SCO's Courtroom Skinny: Legal Battles Loom With IBM, Novell and Red Hat

Nearly all the wrangling, however, revolves around three specific legal actions: SCO has sued IBM and Novell separately; and Linux software house Red Hat has sued SCO.

SCO's legal weapon is its claim that it owns the copyrights to Unix System V, and that portions of that operating system have illegally found their way into Linux. (SCO says it acquired the rights to Unix from Novell, which bought those rights from AT&T.)

The IBM battle is the most complicated.

In March 2003, SCO filed a complaint against IBM in U.S. District Court for Central Utah. SCO alleged that Big Blue infringed SCO's copyright by duplicating a portion of Unix System V in IBM's versions of AIX, Dynix and Linux. SCO also charged IBM with contract violations and misuse of trade secrets, in an overall package with a potential for up to $3 billion in damages. SCO subsequently tacked on $2 billion in additional copyright infringement claims.

The IBM suit has raised the hackles of the open-source community because of its suggestion that Linux developers dumpster-dived into Unix to build their operating system. Linux supporters"along with IBM's lawyers"say that SCO, thus far, hasn't proved much of anything.

They point to the fact that SCO's public proof has so far amounted to the release of a few software "headers""lists of file names at the top of code modules"that appear to be duplicated in Linux. Linux advocates say the headers are standard programmer stuff and not substantive proof of copying. And, they say, SCO hasn't been able to cite any other instances of copying.

For its part, SCO has said it won't fight its copyright battles in public and that it will identify infringing code in court.

Meanwhile, SCO vs. IBM is slowly inching forward. IBM has flung copyright-infringement countercharges of its own against SCO. In March, SCO petitioned the court to split its IBM action into two separate cases. IBM, in turn, asked the court to throw out SCO's copyright charges.

SCO is trying to get a look at more IBM software in what's widely viewed as an effort to identify enough infringing code to buttress a somewhat weak existing case. Regardless of how strong the case truly is, IBM is taking the position that that's both a delaying tactic and a fishing expedition.

Numerous motions remain pending before Utah judge Dale Kimball. If SCO vs. IBM does comes to trial, that won't happen before November 2005.

Far easier to follow is SCO vs. Novell. In January, SCO sued Novell in Utah, accusing it of interfering with SCO's Unix rights. SCO also charged Novell with "slander of title," or making false statements about SCO's ownership of Unix.

Novell asked the court to dismiss the case, saying that SCO couldn't support its slander of title claim. However, the court declined to throw out the suit, so it's moving forward. In its latest chapter, SCO in July filed an amended complaint, in response to orders from the judge to clarify its requests for damages.

In the one major action SCO didn't initiate, Red Hat sued SCO for allegedly making untrue claims about its Linux business. Unlike the other two SCO suits, which are in Utah courts, Red Hat brought its case in Delaware. In April, a judge there put Red Hat's suit on hold until the IBM case is decided. That's where it remains, although Red Hat is trying to get it reawakened.

When the SCO suits first came to light, resellers feared they might also become legal targets. That didn't happen. However, SCO in March opened up a second legal front when it filed intellectual-property actions against Linux end users AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler; a judge threw out most of the latter case late last month. Though more actions were expected, the suits never materialized.

Indeed, some experts believe SCO's salvos have lost their sizzle. "SCO has quieted down," says Bill Weinberg, architecture specialist at Open Source Development Labs, the Beaverton, Ore.-based Linux trade group. "People have realized that most of the legal activity is not about Linux itself"it's about contractual obligations."

Moreover, the adoption of Linux hasn't slowed, Weinberg believes. "People have gotten quiet," he says. "They aren't talking because they don't want to attract attention and a possible lawsuit."

SCO vs. IBM

SCO vs. Novell
Dispute: Slander of title
Status: Moving forward

Red Hat vs. SCO
Dispute: False statements
Status: On hold until IBM suit decided

SCO vs. AutoZone
Dispute: Copyright infringement
Status: 90-day stay (issued July 17)

SCO vs. DaimlerChrysler
Dispute: Breach of contract
Status: Bulk of suit dismissed