This BS decision is the result of M$ FUD and dirty money paid to SCO to continue annoying the FOSS and Linux in particular.
SCO Group wins Unix copyright appeal
Summary
SCO Group, whose six-year-old legal case arguing Linux infringes its Unix copyright won an appeal which overturned a ruling that Novell owned Unix copyrights - and paves the way for a trial.
Topics
SCO Group, whose six-year-old legal case arguing Linux infringes its Unix copyright hasn't been enough to keep it from bankruptcy court, nevertheless won an important victory in its case Monday.
A skeptical federal judge earlier had ruled that Novell had retained Unix copyrights when it sold its Unix business to the Santa Cruz Operation, a company whose Unix assets SCO Group later acquired. But the appeals court overturned that decision, based in part on a close reading of the Unix asset purchase agreement, sending the matter to trial for a decision. The appeals court did uphold a ruling that SCO owed Novell royalty payments, though, according to a 55-page filing.
SCO Group Chief Executive Darl McBride, who's been demonized by the Linux faithful, was happy with the decision. "Today is not the end of the war but it certainly is a key battle that we've won," he said in a statement in the Salt Lake Tribune. "Now it's time to move on to the next series of battles with our victory in hand."
This article was originally posted on CNET News.
Just In
YAY!! He mentioned me he mentioned me! YAY!!
This must be a high point in your life!
but my name is out there! 
In case you have not picked this up yet, the reason the toilet is named after a king there (King John, King Henry or King Lou, perhaps others) was due to displeasure with the sitting monarch. It is also called a throne, Is this the sort of fame you wish to hold?
it became quite popular and is in every household today. It has become a necessity. So yes, my popularity is in a way like that. People mention me, they ask for me by name, they wait around for me. Its all uphill from here.
The toilet was not called a John, Henry or Lou (or even a throne) as a point of affection, but rather for disdain for the sitting tyrannical monarch of the time.
The flushing toilet was invented in 1596, not by Thomas Crapper as most people think, but by Sir John Harington. Harington, a British nobleman and godson of Queen Elizabeth I, invented a valve that when pulled would release water from a water closet. Sir John recommended flushing the toilet once or twice a day, although with our modern technology, we know that is probably not sufficient. (Rumor has it that, in Robin Hood's day, King Arthur - angry with how his brother ruled the country while the King was gone, named fair toilette, 'the john' - AKA as 'the Jon' to you folks.)
The flushing toilet was invented in 1596, not by Thomas Crapper as most people think, but by Sir John Harington. Harington, a British nobleman and godson of Queen Elizabeth I, invented a valve that when pulled would release water from a water closet. Sir John recommended flushing the toilet once or twice a day, although with our modern technology, we know that is probably not sufficient. (Rumor has it that, in Robin Hood's day, King Arthur - angry with how his brother ruled the country while the King was gone, named fair toilette, 'the john' - AKA as 'the Jon' to you folks.)
It's called a John after it's inventor, loo comes from french, and I have never heard one called a Henry. Maybe that is just a local thing?
Go here for more details.
http://www.didyouknow.org/toilets.htm
Go here for more details.
http://www.didyouknow.org/toilets.htm
At least it is better than trying to mislead anyone who happens upon your posts to believing (for a fraction of a second, maybe) that you are an IT professional. We all know that is not true!
Like the way you are doing now by suggesting your opinion is fact? I'm not a Loverock fan, but you sir, are not helping.
Now... on to more technical things...
Like the way you are doing now by suggesting your opinion is fact? I'm not a Loverock fan, but you sir, are not helping.
Now... on to more technical things...
Why not start your own blog?
The Appeals Court determined that the case was too close to call, that it should not be determined by a single judge but by a jury.
Remember what Pamela was writing all along as the trial progressed - that the judge was treading carefully to keep the books clean for appeal.
Yep, this'll drag things out for those that care to watch. But business has long since moved on - Nothing to see here.
Remember what Pamela was writing all along as the trial progressed - that the judge was treading carefully to keep the books clean for appeal.
Yep, this'll drag things out for those that care to watch. But business has long since moved on - Nothing to see here.
to crush innovation and computing entirely.
They're like a dictator that nukes the whole world if it doesn't have its every demand met.
I can't wait until Microsoft die.
They're like a dictator that nukes the whole world if it doesn't have its every demand met.
I can't wait until Microsoft die.
Means it must be born of MS scheming, yeah, the company with the huge OS marketshare is orchestrating this because it's scared of Linux. That makes so much more sense than a financially hurting ad desperate SCO doing this for their own survival and corporate greed.
when MS paid SCOX $150M for some utterly worthless crap at the beginning of this whole suit, which went IMMEDIATELY to the legal department's operating costs.
Are you really that much of an idiot, or do you just play one on the internet?
Are you really that much of an idiot, or do you just play one on the internet?
I've met Mac, Linux, and other operating system people over the years, and those out there who HATE Microsoft so much, and blame them for all the worlds ill's.
What I want to know, if you hate Microsoft so much, and blame them for all that is wrong in the world, then WHAT has Microsoft done to you, PERSONALLY (not to someone else, not to another company, not to the little furry creatures running around outsode) that has hurt you so much. What has Microsoft done to you that has taken money, food, joy, or anything else from you that hurt you so bad?
Do I approve of their business practices? That's not what I'm questioning, but there are so many people out there who say that Microsoft is so bad, they deserve to be wiped off the map. So, what is it that they have done to each individual personally that each person hates them so?
I've asked others that question before and they always start listing monopolies, buying technologies or other companies... well, take a look at Google people! To me, Google has become the NEW Microsoft...
I'll sit back and wait for the flames to fire my way
What I want to know, if you hate Microsoft so much, and blame them for all that is wrong in the world, then WHAT has Microsoft done to you, PERSONALLY (not to someone else, not to another company, not to the little furry creatures running around outsode) that has hurt you so much. What has Microsoft done to you that has taken money, food, joy, or anything else from you that hurt you so bad?
Do I approve of their business practices? That's not what I'm questioning, but there are so many people out there who say that Microsoft is so bad, they deserve to be wiped off the map. So, what is it that they have done to each individual personally that each person hates them so?
I've asked others that question before and they always start listing monopolies, buying technologies or other companies... well, take a look at Google people! To me, Google has become the NEW Microsoft...
I'll sit back and wait for the flames to fire my way
That you don't mean to portray linux users as paranoid, brittle conspiracy theorists.
or after you adjusted your tinfoil hat? Take your meds dude, it's for your own good.
I read through the decision, and it's a tangled mess of weasel words. This has nothing to do with capitalism or free markets, it's a word game so that lawyers (and judges) can do nothing productive and get paid loads of money. It's sickening.
So, SCO is in bankruptcy. IF they ultimately win ownership, what happens to the copyrights? Sold to the highest bidder to pay off debts? Transferred to the largest SCO debtor? Retained by SCO as a financial asset for continued operation?
This will drag on for more years. In the meantime, Linux just keeps cranking away. I don't know of any corporate customers who even consider the copyright aspects of UNIX when making a decision to deploy Linux in their enterprise. Nor any of the hosting companies or cloud providers. Even less so for small business owners and private users.
So in the end, it really doesn't matter to us.
So, SCO is in bankruptcy. IF they ultimately win ownership, what happens to the copyrights? Sold to the highest bidder to pay off debts? Transferred to the largest SCO debtor? Retained by SCO as a financial asset for continued operation?
This will drag on for more years. In the meantime, Linux just keeps cranking away. I don't know of any corporate customers who even consider the copyright aspects of UNIX when making a decision to deploy Linux in their enterprise. Nor any of the hosting companies or cloud providers. Even less so for small business owners and private users.
So in the end, it really doesn't matter to us.
Sweet! Another black eye for linux. It doesn't get much better than this! And yet another reason to avoid using linux, all this legal hassle would put any deployments on hold until its over, and that may be years away so its best to be safe and no do it.
... about legal decisions, do you?
All this says is that the original decision was hasty, SCO would have to win something IN COURT.
It is simply a stay of execution, done so that the vultures who propped up SCO with their bucks can force SCO into Chapter 7 so they can pick out the juicy tidbits of the SCO carcass and at least recoup a bit of that money.
Business as usual in the Linux shops. And I see that, as usual, you don't know what yer talking about.
All this says is that the original decision was hasty, SCO would have to win something IN COURT.
It is simply a stay of execution, done so that the vultures who propped up SCO with their bucks can force SCO into Chapter 7 so they can pick out the juicy tidbits of the SCO carcass and at least recoup a bit of that money.
Business as usual in the Linux shops. And I see that, as usual, you don't know what yer talking about.
It is simply a stay of execution, done so that the vultures who propped up SCO with their bucks can force SCO into Chapter 7 so they can pick out the juicy tidbits of the SCO carcass and at least recoup a bit of that money.
WHAT juicy tidbits?
A "black eye for linux"?
Dude, are you high? What the heck are you talking about?
All this says is that SCO owes money to Novell, and that SCO should have had a trial before they lost, rather than a summary judgement.
Bottom line: SCO will waste more of its investors money beating this dead horse. For Novell, it means a few more pennies, and for the rest of the Linux world, it's a footnote in the history books.
Dude, are you high? What the heck are you talking about?
All this says is that SCO owes money to Novell, and that SCO should have had a trial before they lost, rather than a summary judgement.
Bottom line: SCO will waste more of its investors money beating this dead horse. For Novell, it means a few more pennies, and for the rest of the Linux world, it's a footnote in the history books.
So, we can choose between Unix and Windows, right? So just how would fewer alternatives really help us?
You might want to read this website for a decent education: http://againstmonopoly.org/.
Enjoy.
You might want to read this website for a decent education: http://againstmonopoly.org/.
Enjoy.
Salty! Edward Cahn is now in charge of "The SCO group" and McBride won't get to chase his fantasy any longer.
Reference:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090825175606636
Reference:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090825175606636
After six years still not one line of code has been proven to have been stolen.
... that SCO wanted to do it all over again!
In the meantime, this provides another opportunity for Darl McBride to open his mouth and insert both his feet.
In the meantime, this provides another opportunity for Darl McBride to open his mouth and insert both his feet.
The court only said the Utah decision shouldn't have been made in summary judgment and not that its conclusion was wrong. SCO management has been relieved of authority and responsibility for the company by the bankruptcy court anyway. So its no longer up to Darl and company whether SCO pursues matters.
While I do not at this time run Linux...
I am going to buy a distro or two to make sure that I continue to have an alternative to Windows!
Of course I'll do so clandestinely so that the software cops won't come looking for my copies!
Mike Sr.
I am going to buy a distro or two to make sure that I continue to have an alternative to Windows!
Of course I'll do so clandestinely so that the software cops won't come looking for my copies!
Mike Sr.
Unix has always been an alternative to Windows.
However, I wouldn't worry. Even if the court ordered that Linux couldn't be distributed you could still download it and the open source community would still update it. If they don't care now that Linux ripped code off from Unix, they won't care if the court rules in favor of Sco.
However, I wouldn't worry. Even if the court ordered that Linux couldn't be distributed you could still download it and the open source community would still update it. If they don't care now that Linux ripped code off from Unix, they won't care if the court rules in favor of Sco.
If you believe otherwise then you were misinformed. SCO's "claim" is that IBM added AIX (IBM's version of UNIX) code into Linux. Code like the JFS filesystem that IBM wrote itself, I might add. (Although actually, Linux's JFS filesystem support came from OS/2...)
SCO is claiming rights over the original AT&T codebase, of which none exists in Linux and for which SCO can't even claim to own the copyrights for! The point of the appeal is that SCO now gets the chance to fail to convince a jury that it bought these copyrights from Novell, in precisely the same way that it failed to convince the first Judge.
This case has been covered extensively on Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net
Oh yes, the appeal also confirmed that SCO owes Novell millions of dollars in unpaid royalties (SCO being nothing more than Novell's SVR4 licensing agent). And a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy trustee has now been appointed, meaning that SCO's management is no longer running the company.
SCO is claiming rights over the original AT&T codebase, of which none exists in Linux and for which SCO can't even claim to own the copyrights for! The point of the appeal is that SCO now gets the chance to fail to convince a jury that it bought these copyrights from Novell, in precisely the same way that it failed to convince the first Judge.
This case has been covered extensively on Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net
Oh yes, the appeal also confirmed that SCO owes Novell millions of dollars in unpaid royalties (SCO being nothing more than Novell's SVR4 licensing agent). And a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy trustee has now been appointed, meaning that SCO's management is no longer running the company.
Most Linux distros are available free of charge. I recommend Debian based distros (I use Ubuntu), mostly because I like the aptitude-based software management system.
Too little, too late, IMHO . . . .
Frankly, this company pretty much sued themselves into irrelevancy. And that code is now long since changed not to infringe, I'm sure, so they're not likely to have much for future cases.
Congratulations, you "won"- but was it worth bankrupting your company over? Was it worth losing customers over? Was it really worth that much?
Frankly, this company pretty much sued themselves into irrelevancy. And that code is now long since changed not to infringe, I'm sure, so they're not likely to have much for future cases.
Congratulations, you "won"- but was it worth bankrupting your company over? Was it worth losing customers over? Was it really worth that much?
Its funny, everyone knows that Linux violated they copyright. Everyone knows that Linux started by ripping off code from Unix. No one really doubts this. Like you said, the code was changed so that it wouldn't infringe, so even you admit it did to begin with. No one is going to pay for Sco Unix when Linux has the same functionality. Its funny that people think of Linux as innovative but forget that it started as a basic rip off of Unix.
Sco sued because quite frankly they were wronged, and their operating system became a joke overnight (of course it was one of the poorer Unix versions to begin with). Sco was in trouble before this and was losing customers to Linux and Solaris. Suing was an attempt to get money for the use of their code, pure and simple.
Its sad that no one even considers the fact that Linux was in the wrong here. Everyone backs Linux and hopes that they get away with it, and worse thinks they should. These same people would be condemning Microsoft (who quite frankly would have just settled by now) if they were being sued for the same thing.
In the end, Sco won't get a dime here and its basically on principle at this point. I have no more worries about this causing an issue with my Linux installations than I do about not being able to use Microsoft Office.
Sco sued because quite frankly they were wronged, and their operating system became a joke overnight (of course it was one of the poorer Unix versions to begin with). Sco was in trouble before this and was losing customers to Linux and Solaris. Suing was an attempt to get money for the use of their code, pure and simple.
Its sad that no one even considers the fact that Linux was in the wrong here. Everyone backs Linux and hopes that they get away with it, and worse thinks they should. These same people would be condemning Microsoft (who quite frankly would have just settled by now) if they were being sued for the same thing.
In the end, Sco won't get a dime here and its basically on principle at this point. I have no more worries about this causing an issue with my Linux installations than I do about not being able to use Microsoft Office.
That before they could even get to the issue of how much if any Unix is in Linux, the problem was that SCO doesn't have the Unix copyright and therefore isn't the one who would have been violated. And thats what this judgement overrules, so the bigger obstacle still lies ahead.
Please get the facts...
Linux was independently developed by Linus Torvalds, with the utilities (independently developed) by the GNU foundation. Working alike does not mean "ripped off" (copying of source code).
In fact, the proof that Linux is NOT ripped off from Unix source code is the critique by the AT&T guys (Kernighan, Richie, Thompson) about the egregiously POOR programming in the early Linux source code (such as the is*() macros in /usr/include/string.h which Linus implemented as slow, error-prone algorithms, compared the fast, error-resistant look-up methods used in Unix).
In other words, your argument is so stupid that even the AUTHORS of Unix laugh at such a theory.
In fact, the proof that Linux is NOT ripped off from Unix source code is the critique by the AT&T guys (Kernighan, Richie, Thompson) about the egregiously POOR programming in the early Linux source code (such as the is*() macros in /usr/include/string.h which Linus implemented as slow, error-prone algorithms, compared the fast, error-resistant look-up methods used in Unix).
In other words, your argument is so stupid that even the AUTHORS of Unix laugh at such a theory.
In 2000, Red Hat v7.0 had a version of Anacron that had a bug where cron jobs would sometimes run twice simultaneously. This was later fixed.
A little later, I believe it was SCO 3.2v5.0.6, OpenServer "acquired" this exact same bug. It was an exact duplicate of the Anacron bug. SCO patched this bug a little after the Anacron bug fix went out. Nowhere in SCO's documentation was their version of crond shown to be made from Anacron. In fact, there were SCO copyright notices on EMPTY crontab files!
Who stole who's code?
In the early 2000s, SCO began to heavily (and now openly) use FOSS, including GNU's gcc, Apache, OpenSSH, etc. This was while they were simultaneously saying GNU and OpenSource in general were anti-American.
A little later, I believe it was SCO 3.2v5.0.6, OpenServer "acquired" this exact same bug. It was an exact duplicate of the Anacron bug. SCO patched this bug a little after the Anacron bug fix went out. Nowhere in SCO's documentation was their version of crond shown to be made from Anacron. In fact, there were SCO copyright notices on EMPTY crontab files!
Who stole who's code?
In the early 2000s, SCO began to heavily (and now openly) use FOSS, including GNU's gcc, Apache, OpenSSH, etc. This was while they were simultaneously saying GNU and OpenSource in general were anti-American.
The trial will be interesting. Pass the popcorn.
SCO "wins" the right to try and "prove" that they do own the copyright to a group of its peers.... Sort of like getting a puppy for your birthday.
I'm pretty certain the headline is misleading to most people.
I'm pretty certain the headline is misleading to most people.
No, is no demon, is only a poor bastard and an ass hole trying to make more money from UNIX... of which SCO didn't write any line of code!!!
Darl is so moron that he doomed SCO by chasing after Linux...
Darl is so moron that he doomed SCO by chasing after Linux...
I guess instead of using good journalism, and investigating the matter, I guess it was easier to just copy stuff from the inaccurate Salt Lake Tribune article. SCO did not win the Unix copyright appeal. That would mean that they now own the copyright. What they did get, is that the judge decided that the case should not have been judged by summary judgment. The ruling says that since there are conflicting explanations for exactly what the APA says, summary judgment should not have been used, and the case should instead have gone to trial. So now it has been sent back, and the copyright case has to be decided in a jury trial. That is what the appeals court ruled. The ruling does not say that SCO owns the Unix copyright, and hence SCO did not "win" the Unix copyright appeal as you falsely claim in your title.
I expect better from ZDNet/CNET
I expect better from ZDNet/CNET
cleenwe, you got it exactly right.
Besides, even if SCO should win ownership of Unix at trial (and that is very unlikely, given the evidence), it's still no use unless it can also prove in the IBM trial that Linux is infringing it, something it has so far completely failed to do.
I am surprised this article is so poor. Stephen Shankland has been following the SCO trials for years, and he has always been quite good.
If you want to read the actual judgement, the place to go, as usual, is groklaw.
Besides, even if SCO should win ownership of Unix at trial (and that is very unlikely, given the evidence), it's still no use unless it can also prove in the IBM trial that Linux is infringing it, something it has so far completely failed to do.
I am surprised this article is so poor. Stephen Shankland has been following the SCO trials for years, and he has always been quite good.
If you want to read the actual judgement, the place to go, as usual, is groklaw.
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
Facebook Activity
