[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Is SCO Entitled?

On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 11:16, Joshua Stratton wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2003, Steve Stearns wrote:
> > One thing that intrigues me about this case is SCO's hesitation to point
> > out the specific violations.  
> Meh. If they're serious, they'll have to. As it stands, it looks as though 
> they're just spreading FUD as a short-term strategy to get some cash and 
> boost their stock. We'll find out soon enough.

I tend to favor the notion that they want to get bought out, and they
are using this legal stick to make somebody buy them.  Though my sense
is that this strategy is failing utterly.

> Well, this isn't necessarily true. Sometimes it may be that there are only
> a few possible, reasonable implementations. In these cases the merger
> doctrine should kick in, prohibiting a copyright since it would be
> excessively powerful and approach being a restriction on the use of an
> unprotected idea.

Certainly a process implemented in code could be unique and,
unfortunately, patentable.  Having said that, I don't buy that there's
any code out their that accomplishes any task that can't be replicated
in code with equal input/output that has a different implementation. 
Regardless, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that SCO will demonstrate
any code that meets such criteria.

> As for removing the infringing code without getting the law involved, bear 
> in mind that SCO likely doesn't care about protecting their code. They're 
> in it for the money. 

And this is really what I'm getting at.  SCO is attempting to get a
financial reward through the courts that they could not have possibly
gotten through the marketplace, whether the code was copied or not. 
Copyright law exists to protect the marketplace for creative works, and
it seems a dubious notion that any copying that might have taken place
here actually altered that marketplace in any way.  Open source is
what's altering the market place, and that is SCO's problem, not their
infringement of their copyrights.