|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 09:03 PM EDT |
That's not going to happen. They're stuck with the factual record of SCO v.
Novell.
MSS2[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mexaly on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 10:24 PM EDT |
The Unix copyrights weren't relevant because it was run on
proprietary hardware. The hardware was far more expensive
than the OS. Nobody was going to steal somebody else's Unix
because it wouldn't run on somebody else's gear.
Linux came along just when the hardware costs crashed.
Oracle is trying to stay alive in the X86 world with a
proprietary Unix. But even that is not something you would
use without other Oracle products.
Personal computers sure look a lot more like tractors and
less like sedans, than a few years ago. You don't see
International Harvester and John Deere fighting over
rectangular bales. The days of fighting over Unix are over,
too.
---
IANAL, but I watch actors play lawyers on high-definition television.
Thanks to our hosts and the legal experts that make Groklaw great.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 10:26 PM EDT |
Now that Novell has the copyrights, and Attachmate has Novell, what
happens
next? Hard to imagine some patent troll not seeing a litigation
opportunity in
buying the Unix copyrights, then holding IBM, HP, etc., for
ransom. When I first heard about SCO vs. IBM lawsuit over UNIX
copyrights I laughed because I knew the contents of the judgement in the
UNIX/BSD case years before. The net result of that case was UNIX's copyrights
were virtually worthless. BSD only had to rewrite ten files out of thousands to
be free of UNIX copyrights. There was to much code that should have had
copyright notices when published that didn't so was not copyrighted, and the
authorship of large parts of the code was by third parties and no assignment of
copyright had been made to AT&T Bell Labs. I also knew people who had
copies of the UNIX source code were quietly checking all the Linux code. Third,
but not least of all, I also knew Linux has a different internal structure to
it's kernel. That made any code reuse very problematic.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 04:42 PM EDT |
Where do you get that from?
The court ruled that SCOG did NOT own the copyrights. The court did NOT rule
that Novell did.
And Novell was very careful not to claim that it did, either.
All of the evidence from BSD v. AT&T right through to SCOG v. Novell is that
AT&T deluded themselves into believing they owned the Unix copyrights, while
the reality was very much otherwise.
The reason Novell (having bought Unix from AT&T) caved at the very first
opportunity in the BSD lawsuit was that they knew AT&T had illegally removed
a large number of 3rd-party copyrights from the Unix source.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
