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
SCO Can't Go After Statutory Damages or Atty's Fees
Tuesday, July 22 2003 @ 03:27 PM EDT

SCO Can't Go After Statutory Damages or Atty's Fees
For Newly Registered Materials, Says Copyright Office


I just spoke with an "information specialist" as they are termed, at the US Copyright Office. The office has them available to explain things, (202) 707-5959, M-F, 8:30 AM to 5 PM, EDT.

We walked through the copyrights, the old one and the new SCO Group one, and Skip told me that whatever is "New Matter" or "revisions" is copyrighted only as of the date of the filing. Whatever was filed in 1992 is covered since back then, but whatever they just filed is not. So the question is: what was registered back in the 90's (I see nothing later than that for Unix System Laboratories, Inc.) and what was just registered?

This means, he explained, that SCO couldn't go after statutory damages and lawyer's fees for any infringement that happened prior to the date of the new filing in June regarding any infringement of the "New Matter" or "revisions". They could still go after actual damages, but my, oh my, is that ever harder to prove. No wonder they aren't in a hurry to sue anyone. And here I thought they were turning over a new leaf. . . . not.

He explained some other details too, such as the fact that TXu means unpublished but registered, and that the "et al" in the new copyright record means that there were other revisions and filings after 1992. He also suggested Circular 61 as being the best explanation about registering a copyright, and you can get the pdf here. What would be important would be when the SMP, RCU, JFS, etc. functions were registered in UNIX System V, if they were. If anyone were in the Washington area, they could just pop over to the Copyright Office and go through the paper records and find out exactly who registered what and when, tracing the entire ownership history. They have experts there to help out. Anyone volunteer? If so, here are directions:

"The Copyright Office is open to the public Monday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., eastern time, except federal holidays. The Copyright Office is located in the Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial Building, 101 Independence Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C., near the Capitol South Metro stop. The Public Information Office is in LM-401, and information specialists are available to answer questions, provide circulars, and accept applications for registration. Visitors must follow certain security procedures upon entry and exit. Access for disabled individuals is at the front door on Independence Avenue, S.E. All patrons using copyright records in public service areas are required to have Reader Identification Cards issued by the Library."

  


  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 )