Headline FeedsE-Commerce Times Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
As part of its legal wrangling with The SCO Group, IBM has filed a motion for summary judgment in an attempt to remove copyright claims from the multibillion-dollar lawsuit. In its request, Big Blue cited a lack of evidence from SCO that would prove wrongdoing on IBM's part. The copyright claims in question are considered a major component of SCO's case. The decision is in the hands of the presiding judge in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City.
Re: IBM Asks Court To Reject SCO Copyright Claims
Posted by: ThomasFrayne 2004-05-22 08:21:03 In reply to: Elizabeth Millard
SCOG has made public claims that IBM violated SCOG's copyrights, including threats to file copyright claims during oral arguments in court. However, the only copyright claims it has actually filed against IBM concern a wild theory that SCOG owned copyrights in code IBM wrote, because this code was a derivative of SCOG's SysV product even though it contained no code copied from SysV.
.
IBM's request for summary judgment was based on the public claims that IBM had violated SCOG's copyrights, not the claims SCOG filed in the lawsuit. IBM wants a declaratory judgment that SCOG's public claims are false, so that SCOG violated the Lanham Act. Thus, it is one of IBM's counter claims that has to be decided, not one of SCOG's claims.
.
In my opinion, it is now too late for SCOG to bring forth evidence that IBM misused SCOG's code. SCOG certified, under two court orders, that they had fully answered IBM's questions as to what code IBM was supposed to have misused, but they have produced no evidence of copyright violations, in spite of having full access to the SysV code, IBM's AIX code, and Linux code.
.
As IBM said, if there is no evidence, their public claims are false; if there is evidence, their certification of their response to IBM is false. In either case, IBM's motion should be granted, and SCOG should be forever barred from claiming that IBM violated SCOG's copyrights.
.
IBM's request for summary judgment was based on the public claims that IBM had violated SCOG's copyrights, not the claims SCOG filed in the lawsuit. IBM wants a declaratory judgment that SCOG's public claims are false, so that SCOG violated the Lanham Act. Thus, it is one of IBM's counter claims that has to be decided, not one of SCOG's claims.
.
In my opinion, it is now too late for SCOG to bring forth evidence that IBM misused SCOG's code. SCOG certified, under two court orders, that they had fully answered IBM's questions as to what code IBM was supposed to have misused, but they have produced no evidence of copyright violations, in spite of having full access to the SysV code, IBM's AIX code, and Linux code.
.
As IBM said, if there is no evidence, their public claims are false; if there is evidence, their certification of their response to IBM is false. In either case, IBM's motion should be granted, and SCOG should be forever barred from claiming that IBM violated SCOG's copyrights.
