« Update | Main | Good Beginning »
June 30, 2003
SCO Update
The SCO v. IBM lawsuit is heating up a little. Now there's been pro-Linux protestors at the SCO headquarters.
When employees of software maker SCO Group Inc. SCOX.O showed up for work last week, they encountered something they had never seen in front of their headquarters -- a protest.
As about 70 nearby enthusiasts of the Linux operating system demonstrated against the company's dispute with International Business Machine Corp. IBM.N and others, executives at SCO were preparing for a battle that could result in more legal fees than it could afford.
Sounds like word's getting around, helped no doubt by SCO's recent warning letter to some 1,500 companies that their use of Linux may violate SCO's Unix rights. The protestors were primarily asking for the release of the allegedly offending code, which so far SCO has refused to do.
In documents shown to Reuters, portions of software code that SCO said were taken from its Unix system appeared in various Linux distributions. The company said some of the code was transferred over in its entirety, including original typographical errors.
SCO has refused to publicize the contentious code, however, arguing that revealing such details would allow its potential legal targets to alter their code and avoid liability.
So far, IBM is remaining silent on the issue, saying its license to use Unix can't be revoked or terminated.
Original typos? Whew, that would suck for IBM if true, wouldn't it? Cut & paste is not always your friend, you know.
On the other hand, this isn't the first lawsuit of this type that SCO's been involved in.
Some industry experts see SCO's campaign as an attempt to gain a windfall settlement, most likely by selling itself to IBM or another industry heavyweight.
Previously, Caldera bought the rights to a DOS operating system and used it in 1996 to sue Microsoft and reach a settlement. DOS was the predecessor to Microsoft's Windows, which runs more than 95 percent of the world's personal computers.
So, is Caldera/SCO looking for another big score? Or is it the case that the software giants frequently have played fast 'n loose with each other's code in the past and SCO's the only one so far that has called them on it?
Posted by Rita at June 30, 2003 05:09 PM
Comments
I posted something about this sometime in May. At the time that the original SCO (not Caldera) purchased the rights to Unix, I was still working for them.
What this suit boils down to is the fact that Caldera bought a dead duck from SCO. Being faced with the fact that they squandered an awful lot of cash raised from their IPO to acquire the rights to Unix, Caldera now allege that a joint development project between HP, IBM and SCO led to the use of some SCO technology in the Linux OS.
Caldera, having realized that their Unixware and SCO Unix brands were not worth the paper that they were written on, are looking to reclaim their outlay. Hmmm...Big Blue have a lot of cash.
It's a joke designed to keep Caldera from being delisted and filing Chapter 11. IBM are doing exactly the right thing in ignoring them. This litigation is a complete non-starter. Fast-forward a few months (or years) and Caldera will be confined to the Harvard Business School of "criminally ridiculous acquisitions".
Caldera's holding company have a history of this kind of trivia; historically, they have won but this time, against Big Blue, they don't stand a cat in hell's chance. Even I could show up as a witness and have them laughed out of court.
The whole argument is fatally flawed. The IBM/HP/SCO allegiance was based on a developing Unix on the 64-bit Intel chips (project Monterey) and yet Caldera's claims are that the code from its System V rights somehow ended up in the Linux kernel because IBM used it in AIX.
Watch this one disappear quickly and if you hold SCOC stock (Caldera), sell it bloody quickly.
Posted by: Andy (Mr Picklejuice) at June 30, 2003 06:52 PM
Mmmm...tasty insider info. Thanks Andy! That certainly puts the whole thing in a whole new light. I'd been wondering why IBM hadn't really had much response to the lawsuit.
Posted by: Rita at June 30, 2003 07:45 PM