Southern Patriot Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 IBM hasn't but Red Hat does have a suit against SCO on a similar matter (due to SCO's threats of bringing suit against end users). SCO has been trying to convince the judge in that suit that the suit should wait till the end of the IBM lawsuit. Hopefully we will see some more action on that front in the coming months. My comment on the German courts is that they tend to do things a little faster than in the US, and as I understand it, they have stricter laws against trade libel. Also, one reason for IBM not getting into that matter is the fact that they don't have their own distribution of Linux, they resell other distros, which is why they are letting Red Hat handle that side of the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Cu_Guy Posted December 30, 2003 Share Posted December 30, 2003 After reading this thread I find most of you people know very very little about Unix or what's going on regarding SCO. I wont go into the history of Unix. Just know the difference between System V and BSD Unix. By the way The Open Group hold the trademark to UNIX. 1. NextStep is 4.2BSD built atop mach 2. Darwin is essentially a modernized version of NextStep 3. Modernization came in the form of FreeBSD code 4. SCO's attacks on BSD involves the removal of copyright notices that were required as part of the settlement. Development and history will decide this one. 5. BSD is not Linux 6. Unix was bought from USL (owned mostly by AT&T) by Novell in the summer of 1993. A settlemet was reached in January 1994. Well they have even less of a foot to stand on here since they (SCO) bought the Unix stuff in 95 while in 94 the Unix-Berkeley lawsuit was settled giving BSD their rights. Wrong. You're confusing the SCOs. The current SCO (The SCO Group) didn't by Unix from Novell. Santa Cruz Operation (oldSCO, now Tarantella) -- 1995. The SCO Group (fromerly Caldera) -- 2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Himosan Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Wrong. You're confusing the SCOs. The current SCO (The SCO Group) didn't by Unix from Novell. Santa Cruz Operation (oldSCO, now Tarantella) -- 1995. The SCO Group (fromerly Caldera) -- 2000 If you're going to nitpick, and poorly, please don't make blanket declarations. The essential statement was "they don't have a leg to stand on legally" which is emphatically correct, not "wrong". That the 95 acquisition was orignally made by another company is rather irrelevant since those are the rights SCO/Caldera is basing their claims around, having acquiring most of the former company. I, and most authors on the same subject, do not feel the need to confuse people with pedigree trivia when the issue at hand is the validity of SCO claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El_Cu_Guy Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 I was correcting your original misquote which by the way cannot be salvaged by who the party making any kind of legal claim. You quote mistakenly noted the "they" (as in the current SCO Group) purchased Unix IP from Novell. I, and most authors on the same subject, do not feel the need to confuse people with pedigree trivia when the issue at hand is the validity of SCO claims. Trivia!?! It is a matter of fact that helps to clear up confusion not simple trivia. One of the reasons for confusion about this matter is the inability for "authors" to distinguish the difference between The Santa Cruz Operation and The SCO Group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyro Posted January 7, 2004 Author Share Posted January 7, 2004 (edited) I am reading this http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/ this should finally answer my real question , Is there SCO (the company whos is trying to sue/spam linux users for IP infringement of its SYSTEM V code) threat for APPLE? will be back after my full read. Also, thanx for the all your replies/reactions , but the question still seems to be unanswered. KYRO. Edited January 7, 2004 by kyro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isus Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 sco is floundering, they will lose, who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Also, thanx for the all your replies/reactions , but the question still seems to be unanswered.KYRO. Actually, the question was pretty much answered. SCO barely even has a shred of a case against Linux (and I do stress barely). They would have even less of a case against any BSD deriative, due to the settlement between BSDi and AT&T in 1994. It would take even more balls than Darl McBride has to try to go after BSD (and therefore Apple). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted January 8, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 8, 2004 I'm pretty sure that the SCO is just going after IBM and Linux. They have nothing on Apple, and if they were to go after them, they would be fighting on too many fronts. They seem to have nothing on IBM or Linux either but that doesn't seem to be stopping them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted January 8, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 8, 2004 I am reading this http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/ this should finally answer my real question , Is there SCO (the company whos is trying to sue/spam linux users for IP infringement of its SYSTEM V code) threat for APPLE?will be back after my full read. Also, thanx for the all your replies/reactions , but the question still seems to be unanswered. KYRO. SCO is trying to play the fear card and get companies to pay $600 per CPU for piece of mind. The assumption is that once SCO can legally claim IP ownership of some portions of Linux that they can charge whatever they want in licensing fees and take legal action against companies using it without permission. The whole pay us $600 per CPU now voluntarily versus paying much higher fees once we win in court is a form of blackmail as far as I am concerned. Since no OS/X user is likely to dish out $600 to $1200 per G4 or G5 box then I don't think they will target Mac users. It's in SCO's interest for this to drag on and on in a legal gray area. It gives them more time to sell piece of mind for $600 per CPU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts