Slashdot Mirror
SCO Files Suit Against Novell Over System V Ownership
nadamsieee writes "Yahoo! Finance is carrying a press release from SCO that details a new lawsuit against Novell for "Slander of Title". It looks like SCO has finally ditched their failing product line in favor of 24/7 litigation and PR work." To recap: Novell and SCO have a lengthy correspondence over the meaning of the contract between the two companies, Novell registers a claim with the U.S. copyright office over the code in dispute, SCO files this suit in response. Update: 01/20 23:04 GMT by M : SCO has placed their complaint (pdf) online.
Except that this Friday is Judgement Day #1. If IBM isn't happy with SCO's discovery replies (and based on what I've seen -- see Declaration of Ryan Tibbets -- they won't be), SCO will be in very hot water, because it could be seen as a violation of a court order.
Disclaimer: IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Unlikeley, as SCO is not a Business Software Alliance member
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Bull. Caldera got DOS quite a bit after it was founded. Caldera started as a company bundling the Looking Glass desktop interface on top of Red Hat Linux! DOS wasn't even in the picture then.
:)
Getting history straight on this whole convoluted mess is not the easiest thing in the world. But seeing some of it first hand helps...
Just found this: McBride was singing a slightly different tune back in October..
Trolling is a art,
Funny thing is, a friend of mine actually does use some of the documents SCO filed to point out common, silly mistakes to his class, which in fact consists mostly of first year law students.
Ah, what would we be doing all day long without Darl the Bride and his litigation clown department..?
SCO sues Novell, but won't disclose its copyrights in Linux, even though it has to defy a court order.
In its press releases and letters to its customers, SCO claims that violations of its copyrights are in the Linux kernel. On December 5,SCO's lawyer, Keven McBride, said in court that SCO would be filing copyright claims against IBM. He also objected to the requirement to specify copyrights, but, after the judge insisted, said that SCO would comply. SCO was compelled by court order to answer ALL IBM questions with specificity by January 12. One of those questions was:
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify, with specificity (by file and line of code), (a) all source code and other material in Linux (including but not limited to the Linux kernel, any Linux operating system and any Linux distribution) to which plaintiff has rights; and (b) the nature of plaintiff's rights, including but not limited to whether and how the code or other material derives from UNIX.
On 1/12/04, SCO responded with an affidavit, a 60 page supplemental response, and some documents. Like everyone else, except IBM, I am still waiting to see the 60 page supplemental response, but I have additional information from public statements by SCO.
On 1/13/04, in the interview "SCO shows IBM the code", SCO spokesman Bruce Stowell said: "Monday's response included no examples of copyright violations. We've not introduced copyright infringement as part of our case with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that it's a contract issue."
SCO could have made arguments like this before it was ordered to respond to IBM's questions without further discussion. Now it's too late.
The order said to identify all rights that SCO claimed. It was not limited to rights that SCO was currently claiming as part of its suit against IBM, and, in my opinion, even includes the code contributed by SCO to Linux.
If, as Stowell said, SCO did not specify any copyrights that it owns in Linux, then either it is not claiming to own any such copyrights, or it has not complied with the court order.
If SCO now officially declines to claim ownership of any such copyrights, then it is hard to see how they could claim them in any later suit against a Linux user or distributor.
If SCO does claim ownership of any copyrights in Linux, it has blatantly defied the court order, and the judge can order sanctions. My guess is that part of the sanctions would be to bar SCO from suing anyone on any claims that it failed to specify in its 1/12 response to the compel order. The judge might also order SCO to show cause why it should not be held in contempt, and why it should not suffer sanctions for failing to comply with the order.
I wonder if SCO will now claim that it does not own any code in Linux, but it owns the copyrights that Novell claims. It would be typical of the way SCO has been making and revising claims.