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 Asserts Its Rights to Almost Nothing ~ by Darkonc
Saturday, November 12 2005 @ 04:16 PM EST

Of course, we all laughed when SCO filed a demand with the court that IBM hand over "all documents concerning IBM's contributions to the Linux 2.7 kernel," including "development work," knowing as we did that there is no Linux 2.7 kernel and that there are no plans to have one. I note that this must mean that no Linux community person is willing to help them with their litigation, so they have no one to ask such questions, or they would have known better. And they clearly didn't do any research either, let alone find any "infringing code" in the 2.7 kernel, which raises questions in my mind as to whether SCO is following the discovery protocol established by the court.

Groklaw's Darkonc, on the other hand, was inspired by SCO's demand to look at matters logically, from SCO's point of view, and he thinks he has figured out how SCO thinks it can win the SCO v. IBM litigation after all. What better on a Saturday than a good laugh? Enjoy.

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

SCO Asserts Its Rights to Almost Nothing
~ by Darkonc

SCOG's accusations that IBM has made infringing contributions to the Linux 2.7 codebase make perfect sense to me.

SCOG's contribution to the Unix codebase have, in fact been little more than Nothing. The Linux 2.7 Codebase, on the other hand consists of Precisely Nothing -- or a little bit less than what SCOG has contributed to the Unix Codebase.

In other words, the Linux 2.7 Codebase is a proper subset of SCOG's UNIX contributions. As such the Nothing that is in the Linux 2.7 code base was clearly lifted from SCOG's Almost-Nothing contributions to the Unix code base.

This, of course, places IBM's claims to have contributed "Nothing inapproprate" into Linux in a completely different light and, in fact, supports SCOG's contentions of inappropriate contributions into the Linux code base.

IBM, being a large company, probably has many employees that produce either Absolutely Nothing or Almost Nothing. Although IBM may attempt to prevent these employees from producing Nothing, they are still responsible for the infringing Nothing that their employees produce.

Although IBM has a license to use this Nothing internally, employees who not only produce Nothing, but also contribute that infringing Nothing (or even Almost Nothing) to Linux are doing so in Violation of IBM's contractual Methods and Procedures right to use Nothing only for internal purposes.

SCOG demands disclosure of the notes and emails for the IBM employees who have (or may have) contributed Nothing, Almost Nothing or Nothing Inappropriate to Linux, in probable violation of IBM's contractual obligations.

Despite some Public sentiment to the contrary, SCOG firmly believes that the courts will find that it owns Nothing (or Nothing substantial) in Unix, and hopes that the courts will in time (a very long time) make an appropriate award. SCOG is willing to litigate for as long as necessary (or even as long as possible) to reach this almost almost certain result in its lawsuits with IBM. Protestations to the contrary by certain SCO Bashers who shall remain unnamed (Hi PJ!) are little more than slanderous rumor mongering.


  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 )