Subject: Re: Text of SCO's complaint
From: Ben Laurie <ben@algroup.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 10:57:36 +0000

Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 03:52:33PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf (brian@collab.net) wrote:
> 
>>>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:
>>>
>>>    http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=7tq0e6.3.56
>>
>>But they might hold copyright rights, no?
> 
> 
> As I said earlier:  based on a cursory read, the IP rights claimed seem
> vague at best, and several comments in particular seem to be claims that
> there must have been dasterdlies done by IBM 'coz there's no way
> GNU/Linux could get that good that fast otherwise.
> 
> Which was why I posted *the damned text of the complaint*.
> 
> obSlashdot:  How about somebody actually reads the damned thing before
> running of yet more at the mouth?

Did you read it? It seems quite clear that they are specifically 
alleging that open sourcing printer drivers (91) and the journaling 
filesystem (92) are examples of infringement.

There's a lot of fluff, too, I'll admit :-)

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff