|
Corrections in the News
This section of our Website is presented as a ready source for media, analysts, and others regarding corrections and clarifications to recently-published articles about The SCO Group.
The most frequent questions about SCO's intellectual property are answered in our IP License FAQ, found HERE.
List of Corrections
SCO Targets UK Companies
Source: Peter Williams, vnu.net Dec. 27, 2004. Republished by Linuxinsider
Misstatement
This article, which has since been removed by VNU.NET but continues to be published by Linuxinsider.com, claims that a SCO executive recently made comments alluding to the idea that SCO was about to begin suing UK-based companies that run the Linux operating system in their server operating system environments. This is patently false. SCO has no current plans to take such action and Chris Sontag from SCO has not recently made those comments as this article would suggest. In fact, Peter Williams, whom the story refers to as its author, ceased working for VNU.NET in October 2004, so he certainly couldn’t have published this article under this byline in December of 2004. We encourage readers to disregard this article and for Linuxinsider.com to cease distribution of this false story.
SCO's Lawsuits Do Not Involve Patents
Source: Forbes.com, April 19, 2004
Misstatement
"Utah-based SCO Group has sued IBM, AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler for using Linux in violation of SCO's patents on the related Unix operating system."
Fact
SCO’s lawsuits against IBM, AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler include violation of SCO’s copyrights related to the UNIX operating system, but does not involve patents.
The Extent of SCO's Lawsuits
Source: Schaeffer's Street Chatter
Misstatement
"Earlier today, auto-parts retailer AutoZone (NYSE:AZO ) reported second-quarter earnings of $1.04, which were four cents above Wall Street's consensus estimate and nearly 32 percent above year-ago results. In other news, the company has been smacked with a patent-infringement lawsuit from SCO Group. It's nothing personal against AZO, as SCOX has filed lawsuits against about 1,500 companies, demanding license-fee payment for the Unix copyright."
Fact
SCO has not filed 1,500 lawsuits. SCO has filed four lawsuits with companies IBM, Novell, Autozone, and DaimlerChrysler.
Confidentiality of SCO's Licensees
Source: Outlaw
Misstatement
"SCO announced last week that Computer Associates was one of four named companies to sign up to SCO’s UnixWare license – the license that it says most Linux users should buy if they want to avoid the wrath of its legal team."
Fact
SCO never publicly “announced” that Computer Associates had done a licensing deal due to the company’s confidentiality agreement with CA.
SCO's Claims Regarding All Versions of UNIX
Source: Computerworld, February 16, 2004
Misstatement
SCO argued that it doesn't own just the Unix source code originally written by AT&T. SCO said it also owns all additions to Unix that were ever made by companies that licensed Unix source code -- including IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Sun Microsystems and even Microsoft.
So since IBM developed a file system and added code for it to AIX, IBM's version of Unix, SCO argued that the code now belongs to SCO. And since IBM later donated that IBM-developed file-system code to Linux, it's in Linux without SCO's permission.
Fact
SCO has never claimed to own all additions to or versions of UNIX that were ever made by companies that licensed UNIX source code or that the IBM developed file system for AIX now belongs to SCO. SCO has publicly stated that while certain products and additions are owned by the respective UNIX licensee, SCO retained rights (as written in the UNIX software sub-licensing agreements) as to how these products are distributed or used, including confidentiality restrictions.
What the Judge Actually Ordered
Source: eWeek, March 3, 2004
Misstatement
“With the ruling, IBM must provide 232 previously-mentioned AIX files. If SCO wants more, the company must show "how these files support its position and how they are relevant." SCO also can't require these files for every AIX version.”
Fact
The court order actually states “IBM is hereby ordered: 1) to provide the releases of AIX and Dynix consisting of ‘about 232 products’ [emphasis added].” In addition, SCO does have the right to request additional files for every AIX version. As the court order states: “…SCO is to provide additional memoranda to the Court indicating if and how these files support its position and how they are relevant. The memorandum is to include with specificity, and to the extent possible, identification of additional files SCO requests and the reasons for such requests. The Court will then consider ordering IBM to produce more code from AIX and Dynix.” [emphasis added].
SCO and DaimlerChrysler
Source: PC Pro, March 3, 2004
Misstatement
“What is not in doubt is that the SCO's slander of title suit against Novell does indeed contest the ownership of Unix copyrights.”
Fact
SCO filed a Slander of Title lawsuit against Novell as they were intentionally attempting to interfere with SCO’s rights with respect to UNIX and UnixWare. The suit claims that Novell has improperly filed copyright registrations in the United States Copyright Office for UNIX technology covered by SCO's copyrights. A Slander of Title lawsuit does not contest ownership. It forces an entity to cease interference with rights already granted.
Misstatement
“This rather contradicts what Chris Sontag, Senior VP at SCOsource, told us back in January. 'To date there has been limited and selected availability with a 30 to 50 per cent adoption rate. We can't name names at this stage, but would expect this figure to rise now the licence is available worldwide.'”
Fact
There is no contradiction. Of the customers that have had interaction with SCO, 30-50 percent have chosen a licensing option. Most have chosen not to have their names named publicly. The author is assuming that of the 1500 letters sent to corporations that there has been a 30-50 percent adoption rate. This is not what SCO has claimed.
SCO Has Revealed the Code
Source: eWeek, March 4, 2004
Misstatement
“SCO has never presented a shred of significant evidence that there is any Unix code in Linux.”
Fact
SCO has been showing examples of direct line-by-line copying of UNIX code into Linux to hundreds of industry analysts, reporters, customers, partners, and industry influencers since June of last year. To view certain parts of this code, interested parties have had to sign a non-disclosure agreement verifying that they would keep this code in confidence. SCO continues to identify and show this code to parties willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement. SCO has also publicly identified ABI header files that are copyrighted, but published and generally available for viewing. Portions of these files have been copied into Linux headers without permission. These files can be viewed at www.sco.com/scosource under “ABI Files Letter.” SCO has also shown on local media outlets examples of direct Unix copying into Linux.
SCO is a Products and Services Company
Source: CNN Money, February 24, 2004
Misstatement
"SCO, with its lawsuits against IBM (IBM: Research, Estimates), Novell (NOVL: Research, Estimates), Red Hat (RHAT: Research, Estimates), and others, clearly likes to make a name for itself through its legal actions."
Fact
SCO has not filed a lawsuit against Red Hat. Red Hat filed a lawsuit against SCO in August 2003.
|
