|
Authored by: sk43 on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 03:55 PM EDT |
The SSO portion of the expert's report was tossed, but SCO still has an
Objection pending. SCO also referred to SSO in its Opposition to SJ on CC10
[IBM-956] and in its exhibits at the March 7, 2007 hearing. The chart can be
found here: http://www.unxisco.com/company/legal/update/website2.3.pdf
SCO, unlike Oracle, made a clear distinction between copyright in the code
itself and in the SSO. SCO claimed that the SSO of 96 System Calls (the
equivalent of Oracle's Java API packages) were infringed:
"... IBM has never addressed ... SCO's legal theory that Linux infringes
SVr4 as a collective work. Under that theory, it does not matter if any
particular element is protectible under the copyright law because SCO still has
a property interest in the selection, arrangement and coordination of those
elements..."
[As a side note, SCO uses the terms "collective work" and
"compilation" interchangeably.]
The Structure was a chart created by Cargill showing how the system calls could
be sorted into various categories. Whether the chart was valid evidence, we
will never know, but it sounds like Oracle has nothing comparable for its 37
packages.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|