The Business of Software

I sort of follow what's going on at the SCO trial through www.groklaw.net, but it's very hard to understand unless you're 1. a lawyer, 2. an american used to all that legalese.

Can someone sum up what the issue is? Apparently, SC0 has been trying for three years to prove that IBM took some copyrighted code from SCO and put it in the Linux kernel, but has so far been unable to prove it. How come this case hasn't been thrown out of court yet?

>How come this case hasn't been thrown out of court yet?
The system is generally designed to protect victims (SCO) by allowing them to keep a case in court.

SCO want to keep this in the news for as long as possible because it is in their interests (and that of their backers) - it spreads doubt in the mind of busines customers about Linux and they hope that IBM will pay them off to avoid bad publicity.

SCO says IBM took code out of SCO and used it in AIX, which they had a licence to do.

And then added that to Linux and GPLed it, which they didn't.

IBM argues that;

1. SCO won't actually decide which lines of code. SCO has (I think) changed part of their claim to say that it's no longer lines of code which were copied, but "techniques".

2. SCO isn't the licencer to the code anyway (because a previous incarnation actually licenced it, and SCO hasn't got the paperwork to prove they eventually bought it off them)

3. SCO distributed the code anyway, placing it in the public domain.

The reason this has taken a while is that SCO asked for all materials about AIX development -- IBM responded "no, for the reasons that some of it is commecially secret and some of it no longer exists". And even what turned up was huge.

IBM have, basically, been repeatedly asking the court to order SCO to explain exactly which lines of code and the recent argument is about whether SCO has to do that or if they can change their claim to being "techniques" at this point because the huge amount of stuff IBM sent them is too big to search properly.

And that's about as far as I've got with it.


SCO basically wants IBM to buy them to solve the problem. IBM wants to have it proved that they're in the right -- having an allegation of stolen code in the linux kernel isn't good for their new business model.

Maybe it's just me, but I get the impression that SCO are not very happy with their evidence, or rather, lack of evidence. (If they still can't identify the source code at issue, then just how much evidence can they have?). 

And hence SCO wants to keep reviewing more and more IBM material (Which I can't personally see how it could be relevant anyway - SCO must have their own stuff, and Linux is public, so why they could simply just compare the two?).    I presume that SCO are simply desperately hoping that something will turn up to save their case.

The courts are slow anyway, especially in the USA.  Add SCO's quest for evidence. I think that explains the duration.

I don't believe that there are too many people out there who still put any credence in SCO's claims.

>I don't believe that there are too many people out there
>who still put any credence in SCO's claims.
It only needs the CEO to read LINUX+COPYRIGHT+SUE in a Wall St Journal headline and a memo goes out about not using Linux in the company.

Although I can't imagine this is what Microsoft wanted when they invested in SCO.

It was simply extortion. They expected IBM to cave, it didn't, now they're scrambling.

SCO will in all likelihood die a slow death, full of wind and fury, signifying nothing.

> It only needs the CEO to read LINUX+COPYRIGHT+SUE in a Wall St Journal headline and a memo goes out about not using Linux in the company.

I don't think the typical CEO is even halfway as stupid as that.  If a CEO was that afraid of baseless lawsuits, he wouldn't ever allow anybody to do anything with anything.

The CEO would most likely, pass it to his corporate counsel saying Are We Okay With This?

When the counsel stopped laughing... etc.

A little back story:

The SCO (formerly Caldera Systems) teamed with IBM for a project to develop a version of Unix for Intel's Itanium chip family. With this project, IBM wanted to have a Unix, similar to what is Linux now, to help it gain traction into the market which is Microsoft's. But Linux was developed in the meantime which made a sufficiently good OS to compete with Microsoft. To add to the confusion, when the company was Caldera with IBM it had invested in a different project to improve Linux. We see Linux being popular now. But what SCO says is that IBM while collaborating with SCO took the intellectual property and used it to accelerate the development of Linux.

A theory:

It's like you need some source code to develop a product. One company, say Company X, had made a lot of progress but more had to be done. You team with another company, say Company Y, produce the code needed to complete the product (the OS here) and give that code and complete the work with the Company X. Company Y will not be able to tell where its code is used by Company X but working on the same thing they know that without their code in some form Company X can't get the product out in so short a time. Naturally, Company Y loses its shirt.


The entity giving making both the companies work is IBM. Company A is not an actual company but the open source community which developed Linux, Company Y is SCO. SCO's argument is that IBM misappropriated the confidential and proprietary information from SCO in the project they both worked on. (SCO, when it was Caldera Systems, also had an interest in the development of Linux but they didn't want to give it all the open source way)

As the case is going on, Linux has made a lot of inroads into the market. If the case is ruled in favor of SCO, Linux and other flavors of Unix may face intellectual property questions. Linux is open source. But it can't take proprietary code and build from there. That's the problem they face.

Microsoft is involved like in most things but not as much here. SCO is financially ailing. Microsoft has stepped in to help SCO. It has bought some intellectual property from SCO and used it find investors to help it. The money needed to buy SCO is small change for Microsoft but it won't do it due to antitrust concerns.

I guess SCO is screwed and they know it. Their code is surely used in Linux but it would be difficult to point out where in a mountain of code, which is would be as it is an OS. So it is nearly impossible for them to prove how exactly they were used. Even if they win it would be a Pyrrhic victory.

"SCO will in all likelihood die a slow death, full of wind and fury, signifying nothing."

On a lighter note, Steve, shouldn't it be 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'? :-)

>shouldn't it be 'full of sound and fury

I prefer Steve's version in this case.

Thanks for clearing things up.

So IBM buys SCO, an admission of proprietary code in Linux.  IBM now owns said code.  IBM now owns Linux?

>So IBM buys SCO, an admission of proprietary code in
>Linux.  IBM now owns said code.  IBM now owns Linux?

Leaving aside what IBM actually did/not do - there is an important difference between own and licence.

IBM does own large parts of linux, all the parts they wrote, Mr Torvalds owns a bit and lots of other companies and individuals 'own' Linux - and someone else owns the name.
The point of the GPL licence is to say - I still own this but I am letting you use it, if in return you let anyone use the bits you add ( while you still use own them ).

I think that you're right Senthilnathan. I wasn't trying to make King Lear V1.1...