsters Inc., and its most recent
offering, "Finding Nemo". Pixar employed Linux guru Bruce Perens for 12 years
(1987-1999). During that time, Perens was in charge of the "Debian" Linux
distribution, and left Pixar to become HP's "Senior strategist, Linux and open
source" until the Compaq acquisition.
Pixar's history with Linux, and Linux's momentum in the industry, helps explain
why Pixar moved to Linux instead of MacOS X. Steve Jobs is CEO of both Pixar and
Apple; Pixar started when Steve Jobs purchased Industrial Light and Magic's
first computer graphics division for $10 million in 1985.
This is a multi-billion dollar industry in which Linux plays a pivotal role,
without the help of IBM and without any participation at all from SCO. Shaun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 08:38 AM EDT |
Exactly Tsu. The original licence (prior to the side letter) said that AT&T
owned any derivative works of SysV. IBM's side letter weakens that provision,
but even with the original wording, any piece of code which is developed
separately of UNIX and then ported to that platform does not become
retrospectively derivative. Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 11:22 AM EDT |
Heise.de has this story at last, followed by Slashdot. I can't belive we
scooped them both, but we did.
Here's the Heise link, English translation by Babelfish:
http://tinyurl.com/lzqv pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 11:40 AM EDT |
Yesterday, I wrote to Der Spiegel (they have an English edition) and asked if
they could confirm this story and give me the url to the court itself. I just
got the url:
http://www.justiz.bayern.de/lgmu
enchen1/
It's in German, but if anyone out there would like to see what they can find,
now you have the place to begin. I'll be doing so myself, but my German
limitations could result in Babelfish-style consequences. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 12:08 PM EDT |
A comment on Newsforge says that they were fined because of having a link on the
German site to the US site. The fine was low because it was considered an
oversight. I can't verify this info, because no name provided, but I mention it
because the poster says German papers are still full of US-generated news about
SCO, FUD and all. It's the last post here:
http://
newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/03/09/02/135222.shtml?tid=10 pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 12:23 PM EDT |
pj
On the site you mentioned I could find no additional information,
but the Tarrent site has a Q&A in german and english:
http://www.tarent.de/html/tarent-vs-sco/030612_Questions-and-Answers.htmlBert[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
http://www.eetimes.com/s
ys/news/OEG20030902S0030
about SCO's attack on GPL. From the article: "From the outside, it appears so
bizarre and so ridiculous that I fear their argument is being misstated," he
said.
The Big Lie at work again.
It's getting hard to tell whether there's any synchronization between something
SCO is doing and these stories that show up. Is there actually something new
today besides the German story? Or just a rehash to divert attention from it? Frank
Brickle[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
on the scox board lots of info gets posted that people search out about who is
holding stock in the company,who pushes it and other things
i would like to point out an interesting side note just posted in an article
today
http://biz.yahoo.com/d
jus/030902/1026000868_1.html
" Goldman has an investment banking relationship with IBM and Seagate and
intends to seek one with Dell. The analysts do not own shares of the stocks."
it had been pointed out on the board that cohen had stock in scox
i about fell over laughing that this groups makes a point to post that they dont
own any shares brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 12:35 PM EDT |
PJ:
Kim Peterson linked in this comment section to a LinuxTag press release which
pointed to Darl's letter hosted on www.sco.de (not linked to sco.com)
I can only hope that any FUD activities there are mitigated at least somewhat by
the fact that their own court has found the SCO claims to be unsubstantiated and
has penalized SCO Gmbh for repeating them. r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 12:40 PM EDT |
" their own court has found the SCO claims to be unsubstantiated "
Not quite ... because SCO.DE failed to produce any evidence the claims were
true, the court issued the preliminary injunction. Main action to come. Tsu Dho
Nimh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
Frank:
Wow, you're mad at this?
From the outside, it appears so bizarre and so ridiculous that I fear their
argument is being misstated,"
Three weeks ago there would have been no outside law expert calling the argument
bizarre. Just a word-for-word quotation from Heise, which would then be treated
as reasonable by the reporter. r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 12:45 PM EDT |
Tsu
Isn't that what unsubstantiated means? "failed to produce any evidence the
claims were true"
The claims may theoretically be substantiated at some later time but for now,
SCO Gmbh is paying for making claims that the court has found are
unsubstantiated. r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
This is the part in the EE Times article that really got to me:
" IBM, in an unexpected and damaging retort, argued that since SCO had already
signed on to the GPL, it could not seek a monetary reward for alleged damages to
its Unix product."
an "unexpected and damaging retort?" It was the very first retort any of us had
expected. The writer was clearly um... *smoking crack* underinformed. Alex
Roston[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 01:10 PM EDT |
Alex:
We may be so used to seeing apparently SCO-sponsored slanders that we don't
recognize a pretty good article.
If someone calls IBM's countersuit unexpected and damaging. That's a good
thing. It's pretty clear he means damaging to SCO. And if its unexpected,
clearly it's unexpected by SCO.
The best part of this article is that instead of reporting a he said/she said,
he found third parties that he considered neutral and trustworthy and those
parties came down pretty strongly on the side of the Linux advocates.
Heise made a claim about the GPL. Mogden, the lawyer of the free software
foundation called the claims ridiculous. The reporter, Murray took the extra
step of finding at least two independent different lawyers. Both of them
express doubt at Heise's claim.
A very good piece of journalism. r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 02:25 PM EDT |
Shaun, for the record Shrek wasn't done by Pixar, it was done by Dreamworks
SKG. Steve Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 02:31 PM EDT |
"The company's high-profile attorney, David Boies, who prosecuted the Microsoft
Corp. antitrust case, and his firm now say they will counter IBM's argument by
going after the GPL itself. Their plan, as described by SCO, is to cite the
doctrine of pre-emption, which holds that in some instances federal law
supercedes state law. In this case, it would mean that federal copyright laws
would pre-empt any GPL license agreement that is based on state law."
What the hell is Boies thinking?? The GPL is not based on any State's law, so
the doctrine of pre-emption
cannot apply as described. Or am I missing something? Steve Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 02:59 PM EDT |
r.a. -- No, no. Not mad at all. What I was thinking was how the Big Lie makes
reasonable people question their own judgement. So even the quoted law expert
was so flabbergasted at the apparent stupidity of the SCO argument he had to
allow them the benefit of *some* doubt for possible misunderstanding.
Totally agreed -- it's a relief to see something like this in the press. But the
timing does just seem odd. After all, it isn't exactly new news. Frank
Brickle[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
ecprod: Yes, under the US Constitution the Congress has some limited
powers,i.e."for a limited time...", to grant things like patents and copyrights.
Those things are only done to further progress, and are not done in a corner or
in secret. At the federal level there has always been a concept that everything
is included in one or more pidgeon holes or sets if you will. If your technology
isn't in the set of things that's patented, and it isn't in the set of things
that's copyrighted, then it's probably in the set of things that's in the public
domain. For most of our history Trade Secrets (a set of things that are not
patented, not copyrighted, or not yet in the public domain) were handled much
like any other contract. The Trade Secret laws mainly originated with the
individual States.
Copyright doesn't protect methods and concepts, and etc. Patents require
non-obviousness and some originality - they are also expensive to obtain and
protect. Trade Secrets can last forever, but must have some independent economic
value - and of course you may loose them to the public domain if they are ever
revealed. Since they become public domain your recourse is to sue for damages or
breach of contract. Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
""The company's high-profile attorney, David Boies, who prosecuted the Microsoft
Corp. antitrust case, and his firm now say they will counter IBM's argument by
going after the GPL itself. Their plan, as described by SCO, is to cite the
doctrine of pre-emption, which holds that in some instances federal law
supercedes state law. In this case, it would mean that federal copyright laws
would pre-empt any GPL license agreement that is based on state law.""
What? The GPL is not based on state law. It is a convenient, uniform way to
exercise your authorial rights that are EXPLICITLY given to you in USC-17-106.
The author has the EXCLUSIVE right to authorize reproduction, under any terms
the author chooses. If they choose the GPL, it's OK! It is becoming obvious
that SCO has not hired a good copyright law person, opting instead for a
high-profile firm that is all noise and no brains.
§ 106 · Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title
has
the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public
by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; Tsu Dho
Nimh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
PS ecprod: What they are saying is that the GPL is a contract (actually it's a
grant or a license). Contract law is usually governed by State Law that is
pre-empted by Title 17 section 301 (Those copyrights).
Unfortunately for SCO they publicly admit that IBM/Sequent own the patents and
copyrights to RCU, NUMA,JFS, and etc. Those pre-empt the AT&T contract or
license agreement.
In short it's a dumb agrument. If you want a lawyer representing you ask for the
one that defended Grokster, not the one that defended Napster. Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 04:01 PM EDT |
Bert, great link! I'd put it up in the main body of the story, but if I did
that, all your comments might
suddenly disappear, or even the story itself, so I don't dare. But thanks for
posting it.
On the eetimes article, I like Frank's perceptive comment. I think this is the
significant part of the article:
"Boyle of Duke University argues that while federal copyright law prevents IP
owners from protecting their property too much — users can make a single copy of
a software program, for example — it makes no provisions regarding owners who
want to protect their property less. 'How can copyright law pre-empt a copyright
holder who says, "I don't want to limit people's ability to reproduce?"' Boyle
asked. 'The GPL people are the people who own the code. They can do with it
whatever they want.' Boyle said, however, that he knows of SCO's position only
through newspaper and Internet accounts, and acknowledged that there might be
more to SCO's position. 'From the outside, it appears so bizarre and so
ridiculous that I fear their argument is being misstated,' he said."
I believe it's more evidence that they just don't understand the GPL, just like
they still talk about free software as if it meant free as in beer. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 05:38 PM EDT |
ecprod wrote:
"What the hell is Boies thinking?? The GPL is not based on any State's law, so
the doctrine of pre-emption
cannot apply as described. Or am I missing something?"
All you're mising is the fact that Boies is not a patent/copyright lawyer, and
the fact that the GPL was written by some very good legal minds..... wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 06:04 PM EDT |
john what i was leading up to is the infringement from sco toward the kernal
developers in linux
like if 2.4 was before they bought the <copyrights>then how could they sue?
i dont know the dates for the submissions of the particular files so am just
asking brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
> SCO bought the copyrights from Novell back in 1995 or '96. According to SCO
that is, Novell has expressed - shall we say reservations
No they did not
Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. (now renamed Tarantella) bought the stuff in December
1995
Caldera bought the stuff from Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. in 2000 or 2001
Caldera renamed themselves to SCO Group Inc., in 2003 quatermass - SCO delenda
est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 06:49 PM EDT |
when was the jfs ,smp,numa and the other submitted? brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 07:03 PM EDT |
brenda banks: Sun announced they were buying Cobalt's line of servers. On their
next move, IBM announced they would invest 1 billion in Linux and that they
would have mate in three more moves.... All after the Caldera purchase...;-)
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 07:21 PM EDT |
no idea for NUMA
SMP is pretty old in Linux terms. the original work was done by Alan Cox. Guess
who gave him the hardware specifically for this purpose? Caldera! Yes that
Caldera.
(I'm sure that SMP has progressed since then, and have no idea of the
specifics)
JFS was offered by IBM. Some helpful person helped them with a lot of stuff, and
appears no less than 5 times in the announcement email. His name? Christoph
Hellwig. Who did he work for? Caldera. Yes that Caldera.
Incidentally JFS and SMP are mentioned on a marketing leaflet that I have a copy
of. The authors of the marketing leaflet seem pretty pleased about these new
additions. I think the leaflet dates from 2002. Whose marketing leaflet I hear
you ask? Caldera. Yes that Caldera. quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
i think i am mixing two ideas here
the copyrights yes is one but the other is
what company was it at the time?
was it the same company or a different company
this gets so twisted i get lost
i spot the fringe and think to see daylight but the twists and turns lead around
and around
but there has to be something in the fact that they were still paying for
copyright claims and that they were another company that were helping to give to
the linux also
sorry to be distracting to all brenda banks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 08:02 PM EDT |
brenda banks: Patents and copyrights are property. The copyrights can be broken
up and sold seperately, since they involve the right to copy, distribute, and
the making of derivatives. Licensing a patent that also includes some material
that isn't patented is usually described as a "technology transfer". The
Novell/SCO Asset Purchase Agreement uses that term. IBM, Novell, and SCO all
signed the Software License Agreement and both Novell and SCO indemnified IBM
against IP suits (up to the amount of the license purchase price). That was Old
SCO, Novell, and IBM.
Caldera then purchased two of the three divisions of Old SCO in 2000. For 7
million in cash, some Caldera Stock, Canopy loans, and snake oil.
http://www.practical
-tech.com/business/b08022000.htm Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 08:08 PM EDT |
Brenda,
About the only "IP" (oh, so broadly claimed by SCOG) left that can be litigated
over is the questionable copyrights on the old AT&T code base.
Ownership trail of these copyrights is as follows (for the source code).
1) AT&T (plus wholy owned subsiduray Western Electric, and joint venture of WE
And AT&T Bell Laboratories.)
2) Unix Systems Laboratories (USL). Spinoff of the AT&T/WE/BL breakup.
3) Novell, Inc.
4) The Santa Cruz Operation. (old SCO)
5) Caldera. AKA Caldera International. (This company changed their name 2-3
times.)
6) The current company calling itself The SCO Group. They are currently in the
formal process of changing their name from Caldera International.
Needless to say the claims that SCOG is making, are open to considerable
question. D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 09:31 PM EDT |
Here's what I can tell from the kernel logs:
JFS: inserted into kernel 2.4.20 released Nov. 28, 2002
SMP: Alan Cox originated work in kernel 1.3 (1995), Linus Torvalds et al
thereafter
NUMA: worked on througout 2.5 development kernel, still not stable as of
2.6-test4.
RCU: inserted into kernel 2.5.43 development kernel, still not stable as of
2.6-test4.
Note that only beta testers are using the 2.5 and 2.6 kernels - the 2.6 kernel
isn't scheduled to be released for some months yet. Dick Gingras - SCO caro
mortuum erit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 09:45 PM EDT |
I forgot some dates:
2.5 kernel released in Dec 17 2001.
2.5.43 kernel released Oct 16, 2002. Dick Gingras - SCO caro mortuum
erit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 02 2003 @ 11:55 PM EDT |
quatermass, got a scanner? pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
O.K., this is a plug for some SCO humour
http://timransomsfeeblemind.blog
spot.com
Thanks Tim Ransom[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 03 2003 @ 01:01 PM EDT |
NUMA ... the IDEA first appears as an OLD IBM patent from the mainframe days.
And according to copyright law, you can't copyright an idea, and if the idea
REQUIRES certain text in order to make the idea happen, you have a darned hard
time copyrighting even that. Tsu Dho Nimh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 05:06 PM EDT |
Well folks it's SGI next in the FUD war. gumout[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 05:07 PM EDT |
SGI FUD war link forgotten by dummy contributor.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1
104_2-5072061.html gumout[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|