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 v. IBM: The Short Version, by toads_for_all
Saturday, March 05 2005 @ 06:23 AM EST

Some readers complain that the SCO v. IBM litigation is taking too long to be resolved, others that it's too complex, too hard to follow.

For them, here is the quick version, which made me laugh. It's by toads_for_all, and was originally posted on the SCOX Yahoo board, Msg: 241992. He was kind enough to let me share it with you here. In his little play, he imagines a conversation between SCO, IBM and Novell, which tells his version of the whole SCO v. IBM saga in less than 350 words. Feel free to build on his work or make one of your own. I bet one of you creative brainiacs could come up with a cute one about the discovery games.

***********************

SCO: It's about contracts.

IBM: But our contracts say we can do anything we want with our own code.

SCO: You have to treat any derivatives the same way as you would the original, like it's a part of it.

IBM: That's not how we read it. But to humor you, do you mean we have to treat derivatives like they belong to you?

SCO: Yes.

IBM: And not do anything with the derivatives that you wouldn't do with the original.

SCO: Um, yes, I guess.

IBM: But Caldera contributed parts of the original to Linux. Aren't we just doing what Caldera did, treating the derivatives the same way Caldera did the original by contributing parts to Linux?

SCO: Um, I mean, well, I guess.....Did I say contracts? I meant it's about copyrights.

NOVELL: But you don't own all the copyrights, we do.

SCO: Do not!

NOVELL: Look at APA Amendment 2.

SCO: We'd rather not.

NOVELL: See, it says you only get the rights needed to acquire Unix technologies.

SCO: What does that mean?

NOVELL: That we still own the copyrights to Unix. You own the distribution/development rights. What do you think it means?

SCO: That we own Unix.

NOVELL: Then why are you still paying us a huge cut of the royalties? Why did oldSCO let us execute Amendment X?

SCO: Ummm....we....they.....I know. It's about AIX on Power, Project Monterey! IBM is using code they wrote for Project Monterey! We own it all!

IBM: Are you sure? The Project Monterey agreement says that "Each party shall be free in all respects to exercise or dispose of any or all of its ownership rights in the jointly created Project Work without accounting to the other party."

SCO: So.

IBM: So we can do anything we want to with our own code. We can do anything we want with the jointly created code as well.

SCO: But you still tried to interfere with our trade!

IBM:How?

SCO: By making a superior product at a less expensive price!

IBM: But you contributed to it also. Aren't you guilty of interfering with your own trade?

SCO: You're trying to make us look stupid!

IBM: You don't need our help.

SCO: That's right!


  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 )