IBM files countersuit against SCO, SCO shares drop (Reuters) [LWN.net]

IBM has filed a countersuit against SCO, according to this Reuters article. "IBM, in its countersuit filed in federal court in Utah, alleged SCO had breached the general public license for Linux and infringed on IBM patents, according to the court documents. SCO is based in Lindon, Utah. SCO shares, which have gained sharply from about $3 since it announced its suit, fell $1.27, or 10.6 percent, to $10.73 in morning Nasdaq trading. IBM gained 42 cents to $80.13." (Thanks to Robert Steinfeldt).

to post comments

IBM files countersuit against SCO, SCO shares drop (Reuters)

Posted Aug 7, 2003 16:29 UTC (Thu) by dr_lha (guest, #86) [Link] (5 responses)

IBM has a huge number of patents, and likes to use them to defend itself (I seem to remember a case where someone tried to sue IBM for patent violation, and IBM's response was "Well you're violating xxx of OUR patents"), so its no surprise to hear that they're using them against SCO in this countersuit. Looks like IBM is finally bringing out the big guns against SCO. Good on them!

IBM files countersuit against SCO, SCO shares drop (Reuters)

Posted Aug 7, 2003 16:50 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] (2 responses)

Interesting how the article made mention of stock-price changes.

I keep wondering about a world where everything you do doesn't get related to the "stock market." What would it be like?

IBM files countersuit against SCO, SCO shares drop (Reuters)

Posted Aug 7, 2003 16:54 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

Do bear in mind that Reuters is somewhat oriented toward the financial industry; their readers are interested in stuff like that.

IBM files countersuit against SCO, SCO shares drop (Reuters)

Posted Aug 7, 2003 17:01 UTC (Thu) by jzb (editor, #7867) [Link]

I keep wondering about a world where everything you do doesn't get related to the "stock market." What would it be like?

Ah, to dream... it would be pretty nice, at least from where I'm sitting. Much corporate silliness comes from basing decisions on stock price rather than the actual health of the company. There's a serious conflict of interest when a CEO can drive their bonuses up by inflating the stock price by laying off people when the long-term results of that action are actually bad for the company -- but in the short term, the CEO and other C-level types make out like bandits while putting people out of work and harming a company's long-term health.

Of course, without the stock market, Caldera never would have been in the position to buy the Unix stuff from the original SCO... they'd still be struggling to get market share with Linux, if they could have stayed in business that long without the cash infusion from selling stock.

IBM files countersuit against SCO, SCO shares drop (Reuters)

Posted Aug 7, 2003 17:50 UTC (Thu) by hans (guest, #148) [Link]

I seem to remember a case where someone tried to sue IBM for patent violation, and IBM's response was "Well you're violating xxx of OUR patents"

There's an article on the Forbes website that gives a good overview of IBM's patent strategy.

IBM files countersuit against SCO, SCO shares drop (Reuters)

Posted Aug 7, 2003 23:12 UTC (Thu) by djabsolut (guest, #12799) [Link]

So we have yet another installment of the SCO Show :-) me happy !!! I wonder how long it'll be before Hollywood turns this into another bad movie of the week...

The hammer has fallen

Posted Aug 7, 2003 16:51 UTC (Thu) by razholio (guest, #5706) [Link] (6 responses)

The sleeping giant has awoken, and the hammer has fallen. I believe the appropriate response from the SCO pretty-boys is 'oh shit'. Thanks for the excitement, guys. Buh-bye.

The hammer has fallen

Posted Aug 7, 2003 17:18 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] (4 responses)

You might want to think about who's backing SCO financially, and politically, before you make such blanket statements about the future.

Do not forget that some of the people involved with SCO are likely quite familiar with the procedures for rigging things to go their way. I will assume that IBM backers are no different.

I'm expecting a big fight.

The hammer has fallen

Posted Aug 7, 2003 18:03 UTC (Thu) by hans (guest, #148) [Link] (3 responses)

I'd give it a 20% chance that IBM acquires SCO to get rid of them, a 30% chance that SCO goes bankrupt, and a 50% chance that Microsoft buys SCO, along with their IP claims, then uses their fleet of lawyers to spread FUD in an effort to kill Linux.

Hmmm... I'm depressed now. Someone please tell me I'm wrong!

ms

Posted Aug 7, 2003 20:16 UTC (Thu) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link]

I don't think Microsoft is stupid enough to buy into a big losing lawsuit like this one. They enjoy watching SCO try to stir up trouble, and they'll even back that, but they've got no reason to stick their own neck out here.

The hammer has fallen

Posted Aug 7, 2003 22:02 UTC (Thu) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link]

and a 50% chance that Microsoft buys SCO, along with their IP claims, then uses their fleet of lawyers to spread FUD in an effort to kill Linux.

They'd love to, I'm sure. But even in today's political climate I just can't see it. I mean, think about it: "convicted OS monopolist buys IP of Unix and [allegedly] Linux". Besides, I don't think Scott M. would allow it - he hates Microsoft even more than he hates Linux. I think the greater chance is that Sun buys SysV.

Too expensive

Posted Aug 8, 2003 10:08 UTC (Fri) by james (guest, #1325) [Link]

... a 50% chance that Microsoft buys SCO...

That could be expensive for Microsoft. If IBM win, then IBM (and quite a few other firms) will have a good case against SCO for loss of earnings and similar claims.

If SCO can be said to be an independent legal entity, then the most IBM can get is the residual value in a beaten and broken SCO. But if Microsoft own SCO, and SCO is acting as part of Microsoft, then IBM can sue Microsoft.

Of course, that wouldn't get to trial. Microsoft and IBM still need each other. Knowing Microsoft, they'd try to buy IBM off with reduced OEM prices for Windows, Office, and possibly server software.

But when you're taking IBM volumes, that's a lot of revenue.

James.

The hammer has fallen

Posted Aug 7, 2003 18:37 UTC (Thu) by philips (guest, #937) [Link]

The sleeping giant has awoken, and the hammer has fallen.

I would say sleeping giant had bad dream and just moved little bit with one of his fingers. No hammer yet.
Hammer: IBM hold more than 30k patents. And it enforces just four of them. IBM is just kidding ;-)))

Not to pile on or anything, but ...

Posted Aug 7, 2003 17:02 UTC (Thu) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link] (1 responses)

SCO has enjoyed the advantage of the offensive for too long.
With its recent actions, SCO has deliberately and maliciously violated the GPL, if the GPL means anything. In a breathtaking display of chutzpah, SCO has repeatedly made public statements, without foundation, that the Linux community does not respect "intellectual property", while at the same time proceeding to violate the rights of copyright holders responsible for creating the product SCO distributes.
Conspicuous by its absence has been any response from the injured parties, viz.: the kernel developers and other copyright holders whose work SCO is attempting to exploit.
If the Linux community contents itself with making outraged noises and takes no action, then SCO is justified in considering this hijacking to have been a good gamble.

It is time not to bark, but to bite.

Let Linus, rms, esr, Perens and the rest of the free software movement's leadership issue a joint statement denouncing SCO's actions! Let all interested copyright holders join together and file suit as a group against SCO, seeking appropriate damages ($3B seems small)! Let every GNU/Linux distribution join with Red Hat and SuSE in public statements, support and legal action! Let US and Utah residents ask their elected representatives to investigate a criminal enterprise attempting to hold an entire industry for ransom!

If we do no more than gripe to one another, we will accomplish nothing. If we use our voices, our votes, and our dollars and Euros to express our outrage, we can change everything.

Not to pile on or anything, but ...

Posted Aug 8, 2003 12:35 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Except it's very hard to bite, if there's nothing there to get your teeth into.

SCO has heretofor been VERY careful, in that all they've done is sue IBM, try to keep the case from coming to trial, and made loads of inflammatory press statements. The problem for the "linux community" is the sheer LACK of substance in any of SCO's claims - the lack of anything to sue about.

I'm convinced that IBM's delay in filing counter-suit is due entirely to that. Does anybody else find it curious that, within A DAY of SCO announcing a real plan to sell "linux licences", IBM weighs in with a countersuit that alleges, amongst other things, a breach of the GPL, and tosses the clause 4 nuke into play?

SCO had said they intended to licence linux, and IBM set up the clause 4 charge. IBM just had to wait until SCO did something *concrete* that could justify IBM lobbing it.

So I think we have cause to smile. The patent claims are the appetiser. The GPL claim is the 32oz T-bone steak :-)

SCO's Unix business is withering on the vine. This will kick them out of the linux business. SCO want a buy-out? Actually, I think I know the perfect partner. Let McD's buy them out (the tech side, that is) and turn them into an in-house DP department. The "management", such as it is, are best tossed to the wolves. After all, aren't ALL of SCO's Unix customers now frantically looking for an exit?

Cheers,
Wol

Lessons in Licencing

Posted Aug 7, 2003 17:20 UTC (Thu) by steverus_uk (guest, #13783) [Link]

I can't help thinking that the chaps at SCO just want give us (slightly
less knowledgeable software types) some simple lessons in licencing
rules!

The situation encourages us to pick up the 'lore' books, and articles and
precedent etc, just to confirm that they really are just executing a
colourful 'exit strategy' from SCO. (I mean, they must know they haven't
got a hope!)

Will the protagonists of this venture actually have to pay out
personally?

IBM files countersuit against SCO, SCO shares drop (Reuters)

Posted Aug 7, 2003 17:21 UTC (Thu) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] (6 responses)

IMHO, I think SCO already has what it wants. Of course, they are going to milk this for whatever they can, but to go up against big blue is going to be too tough, they might tuck tail and fade away.

Since their pumped up stock has already allowed the Canopy group to make some nice aquisitions. SCO was dead on the floor before this started, it jumped the stock nearly 300 percent, some deals were made, some nice pensions were set up, all in all, a pretty clean manipulation of the press. No down side
for SCO.

The folks who are REALLY behind the SCO-IBM lawsuit are pretty clearly Microsoft who is going after the GPL by a SCO proxy.

No one is going to touch Microsoft for their hand in this. So, even though the SCO thing might fade away, the real problem is never going to until someone actually addresses Microsofts monopolistic anti-competitive behaviour.
Something the US government took great pains to avoid doing when they had the chance, pretty much making Microsoft immune.

On the upside, a failure of SCO is going to make Microsofts' next big FUD flood a lot harder.

IBM files countersuit against SCO, SCO shares drop (Reuters)

Posted Aug 7, 2003 19:12 UTC (Thu) by TimCunningham (guest, #10316) [Link] (5 responses)

The folks who are REALLY behind the SCO-IBM lawsuit are pretty clearly Microsoft who is going after the GPL by a SCO proxy.

What about Sun?

IBM files countersuit against SCO, SCO shares drop (Reuters)

Posted Aug 7, 2003 21:13 UTC (Thu) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] (4 responses)

Sun isn't or rather hasn't invested in SCO and lent moral and legal support to this linux bashing like Microsoft has. Also, there weren't all that many post-antitrust papers leaked from Sun talking about the linux threat and a road map that included going after the GPL via proxy to avoid
the ire of the justice department. Also Sun plays a lot nicer.

IBM files countersuit against SCO, SCO shares drop (Reuters)

Posted Aug 7, 2003 21:51 UTC (Thu) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

But Sun does exhibit a Jekyll/Hyde mentality. Just look at this weeks quote from Sun:

"The secret to gaining the upper hand in the market for large IT systems--which include hardware, software, and operating system--is to leverage one's intellectual property rather than become beholden to the cookie-cutter chips and operating systems produced by Intel, Microsoft, and even Red Hat, said Jonathan Schwartz, Sun's executive VP for software"

IBM files countersuit against SCO, SCO shares drop (Reuters)

Posted Aug 7, 2003 21:57 UTC (Thu) by donwaugaman (subscriber, #4214) [Link] (2 responses)

> Sun isn't or rather hasn't invested in SCO and lent moral and legal support to this linux bashing like Microsoft has.

Sun has sent good money to SCO for a "Unix license" of dubious utility. Sun has proceeded to market their Linux as the "safe Linux" in contrast to those infringing Linuxes from IBM, Red Hat, et. al.

I think Sun's actions qualify as moral and legal support as strongly as Microsoft's.

> Also, there weren't all that many post-antitrust papers leaked from Sun talking about the linux threat and a road map that included going after the GPL via proxy to avoid the ire of the justice department.

Only because Sun hasn't had an antitrust case against it.

But Sun is certainly aware of Linux, and is aware of the threat it represents. Linux sharply reduces the value of Solaris, and promises to eliminate its value in the future. Without Solaris as a differentiator and a point of customer lock-in, and with cheaper and progressively faster low-end computers based on the Intel architecture swallowing the market from the bottom up, Sun has to be aware that Linux poses a greater threat to their company's survival in the near term than MS.

> Also Sun plays a lot nicer.

Because Sun doesn't have the kind of monopoly power of MS that would allow it to play mean in the market and get away with it.

If you reversed the market positions of Sun and Microsoft, I can guarantee you that Scott McNealy would become the new Open Source antichrist, have his picture "borg-ed" as a Slashdot subject icon, and Sun would be trying to turn Java into a .Net-like source of customer lock-in.

Any difference between Sun and MS is one of degree, not of kind.

If Sun suddenly was in charge? "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."

IBM files countersuit against SCO, SCO shares drop (Reuters)

Posted Aug 8, 2003 1:18 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

Yeah, I think so too. Scott, Larry, and Bill are all on about the same rung of the megalomania ladder, which is to say pretty high up.

This sort of thing will always be with us; it's not just a matter of taking care of one or two predatory individuals and/or companies. The love of money and power is a continuing human affliction.

IBM files countersuit against SCO, SCO shares drop (Reuters)

Posted Aug 8, 2003 13:26 UTC (Fri) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link]

"Because Sun doesn't have the kind of monopoly power of MS that would allow it to play mean in the market and get away with it."

Oh, I concurr completely. Please, I'm sorry if I conveyed
some other monopoly power would be better. It's the nature
of monopolies. Prisoners delimma, tragedy of the commons,
nash equilibrium and all that.

But I really don't see the real badguy here as being Sun.
Or SCO for that matter. There is a matter of the
blood thirsty Canopy group being willing to do anything
for money. And the matter that the powergroup best served
by this entire fiasco is Microsoft.

As has been stated before, and some of you know. The SCO of
6 months ago, compared to the SCO of 6 years ago, the
relative price of the SCO stock, the ratio of coders to
managment, the desire for a super fat exit strategey (resulting
from avaricious incompetence) for the big dogs of a company that was/is
clearly nearly dead, and the fact that Microsoft is off on a full court
press to bury the GPL and Linux anyway it can. Having effectively been
given a pass by the US justice department to do so.

Certainly, were SCO to prevail, Scott McNealy and Sun corporate would
rejoice. Though there are elements in the shops of Sun that would
be pretty unhappy. Not so for Microsoft. As Microsoft starts
moving it's programming shops offshore (India), It really does
appear to be very interested in controlling the worlds money, and the
only real obstacle is the GPL and Linux. Governments and legal
systems by nature being subject to monetary corruption having
been shown to be completely ineffective at contolling their (MS's)
assimilation of all things data related. I've never heard, seen or
caught wind of any Microsoftee even open to the idea of freedom.