SCO Changes Legal Tactics in Federal Court

technewsworld ^ | By Gene J. Koprowski | Gene J. Koprowski

[NCjim]

ping

[Zeppo]

But contrary to some reports in the press, the company didn't claim earlier in a letter that the Linux General Public License (GPL) was "unconstitutional."

Rather, Darl McBride, the company's CEO and president, claimed the GPL violated the U.S. Constitution by undermining intellectual-property rights.

Sure sounds to me like a "distinction without a difference".

Is the author of this article a known blowhard?

[SoDak]

"The copyrights clause in Article 1 Section 8 is only one of the many ways in which those rather-less-realistic-than-usually-pictured founding parents of ours participated in the great 18th-century belief in the perfectibility of the world and of human life," said Moglen during the speech before a Harvard University audience. "The copyrights clause is a particular legal embrace of the idea of perfectibility through access to and the sharing of knowledge."

No, I don't think so. The constitution is just fine. That being said, I do think SCO, which now seems to be only in the litigation business, has little or no legal standing, and should eventually be dissolved.

[KarlInOhio]

I do think SCO ... should eventually be dissolved.

Preferably in concentrated hydrochloric acid.

I still don't see what leg SCO is trying to stand on in attacking GPL. If I write a program using no prior sources, I can do any of the following:

1. Keep it secret so that no one can look at it

2. Release it publicly to allow anyone to use it however they want.

3. Sell it to someone and let him do what ever he wants with it.

4. License its use to someone under some terms I specify. I could license it and say they can do whatever they want with it, but they have to release their changes publicly for others to use under the same terms.

#4 is essentially what GPL is. If you don't like my terms about public release then don't use my program and develop your own. SCO is essentially saying that I can do what I want with a program I write except allow other people to modify it under terms that they release their changes. Huh?

GPL is a lot friendlier license that all of the stuff in Microsoft's licenses about first born children and fire raining from the sky.

[ricks_place]

It seems as if SCO demands that thou shall copyright.
And it is unAmerican and Unconstitutional to not copyright.
SCO has no case so perhaps an appeal to capitalism and patriotism is in order.
A last refuge for this SCOundrel!!

[SoDak]

You are correct. Darl McLitigate's team of lawyers knows it's all slipping away and are grabbing at anything and everything, hoping something will sound reasonable and keep SCO from receivership. SCO will lose and no longer be a company. It's a matter of time. Hopefully they don't drag it out like Salon.

[Golden Eagle]

But reporters in the computer trades got this one wrong.

Exactly, the bogus story was first reported on IBM mouthpiece Groklaw.net, and was later duplicated by a couple of open source advocates. Not surprising, in the least.

[D-fendr]

Perhaps you can 'splain it to me.

Just what exactly is SCO claiming in the IBM lawsuit?

[Golden Eagle]

Sure, that per contract, IBM was not allowed to transfer original or derivative Unix code into competing products like Linux, or to export it to countries on the US export control list. The questions about the "copyleft" GPL license were raised as IBM is using that as their primary defense. If you want to learn more about copyleft or the GPL, I'd recommend starting with it's creator Richard Stallman (www.stallman.org).

[D-fendr]

Thanks. But I'm still confused.

IBM was not allowed to transfer original or derivative Unix code into competing products…

Original OR derivative? IBM can't do Unix? Which Unix? Any Unix? Competing products? Please clarify what SCO's claim is.

like Linux

Are you sure Linux is part of SCO's current claim?

The questions about the "copyleft"…

I remember SCO saying they were going to bring copyrights violation their claim. What happened to that?

[Golden Eagle]

Original OR derivative?

Either, obviously. To most, at least.

Are you sure Linux is part of SCO's current claim?

Of course, you think this suit isn't?

I remember SCO saying they were going to bring copyrights violation their claim. What happened to that?

Copyright violations are a part of the claims against IBM, so I guess "what happened" is they did what they said they would. Caught up, yet?

[D-fendr]

Caught up, yet?

Actually, sorry, I think you're taking me backwards.

1) Of course [ Linux is part of SCO's current claim ].

2) Copyright violations are a part of the claims against IBM

Linux and copyrights are part of SCO's current claim in the IBM suit?

Are you sure?

[kevkrom]

Linux and copyrights are part of SCO's current claim in the IBM suit? Are you sure?

Nope, they're not. SCO has amended the suit to basically only say that IBM is continuing to use SCO-licensed materials despite SCO cancelling the license. (IBM's defense comes from Novell, who states that SCO had no right to cancel the license.)

[Golden Eagle]

Linux and copyrights are part of SCO's current claim in the IBM suit?

Yep. Read your own site, Groklaw. Can't trust much on there, but since they were supposedly quoting SCO's submission to the court it might be ok to sufficiently answer your question. Says right on their front page today that SCO has a copyright claim against IBM "for IBM's continuing use of AIX and Dynix after SCO terminated IBM's UNIX licenses." Let me guess what you're going to say now, "copyright" doesn't mean "copyright", or some other nonsense.

[D-fendr]

YOU use Groklaw?

Say it ain't so, Eagle.

you're going to say now…

Not saying nothin'. Trying to figure out exactly what SCO's claiming. I've heard trade secrets, copyright infringement, violation of the U.S. Constitution, GPL is illegal/immoral/anti-American, Linux, Linux, Linux.

So, are you on-track with kevkrom?

Is the SCO claim now down to "IBM is continuing to use SCO-licensed materials despite SCO cancelling the license" ?

[Golden Eagle]

YOU use Groklaw? Say it ain't so, Eagle.

Actually no, I don't. They permanently blew their credibility with insane stories like how SCO was launching DDOS attacks on itself, I still LOL everytime I think about it. And here we are today, in this very thread talking about something Groklaw got completely wrong which messed up others as well.

No, I was just giving you a source that I thought you'd probably believe. Looks like it worked.

Is the SCO claim now down to "IBM is continuing to use SCO-licensed materials despite SCO cancelling the license" ?

No, it's not. Go back and read my first response to you again. Good luck getting it this time.

[D-fendr]

Go back and read my first response

Okie doke:

that per contract, IBM was not allowed to transfer original or derivative Unix code into competing products like Linux, or to export it to countries on the US export control list.

But your view here – in your copyright/Linux inclusion – is contradicted by SCO's own statement in their latest amended complaint:

"The Second Amended Complaint, however, does not contain a claim against IBM for copyright infringement arising out of its use, reproduction or improvement of Linux."

[Golden Eagle]

You're not making any sense, just arguing needlessly. The part of my post you italicized contained the word copyright zero times. So either you're blind, can't read or you're just trying to start an argument. Whichever it is, I really couldn't care.

[D-fendr]

The part of my post you italicized contained the word copyright zero times.

That's true, I was referring to your assertions earlier, should have made that clearer. Here they are, hope this makes more sense:

[Linux and copyrights are part of SCO's current claim in the IBM suit?]   Yep.

and:

Copyright violations are a part of the claims against IBM…

That (copyrights and Linux) is what I've been trying to ask and clarify in the discussion. You seemed very adamant that they were (see above).

Now, if I'm understanding your last post, you're not saying they are.

or you're just trying to start an argument.

It is an argument - about what exactly SCO's claim is – but I'm not trying to be argumentative. I am, however, trying to make a point, as you are.Whichever it is, I really couldn't care.

The only two times I've engaged you in discussion, it's about specifics of the case. And both times, the further we go into specifics the less you seem to care.

I think you have an ideological bone to gnaw on, but IMHO, it's not supported by the facts and specifics of this case.