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 they know | 197 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
now that they know
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 09:36 AM EDT
The key question is what "information and belief" they would
base such a suit on.

You can't* just sue someone and demand discovery because
it's POSSIBLE that somewhere in their code there's a snippet
of yours. You need some level of factual basis. It's
possible the fact that this suit might be considered
sufficient basis for people who actually have code in
"mount." It's less clear that someone who wrote other linux
code would have sufficient legal basis to not get thrown
out.

This is in many ways a Good Thing. Can you imagine if IBM
could sue every company who ever employed an ex-IBM'er
demanding to look through every line of their source code
just in case a snippet they consider their copyright might
happen to be in there?

You need some amount of concrete information sufficient to
form a reasonable belief that YOUR property is in there..
You can't* just go on a fishing expedition through someone
else's code, whether you like them or not.

* "can't" in this context should be taken to mean "according
to the law, they SHOULDN'T be considered to have enough of a
case to proceed." Whether a court would let them is,
tragically, up to the court...

[ 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 )