“We believe it is necessary for Linux customers to properly license SCO’s IP if they are running Linux 2.4 kernel and later versions for commercial purposes. The license insures that customers can continue their use of binary deployments of Linux without violating SCO’s intellectual property rights.” SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003. UPDATE: SCO may countersue Red Hat, SuSE joins the fray. Read it at Slashdot.
IBM need to buy SCO and finish with this ridiculous guys. SCO is supplicating for attention. hehe…
I think that the SCO represents America as a whole, and it doesn’t look very good. Way too much corruption. I wouldn’t call them a free country, more like a terrorist country.
but it is about the GPL & about the community. Realize that Caldera (the Linux company) bought the “unix” rights from Novell several years ago with Linux generated cash! They knowingly cashed in on any “infringement” and are now trying to sue the users of the very products they helped build.
The GPL comes into play because they continued to sell a GPL based product long after they started laying the blame on thick. They are still attempting to profit from their linux sales…or worse denying their OWN CUSTOMERS support of products they paid Caldera for.
Lots of people charge for custom kernels. The RT linux is one of the more popular. If SCO had a business model about selling an OS they would protect that IP by removing reference to it publicaly.
The proper course of action would be to identify the offending code. Offending code is on people’s computers and servers right now. They refuse to offer any option to remove the offending pieces. The whole NDA thing is B.S. the code is public–anyone can see it. The community is only asking for the specific sections which to remove, edit, replace, etc…not all users want or mean to infringe on any rights…and will gladly modify their programs if they only knew what SCO was claiming. If the code is copyrighted then there’s no legal basis to withold it…it is legally protected already. What SCO is doing is not due process by any definition. They are lieving damages [and theat of damages] without following any of the legally sanctioned mechanics for doing so. They have not filed a single DMCA letter calling for removal of their copyrighted information. They have not laid public claim to ANYTHING SPECIFIC that programmers can fix!
The next move should be the FSF going after SCO for monetary damages and undoing of all SCO distrobutions. They are still distributing code under GPL that is not fully free…it cannot be distributed by anyone…including SCO. No version of Calera linux ever, could be considered legal because they can’t pinpoint the violation–SCO/Caldera never had the right to distribute. Their entire history should be considered illegal fraud. [if they are taken at their own word] They should be sued for copyright violation and their customers should have the product forcably removed from their premises. That is the next and legal move for the linux community!
It’s time for MAD tactics from the Linux community! The EFF and FSF should be looking for any possible in fringement in all BSD released code also. [then every OS maker would have liability] Push the big red button! This is the chance that RMS and Co have been waiting for to crash the screwed up copyright/patent system. Take it. Abuse it!
You cannot copyright or patent an idea
Of course you can. While the specific laws vary, virtually every country in the world recognizes the concept of “intellectual property.” In fact, an idea is technically copyrighted at its time of creation. If I write a novel or article incorporating my own ideas (which is what I do for a living), no one else can take it and use it without compensating me unless I allow them to use it for free. Similarly, software creations cannot be copied, altered, and/or redistributed for free unless proper permission is granted. Can you walk into a department store and simply take their items without compensating them? No. Same with someone’s ideas.
Actually, no you cannot patent an idea. However, you may patent the <g>implementation</g> of this idea, i.e. the way to realize this idea. But if someone can find a different way than yours, it is perfectly ok. A patent needs to be practical.
SCO complains about GPL…microsoft has always complained about GPL…SCO goes to the court with the shit…just in time for the new 2003 microsoft server…microsoft offers guarantee for customer not to have to pay the fee linux users will have to pay…
…anyone not connecting these dots???
If anyone well informed could please start looking into this bloody mess it would all be sorted out and deal the greatest blow microsoft has ever received!!!
So all SCO wants is more money. They are making a big mistake.
They should have settled this in a mature way. Like showing the code.
Microsoft is probably telling SCO what to do.
So Microsoft can tell costumers it’s safer to use Windows.
Just what they needed, more arguments to convince costumers who are already running to Linux.
there is no reason to worry about anything. There is no stolen code in the linux kernel. Darl is just trying to make a dying company profitable again that’s all. When it’s all said and done the IBM execs will bend Darl and his minions over the table and have a 700 lb gorilla rape their asses.
Or they could say to the Linux Kernel developers, the exact details of one kernel version, which files and which line numbers in the files contain the SCO code. This way they are not giving away any of their Intellectual Property.
The fact that they haven’t done this shows that there is no code.
And you wanna know why???
Because GPL is not good for computer evolution! Several people has written about this and stupid zealots just won’t listen. Many companies, including mine, have stricts policy of usage of GPL software, it’s prohibited.
Why? Because we strive to see the computer industry build new innovative things and we realise someone has to pay for it. GPL software is not innovative, it’s just geeks cloning other peoples stuff.
So thank you SCO for hopefully ending the GPL plague that has been in the software biz for quite some time now.
I think it will be fun if we all visit this address
http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/index.html and let them know how we feel 🙂
I use Debian GNU/Linux. I downloaded it from one of the official mirrors under the license provided by Debian. I have never accepted any license or EULA from SCO and therefore they can’t force me to pay anything. If they have a problem with that they should talk to the people behind the distrubution and NOT the user.
If for instance Sony would make a device (dvd or whatever) that brakes som patent and I buy that device, should the patentholder be able to sue me??????
ITS JUST THAT STUPID SCO!!
СовÑем охуели!!!
You’re right.
If there’s any justice on this world MicroSCOft will loose this battle. But hey, is there any justice at all?
“GPL software is not innovative, it’s just geeks cloning other peoples stuff.”
So IBM, SUN, etc, etc are not innovative because they use GPL S/W? Who is then innovative? MS and SCO or MicroSCOft? Give me a brake, mate! Actually, I recall Steve Balmer encouraging a couple of hundrets MS People to steal and copy from their competitors (i saw about 6 years ago on TV). They also call Apple their Thinktank….. I think it says it all about your innovative MS and SCO or whatever.
Would it be up to them we’d still be crawling in and out of caves…..
I work with Macs and PCs all day as a guy who fixes them in a student lab (about 40 macs, 100 PCs) so I hope my comments carry some validity.
First, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but whenever I hear someone claim that the old-generation macs (non-G5) are as fast as the latest pcs coming out, I just shake my head. If you play games, this is just not so, which made me madder when the reviewer talked about Quake 3 frame comparisons, as if that proved anything. This has already been talked about in above comments, nothing further to add there. As far as compute intensive apps go, the majority simply go faster on new PCs. Whether or not that really matters anymore is something I don’t care to argue. It’s pretty obvious that most GUI’s run at the same speed, and if that’s all you care about (majority of users) then speed is no big deal.
Second, the author talks about the great quality of Macs. I feel this is misleading, and most people don’t realize just how misleading. Simply put: if you are buying towers, and powerbooks, (and perhaps I-books, haven’t tested them) you are probably getting a quality machine. But I speak from experience when I say that I-Macs (of which our computer labs have a few varieties of) are the evillest things to work with. They all use cheap (=substandard) parts. They have all been in for hardware repair at some point in time, whether it was the CRT (on the older ones), hard-drive, motherboard… with an average failure rate over 5 times more than PCs which cost half their price. We have had 2 mac-specific techs in our lab who used to love Macs, and then left basically crying after a year, because of all the stress managing them brought.
Finally, I just want to say that I am not actually a Mac hater, I just enjoy disagreeing with people on principal. I LIKE OS X. Best *ix ever. I am optimistically looking forward to G5 computers, as they will probably make Macs the speed king once again, if only for a year. If you don’t like computers in general, and are vaguely rich, I will always recommend a Mac.
P.S. To the guy who was talking about CISC vs. RISC, I will tell you flat out that optimizations in processor cores, compilers, and what have you, have made the differences between the two obsolete (for at least a few years). It’s less of a difference than megahertz by an order of magnitude, and megahertz is already a “myth”. read the articles at arstechnica.com for the in-depth comparisons. And they like Macs easily as much as they like PCs, so it’s not some we-hate-RISC site.
dammit, please delete above, wrong article, grumble…
I have always said that the possibility exists that SCO has claims to some IP in Linux. However, this still does not excuse the fact that they were releasing this code under the GPL. I belive McBrides response was that “he didn’t think the GPL covered the code if the person didn’t know that the code being released wasn’t supposed to be.”
The GPL doesn’t cover that. Essentially, the GPL just stipulates that the person who is allowed to release the code need release the code under the GPL. Despite that fact, SCO was still releasing the code under the GPL even after initial allegations. Hence, they knew about it.
If I own a store, and I am selling child porn, and I find out about it, and I continue selling it, am I still liable? Of course I am. The fact is, SCO was offering something under the GPL.
If they choose to sell a product, or offer a product, and distribute this product under a license, and make the claim they didn’t even know what they were selling, they this leads to two conclusions.
1. They are not a good software company. Even Microsoft knows what they are selling. SCO obviously did not know what they were selling, and in good faith, I couldn’t even do business with them if I wanted to. How could I explain that to my shareholders. “We need to buy software from SCO. Though, I don’t know what software that is because SCO doesn’t even know.”
2. They are trying to unrelease GPL’ed code that they knew was in there. The code was released a while back, and they found that by claiming their code was included by a third party, they could go off an say “It wasn’t us.”
Having read top speed’s posts, he does have a point (the same one I mentioned in the first sentence). However, he fails to speculate on the above issues. Simple facts remain simple facts.
SCO has yet to produce any proof of any kind showing where the infringment lies. Until they do, nothing is certain. Yes, they are a business, and not completely stupid. However, they simply have not produced ANY proof at all. Another simple fact.
That is not the idea. The idea is pump the stock price so canopy group can back out of a bad investment – at insane valuation.
“investors” are supposed to think: “wow! if even 1% of linux users pay, scox will millions!”
The scam is working like a charm. Scox up over 600% since this little scam started, insiders dumping their shares frantically. Canopy Group laughs all the way to the bank.
That is all there is to it.
From the teleconference:
“Reality is IBM and RH painted a Linux liability target on the backs of their customers. And due to their actions we have no choice but to fight the battle against end users.”
I would never buy linux if it were commercial for that much money!
If SCO’s clamins have any merits then I see Linux dying (ref: *BSD is dying) and development focus of OSS shifting towards BSD with a forking event.
Sun will be the big winner as corporate users used to favor Sun before Linux became overhyped.
Novell will be left standing without a clue as to what to do next and might in desperation even offer Sun or MS to buy everything as an act of desperation.
MS will celebrate the death of Linux while every Linux-fan will continue to blame MS for everything including the death of Linux and continue to fight MS as if the world didn’t have bigger problems like starvation, poverty, pollution etc.
This is how I see everything pan out (honestly ;D) if SCO wins … which I doubt. I have no facts whatsoever to back any claims or any evidence of SCOs claims or otherwise (but that I think you guessed already)
bite me
At the moment I am in love with Tux but it doesnt mean tux if for everyone. For people trying to take down tux They are just playing out what Gandhi said.
1. First they ignore you
2. Second they laugh at you
3. Then they fight you <— those against tux are here
4. Then you win
-Gandhi
It is to late no matter what they try to do it is to late. Just like it was when everyone started to download mp3s. Now it is to late to go back to paying $15 for a cd. Most wont do it especially for maybe one one or two good songs. Things have changed for better or worse.
Everything in life reaches its peak all empires fall sooner or later. For one reason or another. Things are a changing and that is just the natural progression of life. Nothing stays the same forever. Today it seems that Linux is the rising up. Who knows about tomorrow another os will appear and rise up as well to challenge whoever is dominate in the future.
The other thing that always bothers me is how people try to protect faceless companies all the time. They go around advertising and doing marketing for them without realizing it. Why would you want to support a company if you are not getting what most people think is the most important thing which is money. Also if it is a service you are paying for why wouldnt you want to max out your full potential and save your money. Try something else to help you get ahead and save money and time and learn something? But, hey thats ok if you dont
For me it seems people are just used to the idea of giving there hard earned money up. For no reason other than habit or just following the herd. It is your money and we work hard for it. Some have made this here into a cold war debate between poltical systems. For me it is simple if you choose to use any os regardless of price thats ok by me. But to think that things in the computer world especially would stay forever the same and not change is being a bit naive. Not to think that one day someone would create something better with what we use now Is not living in reality. For me everything is a choice there is a lot of different oses you can use now. The problem it seems that people that speak about the wonders of freedom of choice only want freedom of choice for others when people only agree with them it seems.
If you want to use _______ os sure go ahead be my guest if you don’t like my choice thats ok too. I dont have a problem with it. But to hold on to this selfish idea that mine is better. Reminds me of when we all played in a sandbox as children. If you want to use whatever you want say an abacus thats ok by me.
Go on a journey if you truly love computers to any degree go and seek out the different os try them out figure out which ones you like or not. If you like what you have a feel good about thats wonderful too. Be happy with your choice. I wil be happy for you. No matter if you carry around an abacus or choose something different from me. Hey I like chocolate ice cream but I dont expect everyone else to like it.
We ave to remember here that by SCO distributing Linux, they are accepting the GPL. By trying to license Linux, they run the risk of being in contravention of the GPL.
From the GPL v2
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
It is clear as day that this was thought of quickly. SCO knew these were the terms of the GPL license when they agreed to distribute under it. You cannot decide in the future that you do not like the provisions. SCO is playing on a tricky ground right now. However, they may have nothing to lose anymore, except for their pumped up stock, so they may fight bravely, yet stupidly.
So the mad dog $CO began his biting…
Mad: yes i do agree with you in this. This WILL test the valididty of the gpl. And yes i do agree with this point. Caldera/sco did release and distribute software under the gpl for many many years. For D.McBribe to now say that they didnt know that caldera generated code was in linux holds about as much water as a strainer. RE chris: So that is how it is??? If i have the idea of an software that connects to the servers at NOAH and gives me my weather forcast in an applet that is intellectual property?? An copywritten idea? NO. the patentable /copywritable object in question isnt the idea. It is the implimentation. Therfore if 1000 joe blows also write them, but dont use my code(clean room) they havent infringed on my idea.To say that you can patent an idea is like saying you can patent someone breathing. All you can copywrite is the implimentation. (Try groklaw)
F*ck Them!
or is that fsck ’em?
(and I’m only a linux newbie and I know this is bullsh*t)
” If you truly love computers ”
Companies are loving the money… dont give two hoots about computing….
I am sure millions will SCOFree
Its interesting how copyrighting has effected history…
MS released a product and wanted to give it away free this is how they build up the userbase… They do the same role play every time oops its slipped out into the wild *before the product is released* ppl will download and test to see if its usable…
If MS can only make a tiny dent into pirated copies of its os now etc how on earth do SCO think they will be able to make any impact on Linux… *if they dont go after the distro*
I have an idea for the next SCO press release “sue CHINA” just think you could claim that everyperson in china has been given a copy of linux from the government and ya want your rightfully earned money.
dare ya… 
will someone sue me for eatting legally purchased toast next…
deserves my boot on their face.
-an mcse/mcp+i, typing this on xp.
I have three questions (I am asking them in the wrong place, so they probably won’t be answered).
Will SCO Linux customers need to pay $700?
Will SCO refund licensees when the courts rule that there is no SCO IP in Linux, or will they just take your money and run/feed it to their lawyers?
Does anybody else think that it is interesting that SCO can sell licenses so that users can be ‘SCO compliant’ but they can’t provide linux users/developers with a list of the code that ‘needs’ to be removed in order to achieve ‘SCO compliance’?
Ofcourse you have to pay 700$ or just drop your OS and switch to something else.
Why would anyone wanna use Linux anyway? It’s not like it’s cheaper or better than most other stuff on the market.
but in case you haven’t heard, there are more options than Linux and Windows on the market.
I recommend you go and check
http://www.sun.com
http://www.freebsd.org
http://www.qnx.com
http://www.novell.com
They’re all different, but all of them surpasses Linux in their field, meaning there’s really no point in using Linux at all.
Be happy =)
This thread have contained some of the most braindead trolls I have seen in quite some while now. Eugenia, have you considered blocking ip:s or something? I mean, some of these peoples posts almost warrant blocking the entire last segment if need be.
I read the whole modded down comments and boy, oh boy, it reads like a bad comedy. The trolls need to be cleaned out…people who write things like “I witnessed 9/11 so don’t talk about your communist Linux to me” (or something like that) really need to get a permanent ban from here. The atmosphere would improve significally if you’d only set up some proper blocking for OSNews. Have you considered it?
Look back at the original post. He said “patent or copyright” (or the reverse order…I’m in too much of a hurry to look). You’re right in that a patent is issued for a practical item or process; similarly, a copyright is issued for ideas (whether fictitious or not), such as in my example of the writer. The same goes for other “intellectual properties” as defined by law. (Not only do I do this for a living, but I used to teach it as well.)
The idea is pump the stock price so canopy group can back out of a bad investment – at insane valuation.
Exactly, except I’m not so sure it’s insane. It just might work out this way for them, though on a limited basis. I don’t see too many companies falling for this, but all it takes is one or two scared legal departments in large corporations that use Linux on their servers, and the profits for SCO can be pretty high. That, of course, is the short term, as SCO is glaringly aware that they’re going to crash and burn in the long run. This is a Kamikaze (sp?), last-ditch effort to recoup some cash (as you pointed out).
And, as many have observed above, please keep in mind that SCO is (for now) gunning for COMMERCIAL users, not home users. So not many people need to worry…they couldn’t possibly come after all the home users. Cheers!
You don’t understand my posts, and you don’t understand “copyright” and “patent.” You use the terms interchangeably, but they are not the same. A patent applies to a practical implamentation, while a copyright applies to intellectual property. In the example you give above–which is the first example you give–the idea is not copyrightable. However, in MY examples, the idea IS copyrightable. When you buy a CD, the materials on it are copyrighted (not patented), as they are in essence ideas (more specifically, they are the etherial product of someone’s immagination and/or intellect). When you buy a book or magazine, the ideas therein are copyrighted…you can’t legally redistribute them without compensation (unless, of course, you adhere to the “fair usage” concept used in determining if you’ve undermined the original copyright holder’s worth).
You had made the blanket statement that an idea cannot be copyrighted, which is blatently false. Please be more clear in the future…broadly sweeping declarations are never helpful.
Actually, you cannot copyright an idea, only the expression of an idea. And you can only patent processes, IIRC.
Actually, you cannot copyright an idea, only the expression of an idea
Well, not really true. In one of my fields of research, theoretical linguistics (specifically syntax and morphology), an individual can come up with his or her own theory. Another writer may make as many references and modifications to that theory as they wish, as long as they use that theory’s name and do not miscredit the creation/curation of the theory. (That, incidentally, is why there’s a difference between patent and copyright–it’s credit.) Sure, you could split hairs and say it’s the physical expression they’re forced to acknowledge, but that isn’t why such copyright laws exist: to protect an individual or group’s intellectual/creative property.
Actually, I just thought of a better example of copyright protecting an idea rather than the expression of one. A year or so ago, George Lucas legally forced a company to drop the name “light saber” from a laser scalpel. The company was not reproducing any images previously realized by Lucasfilm; rather, it was the idea of the light saber (and what it meant, both in the movies and for the franchise) that Lucas was protecting.
…there are actually many examples of this. Let’s say I have an idea for a film, with an archaeologist who goes on looking for the Ark of the Alliance, and he wears a hat.
Now, I write down this idea as a one-page synopsis. I get that copyrighted. Somebody else has the same idea (maybe they heard me talk about it, maybe they came up with it on their own – it happens). They have the same basic idea, but they actually go and write a script, much more detailed than my synospis, add lots of details, give the character a name, etc. Eventually the film gets made and makes a lot of money.
Now, can I sue the guy for copyright infringement? Probably not, unless we had a working relationship and I can prove that I explained my idea in great details, and so on. Even then, it’s not clear that I would win. I could go on and develop my own idea, however.
As long as an idea remains a vague concept, with little material support to expand it, it is vulnerable. As I said, copyright protects the expression of an idea. Different expressions of the same idea are fine. To go back to the movie analogy, Thunderball and Never say never again can both coexist, even if they are both basically the same story (using the same character, no less).
The company probably dropped the name just to avoid litigation. It’s not clear that they would have actually lost a law suit over this.
This seems more like a trademark issue, though. But I could be wrong, IANAL.
“And, as many have observed above, please keep in mind that SCO is (for now) gunning for COMMERCIAL users, not home users. So not many people need to worry…they couldn’t possibly come after all the home users. Cheers!”
It is the COMMERCIAL users who bring money into the likes of SUSE’s or Red Hat’s wallet, mate.
Once those users are scared away from Linux, most distros can close doors…. see Mandrake.
BTW, MS is planing a server version of Longhorn ……
A monopoly is like communism. Before the iron wall fell, in Eastern Germany there was ONE car manufacturer (Trabant), ONE shoe manufacturer, One Steel “comapany”, ONE dicatator, ONE political party, …. no choice at all.
You can compare MS to communism. They want to contol the world and give no choice to users. MS hates competition and a free market. They want to force people to use their crap and pay top bucks for it; and when a competitor rises up, they try to screw him and force him out of business.
BTW, all you MS zealots, haven’t you realized that since OSS has gained market shares, especially in the server market, MS is trying harder to improve their products?
So what are you complaining about? Competition is healthy, may friends. It keeps prices down and it forces companies to improve their products and services!
BTW, all you MS zealots, haven’t you realized that since OSS has gained market shares, especially in the server market, MS is trying harder to improve their products?
So what are you complaining about? Competition is healthy, may friends. It keeps prices down and it forces companies to improve their products and services!
I am all in favor of ‘fair’ competition, however I am not in favor of ‘unfair competition’. Linux is ‘unfair’, because the cost is zero (yes, just like IE was). But especially if it is stolen, then zero cost meant you stole too.
Again, SCO has provided absolutely NO proof of it being stolen, and has distributed the alleged infringing code under the GPL knowingly.
How is this stealing?
Unfortunately, your “Linux is ‘unfair’, because the cost is zero” argument is null and void. Linux lives up on it’s own merits, and the “being free” argument doesn’t cut the cake anymore.
People have taken the Linux alternative even when it was more expensive then the MS option (take Munich for example).
After all, MS has offered substantial discounts to try to convince corporations + governments not to switch. Also, the MS advocates keep telling us that it is of superior quality. So it’s ability to compete is still there. Except that this time, it has to compete on merit instead of using dirty tricks like it has in the past.
Also, since Linux is not stolen (innocent until proven guilty, that’s the law) then this is totally irrelevant.
Quit trolling, please.
“I am all in favor of ‘fair’ competition, however I am not in favor of ‘unfair competition’.”
Look at the history of MS, and tell me all about their fair trading practises.
“Linux is ‘unfair’, because the cost is zero (yes, just like IE was).”
If I want to give you a free gift, wouldn’t you accept it?
BTW, IBM, SUN, SUSE or Red Hat do not give away their products and Services for free …. They use OSS, but as far as I know they support all their Suppliers ( KDE, GNOME, etc, etc)
“But especially if it is stolen, then zero cost meant you stole too.”
SCO has still to prove this one. I do not want to point the finger at anybody before it is a 100% proven fact, but I wouldn’t be surprised if SCO and MS have never stolen code or ideas.
thanks dood.. the clarification you did was much better than mine
Lovecraft rocks.. in a sort of neosatanic, quasidark dimensional way
A few months ago, before this SCO saga started, MS licensed SCO’s IP. (That’s what i think they did).
Prior to that MS was using SCO’s IP illigally and all their customers who bought their OS to the license-date should be asked to properly license SCO’s IP as all LINUX customers are requested to do.
“Intellectual Property” – let’s break it down into it component parts:
“Patents” – these are short term monopolies that used to be granted on material improvements in manufacturing processes or end products such as vehicle components, semiconductor electronics, medical equipment, etc. The purpose of the short term monopoly is to allow the inventor to recover his investment by licensing said product to competitors.
“Copyrights” – these are short term monopolies on the expression of ideas in writing, music, and suchlike. Ideally they should be tied strictly to the lifetime of their creator, since they have no existence until said creator puts them down into print, or whatever. However, they do not forbid the expression of the same idea by a different author, musician, whatever. Copyright is based heavily on the idea of the uniqueness of individual creativity – which is one reason why the Communist States (so-called) never developed the idea.
“Trademarks” – these are specific expressions of ideas that are in some way tied into other products – a trademark cannot exist on its own. For example, if I have a guitar design, and I make the headstock a particular shape, and register it as my particular trademark – ie, I expect all guitarists seeing that to recognise instantly that that particular guitar is the product of my factory, and of no other, I can sue anyone using that self-same headstock, because they will be trading on my reputation. In the same way, I regard Microsoft as having a trademark on the word combination “MS Windows”, because that is unique to Microsoft – but I regard it as little more than frauulent misconduct for Microsoft to claim “Windows” as its trademark, because “windowing systems” have been around since the mid-70s and in consequence there is no quality of uniqueness tying that one word to Microsoft.
“Trade secrets” – these are specific aspects of a product’s creation or manufacture that are held secret, ie, not shared. AFAIK, they can be “licensed”, but the law protecting that – contract law – is a totally different one to those protecting patents, copyrights and trademarks. And of course, if a company has through negligence or stupidity allowed its trade secret to become general knowledge, then it has no further claim to that knowledge as a trade secret.
Now we can get back to SCO – with UNIX being a trademark of the Open Group, SCO holding no worthwhile patents on Unix, its right to the Unix copyrights being dubious and ill-founded, and the Unix “trade secrets” having been dispersed by several decades of using Unix as the favourite Computer Science training tool. And now they are trying to claim the right to sell licenses for a product where the copyright concerned – the GPL – does not allow for such re-licensing without the permission of the original and subsequent authors.
SCO is for the high jump, or course – or the parachute jump without a parachute. I can’t believe that Boies would be so stupid.
I think SCO is just putting on an anti Linux campaign for Microsoft. My reason for thinking this is just prior to their announcing their lawsuit against IBM, according to several friends of mine who work there, SCO replaced most of their internal servers with Windows servers, replaced many desktops with Windows, and made MS Office the corporate standard for communication. In return, Microsoft “licenses” SCO code.
As for the SCO licensing, it’ll be a cold day and I’ll be long dead before SCO will pry any money out of my wallet. If IBM did indeed steal SCO code, why that should become my financial burden is beyond all logic. It’s like saying if I unknowingly bought a car that turned out to be stolen that I’m liable to serve a prison term. It’s ludicrous. In the car scenario, logic would dictate that I have to return the car, and hopefully get my money back. In this case, logic would dictate that Linux removes SCO’s code and developers spend a week rewriting their own version or an adequate replacement.
SCO’s just playing a game to stay in the news spotlight. If it turns out SCO’s claims are groundless, I hope McBride ends up in prison for stock fraud and extortion. Not because I like Linux, but because I like truth and decency.
Linux cost billions to make. Its a community effort. Its like a private park vs a public one. For one, you pay taxes, for the other, you pay an entrance fee.
IBM invested a billion in Linux. Redhat pays people to do it. Linux is like research. At the end of the day, research should be available for everyone to use. Can you say its unfair for people to mae their research public domain. How is it unfair for Linux to cost ‘nothing’ to download. If you want to charge for it, go ahead, just comply with the GPL.
I can’t believe…hahahhahaha
Those guys from SCO are totally out of the world…haahhaah
Who really believes in the SCO’s arguments about IP of some minor Linux components?
Remember all that SCO’s made, or still make, part of a Linux Consortium (United Linux). I supose that, starting of this point, it had knowledge and it accepted everything what now it wants to destroy with aid of the Microsoft among others companies.
SCO is dead… No more to say…:-)