[ox-en] Impaired - is it SCO? preliminary thoughts.
- From: Martin Hardie <auskadi tvcabo.co.mz>
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:45:10 +0200
Its been getting a bit boring here in Maputo so I went to Nelspruit in Sth
Africa to do some shopping and sit in the air conditioned mall. While I
waited and drank coffee I did some reading and the next day put together
these notes regarding some of the responses to the SCO litigation - it is
just a start.
I make no claims as a hacker, I am a mere Linux user, in the jargon, a newbie
at that, but I have been trying to come to grips with the various aspects of
the SCO litigation in order to assess their relevance to my ongoing research
(re other ways to imagine law and OS). That research is by nature part
legal, part philosophical and part political.
I am sending this rough work out so maybe we can discuss it and those who
have something to add can help me and in fact us all out in better
understanding what is happening. In case anyone wants to accuse me of
something .. I am not doing this to defend SCO's position but to try and get
to the bottom of it. I am not seeking to defend SCO (or IBM for that
matter). I have just trying to sort the wheat from the chafe. Any help is
appreciated. And please it is a working thing - not finished thoughts or
conclusions.
Anyway to commence the process of disassembling SCO and the courts I have
been going through a number of documents including the complaints and
counter complaints filed in the SCO v IBM case and the Red Hat v SCO case,
the OSI Position Paper on the SCO v IBM Complaint and the document
"Halloween IX: It Ain't Necessarily SCO",
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween9.html, amongst other things.
At its core it seems to me at this point that the litigation is based upon
the rights that SCO has acquired in a form of UNIX based upon the broad
genealogy of AT&T - USL -Novell - Caldera - SCO. And it is of course this
purchase and the variously related contracts that give rise to the
simplification that this is not a copyright dispute. But the more I read the
import of the dispute revolves around breaches of contract which in
themselves refer back to the copyright purchased by SCO. It may be to
characterise this dispute as not being about copyright is to fall straight
into the lair of SCO's not inexperienced lawyers.
In Lessig's second tome, The Future of Ideas at page 53 the Prof. says:
"After 1984, UNIX would no longer be free....". This it seems is a reference
to the fact that on "January 1, 1984, the Bell System was broken up. ...
AT&T could enter the software business. ... (and) ... That year, the
corporation began to develop Unix as a commercial product". The corporate
acquisitions history is such that whatever the rights held by AT&T as of
1984 were in 1994 purchased from Novell by Caldera and ended up being owned
by SCO.
This all seems clear from the Corporate History outlined in the OSI Position
Paper (See: http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html#id2788824).
We thus have a position were SCO bought something which was a UNIX and was
from 1984 unfree. It was proprietary software that was passed down from buyer
to buyer from AT&T to USL to Novell to Caldera to SCO. But having worked this
part out things start to get messy but it seems to me at this point that what
they bought seems to have been UNIX System V (r1). Depending on what has been
done since that time System V (r1) seems to have now grown into Open Unixware
8 and SCO Unix 7 (again see:
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html#id2788824).
No in both the OSI Position Paper and in Halloween IX: It Ain't Necessarily
SCO, the OSI gang tell us that whatever SCO bought it has been "impaired".
Thus the next point to try and unravel this appears to involve looking at
these impairments. In doing so given that e are dealing with law,
(Intellectual) property and contracts (the things that the GPL is based upon)
we need to examine these impairments using the same tools.
The first impairment is said to be the "legal action in 1992-1993, in which
Unix Systems Laboratories and Novell (SCO/Caldera's predecessors in interest)
sued various parties including the University of California at Berkeley and
Berkeley Systems Design, Inc. for alleged copyright infringement, trade
secret disclosures, and trademark violations with regard to the release of
substantial portions of the 4.4BSD operating system" (OSI Position Paper).
The legal action which was in fact two separate lawsuits: the first only
involved a denial of a interim injunction sought by USL against Berkeley
until a trial could be held
(http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/930303.ruling.txt); the second
was commenced after the ruling denying the interim injunction was made by
Berkeley against USL.
Now the Position Paper states that the request for the injunction "was
denied in terms that made it clear the judge thought BSD likely to win its
defence". I have only read this ruling once and in then a cursory fashion. I
have to respectfully disagree with t he conclusion reached by the OSI at
this time. And even if the judge did think this it does not decide anything
f substance in relation to the copyright claimed by either USL or Berkeley
at that point. It merely decided that any injunction would need to await the
outcome of the trial. Interim injunctions are often argued and often lost
with the final trial many times ending up in favour of those who sought but
did not gain the interim injunction. But more to the point it is only a
precedent for cases concerning the granting of interim injunctions - nothing
more and nothing less. To claim that this ruling "impairs" some rights that
SCO might hold does not hold any legal water. Contrary to the facts stated
in the Position paper the case was not settled then but after Berkeley
commenced their own action against USL.
See the discussion at
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/kirkmck.html.
That chapter also discusses the second case: "the University's suit claimed
that USL had failed in their obligation to provide due credit to the
University for the use of BSD code in System V as required by the license
that they had signed with the University. If the claim were found to be
valid, the University asked that USL be forced to reprint all their
documentation with the appropriate due credit added, to notify all their
licensees of their oversight, and to run full-page advertisements in major
publications such as The Wall Street Journal and Fortune magazine notifying
the business world of their inadvertent oversight. Soon after the filing in
state court, USL was bought from AT&T by Novell. The CEO of Novell, Ray
Noorda, stated publicly that he would rather compete in the marketplace than
in court. By the summer of 1993, settlement talks had started. Unfortunately,
the two sides had dug in so deep that the talks proceed slowly. With some
further prodding by Ray Noorda on the USL side, many of the sticking points
were removed and a settlement was finally reached in January 1994. The result
was that three files were removed from the 18,000 that made up Networking
Release 2, and a number of minor changes were made to other
files. In addition, of 1993, settlement talks had started. Unfortunately, the
two sides had dug in so deep that the talks proceed slowly. With some further
prodding by Ray Noorda on the USL side, many of the sticking points were
removed and a settlement was finally reached in January 1994. The result was
that three files were removed from the 18,000 that made up Networking Release
2, and a number of minor changes were made to other files. In addition, the
University agreed to add USL copyrights to about 70 files, although those
files continued to be freely redistributed."
See also:
http://lists.q-linux.com/pipermail/plug/2003-June/028622.htmlhttp://www.inter
est ing-people.org/archives/interesting-people/199402/msg00027.html
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/bsdisuit.htm
http://www.sco.com/company/history.html.
The Position Paper makes some comments on the import (or impairment caused by
these events) I have set them out below with some comments inserted where
appropriate):
"The exact terms of final settlement, and much of the judicial record, were
sealed at Novell's insistence. The key provisions are, however, described in
Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix: From AT&T-Owned to Freely Redistributable,
[McKusick99]. Only three files out of eighteen thousand in the distribution
were found to be the licit property of Novell (and removed). The rest were
ruled to be freely redistributable, and continue to form the basis of the
open-source BSD distributions today."
The words the "rest were ruled" implies some judicial decision making as a
part of the settlement. There is none - a settlement of this type is an
agreement, a contract binding only the parties to the litigation. There is
not legal ruling or precedent achieved.
"If the current lawsuit proceeds, justice requires that the court and
settlement records in the AT&T-vs.-Berkeley lawsuit be unsealed, with a view
to determining the degree to which SCO/Caldera's IP claims are nullified by
the results."
This seems a curious claim to me, this is a property/contract dispute not an
equity matter - justice in the way it is used here may or may not be
relevant; and to include the documents in the case may require a
substantial evidentary victory. their exclusion as a part of the
evidence may impair IBM's case. I am not going to try and examine whether
or not the documents may be admissible (yet) but if they are not, which
is arguable all of these of impairment come to nought. And even if they
were admissible it seems from what I can find that USL/Novell held some
property rights (in some files) that were and are capable of being infringed.
"If, as SCO/Caldera says, it inherited AT&T/USL/Novell's rights to Unix, it
also inherited the res judicata that there are many sources of code and
engineering experience in the Unix design tradition entirely independent of
AT&T/USL/Novell's intellectual property."
Well the simple fact is that there is no res judicata as nothing about
anyone's intellectual property has ever been decided by a court: "RES
JUDICATA -
Lat. "the thing has been decided" The principle that a final judgment of a
competent court is conclusive upon the parties in any subsequent litigation
involving the same cause of action";
see:http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q036.htm.
"The USL-vs.-Berkeley lawsuit was the first major confrontation that the
hackers won. Under the settlement terms, the Berkeley source code - and the
Unix tradition with it - achieved the autonomy in law that it had always
deserved in the minds of Unix programmers."
Well given what I have said above I can't (yet - I hope to be convinced) read
the litigation this way. This impairment is also discussed in Halloween IX,
but the discussion there doesn't seem to add anything that I haven't dealt
with above.
But Halloween IX does deal with some other impairments.
"Another significant source of impairment is the plethora of existing
"perpetual" Unix licenses. These licenses were granted in return for a
one-time payment requiring no ongoing royalties; they never expire, and they
allow unlimited sublicensing and the creation of derivative works that
explicitly belong to the licensee. IBM's original license to System V
technology from AT&T is such a license, as shown by language in "Exhibit C"
on SCO's own website, which is an amendment/clarification of IBM's System V
contract. Paragraph 2 of Exhibit C explicitly allows IBM to create derivative
works, and affirms that those derivative works belong entirely to IBM (except
for any actual System V code snippets included in them, if any)."
Two preliminary things about this. The phrase "if any" leaves open a doubt -
there could be some and if there are they are there in breach of
contract/copyright. Second, it may be that subsequent agreements between SCO
(or its successors in title may have affected these agreements) - we will
have to dig a bit deeper to find out. But the point at this time is the
impairment may leave open the possibility of some SCO property being used by
IBM without permission.
"A third source of impairment is the simple fact that tens of thousands of
copies of Unix source code have been circulating within the community for
three decades. SCO itself puts the number at over 30,000 licensing agreements
with 6000 entities (from the same 2003 Q1 SEC filing, bottom of page 20).
Maintaining trade secret status on something like that is effectively
impossible. One of the authors of this commentary is collecting evidence from
senior Unix gurus who have source code to System V and derivatives in their
archives, to prove that this code cannot have trade secret status."
But does it have status as copyright? Has that copyright been used or
incorporated by people in breach of agreements or that copyright?
So up until now, the big claim by OSI against SCO having any property in any
UNIX has been the so called impairment by the USL litigation. You can see
from this I find that a hard one to accept at the moment.
Martin
"Mind you, I am not asking you to bear witness to what you believe false,
which would be a sin, but to testify falsely to what you believe true - which
is a virtuous act because it compensates for lack of proof of something that
certainly exists or happened."
Bishop Otto to Baudolino
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: majordomo bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime bbs.thing.net
-------------------------------------------------------
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
"Mind you, I am not asking you to bear witness to what you believe false,
which would be a sin, but to testify falsely to what you believe true - which
is a virtuous act because it compensates for lack of proof of something that
certainly exists or happened."
Bishop Otto to Baudolino
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/