SCO Missing 16,000 Documents (papershredders at sco working overtime)

groklaw ^ | 2005-04-26 | groklaw

[N3WBI3]

Here's IBM's Objections to SCO's Privilege Log[PDF] as text, thanks to Feldegast, who certainly earned a gold star with this thankless task. The detail is a bit overwhelming as it is, so he left the footnotes on the page where they appear, rather than clustering them at the end, as we normally do. I hope it helps.
Footnote 1 is interesting, because SCO's privilege logs from November and December of 2004 had 19,207 entries. This one, filed in March, has only 2,998 entries, and IBM has no clue why. So IBM reserves the right to object and to compel production of the missing documents. That indicates a woops. But until it plays out, we won't know what happened, but it is definitely something to keep our eyes on.

[N3WBI3]

I think the wheels are starting to come off of this one..

[ShadowAce]

[timtoews5292004]

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?

[N3WBI3]

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..

[SuziQ]

FOr the pancake on the bunny head crowd, just what or who is SCO?

[N3WBI3]

Lawsuit shop..

[shadowman99]

SCO is actually two companies, and it's important to know the difference. There is "Old SCO" or "Santa Cruz Operation". They were Unix developers and ultimately working towards Linux adoption.

"Old SCO" was purchased by Caldera and became "New SCO" or "The SCO Group". They are mainly a litigation company who sues to make money. They have some dubious claims to ownership of Unix System V, which may be owned by Novel (depending on who's story you want to believe).

NEW SCO claims IMB illegally entered code belonging to them into Linux. IBM says this code was written by IBM and they can do whatever the hell they want with it. IBM also says much of this code was donated to Linux by SCO themselves when they published their own Linux diribution (both old and new).

Darl McBride (CEO of The SCO Group) is attempting to confuse the issues by bringing up unfounded accusations of GPL violations by IBM and supposed contract violations. New SCO also offered a "Protection" racket for a short time where you could by a license to run Linux and use "their" code legally. This didn't work very well (they sold only a small handful of licenses) and they then turned to suing former customers of SCO Unix.

The conventional wisdom is this all has been a proxy lawsuit(s) by Microsoft to attack Linux and introduce fear into the marketplace.

[ovs.in.texas]

FOr the pancake on the bunny head crowd, just what or who is SCO?

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.

[shadowman99]

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.

[dinasour]

The charges that they are making, are basically analogous to a descendant of a distant cousin of the Wright Brothers suing Boeing for 10 Billion dollars for stealing their intellectual property, then declaring that they own all aircraft technology , from all sources, lock, stock, and barrel.

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).

[SuziQ]

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.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Nice explanation.

Thanks.


(Don't know if it's accurate.)

[dinasour]

He's a Linux guy

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.

[shadowman99]

Be prepared for some heated debates as the years roll on. IP law is starting to stifle the ability for American software companies to create the best products. In many cases new features in software are held back while legal teams spend time investigating if the innovation is similar to something patented.

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.

[antiRepublicrat]

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

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.

[shadowman99]

I should have added that in this debate programmers and lawyer see each other as the opponent. Programmers see lawyers as the guys who are creating minefields and making it impossible to do our jobs, and losing our jobs to companies like India. Lawyers see Programmers (especially open source guys) as thieves and pirates who have no respect for IP.

And you have a son in each field.

I wouldn't want to have Christmas at your house.

[shadowman99]

^^^^ companies countries

[SuziQ]

Heh, when I told #2 son what #1 son was going to be doing, his first question was "Who's side will he be on?" ;o)

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.

[Bush2000]

IP law is starting to stifle the ability for American software companies to create the best products. In many cases new features in software are held back while legal teams spend time investigating if the innovation is similar to something patented.

That's idiotic. It's quite possible that anybody who wastes his or her time doing patent searches is going to miss a potential claimant's patent due to the sheer number of patents on file at the USPTO. So, in fact, doing patent searches is a fool's errand. Likewise, there's a huge potential to be hit with even more substantial damages if, in the course of a patent search, you eliminate a particular patent from comparison -- and that patent is later found to apply to your product. My advice to any programmer would be to NOT do patent searches prior to working on and releasing products. It won't help you.