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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Now that Novell has the copyrights | 155 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Are Unix copyrights relevant any more?
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 | # ]

Are Unix copyrights relevant any more?
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 | # ]

Are Unix copyrights relevant any more?
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 | # ]

Now that Novell has the copyrights
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 | # ]

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 )