decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
What's Next in the SCO v. IBM Summary Judgment Motion Hearings?
Wednesday, March 07 2007 @ 12:43 AM EST

We've heard reports from the courthouse now on the arguments on four summary judgment motions in SCO v. IBM, but what's left for the March 7, 2007 hearing, scheduled for later today? I was getting confused myself, so to help me get it straight, I finished up Groklaw's summary judgment motions chart. Here's a breakdown, then, on what to expect next, a list of the motions that will be argued, with a few quotations from the various filings to let you know what each motion is about, so you can follow along when we hear from our eyewitnesses.

On Thursday, March 1, we had the following motions argued:
781 - Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Copyright Claim (regarding AIX)
775 - Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Third Cause of Action, For Breach of Contract (regarding Project Monterey)

Then, on March 5th, we had a hearing on the following:

783 - Motion for SJ on SCO's Interference Claims (SCO's Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Causes of Action)
782 - Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Unfair Competition Claim (SCO's Sixth Cause of Action)

So, what's left? A lot. I have no idea how they will fit it all in on one day. If you check our summary judgment motions chart, you'll see that later today, SCO and IBM will be arguing the following motions:

780 [PDF] - IBM's Motion for SJ on SCO's Contract Claims (SCO's First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action) - Memo in support:

"SCO's contract claims thus turn on the proposition that the Agreements somehow give SCO the right to control IBM's and others' original works.")

784 [PDF] Motion for SJ on IBM's Eighth Counterclaim (Copyright Infringement re GPL) - Memo in support:

"Despite its dramatic public claims, SCO has failed to identify any code allegedly owned by SCO and copied by IBM into Linux. By contrast, undisputed facts establish that SCO has literally copied, without alteration, hundreds of thousands of lines of code developed and copyrighted by IBM. And SCO has done so for profit, without any license to do so. While the measure of damages is not amenable to summary determination, the Court can and should enter judgment that SCO is liable for copyright infringement on IBM's Eighth Counterclaim, and should enjoin SCO from any further infringement of IBM's copyrights."

776 - SCO's Motion for Summary Judgment on IBM's Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Counterclaims - Memo in support:

"IBM has filed several counterclaims asserting that it has been damaged because SCO's lawsuits and press statements about its claims were made as part of a "scheme" involving "false and misleading statements" that were made "with actual knowledge or in reckless disregard of the fact that SCO does not have the rights it seeks to assert." ... All of SCO's statements in the course of litigation are absolutely privileged. To the extent that IBM relies on statements outside the absolute privilege, SCO is protected by a qualified privilege, under which SCO cannot be held liable without proof of bad faith. The evidence indisputably shows that SCO has acted in good faith, and IBM has no evidence to the contrary. Further, IBM has not competent evidence that it sustained any damages as a result of SCO's alleged conduct."

To which IBM entered a memo in opposition: "SCO has for years engaged in a campaign to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt about IBM's products and services. As part of this campaign, SCO has disparaged IBM; made false and misleading statements to the press and IBM's customers about IBM's AIX, Dynix, and Linux products and/or services; and abused and misused its intellectual property rights. To avoid responsibility for its misconduct, SCO seeks summary judgment on IBM's counterclaims for violation of the Lanham Act (Count 2), common law unfair competition (Count 3), tortious interference (Count 4), and violation of Section 349 of the New York General Business Law ("Section 349") (Count 5)....SCO first seeks to avoid liability for its misconduct by arguing that it is immune from suit under either an absolute litigation privilege and/or an unidentified, qualified privilege. SCO essentially claims that a party to a lawsuit is privileged freely and publicly to disparage another without limitation. SCO is wrong."

785 [PDF] IBM's Motion for Declaratory Judgment on IBM's Tenth Counterclaim (for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement) - Memo in support Part A and Part B:

"After promoting the Linux operating system for nearly a decade, SCO changed management and launched a series of legal attacks against it. ... While SCO refused to disclose its alleged evidence of infringement, it proclaimed publicly that Linux contained more than one million lines of code controlled by SCO and could not be used without infringing SCO copyrights. To put an end to the fear, uncertainty and doubt created by SCO's allegations, IBM sought a declaration from this Court that the Linux kernel, the core of the operating system, does not infringe copyrights owned by SCO.... The deadline came and went... and SCO's allegations remain unsupported. As a result, summary judgment should be entered in favor of IBM...."

777 [PDF] -- SCO's Motion for SJ on IBM's Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Counterclaims - Memo in support:

"IBM's Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Counterclaims concern certain programs that IBM licensed for free use under the GNU General Public License and Lesser General Public License (collectively, the "GPL"), and all turn on the allegation that SCO has violated the GPL in seeking to enforce its contractual and intellectual property rights. The Sixth Counterclaim asserts that SCO breached the GPL. The Seventh Counterclaim seeks to recover damages based on IBM's alleged reliance on SCO's promise to not breach the GPL. The Eighth Counterclaim asserts that SCO's distribution of Linux infringed IBM's alleged copyrights on code it released to Linux under the GPL. These Counterclaims all fail as a matter of law because it is undisputed that:
  • Where SCO copied, redistributed or sublicensed Linux, it did so in compliance with the GPL;
  • Nothing in the GPL prohibits SCO from licensing its UNIX technology; and
  • Nothing in the GPL or the case law supports IBM's argument for "retroactive termination" and "retroactive infringement."

SCO further shows below that the GPL should not be read as IBM has read it to interfere with SCO's right to enforce its own intellectual property rights, or to allow a competitor to decide what may be charged for an intellectual property license."

Here's IBM's memo in opposition:

"SCO's motion for summary judgment as to these claims depends almost entirely on a single premise: SCO did not violate the GPL. But the premise is false. SCO did breach the GPL, blatantly and repeatedly. Indeed, SCO repudiated the GPL. For that reason, SCO's motion against IBM'.s counterclaims for breach of the GPL (Sixth Counterclaim) and promissory estoppel (Seventh Counterclaim) fails....

"Similarly, SCO's motion against IBM's counterclaim for copyright infringement (Eighth Counterclaim) fails because SCO's only license to the IBM Copyrighted Works automatically terminated when SCO breached the GPL. From that point on, SCO lacked a license to the IBM Copyrighted Works, and SCO's continued distribution of the IBM Copyrighted Works infringed IBM's copyrights.

"Finally, SCO is wrong in asserting that it is entitled to summary judgment on IBM's claims for breach of the GPL (Sixth Counterclaim) and promissory estoppel (Seventh Counterclaim) because IBM has not incurred compensable harm. SCO financially damaged IBM, and IBM is in any event entitled to nominal damages for SCO's repeated violations of the GPL. Moreover, IBM seeks injunctive and declaratory relief in addition to damages on these claims. ...The intent of the GPL, as expressed in the unambiguous language of that license, is that fees and restrictions not set out in that license are barred."

I hope this makes it clearer. For more details, check out the chart. If you see any mistakes, leave a correction, please, so we can make it perfect.


  


What's Next in the SCO v. IBM Summary Judgment Motion Hearings? | 296 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here, please
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Wednesday, March 07 2007 @ 12:49 AM EST
The 'mitsake --> mistake' notation works pretty well in the Title.

---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-topic here
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Wednesday, March 07 2007 @ 12:52 AM EST
Please remember to make clickable links, using the guidelines on the 'post a
comment' page.

---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's Next: Popcorn anyone? n/t
Authored by: jdg on Wednesday, March 07 2007 @ 01:28 AM EST
.

---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL]

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's Next in the SCO v. IBM Summary Judgment Motion Hearings?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, March 07 2007 @ 01:35 AM EST
Based on the progress so far, I doubt that that the motions will be finished
today.

I suspect there will be a continuation of the hearings for at least another
day.

Of course I thought they wouldn't get this far in two days.

I also think this doesn't matter much, I think the Judge will base his opinion
on the submissions, unless one party (SCO?) makes some startling admission.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shouldn't be much left after this...
Authored by: GriffMG on Wednesday, March 07 2007 @ 02:31 AM EST
I would hope the judge can rule from the bench on some of these:

780 - Has to be in IBM's favour
784 - Gotta be in IBM's favour
776 - Too complicated to rule from the bench
785 - Undeniably in IBM's favour
777 - Again needs some back-up before a ruling

IANAL - but that is my take.

(i.e. don't buy SCO stock this week)

B-)

---
Keep B-) ing

[ Reply to This | # ]

Welcome back.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 07 2007 @ 02:53 AM EST
:^)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Also Reconsideration and Motion to Amend today?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 07 2007 @ 04:35 AM EST
I could be wrong. But so do you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 07 2007 @ 08:30 AM EST
Wow, those snippets really help. Good work.

Peter

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO admits it distributed under the GPL
Authored by: GLJason on Wednesday, March 07 2007 @ 04:12 PM EST
Where SCO copied, redistributed or sublicensed Linux, it did so in compliance with the GPL;

SCO was distributing Linux as late as 2006 I believe. They say it was a 'password protected' website, but that doesn't matter. If they give that password out they are distributing it. I don't think they admit to that late of a date, but they do admit to at least 2004, a year after they brought the case. Just because they had to in order to comply with contracts they had with third parties does not free them from the terms of the GPL. In effect either A) SCO has abided by the terms of the GPL and anything they distributed (all of GNU/Linux I believe) is licensed under the GPL by them or B) SCO has not abided by the terms of the GPL and they have violated IBM's copyright. Those are really the only two options, no amount of wiggling can get them out of it.

SCO is trying to play both options with the court in order to survive both IBM's 8th and 10th counterclaims. I believe by riding the fence they are dooming themselves on both counts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

4 year anniversery for sco
Authored by: Rad59 on Wednesday, March 07 2007 @ 04:51 PM EST
I just happen to be googling "March 7 SCO" and noticed on the SCO site
says that they announced their filing for the lawsuit this day. I wonder if they
still think it was such a great idea?

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.06 seconds