Editing SCO–Linux disputes (section)

==Overview==
[[Unix]] is a major computer [[operating system]], developed in the [[United States of America]]. Prior to the events of this case, the [[intellectual property rights]] (IP) in Unix were held by [[Unix System Laboratories]] (USL), part of [[AT&T]], but the area of IP ownership was complex. By 2003, the rights in Unix had been transferred several times and there was dispute as to the correct owner in law. Also, some of the code within Unix had been written prior to the [[Copyright Act of 1976]], or was developed by third parties, or was developed or licensed under different licenses existing at the time. The [[software]] company [[SCO Group]] (SCO), formerly [[Caldera International]], asserted in 2003 that it was the owner of Unix, and that other Unix-type operating systems—particularly the [[Free software|free]] operating system [[Linux]] and other variants of Unix sold by competitor companies—were violating their intellectual property by using Unix code without a license in their works.

SCO initially claimed, and tried to assert, a legal means to litigate directly against all end-users of these operating systems, as well as the companies or groups providing them—potentially a very substantial case and one that would [[Fear, uncertainty and doubt|throw fear]] into the market about using them. However, it was unable to formulate such a case, since the Unix copyrights were weakly worded, there was no basis in patent law, and breach of trade secrets would only affect the one or few companies who might have been alleged to have disclosed trade secrets. Lacking grounds to sue all users generally, SCO dropped this aspect of its cases.

The assertions were heavily contested. Claims of SCO's own copyright violations of these other systems were raised, along with claims related to SCO being bound by, or violating, the [[GPL]] licence, under which SCO conducted business related to these systems. Claims were also made that the case was substantially financed and promoted by [[Microsoft]] and investment businesses with links to Microsoft; around that time (1998–2004 onwards), Microsoft was fiercely engaged in various [[Fear, uncertainty and doubt|FUD]] tactics such as its ''Get the facts'' campaign, that sought to undermine or discredit Linux as a possible competitor to its own [[Windows]] operating systems and server systems.<ref>See [[Microsoft Halloween documents leak]] for more detail</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Microsoft takes on the free world|url=https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/|publisher=[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]] via [[CNNMoney.com]]|first=Roger|last=Parloff|date=2007-05-14|access-date=2007-11-04|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071109190233/http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/|archive-date=2007-11-09}}. Microsoft's licensing chief claimed that specific examples have been given in private, in: {{cite web|title=Legal Pad, MSFT: Linux, free software, infringe 235 of our patents|url=http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/05/13/msft-linux-free-software-infringe-235-of-our-patents/|first=Roger|last=Parloff|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081105224359/http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/05/13/msft-linux-free-software-infringe-235-of-our-patents/|archive-date=2008-11-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3600724.stm
|title=Microsoft's Linux ad 'misleading'
|access-date=2007-07-25
|date=August 26, 2004
|publisher=BBC News
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://news.cnet.com/Ad+watchdog+warns+Microsoft+to+'Get+the+Facts'/2100-1016_3-5323672.html 
|title=Linux 10 times more expensive? Get the facts, watchdog tells Microsoft
|access-date=2007-07-25
|date=August 26, 2004
|publisher=[[CNet]]
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Microsoft posts video of customers criticizing OpenOffice|url=https://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/10/microsoft-posts-video-of-customers-criticizing-openoffice.ars|first=Emil|last=Protalinski|year=2010|access-date=2010-10-14}}</ref>

In the end, SCO launched only a few main legal cases—against [[IBM]] for improper disclosure and breach of copyright related to its [[AIX]] operating system, against [[Novell]] for interference (clouding the issue of ownership), against [[DaimlerChrysler]] for non-compliance with a demand to certify certain matters related to Unix usage, and against Linux business and former client [[AutoZone]] for violating SCO's rights by using Linux. Separately, the Linux company [[Red Hat]] also filed a legal claim against SCO for making false claims that affected its (Red Hat's) business, and to seek a court declaration that SCO had no ownership rights in Linux code.

In 2007, a court ruled in ''SCO v. Novell'' that Novell and not SCO was the owner of the Unix copyrights. {{As of|2016}}, most of these cases have been resolved, or largely resolved, and none of the rulings have been in SCO's favor.