|
|
| IBM's Redacted Memo in Support of SJ on 10th CC (copyright infringement) |
 |
|
Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 03:36 AM EDT
|
Just as I finish IBM's Greatest Hits, the nearly 600 exhibits to their summary judgment motions, and decide I deserve time off for good behavior, IBM files another document. Pacer entry:
838
Filed: 10/12/2006
Entered: 10/13/2006
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to [805] Sealed Memo in Support of Summary Jgm re: 10th counterclaim, by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (blk, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/13/2006 (blk, ). Happily, IBM had mercy and already divided it up into two parts, because it's quite long, so we have: Part 1
Part 2 I have read one sentence, from the very end, page 100: "...SCO is also claiming infringement of, and control over, material it does not own. Therefore, SCO should be barred from further prosecuting its infringement claim against IBM." Amen. And now I'm off to sleep. We'll talk about it in the morning.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 03:41 AM EDT |
If needed.
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2006 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: elronxenu on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 04:03 AM EDT |
| Please make links clicky.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 04:16 AM EDT |
Is there a special meaning other than the meaning in regular, ordinary life
associated with the word "therefore" when used in legal documents or
proceedings?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 04:45 AM EDT |
| 270 - ... It is as though SCO did not claim the actual idea of the mathematical
function "division", but did claim the name of the function as well as the
parameters...
273 - SCO claims copyright protection for a function that
simply copies characters from a source to a destination
294. The allegedly
infringed specification document materiel includes 239 segments of materiel
relating to the X Windows system, which SCO neither owns or controls.
There
are also points about SCOg claiming copyright over BSD files. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The New Math - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 09:03 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: thombone on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 05:03 AM EDT |
I find this document itself amazing, if for no other reason but that it stands
as an excellent summary of the timeline of the case itself. What a wonderful
tool to have to point someone to to get up to speed on the history of this case
in a hurry![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 05:24 AM EDT |
"221. SCO cannot show substantial similarity between the Linux kernel and
protectable elements of the System V works because none of the System V Code is
protectable by copyright."
At long last.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grahamt on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 05:35 AM EDT |
| Am I mistaken, or does this filing indicate that
IBM's Motion
to Confine SCO's Claims to Final Disclosures
has been granted, and
SCO's
Objections to Order Granting IBM's Motion to limit SCO's Claims
has been
denied?
From footnote 3 on page 3 of the preliminary statement (page 11 of
the pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-838A.pdf) ...
"This motion is limited
to the alledgedly misused material specifially identified by SCO in the Final
Disclosures. [IBM] do not seperately address the materials struck by the Court's
order of June 28,2006. Nor do we address the material identified by SCO for the
first time in its expert reports. The Court has made clear that these
items are not part of the case."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsmith on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 05:38 AM EDT |
It looks like all the bases are covered.
If this doesn't send SCOG's copyright claims to the deep six, nothing will.
And I think that it might prevent future miscreants from staking similar claims.
So it is beneficial to all current and future Linux and *BSD users.
What I don't understand is why BS&F didn't see the existance of the USL vs.
BSDi settlement as a big red flag where these claims are concerned?
---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Totosplatz on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 06:01 AM EDT |
Sorry to be clueless, but this is scanned material rather than text; so what to
do to help with this? Will it be OCR'ed? Or eyeballed?
I can help if I know where to pitch in.
---
All the best to one and all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 06:08 AM EDT |
The preliminary statement really says it all:
In its final
disclosures (the "Final Disclosures"), SCO identified 294 Items of
allegedly
misused material. However, only 68 of them concern allegations of
infringement relating to
Linux, and only 52 of those survived the Court's
June 28, 2005, order limiting SCO's proof. The
52 items at issue (the
"Items") identify four allegedly infringed UNIX copyrights (UNIX
System V
Release 3.2, UNIX System V Release 4.0, UNIX System V Release 4.2, and
UNIX
System V Release 4.2-ES-MP (the "System V Works"). The Items also
identify three types of
allegedly infringing material: (1) header file code
that is either dictated by the Single UNIX
Specification (the "SUS
Material") or related to a technology known as Streams (the
"Streams
Material"); (2) code relating to he ELF Specification ("ELF
Material"); and (3) less than 25
lines of memory allocation code, which were
removed from Linux before IBM filed its Tenth
Counterclaim.
Most of
this material is not even in the Linux kernel, which is the subject of the
Tenth
Counterclaim and this motion. In fact, only 12 of the Items relate to
the Linux kernel. Those
12 items concern 326 lines of Linux code (the "Linux
Code") that are alleged to infringe
320 lines of UNIX code (the "System V
Code") from the System V Works (collectively, the
"Disputed Code"). In
short, despite SCO's public claims of there being more than one
million
lines of infringing code in Linux, the Final Disclosures identify no
more than 326 lines of
supposedly infringing code in the kernel. The
Disputed Code represents less than five one-
thousandths of a percent
(.005%) of the System V Works.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 06:55 AM EDT |
| You really do work far too hard. But it is great stuff. IBM and their lawyers
have done their homework properly. I wonder if they used some of the research
done by Groklaw to help prepare it? I think that wearing the red dress would
be in order today! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eric76 on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 07:14 AM EDT |
When IBM requested that SCO identify the copyrighted material, why didn't they
spell out a detailed list of required information such as:
1) the files, versions, and line numbers where the material is found in UNIX,
2) the files, versions, and line numbers where the material is found in Linux,
3) evidence that SCO owns the copyrights on the code in question,
4) SCO's theory of why it is a copyright violation, and
5) a history of the code in question including the identity of the original
author, the identities of any modifiers, and the approximate dates the code was
written or modified.
If they had requested that and the judge ordered SCO to produce the information,
that by itself would probably have limited the number of claimed copyright
violations.
It seems reasonable to me that one would provide that information. In the case
of copying something from a book into another book, such information would often
be quite obvious. But in the case of code, especially code that has been around
in various forms for many years, the information is likely to be far from
obvious.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 07:50 AM EDT |
95. Furthermore, in the Strategic Business Agreement, Caldera
expressly warranted to IBM that IBM would be protected against claims of
infringement relating to the material in Caldera's Linux products, and promised
that it would hold harmless and indemnify IBM from third party intellectual
property rights claims. (Ex. 221 ¶¶ 75-76; Ex. 466 at
1710023486.)
Game Over.
---
"When I say
something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 08:35 AM EDT |
The list of SCO's infringement claims
1. Header files
2. ELF format
3. Streams
4. Memory allocation code (25 lines) from Silicon Graphics
5. 326 Unix vs 320 lines from Linux
---
1. As everyone outside SCO seems to know header files are not protected by
copyright.
2. The ELF format is a royalty free format.
3. Streams were something Caldera wanted in the kernel but almost no one else
did
4. Please correct me if Im wrong here but I dont think these lines were accepted
into the kernel
5. Without knowing more about these lines I cant say much but I agree with IBM
that this is a stretch to claim that all of Linux belongs to SCO (or who ever
owns the Unix copyrights) because of these lines.
+++++++++
Also an interesting use of the defense of copyright misuse. I hope the judge
picks up on this.
+++++++++++++++
Now some specific points:
Section 27 page 19 (PDF) page 11 of the filing
Says streams were in Linux 1.2.23
Is this correct? I did not think streams made it into Linux.
---
Section 45
Caldera including streams in Linux
This I think we knew but were these purely a Cladera only distribution?
---
Section 68 - partly redacted. Looks very interesting
---
Section 93 - Caldera granted IBM ... redacted
---
Section 95 - Caldera allowed IBM to use its code and to indemnify IBM against
3rd parties
---
Section 162 page 44 of the filing/page 52 of the PDF
IBM knew nothing of the alleged infringement
Is this correct?
I understood that SCO via DMcB had made reprentations to IBM before this suit
starting I think in Novemeber 2002. They may or may not have stated that these
involved copyright infringement.
---
Section 191 - 12 items in all concern the Linux kernel
I presume these are the 320/326 lines mention above
Anyone here have an idea to what these refer?
---
Section 205: Caldera-IBM Strategic Business Agreement
Comes up again.
This would love to read. At the moment the Caldera/SCO claims are likely to be
simply incredible given this background.
+++++++++
If any one here can clarify these few questions in this part I would be most
gratful.
--
MadScientist[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ankylosaurus on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 08:59 AM EDT |
| On p47 of IBM-838A.pdf, we find:
175. The Court further
held:
SCO has had ample opportunity to articulate, identify and
substantiate its claims against SCO. [SCO's] failure was intentional and
therefore willful [...]
Is this an accurate quote of the original
court order? ISTR that there was a similar statement in the original court
order that was subsequently fixed. Or is it a typo by IBM? ---
The
Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 09:02 AM EDT |
| It seems that the redacted text is of a minor nature to the facts and arguments
as the redacted portins are so short and seem to be about some specifics of
agreements between IBM and SCOx & alleged predecessors ininterest. If IBM
did the redactions, what purpose would there be in doing so? They are not hiding
anything from SCOx and making them public wouldn't seem to possibly hurt their
case. Some type of prior agrement to secrecy? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tuxi on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
Rokhind's text, "Advanced UNIX Programming" (1985), is used as an example of
presenting details on the UNIX interface in paragaph 252, p. 62.
Is it
just me, or do others find this a bit of poetic justice?
---
tuxi [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 10:06 AM EDT |
144. SCO made available and continued to make available (as
recently as August 11, 2006) the Linux 2.4.12 kernel and the 0.7.0 version of
libelf for download from its website, including code from all three of the files
containing Linux Code, plus other SUS Material, Streams Material and ELF
Material (Items 150-53, 156-59, 160-64, 183-84, 208-10, 212, 218, 220-21, 223,
225, 228, 230-31, 272), such that anyone with an Internet connection could have
accessed it. (Ex. 215 ¶ 110; Ex. 226 ¶¶
13-15.)
Let's see... what was Groklaw covering back
on August 11, 2006? Oh, yeah, that's right: PJ wrote
about how "SCO is Still Distibuting the Linux Kernel. Yup. The Whole Enchilada",
in which she stated
SCO is still, three plus years after suing
IBM, distributing the entire Linux kernel under the GPL right here:
ftp://ftp.iso.caldera.com/pub/skunkware/contrib-3.1.1-10-20011130.iso
Looking at the citations IBM makes above, we find the Declaration of David
Mazieres, a Stanford assistant professor of computer science (and who
coincidentally took his PhD in computers from ... wait for it ... MIT), who
makes the following claim:
"13. On August 11,2006, I downloaded
a file called "/pub/skunkware/contrib-
3.1.1-1O-20011130.iso" from SCO's
publicly accessible online server, "ftp.iso.caldera.com".
This file was an
".iso" image of a Linux distribution CD from which an actual CD could easily
be
made. The file contained code from a SCO Linux Distribution, which included GPL
notices."
Coincidence? I don't think so. Take a bow,
PJ.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac
Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 11:16 AM EDT |
Once again, more layer upon layer of defense and outright debunking of claims.
Be it PJ, or someone else. But a sumarized version of IBM's defenses should be
compiled and posted to reach a broader audience. Those that are aware of the
case from the initial media frezy, who obsorbed the parroting media need to get
an update of the state of the case so far.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 11:24 AM EDT |
Is defined as "320 lines of UNIX code from the System V Works" (page
2)
Others have suggested that this was the case before, but now we know for sure.
So when IBM says that none of the System V Code is protectable, they refer to
these specific 320 lines.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cf on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 11:38 AM EDT |
In its list of undisputed and undisputable facts, IBM writes:
"129. Because Novell, not SCO, owned the UNIX System V copyrights, SCO
asked Novell several times over the course of several months to transfer the
UNIX System B copyrights to SCO ..."
I thought SCO was claimning ownership of UNIX System V copyrights in its lawsuit
against Novell?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 12:15 PM EDT |
The section in Part 1 "Santa Infringement Analysis". I think we all
know about the later study and email. IMHO something needed added there. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stats_for_all on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
| The unsealed depositions have been coded in a database, below is a sort by
affiliation and general subject for some groups
Number Indx • Name •
DateParse affiliation •
Subject • URL
161 • Mike
Anderson • September 13, 2006 • IBM hacker
• Item 190 • Link
162 • Barry Arndt • September 14, 2006 • IBM hacker
• Item
1 JFS •
Link
168 • Steve Best • September 10, 2006 • IBM hacker
• Item 1 JFS • Link
173 • Wayne Boyer • September 11, 2006 • IBM Hacker
•
testing •
Link
188 • Ruth Forester • September 19, 2006 • IBM
hacker
• Item 191 • Link
196 • John George • September 12, 2006 • IBM Hacker
•
Testing •
Link
206 • Venkata Jagana • September 21, 2006 • IBM
hacker
• Item 188 • Link
210 • Vivek Kashyap • September 19, 2006 • IBM Hacker
•
Item 187 • Link
211 • Jim Keniston • September 12, 2006 • IBM
hacker
• Item 186 • Link
216 • Larry Kessler • September 13, 2006 • IBM hacker
•
Item 186 • Link
218 • David Kleikamp • September 11, 2006 • IBM
hacker
• Item 1 JFS • Link
222 • Shirley Ma • September 14, 2006 • IBM Hacker
• Item
188 •
Link
225 • Michael Mason • September 12, 2006 • IBM
hacker
• 191 • Link
231 • Paul McKenney • September 11, 2006 • IBM hacker
•
Item 2 RCU • Link
235 • Haren Babu Myneni • September 14, 2006 •
IBM Hacker
• Item 186 • Link
236 • Scott Nelson • August 4, 2004 • IBM Hacker
• Dynix
•
Link
237 • Hien Nguyen • September 11, 2006 • IBM
Hacker
• Item 186 • Link
243 • Mark Peloquin • September 19, 2006 • IBM Hacker
•
Item 1 JFS • Link
246 • Hal Porter • September 12, 2006 • IBM
Hacker
• 187 • Link
248 • Ben Rafanello • September 12, 2006 • IBM Hacker
•
Item 1 JFS • Link
258 • Dipankar Sarma • September 13, 2006 • IBM
hacker
• Item 2 RCU • Link
263 • Nivedita Singhvi • September 14, 2006 • IBM hacker
•
188 •
Link
274 • Jay Vosburgh • September 28, 2006 • IBM
hacker
• Item 190 • Link
292 • Martin Bligh • September 12, 2006 • IBM Hacker
•
Item 23 PTX • Link
293 • Patricia Gaughen • September 18, 2006 •
IBM Hacker
• Item 94 NUMA • Link
596 • Paul McKenney • September 24, 2006 • IBM Hacker
•
DYNIX •
Link
Other Hackers, Ex-Santa Cruz, Ex- Caldera, and others
Number Indx • Name • DateParse affiliation •
Subject •
URL
166 • Douglas B. Beattie • September 20, 2006 •
Caldera Hacker
• ELF • Link
169 • Tim Bird • September 18, 2006 • Caldera Hacker
•
Streams •
Link
176 • Marc Christensen • September 19, 2006 •
Caldera Hacker
• Linux Support • Link
201 • David Groethe • September 22, 2006 • hacker
•
Streams •
Link
226 • David Mazieres • September 23, 2006 • hacker
• GPL download • Link
230 • M. Douglas McIlroy • September 19, 2006 • ATT hacker
• History of Unix • Link
232 • Marcus Meissner • September 19, 2006 • Caldera Hacker
• Header files • Link
238 • K. Y. Srinivasan • September 22, 2006 • ATT Hacker
•
ELF •
Link
242 • Gregory Page • September 20, 2006 • Caldera
Hacker
• IPX • Link
251 • Calvin Gaisford • September 22, 2006 • Caldera Hacker
• LSB •
Link
253 • Thomas Roehr • August 30, 2003 • hacker
•
Unix Source Code • Link
272 • Linus Torvalds • September 21, 2006 • tooth fairy
hacker
• Linux Support • Link
278 • Bart Whiteley • September 19, 2006 • Caldera hacker
•
Linux support • Link
Licensing, Derivatives and release of Source Code from ATT
Number
Indx • Name • DateParse affiliation •
Subject • URL
174
• Robert F. Bucco • August 23, 2003 • ATT
• Unix Source Code •
Link
185 • Jeanette Tilley • July 21, 2004 • ATT • Licensing
• Link
189 • David W. Frasure • October 7, 2003 • ATT
• BSD
settlement • Link
190 • David W. Frasure • March 28, 2004 • ATT
• BSD settlement • Link
191 • David Frasure • September 21, 2006 • ATT •
??
Derivatives • Link
200 • Geoffrey D. Green • June 17, 2004 • ATT
•
Licensing • Link
217 • Ira Kistenberg • June 24, 2004 • ATT • Derivatives
• Link
223 • Mark Magee • August 22, 2003 • ATT •
Scrap dealer
• Link
249 • Edward J. Riddle • December 19, 2003 • ATT
•
Licensing • Link
250 • Edward J. Riddle • September 21, 2006 •
ATT
• Derivatives • Link
271 • Jeanette L. Tilley • September 21, 2006 • ATT
•
Derivatives • Link
279 • Max B. Wicker • October 31, 2003 • ATT •
Licensing • Link
280 • Max B. Wicker • September 21, 2006 • ATT
•
Derivatives • Link
281 • Otis Wilson • December 11, 2003 • ATT •
Licensing
• Link
282 • Otis Wilson • April 26, 2004 • ATT • Licensing
•
Link
Interference Claims dismissed
Number Indx • Name •
DateParse affiliation •
Subject • URL
70 • Todd M.
Shaughnessy • September 22, 2006 •
IBM lawyer • Interference •
Link
165 • Lawrence R. Goldfarb • September 13, 2006 •
Investor •
Interference • Link
177 • Samuel Greenblatt • February 7, 2005 • CA
•
interference • Link
204 • Luann Guleserian • June 27, 2005 • Intel
•
Interference • Link
205 • Karen Smith • September 21, 2006 • IBM •
Interference • Link
241 • Monica Kumar • March 18, 2005 • Oracle
•
Interference • Link
267 • John H. Terpstra • March 8, 2006 •
Conference
• interference • Link
597 • Joseph Beyers • September 22, 2006 • HP •
interference • Link
Discussion of the asset sale to Santa Cruz
Number Indx • Name
• DateParse affiliation •
Subject • URL
160 • Allison
Amadia • June 9, 2003 • Novell Lawyer
• Asset Sale • Link
163 • Allison Amadia • September 23, 2006 • Novell Lawyer
•
Asset Sale • Link
239 • Greg Jones • September 21, 2006 • Novell
Lawyer
• Asset Sale • Link
240 • Joseph A. La Sala, Jr., • September 22, 2006 •
Novell
Lawyer • Asset Sale • Link
254 • Steven M. Sabbath • December 22, 2003 • Santa Cruz
Lawyer • Asset Sale • Link
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 12:58 PM EDT |
1. EV1 received the Ryan Tibbitts letter, that I believe was sent in December
2003. It is an exhibit to Robert Marsh's declaration in the exhibits.
2. In the December 2003, Ryan Tibbitts letter says that various header files are
subject to the BSD settlement and are restricted, with the statement that they
can't be used without SCO's consent. This letter is also an exhibit
3. In February 2004, when IBM wrote to Mark Heise requesting copies of the BSD
documents, Mark Heise's letter (which is also exhibit) says that SCO doesn't
have copies.
Questions:
(a) We now can see the BSD settlement (it's also an exhibit). Do you feel
Tibbitts misrepresented it?
(b) How can you reconcile Ryan Tibbitts talking about details of the BSD
settlement (he seems to be aware of some of the terminology in it, even if he
mischaracterizes some of the content), with Mark Heise saying that SCO don't
have it?
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 01:24 PM EDT |
Forgot my password but...it did occur to me that it would be ironic (albeit
incredibly orchestrated) if IBM forced the dissolution of the Novell case and
vice-versa. Would SCOG/Boies et al see this coming? It would seem to be tough to
defend against.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
This concept is interesting. Suppose that I have a volume of Shakestick's
plays. Unlike his more famous contemporary, there are very few printings of his
works. What I have is a reproduction of a volume in the Tower museum. The
publisher has changed a few of the words. They say it makes the work less
offensive. They have not pointed out which words were changed though. I put
one of the plays up on my web site. The company sues me. Can I claim that the
company is misusing its copyright? By changing a few words they are attempting
to gain control of something that has been in the public domain for four hundred
years.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: GLJason on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 03:15 PM EDT |
| I only noticed this going through the exhibits yesterday. In 1999, Caldera
entered into a "Statement of Work" with IBM. IBM was possibly going to setup
customers with Caldera Linux and wanted extra assurance from Caldera that it
could use any code contained therein. Caldera granted them a "Statement of
Work" when they entered into the Strategic Business Agreement, an "extra"
license I believe to any code Caldera may own in their Linux distribution. SCO
only notified them that they were terminating that agreement in exhibit 152, a
letter on March 8, 2005 that terminated the statement of work on April 17, 2005.
The actual statement of work is sealed exhibit 467 so we cannot know the
details. However, it would seem that it was a broad agreement that gave IBM
right to use ANYTHING in Caldera Linux, and serves as an extra hurdle for SCO to
overcome. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 05:20 PM EDT |
On p.5 (pdf pg 13)IBM states that SCO misused their copyrights by
"effectively asserting rights to all of Linux".
At first that seemed a bit far-fetched. But then when one remembers that the
SCOsource licenses were sold for the same price as the whole of OpenServer, it
is clear that the licenses were priced for a complete operating system.
Would that hold water in a US court?
Mark H
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 06:43 PM EDT |
Contrary to some comments on the Copiepresse article, there is nothing that
"turns copyright on its head" about the theories of estoppel that
Internet companies rely upon. Internet companies are not "making SCO-like
arguments" to defend themselves. My proof: IBM cites UHaul v. WhenU and
Field v. Google as precedents in this memorandum.
If as a copyright holder you have an opportunity to indicate your desire that no
use be made of your work, and you do not do so, you cannot later assert a claim
of infringement against someone who relied upon your silence. That is not new
law made up for the Internet, it is old law, as IBM's cases (older than the two
I just mentioned) show.
There are arguments one way or another about what counts as an
"opportunity" sufficient to lead to estoppel or waiver or abandonment,
but I'd like it if people who claim that (for example) search engines massively
infringe copyrights would justify why they think so despite these precedents.
polymath[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 14 2006 @ 10:07 PM EDT |
"222. Even if all the System V code were protectable by copyright, the
Linux kernel is not substantially similar to Linux."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: russellphoto on Sunday, October 15 2006 @ 11:04 AM EDT |
Is this an error in the document? Section 222 states:
"222. Even if all of the System V Code were protectable by copyright, the
Linux kernel is not substantially similar to Linux. (Ex 215 sec 45.)"
Linux kernel not substantially similar to Linux? Should that not be UNIX? Or
are they stating that the Linux kernel is not the sum total of Linux?
That one got me. Appreciate any guidence with this section.
Russellphoto[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gtwilliams on Sunday, October 15 2006 @ 02:29 PM EDT |
| Nice:
http://www.ip-wars.net/
story/2006/10/14/233634/06 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 15 2006 @ 05:13 PM EDT |
How does the judge rule on the five main grounds/arguments? Do they have to
consider each one, or can they ignore up to four if a ruling in IBM's favour on
one makes the others moot? Even if they can do this, would they possibly rule in
IBM's favour on several, to strengthen the ruling against appeal? Might they
grant the motion from one argument while rejecting another argument?
(Because IBM claims that any one of the grounds is sufficient for ruling in
their favour, presumably if the judge is to rule against IBM, they must find
fault in each of the five.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cbc on Sunday, October 15 2006 @ 09:37 PM EDT |
It might be useful to review AllParadox's remarks from the time of the of the original PSJ motions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Memory Refresh - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 16 2006 @ 04:57 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
