One choice is just to keep going as we were, covering other topics as we were and other cases; another was to stop and fix up any flaws in our historical collection of every important event in the SCO saga; and a third was for me to train others to at least do News Picks and the Timelines and maybe have guest articles while I worked on filling in the gaps.

I've read now what Groklaw members advised me, and I've decided. I think we need to use this time to perfect our work and ensure Groklaw's preservation. It will require shutting down the daily articles and News Picks, at least for the forseeable future, but I'm convinced it's important to do it. One of the core purposes of Groklaw has always been to create a reliable record for historians and law schools to use our materials to teach and inform.

There is a very big problem, though, with digital preservation. Many members raised that issue with me, and so I decided that we do indeed need to address that. A university professor, as it happens, is working on a digital preservation project with his students, and I have been offered an opportunity to pick their brains, and I'm definitely going to do that. Digital preservation is no mean trick, and just as Groklaw has been cutting edge in other areas, I want to make a contribution by doing all I can to make sure our work doesn't fade away. We put our hearts and souls into putting together this library of SCO, UNIX and Linux history, and libraries have their own requirements and standards.

I would truly love to do both, because I love doing Groklaw, but I don't scale, so I had to choose. And I choose to make sure our work as fully reliable, comprehensive and, to the degree humanly possible, permanent. After we get the preservation work in gear, I will definitely begin to explain how to do a site like Groklaw. I have had a number of requests for information on how to create a site where the atmosphere is kept polite, for example. Actually, that's a book in itself. But I'll tell you what I have learned. FOSS's strength is that there's no one throat to choke, and the more people who know how to do a site like Groklaw, the better off FOSS will be. So that's my decision.

Would you like to know how you can help?

One more new filing from Wednesday, this one from SCO v. Novell. Here's the docket entry:

12/31/2008 576 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [575] MOTION to Stay Taxation of Costs filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4) Exhibit D, # (5) Exhibit E, # (6) Exhibit F)(Sneddon, Heather)

- The Groklaw Team

SCOGBK-639-4 -- pps. 4, 7 and 8, the winding up of the joint venture in China between China and its "partner". P. 7 mentions a company named Dascom. P. 8 has a notation "Research issues that a company will encounter if it does not receive audited financial statements

SCOGBK-639 -- p. 8, the Dorsey & Whitney additional pre-petition bills they didn't notice until now apparently

SCOGBK-641-1 -- the Stipulation between Novell and SCO regarding the trust money

SCOGBK-643-2 -- p. 4 lists two objectors to the omnibus motion, Feraci and Llyod [sic]

SCOGBK-644 -- the signed order based on the stipulation, regarding the constructive trust

PJ is obviously having a well deserved break. While she is resting, Groklaw's timelines are still maintained. To keep you up-to-date, here is a raw summary on the recent filings.

We hope you'll join us, the Groklaw technical team, in wishing Pamela all the best. Christmas and New Year are in sight. Take it easy.

Defensive publications, which are endorsed by the USPTO as an IP rights management tool, are documents that provide descriptions and artwork of a product, device or method so that it enters the public domain and becomes prior art upon publication. This powerful preemptive disclosure prevents other parties from obtaining a patent on a product, device or method that is known though not previously patented. It enables the original inventor to ensure access to the invention across the community by preventing others from later.

"The best way to solve compliance issues is to prevent them happening in the first place", says Shane Coughlan, FTF Coordinator. "We work to support this by educating the community at large. When problems do occur, we want people to be able to share information and resolve them effectively."

Of course, the ideal is for there to be no license violations, but when they happen, it's good to know how to handle it without making things worse. I notice that they suggest being careful about posting a suspected violation on a public message board. When I took a course in the GPL from the FSF some years back, from the US perspective, they said exactly the same thing. For one thing, most violations are not intentional, so why make it harder to resolve it by branding someone in public? There are better and friendlier ways. So what should you do instead? And if you are a business accused of such a violation, what are some tips to resolving it quickly and effectively? One, I see, on the top of the list is do acknowledge quickly receiving word of the allegation. Read on for the rest of their advice, based on their experience handling such matters.

1.0. Chortle. Get it while it's hot. That's my advice.

Please allow me to give you a brief tour, hitting the highlights. We'll start with the opening paragraph:

Please read this License carefully before downloading this software. By downloading or using this software, you are agreeing to be bound by the terms of this License. If you do not or cannot agree to the terms of this License, please do not download or use the software.

Folks, did you really think Psystar was fighting to overturn EULAs and set software code free? If you did, please keep reading.

Given the history, you'll have to forgive me for smiling when I read the following:

Motions for extensions of time to file briefs and appendixes are not favored and will not be granted unless they comply with 10th Cir. R. 27.3.

So, this letter tells us where to find answers to our questions too.

18. On information and belief, persons other than Psystar are involved in Psystar’s unlawful and improper activities described in this Amended Complaint. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of these persons are unknown to Apple. Consequently they are referred to herein as John Does 1 through 10 (collectively the “John Doe Defendants”). On information and belief, the John Doe Defendants are various individuals and/or corporations who have infringed Apple’s intellectual property rights, breached or induced the breach of Apple’s license agreements and violated state and common law unfair competition laws. Apple will seek leave to amend this complaint to show the unknown John Doe Defendants’ true names and capacities when they are ascertained.

Analysis on balance - Standardisation and Patents
- by Georg C. F. Greve
FSFE, President

This paper provides an analysis of the interaction of patents and standards and finishes with some concrete proposals to address the most pressing issues. It was written under the assumption of very little background knowledge, and therefore provides some of the background necessary to understand the issue. An expert in the field should be able to skip the Background section.

Introduction

Software patents have been a hugely controversial debate, with lines of battle drawn primarily between large corporations holding large patent portfolios and engaged in multiple cross-licensing deals, and the Have-Nots, entrepreneurs, small and medium enterprises, and software users from the student using GNU/Linux all the way to institutional users in governments.

This debate got a lot quieter with the rejection of the software patent directive in 2005. Its place in the headlines was taken by other debates, such as standardisaton. Open Standards have been a buzzword for years, but never has this term been discussed more intensively.

On Wednesday, 19 November 2008, both debates met in Brussels at a workshop titled "IPR in ICT standardisation", although "Patents in ICT standardisation" would have been a more suitable name because the discussion was exlusively about the interaction of patents and ICT standardisation.

Patents and standards are fundamentally at odds, so many people call for a balance between patents and standards. This article comments upon the workshop and explains why standards should prevail over patents at least in the area of software.