| |||||||||||||
What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes)What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes)Posted Jun 18, 2003 21:30 UTC (Wed) by skybunny (guest, #4478)Parent article: What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes) I've been staying relatively quiet on the SCO vs. IBM debate, but with this article, someone has finally put into words what I've been biting my lip over for the last few weeks in particular. Yes, yes, SCO is being a 'bad neighbor', they're not producing anything of value through these lawsuits, and the only thing they can probably do is hurt themselves while dragging a lot of people who don't need to be, through the mud. But, uh...what IF SCO wins? Seriously now. How many of us honestly consider the possibility that a judge may say: 'You know, I agree with SCO's interpretation of their patents. I'm instating an injunction right now. No selling AIX. And if SCO wishes to bar sales and distribution of Linux, I'm open to that idea too.' An injuction doesn't require a trial. If a judge believes SCO has a strong enough case, he can do exactly as SCO asks, and in days' time. Linux, free software, and IBM will not win this court battle because they are right, or because IBM is a big company with a lot of resources. Whether they are 'right' is irrelevant in the legal arena, where what matters is who has the best legal backing behind their claims. This court and PR battle will be won through vigilence, money, vocal statements, and, if necessary, lobbying legislatures if things come to that. Forbes is saying here that SCO has very...dedicated people in its ranks that are willing to fight in court for something for years or longer if it means they get what they want. By the same token, Linux advocates and IBM may have to be prepared for a fight just that long. I WILL say that anyone who dismisses this problem as the collective rantings of lunatics at SCO may be right within the arena of popular opinion of Linux advocates, but I myself am well aware of the possibility that a very bad decision may come down from the courts, and soon. Unlikely, but possible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Long, drawn-out patent battles are not without precedent in the United States. In the days of radio, one of the key inventions needed to make console radios possible in every American home was the 'regenerative circuit', invented and patented by Edwin H. Armstrong. The circuit used the principle of regeneration (sending the same signal through the circuit over and over again) to produce an amplified signal - so much so that radios could be manufactured without the need for earphones. The problem is that Armstrong's circuit resembled a 1906 invention by Lee DeForest, called the audion tube. It had mostly the same hardware as the regenerative circuit; the main difference was set in how the circuit was used, to produce dramatically different results. Armstrong's regenerative circuit patent was issued on October 6, 1914. Nearly a year later, DeForest applied for a patent on the same invention, which he sold with rights to the audion tube to AT&T. Thus, in a battle through a dozen courts, from 1922 to 1934 (12 years!), Armstrong and AT&T fought the longest patent battle in U.S. history. Armstrong won the first round, lost the second, stalemated in the third, and lost in the Supreme Court because of a misunderstanding of the technical facts. Some years later, Armstrong created another innovation in radio: frequency modulation (FM). Most are familiar with it today; Armstrong created it as a means to eliminate static in radio transmissions. When he created it in 1933, his employer, RCA (the Radio Corporation of America) was not interested, since their radios gave them an empire using AM. Sure of his technology, Armstrong created his own FM radio station in New Jersey, and, with pressure to the FCC, got 42-50 MHz allocated for the purpose. Hundreds of high powered FM radio stations began to appear. Just before television (RCA's real cash cow) exploded onto the scene, the FCC mandated that television signals use FM transmission. Armstrong believed that his position about FM's superiority had been vindicated. The problem was, RCA wasn't interested in paying royalties. They offered Armstrong cash for the rights to FM rather than pay royalties as many other companies were lining up to do, and then gave FM another blow: claiming 'sunspots' would cause a problem, they lobbied and won from the FCC a move of FM's band from 42-50 MHz to 88-108, rendering all FM radios of the time useless as of 1945. Armstrong found himself in ANOTHER legal battle, particularly after RCA claimed a patent on FM technology themselves. This time, however, it was too much for him, and he committed suicide a few years into this second battle, in 1954. FM radio suffered a catastrophic setback of nearly 30 years because of the bandwidth move, and effort to keep FM technology bottled up. URLs of Armstrong's life, achievements, and difficulties are provided at the bottom - definately recommended reading. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whatever we do, we should NEVER believe that simply because something is technologically superior (consider FM vs. AM), or even because we are right in fact, that courts will agree. Technology by itself cannot change written laws, or inform judges of facts. This is the job of lawyers, witnesses, lobbyists, and public opinion. As Linux begins to 'make the big time', it will begin to affect companies which are powerful enough to lobby to change the laws and the fundamental rules of the game in order to maintain their primary goal - an increase in their stock price, value, and power. Consider what was done with FM radio, when RCA was faced with embracing it and paying royalties, or maintaining their own (one could argue, inferior) AM empire. Innovation was just fine in that case, so long as the goals of a rising stock price and company value continued to be met. For example, Linux giving Windows a bad name is one thing. Taking away sales, and real money - or causing Microsoft's stock price to fall - will get their attention very quickly. Microsoft's market cap is half a trillion dollars. They mean...business. -The GPL has so far held up because, in part, copyright law has not been changed at a congressional level to prevent it being used (as a for-instance). -Microsoft has not yet embraced the GPL because it believes its route will still be more profitable. Should this change, expect Microsoft to claim that it invented the idea...and that it will put billions behind marketing to assure people that they did. We must continue to follow the issues in these times. SCO's ranting may be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, but what is most important is that their claims do not hold in a court of public opinion or a court of law. Being 'right' does not assure a win. History tells us that we must be vigilant. I believe that is the point Forbes is making. References:
(Log in to post comments)
What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes) Posted Jun 18, 2003 21:42 UTC (Wed) by fizzywump (guest, #11687) [Link] Hey Jon, hire this person.
What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes) Posted Jun 18, 2003 22:45 UTC (Wed) by jonth (subscriber, #4008) [Link] Agreed - that was as good a read on the subject I've come across.
What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes) Posted Jun 19, 2003 0:43 UTC (Thu) by TimGraf (guest, #12155) [Link] When most readers flew off the handle and went into a SCO bashing campaign (including myself :o|), skybunny took the more enlightened approach by offering the wiser and more foresightful assessment of the article. Thanks your excellent comments.
What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes) Posted Jun 19, 2003 1:43 UTC (Thu) by mvs (guest, #12166) [Link] Skybunny said: "But, uh...what IF SCO wins? Seriously now. How many of us honestly consider the possibility that a judge may say: 'You know, I agree with SCO's interpretation of their patents. I'm instating an injunction right now. No selling AIX. And if SCO wishes to bar sales and distribution of Linux, I'm open to that idea too.' An injuction doesn't require a trial. If a judge believes SCO has a strong enough case, he can do exactly as SCO asks, and in days' time." He's right about the possible downside, but one thing that judges consider very seriously when considering injunctions is the balance of harm that will accrue from the decision. One thing is for certain - an injunction against IBM and others would have a very large negative impact on them and possibly the broader community. On the other hand, failing to injunct them might have a minor negative effect on SCO (or even help them by continuing royalty income). It would be hard to imagine a judge deciding in favour of an injunction of that kind. But then, I don't feel qualified to speak about judges in Utah...
What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes) Posted Jun 19, 2003 10:45 UTC (Thu) by mem (subscriber, #517) [Link] Will it really? IBM's market cap is 150 billion right now (give or take a few). Two years ago it was a bit more (200-250 perhaps), and back then they invested one billion in Linux (or so they claimed). Linux is one of their many sources of income... if at all, that is. Is IBM profiting from Linux? Maybe. Does their bussiness depend on Linux? No way. How hard would an injunction hit IBM? Pretty probably. Would it be so bad to prevent a judge from placing that injunction? Dunno, but I don't dare say it would be bad enough. Do feel free to enlighten me in this matter, please.
What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes) Posted Jun 19, 2003 13:53 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Yes SCO could win!!,... with some reason or without it...The battle in court is just a mean to an end,... WIN OR LOOSE SCO KNOWS THEY ARE A GONNER The complaint is not about patents,... is about contrats!,... How much is gonna cost IBM in the futur, from taking this FORCED "poison pill", is a question that no one can answer... Linux was a second objective brought to first by M$ assistence and money,... AND IS RAPIDLY IN THE POSITION FOR MAKING JURIPRUDENCE (i hope i wrighted that right)...Unixware dosent worth a s??t, but any judje dont know that... it's natural! If you want real interesting historys about judjes and scams, see this guy archives:
SCO Unixware book Posted Jun 20, 2003 14:40 UTC (Fri) by wweber (guest, #11678) [Link] Has anyone heard of the O'Reilly book coming out, Using SCO Unixware? The animal on the front cover will be a skunk.
What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes) Posted Jun 19, 2003 1:53 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Judges: 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9 Straignt 9 out of 9's!!!! Damn---I wish I had the time & energy to do that much homework! I knew all this stuff, but didn't really find myself in a position to pull it together. If Armstrong had been willing to deal with RCA, do you think we's still have 8-meter FM (or whatever you want to say?) That would have been really cool! So---how do we make good deals with Microsoft, after all this time? Anyone have any suggestions?
What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes) Posted Jun 19, 2003 1:58 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] So, how could Armstrong have prevailed with RCA, do you think?...and how might we get on decent speaking terms with Microsoft, while avoiding "asimilateion?" I like the feel of their user interfaces, and I must admit that the way they've integrated BASIC into their applications is very smooth (please--no anti-BASIC relition!)
What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes) Posted Jun 19, 2003 2:01 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Good God, I double-posted! Oy!Sorry!
What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes) Posted Jun 19, 2003 3:41 UTC (Thu) by naughty-artkitekt (guest, #10552) [Link] HOLY MOLY!!!EXCELLENT piece. Maybe FORBES should hire this bunny! Skybunny seems to have a "birdseye"/top-down view and I was enthralled to read this. I rant and run on for lenghts greater than skybunny, but my content could not hold a candle to skybunny's. ===== But, sco is crusin' for a bruisin', and seems hard-up to squat down and self-impale right up to their skull. But, since there is not much brain, there won't be much pain, and not because the impaler will miss that brain. ==== I fought a case against Jack in the Box (Food Maker) back round 1992. I essentially "lost" because I forgot to bring to court my developed, condemning pictures showing the condition of JITB's property which led to damage to my car. It was my proof that they "maintained an atractive nuissance" or invitation to repeated right rocker-panel crushing. That JITB was there since the mid 70's and the curb had been hit REPEATEDLY, nicked, chipped, cracked, damaged and such all because it was a few inches higher than most cars' rocker panels and because the long wait and no post sign lulled drivers to forget the curb was there, particularly when no cars perpendicular-parked against the curb, which would automatically prompt a driver to turn wider. I wasn't trying to get rich, just make the franchise pay for its failure to maintain a required danger sign (required because city code required it, and because the repeated damaged clearly proved SOME reason existed for the curb being hit all the time) due to their curb being high enough to damage cars when drivers pull out. I only hit it because the heavily pouring rain distracted me and mainly because they took over 5 or 10 minutes in the drive-thru to give me my food. It was so bad a wait that I had to shut off the engine (to save gas and reduce emissions), and I swear the wait was over 8-10 minutes. Long story short (or so I'll attempt here), Food Maker's lawyer, (her name was Nyree (phonetically Kachikian or something like that) LIED, GODDAM LIED to the judge stating: "Your honor there was no damage, is no damage, and ther have been no incidents since his. He is just a bad driver..." That JITB was on Tully Road in San Jose, next to Alvin Street, near Highway 101. She lied her ass off, calmly, cooly and collectedly. But, I was honest, and only lost because without my pictures, that dum-bass pro-tem was not about to go to Tully Road and checkmate her off the bar/bench. And, my car was in the parking lot of the court, and JITB did not dispute my being there that rainy night. But, to add insult to injury, the after-case paperwork had to happen, and in the foyer of the court house in Santa Clare, the JITB district manager (from Richmond, CA area, I think) just snickered and sneered, as if to convey or effuse "We're big corporations, and you're SMALL FRY, you scum...". I wanted to knock him on his ass for being so cocky and gloating and arrogant that they LIED and got away with it; maintained unsafe property conditions to save a buck, and got away with it; KNEW that hundreds of customers from the 1970's on into the 1992 and beyond years hit and would continue to hit it, yet never get RID of that damned nuissance curb. Bastard! Anyway, I told them that I believed in Karma, and that something BAD would eventually happen to JITB. Sure enough, around 1993, SEVERAL people in CA died from e-coli in under-cooked meats (oh, let us not forget the allegations of Kangaroo meat and deep-fried rats at JITB...). JITB had a looong bout dealing with that bad press. Momma Nature? God? Fate? Who the hell knows, but felt a small piece of vindication, but sadness for the families who suffered to JITB's sloppy handling of food. So, I swore I would ALWAYS dig into the background of ANY business arrangement I would enter in the future with the SOLE purpose of excluding Food Maker's insurance company: CNA Insurance. (Even when I hear or read ads for Certified Nursing Assistant, I flash-back to 1992...) . CNA of Burlingame or San Mateo or HIllsdale, CA. In contempt of court I refused to file the follow up paperwork because the dumbass Pro-Tem let them off the hook. PRICK. I STILL have the unfiled papers.. I wonder if there's a statue of limitations aganst the state.... ANY one who's been to a tight drive through knows the curbs get hit. I am sure that moron has been to a few dozen drivethrus scaling his way to the bar exams, either as a driver or a passenger. Food Maker's franchise simply got tired of re-installing the threaded steel poles and resorted to broom sticks and candy-cane-striped plastic/PVC pipes, which all were removed by thugs, ganger-bangers, and other miscreants who made the drive through dangerous, PARTICULARLY since the lot-dividing curb was deep-gray and blended into the night. ALL the manager had to do was to contract someone to weld the damn pole into the base, reflective-stripe it, and only worry if it actually got knocked out by a deep-incursion right turn. THEN, he/they could say the driver was a "bad driver." So, I have a HEALTHY, JADED, SKEWED, CYNICAL regard for the "justice" system, the "legal" system, and pro-tems. Since the case information was a matter of public record, I am legally free to disclose the stuff I said above, even CNA's and Nyree Kachi something's name. Disclosure: Yes, I continued to eat JITB because the spicy crispy chicken sandwich tastes good as hell, and it goes down VERY well with strawberry soda. But, I don't eat there regularly, particularly since Oregon JITB doesn't carry strawberry soda, and less so since about 1994 when they changed from "normal" deep fry oil to that parrafin/stomach-lining crap to glaze/stiffen the fries (which, btw was recently (early June 2003) in the news for increasing toxin or cancer risk in humans....) And, yes, I wish I'd aimed straight out to Tully Road and U-turned at King Road back onto Tully West rather than right-turning in the parking lot (permitted, nothing made it dangerous, illegal, or imprudent) to head for Alvin Road to turn left to Tully West. But, I got paid some $400 by JITB and I had to fork out some $1100, but the damage was in excess. And, no, due to the cost, the paltry $400 was nearly useless, as I was pay-check-to-paycheck then and I had to use the $400 to deal with creditors and rent. End of disclaimer. Sadly, more of today's youth (and adults) simply don't realize or believe that JITB NEGLIGENTLY killed some people, and that JITB is not the only restaurant or franchise to do so. Unless one attends a national food safety food handling course, one will not be told (or not likely learn) that somewhere in or near Illionois a particular Burger King has so many rampant food poisioning cases & complaints lodged against it that the Burger King HQ eventually TORE DOWN THE BUILDING, removed the debris, and left the lot vacant! They simply wanted the public to FORGET that site. Talk about destroying/erasing/obliterating the evidence! ===== Deep pockets abused by dirty lawyers (dirty ones, as opposed to the few honest ones) only protect the filth such as ms and sco, and any other truth-abusing corporation or rich individuals (poor people cannot afford to get much better than a public defender, whom we all know are overworked, under-respected, and often ill-experienced to properly defend their "client", and often in direct combat with the very DA who will rate, promote, or fire them for their wins or losses...). I know "bizniss" & "morals" don't mix, but they need to. One only need review ms' abuse of court video testimony and sundry other details. However, they now are about to finalize the cases and only I thing Massachussetts is the final state left trying to win something or make a point. One only need to read slanted magazines that are allegedly "unbiased" in their reporting and performance tests. Money is not inherently powerful and filthy: It's the money-mongers who relentlessly pursue more money and power who corrupt and screw up things. Money is not necessarily "blood money" unless the handers and passers of it drew blood, cracked skulls, or lied about or destroyed someone or something to get more of it. David Syes
What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes) Posted Jun 19, 2003 4:32 UTC (Thu) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] I do agree that we should fight SCO's FUD and if it should come to trial that we should fight them in the court room. On the other hand, it's silly to take SCO too seriously.A judge may say: "You know, I agree with SCO's interpretation of their patents. There are no patents involved only contracts and trade secrets. As I read the amendments to the contracts, it says that IBM owns derivative works except for the actual AT&T code. The contracts also say that IBM cannot be held liable for discussing trade secrets if the secrets have already become widely known from other sources. IBM has a number of other strong arguments that could be made. "I'm instating an injunction right now. No selling AIX.
There are a couple reasons why this couldn't happen: "And if SCO wishes to bar sales and distribution of Linux, I'm open to that idea too." That would have to be a separate lawsuit; one which SCO would certainly lose. SCO is currently distributing Linux from their website under the GPL and the GPL license cannot be revoked. Anyways, Linux is at the center of a multi billion dollar industry and a trial to put an end to it would go all the way to the Supreme Court. SCO's behavior is bizarre and seemingly irrational. Serious companies act like IBM and do not talk about upcoming lawsuits. SCO has tried to release new press releases every day. All the interviews can be used as evidence. For example, in one interview Darl McBride was ask why he did not sue earlier. He responded that before IBM became involved there was no one with deep enough pockets to make it worth the effort. In another interview he said that they would not show the infringing kernel code because the developers would just remove it and he didn't want that. It's apparent that they are not serious about winning, so one has to wonder what their true motivation is.
What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes) Posted Jun 19, 2003 15:40 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] It's apparent that they are not serious about winning, so one has to wonder what their true motivation is.They're probably just playing poker. By upping the ante to $3B they are trying to force IBM to play the "buy us out" card.
What SCO Wants, SCO Gets (Forbes) Posted Jun 19, 2003 6:17 UTC (Thu) by torsten (guest, #4137) [Link] Hi, this was a great read. Except SCO's suit does not involve patents (yet). They are focusing on contract violations. Specifically, their "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B", a Sequent contract, and I've heard Monterrey mentioned. To be honest, I know of no one that has pulled their suit from public records and actually tried to figure what they are claiming. There are probably many contracts between SCO and IBM, and I'm sure there's a way to prove infringement both ways.You are correct in your conclusions - the courts are not necessarily rational in their decisions. Look at OJ.
|
|||||||||||||