Industry
Internet Service Provision
Wednesday, May 21, 2003What was Inappropriately Transferred?
One of the mysteries of SCO v. IBM is that SCO has not mentioned what the inappropriately transferred knowledge was, preferring instead to wait until they go to court. This, reasonably enough, has some people in a tizzy: It's easier to make an informed decision when one is informed. But, how could SCO do otherwise?
There are four classes of intellectual property. This case considers only one of those four.
| trademarks | owned by the Open Group, and thus not at issue in this case |
| patents | public knowledge |
| copyright | A work may or may not be published, but the GNU/Linux code is. In a case of plagiarism, a simple comparison between two items is revelatory. Since the one is published, there's no need to hide the other. |
| trade secrets | A trade secret is, first and foremost, secret. It is most emphatically not public knowledge. Revelation of the secret destroys it. |
On March 6, 2003, The SCO Group filed a civil lawsuit against IBM citing misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition and breach of contract. [emphasis mine]
So what secret was inappropriately transferred? I know someone who was told by a SCO system engineer that there is a fundamental flaw in the Linux kernel, one that is obvious once you know where to look. Could that be it?
11:29:01 AM # Google It!
categories: Industry, Law