|
|
| Novell Registers UNIX System V Copyrights - Dueling Copyrights |
 |
|
Monday, December 22 2003 @ 09:18 AM EST
|
UPDATE: 3:57 PM Dec. 22 Novell has confirmed our report of this morning, stating: "PROVO, Utah — Dec. 22, 2003 — Novell believes it owns the copyrights in UNIX, and has applied for and received copyright registrations pertaining to UNIX consistent with that position. Novell detailed the basis for its ownership position in correspondence with SCO. Copies of our correspondence, and SCO's reply, are available here. Contrary to SCO's public statements, as demonstrated by this correspondence, SCO has been well aware that Novell continues to assert ownership of the UNIX copyrights." And Linus enters the fray. It may be neither SCO nor Novell own these particular files. And an attorney confirms the significance of Novell's copyright on SCO's claims.
******************************************
ORIGINAL REPORT Dec. 22 9:18 AM:
Novell has registered for the copyrights on UNIX System V 2, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.2/386, 4.0, 4.1, 4.1ES, 4.1ES/386, 4.2, and 4.2MP with the U.S. Copyright Office. Now both the SCO Group and Novell have registered for UNIX System V copyrights for the same code, although it appears that Novell has a few that SCO does not. SCO registered on July 7 and 9, 2003 for 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2. On October 14, Novell registered copyrights on UNIX Sytem V 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2, 3.2/386, and 4.1ES. They registered for 4.2 on September 22, 2003. They registered on December 10 for 4.0 and 4.1. [1] The registrations appear to be identical except that SCO mostly lists AT&T as the author and Novell lists Unix System Laboratories, Inc.; SCO claims "New Matter: revisions" and Novell claims "New Matter: additions and revisions."
What does it mean? It indicates to me that Novell must believe that it is the rightful copyright owner of UNIX System V 2, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.2/386, 4.0, 4.1, 4.1ES, 4.1ES/386, 4.2, and 4.2MP and not SCO.
Just registering a copyright does not mean it is valid. At this point, we appear to have dueling copyright claims. When there is a dispute, it is decided in a courtroom. Now, I am not a lawyer, as you know, and we don't yet know what code SCO is complaining about, but here is a question or two for you lawyers out there: can SCO sue for copyright infringement of System V code if their claim to ownership in the copyright to UNIX System V is in dispute? And is it in dispute, or could they both have valid claims? I know if I got one of SCO's threatening letters, if it was about UNIX System V code, those are the first questions I would ask my lawyer.
If you want to see the Novell registrations for yourself, go to the US Copyright Office web site, choose "Registrations and Copyrights", then choose "Books, Music, etc.", then choose "Title" and type in "UNIX System V" without quotation marks, and click on "Search". You will see a list with boxes. Choose only the boxes that are for UNIX System V and not the manuals, choosing "Brief Display". The first 6 are manuals and the 7th is Sun's copyright, TX-3-613-707: SPARCworks/ADA. CLNA: acSun Microsystems, Inc.
Numbers 8-14 are the ones you want to focus on:
ITEM 8. TX-5-750-269: UNIX system V : release 3.1. CLNA: the SCO Group, Inc.
ITEM 9. TX-5-750-270: UNIX system V : release 3.0. CLNA: the SCO Group, Inc.
ITEM 10. TX-5-750-271: UNIX system V : release 3.2. CLNA: the SCO Group, Inc.
ITEM 11. TX-5-803-363: UNIX System V : release 3.2. CLNA: Novell, Inc.
ITEM 12. TX-5-803-364: UNIX System V : release 3.0. CLNA: Novell, Inc.
ITEM 13. TX-5-803-365: UNIX System V : release 3.1. CLNA: Novell, Inc.
ITEM 14. TX-5-803-367: UNIX System V : release 3.2/386. CLNA: Novell, Inc.
If you run the same search asking for full information instead of the brief summary, you get this:
8. Registration Number: TX-5-750-269
Title: UNIX system V : release 3.1.
Description: Computer program.
Note: Printout (source code) only deposited.
Claimant: the SCO Group, Inc.
Created: 1987
Published: 30Apr87
Registered: 7Jul03
Author on © Application: computer program: AT&T (employer for hire)
Previous Related Version: Prev. reg. 1992, TXu 510-028.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: revisions.
Miscellaneous: C.O. corres.
Special Codes: 1/C
9. Registration Number: TX-5-750-270
Title: UNIX system V : release 3.0.
Description: Computer program.
Note: Printout (source code) only deposited.
Claimant: the SCO Group, Inc.
Created: 1986
Published: 23May86
Registered: 7Jul03
Author on © Application: computer program: AT&T (employer for hire)
Previous Related Version: Prev. reg. 1992, TXu 510-028.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: revisions.
Miscellaneous: C.O. corres.
Special Codes: 1/C
10. Registration Number: TX-5-750-271
Title: UNIX system V : release 3.2.
Description: Computer program.
Note: Printout (source code) only deposited.
Claimant: the SCO Group, Inc.
Created: 1988
Published: 14Apr88
Registered: 7Jul03
Author on © Application: computer program: AT&T (employer for hire)
Previous Related Version: Prev. reg. 1992, TXu 510-028.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: revisions.
Miscellaneous: C.O. corres.
Special Codes: 1/C
11. Registration Number: TX-5-803-363
Title: UNIX System V : release 3.2.
Description: Computer program.
Note: Printout (source code) only deposited.
Claimant: Novell, Inc.
Created: 1988
Published: 14Apr88
Registered: 14Oct03
Date in © Notice: notice: 1984
Author on © Application: program: UNIX System Laboratories, Inc., employer for hire.
Previous Related Version: Prev. reg. 1992, TXu 510-028.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: additions & revisions.
Miscellaneous: C.O. corres.
Special Codes: 1/C
12. Registration Number: TX-5-803-364
Title: UNIX System V : release 3.0.
Description: Computer program.
Note: Printout (source code) only deposited.
Claimant: Novell, Inc.
Created: 1986
Published: 23May86
Registered: 14Oct03
Date in © Notice: notice: 1984
Author on © Application: program: UNIX System Laboratories, Inc., employer for hire.
Previous Related Version: Prev. reg. 1992, TXu 510-028.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: additions & revisions.
Miscellaneous: C.O. corres.
Special Codes: 1/C
13. Registration Number: TX-5-803-365
Title: UNIX System V : release 3.1.
Description: Computer program.
Note: Printout (source code) only deposited.
Claimant: Novell, Inc.
Created: 1987
Published: 30Apr87
Registered: 14Oct03
Date in © Notice: notice: 1984
Author on © Application: program: UNIX System Laboratories, Inc., employer for hire.
Previous Related Version: Prev. reg. 1992, TXu 510-028.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: additions & revisions.
Miscellaneous: C.O. corres.
Special Codes: 1/C
14. Registration Number: TX-5-803-367
Title: UNIX System V : release 3.2/386.
Description: Computer program.
Note: Printout (source code) only deposited.
Claimant: Novell, Inc.
Created: 1988
Published: 18Jul88
Registered: 14Oct03
Author on © Application: program: UNIX System Laboratories, Inc., employer for hire.
Previous Related Version: Prev. reg. 1992, TXu 510-028.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: additions & revisions.
Special Codes: 1/C
Novell has also registered for UNIX System V 4.0 and 4.1, although the records are not in the electronic database yet, and for 4.2, which is:
Registration Number: TX-5-789-381
Title: UNIX System V/386 release 4.2.
Description: Computer program.
Note: Printout (71 p.) only deposited.
Claimant: Novell, Inc.
Created: 1992
Published: 25Jun92
Registered: 22Sep03
Author on Application: UNIX System Laboratories, Inc., employer for hire.
Previous Related Version: Prev. reg. 1992, TXu 510-028.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: additional, new & rev. progamming text.
Special Codes: 1/C
All refer to TXu-510-028:
Title: UNIX.
Edition: 5th ed.
Note: Computer program; with programmer's manual by K. Thompson, D. M. Ritchie.
Claimant: Unix System Laboratories, Inc.
Created: 1973
Registered: 25Mar92
Title on © Application: UNIX operating system.
Author on © Application: American Telephone & Telegraph Company (employer for hire)
Miscellaneous: C.O. corres.
Special Codes: 1/C
If you next run a search for SCO Group, as Claimant, you find that they also registered for UNIX System V 4.0, 4.1, and 4.1ES, which Novell has not, at least not that I could find yet, and they registered for 3.2/386:
Registration Number: TX-5-750-268
Title: UNIX system V release 3.2/386.
Description: Computer program.
Note: Printout (20 p.) only deposited.
Claimant: the SCO Group, Inc.
Created: 1988
Published: 18Jul88
Registered: 9Jul03
Author on © Application: AT&T, employer for hire.
Previous Related Version: Prev. reg. 1992, TXu 510-028.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: revisions.
Miscellaneous: C.O. corres.
Special Codes: 1/C
Credit goes to Rand McNatt for finding the initial registrations and to Harlan Wilkerson for obtaining the Novell-SCO agreements that caused Rand to run the search, and to Vince Negri for helping me to expand the research.
[1] You won't find this information about 4.0 and 4.1 in the electronic database yet. A very pleasant specialist in the Copyright Office named Denise helped me to find it. Thank you, Denise. In about a month, it will be there.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Drew on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 07:16 AM EST |
Holy Moly,
this is a surprise. ;) My first thoughts on this are:
good:
-it can only strengthen IBM and the OS position, especially with
Novell´s aquisition of SuSE.
bad:
-this might mean that the whole mess gets dragged on and on and on
instead of a swift resolution. A lot depends on SCO´s copyright claims
which someone said had been filed already but noone seems to have
seen. *If* they file such a claim I´m sure this case would have to be
decided first, or could this be included in the current litigation
process?
Now PJ, looks like you have good connections to analysists for today´s
conference call. And this might be something that SCO is not yet aware
of, that´d be a nice bombshell to drop during the call to have a
question about this thrown in. What do the others think? Is it too late
for that?
Andreas[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MathFox on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 07:36 AM EST |
My congratulations go to AT&T, Novell, SCO and all their accomplices for
creating such a tangled intellectual property mess.
</sarcasm>
This certainly is support for IBM in their claim that SCO doesn't have property
rights on SysV code. The fight about the copyrights will be between Novell and
SCO. (It could be another fun fight to watch.)
It will mean that SCO will have to come with very specific code samples (clear
history and such) when it wants to extract money from Linux users. It certainly
raises the bar for SCO in an infringement lawsuit.
It is very difficult to predict who will eventually get the copyrights, without
seeing all contracts between Novell and SCO. Anyway, at least one of the
copyright claims is false. (Is there a penalty for lying to the copyright
office?)
---
MathFox gets rabid from SCO's actions.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fjaffe on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 07:44 AM EST |
All of these refer to TXu-510-028. That is Title:
UNIX.
Edition: 5th ed.
Note: Computer program; with programmer's
manual by K. Thompson, D. M. Ritchie.
Claimant: Unix System Laboratories,
Inc.
Created: 1973
Registered: 25Mar92
Title on © Application:
UNIX operating system.
Author on © Application: American Telephone
& Telegraph Company (employer for hire)
Miscellaneous: C.O.
corres.
Special Codes: 1/C
Also notice the
claims Novell:Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: additions &
revisions.
SCO: Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: revisions. IANAL,
but there must be some significance to the difference in claims, where Novell is
claiming Additions and SCO is not. Further, since these cover "Revisions",
wouldn't that severely limit the protection afforded to "methods", since the
revisions are (possibly) derivative works? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fjaffe on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 07:58 AM EST |
It occurs to me that this is likely done by Novell in preparation for an
eventual lawsuit with SCO, or as part of some agreement with IBM regarding the
current SCO v. IBM lawsuit.
I also noticed that SCO filed for Releases 4.0, 4.1, 4.1ES and 4.2, while Novell
did not. Perhaps these are the only releases that occurred after the Asset
Purchase Agreement?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ruidh on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:07 AM EST |
| A copyright registration is required before filing a copyright infringement
suit. A registration is prima facie evidence of a vilid copyright. This
means that the court assumes a rebuttable presumption that the copyright is
valid. A defandant in such a suit may bring ewvidence that the copyright
registration somehow not valid.
By registering this copyright, Novell has
given some ammunition to anyone facing a copyright infringement suit by SCO. All
they have to do is point to Novell's registration for a piece of evidence to
rebut SCO.
SOmeone's going to have to pay in the end. There are penalties
for filing a fraudulent copyright registration.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:09 AM EST |
As a part-time photographer who has never registered any copyrights for my
photos my understanding of the process is a little sketchy.
My understanding that the process is this:
You fill out some forms.
You deposit a copy of the material with the copyright office.
You pay a fee.
That's it. Right?
Ok, so what happens to that copy of the material that you deposited? Is it
available through the Library of Congress?
Would it be possible for a researcher to view the material?
And, I'm assuming any Trade Secrets contained in the material are not very
secret any more.
Just wondering. Thanks.
Bill Sylvester
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:11 AM EST |
Even if Novell holds these copyrights, SCO is still bound as a "successor
in interest" to the Novell/USL v. BSDI/Berkeley settlement - whoch means
it cannot sue users of Berkeley-Unix derivatives for violating Novell/USl Unix
copyrights. So SCO is toast. Eventually. But this stuff takes YEARS to grind
through the legal system.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:13 AM EST |
"can SCO sue for copyright infringement of System V code if their claim to
ownership in the copyright to UNIX System V is in dispute"
They can SUE ... but it's going to be really hard to win any damages, and
really easy for the target of the suit to point ot the copyrights and say
"it has disputed ownership, please prove that you own this stuff and get
back to me latre". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:19 AM EST |
A good time to revisit Novell's
statement of May 2003:
> news > press room
Press Release
Novell Challenges SCO Position, Reiterates Support for
Linux
PROVO, Utah — May 28, 2003 — Defending its interests in developing
services to operate on the Linux platform, Novell today issued a dual challenge
to The SCO Group over its recent statements regarding its UNIX ownership and
potential intellectual property rights claims over Linux.
First, Novell
challenged SCO's assertion that it owns the copyrights and patents to UNIX
System V, pointing out that the asset purchase agreement entered into between
Novell and SCO in 1995 did not transfer these rights to SCO. Second, Novell
sought from SCO facts to back up its assertion that certain UNIX System V code
has been copied into Linux. Novell communicated these concerns to SCO via a
letter (text below) from Novell® Chairman and CEO Jack Messman in response to
SCO making these claims.
"To Novell's knowledge, the 1995 agreement
governing SCO's purchase of UNIX from Novell does not convey to SCO the
associated copyrights," Messman said in the letter. "We believe it unlikely that
SCO can demonstrate that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those
copyrights. Apparently you share this view, since over the last few months you
have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO, requests that
Novell has rejected."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rakaz on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:24 AM EST |
Very interesting! It seems that Novell agrees with me and several other posters
here on Groklaw that SCO never bought the System V copyrights... Hmm, perhaps
Novell also reads Groklaw :)
My theory posted on December 8, can be found here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031208000408482#c33160[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mac586 on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:24 AM EST |
SCO is surrounded on all fronts.
1. The RedHat suit ties their hands, because many actions they would like to
take against Linux would lend further creedance to RedHat's claims.
2. With IBM, they have to show the code with specificity as defined by IBM and
directed by Judge Wells
3. Any introduction of copyright infringement against IBM is now muddied by
Novell's copyright filings.
How many options remain for SCO? Their windfall from the RBC/Baystar investment
will disappear very quickly, and these case should prevent them from earning any
immediate gains from the user community.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jtsteward on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:26 AM EST |
I see a /. day coming on!
WOW What a day!
And we are not even at the conference call yet!
I guess I have a few years to run Linux before I need to worry about SCO, not
that I was worried to begin with.
I respect IP, not BS
---
-------------------------------------------------
Darl needs more bullets, he keeps hitting his foot but he won't go down[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:38 AM EST |
| Why didnt we know this earlier? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Marc Duflot on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:43 AM EST |
| SCO did also register version 4.2:
Registration Number:
TX-5-762-235
Title: UNIX System V : release 4.2.
Description:
Computer program.
Note: Printout (20 p.) only deposited.
Claimant:
SCO Group, Inc.
Created: 1992
Published: 25Jun92
Registered:
3Jul03
Author on © Application: UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
(employer for hire)
Previous Related Version: Prev. reg. 1992, TXu
510-028 et al.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: revision.
Special Codes:
1/C
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:44 AM EST |
Just a thought, but:
In order to prove that they own the copyright to SysV, aren't SCO/Novell going
to have to open up that code in court, and *prove its ancestry*? Which is, of
course, exactly what SCO does not wish to have to do with IBM.
Also, another thought: does this have any effect on the status of the
open-sourced ancestral UNIX versions?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsmith on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:45 AM EST |
can SCO sue for copyright infringement of System V code if their
claim to ownership in the copyright to UNIX System V is in dispute? Or do they
need to settle that issue first?
Logic would suggest that the
dispute about ownership of the copyrights should be settled first.
My
brain's parser barfed trying to read the contracts, though.
:-) ---
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by
incompetence. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lnx4me on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 10:48 AM EST |
If one subscribes to the rational market hypothesis, SCO's spin isn't playing
very well --- down $1.03 at 10:32 EST[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:08 AM EST |
The SCO letter is on LWN
http://lwn.net/Articles/64052/
http://lwn.net/images/ns/sco-letter.doc
The letter is signed by Ryan Tibbitts
However the word version, they left the Properties in. And it says Kevin McBride
is the author.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:10 AM EST |
The header files that SCO says are infringing:
include/asm-alpha/errno.h
include/asm-arm/errno.h
include/asm-cris/errno.h
include/asm-i386/errno.h
include/asm-ia64/errno.h
include/asm-m68k/errno.h
include/asm-mips/errno.h
include/asm-mips64/errno.h
include/asm-parisc/errno.h
include/asm-ppc/errno.h
include/asm-ppc64/errno.h
include/asm-s390/errno.h
include/asm-s390x/errno.h
include/asm-sh/errno.h
include/asm-sparc/errno.h
include/asm-sparc64/errno.h
include/asm-x86_64/errno.h
include/asm-alpha/signal.h
include/asm-arm/signal.h
include/asm-cris/signal.h
include/asm-i386/signal.h
include/asm-ia64/signal.h
include/asm-m68k/signal.h
include/asm-mips/signal.h
include/asm-mips64/signal.h
include/asm-parisc/signal.h
include/asm-ppc/signal.h
include/asm-ppc64/signal.h
include/asm-s390/signal.h
include/asm-s390x/signal.h
include/asm-sh/signal.h
include/asm-sparc/signal.h
include/asm-sparc64/signal.h
include/asm-x86_64/signal.h
include/linux/stat.h
include/linux/ctype.h
lib/ctype.c
include/asm-alpha/ioctl.h
include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h
include/asm-arm/ioctl.h
include/asm-cris/ioctl.h
include/asm-i386/ioctl.h
include/asm-ia64/ioctl.h
include/asm-m68k/ioctl.h
include/asm-mips/ioctl.h
include/asm-mips64/ioctl.h
include/asm-mips64/ioctls.h
include/asm-parisc/ioctl.h
include/asm-parisc/ioctls.h
include/asm-ppc/ioctl.h
include/asm-ppc/ioctls.h
include/asm-ppc64/ioctl.h
include/asm-ppc64/ioctls.h
include/asm-s390/ioctl.h
include/asm-s390x/ioctl.h
include/asm-sh/ioctl.h
include/asm-sh/ioctls.h
include/asm-sparc/ioctl.h
include/asm-sparc/ioctls.h
include/asm-sparc64/ioctl.h
include/asm-sparc64/ioctls.h
include/asm-x86_64/ioctl.h
include/linux/ipc.h
include/linux/acct.h
include/asm-sparc/a.out.h
include/linux/a.out.h
arch/mips/boot/ecoff.h
include/asm-sparc/bsderrno.h
include/asm-sparc/solerrno.h
include/asm-sparc64/bsderrno.h
include/asm-sparc64/solerrno.h[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Novell Registers UNIX System V Copyrights - Dueling Copyrights - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:11 AM EST
- Heh - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:17 AM EST
- Heh - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:25 AM EST
- Heh - Authored by: richardpitt on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:14 PM EST
- Heh - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:49 AM EST
- Heh - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:17 PM EST
- Novell Registers UNIX System V Copyrights - Dueling Copyrights - Authored by: Christian on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:56 AM EST
- Novell Registers UNIX System V Copyrights - Dueling Copyrights - Authored by: Dromedary on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:23 PM EST
- Novell Registers UNIX System V Copyrights - Dueling Copyrights - Authored by: eamacnaghten on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:26 PM EST
- Posix Standards from Open Group - Authored by: trox on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:26 PM EST
- Novell Registers UNIX System V Copyrights - Dueling Copyrights - Authored by: coats on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:37 PM EST
- These are in SuS (POSIX) and in ANSI/ISO C - Authored by: Jack Hughes on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 04:10 PM EST
- It's Christmas! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 04:50 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: gadget on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:14 AM EST |
When I saw this, after picking myself up off the floor from my fits of
laughter and howling, initially I wasn't sure I wanted this to happen. What I
mean is I think we all want Linux to be proven to be free and clear of the IP
issue. But then I kind of fell in love with the idea. Novell (whom we somewhat
trust to be one of the good guys), has just entered the ring and is throwing
down another gauntlet making SCAMX prove their ownership of the property they
have so loudly purported to own. Undoubtly, this will cause the IBM suit to
delay until this is settled.
If Novell wins this turf war, I would expect
them to do whatever can be done to make sure this never happens again, by
releasing it to Public Domain or some such remedy. If SCO were to survive long
enough to win, I would expect IBM to crush them.
I would expect to see SCO's
workforce laid off and the company reduced to Darl, Kevin and Blake. They will
be like many of the IP companies we see in the courts that have no workforce
other than executives, lawyers & PR people. That, IMO is the only way I
could see SCO sustain itself financially thru such an expensive ordeal.
Of
course, IANAL, ICBW, & AFAMWICIUA.
I Am Not A Lawyer, I Could Be Wrong,
As Far As My Wife Is Concerned, I Usually Am. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:19 AM EST |
Is this the first that SCO knows of it?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JMonroy on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:27 AM EST |
...and so far it's a deception game. Robert Bench states that 54% (56%?) is from
"UNIX Licensing" for the quarter.
Does that include the Sun and
Microsoft money from previous quarters, but is being booked as revenue this
quarter? I think so, but I am not sure. If so, it's a deception... it makes it
sounds as if they are actively gathering licensing fees in large
quantities.
Some excerpts:
They stated "strong revenue from
their UNIX licensing opportunities"
Darl started rattling of
company names that they license to, in an attempt to prop their importance. He
covered many countries, and is claiming they have a "global
business."
SCO is focused on developing services for "vertical
markets." (???)
They believe many companies will adopt their "copyright
enforcement" model. Hahaha!
He is encouraged by the evidence "they
discovered so far," but no specifics.
He re-iterated the IBM license
cancellation (not news).
He states the use of the "DMCA section 1202"
to enforce their IP against anyone illegally using the ABI.
He states
alot of already known stuff to prop the company before he states the loss for
the quarter. It's quite a bit of hot air.
He stated that companies
must verify their compliance with the SCO agreement, or face loss of rights to
the use of their software (license cancellation).
He brags about
$64 million in cash to move "SCO forward," but fails to mention $50
million is from a single investor.
They are now starting Q&A ...
more later...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lightsail on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:46 AM EST |
Am I missing something?
Did Novell just claim the copyright to the 65 files that SCO currently citing as
evidence of copyright infringment?
SCO states that they were connected to USL-UCB settlement and Novell has
registered copyrights for version of UNIX after the settlement and before the
sale to old SCO, which would include the named files.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JMonroy on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:47 AM EST |
An analyst made Darl squirm when asked about specific numbers from licensing
after they sent out the letters. Wait until the transcript comes out... it's
quite funny. Darl uses words like, "you know" and
"ummmm." (great orator) He obviously skirted the question, and never
did give a good answer. He did say they had companies "with thousands of
linux servers on the bubble" Huh???[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rakaz on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:59 AM EST |
Just in... A loose description of SCO's statement regarding Novell copyright
registrations...
SCO calls the registration of copyrights by Novell "desperate". SCO
claims all rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare. This was later changed to
include copyrights. All copyrights are owned by SCO.
In Novells case it is clear that that Novell gets a lot of money from IBM. SCO
says filing is fraudulent and will take legal action.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:00 PM EST |
So maybe the 65 files were improperly contributed - by a SCO employee
- because the copyrights belong to Novell?
;-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: photocrimes on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:03 PM EST |
I started looking into the files SCO named as violating files.
I started with ioctl.h which has a man named Hennus Bergman from NL (H.H.
Bergman) claiming it as an original Linux work as of 1992?
1992 seems to predate new SCO, Caldera, and the BSD trials.
Anyone else find anything that makes ya go hmmmm?
I'll take a stab at guessing these are things that made it into SCO, not out
of.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:04 PM EST |
| Anyone with the time, head on over to the Yahoo SCOX board
now, as the header-file issue is being torn apart in excruciating detail. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OMG.... - Authored by: pooky on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:41 PM EST
- OMG.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 04:48 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: capn_buzzcut on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:08 PM EST |
Think about it. Since Novell has recently invested the entire future of the
company in Linux, if they could claim ownership of Unix code, what would they do
with it? What if they were to GPL every bit of it? Why wouldn't they? That
would kill many birds with one stone (including SCO and any future competition
from Unix), and at the same time position themselves as savior and benefactor of
Open Source, virtually trumping IBM's contributions and leapfrogging themselves
into first place among Linux companies. Not a bad place to be if you're
Novell.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sinleeh on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:17 PM EST |
Hats up for Novell: This is a clever legal maneuver by Novell designed to
challenge SCO. By registering the copyright:
(1)It challenged SCO to prove that they own the copyright. As PJ said, SCO will
have to sue Novell to clarify ownership in court. Note that it will be difficult
for Novell to claim that it does not know that SCO is claiming copyright, since
Novell fork out the copyright fees after SCO had put their "claim"
in. With the fanfare that SCO generates when it registers the
"copywrong" interest, hence Novell cannot claim that it does not
know about it, unless its lawyers are as incompetent as SCO's
(2)It gives IBM a helping hand in its legal fight. If SCO is ignorant of this,
I'm sure IBM will point it out to them in court. This is clever: at the minimum
IBM prove to the court that SCO claims of copywrong is challenged by a third
party, *and* if SCO did not response to Novell's challenge, it will weaken its
own claims.
(3)By registering copyright instead of challenging SCO in court regarding SCO
copywrong, Novell effectively throws the ball back to SCO. It not saying
"Sue Us if you dare!", but "hey! we claim the copyright too...
what you are going to do about it?" This strikes the bulleye. SCO says
its dead serious about protecting its own IP and by implication, should
demonstrate its seriousness to sue Novell immediately, as this is a blatant
challenge to their "IP".
(4)With duplicate copyright registration, Noell shows that the copyright office
does not vet applications and undermines SCO's claim of legitimacy for the
copywrong by regiestering copyrwrong.
(5)Cheapest option (Only paying for registration fees and not lawyer's fee)
with maximum impact on SCO case. With impact I meant bodily-harm and not the
cheap PR spin favoured by SCO. I like this approach, suit eastern philosophy
very well : "Silent, but deadly *AND* the victim can hardly make a fuss
bout it"
It will be interesting to see how SCO deals with this hot potato.
Note: "copywrong" is a term I used. With copyright, you register
your interest *right*ly, with copywrong, you register your IP *wrong*ly.
Inspired by "copyleft".
---
Best regards,
Sinlee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:19 PM EST |
- Sco is concerned with 43 "header files" which have copyright
notices removed. Failure to remove these header files (which touch almost every
aspect of the program) will be illegal. Removal of these files will likely
render their software unusable.
- Written notices to firms: Firms must certify that they are in compliance by
January or SCO can/will terminate their license to run Unix.
- DMCA copyright violations are INDEPENDENT of the IBM case.
- When asked if they would remove Samba in response to customers removing the
header files, they replied that 'they are not attacking the open source
community' so they see no reason to do this.
- Andy (Shopeg?) asked what their litigation costs were last year and what they
were expected to be next year. They replied that they expected their litigation
costs to increase by about 1-2 million more per quarter.
-Dion from Dekator? Jones asked how many letters were responded to. darl said
they sat down with 12-15 Linux users, several people signed up, others said
they
would no longer use Linux, and others said they will wait and see if evidence
supports their case or IBM case is resolved - majority of them were in the last
category.
- Once people have received these letters, they will have become 'willful'
voilators, and will thus be liable for more monetary damages.
- Robert Phillips asked where the 65 files could be listed for review, Darl said
they would be listed on their website within two hours.
[END OF QUESTIONS]
- Darl continued that "Novell snuck into the copyright office" and
tried to file things behind their back....they think they are up to funny
business, they are funded by IBM, they have FRAUDULENT filing attempts.
[end of call]
Mike A.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:30 PM EST |
Is Novell gearing up for a direct confrontation with SCOG? Since they have
"re-registered" the copyrights to Unix, it would seem that this is
in preparation for a legal fight over ownership of the copyrights.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=23
The timeframe was that Novell sent a letter to SCOG in May claiming Novell still
owned the copyrights, SCO then sent a letter to Novell with an
"amendment" that claims to have transferred the Unix copyrights,
which Novell then said appears to give SCO the rights but they don't have any
such amendment in their files.
By re-registering the Unix copyrights, it would seem that Novell doesn't
believe the contract amendment with SCO (which I can't find anywhere on-line,
if someone knows please post a link) is valid or genuine.
So if SCOG attempts to bring a copyright infringement claim against anyone,
might Novell step into the mix?
-pooky
---
IANAL, etc...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: codepunk on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:32 PM EST |
Does this mean that Novell has secured the means by which to sue SCO for breach
of contract or copyright violation. Perhaps Novell is going to turn around now
and sue SCO for releasing old SYS V code under a open source license. If it was
copyrighted by novell what right did caldera have to Open Source the code?
<b>Interesting?</b>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mnuttall on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:35 PM EST |
| For the lazy, Yahoo! SCOX has found a copy of "the letter" in two parts here and here . The files appear
to be header (.h) files dating back to the BSDI settlement. DMCA is invoked. As
the Yahoo! SCOX folk are saying, it's "unbelievable". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stefan on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:41 PM EST |
Can SCO really afford to fight Novell, IBM, Red Hat and various "copyright
offenders" in court. I thought the US legal system was supposed to be very
expensive. How much will all those lawyers cost? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:54 PM EST |
The U.S. Copyright Office says this on their FAQ page to copyright
registration:
In general, copyright registration is a legal formality
intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright.
However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though
registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides
several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make
registration. Among these advantages are the following:
* Registration
establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
* Before an
infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of
U. S. origin.
* If made before or within 5 years of publication,
registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the
copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
* If registration is
made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement
of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the
copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and
profits is available to the copyright owner.
This doesn't look good
for SCO in any case... no prima facie evidence (everyone can simply challenge
their copyright by saying "proof it!") plus there is no claim of statutory
damages and attorney's fees possible.
Andre [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mac586 on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 12:57 PM EST |
| At the press conference, Darl said Novell's copyright claims were fraudulent.
He then used a metaphor:
"All hat and no cows"
Obviously Darl has
the hat and the cows.
Otherwise, where would all the
BS come from? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:02 PM EST |
Looks like from the comments on Yahoo message boards that Darl basically
stated they are going to litigate against Novell over the copyright issue. I
have't seen a transcript yet, but there are numerous mentions of Darl responding
to a question about the copyrights where he states they will resolve the problem
legally...
Is there anyone SCOG doesn't plan on
suing?
-pooky ---
IANAL, etc... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:04 PM EST |
Novell has been a really interesting player in this.
I firmly believe they do not want to sue anyone because the intellectual rights
around Unix are so muddy. The competing copyright claim fairly represents how
complicated the issues here are. The soundbite press will now respond to SCO
copyright claims saying, "this is contested by Novell", and the FUD
will fly less far.
My reading of the issue is that the person who tries to sue will fail becaue the
confusion is so deep and asserting clear rights will be rejected.
SCO walked through an open door because every sane company had abandonned this
mire. Left alone they convinced themselves it was simple. Now I hope they crash
and burn.
bv[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:11 PM EST |
SCO does have a completly legal claim!! UNIX CODES EXISTS IN LINUX!!! And here
it is:
if{
There! We have it![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:32 PM EST |
Folks:
SCO is trying to pump up the stock price for year-end window dressing. No doubt
Lyons, Didio, et al will be there for a piece of the action.
Also curious to know how Kevin McBride actually made it through law school.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:33 PM EST |
Anyone know if Darl's bodyguards were there? Were the attendees searched for
weapons?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 01:41 PM EST |
Has it occured to anyone else, perhaps in one of your more paranoid fits, that
it's getting a little unnerving with these giants clammoring to buy into and
defend something that the majority of the industry still thinks is a hobbyist
toy and in some cases much much worse?
I don't like these bottom line driven entities circling their wagons around my
Linux. It sets my gen-x sense a-tingling. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:14 PM EST |
http://tinyurl.com/38g8t
this fight could get even more twisted
sigh
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:22 PM EST |
Novell have issued a press release on the UNIX copyrights http://www.
novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/12/pr03080.html
And they have
also published their correspondance with http://www.novel
l.com/news/press/archive/2003/12/sco.pdf
They basically say Novell
owns the copyrights, not SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NZheretic on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:46 PM EST |
| The SCO Group cannot expect to win any case based upon application interfaces
which it's AT&T, USL and Novell predecessors relased in open standards
specifically for the purpose of interoperability.
sign
al.h, error
no.h,and
ioctl are all parts of many released standards including The Open Group and
IEEE POSIX Base Specifications and the Federal
Information
Processing Standards Publication 151-2.
Note that The SCO
Group does not own the copyrights on any of those standards and it does not own clear title to the
copyrights on most of the AT&T Unix base. From 1989, the then SCO
activity pushed for the adoption of the iBCS Intel Binary Compatibility
Specifications across *all*
i386 Unix vendors For the benefit of the entire user base, as
well as the industry as awhole, SCO encourages all UNIX System vendors for Intel
processors to join SCO, USL, Intel, ISC and OSF in supporting the iBCS-2
standard for x86 applications.
In LOTR:ROTK there is a seen
where the souls of dead men rise up in mass to totally overwhelm the enemy in
anwser to a broken promise. Such a fate awaits the SCO Groups claims. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:01 PM EST |
Hey that's last exit Brooklyn for NoWell.
They absolutly brain dead.
How comes they missed every boat ?
They were king off the hill with NetWare and lost it against wnt.
They owed Unix and sold it.
Now they riding the Lius bs wave.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:06 PM EST |
Merry Christmas, SCO. Now you don't even own copyrights to UNIX.
http://www.novel
l.com/news/press/archive/2003/12/sco.pdf[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stefan on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:25 PM EST |
Damning evidence against SCO claims!
by: tds450scope 12/22/03 02:37 pm
Msg: 74550 of 74601
July 22, 1999
To All Licensees, Distributors of Any Version of BSD:
As you know, certain of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD")
source code files require that further distributions of products containing all
or portions of the software, acknowledge within their advertising materials that
such products contain software developed by UC Berkeley and its contributors.
Specifically, the provision reads:
" * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes software developed by the University of
* California, Berkeley and its contributors."
Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to
include the acknowledgement within advertising materials. Accordingly, the
foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted in
its entirety.
William Hoskins
Director, Office of Technology Licensing
University of California, Berkeley
There is nothing else in the BSD license that prevents the code from being
relicenced under the GPL, and even if there were the idea that SCO has the right
to enforce UC Berkeley's copyright and license terms is absurd.
SCO **LOSES** again - they didnt do their research![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:27 PM EST |
If any Linux user receiving this letter fancies seeking a declarative judgement,
SCO just supplied some useful ammunition:
http://www.enterprise-linux-it.com/story.xhtml?story_title=SCO_Issues_New_Warnin
g_to_Linux_Users
"The message we are communicating is that companies waiting for a court
ruling in the IBM case are mistaken," said Stowell. Whereas the IBM action
focuses on a contract agreement, SCO is now targeting all Linux commercial
end-users in a copyright case, he said.
The same link also has some DiDio quotes, one of which suggests that SCO came up
with this list for the IBM case originally.
That ruling, in large part, prompted the latest action by SCO, said Yankee Group
analyst Laura DiDio. "As the deadline approaches, they have to show what
copyrights were violated. SCO is letting people know they are getting more
serious about this issue and that they feel they have a strong position,"
she told NewsFactor.
"Overall, though, what SCO is doing is not a bad thing. They are getting
proof that users are abiding by the law," said DiDio. "The Linux
community has to play by the rules." With 6,000 licensees there is a lot
of money at stake for SCO, she added. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RichMan on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 03:39 PM EST |
What with the latest round of threats, RedHat and Novell(ne SUSE) are getting in
better and better position to claim "restraint of trade" against SCO
for the harrasment of their customers. What exactly is the legal term foundation
for this?
SCO is going to have to come up with VERY GOOD proof or face damage claims from
lots of people. Certainly this latest claim should be enough to get a
restraining order in place -> SCO shut up until you prove something.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 04:00 PM EST |
IBM and Novell have both walked the good walk, and fought the good fight.
But let's remember that that Caldera contributed good work to Linux, and their
past management "got it" a lot more than current management seems
to.
What happens after SCO is feeding the fishes? Let's say that
Novell owns the Unix copyrights and IBM continues to own a patent portfolio,
containing various patents that might well be applicable to code in
Linux.
We trust IBM and Novell, we applaud their sane and sensible
participation in preserving free software and open source. But, as members of
this community, we need to make sure they know how essential it is that
they license and contribute that intellectual property in a broad and
unconditional way, so that this won't happen again. We'd all better let
IBM and Novell know that we expect them to take the necessary steps before the
next problem happens.
No large corporation is more than an
unprofitable quarter or two away from developing litigation as a profit
center. If you want to preserve Linux, Apache, GNU, etc., folks, charity
begins at home You're participants in this community. For your own
creditibilty, it's time to get your houses in order and guard against future
abuse.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 04:22 PM EST |
Hi people.
Just another slashdotter here (On behalf of all slashdotters,
sorry about the bandwidth we're taking up). I'm herrvinny from the slashdot
forums.
Just wanted to thank PJ for all the work she's done. And
laugh at SCO because it's time is running out (SCO Countdown).
Thanks again.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 04:23 PM EST |
SCO takes on Linux, because of Unix "infringements". SCO threatens
(with termination of license rights) Unix licensee's. Novell files copyright
for Unix which SCO files copyrights.
Is it me, or is SCO turning UNIX into the hot potato? I would think after all
this, and whever is next, one would stay far away from unix source. Linux is
not slowing down, not in the least.
It would appear now that, like the "viral nature of the GPL" has
been turned to unix itself by SCO. Unix would appear more a liability than
Linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 04:41 PM EST |
As someone who has customers sign software contracts & licences on a regular
basis, I would suggest that there are issues here to do with SCO threatening to
withdraw licencing rights from existing customers;
What revocation clause is there in the licence? The licence normally terminates
without recompense if there is an infringing act by the customer. These are
fairly broad brush in nature, and it may be that SCO has this in mind. There may
also be a contract with SCO that the licence defers to that outlines the
conditions for revocation. Both need to be read together.
Licences are normally sold in perpetuity, although term licences are becoming
more common. If SCO doesn't have enough reason for termination under the
contract or specific licence, then the perpetual rights of the customer to the
product can't be withdrawn arbitrarily. And the opposite is true as well;
examples of infringement include reverse-engineering, copying, use by a third
party, etc.
There may be an argument that this is a variation to the contract; do SCO have
the right to this based on no evidence of wrongdoing?
Perhaps they will argue that this is an assurance that they're seeking from
their customers; but doing it in this shotgun fashion is very strange indeed. I
would expect to get a lawyer's letter based on sending this to my customers.
I'd certainly expect to have a difficult time selling them any more.
Whatever the legal basis, this is commercial suicide.
IANAL, IAJASP
"I am not a lawyer, I am just a sales puke"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seeks2know on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 05:00 PM EST |
A portentious day at the stock market for SCO and Novell:
SCO stock
down $1.07 (5.69%)
Novell stock up $0.45 (4.71%)
SCO's
stock tanked in the early morning with heavy volume prior to
their conference
call.
Novell stock rose late in the day (mostly after 3 pm) subsequent
to
their press release.
A sign of things to come?
---
The
beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question,
and by seeking we may come upon the truth. - Pierre Abelard [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mark_Edwards on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 05:17 PM EST |
I haven't seen these links posted anywhere but it (the
files..) seems to of had some discussion on the kernel
boards...
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.2/1241.html
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.2/1227.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 05:44 PM EST |
Just as there is the old SCO and the new SCO, there is the Old Copyright Law and
the New Copyright Law.
In the United States all written materials are either explicitely under
copyright protection or else they are public domain. There is no third
possibility.
Until the Disney corporation needed an extended copyright to keep milking the
cash cow Mickey Mouse, about to go out of copyright, and subverted congress to
amend the laws, the Old Copyright Law was in effect.
Old Copyright required copyright notices to be affixed to each copy of
copyrighted materials. Lack of such copyright notice caused a forfeiture of
copyright protection and the writing was public domain.
AT&T was excluded by law during it's monopoly long-distance phase from
selling products, and therefore did not see UNIX as a product, and therefore did
not place copyright notices on its code. The code was trade secret, not
copyrighted.
Old copyright Law applied, and AT&T code was public domain but secret. Under
both old and new Copyright Law, public domain writings cannot be converted to
copyright protected status. Once public domain -- forever public domain.
Series of modifications could be copyrighted under Old and New Copyright Law,
but only the specific changes could be copyright protected -- the public domain
residue remained perpetually public domain.
Because code was SECRET, source code was illegally converted from Public Domain
to Copyrighted in an act of fraud preyed upon the copyright registrations
office. While it may not be easy to locate proof of the specific acts of fraud
where public domain files were modified only to the extent that the only
original portion not in the public domain was the copyright notice itself, there
are living witnesses to this fraud.
Removal of copyright notices placed on public domain files serves only the
function of using the public domain portion and refusing to violate the
copyright law by taking the only copyrighted portion which is the copyright
notice itself. There is nothing illegal about taking and using public domain
materials portions from a copyrighted hybrid larger work.
The NEW COPYRIGHT LAW made changes, but cannot be applied retroactively. All
public domain materials prior to that revision remain perpetually public domain.
The new copyright law protects writings from the moment of creation and does not
explicitely require copyright notices to be affixed to enjoy some portion of
automatic protection.
There appear to be predatory disinformation campaigns to defraud the public out
of public domain property owned by the public in perpetuity. Public domain is
specifically your property but not exclusively your property. Thieves are hoping
the MTV attention spans have forgotten the Old Copyright Law, and accept the
fraudulent application of the New Copyright Law, to enable them to steal your
property.
Both SCO and Novell are registering Old Copyright Law code which is largely
public domain and not secret. Merely affixing a copyright notice to public
domain writing is fraudulent, and a violation of the public's property rights
by deceptively appealing to the New Copyright Law.
This is my opinion and statement on this matter.
Sincerely, Lion Kuntz
Santa Rosa, California, USA
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 23 2003 @ 04:08 PM EST |
"All refer to TXu-510-028:"
Should that not have
been
TUX-510-028
;)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
