Les Mikesell wrote: > > Everyone involved _thought_ they had rights to distribute the mp3 code > covered in this suit. There's no way to be any more sure than that > about any code, and Linux is certainly no exception with it's > long-running unsettled litigation still going on. If SCO would happen > to win, they'd then probably have a basis for going after other > distributors with that 'knowingly offending' clause since their claims > were asserted long ago. > Comparing apples and oranges again, I see. The big difference is that the MP3 patent rights have been established in curt, so using them now would be 'knowingly offending'. People are now on notice that they need the rights to the additional patents. SCO, on the other hand, is a copyright/contract violation case. Before it can go after other people for 'knowingly offending', they first have to establish that they own the copyright. Then they have to establish that the copyright material is in Linux. Then they have to establish that it was not released by their predecessors under the GPL. Distribution after that would be 'knowingly offending'. (It would be different if they could show that and entire work was copied. It is easy to show that an entire song, or movie was copied. As an added burden for SCO, they were asked to show what code was infringing, and did not do it. (Basically, show us what of yours we are distributing, and we will stop.) They have a duty to mitigate damages. They didn't do this. This alone would probably be enough to stop any 'knowingly offending' claim, and severely limit any damage claim. But IMNAL... Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
