Appeals Court Overturns 2007 Unix Copyright Decision 330
snydeq writes "A federal appeals court has overturned a 2007 decision that Novell owns the Unix code, clearing the way for SCO to pursue a $1 billion copyright infringement case against IBM. In a 54-page decision (PDF), the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals said it was reversing the 2007 summary judgment decision by Judge Dale Kimball of the US District Court for the District of Utah, which found that Novell was the owner of Unix and UnixWare copyrights. SCO CEO Darl McBride called the decision a 'huge validation for SCO.'" The case over who owns Unix will now go to trial in Utah.
wtf (Score:2, Insightful)
Did it become april fools day when I wasn't watching?
Groklaw coverage (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090824142203182 [groklaw.net]
It's important to note that the Appeals court hasn't said that the copyrights do belong to SCO. They've only found that a decision regarding copyright ownership based on the APA wasn't something that should have been decided in a summary judgment and that the decision should've been made during the jury trial.
Unsurprising, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
....all this means is it'll have to go back to trial to decide the issues. I kind of figured this would happen; Kimball's summary judgment was premature.
(yes, I skimmed through the long-ass PDF)
The same verdict as Kimball granted could potentially be reached again, this time with a full court proceeding. What it does do is delay the other cases even longer, as the Novell case decision is really required before any of them can proceed.
See you in 2012.
Code ownership... (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that there is the ownership of some code, but how much code can really be said to belong to one entity. BSD was spawned from the idea of creating a UNIX-like operating system, but was not using code from UNIX. So, when you say "UNIX", it is important to look at the code base and where each piece came from. All things considered, there are standard methods of doing things that are taught in school that may have originated from the old UNIX code, but are now considered a standard way of doing things. Can you say that everyone who uses code they have learned in school now runs the risk of copyright violation because the code may look identical to pieces of the "copyrighted" UNIX code?
This is where a lot of the problems will come from in these lawsuits from SCO. Also, if AT&T put a lot of code out into the public domain back when they owned System V, then it can't be taken back at this point. Does anyone know how much of the so-called UNIX code is actually held under the copyright at this point?
Payment Liability Affirmed, Ownership Remanded (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:first (Score:4, Insightful)
Oops - that should have been $4,066,000.
Damn those floating decimals!
Re:Novell should... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because that would mean more confusion in the end, and it would encourage the nextSCO to pull the same stunt: Sue a company with big pockets on claims without merit und wait for the company to reward you with buyout money.
Re:Will they never die? (Score:5, Insightful)
Violence is the last refuge against the incompetent.
That is litterature (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Novell should... (Score:4, Insightful)
People asked the same question about why IBM didn't buy out SCO at the beginning.
The argument against, IIRC, pointed out that in so doing they'd be sending a strong message to the IT industry: "Fuck with us, and we'll buy your company for enormous gobs of cash and all your directors will be able to retire with massive golden parachutes!".
Re:Not Science (Score:5, Insightful)
Asimov was not a scientist
His Ph.D in biochemistry would disagree with you.
Re:Not Science? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would have thought that most people would conside professors of biochemistry to be scientists...
I really don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
where the hell SCO is getting the money from to pay for a decade of litigation. How has SCO managed to survive two recessions and continue to base a business model solely around endless litigation? Dear SCO: I have a great idea for a futile court case, who is your angel investor? PS: Your money would have been better spent hiring engineers and developing new products.
Re:first (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn! I should have bought SCO stock yesterday.
Re:That is litterature (Score:3, Insightful)
Ghandi showed Asimov's Hardin epigram to be true
Ghandi's tactics worked against a Britain weakened by WW I and on the brink of defeat in WW II. It might have been a bit different against Nazis, or Stalin, or Imperial Rome, or ... but you get the idea.
Re:Groklaw coverage (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of us still ascribe to the theory that SCO was hoping to either be paid off or outright bought out by IBM. Their market share was crashing and the Caldera distro was going nowhere. IBM, who has substantial amounts of money and resources invested in Linux, wasn't about to tacitly admit, even to make the SCO problem go away, that it had breached any licensing agreements, and called the bluff.
But there are all sorts of shady aspects, like Microsoft's clever tricks at getting money into SCO's hands and a few rather noteworthy SCO-friendly journalists and "experts" who made all sorts of bizarre claims, the most amusing of which was that Linus had ripped off Minix (that elicited a fun response from Tanenbaum). That's where the other theory comes into play, that McBride and Co. were involved in a pump and dump scheme.
Re:Years of appeals (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That is literature (Score:2, Insightful)