RE: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?

["Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

A major issue is how the code got there (if, indeed, it _is_ there).

Consider that Linux is an open-source development effort.  When you
contribute you relinquish your proprietary rights in your code.  If
SCO _planted_ code in the Linux project, then by their own actions
they relinquished the rights they are now screaming about.  If someone
_else_ stole SCO code and put it into Linux, the legal situation 
becomes somewhat murky.  I would think that the person who put the
code in would be the only one who could be held responsible, in much
the same way as the person who steals a trade secret is legally at
fault, but the person who uses a trade secret obtained in good faith
from the thief (that is, the 3rd person had no knowledge that the
TS was "hot property") is not liable.

Shades of CSS, eh?

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!



> -----Original Message-----
> From: mickey [mailto:mickeym@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:46 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?
> 
> 
> 
> From:
> http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,6873464%5E1531
> 7%5E%5Enbv%5E15306,00.html
> 
> "SCO has invested hundreds of millions in the development of 
> UNIX and is 
> therefore entitled to a reasonable return on its investment. SCO 
> believes that major portions of the 2.4 and later versions of 
> the Linux 
> kernel are unauthorised derivative works of SCO UNIX IP," it said.
> 
> This is a root issue in the copyright/patent/secret arena. The belief 
> that one is *entitled* to be paid for their efforts seems to 
> fuel most 
> of these arguments.
> 
> So, are they entitled? Is that what "incent" was supposed to mean?
> 
> MickeyM
> 
>