|Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 11:02 AM EDT|
|I thought they had the legal theory that they were licensed to use the copyright|
stuff for UnixWare, but that they were managing the contracts which had been
passed to them by the APA.
Their complaint against IBM was breach of the contract that they now owned
rather than the breach of copyright. The contract said that the licensee was
prohibited from being the first to publish the copyright work.
Come on, it's at least as strong as their other legal theories.
Although both sides reported to Judge Kimball what they thought remained in the
case after his summary judgement, I don't think Novell agreed that the
non-ownership of the copyrights mooted the violation of the license terms.
I'm not bothering to look because I can't make the cadaver feel any worse about
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]