[linux-elitists] Reading about the SCO stupidity on Slashdot..

Larry M. Augustin lma@lmaugustin.com
Thu Mar 6 22:38:21 PST 2003

>From Don Marti on Thursday, March 06, 2003 1:17 PM
> ...
> Short answer: SCO has no patents.

They may not be suing for patent violations, but for violation of trade
secrets, confidentiality agreements, and licensing terms.  Consider:

	SCO Group filed suit today against IBM for "no less than $1
	charging that Big Blue stole trade secrets from SCO to build its 
	presence in the Linux computing business.

No mention of patent or IP violations, but rather stealing of trade secrets.

	The SCO filing, which eWeek predicted in an exclusive report last
	week, said that IBM originally entered into its Unix license
	with AT&T in February 1985 in order to produce the AIX operating 
	system. These agreements require that the Unix software code be held

	in confidence, and bar its unauthorized distribution or transfer. 

This sounds like a violation of a confidentiality agreement claim.

	But it appears that more legal action could well be on the cards
	forward as McBride told eWeek that the unlicensed use of its Unix 
	shared libraries was just the "tip of the iceberg as there is so
	IP we're dealing with here, ranging from copyright, trade secrets, 
	patents, source code and licensing issues. "

Patents are only one element.

	McBride said the bottom line was that SCO owned the source code to 
	Unix and the right to that operating system. IBM had taken AIX and 
	made it available to the Linux community in an unlawful way. 

Again, not a patent claim, but a claim that SCO's source code was released
violating the license agreement for that code.


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list