Where to for the little people [Was: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] foundthis on SCO vs Linux]

[Tom Adelstein]

Kelledin <kelledin+NTLUG at skarpsey.dyndns.org> wrote:

>First, let me say that I am not a lawyer, nor a paralegal.  For 
>real legal advice, you should seek a lawyer.
>
>> As defined by U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 101, et. seq.)
>>
>> 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?.
>>
>> SCO themselves claim IBM distributed "derivative work" that
>> IBM themselves did based from SCO's System V source to the
>> extent of even including actual source from System V into
>> Linux.  Althought as definded by the Copyright Act noted, it
>> MUST represent System V as a "WHOLE". SMP, RCU, and JFS don't
>> represent System V as a whole.  At best they could be
>> considered  additions included into System V code.  It would
>> be like considering the seat belt derivative work of the a
>> wheel.
>
>This is correct, although we don't really know about SMP.  RCU 
>and JFS were independently created works that presumably were or 
>could be developed/used separately from System V.
>
>> This brings up (what I consider) the whole reason why SCO
>> forced anyone that wanted to examine the offending code to
>> sign an NDA even thought an NDA wouldn't "protect" SCO's IP at
>> all because the offending code they are talking about is
>> already on 10 million+ CDs floating around the world.   Their
>> "proof" is paper thin and unsubstantiated.  IMO, this whole
>> debacle was a ploy to get IBM to buyout SCO for at least twice
>> SCO's current value. (which is far less than a billion
>> dollars)
>
>Ditto.  This would also explain why SCO is only showing a single 
>page worth of evidence under NDA (out of "hundreds of thousands 
>of lines") and have taken care to strip out author attributions, 
>timestamps, revisionist history etc.  They _know_ (or suspect) 
>that the allegedly infringed code snippets don't really belong 
>to them.
>
>> As for SCO's attempt to licenses Unixware to Linux
>> users I side with Darin. Scare tactics are illegal and should
>> fall under extortion law. Especially considering they wouldn't
>> substantiate their claims.   They are probably doing this to
>> help pay their lawyers for the nasty battle they are about to
>> embark on.
>
>I've complained to the FTC about this, basically stating that SCO 
>is threatening to subvert or destroy a significant driver of 
>innovation and competition.
>
>> I wouldn't worry to much about it.  What IBM does will
>> determine the outcome of this, and IBM is a big boy and can
>> handle themselves.  In the end this probably will have little
>> effect on Linux users in the corporate or home user
>> enviroment.  One of the executive where I work is a large
>> holder of SCO stock, and he noted that he isn't interested in
>> licensing Unixware to "protect" the company.   He doesn't
>> believe their case holds water; he is just in it for the buck
>> since their stock keeps going up.
>
>I'm of the same mind.  Any contract breach is between IBM and 
>SCO, and SCO has little chance of winning against a behemoth 
>like IBM.  I will personally enjoy seeing IBM break SCO's back 
>in court.
>
>In the meantime, SCO isn't going after non-commercial users (yet) 
>and can't possibly go after enough corporate users to put any 
>one company's risk above the subpercent range.
>
>Some suggestions in case someone here does get bitten, and wants 
>to fight:
>
>1) Since SCO took so long to register a copyright (over a decade 
>after the inception of SVR4.1), they cannot seek retroactive 
>damages, and the validity of their copyright can be easily 
>challenged.
>
>2) As a defendant in a criminal case, you are in a good position 
>to request a declarative judgment.  This would essentially force 
>SCO to fully reveal their evidence (with revisionist history and 
>everything) without the draconian NDA.  Whether you could run 
>off and blab it all to Linus et al is another story, depending 
>on whether a judge orders evidence to be kept under seal.
>
>3) Remember, copyright does not cover concepts and methods.  
>Copyright only covers the exact expression of an idea (i.e. 
>verbatim source code), not the idea itself.  Patents would cover 
>ideas, but SCO apparently doesn't have any relevant patents.
>
>-- 
>Kelledin

The request for a "declarative judgment" makes sense. 

I don't know if we would ever get to that point. 

Filing a complaint with the FTC is what every motivated person should do.

Will you please provide us the link and also the entries you made in the form. I'll post them on linuxlobby.org

Thanks

__________________________________________________________________
McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network.
Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today!
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge.  Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455