| Novell sez: |
'We're not SCO' and we won't sue |
 ct_libertarian sez: |
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! In your face, Darth McBride! |
Posted on 08/15/2007 8:49:02 AM PDT by N3WBI3
The company has no interest in becoming the next SCO Group, according to a spokesman.
"We're not interested in suing people over Unix," Novell spokesman Bruce Lowry said. "We're not even in the Unix business any more."
A US judge on Friday upheld Novell's claims to Unix copyrights that SCO has claimed to own. Those copyrights were the basis for SCO's highly controversial and ongoing Linux lawsuit against IBM.
Lowry said the ruling means "the cloud has lifted over Linux." Users and distributors of the open-source OS finally can breathe a sigh of relief that they are not in violation of Unix copyrights.
"We don't believe there is Unix in Linux," Lowry said. "We've been fighting that all along. It wouldn't be consistent for Novell to say, 'Oh gosh, now that this has been confirmed, we're going to suddenly take a different position' and sue companies for copyright infringement."
The Friday ruling doesn't mean the company's legal entanglement with SCO is over. There are still several claims before the court that will go to trial next month, and one of them involves payments SCO received from Microsoft and Sun for Unix licences. If the judge rules that those companies paid SCO for Unix copyrights owned by Novell, SCO will have to pay Novell whatever it earned from those licences, Lowry said.
There is nothing holding Novell back from suing existing Unix vendors. Even Novell's Linux-Windows interoperability deal with Microsoft does not preclude the two companies from suing each other. Lowry declined to speculate on the outcome of the outstanding claims of the case.
One thing seems fairly certain: Friday's ruling sinks SCO's case against IBM once and for all, a point Linux proponents were still celebrating yesterday. SCO can't appeal the ruling until the trial is over, and the company has not decided if it would do so. In a statement on its web site, SCO said it is exploring how it will proceed once the legal process of the case is concluded.
Lowry declined to speculate on how the ruling will affect that case and others SCO is still embroiled in with IBM, AutoZone and Red Hat. Both the AutoZone and Red Hat cases had been put on hold until the IBM case was resolved. Attorneys in the SCO-IBM case have until the end of the month to present what claims are still pending now that the Unix copyright claim in the Novell-SCO suit has been resolved. Another case, which SCO brought against DaimlerChrysler for copyright infringement, was dismissed in 2004.
"It's over," Pamela Jones, founder and editor of Groklaw, said of SCO's battle against Linux. "SCO couldn't find any infringement even when it had access to the entire copyrighted code base. No one else will find anything either." Groklaw is a web site that follows open-source software legal issues
Linux proponents are turning their attention to Microsoft as the next front line in the battle to protect Linux, she said.
"Microsoft is the next SCO. They positioned themselves that way with their patent sabre-rattling," Jones said, referring to Microsoft's claims earlier this year that Linux violates more than 235 of its patents.
Jim Zemlin, executive director of the Linux Foundation, agreed that Microsoft will continue to be a thorn in the side of Linux.
"I don't expect these questions around legal issues to go away, but I do expect people to see it for what it is, which is FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) fostered by competitors of the platform who have a lot to lose from Linux's success," he said. "Microsoft makes [billions of dollars] a year on Windows ... Any minute, second or day they can slow a competitor is good for them."
Zemlin also reiterated what some in the industry have already suggested, that Microsoft's $16.6 million licensing deal with SCO over Unix, an OS that Microsoft has never offered commercially, was to fund SCO's lawsuit against IBM to spread FUD over Linux. Microsoft has denied these claims.
Zemlin said even though SCO is losing its battle in the end, the legal wrangling that has taken place over the past several years has unfortunately been a victory for Microsoft. "People don't want to acknowledge it, but they got what they were looking for," Zemlin said.
He also praised Novell for fighting SCO to retain its rights over Unix in order to protect Linux. "Novell should be given credit where credit is due," he said. "They've spent tons of energy and money defending this case to the benefit of everyone."
OSS PING
| Novell sez: |
'We're not SCO' and we won't sue |
ct_libertarian sez: |
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! In your face, Darth McBride! |
We shall see. There was a funny - but NSFW - parody of Ballmer visiting Apple with patent threats yesterday at The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs.
My goodness that was funny
“But see we’ve gone through our huge patent portfolio and it looks like there’s about a hundred major patents of ours that you guys are infringing upon and some of them are for really big fundamental stuff that you can’t just work around. And, well, we feel that you’ll agree with us that respecting intellectual property is one of the most important things for a big company like Apple.
For a moment I just sit there. I’m kind of stunned, frankly. Then I go, Well, okay, so let’s look through this portfolio and see what you’ve got. Fester says he doesn’t have that material with him, he just wants to have a talk, and I say, Okay, fine, have your lawyers show the stuff to our lawyers and we’ll talk again. But he says, Oh, well, see, we can’t actually show you the patents. They’re totally secret and proprietary. I’m sure you understand.
I’m like, So you want me to pay you a licensing fee for patents that you won’t even show me, and you think that’s something I’ll understand? He says they don’t necessarily want a licensing fee, but more like a cross-licensing agreement, sort of a bridge-building collaboration cooperation type thing where we share technology with each other and we could reassure customers that we really have their best interest at heart.”
“Then I go on to explain to him that seriously, all joking aside, he should go sit in a room and slam chairs against a wall, or whatever else he does for fun, but if he thinks I’m going to make a deal with him then he must be out of his *#$&@^#% mind.
Lyons may suck at reporting facts, but he is a good fiction writer. Time for a complete career change, I think.
In the aftermath of federal district judge Dale A. Kimball's recent ruling, which determined that Novell, not SCO, is the rightful owner of the UNIX copyrights, the once-mighty proprietary UNIX vendor is on the verge of annihilation. As SCO's grasp on survival weakens and the company braces itself for descent into financial oblivion, much can be learned by reflecting on the circumstances of the case. A close reading of the ruling provides fascinating insight into the details of SCO's battle and sheds light on the peculiar events through which SCO has branded itself with the bitter taint of infamy.
In 2003, proprietary UNIX vendor SCO filed a $1 billion lawsuit against IBM. SCO accused IBM of surreptitiously incorporating proprietary UNIX source code into the open-source Linux kernel, thus infringing upon UNIX copyrights allegedly held by SCO. Although SCO initially declined to provide evidence of infringement, the company attempted to justify its suit by claiming that it would be technologically impossible for IBM to make Linux a suitable platform for businesses without misappropriating some UNIX intellectual property in the process.
After IBM refused to hand over the money, SCO upped the ante by insisting that all companies that use Linux should also pay licensing fees. SCO then proceeded to expand its litigation campaign and threatened to file suits against 1,500 companies. Novell eventually stepped in and argued that SCO wasn't actually the owner of the UNIX copyrights and that the UNIX intellectual property, in fact, belonged to Novell. SCO retaliated by accusing Novell of "slander of title" over the disputed UNIX ownership rights.
Excerpt - more at: Requiem for a legal disaster: a retrospective analysis of SCO v. Novell
In case you didn’t notice, that’s the same guy you’ve been endlessly claiming is a Microsoft shill. Apparently you do that to everyone that doesn’t fall for Stallman’s BS.
It's quite obvious from his "reporting" that is pro-Microsoft and against open source. His fiction is good, so he should keep writing it. However, he should quit writing his fiction column for Forbes since they try to pass it off as reporting.
Aw you poor free software guys. Don’t like it when you get a rough writeup from a capitalist magazine like Forbes.
Tough is fine with me. Full of half-truths and misrepresentations as Lyons likes to do is another matter. I remember catching him doing that on an article posted here -- you of course defended such unethical journalism.
Yeah because if anyone dares criticize the green party moonbats at the FSF, you come running to help with your hair on fire LOL.
Criticism is fine — I do it myself. But I don’t like your constant lies. Save those for your DU and Kos accounts — I’m sure you’re highly rated over there.
LOL you're the one constantly attacking Christians and Republicans, and defending green party moonbats, obviously not not me. Who do you think you're fooling other than the FSF supporters here? No one that I've seen, but I do see other conservatives call you "antiRepiblican" which certainly fits.
Typo, “antiRepublican” of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.