decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
'Is that all there is? But we'll keep dancing' | 155 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
'Is that all there is? But we'll keep dancing'
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 11:02 AM EDT
I thought they had the legal theory that they were licensed to use the copyright
stuff for UnixWare, but that they were managing the contracts which had been
passed to them by the APA.

Their complaint against IBM was breach of the contract that they now owned
rather than the breach of copyright. The contract said that the licensee was
prohibited from being the first to publish the copyright work.

Come on, it's at least as strong as their other legal theories.

Although both sides reported to Judge Kimball what they thought remained in the
case after his summary judgement, I don't think Novell agreed that the
non-ownership of the copyrights mooted the violation of the license terms.

I'm not bothering to look because I can't make the cadaver feel any worse about
its situation.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )