Subject: Re: Text of SCO's complaint
From: Brian Behlendorf <>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:52:33 -0800 (PST)

> For the complaint, I'll try to pick this apart later, I've only read it
> topically.  Others don't be shy ;-).   SCO seems to do a lot of alleging
> of "intellectual property" without specifying just what this property
> is.  My understanding is that they hold no patents (thanks Don, for that
> legwork), no trademark (the Open Group controls this, my own TESS (the
> USPTO's engine sucks) search earlier today turned up "Unix System
> Laboratories", whoever they are:

But they might hold copyright rights, no?

So, let's assume for a second that SCO's complaint has merit on a
technical basis: that there was source code that SCO gave to IBM under a
particular contract, and IBM did something with that code (or a derivative
work, if covered by that contract) they weren't supposed to.

If this is the case, why would SCO be incorrect in pursuing action against

Wouldn't we argue in favor of exactly the same principle, if a vendor was
accused of doing something with GPL-licensed code they weren't allowed
to do?

I ask, so what's the big deal here?  That IBM was sloppy with its
practices around IP, and has to pay a sum of money they can definitely

The only lesson here is, watch your contracts, no matter what they are.