Posted on 04/26/2005 8:28:12 AM PDT by N3WBI3
Can I get a thorough explaination of this whole SCO fiasco? Why/how is a company able to sue over the use of open source software code?
Summary:
SCO claimes IBM put non opensource code (from AIX) into Linux. SCO claimes to own the UNIX source code (under dispute from Novell), and that IBM violated its license by putting that code into Linux (which has not been shown).
This is all complicated by the fact that SCO purchased a company (caldera) that had everything under GPL, and SCO themselves puplished a good deal of their code under the gpl.
SCO is dragging its feet trying to avoid a trial because right now the shadow they have tried to cast over IBM and Linux is all they got..
FOr the pancake on the bunny head crowd, just what or who is SCO?
Lawsuit shop..
SCO is (or used to be?) the initials of the firm filing suit--Santa Cruz Operation. They are a very small player in the Operating Systems world.
I wonder if Judge Kimball will threaten SCO Group with contempt. SCO has been ordered to produce these documents (twice) and now is unable/unwilling to do so.
I Am Not A Lawyer, but this sounds like grounds for summary judgement.
Excuse me while I get some popcorn for the show.
This should have been laughed out of court years ago, and Darl and friends "frog marched out of the court room with a raincoat over their head" (to coin a phrase).
Thanks for the explanation. I'll have to talk to our two older sons about this. #1 son is in Law School, and will be working with a law firm during the summer that specializes in Intellectual Property and Patent Law. #2 son is in Grad School in Austin studying Computer Science. He's a Linux guy, so this might interest him as well. He's certainly interested in the Intellectual Property Rights idea because he hopes to generate some research that will come under that protection.
Nice explanation.
Thanks.
(Don't know if it's accurate.)
Then I'm sure he very familiar with this already. This story has produced a lot of buzz in the geek community.
We are very riled up because SCO is claiming that they own the product of all of the millions of man-hours freely given by independent programmers to produce Linux, just because the pretended to buy some prehistoric code originally produced by ATT.
Their case seems to us, completely ludicrous, and there is much speculation as to what SCO is actually up to. The leading contenders are that this is just a "pump and dump" stock scheme from a lawsuit factory, or that they are being put up to it by Microsoft to intimidate corporations from migrating to Linux.
Not stated either, is a little fear that the courts just might side with them. No one trusts the American court system anymore to do what is right or sensible any more.
Some companies have been granted patents on technology that has been around for years and they are using these patents to shake down other companies. Most software companies (that can afford it) collect a large arsenal of patents just so nobody wants to mess with them. Smaller companies live it fear of 1) being sued or 2) having their IP stolen by a large company they cannot afford to fight.
Another problem is many concepts that are common knowledge are being patented. This is especially bad in web technology right now. You pretty much cannot run any sort of website right now without violating a patent someone else holds. It's a bit like the US tax code. There's just no way to be completely legal. They've got you it they want you.
Patents are the single biggest threat to Linux right now. In some cases there are companies that allow their patent to be violated for years without raising public awareness, then as their technology becomes well embedded they open a flood of lawsuits. This is one of the reasons Linux people are happy to have IBM and their Nazgul lawyers on our side.
This should be right down his alley. A total summation of the case from the beginning, including all non-sealed court documents, is at Groklaw. The person running it is a paralegal who's admittedly pro-Linux and IBM on this one, so take the comments knowing that (although she's never said anything that went against the facts in the documents).
SCO has put up its own page where they have "factual information" about its cases (supposedly as opposed to Groklaw's false information). Although they claim Groklaw spreads lies, many of the documents at their site are copies of Groklaw's, which were originally scanned by Groklaw volunteers.
SCO's site is also not complete, the most comical evidence of which is that they are missing all the documents from when they lost their suit against Daimler Chrysler.
Another wrinkle is that #1 son is very computer savvy, with friends in the geek world, so this will be a very interesting summer for him at this firm.
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.