Wednesday, August 15, 2007

yes. I did notice SCO getting creamed.

Here are some of the collected writings about the SCO court case from myself

*************

and here I was thinking nobody else on the forum would be interested in this :)

Glad to see I was wrong.

This quote was also interesting, way down the page
This is only a *partial* judgment, which means that SCO v. Novell case is still
going. Until all claims are resolved, SCO can't appeal(*). And by the time all
claims are resolved, it will be too late for SCO.

(*)Not entirely true. They can ask the judge for permission to file
interlocutory appeal, but I don't see Kimball granting it.
As far as I can research, this seems to be true.

If SCO decides to try to resolve the Novell case quickly and turn around for an appeal, they'll basically have to surrender what charges are left, which will prevent an appeal.

If SCO decides to fight it out with Novell... well, the other cases will go forward, which is a problem because the summery judgment effectively removes the lawsuit against IBM, but not from IBM.

To me, this does raise some questions about the Microsoft deals with SCO and Novell. Microsoft now has some explaining to do over why they purchased licenses from SCO and backed SCO through Baystar. I think this also sheds some new light on the Microsoft-Novell deal... what are the chances that Microsoft saw the implosion coming and decided to try to mitigate the damage Novell could do before the summery judgment came back. Is Novell really holding the upper hand in the deal with Microsoft?

Questions raised, questions answered. This should be interesting to watch the mop up.


**********************
Netrogo -

Lemme see if I can wrap my brain around this...

SCO was trying to sue someone for stealing something from them that they had stolen from someone else?

If that's the case, then that whole company deserves to crash and burn. Seriously I don't mind a little theft here and there, but if you're arrogant enough to steal something, and then trying to sue someone else for stealing. Well you're just asking for it.

That's like a shoplifter ratting out another shoplifter by informing security that they saw him stealing a shirt while they were busy stealing a pair of pants.

it goes beyond that Netrogo.

It is apparent now that SCO didn't have the rights to Unix as they claimed they did when they took IBM to court, and that they knew they didn't have those rights to begin with.

What SCO apparently hoped to accomplish was having a judge rule that the rights should have been turned over in the Novell deal with oldSCO (the Santa Cruz Operation) if those rights had not been turned over, or declare that the rights had in fact been turned over to begin with.

In other words, the ends justified the means. It didn't matter if SCO didn't have the rights to Unix to begin with, as long as the rights became theirs in the legal actions along the way, everything else would be good.

Current SCO still has the fallback they did develop software for Unix, as well as UnixWare itself, in the intervening years of the Novell deal with oldSCO. In Current SCO's mindset, even if the judge did rule that the Unix rights had not been turned over, Current SCO could continue to make the charges based on the code Current SCO and oldSCO had already written.

It is my opinion that the fallback position isn't going to work either. Current SCO never made any separation between the underlying Unix code from the Novell / oldSCO deal, and the underlying Unix code written up to Current SCO's lawsuit date. Current SCO has treated the entire code base as one product that they wholly owned and had the rights to. As is, the original claim of millions of lines of code that were copied from oldSCO / Current SCO Unix into Linux has already been collectively proven to be a false charge.

As to why SCO did it? Because Microsoft needed to attack Linux. Microsoft needed to slow down Linux development and remove Independent Software Vendor support for Linux. SCO's tenuous claim to Unix rights seemed to be a fairly easy way out for Microsoft to do so, and a couple of license agreements later and funding through Baystar, and the deal was sealed.

Where this is going to get interesting is that Microsoft makes a big deal out of their products not using Unix technology. When Microsoft purchased the Unix license from SCO many in the tech sector regarded the purchase as a funding of SCO, myself among them.

However, after the Novell/Microsoft deal and the recent ruling, it suddenly is a very real question... how much of Microsoft's "new" technology just re-written or copied code from Linux and Unix?



*********************

-Jigsaw Forte

This will probably be a minor boost for Linux products, but a whole new boon for Apple because they're one of the few companies in a position to take advantage of offering people a domestic version of Unix at anywhere near a reasonable learning curve/cost


-Superluser

I don't really see how. OSX is based on BSD, which had its copyright issues settled in 1993 with USL v BSDi. The code that SCO has been claiming was licensed to SCO by Novell in 1995. This shouldn't affect BSD or Apple in any way.


it doesn't. Apple was never a target in the original lawsuit against IBM.

Apple is also in one of the few companies in the worst possible position to push a domestic version of Unix, mainly because they've been doing so ever since the launch of OSX, and have been repeatedly surpassed each year by both Lindows/Linspire and Xandros in terms of retail sales, not to mention utterly dominated by Red Hat, Novell, IBM, HP, Dell, and other vendors in terms of server and desktop OS installs.

What the ruling will mean for Linux on the desktop is uncertain. The original lawsuit against IBM did not do anything to slow down or stop Linux development. If anything, it forced a review of existing documentation procedures, and also clarified ownership of the code in use. In some aspects, Current SCO's lawsuit assisted in promoting Linux as several proprietary Unix clients with no reason to move products would have heard about the lawsuit and done their own investigations. Getting tangled up with AutoZone only served to promote Linux to car repair personal who maybe would have never been introduced any other way. Going up against IBM and Novell only ensured that the lawsuit would be read about in most tech press oriented outlets.

For the most part then, the benefit of the lawsuit has already been realized during the lawsuit. Very few tech companies were waiting on an official ruling to pursue the development of Linux or implementation of Linux in their products, exampling Dell.

There have also been big announcements from IBM's former computer division, now sold through Lenovo, that think pads could come with Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop pre-installed. Hewlett Packard also mentioned several months ago that it would compete with Dell in offering Linux based desktops as well, although the vendor provider has yet to be confirmed.

Sony also launched the Playstation3 in partnership with IBM and Toshiba without regard to the SCO lawsuit.

So, as far as immediate retail change goes, little will happen.

The biggest change could come from ISV's who have not yet moved to a multi-platform strategy. Microsoft's Intellectual Property claims are even on shakier ground than before as a firm precedent has been set against companies who claim property as their own and attempt to license it... without owning the property.

Even that, however, would not be an immediate unless Microsoft immediately sues somebody over IP violations in Linux... and while Microsoft has pulled some really odd stunts in the past, I don't see them being that dumb.
Post a Comment