Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune) [LWN.net]

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 18, 2015 15:18 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (10 responses)

Perhaps they should decide the case using a trial by combat ("Game of Thrones" style)?

It looks like it's the only way to kill this zombie lawsuit.

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 18, 2015 16:30 UTC (Wed) by jlargentaye (subscriber, #75206) [Link] (9 responses)

This is worse than those slasher movies where it turns out the killer wasn't dead!

I mean, by the fourth or fifth time it gets old...

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 18, 2015 17:01 UTC (Wed) by sbakker (subscriber, #58443) [Link] (7 responses)

Life imitates art: in nethack, the only way to permanently get rid of a troll is to eat it completely. Partially eaten trolls always resurrect.

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 18, 2015 17:15 UTC (Wed) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (6 responses)

To be pedantic, that simply isn't true. You can also get rid of a troll permanently by tinning its corpse, by petrifying it and then smashing or otherwise transforming the statue, or even by polymorphing the troll into something that doesn't regenerate and then killing that monster. Sometimes, the corpses will even rot before they can regenerate. I'm all in favor of trying any of these approaches on anyone in SCO's corporate suite.

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 18, 2015 20:59 UTC (Wed) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link] (1 responses)

I really hope this makes the LWN quotes page this week.

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 22, 2015 9:53 UTC (Sun) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link]

Me too. Comedy gold!

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 19, 2015 8:07 UTC (Thu) by gowen (guest, #23914) [Link] (3 responses)

The Dev Team thinks of everything.

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 19, 2015 14:39 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (2 responses)

Maybe we should sacrifice SCO's corpse on a lawful altar.

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 19, 2015 14:50 UTC (Thu) by sbakker (subscriber, #58443) [Link] (1 responses)

"Your sacrifice is consumed in a burst of flame -- You have a hopeful feeling..."

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 20, 2015 23:49 UTC (Fri) by ms_43 (subscriber, #99293) [Link]

Sacrificing the rotten corpses of the undead is unlikely to elicit such a response from any self-respecting deity.

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 18, 2015 20:37 UTC (Wed) by karkhaz (subscriber, #99844) [Link]

It'd be wonderful if Groklaw also came back from the dead, but I suppose that's too much to hope for. PJ, where are you when we need you?

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 18, 2015 16:34 UTC (Wed) by nye (subscriber, #51576) [Link] (13 responses)

Where is the money coming from? How is it that a bankrupt company can somehow afford to continue launching obviously baseless lawsuits having been consistently bitchslapped by the courts? Everyone knows there's absolutely no chance of success, so why would anyone be funding this lunacy? It makes no sense.

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 18, 2015 17:25 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link]

There's a rich guy at the back of this company that McBride convinced there were billions to be made. He's still back there trying to get his pay-off and after hey paid the lawyers $30 million McBridge got the lawyers to sign a contract saying they would keep going for as long as took without additional money. So it costs that rich guy nothing to keep pressing this and he wants the money he was promised.

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 18, 2015 17:29 UTC (Wed) by aklaver (guest, #62352) [Link]

From the lawyers who effectively own the company. SCO ran out of money long ago and they signed over the pink slip to David Boies and his law firm to keep the original suit going. The law firm at that point was working on contingency, in other words they do not get their money until they win a suit. This latest suit, I am sure, is another attempt to get at least some money to replace that which has already been thrown down the hole.

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 18, 2015 20:45 UTC (Wed) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link] (10 responses)

> How is it that a bankrupt company can somehow afford to continue launching obviously baseless lawsuits having been consistently bitchslapped by the courts?

Thanks to Oracle vs Google, it turns out APIs *can* be copyrighted, so I guess their claims hold water.

Thanks, Oracle!

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 18, 2015 23:11 UTC (Wed) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (9 responses)

It's not that. Wouldn't do them any good anyway because Novel owned it all anyway. This is the remainder of the suit that wasn't dismissed when Novel won their lawsuit saying they retained the copyright on the source code. Most of what remains is IBM's counterclaims but there are few SCO claims that are still left to be settled. Even if they won one of the other claims the money they are going to owe IBM for counterclaims is going to wipe them out. It's silly to do anything but throw in the towel at this point but they don't have to pay lawyer fees anymore so the trustee probably figures why not.

We still await the damage of the Oracle ruling. If it holds I'd love to see IBM pull Oracle into court for SQL, that would be karma.

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 19, 2015 17:22 UTC (Thu) by edeloget (subscriber, #88392) [Link] (8 responses)

It seems that some of you missed that small part in the article where it says that since the Novell vs. SCO trial shown that Novell was the Unix owner prior to 1995, it also means that any code developped by SCO after this date is their.

In other word, they are trying to win with their original argument (i.e. IBM stole their code and put it in Linux). Without showing their Unix code. And without showing that this specific code has been written after 1995.

And then, there is this "but they told them to eat their ice cream, so of course, the ice cream is no longer here" argument which is quite fun. Another way to say it is: "Of course we cannot prove anything! Who do you think we are? Winners?"

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 19, 2015 23:06 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (7 responses)

nobody disputes that SCO owned code that SCO wrote.

but it's important to note that SCO isn't claiming that IBM took code that SCO wrote and contributed it to Linux

SCO is claiming that IBM took code that IBM wrote and contributed it to Linux, but that they didn't have the right to do so.

SCO was required to show exactly what code of theirs exists in Linux, and the list they produced had no code that they actually wrote, in every case it was written by someone else.

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 20, 2015 0:46 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (6 responses)

SCO don't need to show that Linux contains their work. Showing that it contains a derived work of their work would be sufficient. The question is fundamentally whether jfs is a derived work of UNIX code that was owned by SCO.

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 20, 2015 0:54 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (5 responses)

Well, they first have to show that they own jfs code, and since that code was written by IBM, not by SCO, and the particular code in Linux came from OS/2 not from Unix (not even from AIX), SCO has no ground to stand on

As the courts have already ruled.

SCO never "owned Unix", the copyrights for Unix never left Novell. This was settled in court. What SCO does own the copyrights to is whatever code they wrote. They didn't write jfs, and there is no code that they wrote that in is the Linux kernel that wasn't contributed by SCO (i.e. Caldera)

Also remember, "Owning Unix" doesn't mean owning all Unix variants, or even that all Unix variants are derived from what you own. The BSD lawsuit settled that a long time ago. The results of the BSD lawsuits were finally made public during the SCO lawsuit, and they showed that the Judge had serious doubts as to if AT&T actually owned the copyright at that point. So, "Owning Unix" means very little.

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 20, 2015 0:57 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (4 responses)

They don't need to show they owned jfs. They need to show it's a derived work of code they wrote.

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 20, 2015 3:23 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (3 responses)

> They don't need to show they owned jfs. They need to show it's a derived work of code they wrote.

correct, but since they didn't own the code jfs was derived from, they have no claim of ownership over any code derived from it.

This has been the problem with all their claims, at some point they are required to point at specific code they own and specific code in Linux that is derived from it. No claim that they have made has stood up under examination and every claim related to copyright (and derivations) been thrown out.

There are three claims left by SCO against IBM all claiming some variation that IBM did something wrong in promoting linux to SCO customers.

Meanwhile, IBMs claims against SCO cover breech of contract, anti-trust, and GPL violations of code that IBM clearly and undisputedly owns.

The summary of pending issues was filed jointly by SCO and IBM on 3/13/15 and is available at http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/IBM-1134.pdf

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 20, 2015 4:43 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

> correct, but since they didn't own the code jfs was derived from, they have no claim of ownership over any code derived from it.

I'm not disagreeing that it's a ridiculous case. I'm disagreeing with your assertion that they needed to show literal copying.

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 20, 2015 18:29 UTC (Fri) by markhb (guest, #1003) [Link] (1 responses)

So, reading that and reaching back through the fog of memory, it appears that SCO's remaining claims are one relating to code IBM supposedly took from UnixWare during Project Monterey, and two which I think relate to IBM's supposedly commiting business interference during the ScoSource days (when SCO was selling protection licenses to Linux users in case it won the case).

IBM's counterclaims are first, a reversal of the UnixWare claim, and then (and most interestingly) accusations of SCO violating IBM's copyrights by distributing IBM's GPL'd code after SCO had lost the rights to do so per the terms of the GPL itself.

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 20, 2015 20:08 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

> after SCO had lost the rights to do so per the terms of the GPL itself.

more precisely, after SCO made the claim in court that the GPL was invalid.

Also, IIRC, some of the code they claimed was copied from Unixware to Linux was actually copied from Linux to Unixware. And I know there was other code copied from BSD to Unixware with the copyright notices removed

Also note that the Unixware claim is a breech of contract, not copyright violation.

IBMs third counterclaim is also interesting, aiming directly at the FUD with some nasty fraud charge

Utah software company’s decade-old suit against IBM revived (SL Tribune)

Posted Mar 20, 2015 16:43 UTC (Fri) by cdmiller (guest, #2813) [Link]

Revived just as a Windows 10 release is imminent. Time to polish up my tinfoil.

Note that the JUDGE woke the zombie.

Posted Mar 20, 2015 20:37 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

As per grokthelaw, he served a notice on the two parties that he wanted a status update.

As I remember, SCOG's case has pretty much been beheaded, gutted, disemboweled and generally ripped to pieces. IBM's counterclaims could unfortunately not be granted at summary judgement, so they need to go to trial.

Cheers,
Wol