Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 43117	2004-03-03 20:57:00	News: SCO Files first Lawsuit	Chilling_Silently (228)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
220026	2004-03-03 20:57:00	Read all about it: slashdot.org Apparently they've filed Two....! Chill.	Chilling_Silently (228)
220027	2004-03-03 21:27:00	Good news. Lawyers have to eat too you know. Bring it on. ]:)	Winston001 (3612)
220028	2004-03-03 21:44:00	> Good news. Lawyers have to eat too you know. Bring it > on. ]:) What do they have to eat too Win? Caviar, truffles and champers is normally off my shopping list ;\ Cheers Murray ;P	Murray P (44)
220029	2004-03-03 22:27:00	How can SCO sue Linux users for intellectual property copyright issues when SCO hasn't even proved in court that the code is actually theirs?! I guess if they tie up enough companies in lawsuits and slap on a temporary injunction to prevent such companies against further use of the disputed code, they will soon have the punters paying for licenses until the matter is finally sorted out in court - however many months/years that will be. Wonder if the license holders would be entitled to a refund if the eventual findings goes against SCO? You are right Winston, the lawyers will be dining in grand style over this.	Jen C (20)
220030	2004-03-04 05:14:00	Update time: Judge orders SCO, IBM to produce disputed code (www.newsforge.com) SCO has not complied with the court's first order issued on Dec. 12, 2003, to "provide and identify specific lines of code that IBM has alleged to have contributed to Linux or Dynix." SCO had been ordered to provide these lines of code within 30 days (by Jan. 12, 2004) but did not do so. In a separate hearing on the matter held Feb. 6, SCO was able to convince the court that it is proceeding in good faith, and the court lifted its 30-day discovery stay. As a result of this newest court order, SCO now has another 45 days, or until April 17, to produce the disputed lines of code and explain them clearly to the court. It will be interesting how it all pans out.	Jen C (20)
220031	2004-03-04 08:43:00	> How can SCO sue Linux users for intellectual property > copyright issues when SCO hasn't even proved in court > that the code is actually theirs?! They aren't. These two lawsuits are unrelated to the case with IBM. It's a big smoke and mirrors trick by SCO. The two companies involved in the lawsuits are/were in fact SCO customers. At some point they decided to move from SCO Unix to Linux (In Autozone's case, they contracted RedHat to help them move, but I don't know the details of Chryslers move. The applications that both companies were running on their SCO Unix servers were compiling for SCO Unix. During the move to Linux, SCO think that their libraries were copied from the SCO Unix systems onto the Linux systems. If this is true, this would be a violation of their IP and so SCO could in fact have a case here. Somehow though, I think they would have been a bit smarter than to copy the libraries onto the Linux systems. If SCO has a case here and they win, it could be bad for us (as members of the open source community). The media won't differentiate between the differences in the cases, and all we'll hear is that SCO sued a Linux user. This is going to send a lot of commercial Linux users into a big panic, but they will be unaware that they don't have anything to worry about (if you assume that SCO's claims to the linux kernel code are invalid). I think that its quite important that we educate people to the differences in the cases, otherwise this won't have a pretty ending.	segfault (655)
220032	2004-03-04 10:06:00	Hmm . . . Good points seqfault . I think SCO's lawyers are doing a good job of delaying the inevitable, or at least I hope so . If I was a business considering my Unix/Linux options I would stay well clear of SCO . They don't seem to be very user friendly, it's almost as if they are getting as much as they can out of it before . . . what? Cheers Murray P	Murray P (44)
220033	2004-03-04 10:31:00	<conspire>I'm beggining to think SCO is/is backed by Microsoft to scare users out of using linux.;)</conspire> If they don't produce the code they should just throw out the flippin case.	hamstar (4)
220034	2004-03-04 12:11:00	<conspire>I'm beggining to think SCO is/is backed by Microsoft to scare users out of using linux.</conspire> Well MS did buy a lisence just before this all hit the fan. What has actually happened is that even their own customers have now decided that they are not worth dealing with. Groklaw's site is a good one for those wanting to study things a bit more.	mikebartnz (21)
220035	2004-03-04 23:38:00	Thankyou Segfault for an interesting and informative post. We need a bit more accuracy and depth on PF1 at times, rather than going off half-cocked at provocative headlines. Well done. Cheers Winston001	Winston001 (3612)
1 2