SCO To Expand Its Lawsuit Beyond Linux

internetnews.com ^ | 19 November 2003 | Michael Singer

[ShadowAce]

LAS VEGAS -- The man who claims there are Unix copyright violations within the Linux open source operating system is taking his fight to the Berkeley Software Design (BSD) (define) community, which maintains an open source "genetic" version of Unix (define).

SCO Group (Quote, Chart) CEO Darl McBride said his company is currently comparing source code awarded in a 1994 settlement between AT&T's (Quote, Chart) Unix Systems Laboratories and BSD, in which Berkeley's version of the Unix source was severed from the proprietary version.

The Lindon, Utah-based SCO claims its copyrighted Unix code was incorporated into Linux without authorization or appropriate copyright notices. It has sued IBM over the issue and said this week other lawsuits are planned against major users of Linux.

"I agree that the more yarn you pull out the more you see," McBride said during a press briefing at the inaugural Enterprise IT Week at cdXpo Conference here. "We have enough sorted out, but we are so focused on the [IBM litigation]. With our limited energies and what our guys are going through, we probably won't file any suits against BSD until sometime in the first half of next year."

But that has not precluded SCO from announcing Tuesday that it plans on firing off another round of legal maneuvers in the next 90 days aimed at a major user of the Linux operating systems. McBride said SCO warned the Fortune 1,000 and the Global 500 earlier this year, in the form of an open-letter, that said legal action could be possible if they don't pay a licensing fee on parts of the Linux operating system that SCO alleges are infringing on its copyright.

McBride said his legal team has compiled a list of about 24 companies, including some international firms, that it is contacting over its copyright infringment claims.

"SCO is contacting customers to either license or litigate," McBride said during his keynote. "As we go forward we will continue to do battle, but we hope for a position where we can settle this amicably."

During the past seven months, the company said it has uncovered a number of substantial software code issues as they pertain to SCO's Unix intellectual property and Linux. The company has already filed a lawsuit against IBM (Quote, Chart) last March alleging that Big Blue made its proprietary version of the Unix operating system, AIX, available to the open source community.

During his remarks here, McBride's urged companies to be wary of viewing Linux as a "free lunch" and to protect their assets as voraciously as he has. The former Novell executive cited recent projections by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) that software will be a $229 billion industry by 2007.

"One of the biggest problems is that if you don't have the ability to protect what you have then your value is next to nothing," McBride said. "We have been placed in a tug of war between those who think software should be free and those who want to license it."

For example, McBride said his 30-day audit of the company found the single largest asset that Caldera (SCO's name before it was changed) held at the time was the Unix operating system.

"So I asked the question, 'have you thought about what impact this would have?' And I heard two things: one was [the audit] found violations with Linux. The other was that the company would be crucified by the Linux community."

McBride said the discovery drove the decision to reorganize the company; it later stopped losing money but growing revenue was still a slog. By aggressively pursuing copyright infringement cases, SCO said it is only seeking its fair share of the estimated $21 billion Unix marketplace.

"If I were to ask you a year ago who owns Unix, would you have said SCO?" McBride posed to attendees during his keynote address. "Most people would have said IBM, HP or Sun, but that would not be true."

To that end, McBride predicted that the current General Public License (define) that accompanies some open source software would not survive and that his company would prevail in court.

"There is a misconception that SCO wants to destroy Open Source and Linux," said McBride. "Certainly we believe strongly that there needs to be checks and balances, that open source has merit. We think there is a way for both to be possible."

SCO's case against IBM has now been set for March 11, 2005 in a Utah courtroom.

Enterprise IT Week at cdXpo is produced by Jupitermedia, the parent company of this Web site.

Editor's note: A previous version of the story referred to SCO's "patent" claims. SCO Group owns the copyright to the UNIX code, not the patent.

[ShadowAce]

Tech Ping

[rdb3]

The Penguin Ping.

Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!

     .-.
     /v\    L   I   N   U   X
    // \\  >Phear the Penguin<
   /(   )\
    ^^-^^

Got root?

[Servant of the 9]

If they are going after BSD, then Apple can't be far behind, for there is a lot of BSD in their current operating system and it's basis is the Mach Kernel, which is another inevitable SCO target.

So9

[Liberal Classic]

So that is what they meant by 'unauthorized UNIX implementations.' SCO is going after UNIX clones, not just Linux. We'll they have an uphill battle with BSD. When UNIX was owned by Novell then CEO Noodra settled with BSDi over AT&T files that made it into their UNIX clone. The AT&T files were removed, and the suit was dropped. This is a precedent which tacitly supports the right people to develop UNIX clones. SCO is ten years too late the halt the use of unauthorized UNIX implementations.

[ShadowAce]

...And MS itself has some BSD code in their OS as well. There were some early predictions on this board last spring that SCO would see every OS as infringing on their IP. This is the first step in proving that assertion.

[Servant of the 9]

...And MS itself has some BSD code in their OS as well. There were some early predictions on this board last spring that SCO would see every OS as infringing on their IP. This is the first step in proving that assertion.

I see this more as "If we sue enough people and cause enough disruption, someone will pay us to go away."

So9

[ShadowAce]

Well, they'd better hope that IBM doesn't squash them like a cheese before that happens. And I can't see anyone buying them out while IBM is still ticked off at them, 'cause then they'll inherit the ire of IBM.

[Servant of the 9]

Well, they'd better hope that IBM doesn't squash them like a cheese before that happens. And I can't see anyone buying them out while IBM is still ticked off at them, 'cause then they'll inherit the ire of IBM.

Yeah, you have to be a bit unballanced to think IBM, Apple and MicroSloth together can't litigate you into Chapter 7.
They can devote literally billions to lawyers and they can't afford the precedent of paying SCO off.

So9

[steve-b]

"I agree that the more yarn you pull out the more you see," McBride said

"Yarn" is the right word for what McBride is saying, and I don't think I want to touch anything that's been pulled out from where he's pulling it out from.

[Myrddin]

They can devote literally billions to lawyers and they can't afford the precedent of paying SCO off.

IBM is big enough to buy a controlling interest in SCO and shut down the whole operation. They should use the lawyers to keep SCO at bay until they own enough to make the problem go away.

[dread78645]

The man who claims there are Unix copyright violations within the Linux open source operating system is taking his fight to the Berkeley Software Design (BSD) (define) community, which maintains an open source "genetic" version of Unix.

Uhh .. The 1994 settlement stipulated that Novell/USL could not sue any organization using 4.4BSD-Lite as the base for their system. So, all the BSD groups that were doing releases at that time, BSDI, NetBSD, and FreeBSD, had to restart their code base with the 4.4BSD-Lite sources into which they then merged their enhancements and improvements.

SCO will have to get a court to un-do a 10 year old agreement. Not likely!

[Coral Snake]

It's about time they start ARRESTING and prosicuting these creeps, Bill Gates, Steve ballmer, Darl McBride and the whole bunch. This has gone beyond simple pump 'n' dump and if the FCC cannot see an ILLEGAL conspiracy to monopolize the ENTIRE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY in this than they are just simply BLIND!!!!!

Guns, Linux and Liberty. ;c)

[Golden Eagle]

Show me one legitimate place where it says SCO is going after BSD? This is just a ploy to work the free software crowd into a misguided frenzy, seems to be working.

[Golden Eagle]

SCO will be expanding their lawsuits, but not over bsd...

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/18/HNscoceo_1.html

[dwollmann]

SCO will be expanding their lawsuits, but not over bsd...

Darl's remarks at cdXpo seem to indicate otherwise.

[js1138]

IBM fended off the U.S. government for a dozen years until they got a favorable administration. At some point this will start to look ugly for SCO.

[MarkL]

Next up... SCO subpenas zoo keepers at Sea World, to find out exactly what's up with those penguins! And where they get all that herring!

Mark

P.S. Anybody else here think that this is becoming nothing more than SCO's attempt to be bought out by IBM? Sort of a "if we make it a big enough pain, they'll just buy us out to shut us up" sort of situation?

[dr_who_2]

Berkeley Software Design (BSD)

Idiots. BSD stands for "Berkeley Software Distribution". "Berkeley Software Design", BSDi was bought up by WindRiver two years ago and they recently discontinued development on what was BSDi's BSD-based Operating System, so it wouldn't make much sense to sue WindRiver, and it's difficult to see how SCO could get loot out of the FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD/DragonFlyBSD/etc projects as they're just a community of programmers maintaining slightly different versions of the BSD source tree. Especially when the only code SCO and the BSD's have in common is stuff dating back to when UNIX was owned by AT&T. It's common knowledge that AT&T gave up the right to sue UC Berkeley and BSDi after all those parties settled in 1994. Furthermore, SCO released all the questionable source code (and more) to the public under a BSD-style license back in 2001.

[dr_who_2]

Yes, that's basically the idea. It's a protection racket. They'll keep making money off it until certain nervous nellies out there really that it's abundantly clear that SCO's claims will be summarily thrown out of court.