Paragraph 79 of IBM's Counterclaim against SCO

I have a query regarding IBM's counterclaim against SCO.

Paragraph 79 says:
79. As a result of SCO's breaches of the GPL, countless developers and
users of Linux, including IBM, have suffered and will continue to suffer
damages and other irreparable injury. IBM is entitled to an award of damages
in an amount to be determined at trial and to an injunction prohibiting
SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches of the GPL.


so... SCO have breached the GPL... how come IBM is entitled to damages for
this?? What about the rest of the community?

I suppose they are the ones fighting for us though. I still remember my
ex-ex-boss (actually my ex-ex-ex-boss as well) categorically telling me that
Linux would never take off commercially.

"Just you wait", I said.

I get a nice warm feeling when I think of Novell & IBM now.. makes me think
of real computer companies. I don't like this Microsoft networking era that
we've been in for a while. With every new release of Windows comes a deeper
lack of ambition for me.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 02:17:21 +0100, Carl Farrington wrote:

> Paragraph 79 says:
> 79. As a result of SCO's breaches of the GPL, countless developers and
> users of Linux, including IBM, have suffered and will continue to suffer
> damages and other irreparable injury. IBM is entitled to an award of damages
> in an amount to be determined at trial and to an injunction prohibiting
> SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches of the GPL.
>
> so... SCO have breached the GPL... how come IBM is entitled to damages for
> this??

Because they have copyrights to code in the kernel.

>What about the rest of the community?

If IBM is successful, the other copyright holders will get their damages
too. Nothing (except the expense of litigation) prevents any of the
kernel authors from pursuing a copyright infringement case.

Bob T.

|Paragraph 79 says:
|79. As a result of SCO's breaches of the GPL, countless developers and
|users of Linux, including IBM, have suffered and will continue to suffer
|damages and other irreparable injury. IBM is entitled to an award of damages
|in an amount to be determined at trial and to an injunction prohibiting
|SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches of the GPL.
|
|so... SCO have breached the GPL... how come IBM is entitled to damages for
|this?? What about the rest of the community?

By sowing FUD about the legality of the GPL, and yet continuing to
distribute GPLed code on their own, SCO may potentially be causing IBM
to lose Linux associated business.

IBM cannot claim damages for you. This suit is between IBM and SCO.
Nothing stopping Linux users from filing a class action. SCO is half in
the grave anyway.
--

"Carl Farrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

]I have a query regarding IBM's counterclaim against SCO.

]Paragraph 79 says:
]79. As a result of SCO's breaches of the GPL, countless developers and
]users of Linux, including IBM, have suffered and will continue to suffer
]damages and other irreparable injury. IBM is entitled to an award of damages
]in an amount to be determined at trial and to an injunction prohibiting
]SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches of the GPL.


]so... SCO have breached the GPL... how come IBM is entitled to damages for
]this?? What about the rest of the community?

Because IBM is the owner of some of the code which they released under the GPL, and
thus are entitled to damages. If others also want to sue SCO, then they can do so
with respect to code for which they own the copyright.

Carl Farrington wrote:

> so... SCO have breached the GPL... how come IBM is entitled to damages for
> this?? What about the rest of the community?
>

IBM can claim damages for business loss. They're going after their own
claims, not yours. However, once they set the precedent, it will be easier
for others to follow.

--

Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong.

To reply to this message, replace everything to the left of "@" with
james.knott.

"Carl Farrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I have a query regarding IBM's counterclaim against SCO.
>
>Paragraph 79 says:
>79. As a result of SCO's breaches of the GPL, countless developers and
>users of Linux, including IBM, have suffered and will continue to suffer
>damages and other irreparable injury. IBM is entitled to an award of damages
>in an amount to be determined at trial and to an injunction prohibiting
>SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches of the GPL.
>
>
>so... SCO have breached the GPL... how come IBM is entitled to damages for
>this?? What about the rest of the community?

IBM hasn't said others are not equally entitled, and indeed
right up there is says "countless" others _are_ so entitled.

They are all equally entitled to spend a few million dollars on
the lawyers that it will take to prove it too... ;-)

IBM, unfortunately for them, is already being forced into court
on this by the actions of SCO, hence they have no choice.

>I suppose they are the ones fighting for us though. I still remember my
>ex-ex-boss (actually my ex-ex-ex-boss as well) categorically telling me that
>Linux would never take off commercially.
>
>"Just you wait", I said.

Boy, if 20 years ago somebody had told me I'd be rooting for IBM
in a law suit against the owner of UNIX, I'd have rolled with
laughter at the thought!

>I get a nice warm feeling when I think of Novell & IBM now.. makes me think
>of real computer companies. I don't like this Microsoft networking era that
>we've been in for a while. With every new release of Windows comes a deeper
>lack of ambition for me.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)

Carl Farrington wrote:

> I have a query regarding IBM's counterclaim against SCO.
>
> Paragraph 79 says:
> 79. As a result of SCO's breaches of the GPL, countless developers and
> users of Linux, including IBM, have suffered and will continue to suffer
> damages and other irreparable injury. IBM is entitled to an award of
> damages in an amount to be determined at trial and to an injunction
> prohibiting SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches of the GPL.
>
>
> so... SCO have breached the GPL... how come IBM is entitled to damages for
> this??

Because they've got GPLed code in Linux, obviously.

> What about the rest of the community?

Linux rightholders can take action against SCO anytime they like.

> I suppose they are the ones fighting for us though. I still remember my
> ex-ex-boss (actually my ex-ex-ex-boss as well) categorically telling me
> that Linux would never take off commercially.

That's pretty much what DEC said about UNIX back around '76 (IIRC), too.

> "Just you wait", I said.
>
> I get a nice warm feeling when I think of Novell & IBM now.. makes me
> think of real computer companies. I don't like this Microsoft networking
> era that we've been in for a while. With every new release of Windows
> comes a deeper lack of ambition for me.

--
freeagent

% uname -a
Linux aurora 2.4.21-AURORA #1 Sun Aug 10 10:48:30 EST 2003 i686 unknown

I know what you said on Thursday 21 August 2003 03:17, Carl Farrington.

> I have a query regarding IBM's counterclaim against SCO.
>
> Paragraph 79 says:
> 79. As a result of SCO's breaches of the GPL, countless developers and
> users of Linux, including IBM, have suffered and will continue to
> suffer damages and other irreparable injury. IBM is entitled to an
> award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial and to an
> injunction prohibiting SCO from its continuing and threatened breaches
> of the GPL.
>
>
> so... SCO have breached the GPL... how come IBM is entitled to damages
> for this?? What about the rest of the community?

Because, if the GPL no longer applies, normal copyright rules become
enforceable. And IBM happens to have created the code SCO is illegally
distributing.
--
Jazz.

"Curculionem Darl McBride minusculum habet."
(Cato - Pro Lino; Apocrypha)

Jazz wrote:
> I know what you said on Thursday 21 August 2003 03:17, Carl
> Farrington.
>
>> I have a query regarding IBM's counterclaim against SCO.
>>
>> Paragraph 79 says:
>> 79. As a result of SCO's breaches of the GPL, countless developers
>> and users of Linux, including IBM, have suffered and will continue to
>> suffer damages and other irreparable injury. IBM is entitled to an
>> award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial and to an
>> injunction prohibiting SCO from its continuing and threatened
>> breaches of the GPL.
>>
>>
>> so... SCO have breached the GPL... how come IBM is entitled to
>> damages for this?? What about the rest of the community?
>
> Because, if the GPL no longer applies, normal copyright rules become
> enforceable. And IBM happens to have created the code SCO is illegally
> distributing.

nice one! Go on big blue. Kill those bastards.

Incidently, I have an SCO OpenServer box upstairs (box as in the cardboard
box with manuals and disks in it). What would be the most effective way to
create an anti-SCO thing with it? I've seen the cartoon of someone 'pissing
on SCO' but how about me really pissing on it and videoing it? Or kicking
the shit out of it?

Ideas anyone?

'agent wrote:

>> I suppose they are the ones fighting for us though. I still remember my
>> ex-ex-boss (actually my ex-ex-ex-boss as well) categorically telling me
>> that Linux would never take off commercially.
>
> That's pretty much what DEC said about UNIX back around '76 (IIRC), too.
>

Didn't they also say that about PCs too? I haven't heard much from them
lately. I wonder why? ;-)

--

Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong.

To reply to this message, replace everything to the left of "@" with
james.knott.