Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SCO sues Big Blue over Unix, Linux (ZDNet)
Now we get to see where the "SCOSource" program is going: according to this ZDNet article, SCO has filed suit against IBM, claiming that IBM has moved SCO's intellectual property into Linux.
"Linux's rapid maturity--for example, growing up to work on large multiprocessor servers--is evidence of the presence of Unix intellectual property, the SCO suit said. 'It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach Unix performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of Unix code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance, and coordination by a larger developer, such as IBM,' the suit said."
(Log in to post comments)
The scariest line Posted Mar 7, 2003 13:37 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] "We are alleging they have contaminated their Linux work with inappropriate knowledge from Unix," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president of operating systems at SCO and head of the company's SCO source effort to make more money from its intellectual property. "Contaminated from knowledge" is a scary thing. It seems, somehow, to be a valid charge in that senseless morass that is intellectual property law in the USA today, though. Along with non-compete clauses and such, it says that somebody who knows how to do something shouldn't be allowed to do it. This is supposed to promote progress? I'm also rather offended by the idea of an "inheritor" company having the ability to make money from its so-called intellectual property. Again, the point of patents was to protect the inventor, to encourage innovation. When you can have whole companies out there who didn't invent a damn thing, but exist only to perform legalized extortion, the system is clearly quite broken. Of course, arguing against an American institution like that probably means I'm trying to help the terrorists or something. -Rob
The scariest line Posted Mar 7, 2003 14:45 UTC (Fri) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link]
A world of "huh?" Posted Mar 7, 2003 13:45 UTC (Fri) by zonker (guest, #7867) [Link] Seems to me that SMP work and other things were moving along quite well without IBM's help. Not that IBM didn't help, but I don't see how SCO can make this case against IBM.SCO/Caldera has never gotten it, and never will. The company is thrashing around trying to find any way to score a few bucks to stay on life support -- this is what happens when a company can't innovate its way out of a paper bag, but manages to score some money through an IPO. IIRC, SGI has been contributing quite a bit to the SMP, NUMA and other scalability efforts -- without access to SCO's property -- so will they be suing them next?
A world of "huh?" Posted Mar 7, 2003 16:43 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] SGI has a Unix source license. I don't see what property SCO had that was not conveyed by that.
Scary - but what's the real motive? Posted Mar 7, 2003 13:50 UTC (Fri) by alspnost (subscriber, #2763) [Link] I can't quite get my head around this. A has-been company that was re-created from the ashes of a Linux company is now going on the warpath against other Unix companies who do work on Linux...?What's the actual motive here? To extort money from a rich and successful competitor, to spread FUD about Linux and its future safety in the face of IP laws, or something else altogether? One thing's for sure though - SCO has just brought its imminent demise a very large step closer. These are the attention-grabbing death throes of a terminally-ill business, but let's hope they don't do any lasting damage.
Scary - but what's the real motive? Posted Mar 7, 2003 14:25 UTC (Fri) by sphealey (guest, #1028) [Link] I can't quite get my head around this. A has-been company that was re-created from the ashes of a Linux company is now going on the warpath against other Unix companies who do work on Linux...?.I believe it is an exit strategy. There is no future for SCO, with the possible exception of a few bucks to be squeezed from the Tarentalla stuff. Management would like to terminate the business (a) without being sued by the stockholders (b) with a nice payout for themselves. As of this morning SCO's market valuation was 22 million USD. They sue IBM for 1 billion, IBM agrees to buy the company for 100 million, management gets their payout and the stockholders are happy they got a 400% boost from the whole deal. sPh
Scary - but what's the real motive? Posted Mar 7, 2003 15:22 UTC (Fri) by dpash (guest, #1408) [Link] SCO don't actually own any of the tarentella stuff. That was split into a seperate companywhen Calera brought SCO. Suing IBM does seem to be a rather silly idea. As you say IBM could easily swallow SCO is a second. Also IBM own an awful lot of IP. IBM could just as easily sue them for infringing some of their patents. That is why IBM has so many patents. I can't believe that SCO really think they have a chance against IBM which makes me think they are trying to do it to find a way out of the mess they are in. Goodbye SCO and thanks for .... hmm I can't think of anything.
Scary - but what's the real motive? Posted Mar 7, 2003 16:03 UTC (Fri) by pellucide (guest, #4498) [Link] Goodbye SCO and thanks for .... hmm I can't think of anything..... suiciding
Scary - but what's the real motive? Posted Mar 7, 2003 16:50 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] Timothy McVeigh committed 'federally assisted suicide'.SCO is committing 'Big Blue assisted suicide'. :-)
SCO sues Big Blue over Unix, Linux (ZDNet) Posted Mar 7, 2003 14:01 UTC (Fri) by ewbish (guest, #3043) [Link] I guess it's safe to say that I will not reccomend the purchase of any software or product within my company that has any relationship to SCO/Caldera in any way shape or form. That goes for United Linux as well. Hopefully the rest of you will follow suit, and let them know you are doing so.Eric
SCO sues Big Blue over Unix, Linux (ZDNet) Posted Mar 7, 2003 14:58 UTC (Fri) by rcrongeyer (guest, #9989) [Link] Here Here!!!How can SCO (OpenServer) give away the source code (GPL), (LGPL) and then sue someone for using it????? It's insane!! I mean If I take the free version of (OpenServer) (a release or two older than current) take it apart and build my own system from it, I'm legal. Right?? United Linux needs to kick SCO out!!! Or in my opinion SCO and United Linux are one in the same. In other words United Linux headed up by SCO is suing IBM. ie: SUSE SCO Turbo Linux and Connectiva are all suing IBM. Ralph
SCO sues Big Blue over Unix, Linux (ZDNet) Posted Mar 7, 2003 15:38 UTC (Fri) by SergeVrt (guest, #9992) [Link] > Or in my opinion SCO and United Linux are one in the same. In other words >United Linux headed up by SCO is suing IBM. ie: SUSE SCO Turbo Linux and> Connectiva are all suing IBM. and now read the part of complain 100. Based on other published statements, IBM currently has over 7,000 employees involved in the transfer of UNIX knowledge into the Linux business of IBM, Red Hat and SuSE (the largest European Linux distributor). On information and belief, a large number of the said IBM employees currently working in the transfer of UNIX to Linux have, or have had, access to the UNIX Software Code. at least this might mean that Suse ( as well as Red Hat) together with IBM violate SCO rights...
SCO sues Big Blue over Unix, Linux (ZDNet) Posted Mar 7, 2003 16:15 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Where'd you get the claim text? I'd like to read it.Bruce
SCO sues Big Blue over Unix, Linux (ZDNet) Posted Mar 7, 2003 16:22 UTC (Fri) by deatrich (subscriber, #25) [Link] Posted on linuxtoday.com, the link to sco.com:http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2003-03-07-011-26-OS-LL
SCO sues Big Blue over Unix, Linux (ZDNet) Posted Mar 7, 2003 16:13 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] United Linux needs to kick SCO out!!!SuSE is the one who really gets burned by all this. If they leave United Linux they open themselves up to the possibility of being sued by SCO, but if they stay they get dragged down with all the bad publicity that comes from being associated with SCO. It's a bad situation for them either way.
SCO sues Big Blue over Unix, Linux (ZDNet) Posted Mar 7, 2003 14:38 UTC (Fri) by deatrich (subscriber, #25) [Link] Take a look at Bruce Peren's comments on slashdot... always an interesting read. :-)
my favorite part Posted Mar 7, 2003 15:08 UTC (Fri) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] My favorite part is the claim (which the analyst apparently thinks has "more potential merit") that IBM wouldn't have known how to make Unix work on an Intel processor without knowledge from the Monterey project. Never mind the fact that portability to different architectures is part of Unix's fundamental design, or that Linux sure did run on x86 long before Monterey was even dreamed of -- it's hilarious that "Intel processors" is all lumped together. Of course, Monterey was for the Itanium, a totally new and strange architecture not relevant to x86 at all.
Re: my favorite part Posted Mar 7, 2003 19:21 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] ... Or that IBM created the PC architecture :)
SCO has no significant patents. Posted Mar 7, 2003 16:17 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Don Marti did a patent search and found that SCO has no significant patnets. See his comments here.Bruce
SCO has no significant patents. Posted Mar 7, 2003 17:31 UTC (Fri) by trutkin (guest, #3919) [Link] I belive that should be this link instead.
SCO has no significant patents. Posted Mar 7, 2003 17:53 UTC (Fri) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] Reading the link to the bit of the complaint that was posted, it seems that inessence SCO is claiming that IBM engineers violated provisions of non-disclosure agreements between SCO and IBM. Maybe true, maybe not. But I hope Bruce and others won't lose time pointing out the implications for people who want to participate in programs like MSFT's "shared source". They open themselves up to later lawsuits if they later develop or distribute anything technologically related, even if it isn't textually derived from the original.
Re: SCO has no significant patents. Posted Mar 7, 2003 19:29 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] I read recently that Microsoft has patents which do not list MS as the designee (or whatever the term is). Is it possible that SCO has such things?In any case, I think they are going to try to use trade secret law because that is the fuzziest type of IP and it has really bizzare and scary doctines like "knowledge contamination" and "inevitable disclosure". Of course, even that will be a huge stretch due to the fact that they released their own Linux distribution :)
Trade secret's Achilles' heel Posted Mar 10, 2003 3:17 UTC (Mon) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] Warning: This is based on a course in patent / copyright / trade-secret law for techies, taken some 25 years ago. I've kept up much as an interested layman can, but...Anyway, trade secret is just that: you decide to keep your secrets, and do your best to do so (NDAs, limited circulation, need to know, ...). But, in doing so, you decline the government's offers of help (in exchange for disclosure), so you're on your own. Your only recourse is against the party that broke a contract to spread your secret. Anyone who innocently comes across your info has zero obligation to you. Executive summary: Innocent third, fourth, &c. parties cannot be sued for propagation of a trade secret. If you (the programmer / company) owe no contractual duty to the secret's owner, you're off the hook.
SCO and Tarantella ? Posted Mar 7, 2003 17:47 UTC (Fri) by libra (guest, #2515) [Link] Is Tarantella still the business of SCO? Or to ask things differently is money given to tarantella a benefit for SCO? Or does the foreseeable disappearance of SCO mean the disappearance of tarantella?Thanks in advance for answer.
SCO and Tarantella ? Posted Mar 7, 2003 20:35 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] Separate companies now. Caldera (the Linux company) boughtUnix from the Santa Cruz Operation, which kept the Tarantella project and changed its name to Tarantella. Some months later Caldera changed its name to SCO.
|
|
||||||||||||