SCO implodes

[Tapewolf]

For those who haven't been watching this surreal lawsuit unfold, the SCO group - formerly the Santa Cruz Organisation - decided to sue IBM for allegedly stealing their technology and incorporating it into the Linux system.  One of the more fascinating aspects of this case was that ever since 2003 when the case began, SCO has consistently refused to explain precisely what it was that had actually been stolen.

In a separate case, Novell and SCO came to blows when Novell realised that the UNIX system actually belonged to them, and promptly granted IBM the right to do whatever they wanted with it.  This turned into a legal custody battle which got very ugly when Novell  also realised that they were owed about $30m in unpaid license fees, which SCO now does not have as they used the money to sue IBM.

In that case, the court has now ruled that UNIX belongs to Novell, that SCO is obliged to recognise Novell's copyright waiver, and that they are liable for prosecution for effectively having sold a system licensed from Novell and embezzling their cut of the license fee.

This effectively collapses the IBM case since they cannot sue IBM for stealing something which was never theirs to begin with.  And SCO still has to defend itself against IBM's counter-suit.

It should be highly amusing to watch them explain the $700 'Linux licenses' which they were attempting to extort from various companies 

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070810165237718

[Saist]

and here I was thinking nobody else on the forum would be interested in this

Glad to see I was wrong.

This quote was also interesting, way down the page

This is only a *partial* judgment, which means that SCO v. Novell case is still
going. Until all claims are resolved, SCO can't appeal(*). And by the time all
claims are resolved, it will be too late for SCO.

(*)Not entirely true. They can ask the judge for permission to file
interlocutory appeal, but I don't see Kimball granting it.

As far as I can research, this seems to be true.

If SCO decides to try to resolve the Novell case quickly and turn around for an appeal, they'll basically have to surrender what charges are left, which will prevent an appeal.

If SCO decides to fight it out with Novell... well, the other cases will go forward, which is a problem because the summery judgment effectively removes the lawsuit against IBM, but not from IBM.

To me, this does raise some questions about the Microsoft deals with SCO and Novell.  Microsoft now has some explaining to do over why they purchased licenses from SCO and backed SCO through Baystar.  I think this also sheds some new light on the Microsoft-Novell deal... what are the chances that Microsoft saw the implosion coming and decided to try to mitigate the damage Novell could do before the summery judgment came back.  Is Novell really holding the upper hand in the deal with Microsoft?

Questions raised, questions answered. This should be interesting to watch the mop up.

[Tapewolf]

and here I was thinking nobody else on the forum would be interested in this

Dunno about Jouster, but Gabi, llearch and Superluser immediately spring to mind

To me, this does raise some questions about the Microsoft deals with SCO and Novell.  Microsoft now has some explaining to do over why they purchased licenses from SCO and backed SCO through Baystar.

It does raise some interesting questions for the future.  Novell ain't doing so well - they never really recovered from when NT began to eat Netware's lunch.  If they do collapse themselves, someone else could end up owning the rights to UNIX.

It could get very nasty if Microsoft ended up with them - on the other hand, the world has basically polarised into NT and UNIX.  There are no other operating systems any more.
I'd like to think that the regulators would prevent Microsoft, a convicted illegal monopolist, from actually owning the entire computer industry.

Questions raised, questions answered. This should be interesting to watch the mop up.

Oh indeed.

[Brunhidden]

Legal ownership of ideas is a very tricky spot, and i am reminded of a similar ongoing case here in cheeseland

Trader Joes, the chain of wholesome food vendors, not too long ago opened up a location in Wisconsin. one of its products is 'Pizza Palermo' named after the distinct style of pizza from one particular Italian island.

Meanwhile, and for a great many years, a Wisconsin based company named Palermo Pizza after the Palermo family has been a big seller in most of our major grocery stores.

Obviously neither had any clue the other existed until late spring, several months after TJ moved here. Trader Joe, being very full of itself, believed that PP was infringing on their trademark product, and PP had to change their name, box design AND fork over several thousand dollars on the claim they had been profiting from TJ's well known name.

Quick on the draw PP realized they had been in business longer and returned the same ultimatum.

i understand that the law should protect the ownership of ideas, but this needs to be drawn out better- specifically a way to prove whose idea it really was and what exactly the idea is. otherwise we get into a scenario where someone copy writes the comma, and i have to fork over royalties every time i pause while typing.

*edit* i think someone tried that actually, after hearing that comic book creators had copy write on such words as "bamph"

What I know for sure is that what you give comes back to you.

[thegayhare]

there is a similer case to Bruins going on here in maine

recently a a massachusets based buisness named "Bob's discount" opened branches in maine.  they got into a fight with a maine based company named "Bob's discount"  both are actualy in the same buisness of furniture though one of them (and I don't know which one) also sells other stuff cheap.  It's quite the battle as the maine based one has been around for a good long time, and while the mass based store has actualy been in busness longer it's only been in the state recently.

[Tapewolf]

Just to avoid confusion, the SCO thing isn't really a name/trademark dispute, it's something else.  Basically they were trying to extort payments for Linux-based systems, even suing their own customers at one point.

If they had somehow won the IBM trial, they would have been able to extract a tithe from about half the sites on the internet, probably nearer 60%.  Clockworkmansion seems to be running on Linux itself, so we might have had to organise some kind of donation drive.

[Darkmoon]

We probably wouldn't have, but the server company we host with would have had to pay an additional fee, which may or may not have raised our rates by a buck or two a month.

Negligible, but annoying.

Of course, that assumes that the company is currently in good fortures, could have afford to pay whatever licensing fee SCO wanted, and wouldn't just roll up shop instead of paying all the fees.

[superluser]

the SCO group - formerly the Santa Cruz Organisation

Actually, they're separate entities.  The SCO Group, Inc. is the successor corporation to Caldera, Inc.  They changed their name when they bought certain UNIX intellectual property from

The Santa Cruz Operation.  The Santa Cruz Operation sold off most of itself, and now its successor corporation is called Tarantella, Inc.

[read read read]

Nah.  SCO won't implode until it gets permanently delisted and is forced to enter bankruptcy.  SCO's case was a house of cards years ago, and it certainly didn't stop them from continuing to sue years later.

Forgive me if I'm jaded, but I won't count this zombie lawsuit over until they kill -9 the company.

otherwise we get into a scenario where someone copy writes the comma, and i have to fork over royalties every time i pause while typing.

Heck, I'm still paying BT every time I use a hyperlink.

Oh!  And the hosting company which seems to have eaten my site seems to have ev1hosts as its upstream provider.

[Tapewolf]

the SCO group - formerly the Santa Cruz Organisation

Actually, they're separate entities.  The SCO Group, Inc. is the successor corporation to
Caldera, Inc.

Yeah, I worked for Caldera UK for a bit a few years before they went crazy.  I was just trying to keep things simple, a hard job given how convoluted the entire case has been.

Nah.  SCO won't implode until it gets permanently delisted and is forced to enter bankruptcy.  SCO's case was a house of cards years ago, and it certainly didn't stop them from continuing to sue years later.

Ah, but in one of their recent SEC filings they claimed they only had reserves until Autumn, IIRC.

Forgive me if I'm jaded, but I won't count this zombie lawsuit over until they kill -9 the company.

Yeah.  I'm hoping that Novell's demand for the money will obliterate them, but to be perfectly honest I'm not holding my breath.  That the judge in the IBM case has requested some kind of emergency meeting is kind of amusing though 

[Zedd]

Oh snap thats a scoop!

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Novell ain't doing so well - they never really recovered from when NT began to eat Netware's lunch.

Which is a pity, really, since the management tools that windows has -now- are still light-years away from the management tools I was using on NetWare 10 years ago. :-/

The ability to, pretty much every time there's a problem, run an app, click a button, and go home for the night, and it'll sort itself out by morning is gold, IMHO.

[superluser]

I was just trying to keep things simple, a hard job given how convoluted the entire case has been.

Yeah, no kidding.  It's just that the difference between OldSCO and NewSCO is one of the things that PJ keeps hammering away at, so I wasn't sure if you were simplifying or just following this casually.

I'm hoping that Novell's demand for the money will obliterate them, but to be perfectly honest I'm not holding my breath.

I thought that SCO was done in 2004 when they came up with no evidence by the first discovery deadline.  After that, I gave up trying to predict when the lawsuit would be over.

Which is a pity, really, since the management tools that windows has -now- are still light-years away from the management tools I was using on NetWare 10 years ago. :-/

It's also a pity because the company that wrote Windows NT is no longer around, and instead, Microsoft is writing it.

[Takes out notepad for UNIX Hater's Handbook, V. 2]

Say...just what was so good about NetWare?

[Saist]

I haven't ever actually used Netware... so unlike the box, I can't speak with experience about what it did or did not do.

However, I may able to point to some information about why Netware was so good.

Wikipedia seems to be accurate in terms of Netware performance : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell_NetWare#Performance

You can also download and look at Netware in an Eval form : http://www.novell.com/products/netware/eval.html

(been tempted to do that myself one of these days...)

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Simple things like:

Permissions are set in both the admin structure and the filesystem in precisely the same way in the same tool, and are done in a "from here down" fashion. So you set a directory as accessible, and all subdirectories with no specific permissions are instantly accessible. Even if there's several terabytes of data there, it's still instant. As compared to windows, where it's set on each individual file and directory.

I've already mentioned the "active directory" equivalent - although AD is the windows equivalent to Novell's admin structure - I just can't remember right now what Novell called it - and repairing problems with it.

And then there's things like I had one of me managing 200 users ten years ago, successfully. Whereas we have 2 people managing ~ 80 users now under windows. Nuff said...


There's more, but as I said, it's been ten years, so my memory is a bit hazy.

[Saist]

somewhat of an on topic response :

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS3180933176.html

SVJ opinion's about the ruling, and also brings up Sun's Purchase of Unix rights from SCO.  He also brings up the question I brought up earlier... did Microsoft aggressively pursue the deal with Novell because Microsoft needed the "IP" protection.

[Tapewolf]

Shares in SCOX appear to have dropped in value by about 72% since Friday.

**EDIT**
Not 74% as I wrote earlier

[Azlan]

My entire East Coast operation still runs Netware, it seems very well used along that coast of the US.  Running datacenter/small systems operations using Netware was... different then NT, but I think I would err on the side that it was a better toolset and perhaps more intuitive.  I'm a bit out of practice since it has been years, my next posting from BH was as Operations Manager for EDS which is strictly a Microsoft house on the end I worked for.

However, I come to this forum to escape work... not continue it...

[Saist]

My entire East Coast operation still runs Netware, it seems very well used along that coast of the US.  Running datacenter/small systems operations using Netware was... different then NT, but I think I would err on the side that it was a better toolset and perhaps more intuitive.  I'm a bit out of practice since it has been years, my next posting from BH was as Operations Manager for EDS which is strictly a Microsoft house on the end I worked for.

However, I come to this forum to escape work... not continue it...

* je.saist helps Azlan escape by tearing SCO stock certificates into ribbons, dying the ribbons a dark velvet, then tying the ribbons to Azlan's antenna and tail

[Netrogo]

Lemme see if I can wrap my brain around this...

SCO was trying to sue someone for stealing something from them that they had stolen from someone else?

If that's the case, then that whole company deserves to crash and burn. Seriously I don't mind a little theft here and there, but if you're arrogant enough to steal something, and then trying to sue someone else for stealing. Well you're just asking for it.

That's like a shoplifter ratting out another shoplifter by informing security that they saw him stealing a shirt while they were busy stealing a pair of pants.

[Tapewolf]

Lemme see if I can wrap my brain around this...

SCO was trying to sue someone for stealing something from them that they had stolen from someone else?

Loosely speaking, yes.  There are a number of aspects to it, and indeed virtually the only code which they actually published as proof of theft turned out to be in the public domain anyway (i.e. it was not theirs in the first place).

The bulk of the case was even more mind-bending, but the judge did have a good shopping analogy.  Basically, they accused IBM of stealing about 294 separate chunks of code, but refused to say which lines, or even which versions of the software, saying that IBM knew what it had stolen and should find them itself (in the 8 billion possible lines of program code)

Or, as the judge put it:
"Certainly if an individual was stopped and accused of shoplifting after walking out of Neiman Marcus they would expect to be eventually told what they allegedly stole. It would be absurd for an officer to tell the accused that 'you know what you stole I'm not telling'. Or, to simply hand the accused individual a catalog of Neiman Marcus' entire inventory and say 'it's in there somewhere, you figure it out',"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/30/sco_ibm_claims/

[Saist]

Lemme see if I can wrap my brain around this...

SCO was trying to sue someone for stealing something from them that they had stolen from someone else?

If that's the case, then that whole company deserves to crash and burn. Seriously I don't mind a little theft here and there, but if you're arrogant enough to steal something, and then trying to sue someone else for stealing. Well you're just asking for it.

That's like a shoplifter ratting out another shoplifter by informing security that they saw him stealing a shirt while they were busy stealing a pair of pants.

it goes beyond that Netrogo.

It is apparent  now that SCO didn't have the rights to Unix as they claimed they did when they took IBM to court, and that they knew they didn't have those rights to begin with.

What SCO apparently hoped to accomplish was having a judge rule that the rights should have been turned over in the Novell deal with oldSCO (the Santa Cruz Operation) if those rights had not been turned over, or declare that the rights had in fact been turned over to begin with.

In other words, the ends justified the means. It didn't matter if SCO didn't have the rights to Unix to begin with, as long as the rights became theirs in the legal actions along the way, everything else would be good.

Current SCO still has the fallback they did develop software for Unix, as well as UnixWare itself, in the intervening years of the Novell deal with oldSCO. In Current SCO's mindset, even if the judge did rule that the Unix rights had not been turned over, Current SCO could continue to make the charges based on the code Current SCO and oldSCO had already written.

It is my opinion that the fallback position isn't going to work either.  Current SCO never made any separation between the underlying Unix code from the Novell / oldSCO deal, and the underlying Unix code written up to Current SCO's lawsuit date. Current SCO has treated the entire code base as one product that they wholly owned and had the rights to.  As is, the original claim of millions of lines of code that were copied from oldSCO / Current SCO Unix into Linux has already been collectively proven to be a false charge.

As to why SCO did it? Because Microsoft needed to attack Linux. Microsoft needed to slow down Linux development and remove Independent Software Vendor support for Linux. SCO's tenuous claim to Unix rights seemed to be a fairly easy way out for Microsoft to do so, and a couple of license agreements later and funding through Baystar, and the deal was sealed.

Where this is going to get interesting is that Microsoft makes a big deal out of their products not using Unix technology. When Microsoft purchased the Unix license from SCO many in the tech sector regarded the purchase as a funding of SCO, myself among them.

However, after the Novell/Microsoft deal and the recent ruling, it suddenly is a very real question... how much of Microsoft's "new" technology just re-written or copied code from Linux and Unix?

[superluser]

Shares in SCOX appear to have dropped in value by about 72% since Friday.

Well, folks, this may indeed be it.  NASDAQ won't list anything under $1.00, and SCOX has been threatened with delisting before for dropping below that.  It is highly unlikely that they will be able to double the share value in the time required.

I don't know if SCO can be taken private in any meaningful way, so I don't know what this necessarily means, but it probably means someone stepping in and forcing bankruptcy protection on behalf of the shareholders.

[Vidar]

After reading this thread, why does the phrase "BOOM! HEADSHOT!" keep ringing through my head?

[Jigsaw Forte]

After reading this thread, why does the phrase "BOOM! HEADSHOT!" keep ringing through my head?

Because it's so true?

... okay, seriously. This will probably be a minor boost for Linux products, but a whole new boon for Apple because they're one of the few companies in a position to take advantage of offering people a domestic version of Unix at anywhere near a reasonable learning curve/cost. I believe Dell is in the same situation thanks to their willingness to support Ubuntu. Played right (and off of the obvious failure of Vista/Office 2007 to gain widespread usage), things could work out better.

Independant Vendor support in porting over the few windows apps people depend on will help too, but it will take longer to materialize from under the cloud of FUD.

[superluser]

This will probably be a minor boost for Linux products, but a whole new boon for Apple because they're one of the few companies in a position to take advantage of offering people a domestic version of Unix at anywhere near a reasonable learning curve/cost.

I don't really see how.  OSX is based on BSD, which had its copyright issues settled in 1993 with USL v BSDi.  The code that SCO has been claiming was licensed to SCO by Novell in 1995.  This shouldn't affect BSD or Apple in any way.

[Saist]

This will probably be a minor boost for Linux products, but a whole new boon for Apple because they're one of the few companies in a position to take advantage of offering people a domestic version of Unix at anywhere near a reasonable learning curve/cost.

I don't really see how.  OSX is based on BSD, which had its copyright issues settled in 1993 with USL v BSDi.  The code that SCO has been claiming was licensed to SCO by Novell in 1995.  This shouldn't affect BSD or Apple in any way.

it doesn't.  Apple was never a target in the original lawsuit against IBM. 

Apple is also in one of the few companies in the worst possible position to push a domestic version of Unix, mainly because they've been doing so ever since the launch of OSX, and have been repeatedly surpassed each year by both Lindows/Linspire and Xandros in terms of retail sales, not to mention utterly dominated by Red Hat, Novell, IBM, HP, Dell, and other vendors in terms of server and desktop OS installs.

What the ruling will mean for Linux on the desktop is uncertain. The original lawsuit against IBM did not do anything to slow down or stop Linux development. If anything, it forced a review of existing documentation procedures, and also clarified ownership of the code in use. In some aspects, Current SCO's lawsuit assisted in promoting Linux as several proprietary Unix clients with no reason to move products would have heard about the lawsuit and done their own investigations.  Getting tangled up with AutoZone only served to promote Linux to car repair personal who maybe would have never been introduced any other way.  Going up against IBM and Novell only ensured that the lawsuit would be read about in most tech press oriented outlets.

For the most part then, the benefit of the lawsuit has already been realized during the lawsuit. Very few tech companies were waiting on an official ruling to pursue the development of Linux or implementation of Linux in their products, exampling Dell.

There have also been big announcements from IBM's former computer division, now sold through Lenovo, that think pads could come with Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop pre-installed. Hewlett Packard also mentioned several months ago that it would compete with Dell in offering Linux based desktops as well, although the vendor provider has yet to be confirmed.

Sony also launched the Playstation3 in partnership with IBM and Toshiba without regard to the SCO lawsuit.

So, as far as immediate retail change goes, little will happen.

The biggest change could come from ISV's who have not yet moved to a multi-platform strategy.  Microsoft's Intellectual Property claims are even on shakier ground than before as a firm precedent has been set against companies who claim property as their own and attempt to license it... without owning the property.

Even that, however, would not be an immediate unless Microsoft immediately sues somebody over IP violations in Linux... and while Microsoft has pulled some really odd stunts in the past, I don't see them being that dumb.

[superluser]

The original lawsuit against IBM did not do anything to slow down or stop Linux development.

It might have affected...wait, you mention that:

The biggest change could come from ISV's who have not yet moved to a multi-platform strategy.

Add to that the non-tech or semi-tech companies that may have been waiting to switch, and you've got a number of future customers who may, even indirectly, influence development (for example, by feature requests).  I think SCO's goal was to delay these companies from entering the Linux market for as long as possible.

I think the end of the SCO case may mean that there will be more Linux development, just not by the core people, who have been pumping this stuff out at full speed all along.

[GabrielsThoughts]

out of confusion didn't Microsoft rip it's initial windows software from Apple computers while they were subcontractors or something?

[superluser]

out of confusion didn't Microsoft rip it's initial windows software from Apple computers while they were subcontractors or something?

Microsoft did that a lot, but I don't remember any such accusations about Windows.  NT was certainly stolen from VMS and OS/2, and Apple accused Microsoft of copying the look and feel of the MacOS with Windows, but I don't think there was any code.

Come to think of it, maybe that's why they're backing SCO.  Maybe they can't understand the concept of someone coming up with their own software.

[Saist]

out of confusion didn't Microsoft rip it's initial windows software from Apple computers while they were subcontractors or something?

Microsoft did that a lot, but I don't remember any such accusations about Windows.  NT was certainly stolen from VMS and OS/2, and Apple accused Microsoft of copying the look and feel of the MacOS with Windows, but I don't think there was any code.

Come to think of it, maybe that's why they're backing SCO.  Maybe they can't understand the concept of someone coming up with their own software.

Actually, NT was written by the same guys what wrote VMS.  It has been noticed that WNT is just one letter off each from VMS, which was understood to be deliberate inside joke. 

By somewhat of the same token, Microsoft assisted in the production of OS/2 in a partnership with IBM.  OS/2 users would probably have more details, but given that Microsoft helped in creating OS/2, I doubt they can be accused of stealing it.

Going back further, both Microsoft and Apple copied the look and feel of a Xerox system with their respective GUI's.