Slashdot Mirror

Ok, first off, it's really odd sitting here reading this article right now, since I just went through a similar situation and have been out of work since earlier this week.

(In my case, it appears that my boss intends to withhold my last paycheck until I return a database of his customers he claims I took from his office. The most obvious problem with this is I have no such database to return! In fact, as far as I was aware, he kept this stuff on his laptop computer, which wasn't even in the office the last few times I came in.)

But anyway, this site may help you with the legalities of employers keeping your last paycheck:

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/7D5D0C62- 9CB1-47F8-BA6C70E1318E65FE/111/259/188/ART/

That's retardulous. That's not the case at all. You are a contract worker (aka independent contractor) when you sign a contract saying so. It has nothing to do with responsibilities or deadlines.

And the determination of what is an employee is set by the federal government, including IRS guidelines, labor guidelines, tax code, and congressional laws. State laws may provide certain benefit to non-employees, but that doesn't make them an employee.

When you sign a contract, you are agreeing that you will do X amount of work (hours, units, a project) for Y amount of money (whether flat or per hour). Often, other responsibilities such as work hours are specified in the contract, or there's a clause stating that the employer will decide those terms.

As a contract worker, you are not entitled to any benefits whatsoever. Under some cicumstances, the "employer" doesn't pay payroll taxes, and you are responsible for all taxes, because you are effectively self-employed. My father got swindled into this as a dealer rep for an auto auction in the 80s. The owner of that auction eventually went to prison for tax evasion and ghost employment (big surprise).

And yes, if you plan on working as a contract worker, get an attorney to look over the contract. It'll cost you some (it cost my former roommate $150), but is well worth it. Not just any attorney, though, an employment attorney.

IT people need to read about how law affects them. I've always found that Nolo has great books for us non-lawyers. Those in IT would be most interested in this book, which provides guidance on these issues for both employers and employees.

That's retardulous. That's not the case at all. You are a contract worker (aka independent contractor) when you sign a contract saying so. It has nothing to do with responsibilities or deadlines.

And the determination of what is an employee is set by the federal government, including IRS guidelines, labor guidelines, tax code, and congressional laws. State laws may provide certain benefit to non-employees, but that doesn't make them an employee.

When you sign a contract, you are agreeing that you will do X amount of work (hours, units, a project) for Y amount of money (whether flat or per hour). Often, other responsibilities such as work hours are specified in the contract, or there's a clause stating that the employer will decide those terms.

As a contract worker, you are not entitled to any benefits whatsoever. Under some cicumstances, the "employer" doesn't pay payroll taxes, and you are responsible for all taxes, because you are effectively self-employed. My father got swindled into this as a dealer rep for an auto auction in the 80s. The owner of that auction eventually went to prison for tax evasion and ghost employment (big surprise).

And yes, if you plan on working as a contract worker, get an attorney to look over the contract. It'll cost you some (it cost my former roommate $150), but is well worth it. Not just any attorney, though, an employment attorney.

IT people need to read about how law affects them. I've always found that Nolo has great books for us non-lawyers. Those in IT would be most interested in this book, which provides guidance on these issues for both employers and employees.

Washington: Non-compete.

California: Note: Covenants not to compete are not enforceable against employees in California. Since a California statute invalidates noncompete agreements except in very limited circumstances, California judges won't enforce a noncompete agreement against an employee. However, California employers can use nonsolicitation agreements and nondisclosure agreements to protect their trade secrets, client lists and employees when an employee leaves. (See Nondisclosure Agreements for an in-depth discussion of nondisclosure agreements.)

And I'm in Arizona. Non-compete. Sigh.

Juries sometimes make mistakes, and misapply the law to the facts. Juries also sometimes act deliberately against their duty, and find some facts to be true which can't possibly be true, or ignore crucial facts, just because they want to convict (or free) a person. See this definition of JNOV. Before anyone gets too worried, JNOV is clear grounds for appeal.

but don't they lose the right to sue after it has infringed openly for some time?

Two answers to this:

1) Yes, after the patent expires they lose the right to enforce it. Though that's obvious, it's worth pointing out. Patents do not last nearly as long as copyrights do (yet!).

2) Yes, but only of the defender can prove the complainer knew about the violation and purposefully waited until the damages would be maximized or the remedy catastrophic to the defendant. It would then fall under the Doctrine of Laches. Specifically, Estoppel by Silence. If you know ahead of time, you can't let a roofing crew finish replacing your roof with a new one before telling them that they got the address wrong. Do that, and you'll be paying for a new roof.

But I ain't no lawyer, so read my comments in that light.

How to Form a Corporation.

How to Form a Corporation.

If they did not violate the law, though, why is there a final judgement, and not a dismissal of the case? Why are there prohibitions on how Microsoft can act in the future?

As an aside, do you *really* believe that Microsoft has not broken any laws in it's behaviour? I'm just curious.

I never claimed Microsoft did not violate the law. I claim no one at Microsoft was convicted of violating anti-trust laws - the officers weren't even tried. No criminal charges were filed -- unlike other well known corporate scandals (Enron).

In criminal cases, you are found guily. In civil cases, one is found liable. You can't become a convicted criminal by losing a civil case. These are well defined terms. This is why I feel the term convicted monopolist is a false legal term in the context of the DOJ civil case.

I know it's not a signature. But by playing the game, you agree to be bound by its license. It's a huge part of copyright law that is enforcable in US courts. I'd recommend reading Web and Software Development: A Legal Guide.

It'll teach all you need to know about IP law and copyright law, patents, employment agreements, NDAs, all that good stuff.

Before this whole discussion picks up steam.

http://www.nolo.com/

Is a plain english site for some legal issues. Type copyright into the search engine.

Fair Use: http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/obj ectID/C3E49F67-1AA3-4293-9312FE5C119B5806

So making a mix CD, or even a non-profit copy of a whole CD is not really the end of the world. A lot of the theory here is predicated on the idea of commercial gain versus private use.

The bigger story here is clearly about commercial piracy, which provided the IP law in question has reasonable limits I won't argue against. At the same time I have to ask about the reasonableness of converting private civil matters into public criminal matters and at public expense besides. Well, you can guess where the rest of this goes...

Anyway, what you did was just to get over on your son for some reason. I don't see it as the reasonable act of a stable person. You had an agenda far beyond what the situation called for - what you should have done was reasonably discuss "fair use" with the child in question. But you don't really care about that do you?

Fixed link : http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/obj ectID/C3E49F67-1AA3-4293-9312FE5C119B5806

"To resume it up, people download copyrighted movies that are not fully reproduced and that's perfectly legal."

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/Obj ectID/BABFA71E-97C9-479F-8A9D4C3DB2498663/catID/2E B060FE-5A4B-4D81-883B0E540CC4CB1E

Look up "reproduction rights". The law makes no distinction based on "quality of", and the more of the originals present in the copy, the less fair use is a defense.

"To resume it up, people download copyrighted movies that are not fully reproduced and that's perfectly legal."

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/Obj ectID/BABFA71E-97C9-479F-8A9D4C3DB2498663/catID/2E B060FE-5A4B-4D81-883B0E540CC4CB1E

Look up "reproduction rights". The law makes no distinction based on "quality of", and the more of the originals present in the copy, the less fair use is a defense.

You know, if you're REALLY interested in the legal perspective, instead of what passes for legal around here?

Read this book

I also recommend the rest of the site, some of which is "free" (the attitude that started this whole mess).

I wasn't clear from your post whether you would be leaving a current, stable employer to take the contracting position or not. If you're not working now, but looking for work, I'd say by all means take the contract work -- you can always keep looking while you are there. Just as you could if you were a regular employee -- it's true there is very little loyalty between companies and employees (or contractors =) these days, so I don't think you should feel that it would be disloyal to keep looking even after signing on -- especially if you feel it's less of a commitment on their part to not offer you full time employment.

I'm a contractor by choice -- recently turned down an offer of employment from the company I'm currently working for to preserve that contractor status. I've been contracting for -- maybe four years now? Or five? Starting out can be worrisome, but I like the added control over things like health insurance. Other benefits to contracting include things like that they're not really allowed, by law, to make you come into the office and work a certain number of hours at a certain desk -- you are supposed to be free to structure your time in such a way that you get the work done your way, and on your own time. Like -- well, like a contractor. I got a great book from Nolo on this when I was starting out. In addition to the accountant that other people have mentioned (definitely a good idea) I'd also recommend one of their titles. Working for yourself: Law & Taxes for Independent Contractors, Freelancers & consultants looks to be their current title on this subject. It's not not the one I got, but that was several years ago. I've never heard anything but good reviews about their books.

I wasn't clear from your post whether you would be leaving a current, stable employer to take the contracting position or not. If you're not working now, but looking for work, I'd say by all means take the contract work -- you can always keep looking while you are there. Just as you could if you were a regular employee -- it's true there is very little loyalty between companies and employees (or contractors =) these days, so I don't think you should feel that it would be disloyal to keep looking even after signing on -- especially if you feel it's less of a commitment on their part to not offer you full time employment.

I'm a contractor by choice -- recently turned down an offer of employment from the company I'm currently working for to preserve that contractor status. I've been contracting for -- maybe four years now? Or five? Starting out can be worrisome, but I like the added control over things like health insurance. Other benefits to contracting include things like that they're not really allowed, by law, to make you come into the office and work a certain number of hours at a certain desk -- you are supposed to be free to structure your time in such a way that you get the work done your way, and on your own time. Like -- well, like a contractor. I got a great book from Nolo on this when I was starting out. In addition to the accountant that other people have mentioned (definitely a good idea) I'd also recommend one of their titles. Working for yourself: Law & Taxes for Independent Contractors, Freelancers & consultants looks to be their current title on this subject. It's not not the one I got, but that was several years ago. I've never heard anything but good reviews about their books.

That does look pretty cut and dried that they are not deductible.

But no matter how much you avoid legal costs, fighting somebody over use of a trademark is going to cost you something. To reiterate my original point: sometimes, when the issue is just not worth fighting for, it's simple common sense to back away from a legal hassle. Picking your battles does not make you a doormat.

Someone forgot to tell the lawyers at Nolo that there's no Trade Secret law.

Patents and Trade secrets

The question will be what was his men rea, which is a fancy legal latin term for guilty state of mind.

If you read the article, it sounds like this is a custom made installation the guy did himself. If that's the case, I think there is a better chance that the prosecution can provide the guy acted with wanton disregard for human life. That can justify a verdict of second degree murder. Otherwise, I still think the guy could go for manslaughter. Manslaughter is no laughing matter as it still results in a good bit of prison time.

Even if you had thought of it years before, not everyone did. And they still had a right to patent it since you didn't, and you didn't implement it.

Perhaps you should take a look at what is supposed to be patentable before you warm up your fingers.

Two aspects of patent - it must be NOVEL, and it must be NON-OBVIOUS.

You figure this as both "NOVEL" and "NON-OBVIOUS"?

Neither do I, and that's why the complaining.

* make an independent decision as to what charges should be filed, or

* in felony cases, enlist the help of citizens serving as grand jurors in deciding what charges to file. Prosecutors can look at all the circumstances of a case, including the suspect's past criminal record. They can file charges on all crimes for which the police arrested a suspect, can file charges that are more or less severe than the charges leveled by the police, or can decide to not file any charges at all.

He is in the process of being charged. Is that better for you? And the Patriot Act is involved.

from nolo:
For instance, McDonald's was able to prevent the use of the mark McSleep by a motel chain because McSleep traded on the McDonald's reputation for a particular type of service (quick, inexpensive, standardized).

Nothing in the article's paragraph mentions food, just the generalized type of service.

I think the rationalization follows that when a company gets so big, then a customer may think that McDonalds is going into the hotel business - which involves your comment about marketplace confusion. They already use Mc[generic term] quite a bit and few have not heard of the company. At least, that's the way the courts seem to understand it.

If the trade secret/network can be reverse engineered and this is legal and interoperating causes no impact on Kazaa's equipment etc., does Kazaa have the right to prevent other clients from using what is only the same protocol and network standards which were legally reverse engineered?

My gut feeling is no . . . but I wonder if the courts have already ruled on this . . .

There is one group of people that cannot be stopped from using information protected under trade secret law. These are people who discover the secret independently, that is, without using illegal means or violating agreements or state laws. For example, it is not a violation of trade secret law to analyze (or "reverse engineer") any lawfully obtained product and determine its trade secret.

EXAMPLE

XCEL glue is comprised of a trade secret protected formula. Phil, a chemist, analyzes the contents of XCEL glue, determines its composition and recreates the formula. Phil can legally use this information to make and sell his own glue.

There is one group of people that cannot be stopped from using information protected under trade secret law. These are people who discover the secret independently, that is, without using illegal means or violating agreements or state laws. For example, it is not a violation of trade secret law to analyze (or "reverse engineer") any lawfully obtained product and determine its trade secret.

EXAMPLE

XCEL glue is comprised of a trade secret protected formula. Phil, a chemist, analyzes the contents of XCEL glue, determines its composition and recreates the formula. Phil can legally use this information to make and sell his own glue.

Nolo Press has a good book about the process.

I am not a patent lawyer, but I think these issues would apply:
1. If the patent holder applied for international patents then he might have recourse through WIPO (World Intellectual Property Org) and other agreements. India is a member of WIPO, and given that software development and other IP is seen as important to India's economic development, I don't think the Indian govt would permit wholesale flouting of international patents.

2. If the patent holder only has patents in the US, then anyone using the same implementation in products used or distributed in the US would need to license from the patent holder.

That said, it is up to the patent holder to enforce his rights. In the US, this would mean suing the infringer in federal court. In India, again the patent holder would have to sue, as the Indian govt is not going to enforce his rights for him.

In some cases, the monetary value might not be worth the costs. It obviously depends on how solid the patent is and how much the licensees and end users are willing to pay.

Here is some basic patent information.

In a handful of states, including California, Nebraska and Michigan, you must appear in small claims court on your own. In most states, however, you can be represented by a lawyer if you like. But even where it's allowed, hiring a lawyer is rarely cost-efficient

That's the double-edged sword that is the trade secret. Legal protection only lasts as long as you keep it a secret. So, once it's out, it's out. They could still claim copyright infringement on verbatim coping, but not derivative works.

You can read all about trade secrets at Nolo.com.

From the greatest site ever: $2000 without a lawyer.

You lived near MS for a while, but you didn't talk to the current 'employees' too much, did you?

Now Microsoft pays crap and uses mostly contractors so they don't have to give stock options, benefits or make people secure. Check this article out about how they got sued over this.

It's in the second sentence. The first links go to lawyer joke pages.

Using this site means you accept its terms. Don't be put off by the legalese, but please read these terms and conditions of use carefully before using this website.

My guess is that the TOS are official, more or less.

Does anyone here read The Onion, or any other satire? If you didn't get the joke, go read Swift's Modest Proposal.

States have different laws on speeding. Some enforce an absolute speed limit, others a "presumed" speed limit. Some states have both. I think universally, the speed law states that everyone should drive at a speed that's "safe, given the conditions". Read here: When Speeding Isn't Speeding. Given the topic at hand, if a GPS system were to be implemented, there would be no way to "judge" this because you don't have the cop as a witness. Therefore everywhere with a GPS system in place would have to have an absolute speed limit.

Basically if IBM has gone thru lengths to keep the source code to AIX a secret, then they can consider it a trade secret. If you obtained that trade secret illegally, then IBM can legally stop you from creating any products that would use that trade secret, as well as making you pay money if they can prove money was lost because of what you did. If you took AIX, and reverse engineered it, and did the same thing you would be ok. (in the real world theres probably some clause when you agree to use aix that says you can't do that, im not getting into that part of it though). In short if you get the information that some company has as a "trade secret", but you did it in a way that is legal, then its ok. If you got that info in an illegal way, there are ways for the company to stop you from using it.

Im not a lawyer, I just read the faq, I may not have it 100% right, but I dont get paid like a lawyer does either so take it with a grain of salt.

If they screw with you like that, small claims court is a great option. Some states recognize this and have already upped the limit to much higher.

AFAIK, small claims court is a state-limited court, so you'll have to check the limit for your state, but I think the minimum is at least $1000, some are much higher. See nolo.com for your particular state.

IANAL, but any individual contributor to the kernel fits into the category of having their individual work infringed upon by SCO's actions. Contributors who worked for someone else and developed the work as an employee do not fit the category; however their employer can send a cease and desist. (I wonder if Alan Cox will get Red Hat to also send a cease and desist now?)

IANAL, but any individual contributor to the kernel fits into the category of having their individual work infringed upon by SCO's actions. Contributors who worked for someone else and developed the work as an employee do not fit the category; however their employer can send a cease and desist. (I wonder if Alan Cox will get Red Hat to also send a cease and desist now?)

[wait for you to finish reading]

That's what you agreed to. Does it say that you can't mention your tasks, or just that you can't disclose your ideas? Does it say that you cannot discuss ANY work done with the company with ANYBODY who isn't under NDA, or does it have provisions for discussing your work with people not under NDA under a 'need to know' basis? Does it have a time limit? [If not specified, courts have ruled that non-compete agreements expire after a reasonable time, such as 2 or 3 years. Talk to a lawyer and see if it applies in your case for an NDA.] Does it have limitations to 'core business practices' not being disclosed? Did you work as a contractor for an accounting company or in another strictly-regulated field?

Nolo has a good summary of the five key elements in an NDA

Depending on your answers, you might be limited to responses to "Improved database response time by 270%" or you might be able to give good juicy details. If you were working on an external project, you are ethically bound (and possibly legally bound, in some cases) to keep your clients private unless you received permission to talk about them.

You should respect your agreements, and that implies that you should have been very careful about what you agree too. (Did you just sign the NDA's without thought?)

story time

My current company gave me an NDA, release of ideas, and non-compete agreement to sign as terms of employment. As normal, I didn't want to sign it and I visited a lawyer. (except this time he was my friend who was finishing law school and preparing for the bar exam.) He read through it with me, we crossed out about half of the NDA, nearly all of the assignment of ideas agreement, and a few lines of the non-compete agreement. We added an addendum with exceptions for all three, including a huge list of other projects that I have worked on or might have interest in working on. We added an exception for incidental use of company equipment and resources for personal projects.

When the employer saw it, he balked. I talked him through the reasoning for just about everything. The company probably doesn't want to own everything I produce, I argued, because there is [my now lawyer friend told me about it, but I can't find it online] a court case where a disgrundled employee produced human waste and distributed it to the customers as an example of company products. The company fired him and sued, the employee defended their case based on their draconian employment agreements, and the eventaully company settled the lawsuit for a bunch of money, rather than owing the employee a lot more money for wrongful termination and back pay.

After giving that example, my current boss agreed that some of the agreement was 'never going to be enforced that way', but he allowed me to cross off nearly all the items.

Three jobs ago [dot-com era] after going between their lawyers and my lawyers a few times, the company just gave up. In the end we agreed that I would simply not disclose any trade secrets, and no confidential information until three years after termination.

Okay, let's talk about the box of goodies. Let's say you leave a box of weapons outside with full knowledge that a neighborhood kid will probably find it and will likely use the contents for something illegal. If that happens, do you think you are partially responsible for whatever happens?

...

You're exactly right - you aren't responsible for others' actions. In this case, you'd be liable for your irresponsible action.

Yes, that's exactly right. This is what's known as an attractive nuisance

A little offtopic, but "the punishment doesn't fit the crime" card doesn't apply here, since they violated laws created as deterrents, not punishment. I just sent a few demand letters to some local mass-faxers, and one called me back with "you want $1000 for one lousy fax?". No, I want $1000 because you will lose in small claims, and owe me $1500. The law is a deterrent in that case, nothing to do with fitting the crime. Don't get me wrong, RIAA sucks yadda yadda - just don't think that the law needs to fit the crime. Its all about how much can you get in the settlement.

Wrong! ... Since an office file opener could be used to open your own documents, or documents that others want you to open, there exists a substantial non-infringing use, so the software would not be a circumvention device.

Yes, he is partly wrong, but so are you. It may be true that the circumvention device clauses are satisfied. Unfortunately, we don't have to look far to see how companies and projects that fit that exception are still prosecuted/persecuted and even killed.

This would be a good target for a bunch of SLAPP suits against the developers -- if they chose to implement it. The potential gain for Microsoft and others ("We bankrupted 30 contributers to OpenOffice for DMCA violations. We're sending you a DMCA notice. You wanna be bankrupt next?") far outweighs their potential cost ("We paid $250,000,000 in the cases we lost, but it's just an investment for product lock-in and extra FUD against developers.") .

Just being on the right side of the law does not mean that you will survive a massive legal attack from a multi-billion dollar company. Anti-SLAPP laws are in effect in most states but the DMCA altered the USC, which is the federal law, so those state laws could be carefully avoided.

Examples:

• DeCSS (multiple cases, some still in appeal)
• kazaa (in court and dying)
• napster (dead)
• CopyWrite (alive, after expensive years in court and an expensive appeal)
• Lessig about Fox fair use problems, MyMP3, Napster (in court & private settlements, dead, dead)
• DRM Conference transcrpt (discusses dead & dying, but legal, projects)
• Embedded fonts (alive, but at a big cost and avoidance of court)
• A student's paper with summaries of other cases (United States v. Sklyarov, Lexmark v. Static Control Components , Felton v. Recording Industry Ass'n of America) and several interesting hypothetical physical-world comparisons to the law (locking keys out of your car == loss of ownership of car until you present the Automobile Protection Assocaition with a proper court orders allowing you to jimmy the lock).

The unfortunate fact is that just because it is legal, and even if it is right, both StarOffice (Sun) and the contributors to OpenOffice (including Sun) could both face deadly lawsuits from Microsoft if they attempt compatability.

Strategic lawsuits (gray-area, predatory lawsuits), "death by lawsuit", and even Google's lists of Allegedly Unethical Firms, Corporate Accountability, and corporate criminals show how corporations are attacking and killing projects, even when the projects or public participation are the right and legal thing.

So while you are right that such a project would be legal, you are wrong in your implied statement that it would be a safe thing to do.

frob

I'm not sure how this got modded up so high and marked as informative, because most of it is wrong.

Trade secrets are and always have been considered part of intellectual property rights. As another poster pointed out, intellectual property by design limits speech. I can't write a book that says, "I read the latest Tom Clancy book. It says <insert Tom Clancy novel here>".

Moving onto trade secret law, I think its a really good thing that if I take my PC in to get repaired and the technician notices my employer's financial info on the hard drive, they could be punished for revealing it.

Finally, Trade Secrets aren't the only laws that trump free speech. Both yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or revealing matters of national security are both enforceable, and for good reason.

As I understand it, the court's ruling only means that they can't use a 1st amendment defense, which I'm inclined to agree with. I would hope they would find, however, that DeCSS has nothing to do with trade secrets.

This infomation wouldn't necessarily be available to the public - you could photocopy it in your own home!

I would think this spyware would be illegal under the fourth amendment which protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures.
From nolo.com, the test for a legitimate expectation of privacy in 4th amendment matters is:

Did the person subjectively (actually) expect some degree of privacy?

Is the person's expectation objectively reasonable, that is, one that society is willing to recognize?

Unless there was a clause in the software license that says the user is being spied upon, both conditions seem to be met. Data gleaned from the spyware would be no good in court. (ianal, blah blah).

While the case is about a copyright disclosure, the real issue is derivative works and copyright law. Think about the case Miranda v. Arizona. The case was about a bank robbery, (Miranda signed confessions that he shouldn't have done) but the legal issue was that he was not informed of his rights. The case is now almost forgotton, but the issue of 'reading your rights' is still being re-examined 30 years later.

Bunches of lawyers have commented on the SCO case, saying that it is a weak argument, because it has never been taken to court before. Even though it is weak, it doesn't mean that SCO will lose. A weak argument can still be a sucessful one, depending on the issues. The SCO legal issue is the question, "What is a derivative work in software?"

We know how to define derivative works (Copyright Office Circ 14 in PDF) for use in traditional media (motion pictures, music, drama, books, catalogs, etc.), But to understand it in software, buy and read "Copyright your software" which discusses in some depth derivative works of software. Unfortunately for us, the law doesn't say what exactly what is, or is not, a derivative piece of software.

Here is the logic, which is probably what the SCO lawyers are considering:

Logic Step One: From the Copyright Office's Circular linked to above...

A "derivative work," that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an "original work of authorship." Derivative works, also known as "new versions," include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial

revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a "derivative work" or "new version."

A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law.

Of course, they would cite the actual laws involved.

Logic Step Two Any component, service, or module that uses even one data structure from System V could be said to "incorporate some previously published material" and therefore be a derivative work.

Logic Step Three Consider the court decisions saying that if you use recognisable portions of a song, even if it is just a few milliseconds, you are violoating the derivative work portion of copyright. This has been upheld in appeals courts.

Logic Step Four SCO claims that IBM published software that is a recognisable portion of their (now copyrighted) works.

Inductive leap, with possible error: The law gives copyright owners the rights to derivative works, and IBM released and asserted that they had ownership of a derivative work. The biggest possible error in the logic is simple: How much recognisable code does it take to be infringing, or to be considered a "derivative work"?

Logical conclusion? Copyright gives rights to SCO for the software that IBM released.

If the judge were to consider all software as incremental improvements, and each are derivative due to their use of data structures (even the C standard library, perhaps?), then (in theory) all modern OS's are derivative works from the earlier OS's. Even if they do not directly use code from

Even if you don't get an attorney to represent you in court, do talk to an attorney, so that the documents you have to file are written correctly. You may be unaware that they have to be formatted a certain way. There are certain keywords that mean magic things to a judge but may appear ridiculous to the non-specialist.

If you go to most any attorney and tell them you're a struggling college student and the RIAA just sued you, they will almost certainly help you at least write your response correctly.

The last time I consulted an attorney, the only payment he required was a promise that the next time the subject came up, I tell whoever I'm talking to that attorneys aren't the bad people that many make them out to be. This gentleman got my ass out of a sling, and all he wanted was for me to say he wasn't a bad person.

You mentioned the Nolo Press web site, but you dismissed their advice as "broad". Did you find their collecting a court judgment web page? Seems pretty specific to me.

Besides their great book on collecting small claims judgements, the Nolo website has a whole bunch of information on this.