Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Overturns 2007 Unix Copyright Decision
snydeq writes "A federal appeals court has overturned a 2007 decision that Novell owns the Unix code, clearing the way for SCO to pursue a $1 billion copyright infringement case against IBM. In a 54-page decision (PDF), the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals said it was reversing the 2007 summary judgment decision by Judge Dale Kimball of the US District Court for the District of Utah, which found that Novell was the owner of Unix and UnixWare copyrights. SCO CEO Darl McBride called the decision a 'huge validation for SCO.'" The case over who owns Unix will now go to trial in Utah.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090824142203182
It's important to note that the Appeals court hasn't said that the copyrights do belong to SCO. They've only found that a decision regarding copyright ownership based on the APA wasn't something that should have been decided in a summary judgment and that the decision should've been made during the jury trial.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
....all this means is it'll have to go back to trial to decide the issues. I kind of figured this would happen; Kimball's summary judgment was premature.
(yes, I skimmed through the long-ass PDF)
The same verdict as Kimball granted could potentially be reached again, this time with a full court proceeding. What it does do is delay the other cases even longer, as the Novell case decision is really required before any of them can proceed.
See you in 2012.
So SCO is fully liable for payment to Novell, meaning they cannot get out of bankrupcy that easily. Ownership has not been reversed, SCO still does not own anything, that has to go to court and in the meantime SCO has to pay more money out. The question is will they continue to get investors to fund this campaign? Even if by some miracle SCO was to get the copyrights to unix, there is little if any chance they can succeed in proving any code was misappropriated by IBM. Basically all this proves is that our court system does everything in its power to make sure lawyers get all the money.
Oops - that should have been $4,066,000.
Damn those floating decimals!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Because that would mean more confusion in the end, and it would encourage the nextSCO to pull the same stunt: Sue a company with big pockets on claims without merit und wait for the company to reward you with buyout money.
Violence is the last refuge against the incompetent.
My Sig: SEGV
People asked the same question about why IBM didn't buy out SCO at the beginning.
The argument against, IIRC, pointed out that in so doing they'd be sending a strong message to the IT industry: "Fuck with us, and we'll buy your company for enormous gobs of cash and all your directors will be able to retire with massive golden parachutes!".
Asimov was not a scientist
His Ph.D in biochemistry would disagree with you.
I would have thought that most people would conside professors of biochemistry to be scientists...
where the hell SCO is getting the money from to pay for a decade of litigation. How has SCO managed to survive two recessions and continue to base a business model solely around endless litigation? Dear SCO: I have a great idea for a futile court case, who is your angel investor? PS: Your money would have been better spent hiring engineers and developing new products.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.