SCOX Took You In (again) [LWN.net]

SCOX Took You In (again)

Posted Mar 30, 2004 14:30 UTC (Tue) by ccyoung (guest, #16340)
Parent article: SCO's Motion to Bifurcate (Groklaw)

See - you weren't looking closely and they did it to you again. Seems reasonable? From the beginning, and in the mind of the press, SCOX has said the suit was about IP and copyrights. IBM responded with IP (patents) and copyright (GPL). Now SCOX is saying privately to the judge, "It's only a contract dispute."

But that's not what they have been saying publicly for a year(?) now. And it's what they have been saying publicly that is the basis for IBM's countersuit. The bifurcation would hurt IBM because it takes away from them the ability to show the jury two classes if IP, IBM's and SCOX', and to demonstrate the hypocracy of SCOX' "respecting" IP.

Furthermore, it would also remove that amount from any judgement against SCO, helping them look not-so-bad in the press. And lastly, standing on its own, the patent infringment would be very difficult to collect much from a jury because "abuse" of that patent is so widespread.

(Log in to post comments)

No they didn't. It is reasonable.

Posted Mar 30, 2004 18:15 UTC (Tue) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link]

It is quite reasonable (from a legal perspective) for SCOG to argue that the patent infringement case is an issue separate from any allegations of contract violation (unless those contracts specifically provided for patent licensing provisions) or copyright infringement.

You have been taken in by the central FUD in this case. "IP" or "Intellectual Property" is not a term recognized in law. There are trademarks, patents, trade secrets and copyrights. They are separate forms of intellectual property. The original suit (with SCOG as the plaintiff) alleged contract violations (which covered trade secrets disclosure as the key contract obligation that they claimed has been abbrogated). The suit was ammended to remove trade secret violations and assert copyright infringement (on the basis of the "revocation of license" that SCOG claims to have exercised).

A counterclaim by IBM asserts patent infringement. Unless those patents were licensed to SCOG via the same suite of contracts that are at issue here, it sounds like that should clearly be a different case, heard in a different court.

Not that this helps SCOG's legal position. It's just more PR and stalling. From all available evidence it looks like SCOG doesn't have even a toe, much less a whole leg to stand one.

JimD

No they didn't. It is reasonable.

Posted Mar 30, 2004 20:35 UTC (Tue) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link]

"Unless those patents were licensed to SCOG via the same suite of contracts that are at issue here, it sounds like that should clearly be a different case, heard in a different court."

Part of the contract issue is SCO's rather broad explanation of the term "derived work". Maybe the patents are within this broad view.