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
Santa Cruz Listed Novell as Owning the Copyrights in 1999
Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 02:19 PM EST

Well, well. What have we here? I am looking at UnixWare 7.1.1, from 1999, methodically checking all the copyright files. And you know what I see over and over? This:
(C) Copyright 1996-1998 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright 1984-1995 Novell, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
How can this mean anything but that Novell retained its copyrights? And that Santa Cruz acknowledged it at the time?

You tell me. Why isn't this a smoking gun? It can't be inadvertent, I don't think, because Santa Cruz added their copyright notice for work from 1996 onward. So they had to look at the copyright files that they added themselves to.

We're talking 1999. Both the 1995 APA [PDF] and the 1996 Amendment 2 happened before 1999, so if Santa Cruz really believed it had gotten all the copyrights from Novell under that deal, unified or otherwise, it would have changed this notice and removed Novell and listed itself as the copyright owner, don't you think? I guess if I were Novell, I'd want to ask that question of various employees at trial. Who made the decision to do it this way? And who knew it was done this way before and after SCO launched into litigation? Anyone? Obviously, someone had to know.

And it isn't just in one file, in one place. For example, opening up UNIXWARE/INSTALL/BASE/COPYRIGHT you see this:

(C) Copyright 1996-1998 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright 1984-1995 Novell, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Portions Copyright (c) 1989 INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation.
Portions Copyright (c) 1990, 1991, 1992 INTEL Corporation.
Portions Copyright (c) 1993 Compaq Computer Corp.
All Rights Reserved.
Most files just have the first two lines. For example, UNIXWARE/INSTALL/NFS/COPYRIGHT has those two. So does UNIXWARE/INSTALL/COPYRIGHT. UNIXWARE/INSTALL/RPC has both Santa Cruz and Novell, but for SCO it has only the year 1996.

How could I not have thought to do this before?

Whenever I open a copyright file and see only Santa Cruz, it says 1996 as the earliest date. For example, if you open UNIXWARE/INSTALL/XCONTRIB/COPYRIGHT, it says "(C) Copyright 1996-1997 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. All rights reserved." It says the same in UNIXWARE/INSTALL/XDRIVERS/COPYRIGHT.

I notice if I open UNIXWARE/INSTALL/TCLRUN/COPYRIGHT I see:

(C) Portions Copyright 1997 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. All rights reserved.
(C) Copyright 1994-1997 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
(C) Copyright 1987-1994 The Regents of the University of California.
So that is the same pattern as with the Novell notice, that they still owned the copyrights, just as Sun and UCal did. Didn't Darl testify under oath that the tree is the branch and the branch is the tree, and that the only way to get UNIX is to get UnixWare? Why, yes. Yes, he did.

And yet, SCO is suing Novell for slander of title for expressing its opinion that it owned the copyrights. And Novell must defend itself, spending huge fees on lawyers to defend on such a claim as this. Why *wouldn't* Novell think it owned the copyrights? Santa Cruz itself told the world so in its own UnixWare release.

And by the way, if you don't own UnixWare, a reader reports that SCO still offers the UDK, dated 2004, which shows the same exact copyright notice, from its servers THIS VERY DAY. If I tell you where it is, they'll likely remove it, as is their wont. But if any lawyers want to know, email me. Guess what else he reports:

Remember our old friends errno.h and signal.h? Here is the copyright notice on each of those:

/*
* Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1988
* The Regents of the University of California
* All Rights Reserved.
* Portions of this document are derived from
* software developed by the University of
* California, Berkeley, and its contributors.
*/

That's right, no AT&T. No USL. No Novell. No Santa Cruz. No SCO Group.

We naturally would like to know if SCO is suing over code it doesn't even own. [ Update: Do note, however, the copyright notice on stdio.h that we reported back in 2004, which shows an internet posting in 1997 showing Novell as the copyright owner of the file in UnixWare 2.1.1 with a 1996 date, also post-APA, and no SCO notice at all on that file.] And my point is that both oldSCO (Santa Cruz) and newSCO, (SCO Group, formerly known as Caldera) distributed these copyright notices listing Novell as the copyright owner.

  


Santa Cruz Listed Novell as Owning the Copyrights in 1999 | 319 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
SCO Popularity Contest 2010
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 02:39 PM EST
Well, PJ... I think you just lost the SCO Popularity Contest 2010.

:)



---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ever heard of Netware?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 02:39 PM EST
You know, the thing Novell owned long before it owned Unix(Ware).
And requested Santa Cruz to incorporate in its later versions of UnixWare.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 02:44 PM EST
Corrections go here, with a summary in the title for easy scanning,
error->correction or s/error/correction/

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 02:47 PM EST
Please include the title of the News Pick article in the title and use HTML to
make links clickable

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Off Topic thread
Authored by: ais523 on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 02:49 PM EST
For if you want to say something, but it has nothing to do with the article.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES goes here
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 02:52 PM EST
If you have any COMES text transcriptions to submit, post them here. Use HTML
markup but post as Plain Old Text so that it easy for PJ to copy and paste.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • PX00577 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 10:56 PM EST
    • PX00577 - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, February 25 2010 @ 05:11 AM EST
      • PX00577 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 26 2010 @ 10:35 AM EST
Scrivner's Error.... in development?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 02:57 PM EST
Is there a legitimate (seeming) means by which SCO could
simply say "gee, those silly engineers. Just because they
didnt know how to modify the copyright files doesnt mean that
we didnt intend to fully own the copyright."



---
Clocks
"Ita erat quando hic adveni."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Santa Cruz Listed Novell as Owning the Copyrights in 1999
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 03:04 PM EST
I think that of all the people involved with this case, you are the most
deserving to put the stake through the heart of this vile creature.

Whatever it was originally, it became nothing more than an expression of the
self-serving greed and arrogance of Darl and the other officers of SCO.

Bravo!
Mark

[ Reply to This | # ]

Santa Cruz Listed Novell as Owning the Copyrights in 1999
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 03:15 PM EST
The standard practice in many published books is to list the original copyright
holders and when they acquired the copyright, and basically have a history of
the copyright ownership listed, even when the copyright is later transferred to
another publisher. Even if Santa Cruz acquired the copyright from Novell, they
have no way to claim that they personally wrote and copyrighted the code before
the date of the acquisition. Anyone disputing the ownership of the
"acquired" code would logically need to take that up with Novell, not
Santa Cruz.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Doesn't it say they bought it in 1996?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 03:43 PM EST


(C) Copyright 1996-1998 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright 1984-1995 Novell, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

"How can this mean anything but that Novell retained its copyrights? And
that Santa Cruz acknowledged it at the time? "

Err call me silly, but doesn't that precisely state that Novell owned te
copyright up to the end of '95 and from '96 they were SCO's ??

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't think so...
Authored by: Eeyore on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 03:44 PM EST
I think they are saying that Novel owned the copyright from 1984 until 1995 and
THEN SCO owned the copyright from 1996 until 1998.

I don't see this as saying that Novel still owned anything beyond 1995.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Isn't a release or distribution of software like a compilation?
Authored by: seanlynch on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 04:03 PM EST
Isn't a release or distribution of software like a compilation?

Whoever publishes the compilation has the copyright on that compilation. They
may not own any of the copyrights on the individual components of the
compilation. Each could be owned by different entities and licensed by the owner
to the compiler. Some components could be in the public domain. But I believe
the compiler holds the copyright on the compilation as a whole.

The individual files should show the copyright of each file. If any code were
added, caldera could own copyright that, but not the originals.

The thing to look for is the instrument of transfer. If it does not exist, the
copyrights never transfered.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why this isn't a smoking gun.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 04:21 PM EST
I agree with PJ's take on what these mean. In 1999, The Santa Cruz Operation
wasn't trying to claim ownership of every line of code in sight, and this is
what they produced.

However, as we have demonstrated in the comments above, it would be pretty easy
for a person - read "juror" - to look at that and think something
different.

That's why I don't think we'll see this used in court.

cpeterson, WINAL

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why notices don't point toa transfer of copyrights
Authored by: TomcaT-SdB on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 05:32 PM EST
A good point was made in the threads nested above, so I wanted to re-state it
here, along with a suggestion to update the article to avoid confusion:

Taking the comments "as-is", it seems that some are confused about how
a transfer of copyright is shown in notices and how a work with multiple
copyright owners is shown. This notice, luckily, shows both cases:

1) The original authors of the code (ie AT&T / USL and others) would have
had notices placed on the code when releasing the source outside. Hence, there
would have, at one point in time, been notices of USL copyrights in the works
(perhaps the older source releases could be parsed through if anyone has them).

2) When Novell bought the copyrights, they modified the notices accordingly, no
mention of USL or AT&T, just the Novell copyright going from 1984 to 1995.

3) When SCO bought the UNIX _business_ but not copyrights, they, of course,
added their copyright notice. Thus the files list the two owners: The notices
for the Novell ownership for works from 1984 to 1995 and SCO ownership for works
from 96 onward.

Thanks to the posters in the threads above for pointing this one out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Santa Cruz Listed Novell as Owning the Copyrights in 1999
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 05:35 PM EST
My understanding of the law, is that with copyrights, you own them as soon as
you write the copyrighted material. The notices are just a nicety. I do,
though, think that it says something that SCO added their own copyrights without
removing the Novell copyrights. But, I also think, it could be blamed on an
engineer who didn't do the right thing. Really you just need to write a find
with a pipe to 'sed' to replace some consistent text throughout a code tree. It
just needs to iterate through the tree and replace the wording at all instances
it discovers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Copyright Notices in Copy That Was Registered.
Authored by: RFD on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 05:56 PM EST
When SCO registered the copyrights with the copyright office, didn't they file a
copy of the source code? Would it be useful to know what the copyright notices
were in that copy?

Does anyone know if those filings are available for inspection? If so, does
anyone know how to access them?

Wouldn't it be interesting if SCO didn't claim to own the pre-1996 copyrights
when they registered them?

---
Eschew obfuscation assiduously.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where are the AT&T copyright notices?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 07:37 PM EST
The practice of adding your own copyright line is actually the practice of open
source rather than commercial software.

When Novell placed its copyright headers, it replaced AT&T's notices with
its own, because it was the new owner of the copyrights back to 1984. Did
Novell own the copyrights in 1984? Of course, not, but they properly replaced
the AT&T copyright notices with their own.

SCO did not replace Novell's notices as Novell replaced AT&T's. It
certainly reflects that old-SCO did not believe that Novell's copyrights had
transferred to it. The notices are to protect the incremental work on UnixWare,
which even Judge Kimball noticed belonged to them.

It is indeed a smoking gun. We were very careful in the industry to put proper
copyright notices on things after the court opined that AT&T might not even
have copyright protection on pre-1989 work because they forgot to put the little
(c) and a notice on the "published" UNIX source at the time, which was
the former law in the US.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Santa Cruz Listed Novell as Owning the Copyrights in 1999
Authored by: Lazarus on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 08:01 PM EST
So, how long until we have an SCO motion in limine to preclude Novell from
relying on these copyright notices?

---
I have no opinion on things I know nothing about.

This separates me from 90% of the human race, and 100% of politicians.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How do trials work?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 08:17 PM EST
How does Novell go about bringing this information into the trial?

Can SCO say that it wasn't brought up in discovery therefore it must be hid from
the jury?

That doesn't really make any sense. However, 7 years of litigation without any
evidence and 3 years of bankruptcy don't really make any sense either!

Here is a more esoteric question: If somehow SCO was able to con the jury and
then SCO started suing end users like me, could I bring this up and say that SCO
doesn't really own the copyrights? Or, does an error by one jury last forever
regardless of justice?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Verbose expansion, and a question
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 08:51 PM EST
Checking my understanding here:

So if I see

"Copyright 19xx-19yy XYZ Company"

This should be expanded to:

"The copyright on the content that was added in 19xx-19yy IS CURRENTLY HELD
by XYZ Company"

This does NOT tell me definitively that XYZ Company originated the material, but
that they are the current holder of the copyright.

The critical question: What is the scope of that convention? Is it a FLOSS
practice? A software practice? A copyright practice? I ask, because it is NOT
how I would have naturally read that. Rather, my naive reading would have been
that the copyright on this material was held from 19xx to 19yy by XYZ Company.

---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO also has to provide proof of transfer of copyrights to them from Santa Cruz
Authored by: jheisey on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 09:14 PM EST
Novell should also make a point during the trial that SCO has not provided proof
that any copyrights were transferred to them by Santa Cruz. The summation would
be a perfect time for that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Santa Cruz Listed Novell as Owning the Copyrights in 1999
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 10:43 PM EST
Just a note to add to the consensus. Wikipedia
reports that Novell purchased USL in 1993. So
on the bizarre theory (which some here seem to
support) that the copyright notices are in effect
a history of who had the copyrights at various
times, there is no way that Novell should have
a 1984 copyright to anything UNIX. But the notices
list Novell as holding the 1984+ copyrights.

It seems abundantly clear that Novell changed
the notices expunging USL and replacing it with
Novell.

If SCO had acquired the copyrights they would
indeed have also changed the notices.

[ Reply to This | # ]

tiger99 links Caldera into the sequence.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 25 2010 @ 04:08 AM EST
From July 15 2006. Link

[ Reply to This | # ]

For those wanting some more detail: Groklaw in 2004
Authored by: DrStupid on Thursday, February 25 2010 @ 04:14 AM EST
Relevant past article: Notice This Notice? which picks up some of the points being discussed above

[ Reply to This | # ]

Order #730 - Novell MiLs 2 and 3 (829 and 830) denied.
Authored by: ChrisP on Thursday, February 25 2010 @ 11:17 AM EST
So that's them all disposed of before the hearing, leaving just the Daubert
hearings to do this morning. And we were worried that there wouldn't be time to
get through them all. :-)

---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.

[ 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 0.06 seconds