From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 4170 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2021 15:13:22 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 1 Apr 2021 15:13:22 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 2A3D29C69F; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 01:13:21 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64EF9C63E; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 01:12:42 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="tB0P/2Qp"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id E950F9C63E; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 01:12:40 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qk1-f181.google.com (mail-qk1-f181.google.com [209.85.222.181]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B76B9C63D for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2021 01:12:39 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qk1-f181.google.com with SMTP id y5so2475823qkl.9 for ; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 08:12:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4bjUjJzEuT+qiQlaz+dInm/1YZ6ni6CEBQI1oqVBS9I=; b=tB0P/2QpM0zJXhxB6VwmrtRfxbywR0QNZbYGSFs3ctZIzi2Yld8VFfn9NB60X13g3j sPQyc+umKcEnb5Y28ZyFoJiC/ccEy6N5x2I+vBWQX2xqqZLfig30eVnobH7LxDm6BO9u m4Y+JkhCc+XODcRgbusVjGTTQC7hL51xOgPUfi0/TOKb7sS7ngeMLk2bmA3u/fey//Ax k1glVhCdIqR3F6NRqZ4Cq62P6kh2U53DvN11EPW/3bwXZMjS1ir5z8RvjbhIqLBffnjl QbhQSpzkxJWBwJ0zZzJYKdrZOF8gFyDRQiUHzKQ0TcruqqIQnji27IdMMltF7IoqHuOR qXeA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4bjUjJzEuT+qiQlaz+dInm/1YZ6ni6CEBQI1oqVBS9I=; b=DVEyfaYGLR7nWqFzCy/Jyk21ln7+sNT2RGAzTCjJ5HkcSURl9snaGD+8hqoLH0XASh cYMNvD8x6njbonMpQ6H8D7EJBiJQVv4pY0NipeXhhJGptAeYsdRpnOkAHRSFEK1Rzs/L eFPQUS21z+l0d5JRcX8iBJXx1HjsUpGbOc2Vp3gn3+DSM9iK/2c63V9EG5Qx7dB6AWYY 1bvsMbyh2CVf3jnhs7WUAiLe3vdyv3j1FisKcJrrFu78++mwhZMirhENov5l7hEhU9zI Lwclb7SSCbbPdYLzdSBpkMiyWxLbnDLsxsQepTr3QniJ7oIcssJQpZUR9uYXYEtfl2bQ jhkg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531cUm3dZTgDZE3zmcO7yw+2hX58RRI/wwN7m0sINtvJz/+GbmjU QMZQNAqzADCtoRqxfvbpL8RLo7e56OMEhyLbEpVSaHeqwMssUg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyl6oLiTpKMoUscXVh8PgOcYxMmmCuRbVlIcxqr5l6LDnAY6ez+ia2GKdsU/y97yUDASadn0Q2oFxaosx/uqy4= X-Received: by 2002:ae9:e010:: with SMTP id m16mr8618632qkk.44.1617289958496; Thu, 01 Apr 2021 08:12:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210401145025.GA1202@naleco.com> In-Reply-To: <20210401145025.GA1202@naleco.com> From: Warner Losh Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 09:12:25 -0600 Message-ID: To: Josh Good Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000079ae7b05beeaa915" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Zombified SCO comes back from the dead, brings trial back to life against IBM X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000079ae7b05beeaa915 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" The other set of claims made, which may be stronger, was that IBM and Redhat used their dominant position to lock out OSes other than Linux, including FreeBSD from their cloud platform. Their copyright claims look to be a bit different than the old SCO lawsuit. Reading their complaint, it is somewhat different than the old suit... FreeBSD is mentioned like 34 times too, since Xinuos based their products based on it. And their product is locked out of the IBM/Redhat cloud platform/ecosystem. The copyright stuff seems almost an afterthought... Warner On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 8:51 AM Josh Good wrote: > I read the news, and I could not believe it. > > It's April 1st, ain't it? > > But then, this looks like is dated March 31. So it could be for real. > > Behold: https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/31/ibm_redhat_xinuos/ > > The PDF also is dated March 31: > https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/03/31/xinuos_complaint.pdf > > It's hard to believe someone would go to the trouble of writing 57 pages of > legalese just to make a damn joke. > > " > Xinuos, formed around SCO Group assets a decade ago under the name > UnXis and at the time disavowing any interest in continuing SCO's > long-running Linux litigation, today sued IBM and Red Hat for > alleged copyright and antitrust law violations. > > "First, IBM stole Xinuos' intellectual property and used that > stolen > property to build and sell a product to compete with Xinuos > itself," > the US Virgin Islands-based software biz claims in its complaint > [PDF]. "Second, stolen property in IBM's hand, IBM and Red Hat > illegally agreed to divide the relevant market and use their > growing > market powers to victimize consumers, innovative competitors, and > innovation itself." > > The complaint further contends that after the two companies > conspired to divide the market, IBM then acquired Red Hat to > solidify its position. > > SCO Group in 2003 made a similar intellectual property claim. It > argued that SCO Group owned the rights to AT&T's Unix and UnixWare > operating system source code, that Linux 2.4.x and 2.5.x were > unauthorized derivatives of Unix, and that IBM violated its > contractual obligations by distributing Linux code. > > That case dragged on for years, and drew a fair amount of attention > when SCO Group said it would sue individual Linux users for > infringement. Though SCO filed for bankruptcy in 2007 and some of > the claims have been dismissed, its case against IBM remains > unresolved. > > There was a status report filed on February 16, 2018, details > remaining claims and counterclaims. And in May last year, > Magistrate > Judge Paul Warner was no longer assigned to oversee settlement > discussions. But SCO Group v. IBM is still open. > " > > Either way, some one if fooling us hard. > > PS: OK, it seems it's for real: > https://www.xinuos.com/xinuos-sues-ibm-and-red-hat/ > > I need to check my stock of pop corn, then... > > My take: it's obvious they want to be a nuisance so that IBM settles the > case, so they then can go back home with some fresh cash. I hope IBM goes > ballistic on them to the bitter end, and finally sends the zombie back to > its grave. But then, IBM now has its new RedHat business to protect, so it > can get interesting. > > -- > Josh Good > > --00000000000079ae7b05beeaa915 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The other set of claims made, which may be stronger, was t= hat IBM and Redhat used their dominant position to lock out OSes other than= Linux, including FreeBSD from their cloud platform.

The= ir copyright claims look to be a bit different than the old SCO lawsuit.

Reading their complaint, it is somewhat different th= an the old suit... FreeBSD is mentioned like 34 times too, since Xinuos bas= ed their products based on it. And their product is locked out of the IBM/R= edhat cloud platform/ecosystem. The copyright stuff seems almost an afterth= ought...

Warner

On Thu, Apr 1,= 2021 at 8:51 AM Josh Good <pepe@nale= co.com> wrote:
I read the news, and I could not believe it.

It's April 1st, ain't it?

But then, this looks like is dated March 31. So it could be for real.

Behold: https://www.theregister.com/2021/03= /31/ibm_redhat_xinuos/

The PDF also is dated March 31: https://regmed= ia.co.uk/2021/03/31/xinuos_complaint.pdf

It's hard to believe someone would go to the trouble of writing 57 page= s of
legalese just to make a damn joke.

"
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Xinuos, formed around SCO Group assets a decade= ago under the name
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 UnXis and at the time disavowing any interest i= n continuing SCO's
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 long-running Linux litigation, today sued IBM a= nd Red Hat for
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 alleged copyright and antitrust law violations.=

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "First, IBM stole Xinuos' intellectual= property and used that stolen
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 property to build and sell a product to compete= with Xinuos itself,"
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 the US Virgin Islands-based software biz claims= in its complaint
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [PDF]. "Second, stolen property in IBM'= ;s hand, IBM and Red Hat
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 illegally agreed to divide the relevant market = and use their growing
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 market powers to victimize consumers, innovativ= e competitors, and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 innovation itself."

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The complaint further contends that after the t= wo companies
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 conspired to divide the market, IBM then acquir= ed Red Hat to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 solidify its position.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 SCO Group in 2003 made a similar intellectual p= roperty claim. It
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 argued that SCO Group owned the rights to AT&am= p;T's Unix and UnixWare
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 operating system source code, that Linux 2.4.x = and 2.5.x were
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 unauthorized derivatives of Unix, and that IBM = violated its
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 contractual obligations by distributing Linux c= ode.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 That case dragged on for years, and drew a fair= amount of attention
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 when SCO Group said it would sue individual Lin= ux users for
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 infringement. Though SCO filed for bankruptcy i= n 2007 and some of
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 the claims have been dismissed, its case agains= t IBM remains
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 unresolved.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 There was a status report filed on February 16,= 2018, details
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 remaining claims and counterclaims. And in May = last year, Magistrate
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Judge Paul Warner was no longer assigned to ove= rsee settlement
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 discussions. But SCO Group v. IBM is still open= .
"

Either way, some one if fooling us hard.

PS: OK, it seems it's for real: https://www.x= inuos.com/xinuos-sues-ibm-and-red-hat/

I need to check my stock of pop corn, then...

My take: it's obvious they want to be a nuisance so that IBM settles th= e
case, so they then can go back home with some fresh cash. I hope IBM goes ballistic on them to the bitter end, and finally sends the zombie back to its grave. But then, IBM now has its new RedHat business to protect, so it<= br> can get interesting.

--
Josh Good

--00000000000079ae7b05beeaa915--