[Infowarrior] - SCO = STD?

[Richard Forno]

The title of this article is a good one -- like an STD, this case  
refuses to go away!!!   -rf

Threat Level Privacy, Crime and Security Online
It’s Baaaack … Appeals Court Resurrects SCO Lawsuit
	• By David Kravets
	• August 24, 2009  |
	• 8:50 pm  |
	• Categories: Miscellaneous

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/08/sco/
A federal appeals court on Monday ruled that the SCO Group has a right  
to a jury trial on its claim that it owns the Unix operating system, a  
ruling that could lead to renewed legal entanglements for Unix’s open- 
source cousin, Linux.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court judge  
who had ruled against SCO in 2007, a decision that suspended an  
aggressive legal campaign by the company.

In 1995, SCO Group (then known as Santa Cruz Operation) bought the  
Unix operating system from Novell for $149 million. But which company  
owned the copyrights wasn’t clear, and years of litigation ensued. SCO  
Group filed for bankruptcy two years ago after a Utah federal judge  
said SCO Group — considered a Utah-based copyright troll by the open  
source community — was not the owner despite the $149 million deal.

While the case ground through the courts, SCO Group tried to collect  
licensing fees from some 1,500 corporate Linux users, claiming that  
portions of Linux are based on Unix, and thus violated SCO Group’s  
copyrights. Novell did not make a similar claim.

Monday’s ruling could revive SCO’s separate high-stakes lawsuit  
against IBM. SCO Group is seeking more than $1 billion from Big Blue  
on allegations it used SCO-copyrighted Unix code in its Linux-based  
systems. The case was sidelined after the Utah federal judge said SCO  
group didn’t own the copyrights at issue.

Still, the copyright fight is far from being settled.

The appellate court, without taking any sides, ordered a jury trial to  
determine whether SCO Group properly owned the Unix and UnixWare  
copyrights. The court, in short, said the case was too close to call  
without a trial.

“We take no position on which party ultimately owns the Unix  
copyrights or which copyrights were required for Santa Cruz to  
exercise its rights under the agreement,” the court wrote. “Such  
matters are for the finder of fact on remand.”