IBM Counterclaim Quotes

The following are highlights of the IBM Counterclaim document from a ways
back that SCO actually scanned and SCO actually placed on SCO's website
and which I recently got around to reading and taking notes of and very
recently remembered to forward to folks. enjoy /a

p.s. perl -pe 'if (/operating system/) { s/Linux/GNU\/Linux/g; }'


"Counterclaim-defendant SCO played no role in the development of Unix."
		-- Paragraph 11 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims Against
		   SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"Linux is an operating system that stems from a rich history of
collaborative development.  Linux is a dynamic and versatile operating
system and is, for many, the operating system choice."
		-- Paragraph 16 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims Against
		   SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
 "Linux is open-source software.  Open-source software is free in the
sense that it is publicly available, royalty free, and users have the
freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, adapt, and improve the
software."
		-- Paragraph 21 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims Against
		   SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"Whereas traditional software licenses often reflect legal limitations
restricting the use and production of original works, the open-source
community has taken a different approach to licensing.  The open-source
community, including SCO, resolve to license Linux so as to keep the
source code publicly available.  Due to the open-source nature of Linux,
anyone can frely download Linux and many Linux applications and modify
and re-distribute them with few restrictions."
		-- Paragraph 22 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims Against
		   SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"There are a variety of open-source linces, but the most popular is the
GNU General Public License (the "GPL")."
		-- from Paragraph 23 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims
		   Against SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"In fact, one of the most important decisions Linus Torvalds made was to
develop the Linux kernel under the GPL and keep the source code freely
distributable so others could build upon, modify, and develop programs
for the operating system.
		-- Paragraph 24 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims Against
		   SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"Whereas the license for most software are programs designed to limit or
restrict a licensee's freedom to share and change it, the GPL is
intended to guarantee a licensee's freedom to share and change free
software -- to make sure the software is free for all its users.  The
GPL applies to any program whose authors commit to using it."
		-- Paragraph 25 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims Against
		   SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"Although SCO purported to suspend its Linux distribution after the
commencement of this [legal] action, SCO has continued to make Linux
source code available for download through its website."
		-- from Paragraph 32 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims
		   Against SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"Like thousands of other developers, IBM has properly contributed source
code to Linux under the GPL.  In fact, SCO has included IBM
contributions to Linux in Linux products that SCO has distributed under
the GPL."
		-- from Paragraph 44 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims
		   Against SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"Although it completed an initial public offering, SCO, unlike IBM, has
failed to establish a successful business around Linux.  SCO's Linux
business has never generated a profit.  In fact, the company as a whole
did not experience a profitable quarter until after it abandoned its
Linux business and undertook its present scheme to extract windfall
profits from Unix technology that SCO played no role in developing."
		-- Paragraph 45 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims Against
		   SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"SCO has not been able to operate a successful, legitimate business
concerning Linux and/or Unix.  WIth apparently no other prospects, SCO
shifted its business model yet again -- this time to litigation and
threats of litigation, as is described below."
		-- from Paragraph 49 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims
		   Against SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"Although most, if not all, of the AT&T Unix technology that SCO
purports to own is generally known, available without restriction to the
general public or readily ascertainable by proper means, SCO undertook
to create fear, uncertainty and doubt in the marketplace in regard to
SCO's rights in and to that technology."
		-- from Paragraph 50 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims
		   Against SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"Recognizing that there is little value in its Unix rights, SCO did not
limit its scheme to that technology.  Rather, SCO devised and executed a
plan to create the false perception that SCO holds rights to Unix that
permit it to control not only all Unix technology, but also Linux --
including those aspects generated through the independent hard work and
creativty of thousands of other developers and long distributed by SCO
itself under the GPL."
		-- Paragraph 51 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims Against
		   SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"SCO asserts legal theories that are frivolous, such as that SCO has
ownership rights with respect to all of the code in AIX [developed and
owned by IBM]."
		-- from Paragraph 54 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims
		   Against SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"SCO seeks relief to which it is plainly not entitled, such as a
permanent injunction terminating IBM's ability to possess and use the
software products it license from AT&T Technologies, Inc.,
notwithstanding the fact that those rights are expressly "irrevocable"
and "perpetual"."
		-- from Paragraph 54 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims
		   Against SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"In addition to instituting litigation against IBM, SCO sent letters to
1500 of the world's largest corporations threatening [them with]
litigation."
		-- from Paragraph 55 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims
		   Against SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"In a press conference on July 21, 2003, SCO stated that taking out a
license with SCO was the "alternative to legal enforcement against Linux
end-users [by SCO]"."
		-- from Paragraph 55 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims
		   Against SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"SCO has repeatedly made false public statements to the effect that it
has the right and authority to revoke, and has effectively revoked,
IBM's right to use AIX, IBM's version of Unix. .. Indeed, in an
interview given by SCO CEO Darl McBride to Peter Williams of vnunet.com
of June 25, 2003, SCO falsely represented that its contractual rights to
"pull" IBM's contract are "bullet-proof"."
		-- from Paragraph 57 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims
		   Against SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"SCO has also propagated falsehoods about its and IBM's rights in
non-public meetings with analysts. .. In a luncheon hosted by Deutsche
Bank analyst Brian Skiba, on or about July 22, 3003, for example, SCO
falsely stated that IBM transferred the NUMA code from Sequent to Linux
without any legal basis to do so and that IBM's actions were giving rise
to about $1 billion[USD] in damages per week."
		-- from Paragraph 59 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims
		   Against SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"On June 9, 2003, in response to SCO's actions, and pursuant to its
oblications under Amendment X [-- an agreement over rights to Unix
between IBM, Novell and Original SCO], Novell stated its belief that SCO
has no right to terminate IBM's Unix license which is perpetual and
irrevocable, and Novell exercised its retained rights to Unix to put a
stop to SCO's misconduct."
		-- from Paragraph 60 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims
		   Against SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"Rather than particularize its allegations of misconduct by IBM and
others, SCO has obfuscated and alterd its claims to foster fear,
uncertainty and doubt about its rights and the rights of others."
		-- from Paragraph 64 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims
		   Against SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"SCO has obfuscated its claims and has hidden its supposed evidence
because the evidence does not demonstrate the breaches and violations
that SCO has alleged.  Moreover, key developers and influence leaders in
the open-source community, including leaders of Linux kernel
development, have stated publicly that they are prepared immedicately to
remove any allegedly offending material from the Linux kernel.  Rather
than permit remediation or mitigation of its alleged injuries (which are
non-existent), SCO has declined to reveal the particulars of the alleged
violations in order to artificially and improperly inflate the price of
its stock."
		-- Paragraph 65 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims Against
		   SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"SCO has taken copyrighted source code made available by IBM under the
GPL, included that code in SCO's Linux products, and copied, modified,
sublicensed and/or distributed those products other than as permitted
under the GPL."
		-- from Paragraph 74 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims
		   Against SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"As a result of the misconduct described above, SCO has not only
artificially inflated its stock price and been unjustly enriched, but
also it has injured IBM and, more broadly, the open-source movement."
		-- from Paragraph 76 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims
		   Against SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"Breach of the GNU General Public License"
		-- Sixth Counterclaim in IBM's Amended Counterclaims
		   Against SCO, Filed September 25, 2003
%
"SCO has breached its contractual obligations to IBM, violated the
Lanham Act, engaged in unfair competition, interfered with IBM's
prospective economic relations, engaged in unfair and deceptive trade
practices, breached the GPL, infringed IBM copyrights and infringed IBM
patents, as stated above."
		-- Paragraph 152 of IBM's Amended Counterclaims Against
		   SCO, Filed September 25, 2003