| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Here we go again...Here we go again...Posted Oct 12, 2007 16:40 UTC (Fri) by kune (guest, #172)In reply to: Here we go again... by 3vi1 Parent article: Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Red Hat and Novell - Just Like Ballmer Predicted (Groklaw)
The SCO lawsuit has not been about patents but about copyright and its interpretation.
(Log in to post comments)
Here we go again... Posted Oct 12, 2007 23:47 UTC (Fri) by rise (guest, #5045) [Link] SCO has claimed every major variety of intellectual property violation including patents at one point or another, eventually falling back to only copyright and a theory of derivative works that's generally been dismissed by the legal community. They then largely abandoned even that position and tried to shift their IBM case to being solely a breach of contract one. Though I'm sure that SCO would prefer that the public forgot their previous claims, the public record doesn't bear it out.
Here we go again... Posted Oct 13, 2007 6:57 UTC (Sat) by kune (guest, #172) [Link] I agree that the legal theories of SCO have been wrong. But could you please reference any reliablesource, where SCO claimed that IBM infringes SCO's patents.
Here we go again... Posted Oct 13, 2007 10:18 UTC (Sat) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] For what it is worth, I read the phrase "get squashed like SCO" without interpreting it in thecontext of patents and lawsuits. As in "get squashed badly".
Here we go again... Posted Oct 13, 2007 22:30 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] This is factually incorrect.
SCO's claims were about copyrights.
At some stage IBM used some of its patents to counter-sue SCO. So it was IBM who got patents into the game,
|
|
||||||||||||