Thomas Frayne

USA

Retired

SCO threatens copyright infringement lawsuits, then backs off. On December 5, SCO's Keven McBride told the judge that SCO would be filing copyright claims against IBM "in a few days, or no less than a week". They haven't filed yet.

He also objected to answering IBM's questions on copyright, but said that SCO would comply when the judge insisted.

SCO responded to the court order on 1/12/04.

On 1/13/04, in the interview "SCO shows IBM the code", SCO spokesman Bruce Stowell said: "Monday's response included no examples of copyright violations. "We've not introduced copyright infringement as part of our case with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that it's a contract issue."

SCO could have made arguments like this before it was ordered to respond to IBM's questions without further discussion. Now it's too late.

The order said to identify all rights that SCO claimed. It was not limited to rights that SCO was currently claiming as part of its suit against IBM, and, in my opinion, even includes the code contributed by SCO to Linux.

If, as Stowell said, SCO did not specify any copyrights that it owns in Linux, then either it is not claiming to own any such copyrights, or it has not complied with the court order.

If SCO now officially declines to claim ownership of any such copyrights, then it is hard to see how they could claim them in any later suit against a Linux user or distributor.

If SCO does claim ownership, it has blatantly defied the court order, and the judge can order sanctions. My guess is that part of the sanctions would be to bar SCO from suing anyone on any claims that it failed to specify in its 1/12 response to the compel order. The judge might also order SCO to show cause why it should not be held in contempt, and why it should not suffer sanctions for failing to comply with the order.