And we thought they were dead :-)

[Jeffry Smith]

On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org> wrote:
> On 07/10/2010 09:13 AM, Jeffry Smith wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually they have 2 law firms, BSF, and Hatch, James and Dodge (Utah).
>>> Yes they did pay in advance.
>>>
>> BSF are the ones handling the lawsuits.  They signed up through the
>> appeals process.
>>
> Not altogether true (from Groklaw):
> 07/07/2010 - 881 <http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Novell-881.pdf> - NOTICE
> OF APPEAL as to 876 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, 878 Judgment,
> 877 Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Order on Motion for
> New Trial, Memorandum Decision filed by SCO Group. Appeals to the USCA
> for the 10th Circuit. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 1088-1150192.
> (Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 07/07/2010)
>
> You will notice that this notice is filed by Brent Hatch (Hatch, James
> and Dodge), not Edward Normand (BSF).

Thanks.  Interesting, as BSF are the paid-up law firm.

>> Linux is safe, in my opinion.  It's too widely used, and so far tSCOG
>> has presented no evidence (to quote Judge Kimball "Is that all you've
>> got?:")
>>
>>
>>
> While I think that Linux is pretty safe, this is still a club that hangs
> over it. While most Linux vendors are providing indemnities, as long as
> SCO has the ability to sue, then there is a bit of doubt. Who owns the
> copyrights is really the crux of the matter, and very important in the
> bankruptcy. Essentially they sold the mobile business to Darl.
>

1.  Remember, everyone has the ability to sue anyone for anything at
any time in the US.  Whether  they'll be successful is a whole 'nother
matter ;).

2.  The crux is that tSCOG does NOT own the copyrights.  I suspect the
APA (& Amendment 2) was worded they way it was because NO ONE knows
who owns what - the early UNIX history, due to the laws at the time,
the AT&T monopoly agreements, academic freedom, etc, resulted in lots
of folks owning the code, some in the public, some by AT&T, some by UC
(BSD code), some by whoever contributed.  So when Novell sold the
agency to SCO (Santa Cruz, not tSCOG), Amendment 2 was, in my opinion,
worded such that if it turned out the copyrights WERE needed, research
would be done, and the appropriate transfers made.  Since SCO in 10
years never came forward asking, I don't think anyone bothered
researching it.

However, 2 judges and a jury so far have all said they didn't transfer
to SCO, and therefore not to tSCOG.

3) until tSCOG can show that there is code in there that a) they own
the copyright to, and b) that they did not authorize the incorporation
of the code into Linux (as opposed to the Caldera code that is / was
in there, put in there by Caldera employees under direction of Caldera
and Ransom Love to make the improvements), no worries.  tSCOG in the
IBM suit managed to identify something like 300 lines (we don't know
what the lines are - that's under seal) that they MIGHT be able to
claim copyright over.

4.  The only other claim they're trying to weasel in (but haven't yet,
because they were denied their third change of their complaint in the
IBM case) is copyright on methods and concepts - which a) are not
copyrightable (unless some court extends copyright), and b) probably
not patentable at this point due to the wide-spread nature.  AT&T gave
the code away partly to enable the teaching of methods & concepts.

jeff