s/Another get/Another Get out of jail card played/ jeff
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Jeffry Smith <jsm...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Jerry Feldman <g...@blu.org> wrote: >> On 03/31/2010 07:27 AM, Jerry Feldman wrote: >>> On 03/30/2010 08:31 PM, Bruce Dawson wrote: >>> >>>> Oh, its not over; SCO plans on suing IBM next. (Or at least SCO's >>>> lawyers plan to - I suspect they're the only ones left given that >>>> they're getting paid.) >>>> >>>> >>> It's really up to Judge Cahn (chapter 11 trustee) and the bankruptcy >>> court. The IBM case was stayed when SCO filed chapter 11 as was the SCO >>> vs. Novell, but that stay was lifted because the original case also >>> included a financial claim against SCO. >>> >>> >> Reading further in this morning's updates it does appear that SCO will >> pursue the IBM case, and there are a few other cases with claims and >> counter claims. SCO's agreement with its attorneys, Bois Schiller, >> obligate them to the end of the case. While this verdict does remove >> some of the supports from it's IBM case, the underlying issue in the SCO >> vs. IBM is the contract. SCO is claiming that IBM, in violation of its >> contract contributed 3 derivative works, (1) SMP, (2) NUMA (through its >> acquisition of Sequent), and (3) JFS - IBM claims the Linux JFS comes >> from OS/2, not Unix. This actually goes back to the old AT&T Unix >> contracts that had a 'derivative works' clause. IBM also has counter >> claims against SCO. Additionally, SCO can appeal this verdict, though >> that is unlikely. I think we will see in a few days what Judge Cahn >> decides to do. While the IBM litigation is the major one, there is still >> a few others under stay including the SUSE vs. SCO arbitration in Europe >> regarding United Linux. I'm sure that IBM and Novell will push their >> motions in the bankruptcy court to force SCO into chapter 7 now with >> Novell clearly holding ownership to the copyrights. >> > If I read the documents at Groklaw right, IBM had a clause in their > contract (and was confirmed by a Novell publication in I think it's > called "Echos" - the publication of Unix, that stuff they owned was > theirs. The Sequent contract did NOT have such an explicit statement. > However, they also didn't have an explicit "we own the derivitives" > clause. Also, Sequent, and now IBM, own the patents on NUMA. IBM > not only claims Linux JFS came from OS/2 - they showed it in > discovery. Actually, their current AIX JFS comes from OS/2 - IBM > reimplemented it from scratch in OS/2, and it was better than JFS1, so > they ported it to both Linux and AIX. TSCOG has been claiming since > they put it in AIX, they couldn't put it in Linux. Strange, but then > again, TSCOG is living in a different world from reality. > > In addition, Novell had in the contract the ability to waive all > claims - which they invoked. Another get > > TSCOG is claiming that they own also the "methods and concepts" of > Unix - not certain how this rulling will effect that, but it can't be > good for TSCOG. > > Bottom line, Kimball through out most of TSCOG's charges, this shoots > down most of the rest, what's left is IBM's counter-charges, to > include the misuse of IBM's GPL'd code (by attempting to extort Linux > users in contravention of the GPL). IBM's legal ground has gotten > better as more courts have explicitly recognized the GPL because of > stupid people challenging it (according to the GPL itself, you don't > have to accept it, but nothing else gives you distribution rights on > copies - catch 22 - either follow the GPL, or be guilty of copyright > violation). > > jeff > _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
