Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

My Mistake - 3 small changes and I'll also completely retract my position on the article | 273 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

My Mistake - 3 small changes and I'll also completely retract my position on the article

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 15 2012 @ 04:44 PM EDT

In answer to your first suggested change, SCO did hold some rights to the UNIX
operating system, just not the copyrights. Plus, SCO did not own the copyrights
to the first versions of UnixWare that Novell had written before they sold the
business to Santa Cruz. Plus add in the fact that SCO argued, and the judge
allowed them to argue, that UnixWare and UNIX were one and the same, the trunk
of the tree vs. the branches and all that malarkey, and so you would always have
to go into a lot of detail about pre-APA vs. post-APA versions as to who owned
copyrights to what in order to be truly accurate.

In answer to your second suggested change, back when the law suit was filed, it
was over UNIX copyrights, not UnixWare. The best clarification for this bit
would be something like:

"For allegedly violating SCO's purported copyrights to the UNIX operating
system, which a jury later found were never SCO's to begin with."

I totally agree with your third suggested clarification.

[ 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 )