Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCO consultant: no copyright infringement in linux
Groklaw ^ | 07/14/05 | Reg Broughton

Posted on 07/14/2005 4:01:54 PM PDT by Salo

Davidson reports:

The project was a result of SCO's executive management refusing to believe that it was possible for Linux and much of the GNU software to have come into existance without *someone* *somewhere* having copied pieces of proprietary UNIX source code to which SCO owned the copyright. The hope was that we would find a "smoking gun" somwhere in code that was being used by Red Hat and/or the other Linux companies that would give us some leverage. (There was, at one stage, the idea that we would sell licenses to corporate customers who were using Linux as a kind of "insurance policy" in case it turned out that they were using code which infringed our copyright).

So, Darl's SCOsource scheme wasn't even original, was it? SCO *hoped* to find copyright infringement so they could make some money selling "insurance" for Linux, the email says. Sound familiar? And after all that effort, what did they find?

At the end, we had found absolutely *nothing*. ie no evidence of any copyright infringement whatsoever.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Technical
KEYWORDS: fatladysinging; ibm; linux; sco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-136 next last
To: Golden Eagle
Maybe you got overhasty in your assertions there, but the actual figure is 283 that MAY be trampled on. This is an assessment done by an insurance company which wants to sell patent insurance for $150,000/yr.

Now, not to be quibbling or anything, but do you really think that an insurance company is in the business to lose money? It looks as if the insurance company is looking to make some serious money and that they don't really expect to pay out a penny.

Remember the old saw: "follow the money." This has FUD written all over it so that the insurance premiums can be hiked up royally. If they had said that 10 or even 20 patents were infringed, it would be far more logical. But 283? They must be counting everything in the Kernel...
61 posted on 07/15/2005 5:44:44 PM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
" the firm that estimated the 283 patent violations"

No comment.

62 posted on 07/15/2005 9:26:36 PM PDT by Codename - Ron Benjamin (I'm gonna sing the doom song now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3; Bush2000
.. it seems the 1999 memo was the one saying there were lines of code *but* that code could be BSD. The memo from August of 2002 (after three years worth of time to gather info) said that that had no information indicating copyright infringement..

Actually, B2K has a point. The 1999 study looked at Red Hat 5.2 (used the 2.0.36 kernel IIRC) and Darl alleges infringements in kernels 2.4 and up. These memos/emails do not really address any subsequent copying. We can probably assume that the line-by-line stuff highlighted in the Swartz memo was resolved by the time Davidson wrote his email.

What about anything added after 2000? assuming there was, of course...

63 posted on 07/15/2005 9:46:28 PM PDT by TechJunkYard (my other PC is a 9406)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
This "investigation" dates back to 1999. And, as we know, IBM's move to "invest" $1B in Linux didn't happen until December, 2000. Result: none of this is conclusive of anything.

As far as this case goes, that is a very good point. However, Darl McBride has publicly claimed Linux was tainted as of "early 2000."

64 posted on 07/16/2005 9:08:06 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
The memo was recalling research that was done in 1999. IBM subsequently added a ton of functionality to Linux. Bottom line: the memo doesn't help anybody.
65 posted on 07/16/2005 11:19:04 AM PDT by Bush2000 (Linux -- You Get What You Pay For ... (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Darl McBride has publicly claimed Linux was tainted as of "early 2000."

Darl's big mouth won't matter until we get to the countersuits. However, SCO's official position, as documented in paragraph 5 of its Second Amended Complaint is:

.. Linux 2.4.x and 2.6.x and the development kernel, 2.5.x, are replete with protected technology. As such, the Linux 2.4.x, Linux 2.5.x and 2.6.x kernels are unauthorized derivatives of UNIX System V.

66 posted on 07/16/2005 12:05:49 PM PDT by TechJunkYard (my other PC is a 9406)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000

The memo saying there was no line by line copying was in *late* 2002.. Hopefully SCO will get nailed with 1500 counts of mail fraud for those extortion letters..


67 posted on 07/16/2005 12:12:39 PM PDT by N3WBI3 (If SCO wants to go fishing they should buy a permit and find a lake like the rest of us..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3

And the analysis was based on work done in 1999 -- not 2002. Meaning, it doesn't help you.


68 posted on 07/16/2005 1:19:48 PM PDT by Bush2000 (Linux -- You Get What You Pay For ... (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
And the analysis was based on work done in 1999 -- not 2002. Meaning, it doesn't help you.

The question here is whether they acted in bad faith. The 2002 email says that it "probably closes this discussion [on infringing code]." Davidson, who is apparently intimately familiar with SCO's code, said the investigation was a "waste of time.".

I almost can't see why SCO is even bothering with this, at least as far as IBM goes, because they've fallen back to the position that Linux has none of their code in it, but it has tons of IBM-written code in it that they lay claim to through their thoroughly debunked derivatives theory. Remember, they've been trying to weasel-out of their original copyright infringement claim (that SYSV code is in Linux) for quite a while.

69 posted on 07/18/2005 6:11:39 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
The question here is whether they acted in bad faith. The 2002 email says that it "probably closes this discussion [on infringing code]." Davidson, who is apparently intimately familiar with SCO's code, said the investigation was a "waste of time.".

Given that IBM's alleged infringement would have occurred after Davidson's period of investigation, the point is moot.
70 posted on 07/19/2005 2:16:06 AM PDT by Bush2000 (Linux -- You Get What You Pay For ... (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Given that IBM's alleged infringement would have occurred after Davidson's period of investigation, the point is moot.

I told you it doesn't go so much with the IBM case because that's mainly on their derivatives theory (with SCO trying to drop the original copyright claim, and being caught by the judge for being disingenuous in doing so), but with Darl making a statement that infringement existed in the timeframe soon after this study, the statement being made not long after this memo. That shows bad faith.

71 posted on 07/19/2005 6:29:57 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
... with Darl making a statement that infringement existed in the timeframe soon after this study, the statement being made not long after this memo. That shows bad faith.

You and I aren't privy to any other investigations and/or discussions that SCO was conducting with its attorneys simultaneously; so, it's probably not possible to make such a conclusion without additional information. Likewise, it's entirely possible that McBride simply rejected the conclusions of Davidson's audit.
72 posted on 07/19/2005 3:27:58 PM PDT by Bush2000 (Linux -- You Get What You Pay For ... (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
You and I aren't privy to any other investigations and/or discussions that SCO was conducting with its attorneys simultaneously;

You mean like Sandeep Gupta's investigation? The one that was completely trashed by Brian Kernighan? Hmmm, who to believe, some SCO guy with a little UNIX experience, or an independent, world-renowned computer scientist who's been involved with UNIX since it was invented?

it's probably not possible to make such a conclusion without additional information.

Are you talking about the information that Judge Kimball said is completely absent?

I'm a skeptic at heart. Show me the evidence, then I will accept. I've heard claims of a "million lines of code," yet I, and apparently the judge, have yet to see one. I will give SCO weasel room if you consider the software that IBM wrote to belong to SCO.

Likewise, it's entirely possible that McBride simply rejected the conclusions of Davidson's audit.

Quite probable. He was hired to do this lawsuit, so he wouldn't want anything like the facts standing in his way.

73 posted on 07/19/2005 9:12:02 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Bob
The linked email is from almost three years ago. Was it just recently discovered?

Yes, in the legal sense of "discovered" (revealed to scrutiny).

The real significance of this is that it constitutes evidence that SCO management knew at the time that they were undertaking a baseless fishing expedition.

74 posted on 07/20/2005 5:31:14 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TechJunkYard
Those 1500 companies which received Darl's extortion letters.

This element (mail fraud) seems the most likely to cause him to be known as "Darla" to his cell mate.

75 posted on 07/20/2005 5:41:36 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
This "investigation" dates back to 1999.

Yep -- SCO has been on notice that their barratry is without basis for six years. That is, if anything, an aggrivating rather than a mitigating factor.

76 posted on 07/20/2005 5:48:18 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
it's entirely possible that McBride simply rejected the conclusions of Davidson's audit

That in itself would be a show of bad faith. For example, if I hired a surveyor to find my property line, he found it to be between my house and my neighbor's house, and I then "simply rejected the conclusions" and sued my neighbor for building his house on my property, I'd get slam-dunked -- just like Darl & Co.

77 posted on 07/20/2005 5:51:51 AM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

I can't comment on SCO's internal communications or investigations -- nor can you. Neither of us has been privy to everything that SCO has done in order to substantiate its claim against IBM. How about a little due process? Wait for the trial before you declare them guilty of anything. Otherwise, we're caught in an endless loop of you guys declaring that the judge is going to throw the case out of court and McBride is going to be led away in an orange jumpsuit for God knows what, me laughing at you, and repeating ad nauseum...


78 posted on 07/20/2005 1:51:02 PM PDT by Bush2000 (Linux -- You Get What You Pay For ... (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Yep -- SCO has been on notice that their barratry is without basis for six years. That is, if anything, an aggrivating rather than a mitigating factor.

Thanks for yet another content-free post. Trouble is, IBM started really investing in Linux in late 2000, so anything that SCO researched in 1999 is irrelevant.
79 posted on 07/20/2005 1:53:15 PM PDT by Bush2000 (Linux -- You Get What You Pay For ... (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
This element (mail fraud) seems the most likely to cause him to be known as "Darla" to his cell mate.

Don't you guys ever get tired of convicting people of imaginary crimes? Face it: McBride is *never* going to jail over any of this.
80 posted on 07/20/2005 1:54:57 PM PDT by Bush2000 (Linux -- You Get What You Pay For ... (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-136 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson