Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Groklaw

Intellectual Property Law

: Groklaw

IBM's Defense Against SCO's Copyright Infringement Claims Continues - Part 2, as text

By Pamela Jones et al.

Here's Part 2 of the 2006 IBM document Redacted Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on its Claim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement [PDF] IBM'S Tenth Counterclaim, as text, the document where IBM presents all the reasons why SCO's claims of copyright infringement in Linux are bogus. If ever SCO or Son of SCO waives a list of allegedly infringed code, this is the document to have on hand.

Part 1 listed the reasons why IBM did nothing wrong, in that it has multiple licenses to use the code, for one thing, and this part continues that argument, but it then focuses on the files that SCO presented to the court, stating point blank that they are not protectable under copyright law. If you are not a programmer, and you see a list of header files allegedly infringed and don't know who is right, this is the document that will explain it all to you.

Just as we thought, SCO sued over essentially nothing at all, or as IBM puts it:

Despite SCO's grandiose description of its alleged evidence of IBM's infringement, it is now clear that SCO does not have (and never has had) any such evidence.

Is that not appalling?

Full post as published by Groklaw on July 16, 2010 (boomark / email).