SCO Loses Yet Again; Is It Finally Over?
from the will-it-ever-die? dept
Is the bogus "we own Linux" lawsuit from SCO finally, finally over? I guess we can never say never, because it keeps coming back from the dead. However, it's taken another head shot. As you may recall, many years back SCO claimed to own the copyrights on Unix, and sued IBM and some other Linux users for infringing on their copyrights -- though, it never actually showed any evidence to back that up. Soon after all this started, Novell came along and noted that, as far as it knew, Novell still held the copyrights, not SCO. So the legal battle shifted to who actually held the copyrights, and SCO has repeatedly come out with the short end of the stick. First a judge ruled that Novell held the copyrights. After an appeals court said that a jury should decide that issue, rather than the judge, the case went back to a jury who also found that Novell, not SCO, held the copyrights. SCO then told the judge that the jury didn't really mean what it said in plain language, and said that the judge should order Novell to hand over the copyrights anyway.That's not happening. Once again, the judge has ruled for Novell over SCO. In theory, this should end the whole saga. The judge ordered that the case be closed, and without the copyrights, SCO's suit against IBM is dead as well. Will SCO give it up finally? Or will it somehow be reanimated yet again?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, linux, unix
Companies: ibm, novell, sco
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microsoft has been fighting a holding action here ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally, SCOXQ is down to a nickel
About time.
How anyone, in the last year, thought this stock was worth $0.80 USD per share is beyond me.
YOU, yes, I mean YOU, could buy controlling interest in SCO for only $500K USD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Valve Announces New "Left 4 Dead 2" DLC Expansion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do any of the suckers get their $699 back ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@2 YOU MEAN
HOW I LOVE MY CAPS
AND UNPWOPER PUN.UATIONS
7-8 yaears to say YOU DONT pwn it what a scam the usa system of law is
and you want to export this BS to the world with ACTA
GOOD LUCK WITH THAT TOO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wtf
The webpage at http://www.techdirt.com/comment_process.php might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address.
More information on this error
Below is the original error message
Error 324 (net::ERR_EMPTY_RESPONSE): Unknown error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It will end when...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was surprised when the jury verdict came down saying Novell owned the copyrights, since all the Novell execs from the time said they thought they transferred them to Santa Cruz, but SCO can't say they didn't have their opportunities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupidity
Nice try though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stupidity
I'll be the first to admit that the agreement language was poorly crafted by SCO's attorneys at the time, but it's telling that Novell first agreed that SCO owned the copyrights when it announced its licensing program, then came back and said that Novell still owned them.
Also, I'm not Darl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You could've seen their "evidence" had you signed an NDA.
Even with the secrecy, word got out about what SCO considered to be evidence. This included:
1) portions of BSD, which SCO can not lay claim to
2) headers and comments, which are not subject to copyright
3) contributions from the open community
4) similar such nonsense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Aside from that issue, everyone knows that Linux is a "clone" of Unix-based systems. The most interesting (to me) issue that could have been addressed is whether copying the overal structure of an OS while re-writing (most of) the literal code constitutes copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thus, "functional" aspects of code are more likely to be protected by copyright than "functional" aspects of other works.
It would have been interesting to see a court address these issues, along with getting a ruling on where idea/expression divide in terms of an operating system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Indeed. But headers and comments are not functional aspects of the code and are not subject to copyright, which was the original statement that you were responding to. (As ever, apologies if you weren't the first AC, please consider logging in to differentiate yourself to avoid confusion in the future).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Having looked at the issue before, I don't believe that's true (certainly not as a general statement).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(EDIT: OK, here's an early article from Linus Torvalds about the headers http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20031222174158852 - there are many, many other articles on the same subject on that site, especially during the period when SCO was trying to force discovery)
As you stated above, functional code is more likely to be subject to copyright and so comments would be excluded. I suppose it depends on the nature of the comment as well. But, if the comment is just describing the basic function of the line/block of code it refers to, I do wonder how it could possibly be subject to copyright.
As for headers, we're talking about standard UNIX-style headers. As I understand the claims (I haven't been following them too closely since it became clear that SCO had no case whatsoever and they filed bankruptcy proceedings), they largely covered headers that were almost impossible to write in any other way. I'm not a coder, nor a copyright lawyer, but it strikes me that an algorithm or section of code that only has one operative way to be written, and said code is vital to the operations of a system, then copyright should not be applicable.
Now, the SCO case is a little more complicated as they not only distributed many of the files under question under the GPL, but do not even own the copyright to many of the files they're trying to sue over. Maybe a different case would yield a different result, but in this case it's pretty clear there's no copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Functional code is more likely to be protected than function aspects of non-literary works. Functional code is *not* more likely to be protected thatn non-functional code. Thus, there is no reason why comments would not be protected by copyright.
The "impossible to write any other way" argument w/r/t headers is an interesting one. If the original author couldn't have written the headers any other way, then the headers would be unprotectable. However, the fact (or claim, depending on your point of view) that the alleged copier "couldn't have written them any other way" doesn't strip the original headers of their copyright protection.
This is the sort of thing that it would have been interesting to see analyzed by a judge in a public opinion, in contrast to simply adopting the "conventional wisdom" on sites like Groklaw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You mean if coding according to relevant industrial standards like POSIX and RFCs can be regarded as copying?
Of course the final products will be similar. That's actually the purpose of industrial standards. See electrical sockets.
Also keep in mind that a good deal of "unix" is based on BSD code, which allows copying and derivative works. All unix vendors, and even M$, use BSD code, or build on it.
It is a non issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for the BSD issue (or the GPL issue, or similar "it was licensed" issues), that could be a defense to certain acts of copying, but the case never got so far as for a judge or jury address them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I assume that use of the term "copying" is being used to denote copyright infringement.
Use of code released under the BSD or GPL is not considered "copying" when the license is adhered to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, my sentence there was not entirely clear. I intended to state what you just stated (i.e., the "it was licensed" argument, if successful, would mean that acts of copying that might otherwise be considered copyright infringement would *not* be copyright infringement).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
I know that the outcome isn't a 100% certainty, Perry Mason moments do happen, I suppose. But still, wouldn't the betting man put his money on IBM at this point in that legal action?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
Not so. So much of the case was deemed confidential that nobody in the public really knows much of what either party's experts said or didn't say regarding the copyright infringement issue.
At *this* point in the action, you'd have to be an idiot to put any money on SCO. But if they had been deemed the copyright owners, it would be a different story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
Really? Really? What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM#Discovery?
If Wikipedia has it wrong, it's your obligation to go change it to The Facts. Otherwise, I'm calling BS on your assertion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
Second, nothing in that link refutes a single thing I said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
Temper, temper.
Second, nothing in that link refutes a single thing I said.
The link does say this:
In December 2003, near the beginning of this case, the court ordered SCO to, "identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action against IBM." Even if SCO lacked the code behind methods and concepts at this early stage, SCO could have and should have, at least articulated which methods and concepts formed "the basis of their action against IBM." At a minimum, SCO should have identified the code behind their method and concepts in the final submission pursuant to this original order entered in December 2003 and Judge Kimball’s order entered in July 2005.
Can you honestly say that sounds like SCO had any evidence of infringement?
Now I see what your game is: "quibbling".
You're probably strictly, technically correct in writing that "nobody in the public really knows much of what either party's experts said or didn't say regarding the copyright infringement issue". Very sly, very tricky, strictly correct, but wrong in the original, fun-to-see-copyright-infringement-played-out context.
The Magistrate and the Judge of the case did have access to all of that, and still ruled that SCO had little in the way of evidence. One can safely assume, even though we may not know exactly and precisely what the experts said, that SCO didn't show a whole lot of evidence of infringement.
Thanks for playing! What do we have for the losers, Johnny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
SCO and IBM were ordered to exchange expert reports regarding copyright infringement, and that link doesn't address them.
My *point* is that it would have been informative, at the least, to get a public opinion based on all the confidential evidence regarding the many interesting copyright issues, instead of relying on how normative (i.e. "SCO *should* have done X") Wikipedia articles "sound."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
Also, SCO has amended the complaint at least twice that I can see, seemingly de-emphasizing "copyright infringement" as a cause of action at each amendment. That, too, tends to indicate that even SCO didn't think much of the alleged infringements as time passed, and discovery progressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
Adding lots of various claims in a massive litigation claiming up to $5 billion in damages is not abnormal, nor does it (usually) indicate lack of faith in the original claims.
But, since we are never likely to get a public opinion on the infringement questions (as opposed to ownership questions), people will continue to come to conclusions based on small bits of information and innuendo. Such is trial in the court of public opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
AC -> "nothing in that link refutes a single thing I said."
from the wikipedia link:
Controversial code
At a reseller show in August 2003, SCO revealed a sample of alleged copied code. This was later shown to be originally released under a BSD License.[56]
...
UNIX creator Dennis Ritchie confirms that either he or Ken Thompson wrote the atealloc code, which is released under the BSD license.[59][60] It is claimed that SCO removed the original license text from Unix source (such as the Berkeley packet filter), allegedly violating the BSD license.[61]
- So, not only did SCO lay claim to code they had no right to, they also infringed upon the copyright of said code. If it had been determined that copyright was transfered in the sale many years ago, the BSD copyright would not have been affected. I do not understand why you would think otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
I think getting definitive rulings on some of the intersting issues in this case would have benefitted people's understanding of how copyright law applies to such derivative operating systems (not intending to use that term to mean anything from a liability standpoint).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
Claimimg rights to something that is obviously not yours and then taking others to court claiming they infringed upon what is not yours ... is simply glossed over with your statement about how "People that are following this case are forming opinions based on slight snatches of information"
This is not a "slight snatches of information". It looks more like fraud to me.
"I think getting definitive rulings on some of the intersting issues in this case would have benefitted people's understanding of how copyright law applies to such derivative operating systems"
Maybe you will get your wish and IBM will pursue SCO for damages. On a side note, Linux is not a derivitive work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
Unless you know what was exchanged by the parties and deemed confidential and can compare that to the publicly available information, I don't know how you can say that with any sort of confidence.
"On a side note, Linux is not a derivitive work."
In a copyright sense, that's a complicated question. I don't think there's any doubt that it is "derived" at least in part from prior Unix-type operating sytems, though, is there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actual Copyright Issues playing out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That was the point actually - there were none. After a few years of trying to get SCO to reveal the "thousands of lines" of infringing code they'd found, it was eventually revealed that there were only about 23 lines. Of these, most were uncopyrightable declarations and many of them were public domain material. Groklaw has a full history if you want to read up.
This is why the Microsoft conspiracy theories play so well (they have been confirmed as investors) - not revealing the actual "infringement" for a few years helped shed doubt on open source at the time MS was losing marketshare to Linux and other open source products.
"all the Novell execs from the time said they thought they transferred"
Irrelevant. What matters is what the contracts actually say, and the judges ruled on what was in the contracts, not what somebody thought they might have done 20 years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I certainly agree that the language of the contract is paramount, but as a practical matter it can be hard to convince a jury that a contract said something different than what most of the people involved in the deal thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh please.
Now you are getting ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't understand why they didn't. If the issue is "disclosing trade secrets", then just publicly declare things like: "linux kernel file src/arch/x386/vm/blahblah.c, lines 123-234" and give the corresponding Sacred Unix SysV file name and line numbers.
Since both parties have a SysV source license, they can each double check, without ever filing the source code itself. In short, publicly declare something. As near as I can tell, they declared nothing, not file and line number, absolutely nothing.
Since SysV is copyrighted, if the issue isn't "revealing trade secrets", they should have the ability to disclose the text of the code.
As I understand civil trials, which this was, they have to declare all their evidence beforehand, or risk the near certainty of having any such evidence disallowed. So, yes, it's quite puzzling as to why they didn't publicly declare anything as infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As The Black Knight Said ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even so, it's hard not to feel sympathetic for SCO. Even though they didn't have all their legal technicalities in order, so couldn't win the case, most will agree I think they won a moral victory, and based on their continuing support for members of the public, in the court of public opinion too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So-called "IT Expert" - you're trolling, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is that you?
No, it is not difficult at all to feel total disgust toward what SCO & friends have done. Many of them should be behind bars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What moral victory?
What moral victory has SCO won?
I haven't seen a lot of support for them in the "court of public opinion" either, at least not from anyone who wasn't a known shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So-called "IT Expert" - you're trolling, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TROLL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How can you have a "moral victory" when the entire claim was based on falsities? For that matter, if they have "continued public support", why are they going bankrupt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@IT Expert: I take it you don't get out much? SCO is generally reviled out here in the real world for even trying to lock down all things Linux.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sco
not as a cost saver, not as a security feature, not as a efficiency measure, not in any liberal (open/truth/justice) effort, not in effort to re-intagrate with the world...
but because linux is cuter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sco
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It won't be over
Through the heart.
Where it hurts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It won't be over
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It won't be over
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It won't be over
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We can hope this is over...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a *GREAT* Day
I can remember the drea of working on SCO UNIX back in the late 1980's - what a terrible product then... And from what I have heard since, it just never improved much. Hence now I understand why they would want to put their wretched hands on Linux...
Sympathy for SCO? !!!! WTF !!! ??? I *burned* my SCO software kits years ago. What a *** waste!
Anyway, 2 points:
- Whoever the lawyer was that consummated the original sale from Novel to SCO (on SCO's behalf) is in deep ca-ca now! Whoever (s)he was, overlooking the fact that the sale did not transfer title of copyright on the UNIX OS was just plain stupid.
- As for the rank and file being hesitant for migrating lock-stock-and-barrel away from Mico$oft products to LINUX: SCO's accusations and assertions never brought pause to *any* executives that I knew as far as migrating to LINUX. What brought pause were the support issues. For instance, right now, Samba 3-5-3.61 for FC13 has a memory hole the size of a Greyhound Bus, and no one appears to be working on the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a *GREAT* Day
Seriously. I think that's what happens when you have a corporate attorney without IP experience drafting an agreement for an IP-based business.
"As for the rank and file being hesitant for migrating lock-stock-and-barrel away from Mico$oft products to LINUX: SCO's accusations and assertions never brought pause to *any* executives that I knew as far as migrating to LINUX. What brought pause were the support issues. For instance, right now, Samba 3-5-3.61 for FC13 has a memory hole the size of a Greyhound Bus, and no one appears to be working on the problem."
That might be so, but for all the benefits of an "open-source" or "crowdsource" model, the risk of this type of suit (i.e., somebody contributed something they shouldn't have) is a significant problem in my mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a *GREAT* Day
That is the goal of their FUD campaign
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What a *GREAT* Day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What a *GREAT* Day
And your statement implies it is impossible to have "unauthorized/improper contributions" in closed source?
I call BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a *GREAT* Day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What a *GREAT* Day
You, (and everybody, including propietary code owners), can review the source code, and see for yourself.
The risk is higher in propietary code, since you cannot check the source.
It is a lot more likely that OSS code will end up copyed inside propietary products, than the opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a *GREAT* Day
Certainly proprietary code is not risk-free, but if you're dealing with a single party you're probably better able to get them to take on the risk if their product is found to be infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a *GREAT* Day
Now you are blowing smoke.
Indemnification was the Microsoft FUD battle cry back when this mess started. This silliness was shot down many times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a *GREAT* Day
As James Brown said, "sayin' it and doin' it" are different things. If you've got some great explanation as to why meaningful indemnification is just as easy with an open-source model, I'm interested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a *GREAT* Day
Just as easy? - What does that mean?
In these times of lawsuit carpet bombing I doubt that indemnification is possible. To claim it in a FUD campaign is just shameful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a *GREAT* Day
is wholly at odds with
"I doubt that indemnification is possible"
If you like you some Linux and hate you some SCO, that's fine, but don't pooh-pooh substantive opinions on real issues if you're not going to provide substantive support in response. (please)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlike for Microsoft?
the potential for unauthorized/improper contributions is a risk of any crowdsource/open source model.
How about this one, where Microsoft let some code into SQL Server that actually did make end user's liable for treble damages: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/20/sql_server_developers_face_huge/
That particular danger exists no matter who develops it, and appears to be a problem in the patent/copyright system, not the coding processes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unlike for Microsoft?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]