Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SCO's IBM suit triples--seeks $3 billion (ZDNet)
ZDNet discusses SCO's latest moves, which include raising the requested damages to $3 billion.
"The suit also adds illegal export issues stemming from the worldwide availability of open-source software. SCO claims IBM has breached its contract by making multiprocessor operating system technology available 'for free distribution to anyone in the world,' including residents of Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya, countries to which the United States controls exports. The open-source technology IBM released 'can be used for encryption, scientific research and weapons research,' the suit said." The new complaint also affirms that read-copy-update is one of SCO's issues; as this LWN article from last week (still subscribers only) showed, that will be a hard one for them to prove.
(Log in to post comments)
SCO's IBM suit triples--seeks $3 billion (ZDNet) Posted Jun 17, 2003 14:14 UTC (Tue) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link] In addition to US Patent 5,442,758 (assigned to Sequent), similar or identical patents pertaining to Read-Copy-Update are 5,727,209 (assigned to Sequent) and 6,219,690 (assigned to IBM).For some light reading, go to the USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database. Enter the patent number in Term 1 and select Patent Number in Field 1.
SCO now suing for $50 billion: no joke! Posted Jun 17, 2003 14:15 UTC (Tue) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] http://boston.com/business/tech_innovation/news/2003/06/17/sco_ibm.htm--------------------------------------- Reminds of me of this: President: "Ha ha ha! 100 Billion dollars? That's like asking for a bajillion trillion!" Dr. Evil: "C'mon, Mr. President, show me the money." Scott: "You're a moron."
Sequent history Posted Jun 17, 2003 14:37 UTC (Tue) by dank (guest, #1865) [Link] wikipedia has a bit of background on Sequent, for what it's worth.
SCO's IBM suit triples--seeks $3 billion (ZDNet) Posted Jun 17, 2003 14:52 UTC (Tue) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] They _are_ making it up as they go along! This is truly getting curiouser andcuriouser. Lets try something here. LWN writes another well researched article with a bunch of details about one of the purported violations. A week later another suit is launched containing said details. Derek
What consequences in the end? Posted Jun 17, 2003 14:53 UTC (Tue) by libra (guest, #2515) [Link] In fact SCO may have a point.Maybe it is unlegal to provide some software under any kind of open source license, and even more under GPL, since there are law that prevent exportation of software that are the implementation of some mathematical principles, under US laws. Maybe in fact the GPL is totally unlegal, maybe only SCO, and Microsoft now, are legal. Maybe SCO points some real problems, and shows us that there is only one solution if they are right : The law must be changed, or we must all go to jail (or die) like terrorists.
What consequences in the end? Posted Jun 17, 2003 15:19 UTC (Tue) by lamikr (guest, #2289) [Link] You forget that US laws will not work for me for example,as I live in the Finland. (Except if USA decides to attack here in order to bring democracy to democracy...:-)
What consequences in the end? Posted Jun 17, 2003 15:42 UTC (Tue) by neoprene (guest, #8520) [Link] >>Maybe it is unlegal to provide some software under any kind of open source license, and even more under GPL, since there are law that prevent exportation of software that are the implementation of some mathematical principles, under US laws<<Linus is located in Finland, and many kernel developers are _not_ in the US.
What consequences in the end? Posted Jun 17, 2003 15:49 UTC (Tue) by minichaz (guest, #630) [Link] Err... Linus hasn't lived in Finland for years. He moved to the US when he got the Transmeta job. Lives in the Silicon Valley area if memory serves.Thanks,
Weapons of Mass Destruction? Posted Jun 17, 2003 17:24 UTC (Tue) by ronaldcole (guest, #1462) [Link] Obviously, if we had WMD, SCO would be using them. The best we got is whoring lawyers like David Boise... and our cup runneth over!
What consequences in the end? Posted Jun 17, 2003 16:51 UTC (Tue) by zonker (guest, #7867) [Link] In fact SCO may have a point.Not really, there are a number of holes in their accusations aimed at IBM with regards to exporting software. First, IBM may have developed and contributed code for SMP or whatnot, but that doesn't mean they were directly responsible for its export to Cuba, Syria or any other country... if SMP is forbidden technology, then they'd have to 1) prove that it was being used in one of these countries, 2) lay blame with whatever party was responsible for allowing its import into Cuba, Syria and so on. Next, SCO itself may be responsible for exporting Linux w/SMP code since (as far as I can tell) there's no restriction by location with their FTP servers, so if someone in Syria has downloaded Linux w/SMP, it could very well be from SCO rather than IBM. Simply developing SMP isn't an offense, nor is open-sourcing it.
What consequences in the end? Posted Jun 17, 2003 17:01 UTC (Tue) by sholden (guest, #7881) [Link] Those are export controls. It may very well be illegal to export GPLd code from the US to North Korea, or Syria, or Iran, who whoever is on the bad guy list at the time. But that doesn't stop you GPLing the code. It doesn't stop the GPL being valid.Things get murky if you distribute binaries with an offer for source, and someone else illegally exports those binaries and the offer, (or just the offer, not sure where the GPL stands on that) to one of those countries and someone there asks for the source (with the offer). You would have to give it to them to comply with the GPL, but that would be illegal. I suspect that a contract (or license) can't force you to break the law and hence the GPL would be invalid in that case. But that just isn't going to happen, and I suspect would only invalidate the GPL for that one 'transaction' (though I'm not a lawyer by any stretch). The GPL does not require you to offer anything you distribute to *everyone* in the world. Redhat can refuse to give/sell linux to people from say North Korea, they can't tell other people not to (that would violate the GPL) but export laws don't require them to...
SCO's IBM suit triples--seeks $3 billion (ZDNet) Posted Jun 17, 2003 14:53 UTC (Tue) by freethinker (guest, #4397) [Link] Oh my. They played the terrorism card. Too late, though, I suspect.
SCO's IBM suit triples--seeks $3 billion (ZDNet) Posted Jun 17, 2003 20:21 UTC (Tue) by xorbe (subscriber, #3165) [Link] It is SCO who is terrorizing. They areway out of hand.
SCO's IBM suit triples--seeks $3 billion (ZDNet) Posted Jun 17, 2003 15:06 UTC (Tue) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] Now this is interesting, considering recent events:"Caldera, which raised $70 million for its Linux sales business through a March 2000 initial public offering, was a member of the Trillianproject to bring Linux to Intel's Itanium processor and helped found the Open Source Development Lab to make Linux suitable for high-end multiprocessor servers."
SCO's IBM suit triples--seeks $3 billion (ZDNet) Posted Jun 17, 2003 15:22 UTC (Tue) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] Curious. Perhaps this is their reaction to the big fizzle that was the AIX license revocation? SCO definitely doesn't seem to be getting much satisfaction...
SCO's IBM suit triples--seeks $3 billion (ZDNet) Posted Jun 17, 2003 15:38 UTC (Tue) by sreed (guest, #4006) [Link] If an individual were behaving in this manner (filing and threatening lawsuits, blaming others, and so on), you could say that they had a mental condition called "litigous paranoia." I found it in the encyclopaedia one time when I was a victim of this behavior.What it always indicates is crimes by the individual. It is an effort to distract attention away from, and possibly justify, their own crimes. Someone really needs to start digging for crimes at SCO. Big ones. Just my opinion - but based on experience.
SCO's IBM suit triples--seeks $3 billion (ZDNet) Posted Jun 17, 2003 15:55 UTC (Tue) by JABowker (guest, #11278) [Link] This is rather my opinion about Microsoft's license enforcement. A case believing everyone else behaves the same way you do.
Wouldn't you just LOVE to know.... Posted Jun 17, 2003 17:24 UTC (Tue) by cr (guest, #3685) [Link] Just what was in that (Caldera vs. MS over DRDOS) settlement agreement that recently got so thoroughly shredded? Maybe something that started with "Wait until the dust settles and David is out from under his DOJ retainer, and then..."?
SCO's IBM suit triples--seeks $3 billion (ZDNet) Posted Jun 17, 2003 16:41 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] This has nothing to do with patents or copyrights, it as to do with "POLITICS".... this Sontag person , and i've to apologize to all humanity for calling this "repugnant thing" a person.Defending own rights is one thing, but this is pure disgust: http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html Can you belive this "Sontag"??!, it follows a ne-con or neo-nazi mentality about code and politics.... i dont belive that ----"sontag" ---- thinks that SCO had and has all ideas about computer programming,... or has all ideias!. There's not "ONE" shred of prove in all the claims,... only stupidities "ON SERVICE TO THE HIGHER MASTER" trying to destroy all by "FUD", and without any regards for something far resembling "ETHICS" and "TRUTH", as is and was the "politics" of neo-cons and neo-nazis.... This, of course, unless you have signed a NDA for comparing stolen SCO code with the original. CAN "THIS" BE RESTRAIN? IMO (not so humble), the better victory would be to have not a 2.6 kernel but a 2.8 kernel in less than 2 years, and with desktop "killing" caracteristics.
SCO's IBM suit triples--seeks $3 billion (ZDNet) Posted Jun 17, 2003 17:11 UTC (Tue) by sholden (guest, #7881) [Link] I can't think of any desktop feature the linux kernel doesn't already have.Linux does usb hotswapping for example, which is the only type of feature that differentiates a "desktop" from a "server". The desktop is all about user space aps. Sure Microsoft might have shoved a bunch of stuff into the "kernel" but that doesn't mean it should be there. See Mac OS X for an example, of a "killer" desktop that wouldn't require any major changes to the current linux kernel.
SCO's IBM suit triples--seeks $3 billion (ZDNet) Posted Jun 17, 2003 19:58 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] I cant point you a URl, but i belive Linus stated somehwere that "all" device drivers, should belong to the Kernel!Well, in the top of my almost none experience and expertize a couldn't agree more... So, all drivers for graphics boards, poiting devices, keyboards, monitors, should belong in the kernel. Does that means break Xfree code?...so be it!... Fresco diserves a chance as any other that could pop up. Why not join all that devices classes to the kernel structures initiated by Patrich Mochel?... Why not "join somehow" the in kernel Direct Rendering Management with the framebuffers drivers?... And if you want to go real wild, and if "hyperthreading" processors are a "classe" of NUMA architecture, and synchronous process are the same as an asynchronous process but with a wait flag, then i belive that the "processores schedulers and relative code as the preempt code", and all device drivers, including specialy the firware and BIOS code, should run as a real-time processes or threads, although in kernel mode, but in it's own adress space,... a little like in RTLinux. That would leed, IMHO (hope so) to the breaktrough of a "split device drivers model" that could save the Linux kernel from colapsing under his own weight... -(Is it hard to imagine a kernel source much smaller than 1Gig if it has to have a similar hardware support as windows??)- and have is own in kernel adress space away from tainting other GPL code.
SCO's IBM suit triples--seeks $3 billion (ZDNet) Posted Jun 17, 2003 17:04 UTC (Tue) by pgoetz (subscriber, #4931) [Link] I'm astounded that it isn't obvious to everyone that there is one and only one organization behind this ridiculous lawsuit. Hint: it rhymes with high low cough. A little known fact is that back in late 80's when SCO xenix owned the desktop UNIX world running mostly on Intel 80286 processors, Microsoft was already a major stockholder in SCO, owning (I believe - don't quote me on this) around 20% of the company. SCO is going to be incinerated by this move - IBM will eventually crush them like a bug. The only organization benefiting from all this is ... What's the probability that 2 and 2 don't add up to 4 in this case? Am I smoking crack here?
scox+msft+sunw = fud partners. Posted Jun 17, 2003 18:16 UTC (Tue) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] >>The only organization benefiting from all this is ... <<*are* scox, msft, and sunw. of the three sunw may benefit the most. sunw is being hurt by linux much more than msft is being hurt by linux. also, sunw is campagning - right now - to pick up ibm's aix customers. two companies have been giving money to scox recently: one is msft, want to guess the other? >>What's the probability that 2 and 2 don't add up to 4 in this case? Am I smoking crack here?<< not smoking, but bashing msft has become so fashionable on linux forums that many linux advocates tend to overlook the obvious.
|
|
||||||||||||