|
|
| 2 Attorneys Explain Some Details; Sun Predicts SCO Will Go After Linux Users |
 |
|
Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 12:46 AM EDT
|
Tom Carey, partner with intellectual property firm Bromberg & Sunstein, explains the side letter to the AT&T-IBM license agreement, now Exhibit C to SCO's complaint:"IBM negotiated with AT&T [the original holder of the Unix copyrights and patents] a very detailed side letter to their license agreement," Carey told internetnews.com. "That side letter is Exhibit C to the SCO complaint. That side letter negates many of the key license terms that SCO relies upon in its complaint. For example, the basic license agreement says that IBM is authorized to create derivative works, but those derivative works will become the property of AT&T. The side letter says exactly the opposite, that those derivatives will become the property of IBM."He added, "The format of this is unusual. It appears that AT&T insisted that IBM sign their standard form agreement and that any changes be set forth in a separate document. The side letter clearly takes precedence." In addition, Carey said, the side letter spells out the conditions under which IBM could keep ownership of derivative works. Carey explained that the letter permits IBM to have its employees use ideas they learned from seeing the Unix code and incorporate those ideas into other products, under certain conditions: the programmers could not refer to Unix code or manuals while doing their coding. "That provision allowed, I believe, IBM to essentially reverse engineer Unix, provided that it did so in a kind of a 'clean room' method, and incorporate those reverse engineered modules into its products," Carey said. "It seems hard to imagine that if IBM followed those procedures that someone who bought a product from IBM or acquired software indirectly from IBM could be found guilty of infringing SCO's copyrights in the Unix operating system." [Emphasis added]
Another attorney, Mark Radcliffe, co-chair of the Licensing Division at Gray Cary, points out something interesting about derivative works:Meanwhile, Radcliffe also pointed out that the term 'derivative works' has a very precise meaning in copyright law. "[SCO] talks about these things as derivative works," he said. "We need to be careful to separate out derivative works in a copyright statute and the way they may have been used in the agreement." Specifically, Radcliffe said that according to copyright law, a derivative work is "a work where if you excised any of the copyrights in that work, you would infringe another work." In other words, a specific instance of code would have to contain actual Unix code to constitute a derivative work under copyright law, Radcliffe said. Meanwhile, Carey noted that SCO President and CEO Darl McBride seemed to have misspoken when he said last week that Linux is unique in that it is an operating system which is offered without any warranty of copyright non-infringement (which implied that users were taking a big risk by signing onto Linux). Carey said he took a look at the Unix license between AT&T and IBM -- the very agreement that forms the basis of SCO's complaint. "It contains a nearly identical disclaimer of any warranty of non-infringement," he said. While conceding that he has not seen the current license that SCO offers, he said, "It would be interesting to see if it also contained a disclaimer to any warranty. If they're following the AT&T model that they are the successor to, it would contain just such a disclaimer." He also gives his opinion that if anybody licenses from them and then they lose, they will have sold something not needed in the first place:". . .then I think that SCO will have committed the business equivalent of extortion, assuming they lose their case against IBM. And they will have some exposure for having collected substantial licensing fees and having given nothing in return." [emphasis added] Sun Sings a Nasty Swan Song For those of you still thinking Sun is friendly to Linux or merely conflicted, Sun's Jonathan Schwartz, executive VP of software, is quoted as saying Linux is irrelevant. Warning: It's a bit like picking up a rock. First on Linus: "Looking at the first view that says Intel is the future, how many operating systems run on Intel? There are only three. There's the one that Microsoft delivers. There's the one that Red Hat delivers -- because Linux right now is Red Hat. Red Hat has way more control than Linus does. If Red Hat tweaks their distribution just a little bit, does anyone care about what Linus says? ISVs qualify to Red Hat , not to Linus. So Red Hat is number two. And number three is Solaris." On SCO:"The one thing they didn't realize they wanted was the capacity of their vendors to indemnify them against the risks that went into the products that they were using. And just as there are a bunch of mothers of 14-year-olds getting subpoenas because their kids are sharing music on the Internet, there will be a bunch of CIOs to testify with respect to the intellectual property that they are using. . . ."Open source to me is an irrelevance in the sense that customers don't want products based on whether they are open source or not. They buy them based on whether they are better quality, are faster, are innovative and help solve problems. . . . "But there are two problems. One is that IBM appears to have committed a landmark mistake in the [alleged] leakage of its IP license from SCO into the mainstream distribution of Linux. My bet is that as a result, there's going to be a bunch of end users, who, just like the mothers of 14-year-olds who trade files, will be getting letters telling them that they have an obligation to compensate for the liberties they took with that IP." [emphasis added]I take that as inside scoop until proven wrong. He goes on to sing the indemnification ditty. But you get the idea. So I guess the White House is getting that subpoena after all. The DOD too. And the army. And you and me. And then the lovely and tireless Ms. DiDio says maybe Sun or someone will buy SCO and carry the baton onward and upward. Say, that's a great idea. Good thing she's usually wrong. She tips us off that Microsoft is behind this: "There's a lot going on behind the scenes," Yankee Group senior analyst Laura DiDio told TechNewsWorld. "Not necessarily coming out to say they support SCO or coming to their defense, but I think there are a lot of behind-the-scenes machinations. . . . They stepped right up and certainly they are supporting them tacitly," DiDio said. This is why she is a senior analyst. Such depth. Such cognitive clarity. Such a big mouth. I'm thinking she got a call after SCO heard what she said, and SCO, of course, denied it.
SCO's 3rd quarter financial conference call is August 14 at 9 AM MDT. You may also join the call in listen-only mode via Web cast. The URL is here. Linux 101 for Business Types Ian Murdoch breaks it down into little pieces and says Linux is a process that's alive, not a product you can box and stamp and be done with it. He says that not only our enemies but Linux distributors need to think about what it really is that people love about GNU/Linux, and it isn't that it works better, as Sunfolk imagine: Let's step back a bit and look at why people are flocking to Linux. It's an open platform that is not owned or controlled by any single company. It comes with unmatched customization, optimization and integration possibilities. It is the ideal "invisible engine" for driving the next generation of applications and services. And it gives its users greater control over the evolution of the underlying platform, putting the user firmly in control of product release timelines and rollout schedules. In short, with Linux, the balance of power has finally shifted back from company to user. "Around the edges" incompatibilities introduced by the company lead, once again, to a lock-in and reliance on that company for services and support. The seller, rather than the customer, once again controls the evolution of the platform and dictates the timeline on which the customer must release or implement new products and services. And the one-size-fits-all, Linux-as-product approach complicates or eliminates the ability to customize, optimize and integrate. Sure, the product can be modified--but only at the cost of losing service and support. The Linux distribution industry needs to start looking at Linux in a new and different way--as a platform to be shared rather than as a product to be owned. Linux distributors need business models that better match the fundamental differences that Linux brings to the market in technology, culture and process. They need business models that preserve the magic that has made Linux what it is today.
That really is the problem, when you break it all down. Business doesn't get it, and trying to suit them can kill what makes GNU/Linux desirable in the first place. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys: Sun and its twisted vi$ions, and SCO like a crazed bull in a china shop. And, according to Ms. DiDio, who probably knows a thing or two about it, in the shadows, like a drooling hyena, there lurks Microsoft. Hyenas don't care who does the actual killing, you know, as long as they get to eat. What a team. And GNU/Linux like an elegant deer. Well, no. More like a zebra, actually. You can't tell zebras what to do. That's why you can't train them for circuses or petting zoos. They are independent-minded, and they don't care what you want.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 09:45 PM EDT |
| I thought that was how the IBM - AT&T contracts read. I thought it hadn't been
mentioned because it was either obvious or legalese for something else. As you
can tell IANAL or even a paralegal.
Things of interest in Exhibit D (Amendment No X).
First Contract - Section 1 - This appears to be IBM's "irrevocable, fully
paid-up, perpetual right to exercise all of its rights under the Related
Agreements". I can't see how SCO can deny that (assuming IBM paid the
"consideration" which I suspect they did).
Second Contract in Exhibit D:
I'm not exactly sure what SOFTWARE PRODUCT the contract is for but I suspect
it's unix. Assuming that's the case (a bad thing to do, I know) then there are
some very interesting exceptions to confidentiality in paragraphs 3.04 and 3.06
such as in 3.04 "(v) is independently developed by you with use of the REFERENCE
SOFTWARE PRODUCT or SOFTWARE DERIVITIVE" and 3.06 in its entirety.
One other thing that I haven't looked in to is that kernel version 2.4 is the
stable version of the 2.3 developmental kernel. My understanding is that big
features such as RCU, JFS, etc. would be added to the 2.3 version first and not
directly to 2.4 but I don't see SCO mention 2.3 anywhere. Again, I've not
checked this.
Also, very nice job following this case.
Alan Pinkerton • 8/2/03; 3:16:29 AM
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 09:46 PM EDT |
| Sun continue to blow hot and cold - do these Sun execs talk to each other?
At the same time the vp lambasts Linux, Sun sign a deal with SuSE to ship their
version on Sun's x86 boxes...
McNealy is a hoot. In his most recent interview a read on Linux today spotted
these two comments: "Don't touch open source software... It will become a very
challenging intellectual property issue," "We are a huge proponent of open
source software, despite all the hate mail I get from the open source movement."
From the same man in the same interview!!
(And who can forget Scott in the penguin suit?)
Sun appear to say (and do) whatever they think will get them a customer: the
irony is that this sort of incoherent doubletalk loses them credibility and
business.
Dr Stupid • 8/2/03; 6:00:09 AM
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 09:47 PM EDT |
| Here's a link about the Sun-SuSE deal:
ht
tp://www.suse.com/us/company/press/press_releases/archive03/sun.html
I quote from the press release:
"This agreement further demonstrates the accelerating momentum of Java and Sun's
support for the open community... Sun values SuSE's expertise and welcomes them
to the Java community and we look forward to working with them to grow the
global marketplace. Through this collaboration and Sun's continued commitment to
open systems, customers benefit from greater choice and innovation."
Well, that sounds positive.... who said it?
That's right, *Jonathan Schwartz*!
Just a moment, Jonathan, didn't you say there were only three Intel systems -
Windows, Red Hat and Solaris?
Whatever is in McNealy's water cooler, everyone at Sun's drinking it.. :)
Dr Stupid • 8/2/03; 8:10:21 AM
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 09:48 PM EDT |
Even the restriction that IBM employees cannot look at SysV code while working
on AIX was removed. Exhibit D, section 6 " The second to last sentence of
paragraph 9 of the February 1, 1985 amendment to SOFT-00015is modified by
deleting the words: "and employees of Licensee shall not refer to the
physical documents and materials comprising Software Products subject to
this Agreement when they are developing any such products or sevices or
providing any such service."
Sanjeev • 8/2/03; 8:11:32 AM
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 09:48 PM EDT |
| Guys, you are so getting into the spirit of this! This is great. If you could
look into that kernel business, Alan, that would be absolutely wonderful. Or
anyone.
When contracts are contradictory, and actually I did write about the
contradiction between the main contract and the later letter before (I just
thought it'd be useful to have an attorney say it, not just me) but the rest I
never saw. I'm off to look.
And don't forget that there are supposedly 400 additions to the original
agreement over the years. SCO attached whatever they thought would be useful
(not that they read the fine print, it seems), but the court will look at them
all. If everything remains contradictory, then the court looks at evidence to
see what the parties intended, including witnes testimony and how each side
behaved over time. That tips solidly in IBM's favor.
Dr Stupid, on Sun, I'm working on something about exactly what you are puzzling
over, but here's a hint: how did Caldera/SCO talk about Linux over the years?
What are you Dr of, by the way?
pj • 8/2/03; 9:52:33 AM
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 09:49 PM EDT |
| PJ, I think I can guess what you're driving at... Caldera hoped that companies
would flock to buy their per-seat Linux distro, but when it sold like cold rat
pies they got into a sulk. Sun hoped that pushing Linux would lever users into
Solaris on x86 and SPARC, but it has't worked out that way...
McNealy (in penguin suit): Linux is great!
User : Yes it is isn't it - I just dled some ISOs last night.
McNealy : But that's not *our* Linux! Errr.... Linux sucks! It's a toy!
User : That's a shame you feel that way. Looks like you won't be getting any of
my IT business.
McNealy (panicking) : Linux is great! Look, I'm wearing a red hat and
bad-mouthing Bill Gates! Isn't that cool!
User : You really don't get it do you? Now please get out of my way, I have some
installs to do.
McNealy : But.. but... if you install Linux, evil lawyer spirits will destroy
you! Your hair will fall out, and your teeth turn green!
User : Are you feeling alright?
McNealy: Linux is irrelevant! And useless! By the way, please buy our Linux.
Oh, and I'm not a real doctor - only one year's postgrad - please don't sute me!
Dr Stupid • 8/2/03; 11:19:21 AM
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 09:49 PM EDT |
| Exactement, Dr Stupid. You got it. Plus one other other thought, but you'll
have to wait 'til I write it.
I didn't actually think you were a "real doctor", but I was just wondering about
the handle.
pj • 8/2/03; 11:44:16 AM
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 09:49 PM EDT |
This is off-topic, but the origin of the handle is the "Ask Dr Stupid" sections
that popped up in a couple of Ren and Stimpy episodes. At one point I was
getting so many tech support questions from colleagues at work that I started
playing the intro "and now, ask Dr Stupid, with your host, Dr Stupid" down the
phone at them..
Dr Stupid • 8/2/03; 12:38
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 09:50 PM EDT |
| Hi pj,
As a recent linux convert I want to thank you for your superlative efforts in
tracking this whole mess. I have a couple of links to share and I appologize if
they are redundant. The editor of this website really hits the nail on the head
with these columns. The first is called "SCO: Death without dignity" and can be
found at:
http://aaxnet.com/editor/edit032.ht
ml
The second is called "2003 and beyond" and deals with what microsoft is planning
to do "to" it's customers, but linux is mentioned prominently. It's at:
http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/ed
it029.html
The thing that interests me most is Suns' position right now. Microsoft has
their Unix services for Windows which obstensibly lets Unix apps run on a
Windows based platform ( maybe this is one reason they paid SCO for a Unix
license ?). I think Sun is going to have to make it's mind up soon where it
stands on the open source movement or they'll get squeezed in the linux/ms vise.
Best Regards,
Ron
rb • 8/2/03; 1:05:07 PM
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 09:50 PM EDT |
| I was under the impression Unix services for Windows was about connectivity
Windows NT supported some degree of Posix since about 1992. However as it
doesn't support Unix binaries to my knowledge, they would require recompiling.
quatermass • 8/2/03; 1:46:44 PM
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 09:51 PM EDT |
| PJ, (and anyone else) This is a little off topic, but how hard do you think IBM
will end up hitting SCO? Will they simply employ minimal effort and brush them
off, or will they reach for their patents portfolio, countersue, and make an
example of McBride and Co?
It seems to me that making an example of SCO is a better option in business
terms. It would certainly be better for both Linux and any company which would
prefer to use Open Source to commodify software.
And if they don't stomp SCO, why not?
Alex
Alex Roston • 8/2/03; 4:04:06 PM
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 09:52 PM EDT |
| Win/Unix
http://w
ww.microsoft.com/catalog/display.asp?subid=22&site=11269
If you read the first paragraph of the benefits section, or actually the whole
thing, win/unix connectivity doesn't look like all that it does. Especially the
part about "reusing code which you can now run on windows".
rb
rb • 8/2/03; 6:22:47 PM
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 09:52 PM EDT |
| Review here http://www.pcmag.com/ar
ticle2/0,4149,54081,00.asp http://www.osnews.com/story.
php?news_id=3821 http://www.pcquest.
com/content/software/102101101.asp
The Interix part (first two links) does sound like it has some ability to run
Unix applications, so I guess I was wrong about.
However, I would still say the package sounds like mainly about connectivity nad
interoperability.
quatermass • 8/2/03; 7:35:03 PM
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 09:53 PM EDT |
| Review here http://www.pcmag.com/ar
ticle2/0,4149,54081,00.asp http://www.osnews.com/story.
php?news_id=3821 http://www.pcquest.
com/content/software/102101101.asp
The Interix part (first two links) does sound like it has some ability to run
Unix applications, so I guess I was wrong about.
However, I would still say the package sounds like mainly about connectivity nad
interoperability.
quatermass • 8/2/03; 7:35:07 PM
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 09:53 PM EDT |
| Review here http://www.pcmag.com/ar
ticle2/0,4149,54081,00.asp http://www.osnews.com/story.
php?news_id=3821 http://www.pcquest.
com/content/software/102101101.asp
The Interix part (first two links) does sound like it has some ability to run
Unix applications, so I guess I was wrong about.
However, I would still say the package sounds like mainly about connectivity nad
interoperability.
quatermass • 8/2/03; 7:35:10 PM
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 09:53 PM EDT |
| Hi quatermass,
I downloaded and installed version 3.0 on a win2k box. The first thing
interesting to note is that you have to accept both a microsoft eula AND the GPL
before you can install the services. Once installed you get a very nice unix
filesystem layout complete with things like cshell, kornshell, and gcc. I tried
downloading and installing apache and it got through the configure part OK but
blew up half way through make (thank god). I havn't read through all the license
stuff yet, but most certainly there is GPL'd software included in this and it
most certainly is being designed to not only interconnect with unix based
systems but to compile and run unix applications.
PJ's comments about heyenas are aprapo.
rb
rb • 8/2/03; 9:02:12 PM
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 02 2003 @ 09:56 PM EDT |
| As you probably noticed, all the comments disappeared again, when I posted
Sunday's article. I was able to use my history cache to save them, and I've put
them all back in, one by one. That's why you see my initials at the end of
each, in case you were wondering.
I am sorry I haven't had time to read them all yet, but I will get to them in
time. I got the archives page closer to up-to-date, and between that, this, and
the article I just posted, I'm out of time. Anyway, talk among yourselves. :
)
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 03 2003 @ 07:47 PM EDT |
| JFS was originally contributed by IBM in February of 2000 which was before any
2.4 kernel. The first JFS code appears to be targeted at the 2.2.12 kernel.
htt
p://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/jfs/index2.html
http://lwn.net/2000/feat
ures/Timeline/?month=all
The earliest kernel that RCU seems to have been made available for is 2.4.1
however the paper from Sequent appears to have been made public in 1998 and not
by IBM (although IBM did acquire Sequent so if Sequent violated their contract
does that make IBM liable after the fact?). IBM appears to have done their own
research on it as well.
http://lse.sourceforge.net
/locking/rclock.html
http://www.rdrop.com/users/pau
lmck/rclock/
NUMA also appears to have only been added to the 2.4 kernel and not before (but
I didn't do a lot of reasearch on this one).
http://lse.sourceforge.net/numa/s
tatus/
As mentioned by Tom Carey, the side letter's paragraph 2 indicates that IBM owns
all of their development and modifications. The original contract says more or
less that a SOFTWARE PRODUCT is COMPUTER PROGRAM(S) and their associated data
and docs. The contract also states that a COMPUTER PROGRAM is any instruction
or instructions in source or object code for controlling the operation of a CPU.
This means (to me) that the granularity of a computer program, according to
this contract, can be a single object code instruction. This further means that
every single change, regardless of how small or where, made by IBM is owned by
IBM and ceases to be a part of AT&T's SOFTWARE PRODUCT. Following that, none of
IBM's development is subject to the AT&T contracts. This is further supported
by the amended complaint paragraph 113 that indicates IBM has a separate source
license for IBM code vs. that of AT&T/SCO. If everything was dependant on the
AT&T license then only one license would be needed. Assuming the
above and that IBM only donated code that IBM came up with then it doesn't
appear that IBM violated their agreement (or at least those that have been made
public).
Also mentioned by Tom Carey is paragraph 9 of the side letter that gives IBM
even more rights. Interestingly, SCO's ammended complaint Paragraph 112
mentions the first part of the revised section 7.06(a) that helps their case and
ignores the rest that they don't like which is:
Nothing in this agreement shall prevent LICENSEE from developing or marketing
products or services employing ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques relating
to data processing embodied in SOFTWARE PRODUCTS sujbect to this agreement,
provided that LICENSEE shall not copy any code from such SOFTWEARE PRODUCTS into
any such product or in connection with any such services and employees of
LICENSEE shall not refer to the physical documents and materials comprising
SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject to this Agreement when they are developing any such
products or services or providing any such service. If information releating to
a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this agreement at any time becomes available
without restriction to the general public by acts not attributable to LICENSEE
or its employees, LICENSEE's obligations under this section shall not apply to
such information after such time.
This appears to free IBM to use whatever they want except actual source as long
as they don't refer to physical docs. A potential loophole is the physical bit
- if IBM has the source and/or docs on line (electronic docs), could they then
reference them? In any case, any sort of trade secrets claim is pretty much
blown away.
It seems to me that as Caldera purchased SCO before the 2.4.0 kernel came out
(Aug-Oct. 2000 vs. Jan. 2001), if they were truly interested in maintaining the
value of their Unix IP, they should have immediately started making noise about
any infringements such as JFS and immediately ceased any distribution until
everything was settled instead of waiting 2.5 years. Saying they were "tricked"
is just so pathetic. It smacks of incompetance and lack of due diligence (and
just plain intelligence).
For amusement from the SEC filing for the Caldera purchase of SCO (approx.
August-October 2000). The best one is last.
http://www.freeedgar.com/search/ViewFilingsData.asp?CI
K=1102542&Directory=950134&Year=00&SECIndex=6197&Extension=.tst&PathFlag=0&nStar
tLoc=906&nEndLoc=22675&TextFileSize=22691&DateFiled=8/2/2000&FormType=425&SFType
=425&SDFiled=8/2/2000&tabletype=1&tablename=&SourcePage=FilingsResults&OEMSource
=&UseFrame=1&CompanyName=CALDERA+SYSTEMS+INC
12. How does this help Caldera, Inc. competitively?
Caldera, Inc. will be able to make the most of the synergies between the
two existing companies, resulting in:
o World's largest channel,
o Increased breadth of product options and accelerate Linux technology
plans,
o OEM's can now get scalability of product, professional consulting and
engineering services and instant global marketplace,
o World-class global services and support infrastructure
25. Is the new company planning to participate in the IA64 Linux Project?
Yes. Both Caldera Systems and the Server Software Division have
participated in the development of the IA64 Linux Project and will
continue
to collaborate as Caldera, Inc.
31. How will this affect the Linux industry/community?
Caldera, Inc. intends to unify the technologies of Linux and UNIX
enhancing
the attractiveness to Linux and business customers. In addition, Caldera,
Inc. will. provide open access to those technologies, greatly benefiting
the Linux community and industry.
Alan Pinkerton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 03 2003 @ 08:09 PM EDT |
Just noticed that Caldera didn't complete the purchase of SCO until May 2001.
Even so, they should have acted much more quickly if they were concerned about
their IP.
Alan Pinkerton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 11:03 PM EDT |
| Folks:
Re the side letter: Paragraph 2 says: Re sect 2.01 ,
we [ATT] agree that modifications and derivative works
prepared by or for you are owned by you [IBM]. However,
ownership of any portion or portions of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS
included in any such modification or derivative work
remains with us [ATT].
Software product is defined in exhibit A as:
SOFTWARE PRODUCT means materials such as COMPUTER PROGRAMS...
COMPUTER PROGRAM is defined as: any instruction or instructions
in source or object code format for controlling the operation
of a CPU...
It appears to me then, that the side letter
really says -- all derivitives that consist of
computer programs remain with ATT.
How can it be read otherwise?
Bob Acker
Bob Acker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
