jmc
Lead Curator
Posts: 14
|
Authored by jmc on Aug 22, 2013 21:02:33 GMT
SCO first sued IBM in March 2003, starting in the Utah State Court but IBM moved it to the US Federal Court. The claims against IBM were long and rambling but boiled down to: - Claims that IBM copied SCO copyright code from AIX to Linux
- Claims that IBM copied SCO copyright code from Sequent to Linux
- Various claims about "unfair competition", "tortuous interference" by IBM causing SCO's business to fall over
- Complaint that IBM had continued to sell AIX after SCO had revoked IBM's perpetual rights to use UNIX code.
- Complaint about IBM pulling the plug on "Project Monterey"
IBM responded by denying all this and responding with a set of counterclaims which boiled down to saying: - We didn't do anything wrong and want the court to say so
- SCO didn't have any right to revoke our rights to use AIX
- SCO told all sorts of lies about us and we want damages
SCO never produced any meaningful evidence in support of their claims but endlessly sought discovery from IBM trying to get IBM to incriminate itself. This was all intertwined with a case SCO brought against Novell, which revolved about whether Novell had transferred the copyrights on UNIX to Santa Cruz Operation (not SCO) prior to Caldera (which renamed itself SCO) acquiring those rights. After a long and contorted set of trials with two appeals the Novell case was finally decided in August 2011. Novell did not transfer the copyrights to Santa Cruz, and consequently SCO did not acquire them. This nuked about 95% of SCO's case against IBM and made it impossible to defend against IBM's counterclaims. Currently, despite being in Chapter 7, SCO is still trying to pursue the dying embers of its case relating to the "Unfair Competition", "Tortuous Interference" and the endless moan about Project Monterey. IBM has filed for Summary Judgement on these matters and a decision is still pending.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Sept 17, 2013 15:26:50 GMT
I think that you might be a little too harsh with your explanation. Anyone who hasn't written code, thinks it is some deep, dark, horribly complex thing to do. In fact it is magic to them (see Arthur C. Clark's quote on advanced technologies and magic). We know how easy it is to reverse engineer an application or operating system. Most of us have some experience doing just that (though the biggest application I wrote was totally unique, but that's a story for another time). Now, look at The SCO Group's management. Are any of them programmers? Darl certainly isn't. Nor is Tibbetts. Then there's Ralph Yarro. None of them could write "Hello World" in any language. To people like that, the obvious explanation to how Linux became so capable, is copying. Even when they hired someone to find the "copied code" and that person couldn't, and reported that Linux was clean, they might not be capable of believing the answer. Now take Bill Gates. Love him or hate him, the man is a programmer. He might not be up there with RMS, or Linus, but he does have the background. He knows how easy it is to reverse engineer things - we know he's been involved in reverse engineering himself. Think Basic, DOS, Windows, Word, etc. Microsoft knows a lot about reverse engineering! That helps explain why Microsoft is so pro-software patent. It's the only way to block reverse engineering. Remember, Gates is damned well aware that the competition can hire people just as good as any Microsoft can hire. You can be certain that he's also aware of the high esteem with which the Free & Open Source Software communities regard Microsoft! Now, some background. A while back, about 2004 I was engaged in an email exchange with someone who I won't name. This person was at that time one of those convinced that code had been copied from Unix to Linux. As a non-programmer, my contact had no background to evaluate the claims. My contact, who knows Darl, Ralph, and a fair number of people involved with the Linux Kernel was absolutely 100% sure that copying had occurred. Why? Because some of the Limux people had commented that they stole all of their best features from Unix... Just like Microsoft stole all of the best features in DOS 1.0 from CP/M. Reverse engineering. I think that this is why The SCO Group was so nuts about discovery. There were people involved, who not having a background to understand how easy reverse engineering is, were convinced that copying had to have occurred. After all, a bunch of smelly Hippies, singing Kumbaya around the campfire couldn't have produced something so incredibly good, could they? FYI, I can't prove any of this. I no longer have the email account that I used to communicate with my contact, or copies of the emails, and the rest is 100% surmise. While it does explain the situation logically, I could be dead wrong. As to why Microsoft and Sun took licenses, when both companies had high-level managers who are programmers, it was a relatively cheap way to try and slow down IBM, Red Hat, Novell, etc. Wayne madhatter.ca
|
|
|
Authored by gfim on Sept 18, 2013 5:47:33 GMT
relating to the "Unfair Competition", "Tortuous Interference" and the endless moan about Project Monterey. Despite it being really tortuous, the correct word is "tortious" i.e. related to a tort.
|
|
celtichackr
Veteran Member
Hacker, geek, all around technoaddict. Amateur Scientist (well except for those pesky degrees).
Posts: 51
|
Authored by celtichackr on Sept 18, 2013 22:45:00 GMT
Sorry Wayne, but I think you've overstated some things there. Darl, had to know there was no copying. Internal folk told them so. Secondly, I'm not certain Bill ever did any RE. For the Basic he had source code to start with. DOS he purchased for chump change, so got the source code. Windows was written in house with lots of stuff stolen from Apple and Xerox. Xerox code was available. word, I don't know.
Generally there wasn't much in the RE front for Windows. They would buy, if they could. Or better yet, get the company to give them detailed looks at stuff to help make the the app and DOS/Windows work better together. And hence not have to RE, but get the suckers to give you the code.
Now Stacker, that was a neat trick. That was RE, and copied and all they did was replace a string inside the code to make it look like a MS compression tool. That cost them, but not nearly enough in my book. That should have been a case of criminal copyright piracy and more, if you ask me. Someone should have gone to jail for that one.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Sept 20, 2013 20:52:43 GMT
Sorry Wayne, but I think you've overstated some things there. Darl, had to know there was no copying. Internal folk told them so. Secondly, I'm not certain Bill ever did any RE. For the Basic he had source code to start with. DOS he purchased for chump change, so got the source code. Windows was written in house with lots of stuff stolen from Apple and Xerox. Xerox code was available. word, I don't know. Generally there wasn't much in the RE front for Windows. They would buy, if they could. Or better yet, get the company to give them detailed looks at stuff to help make the the app and DOS/Windows work better together. And hence not have to RE, but get the suckers to give you the code. Now Stacker, that was a neat trick. That was RE, and copied and all they did was replace a string inside the code to make it look like a MS compression tool. That cost them, but not nearly enough in my book. That should have been a case of criminal copyright piracy and more, if you ask me. Someone should have gone to jail for that one. Are you trying to tell me you've never, ever had a manager ignore your expert advice because they "knew" you had to be wrong? I've had it happen a bunch of times. In one case it damned near killed the company (a long, long, time ago). As to BillG, how could he buy the source code for something (a Microcomputer basic) that didn't exist? Yes, he could have translated a copy of Basic from Mainframe assembler to Intel 8080 Assembler - but that still would have require technical skill. Windows was a reverse engineering job, with concepts stolen from Apple and Xerox. Microsoft's big advantage was access to the Mac OS API, which told them what they needed to do. Stac, I don't remember the details of, but there's a good comment on Groklaw about the company which doesn't match what you are saying, by someone who knew them. www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828#c891756Wayne madhatter.ca
|
|
celtichackr
Veteran Member
Hacker, geek, all around technoaddict. Amateur Scientist (well except for those pesky degrees).
Posts: 51
|
Authored by celtichackr on Sept 22, 2013 16:40:09 GMT
The comment about stacker actually says the same thing. MS took Stacker changed a string inside the application and sold it as it's own. That's why they got slammed in court. MS completely and totally stole Stacker, in the most massive case of software copyright piracy ever, and no one at MS went to jail for this enormous, criminal act of stupidity on the part of BillG. Bill actually wrote the Micro-Basic interpreter from the specifications. I don't think he RE anything. It may be the only single creative software act he ever did. I won't take that away from him. Whatever else he did wrong, at one time he actually knew how to code without stealing from others. Not that I know for a fact BillG never REd anything, just not the things you've listed.
Anyway, that's my recollection, but I'm an old man and my memory was never the most fantastic. Unlike former SCO executives, I'll admit I'm wrong if you can show me some evidence Bill REd BASIC. It's one thing to ignore the advice of a tech, and another to ignore the advice of the head of the tech dept. Beside, you're totally forgetting that Caldera was a Linux company that bought parts of Unix. No, I won;t won;t allow anyone to say that Darl didn't KNOW Linux didn't infringe Unix. I'm sorry, just not believable.
Could some non-tech manager stubbornly refuse to accept Linux didn't infringe Unix. Absolutely. I'm just saying, in this ONE instance, it's not believable.
Lastly, I didn't state it before but REing is NOT a simple thing to do. Simple in theory. Simple in the beginning of the Software Revolution. But today programs are obfuscated, compressed, encrypted, and BIG. Anything can still be decompiled, spied, and REed. But if it was easy, then every piece of hardware out there would work perfectly and exactly in Linux as the way it does in Windows. But there is a lot of skill involved in the process.
|
|
x
Guest
|
Authored by x on Sept 22, 2013 21:41:32 GMT
|
|
celtichackr
Veteran Member
Hacker, geek, all around technoaddict. Amateur Scientist (well except for those pesky degrees).
Posts: 51
|
Authored by celtichackr on Sept 23, 2013 2:26:27 GMT
You're right! All these years, I've believed the wrong story. What MS sued on was the fact Stac was using undocumented DOS calls. How MS ever won on this is simply amazing and further proof that the Courts are completely clueless about computer tech and shouldn't be allowed to rule on such things. DoubleDisk was a reverse engineered implementation of Stacker, or at least partly. Hence the reason MS was found guilty of patent infringement, since Doubledisk implemented the patents, which MS then bought and renamed Doublespace and thus "unintentionally" violated the patents. But before going to far check out this (apparently) Comes vs. MS email where MS requires the Doubledisk to do what Stacker does. 1992. techrights.org/comes-vs-microsoft/text/msg00179.html
|
|
celtichackr
Veteran Member
Hacker, geek, all around technoaddict. Amateur Scientist (well except for those pesky degrees).
Posts: 51
|
Authored by celtichackr on Sept 23, 2013 2:38:03 GMT
Sure enough, here it is! Even while they were negotiating with Stac for the software, they had another company modifying code of their own to Microsoft's specifications. In other words. MS already knew what Stac was doing because they got Stac to tell them, and then went to Stac's competitor and gave them the keys to Stac's kingdom. Holy Cow! That's even worse, than what I thought they had done! Of course we don't know what Microsoft's specifications were. Maybe I'm wrong, and they just wanted Doubledisk to put Microsoft's copyright notices inside the code. Or maybe, I'll win the next 400 million dollar Lottery. groklaw.net/pdf/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/4000/PX04253_A.pdf
|
|
x
Guest
|
Authored by x on Sept 23, 2013 6:37:28 GMT
I don't think I'm reading that the same as you, they seem to be saying they'll develop a conversion utility to microsoft's spec, i.e. something to convert from the Stacker format to the DoubleDisk format. That is a separate "product" with separate costs - the $100k mentioned.
Negotiating with two companies for similar products at the same time doesn't seem unreasonable, you try and get the best deal as quick as you can. You have to assume the doubledisk people were happy enough with the contract terms and payments. Software patent use - well I'm no fan of software patents.
For me the problem seems to be from their involvement with Stac to a level of detail to understand how to implement those patents. I have no doubt the engineers involved would have been able to implement the patents or similar given time, what this seems to be is to accelerate the time to market of Microsoft's version, preventing Stac gaining a significant foothold.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Sept 24, 2013 21:02:53 GMT
The above messages should be copied to the MS Comes thread. We've gotten off-topic. As I said, often you end up with managers who don't know their **** from a hole in the ground making decisions. I suggested that this was possibly what happened at The SCO Group, as most of the major players, were not coders. They had no way of understanding what they were being told. So deciding that the coder who worked for them "HAD" to be wrong, is not out of the question. Whether that is really what happened, I don't know. I doubt the truth is provable at this point, since they got permission to shred the records. Wayne madhatter.ca
|
|
|
Authored by laomedon on Sept 26, 2013 14:47:29 GMT
Latest SCO v. IBM Docket report: Date Filed
| #
| Docket Text
| 08/20/2013
| 1128 | Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 08/20/2013) | 08/21/2013 | 1129 | ORDER granting 1128 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 1126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment: Response due by 8/29/2013. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 8/21/13 (alt) (Entered: 08/21/2013) | 08/29/2013 | 1130 IBM-1130.pdf (66.5 KB)
| MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 1126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 08/29/2013) | 09/16/2013 | 1131 IBM-1131-main.pdf (86.77 KB) | REPLY to Response to Motion re 1126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 IBM-1131-1.pdf (31.86 KB)Text of Proposed Order Granting IBMs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Basis of the Novell Judgment)(Sorenson, Amy) (Entered: 09/16/2013) |
Not sure this is the correct thread for this but it makes a good read! Enjoy.
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Sept 26, 2013 18:53:32 GMT
From docket #1130, "SCO'S MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO IBM'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE NOVELL JUDGMENT", page 16: (Emphasis mine) Card tricks, tap dancing, mental judo, misdirection, and bull steamings - all in one neat little pile. (Well, 20 pages - at least it's a pile.) SCO would have us begin with the assumption that its statements about their ownership of Unix were true at the time that they were made. The statements were not false until the 2010 ruling that they were false, they would have us believe; all that time in between needs to be treated as though the statements were true. From that starting point, SCO claims that IBM is attempting to have the Novell jury reach back through time and convert SCO's holy truth into a lie from seven years' distance. "IBM cites no authority..." huh. I wonder why IBM didn't come up with some authority to support a fantastical twisting by their adversary. Mmmm... Nope. Can't figure it. OK, SCO, I'll do it for you, and from very near at hand, as well. Remember the Novell verdict form? It asked if the copyrights had transferred to SCO. Yes or no. IF YES, go on to question two, else full stop. If SCO's claim here were accurate, that would have only indicated that Novell's statements were now true, leaving their former actions open to adjudication for slander of title. Or is SCO willing to claim that the jury reached back seven years and converted Novell's lies to truth, much to SCO's financial chagrin? In docket #1131, IBM replies (page 4): I think that says, "SCO, you're panicking too soon. That's just a tree. The gallows is still down the road." [edit] Should this comment be placed somewhere else? [/edit]
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Sept 26, 2013 21:05:12 GMT
cpeterson, I would have started a new thread for that - and of course include the links to the documents. To me this seems like a new topic. Wayne madhatter.ca
|
|
s65_sean
Guest
|
Authored by s65_sean on Oct 7, 2013 15:02:39 GMT
"This was all intertwined with a case SCO brought against Novell, which revolved about whether Novell had transferred the copyrights on UNIX to Santa Cruz Operation (not SCO) prior to Caldera (which renamed itself SCO) acquiring those rights."
The details of this part is that after SCO filed suit against IBM for allegedly infringing the copyrights on the UNIX source code, Novell made public statements that they, not SCO, owned the UNIX copyrights, and they also ordered SCO to waive any claims against IBM with regards to the UNIX source code, as that was what the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) between Caldera and Novell said that Novell had the right to do, and after SCO refused to waive the claims, Novell made public statements that they had waived them on SCO's behalf, as that was also a right granted to Novell by the APA. Then SCO filed suit against Novell for "Slander of title", meaning that SCO still claimed ownership of the UNIX copyrights and that Novell had harmed them by knowingly and willfully making public statements to the contrary. That suit has since some to a completion, and Novell was found to still be the owner of the UNIX copyrights and SCO was ordered to comply with Novell's order to waive any claims against IBM with regard to the UNIX copyrights.
|
|