SCO Release an example of Stolen Code

In Las Vegas, SCO made a presentation to a bunch of invited SCO customers regarding the ongoing Linux situation.
As the presentation was subsequently given to an IDG reporter without NDA terms, it’s obviously now in the public domain.
Read the Presentation in PDF format here. I’ll be following this article up with editorial comment by industry experts in the next few days.

source: TurboTas

Site Upgrades #2

Finally, I’ve got around to fixing the poxy 3Gig drive that has run on since 1997.
Lately, the drive errors have been increasing and the uptimes have tumbled down to windows levels (Grin), so Something Had To Be Done.
Interestingly enough, it’s not actually all that obvious what it is that you have to do when replacing your /root partition drive.
In the end, all was well courtesey of a boot CD and a spare machine: I just installed the old and new drives, booted to CD, and used the normal fdisk/mkfs commands to build the new disk, then mounted both and copy the files accross.
I was careful to make the new drive hda, then when the copy finished, I just chroot’ed to the drive and ran the grub installer. All was NOT this easy in the LILO days!
I used the spare space on the new drive for Swap, Logs, tmp and WebRoot. All should be swifter now.
Finally got around to enabling the second CPU too: Hitcounts have increased (a bit) since the NewsForge article was published and that SSL traffic has been killing the box.

Spam Free Email, Guaranteed?

With help, TurboTas has been busily at work for more than a year on the MailSleuth system. I’m almost in a position now to be able to guarantee the spam-free’ness of an email feed with some caveats.

Guarantee is a pretty stong term to use in email cleaning circles, so better explain the rationale here.

It’s really important to understand that SPAM’s are becoming harder and harder to detect: Those email worms which mail address books out are a good example as to why: It’s only a matter of time before the spammers use this information as a whitelist bypass mechanism.

There are many other reasons, but the key point is that no combined technology seems able to get to above around 95% accuracy in email classification.

The essence of the MailSleuth system is that perhaps that we should not try too hard with the technology element.

It’s therefore the suggestion that the best way to sort this is to have a RealPerson having the final say.

At first, this seems kind of odd: ‘I don’t like people reading my email’ is the most likely first thought, followed closely by ‘That sounds like a really slow process’. Lets look at both of those points.

It’s right and propper that you don’t like the idea that someone can read your mail. Why do you assume that they don’t now though? Chances are that you’ve no idea where your mail has gone or who has potentially seen it. Think about this always when you send email!

The OperatorConsole that the Mailsleuth System uses anonymizes headers so as to make it far less obvious who the ultimate email recipient is. Some tokens are needed as there are customer specific config elements, but in general, the operator won’t know whose email they are checking.

On most occaisions, the operator will make their decision based on content outside the email body itself: Subject Line, Receipt Time, Other recipients, IP addresses of relay’s etc.

The second point is a tougher one. It’s true that having a positive release mechanism for every message is a pain in the butt. MailSleuth mitigates this somewhat by having a pretty well streamlined console which allows the operator to acheive pretty good throughput’s.

On the plus side, the delay gives the Virus vendors time to catch up: Although the MailSleuth system uses two serial Virus checkers, it’s not unusual for new outbreaks to occur before the anti-virus vendors have a chance to react. The inherent MailSleuth delay means that the final virus check can occur after the AV vendors release patches

Perhaps you are thinking that this sounds interesting? Tell Me! No dates or prices yet, but it’s likely to be something like £5 per month or 1p per email received (That’s pre-filtering so it’s still in your best interests to minimize the publicity of your email address!).

TurboTas has devised some interesting terms of service though, so think about what it is that you need email for.

There is a little info at the MailSleuth site, but by all means ask for more info.

But what about this guarantee? Oh, well it’s leikly that the guarantee will be backed up by cash credit or free months. Cash credit (perhaps £1) for those paying per email and month’s free for those paying by the month. Think about it, it’s quite compelling!

IBM Court Filing Seeks Money Damages and Injunctions Against SCO-Caldera

IBM and RedHat have both counterfiled against SCO this week. IBM’s counterclaim has no less than 10 pretexts, many of which are for Patent Infringement. TurboTas guesses that these are ‘gif’like patents which ralate to PI in use in the public domain. Here’s the full article from MozillaQuest.

IBM filed its answer and counterclaim to SCO’s Amended Complaint late on 6 August 2003 in the Utah Federal court presiding over the SCO-Caldera v IBM lawsuit. IBM’s counter claims for money damages and injunctive relief come only days after Red Hat Software, announced a two-pronged legal counter attack against SCO-Caldera’s anti-Linux war.

SCO-Caldera has been attempting to scare GNU/Linux users into buying SCO UnixWare licenses that promise to hold them harmless from SCO anti-Linux lawsuits. SCO-Caldera also has filed a lawsuit against IBM, which is essentially a fracas about IBM contributing code to the Linux kernel and otherwise heavily supporting GNU/Linux and the GNU/Linux community.
SCO Infringes on IBM Patents

According to a letter from Bob Samson, Vice President, Systems Sales, IBM Systems Group, IBM is seeking an “injunction requiring SCO to refrain from misrepresenting its rights, and to cease further infringement of IBM’s patents.”

In MozillaQuest Magazine’s 5 August 2003 article discussing SCO-Caldera’s Amended Complaint and the SCO v IBM lawsuit, Tom Carey and Mike Angelo discussed the IBM patent issue: on page 4 of that article.

MozillaQuest Magazine: Could this produce an anomaly where IBM owns the copyright and patent interests in these derivative works and extensions yet IBM is subject to the Unix license agreements for them anyway?

Thomas C. Carey: This is unlikely. But it is possible that either party may have written code that infringes on the patent rights of the other party. If IBM owns patents that cover the functions served by the disputed code, then IBM is in the driver’s seat. It is relatively easy to code around copyrighted software. Patent protection is much more of a challenge. In that case, SCO might have a hard time selling UNIX without a license from IBM. [Emphasis Added.]

Here is the meat of Bob Samson’s letter:

IBM counter sued SCO on a range of issues. Simply put, SCO’s scheme is an attempt to profit from its limited rights to a very old UNIX operating system by introducing fear, uncertainty and doubt into the marketplace.

The counterclaims are detailed in our legal filing, but here are the key points:

SCO has violated the GNU General Public License, under which it accepted

Linux contributions and distributed Linux.

SCO has improperly claimed the right to revoke IBM’s UNIX license, despite the fact that IBM’s contract expressly provides that IBM’s rights are irrevocable and that Novell, which is a party to the agreement under which IBM obtained an irrevocable and perpetual UNIX license, agrees that SCO cannot terminate IBM’s license and has exercised its right to waive this claim.

SCO has directly infringed four IBM patents relating to SCO’s commercially available UnixWare, Open Server, SCO Manager and Reliant HA clustering software products.

IBM is seeking compensatory and punitive damages and an injunction requiring SCO to refrain from misrepresenting its rights, and to cease further infringement of IBM’s patents.

The Germans already have been quite successful at getting the German courts to force SCO-Caldera from making its Anti-Linux claims and spreading FUD in Germany. Will the American’s be as successful in their court battles to stop SCO-Caldera from making its Anti-Linux claims and spreading FUD in the U.S.A.?

A Quick Look at IBM’s Answer and Counterclaim

We still are digesting IBM’s 45-page puppy. It’s a hum-dinger. But here are some highlights of IBM’s counterattack.

First off the full title of IBM’s answer and counterclaim taken from the filing is “DEFENDANT IBM’ S ANSWER TO THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIF IBM’S COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST SCO”. SCO now is the Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant and IBM now is the Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

* The Answer

The first sixteen pages of IBM’s Answer and Counterclaim are comprised of 170 paragraphs answering the 170 numbered paragraphs of SCO’s Amended Complaint. The sixteen page Answer is pretty much a straight up and down denial of just about every allegation made in SCO’s Amended Complaint.

That’s a major change and improvement from IBM’s Answer to SCO’s original Complaint. In that original Answer, IBM tried to evade answering many questions there by falsely stating that it did not have sufficient information so as to form a belief about the truth of the allegations. More about that and the details of the sixteen page Answer to the Amended Complaint in an upcoming article.

* Affirmative Defenses

Pages 17 and 18 of IBM’s Answer and Counterclaim raise ten boilerplate affirmative defenses. However, of particular interest might be the Tenth Defense, set forth on page 18: SCO has failed, in whole or in part, to mitigate its alleged damages.

IBM fails to specify with sufficient particularity how SCO allegedly has failed to mitigate its alleged damages. However, it is quite likely that this is where SCO and its CEO Darl McBride’s refusal to show IBM (and also the Linux kernel and GNU/Linux developers and distributors) just what code SCO claims IBM improperly contributed to the Linux kernel is going to boot SCO and McBride in the butt.

* IBM’s Counterclaims

IBM’s Counterclaims start on page 18 of its Answer and Counterclaim. Pages 18 through 44 are about IBM’s ten Counterclaims — 103 numbered paragraphs of counterclaim pleadings. Particularly interesting is the Second Counterclaim, relating violation of the Lanham Act — 15 U.S.C. § 1125, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).

Red Hat’s lawsuit against SCO also includes allegations of SCO violating the Lanham Act. To all those people in the GNU/Linux community that want to sue SCO, check IBM’s Second Counterclaim and the comparable allegations in the Red Hat v SCO Complaint. You likely can use the Lanham act as a basis to sue SCO too.

Here are the ten IBM Counterclaims:



51. IBM repeats and realleges the averments in paragraphs 1 through 50, with the same force and effect as though they were set forth fully herein.

52. IBM sells and distributes AIX and Linux-related products and services in interstate commerce.

53. SCO has made material false representations regarding AIX and IBM’s Linux-related products and services, which affect a customer’s decision whether to purchase these products and services. Specifically, SCO has publicly misrepresented the legitimacy of these products and services by falsely representing that IBM no longer has the right, authority and license to use, produce and distribute these products and by misrepresenting SCO’s own rights in and to UNIX, AIX and Linux.

54. SCO has published its false statements in a series of widely-distributed press releases, press interviews and other streams of commerce, as part of its bad faith campaign to discredit IBM’s products and services in the marketplace, to increase the perceived value of SCO’s limited rights to UNIX and to promote SCO’s own, UNIX operating systems, UnixWare and Open Server.

55. These statements are likely to cause confusion and mistake and have in fact caused confusion and mistake as to the characteristics of IBM’s goods, products and/or services.

56. As a direct result of SCO’s false representations, all of which are in violation of 15 U-S.C. § 1125, IBM has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial. IBM is also entitled to damages and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).


FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations

FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices

SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM Breach of the GNU General Public License

SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM Patent Infringement — United States Patent No- 4,814,746 “Data Compression Method”

EIGHTH COUNTERCLAIM Patent Infringement — United States Patent No. 4,821,211 “Method of Navigating Among Program Menus Using a Graphical Menu Tree”

NINTH COUNTERCLAIM Patent Infringement — United States Patent No- 4,953,209 “Self-Verifying Receipt and Acceptance System for Electronically Delivered Data Objects”

TENTH COUNTERCLAIM Patent Infringement — United States Patent No, 5,805,785 “Method for Monitoring and Recovery of Subsystems in a Distributed/Clustered System”

There’s lots more info at the MozillaQuest Site


SCO Wants $32 for Embedded Linux Now.

SAN JOSE, Calif. The SCO Group said Tuesday (August 5) it wants $32 for each embedded system using Linux. That request stems from the Lindon, Utah company’s claim that Linux versions 2.4 and above contains code that infringes on its Unix software.

SCO is currently suing IBM Corp. for breech of contract for allegedly supplying some of that Unix code as part of the open source development process for Linux.

After IBM, large businesses using Linux servers are SCO’s first target. The company sent letters to about 1,500 large companies it believes could be running such servers. Through October, it will charge them $699 for rights to its Unix code for each single-CPU Linux server they operate, after that charge double.

In a less well-publicized part of the company’s licensing terms, announced Tuesday (August 5), SCO said it will charge OEMs $32 per unit for each embedded Linux device they own.

The $32 fee applies to any embedded system regardless of whether it is a Tivo set-top box which uses embedded Linux or some models of the Sharp Zaurus which also use that kernel.

A diverse group of embedded systems that market watchers number in the millions currently use embedded Linux. They range from consumer and handheld systems to networking devices such as routers and firewalls, medical equipment and some military electronic systems use Linux. Venture Development Corp. pegs sales of embedded Linux tools and services at $62.6 million in 2002, a market growing at compound rate of 20.1 percent through 2007.

SCO will seek royalties from OEMs though it is not yet pursuing such companies actively, according to a company spokesman.

However, analysts said if the company is successful establishing its claims with server users, embedded systems could be the SCO’s next target.

SCO’s chief executive Daryl McBride did travel to Japan in July to make his case with eight consumer electronics companies there after they set up the CE Linux Forum. McBride met with at least on Fujitsu executive on that trip, the spokesman said.

“This situation is rather odd in a lot of ways,” said Gordon Haff, a senior analyst at Illuminata (Nashua, N.H.). For instance, SCO was formerly Caldera International Inc., a Linux distributor and developer before it abandoned Linux to focus on Unix, Haff noted.

SCO has not detailed its infringement claims, but the company has shown a portion of its infringed Unix code to people willing to sign non-disclosure agreements. Haff claims if SCO did detail all the allegedly infringed code, developers could write new code to replace it, defusing the situation.

For its part, SCO claims it has lost to free Linux distributions substantial revenue it might have gained from Unix sales.

If SCO is successful in establishing its claims, “Linux would die,” said Haff. But he doesn’t expect that will happen.”It’s hard to say what will happen in a complicated legal case, but from my perspective this is a Hail Mary pass from a company that the market has passed by,” said Haff.

It its most recent earnings report, SCO reported declines in product and services revenue in the six months ending April 2003 compared to the same period last year. However, those declines were offset by $8 in new licensing revenues. The company also turned a profit of $3.7 million in the recent period compared to a $17.6 million net loss for the year-ago period.

The embedded Linux licensing move “is extortion based on fraud. They are out to shake down people for what they can get,” said Inder Singh, chairman of the Embedded Linux Consortium and chief executive of embedded Linux and real-time operating system maker LynuxWorks (San Jose). Neither the consortium nor his company has had any communications from SCO on the royalty demand, Singh said.

“We will wait until they show us something,” that infringes their code, before taking any action on the licensing move, he added.

source: EE Times

Walk Through Screens made of Fog!

The walk-thru fog screen is a novel and intriguing method for forming a superior quality physically penetrable dry fog display. It is a break-through technology, literally!

The key features are that the screen is flat, enabling high-quality projections, and walk-thru is possible. The fog screen feels like nothing and does not make things wet. It creates a magical effect as if the imges are floating in thin air. This work has international patents pending.

Since announcing it publicly in Taejon, South Korea in Dec. 2001, the fog screen has gained an enthusiastic audience everywhere. The world premiere demonstration was in the Science Fair in Turku, Finland in October 2002. The prototype in the Science Fair was a success. It was covered in all the Finnish main TV news broadcasts, newspapers, etc.

The fog screen has also been presented in New Scientist (UK), Wired (USA), Focus (D), and many other international magazines. The first permanent prototype installation has been running reliably in Vapriikki museum in Tampere, Finland since January 24th, 2003. See it here!

The Million Dollars

Toby Seaman, Aug 2003

I have a million dollars. It is a stack of one million dollar bills. They have been donated to me by my brothers. I contribute dollars back where I can. We are a happy brethren. We all have stacks of dollars

Many men have began looking at our stacks. These men are not Brethren.

That was yesterday. Today I get a phone call. It is the one I dreaded. All is not well with my million dollars. One of the dollars is stolen! There can be no mistake I’m told, for the serial number of the bill is proof!.

I am guilty and ashamed that I’m party to a theft. Surely I share the blame simply by possessing the dollar. I must make amends! Alarmed, I ask for the evidence.

If one of the dollars is stolen, it makes no great difference to the fortune: the men who I love like brothers will surely replenish the dollar in but a moment. We cannot go on with this tainted dollar. It does not belong.

I am a law abiding man, I can’t have this theft of a dollar hanging over me.

There is still a problem. I cannot make amends! The aggrieved man for whom I feel sorry is an avaricious man and has has seen the size of my stack of dollars and he no longer wants just his dollar back.

No, my best beloved, he wants to build his own stack of dollars using my good nature.

This man will not tell me which dollar belongs to him. He gets nasty. He is suing me: I have offered to Help!

In public he has branded me a thief. In private he employs lawyers to do his bidding. He will not give his evidence so I can return his dollar and get on with my life.

Alone his dollar is worthless: why does he insist it has high value and yet not identify the dollar by number?

Instead this man offers me what he claims is a lifeline: He offers me prosecution immunity. He does this with impunity. He still will not give me the evidence, but he will sell me this immunity for 1000 dollars!

Now I am angry. I see a greedy man hiding behind the law. I look around me and there are millions of my brothers. Each of my brothers has a stack of a million dollars. My brothers are angry and scared too.

Must each of us pay money to the aggrieved man. can’t we all cast his dollar aside?

Horley Reports by TAS.

Ho Ho SCO to Get Their Own Medicine at Last!


From the SCO site: Those chaps at RedHat have finally decided to teach the twerps from SCO a lesson and have counter sued.

Read it all here, It’s hilarious. Those twerps will be bust soon (I Hope!)

SCO has taken the unusual step of publishing correspondence between it and Linux distributor Red Hat, following the latter’s launch of a countersuit yesterday.

Red Hat started legal proceedings on Monday to stop SCO “making unsubstantiated and untrue public statements” about its code being used in Linux distributions.

SCO has hit back at Red Hat’s moves and claimed that Red Hat’s actions will not help the long-term future of Linux.

In a letter to Red Hat chairman and chief executive Matthew Szulik, SCO’s president and chief executive Darl McBride said: “I am disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux.

“Of course, we will prepare our legal response as required by your complaint. Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy.

“I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux.”

SCO has published two letters. One is the response from McBride to Szulik, and the second a letter drafted at an earlier date but not previously sent.

The full letters are reprinted below:

August 4, 2003

Matthew J. Szulik,CEO, RED HAT, INC., 1801 Varsity Drive,Raleigh, NC 27606

Dear Matthew,

Attached is the letter I discussed with you during our July 31, 2003 telephone conversation. Instead of actually sending the letter, I thought it was best to telephone you and speak in person to see if we could resolve the issues between our companies short of litigation. We left the conversation with a preliminary agreement to meet and continue our discussions further.

To my surprise, I just discovered that your company filed legal action against The SCO Group earlier today. You, of course, mentioned nothing of this during our telephone conversation. I am disappointed that you were not more forthcoming about your intentions. I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good-faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux.

Of course, we will prepare our legal response as required by your complaint. Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy.

I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux.

Yours truly, Dim C. McBride, President & CEO


July 31, 2003

Mark Webbink, Esq.
Sr. Vice President and General Counsel
1801 Varsity Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606


Dear Mr Webbink,

This letter is in response to yours of July 18, 2003 to Darl McBride, president and CEO of The SCO Group, Inc.

Before responding to your request, it is important to place your letter in context. Your letter follows on the heels of Red Hat’s S-3 filing of July 7, 2003, in which your company revised its risk disclosure statement.

In addition, SCO is currently engaged in litigation with International Business Machines Corporation [IBM] regarding its role in the development of the Linux operating system. At the time of your letter, we had expected the possibility of a global resolution of SCO’s intellectual property claims against all Linux-related companies that would have likely included Red Hat. This effort has apparently stalled, through no fault of SCO.

Based on the posture of our litigation and your revised risk disclosures, it is unclear to us the purpose of your July 18, 2003 letter. If you desire to enter good faith discussions to address SCO’s intellectual property claims against Linux, either on behalf of a wider consortium of Linux companies or solely on behalf of Red Hat, we are willing to meet with you for that purpose.

In any such meeting, we will provide example after example of infringement of our intellectual property found in Linux. Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good-faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.

If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request. Therefore, please clarify in writing the purpose for your request. Thank you.


Robert Bench, Chief Financial Officer, The SCO Group, Inc.

Dead TCP connections over VPN Tunnels?

Why Security Alerts? Okay wrong area, but ICMP must be the most commonly blocked protocol on the planet, yet in today’s VPN/tunnelled world, it can be the most vital one to get right!

If you find that your’e having trouble over restricted MTU links, try this on your Cisco 12.2.4 onwards: ip tcp adjust-mss 1350.

This will ‘tweak’ SYN packets as they pass through the router and make sure that both ends negotiate an MTU that is far more likely not to result in ICMP ‘Fragmentation Needed but DF bit set’ errors (dead connections without ICMP working!).

Not really an RFC compliant thing to do, but trust me, this seems like a good fix!

Red Hat Takes Aim at Infringement Claims

Complaint launched against SCO claims, Red Hat pledges $1M to create fund to protect Linux

SAN FRANCISCO—August 4, 2003—Red Hat, Inc. (Nasdaq:RHAT) today made two significant announcements to protect Red Hat Linux customers and the worldwide Linux industry. First, Red Hat announced that it filed a formal complaint against The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX, “SCO”). The purpose of this complaint is to demonstrate that Red Hat’s technologies do not infringe any intellectual property of SCO and to hold SCO accountable for its unfair and deceptive actions.

“We filed this complaint to stop SCO from making unsubstantiated and untrue public statements attacking Red Hat Linux and the integrity of the Open Source software development process,” said Mark Webbink, General Counsel at Red Hat. “Red Hat is confident that its current and future customers will continue to realize the significant value that our Red Hat Linux platform provides without interruption.”

To further protect the integrity of Open Source software and the Open Source community, Red Hat has established the Open Source Now Fund. The purpose of the fund will be to cover legal expenses associated with infringement claims brought against companies developing software under the GPL license and non-profit organizations supporting the efforts of companies developing software under a GPL license. Red Hat has pledged one million dollars to be provided as funding in this initiative. For more information please e-mail

“The collaborative process of Open Source software development which created the Linux operating system has been unjustly questioned and threatened,” said Matthew Szulik, Chairman and CEO of Red Hat. “In its role as industry leader, Red Hat has a responsibility to ensure the legal rights of users are protected.”

Source: RedHat