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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


To read comments to this article, go here
Red Hat Responds
Tuesday, July 22 2003 @ 09:53 AM EDT

Red Hat has put up "An Update for Our Partners," in which it says SCO has "never approached Red Hat concerning the claims they've made publicly" and saying they have "no knowledge of any infringing code":
Red Hat's position remains unchanged. We are not a party to any lawsuit over UNIX code. No one has established publicly or in court that any UNIX code has been infringed. . . .

Red Hat's position remains unchanged. We are not a party to any lawsuit over UNIX code. No one has established publicly or in court that any UNIX code has been infringed. We will continue to communicate with our customers and partners as appropriate.

To the question, "Do I need to buy a SCO license?" they answer:
SCO has not demonstrated that any infringement exists, nor has it established that it owns derivative works in UNIX. Nothing has been proven to establish that such a license is needed.
They also state that instead of losing any customers, they generated 1400 new ones in the last quarter. They say they remain committed to the open source model because, for one thing, if you can't see the code, can you know if it's really yours? They also say anyone with further questions can contact them at legal@redhat.com. Don't abuse that process, naturally. It's clear they are directing this primarily at customers and partners.

My take on their statement -- and it's only a guess -- is that legal wrote or screened it, and that their position is that no copyright infringement has yet been proven. In other words, having a copyright gives you rights. But you do have to have some proof of copyright infringement to successfully go forward. Again, this is my best guess as to what this means. I have a call in to the Copyright Office to ask this very question.


  View Printable Version


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 )