Me again, Warren-
Since you are keeping up with the SCO case better than anyone in our own
local Linux community, perhaps you know the answer to my question.
There is another important issue that, based on my very limited
knowledge, the Linux community does not seem to have discussed. This
regards the statute of limitations.
While Utah may have a different statute of limitations, the* Uniform
Trade Secrets Act*, from which most state trade secret laws are based,
provides that an action for misappropriation of trade secret must be
brought within 3 years after the misappropriation is discovered or by
the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered. Since
the Linux kernel is open sourced, it would be very difficult for SCO to
argue that it was unable to discover that the alleged trade secert was
included in the Linux kernel. Thus, the statute of limitation is 3
years after the kernel patch is posted on the internet.
This brings up an interesting point, regarding another undiscovered
advantage of using open sourced software. If the code has been there
for more than three years, then you don't have to worry about scums like
SCO bringing up trade secret suits. With a proprietary software, you
may have to live under a constant fear.
Wayne
Understandably, this is not a forum for discussing legal matters.
However, most comments from the Linux community seem to have
overlooked several critical elements in that, among other things: (1)
this is a trade secret case, not a copyright infringement, and (2)
this case was filed in Utah “state court” not a federal district
court. (Perhaps they have been discussed, then, please forgive my
ignorance.)
I have not paid much attention to this case (because it seems quite
frivolous at the outset). But we need to keep in mind that, in order
to win a trade secret case, you must also prove that the information
allegedly being misappropriated cannot be readily ascertainable by
proper means. If the technology is well-known in the art, or can be
derived from known sources, showing similarity in the source code has
no relevance. Indeed, since Linux is a variant of UNIX, it is
preferable to use the same variable names, etc, so that the code can
be more transparent to non-Linux programmers. Trying to keep variable
names the same is a courtesy, not a copyright infringement.
Secondly, since the federal government has not preempted the trade
secret field, this case belongs to the state court domain. Since most
states have different implementations of the trade secret laws (both
statutorily and via case decisions), only those who are licensed in
Utah can competently comment on this case. Thus, you can treat my
two-cents as whatever they are worth, but just don't quote them.
Wayne
