Show us the ``intellectual property'' underpinnings [LWN.net]

Show us the ``intellectual property'' underpinnings

Posted Jun 18, 2003 18:33 UTC (Wed) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054)
Parent article: SCO owns the World?

I.e., not the source code that you're claiming was copied, but the legal basis for your claim.

As the FSF clearly points out, the phrase intellectual property is a recent chimera [1], combining as it does not only apples and oranges, but the the greenness of the designated-hitter rule. The concepts usually comprised in ``intellectual property'' are

patent
copyright
trademark
trade secret

each of which is its own, very specialized, branch of the law, with very different rules, procedures, and penalties.

Now SCO is not claiming (though occasionally insinuating) trade secret problems. (Even if they were, their publishing of Linux source would blow that claim completely out of the water.)
I've seen nothing hinting there's a trademark aspect to this affair, especially as `Unix' is a registered trademark of The Open Group. That leaves only patent and copyright.
Patent is excused via the Novell contract with SCO. Though SCO claims that Amendment #2 modifies that contract, they (SCO) avoid claiming any patent rights as a result.[2] Which brings us down to...
``SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve [...] copyrights.''
So it's all about contracts. The nice part of this is that a contract between Alice and Bob establishes no requirements for, or rights over, Carol (unless Carol is employed by one of the contracting parties). Thus, this contract dispute can have no effect on 3rd-party Linux users, be they individuals or corporations. Contract matters cannot spread to devour the world the way, say, patent can.

Therefore, the world reverts to its previous owners. Q.E.D.

That's it for now, but watch out for new lies, counter-assertions, reverses, and general smokescreening. :-)

Best wishes,
Max Hyre

[1] No relation to web browsers...

[2] Mozillaquest covers this in stupefying detail. Their story is particularly interesting for its factual citations, which too many screeds related to this mess are missing.

(Log in to post comments)

Show us the ``intellectual property'' underpinnings

Posted Jun 18, 2003 21:08 UTC (Wed) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link]

Now SCO is not claiming (though occasionally insinuating) trade secret problems. (Even if they were, their publishing of Linux source would blow that claim completely out of the water.)

Actually, it seems they are. See their recently Amended Complaint. Their "Sixth Cause of Action (Misappropriation of Trade Secrets—Utah Code Ann. §13-24-1 et seq.)" includes:

161. Plaintiff is the owner of unique know how, concepts, ideas, methodologies, standards, specifications, programming, techniques, UNIX Software Code, object code, architecture, design and schematics that allow UNIX to operate with unmatched extensibility, scalability, reliability and security (hereinafter defined as “SCO’s Trade Secrets”). SCO’s Trade Secrets provide SCO with an advantage over its competitors.

They also allude to copyrights in numerous locations throughout the complaint.