PDA

View Full Version : News: SCO Files first Lawsuit



Chilling_Silently
04-03-2004, 09:57 AM
Read all about it:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/03/1322244

Apparently they've filed Two....!


Chill.

Winston001
04-03-2004, 10:27 AM
Good news. Lawyers have to eat too you know. Bring it on. ]:)

Murray P
04-03-2004, 10:44 AM
> Good news. Lawyers have to eat too you know. Bring it
> on. ]:)


What do they have to eat too Win? Caviar, truffles and champers is normally off my shopping list ;\

Cheers Murray ;P

Jen C
04-03-2004, 11:27 AM
How can SCO sue Linux users for intellectual property copyright issues when SCO hasn't even proved in court that the code is actually theirs?!

I guess if they tie up enough companies in lawsuits and slap on a temporary injunction to prevent such companies against further use of the disputed code, they will soon have the punters paying for licenses until the matter is finally sorted out in court - however many months/years that will be. Wonder if the license holders would be entitled to a refund if the eventual findings goes against SCO?

You are right Winston, the lawyers will be dining in grand style over this.

Jen C
04-03-2004, 06:14 PM
Update time:

Judge orders SCO, IBM to produce disputed code (http://www.newsforge.com/trends/04/03/03/2354211.shtml)

SCO has not complied with the court's first order issued on Dec. 12, 2003, to "provide and identify specific lines of code that IBM has alleged to have contributed to Linux or Dynix." SCO had been ordered to provide these lines of code within 30 days (by Jan. 12, 2004) but did not do so. In a separate hearing on the matter held Feb. 6, SCO was able to convince the court that it is proceeding in good faith, and the court lifted its 30-day discovery stay.

As a result of this newest court order, SCO now has another 45 days, or until April 17, to produce the disputed lines of code and explain them clearly to the court.

It will be interesting how it all pans out.

segfault
04-03-2004, 09:43 PM
> How can SCO sue Linux users for intellectual property
> copyright issues when SCO hasn't even proved in court
> that the code is actually theirs?!

They aren't. These two lawsuits are unrelated to the case with IBM. It's a big smoke and mirrors trick by SCO.

The two companies involved in the lawsuits are/were in fact SCO customers. At some point they decided to move from SCO Unix to Linux (In Autozone's case, they contracted RedHat to help them move, but I don't know the details of Chryslers move.

The applications that both companies were running on their SCO Unix servers were compiling for SCO Unix. During the move to Linux, SCO think that their libraries were copied from the SCO Unix systems onto the Linux systems. If this is true, this would be a violation of their IP and so SCO could in fact have a case here. Somehow though, I think they would have been a bit smarter than to copy the libraries onto the Linux systems.

If SCO has a case here and they win, it could be bad for us (as members of the open source community). The media won't differentiate between the differences in the cases, and all we'll hear is that SCO sued a Linux user. This is going to send a lot of commercial Linux users into a big panic, but they will be unaware that they don't have anything to worry about (if you assume that SCO's claims to the linux kernel code are invalid).

I think that its quite important that we educate people to the differences in the cases, otherwise this won't have a pretty ending.

Murray P
04-03-2004, 11:06 PM
Hmm... Good points seqfault.

I think SCO's lawyers are doing a good job of delaying the inevitable, or at least I hope so.

If I was a business considering my Unix/Linux options I would stay well clear of SCO. They don't seem to be very user friendly, it's almost as if they are getting as much as they can out of it before...what?

Cheers Murray P

hamstar
04-03-2004, 11:31 PM
<conspire>I'm beggining to think SCO is/is backed by Microsoft to scare users out of using linux.;)</conspire>

If they don't produce the code they should just throw out the flippin case.

mikebartnz
05-03-2004, 01:11 AM
<conspire>I'm beggining to think SCO is/is backed by Microsoft to scare users out of using linux.</conspire>

Well MS did buy a lisence just before this all hit the fan. What has actually happened is that even their own customers have now decided that they are not worth dealing with. Groklaw's site is a good one for those wanting to study things a bit more.

Winston001
05-03-2004, 12:38 PM
Thankyou Segfault for an interesting and informative post. We need a bit more accuracy and depth on PF1 at times, rather than going off half-cocked at provocative headlines.

Well done.

Cheers
Winston001

Jen C
05-03-2004, 12:47 PM
>They aren't. These two lawsuits are unrelated to the case with IBM. It's a big smoke and mirrors trick by SCO.

Certainly works, it can get quite confusing trying to figure out what is actually happening from the variety of articles that are on the web.

>If SCO has a case here and they win, it could be bad for us (as members of the open source community). The media won't differentiate between the differences in the cases, and all we'll hear is that SCO sued a Linux user.

Very true.

Thanks for clarifying that :)

Chilling_Silently
05-03-2004, 03:04 PM
> >If SCO has a case here and they win, it could be bad
> for us (as members of the open source community). The
> media won't differentiate between the differences in
> the cases, and all we'll hear is that SCO sued a
> Linux user.
>
> Very true.
>
> Thanks for clarifying that :)

Yes, so there's not a lot that _can_ be done except informing people of the "truth" as such.

Again, thankyou segfault, I had no idea of the difference!

Has there been any recent word on the Kernel Source case?


Chill.

segfault
05-03-2004, 08:09 PM
> Has there been any recent word on the Kernel Source
> case?

The latest news is that Judge Well's told SCO to produce all alleged offending code within 45 days (starting 3rd of March). This means all the copies of the alleged offending code in AIX, Dynix and Linux. SCO also have to produce copies of the code in SCO Unix.

IBM have to provide all releases of AIX and Dynix as well as all "non-public" contributions that it has made to the Linux kernel.

If you want to read the full court order, you can download it here (http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/IBM-109.pdf)

Murray P: You might be interested in reading this (http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html)

metla
05-03-2004, 11:56 PM
> <conspire>I'm beggining to think SCO is/is backed by
> Microsoft to scare users out of using
> linux.</conspire>
>


I would easily believe that was so,if MS percieves Linux to be a threat because its free then it makes sence that it would back an effort to make people pay,especially if MS ends up owning the company that is collecting the fees.

Seems a billion billion dollars and near total market domination just ain;t enough to make Satan happy.

This article claims that MS not only invested 11 million into SCO but followed it up with 100 million to keep legal action on the up,with a promise of more funds when needed...


http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html

Winston001
07-03-2004, 03:12 AM
Satan???? Metla you need to go and have a lie down. It's a long long stretch from Microsoft to Beelzebub. Struth all this company is doing is taking lawful commercial steps to protect its market.

After all Microsoft itself came from nowhere and in the space of 20 years has dominated world computer systems. Nothing lasts forever and the sun will set on Windows one day. There is nothing remotely satanic in this company being worried about the future - it's perfectly natural. They've reached the point where soon the only way will be down.

But no-one dies, countries aren't invaded, there are no death camps when a business seeks ways of expanding or protecting what it does.
Ultimately computing simply isn't that important.

mikebartnz
07-03-2004, 06:20 AM
>Satan???? Metla you need to go and have a lie down. It's a long long stretch from Microsoft to Beelzebub. Struth all this company is doing is taking lawful commercial steps to protect its market.
Pull the other one it has bells on it. MS is aiding putting a spanner in the works. You will have to be a smart cookie to convince me otherwise. MS aren't into paying millions for something they don't need unless they percieve it to be helping them and anything that slows down Linux helps them. SCO has just ruined its market as even it's own customers don't trust it any more

mikebartnz
07-03-2004, 06:27 AM
>especially if MS ends up owning the company that is collecting the fees.
They are very happy just owning the spanner thats why they paid millions for something they did not need.