LawMeme LawMeme Yale Law School  
LawMeme
Search LawMeme [ Advanced Search ]
 
 
 
 
Links: SCO Triple Play News Day
Posted by James Grimmelmann on Thursday, March 04 @ 14:40:32 EST Copyright
The SCO news is just popping up all over. First, SCO set up AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler the bomb by filing copyright infringement lawsuits against them for their use of Linux. I've always been a bit puzzled by the idea of end-user suits here. It's been my understanding that by reading The Wind Done Gone or listening to the Grey Album, I don't commit copyright infringement, even if these works had been created in violation of copyright.

So what makes Linux different? Is this an issue of source code (so that the putative infringement consists in rebuilding your kernel)? Is it a problem of copying the code onto new computers? Is there some other aspect of what it means to "use" software that I'm forgetting? Help out a poor confused law student here, okay?

Anyway, moving back to the main ring of the circus that SCO has created, there was also a significant ruling in the discovery standoff between SCO and IBM. The magistrate judge (i.e. the junior federal judge who handles the administrative pre-trial parts of many cases) once again ordered SCO to identify the exact lines of code that infringe its copyrights.

In related news, Eric Raymond has unveiled the tenth in his series of Halloween Documents. This one purports to be an internal SCO email that indicates Microsoft has funneled $100 million to SCO by way of Baystar Capital, a VC firm. Too bad that the old common-law rules about maintainance, barratry, and champerty are going the way of the dodo.

 
Related Links
· More about Copyright
· News by James Grimmelmann


Most read story about Copyright:
Top Ten New Copyright Crimes

Options

 Printer Friendly Page  Printer Friendly Page

 Send to a Friend  Send to a Friend

Threshold
  
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

What makes Linux different? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 @ 20:20:22 EST
Or, more generally, what makes software different? In the case of Open Source Software, you obtain a license to create further copies of the software. In the normal course of usage in a corporate environment, you will exercise this right by installing the software on additional computers. Ignore "acting in good faith" for the moment, and consider what making additional copies amounts to if you did not, in fact, receive a license from the copyright holder to create further copies.

Alternatively, one could say that the act of running software necessarily involves making copies of the software (into memory). I seem to recall there having been some argument based around this notion in the past, but I don't remember the specifics. This normally isn't an issue, because it's given that the licensor grants you sufficient rights to actually use the software. But (ignoring "good faith" again) is this sufficient where the original copy obtained is itself unlicensed? In order to use the software, you will necessarily copy it onto a computer's static storage device (eg. hard drive) unless it's distributed on a live CD or similar, and then you'll necessarily copy it into the computer's memory to execute it. Are these necessary copies infringing if the original is not properly licensed?

Note that I don't think SCO is using this particular legal tack: they have yet to demonstrate that there is anything but hot air behind their nebulous "IP" claims with regards to Linux.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: SCO Triple Play News Day (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, March 05 @ 18:35:04 EST
A couple of points about the direction the discussion is going.

1. Both Chrysler and Auto Zone either were or are SCO clients, and in both cases they are being accused of contract violations.

2. In Chrysler's case, they are being accused of failing to respond to a written demand for certification that they are complying with their contract with SCO. That is all.

3. Chrysler's original contract was with AT&T and later with NOVEL. 90% of Chrysler's current maintenance fee goes to NOVEL and 10% to SCO so Chrysler might take the position SCO is just a collection agency and only NOVEL has the right to send the demand letter (justifying their refusal to comply).

4. In late December of last year NOVEL wrote a letter to SCO (which has been published and made available to SCO's [NOVEL's] clients) that requires SCO to withdraw all letters requiring Certification. Since Chrysler was aware of the NOVEL letter, they could easly be of the opinion the the matter was already closed.

As far as I can tell, both of the lawsuits are about contract disputes. Note the SCO has refrained from suing a LINUX user who does not have (or had) a contact with SCO.



[ Reply to This ]


Leges humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur
Human laws are born, live, and die

Contributors retain copyright interests in all stories, comments and submissions.
Everything else copyright (c) 2002 by the Information Society Project.

This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions
set forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later.
The latest version is currently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/.

You can syndicate our news with backend.php

Page Generation: 0.225 Seconds