What Goes Around Comes Around - The Only Clear Winner in This SCO Versus IBM Case is Microsoft

PBS ^ | JUNE 19, 2003 | Robert X. Cringely

[Duke Nukum]

It's early in the life of the Operating system.

Does that mean that they'll change the name of "swap space" to "hot babes space?" 'Cause seriously, that would make this whole disaster we call LUNIX interesting to me.

Maybe we could get it produced by Harry Novak or David F. Friedman, 'cause LUNIX is sort of like being stuck in a Nazi concentration camp, only without Ilsa or any of the other hot babes.

I mean, would fun be so bad? I mean, microsoft might suck, but at least its fun. Lunix, on the other hand, is more akin to having one's face eaten off with acid, or maggots, which just goes to show that, just because something works well in a Lucio Fulci movie, doesn't mean the Open Scourge community should try to translate it into an operating system. Or so says I! And I would know, I supose. I've seen enough zombie films to recognize one when I comes across one.

Incidently, in one of the more under reported stories of the year, did you know that being undead gave you thirty points towards entry at the University of Diversity in Michigan? Its true! And its a well known fact that zombies work free over night in the IT department. And the smell of rotting flesh acclimates students to the socialist takeover. I would not take the time to write it if it were not true! That's how we all know the Hitlery book is fake, she couldn't even be bothered to write down her own lies, she had to hire ghosts to lie for her.

All my lies are true and to the point!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for dropping by!

Zombies eh!

[Duke Nukum]

Yeah, they don't really want the story getting out because they don't discriminate against zombies based on race, 'cause zombies don't really care about racial issues and its hard to motivate them into protests. Pretty much, they'll protest against anything living by eating it, but they don't really have any sort of ideology that either politicians or LUNIXtics can exploit. But they do understand information systems, 'cause, well, the dead understand the dead.

Which is why swap space is called "swap space" and not "hot babes space" 'cause the dead don't think like that. If the dead did care, then they would embrace Windows because there's little doubt that Doom III will play best, or at least, most widely, which means the same as "best," on a Windows machine.

And its hard to think of a better PR vehicle for agendaless undead then Doom III. In fact, Doom III will probably make a better OS then either Windows or LUNIX, but nobody knows how to sell it.

[Nick Danger]

They're going to have a hell of a time proving that, if the code was the same.

The statement is made that "they're going to have a hell of a time proving that." The purpose of this statement — if it even has one — is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) concerning the case in general, to slander the IBM Corporation, and perhaps to promote the idea that SCO's lawsuit has some merit.

I personally believe the lawsuit to be vexatious litigation, an attempt by rapacious, unscrupulous lawyers to induce IBM to buy their company to silence them, or at least pay them off. Why IBM? Because they have money. These same guys already sued Microsoft, and got money out of them. In the tradition of the Plaintiff's Bar, it's on to the next deep pocket!

If you are new to this issue, you presumably do not know what individual is being spoken of here, so you have no way of measuring the veracity of the FUDster's claim.

The individual is one Paul McKenney, an engineer once employed by Sequent Computer Company, since acquired by IBM. Mr. McKenney is the author of some code found in SCO's source library, and Mr. McKenney's work was also the basis of some very similar code found in the linux kernel. There is little doubt who put the code in linux, since it contains these comment lines:

+ *
+ * Copyright (c) International Business Machines Corp., 2001
+ *

+ * Author: Dipankar Sarma 
+ * (Based on a Dynix/ptx implementation by
+ * Paul Mckenney )
+ *

This is not an infringement of anything if both versions flow from a prior work of research. How might one "prove" the existence of prior research? And that Mr. McKenney had anything to do with it? Well, one way would be to produce a copy of Paul E. McKenney. Selecting locking primitives for parallel programs, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 39, No. 10 (1996).

Even better would be a patent application that described the invention, independent of UNIX or any other operating system, especially if that application pre-dated the first implementation on UNIX. That would make it a slam dunk.

Such an application exists, because the patent was in fact awarded. The full-text image, clearly identifying Paul McKenney as a co-inventor, is on line and can be viewed at the Patent Office site.

Visitors to the page will notice that the patent was applied for in 1993, and assigned to Sequent Computer, now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the IBM Corporation. In other words, IBM holds a patent on technology which SCO claims is its intellectual property, and which IBM stole from it. Draw your own conclusions concerning the merits of the SCO claim, or the difficulty that IBM will have in "proving" that they own the technology in question.

But this is merely one utterance of a noise machine, a single attempt to spread spurious FUD. There will be more. Many more.

You will hear claims from SCO that they have found "identical, or nearly identical" sections of code in what they call "their property," and also in contributions that IBM has made to linux. The insinuation is that IBM stole these items from them. It is highly likely that a previous "SCO" acquired this code from IBM, or from Sequent, during a joint development project in 1998. It is very possible that SCO's lawyers did not know this when they filed the suit. Virtually no one at the "SCO" of today was at the "SCO" of 1998 (they are in fact different companies in different states).

This an extremely complex case that turns on many esoteric technical issues, some rather fanciful lawyering, and frankly, some bald-faced lying. But because at root it is more an attempt at public extortion than a lawsuit, "sound- bite" rhetorical campaigns have been prepared to influence public opinion. The case is vulnerable to those, because it involves issues that require fairly detailed explanation to even understand. Anyone wanting to steer clear of FUD should avoid sound-bites and sound-bite campaigners.

[Golden Eagle]

Danger you make me laugh. Avoid sound bites you say, how hilarious. Those 'sound bytes' are simply us breaking down the case to it's simplest possible terms, but you're still not able to comprehend because of your fascination with M$ and the promise of 'free software' has corrupted your judgement.

On technical terms, the engineer was 'tainted' and should have never been allowed to work on OSS function that was similarly implemented in Unix. This recent admission blows a hole as big in this case you have in your head.

[Nick Danger]

Danger you make me laugh. Avoid sound bites you say, how hilarious. Those 'sound bytes' are simply us breaking down the case to it's simplest possible terms, but you're still not able to comprehend because of your fascination with M$ and the promise of 'free software' has corrupted your judgement. On technical terms, the engineer was 'tainted' and should have never been allowed to work on OSS function that was similarly implemented in Unix. This recent admission blows a hole as big in this case you have in your head.

A second characteristic of the noise machine is that it responds with bluster and insults when challenged. It does not, however, respond with evidence supporting its case. It might try "proof by louder assertion," but that appears to be the limit of its ability.

In the interim, the noise machine has stated that IBM is "going to crucify this linux hack that did it in his mind "for the community".

The code contributed by IBM to linux is identifed as such by IBM copyright notices, as I posted in #24. IBM is hardly trying to "disavow any knowledge... of his actions." The noise machine's fulminating might be interpreted as meaning that the "linux hack" (who holds multiple patents and is a published author in the Journal of the ACM) did this without IBM's knowledge. This noise machine just says things; one really can't put much stock in any of it. It's all FUD.

Note the accusatory tone in the noise machine's statements about "these recent admissions." As if IBM were on the stand and coughed this up under tough cross-examination, instead of publishing it right in the code... in 2001. The BlusterMatic says anything, claims anything, accuses, and slanders. What it does not do is speak factually about anything. It blows noise and FUD.

[Golden Eagle]

IBM copyrights...

Which were granted on trust and have never been tested by a US Federal Court case. You can continue to dream that (as you previously posted on another thread) 'IBM will come down and plunk some copyrights and that will be the end of it' all you want. SCO is arguing breach of contract, unfair competition, etc and will certainly remind the US judge that US trade secret technology made its way OUT of the US as a result of this - an issue you as of yet have still refused to confront.

[dennisw]

Laura Didio .... hahahaha didio

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Excellent Nick, no doubt to me that SCO is playing the ex·tor·tion game!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Laura Didio

?????????????????

[Nick Danger]

US trade secret technology made its way OUT of the US as a result of this - an issue you as of yet have still refused to confront.

Here the noise machine states as a scary fact a non-sequitur based on an unsubstantiated claim. That in itself may be patentable, "Method and Apparatus for Generating FUD in a Discussion Forum by Combining Illogic With Unproven Claims."

SCO claims as its trade secrets certain items of technology that are known to be IBM's patented inventions. That's interesting. We'll see how far they get with it. In the meantime the only known "facts" are that IBM has a patent and SCO has a claim. Oh, there is one other fact. The version of the code which is in SCO's code library which forms the basis of their claim that it is their trade secret... was written by Paul McKenney when he was at Sequent, not by anyone at SCO. People suspect it got into SCO's code base during the joint project in 1998. But if not... how did it get there? SCO's lawyers had better hope IBM or Sequent licensed it to them. Because there's no question who wrote it.

[dennisw]

Since Golden Eagle posts on only one topic I give Danger's words more credibility.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Yep, Nick has me convinced!

The SCO lawyers need to start revising their claims , as we understand it, it doesn't look good for them!

[dennisw]

SCO sure seems to be a tool of M$. I like the underdog, that's why I buy AMD (as you know) and that's why I support any party that's up against M$.

[MrNatural]

ND - I have to say - I admire your ability to stand in against what is clearly a propaganda effort of some
kind on the part of this Golden Eagle character; and whoever he/she is working for. I can't imagine any one
who has followed these posts over the last few days not seeing the mindless repetition of 'talking points'
for what they are: an attempt to influence people who don't know much about the subject.

Again, Nick, my hat's off to you; please keep it up.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Nick nailed the lid on the coffin, I think!

[MrNatural]

We can only hope.

[The Red Zone]

Maybe my memory is playing tricks... but it seems to me that about a day ago, iggle's "about page" showed a Florida flag. Now it sports Old Glory. Hmm.

[MrNatural]

...Florida....hmm

[The Red Zone]

FUD city. The biggest danger of this will be, as a few have pointed out, the possibility of igniting an industrywide IP meltdown. IBM is a patent powerhouse, and if it wants Linux to live then it can really lower the boom on SCO, just like it did on Sun. It won't be pretty.