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
Ouch... | 687 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
But, but, but ... that would mean...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 04:12 PM EDT
Well, for some definition of "valid".

Filed too late, on something they didn't own, but... yes, they were valid in
terms of the paperwork at the copyright office.

MSS2

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

yeah, for the manuals
Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 04:17 PM EDT
SCOX had copyrights on manuals, but not on the precioussssss code that they
copied from BSD and were suing over.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Ouch...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 05:20 PM EDT
It's funny because it's true.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

But, but, but ... that would mean...
Authored by: Ed L. on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 07:47 PM EDT
Even SCO could prove it at least had a valid copyright registration.
Yeah, its pretty cheeky of Van Nest to hold Oracle to not only the letter of the copyright law, but the spirit too. Talk about petty and mean.

If the "Wow" thread above is more than urban legend, and Copyright Office, upon further request for clarification, comes back and says to the effect

"No. We didn't say the CDROM was unreadable. We said it was blank. Nothing had ever been written on it. We know a coaster when we see one. This isn't it."
This is Java. Designed from the get-go to be a huge profit center for Sun. Arguably the most productive programming language since... COBOL. And without copyright registration?

Worse, with (what may appear) deliberately invalid copyright registration??

I mean, what's a poor federal district judge supposed to think???

Stay 'tooned!

[me lays in more popcorn]

---
Real Programmers mangle their own memory.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )