This is the end for SCO

[Ned]

Huh?

Novell has registered the Unix copyrights - even though it has a contract (amendment) with SCO to transfer the copyrights to SCO?

Interesting.

Novell will be obligated to transfer those copyrights to SCO if that amendment is found to be valid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/23/technology/23unix.html?th

[Wraith]

--"Novell will be obligated to transfer those copyrights to SCO if that amendment is found to be valid."

I don't have a NYT registration, and wouldn't bother to register for it anyway, so I'll just comment on your comments.

You can read the amendment for yourself here:

http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000104746903037863/a2123204zex-99_1.htm#toc_ke2800_2

(Edit: You can read the original agreement here, prefaced by some commentary by the guy who did the transcription)

Novell is saying that it does not grant SCO the copyrights unless they demonstrate (I assume to Novell) that the copyrights are required for them to exercise their rights in the purchase agreement. If so, and SCO has made no attempts at demonstration, then I don't think they've got the copyrights.

It seems irrelevant, though. The stuff they've claimed specifically so far seems uncopyrightable, public domain, or Linus' personal work (some of which he says is badly coded he's embarrased about it; it was early code).

Wraith
Systems Analysis: finding the right wrench to pound in the correct screw

[Ned]

Well, Wraith, I would be surprised as hell if SCO has not asked for a transfer of the copyrights. I recall something to the effect that they would soon file a copyright infringement complaint which would require registration. What I think happened is that Novell's registration was discovered when SCO tried to register the copyrights themselves and was turned down by the Copyright Office because of the prior registrations to Novell.

This could get interesting to the extent that the Novell registrations may have been fraudulently procured, which it appears that they were given the facts as we know them.

[Urban Ranger]

I don't think that angle has any significant bearing on the SCO-IBM case, when SCO has no idea what the other side is guilty of.

[Mr. Harley]

Back after a pre-Christmas vacation. New set of articles from eWeek.

http://www.eweek.com/category2/0,4148,1252499,00.asp

Some excellent articles on the sections of the disputed code. Now that parts of it are getting posted, the SCO case is getting weaker. Some portions are definitely not in violation. As I speculated earlier, at best this is a case of non-technical lawyers not understanding programing - maybe SCO should have hired Ned. In between, it's a case of scatershot litigation hoping something hits. At worst, it's a form of semi-legal greenmail.

I also got the first look at the SCO "license" structure - $699 per CPU with no support, no distribution, etc. Doubling in the indefinite future. Sweet deal if they can hijack the courts to give it to them (I've read enough I now believe I could not serve as a juror on this case, I'm definitely biased )

[Urban Ranger]

Surely it is weak. One would think that if SCO has anything solid, they would put them on the table by now.

[Wraith]

--"Well, Wraith, I would be surprised as hell if SCO has not asked for a transfer of the copyrights."

Doesn't matter if they just asked, though. Do they have anything that shows that Novell approved the transfer? The original contract makes it damn clear that Novell was keeping all the IP. Check out the Excluded Assets list:

V. Intellectual Property:

A. All copyrights and trademarks, except for the trademarks UNIX and
UnixWare.

B. All Patents

The amendment modifies this the bare minimum necessary for SCO to actually continue doing business. Novell is clearly holding back as much as possible here, so SCO's interpretation ("We own it all") seems obviously over-broad.

--"This could get interesting to the extent that the Novell registrations may have been fraudulently procured"

I fail to see how they could have been. Novell clearly had to have had the copyrights before SCO if SCO is claiming to have bought them from them ^_^ This looks like it will turn into another contract interpretation suit.

In any case, it's still irrelevant to SCO's case so far. SCO can not claim copyright for things like lists of facts (the error code headers) or things established by standards (such as POSIX). And I would dearly love to see Linus file a lawsuit, since SCO seems to be claiming some of his code as their property.

--"maybe SCO should have hired Ned."

Heh. I was kind of wondering if he owned SCO stock, but it seems unlikely. Most of it is still held by insiders (nearly half, in fact), most of the rest by investment houses, and it seems much of the rest is shorted.
Course, maybe he works for RBC or something. ^_^

Wraith
"Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease. It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on."
-- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

[Ned]

No I don't any stock in any of the companies nominally involved. I do have some Microsoft stock, though.

As to SCO's choice of lawyers, it does seem that many of their problems are caused by a lack of patent attorneys reviewing their legal papers through and through. I really doubt that Boies' firm has a patent attorneys on staff given the failure to assert patents and copyrights in the original complaint.

You can be assured, though, that IBM's side is being managed by their very large staff of patent attorneys.

[Q Classic]

I also got the first look at the SCO "license" structure - $699 per CPU with no support, no distribution, etc. Doubling in the indefinite future. Sweet deal if they can hijack the courts to give it to them (I've read enough I now believe I could not serve as a juror on this case, I'm definitely biased )

that's been out ages, and i don't think it's quite right. 699 per cpu for workstations, iirc. 1399 per cpu for servers.

sco recently sent out a bunch of letters to fortune 1000 companies detailing a list of what they claimed was about 60 files that were infringing. in actuality, it was only about 5 files for 12 different architectures, which don't contain so much code but rather more things like error numbers.

what's stranger is that one of the files in question that sco claims as their own? linus torvalds himself says it's bunk, because he remembers having programmed it entirely himself without looking at sco code.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031222174158852

[Mr. Harley]

Oh, I knew it had been out. I just hadn't pursued it, unlike Ted I'm not a legal type with a geek background, all I have is the geek part. Actually, it seems that while SCO is stating the fee will be $1399 per server CPU, they are charging half that much initially. See, they're actually nice people.