Subject: Re: Text of SCO's complaint
From: "Karsten M. Self" <>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:32:04 +0000

on Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 10:57:36AM +0000, Ben Laurie ( wrote:
> Karsten M. Self wrote:
> >on Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 03:52:33PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf 
> >( wrote:
> >
> >>>For the complaint, I'll try to pick this apart later, I've only read it
> >>>topically.  Others don't be shy ;-).   SCO seems to do a lot of alleging
> >>>of "intellectual property" without specifying just what this property
> >>>is.  My understanding is that they hold no patents (thanks Don, for that
> >>>legwork), no trademark (the Open Group controls this, my own TESS (the
> >>>USPTO's engine sucks) search earlier today turned up "Unix System
> >>>Laboratories", whoever they are:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>But they might hold copyright rights, no?
> >
> >
> >As I said earlier:  based on a cursory read, the IP rights claimed seem
> >vague at best, and several comments in particular seem to be claims that
> >there must have been dasterdlies done by IBM 'coz there's no way
> >GNU/Linux could get that good that fast otherwise.
> >
> >Which was why I posted *the damned text of the complaint*.
> >
> >obSlashdot:  How about somebody actually reads the damned thing before
> >running of yet more at the mouth?
> Did you read it? It seems quite clear that they are specifically 
> alleging that open sourcing printer drivers (91) and the journaling 
> filesystem (92) are examples of infringement.

I've given it a good first read now.  Going through the particulars now.

Printers, journaling, and SMP.  Stay tuned.

Most of the GNU/Linux section (74-86 inclusive) is flat wrong, where it
doesn't simply contain gross errors.

> There's a lot of fluff, too, I'll admit :-)

Dunno.  Fluff with a $1b price tag sounds more like brass knuckles or
baffle 'em with bullshit.


Karsten M. Self <>
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
   NPR:  Radio for between the ears: