SCO/Novell Lawsuit Is Over, SCO Loses(groklaw.net)
groklaw.net
SCO/Novell Lawsuit Is Over, SCO Loses
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100610161411160
8 comments
Third Caveat - SCO does seem to keep going and going. A bit more history -
o A while back there was a Judge verdict, that, as a matter of _law_, SCO did not own the copyrights. (There was no copyright transfer, ergo, the copyrights had not been transferred. That issue is now going to the supreme court, and actually may have a chance of being reviewed - the question is - "Do you need a copyright transfer for copyrights to be considered transferred"
o That was overturned, and it went before a Jury Trial. Once again, the Jury agreed - no transfer of copyrights.
o SCO asked, as a matter of Law, a ruling that clearly the copyrights had been transferred. Denied.
Now, we'll see what else is up SCO's sleeve. Admittedly they are in bankruptcy, and the Bankruptcy official has been put in charge of the organization - so presumably future behavior will be profit maximizing and somewhat rational.
o A while back there was a Judge verdict, that, as a matter of _law_, SCO did not own the copyrights. (There was no copyright transfer, ergo, the copyrights had not been transferred. That issue is now going to the supreme court, and actually may have a chance of being reviewed - the question is - "Do you need a copyright transfer for copyrights to be considered transferred"
o That was overturned, and it went before a Jury Trial. Once again, the Jury agreed - no transfer of copyrights.
o SCO asked, as a matter of Law, a ruling that clearly the copyrights had been transferred. Denied.
Now, we'll see what else is up SCO's sleeve. Admittedly they are in bankruptcy, and the Bankruptcy official has been put in charge of the organization - so presumably future behavior will be profit maximizing and somewhat rational.
WRT to appealing, Pamella Jones commented "There may be an appeal, you say? Yes, true. I hope there is one, because Boies Schiller has to do it for free, under its contract with SCO, and they claim they are already in the red on this case." (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100610161411160)
(Details of that contract hyperlinked in the above quote: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041104173931772)
(Details of that contract hyperlinked in the above quote: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041104173931772)
TechCrunch posting excerpts to spread traffic out across their blogs is annoying.
Especially when it's their gadget blog posting on a non-gadget topic, and particularly when it's just summarizing a 3rd blog anyway:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100610161411160
Especially when it's their gadget blog posting on a non-gadget topic, and particularly when it's just summarizing a 3rd blog anyway:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100610161411160
> a number of patents involved around Unix copyright
I'm pretty sure that's a syntax error.
I'm pretty sure that's a syntax error.
Indeed. The SCO lawsuits were brought over (wholly invented) claims that Linux contained copyrighted code "stolen" from source code that SCO claimed to own. No genuine incidents of "stolen" code were ever discovered as far as I am aware, and SCO was shown not to own the copyrights to the source code anyway.
> The SCO lawsuits were brought over (wholly invented) claims that Linux contained copyrighted code "stolen" from source code that SCO claimed to own.
Even if that claim was true, SCO would[1] still have lost, because SCO itself (under the name Caldera) had distributed the Linux source under the GPL, thus giving anyone the right to use it under that license.
1: or at least, should, in any sensible jurisdiction. IANAL.
Even if that claim was true, SCO would[1] still have lost, because SCO itself (under the name Caldera) had distributed the Linux source under the GPL, thus giving anyone the right to use it under that license.
1: or at least, should, in any sensible jurisdiction. IANAL.
The examples of `stolen code' were #define:s and things of that nature, which are so trivial that they're bound to be reproduced almost verbatim.
And that's when they finally came out. They talked and talked and showed journalists who were sworn not to reveal what they'd seen in detail, and so on, and didn't show any code for the longest time.
This is one of those cases where I'm curious what, if anything, will happen to the CEO. He didn't just make some honest mistakes, he really fucked things up, running SCO into the ground, and causing a not insignificant amount of trouble for Linux and open source companies at the time. Sure, he lost his job last year, but so did a lot of other people.
This is one of those cases where I'm curious what, if anything, will happen to the CEO. He didn't just make some honest mistakes, he really fucked things up, running SCO into the ground, and causing a not insignificant amount of trouble for Linux and open source companies at the time. Sure, he lost his job last year, but so did a lot of other people.
Last time I checked, darlbehindbars.com was available.
It still seems so.
It still seems so.
As a target of SCO's extortion efforts in 1994, I am happy that this is finally over.
Care to tell us your story?
In a nutshell, I received this letter:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=2004...
And I responded with:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=2004... (note the typos in that are not my own)
And ignored subsequent threats sent by courier which never materialized into the lawsuit they threatened. I found on groklaw that my letter to SCO made it into discovery, which was a nice nod by whatever lawyer asked for it.
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=2004...
And I responded with:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=2004... (note the typos in that are not my own)
And ignored subsequent threats sent by courier which never materialized into the lawsuit they threatened. I found on groklaw that my letter to SCO made it into discovery, which was a nice nod by whatever lawyer asked for it.
Wow, what a release to see this finally end. Seems like I've been watching this insanity drag on for most of my adult life.
So... time to CELEBRATE! Where are the "SCOwned" parties going to be? I know there's going to be some here in SF this weekend... where else?
:)
So... time to CELEBRATE! Where are the "SCOwned" parties going to be? I know there's going to be some here in SF this weekend... where else?
:)
I know how you feel. I graduated elementary school the same year the lawsuit started, so I have been following the case all my adult life.
Personally I am just waiting for /. to break the story, it seems a fitting end to it.
Personally I am just waiting for /. to break the story, it seems a fitting end to it.
The full article is here:
http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/06/11/sconovell-suit-is-over-...
Excellent, that's one box checked. Now all I need to do is play Duke Nukem Forever and two things I thought I'd never see, I will have seen.
Don't forget who bankrolled Darl's little fishing expedition. Just more of Steve Ballmer's celebrated leadership in action.
In 1996, Novell sold UNIX-related rights to SCO but specifically excluded all copyrights and all patents from that sale - meaning that Novell continued to own all such rights.
Less than a year later, though, the parties did an amendment that described what Novell was holding back as follows: "All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies."
The wildly ambiguous language here ("except for the copyrights . . . required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies") - together with SCO's greed and venality - is what spawned years of wasteful litigation. Weak as its claims were, SCO was able to use "rights" it claimed from this language to derive equally weak claims that its supposed rights were being violated by this or that trivial element within Linux so as to constitute copyright infringement.
This final judgment in a key trial, then, is a tremendous outcome for the open source community. It kills all cases at their root by imposing a definitive judgment that SCO acquired no UNIX copyrights of any kind and, without that, its foundation for mounting assaults against Linux and the rest is completely undone (without regard to what details of Linux are alleged to infringe).
Two caveats:
1. Apart from SCO's dire financial condition, there would be nothing preventing it from appealing and continuing the mess on the multi-pronged fronts on which it has been fought. SCO (in its current form) is essentially an investor-backed operation that sought in recent years primarily to capitalize on this series of lawsuits and it could theoretically continue to do so if the investors had the appetite to continue funding the mess. It is widely believed that this is now a venture that is spent, however, and let us hope this is true.
2. This matter is now safe as long as Novell or some other trusted party continues to hold the UNIX copyrights. But Novell itself is in trouble and its assets may soon be acquired by private equity firms who might in turn sell such assets to trolls (see http://url4.eu/3p37m). Again, let's hope not.
That said, this victory does appear to be complete and is cause for celebration.