|
|
| Selected Copyright Principles, as text -- Addendum A to IBM's Sur-Reply |
 |
|
Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 11:32 PM EDT
|
Here is Addendum A [PDF], "Selected Copyright Principles", as text, one of the exhibits attached to IBM's Sur-Reply Memorandum in Further Opposition to SCO's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order on IBM's Motion to Confine and SCO's Motion to Amend its December 2005 Submission. Whew. That's a mouthful.
Why do we need a list of copyright principles? Why, to sort through SCO's Tweedledum/Tweedledee logic, silly ('I know what you're thinking about,' said Tweedledum: 'but it isn't so, nohow.'
'Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.'). IBM starts with foundational baby steps: You can't say someone infringed your copyrights if you don't own the copyrights. Duh. I can just see SCO slapping its forehead. "NOW they tell us!"
IBM goes on step by step to show the current state of copyright law as it applies to computer software, as opposed to, say, poetry or novels or music. Here's a thought: Material is not infringing if it is not substantially similar to the copyrighted work. Well, that should save some time in SCO's spoliation fantasy. The poor thing still has to leap over the ownership bar first there too. Here's another: Actual damages are not available where plaintiff has suffered no harm. I'd really love to see SCO lay out on the table specific damages from ELF, for example. Or Streams. You know, the code Caldera so wanted included in Linux. Headers brings to mind a few more principles: Material that is dictated by the compatibility requirements of other programs with which it is designed to interact is unprotectable....
Material that is dictated by programming standards is unprotectable....
Material that is dictated by standard programming practices is unprotectable....
Material that is dictated by computer hardware design standards is unprotectable....
Material that is dictated by the practices and/or demands of the industry being serviced is unprotectable. There are many more, and you'll enjoy reading the list and noting the cases proving each one. Then there is the supreme hurdle for SCO, even if it did own the copyrights, which Novell's declarants supporting its four new summary judgment motions have just convincingly demonstrated just this week doesn't appear to be the case: To claim non-statutory damages for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show that it was injured by the alleged infringement. Uh oh. SCO didn't register the copyrights it now claims until after it filed the lawsuit against IBM, so for anything prior to that registration date, if it can ever prove the registration is valid, it must show actual damages, not statutory. I first explained that back in July of 2003, when SCO registered its alleged copyrights with the Copyright Office. SCO must show a direct causal link, in other words, between the copyright infringement and real damage it suffered. Real means that an accountant can put a number on a piece of paper with an arrow to the infringement. Good luck with that. For that matter, it should be hilarious indeed to hear SCO argue in what way IBM has benefitted financially from header files and Streams or from donating JFS to Linux. For good measure, IBM throws in a list of questions to ask regarding both SCO's copyright claims and its contract claims. Folks, IBM is having fun. ********************************
ADDENDUM A
Selected Copyright Principles
| 1. |
A party cannot assert copyright infringement over
materials it does not own. See
Tuff ‘N’ Rumble Met, v. Profile Records.
Inc., No. 95 Civ. 0246,1997
WL158364, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 1997) (granting summary judgment
dismissing copyright infringement claim where “Tuff
has not met its burden of
proving it is the owner of a valid copyright”). |
| 2. |
Plaintiff bears the burden of showing it is the author of
the copyrighted material.
Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490
U.S. 730, 737, 109 S. Ct.
2166, 2171, 104 L.Ed.2d 811(1989) (holding that to show ownership of a valid
copyright, a party must show it is the party “who actually
create[d] the work” by
“translating] an idea into a fixed, tangible expression
entitled to copyright
protection”). |
| 3. |
A defendant does not infringe if it has a valid license
to exercise those rights that
are claimed to be infringing. See Bourne v. Walt Disney
Co., 68 F.3d 621, 632
(2d Cir. 1995) (affirming finding of no infringement where defendant
“was
licensed by [plaintiff] to exploit the copyrighted compositions in
connection with
its motion pictures”). |
| 4. |
An idea is unprotectable. See Country
Kids’ N City Slicks. Inc. v. Sheen, 77 F.3d
1280, 1286 (10th Cir. 1996) (“we conclude that the district
court correctly
characterized the wooden form of the traditional paper doll as an
[unprotectable]
idea rather than a protected expression”). |
| 5. |
Material that is a procedure, process, system, or method
of operation is
unprotectable. See Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 896 F.
Supp. 1050, 1055 (D. Colo.
1995) (“command codes” held unprotectable in part where
they “are simply a
procedure, process, system, and method of operation”). |
| 6. |
Material that is a concept, principle, or discovery is
unprotectable. See Gates
Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., Ltd., 9 F.3d 823, 833 (10th
Cir. 1993) (stating
that “[i]n no case does copyright protection for an original
work of authorship
extend to any . . . concept, principle, or discovery” (quoting
17 U.S.C. 102(b))). |
| 7. |
Material that is unoriginal is unprotectable. See
Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124
F.3d1366, 1373 (10th Cir. 1997) (“registers” and
“descriptions” held
unprotectable because “Mitel used such minimal effort and
judgment to select the
‘registers’ and ‘descriptions’ that they are
unoriginal under section 102(a))”). |
| 8. |
Material that can be expressed in only a limited number
of ways is unprotectable.
See Baystate Tech., Inc. v. Bentley Sys.,
Inc., 946 F. Supp. 1079, 1087-88 (D.
Mass. 1996) (names given to computer file held unprotectable because
“the name
of a file is typically related to its function. A file that controls
or creates color has
a name in which some form of the word ‘color’ appears. In
that case, the name of
a file, ‘color’, merges with the idea or function of the
file, ‘to create a color’”). |
| 9. |
Material that is dictated by the compatibility
requirements of other programs with
which it is designed to interact is unprotectable. See
Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc.
v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 715 (2d Cir. 1992) (list of
services required for job
scheduling program was unprotectable because it was “dictated
by the nature of
the other programs with which it was to interact. . . .”). |
| 10. |
Material that is dictated by programming standards is
unprotectable. See
Computer Access Tech. Corp. v. Catalyst Ent. Inc.,
C-00-4852, 2001 WL
34118030, at *16 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2001) (Protocol analyzer
GUI’s “use of
horizontal bars to depict test data and results [held unprotectable
because it]
derives from USB standards and industry practice.”). |
| 11. |
Material that is dictated by standard programming
practices is unprotectable. See
Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124 F.3d 1366, 1375
(10th Cir. 1997) (certain values held
unprotectable where “[s]tandard programming conventions such as
‘1’ for ‘on’
and ‘0’ for ‘off’ determined some of the
descriptions and values.”). |
| 12. |
Material that is dictated by computer hardware design
standards is unprotectable.
See NEC Corp. & NEC Electronics, Inc. v.
Intel Corp., No. C-84-20799, 1989
WL67434, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6,1989) (work held unprotectable
because “the
expression of NEC’s microcode was constrained by the use of the
macroinstruction set and hardware of the 8086/88”). |
| 13. |
Material that is dictated by the practices and/or demands
of the industry being
serviced is unprotectable. See Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel,
Inc., 124 F.3d 1366, 1375 (10th
Cir. 1997) (certain “values” held unprotectable where
“many of the values were
selected by Mitel’s product management department in response
to customer
demand or to ensure compatibility with equipment already installed in
the central
offices of Mitel’s customers”). |
| 14. |
Material found in the public domain is unprotectable.
See Harbor Software, Inc.
v. Applied Systems, Inc., 925 F. Supp. 1042, 1051 (S.D.N.Y.
1996) (work held
unprotectable because these “steps are contained in computer
programming books
and therefore constitute standard techniques found in every database
program”). |
| 15. |
Material is not infringing if it is not substantially
similar to the copyrighted work.
See Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai,
Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 714 (2d Cir. 1992)
(affirming district court finding of no infringement where
‘“there remained
virtually no lines of code that were identical’”). |
| 16. |
To claim non-statutory damages for copyright
infringement, a plaintiff must show
that it was injured by the alleged infringement. See
Getaped.Com, Inc. v.
Cangemi, 188 F. Supp. 2d 398, 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (affirming
magistrate’s
recommendations rejecting claim for actual damages where plaintiff
“failed to
offer sufficient evidence to show a causal connection between its losses and
defendants’ infringement.”). |
| 17. |
Where the material infringed is minimal in relation to
the infringing work as a
whole, damages may be scaled down accordingly. See Cream
Records, Inc. v.
Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 754 F.2d 826, 828 (9th Cir. 1985)
(affirming district
court award of “[o]ne-tenth of 1 percent” of
defendant’s profits where the
infringed material was “miniscule”). |
| 18. |
The availability of suitable alternatives and substitutes
may be used to reduce the
amount of damages. See Lawton v. Melville Corp., 116
F.3d 1472, 1997
WL346129, at *1 (Table) (2d Cir. 1997) (affirming district court
decision using
“the availability of alternative suitable photographs” as
a factor in determining
reasonable royalty damages). |
| 19. |
Actual damages are not available where plaintiff has
suffered no harm. See
Lawton v. Melville Corp., 116 F.3d 1472, 1997 WL
346129, at *1 (Table) (2d
Cir.1997) (holding that “[w]here, as here, there is no evidence
that market value
of the copyright owner’s work was diminished as a result of the
infringement, a
trial court may properly refuse to award actual damages”). |
| 20. |
Some remedies are unavailable to the plaintiff where
defendants derived no
profits from the infringement. See Brown v. McCormick,
87 F. Supp. 2d 467
(D.Md. 2000) (holding that because defendants “lost money on
the Movie [which
incorporated the infringed material], [] there are no profits to
share”). |
Selected Questions re SCO’s Copyright
Claims
| 1. |
Who owns the material; |
| 2. |
Who wrote the material and when; |
| 3. |
To whom has the material been licensed, when and on
what terms; |
| 4. |
Whether the material is an idea; |
| 5. |
Whether the material is a procedure, process, system or
method of operation; |
| 6. |
Whether the material is a concept, principle, or discovery; |
| 7. |
Whether the material is unoriginal; |
| 8. |
Whether the material can be expressed in only a limited
number of ways; |
| 9. |
Whether the material is dictated by the compatibility
requirements of other
programs with which a program is designed to operate in
conjunction; |
| 10. |
Whether the material is dictated by programming standards; |
| 11. |
Whether the material is dictated by programming practices; |
| 12. |
Whether the material is dictated by computer hardware
design standards; |
| 13. |
Whether the material is dictated by the practices
and/or demands of the industry
being serviced; |
| 14. |
Whether the material is in the public domain; |
| 15. |
Whether there is substantial similarity; |
| 16. |
Whether IBM has copied and distributed the material; |
| 17. |
Whether the material was offered to Linux and if so as
of when; |
| 18. |
Whether the material was ever accepted into Linux; |
| 19. |
How important the material is to Linux; |
| 20. |
Whether the material has substitutes or replacements; |
| 21. |
Whether the material’s presence has had any
impact on SCO; |
| 22. |
Whether the material’s presence in Linux has
resulted in any benefit to IBM. |
Selected Questions re SCO’s Contract
Claims
| 1. |
Who owns the material; |
| 2. |
Who wrote the material and when; |
| 3. |
To whom has the material been licensed and when; |
| 4. |
On what terms the material has been licensed; |
| 5. |
To whom the material has been disclosed and when; |
| 6. |
On what terms the material has been disclosed; |
| 7. |
Whether IBM has ever had anything to do with the
material and what; |
| 8. |
Whether the material was offered to Linux and if so
as of when; |
| 9. |
Whether the material was ever accepted into Linux; |
| 10. |
How important the material is to Linux; |
| 11. |
Whether the material has substitutes; |
| 12. |
Whether the material could be replaced; |
| 13. |
Whether the material’s presence has had any
impact on SCO; |
| 14. |
Whether the material’s presence in Linux has
resulted in any benefit to IBM. |
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 11:56 PM EDT |
| Clicky links are appreciated; instructions in red at bottom of posting form. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 12:15 AM EDT |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 12:29 AM EDT |
Most software patents are just ideas,
with no implementation at filing time.
They are nothing more than design specifications.
Yet, the USPTO grants patents for ideas.
To add insult to injury, they grant new patents
which are trivial mods to existing patents,
which results in control perpetuation.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 12:59 AM EDT |
Surely this was intended in large part as a dig at SCO & company. Is there
a chance this was also IBM's sneaky way of writing a nice foundational article
for Groklaw?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: elronxenu on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 03:05 AM EDT |
| This should have been one of IBM's first memoranda in the
case; it might have
nipped a lot of SCO's shenanigans in
the bud.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Placid on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 03:10 AM EDT |
Does it mean the an author cannot transfer his copyright to a completely
different person?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 03:19 AM EDT |
I think today SCO failed to maintain the 1.00 closing bid for 30 calendar days.
NASDAQ will notify SCO within 2 biz days, and will publish the information
within itself in 5 biz days.
I think SCO has to publish the information before the 5th day when NASDAQ
publishes it, or be immeditly delisted.
Once the closing bid is below 1.00 for 30 biz days, they receive a letter of
non-compliance. They then have 180 calender days to get it above 1.00 for 10 biz
days. A reverse stock split to raise the price is OK.
If they fail in the calender 180 days, they can get another calender 180 days.
After that they can appeal and get
So it could take as long as a year after the inital warning brfore they get
delisted, and a simple reverse stock split or being about 1.00 for 10 biz days
restarts the whole clock.
One piece of "good" news is that NASDAQ can require more than 10 days
above 1.00 to reset the clock.
http://www.nasdaq.com/about/FAQsContinued.stm#5
My company's bid price has fallen below the minimum requirement. Will we be
delisted?
Companies listed on NASDAQ are required to maintain a minimum closing bid price
of $1.00 per share. If a company trades for 30 consecutive business days below
the applicable minimum closing bid price requirement, NASDAQ will send a
deficiency notice to the company, advising that it has been afforded a
"compliance period" of 180 calendar days to regain compliance with the
applicable requirements.
Thereafter, Capital Market companies can receive an additional 180-day
compliance period if they meet all initial inclusion requirements for the
Capital Market, except for the bid price requirement. If a Global Select Market
or Global Market company is unable to comply with the bid price requirement
prior to the expiration of its 180-day compliance period, it may transfer to The
NASDAQ Capital Market, so as to take advantage of the additional compliance
period offered on that market, provided it meets all requirements for initial
listing on The NASDAQ Capital Market, except for the bid price requirement. If
the company does not demonstrate compliance within the compliance period, it
will be issued a delisting letter, which it may appeal at that time. See
Hearings Process for additional information.
How does a company regain compliance with the bid price requirement?
To demonstrate compliance with the bid price requirement, a company must
maintain compliance for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days.
Although an automated computer system tracks each company's bid price on a daily
basis, it is suggested that the company contact its Listing Qualifications
analyst when it believes compliance has been achieved. NASDAQ will provide all
compliance determinations, in writing, to the company.
Under certain circumstances, to ensure that the company can sustain long-term
compliance, NASDAQ may require the closing bid price to equal or to exceed the
$1.00 minimum bid price requirement for more than 10 consecutive business days
before determining that a company complies. In determining whether to look
beyond the 10 days, NASDAQ will consider, but is not limited to, the following
factors:
Margin of compliance (the amount by which the price is above the $1.00 minimum
standard);
Trading volume (a lack of trading volume may indicate a lack of bona fide market
interest in the security at the posted bid price);
The market maker montage (e.g., if only one of eight market makers is quoting at
or above the minimum bid price and the quote is only for 100 shares, then added
scrutiny may be appropriate); and
The trend of the stock price (is it up or down?).
Does NASDAQ accept reverse stock splits as a method to regain compliance with
the minimum bid price requirement?
Yes. NASDAQ views reverse stock splits as an acceptable method to regain
compliance. If the company determines to implement a reverse stock split, it
will need to provide certain information to NASDAQ. See the following Frequently
Asked Question for additional information. Furthermore, to inform the market of
the reverse stock split, NASDAQ will append a fifth character, "D", to
the company's symbol for approximately 20 trading days following the reverse
stock split.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 03:36 AM EDT |
1. A party cannot assert copyright infringement over materials it
does not own.
This is demonstrably wrong in this very case. SCOG
has already done it! When you are physically capable of doing something then you
'can' do it even though it is impermissible. Now, if IBM had
written,
A party may not assert copyright infringement over
materials it does not own.
Mind you, I am talking English, not
American. :-)---
Regards
Ian Al [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: GriffMG on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 04:13 AM EDT |
If SCO don't own the copyrights, then sent out thousands of demand for money for
SCOSource in the US Mail - would that be racketeering in the US?
I am just a humble Brit, but I saw a movie once called 'The Firm' where that was
part of the plot...
If that's true, would not Darl be liable personally? As the person responsible
for perpetrating the crime?
Also will anyone who actually paid for SCOSource be able to sue to get their
money back? I appreciate it seems unlikely that there will be any money to give
back.
Just wondering
---
Keep B-) ing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 05:10 AM EDT |
| So now that IBM is finally getting a stranglehold on SCO's copyright claims
(such as they might be), it looks to this lowly techie that BSF must get real
creative real quick to find something not on that list.
--RFMuller [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 05:42 AM EDT |
A long time ago when I was young, NEC made the best-performing PC processors (an
8086 variant). They had the same 8MHz clock speed as a regular 8086, and the
speed boost came from smarter micro-code (and probably an improved
micro-architecture to go with it).
One can think of the x86 instruction set as an API which is implemented by
hardware under the control of microcode. So there is a direct analogy to an OS
kernel which must provide a standardised API.
Mark H[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eskild on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 06:09 AM EDT |
326 disputed lines still in the case
(5 billion (US definition) = 5.000.000.000)
If Linux containes say 16.3 million lines, then the upper limit of the damages
can be calculated:
5.000.000.000*326/16.300.000 = 100.000 $
---
Eskild
Denmark[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 17. Where the material infringed is minimal in relation to the infringing work as a whole, dam - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 07:01 AM EDT
- According to our calculations.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 08:32 AM EDT
- 17. Where the material infringed is minimal in relation to the infringing work as a whole, dam - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 09:21 AM EDT
- 17. Where the material infringed is minimal in relation to the infringing work as a whole, dam - Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 09:26 AM EDT
- 17. Where the material infringed is minimal in relation to the infringing work as a whole, dam - Authored by: webster on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 09:27 AM EDT
- The other points probably involve the 326 lines we can't see - Authored by: tz on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 09:41 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 07:43 AM EDT |
My oft spouted theory is that IBM has bet the farm on Linux. Therefore, any
improvement to Linux benefits IBM. This leads, once again, to my oft posed
question: What am I missing here?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 10:09 AM EDT |
..
This item has been used before and for the same reason -- to show prejudice.
It is attached to IBM's overlength outburst to SCO's Reply to IBM's Motion to
Confine expanding expert material not previously identified/specified by the
deadline.
These principles have to be applied to every line of allegedly misused
material.
IBM asked for misused material four years ago.
For SCO to dump it in the last possible filing related to discovery and say
there is no prejudice is (deliberately) mistaken, says IBM.
While "Selected Copyright Principles, as text -- Addendum A to IBM's
Sur-Reply" is a fabulous copyright primer that specifies numerous ways to
attack SCO claims, its purpose was merely to show how much time and expert
expense it would take to do so. This would severely prejudice IBM and make a
waste of the past four years.
[btw installed and used google toolbar spell checker on this!]
---
webster
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 01:29 PM EDT |
It is very interesting to see all of these cases where they tried to claim
copyrights on all these little things. Reminds me of Lotus v. Borland and the
"look and feel" copyright claims. I sure hope "Reverse
know-how" doesn't have to go to the Supreme Court.
I have been thinking about proving ownership of copyright as it pertains to the
various RIAA lawsuits. Imagine how long a defendant in one of those suits could
drag out a case with the endless discovery of contracts, proof of the time and
place of creation, proving that the particular rip is from a particular source
that is under protection.
Imagine a "Pro Per" defendant doing something like that, giving the
suits the runaround, all of the costs of filing fees.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 01:39 PM EDT |
This reads to me like it is directed more at BSF than SCO...
As in "these are well established principles grounded in well established
case law. Even if SCO truly believed their illogical fantasy interpretation
(which is doubtful), BSF should have known better"...
Setting the stage for sanctions, maybe?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
I think there is another, more complicated principle missing. But I could be
wrong.
23. Whether the material was independently created.
As I understand it if the material was created independently, without reference
to any preexisting copy of the copyrighted material then the similarity is
merely coincidence and no copyright infringement has occurred.
This occurs all the time in entertainment when people come up with similar ideas
from similar inspiration. It's also the reason many people refuse to look at
ideas from individuals and will only accept material from agents.
---
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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: anesq on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
PJ: I'm not sure this is such the big killer you are saying it is.
Putting aside all the other problems with SCO's case, and assuming that they are
able to prove IBM infringed protectable copyrighted material SCO owns, SCO would
be eligible to receive the profits attributable to the infringement.
Generally, these damages are calculated in a manner favorable to the plaintiff:
the plaintiff needs only show gross revenues from the infringing product. The
burden then shifts to the infringer to reduce that amount by either showing
offsetting costs (specifically not including general overhead) and/or other
factors that account for profit instead of the infringement (for example, it's
not uncommon for real estate developers caught infringing building plans to
argue that the price of the building is entirely accounted for in the value of
the land, the building materials and the location, i.e. that they could have
built any building there and it wouldn't have made a difference to the selling
price).
Depending on the Circuit (and I have no idea about the 10th Circuit), the burden
of showing offsetting expenses can be quite difficult to overcome for the
defendant. It is not uncommon for copyright damages to exceed the infringers
real world profits.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: thombone on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 05:18 PM EDT |
IBM is certainly backing SCO into a corner... just as Novell does the same.
Poor, poor Darl.
Not.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 09:17 PM EDT |
| Selected Questions re SCO’s Contract Claims ...
8. Whether the material
was offered to Linux and if so as of when; and if so who first offered
the material to Linux. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Filias Cupio on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 09:47 PM EDT |
19. Actual damages are not available where plaintiff has suffered no harm.
20. Some remedies are unavailable to the plaintiff where defendants derived no
profits from the infringement.
How could these (particularly 19) impact a GPL violation suit?
Violator: "You're giving this software away, so you're not damaged by my
appropriation of it."
Violator: "My startup company hasn't made a profit yet, so you can't do
anything to me until it does."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
