Toolkit
Story: Unix copyrights emerge from shadows
Posted by: Thomas Frayne (Tuesday 20 January 2004, 3:16 PM)
SCO tells Novell that SCO owns the copyrights, but won't tell IBM.
On 1/12/04, SCO delivered an affidavit, 60 pages of text, and some documents to IBM in response to a court order. Like everyone else, except IBM, I am still waiting to see the 60 page supplemental response, but I have additional information from public statements by SCO.
In its press releases and letters to its customers, SCO claims that violations of its copyrights are in the Linux kernel. On December 5,SCO's lawyer, Keven McBride, said in court that SCO would be filing copyright claims against IBM, and, after objecting, promised to supply the copyright information requested in IBM's interrogatories..
On December 12, SCO was compelled by court order to answer ALL IBM questions with specificity by January 12. One of those questions was:INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify, with specificity (by file and line of code), (a) all source code and other material in Linux (including but not limited to the Linux kernel, any Linux operating system and any Linux distribution) to which plaintiff has rights; and (b) the nature of plaintiff's rights, including but not limited to whether and how the code or other material derives from UNIX.
On 1/13/04, in the interview SCO shows IBM the code, SCO spokesman Bruce Stowell said: "Monday's response included no examples of copyright violations. "We've not introduced copyright infringement as part of our case with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that it's a contract issue."
SCO could have made arguments like this before it was ordered to respond to IBM's questions without further discussion. Now it's too late.
The order said to identify all rights that SCO claimed. It was not limited to rights that SCO was currently claiming as part of its suit against IBM, and, in my opinion, even includes the code contributed by SCO to Linux.
If, as Stowell said, SCO did not specify any copyrights that it owns in Linux, then either it is not claiming to own any such copyrights, or it has not complied with the court order. If SCO now officially declines to claim ownership of any such copyrights, then it is hard to see how they could claim them in any later suit against Novell, a Linux user or a Linux distributor.
If SCO does claim ownership, it has blatantly defied the court order, and the judge can order sanctions. My guess is that part of the sanctions would be to bar SCO from suing anyone on any claims that it failed to specify in its 1/12 response to the compel order. The judge might also order SCO to show cause why it should not be held in contempt, and why it should not suffer sanctions for failing to comply with the order.
Full Talkback thread
