SCO Has "Made No Decision" On Linux IP Claims 493
Earlier today, a Slashdot post reported the possibility that SCO would attempt to collect royalty payments for intellectual property that SCO (according to that story) claims would make other Linux vendors liable to the tune of nearly $100 per Linux-running CPU.
This report on NewsForge reports that SCO has issued a statement "disputing the claims in the story, but confirming that it does have significant asset claims in Unix IP and it is discussing 'possible strategies.'" Awfully ambiguous on SCO's part; I'd feel better about a straight denial.
There's nothing like.. (Score:4, Interesting)
The reality of the situation is that SCO could never collect 100 dollars against every PC running Linux. At best, they would hurt RedHat, destroy what's left of Mandrake's bank account, and have a luminous cloud over every little distribution out there.
Are they going to use the linux counter [li.org] or something?
Hurt RedHat yes, Mandrake I doubt (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you know what is happening here? The US is starting to feed on itself. And people outside the US are starting to profit....
For example copyrights on specific music pieces in Europe expire and as such they are free to copy, but not in the US.
Interesting the Land of Free is turning into the land of the regulated lawyer! Actually sad!
Re:Hurt RedHat yes, Mandrake I doubt (Score:3, Informative)
Point of order, here... yes, they *do* expire in the US. Trademarks don't (as long as you defend them), but the protections there are quite different, and music is not usually a trademark.
US copyrights may last significantly longer than European ones, but here's the current breakdown (from a flyer I picked up the other day in the public library). It gets pretty messy, because the laws have been changed so many times, but here goes:
Works created 1/1/1978 or after: Protection starts when work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression, expires after life of the creator + 70 years (or, if work is of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter).
Published before 1923: in public domain.
Published between 1923 and 1963: Protection starts when published with notice, expires after 28 years + optional 47-year renewal, which was later extended to 67 years. If not renewed, it's now in public domain.
Published from 1964-1977: Protection starts when published with notice, expires after 28 years + automatic 67-year extension.
Chreated before 1/1/1978 but not published: Protection starts 1/1/1978, expires after life of creator + 70 years or 12/31/2002, whichever is greater.
Created before 1/1/1978 but published between then and 12/31/2002: Protection starts 1/1/1978, expires after life of creator + 70 years or 12/31/2047, whichever is greater.
So it can be difficult to tell when things expire, but they do expire.
Not that this has anything whatsoever to do with patents, which is what the article was about...
Re:There's nothing like.. (Score:4, Insightful)
And IBM would be much more likely to finance the work than Red Hat. Hell, IBM might just solve the problem by buying SCO.
Most likely, though, the kernel hackers would do the work with no need for any special corporate funding at all.
What if Microsoft Buys SCO? (Score:4, Interesting)
all they have to do is go to Spain, or venuzuela or Mexico or any govenrnment thinking about converting to Linux and point out the possible complicationsif this ever did go to trial. Maybe the linux distro you are thinking about will have an accident, see...
It would be the cheapest way for MS to subvert Linux. Even sheaper than buying the Sony DRM patents that are in the news lately. (Buy DRM patents, dont let GNU use them. Eventually enough music/movies is out in DRM that without liscenced DRM enabled players linux desktops suck. end of linux withou microsoft having to compete at all).
SCO (Score:4, Funny)
1. Buy "Unix" name
2. Lose millions
3. Scramble for cash
4. Come up with hair-brained idea as a 'Hail Mary'
5. ???
6. Bankruptcy!
Re:SCO (Score:2, Funny)
PS #5 could be hiring lawyers to defend charging $100 per linux pc.
Re:SCO (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SCO (Score:2)
Our UNIX IP is a significant asset and for several months we have been holding internal discussions, exploring a wide range of possible strategies concerning this asset
Rather than "exploiting" anything, why not just work on improving their product and giving some actual Value Added improvements to customers of their system?
Re:SCO (Score:3, Informative)
SCO has two proprietary UNIX OSes (UnixWare, and OpenServer) and a Linux distribution, and they have essentially no inhouse development staff. In short, they haven't a prayer of actually competing.
Which is why they are considering this sort of a suicide tactic. They have nothing to lose.
Re:SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
Now that I have time to read it, I can see that it is a LinuxGram article after all and by Maureen O'Gara no less.
I'm not sure if there are any salt grains large enough for the articles she writes.
Re:SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
1.1. Scribble out all references to BSD and the Univ. California's intellectual property role in the development of UNIX. Toss out any history on UNIX litigation, including Net2 code issue and round after round of court decisions.
5. ???
Actually, it's:
5. Develop pump and dump scheme to boost SCO stock for a few days while the execs dump and get out.
Then...
6. Bankruptcy!
Bingo. It's funny how history repeats. It wasn't too long ago that BSD/386 faced a similar threat from the current UNIX TM licensee.
"If you can't compete, litigate."
*scoove*
If it's SCOs IP then it's SCO's IP. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If it's SCOs IP then it's SCO's IP. (Score:2)
If you go to the "DirectDownload sites" you will see that "linux X.X" is allready downloadable =)
Not that i have ever visited any of those =) but i bet there's hundreds of websites boasting about latest greatest "LINUX 8.0 ISO DOWNLOAD HERE" allready.
Get to the end of the line. (Score:4, Insightful)
What IP are we talking about, exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the core Linux was based on is past-due, patent-wise, so any claim on that would be prior art; and the fact that Linus coded the basic kernel from the ground up would eliminate copyright concerns, so what's left? Auxiliary functionality?
Someone was mentioning System V; is it SysV binary code compatibility that SCO is laying claim over? I think that could be eliminated from the kernel without major disruptions; some people would get really peeved about the inability to run proprietary software they couldn't recompile, but...
Re:What IP are we talking about, exactly? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What IP are we talking about, exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What IP are we talking about, exactly? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What IP are we talking about, exactly? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, some patents were filed from the very start, for example the patent on the SUID bit [uspto.gov], owned (at the time) by Bell Labs, inventor: Dennis Ritchie.
Until we dissolve the regimes we will be slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
It almost certainly is not copyrights. Linux was written from scratch by Linus Torvalds and released under the GNU GPL. Any and all code submitted to the kernel is likewise GPLed, so if SCO submitted code, they did so under the terms of the GPL. This is where the GPL really shines
Of course, if someone violated SCO's copyright and got it accepted into the kernel without divulging its origins (or claiming to have written it themselves), then SCO would probably have a copyright claim against the purported author, not those (the linux kernel folks, distros, and users) to whome that hypothetical black hat illegally licensed the code. And if said person were actually in the employ of SCO, then sco would have essentially granted a licenses and would be bitchslapped by the courts. None of those latter scenerios are even remotely likely, so, as I said, it is almost certainly not a copyright claim SCO's vague comments are asserting.
What they own are almost certainly software patents, likely patents written from looking at the source code written and developed by others, and granted rubber-stamp style from the notoriously irresponsible US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). As others have said, such are the equivelent of 'nuclear weapons' for IT, and if SCO were to do such a foolish thing (as a consiquence of their own stupidity, or shilling for Microsoft), the end result will be no GNU/Linux in the United States (the only country stupid enough to recognize such patents), and a United States with an IT industry that would be irrelevant not within the generous twenty years Alan Cox suggests, but within a scant 5 years at best.
In short, America would become the technological backwater its behavior and policies have so richly earned it. We in the States who care (a vanishingly small minority) would be unhappy with this
In any event, if the rest of the world ever wants to throw off the yoke of the American Hegemony, the best and most effective first step they could take would be to reject our copyright and patent schemes outright
The best thing the developing world could do for itself is tell America and western Europe to fuck off and none-too-gently place their IP regimes, patents and copyrights in particular, into a location where the sun never shines. If free software is destroyed by these knowledge-squatters, it will not be the first such promising work of humanity so destroyed, nor the last. Until people wake up and put these Robber Barons in their place (preferably behind bars), atrocities such as this potential fiasco will occur again and again, with human progress and public interests being trampled, again and again, by the attourney equivelent of a spoiled child's shreak "No, I thought of it first, you can't use it!"
Re:Until we dissolve the regimes we will be slaves (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry to inform you, but if any developer writes code that violates SCOs patents it doesn't matter if it is GPLd or not. The patent encumbrance clause of the GPL states that if there is a patent dispute than distribution is forbidden.
This doesn't matter who wrote the code, or who put it in. Welcome to Patent Law 101: If you violate a patent, the patent holder can selectively enforce it.
In any event, if the rest of the world ever wants to throw off the yoke of the American Hegemony,
Ooook, it's time to go back on the meds and take off the tinfoil hat. There is no American Hegemony. In case you have failed to notice, a lot of Chinese are making a fortune on the internet. They don't care about the US. The US (and Americans) like to think they are much more important and far reaching than they are.
The best thing the developing world could do for itself is tell America and western Europe to fuck off and none-too-gently place their IP regimes, patents and copyrights in particular, into a location where the sun never shines. If free software is destroyed by these knowledge-squatters, it will not be the first such promising work of humanity so destroyed, nor the last.
Sorry, you last all bits of sanity when you were writing this one out. First off, SCO is not a "knowledge squatter" -- they hold patents. Big deal, so does IBM. IBM strongly suggested SCO shouldn't do this, and my guess is that if SCO tries it IBM will fuck SCO. It's called checks and balances, and most markets have it. If there were no patents in place, than innovation would be halted. The bigger companies in existence would bully the small inventors and entrepeneurs out of the market and then who would keep the information open? No one. Patents are a good thing because not only do they expire, but they also force disclosure and public knowledge.
So.. again, relax man. The world isn't as bad as you see it. Patents are a good thing, when they aren't abused or issued improperly.
Re:Until we dissolve the regimes we will be slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
''If there were no patents in place, than innovation would be halted''
Without copyright, people would still write music and songs. And without patents, for other market-led reasons, people will still create and improve designs. Can you imagine that?
''The bigger companies in existence would bully the small inventors and entrepeneurs out of the market and then who would keep the information open?''
This wins the ass-backward award for today. Did you read the story about what SCO are trying to do WITH patents? Don't you think that creating a $100+ Linux tax because they filed some obvious software tricks first is 'bullying smaller inventors' and keeping them 'out of the market' WITH patents?
Please have a good old cogitate on the points in the original post, it deserves +5 insightful, you should re-examine your thoughts on the matter.
Re:Until we dissolve the regimes we will be slaves (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, so from your comments I assume that you've done an economics or maybe business ethics course. Nice. Well done. Now go and look at the real world.
Patent protection doesn't give the little guy squat.
Any larger company will be able to find a ton of patents that the smaller guy has infringed, and will offer to 'waive' them in exchange for free licensing rights to the little guys invention.
You can hide your head in the sand as much as you want but this is how the system works. As the original poster put it; little kids in the playground screaming 'but I thought of that first, you can't use it'.
Re:Until we dissolve the regimes we will be slaves (Score:3, Interesting)
Uhm, yes, they are. And you can read that information and learn all about it. Nothing is stopping you, so what was your point?
In a world where the physical costs of creation are zero (eg computer software) they don't work. In a world where I can independently come up with an invention, prove it works and pass it around for free on the internet, why should I blocked by a large corporation that A) thought of it first and B) has the money to hire a legal firm. As I pointed out ealier, kids in the playground screaming 'but I thought of it *first*'. So what? Why does that mean that I can't use an idea that I have?
There are physical costs of creation. A lot of inventions that are patented cost less to create than your average economic computer. If you don't patent the idea, than you have to prove it's prior art if someone patents it. If they sue you for it, it shouldn't be hard to win. If you did pass it around and everybody knows. This again, goes into the reform of the acceptance process not the enforcement process.
As for your attorney, why don't you ask him about it. I'm sure he would say that there is ample protection for the little guys who file patents. If there wasn't, than the patent system wouldn't work and there would be a revolt of all the inventors that do use it. Sorry to tell you this, but a very large number of small inventors use the patent system to their advantage.
Well, in software, the idea is the implementation (at least if you can write it down...). Copyright already covers program listings, adding patent protection is just bad for the industry. So go on, name a single beneficial software patent. Just one.
I already did, and in your ignorance you ignored it. The benefit is that if you patent it, other people cannot shit all over you as easily.
You keep bringing up this absolutely idiotic playground analogy. Do you realize that makes you sound not only completely uneducated but uninformed as to how patent law actually works? Go talk to your patent buddy on that one too, say, "Aren't patents just like children in a playground screaming I thought of it first?" He'll probably tell you that you are an idiot, or at least think it. Patents are for giving inventors a head start on the competition. End of story. Unfortunately the abuse of the acceptance system has caused a lot of damage.
I for one rest easy knowing I can patent my software ideas, because if someone violates my patent and tries to sue it I can actually secure VC just for the lawsuit alone if I can prove that they infringed in my patent and are trying to bully me out of business. I can make more money in the lawsuits. Again, patents can help the little guy but only if the little guy is smart enough to use it to their advantage.
Laws are designed for a purpose, and always have loop holes. Use both for your advantage and you win.
Re:Until we dissolve the regimes we will be slaves (Score:2)
> It's called checks and balances
Heh, the incidental convenience of having newly-Linux-converted 800-pound gorilla IBM around is a designed-in feature of the market. Hail to the providence of the forefathers of the free markets.
Re:Until we dissolve the regimes we will be slaves (Score:2, Insightful)
I've seen this asserted many times, but never heard any evidence. Why do you think patents are a good thing?
Certainly there's a theoretical argument that patents encourage research, but research happened without patents as well. And even if you can show that patents do lead to more research, you have to show that this gain outweighs the cost of patents to society - we know that there are economic costs to monopolies. Are the theoretical benefits of patents so great that they outweigh the demonstrated costs of monopolies?
Then, even if you can show that patents are a good thing in some areas, you need to show that they're generally good, not only for mechanical engineering, but also for chemistry, biology, medicine, computer software, and any other field to which you wish to apply them.
Truth is, I've never heard any such arguement made. People who favour patents always act as if it's obvious that they must be a good thing.
Re:Until we dissolve the regimes we will be slaves (Score:3, Informative)
They don't do much for research, but they do quite a bit for invention. If you take biotechnology, most of the basic research is done in academia. However, for the benefits of this research to reach consumers, someone has to go through the trouble of commercializing the results. Academics are paid simply to produce results, but companies need financial security. Thus, exclusivity on a product is given to promote bringing it to market in the first place. For the most part, this works well (at least in theory).
The problem now is that patents aren't just being applied to actual inventions. Companies (and universities!) now expect to get patents for simple old research results regardless of whether there's actually a commercially viable product in there. In the old days (~1985), Leroy Hood and his coworkers- all academics- invented the DNA sequencer, among other things. This was considered very risky research to be doing at a university back then. They immediately patented it, and Applied Biosystems has been selling them like crazy ever since. It's exactly how the system should work. Now, however, professors isolate some gene and immediately patent it. There's no beneficial product involved; they simply control all future research done with it. Hence Myriad Genetics and its BRCA1 patent. I imagine quite a few biotechs will never actually produce anything useful but will leech off others purely by litigation of their bullshit patents. That's legal, but it's not how the system is *supposed* to work.
(A former coworker is now working on a project that's of direct interest to us- we're both academic researchers. For reasons I can't begin to comprehend, his university is patenting the method, which is simply an algorithm. He's been a real asshole about this, and our response has pretty much been to ignore him. We're not going to reward that sort of crap, and frankly we think we can do a better job. FUCK his patent.)
Re:Until we dissolve the regimes we will be slaves (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright dealing [incorrectly] with patent royalties. He was saying that if SCO submitted patented code to a GPLd project than SCO loses the rights to enforce that patent. That is wrong. In his words, he seems to be under the impression that SCO is trying to exert copyright infringement claims. In which case it's also wrong. So no matter what his point was, he was wrong.
Ad hominem attacks aren't really very productive, and in this case you again missed (ignored?) the point. The United States sets precident for most of the world's treaties on international patent and trademark law. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to attack the US when speaking of the utter mess that such treaties have created. China is, in fact, making rather grand (if, as yet, unsuccesful) efforts to move toward compliance with those treaties in order to gain an equal footing with the west in international trade.
His point was absolutely ludicrious, and was hard to respond with any degree of respect towards him. What a lot of people fail to understand is that the US is not the center of the patent treaties. The patent system in the US needs reformed, but in a lot of countries it's improved upon. The treaties are trying to unify global commerce by allowing patents in one country to be valid (enforcable) in another. This has nothing to do with the United States at all.
What mess has the treaties caused? It's bringing a global standard together. Why is that a bad thing? It means that the US will have access to the patents of other countries for research and ideas. It's as if you people think that if something is patented it's some big secret that you can't even talk about. You can view and discuss, and educate yourself on existing patents. In order for China to fully be recognized in the various pacts, they will have to fix their copyright issues first.
Attacking the United States for working with treaties for working towards global unification of the patent system is pointless, irrelevant, and misguided. The United States is not alone, and when dealing with the other countries carries no more weight than any of them. The difference is the US has more experience than the other countries. The US has more patents, and typically a longer running history of a patent office.
Again, the reason why the US leads with precedents is because of experience, not because we have a gun to every other countries head saying "Conform to our standards or we shoot you." That's all there is, people who find a conspiracy for the favor of big business in international patent and trademark treaties have no understanding of business or patent law at all.
it might be copyrights, actually (Score:2)
Re:Until we dissolve the regimes we will be slaves (Score:2)
Slashdot should have a library of the best posts ever...and this one should be on it.
Copyright != Patent (Score:2)
Consider the (now-expired) RSA patent. Before the patent expired, you could legally write your own code which implemented RSA encryption. You would hold copyright to your implementation, but since the algorithm was patented you technically had to pay the patentholder royalties for each copy sold.
SCO is claiming that they have patents which cover core algorithms that are used in Linux. It doesn't matter if Linus knew about them or not, or even if he independently re-discovered those techniques, the patents (assuming they are otherwise valid) still hold and royalties are owed.
Re:Copyright != Patent (Score:3, Interesting)
As for patents, you say "SCO is claiming that they have patents which cover core algorithms that are used in Linux." I don't understand how, if Unix was written back in the mid 1970's, any of its functionality could still be legitimately patented; and since Linux is just another Unix implementation, how it could be violating those IP rights.
Re:What IP are we talking about, exactly? (Score:2)
patents are not copyrights. patents are an agreement that you'll disclose your "great" product/idea in return you get to use it exclusively for a while. according to the url above, medical companies get 20 years for their "extensive investment" in the product. other industries have different mileage.
iirc, copyrights are 70 years after original author's death, but the disney/bono act will ensure that's extended over and over again.
Bad business (Score:5, Insightful)
What they dont realize is that Linux works as a community too, and these tactics backfire badly with the Linux community. How many Linux sysadmin will buy the next SCO Linux distro now that they're acting like Microsoft?
Re:Bad business (Score:2)
Re:Bad business (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.sco.com/unitedlinux/ [sco.com]. From what I heard, it is a good server distro.
As a consideration, if SCO decides to push fot these patents, can't Linus revoke their rights to use the linux brand name? It's a trademark after all.
Re:Bad business (Score:2)
Can you tell me what they've done exactly that will backfire badly? What is it that they are not realizing?
Stupid (Score:5, Funny)
Brilliant Strategy by SCO (Score:2, Interesting)
Are you certain? (Score:2, Interesting)
Cost of IP? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing to see here (Score:5, Insightful)
Big deal, they have patents that cover various pieces of UNIX. I think we already all know that.
As was mentioned in a comment in the previous story, IBM also has patents on just about everything related to computing. They don't use them against anyone because it doesn't make business sense to do so.
In fact, I think that ties in well with the Lawrence Lessig article the other day. The article questioned paying lawyers to agressively defend IP. Lawyers don't get paid except by customers.
What's happening now is there are so many lawyers that the supply is saturated. To make up for this the lawyers have artificially increased demand for their service. Eventually enough business people will get a clue that they're bleeding cash on lawyers and losing even more as a direct result of lawyers actions (e.g. suing mp3.com probably did more to hurt the entertainment industry than help it). Once the corporate officers figure that out you'll see fewer lawsuits and fewer lawyers.
Re:Nothing to see here (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting hypothesis, but it seems that as long as the threat of "mutually assured litigation" holds, the presence of lawyers will hold. How do disparate corporations "disattorney" themselves successfully? How do corporations break the sue, be-sued, or enter cross-license agreement status quo?
Re:Nothing to see here (Score:2)
Simple, if it's clearly going to be more damaging to your business to sue, DON'T SUE. If you're too stupid to figure out that it's damaging to your business, then you deserve what you get (a damaged business) and hopefully you'll eventually go under.
Remember, hardly anyone actually starts by suing someone else. Usually it starts with the threat of litigation. If you are the one being threatened, then hopefully you have enough IP yourself to either enter a cross-license agreement, or if the amount of IP is clearly in your favor, you turn around and tell them to drop it or else. Again, there is no reason to enter into a formal settlement, just drop it entirely. If they still want to fight it, then slap 'em across the head with a clue-by-four and be done with it.
Of course if you hold the weak position and are sued it can be very hard to defend. Normally there is not enough money in going after smaller companies or individuals for it to be worh it. So if, for example, SCO gets the bright idea to start charging for patent licenses it will more than likely not sue joe users, but instead will go after the large distributions, and may pull a Unisys and go after companies using free software containing the patented algorithms.
Really the only bad position to be in is to have deep pockets and a weak case.
In this case there is another very important factor as well. The GPL explicitly forbids redistribution to parties who would have to pay for a patent license. If SCO were to do this, they'd be unable to distribute Linux themselves without violating the GPL!
There's a little more I need to add here though. If SCO goes under then someone will buy their IP rights or perhaps SCO themselves will try to use them in a last ditch effort to get some cash. Personally, I have a big problem with intellectual property being treated as property for this very reason. IMO IP should be non-transferrable. That is, if the company who originally created the IP goes under, then it becomes part of the public domain. Of course then all you'll probably see is someone come in and give the shareholders enough money so he can keep the company alive and gain its IP.
And let's not forget that treating IP as an asset leads to numerous problems, one notable being dirty accounting tactics used by Enron and Microsoft.
IP is a strange beast, there's no easy solution. I think it should be obvious that treating it as a tangible good just isn't working out. However, I also don't think that information wants to be free. When I write a program for my employer I reasonably expect that my employer owns it. If I wrote it for myself I reasonably expect that I own it.
What we really need is less law and more common sense. Sigh.
Re:Nothing to see here (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey -- lawyers are worse than those Elders of Zion, huh?
Eventually enough business people will get a clue that they're bleeding cash on lawyers and losing even more as a direct result of lawyers actions (e.g. suing mp3.com probably did more to hurt the entertainment industry than help it).
Except that SCO has such a crappy business that it is going to wager what is left of it on the lawsuit gambit.
Once the corporate officers figure that out you'll see fewer lawsuits and fewer lawyers.
And of course, those corporate suits are just naive little children taken in by the fast-talking shysters. Give me a fricking break.
Nobody from a law firm went and beat down SCO's door to say "Hey! I have a great idea to save your loser company by suing on software patents!"
I think SCO did an inventory of its intellectual property, looked at its business record (terrible), and decided that they wanted to try to monetize their intellectual property. Clearly, such a decision probably involved legal counsel.
Blaming this all on lawyers misses the point, however. If the law itself wasn't so assinine, it wouldn't matter what the lawyers would do.
The problem is that the software industry (Apple and Microsoft included) may be about to be hoist by their own software patent petard. Them's thats been pushing for increased legislative "protection" of software IP have really set themselves up to get smoked by a business "have not" that has nothing to lose by using a software patent against the rich "haves".
Quit bitching about the symptom (lawyers who are doing their jobs ethically representing clients) and focus on the real problem (software patents).
Yes, I am a lawyer. No, I never once went and knocked on someone else's door or direct marketed in any way. I live on reputation and a listing (name and phone number) in the Yellow Pages. Don't smear an entire profession because you're too lazy or ignorant to look for a root cause.
Goatse for you.
Re:Nothing to see here (Score:5, Interesting)
There are standards of representation which must be met. Attorneys are not prophets or saints or angels. Whether something is morally proper or whether it is ethical is completely different. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.
WTF? Dude, that crazy talk is the exact reason folks dislike the industry.
I don't care. Your problem evidently stems from ignorance rather than any evil deeds engaged in by lawyers.
I agree completely that the law is assinine, but where does law come from? It comes from decisions judges make based on the arguments presented by lawyers.
Did you ever hear of a "legislature"? Or perhaps an "administrative agency"? Courts interpret laws. Go back to Civics I. Repeat as necessary.
While one could argue that lawyers are merely filling a need in society and business, the reality is that if one approached each case with more concern over its morality rather than ethics, which is a different measure for each industry, so many of the ridiculous cases wouldn'g get past the first consultation.
First of all, just scrap the "one could" form. It's awkward and its a "windy windup". Just get to the point.
Second, most ridiculous cases don't get past an initial interview. You would honestly be scared at how much shit people come into my office with thinking that they have a case. Some nitwit sues a cop someplace, makes the news, and then a pile of nitwits come out of the woodwork thinking that they have a great civil rights case because they saw on TV that someone got a big verdict (which was later reduced but that is never reported).
Here's why most cases don't get picked up by attorneys:
1. Clients on contingent cases end up paying attorneys only where a judgment or settlement results. If the case is crappy, I spend a lot of time on it (or risk losing my license if I fuck it up) and the case is unlikely to help me to pay my bills. I don't like to work for free.
2. Clients who pay hourly fees want results. They don't want me to bill them thousands of dollars on a lost cause. I don't want to bill them thousands of dollars on a lost cause. I make my living in part as a result of my reputation, and the last thing I need is some nitwit bitching about how I skinned him and lost his crappy case for him. I'd rather not take his case in the first place.
I mean seriously, how many articals on
On
If lawyers said no to their clients more often
I say no much more often than I say yes.
(as the medical profession generally does to folks wanting unnecessary surgery or drugs) then
You are so naive about the medical profession, it is scary.
this world would be a better place, and the legal profession would have a whole lot more respect.
I agree about saying no more often. I regret saying "yes" more than I regret saying "no." Remember, it isn't always easy to tell up front if the prospective client is a liar or crazy or so stupid that he has his facts screwed up. Once you're in, you're in. It is hard to withdraw from many types of representation after litigation starts.
But as long as there's money to be made, that won't happen... such is the way of things.
And the siren call of cash over doing the right thing is something only attorneys are affected by? Can you say Ford Pinto, Ford Explorer, Firestone Tires, tobacco, Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Corvair, IUDs, etc., etc., etc.
In the case at hand, no attorney twisted Caldera's arms. Remember that.
GF.
Is this better or worse? (Score:5, Funny)
The most surprising part is that the editors knew the story was on the front page. Score one for them on that one.
Nowadays Slashdot might as well become a livejournal:
9:01 AM: SCO sucks.
Mood: angry
9:32 AM: Grandma boots linux for first time.
Mood: ecstatic
9:30 AM: SCO found out what we said and now hates us!
Mood: worried
9:36 AM: Linux rules.
Mood: confident
10:05 AM: SCO is suing us! Those punks! They think they own Linux!
Mood: angry
10:07 AM: RIAA/MPAA/M$ SUCKS!
Mood: bouncy
And on and on...
(Not meant to be a troll...)
"SCO Has "Made No Decision" On Linux IP Claims" (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdot: the fall of a great kingdom (Score:2, Interesting)
Slashdot was once one of the most well known names in the online world of geek news. From this its reuptation grew for its validity of news stories, its direct and honest comments and respondants leading the article on farther and farther out of the sheer desire of curiosity (or bordem). Today, however, you merely have to browse the postings of slashdot to see how it has slowly gone from a kingdom to a childs playhouse.
Misinformed articles, entire 'friends' groups directing their mod points towards one target to downslam one wrong comment. The whining and complaining about the system and how it works. Slowly, as you can tell, friends and foes lists are building up with lightning speed. And thus... more and more does the ever wise slashdot slowly start to turn more and more into a newbie hax0R IRC channel that has 25 OPS that are all ideling. Where did the glory and maturity go in its users? This is one slashdot fan that is dissapointed.
it doesn't even matter (Score:4, Interesting)
If SCO tries anything, Torvalds, Stallman, et al will have cause to sue SCO and force them to drop their patent claims.
Still, SCO could stop distributing Linux, and demand others do so as well... There's nothing the GPL can do about that. This would simply force another vendor to buy their patent, such as RH or IBM, etc.
OTOH, these claims are still completely unsubstantiated.
This type of crap is just another reason software patents should be not allowed... Ridiculous.
Re:it doesn't even matter (Score:2, Interesting)
How could they not have expected this? (Score:2)
Get them for GPL violation! (Score:5, Interesting)
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
That means that by not licensing the patents for free they're violating the GPL. Wonder if that infringement on the GPL could be used to invalidate their claim for money on Linux?
Re:Get them for GPL violation! (Score:2)
Possibly. SCO has no right to expect royalties for code that is contributed to the GPL -- there are only two options: one, SCO must allow Linux to to be freely distributed by anyone with no catches or hooks, or two, the infringing code must be removed from Linux before any further distribution by anyone can proceed. Under existing patent laws, SCO has the right to expect renumeration for what has happened so far (and arguably even what may continue to happen), but they have no right to dictate the terms under which their code can be used as long as it is GPL'd. The long and the short of it is that either SCO must suck it up and take the loss (possibly a bad thing, since it would lend more credibility to the idea that the "GPL is a virus" thing), or the infringing code must be removed from the Linux kernel.
possibly even better (Score:2)
Re:Get them for GPL violation! (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's not the patent that's violating the GPL. The GPL only states that if you can redistribute the software freely because of a patent, then you can't redistribute it at all. The problem is that SCO is distributing Linux (Thompson is not distributing GPL MP3 software), so since it claims you can't redistribute it freely, they're not allowed to distribute it either, because of the GPL.
So esentially, if SCOs to proved to be correct, that would make the GPL invalid for those portions of code, and thus it would be free game for anybody to use the code. Then SCO could be free to grab the code and enforce their patents anyway, an effort must made easier by removing that pesky GPL.
No, the GPl says: If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. That's quite different than "the GPL doesn't apply is there's a patent".
-1, has no clue of copyright law. (Score:2)
Without a valid licence, you have no right to redistribute or create a derivative work. Since the *copyright* does not lie with SCO (only the hypotetical patent), they have no right to do anything with that code. That's basicly what the GPL says too (if you can't redistribute it royalty free, you can not redistribute it at all).
Kjella
Re:Get them for GPL violation! (Score:2)
So very wrong. If the GPL is invalid, they work does not automatically go into the public domain. The original author of the code would still own the copyright, and since the GPL would no longer be granting you premission to use the code, you couldn't use it at all.
Also as another poster points out, overall it would be like Thompson Media distributing GPL'ed code, but since the code is encumbered by patents, the GPL is not in effect and Thompson Media has no right to distribute the code, so they are in violation of copyright law, because they do not have premission from the author to redistribute the work.
no, you're wrong (Score:2)
You can redistribute your source code all you like, but anybody using it would be violating Thompson's patent.
However, as soon as Thompson starts redistributing your source code and tries to assert their patent claims against users of your code, they are violating the GPL.
Re:Get them for GPL violation! (Score:4, Interesting)
You misunderstand the whole issue. The GPL will not invalidate patents, it will invalidate the patent holders rights to distribute the GPL-software.
So if Fraunhofer distributed mp3 players based on GPL-code, and refused to give out royalty free licenses for their mp3 patent, they would loose their rights to distribute the GPL-based mp3-software.
They would still be able to enforce their patents and they would still be able to distribute mp3-software for which THEY are the copyright holders.
It is not in Calderas interest to enforce royalty fees on their patents, because that would mean they could not distribute Linux anymore.
"So esentially, if SCOs to proved to be correct, that would make the GPL invalid for those portions of code, and thus it would be free game for anybody to use the code. Then SCO could be free to grab the code and enforce their patents anyway, an effort must made easier by removing that pesky GPL."
Here you are just plain wrong. You do not understand copyright law at all. Without the GPL-license, Caldera has no rights to the code AT ALL, apart from the very few portions they might have written.
If the GPL-license was declared void, then only the original copyright holder would have any rights to the code. In Linux's case, that would be a big mess, since there are (AFAIK) lots and lots of copyright holders for the Linux kernel. Linus would probably have to contact as many as possible, and ask them for permission, and rewrite portions of the code that had owners that he could not reach.
For the GNU-tools, the Free Software Foundation is the copyright holder, and they could do whatever they pleased. Noone else would have any rights besides what FSF decided to give them.
BSD init (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, let's assume for a moment that they go forward with their claim and that it is uncontestable. The next step, naturally, would be for every Linux distribution to switch to the BSD style init system. SCO has no claim to this and therefore gain no further revenue from their System V rights. But, most importantly, no one would trust SCO again. Everything SCO would be shunned by all Linux distros and the community at large. At that point SCO may as well forget their Caldera roots and stop selling Linux completely because no one will buy SCO Linux again. SCO will be forced to try to line from SCO Unix alone and the original SCO proved that this is a very hard thing to do. It will be even harder now, as Linux was not as strong a contender 3 to 5 years ago, at least in the mindshare department.
I'm sure that SCO will eventually say that they will NOT enforce this claim against Linux but, they need to do it quickly because the longer they wait the less people will trust them.
Re:BSD init (Score:2, Funny)
again
adv.
1. Once more; anew:
If people bought it to start with, I don't think we'd have this problem.
Re:BSD init (Score:2)
What ever happened to social responsibility? Way too many people seem to think that it is the responsibility of a corporation to generate profit, regardless of any other concerns (including even it's own long-term concerns).
Just because you can make money by pretending to be handicapped and begging doesn't mean you aren't a sorry excuse for a human being if you do.
What if corporation X can have it's profits go up if they have their most vocal critics killed? Should they? Isn't it their responsibility, since it will increase their profits, especially if even after the cost of the fines they will have to pay if they kill these people, they will still have made more than they lost from the endevor? Hey, you can't put a corporation in jail, so they should go for it right?
Hey, murder is an option right? (albeit an illegal one)
Wait a fucking minute (Score:5, Interesting)
It's quite simple, really: just wait what the decision will be, and if it turns out that Caldera would want to collect royalties from Linux distro makers, then let all hell break out, badmouth SCO and collect karma points all you like.
If it turns out, however, that SCO only wants to target Microsoft (which is, if you think about it for a second, the only sound and sane choice, as MS are the only ones that possess cash in aboundance), then I really wonder if all these zealous posters will take their words back and say "sorry, I suck". And remember, SCO (Caldera) has a history of getting money out of MS, so this should be one hint that MS will be the target. And the prosecutor that was mentioned in that first, atroucious writeup, was Boise, who clobbered MS rather badly (or well, depending on your POV) and earned his reputation as MS's nightmare. That should be another hint.
Re:Wait a f----- minute (Score:3, Informative)
And hoist MS on their own petard. Microsoft gave^h^h^h^h loaned money to Caldera to buy SCO to kill SCO. MS used to have a chair on SCO's board, and SCO had to use code done on Xenix coded by MS (when MS was the developer of Xenix) in all versions of SCO.
The EU made MS back off of that, then MS bailed out of SCO, then sent money Calderia's way. MS denied they did so for Caldera to buy SCO, but it didn't take long between Caldera getting the money and gobbling up SCO.
Re:Wait a minute (Score:2)
In this case, let us say (and it is only a possibility) that SCO Linux is considering suing Linux users for patent violations. This would be controversial, and so they float a trial balloon first. If a big enough fuss is made, NOW, then they will reconsider. If not, they will proceed with the legal nasty-grams to the smallish, underfunded websites to start building their precedents.
Think it can't happen here? Think [burnallgifs.org] again [slashdot.org].
-renard
Re:Wait a minute (Score:2)
Re:Wait a minute (Score:2)
Perhaps it involved a certain trial [usdoj.gov] involving a certain freedom [microsoft.com].
-BrentSay Goodbye to Solaris and AIX (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course here are SCO's options:
-Sue SUN and IBM to enforce IP claims of Unix Solaris or AIX forcing SUN and IBM to fully embrace al Linux distributions except United Linux and SCO's Linux..
-Admit their business plans suck...
-Sue Linux distributions over IP claims and become a non player in the Linux community..
I think they wil press for the suing other unix players option..
Get your popcorn and get ready for fireworks
Re:Say Goodbye to Solaris and AIX (Score:2, Interesting)
IBM has also been rather protective of Linux ever since it became a viable competitor to Windows, probably just to get back at M$ for stabbing them in the back with that whole OS/2 fiasco years ago. I seriously doubt they're going to let some two-bit company like SCO just walk in and kill it off like M$ did to OS/2. IBM is a company that learns from their mistakes.
They may just buy out SCO and perform the above actions just to keep Linux alive so that they can sell more servers. IBM's biggest marketing push in the last year has been for the Linux platform. They are certainly not going to watch hundreds of millions in advertising go down the tube.
The Real Question... (Score:3, Insightful)
In my view that gave an outright denial... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In my view that gave an outright denial... (Score:2)
Re:In my view that gave an outright denial... (Score:2)
Timothy said he would "feel better about a straight denial." If that isn't a straight denial, I don't know what is.
Well they did not say "no we will not", and that is a straight denial. They just said in a different verbiage that they weren't ready for the question and have to think of an answer.
The rest of the world (Score:5, Insightful)
Are SCO going to pursue every linux user in the US? and if they do, will the US government (that's busy spending billions trying to re-ignite their economy) simply sit back and watch as the rest of the globe becomes more competitive and a better location to establish your business as a result?
Maybe, just maybe, this is actually what's required though. A really harsh pursuit of a patent by a failing company that sees this crazy ability to patent any and every idea relating to computing, whether it's obvious or even whether it's been done before properly challenged and hopefully halted. And if it's not halted? Well then for many companies it quickly becomes silly to be located in the US.
Unix comes full circle (Score:4, Interesting)
What goes around, comes around...
Haven't we been somewhere like here before....? (Score:2, Informative)
Yep, that claim was soon chucked out of court, to the embarressed relief of BT's management.
SCO it seems, are either doing one of two things - either making a somewhat misguided attempt to enforce a perhaps long forgotten patent (and, as has been said, patent on what, exactly?) Or two, just making a real dumb grab for money (kinda like "If it's sitting still, you can hit it - if you can hit it you can kill it!")
I just hope they fail miserably. This kind of blatent money-grabbing the open source community can *well* do without!
They _have_ issued a denial (Score:5, Informative)
SCO is a Linux vendor and a leading member of United Linux. Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News article, SCO has no desire to take legal action against fellow Linux vendors. As a normal part of business, SCO has had discussions with several legal experts in the field of intellectual property law, and these discussions included David Boies. Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News story, SCO has not engaged Mr. Boies to take legal action against our fellow Linux vendors.
I mean, geez. What else are they supposed to do?
Get your license here ! (Score:2)
Re:Get your license here ! (Score:2)
Re:Get your license here ! (Score:2)
Unless SCO has some patent that covers System V but not System III or 7th Edition, and Linux uses the patented technique, it's not a problem.
Oh yeah.... (Score:4, Funny)
Horseshit Legaleze (Score:2)
Uhm...
"We havent made any decision yet, but we're examining the possibilities."
"I'm haven't decided to eat anything. Just that sandwich over there."
"I'm not going to Dave's house, Dad... So can I borrow the car to go to Dave's house?"
I dont know what to do.. Be disgusted with SCO, or laugh at this, the final death throes of a company on the brink of cartwheeling into Chapter 11. Regardless, i'm sure this is gonna be great for their stock price. Massive shareholder dissent, panic selling..
SCO will never see a dime. (Score:2)
They now hire one or more expensive attorneys who will drink all of the company's money in billable hours with no gaurantee of a positive outcome. It is not in Boies' personal best interest to take this to trial in a timely manner. This thing is a cash cow! And even once this goes to court, there is prior art, expert witnesses, appeals, etc...
During this time SCO isn't making money.
IBM isn't going to lay down for this one. They've invested billions in Linux, and IBM employees a few lawyers too, so I'm told. IBM and the other companies with a stake in Linux can bury SCO in a shitload of paperwork, court fillings, etc... and Boies finds himself with more billable hours.
To make a long story stort, if this is a last ditch effort to save the company, they will go broke before they ever see a dime. And once the company goes broke, they aren't a problem to us anymore.
The lawyers are the only winners.
What patents? (Score:2)
If this is serious, let's hear some patent numbers.
There might be some petty infringement in some miscellaneous piece of software that ships with Linux, but that could be fixed if necessary. I suspect this whole story is bogus. If there were valid patents involving the basics of UNIX-like operating systems, this would have surfaced long ago.
Caldera Doesn't Have The IP.... (Score:2)
Napolean also invaded France and made peace with the Hebrews.
What's this do to United Linux, anyways? Does anyone care?
Let's give them the benefit of doubt... (Score:2)
"and it is discussing 'possible strategies." - means "we'll include UNIX support in SCO Linux to make it more apealing to UNIX users"
EFF should file preemptive lawsuit (Score:2)
SCO doesn't seem to have any applicable patents... (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the link to the search request so you can see for yourselves [uspto.gov]
Re:SCO doesn't seem to have any applicable patents (Score:5, Informative)
As the owner of UNIX, SCO probably has rights to a lot of patents from AT&T, USL, and Novell pertaining to UNIX. Those patents presumably wouldn't be recorded as being registered by SCO, even if SCO owns them now.
Re:SCO doesn't seem to have any applicable patents (Score:3, Informative)
Some conspirancy theory (Score:3, Interesting)
This means that it's probably not only SCO's IP, but also some of Microsoft's IP that is involved here.
Unfortunately, Microsoft sold its SCO stock [theregister.co.uk], so this conspiracy theory doesn't quite work out. But hey, the Evil often returns to its former Servants to recruit them again, doesn't it?
Linux is unassailable (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, this could all be a desperate ploy by SCO to get cash in the door, but they want to leak it via the rumor mill, to gauge how well it would go over. Credits to Navy beans that, when they get inundated with bad press, they claim that it wasn't a consideration, plausible deniability, all that jazz.
Re:Is this talking about Caldera? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Is this talking about Caldera? (Score:2)
Ransom Love, shall we say, loves to ransom?
Re:Geez... (Score:2, Informative)
In story 1 there was an artical saying that SCO would possibly be going to charge $96 for each linux CPU.
in story 2(this one) there is a denial by SCO of the first story.
They could have both been put into the same artical but there is no problem with having seperate ones either
I don't mind inane comments on
Re:This is what's wrong with Open Source. (Score:2)
Processors, knives, and sniper rifles (Score:2)
And for reference, SCO didn't specifically say Linux IIRC (which I may not, because I didn't RTFA), but an "unspecified operating system". SCO may not have the knife, but they may have a sniper rifle, and it just may be aimed at MS. I don't know yet. But what I do know is that the license stickers on the side of OEM boxes with XP and 2K specify "1-2 processors" on them, which could be a clue...
Denial (Score:2, Funny)
Doesn't deny mean they are considering ... Well, at least they are not lying.
Denial usually means they are lying. i.e.
Cheney, advised by Enron execs on energy policy did nothing improper and releasing notes of the meeting would jeopardize national security
Willy: "I did not have sex with that woman"
North Korea: We are a peace loving nation