decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
More Blepp and News on Software Patents in Europe
Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 01:06 PM EDT

Gregory Blepp will participate in a panel discussion in Munich on May 12th, during a demonstration against software patents. Of course, he will not be participating on that side of the matter, I presume. As you may have heard, the news from Europe is that it looks like software patents may become a reality there after all:

"The EU Council of Ministers seems determined to prove that the EU is a democracy only on paper. This Wednesday, the Irish Presidency has managed to secure a qualified majority for a counter-proposal on the software patents directive, with only a few countries - including Belgium and Germany - showing resistance. The new text proposes to discard all the amendments from the European Parliament which would limit patentability. Instead the lax language of the original Commission proposal is to be reinstated in its entirety, with direct patentability of program text fragments added as icing on the cake. The proposal is now scheduled to be confirmed without discussion at a meeting of ministers on 17-18 May, unless one of the Member States changes its vote."

Here is the text of the agreement. Here are the minutes of the negotiations.

Groklaw's Christoph Schaefer reports on Blepp news from German-language news sources that Blepp has been saying that SCO is not against open source:

"'We never dreamed it was possible that the matter would take on such proportions,' explained Gregory Blepp, Vice President of SCO during CeBIT.

"'We had a licence contract with IBM about their Unix variation AIX, and we are firmly convinced IBM violated this contract.' The accusation: lines of code, copyrighted by SCO, were made available to the Open Source community under the General Public Licence (GPL) and slipped into Linux by IBM. 'We, as a small company, couldn't allow such conduct on the part of a contractual partner,' Blepp justified litigation.

"He made clear, it was IBM at first, which made a big thing about it and alarmed the Open Source movement. 'Yet, we don't reject Open Source in general,' Blepp states, 'we just want everything happening legally.' It had to do with charcteristics of the American legal system, that evidence (the code in question, for instance) was withheld as long as possible. In early stages of such legal procedures, large amounts of documents were exchanged. 'We have become a transparent company. There's nothing about us, IBM doesn't know,' the US manager of German origin underlines the current situation of SCO."

That sounds good, the transparent-to-IBM part. There is more than one way to gain transparency. Microsoft has picked off another SuSE guy. The former SuSE sales manager Karl Aigner was recently hired by Microsoft and will be responsible for Data Center Solutions. Aigner was one of the driving forces behind Munich's switch to Linux.

Back to Blepp's comments, here is an interesting bit:

"When SCO then asked for licence fees, some decided to wait for the end of the lawsuit against IBM. 'But these are two kettle of fish,' Blepp says. 'With IBM we have a quarrel about contracts, but apart from that, everybody using our code in Linux has a copyright problem.' And this copyright has to be sued for, of course, just to remain credible. As American law is based to a large extent on precedence, some exemplary judgements would be sufficient, Blepp explains."

Similar statements here:

http://www.manager-magazin.de/ebusiness/cebit/0,2828,288966,00.html: "The process against IBM at present still is in the 'Discovery' phase, explains Gregory Blepp, Vice President international from SCO and thus for the license politics of the enterprise responsible, in the discussion with manager magazin.de. 'We want that DaimlerChrysler acknowledges that it uses our code', says Blepp."

Heh heh

http://www.silicon.de/cpo/_cfg/print.php?nr=13496: " Blepp explained additionally that SCO was certain that its chances of success in the Daimler case were 100 per cent. And also with the law case with IBM he is confident."

That seems to bode well for IBM.

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/artikel/801/30771/

Heise had a story on Blepp, from the suitcase story days, that had a sentence about Spanish law, and I wonder if anyone can translate that section better than my computer? Here is the hint from the Heise article:

"For months the SCO investor Baystar Capital is to require itself a more professional occurring in Europe. Blepp, which refers a substantially higher fee than original with the entrance agreed upon of Baystar of the SCO Group, is more operational readiness level to show and the clearly hard requirements of the SCO Group represent. So Baystar emissaries are in this week with resident of Munich venture financial sources to have called and about earlier work samples of Blepp have inquired. . . .

"Hopes of Gregory Blepp for a stronger operational readiness level of SCO in Europe rest now on an appraisal of a Spanish law office given in job. It is to prove that the arguments stated by Novell are invalid to stored European or international right in the controversy over the exclusive holder of a right shank also after that somewhat different for the protection of the mental property."

[original German:

"Für Gregory Blepp kommt die Veröffentlichung dieser Unstimmigkeiten durchaus ungelegen. Seit Monaten soll sich der SCO-Investor Baystar Capital ein professionelleres Auftreten in Europa wünschen. Blepp, der mit dem Einstieg von Baystar von der SCO Group ein erheblich höheres Honorar als ursprünglich vereinbart bezieht, soll mehr Präsenz zeigen und deutlich härter die Ansprüche der SCO Group vertreten. So sollen Baystar-Emissäre in dieser Woche bei Münchner Venture-Kapitalgeber angerufen und sich nach früheren Arbeitsproben von Blepp erkundigt haben. . . .

"Die Hoffnungen von Gregory Blepp auf eine stärkere Präsenz von SCO im europäischen Raum ruhen nun auf einem in Auftrag gegebenen Gutachten einer spanischen Rechtsanwaltskanzlei. Es soll beweisen, dass die von Novell vorgebrachten Argumente im Streit um die alleinige Rechtsinhaberschaft auch nach dem etwas anders gelagerten europäischen beziehungsweise internationalen Recht zum Schutze des geistigen Eigentums ungültig sind." ]

As always, my computer translation does not leave us without a laugh. Here is how it translates this headline stating, I think, that SCO was ordered to show the code:

"SCO muss Code-Hosen herunterlassen"
"SCO must lower code trousers"

Here is a translation from Christoph:

"Blepp's prospects for a stronger presence of SCO in Europe are now based on an expert's opinion, which was commissioned to a Spanish firm of solicitors. It is expected to prove that Novell's arguments in the quarrel about the exclusive legal ownership are invalid in European and international law, which is different [compared to the United States], as well."

And an alternative:

"Blepp is hoping that the works of a Spanish law firm, which is currently furnishing an expert opinion, may finally allow him to show more presence in Europe. The report has been ordered by Blepp to prove that Novell's claims about the sole ownership of the copyrights are invalid according to European and international Laws."


  


More Blepp and News on Software Patents in Europe | 149 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Errors and Typos
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 01:52 PM EDT
Go Here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Blepp and News on Software Patents in Europe
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:03 PM EDT
I dont think this is a done deal yet PJ.

There is still much opposing left to do.


Admittedly we are fighting an uphill battle.


Paul, UK.

[ Reply to This | # ]

URLs and Other Links here please
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:04 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Blepp and News on Software Patents in Europe
Authored by: icorson on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:05 PM EDT
So... Does the spanish tanslation mean that Baystar wants sco headed in Europe
as the patent laws are more laxed and they Baystar/SCO, or BaySCO if you will,
can get better recourse for their "lawsuit"? Im confused.. Every
translator I used came out sorta like PJ's.

One thing I hope Europe realizes is that this Patent thing only really benefits
US companies. They will patent everything and the European companies will be
caught with their collective pants down and get royally screwed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"SCO must lower code trousers"
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:32 PM EDT
This is actually a correct translation of the German
headline. The German saying "die Hosen herunterlassen
müssen" ("to have to drop ones trousers") means "to be
forced to show what you were trying to hide".

[ Reply to This | # ]

    More Blepp and News on Software Patents in Europe
    Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:50 PM EDT

    We had a licence contract with IBM about their Unix variation AIX, and we are firmly convinced IBM violated this contract.' The accusation: lines of code, copyrighted by SCO, were made available to the Open Source community under the General Public Licence (GPL) and slipped into Linux by IBM.

    Copyrighted by SCO??? Where the heck was that in the Court filings? Did I take a nap or what??

    ---
    "When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    More Blepp and News on Software Patents in Europe
    Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:51 PM EDT
    For Gregory Blepp, the disclosure of the disagreements is throughly poor timing.
    SCO investor Baystar has been voicing its wishes for months for a professional
    entrance into Europe. Blepp, who thanks the intervention of Baystar, is getting
    a demonstrably higher fee than he had negotiated earlier, is to show a greater
    profile and is to take a harder and more explicit line in expounding SCO's
    views. Apparently, Baystar emissaries contacted VC outfits in Munich this week
    and asked for confirmation of Blepp's earlier track record.

    Greogry Blepp's hopes of a stronger profile for SCO in Europe rest on an opinion
    given by a Spanish court. This opinion apparently proves that Novell's arguments
    in the dispute about sole ownership are also incompatible with the somewhat
    different European interpretation on international law on the subject of
    protecting IP.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Here's a translation
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:52 PM EDT
    Here a translation for that piece of German text, hope this is better than the
    babelfish one. This is not a literal translation, though, my knowledge of the
    English language is not that good *ggg*

    "Blepp can't really be happy about those confusing facts becoming publicly
    known. Baystar is claimed to have been wanting SCA to follow a more
    'professional' approach for months. Blepp, having received a big pay rise since
    Baystar invested in SCO, should show his face more often and shall intensify his
    work presenting SCO's claims. It is heard, that Baystar officials have inqired
    several Munich-based investor companies to get samples of Blepp's work
    results..."

    "Blepp is hoping that the works of a Spanish law firm, which is currently
    furnishing an expert opinion, may finally allow him to show more presence in
    Europe. The report has been ordered by Blepp to prove that Novell's claims about
    the sole ownership of the copyrights are invalid according to European and
    international Laws."

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Ireland is owned by Microsoft
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 02:53 PM EDT
    We were in Ireland in 2001 and heard the story over and over again of how MS
    single-handedly revived the Irish economy and made Ireland to center of the
    computer trade in Europe. But it wasn't out of the generosity of Gates heart.
    Ireland had the worst employment and lowest wages. And set up enterprise zones
    so the benefits were enormous. So small wonder the Irish President wants to
    help MS.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Oops, we really didn't claim that again
    Authored by: moogy on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 03:17 PM EDT
    "'With IBM we have a quarrel about contracts, but
    apart from that, everybody using our code in Linux
    has a copyright problem.'"

    SCOG was ordered by the court to provide, with
    specificity, all IP claims they have against Linux.
    That discovery would necessarily include any
    copyright claims, and is now supposedly complete.

    The time to face this issue is now and the place is
    the IBM case where all the discovery for this issue
    has been done. It has not been done in any other
    case therefore, it is NOT more efficient for the
    courts to stay IBM's motion for a Declaratory Judgment
    while other cases would still have to go through the
    SCOG delay games on providing the discovery.

    Of course, SCOG never raises the issue that Linux
    contains their copyrighted code, right?

    ---
    Mike Tuxford - irc.fdfnet.net #Groklaw
    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
    then they fight you, then you win. --Gandhi

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Software Patents in Europe: strike?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 03:19 PM EDT
    Could some kind of protest in the form of an action and/or a strike be a
    possible solution? To show just how numerous and concerned this group really is?
    I know, developers have to eat, but I more and more get the feeling that all
    that is being done has little or no effect. Sorry if I may seem pessimistic...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Can't let this slip by
    Authored by: RedBarchetta on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 03:28 PM EDT
    Quote from above:
    "That sounds good, the transparent-to-IBM part. There is more than one way to gain transparency. Microsoft has picked off another SuSE guy. The former SuSE sales manager Karl Aigner was recently hired by Microsoft and will be responsible for Data Center Solutions. Aigner was one of the driving forces behind Munich's switch to Linux."
    This is interesting. Microsoft hires the person that probably caused them the most headache when they were trying to win the Munich desktop OS contract (remember, Steve Ballmer made a trip to Munich for just this reason).

    It seems to me that Mr. Aigner is in quite the negotiating position. I wouldn't doubt if his salary is in the several hundred thousand per year, with added millions in options.

    However, this also raises a point. It shows how easy someone can be bought. Cold, green cash, as Microsoft knows, can go a long way towards convincing someone to come to the "dark side." Greed, my friends, is uglier than a down-and-out junkie.

    Personally I would have stuck with my morals and avoided working for Microsoft. Any company with such reckless disregard for US laws, and the truth (think "Get the Facts") should be avoided in my book. Million of dollars or not, my conscience and mental well-being are more important than having a second house on the lake.

    ---
    ...then Kathie Lee says, "What do you mean there's no such thing as Tuesday Night Football?!"

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Spain just had a change in government - Maybe they will affect this patent problem with reason?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 04:31 PM EDT
    Spain just had a change in government - Maybe they will affect this patent
    problem with reason?

    Does anyone know the position of the NEW Spanish government with regards to Open
    Source, Linux, Software Patents, etc.
    They certainly did not see eye to eye with the US on other matters... Maybe they
    are on the side of logic regarding Software Patents as well?

    Anyone know?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Anyone know what drugs Blepp is taking?
    Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 04:45 PM EDT
    I'd love to feel that confident over nothing too!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Everybody Submit your Patents Right Now, before all the good ones are taken
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 05:36 PM EDT
    If Europe is going to allow all these patents of software parts, choose some and
    file for some patents right now, as soon as you can, before all the good ones
    are gone. This is a real economic opportunity, and don't let just the large
    corporations get money from this. Get some for yourselves. Patent whatever you
    have written or seen or bought. If everybody does this, it will really clog up
    the system.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    OT: # include (errno.h) checked by okir@caldera.de
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 06:04 PM EDT
    * Taken from xawtv-3.5.9 source 8/15/01 by George Staikos
    <staikos@kde.org>
    * No licence in file so assumed GPL as per the COPYING file.
    * s/kv4lsetup/v4l-conf/g for historical purposes.
    *
    * Updated to xawtv-3.9.0 2/12/04 by Dirk Ziegelmeier <dziegel@gmx.de>
    */

    /*
    * Set the framebuffer parameters for bttv.
    * tries to ask the X-Server if $DISPLAY is set,
    * otherwise it checks /dev/fb0
    *
    * (c) 1998-2001 Gerd Knorr <kraxel@bytesex.org>
    *
    * Security checks by okir@caldera.de
    */

    #ifdef __STRICT_ANSI__
    #define FOO__STRICT_ANSI__
    #undef __STRICT_ANSI__
    #endif
    #include <asm/types.h>
    #ifdef FOO__STRICT_ANSI__
    #define __STRICT_ANSI__
    #undef FOO__STRICT_ANSI__
    #endif

    #ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H
    #include <config.h>
    #endif

    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <stdlib.h>
    #include <unistd.h>
    #include <strings.h>
    #include <string.h>
    #include <errno.h>
    #include <fcntl.h>
    #include <time.h>
    #include <sys/time.h>
    #include <sys/types.h>
    #include <sys/ioctl.h>
    #include <sys/stat.h>
    #include <linux/vt.h>
    #ifdef HAVE_GETOPT_H
    # include <getopt.h>
    #endif

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Prior art project
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 06:05 PM EDT
    After SCO has become just a bad memory, perhaps the groklaw community can find
    purpose in ferriting out examples of prior art to pound and pulverize pesky
    patents.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Hires SuSE's Sales Manager
    Authored by: snorpus on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 06:08 PM EDT
    I think we can leave our tinfoil hats in the closet on this one.

    Microsoft has picked off another SuSE guy. The former SuSE sales manager Karl Aigner was recently hired by Microsoft and will be responsible for Data Center Solutions. Aigner was one of the driving forces behind Munich's switch to Linux.
    Let's not forget that SuSE has been recently purchased by Novell. Even in relatively friendly takeovers, there's always going to be some shuffling of personnel. Perhaps Aigner saw the handwriting on the wall, perhaps he was kindly given six months to seek another position, or maybe he's wanted all his professional career to work for Microsoft.

    Or it could be that if he rose any further with SuSE/Novell, it would require relocation to Utah.

    There are any number of benign reasons for the move, including that Microsoft, intending to become more friendly to FOSS, wants to bulk up its staff with FOSS-aware management, management who actually understand the difference between "free beer" and "free speech".

    ---
    73/88 de KQ3T ---
    Montani Semper Liberi

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    OK, why hasn't Germany spanked SCO bad yet?
    Authored by: mobrien_12 on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 06:19 PM EDT
    Blepp seems to have replaced Darl as the big-mouthed SCO idiot. I don't think
    this is coincidental. The judge has told SCO to keep it's mouth shut, and so
    has Baystar.

    So why is Germany letting this go on? I thought SCO was supposed to be fined
    alot of money everytime they spread FUD in Germany?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    M$ modus operandi
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 07:47 PM EDT
    Is it no coincidence that hard on the heels of the revival of the threat of
    software patents in Europe, SCOX start a new line of FUD based on this.

    SCOX certainly have been paying attention to Monopoly$oft's recent actions where
    if they can't bully a favourable court decision in the US they go to Europe
    & exploit the system there instead.

    At this point I think this is more an annoyance than anything as SCOX appears to
    be running out of time & money, but who knows what sculduggery is going on
    behind the scenes...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    How to make a law in Europe
    Authored by: jmaurer on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 08:08 PM EDT
    People seem to fear that the patent dispute in Europe has been decided with the recently published preparations for the next Council meeting. That does not appear to be the case.

    I'm not an expert on the EU. However, I'm German, so the EU does affect my daily life. Since some of Groklaw's US readers may not be well acquainted with the system of government of the European Union, I'll start with a few general remarks.

    The European Union was originally founded in 1952 as a free trade zone for coal and steel. Founding members were France, West Germany, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands, and Belgium. With various additional treaties, more and more European nations joined the EU, and more and more sovereign rights of the member nations moved to supranational bodies. Nowadays, the EU issues regulations for all aspects of life, including such diverse topics as categories for eggs, coordination of air traffic control, and crash test criteria for cars, all allegedly to foster free trade.

    The European Union has various institutions, among them the European Parliament (proportional representation, vote every five years), the Commission (the European "government"; one representative from each member nation, organized in departments such as Agriculture, Competition, Transportation and Energy etc.), the Council (the assembly of the heads of government (Prime Ministers) of all member nations), European Court of Justice, etc. When making a law (usually named "directive"), a complicated procedure of consultation between the Parliament, Council, and Commission is executed. When the directive is finally issued, it is usually in the form of an instruction to the national legislative bodies to make national law compliant with the directive, by a given date. For the patent regulations, this is different. A European Patent Office has long been established, which is a supranational office, so national law has no say there, except for the fundamental issue of ensuring that European patents have the same level of protection as national patents. Which types of patents can be issued is not of concern to the national law. Thus, any EU directive concerning patentability of software, once issued, would become effective relatively quickly.

    Let's have a look at the process, as described in the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. Rules 63 to 66 deal with the "first reading, committee stage". The committee can make amendments, but needs to talk to the Commission and the Council (Rule 66(1)):

    Before the committee responsible proceeds to the final vote on a Commission proposal, it shall request the Commission to state its position on all the amendments to the proposal adopted by the committee, and the Council to comment.
    Rule 69 has more on that. Now, Rule 73 deals with the approval of the Council of the amended proposal. It looks like we're now at this stage, specifically, that the approval of the Council is not going to happen.

    In any case, Rule 79 says

    The committee responsible, a political group or at least forty Members may, in writing and before a deadline set by the President, table a proposal to reject the common position of the Council.
    From what I've heard, there should be at least forty people in the European Parliament that are knowledgeable enough to actively bring forward such a motion. Getting some public attention may help as well.

    Jens Maurer

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    More Blepp and News on Software Patents in Europe
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 08 2004 @ 11:57 PM EDT
    > The proposal is now scheduled to be confirmed without discussion at a
    meeting of ministers on 17-18 May, unless one of the Member States changes its
    vote.

    Can anybody explain what this means? Does it mean the draconian patent law is
    going to accepted ("confirmed") without public voting at all?

    Also, it makes me wonder how the decision was made within each of the Member
    States. Clearly, the decision process wasn't public, or else why there was no
    publicity about it?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    More Blepp and News on Software Patents in Europe
    Authored by: eric76 on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 12:24 AM EDT
    "When SCO then asked for licence fees, some decided to wait for the end of the lawsuit against IBM. 'But these are two kettle of fish,' Blepp says. 'With IBM we have a quarrel about contracts, but apart from that, everybody using our code in Linux has a copyright problem.' And this copyright has to be sued for, of course, just to remain credible. As American law is based to a large extent on precedence, some exemplary judgements would be sufficient, Blepp explains."

    There is, of course, SCO code in Linux. They put it there under the GPL with the full knowledge of what they were doing.

    The real question, of course, is "Apart from code that was contributed to Linux by Santa Cruz Organization or Caldera, does SCO have any legitimate claims at all?" If they did, I would think that we would have seen it already. Either they would have showed it or someone else would have ferreted it out.

    The longer their kettles of fish are out in the sun far too long, the stronger the stink.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Blepp, you're a modern hero!
    Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 05:13 AM EDT
    This is exactly what we needded: have someone from SCO stating
    that IBM contributed SCO copyrighted code in GNU/Linux. So now,
    let's remember that SCO explicitely stated in their court documents
    that the matter with IBM was just a breach of contract and that all
    issues concerning copyrights will be resolved in the Nevada case.

    Marvelous! So here Blepp-my-hero says IBM infriged SCO copyrights,
    BUT at the same time SCO is saying that these copyright problems
    should NOT be dealed with IBM but... with an end-user...

    This is becoming really interesting now... SCO reminds me of the
    wasps I used to place, when I was a kid, in the middle of anthills...
    It was horribly fun to watch the wasps trying to escape from their
    inevitable fate...

    SCO is the wasp, we, as lots of individuals, make up the anthill...


    [ Reply to This | # ]

    News on Software Patents in Europe
    Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 07:49 AM EDT
    OK, I've read the agreement. For those who haven't, these 2 paragraphs seem the
    most important to me:

    Article 4

    Conditions for patentability


    In order to be patentable, a computer-implemented invention must be susceptible
    of industrial

    application and new and involve an inventive step. In order to involve an
    inventive step, a

    computer-implemented invention must make a technical contribution.


    Article 4a

    Exclusions from patentability


    A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical
    contribution merely

    because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable
    apparatus. Accordingly,

    inventions involving computer programs which implement business, mathematical or
    other methods

    and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions
    between a

    program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is
    run shall not be

    patentable.

    As I read that, 99.99999% of all software is un-patentable and that includes
    things like office applications. Nowhere does the directive make any reference
    to file formats or data structures that I can see so I assume that this
    directive does not affect their patentablity or otherwise (whatever that may
    be).

    Please, please, please, can someone point me to the text which allows the
    claimed unlimited software patentability?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Nobody Expects The Spanish Inquisition!
    Authored by: dmscvc123 on Sunday, May 09 2004 @ 10:55 AM EDT
    <<"Blepp's prospects for a stronger presence of SCO in Europe are now
    based on an expert's opinion, which was commissioned to a Spanish firm of
    solicitors. It is expected to prove that Novell's arguments in the quarrel about
    the exclusive legal ownership are invalid in European and international law,
    which is different [compared to the United States], as well.">>

    What does Spain have to do with this? The APA was done in the US, not Spain or
    Europe. Like geesh, we could argue about how copyright law differs in Zimbabwe
    or Australia, but that doesn't mean diddly to the APA done here in the US.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Gregory Blepp - Vorstand, VSI?
    Authored by: bonzai on Monday, May 10 2004 @ 12:01 AM EDT
    On the list of speakers at the panel discussion in Munich on May 12th it says:

    Gregory Blepp (Vorstand, VSI; Vice President, The SCO Group)

    Blepp was made chairman of a study group called 'Fachgruppe Softwareindustrie' at dmmv (Deutscher Multimedia Verband (dmmv) eV, home page) but now it seems he is also a 'vorstand' (manager/member of the board) of VSI (Verband der Softwareindustrie Deutschlands eV, home page).

    Blepp was also invited to a discussionforum on April 1st called "Open Source - Kult oder Wirtschaftsfaktor" (Open Source - Cult or Economic Factor) in Freiburg (Germany). In his speach he mentioned the "Unsicherheitsfaktoren" (doubt factors) IT-decisioinmakers face when it comes to Open Source solutions. During the discussion the expected critical questions about the "SCO vs Linux" fight didn't come because Blepp said at the start of his speach

    er nicht in seiner Funktion als Vizepräsident von SCO Deutschland eingeladen wurde, sondern als Vertreter des dmmv, wo er als Fachgruppen-Vorsitzender und Gesamtvorstandsmitglied fungiert or in English

    he was not invited in his function of VicePresident of SCO Germany but as representative of dmvv where he is Chairman of a study group and member of the entire Board To read on the site of the organization where he is a member of the board that he is 'VicePresident of SCO Germany' is kind of weird. In COMPUTERWOCHE you can read: "Neuer Mann fürs Grobe ist nämlich der einstige Suse-Manager Gregory Blepp, der zwar in München ein Büro hat, aber als Vice President International bei SCOsource in Lindon, Utah, angestellt ist." ('Although Gregory Blepp, a former Suse manager who is the new man to do the dirty work, has an office in Munich, the Vice President International at SCOsource is officially working in Lindon, Utah'). So he is not working for SCO Germany and that's probably why they think they can get away with making these statements in Germany. But according to dmmv he is working for SCO Germany?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    €C & Information Patents
    Authored by: joeblakesley on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 09:04 AM EDT
    This is crazy. Information (or algorithmic) patents, as are being proposed by
    the €C, are wrong and do not make sense.

    You cannot patent data or information (that is what "copyright" is
    for): you cannot patent algorithms; you cannot patent naturally-occurring DNA
    sequences or organisms; you cannot patent laws of nature or science; you cannot
    patent numbers; you cannot patent formulae or algorithms; you can patent
    literature (e.g.: the idea of a boy-meets-girl plot line); you cannot patent a
    computer program or algorithm (or its "plot"). You cannot patent any
    of these, because they are *not* *inventions*. You, also, cannot patent things
    that have prior art. The proposals the €C have been putting forward are pretty
    vague, but they seem to allow the patenting of such things.

    Another thing about patents (especially information patents)is that they are a
    serious restriction of civial liberties: they allow a non-governmental
    organisation or company (with enough money for the bribes^Wpatent payment fees)
    to stop--on pain of imprisonement--any citizen from performing a certain action
    (e.g.: communicating, running some software, reproducing [see DNA patents] or
    potentially getting out of bed in the morning).

    TRIPS does not require information patents("the TRIPS lie"); they
    actually violate TRIPS . Also, 5 out of the 15 governments of member states are
    against this (i.e.: those who are not receiving brown envelopes from Dubya or
    Sir. Gates). There were massive protests against it outside parliament.
    Parliament voted overwhelmingly against it. All the computer-industry consortia
    and EU-based companies are against it. All the users of software and EU
    citizens who know about this are against it. All the programmers are against
    this. Is this democracy? How can a few civial "servants" at the €C
    (commision) over-rule all that just because it will help...ummmm...Microsoft,
    TSG,...ummm....

    Also, apparently, Microsoft's in-house shill/astro-turferat the €C, Mario Monti
    has the cheek to bring up his so-called "punishment" of Microsoft
    (i.e.: trying to destroy M$'s competitors in exchange for a minor fine) as an
    example of why we should trust the €C to not let companies abuse this proposed
    information-patent legislation.

    ---
    Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )