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
How the 10th Circuit Defines Derivative Code
Sunday, June 29 2003 @ 09:20 PM EDT

If you want to know how the 10th Circuit, which is the circuit Utah falls into, defines derivative code, you can read Dan Ravicher, Esq.'s paper, "Software Derivative Work: A Circuit Dependent Determination." [PDF]

According to this analysis of the different definitions the different federal court circuits follow, the 10th Circuit follows the AFC test, abstraction, filtration, comparison:

Under the AFC test, a court first abstracts from the original program its constituent structural parts. Then, the court filters from those structural parts all unprotectable portions, including incorporated ideas, expression that is necessarily incidental to those ideas, and elements that are taken from the public domain. Finally, the court compares any and all remaining kernels of creative expression to the structure of the second program to determine whether the software programs at issue are substantially similar so as to warrant a finding that one is the derivative work of the other.

Often the courts that apply the AFC test will perform a quick initial comparison between the entirety of the two programs at issue in order to help determine whether one is a derivative work of the other. Such an holistic comparison, although not a substitute for the full application of the AFC test when, as discussed below, only certain components of the original program are compared to the second program. If such a pattern is revealed by the quick initial comparison, the court is more likely to conclude that the second work is indeed a derivative of the original.

Details on each step of the process are in the article.


  


How the 10th Circuit Defines Derivative Code | 3 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 10:36 AM EDT
It would seem that, following that interpretation, AIX is indeed a derivative of
System V (which IBM would not deny) but that the JFS source code cannot possibly
be such, since after the A & F parts the resulting "kernels" are wholly
dissimilar. One has to wonder if SCO have actually looked up the precedent in
their own state?
Dr Stupid

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 08:01 PM EDT
Taken as a whole, AIX is a derivative of System V. But NUMA, RCU, & JFS were
developed by IBM and implemented in AIX. They are not based on anything which
existed previously in the System V code. It seems that SCO's contention is that
by implementing them in AIX that this makes them somehow derivative works. Am I
missing something? If a judge rules that IBM property implemented in AIX is not
automatically derivative of the System V code, doesn't everything else go up in
smoke?
Greg T Hill

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 01 2003 @ 03:10 PM EDT
If the judge rules that way, yes, it would be the end of the derivative code issue, but there are other contract-related claims. I'll be writing about that as soon as I can get it done.

If you have facts and proofs on the sentence "But NUMA, RCU & JFS..." please share. RCU is pretty clear, but the others?


pj

[ 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 )