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.
We'll be using quantum computers before the appeals run out.
It's like a zombie infestation. Didn't scientific research recently prove that violence was the only solution to that?
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
It's no big deal. Really. The appeals court did say that New SCO owes Novell a bunch of $$. ($ they already spent.) The rest goes to trial. And this ruling has nothing to do with the IBM case. IBM has maintained all along that there was NO infringing code. SCO will likely be gone long before this ever gets settled.
SCO released a Linux distro, thereby waving any rights to pursue Linux vendors for copyright violations [at the time]. If people inserted UNIX code *after* SCO was involved then maybe there is a case...
But you can't try and release a distro, profit from it, then sue later saying the distro which you licensed under GPL included your copyrighted [non-gpl] code...
....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.
Appeals court only determined that the contract is a mess, and cannot be interpreted on its own. The court agreed that SCO owes Novell a large portion of the
money it received from SUN , and that a full trial is required to figure out the rest. Again this is just more delay for SCO, but SCO will soon be in Trustee-ship under chapter 11 bankruptcy, which means that it is HIGHLY likely that these cases will be closed by SCO itself, and settled in favorable terms to Novell & IBM.
Darl will not be in control of SCO once the trustee is assigned, and then we'll really get to find out who's been behind this mess.
Note that:
1- Novell board voted not to approve sale of any UNIX copyrights before this APA deal ever was signed.
2 - Santa Cruz Operation (original SCO) never took Novell to court at all (maybe they knew that the APA and Amendment were both clear to them and that they didn't get copyrights)?
3- The original SCO (Santa Cruz Operations) never did not do a final transfer of copyright paper work from NOVELL. That paperwork never happened, and Santa Cruz Operations never changed the UNIX code to show they had registration rights to the code). So they KNEW something.
4- Santa Cruz Operations SEC filings never said they owned UNIX ever. DARL when Caldera/newSCO/The SCO group did say this in their SEC filings (why the change of tune, when the one who did the deal never declared this in SEC filings at all)?
5- DARL and newSCO (TheSCO Group who became TheSCO Group by changing their name from Caldera), asked Novell for the copyrights BEFORE trying to sue LINUX users and IBM, etc.
6 - Santa Cruz Operations after the deal only collected 5% income from sales so why did they need the deal when Santa Cruz Operations already had RIGHTS to develop a "branch of Unix", why pay more money to do the same thing? Hmm, maybe to use the LIST of licensees that they go to market something else to the list (like Tarantella)?
7 - So ask yourself why the US court system has to go thru an expensive trial on this at all?
And yes, they did do a but of modelling on the slow zombie infestation and you HAD to act hard and quick or else the zombies would win.
The BBC had something on it recently on their website.
Prince SCO: "Oh, I feel much better!"
King Novell: "Your case was butchered in the courts, you creep!"
Prince SCO: "I was saved at the last minute."
King Novell: "How?"
Prince SCO: "Well, I'll tell you."
[music begins playing, the townspeople begin dancing and singing, "He's going to tell, he's going to tell!"]
Lemon curry???
I made a call to Microsoft's customer support to let them know that I will continue to use Linux on every PC I own regardless of how many judges they buy off.
I hope you realize that you took Vikram in Bangalore way off script with that support call.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
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.
Actual facts:
1/ The ruling leaves SCO owing Novell $2.5 Million + Interest.
2/ The rest of the case (including copyright ownership) goes to a jury trial.
3/ If SCO somehow wins they get no money.
4/ SCO then gets to go ahead with the IBM lawsuit which they were losing badly.
5/ The SCO management has been ordered (by the bankruptcy judge) to be replaced by a trustee. A trustee who may or may not continue the lawsuits. He/she may choose to try and negotiate a way out to stop the bleeding.
6/ After the SCO vs Novell trial if the trustee pursues it there is still the IBM trial.
So the trustee has a problem. The company money is owed to Novell and they don't have the cash to continue until the case goes to trial (which will be delayed due to the new judge needing time to come up to speed).
Only then can they go on with the IBM trial. To make money off the IBM trial they need to have won on the key issues in the Novell trial (copyright and right to waive), they also need to beat the IBM lawyers (who are not nicknamed the Nazgul for nothing).
Even if somehow the trustee can be persuaded to fight these cases and manages to win what are the odds that neither Novell or IBM would appeal? What are the chances that SCO can survive long enough to fight through the appeals if it comes to that?
At most this is a lesser defeat for SCO. So long as they owe Novell the money and still have to fight the trial they are still doomed. The chances that the trustee would be willing to keep the company bleeding to fight dubious lawsuits is pretty low.
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!".
Nah, even the ordinary Naz aren't enough here. Companies as big as IBM always have a scary "Iridium Team" or such. You know, one guy is 6'11" with the eidetic memory who serves as the walking caselaw and the bombshell woman with the 228 IQ to run the speeches. They only serve one case per year and charge $666 per hour, but they end the nonsense.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
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...
I hope you realize that you took Vikram in Bangalore way off script with that support call.
No, although the guy did have a strong Indian accent, he said his name was Steve. He also referred me to his manager, (also named Steve, incidentally), and HIS manager (Steve, again). They had to be in the US. What are the odds of all three guys being named Steve in India?
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.
No, it's 4th. Just ask the guy with the "4 boxes to defend liberty" thing in his sig.
It's a clear case of the "badsummary". Just check Groklaw.
As I have understood it, it was only summary judgment which was overturned. IOW, there would be a trial.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
It's trivially easy to make up cases where violence cannot be avoided.
For example, Bob the bomber is about to press a button that will caused hundreds of deaths. Sam the sharpshooter is in position to kill Bob. Should Sam shoot? Either way, violence is committed.
I don't know if it's the mostly American readership (a nation known for preferring violence over sex), but almost nobody here seems to understand that quote. It doesn't mean "only the incompetent use violence as the last resort", or "wars are wrong and everybody should love each other". It is not a pacifist maxim; It's more a reflection on the means of conflict. It means "if you use violence, it will be the last thing you do, and will prove your incompetence to handle the situation". The Foundation books made it clear that Asimov's definition of violence did not include things like armed deterrence, espionage, psychological manipulation, or even assassination if it meant avoiding a large scale conflict. It meant direct physical violence that results in death of people or destruction of property. In that light, violence is a proof of incompetence, because a competent leader would be able to take over the people and property to use them to his own ends, rather than destroying them.
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.