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
What Court Cases Are Good For -- The World According to SCO
Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 09:46 AM EDT

You might find it interesting to read how SCO is spinning the August 4th hearing, according to Dion Cornett's July 12th "Open Source Wall Street". I've emphasized it in red:

"We Believe SCOX is still not among the bargains to be had

". . . Also SCOX, in a series of media and investor calls relayed to us third-hand, claimed that its filing last week arguing against IBM’s . . . copyright assertions could lead to a substantial legal victory at a scheduled August 4 hearing, drive additional end-user licensing, and boost its stock price. Given our long-term outlook, we maintain that the safer way to play such a move is to sell shares after a rally. In our view, SCOX’s recent filing provides little new information to substantiate claims of copyright infringement by still focusing on libraries and derivative works definitions, and we believe that potential SCOSource licensees desire greater specificity after 18 months of what one IT manager called SCOX’s 'crying wolf.' We believe that the more interesting filing last week was RHAT’s dissection of SCOX’s apparently contradictory statements in various litigation. Specifically, RHAT points out that SCOX requested a stay in RHAT’s copyright case pending resolution of the IBM lawsuit, but, though it is requesting a stay of copyright claims in the IBM case as well, it is arguing against Autozone’s (AZO: not rated) request for a stay by stating that the IBM lawsuit is a contract, not copyright, dispute. SCOX’s reluctance to litigate copyright claims against IBM, NOVL and RHAT, developers and distributors of Linux, while making such claims to the IT community as a whole seems inconsistent with the expected actions of a confident copyright holder."

That explains why they were pushing this particular document to journalists and putting it up on their web site. Of course, the media dutifully reported SCO's story. Did they know the purpose was to push SCO's stock and drive license sales?

I would suggest that anyone wishing to understand what the August 4th hearing means ask a lawyer or read what they've written. That's what I did. What I've understood is that if IBM loses its summary judgment request, it doesn't mean that it loses. It means it just didn't win that point this fast in the process. Conversely, if IBM wins its summary judgment, it seems to be curtains for SCO in the AutoZone case and pretty much any end user lawsuit claiming copyright infringement with respect to Linux. (I doubt SCO is pushing that part of the story.) AutoZone's lawyer told the judge that at the recent hearing. SCO then talked about static shared libraries and how the AutoZone case is not necessarily about anything inside Linux, etc., so no one can guarantee SCO won't sue you for some esoteric non-Linux something or other. When SCO talks, I evaluate, collect information, compare. That's so I don't get caught in the spin cycle.

Cornett also writes about the Mozilla security issue that made headlines, for one day, and makes an interesting comparison:

"Mozilla flaw fixed in a day, IE vulnerability at one year and counting

"Over the past few weeks, numerous security experts, including the US Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), through the Department of Homeland Security, has recommend that users stop using MSFT’s Internet Explorer (IE) browser due to a lingering security vulnerability. Incidentally, CERT also suggests that just using a different browser may not fix the problem, since IE routines may still be used by other programs such as Outlook, leaving any Windows PC vulnerable to some extent. The issue was exacerbated last week when a MSFT patch design to fix the vulnerability, released the prior week, was found to be ineffective. By contrast, a vulnerability related to Mozilla running on Windows was both identified and corrected in a single day last week. The Mozilla flaw was related to Windows and was not an issue on systems running Apple’s . . . Mac OS or Linux. In North America, feedback suggests that security issues such as these are one of the primary reasons why normally risk-averse CFO’s may free up budgets for Open Source software to migrate away from Windows."

Looking at that same comparison, eWeek's Steven Vaughan-Nichols has a suggestion:

"What I find especially funny about this, though, is that the problem really wasn't with Mozilla in the first place. Mozilla simply revealed an XP hole—that Web pages could invoke the 'shell:' program, which in turn would let a cracker run pretty much any program they wanted. Not good.

"Yes, other browsers wouldn't let you get at this hole, but my point is that while Mozilla did provide a key—since destroyed—Microsoft put the keyhole there in the first place. Heck, Microsoft knew there were problems with 'shell:' a year ago and it's still not patched. Now, Microsoft plans to close this hole in SP2.

"Hmmm ... let me see now. It took open-source programmers less than a day to fix it, Microsoft programmers still haven't fixed the real problem, and it's been more than a year. I know which record I'm more impressed by!

"Want to stop the Windows security and patch management madness for good? It's simple: Get a good Linux desktop."

  


What Court Cases Are Good For -- The World According to SCO | 422 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 09:50 AM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT and other links here please
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 09:51 AM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT -- Why SCO could Win *sigh*
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 09:56 AM EDT
On www.sco.com under the SCO in the NEWS, they have a link called "Why SCO
could Win: Week Two. -- eWeek.com."

Actually it links to a story on eWeek called: "Why SCO Thinks It Can
Win".

Quite a difference.

Is there anything that they don´t try to twist?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Court Cases Are Good For -- The World According to SCO
Authored by: DrStupid on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 10:13 AM EDT
"What I've understood is that if IBM loses its summary judgment request, it
doesn't mean that it loses."

In particular, should the request for partial summary judgement be denied, the
full text of Kimball's ruling will be very significant. Kimball, in denying
Novell's request for dismissal on the grounds of falsity, nonetheless hinted
that Amendment 2 to the APA would prove fruitful ground for a summary judgement
motion. In a similar way, IBM's motion for PSJ might be denied, but with a
ruling that is ultimately unhelpful for SCO2.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wonder what the judges think...
Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 10:15 AM EDT
...of SCO using their courtrooms as part of SCO's P.R. efforts? Forcing the
courts to wade through dozens of pages of pointless blathering just to make a
few good press releases does not seem like an appropriate use of the courts'
time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does the SEC care?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 10:15 AM EDT

Apparently not.

The lawless Wild West in America. And we're supposed to be a model
for the world?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Send a copy of this to Kimball
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 10:17 AM EDT
I'm joking...

But I assume Kimball might have something to say about having to wade thru all
this SCO garbage - when it's not even aimed at him - but is aimed at investors

(I guess we also now know why SCO wasted huge amounts of space on irrelevant
topics and "if IBM had a strong case" in their memos)

Kimball is having to deal with 2 motions (rule 56f and SCO's renewed blah blah),
and 5 memos (1 for the rule 56f, 2 for the renewed discovery motion, 2 memos on
discovery allegedly based on Judge Well's procedure) -- all or virtually all the
memos being grossly oversize -- and the content not even be directed at the
court!

Quatermass

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not about Copyrights???
Authored by: OldNerdGuy on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 10:25 AM EDT
Here is a direct quote from SCO's Web page...

"SCO’s lawsuits against IBM, AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler include violation
of SCO’s copyrights related to the UNIX operating system, but does not involve
patents."

Let's have a contest. See how many different sides of the same mouth you can
speak out of at once.

The Winner Is...

SCO, in a landslide.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What are static shared libraries?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 10:30 AM EDT
I've been programming since 1980, and have used static libraries, and
dynamic/shared libraries, but never heard of something called "static
shared" libraries, which sounds contradictory to me.

A static library bundles the library contents directly into your application.
If two applications link to the same static library, they EACH have their own
copy of the routines in that library. A shared library leaves the contents in
an external file (a .so) and your program will load that file as necessary when
it needs routines in it. Multiple applications can link to the same shared
library, and that's why it's "shared", the routines exist in only one
place (in the library).

I think SCO is mistaken in their word choice, but if not, could someone explian?
(Windows has "import libraries" which are static stubs for dynamic
libraries, but on unix there isn't anything like that...) Can someone clairify
what SCO means, or are they just making up new terms again?

Chris

[ Reply to This | # ]

Be proud, PJ! Even Garfield knows.
Authored by: bbaston on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 10:33 AM EDT
Being up almost as late as you last night (this morning), my coffee tasted
better than normal just now. Off to Groklaw for more energy, and to share this:

It was a bit uplifting to see Garfield taking in some clueless news report (Odie
must be taking a walk) and The Yellow Terror remarks, "You gotta check
those sources, Bucko."

How do you change the world? One [friend | customer | business | reporter | end
user | industry | government] at a time, of course

---
Ben
-------------
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO,
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold, hairysmileyface,

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS Patching Day!
Authored by: kberrien on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 10:40 AM EDT
>The issue was exacerbated last week when a MSFT patch
>design to fix the vulnerability, released the prior week,
>was found to be ineffective.

Well, as we speak I'm in the middle of patching Windows servers with the half
dozen on so patches that came out last night - it must be Wednesday!

Started at 8am, its 10:27 (i had to drive to one site which I'm at now - since
the server didn't come up nicely after patching via VNC.) 3 more servers to
go!

What was that about TCO and Windows? And judging by the shell exploit news -
I'll be at it again.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Court Cases Are Good For -- The World According to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 10:40 AM EDT
PJ,

I mean no offense, but could you please stop claiming all
the time that "the media dutifully reported SCO's story"?

If SCOX somehow manages to get the media to do this, then
this is just as much the mistake of IBM/RedHat/AutoZone/
DC/etc. as the media's. I read Groklaw for the good
articles (keep up the good work!), not for unnecessary
bashing of the media.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Court Cases Are Good For -- The World According to SCO
Authored by: old joe on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 11:14 AM EDT
The score in this ping pong match is IBM 20: SCO 0.

SCO have to win 21 match points in a row if they are to win the game. IBM only
have to win 1.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Switch to Mozilla first, Linux later
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 11:37 AM EDT
Since Mozilla runs on Windows, nobody should be using Internet Explorer. The
top priority applications to switch are the ones with the biggest security
holes, and the cost of switching is minor, compared to installing Microsoft's
security patches, and miniscule compared to an exploited security hole.

Open Office is another good candidate, to replace Microsoft Office.

The switch to Linux can be done gradually, a few PC's at a time, after employees
are used to the FOSS replacements for Microsoft's buggy applications.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Relative Ease of Patching & Market Strategy
Authored by: escoles on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:27 PM EDT
The relative speed with which the Mozilla team were able to patch Mozilla is
directly related to a fundamental difference in target market: Mozilla targest
arbitrary platforms, and IE targets one single platform.

This is at heart the issue with the tight-vs-loose coupling debate. Mozilla was
intended to be cross-platform, and so it virtually had to be deisigned for
loose-coupling and abstracted interfaces. That had design implications, such as
a need for a comprehensive configuration interface that wasn't based on a
proprietary "technology" like the Windows Registry.

Hence, when the shell exploit was made clear, all they had to do was write a
simple XPI script to flip the shell setting to "off". That's why the
"patch" was so small -- it was really just a macro to automate a
reconfiguration step.

Cross-platform implementation was never a need for IE (well, if you don't count
9x/NT/Mobile portability), so even though their original codebase (Spyglass
Mosaic) was cross-platform, they never continued with the sound loose-coupling
practices. Tight coupling was encouraged, in fact, since it made unbundling that
much more difficult.

So, the moral: Let's cut the guys at MS at least a small break. They do have a
much harder job closing that exploit.

[...Posted using Mozilla 1.7.1 on Windows NT 4...]

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Court Cases Are Good For -- The World According to SCO
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:29 PM EDT
". . . Also SCOX, in a series of media and investor calls relayed to us
third-hand, claimed that its filing last week arguing against IBM’s . . .
copyright assertions could lead to a substantial legal victory at a scheduled
August 4 hearing, drive additional end-user licensing, and boost its stock
price."

This reminds me of either a penny stockbroker's or a boiler room telemarketer's
pitch that "the upside is unlimited".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ok, So Where's the Ball Now?
Authored by: moogy on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:53 PM EDT
After seeking a stay on the IBM PSJ based upon claims
that the AZ case will answer the copyright infringement
issues concerning their copyright claims in Linux, and
after pleading a stay in the RH case on the same grounds,
they now tell the AZ judge that their case is NOT about
copyright claims in Linux but about static libs.

So Where are the copyright claims of SysV in Linux?

Nowhere!
Except that they have an executive running around the
world with a purported briefcase full of copyright
infringment examples, with nicely highlighted and color
coded specificity, despite being unable to provide such
specificity in the IBM case, and all those people they
showed examples to under NDAs.

The AZ stay is good, but these guys have danced around
with fraud too long!

"the whole world is watching!"

---
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 | # ]

Didn't Judge Wells ...
Authored by: whoever57 on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 01:28 PM EDT
tell both parties to stop spinning the lawsuit to the press?

Yes, I know that SCO was the only party actually engaged in this practice, but
are SCO risking sanctions by doing more than just notifying the press about
their filings?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don't you just wish?
Authored by: Franki on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 01:48 PM EDT
Don't you find yourself wishing that there was a "put up or shut up"
law in place in the US?

SCO have been going around making claims for which they have disclosed no proof
at all, and they are hurting the bottom lines of many other companies.

And yet there is nothing legal that can be done quickly to curtail the damage.

And suing SCO for damages is no good, because when the current batch of lawsuits
are over, SCO will be broke and there will be no "damages" to be had.
And I'll bet that SCO will or have worked it so that none of what happens will
be able to effect the personal fortunes of its board.

Is it just me or does that sound fundamentally wrong?

At the very least, it should be illegal to make press claims that have been
contested, and have yet to be resolved.

In other words, they should not be able to claim they have any rights to Linux
until a judge tells them they do.

And they certainly shouldn't have the right to ask for license fees to which
they have not yet established a right.

rgds

Franki

---
Is M$ behind Linux attacks?
http://htmlfixit.com/index.php?p=86

[ Reply to This | # ]

"independent analyst" Enderle now shilling for Toshiba?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 02:22 PM EDT
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040713/D83Q6THO1.html

...
But Toshiba's Qosmio promises to be the first with a built-in, no-waiting TV
mode and "arguably the best laptop display currently on the market,"
said Rob Enderle, an independent industry analyst with The Enderle Group.
"They've just moved the bar and are further defining this multimedia class
of products."
...

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Court Cases Are Good For -- The World According to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 03:46 PM EDT
"...copyright assertions could lead to a substantial legal
victory at a scheduled August 4 hearing, drive additional
end-user licensing, and boost its stock price"

This is a completely true statement. It could also lead
to this months Playboy bunny throwing herself at my
feet... It's just not the way to bet...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Red Hat Investigation = ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 03:52 PM EDT
Accorfing to my stock broker Red Hat is being invisyigated by the SEC.

Is this true?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Court Cases Are Good For -- The World According to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 07:46 PM EDT
test 2 3 4 pop pop snake snake

Are we up?

What happened?

t_t_b

---
Release the missing Exhibits!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clueless Media Robots
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 09:34 PM EDT
I've looked at the google search link PJ put up.

The stories there are really sad. They are continually painting the summary
judgement as IBM trying to get the case thrown out. This is a lie.

IBM wants a summary judgement on IBM's counterclaim. SGOG is claiming that IBM
is mischaracterizing the case because SCOG is suing over something else. This
is classic SCOG... spin spin spin redirect.

If IBM gets the summary judgement, we still have to go through the ridiculous
derivative works claims as a matter of contract.

But the reporters are so stupid they just say what SCO tells them to do.

They should at least read Groklaw.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM-206.pdf - as text
Authored by: JeR on Thursday, July 15 2004 @ 03:38 AM EDT
Here is the basic HTML framework for IBM-206

It is not finished yet, but I need some sleep!

WHAT I HAVE and HAVE NOT DONE IS:

Set up the basic, broad HTML. Most of the inline highlighting (bold, underlining, etc) is still missing, but the footnotes are there and they are working and most if not all of the titles are formatted properly. I copied it all out of Acrobat Reader before I applied the HTML, and AR has the nasty habit of leaving out a character here and there (mostly c's oddly).

If you want to take up (part) of this effort, please comment directly beneath my comment so that everyone working on it knows where to find 206 progress updates.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT : Debunking the "code comparison is really really hard" FUDdery
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 15 2004 @ 05:12 AM EDT

There's one comment on this on another article, but it bears repeating that the extreme position SCO has asserted on this is, basically, nonsense.

There are two widely-used tools for detecting student plagiarism that could be brought to bear, MOSS and JPlag. The description of JPlag says "JPlag has already played a part in several intellectual property cases where it has been successfully used by expert witnesses". Alexey Toptygin used SIM for his unhelpful (to ADTI, that is) work comparing Minix and pre-1.0 Linux. That doesn't seem to have taken him ages (it would be interesting to know how long), though the codebase is smaller. SCO claim that this is an O(n^2) problem, but it looks like the math was done by lawyers. Scope for challenge there, perhaps? There is quite a bit of other relevant work, though a fair amount of it is directed at textual plagiarism. There's even an article from MS Research, aimed at the "Napster problem".

Certainly the final stage would involve human judgement, but these automated tools are at a stage would much reduce the kind of time-intensive work postulated by SCO, by directing human eyeballs to places that might yield positives. Given the volume of code, they could also be less prone to false negatives. It's also worth noting that this doesn't have to be done by SCO. It could be done by anyone with access to the UNIX sources - IBM, for instance. I wonder ....

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT. Red Hat class action.
Authored by: tintak on Thursday, July 15 2004 @ 08:33 AM EDT
Just spotted this. We live in interesting times. link

---
Darl's folly.
"Somebody said it couldn't be done, and he knew it. So he tackled this thing that couldn't be done,... and he found that he couldn't do it!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO lies listed for your pleasure
Authored by: pooky on Thursday, July 15 2004 @ 09:38 AM EDT

Here's the relevant conflicting claims made by SCO in relation to the AutoZone case.

SCO Letter to RedHat Judge 6/17:

SCO continues to believe that IBM's violations of its license obligations and U.S. copyright law through its improper contributions of SCO's intellectual property to linux -- the issues that SCO's complaint in Utah presents -- are of paramount importance and will continue to predominate, as a comparative matter, over other issues potentially affecting linux. That comparative fact was true when SCO cited it in support of its motion to dismiss Red Hat's complaint and -- given the extent and importance of the challenged IBM contributions to linux -- remains true today.

SCO memo in opposition to IBM's 10th counter claim 4/23:

This precise issue will be litigated in a case filed by SCO against autozone in federal district court in Nevada; a case filed prior to IBM filing its Tenth Counterclaim. See The SCO Group Inc. v. autozone, Inc., Case No. CV-S-04-0237-DWH-LRL (D. Nev. 2004).

The only copyright claim SCO has asserted against IBM is primarily for IBM's continuing use of AIX and Dynix after SCO terminated IBM's UNIX licenses. See Second Amended Complaint, Count V. The Second Amended Complaint, however, does not contain a claim against IBM for copyright infringement arising out of its use, reproduction or improvement of linux.

In the autozone case referred to in IBM's Second Amended Counterclaims, the issues of whether the use and reproduction of linux infringes SCO's copyrights is squarely at issue.

There we have it. SCO tells the RedHat judge that the central issue in the SCO v IBM case is IBM's violations of SCO's rights due to their contributions to Linux. SCO tells the IBM judge that the central issue of copyright infringement only pertains to continued distribution of AIX and Dynix, notghing to do with Linux. It's interesting to note the language they use in the memos like "SCO continues to believe..." and "copyright claim SCO has asserted against IBM is primarily for..." No absolute statements of fact you notice.

Then they tell the IBM judge that the precise issue of copyright infringement through the use and reproduction of Linux is squarely at issue in the SCO v AutoZone case. And as well all know now from the audio of the hearing, SCO's lawyer stood up and said in plain terms to the judge that the the central issue was AutoZone's alleged copying of libraries into Linux to facilitate their application running on Linux and not an assertion that AutoZone's use and reproduction of Linux is the issue.

The dominoes are lined up. SCO is telling circular lies about the dependencies of the cases on each other. RedHat should wait for IBM, IBM should wait for AutoZone, all because the issue of whether use of Linux violates SCO's copyrights will be resolved in these venues. Then they stand up in Nevada and say that isn't the issue in the case. Watch the chain reaction this creates.

Since SCO lost their argument in Nevada, I'm willing to bet that when this is brought up in the IBM hearing SCO is going to say the assertion in Nevada wasn't correct and that the overwhelming amount of legal work they have to do in all these cases is going to lead to oral errors of this nature. Any takers?

---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Court Cases Are Good For -- The World According to SCO
Authored by: jim Reiter on Friday, July 16 2004 @ 08:07 AM EDT
When I read this stuff, as a non lawyer, I get confused. SCO seems to
assume that it is now AT&T. In fact AT&T is still AT&T, and any
rights
and privileges that AT&T retained in its sale to Novell continue to reside
with AT&T.

Whatever , Novell sold to SCO could only include that which Novell
purchased from AT&T (sans those rights and privileges retained by
AT&T) and would be encumbered by any rights and privileges retained
by Novell.

At best, SCO has what Novell had, less what Novell retained. SCO
cannot assume that it has complete control and ownership over UNIX
because it appears that both AT&T and Novell retained some rights and
privileges.

Am I missing something?

Jim Reiter

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.08 seconds