OT: Cutthroat Microsoft Tactic

[Thermodyne]

SCO is a flop as a software company. But they did buy the original UNIX code. What they actually own is in doubt, is it the code, or the code along with the intellectual rights and the licensing rights? This will have to be resolved, but the US courts have always found in favor of the owners of the code in cases like this. The court has always seen the code as being the same as the intellectual rights. If SCO owns the original UNIX code, then we move to round two.

If SCO is correct, and Linux has SCO owned UNIX code in the kernel, then they will be entitled to receive compensation. Only a few Linux shops have the bucks to pay out damages, IBM being one of them. But end Users could be required to license their copies, or cease and desist from using Linux. If LT wrote the SCO code into Linux, he will have a big problem. He could already have a legal problem that will cost him a ton of money, just because he will need representation when this gets to court.

The guys at SCO have already made bucks from this, as did a bunch of people that bought in a <$2 a share , but what is at stake is much larger. If SCO wins or IBM just settles, then Linux will be dead as free ware. If IBM buys a license to use the code, then they will pass it on to their end Users. Red Hat and the other boxers would be in a bad way if IBM settled. There is enough Linux code out there to keep it going, but development will slow to a crawl as the big shops fold or move on to new code.

If SCO wins, then MS buys them out; well it will be Katie bar the door time. MS will have Windows and UNIX. And Linux will be dead in the water. The rumor is that MS would like to use UNIX in the next generation server code, but will not do so unless they can own it outright. And that it was MS that found the UNIX code in Linux. This thing will take years to work its way through the system, but it has the potential to be the largest software battle to date.

[Baron Munchausen]

As of right now, they only claim Linux kernel 1.2.4.18 and later have the infringing code. It's not quite such a big deal to go back and revise some recent additions to the Linux kernel even if SCO should win. But as their behavior so far shows -- noted by IBM in its counter-suit -- they seem to be interested in making legal maneuvering their new business model. The problem is not that some code has been added to Linux that doesn't belong. They could have complained directly to Linus without having to file any lawsuits. He would have very quickly had the code replaced. But that's not what SCO wanted. The problem is that a major contributing Linux software company has changed management and decided to make its living by litigation.

For this reason alone IBM will certainly not settle. If they settle it opens the door to god-knows-how-many new litigation franchise operations trying some new trick on IBM in hopes of getting some cash in a 'settlement'. SCO's legal claims are very weak anyway, with the GPL itself being the final hurdle they would have to over-come in order to prevail against IBM. They have been distributing the very code they claim is 'infringing' in the current Linux kernel for the whole time they have been making all these noises, effectively voiding their own copyright/patent (whichever they claim that it is covered by). And since contemporary litigation is really more of a test of financial strength/endurance than a test of validity of legal argument, it seems very unlikely that SCO can prevail with its weak position.

[ August 09, 2003, 23:39: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Loser]

Thanks for the update Baron.

[minipol]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
But end Users could be required to license their copies, or cease and desist from using Linux.

Well, you have to make a distinction here. Linux is the kernel not the operation system. And they are pretty sure that previous Versions of the kernel would be "legal" in that case so the overall impact on the linux kernel would be small. Besides, there is a GNU kernel being made also named the Hurd. Or you could go with FreeBSD, NetBSD and so on.
But it's fun to see what scumbags M$ are by "buying" a license of SCO. Instead of improving their own product to compete with linux they try to battle it out via other means.

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
If SCO wins or IBM just settles, then Linux will be dead as free ware.

Not true at all. If the kernel developers remove the code and replace it, the problem is solved ( if there is a problem which remains to be seen).

[ August 10, 2003, 15:10: Message edited by: minipol ]

[Thermodyne]

You are missing the point entirely! Open source does not generate enough income to insure their products, let alone defend them in court. And if SCO wins, they will have the resources to take a very close look at Linux code along with the other Xnix systems out there. There is a lot of pure UNIX code in most Nix operating systems. To have to go back and clean it all up or face long court battles will take cash. Cash that the Open Source community does not generate. To defend them will take cash. Cash that they do not have. This action is a predatory stroke of legal genius. And at its roots are the very fundamentals of capitalism. This is capitalistic big business/wealthy people, against socialistic give it out for free small business/poor people.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to see you Linux guys loose your OS of choice. But I also do strongly support the basic principals of capitalism as they exist today. For me personally, this will be of great interest to watch unfold. It will set the stage for the software of the next decade. And it is following the trend of past court battles, allowing for some coins to be made in the short term.

Also, I was of the (wrong) opinion that UNIX was old and dieing as the older systems were replaced with new iron. We personally have an old AS300 about to go out the door, which will be the end of UNIX for us. But I was researching the people with claims to things that are UNIX and I found that a place caller the Open Group owns the UNIX trade mark. When I took a look at their site, I found a time line that shows UNIX is continuing to evolve. And show or perhaps imply a close connection to the Linux/BSD communities.

Quote from the Open Group:

1969 The Beginning The history of UNIX starts back in 1969, when Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie and others started working on the "little-used PDP-7 in a corner" at Bell Labs and what was to become UNIX.

1971 First Edition It had a assembler for a PDP-11/20, file system, fork(), roff and ed. It was used for text processing of patent documents.

1973 Fourth Edition It was rewritten in C. This made it portable and changed the history of OS's.

1975 Sixth Edition UNIX leaves home. Also widely known as Version 6, this is the first to be widely available out side of Bell Labs. The first BSD Version (1.x) was derived from V6.

1979 Seventh Edition It was a "improvement over all preceding and following Unices" [Bourne]. It had C, UUCP and the Bourne shell. It was ported to the VAX and the kernel was more than 40 Kilobytes (K).

1980 Xenix Microsoft introduces Xenix. 32V and 4BSD introduced.

1982 System III AT&T's UNIX System Group (USG) release System III, the first public release outside Bell Laboratories.

1983 System V Computer Research Group (CRG), UNIX System Group (USG) and a third group merge to become UNIX System Development Lab. AT&T announces UNIX System V, the first supported release.

1984 4.2BSD University of California at Berkeley releases 4.2BSD, includes TCP/IP, new signals and much more.

1984 SVR2 System V Release 2 introduced. At this time there are 100,000 UNIX installations around the world.

1986 4.3BSD 4.3BSD released, including internet name server

1987 SVR3 System V Release 3 including STREAMS, TLI, RFS. At this time there are 750,000 UNIX installations around the world.

1988 POSIX.1 published. Open Software Foundation (OSF) and UNIX International (UI) formed.

1989 AT&T UNIX Software Operation formed in preparation for spinoff of USL.

1989 SVR4 UNIX System V Release 4 ships, unifying System V, BSD and Xenix

1990 XPG3 X/Open launches XPG3 Brand

1991 UNIX System Laboratories (USL) becomes a company - majority-owned by AT&T. Linus Torvalds commences Linux development

1992 SVR4.2 USL releases UNIX System V Release 4.2 (Destiny). October - XPG4 Brand launched by X/Open. December 22nd Novell announces intent to acquire USL.

1993 4.4BSD 4.4BSD the final release from Berkeley. June 16 Novell acquires USL

Late 1993 SVR4.2MP Novell transfers rights to the "UNIX" trademark and the Single UNIX Specification to X/Open. In December Novell ships SVR4.2MP , the final USL OEM release of System V

1994 4.4-Lite BSD 4.4-Lite eliminated all code claimed to infringe on USL/Novell

1995 UNIX 95 X/Open introduces the UNIX 95 branding programme. Novell sells UnixWare business to SCO.

1996 The Open Group forms as a merger of OSF and X/Open.

1997 Single UNIX Specification, Version 2 The Open Group introduces Version 2 of the Single UNIX Specification, including support for realtime, threads and 64-bit and larger processors. The specification is made freely available on the web.

1998 UNIX 98 The Open Group introduces the UNIX 98 family of brands, including Base, Workstation and Server. First UNIX 98 registered products shipped by Sun, IBM and NCR. The Open Source movement starts to take off with announcements from Netscape and IBM

1999 UNIX at 30 The UNIX system reaches its 30th anniversary. Linux 2.2 kernel released. The Open Group and the IEEE commence joint development of a revision to POSIX and the Single UNIX Specification. First LinuxWorld conferences. Several Open Source companies launch successfully on the stock markets.

2001 Version 3 of the Single UNIX Specification Version 3 of the Single UNIX Specification unites IEEE POSIX, The Open Group and the industry efforts. Linux 2.4 kernel released. IT stocks face a hard time at the markets.

2002 ISO/IEC 9945:2002 The core volumes of Version 3 of the Single UNIX Specification are approved as an international standard.

[Baron Munchausen]

Thermodyne writes:

You are missing the point entirely! Open source does not generate enough income to insure their products, let alone defend them in court. And if SCO wins, they will have the resources to take a very close look at Linux code along with the other Xnix systems out there. There is a lot of pure UNIX code in most Nix operating systems. To have to go back and clean it all up or face long court battles will take cash. Cash that the Open Source community does not generate. To defend them will take cash. Cash that they do not have. This action is a predatory stroke of legal genius. And at its roots are the very fundamentals of capitalism. This is capitalistic big business/wealthy people, against socialistic give it out for free small business/poor people.

Erm, um -- Thermodyne...

Does Internation Business Machines, Inc. strike you as a 'small business'? Or a 'socialistic' organization? Or lacking in money? They are probably second only to MS itself in sheer cash reserves, and have a very formidable legal department.

Also, if this 'Open Source' thing can't work, why is this archetypal corporation, the epitome of capitalism which has prided itself on being 'the most profitable corporation in the world' since early in the previous century, supporting it?

Maybe they have recognized that the Operating System is destined to be a 'public domain' resource in the future of computing? If the anti-trust suit against MS had been correctly completed they would concluded that you could not have a 'level playing field' with one of the competitors holding private control of the whole field, and would have ruled that Windows source be released to some sort of public consortium for further development in the public interest.

This is essentially what happened in the breakup of AT&T and in the current movement to break up the power generation monopolies. In both cases the infrastructure previously considered 'private' property -- the phone lines/switches and power lines/switches respectively, have been appropriated by the 'evil socialist state' and made into collective property. Now anyone who wishes to may start a phone company and the others must allow them to connect to the system of phone lines. And also in many states (and soon in many more) anyone can build power generation equipment and they must be allowed to connect to the system of power lines and sell their power.

The analogy to computer software is clear. In order for competition to be fair, the OS must be a public access system that anyone can 'connect to' and use fully. A closed source OS does not allow this, as everyone who has been following Microsoft's API trickery knows quite well. They have always had a 'secret' API just for their own programs, and they have also always changed their OS to deliberately break other companies programs, from DOS 1.0/1.1 and Lotus 123 to Windows 3.10/3.11 and DR-DOS to Windows 95/98 and Netscape Navigator.

IBM has simply recognized the truth of the need for the OS to be a 'public access' system, and is trying to foster a new model of OS management (and the OS that developed with it) that can accomodate these needs. SCO on the other hand is acting as a cat's paw for Bill Gates and literally running their company into the ground (yes, this legal confrontation will destroy them) just to throw mud on the Open Source movement and scare people away from it. It's the corporate equivalent of suicide bombing. They must destroy themselves in order to damage the infidel and will be rewarded in 'heaven' afterwards. I would bet good money that all the major players at SCO will be working for MS or one of its subsidiaries within 6-12 months after they close the doors on SCO.

[ August 10, 2003, 21:41: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Mudshark]

From the IBM employee web site;
IBM Launches counter claims against SCO



Earlier this year, The SCO Group filed a lawsuit claiming that IBM improperly contributed SCO intellectual property to Linux. Since the original filing, SCO has amended its complaint. And, on August 6, IBM responded to SCO's amended complaint and filed a counter-suit on a range of issues.

IBM continues to vigorously defend itself against SCO's allegations. The company sees no merit in SCO's claims, and no supporting facts. Simply put, SCO's scheme is an attempt to profit from its limited rights to a very old UNIX operating system by introducing fear, uncertainty and doubt into the marketplace.

IBM counterclaims are detailed in the legal filing, but the key points are: • SCO has violated the GNU General Public License, under which it accepted Linux contributions and distributed Linux.
• SCO has improperly claimed the right to revoke IBM's UNIX license, despite the fact that IBM's contract expressly provides that IBM's rights are irrevocable and that Novell, which is a party to the agreement under which IBM obtained an irrevocable and perpetual UNIX license, agrees that SCO cannot terminate IBM's license and has exercised its right to waive this claim.
• SCO has directly infringed four IBM patents relating to SCO's commercially available UnixWare, Open Server, SCO Manager and Reliant HA clustering software products.

IBM is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an injunction requiring SCO to refrain from misrepresenting its rights and to cease further infringement of IBM's patents.

As IBM continues to defend itself, the rest of the industry appears to have similar resolve with regard to Linux. There is an informative analysis of the SCO complaint available on the Open Source Development Lab Website entitled, "Questioning SCO: A Hard Look at Nebulous Claims," by Eben Moglen, General counsel of the Free Software Foundation. It puts the SCO claims in the proper perspective for Linux Users. There is also additional information about the lawsuit on IBM's SCO Complaint page.

Linux continues to gain momentum. IBM has never had a LinuxWorld more overflowing with innovation, offerings and news (see SuSE and IBM achieve government certification for Linux). IBM will continue to drive both AIX and Linux. And, IBM is as committed as ever to meeting customers' needs.