Actually, the SCO case is quite strong, and in a way, that's what makes it so weak. I consult with lawyers and have discussed this issue in depth. I have read the applicable laws, and the definitions. And I am worried. But not about what you would think.
I am worried about the refined definition of "derivative works" that will come out of the case, and if I will be able to reuse source code from books, personal projects, and from online sources. I am NOT worried about SCO, or Linux failing, or the GPL not being enforcable.
I'm actually quite surprised that no one's ever gone to court over exactly what it means to say their application is based on another application with regards to what the GPL has to say..... According to armchair lawyers on Slashdot the answer is YES, however would a judge and jury see it the same way?
On the first point, There was one major case that went to court about derivative works, the issue of AT&T and Berkeley's Unix implementations. If/When this goes to court, the settlement documents will have to be opened, and we'll all get to see some interesting things, including the likely posibility that SCO does not have the rights that it is asserting. There have been a few other cases that were clearly deriviatvies (according to the wording of the law), but there have been no relavent cases other than the earlier one about Unix where the border of derivative works in software has been established.
On the second question, that's exactly what is at stake in the case. That's what the lawyers see, but many geeks try to ignore. It's the reason that so many geeks and laywers were mad when software was declared to be subject to copyright and trademark laws, rather than exempt as science. I argue it is more like science because it must be an iterative improvement, and less like art. But I digress. See 17 USC 101 for the actual legal definition of derivative works and related terms.
Or, if you don't want to bother following the link...
Excerpt from 17 USC 101:
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
Remember that This has not been decided in any legal case yet. So let's not say that it is decided, but look at the extremes. We know that whatever is decided must lie within the extremes, so if we examine the extremes we'll know what to expect.
In a very strict reading of the definition, ANY unix-style OS could be claimed to be a recast, transformed, or adapted verion of some earlier unix OS. The Posix standard also could be considered a derivative work. If your software interfaces with that OS, it must use OS-provided interfaces and data structures. While your application may be an original work of authorship, it could easily be argued that it is a derivative work of the OS. (It contains content that was developed by another author.)
Rinse, Lather, Repeat. Include in your rinse-lather-repeat cycle that new systems, including embedded devices, also use the same concepts that are contained in other OS's. They have to be programmed in some language, probably C, and that language was derived from the Bell Lab's work.
So from this extreme, we can see that SCO owns everything. That is a strict reading of the law.
Lets take the other extreme. In a very lax reading of the definition, it moves us back to common-law. We can then say that any copying for inter-operation and communication purposes is not a deriva
The first, and most evil use, would be to extract all the personal information about the students & teachers for use externally. Nobody would know the source of the attackers information.
A slightly less evil approach would get into accounting informaiton, university passwords, etc, and never change a grade but get into other university accounts and systems.
A less evil attacker could raise the grade of somebody they don't like, then compain and try to get that student in trouble.
But any self-respecting attacker would know that changing information about yourself is like waving a big red flag over your head.
I don't know about that. I think being in a section of the store that is visibly marked as "Adults only", having drawings of a naked lady on the cover, and various warnings about adult content and "NOT FOR SALE TO MINORS" on it would be sufficient warning to anyone who can read.
Even if you can't read, just glancing at the cover would be suffient in this case.
That's why it's important to shop around. Where I live, XMission.com (my ISP) has several options. With a DSL account I'm allowed burstable quota of 3 GB/week each way, and DSL has 640k/256k up/down. Other options allow 4 GB/week for $25, or more amounts for fairly cheap. Also, DSL accounts have a fixed IP address, no server restrictions, and no bandwith accounting on Sat/Sun or from midnight to 7 AM.
It really pays to shop around for Internet access. You might have to pay a little bit for a high-quality ISP, but it's well worth the money.
If the judge decides that, for some bizzare reason, SCO can violate the terms of the GPL which they are subject to, then RedHat can immediately declare SCO in the same violations. By going through the list of software developed by RedHat and included in the Linux kernel and ancillary code, there is significant code that RedHat can clearly say was not derived from System V. So no matter which way Count 1 goes, the second and third counts are immediately proved true. Either the information is public -- in which case SCO has falsely claimed trade secrets and false advertising (thereby damaging RedHat) -- or all the contributor's sources remain private -- in which case SCO is illigally distributing RedHat's (and every other contributor's) trade secrets, and is making false claims in advertising thier ownership.
In an all-out battle of every citizen against the entire military, the military would wipe their collective asses with your piddly little.45... I guess what I'm saying is, your.45 won't protect your "freedoms, rights, or privacy" if the government decides otherwise, even if the entire population were behind you.
Um, the military made up of citizens. So if every citizen were to demand change, that would make the entire military force be included in that group. Also, all the legislators and the judges would be in that group, and the media (who are also supportive of the view, even if the corporations are not) would get the message out....
But if you had said "A minor group of citizens who can't convince the common citizen of the validity of their views", I would agree with you.
This probably won't be on any.gov sites yet as it hasn't been introduced
Who moderated that thing up to informative? It specifically says "introduced by Senator Wyden today" so of course it isn't on Thomas records yet -- it takes at least 1 day for that. The ACLU has
Their announcement up though.
And Congresspeople will read it,
or have their staffers research it,
and maybe learn something.
I thank the EFF and ACLU for this.
And I donate to both of them.
But did you write to your two senators about it? It will take less time that posting on/. about it.
Click on both of your senator's e-mail contact links, each link opens a new window.
Fill out your name and address in the form, then paste the following:
Senator [
senator's name],
I am a citizen of [your state] who is concerned about my rights. A bill was proposed today by Mr. Wyden with the short title "CITIZENS' PROTECTION IN FEDERAL DATABASES ACT".
The bill is simple and easy to understand. It improves our security and will improve our ability to fight terrorism, which you have stated is your goal.
I urge you to SUPPORT this bill.
[your name]
Fill in the blanks, and get this passed! The statement about it improving security is true, and since it's the big thing in congress lately, they want to do everything to help that out.
First, the premise of your case--you claim that your UNIX on x86 market share was unfairly eroded because enterprise features which you claim as your IP (including NUMA and RCU) were misappropriated into the Linux kernel.
Your post makes it clear that you don't understand the lawsuit. Go read the actual complaint documents on SCO's web site, or request them from the court if you don't trust SCO.
What you are claiming as a "premise of the case" is not the lawsuit at all. That makes the rest of your comment meaningless. The case is about contract violations, having implications on the definition of derived works. The specific complaint from the lawsuit is:
The UNIX software distribution vendors, such as IBM, are contractually and legally prohibited from giving away or disclosing proprietary UNIX source code and methods for external business purposes, such as contributions to the Linux community or otherwise using UNIX for the benefit of others.
This prohibition extends to derivative work products that are modifications of, or based on, UNIX System V source code or technology. IBM and certain other UNIX software distributors are violating this prohibition, en masse, as though no prohibition or proprietary restrictions exist at all with respect to the UNIX technology. As a result of IBM's wholesale disregard of its contractual and legal obligations to SCO, Linux 2.4.x and the development Linux kernel, 2.5.x, are filled with UNIX source code, derivative works and methods. As such, Linux 2.4.x and Linux 2.5.x are unauthorized derivatives of UNIX System V. [bolding is mine]
The legal prohibition is copyright laws. The contract prohibition has not been shown to the public (AFAIK). As I have said to others, the case only about a contract violation between SCO and IBM. The issues that need to be resolved are: "What is a derived work in software? How much code copying is needed to make a program a derivative work? How much re-use of structures is required to make a derivative work?"
The big issue is on derivative works. A narrow interpretation of the law could mean that any usage of any data structure created for SystemV would make the program a derivative work. Even a broad interpretation requiring extensive usage of System V ideas &/or code would place all modern unixes in danger. That is the fear of the IT Lawyers, and it should be your fear as well.
Linus owns the trademark on Linux. Even if they did own the code (which they don't), they can't market it as Linux after Linus says to stop. He'll be needing a lawyer soon.
As to the first point, that has been discussed in length. As to the second, Linus has lawyers, and has had paid for legal services for several years. Read the back posts in the development lists.
Also IANAL, but if you've been keeping up on the news, the big thing that they've been claiming is derivitive works, which IS a contract violation (since they have non-disclosure in their contract).
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
That is what trust networks are used for. You can trust your friends to a certain degree (1 to 0), and they trust others to some degree (multiplied together), giving a a trust level.
Thawte notaries can give you points toward your identitiy authentication. Visit enough notaries and your identity will be verified. Visit more notaries and you can become a notary yourself. (I'm a Thawte notary, btw.)
The fact that the USPS will require you to re-authenticate every 4 years seems troubling to me....
"We continually review our performance, and believe our procedures have been extremely effective in providing for the privacy preferences of our customers."
Now, are they talking about the customers who they sell or lease their information to (spammers), or the customers that they obtained the email addresses from?
Just try to find out where a company got your address from... you can't do it. Ask which companies they sell or rent your address to, and they won't tell.
They really mean it. They respect the privacy of their customers, but not consumers.
That's why you have the GPL and the LPGL (and the DGPL, but that's for documentation).
If you actually go to the Free Software Foundation's notes on this topic by RMS and read them, you will answer your own question.
Basically if it is new functionality, you are encouraged to make it GPL. If it is existing functionality, you should use LGPL so that it can be linked into non-Free aplications.
Therefore, SCO can rescind IBM's Unix license,and thus IBM can no longer sell AIX.
Almost, but not quite. IBM let the license lapse when the complaints about Linux first showed up. SCO gave IBM 100 days to renew the license or stop selling and supporting AIX. That 100 days expired last Friday.
Actually, IBM let their license lapse, 100 days before Friday. SCO sued on two counts -- One is because they claim IBM put code into Linux (that's why IBM dropped the license) and the second is becaues they continue to distribute AIX which they claim also has their licenced code in it.
It is obviously the second case that they are trying to get the injunction for.
This has the potential to be a good thing for everybody.
We need to find the actual injunction (I haven't found it yet) and actually read the thing, and as such this is purely speculative, but it opens up a nice posibility.
In the long run, the judge *must* find for or against the complaint, dismiss the complaint, or remand it to a higher court. It appears (although nobody seems to have the actual complaint) that the complaint is two parts. The first is that they used the code in Linux, and the second is that they are now distributing AIX without a licence to SCO's code. That second point is the one they would file the injunction on.
This boils down to a simple complaint: "We terminated their license, so they must stop using our property." If that were the entire complaint in the injunction, the judge would have to agree since the Supreme Court has upheld that rights of property owners is one of the key elements of freedom. Not being able to use your property is the loss of freedom.
That complaint is so fundamental that he could not simply dismiss the complaint. He therefore must rule on it, or the law, or remand it up the chain of command.
The judge could rule that SCO is correct, meaning that:
Property rights were not permanently transferred, nor need they be transfered with an IP license, therefore...
IBM must pay SCO forever or until it changes its code because...
The US Government, military, and big business currently depend so much on AIX and...
Forcing all government and business entities to stop using AIX would endanger lives
and the economy.
And if the Government couldn't get newer AIX versions, billions or even trillions must be urgently spent on computer equipment and programming...
Meaning that the penalty is an indirect, but severe, penalty against the Government, military, and the economy generally.
In addition, since some have claimed that nearly all other OS's may be at risk, it presents a huge danger for basically everyone (except Sun, and perhaps Microsoft who just got a licence... Hmmm...)
By ruling FOR SCO, the judge would not only put a penalty on IBM, but on everyone who uses it. While the simple case (no pay, no play) is reasonable, IBM's lawyers could easily argue that the damage to society and possible lives lost would outweigh SCO's property rights.
Ruling FOR SCO would set a precedent that Microsoft and others could quickly follow -- Revoke the licenses to each version of Office even faster, or include in new online music services a quickly expiring license. When the song goes popular, the license expires, and you must pay the new, higher rate. It would be extortion, except the SCO case would make it legal.
Conversely, he could be ruling that you *CAN* continue to use IP after terminating your license. This would have profound effects (I like some of them), including...
Property rights are transferred forever when licenced, therefore...
Sales contracts of software and IP are binding and perpetual, therefore...
Companies cannot ever revoke rights to licenced IP, therefore...
Resold licences allow the seller to keep the licenses, and...
Since there is no minimum cost to resell or transfer IP rights...
Huge holes would be introduced in IP law. Would that mean that we can all buy and burn the latest software / music / movies at no cost from our friends?
That can't happen either. The sectors of our economy dealing with IP would be blown away, and that would also have so profound negative effects that the judge could not rule that way.
So either way the judge rules in the end, he cannot justify the expense to society of ruling for or against them. A judge at the state level sould not put the entire nation's economy into such a state. That would mean he should remand the case to a higher level. The district cour
Why are there no programming books on compact disc or cassette?
I've tried listenening to technical books while carpooling. It doesn't work well. Unless the reader is very skilled, you will be more distracted than cell-phone drivers.
To understand why it isn't popular, just try listening to someone reading...
"The 472 line code fragment is as follows..."
"The prototype for this function is Boolean TblSaveDataFuncType( void *tableP, Int16 row, int16 column);"
Any description of a figure, table, or graph.
After trying it once, you probably won't want to try it again.
Slashdot Mirror
I am worried about the refined definition of "derivative works" that will come out of the case, and if I will be able to reuse source code from books, personal projects, and from online sources. I am NOT worried about SCO, or Linux failing, or the GPL not being enforcable.
On the first point, There was one major case that went to court about derivative works, the issue of AT&T and Berkeley's Unix implementations. If/When this goes to court, the settlement documents will have to be opened, and we'll all get to see some interesting things, including the likely posibility that SCO does not have the rights that it is asserting. There have been a few other cases that were clearly deriviatvies (according to the wording of the law), but there have been no relavent cases other than the earlier one about Unix where the border of derivative works in software has been established.
On the second question, that's exactly what is at stake in the case. That's what the lawyers see, but many geeks try to ignore. It's the reason that so many geeks and laywers were mad when software was declared to be subject to copyright and trademark laws, rather than exempt as science. I argue it is more like science because it must be an iterative improvement, and less like art. But I digress. See 17 USC 101 for the actual legal definition of derivative works and related terms. Or, if you don't want to bother following the link...
Remember that This has not been decided in any legal case yet. So let's not say that it is decided, but look at the extremes. We know that whatever is decided must lie within the extremes, so if we examine the extremes we'll know what to expect.
In a very strict reading of the definition, ANY unix-style OS could be claimed to be a recast, transformed, or adapted verion of some earlier unix OS. The Posix standard also could be considered a derivative work. If your software interfaces with that OS, it must use OS-provided interfaces and data structures. While your application may be an original work of authorship, it could easily be argued that it is a derivative work of the OS. (It contains content that was developed by another author.)
Rinse, Lather, Repeat. Include in your rinse-lather-repeat cycle that new systems, including embedded devices, also use the same concepts that are contained in other OS's. They have to be programmed in some language, probably C, and that language was derived from the Bell Lab's work.
So from this extreme, we can see that SCO owns everything. That is a strict reading of the law.
Lets take the other extreme. In a very lax reading of the definition, it moves us back to common-law. We can then say that any copying for inter-operation and communication purposes is not a deriva
The first, and most evil use, would be to extract all the personal information about the students & teachers for use externally. Nobody would know the source of the attackers information.
A slightly less evil approach would get into accounting informaiton, university passwords, etc, and never change a grade but get into other university accounts and systems.
A less evil attacker could raise the grade of somebody they don't like, then compain and try to get that student in trouble.
But any self-respecting attacker would know that changing information about yourself is like waving a big red flag over your head.
frob
you mean "great gramm a r"?
Even if you can't read, just glancing at the cover would be suffient in this case.
frob
That's why it's important to shop around. Where I live, XMission.com (my ISP) has several options. With a DSL account I'm allowed burstable quota of 3 GB/week each way, and DSL has 640k/256k up/down. Other options allow 4 GB/week for $25, or more amounts for fairly cheap. Also, DSL accounts have a fixed IP address, no server restrictions, and no bandwith accounting on Sat/Sun or from midnight to 7 AM.
It really pays to shop around for Internet access. You might have to pay a little bit for a high-quality ISP, but it's well worth the money.
frob
Count 1 of the request for declaratory judgement is the most relavent. It asks the judge to declare that "No LINUX version sold, used or distributed by Red Hat, or used by Red Hat's customers, infringes any right SCO may have pursuant to Section 106 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 106.
If the judge decides that, for some bizzare reason, SCO can violate the terms of the GPL which they are subject to, then RedHat can immediately declare SCO in the same violations. By going through the list of software developed by RedHat and included in the Linux kernel and ancillary code, there is significant code that RedHat can clearly say was not derived from System V. So no matter which way Count 1 goes, the second and third counts are immediately proved true. Either the information is public -- in which case SCO has falsely claimed trade secrets and false advertising (thereby damaging RedHat) -- or all the contributor's sources remain private -- in which case SCO is illigally distributing RedHat's (and every other contributor's) trade secrets, and is making false claims in advertising thier ownership.
Go RedHat Go!
frob
No, we'd all have to sign their NDA before we could read the interview.
But if you had said "A minor group of citizens who can't convince the common citizen of the validity of their views", I would agree with you.
If everyone on /. would just spend 2 minutes we could get this passed.
- Click here to go to senate.gov.
- Pick your state from the list.
- Click on both of your senator's e-mail contact links, each link opens a new window.
- Fill out your name and address in the form, then paste the following:
Fill in the blanks, and get this passed! The statement about it improving security is true, and since it's the big thing in congress lately, they want to do everything to help that out.frob
What you are claiming as a "premise of the case" is not the lawsuit at all. That makes the rest of your comment meaningless. The case is about contract violations, having implications on the definition of derived works. The specific complaint from the lawsuit is:
The legal prohibition is copyright laws. The contract prohibition has not been shown to the public (AFAIK). As I have said to others, the case only about a contract violation between SCO and IBM. The issues that need to be resolved are: "What is a derived work in software? How much code copying is needed to make a program a derivative work? How much re-use of structures is required to make a derivative work?"The big issue is on derivative works. A narrow interpretation of the law could mean that any usage of any data structure created for SystemV would make the program a derivative work. Even a broad interpretation requiring extensive usage of System V ideas &/or code would place all modern unixes in danger. That is the fear of the IT Lawyers, and it should be your fear as well.
frob
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...
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
CA's like Thawte, which has its certificates accepted on almost all systems, will freely give out certificates for e-mail with no identity verification.
Thawte notaries can give you points toward your identitiy authentication. Visit enough notaries and your identity will be verified. Visit more notaries and you can become a notary yourself. (I'm a Thawte notary, btw.)
The fact that the USPS will require you to re-authenticate every 4 years seems troubling to me....
frob
Just try to find out where a company got your address from... you can't do it. Ask which companies they sell or rent your address to, and they won't tell.
They really mean it. They respect the privacy of their customers, but not consumers.
frob
Some people...
frob
If you actually go to the Free Software Foundation's notes on this topic by RMS and read them, you will answer your own question.
Basically if it is new functionality, you are encouraged to make it GPL. If it is existing functionality, you should use LGPL so that it can be linked into non-Free aplications.
Yet another case of RTFM.
frob
It is obviously the second case that they are trying to get the injunction for.
frob
Like Sony Music briefly filing suit against Sony MP3 Players, it must be a case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing.
We need to find the actual injunction (I haven't found it yet) and actually read the thing, and as such this is purely speculative, but it opens up a nice posibility.
In the long run, the judge *must* find for or against the complaint, dismiss the complaint, or remand it to a higher court. It appears (although nobody seems to have the actual complaint) that the complaint is two parts. The first is that they used the code in Linux, and the second is that they are now distributing AIX without a licence to SCO's code. That second point is the one they would file the injunction on.
This boils down to a simple complaint: "We terminated their license, so they must stop using our property." If that were the entire complaint in the injunction, the judge would have to agree since the Supreme Court has upheld that rights of property owners is one of the key elements of freedom. Not being able to use your property is the loss of freedom.
That complaint is so fundamental that he could not simply dismiss the complaint. He therefore must rule on it, or the law, or remand it up the chain of command.
The judge could rule that SCO is correct, meaning that:
By ruling FOR SCO, the judge would not only put a penalty on IBM, but on everyone who uses it. While the simple case (no pay, no play) is reasonable, IBM's lawyers could easily argue that the damage to society and possible lives lost would outweigh SCO's property rights.
Ruling FOR SCO would set a precedent that Microsoft and others could quickly follow -- Revoke the licenses to each version of Office even faster, or include in new online music services a quickly expiring license. When the song goes popular, the license expires, and you must pay the new, higher rate. It would be extortion, except the SCO case would make it legal.
Conversely, he could be ruling that you *CAN* continue to use IP after terminating your license. This would have profound effects (I like some of them), including...
That can't happen either. The sectors of our economy dealing with IP would be blown away, and that would also have so profound negative effects that the judge could not rule that way.
So either way the judge rules in the end, he cannot justify the expense to society of ruling for or against them. A judge at the state level sould not put the entire nation's economy into such a state. That would mean he should remand the case to a higher level. The district cour
To understand why it isn't popular, just try listening to someone reading...
- "The 472 line code fragment is as follows..."
- "The prototype for this function is Boolean TblSaveDataFuncType( void *tableP, Int16 row, int16 column);"
- Any description of a figure, table, or graph.
After trying it once, you probably won't want to try it again.frob
frob