The SCO Group Faces Deadline In IBM Case

Linux

Following a court order issued early last month, the Lindon, Utah-based Unix company has until the end of the week to specify and hand over to IBM attorneys the hundreds of thousands of lines of Unix System V code it says IBM improperly donated to the Linux kernel.

SCO filed its multibillion-dollar lawsuit against IBM last March, claiming the Armonk, N.Y.-based computer giant had violated its contract with the Unix company by improperly contributing code to the kernel. IBM has denied those claims.

As it awaits the outcome of its claim against IBM, SCO has said it still intends to file a separate copyright infringement claim against a Linux customer by the end of February. And on Dec. 22, the company confirmed it had sent cease-and-desist letters to select Fortune 1000 companies, charging them with using more than 65 SCO-owned Application Binary Interfaces (ABIs) without permission.

This latest allegation maintains that the use of the ABIs by customers in a commercial setting violates SCO's rights according to U.S. Copyright Law and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux kernel, has characterized SCO's latest intellectual property (IP) claim as technically baseless.

Torvalds, a fellow with the Open Source Development Labs, said the so-called violations relate to a group of simple header files, not significant IP.

"It's basically something like five files, it's just that several of them are replicated for every single architecture out there," Torvalds said in an e-mail to CRN, referring to the files listed in SCO's cease-and-desist letter. "And the thing is, those files don't even contain any code."

SCO has not yet proven any claims against the Linux community in court, a fact that has caused consternation among Linux vendors, customers and open-source advocates, who vehemently dispute all of SCO's highly publicized IP claims.

Nevertheless, SCO sent out warning letters last spring to hundreds of Linux customers maintaining they could be liable unless they obtain a Unix license from SCO. And in December, another letter sent to hundreds of its SCO Unix licensees requested written certification that each licensee is in full compliance with the AT&T Unix source-code agreement. SCO has approximately 6,000 licensees total.

While acknowledging that moving to file a case against an end user would be an unpopular and aggressive legal tactic, SCO CEO Darl McBride said IBM, Red Hat and others have exposed their customers by hiding behind the General Public License (GPL).

"Everyone points to a clause where they don't have liability. They are pushing the liability down to the users," he said.

Meanwhile, Novell has moved to register for copyrights on several versions of Unix System V with the U.S. Copyright Office over the past quarter. Novell's planned acquisition of Linux distributor SUSE Linux could make it,along with Red Hat,subject to potential copyright infringement litigation.

McBride has characterized Novell's copyright claims as fraudulent.

SCO is also awaiting word about a Red Hat counterclaim, which seeks to throw out SCO's legal claims to Linux.

McBride said he is not intimidated by the legal backlash from Linux vendors and that SCO's rights to Unix under the DMCA will prevail over the GPL.

"We're stepping up our enforcement activities," said McBride, noting that the letter sent out late last month will tie in to pending litigation. "There's a huge amount of copying of Linux going on. %85 Copyrights are there to protect people from making copies, and at the end-user level is where the substantial amount of copying going on. That's the target area with litigation coming."

Anthony Awtrey, vice president of I.D.E.A.L. Technology, a Linux solution provider in Orlando, Fla., said SCO's actions continue to highlight the value proposition of Linux technology. "We love Linux, and we won't pay SCO a dime," he said. "Please come after us. It would be a wonderful way not only for us to promote our business, but how the hell can [SCO] make the statements [about technology ownership] when they [haven't produced] the files that are in dispute in court?"

BARBARA DARROW contributed to this story.