If Microsoft has a monopoly in the office software market, then this could be a monopolistic practice.
If what they are doing is effectively keeping competitors from entering the market, then one of their competitors may have a case.
The different major commercial distributions might be well served by creating a basic standard workstation distribution with a standard GUI. It would create a "face" for linux on the desktop and ensure common features that all work the same way.
They could still do some personalization and add some of their own features if they wanted.
own patents exclusively as a defensive measure.
1) As you said, it gives them amunition in their lawsuits.
2) The more patents you own, the better the chances that your patents will cover any new software that you put on the market
3) They sign cross licensing agreements with each other stating that they won't sue, thus doubling their protection.
Using Unix based development methods, whatever that means, is not illegal unless the method is one that has been patented by SCO. (Such a patent does not exist.) Furthermore, since when does buying code from another company give you any right to the method they used to create it?
I'd say that Unix based development methods, whatever they are, are probably taught by scores of Universities around the world and have been for quite some time. Are all of those people somehow inserting SCO trade secrets into their code? It looks like that is what SCO is trying to say.
A ruling that finds the GPL or its parts unenforceable will also tell us why those parts are unenforceable and provide a guideline for revision.
I would definitely find it ideologically appalling if the courts declined to enforce the GPL while consistently enforcing much more onerous and apparently legally tenuous shrink wrap licenses. The windows XP license is ok but the GPL isn't?
if I steal something of real value from someone in the game, then have I committed real world theft?
If I harass somebody in the game have I committed a tresspass or conversion? Probably.
music was composed and books and poems were written before there were ever any copyright laws. Shakespeare's works were never protected by any copyright laws. In fact, many of Shakespeare's works would have to be considered derivative in nature. The same could be said about classical music.
A system was in place to allow artists to create their works and make a living even then. Shakespeare wrote plays and sold them to theater owners who put them on. Composers were sponsored by rich patrons. Even today, the vast majority of musicians make most of their money performing live and nearly nothing from album sales.
The truth is, if there is a demand for music, movies, books, etc., then artists will find a way to provide them. How is a band's song worthless without copyright law? They can still put on concerts and charge admission. Movie theaters can still show movies and sell tickets and popcorn. People will still buy books and read them.
of this case. The copyright on code in question probably belongs to IBM. It is very unlikely that any actual System V code has made it into the linux codebase. Therefore, the primary issue will be whether IBM's software like RCU and NUMA are derivative works of any System V code.
I'd say that such an assertion is tenuous at best. Those technologies did not exist in System V when it was lisenced by IBM. They are not extensions or newer versions of anything in System V. SCO's argument would have to be that AIX is a derivative work of of System V (which it is) and that those technologies are part of AIX. Thus, SCO is asking the judge to hold that new technologies not based on anything even remotely derived from System V are derivative works of System V if used in AIX.
I haven't actually done the research, but I don't think that this fits the definition of derivative works. I'll have to pull out my old Copyright textbook when I get home.
Slashdot Mirror
If Microsoft has a monopoly in the office software market, then this could be a monopolistic practice. If what they are doing is effectively keeping competitors from entering the market, then one of their competitors may have a case.
Try federal "play ping pong with ImClone CEO" prison.
The different major commercial distributions might be well served by creating a basic standard workstation distribution with a standard GUI. It would create a "face" for linux on the desktop and ensure common features that all work the same way. They could still do some personalization and add some of their own features if they wanted.
own patents exclusively as a defensive measure. 1) As you said, it gives them amunition in their lawsuits. 2) The more patents you own, the better the chances that your patents will cover any new software that you put on the market 3) They sign cross licensing agreements with each other stating that they won't sue, thus doubling their protection.
Using Unix based development methods, whatever that means, is not illegal unless the method is one that has been patented by SCO. (Such a patent does not exist.) Furthermore, since when does buying code from another company give you any right to the method they used to create it? I'd say that Unix based development methods, whatever they are, are probably taught by scores of Universities around the world and have been for quite some time. Are all of those people somehow inserting SCO trade secrets into their code? It looks like that is what SCO is trying to say.
A ruling that finds the GPL or its parts unenforceable will also tell us why those parts are unenforceable and provide a guideline for revision. I would definitely find it ideologically appalling if the courts declined to enforce the GPL while consistently enforcing much more onerous and apparently legally tenuous shrink wrap licenses. The windows XP license is ok but the GPL isn't?
Microsoft!
if I steal something of real value from someone in the game, then have I committed real world theft? If I harass somebody in the game have I committed a tresspass or conversion? Probably.
music was composed and books and poems were written before there were ever any copyright laws. Shakespeare's works were never protected by any copyright laws. In fact, many of Shakespeare's works would have to be considered derivative in nature. The same could be said about classical music. A system was in place to allow artists to create their works and make a living even then. Shakespeare wrote plays and sold them to theater owners who put them on. Composers were sponsored by rich patrons. Even today, the vast majority of musicians make most of their money performing live and nearly nothing from album sales. The truth is, if there is a demand for music, movies, books, etc., then artists will find a way to provide them. How is a band's song worthless without copyright law? They can still put on concerts and charge admission. Movie theaters can still show movies and sell tickets and popcorn. People will still buy books and read them.
of this case. The copyright on code in question probably belongs to IBM. It is very unlikely that any actual System V code has made it into the linux codebase. Therefore, the primary issue will be whether IBM's software like RCU and NUMA are derivative works of any System V code.
I'd say that such an assertion is tenuous at best. Those technologies did not exist in System V when it was lisenced by IBM. They are not extensions or newer versions of anything in System V. SCO's argument would have to be that AIX is a derivative work of of System V (which it is) and that those technologies are part of AIX. Thus, SCO is asking the judge to hold that new technologies not based on anything even remotely derived from System V are derivative works of System V if used in AIX.
I haven't actually done the research, but I don't think that this fits the definition of derivative works. I'll have to pull out my old Copyright textbook when I get home.
Nobody can know what unix is. Take the red pill