Skip to comments.
SCO's 'Smoking Gun' Versus IBM
Forbes ^
| 8/4/04
| Daniel Lyons
Posted on 08/04/2004 7:14:20 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
NEW YORK - The nasty legal battle between SCO Group and IBM may soon grow wider, as SCO executives have dropped a new bombshell.
In private interviews during their annual user conference in Las Vegas this week, SCO executives said they have discovered that IBM lacks proper licenses for its Unix-based AIX operating system, heart of a multibillion-dollar business for IBM.
SCO alleges that since 2001, AIX has contained code for which IBM does not have a license. Moreover SCO claims to have found internal IBM e-mails in which IBMers acknowledge this shortcoming.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: communists; ibm; linux; microsoft; patent; sco; usefulidiots
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 441-444 next last
To: ShadowAce
It probably came from an "audit" of its own license contracts with IBM and they found a possibility for more litigation. Probably did, and lots of these big company trials break on email that surfaces during discovery.
To: GeorgiaFreeper
Been a rough "Linux Week" out in San Francisco, hasn't it? First 300 possible patent violations in the kernel alone, now this.
To: ikka
Given what we're all used to seeing from these folks and these posters by now. I'm tuning out. There is a concerted effort by Gates Et al to scuttle Linux at any cost. And I for one amd tired of reading this nonsense. Linux is cutting the throat of MS around the world as MS loses contract after contract, business after business. When you're talking hundreds of Millions and given the long known tactics of MS, this has all been expected and I'm sick to death of hearing about the latest allegation that they have thrown at these people like Democrats throwing charges at Bush hoping something, ANYTHING (picture gates praying like Jimmy Swaggert) will stick.
To the usual suspects and paid MS wonks, you're earning your keep; but, sorry, it won't make a difference. The truth will out, it will be dealt with one way or another and Linux - a package without a company, will still be standing and MS will continue to lose ground. And Linux will be the next OS of the mainstream market and will dominate the business world. I am near to completing my admin training. For those of you with MS certs, I recommend dumping them like a bad habit and training in linux. Daimler has canned MS and is romoving MS products from their machines. The Automotive industry is gonna need people that can support linux and I've been ahead of that curve for quite a while. Just telling you where the money is. And you can cert up for Linux reasonably.
Enjoy. Oh, and somebody get GE and Bush some tin foil.
23
posted on
08/04/2004 8:01:52 PM PDT
by
Havoc
(.)
To: Golden Eagle
Change the subject or attack the form as much as you want.
SCOx has not publicly produced an offending line of code. That IBM is going for a PSJ on copyright indicates additional likelihood that they have not produced any privately either.
24
posted on
08/04/2004 8:02:53 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
(Don't confuse disagreement with argumentation.)
To: Golden Eagle
This is from an oldie but goodie
Information week article:
Apparently the most telling evidence is that parts of the SCO code and Linux code include identical annotations made by developers when they wrote the programs, says DiDio, who compares such notes to the signature or fingerprint of a developer's work. "The fact that these appear to be transposed from Unix System V into Linux I find to be very damaging." DiDio says she was shown several instances where the source code and developer's comments in one operating system were the same as in the other operating system.
25
posted on
08/04/2004 8:03:41 PM PDT
by
GeorgiaFreeper
(She does not have fat ankles, that is just where the hooves show through above the foot prosthetics.)
To: Golden Eagle
Not respondiong is the only claim left. All their other daydreams were shot down.
26
posted on
08/04/2004 8:04:31 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
(Don't confuse disagreement with argumentation.)
To: SoDak
the SCOX is going, the stock is getting mighty cheap...
27
posted on
08/04/2004 8:05:59 PM PDT
by
chilepepper
(The map is not the territory -- Alfred Korzybski)
To: Paladin2
Actually it's not responding on time (though the agreement is quiet on the acceptable reply delay time). All the rest of their phishing expedition was sunk by a huge hole below the waterline.
28
posted on
08/04/2004 8:12:49 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
(Don't confuse disagreement with argumentation.)
To: Golden Eagle
check out
Groklaw for the latest SCO lawsuit crap.
SCO is a sinking ship.
If you are riding on it, I suggest you jump off while you can. Next stop, Redmond.
29
posted on
08/04/2004 8:24:29 PM PDT
by
PokeyJoe
(They are RATS, not RATICS)
To: GeorgiaFreeper
To: Golden Eagle
You betcha and it gets worse. The Munich Linux project has definately been put on ice. I posted a google translation of the german article
here
31
posted on
08/04/2004 8:30:42 PM PDT
by
GeorgiaFreeper
(She does not have fat ankles, that is just where the hooves show through above the foot prosthetics.)
To: Paladin2
SCOx has not publicly produced an offending line of code. Nor should they have to, until the trial begins. Basic law.
To: Golden Eagle
From the article above:
But SCO has been even more thorough. After sifting through e-mails from the Linux developers' mailing list, Sontag says SCO has examples of programmers from AT&T licensees offering to write UNIX code into Linux, and can identify where those UNIX fragments turned up in the codebase.
More Elmer Fud I guess...
33
posted on
08/04/2004 8:43:23 PM PDT
by
GeorgiaFreeper
(She does not have fat ankles, that is just where the hooves show through above the foot prosthetics.)
To: GeorgiaFreeper
Now the question I have is WHO owns the UNIX license? SCO, I believe is just a licensee of UNIX and not the license holder.
34
posted on
08/04/2004 8:46:47 PM PDT
by
jbstrick
(War is not fought for peace. War is fought for victory.)
To: jbstrick
Now the question I have is WHO owns the UNIX license?
According to SCO, they do via a chain of corporate buy-outs.
35
posted on
08/04/2004 8:51:06 PM PDT
by
GeorgiaFreeper
(She does not have fat ankles, that is just where the hooves show through above the foot prosthetics.)
To: Havoc
Tidy Ho. I'm not surprised you're bailing since all you ever seem to offer is insults and uncorroborated claims anyway. Still waiting on a link from anywhere about Chrysler.
To: jbstrick
From Golden Eagle's byte.com posting above:
In the beginning was AT&T Bell Labs, staffed by a benevolent team of PhDs and research scientists. AT&T produced this really neat operating systemSystem Vwhich computer manufacturers wanted to license and use. Everybody was happy to sign tough contracts with these benevolent scientistslicenses which deeded all derivative works back to AT&T, licenses that covered all "methods" and "concepts" of operating systems. But now those licenses are owned by SCO and its team of lawyers who are certain that AIX and all the other derivative IXs belong to SCO. And the company now wants royalties from users of all these operating systemsespecially Linux.
37
posted on
08/04/2004 8:54:23 PM PDT
by
GeorgiaFreeper
(She does not have fat ankles, that is just where the hooves show through above the foot prosthetics.)
To: jbstrick
WHO owns the UNIX license? As far as I know SCO does. It was on the front page of every trade journal when Novell sold it, part of Novell's original meltdown/firesale.
To: Havoc
I'm tuning out.
Don't forget your ball since you are leaving the playground.
39
posted on
08/04/2004 8:58:40 PM PDT
by
GeorgiaFreeper
(She does not have fat ankles, that is just where the hooves show through above the foot prosthetics.)
To: Golden Eagle
Quite a story if true. I've long ago stopped believing anything SCO says. It's another Utah scam operation, like cold fusion and Orrin Hatch.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 441-444 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson