Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (5130 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] Re: Meta-discussion on the IP issues of GPUs and 3D -- 90+% of the Linux community is too ignorant for legal issues
  • From: suse@xxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 11:49:28 -0400
  • Message-id: <4479C688.9040809@xxxxxx>
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> IBM created the monster we now have in SCO. Caldera was an outstanding
> Linux company, and Caldera-SCO would have been very profitable with a
> split Linux-UNIX strategy -- with all UNIX proceeds feeding back into
> Linux.

When did SCO become a monster? I was under the impression they were a
laughing stock. Judges certainly laugh at them enough...

> It's a _contract_ dispute!

Wrong. It _was_ a contract dispute. After realizing that their
contract claims couldn't hold up, SCO amended their complaint to say
that Linux was violating their copyrights. That, too, wasn't true. SCO
couldn't find any code that belonged to them in Linux. (Never mind the
issue of them distributing Linux themselves)

> SCO's, now Caldera's, future rode on Intel Monterey. IBM killed it,
> which was _clearly_ the 1200lbs. gorilla being a "monopoly."

You need to go learn what a monopoly is. Just because one company
pinned their hopes on a failed project has nothing to do with a
monopoly. (Amusingly enough, ia64 has utterly failed, so SCO would
still have gone down the tubes) IBM doesn't have a monopoly on unix.
Just because one unix provider made some bad decision and went down the
tubes doesn't mean that their competitor is using monopoly power to
crush them. At the time, you had at least a good half dozen or so major
unix competitors.

> The "Non-Compete" was designed to _protect_ SCO (then Caldera) from
> _exactly_ what IBM did! It is a _very_common_ practice! Why?

SCO couldn't prove that in court. Otherwise, they would have won or
settled, rather than beginning their odyssey of amended claims in order
to attack Linux itself.

>> If SCO wins, which they may well do, it will be a death blow against
>> the "corporate" state of Linux.

SCO is being laughed out of court, they won't win. They've amended
their complaint so many times it's dizzying. Every time IBM demands
they produce the evidence, SCO fails.

> *BECAUSE* people like yourself have related the SCO v. IBM _contract_
> lawsuit to Linux IP. The March 2003 filing had _nothing_ to do with
> Linux IP -- but 100% contract, including the Non-Compete.
> But because 90+% of the Linux community, and then 100% of the IT media
> off of that, assumed that SCO v. IBM was about Linux IP _before_ the
> May 2003 augmentation of the lawsuit (after IBM didn't settle). If
> the community would have _stopped_ and _listened_ to Cox, ESR, Linux,
> etc... and realized it was a 100% _contract_ lawsuit, then SCO
> probably wouldn't have been able to put up the "smokescreen" May
> on-ward.

Also, Linux advocates did _NOT_ give a fig about the SCO v. IBM contract
dispute. It wasn't until May 2003 when SCO began threatening companies
that used Linux that the community actually began to look at the case.
Prior to SCO's threats, it was seen as a contract dispute that had
little more than academic interest.

Seriously, read the whole history at groklaw. They have links to the
rulings themselves.

< Previous Next >