INTAC_Internet_Access_Web_Hosting Linux for Windows Users MozillaQuest MQ Logo
MozillaQuest the on-line computer magazine
August 5, 2003

TotalShells.com

EPIX Internet Services
MozillaQuest Magazine Front Page button

Internet & Web browsers button

custom Netscape & Mozilla themes & skins button

Digital Photography

Graphics

IRC - Internet Relay Chat - Chat button

Linux buttonLinux for Windows Users

Mozilla button

Multimedia

Netscape button
network articles

tutorial - help - how to button

Web Page Design

Web Tools

Windows button
..

Are SCO's Rebuilt IBM Lawsuit and Unix License Revocation Winners -- Or More SCO FUD?

Part II: Tom Carey and Mike Angelo Discuss SCO's Amended IBM Lawsuit Complaint and Unix License Revocation

By Mike Angelo -- 5 August 2003 (C) -- Page 4

Article Index

SCO-Caldera v. IBM:

SCO Clears Linux Kernel but Implicates Red Hat and SuSE

IBM Files Answer to SCO's Caldera v IBM Complaint

IBM Response to SCO-Caldera Complaint Is Outrageous!

SCO Has Not Found Its Code in Kernell.Org Linux Kernel or in GNU/Linux OS -- Conectiva, Mandrake, and SuSE Say No SCO in Their Code

Kernel.Org and GNU/Linux Developers Have Clean Code Safeguards -- Is SCO Trying to Dictate Linux Kernel and GNU/Linux Development Procedures?

Novell Says SCO Does Not Own Unix IP -- SCO Says it Does -- Novel Enters the SCO IP Fray with No Proof and More FUD

IS SCO NDA Sideshow Setting a Trap for Analysts and Linux Developers?

SCO +1, Novell -1 in SCO v Novell Unix-IP Feud -- Novell loses big round in Unix IP fray with SCO-Caldera

Is IBM's Irrevocable Unix License Revocable?

Are SCO's Rebuilt IBM Lawsuit and Unix License Revocation Winners -- Or More SCO FUD?

Part I: Overview and Prologue

Part II: Tom Carey and Mike Angelo Discuss SCO's Amended IBM Lawsuit Complaint and Unix License Revocation

U.S. GNU/Linux Community Fights Back -- Red Hat Files Complaint Against SCO FUD & Funds Defense Against SCO Claims


SCO-Caldera & the GNU/Linux Community:

Note: Many of our SCO IP stories involve legal issues. Some of the feedback we get agrees with the positions that we and/or our interviewees take on the legal and other SCO IP issues. Some of the feedback that we get does not. Regarding legal issues, the law is far from simple. Legal experts and scholars often disagree on how a law should be interpreted and/or how a law should be applied to a particular fact-pattern.

Cases in point are the many U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Theoretically, the nine Supreme Court Justices and their law clerks are among the brightest legal scholars in the U.S. Yet the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court seldom are unanimous. Often the decisions are six-to-three or five-to-four split decisions. Moreover, often there are several concurring or dissenting opinions -- particularly where some Justices agree with the results of a decision but disagree on how the Court arrived at that result.

Federal and State appellate courts overrule decisions of lower court judges, people that are supposed to be legal experts, by the hundreds if not thousands every year.

The point here is a simple one. Legal experts often will take different positions on legal matters. That does not necessarily mean that one legal expert is right and the other wrong. We think that Tom Carey does an excellent job of analyzing the SCO v IBM and SCO IP issues, even if every reader might not agree with his analyses. Moreover Tom Carey lets you know upon what law or facts he basis his opinions

Hypotheticals Note: Please keep in mind in these discussions that some of the discussion involves hypothetical scenarios. For example, SCO has admitted that it does not own copyrights for the IBM-developed code.

(Tom Carey Interview Continued)

  • Who Gets the JFS, NUMA Software, and RCU Copyrights?

- MozillaQuest Magazine: This seems to be a particularly tricky issue. Suppose that SCO gets these extensions as "Software Product" under the Unix license, and thus these extensions come under the umbrella of licensing and confidentiality protections under the Unix license agreements. There is nothing that assigns copyright or patent interests to SCO.

- Thomas C. Carey: Technically, that is correct. But SCO could get a court order requiring IBM to sign the assignments of copyright and patent rights (if any). And if the license agreement works in SCO's favor, it would succeed in obtaining such an order.

-- MozillaQuest Magazine: Even without any express language in the agreements that SCO gets the copyrights and patents?

-- Thomas C. Carey: Yes, because we are now assuming that the situation is controlled by language saying that SCO "owns" the modifications. I would think that ownership includes copyright and any patent rights. Of course, there is no agreement on the table that says that SCO owns IBM modifications. The 1985 agreement (as modified by the 1985 Side Letter) says that IBM keeps what it writes.

-- MozillaQuest Magazine: And of course, I presume here you mean that would be the case if indeed these Unix extensions, JFS, NUMA software, RCU, and so forth are "derivative works".

  • IBM Free to Release Its Own Code to Linux Community

-- Thomas C. Carey: Yes. Even if they are derivative works, the 1985 Side Letter says, if IBM wrote them, IBM owns them. To quote: "Regarding section 2.01, we agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by [IBM] are owned by [IBM]. However, ownership of any portion or portions of the SOFTWARE PRODUCTS included in any such modification or derivative work remains with us." So if the now-famous 80 lines of code were part of the UNIX code that was licensed by AT&T to IBM, AT&T still owns them, and they must be removed from Linux (unless they are also licensable from a third party, such as the University of California). If IBM wrote them using proper procedures , they belong to IBM, which was free to release them to Linux, regardless of whether they are classified as "derivative" or not. The 1985 Side Letter makes no practical distinction between derivative works or modifications. (Emphasis added.)

-- MozillaQuest Magazine: However, under the Copyright Act does not the author of the derived work get the copyright to the derived stuff while the author of the original work keeps his/her copyright to the original work? Thus a third party would need to get permission from both the original work author and the derivative work author in order to copy, distribute, etc. the derivative work?

-- Thomas C. Carey: The 1985 Side Letter constitutes such permission, assuming that it controls the code in question. Put another way, the 1985 Side Letter says that IBM owns what it writes, whether you call it a derivative work or an independent work. One of the benefits of ownership is the right to give your property away. IBM can't give away code that SCO made available to it, but it can give away its own work. The 1985 Side Letter makes that explicit.

--- MozillaQuest Magazine: So, as long as the work, whether called derivative or independent contains only 100% IBM code, licensing or giving that code away is 100% within IBM's rights to so do. However, if that so-called derivative work or independent work contains both IBM code and SCO-Novell-ATT code, then such a block of code requires that both IBM and SCO license it or give it away in order for a third party to use that code?

--- Thomas C. Carey: That is correct.

- MozillaQuest Magazine: Could this produce an anomaly where IBM owns the copyright and patent interests in these derivative works and extensions yet IBM is subject to the Unix license agreements for them anyway? [Please see the Hypotheticals Note in the sidebar.]

Thomas C. Carey: This is unlikely. But it is possible that either party may have written code that infringes on the patent rights of the other party. If IBM owns patents that cover the functions served by the disputed code, then IBM is in the driver's seat. It is relatively easy to code around copyrighted software. Patent protection is much more of a challenge. In that case, SCO might have a hard time selling UNIX without a license from IBM. [Emphasis Added.]

Summary and Conclusions

So far, there are pros and cons to both IBM's and SCO's positions. This SCO-Caldera v IBM lawsuit is far from a slam-dunk for either side.

GNU/Linux end-user liability is not directly part of the SCO-Caldera v IBM lawsuit. However, many issues that must be resolved by the SCO-Caldera v IBM Court likely will have significant impact on GNU/Linux end-users. For example, as Tom Carey points out GNU/Linux end-users could be third-party beneficiaries of the 1985 Side Letter should SCO-Caldera try to sue GNU/Linux end-users because of any inclusion of IBM-developed code in the GNU/Linux operating system.

Lots depends on what IBM says in its upcoming answer to SCO-Caldera's Amended Complaint. Incidentally, as of 1 August 2003, IBM has not filed an answer to SCO's Amended Complaint -- regardless of what some writers are reporting in other publications. On 1 August, both Brent Hatch, attorney for SCO, and IBM spokesperson Trink Guarino told MozillaQuest Magazine that IBM has not as of 1 August 2003 filed an answer to SCO's Amended Complaint.

Also, Brent Hatch clarified some misinformation that we had picked up from SCO. We had been told back in June by SCO that SCO had filed an Amended Complaint. Also, SCO posted that Amended Complaint on its Web site and noted it as having been filed on 16 June 2003. Up to now, we have reflected that information in our SCO v IBM coverage.

However, in our 1 August discussion, Brent Hatch told MozillaQuest Magazine that SCO filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint on 16 June.

SCO's Amended Complaint was attached to SCO's memorandum of law in support of its motion to amend as an exhibit. So, in a non-technical sense, SCO's Amended Complaint was filed on 16 June 2003, albeit as an exhibit to the motion to amend law memo.

The Court then granted that motion on 10 July 2003 and SCO filed its Amended Complaint on 22 July.

The principal technical difference between the Amended Complaint being included with the law memo, and therefore filed in that non-technical sense, and the Court approved filing on 22 July 2003 is that IBM was not required to file a response to SCO's Amended Complaint until such time as the Amended Complaint was technically filed, on 22 July 2003.

In an e-mail discussion MozillaQuest Magazine asked Brent Hatch: By when is IBM required to file a reply to SCO's Amended Complaint?

Brent Hatch replied: the Amended Complaint . . . was served by hand delivery on July 22, 2003. Therefore IBM's answer is due Monday August 11, 2003 (They get 20 days to respond . . .).

According to the Court's docket sheet entries, here are the pertinent filings and dates:

U.S. District Court

District of Utah (Central)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 03-CV-294

SCO Grp, et al v. Intl Bus Mach Inc

6/16/03 18 Motion by Caldera Sys to amend complaint (alp) [Entry date 06/17/03]

6/16/03 19 Memorandum by Caldera Sys in support of [18-1] motion to amend complaint (alp) [Entry date 06/17/03]

6/24/03 20 Certificate of service by Caldera Sys re: 1st Req for Prod/Docs and 1st set Interrogs (alp) [Entry date 06/25/03]

7/7/03 21 Memo in Response by Intl Bus Mach Inc to [18-1] motion to amend complaint (ksp) [Entry date 07/08/03]

7/10/03 22 Order granting [18-1] motion to amend complaint signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball , 7/10/03. cc:atty (ce)

7/22/03 25 Amended complaint by Caldera Sys added party(ies): SCO Grp . jury demand (kpf) [Entry date 07/23/03]

(Source: WebPacer)

But don't jump to any conclusions, yet. There is more to come in Part 3, including:

  • Potential Impact of Undisclosed Agreements -- Project Monterey
  • Can SCO Terminate IBM's Irrevocable Unix License?
  • Could SCO Take a Summary Judgment Against IBM?

plus of course our own summary and conclusions drawn from the interview.

Stay tuned.


Please see the first two parts of our series about SCO-Caldera's IP claims plus its intentions to enforce and license its intellectual property rights.

SCO-Caldera & the GNU/Linux Community: The SCOsource IP Matter

SCO-Caldera & the GNU/Linux Community: Part 2, Under the Iceberg's Tip


Related MozillaQuest Articles


SCO-Caldera v IBM:

  • Are SCO's Rebuilt IBM Lawsuit and Unix License Revocation Winners -- Or More SCO FUD?

Part I: Overview and Prologue

Part II: Tom Carey and Mike Angelo Discuss SCO's Amended IBM Lawsuit Complaint and Unix License Revocation


SCO-Caldera & the GNU/Linux Community: The SCOsource IP Matter

SCO-Caldera & the GNU/Linux Community: Part 2, Under the Iceberg's Tip

About the "Hey SCO, sue me" Petition


Caldera OpenLinux 3.1.1 Available

Caldera OpenLinux Workstation 3.1 -- A First Look


UnitedLinux, a Divisive Weapon for Caldera's Darl McBride -- Part I

UnitedLinux, a Divisive Weapon for Caldera's Darl McBride -- Part II

SCO's Darl McBride and MozillaQuest Magazine's Mike Angelo Discuss Caldera Linux and LSB

Caldera/SCO 3.1.1 OpenLinux Distribution Gains LSB Certification


Linux Makes a Great Gift

Don't Forget the Books

LinuxWorld in New York City -- 21-24 January 2003


Other Interesting MozillaQuest Articles



Copyright 2000-2003 -- MozillaQuest -- Brodheadsville, Pa..USA -- All Rights Reserved
Recent Articles

Gaël Duval Tells Why Mandrake Linux Is Better Than MS Windows

Gaël Duval and Mike Angelo Discuss The HP-Mandrake Computer

HP to Ship Desktops with Mandrake 9.1 Linux Pre-Installed - Good News for Mandrake Linux and Fans

Mozilla 1.4 Browser-Suite -- AKA Netscape 7.1

Gaël Duval and Mike Angelo Discuss Mandrake Business Products and Finances

SuSE Linux Desktop Available

About the Hey SCO, sue me Petition

Mandrake Linux 9.1 Retail Packs

Linux for Windows Users -- Linux Networking for Windows and Desktop People -- Mandrake 9.1 and LinNeighborhood

Gaël Duval and Mike Angelo Discuss the New AMD64 OS --

Mandrake Linux Corporate Server 2.1 for AMD Opteron

SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8 for AMD64 Released

Major Morphing in Mozilla Project Organization and Objectives Proposed

Red Hat Linux 9 Distribution Released

Mandrake Linux 9.1 Released

SCO-Caldera v IBM:

  • Are SCO's Rebuilt IBM Lawsuit and Unix License Revocation Winners -- Or More SCO FUD?

Mandrake 9.1-RC1

Netscape 7.02 Browser-Suite

SCO-Caldera & the GNU/Linux Community: The SCOsource IP Matter

Mozilla 1.0 updated!

Don't Forget the Books

Linux Makes a Great Gift

Christmas Season Holidays & Computer Suggestions 2002

Netscape 7.01 Browser-Suite

Mozilla 1.2.1 Browser-Suite Released

Buggy Mozilla 1.2 Recalled

Mandrake Linux 9.0, Desktop Magic You Can Use: A First Look

Linux for Windows Users:

Using LinNeighborhood to Create a Network Neighborhood for Linux

SuSE Linux 8.1

Zero Tolerance for Privacy and Security Bugs

Mozilla and Netscape JavaScript Bugs Compromise Privacy and Security

Red Hat Linux 8.0 Is LSB Certified

Mandrake 9.0 is LSB Certified

SCO's Darl McBride and MozillaQuest Magazine's Mike Angelo Discuss Caldera Linux and LSB

UnitedLinux: A Standard or a Distribution?

UnitedLinux, a Divisive Weapon for Caldera's Darl McBride -- Part II

Holger Dyroff, Gaël Duval, Mark de Visser and Mike Angelo Discuss LSB, UnitedLinux, and the Linux Market

UnitedLinux, a Divisive Weapon for Caldera's Darl McBride -- Part I

Netscape Communicator 4.8

Red Hat Calls for Beta Feedback

MandrakeSoft Calls for Beta Testers

Scott McNeil Discusses LSB

New Mozilla Roadmap Kills Mozilla 1.0.x

MandrakeSoft Says Yes to LSB but No to Netscape and UnitedLinux

Mozilla 1.0 Browser-Suite's E-Mail & News Quick Look

Mozilla 1.0 Browser Quick Look

Tabbed-Browsing Coming to KDE's Konqueror Browser

Mozilla 1.0 Browser-Suite Performance -- Speed, Stability, and Memory Hogging

Mozilla 1.0 is Officially Out!

Some Mozilla 1.0 Browser-Suite Annoyances, Bugs, And Issues

Mozilla 1.0 Not Ready for Prime Time -- Close but No Cigar and No Brass Ring!

Turmoil in MozillaLand:

Mozilla 1.0 Browser Sneak Release

AbiWord 1.0.1 Quick Look - MS Word Clone for Linux, MS Windows, & More

KDE 3.0 Released

MozillaQuest Magazine 2001 Editor's Choice Hardware Picks

Getting Started with Wireless Network Technology

Part III: Adding Wireless to a Linux-Based Laptop or Notebook

Is Mozilla Actually AOL-Netscape's Mozilla?

Bugzilla 2.16 - 2.14.1

Year 2001 in Review -- Mozilla and Netscape Browsers

Free Software for Your New Computer -- Or Any Computer

Linux Gifts for Christmas, Holiday, and All Occasions