Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld)
InfoWorld reports
on SCO's response to IBM's counterclaims in Utah District Court.
"'The Free Software Foundation is the only entity that can enforce
the GPL so, in effect, IBM is barred from trying to enforce the GPL with
SCO,' wrote Blake Stowell, a SCO spokesman, in an e-mail response to
questions. SCO's filings also assert that 'the GPL violates the
U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control
laws.'"
(Log in to post comments)
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 14:36 UTC (Tue) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] After the Senate, Congress, Executive, and Judiciary finish with the spammers, I think it's time for them to go after the stock-fraud perpetrators.Maybe the term "corporate terrorism" should be coined and used heavily; it would get people's attention, if they have to work for one of these monsters and try to live a normal life.
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 29, 2003 14:16 UTC (Wed) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link] You know, it's not often I aggree with your political take especially when it concerns Capitalism, as I tend toward a more Jeffersonian approach. But you know, I really like that term you just came up with. Corporate Terrorism. Very accurate description of what SCO is attempting to do... Drive their profits by using fear of harm as a motivator. Of course there is another term for this same act. Racketeering.
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 14:41 UTC (Tue) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] Their arguments get weaker and weaker.1) IBM can't enforce GPL? Obvious lie, unless you can believe they don't understand copyright law. 2) IBM can't come after us for using their patents because everyone else does too. Obvious lie, unless you can believe they don't understand patent law (you can enforce your patents as selectively as you want).
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 14:43 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Some people, not us, thought that SCO had some secret weapon that would lend credibility to their claims. They don't. Their response to the IBM lawsuit is a blather of claims so far-fetched that the probability of the judge agreeing with them is essentially zero. Their responses to discovery in IBM and their motions and responses in the Red Hat case are similar. And each document contradicts the others, and contradicts their behavior on public record.It doesn't look as if there will be much to see here. Bruce
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 14:49 UTC (Tue) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] Real shame about the patents, though. Any positive moves from IBM on that front?
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 15:41 UTC (Tue) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link] This is an effect, unfortunately, of the way our legal system is presently set up. According to the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 8-- General Rules of Pleading:(d) Effect of Failure to Deny. Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading. Averments in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided.It seems that some lawyers respond to this by responding to everything imaginable. So, if IBM's lawyers had asserted that Darl's mother's favorite footwear was purchased here, then by not responding they would be effectively admitting the assertion.
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 15:50 UTC (Tue) by TheOneKEA (subscriber, #615) [Link] I agree with you. At this point, all bets are off. The only thing left to do now is to continue carefully gathering evidence so that when this sham of a case finally arrives in court, IBM can overwhelmingly prove that SCO is full of it. I'm frankly surprised that SCO hasn't been shouted down in the U.S. like they have in Germany, were LinuxTag managed to silence them.
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 16:51 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "...SCO had some secret weapon that would lend credibility to their claims... ... so far-fetched that the probability of the judge agreeing with them is essentially zero"I agree that even (if?) a very croocked judje must be insane to concur with so weak arguments,..., but couldn't that "had been" the secret weapon ? I mean after the "hat trick" of M$ anti-trust case, after the episod of Bush "supreme gift", and consequent "where are the WMDs", one starts to wonder !!!??? Mario Marques
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 16:59 UTC (Tue) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] You know it. This very thing is my worst worry, and I am a United States citizen, who believes in freedom and justice.My experience is that freedom now comes by the minute at rate, and justice now comes by the brown paper bag (at rate, also, but you wouldn't want to meet the people who set those rates.) I hope to God I'm wrong, or that my fellow citizens will help put this situation to rights, because I have to live here.
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 17:57 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Its not essencialy different, i belive, from the rest of the world...USA is more "visible" because it "yet" detains the "material" center of progress, but as long lost the moral, justice, and "spiritual truthness" part of that center of progress... Rome itself was founded on belives of virtues like, justice, fortitude, wisdom and prudence, and had great liders(not perfects) of a higher moral and spiritual caracter, like Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln are good samples,... but Rome also had their aberrations like Calígula and others... Its a way of mankind, and i belive, where Rome stands today is as good to live as any other place... All we have to do, is fight ever without stop, for those justice, fortitude, wisdom and prudence!
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 21:42 UTC (Tue) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] Bruce;Certainly you know much more about these things than I ever will, I haven't read or seen or heard of a whole lot of issues of this In this contemporary climate of "Of the corporations, by the corporations,
Yep -- IBM is sweating, all right. Posted Oct 28, 2003 15:57 UTC (Tue) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link] As we had a right to expect, Groklaw has done a piece on SCO's latest filing, and the attendant snorting and pawing of the ground by BS. But this time, Groklaw cannot find a way to take it seriously. Overall assessment: SCO has gone beyond the merely stupid and offensive, and has now ventured into self-parody.On a related note: Compare and contrast the huffy tone, verging on the hysterical, taken by SCO's spokesmen with this commentary by Steve Mills of IBM. On the value of looking at SCO's "evidence" under an NDA, he has this: "You have to make the pilgrimage to Utah and see this stuff under armed guard or something. I'm not really sure how they do these inspections, but we're not involved in that. It'll all come down to what goes to court." There's a distinct lack of boot-quaking coming out of Armonk.
Noorda's Revenge? Posted Oct 28, 2003 16:08 UTC (Tue) by sphealey (guest, #1028) [Link] It has occured to me that the whole SCO mess might be Ray Noorda's final revenge on Microsoft. Take some people you knew to be C players, gave them a bit of misdirection about the great case they have against Linux and the GPL, and turn them loose against the strongest opponent. Knowing that they will fail miserably and, in so doing, lay down some case law that Microsoft would have a very hard time overturning. A last service to mankind, perhaps, if the reports of Noorda's poor health are correct.sPh
Noorda's Revenge? Posted Oct 28, 2003 20:58 UTC (Tue) by ksmathers (guest, #2353) [Link] I was wondering the same thing myself. Not with respect to Noorda, but with respect to SCO. Clearly they have decided to burn themselves on a very public pyre -- I really do think that this suit will eventually be considered one of the real turning points for Linux and open source. We will see how that point turns out, but I expect the best.
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 16:27 UTC (Tue) by lonely_bear (subscriber, #2726) [Link] That is true lies. I think SCO's lawyer sould be barred from being lawyer again.
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 17:16 UTC (Tue) by busterb (subscriber, #560) [Link] It's funny, but to bar a lawyer from practicing law is to 'disbar' him.
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 17:17 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] After Napster, Al Gore election, M$ anti-trust case and now SCO, i'm starting to belive that this lawyer Mr. Boies, is hired to lose!!??...!!
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 17:23 UTC (Tue) by pjs (guest, #10927) [Link] See the comment above posted by Steven Cole (posted 46 minutes earlier than yours), regarding Rule 8, which in a nutshell seems to say that all this filing must list all possible defenses (no others will be allowed), and the common result is a filing with everything imaginable so it _might_ be used later on. Also, similarly insightful comments about these rules were posted on the Groklaw and Slashdot sites yesterday.Now, what were you saying about barring (bad pun?) SCO's lawyer "from being lawyer again"? Ah yes, because they filed a long list of possible defenses and some of them seem to contradict each other, or some are weak or maybe even just silly. Well, if Steven Cole is right (along with other similar posts yesterday), then it sure looks like SCO's lawyer is the one that knows what he's doing, doesn't it? Also, if these comments about Rule 8 are accurate, and it is a normal and even expected legal tactic to file a long list of possible defenses so that all the options are kept open later in the trial, then perhaps this would be a good moment to reflect upon the accuracy of "reporting" here on LWN and on Groklaw (and slashdot, quoting groklaw). So far, every analysis (if you can go so far as to call it) has chosen a small subset of the affarmative defenses... the ones that are contradictory, the ones that seem to have logic errors, the ones that seem to contradict well established facts, and of course the ones that contain laugauge insulting to most people with an interest in the GPL and its success. If Rule 8 really does work as described, how clueful is it to cherry pick the worst, most absurd defenses from the list? How about then shredding those weak defenses apart, rather than the stronger ones that are much more likely to actually be used in court? What do weak defenses "prove" about SCO? If Rule 8 is true, it proves nothing other than they are attempting to cover all their bases and keep all their options open, which is apparantly the common legal tactic.
Fair and insightful, but... Posted Oct 28, 2003 17:38 UTC (Tue) by sphealey (guest, #1028) [Link] Overall I would consider that a fair and insightful comment. But - lawyers also have a duty not to bring frivolous cases before the court. The "GPL is Unconstitutional" argument might be acceptable as raising an affirmative defense if other aspects of the case are substantial. But if there is no meat _anywhere_in the case, then it is something other than "acceptable".sPh
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 17:41 UTC (Tue) by PhilipStephens (guest, #16336) [Link] If you had bothered to read the full court filing from SCO, you'd realise that there is no reasonable defense in the entire document. Truly, SCO is building their whole case on a house of cards.The folks over on Groklaw didn't just cherry-pick the worst of the defenses. They went over the entire document and found absolutely nothing that would help SCO win their case. I agree with the assessment that under Rule 8 SCO had an obligation to put forward every possible defense, no matter how silly it may sound, so that they could pursue any or all of them at a future point in the trial. But does that mean we shouldn't analyse those defenses to see whether any of them have merit? Of course not. The gleeful chortling over on Groklaw may seem unprofessional to you, but they've been following the case from the beginning, and the analyses of each and every SCO press release and court filing by Pamela Jones is far from clueless. If you think that SCO may have some good defenses, then why not point them out to us. I suspect you won't find anything in the latest court filing that would be considered "clueful".
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 20:07 UTC (Tue) by pjs (guest, #10927) [Link] As a quick example, defense #21 claims that IBM did not specify which articles of the patents were violated, which supposedly limits their claim for damages. Reading the IBM complaint, indeed they merely claim that SCO is violating the patents and they don't cite specific articles.#22 claims that IBM did not notify SCO of patent infringement before the countersuit (presumably this is true), and hopes to defend against damages predating the lawsuit. And what about the last one, #26, which seems to claim that IBM's complaint based on the GPL would require joint effort with other contributors? Perhaps you are right, that "there is no reasonable defense in the entire document", but to my untrained eye, these look like they might at least help SCO limit damages. There are many other defenses listed that seem to hinge on wether IBM's license really was terminated or not, so to call all those unreasonable is to assume that the judge will side with IBM, that their license truely was irrevokable. My gripe is that Groklaw, LWN and Slashdot are making a lot of noise about defenses like #7, #8 and #9 (GPL is invalid) and the impression is that ALL the defenses are similar. Most likely you know a lot more about law than I do. PJ certainly does. But her rant that appeared on Groklaw yesterday didn't take the defenses seriously, and ranted about a select group that were particularly absurd. Sure, everybody expects Slashdot to be biased and often grossly flat-out wrong. But, at least historically, I've taken Groklaw and LWN more seriously. To a casual reader, seeing the really absurd defenses ripped to pieces on Groklaw and LWN would give them the impression that all of these were similarly absurd. Obviously you believe this, and you very well may be right. But having just re-read all 26 of them, while none jumped out and screamed "that will vindicate SCO", at least half seem like they might have a chance depending on how the judge views a number of still unresolved issues. My only point is that, in light of Rule 8, that any unbiased analysis would ignore the weakest defenses and focus on the likelyhood for success of the stronger ones. But bashing the weakest ones makes for sensational headlines!
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 21:05 UTC (Tue) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link] In The Art of War, Chapter VI. Weak Points and Strong, Sun Tzu says:28. Military tactics are like unto water; for water in its natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards.It may therefore be quite natural to focus attack at the weak points. This may very well be a mistake. There's no legal analog of breaking through an enemy's lines. Opponents of SCO should be looking into fighting the strongest points of their offense and defense. The weak points will take care of themselves.
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 21:27 UTC (Tue) by sommere (guest, #14168) [Link] Perhaps you are right, that "there is no reasonable defense in the entire document", but to my untrained eye, these look like they might at least help SCO limit damagesOK, but while I'd like to see the execs of SCO get charged with fraud, (which would be done by federal authoritys not IBM) my main concern is that Linux stays Free and free. Even if all of those are true, and they _limit_ SCOs damages, as long as SCOs future damages are enough to keep them from persuing any licencing BS should they win on any count in their claims against IBM, I'm happy.
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 23:05 UTC (Tue) by JohnC (guest, #16343) [Link] As a quick example, defense #21 claims that IBM did not specify which articles of the patents were violated, which supposedly limits their claim for damages. Reading the IBM complaint, indeed they merely claim that SCO is violating the patents and they don't cite specific articles.
http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-27-1-IBM-Counterclaim-IP_Story02.html
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 29, 2003 1:44 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] on #21:IBM specified exactly which patents were involved. SCO later claimed that
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 21:47 UTC (Tue) by adamruth (guest, #12380) [Link] I think that the analysis of Rule 8 is not quite right. The defendant need onlyrespond with "Accept", "Deny", or "Don't know", but they don't need to provide any specific arguments as to why. Essentially, the averments are there to show "we agree with this, no need to do discovery and depose witnesses and all that". The defendant can still use any defense they choose to prove their denial of an It appears to me that the response is PR and truly is the best defense they have.
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 28, 2003 18:29 UTC (Tue) by davidl (guest, #12156) [Link] No, the copyright holder who has chosen the GPL can enforce the GPL themselves. The FSF can help them if they wish, although I don't think IBM will need them :).If the GPL is unenforceable then show us the money!
Patents and copyright laws Posted Oct 28, 2003 20:27 UTC (Tue) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] "If we're in violation of them, then just about every other vendor in the entire software industry is in violation of them,", Stowell said.I picked this part of the article, because it clearly shows that these people have no understanding of patents law. Patents in the U.S. are rights to exclude others from making, offering for sale, importing etc. So, IBM can pick who they want to exclude. Who cares if every other vendor is in violation? It is up to IBM to decide who they want to bring down, which they did :-) It also goes to show that patent portfolios have mostly a defensive purpose when it comes to big corporations, which is a huge problem in itself. On the copyright law front, I must agree with Linus. These people have gone on a corporate-wide crack-smoking expedition and they aren't coming back any time soon.
SCO: IBM cannot enforce GPL (InfoWorld) Posted Oct 29, 2003 14:19 UTC (Wed) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link] I had to put this reply on its own, sorry folks. I am just about brain numbed by the assertion I just read though. The GPL violates the Constitution? Can somebody explain that logic to me. Just thinking about how that works makes me have to twist my perceptions of reality to the point that it makes my brain hurt. I think Darl, B.S. and Co. are living in Bizarro World.
IBM doesn't need to enforce GPL Posted Oct 30, 2003 5:55 UTC (Thu) by LioNiNoiL (guest, #16364) [Link] Here's my take on the situation.SCO claims ownership of UNIX and UnixWare, inherited from AT&T Bell Laboratories by way of code purchased from Novell in 1995: http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html Their lawsuit appears to be a sequel to the case of Unix System Laboratories versus Berkeley Software Design in 1992, settled in 1994: http://www.openresources.com/documents/open-sources/node32.html I don't think they have a leg to stand on, and I can't imagine a judge with his wits about him thinking otherwise.
|
|
||||||||||||