By Stephen Shankland, 30 April 2004 09:35
NEWS DaimlerChrysler has asked a judge to dismiss the SCO Group's lawsuit against the company, one of several high-profile cases that have entangled Linux in SCO's intellectual property claims over Unix.
In a March lawsuit, SCO charged DaimlerChrysler with breaching the Unix contract between the two companies by refusing to certify compliance with the agreement but in an 15 April filing in Oakland County Circuit Court in Michigan, DaimlerChrysler denied it breached the contract.
In addition, the automaker argued that it has provided proper certification, contended that its Unix contract wasn't with SCO in the first place, and said the actions of Novell - an earlier owner of Unix intellectual property - undermine SCO's case. And it asked Judge Rae Lee Chabot to dismiss the case.
SCO's cases have sent shock waves through a computing industry increasingly enamoured of Linux, a clone of the Unix operating system originally created by AT&T. SCO has threatened to sue Linux users that don't pay for SCO intellectual property licences. However, three companies with a major stake in Linux - IBM, Novell and Red Hat - are fighting SCO in court.
In December, SCO sent about 3,000 letters to Unix licensees demanding they certify contract compliance. It sent hundreds more to major companies, arguing that portions of Linux violate SCO's Unix copyrights.
But Novell has fought SCO's argument, saying that when it sold Unix technology to SCO, it didn't transfer Unix copyrights and it retained the right to order SCO to "amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights" of Unix licensees. Indeed, immediately after SCO sent its certification demand letters in December, Novell responded with a letter requiring SCO "immediately to withdraw its demands for certification."
SCO filed the DaimlerChrysler suit the same week as another against AutoZone, a suit that alleges Linux violates SCO's Unix copyrights. SCO also had considered suing Bank of America, a move revealed by uncovering changes hidden in a copy of the DaimlerChrysler suit.
SCO's suit against DaimlerChrysler centers on the Unix contract - the "DC Software Agreement" - but also argues that Linux is involved in the case. "DC's refusal to certify that it is not violating the DC Software Agreement is also based, in part, on DC's use of Unix technology, in violation of the DC Software Agreement, in migrating its installed base to the Linux operating system," SCO's suit said.
In its response, DaimlerChrysler denied the charge.
DaimlerChrysler's response was reported by Groklaw, a site with detailed discussion of the SCO cases.
SCO's legal case against Linux started with a suit that alleged IBM violated its Unix contract with SCO by moving technology from Unix to Linux. On Friday, SCO responded to IBM's latest countersuit, which argues SCO violated the General Public Licence (GPL) that governs Linux and infringed three IBM patents.
SCO's response includes more than five pages of detailed argument that assert the three patents are unenforceable and that SCO didn't infringe. In addition, SCO argues that "the GPL is unenforceable, void and/or voidable."
Stephen Shankland writes for CNET News.com
Comments
There are 2 comments. Join the discussion
1. Joe
"SCO's legal case against Linux started with a suit that alleged IBM violated its Unix contract with SCO by moving technology from Unix to Linux."
So are they saying that using a competitors' product is illegal? Imagine if once you bought Windows, it was not allowed to use another OS, simply because you could be sued.
I thought that's against the concept of fair trade practices, which in many countries allows regulated monopolies, but restrict collusion and anticompetive terms in contracts.
2. Simon Gibbs
Joe misses the point.
The IBM issue was never about using Linux but rather developing it.
SCO argues that it has rights in original IBM code that formed part of AIX alongside original and derived System V code. They don't, since they don't own copyright in Unix System V nor did the contract confer any other rights to original IBM code - by letter or spirit. The intention of the contract was clarified by AT&T not long after the contract was first signed.
As for DC, there simply isn't any infringement. SCO hasn't proved that it owns any rights in Linux - in fact in the IBM case it has repeatedly argued that it isn't claiming that it does. C is not even a party to any licence since they stopped using Unix 7 years ago, and (again) SCO don't own the copyrights anyway. Novell owns them.
Finally copyright law does not allow for a definition of infringment based on using a product that *somebody else* copied illegally - not that anyone did.
SCO really are smoking something, its just that little bit too complicated for journos and analysts to see the fumes.
I suggest interested readers find the legal filings and contracts and read them, rather than relying on shallow journalism.