SCO Looking To Ditch Actual Business To Try To Keep Lawsuit Going
from the going-full-on-patent-troll dept
Slashdot points us to the latest in the never-ending saga of SCO trying to claim infringement in Linux. Despite massive setbacks that should have just ended the quixotic campaign, it appears that SCO is looking to sell off its actual businesses in order to keep the lawsuit campaign going. It's amazing that after losing pretty much every aspect of this campaign from the very beginning, that folks at SCO still think it's worth pursuing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is this a way to save what's left?
If they spin the products off as a new company, they leave the baggage (the lawsuit and Darl) behind. They aren't in a position to bargain very hard, so anyone (their current investors perhaps?) could snap up the actual products for relatively little.
I don't know, it sounds like it must be some kind of hail-mary pass, but I'm unclear what they are really trying to save here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well, you have to expect it.
*cue some fitting ship sinking music as the battle goes on*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I thought this ended back in 2007...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SCO is guilty of copyright infringement, not Linux.
What does SCO have left to go after IBM or linux ? When is IBM going to mop the floor with the SCO remains ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I want to see the infringing code
Linux kernel 2.0.36 violated copyright law with code taken from FreeBSD in the network stack.
Virgin violated the GPL with their netplayer.
AT&T violated the BSD copyright.
Other claims:
G4L ripped off G4U.
Parts of the Linux SATA code was ripped off from BSD.
Is there code in Linux in violation of some IP law - would not shock me. History *DOES* have the Linux kernel in IP law violation, Linux vendors in violation of IP law, and GNU/Linux being IP Violated.
Is that violation with 4 billion - that *WOULD* be a shocker. I'd love to see Darl get $1 and no court costs.
But - SCO has never shown the lines of code that are in violation have they? I'd like to see the trial so these lines can be seen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well, you have to expect it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I thought this ended back in 2007...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fighting for what;'s right
You know why it's gone against them so badly so far? Because the judges are BOUGHT and PAID FOR by the Big Bully companies that they are fighting against in a classic David and Goliath fight, that's why. You know it, I know it, don't kid yourselves.
I'm very impressed that even in its darkest hour, SCO still manages to bite and bravely hang on, never letting go, just like the proverbial rottweiller that's grabbed your balls. They *know* they're right and no way are they gonna give in!
They will win this, you'll see. SCO will then rise from the ashes just like the Griffin and will be glorious once more!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grabbing Goliath by the balls!
You know why it's gone against them so badly so far? Because the judges are BOUGHT and PAID FOR by the Big Bully companies that they are fighting against in a classic David and Goliath fight, that's why. You know it, I know it, don't kid yourselves.
I'm very impressed that even in its darkest hour, SCO still manages to bite and bravely hang on, never letting go, just like the proverbial rottweiller that's grabbed your balls. They *know* they're right and no way are they gonna give in!
They will win this, you'll see. SCO will then rise from the ashes just like the Griffin and will be glorious once more!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fighting for what;'s right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Fighting for what;'s right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Grabbing Goliath by the balls!
1. Like SCO, you can't seem to get your arguments straight, which is why you also fail.
2. BTW, it's the Phoenix that rises from the ashes (See #1)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RE: Is this a way to save what's left?
9 March 2007: SCO announces World Wide Web availability details for the Adobe Flash Player
way to go OpenServer team!
Watch this phoenix rise from the ashes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I want to see the infringing code
alternatives() proclaimed:
Really? Which clause(s) in the licences did they infringe?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Grabbing Goliath by the balls!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Grabbing Goliath by the balls!
1. State exactly which copyrights have been violated.
2. Produce examples of code from the Linux kernel that infringes said copyrights, along with proof that IBM had originally supplied the code.
Step 2 would be a difficult and arduous process with a closed-source system. However, everything about the Linux development process is open and publicly available, from the code introduced into each revision to a list of exactly who supplied said code. Yet, in over 5 years, SCO has neither listed the violated copyrights, nor provided the code.
Why, exactly would they not do this? There's only one explanation - there is no evidence to begin with, and no violation. The lawsuit was a sham, an attempt to extort IBM, Red Hat, et al into settling. They lost the moment that IBM decided to fight these ridiculous claims instead of settling. Note that even SCO's claims have toned down over the years. The original claims were that "millions" of lines of infringing code have been found. The most recent arguments have been over less than 50 lines, most of which are system calls that cannot be copyrighted.
Luckily, this whole episode has strengthened the reputation of the open source process. There had been no questionable code found in Linux, even though the model theoretically invites such violations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Grabbing Goliath by the balls!
Fantastic post!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I thought this ended back in 2007...
microsoft "renews" their system v "license" with sco regularly. since MS is legendary for dirty tricks, and MS made a big show of buying their license in 2001 or 2002 (out of "respect" for the SCO patent) and MS is one of, if not the biggest of SCO's customer, i wouldn't be surprised in the least if this whole thing is just some some sort of FUD/smear campaign being financed by MS and SCO is simply the mercenary hired to do the work.
so as long as MS is still writing those checks, SCO will continue to fail loudly and publicly at this lawsuit.
the sale seems like a move to protect remaining products and customers from the fallout of SCO's collapse. maybe the new owner will switch back to caldera and start selling linux again :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I want to see the infringing code
Yes.
Which clause(s) in the licences did they infringe?
I'm happy to clear up your ignorance.
RedHat 5 - Old clause 3
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes software developed by the University of
* California, Berkeley and its contributors.
Linux 2.0.36
Removal of the BSD copyright. You can't remove the copyright and claim its yours.
AT&T violated the BSD copyright.
The AT&T VS Berkeley lawsuit settlement.
Parts of the Linux SATA code was ripped off from BSD.
Read the charges on /. Went to find it and didn't. But if I had, would it have changed your mind?
An added bonus:
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/29/0241234
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I want to see the infringing code
Then the Red Hat licensing. I could be wrong here, but wouldn't the code now be under the GPL? If so, wouldn't the GPL terms supersede the original Berkley license and therefore allow the copyright notice to be omitted (as long as it was distributed under GPL terms)? I'm no expert on licences, so I wouldn't mind being corrected if I'm wrong, but these seem like pretty flimsy claims to me.
Finally, I fail to see what this has to do with the issue at hand. None of the violations you mention would have anything to do with SCO apart from the Berkley code, and it's already been well established that Novell are the owners of those copyrights, not SCO. Do you have any more relevant examples?
What I'm seeing here are examples of people being a little too eager with cut & paste, not the "millions of lines" of infringing code that Darl originally claimed, nor necessarily deliberate violations of copyright. BTW, pretty much every major software company - from Microsoft downwards - have been found in violation of copyright and/or patent infringement at some point in their history. If your intent here was to cast doubt on Linux or support the veracity of SCO's (still unsubstantiated) claims, it's a pretty poor effort.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I want to see the infringing code
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well, you have to expect it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BSD Licensing -- Advertising Clause
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BSD Licensing -- Advertising Clause
The advertising clause was removed from the official BSD license text on July 22, 1999 by William Hoskins, the director of the office of technology licensing for Berkeley.[4]
[4] ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
This change was retroactive, meaning that all versions of software that have the advertising clause no longer need to honor it to be in compliance with the license as of July, 1999.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.owlriver.com/redhat_versions.html
RedHat 5 series Oct 12 1998 to Nov 10 1997
Thus they would have been under the BSD 4 clause license at the time of release and held to the terms.
wouldn't the GPL terms supersede the original Berkley license
No. The GPL is additive, like how a virus adds its DNA to a cell it infects - if describing it in biological terms helps you understand.
People "thinking" like you do is why the 2.0.36 violation happened.
Finally, I fail to see what this has to do with the issue at hand.
Which issue is this? The complex nature of IP law? That there are unclean hands WRT IP? That you don't understand the IP laws - so your qualifications to judge what is in violation is suspect PaulT?
The reason for the lawsuit, the code in suspected violation, has never been released to the public. Claims that there is no violation made by people who also say "the GPL terms supersede the original Berkley license and therefore allow the copyright notice to be omitted" just shows how out touch the GNU/Linux side of the fence is. When there is a public showing of the code that may be in violation, then a determination can be made by informed people.
VS people who say "GPL terms supersede the original Berkley license".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawyers
This should be a warning to other companies that want to put the lawyers in the driver's seat but they're probably already too busy listening to their lawyers to heed it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Firstly, the GPL comment was just an assumption. I'm not a coder, just an interested Linux user with a very basic understanding of how these things work. I'm very hazy about the way once licence acts alongside another, especially with dual licencing, so no need to get sarcastic or act like an asshole. I never claimed to know how these things work exactly (hence my comments "I could be wrong here" and "I'm no expert on licences, so I wouldn't mind being corrected if I'm wrong").
As for the other comments, I still don't see what point you're getting at with these example. Yes, IP law is complicated. Given that such a large number of people - mostly not legally trained - are involved with Linux and other large-scale OS projects, it's not surprising that a couple of things have slipped through the net.
But, that's beside the point. You're pushing these examples of completely unrelated possible IP and copyright violations. I could probably respond with numerous similar violations by Microsoft and others, but that's got little to do with the issue at hand - the SCO case and how their original claims seem to have been utterly false, to the point where they've become a litigating shell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Grabbing Goliath by the balls!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Proveable claim - show this as true based on the open court records.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Judge: Novell owns intellectual property in Linux case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Judge: Novell owns intellectual property in Linux case.
Which does not answer - is there 'stolen code' in GNU/Linux.
Again - where is the code that infringed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]