DevPlug.net

A federal appeals court on Monday reversed a judge’s decision that granted the copyright of the Unix computer operating system to Novell Inc.

A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a judge erred in August 2007 by granting the copyright to Novell. The panel ordered a trial to determine ownership.

Novell, a software and computer infrastructure company, has been locked in a yearslong legal battle with The SCO Group Inc. of Lindon, Utah, over ownership to the copyright.

SCO said the ruling paves the way for resumption of the court case.

SCO filed for bankruptcy protection in 2007, drained by unsuccessfully filing lawsuits claiming its software code was misappropriated by developers of the open-source Linux operating system.

“For us it’s a case of survival, of protecting what we own.” SCO chief executive Darl McBride told The Associated Press.

Part of the Unix computer code, which was developed by AT&T in 1969, is used in the Linux operating system.

McBride said the development and distribution of Linux has caused the company’s revenues to drop from $250 million a year to $15 million, forcing the company to file for bankruptcy.

“There are 20 million versions of Linux running around the world,” McBride said, referring to his estimate of company servers using Linux. “Linux at the end of the day is a knock off of our Unix.”

Novell has operations in Provo, Utah, and Waltham, Mass. A Novell spokesman did not return a message seeking comment.

SCO has another lawsuit pending against IBM Corp., claiming Big Blue’s Unix license for IBM’s core AIX system was canceled in 2003 and IBM improperly gave away Unix source code for use in Linux.

McBride said the appellate panel’s ruling reinstates SCO’s claims against IBM, most which had been dismissed because of Novell’s claim to the Unix copyright. A message left after…

More: continued here

Related News

SCO

Groklaw has a report on SCO's appeal of the summary judgment for Novell. It was a partial victory for SCO, remanding the issue of the UNIX copyright ownership back to the court in Utah to be decided by a jury. "The issue was whether it is appropriate to decide matters on summary judgment, and this court thought the APA was complex enough and ambiguous enough that a jury trial is more appropriate. Here's the heart of it all: 'But so long as sufficient evidence could lead a rational trier of fact to resolve the dispute in favor of either party, granting either party's dueling motions for summary judgment would be inappropriate.'" It would seem that the bankruptcy trustee for SCO, who has not yet been appointed, will get to decide where things go from here, but we haven't heard the last of this case.

Decision

The legal claims SCO made against Linux are back. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals today threw out the Utah district court’s August 2007 summary judgment awarding ownership of Unix and UnixWare copyrights to Novell. The appeals court also overturned Novell’s waiver of SCO’s termination of IBM’s right to distribute AIX and Novell’s order telling SCO to abandon its breach-of-contract and copyright suit against IBM and Sequent.read more

Google’s Top Copyright Man Ceases Blogging: The State of Copyright’s Too Gloomy

Although Google's top copyright man, William Patry wrote his blog in a purely private capacity as one of the leading copyright scholars in the world. But now he has decided to end the blog, after doing around 800 postings over about 4 years. When one of the world's pre-eminent experts in the field is so depressed by the state of copyright that he can't bring himself to blog about it, you know that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. read more

YouTube Cheers Dismissal of Veoh Copyright Suit

In a ruling that could have implications for Viacom's $1.65 billion lawsuit against YouTube, a California federal court on Wednesday dismissed a copyright-infringement lawsuit against online video-sharing site Veoh Networks.IO Group, an adult entertainment company, had sued Veoh, alleging the site was displaying its content in violation of copyright laws. Veoh had uploaded IO Group's content without permission. However, Judge Howard Lloyd of the U.S. District Court in San Jose disagreed with IO Group's argument. The judge ruled that Veoh is protected by the safe-harbor provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That provision protects against copyright infringement if action is taken after notification of a copyright violation."Veoh has a strong DMCA policy, takes active steps to limit incidents of infringement on its Web site and works diligently to keep unauthorized works off its site," Judge Lloyd wrote in his decision.Google Applauds RulingGoogle-owned YouTube was quick to praise the decision. YouTube Chief Counsel Zahavah Levine applauded the court for confirming that the DMCA protects services like YouTube that follow the law and respect copyrights. Zahavah then reiterated Google's oft-repeated statement:"YouTube has gone above and beyond the law to protect content owners while empowering people to communicate and share their experiences online."We work every day to give content owners choices about whether to take down, leave up, or even earn revenue from their videos, and we are developing state-of-the-art tools to let them do that even better."What About Viacom's Suit?Viacom could not immediately be reached for comment.Viacom filed a suit against Google in 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Viacom called YouTube a "significant, for-profit organization that has built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent, Google."Google might...

Psystar Responds to Apple Suit, Will Countersue

Mac clone maker Psystar plans to file its answer to Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit Tuesday as well as a countersuit of its own, alleging that Apple engages in anticompetitive business practices. Miami-based Psystar, owned by Rudy Pedraza, will sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies and cartels, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, saying Apple's tying of the Mac OS to Apple-labeled hardware is "an anticompetitive restrain of trade", according to attorney Colby Springer of antitrust specialists Carr & Ferrell. Psystar is requesting that the court find Apple's EULA void, and is asking for unspecified damages. Psystar's attorneys are calling Apple's allegations of Psystar's copyright infringement "misinformed and mischaracterized". Psystar argues that its OpenComputer product is shipped with a fully licensed, unmodified copy of Mac OS X, and that the company has simply "leveraged open source-licensed code including Apple's OS" to enable a PC to run the Mac operating system.