DOCSLIB.ORG

Groklaw – Where We Have Been and Where We Are Going 91

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Groklaw – Where We Have Been and Where We Are Going 91 Groklaw – Where We Have Been and Where We Are Going 91 Groklaw – Where We Have Been and Where We Are Going Mark Webbink, Groklaw editor since May 2011 DOI: 10.5033/i osslr.v3i1.60 Abstract After 8 years documenting litigation, e !laining com!licated legal matters and de"unking uncertainty in the field of F$%%, Pamela Jones !assed the baton on the Groklaw.net news we"site over to Mark We""ink. Under his editorshi!, Groklaw 2.0 will remain committed to its values and accuracy in reporting, though it will increasingly engage with issues like patent litigation to reflect current market tensions and imperatives. Keywords -aw. information technology; Free and Open Source Software. Free %oftware community. patent litigation $n )ay 16, 2011, Groklaw1 celebrated its eighth anniversary, and on that same day something uni0ue ha!pened – &amela 'ones ste!ped down as the editor of Groklaw, a role she had held since she started the electronic !u"lication in +,,1( But Groklaw did not shutter its doors on )ay 16. 2ather, it entered a new era, what we are calling Groklaw 2.0, under the editorshi! of )ark We""ink, a name familiar to many in open source legal circles( When Groklaw started in 2003, it was focused almost e clusively on one thing: e posing the story behind the %4$ Grou! and its !ath of litigation( 5ay after day &am and her team of open source 6ournalists ferreted out the facts and told the story of %4$, a story that still has not concluded. As Groklaw !rogressed, readers would ask about other aspects of free and open source software( &am was always willing to o"lige, ta!!ing into a vast network of friends and e perts to e !lain the difficult legal conce!ts that sometimes underly open source( Along the way certain standards were esta"lished. #irst, Groklaw is a 6ournalistic enterprise, with interviews, research, and reporting of legal events important to the #$%% community. Groklaw is not 1 Groklaw, htt!377www.groklaw.net International Free and $pen %ource %oftware Law 2eview 9ol( 1, 8ssue 1 92 Groklaw – Where We Have Been and Where We Are Going without a point of view, "ut accuracy of reporting has always been the goal( %econd, while &am and )ark do most of the writing, they receive significant contri"utions from the many Groklaw volunteers, including research, reporting, document conversion, e pertise, or whatever we need. :hese volunteers are legal e perts, technology e perts, educators, and 6ournalists( :hey come from 6ust about every walk of life( As stated, Groklaw has a point of view that drives the stories and commentaries in which it has interest( Groklaw is a !roponent of free and open source software, a !ro!onent of truly open standards, an advocate against !atents related to software, an advocate for low;cost, wide;s!read access to the 8nternet, and an advocate for reasona"le !rotection of !rivacy( :hat isn't to say that Groklaw is against other forms of software develo!ment or licensing, 6ust that we believe the a!!roaches we su!port are superior( #inally, Groklaw is for fair competition in the market!lace, which means we do not look kindly on #*5 =fear, uncertainty and dou"t> as a tool to !romote one position over another( Groklaw is also a wonderful historical archive of information and documents( :echnologically su!ported "y and o!erating on the servers of i"i"lio+, all of the information that Groklaw gathers and !u"lishes remains accessi"le to the !u"lic( Groklaw has years worth of litigation history, transcri!ts, court documents, legal references, and !apers that may be of interest to either legal scholars or the average 'oe sim!ly trying to understand more about free and open source software and the "attles that have been fought on its behalf( And, while Groklaw provides a great deal of legal information, it does not dispense legal advice. There are plenty of e perienced open source attorneys for that( %o what is Groklaw +(, and what is changing? 8nitially, not that much( Groklaw is a tremendous enter!rise that has accumulated eight years of stories, technology, and !ractices, and you 6ust don't hand all of that off overnight. For the time being, we are in a period of transition and learning( However, anyone who has been around Groklaw for awhile is likely already seeing su"tle changes( )ark's style of writing is not the same as &am's( :hat is neither good nor "ad, it's 6ust different( %econd, Groklaw is focusing more and more on !atent litigation that either directly or indirectly im!acts the #$%% community( &art of that is because of )ark's "ackground and interests, "ut a larger !art of it is because that is where the information technology industry is today, dee!ly embedded in a morass of patent litigation( As Groklaw eyes the future, there are some things clearly on the hori@on( $ne is to e !and its sta"le of writers( While &am continues to write the occasional article and )ark is now doing the "ulk of the writing, we want to engage other writers in this enter!rise( %o we are reaching out to both law students and legal practitioners to partici!ate and contri"ute( A "it longer term, we are looking at a possi"le change in our technology !latform( While Geeklog, the "logging software on which Groklaw runs, has served us well, it is not as fle i"le as many of the tools now availa"le for we" !u"lishing( We will remain committed to open source tools, "ut 5ru!al may be a better long;term platform for us( Groklaw will also start to stretch its wings, moving from primarily covering U(%(;centric litigation to a + 8"i"lio, htt!377www.i"i"lio.org International Free and $pen %ource %oftware Law 2eview 9ol( 1, 8ssue 1 Groklaw – Where We Have Been and Where We Are Going 93 more international a!!roach( But that means we need legal e perts from around the world to su!port the work( We are ho!ing to work closely with the #reedom :ask #orce – -egal of the #ree %oftware #oundation Aurope( Just as the 8nternational #ree and $pen %ource %oftware -aw 2eview seeks to "ring periodical, scholarly work to the !u"lic on #$%% and the 8#$%% -aw Book seeks to !rovide a reference volume on technology law and its a!!lication to #$%%, Groklaw looks to "ring daily international news about F$%%. But that can only ha!pen with a broad international effort( $ne thing that won't change is the fact that Groklaw will continue to be what it always has been, a collaborative effort of volunteers( Come visit us, and sign u!( About the authors Mark Webbink is a lawyer with a strong foc%s on patent law and Free and O&en So%rce So tware. He is t#e for*er General Co%nsel at RedHat and one o t#e directors o t#e So tware Freedo* Law +enter. As visiting pro essor at New York Law, Mark r%ns t#e Center for Patent Inno!ations, and o!ersees t#e Peer To Patent pro3ect r%n with t#e U.S. Patent and Trade*ark O ice. He has been acti!e in seeking re orm o t#e U.S. patent syste*, and teac#es patent licensin$. In addition, Mark is a senior lect%ring fellow at D%ke Uni!ersity Sc#ool o Law w#ere he teac#es abo%t licensin$. %ee Jones, Pamela, 'As of Today, It's Mark We""ink's Groklaw 2.06, Groklaw, Monday, May 16 2011, #ttp://www.groklaw.net/article.p#p?story820110515173831922 International Free and $pen %ource %oftware Law 2eview 9ol( 1, 8ssue 1 94 Groklaw – Where We Have Been and Where We Are Going Licence and Attribution This paper was published in the International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, Volume 3, Issue 1 (September 2011). It originally appeared online at http://www.ifosslr.org. This article should be cited as follows: Webbink, Mark (2011) ©Groklaw ± Where We Have Been and Where We Are Going©, International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, 3(1), pp 91 ± 94 5$I: 10(5033/ifosslr(v3i1(/, Copyright © 2011 Mark Webbink. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons UK (England and Wales) 2.0 licence, no derivative works, attribution, CC-BY-ND. As a special exception, the author expressly permits faithful translations of the entire document into any language, provided that the resulting translation (which may include an attribution to the translator) is shared alike. This paragraph is part of the paper, and must be included when copying or translating the paper. International Free and $pen %ource %oftware Law 2eview 9ol( 1, 8ssue 1 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Android (Operating System) 1 Android (Operating System)
    Android (operating system) 1 Android (operating system) Android Home screen displayed by Samsung Nexus S with Google running Android 2.3 "Gingerbread" Company / developer Google Inc., Open Handset Alliance [1] Programmed in C (core), C++ (some third-party libraries), Java (UI) Working state Current [2] Source model Free and open source software (3.0 is currently in closed development) Initial release 21 October 2008 Latest stable release Tablets: [3] 3.0.1 (Honeycomb) Phones: [3] 2.3.3 (Gingerbread) / 24 February 2011 [4] Supported platforms ARM, MIPS, Power, x86 Kernel type Monolithic, modified Linux kernel Default user interface Graphical [5] License Apache 2.0, Linux kernel patches are under GPL v2 Official website [www.android.com www.android.com] Android is a software stack for mobile devices that includes an operating system, middleware and key applications.[6] [7] Google Inc. purchased the initial developer of the software, Android Inc., in 2005.[8] Android's mobile operating system is based on a modified version of the Linux kernel. Google and other members of the Open Handset Alliance collaborated on Android's development and release.[9] [10] The Android Open Source Project (AOSP) is tasked with the maintenance and further development of Android.[11] The Android operating system is the world's best-selling Smartphone platform.[12] [13] Android has a large community of developers writing applications ("apps") that extend the functionality of the devices. There are currently over 150,000 apps available for Android.[14] [15] Android Market is the online app store run by Google, though apps can also be downloaded from third-party sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Titans and Trolls of the Open Source Arena
    Titans and Trolls Enter the Open-Source Arena * by DEBRA BRUBAKER BURNS I. Introduction .................................................................................... 34 II. Legal Theories for Open Source Software License Enforcement ................................................................................... 38 A. OSS Licensing .......................................................................... 38 B. Legal Theories and Remedies for OSS Claims .................... 40 1. Legal Protections for OSS under Copyright and Contract Law ..................................................................... 40 Stronger Protections for OSS License under Copyright Law ................................................................... 40 2. Copyright-Ownership Challenges in OSS ....................... 42 3. Potential Legal Minefields for OSS under Patent Law ...................................................................................... 45 4. Added Legal Protection for OSS under Trademark Law ...................................................................................... 46 5. ITC 337 Action as Uncommon Legal Protection for OSS ..................................................................................... 49 III. Enforcement Within the OSS Community .................................. 49 A. Software Freedom Law Center Enforces OSS Licenses .... 50 B. Federal Circuit Finds OSS License Enforceable Under Copyright Law ......................................................................... 53 C. Commercial OSS
    [Show full text]
  • Android (Operating System) 1 Android (Operating System)
    android text PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 07:56:19 UTC Android (operating system) 1 Android (operating system) Android Home screen displayed by Samsung Nexus S with Google, running Android 2.3 "Gingerbread" Company / developer Google Inc, Open Handset Alliance [1] Programmed in C (core), Java (UI), C++ Working state Current [2] [3] Source model Mixed (free and open source software and proprietary software) Initial release 21 October 2008 [4] [4] Latest stable release Tablets: 3.2 (Honeycomb) Phones: 2.3.6 (Gingerbread) / 2 September 2011 Package manager APK [5] [6] Supported platforms ARM, MIPS, x86 Kernel type Linux kernel (monolithic) Android (operating system) 2 Default user interface Graphical [7] License Apache License 2.0 before 3.0, closed source for 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2: Linux kernel patches under GNU GPL v2 [8] Official website android.com Android is an operating system for mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet computers. It is developed by the Open Handset Alliance led by Google.[9] [10] Google purchased the initial developer of the software, Android Inc., in 2005.[11] The unveiling of the Android distribution on 5 November 2007 was announced with the founding of the Open Handset Alliance, a consortium of 84 hardware, software, and telecommunication companies devoted to advancing open standards for mobile devices.[12] [13] [14] [15] Google released most of the Android code under the Apache License, a free software license.[16] The Android Open Source Project (AOSP) is tasked with the maintenance and further development of Android.[17] Android consists of a kernel based on the Linux kernel, with middleware, libraries and APIs written in C and application software running on an application framework which includes Java-compatible libraries based on Apache Harmony.
    [Show full text]
  • Novell's Motion for a More Definite Statement Was Also Scheduled to Be Heard at the Court's Hearing. but the Parties Inform
    Case 2:04-cv-00139-DAK Document 139 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 1 of 9 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION THE SCO GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION vs. AND ORDER NOVELL, INC., Defendant. Civil Case No. 2:04CV139DAK This matter is before the court on Defendant Novell, Inc.’s Motion to Stay Claims Raising Issues Subject to Arbitration. The court held a hearing on the motion on July 17, 2006.1 At the hearing, Defendant was represented by Michael A. Jacobs and Thomas R. Karrenberg, and Plaintiff was represented by Stuart H. Singer, William Dzurilla, and Brent O. Hatch. The court took the motion under advisement. The court has considered the memoranda submitted by the parties as well as the law and facts relating to the motion. Now being fully advised, the court renders the following Memorandum Decision and Order. BACKGROUND In January 2004, this case originated in state court as a single claim for slander of title. Novell removed SCO’s state court action to this court. After this court’s ruling on SCO’s 1 Novell’s Motion for a More Definite Statement was also scheduled to be heard at the court’s hearing. But the parties informed the court at the hearing that they had reached an agreement that had resolved the motion. Therefore, the motion is moot. 1 Case 2:04-cv-00139-DAK Document 139 Filed 08/21/2006 Page 2 of 9 motion to remand and Novell’s motion to dismiss, SCO filed its First Amended Complaint.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\My Documents\06-2454.203.Wpd
    In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 06-2454 DANIEL WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION; RED HAT, INC.; and NOVELL, INC., Defendants-Appellees. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:05-cv-678 RLY-VSS—Richard L. Young, Judge. ____________ SUBMITTED OCTOBER 26, 2006—DECIDED NOVEMBER 9, 2006 ____________ Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and EVANS, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Does the provision of copyrighted software under the GNU General Public License (“GPL”) violate the federal antitrust laws? Authors who distribute their works under this license, devised by the Free Software Foundation, Inc., authorize not only copying but also the creation of derivative works—and the license prohibits charging for the derivative work. People may make and distribute derivative works if and only if they come under the same license terms as the original work. Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any 2 No. 06-2454 creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge. Copyright law, usually the basis of limiting reproduction in order to collect a fee, ensures that open-source software remains free: any attempt to sell a derivative work will violate the copyright laws, even if the improver has not accepted the GPL. The Free Software Foundation calls the result “copyleft.” One prominent example of free, open-source software is the Linux operating system, a derivative of the Unix operating system written by AT&T in the 1960s and now available without cost.
    [Show full text]
  • Ninth Counterclaim
    Brent O. Hatch (5715) Mark F. James (5295) HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C. 10 West Broadway, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Telephone: (801) 363-6363 Facsimile: (801) 363-6666 Stephen N. Zack Mark J. Heise BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER L.L.P. 100 Southeast Second Street Suite 2800 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 539-8400 Facsimile: (305) 539-1307 Attorneys for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. _______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH _______________________________________________________________________________ THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, SCO’S ANSWER TO IBM’S AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff, Case No. 03-CV-0294 vs. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES Hon: Dale A. Kimball CORPORATION, a New York corporation, Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells Defendant. _______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff and counterclaim-defendant The SCO Group, Inc. (“SCO”), by and through counsel, answers the amended counterclaims of defendant and counterclaim-plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) and further admits, denies and alleges as follows: ANSWER 1. Admits that the UNIX operating system was originally developed by Bell Laboratories, then a development arm of AT&T Corp., but denies the remaining allegations of ¶1. 2. Admits that it respects the intellectual property rights of others, but denies the remaining allegations of ¶2. 3. Admits the allegations of ¶3. 4. Admits the Court has jurisdiction over the claims, but denies that IBM has any valid claims and denies the remaining allegations of ¶4 not specifically admitted herein. 5. Admits the allegations of ¶5. 6. Admits the allegations of ¶6. 7. Admits the allegations of ¶7. 8. Admits that the earliest UNIX operating system was built by software engineers at Bell Laboratories, the research division of AT&T, but denies the remaining allegations of ¶8 not specifically admitted herein.
    [Show full text]
  • SNELL & WILMER LLP Alan L.Sullivan (3152)
    SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. Alan L.Sullivan (3152) Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651) Amy F. Sorenson (8947) 15 West South Temple, Suite 1200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1004 Telephone: (801)257-1900 Facsimile: (801)257-1800 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice) David R. Marriott (7572) Worldwide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212)474-1000 Facsimile: (212)474-3700 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH THE SCO GROUP, INC., IBM'S REDACTED REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF v. NON-INFRINGEMENT (IBM'S TENTH COUNTERCLAIM) INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, (ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED) Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff. Civil No. 2:03-CV-00294 DAK Honorable Dale A. Kimball Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells SMELL & W1LMER L.L.P. Alan L. Sullivan (3152) Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651) o STATES D'ST*'CT Amy F. Sorenson (8947) DISTRICT OF UTAH 15 West South Temple, Suite 1200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1004 JAN 1 2 WI Telephone: (801)257-1900 Facsimile: (801)257-1800 MARKUS B. ZIMMER, CLERK CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice) David R. Marriott (7572) Worldwide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212)474-1000 Facsimile: (212)474-3700 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH IBM'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON- THE SCO GROUP, INC., INFRINGEMENT (TOM'S TENTH COUNTERCLAIM) Plaintiff7Counterclaim-Defendant, (ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED) v.
    [Show full text]
  • Securities and Exchange Commission the Sco
    S-3 1 a2114384zs-3.htm S-3S-3/A 1 a2118764zs-3a.htm S-3/A Use these links to rapidly review the document TABLE OF CONTENTS As Filed: July 8,October 14, 2003 SEC File No. 333- No. 333-106885 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 Amendment No. 2 to Form S-3 Registration Statement on Form S-3 Under the Securities Act of 1933 THE SCO GROUP, INC. (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter) Delaware 87-0662823 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 355 South 520 West, Suite 100 Lindon, Utah 84042 (801) 765-4999 (Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant's principal executive offices) Darl C. McBride President and Chief Executive Officer 355 South 520 West, Suite 100 Lindon, Utah 84042 (801) 765-4999 (Name, address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of agent for service) Copy to: Keith L. Pope, Esq. PARR WADDOUPS BROWN GEE & LOVELESS 185 South State Street, Suite 1300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-1537 Telephone: (801) 532-7840 Telecopy: (801) 532-7750 e-mail: [email protected] Copy to: Keith L. Pope, Esq. PARR WADDOUPS BROWN GEE & LOVELESS 185 South State Street, Suite 1300 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-1537 Telephone: (801) 532-7840 Telecopy: (801) 532-7750 e-mail: [email protected] Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: As soon as practicable after the effective date of this registration statement. If the only securities being registered on this Form are to be offered pursuant to dividend or interest reinvestment plans, please check the following box.
    [Show full text]
  • “Infectious” Open Source Software: Spreading Incentives Or Promoting Resistance?
    “INFECTIOUS” OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE: SPREADING INCENTIVES OR PROMOTING RESISTANCE? Greg R. Vetter* ABSTRACT Some free or open source software infects other software with its licensing terms. Popularly, this is called a viral license, but the software is not a computer virus. Free or open source software is a copyright-based licensing system. It typically allows modification and distribution on conditions such as source code availability, royalty free use and other requirements. Some licenses require distribution of modifications under the same terms. A license is infectious when it has a strong scope for the modifications provision. The scope arises from a broad conception of software derivative works. A strong infectious ambit would apply itself to modified software, and to software intermixed or coupled with non-open-source software. Popular open source software, including the * Assistant Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center (UHLC); Co-Director, Institute for Intellectual Property and Information Law (IPIL) at UHLC; biography and additional background available at: www.law.uh.edu/faculty/gvetter. Relevant to this Article is that my background includes a Master’s degree in Computer Science and full-time work experience in the business-to-business software industry from 1987 to 1996. Research for this Article was supported by summer research grants from the University of Houston Law Foundation and a grant from the University of Houston’s New Faculty Research Program. I also thank UHLC’s IPIL Institute and its sponsors for support of my endeavors at UHLC. My thanks to UHLC students Jason Williams, Cuong Lam Nguyen, Stacey R. Vause and Nivine Zakhari for research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Plaintiff, V. I
    Case 2:03-cv-00294-DN Document 1160 Filed 02/08/16 Page 1 of 65 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION THE SCO GROUP, INC., A DELAWARE ORDER GRANTING IBM’S [783] CORPORATION; MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff, 2:03-CV-00294-DN v. District Judge David Nuffer INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant. This case arises out of the relationship between The SCO Group, Inc. (“SCO”) and International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) regarding IBM’s production of its LINUX operating system. SCO held a majority of the UNIX-on-Intel market with its UNIX operating system in 1998 when IBM and SCO agreed to collaborate to produce a new operating system, Project Monterey. SCO claimed that IBM used this project to gain access SCO’s UNIX source code and then copied thousands or millions of lines of that code into LINUX. Because LINUX was offered at no cost in the open-source community, it rapidly displaced UNIX, and SCO’s UNIX sales rapidly diminished. SCO publicized the alleged copyright infringement and the alleged wrongs committed by IBM, and IBM argued that SCO’s tactics were improper and in bad faith, and that it had the right to use any lines of code it added to LINUX. Previously in this litigation, many claims have been resolved. This order addresses SCO’s tortious interference claims, granting summary judgment on those claims in favor of IBM. 1 Case 2:03-cv-00294-DN Document 1160 Filed 02/08/16 Page 2 of 65 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Complaint Cyberknights Pty Ltd Wishes to Complain About the Business Conduct of the Sco Group Australia and New Zealand
    To: Mr Graeme Samuel Chairman Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Level 35, The Tower 360 Elizabeth Street Melbourne Central 3000 From: CyberKnights Pty Ltd CyberKnights Pty Ltd [address suppressed] Modern Tools [suburb of Perth, Western Australia] [postcode] Traditional Dedication Date: 03 March 2004 Dear Sir Re: Complaint CyberKnights Pty Ltd wishes to complain about the business conduct of The Sco Group Australia and New Zealand. Summary of Complaint The SCO Group Australia and New Zealand (TSGANZ)1 and their parent corporation The SCO Group Incorporated (TSGINC)2 are making unreasonable and unfounded ownership claims on the software around which CyberKnights Pty Ltd (CK) bases its business, including claims for an additional licence fee of typically AUD$999 per computer. Since the claims originate from TSGINC but are made in Australia by TSGANZ I will use “TSG” to refer to either or both below when their aims and actions coincide. TSG’s claims and their licence terms are sufficiently vague that it has proven impossible for CK or anyone else CK is aware of to determine the basis for the claims beyond that some “intellectual property” of poorly defined and ever-changing nature purportedly inherited from The Santa Cruz Operation (now Tarantella) and in turn Novell and Unix Systems Laboratories has been inserted into the source code for Linux somewhere. The very few references published by TSG to the thirty-million-plus lines of source code in Linux do not identify code belonging to, written by or inherited from TSG. Since TSG’s suit of IBM over the matter claims no trade secrets and has been in the discovery phase for approximately a calendar year, it is reasonable to believe that there is no identifiable TSG ownership of any material part of Linux.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future Is Open
    The Future is Open: What OpenDocument is and why you should care Daniel Carrera. OpenOffice.org volunteer. Table of Contents What is OpenDocument?........................................................................................................3 Executive summary......................................................................................................3 Time-line.......................................................................................................................3 The European Union and the Valoris report...........................................................................3 Selection criteria...........................................................................................................4 Neutrality.................................................................................................................4 Technical merit........................................................................................................4 Widely adopted........................................................................................................4 Finalists.........................................................................................................................5 OpenDocument vs MS XML........................................................................................5 Reactions to the report............................................................................................................5 Microsoft responds to the Valoris report......................................................................5
    [Show full text]