The more computer-geeky among you almost certainly know a great deal more about the ongoing SCO v. IBM litigation on alleged IP infringements in linux than I do. Personally, given I know next to nothing about computers and not a great deal about English IP law, let alone that of the US and specifically the state of Utah, I have nothing worth saying about that itself, though I do find myself raising my eyebrows when I learn that SCO have taken two and a half years from issue to file what they say is their full particularisation of what IBM actually did, and then done so under court seal. I'd hate to have to defend that one on a wet Wednesday afternoon interim application in the commercial court or the TCC. As is often the case with legal stories (and also history) I'm in that comfortable position of knowing enough to know I know nothing...
What struck me about the story when reading about the latest developments yesterday was a separate point: 'SCO said, "The numerosity and substantiality of the disclosures reflects the pervasive extent and sustained degree as to which IBM disclosed methods, concepts, and in many places, literal code"'.
( Read more... )
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}