Rocky Linux backer CIQ rejects lawsuit's claims it was founded on stolen IP

A recently unsealed lawsuit filed in the US by HPC software provider Sylabs accuses rival outfit Ctrl IQ (CIQ) and its founder Greg Kurtzer of violating Sylab's trade secrets in order to start its business, and of filing its own patents based on that technology. The federal civil case was filed in the District Court for the …

[Pascal Monett]

How is this possible ?

Company signs agreement with employee to let him go and start another company in the same business, then sues.

If they did sign that agreement, why did they sue ? And if they did not, why is a lawyer saying they did ?

Is this another case of "well, we did agree to that, but this is different" ? - aka : another bloody waste of time in court ?

Honestly, if I were the judge I would throw the whole thing out on principle. You waived your right to complain, so what are you doing here ?

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: How is this possible ?

On the whole I agree but there's a nagging doubt as to who signed on behalf of Sylabs.

[Snake]

Hmm...

The suit accuses Kurtzer himself of releasing Fuzzball, a cloud native service for workflow management and orchestration in HPC clusters, as open source technology so that CIQ would afterwards be able to use it without having to pay for it.

Sylabs claims that it developed Fuzzball internally as closed-source value-added technology for managing container deployments.

Doesn't matter your claims or the even the fact that it may have been developed internally, what matters is who owned the copyright to the code. If the code was copyrighted to the management (not uncommon), then he had the right to do whatever he pleased with it regardless of the fact that the current management has its nickers in a knot over it.

[Falmari]

Re: Hmm...

@Snake "what matters is who owned the copyright to the code. If the code was copyrighted to the management (not uncommon), then he had the right to do whatever he pleased with it regardless of the fact that the current management has its nickers in a knot over it."

Sylabs, Inc as an incorporated company surely owned the copyright to the code not Kurtzer who as CEO is an employee. In his role as CEO he has the power to make the decision to open source technology. But would be acting on behalf of his employer Sylabs, Inc on on his own behalf.

If Kurtzer reason for open sourcing Fuzzball was to start a competing company and use that technology to the detriment of Sylabs. Then he was acting against his employer's best interest and solely in his own. If that can be proved then there is a lot Sylabs can do about it suing for damages is the civil side, there may even be a criminal side.

Of course all speculation as it just you said I said at the moment.

[icesenshi]

Re: Hmm...

Sylabs, Inc as an incorporated company surely owned the copyright to the code not Kurtzer who as CEO is an employee.

And this is why exactly, because you said so?

[Falmari]

Re: Hmm... Incorporation

@icesenshi "And this is why exactly, because you said so?"

No, not on my say so. But on how Incorporation works, it limits the liability of the owners and separates the firm's assets and income from its owners and investors. So as the code was developed by the company it would be a company asset and therefore owned by the company not Kurtzer.

[Bill Bickle]

Where there is smoke there may be fire ?

Granted this is an accusation at this point, but Kurtzer reminds me of Larry Ellison arrogance and shadiness, in watching him on video interviews or discussions,

And now he is working with Oracle. This guy, CIQ, Rocky are starting to sound shady as all heck, masked in "open source mother theresa" goodness. Not buying it.

[spuck]

Which is it then: Open Source, or patented?

The suit accuses Kurtzer himself of releasing Fuzzball, a cloud native service for workflow management and orchestration in HPC clusters, as open source technology so that CIQ would afterwards be able to use it without having to pay for it.

Sylabs claims that it developed Fuzzball internally as closed-source value-added technology for managing container deployments.

Sylabs goes on to allege that CIQ "fraudulently" applied for US patents on IP in both Fuzzball and Armored Containers, the latter being technology that provides increased security for container deployments, claiming them as its own.

If Company A releases code as "open source technology", how can Company B later apply for a patent on the code?

[Falmari]

Re: Which is it then: Open Source, or patented?

@spuck "If Company A releases code as "open source technology", how can Company B later apply for a patent on the code?"

Because USPTO is a joke and essentially just rubber stamp.

Or maybe extras to the technology that have not been open sourced.

[pravda]

Fuzzball is open source?

"The suit accuses Kurtzer himself of releasing Fuzzball, a cloud native service for workflow management and orchestration in HPC clusters, as open source technology so that CIQ would afterwards be able to use it without having to pay for it."

strong accusation... it's too bad Fuzzball isn't open source. hmm, I wonder what other accusations are false in this case.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who does Lepiscopo represent Coglitore (owner of Sylabs) or Sylabs?

From Case No:22STCV24867

From Motion to Compel and For Monetary Sanctions Against Defendents (Coglitore) Attorney Lepiscopo- Granted by the Judge

"Prior to Plaintiffs’ filing the motion to compel, Mr.

Lepiscopo claimed he never received the August 24, 2022 email with the discovery requests.

After Defendant failed to serve timely discovery responses, Mr. Lepiscopo also denied agreeing

to email service even though Mr. Lepiscopo confirmed in writing that he agreed to service via

email. (Declaration of Jonathan Allan Klein in Support of Plaintiffs Tony Gaughan and Conor

Malone’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Defendant’s Discovery Responses and for

Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant’s Attorney Peter Lepiscopo, Ex. A.) Critically, Mr.

Lepiscopo did not include these two implausible excuses in his declaration under penalty of

perjury."

... the old I never got that email