|
|
| The Copyright Claim, Such As It Is |
 |
|
Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:44 PM EST
|
Here is the copyright claim, with more of the complaint to follow. Note that the $5 billion claim rests in part on "willfulness" because IBM knew that SCO owns the copyrights and yet it continued to distribute AIX after SCO "terminated" their license.
This willfulness might be a tad hard to prove when Novell claims *they* own the copyrights, not SCO. Novell also wrote to SCO and said they had the contractual right to block any termination of AIX distribution, so although SCO is telling reporters that they have upped their demand to $5 billion, they neglect to mention that while you can ask for whatever you like, you can only get what you can prove you are entitled to, and willfulness seems very, very hard, nigh impossible, to prove in such a fact pattern as this. But hey, what do I know? Ask your lawyer. Naturally, the media is breathlessly reporting the $5 billion as if it were a real figure. They certainly make themselves look silly to anyone who understands this story.
Here is the section from the new SCO complaint regarding copyright infringement, which you will notice dates only from SCO's "termination" of IBM's license to distribute AIX, so if that "termination" wasn't valid, poof goes the claim presumably:
******************************************************************
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Copyright Infringement)
173. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs No. 1-172, above.
174. As set forth above, SCO is the successor in interest to the IBM Related Agreements and the Sequent Agreements.
175. Despite termination of such Agreements, IBM has continued to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, and distribute UNIX software, source code, object code, programming tools, and documentation related to UNIX operating system technology, and has induced others to do the same.
176. SCO is the owner of copyright rights to UNIX software, source code, object code, programming tools, documentation related to UNIX operating system technology, and derivative works thereof. These materials are covered by numerous copyright registrations issued by the United States Copyright Office (the "Copyrighted Programs"). These registrations have been obtained by SCO and its predecessors in interest and are owned by SCO. For example, included among such registrations (attached as Exhibits H to U) are the following:
Title Registration Number Registration Date
H - UNIX Operating System Edition TXU-510-028 March 25, 1992
5 and Instruction Manual
I - UNIX Operating System Edition TXu-511-236 April 7, 1992
6 and Instruction Manual
J - UNIX Operating System Edition TXu-516-704 May 15, 1992
32V and Instruction Manual
K - UNIX Operating System Edition TXu-516-705 May 15, 1992
7 and Instruction Manual
L - Operating System Utility Program TXu-301-868 November 25, 1987
M - UNIXWARE 7.1.3 TX 5-787-679 June 11, 2003
N - UNIX System V Release 3.0 TX 5-750-270 July 7, 2003
O - UNIX System V Release 3.1 TX 5-750-269 July 7, 2003
P - UNIX System V Release 3.2 TX 5-750-271 July 7, 2003
Q - UNIX System V Release 4.0 TX 5-776-217 July 16, 2003
R - UNIX System V Release 4.1ES TX 5-705-356 June 30, 2003
S - UNIX System V Release 4.2 TX 5-762-235 July 3, 2003
T - UNIX System V Release 4.1 TX 5-762-234 July 3, 2003
U - UNIX System V Release 3.2 TX 5-750-268 July 9, 2003
177. SCO and its predecessors in interest created the Copyrighted Programs as original works of authorship, and, as such, the Copyrighted Programs constitute copyrightable subject matter under the copyright laws of the United States. The Copyrighted Programs were automatically subject to copyright protection under 17 U.S.C. Section 102(a) when such programs were fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright protection under 17 U.S.C. Section 106 extends to derivative works which are defined in 17 U.S.C. Section 101 to include works based on the original work or any other form in which the original work may be recast, transformed, modified or adapted.
178. Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 410(c), the certificates of copyright registrations for each Copyrighted Program constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyrights and of the facts stated in the certificates. SCO and its predecessors' registered copyrights in the Copyrighted Programs are entitled to such statutory presumptions.
179. IBM's breaches of the IBM Related Agreements and the Sequent Agreements and its post-termination actions have infringed, have induced infringement of, and have contributed to the infringement of, copyright registrations of SCO and its predecessors. Such actions have been willful and have been done with knowledge of the copyright rights of SCO.
180. SCO has been damaged by IBM's conduct and has no adequate remedy at law. IBM's conduct has caused, and, if not enjoined, will continue to cause, irreparable harm to SCO. As a result of IBM's wrongful conduct, SCO is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 502 and SCO's actual damages and IBM's profits as a result of the infringing acts pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 504(a), statutory damages to the extent applicable pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 504(b) and enhanced damages, together with attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 505.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:57 PM EST |
The Copyrighted Programs were automatically subject to copyright
protection under 17 U.S.C. Section 102(a) when such programs were fixed in a
tangible medium of expression.
Isn't that the Berne
convention, and wasn't much of the Unix code written before the US adopted the
Berne convention? (I.e. when a "©"statement was required) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsmith on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:58 PM EST |
They don't mention that the copyrights are contested? Isn't that lying to the
court?
---
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:59 PM EST |
So is Judge Welles basically going to go research what you do when the Plaintiff
requests to completely change the case?
Or will she basically say "we can throw
out the first suit and you can file a new suit, but first we'll tackle IBM's
suit"?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:59 PM EST |
Isn't it rather naughty of SCO to claim ownership of those copyrights in an
official court document, when they know damn well the ownership is being
contested by Novell?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Woo-hoo - Authored by: Cassandra on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:13 PM EST
- Catch-22! - Authored by: rand on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:28 PM EST
- Catch-22! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:59 PM EST
- Catch-22! - Authored by: Yobgod on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:36 PM EST
- Catch-22! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 02:54 AM EST
- Catch-22! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 11:23 PM EST
- Catch-22! - Authored by: Tyro on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 10:43 AM EST
- Catch-22! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:07 PM EST
- Woo-hoo - Authored by: Hykin on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:13 PM EST
- Trade Secrets Was The ONLY Breach Claimed - Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 07:10 AM EST
- Woo-hoo - Authored by: lightsail on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:21 PM EST
- Woo-hoo - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:48 PM EST
- Re: Darl will regret... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:12 PM EST
- Woo-hoo - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:05 PM EST
- Naughty and illegal or just foolish? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 07:08 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: kjb on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:02 PM EST |
does changing this to a copyright claim (SCO v IBM) put this case on hold until
SCO v Novell is resolved?
---
kjb
"No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
- Yoda[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Asked before, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:04 PM EST
- Asked before, but - Authored by: Jude on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:12 PM EST
- Asked before, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:55 PM EST
- Asked before, but - Authored by: PJ on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:23 PM EST
- But... - Authored by: Yobgod on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:45 PM EST
- But... - Authored by: arch_dude on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:51 PM EST
- But... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 03:21 AM EST
- Asked before, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:10 PM EST
- Asked before, but - Authored by: JeR on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 04:39 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:05 PM EST |
| OK if this is a copyright claim now, can we all see the code? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: anwaya on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:06 PM EST |
Isn't it rather naughty of SCO to claim their copyrights have been infringed on
the same day that they told the Court they had no evidence of this claim at all?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lightsail on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:08 PM EST |
Read Carefully:
"Copyright protection under 17 U.S.C. Section 106 extends to derivative
works which are defined in 17 U.S.C. Section 101 to include works based on the
original work or any other form in which the original work may be recast,
transformed, modified or adapted."
TSG is now claiming "copyright infringment" by proxy.
Still no SysV code in Linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: red_guy on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:08 PM EST |
So the case is now about about IBM damaging SCO's business by not complying with
a measure that was imposed because IBM was damaging SCO business, as would be
proven in court?
This kind of bootstrap technique should show how SCO's claims are utterly
baseless.
In order to fight IBM over this violation of copyright, SCO will have to show
why IBM deserved to have its license revoked.
Regardless of the question [quoting Novell], if 'irrevocable' means
'irrevocable'.
This claim is a derived work from SCO vs IBM. It does not, cannot, hold its own.
Maybe IBM can use it to give the jury a clear example of the meaning of
"derived works".
Back to square 1... although the trade secrets claim is gone.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RE on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:13 PM EST |
When you look back you can see that SCO first terminates IBM license after 100
days, claiming nothing in specifity and allowing IBM to resolve the problems, if
there are any.
After the 100 day's (june 2003) it says IBM's license is terminated and does
nothing else.
Then in feb 2004 it claims damages due to copyright infringement because IBM is
still selinng it's AIX unix to customers.
These claims are baseless and will thrown out of court.
But it fits in the linux case, there they say, hey you stole our code, we don't
tell you what it is but you stole it and you should pay us damages.
Now SCO is known for it's allegations that it can't specify.
SCO will be known in history as the litigation company with no case (except an
expensive lawyer).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Re: What happened - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:23 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: rand on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:14 PM EST |
H - UNIX Operating System Edition TXU-510-028 March 25, 1992
5 and
Instruction Manual
I - UNIX Operating System Edition TXu-511-236 April
7, 1992
6 and Instruction Manual
J - UNIX Operating System Edition
TXu-516-704 May 15, 1992
32V and Instruction Manual
K - UNIX
Operating System Edition TXu-516-705 May 15, 1992
7 and Instruction
Manual
Is this a table in the original or did those
morons the typist just copy the list verbatim from "Attachment E" or
whatever it was on the APA?
IIRC, there was some confusion here at Groklaw
about the formatting of those very items.
---
The Wright brothers were
not the first to fly an aircraft...they were the first to LAND an aircraft.
(IANAL and whatever) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:14 PM EST |
All the UNIX OS versions are copyright June 30 through July 16, 2003. For
SVR3.0? Copyright 2003? What this really is, is "Oops, we didn't
copyright it, so now we will, and now you're infringing." IANAL, but I'm
not sure how well that's going to fly in court, even without Novell.<p>
Also, when exactly was the original lawsuit filed? Wasn't it March 2003? The
amended complaint says that IBM is infringing on a copyright that wasn't even
<i>filed</i> at the time of the original complaint? That doesn't
sound actionable...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:15 PM EST |
I read someplace where if it is copyright infringement you are claiming, you
must produce within 30 days where the copyright infringements are. You can't go
on fishing expeditions. Tactical blunder here?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kristoffer on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:18 PM EST |
This is old news but Novell didn't actually just write "to SCO and said
they had the contractual right to block any termination of AIX
distribution".
The June 9 letter from Jack Messman to Darl McBride reads:
"Accordingly, pursuant to Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement,
Novell hereby directs SCO to waive any purported right SCO may claim to
terminate IBM's SVRX License enumerated in Amendment X or to revoke any rights
thereunder, including any purported rights to terminate asserted in SCO's letter
of March 6, 2003 to IBM."
So both the question about copyright and about the right to terminate has to be
decided before SCO can claim anything.
./ Kristoffer
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:26 PM EST |
In a Vegas casino...
sco: "ok, betting over - 500 million dollars"
ibm: "yep"
sco: "I've got great cards, I've won 2 billion!"
ibm: "The betting is over, no need to talk just show"
sco: "I'm so rich! 5 billion dollars!"
ibm: "your cards?"
sco smiling, starts talking to a cute lass..
dealer: "Is there a problem?"
ibm: "He won't show his cards..."
dealer: "Look, can you please show your cards?"
sco: "Can I have a couple of minutes?"
dealer: "And then you'll show your cards?"
sco: "Sure!"
2 minutes later...
dealer: "ok, time to show your cards"
sco: "actually, I'd like to swap my cards"
dealer: "huh?"
sco: "look, I've got a crap hand, so I want to swap the cards - if you
don't let me then he'll win!"
dealer: "you can't do that!"
sco: "how about we both pick 2 cards and treat it as blackjack?"
dealer to walkie-talkie: "security to table 5 please"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sward on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:34 PM EST |
Is it just me, or does SCOX keep reaching for bizarre new legal theories in
place of more obvious targets? "Slander of title" instead of contract dispute
in the Novell case ... "Copyright violation" instead of breach of contract in
this latest twist in the IBM case? Why go for these claims, which seem to have
tactical disadvantages (e.g. having to prove malice in the "slander of title"
case, the need to specify the code in the copyright case), when contract law
would work just as well (or poorly, in SCOX's case)?
Does anyone have a good
theory (that does not involve tinfoil hats, black helicopters, or recreational
halucinogens) for why they do this? What possible benefit do they derive from
this strategy? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:46 PM EST |
They seem to be saying by continuing to distribute AIX after purported
termination, IBM is infringing SCO's copyrights.
Now let's run thru the theory from SCO's point of view:
March 6 - SCO sends 100 day notice to IBM, saying we are going to terminate your
license for breach.
March-April-May - IBM asks what is the alleged breach? Even if our license is
revocable, which it is not -- you have to tell us the breach, and give us a
chance to cure it. That is simply good faith. So what is the breach? SCO says
see our complaint, it's about trade secrets.
June-Dec: IBM says please tell what specific trade secrets?
June-Dec: SCO says we're not telling. By the way you license is terminated for
breach of trade secrets on June 16th.
Dec-Feb: Court orders SCO to tell IBM what trade secrets are at issue. SCO
eventually says none. Not one trade secret
Feb 4th: SCO says, we terminated in June for trade secret breaches. We dropped
the trade secret breaches issue, there is none. But we think our termination
stands for IBM's now non-existent trade-secret breaches.
And by the way, we registered some copyrights relating to the material licensed
to IBM, and therefore we should get additional damages from IBM's breaches and
actions after we terminated for a non trade-secret reason.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: valdis on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:51 PM EST |
180. SCO has been damaged by IBM's conduct and has no adequate
remedy at law. IBM's conduct has caused, and, if not enjoined, will continue to
cause, irreparable harm to SCO. As a result of IBM's wrongful conduct, SCO is
entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 502 and SCO's actual
damages and IBM's profits as a result of the infringing acts pursuant to 17
U.S.C. Section 504(a), statutory damages to the extent applicable pursuant to 17
U.S.C. Section 504(b) and enhanced damages, together with attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 505.
together with
attorney's fees and costs.
Suddenly, all the delays make sense.
"It's all about the billable hours". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sward on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:51 PM EST |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:59 PM EST |
Saw this on the Yahoo SCOX board. (walterbyrd)
1) scox drops their trade secret claim.
2) scox adds a copyright claim.
3) the copyright infrigement isn't about Linux, its about AIX being distributed
by IBM after SCO revoked their license.
4) but scox revoked IBM's license due to trade secret violation.
5) but. . . but . . see 1)
Is there something here that I am missing, as it seems to sum up the situation
to me.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:18 PM EST |
When SCO asked for $3 billion, Brian Skiba of Deutsch Bank gave the price target
of SCOX stock to be at $45. Now that SCO has asked for $5 billion, the target
price should about $60 or more.
Man! This lottery is getting bigger and bigger by the day. Brian! we need more
guidance to buy stock.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lightsail on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:27 PM EST |
You licensed the code from AT&T. We now claim that code as ours.
You built an operation system based on AT&T code.
That operating system contained some AT&T code, which makes the entire
operating system a derivative of our operating system.
You rebuilt and removed any AT&T code, but this new version is a derivative
of the initial derivative operating system, which makes the entire new operating
system a derivative of our operating system.
You revised, improved and created new innovative processes and features that you
added to the operating system that is a derivative of the derivative of our
operating system, which makes those new processes and features our derivative
works.
You then created processes and features based on the processes and features that
you added to the operating system that is a derivative of the derivative of our
operating system. Those new processes and features were then licensed to Linux.
Those new processes and features are derivatives of our operating system.
Your original code infringes on my copyright,
Ps.. Why does TSG want every version and all work in progress of AIX?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:30 PM EST |
180. SCO has been damaged by IBM's conduct and has no adequate
remedy at law. IBM's conduct has caused, and, if not enjoined, will continue to
cause, irreparable harm to SCO. As a result of IBM's wrongful conduct, SCO is
entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 502 and SCO's actual
damages and IBM's profits as a result of the infringing acts pursuant to 17
U.S.C. Section 504(a), statutory damages to the extent applicable pursuant to 17
U.S.C. Section 504(b) and enhanced damages, together with attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 505.
PJ pointed this out
before, and I'm sorry if some one else has covered this already... but I cannot
help myself.
There is no adequate remedy at law... Are we done now? Do
they have a moron typing this garbage up? You don't see garbage like that in
IBM's filings. If there is no remedy then why are you wasting my
time? They made the same stupid, amateurish mistake in their [stupid,
amateurish] complaint against Novell.
And who the heck is SCO? Do they
mean Tarantella? Or do they mean the SCO Group, AKA the SCOundrels? Is it too
much to ask that they figure out what company they really are?
The
Flatlander
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:01 PM EST |
Under the terms of the Novell, SCO Group agreement, Novell has the legal
authority to 'forgive', if you will, any and all purported transgressions by a
licensee (IBM).
Novell did just that (see Novell and SCO Group letters). As such, any and all
copyright infringement claims made by SCO Group are moot. Period.
krp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:05 PM EST |
| It seems to me that if SCO won this one, it would have no impact on Linux. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mikeca on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:33 PM EST |
Is this copyright claim just another way to force IBM to turn over the AIX
source? In discovery for this AIX copyright claim, I am sure that SCO will ask
for all AIX source code so it can show it still contains SysV code that SCO
claims they own the copyright to. Once they have the AIX source, then they will
again try to claim that AIX source was contributed to Linux and under their
derivative works theory violates the contract.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ruidh on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:09 PM EST |
SCO claims:
178. Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 410(c), the certificates of copyright
registrations for each Copyrighted Program constitute prima facie evidence of
the validity of the copyrights and of the facts stated in the certificates. SCO
and its predecessors' registered copyrights in the Copyrighted Programs are
entitled to such statutory presumptions.
But, registration only constitutes prima facie evidence if the registrations are
timely. These registrations are for 10 year old works.
Section 410(c) actually says:
In any judicial proceedings the certificate of a registration made before or
within five years after first publication of the work shall constitute prima
facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the
certificate. The evidentiary weight to be accorded the certificate of a
registration made thereafter shall be within the discretion of the court.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:42 PM EST |
The 1992 works are from Attachment E to the Novell/Santa Cruz Asset
Purchase Agreement which, "contains a listing of Seller's copyright
registrations covering product(s) of the Business." Take the first entry for
example. A search for "TXU-510-028" at the US Copyright Office yields,
TXu-510-028 (COHM)
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.
I don't see how discovery can go on without
opening up the 1985 APA can of worms. Do you?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Lev on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 10:09 PM EST |
According to the proposed amended complaint:
$1B for donating AIX code to Linux
$1B for ignoring AIX license termination
$1B for donating Sequent code to Linux
$1B for ignoring Sequent license termination
$1B for destroying the value of UNIX[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sri Lumpa on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 10:37 PM EST |
Don't you love the way SCO dodges Novell's copyright registration without
explicitely mentioning Novell by saying:
"These registrations have been obtained by SCO and its predecessors in
interest and are owned by SCO"
Well, even though Novell disputes SCO's copyright claims it is true that SCO's
predecessor in interest (Novell) obtained copyright registrations.
---
I do not suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fxbushman on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 11:52 PM EST |
| I can't imagine how SCOG hopes to go forward with this copyright claim, since
the copyrights are in dispute. The conclusion then must be that SCOG does
not expect the case to go forward, i.e., they want to put it on hold until their
argument with Novell over the copyrights is settled. But that case, like this
one, could drag on for a year or years until it is decided (against SCOG, of
course).
So I cannot see how this new turn is anything but an attempt to buy
a year or more of time. If you accept that conclusion, then you may also wish to
conclude that SCOG filed the suit against Novell for two reasons rather than
one: (1) Novell was beginning to hold SCOG's feet to the fire, and (2) a Novell
suit buys them time in their dispute with IBM. Note that it was beginning to
look as if the IMB suit might be thrown out as a result of SCOG's inability to
produce any proof of their charges. This would have precipitated a huge nosedive
in SCOX price - fatal for Darl's pump and dump plans. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 12:03 AM EST |
actually, this is a smart move by SCO ... since they are no-longer going after
IBM for System V code in linux, they can still hit people up for licences, and
there is no evidence to the contrary, cause who else has the funds to take on
SCO.
There won't be any ruling on the inclusion of SysV code in linux, so the
question is never answered. They can still "Pay up or face our legal
might" without proof, alot of companies will (as some has already) just pay
to aviod the court costs.
This has gotten even more curious now, but I think I can see their logic, which
is scary.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 12:16 AM EST |
I have not read all of the comments yet, but, it sounds like SCO is bumping up
the claim to $5 Billion hoping that will be the sound-bite the press hears
instead of the fact that today's hearing proves they have no case. The
pathetic thing is that the way the press has been covering the case so far, the
$5 Billion is all that they will mention.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LionKuntz on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 02:26 AM EST |
-----------------------------
"177. SCO and its predecessors in interest
created the Copyrighted Programs as original works of authorship, and, as such,
the Copyrighted Programs constitute copyrightable subject matter under the
copyright laws of the United States. The Copyrighted Programs were automatically
subject to copyright protection under 17 U.S.C. Section 102(a) when such
programs were fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright protection
under 17 U.S.C. Section 106 extends to derivative works which are defined in 17
U.S.C. Section 101 to include works based on the original work or any other form
in which the original work may be recast, transformed, modified or
adapted."
-----------------------------
The facts of UNIX history
are recorded. From the first month of existence UNIX was a collaborative
product, with numerous university locations testing and bug-reporting and
contributing fixes. The code was published, as such, during a period of time
when copyright law was not extended to computer code. Copyright law did not
apply to, nor protect, computer source code, but then applicable law REQUIRED
correctly affixed copyright notices for works seeking copyright
protection.
There was no AUTOMATIC copyright protection for published works:
either the work included copyright notices or else it didn't. Only works with
copyright notices were protected, and those without were not protected by
copyright law existing before 1972. For a four year period UNIX was a
non-copyrighted published work, from 1968 through 1972.
The statement in
paragraph 177 is attempting to apply post-1972 copyright law, giving automatic
copyright protections to a work created in 1968 when such rights required the
affirmative duty to place formal copyright notices on a work. Any work created
and published between 1968 and 1972 required copyright notices or AUTOMATIC
forfeiture of any copyright protection was the mandatory result of then existing
law.
All versions of UNIX are derivative of a non-copyrighted work
which was published in ever enlarging numbers to uncontrolled university
audiences. No number can be placed on how many people had access to this
non-copyrighted code because there was not a compliance program overseeing the
distribution of the published work.
All UNIX versions are derivative
of a public domain body of code, which improperly, in defiance of the
applicable copyright law of the time of the work's creation, was marked with
copyright notices long after wide uncontrolled distribution had already
occurred. All UNIX versions are essentually derivative of public domain
material.
The history of UNIX is published on the internet, and examination
of multiple eye-witness reports confirms the inescapable truth of the statement
I have made above.
http://www.levenez.com/unix/
Unix
History. Unix Timeline Below, you can see the preview of the
Unix History (click
on the white zone to get a bigger image): ...
http://www.bell-labs.com/history/u
nix/
The Creation of the UNIX * Operating System. After three decades
of
use, the UNIX* computer operating system from Bell Labs is still
...
Description: Lengthy encyclopedia-quality article from Bell Labs, covering
the early days to the present versions.
http://www
.unix-systems.org/what_is_unix/history_timeline.html
... 1969, The
Beginning, The history of UNIX starts back in 1969, when Ken Thompson,
Dennis
Ritchie and others started working on the "little-used PDP-7 in a corner ...
http://cm.bell-labs.com/c
m/cs/who/dmr/hist.html
Dennis M. Ritchie Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ,
07974 ABSTRACT. This paper
presents a brief history of the early development of
the Unix operating system. ...
Description: 1979 conference paper by Dennis
Ritchie. "Concentrates on the evolution of the file system, the
process-c...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 02:31 AM EST |
| SCOX went up, and no wonder. I just checked how Reuters reported this, and their
main point was that:
The SCO Group Inc. (SCOX.O: Quote, Profile,
Research) on Friday added two claims of copyright infringement to its year-old,
$3 billion lawsuit against IBM, lifting potential damages to $5 billion,
according to court documents.
link
here
No mention of simultaneously dropping the trade secret
claim. No mention of IBM's report that SCO still has not managed to
identify infringing Linux code. In fact, no mention of anything that
would be negative to SCO.
I used to think that Reuters was a reputable news
agency. Now I see it as about as reliable as the Soviet-era Pravda.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 04:58 AM EST |
| How times change :)
From a post on the Yahoo finance boards that links to
the LinuxWorld story
MozillaQuest Magazine: Does SCO have registered
copyrights for JFS, NUMA, and RCU?
Blake Stowell, SCO Group: No we don't,
but this is not a copyright case. This is a contracts case. We have taken IBM to
court because they are in breach of contract.
MozillaQuest Magazine: If
so, is that the same JFS, NUMA, and RCU code that is in the Linux kernel?
Blake Stowell: I can't give you the exact location, but yes, it is in
Linux.
MozillaQuest Magazine: Does SCO have registered copyrights for
the Unix extensions developed by IBM?
Blake Stowell: No, IBM has those
copyrights, but this is not about copyrights. It is about the breaking of a
contract.
MozillaQuest Magazine: If not, does SCO claim that it is
entitled to register copyrights for the Unix extensions developed by IBM?
Blake Stowell: SCO will not register those because they do not belong
to SCO. They belong to IBM.
Mozilla Quest, 25 July,
2003
www.linuxworld.com/story/33858_p.htm [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 05:44 AM EST |
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5154719.html
As previously
reported, SCO's latest amendment to the IBM suit incorporates several new
claims, including allegations that IBM violated SCO copyrights by continuing to
distribute Unix and Unix-derived products, presumably including Linux, after SCO
terminated IBM's Linux license.
Linux! Cough!
Cough!
---
"Unless stopped I believe they will walk away
from the rotten, decaying corpse that is SCOG a lot richer" :-(
Stopped it is then. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Cough. - Authored by: _Arthur on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 07:52 AM EST
- Cough. - Authored by: whitehat on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 03:12 AM EST
- Cough. - Authored by: roxyb on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 02:55 PM EST
- Cough. - Authored by: whitehat on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 04:04 PM EST
- Cough. - Authored by: roxyb on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 04:36 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: sculdoon on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 07:44 AM EST |
Bravo to the register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/35411.html
one of the few media outlets who have'nt just reprinted some SCO press
release..
dave.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 08:58 AM EST |
Easy answer: Microsoft.
The Baystar 'Pipe' apparently means that Baystar is not the source of the cash.
They are merely the conduit.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: henrik on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 11:23 AM EST |
And here is a link to The Inquirer. Groklaw is mentioned
Leave poor SCO alone... the
poor little lambs
Charlie Demerjian has got it [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 08:32 AM EST |
Check out this link on slash dot. http://slashdot.org/search.pl?topic=155
It has to do with patents that have been granted for Solitare and other computer
based card games, how URL's are handled, how Intel cpu's handle clocking, among
other things. These are all patents that have been granted for items that have
been in use for a while, but now patents are being granted and lawsuits filed
based on these patents. This doesn't fit in directly with SCOG, but it is
something we should watch. It really seems as though our legal system is really
running amok.
Regarding SCOG - can this case get any stranger than it is now? Seems as tho
they keep trying to some basis for their lawsuit but it keeps evading them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
