Click The Logo To Donate
Posted on 01/09/2004 7:33:52 AM PST by ShadowAce
The SCO Group's Australian and New Zealand boss, Kieran O'Shaughnessy, told ZDNet Australia late on Friday afternoon that he was preparing to fly to London to finalise the vendor's strategies for securing licence agreements with large commercial users of Linux in Australia.
He said the point at which the licence would be available to Australian and New Zealand users was "very, very close". Pressed for a firm date, he confirmed that it would be before the end of this year's first quarter.
A number of Australia's larger organisations, including telecommunications heavyweight Telstra, are deploying Linux throughout their operations, while Air New Zealand is another keen user.
O'Shaughnessy's trip coincides with the running next week in Adelaide of one of Australia's highest-profile Linux events, Linux.conf.au 2004, at which the SCO Group's long-running campaign is likely to be a hot topic.
The local managing director was unable to confirm which of the SCO Group's senior executive team would be at the meeting in London, but said they would be "big hitters".
O'Shaughnessy confirmed the terms and conditions outlined in the licenses would be very similar to those offered to US-based companies, with the pricing adjusted only to accommodate variations in currency values.
SCO's US headquarters announced in July last year its plan to allow companies using Linux to avoid litigation over alleged breaches involving its Unix intellectual property by acquiring a licence from the vendor.
The program tries to compel users to pay $699 (£382) for a one-processor Linux server, with the amount rising relative to the power of the system, as well as $199 per Linux desktop.
However, SCO in the US toughened its stance towards the end of the year, warning it intended to sue large-scale Linux users for copyright infringement. The company plans to start filing lawsuits within the next few months, targeting large companies that have significant Linux installations. The initial round of lawsuits was expected to be filed against 1,500 companies.
SCO also sent out in mid-December last year around 3,000 letters to companies, universities and other organisations that licensed Unix, typically from AT&T, widening its attempts to secure revenue.
Asked whether he had any message for delegates to Linux.conf.au 2004, O'Shaughnessy said SCO was determined to protect its intellectual property and ensure that any misappropriation was dealt with.
"We're serious," he said.
He also confirmed he had not heard any further news from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission over a complaint from Linux activist group Open Source Victoria.
They're seriously loony, is what they are.
Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!
Got root?
They were given 30 days from that hearing to satisfy interrogatories 1, 2, 4, 12, and 13, and the hearing was on December 5th. It should be done by now. FYI, those interrogatories are:
1. Specifically identify all claimed infringing code and trade secrets
2. Identify for all 1. items the whole history of copyright and trade secret protection efforts
4. Identify the who, what, when, where for each IBM infringement of items in 1.
I haven't found the text of IBM's second motion to compel so I don't know what's in 12 and 13, please post'em if you got'em. SCO's discovery motions won't be heard until January 23rd.
Can't wait for next week!
SCO should have 'folded them' a while back. They're going to lose so bad in court they'll have to carry Darl out in a plastic zip-lock bag.
Got suit?
Actually it's mainly based on what I actually do know about the case. Wait and see.
You'll have a big laugh on me if I'm wrong, but I'm willing to risk it.
Oh, stop it. You act as though the time had not yet come for SCO to produce their evidence. It had, and they didn't produce any. That the judge had to literally order them to produce it or get out, is itself evidence that SCO is not proceeding in good faith, a fact which is not lost on the judge. What was to be gained by pissing off the judge?
I'm sure they'll show up with something by the deadline, because otherwise the judge will have to sanction the lawyers for bringing a baseless lawsuit. But it is obvious to everyone, including the judge, that whatever they show up with now is eyewash. If they had anything serious, they would have produced it rather than face an order to compel.
From all of the actual court documents I've read, the judge appears to be progressively losing patience with SCO.
The phrase 'Chewbacca Defense' refers to any nonsensical legal defense. The phrase originated in the animated TV series South Park, in the second season episode Chef Aid.
That's bogus. IBM's contributions to linux are right out in the open. SCO doesn't have to pump anybody to find them. They can either look in BitKeeper, or they can grep the widely-available source code for IBM copyright notices.
They've had nine months in which to do this. In theory, they should have done it before they even filed the suit; otherwise they did file a baseless lawsuit. With a hearing coming up on a motion to compel them to produce this evidence, they couldn't do it.
It's not just posturing. SCO's lawyer actually told the judge, during the hearing, "I want to walk the Court through enough of our complaint to help the Court understand that IBM clearly did contribute a lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just don't know what it is."
Which is to say, they filed a lawsuit with no evidence whatsoever. Their lawyer admitted this, to the judge. No reading of minds is necessary. They have the UNIX source, the linux source is right out in the open, and yet nine months after filing this lawsuit they don't know what IBM contributed that was part of UNIX. If they can't name anything that was taken, then how can they say that anything was taken at all? The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that IBM took their stuff.
I'm sure the SCO lawyers will come up with some eyewash by Monday to keep themselves from being fined and disbarred, but look for a motion by IBM for summary judgement in their favor -- if not a motion to dismiss -- before the hearing on the 23rd.
Your statement is misleading and in my opinion you know it. Much of what IBM contributed to Linux was protected by contract from being placed into a competitive O/S, and without the original closed source code from IBM to compare to what has been contributed it is difficult to know exactly how widespread the copying was. But there is little doubt that AIX functions have been ported into Linux as IBM repeatedly boasted of doing this, which is actually what led to the lawsuit.
This is what SCO claims, but it has not yet been proven.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.