A look at the SCO complaint [LWN.net]

SCO has put its complaint against IBM on the web for all to see. It makes interesting reading for those who are interested in this case, or in possible challenges to Linux in general. What follows is a quick summary of SCO's claims.

The first half of the complaint is dedicated to establishing SCO's claim to the Unix tradmark and source code. There is also some talk of the licensing agreements for that source, and SCO's wisdom in building a version of Unix for Intel processors. Unix, they say, is a great thing:

The recent rise of the global technology economy has been powered in large part by UNIX. Virtually every mission critical financial application in the world is powered by UNIX, including electronic transfers of funds. Real time stock trades are powered by UNIX. Inventory controls and distributions are powered by UNIX. All major power grids and all major telecommunications systems are powered by UNIX. Many satellite control and defense control systems are powered by UNIX. Virtually every large corporation in the world currently operates part or all of its information technology systems on a UNIX operating system.

Paragraph 74 turns the topic to Linux. Here's what SCO thinks of the operating system it sells:

A new operating system derived from and based on UNIX recently has become popular among computer enthusiasts for use on personal, educational-based, and not-for-profit projects and initiatives. This operating system is named Linux.

SCO, back when it was Caldera, used to think that Linux was good for a bit more than that. Note also the claim that Linux is "derived from and based on Unix."

The core of SCO's claim seems to be that Linux could not possibly have gotten to where it is now without some sort of divine assistance. Consider points 82 and 83:

Linux started as a hobby project of a 19-year old student. Linux has 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, sophisticated methods, concepts and coordinated know-how, it would be difficult or impossible for the Linux development community to create a grade of Linux adequate for enterprise use.

As long as the Linux development process remained uncoordinated and random, it posed little or no threat to SCO, or to other UNIX vendors...

This is an interesting claim. According to SCO, something came along which radically changed the nature of Linux development. Given the highly public nature of the Linux development process, it should be possible to put a finger on the point where that process was no longer "uncoordinated and random." SCO, of course, does not mark that point in this complaint.

Of course, development of many of the "enterprise-quality" features of Linux, including its top-of-the-line network stack and SMP support, happened during the "uncoordinated and random" period before IBM set us all straight.

Just to drive SCO's point home:

Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment.

Let's look at all of these points. Regarding the first one: people watching the Linux kernel development process should be forgiven if they have a hard time finding the "high degree of design coordination" claimed here. Remember how Linus sees this process:

But I _am_ claiming that there is no common goal, and that most development ends up being done for fairly random reasons - one persons particular interest or similar.

It's "directed mutation" on a microscopic level, but there is very little macroscopic direction. There are lots of individuals with some generic feeling about where they want to take the system (and I'm obviously one of them), but in the end we're all a bunch of people with not very good vision.

And that is GOOD.

Point (2) alleges access to fancy equipment. The first four-processor Linux demonstration was put together by the company then known as VA Research. IBM has since provided some nice boxes to its developers (leading to fun things like 7.5 second kernel compiles). But one might well ask when it became a crime to give your developers access to high-end hardware.

The third point claims that Linux could not have gotten to where it is without access to the Unix source, along with "methods and concepts." The methods and concepts have been well documented in the open literature for decades. Access to the source remains an unproven claim; SCO has not pointed out a single line of code which, it claims, is derived from the Unix source. One would assume that will change during the trial phase, if this case gets that far.

Point (4) claims that Unix architectural experience would be required. Again, this point has not been proved, but it is worth mentioning that the architecture of Unix has, once again, been well documented for decades. The availability of free versions of Unix (i.e. the BSD variants) could also be a legitimate source of Unix architectural experience.

Point (5) claims a "significant financial investment." That investment has certainly been made - by countless hackers who have donated their time, by many companies hoping to make a business with Linux, and by a substantial number of dotcom investors who, perhaps, don't feel quite so good about the whole thing at this point. And, yes, also IBM. But IBM's investment, massive though it is, is still a small piece of the total resources that have gone into the development of a free operating system over almost two decades.

Paragraph 86 summarizes SCO's position:

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 compaint then turns to how SCO has suffered by IBM's actions. From paragraph 111:

The acts and conduct of IBM in misappropriating and encouraging, inducing and causing others to commit material misappropriation of SCO's Trade Secrets are the direct and proximate cause of a near-complete devaluation and destruction of the market value of SCO OpenServer and SCO UnixWare that would not have otherwise occurred but for the conduct of IBM.

In other words, had IBM not wandered into Linux, SCO's products would still be doing fine in the marketplace. Right.

The claims seem to be saying that SCO was somehow entitled to the right to exploit the market offered by increasingly powerful commodity computers. Thus SCO complains:

As Intel-based processors have now become the processing platform of choice for a rapidly-increasing customer base of enterprise software users, plaintiff has been deprived of the opportunity to fairly exploit its market-leading position for UNIX on Intel-based processors, which revenue opportunity would have been very substantial on a recurring, annual basis but for IBM's unfairly competitive practices.

An alternative point of view, of course, is that SCO was never entitled to this market, and was well on its way toward losing it before IBM discovered Linux.

Another thing that IBM has done:

IBM, directly and through its Linux distribution partners, has intentionally and without justification induced SCO's customers and licensees to breach their corporate licensing agreements, including but not limited to, inducing the customers to reverse engineer, decompile, translate, create derivative works, modify or otherwise use the UNIX software in ways in violation of the license agreements. These customers include Sherwin Williams, Papa John's Pizza, and Auto Zone, among others. The licensees include Hewlett-Packard, Fujitsu, NEC and Toshiba, among others.

IBM is thus responsible for the Great Papa John's Pizza Caper. It's worth noting the reference to "its Linux distribution partners." These are listed as being Red Hat, SuSE, and others earlier in the document. It could be that this suit will expand beyond IBM at some point.

Here's what SCO wants:

As a result of IBM's unfair competition and the marketplace injury sustained by plaintiff as set forth above, plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but no less than $1 billion, together with additional damages through and after the time of trial foreseeably and consequentially resulting from IBM's unfair competition in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.

The $1 billion figure, thus, is a minimum amount; they really would like to get more.

There's a lot more to be said about this suit, of course. The speculation that SCO's real goal is to be acquired may have a certain amount of merit. The legal implications of the fact that SCO, itself, has distributed the code in question under the GPL could prove to be most interesting. All of this will become clearer over time.

But there is something here that the Linux development community should not miss: SCO has shown the extent of its contempt for you. Without IBM as fairy godmother, says SCO, you could never have achieved what you have achieved with Linux. That is an insult of the highest order - the worldwide free software development community has been slandered in a big way. Whatever happens with this case, we should not forget what this company thinks of us.

(Log in to post comments)