Slashdot Mirror
SCO Has "Made No Decision" On Linux IP Claims
Earlier today, a Slashdot post reported the possibility that SCO would attempt to collect royalty payments for intellectual property that SCO (according to that story) claims would make other Linux vendors liable to the tune of nearly $100 per Linux-running CPU.
This report on NewsForge reports that SCO has issued a statement "disputing the claims in the story, but confirming that it does have significant asset claims in Unix IP and it is discussing 'possible strategies.'" Awfully ambiguous on SCO's part; I'd feel better about a straight denial.
fuzzy thinking to make you want to scream for some real answers.
The reality of the situation is that SCO could never collect 100 dollars against every PC running Linux. At best, they would hurt RedHat, destroy what's left of Mandrake's bank account, and have a luminous cloud over every little distribution out there.
Are they going to use the linux counter or something?
--------
Free your mind.
1. Buy "Unix" name
2. Lose millions
3. Scramble for cash
4. Come up with hair-brained idea as a 'Hail Mary'
5. ???
6. Bankruptcy!
Trolling is a art,
Coming soon to a warez group near you: Linux!
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
...right behind Unisys. I think they're still waiting for their first royalty check from Slashdot. [Insert make believe deity here]-forbid they should use PNG instead.
What intellectual property does SCO claim to own? Are these patents, or copyrights, and over what code or protocols?
I think the core Linux was based on is past-due, patent-wise, so any claim on that would be prior art; and the fact that Linus coded the basic kernel from the ground up would eliminate copyright concerns, so what's left? Auxiliary functionality?
Someone was mentioning System V; is it SysV binary code compatibility that SCO is laying claim over? I think that could be eliminated from the kernel without major disruptions; some people would get really peeved about the inability to run proprietary software they couldn't recompile, but...
If SCO tries anything, Torvalds, Stallman, et al will have cause to sue SCO and force them to drop their patent claims.
Still, SCO could stop distributing Linux, and demand others do so as well... There's nothing the GPL can do about that. This would simply force another vendor to buy their patent, such as RH or IBM, etc.
OTOH, these claims are still completely unsubstantiated.
This type of crap is just another reason software patents should be not allowed... Ridiculous.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
How do you hang around this community and not expect that suddenly coming forward with an overexpansive IP claim is going to have everybody jumping down your throat? Haven't they ever been slashdotted? Even in the "What's the least likely way we can make money?" sense, putting this on paper and internally distributing it is a recipe for permanent suspicion.
They were. It is. They changed their name to "The SCO Group" because of the perceived popularity of the "SCO" name.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
From the press release: "SCO is a Linux vendor and a leading member of United Linux", so SCO is distributing (claimed) patented software. However, from the GPL:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
That means that by not licensing the patents for free they're violating the GPL. Wonder if that infringement on the GPL could be used to invalidate their claim for money on Linux?
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
SCO must consider all options, it is after all a revenue generating corporation (supposedly). But, they must consider the risk that such an action would have. Should they decide to enforce such a claim, they risk having to spend a great deal of money defending the lawsuits that would surely arise from other similar companies.
Now, let's assume for a moment that they go forward with their claim and that it is uncontestable. The next step, naturally, would be for every Linux distribution to switch to the BSD style init system. SCO has no claim to this and therefore gain no further revenue from their System V rights. But, most importantly, no one would trust SCO again. Everything SCO would be shunned by all Linux distros and the community at large. At that point SCO may as well forget their Caldera roots and stop selling Linux completely because no one will buy SCO Linux again. SCO will be forced to try to line from SCO Unix alone and the original SCO proved that this is a very hard thing to do. It will be even harder now, as Linux was not as strong a contender 3 to 5 years ago, at least in the mindshare department.
I'm sure that SCO will eventually say that they will NOT enforce this claim against Linux but, they need to do it quickly because the longer they wait the less people will trust them.
The whole point in these two "articles" of sorts is that it would have been much better to just wait and see what exactly is SCO's intention. The first article was jumping the gun (as this one proves), and the reaction of Slashdot is to.. again jump the gun? I almost think some people are using any and all opportunity to spread FUD.
It's quite simple, really: just wait what the decision will be, and if it turns out that Caldera would want to collect royalties from Linux distro makers, then let all hell break out, badmouth SCO and collect karma points all you like.
If it turns out, however, that SCO only wants to target Microsoft (which is, if you think about it for a second, the only sound and sane choice, as MS are the only ones that possess cash in aboundance), then I really wonder if all these zealous posters will take their words back and say "sorry, I suck". And remember, SCO (Caldera) has a history of getting money out of MS, so this should be one hint that MS will be the target. And the prosecutor that was mentioned in that first, atroucious writeup, was Boise, who clobbered MS rather badly (or well, depending on your POV) and earned his reputation as MS's nightmare. That should be another hint.
Sigged!
its not Linux they are after folks..its Oslairs and AIX..
Of course here are SCO's options:
-Sue SUN and IBM to enforce IP claims of Unix Solaris or AIX forcing SUN and IBM to fully embrace al Linux distributions except United Linux and SCO's Linux..
-Admit their business plans suck...
-Sue Linux distributions over IP claims and become a non player in the Linux community..
I think they wil press for the suing other unix players option..
Get your popcorn and get ready for fireworks
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Would seem to be whether or not the distribution of a freely distributable version of Linux by the prior owners of SCO, perhaps in violation of their own patents, would in some way negate their current claims. After all, isn't it the case that if you fail to defend your patent or other intellectual property, it becomes harder to defend it later?
I may be wrong but AFAIK this is a FOLLOW UP to a previous story.
./, they are part of the charm, but them getting modded up irks me.
In story 1 there was an artical saying that SCO would possibly be going to charge $96 for each linux CPU.
in story 2(this one) there is a denial by SCO of the first story.
They could have both been put into the same artical but there is no problem with having seperate ones either
I don't mind inane comments on
Are SCO going to pursue every linux user in the US? and if they do, will the US government (that's busy spending billions trying to re-ignite their economy) simply sit back and watch as the rest of the globe becomes more competitive and a better location to establish your business as a result?
Maybe, just maybe, this is actually what's required though. A really harsh pursuit of a patent by a failing company that sees this crazy ability to patent any and every idea relating to computing, whether it's obvious or even whether it's been done before properly challenged and hopefully halted. And if it's not halted? Well then for many companies it quickly becomes silly to be located in the US.
What intellectual property does SCO claim to own? Are these patents, or copyrights, and over what code or protocols?
... it innoculates against entities such as SCO submarining code into the OS and then making copyright claims down the road.
... and, of course, powerless to do anything about it beneath a government that no longer even feels the need to feign democracy, much less practice it. However, the rest of the world will continue on quite happilly without us, probably breathing a sigh of relief that such an out of control, unilateral superpower has managed to shoot itself so severely in the foot.
... why should one country, one corporation, or one human being own knowledge and wisdom, regardless of whether they thought of it first (and most likely had their employer claim ownership of their thought), or, as is just as often the case, merely won the footrace to the patent office or cribbed the work of others.
It almost certainly is not copyrights. Linux was written from scratch by Linus Torvalds and released under the GNU GPL. Any and all code submitted to the kernel is likewise GPLed, so if SCO submitted code, they did so under the terms of the GPL. This is where the GPL really shines
Of course, if someone violated SCO's copyright and got it accepted into the kernel without divulging its origins (or claiming to have written it themselves), then SCO would probably have a copyright claim against the purported author, not those (the linux kernel folks, distros, and users) to whome that hypothetical black hat illegally licensed the code. And if said person were actually in the employ of SCO, then sco would have essentially granted a licenses and would be bitchslapped by the courts. None of those latter scenerios are even remotely likely, so, as I said, it is almost certainly not a copyright claim SCO's vague comments are asserting.
What they own are almost certainly software patents, likely patents written from looking at the source code written and developed by others, and granted rubber-stamp style from the notoriously irresponsible US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). As others have said, such are the equivelent of 'nuclear weapons' for IT, and if SCO were to do such a foolish thing (as a consiquence of their own stupidity, or shilling for Microsoft), the end result will be no GNU/Linux in the United States (the only country stupid enough to recognize such patents), and a United States with an IT industry that would be irrelevant not within the generous twenty years Alan Cox suggests, but within a scant 5 years at best.
In short, America would become the technological backwater its behavior and policies have so richly earned it. We in the States who care (a vanishingly small minority) would be unhappy with this
In any event, if the rest of the world ever wants to throw off the yoke of the American Hegemony, the best and most effective first step they could take would be to reject our copyright and patent schemes outright
The best thing the developing world could do for itself is tell America and western Europe to fuck off and none-too-gently place their IP regimes, patents and copyrights in particular, into a location where the sun never shines. If free software is destroyed by these knowledge-squatters, it will not be the first such promising work of humanity so destroyed, nor the last. Until people wake up and put these Robber Barons in their place (preferably behind bars), atrocities such as this potential fiasco will occur again and again, with human progress and public interests being trampled, again and again, by the attourney equivelent of a spoiled child's shreak "No, I thought of it first, you can't use it!"
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Perhaps it's appropriate that the very first Unix systems were used to process patents for Bell labs. See: http://www.english.uga.edu/hc/unixhistory.html
What goes around, comes around...
Ransom Love, shall we say, loves to ransom?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Hmm, this kind of reminds me of the potentially ruinous case UK-Telco Monster British Telecom tried to bring by claiming they had a valid patent for the hyperlink, thus, every single web site covered by that patent would have to pay them a royalty.
Yep, that claim was soon chucked out of court, to the embarressed relief of BT's management.
SCO it seems, are either doing one of two things - either making a somewhat misguided attempt to enforce a perhaps long forgotten patent (and, as has been said, patent on what, exactly?) Or two, just making a real dumb grab for money (kinda like "If it's sitting still, you can hit it - if you can hit it you can kill it!")
I just hope they fail miserably. This kind of blatent money-grabbing the open source community can *well* do without!
-- Seamus
It's especially like counterstrike because cheating seems to be the best strategy, thus, getting a patent you never should have got and suing people with essentially unrelated/uncovered technologies.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Or conversely, everyone starts shooting and some idiot decides to declare a stupid knife-only game and gets shot in the head. That's exactly what SCO is doing...making themselves a target.
And for reference, SCO didn't specifically say Linux IIRC (which I may not, because I didn't RTFA), but an "unspecified operating system". SCO may not have the knife, but they may have a sniper rifle, and it just may be aimed at MS. I don't know yet. But what I do know is that the license stickers on the side of OEM boxes with XP and 2K specify "1-2 processors" on them, which could be a clue...
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
SCO is a Linux vendor and a leading member of United Linux. Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News article, SCO has no desire to take legal action against fellow Linux vendors. As a normal part of business, SCO has had discussions with several legal experts in the field of intellectual property law, and these discussions included David Boies. Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News story, SCO has not engaged Mr. Boies to take legal action against our fellow Linux vendors.
I mean, geez. What else are they supposed to do?
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
They could hurt Redhat, yes because Redhat is an American company. But I thought Mandrake was a French company? And I doubt that they patented using European patents. Likewise with Suse.
Do you know what is happening here? The US is starting to feed on itself. And people outside the US are starting to profit....
For example copyrights on specific music pieces in Europe expire and as such they are free to copy, but not in the US.
Interesting the Land of Free is turning into the land of the regulated lawyer! Actually sad!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
They can have my Linux, when they pry it from my cold, dead hand.
Life is too short to proofread.
Doesn't deny mean they are considering ... Well, at least they are not lying.
Denial usually means they are lying. i.e.
Cheney, advised by Enron execs on energy policy did nothing improper and releasing notes of the meeting would jeopardize national security
Willy: "I did not have sex with that woman"
North Korea: We are a peace loving nation
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Uhm...
"We havent made any decision yet, but we're examining the possibilities."
"I'm haven't decided to eat anything. Just that sandwich over there."
"I'm not going to Dave's house, Dad... So can I borrow the car to go to Dave's house?"
I dont know what to do.. Be disgusted with SCO, or laugh at this, the final death throes of a company on the brink of cartwheeling into Chapter 11. Regardless, i'm sure this is gonna be great for their stock price. Massive shareholder dissent, panic selling..
Bowie J. Poag
SCO has taken the dark path - they can't inovate, so they litigate.
They now hire one or more expensive attorneys who will drink all of the company's money in billable hours with no gaurantee of a positive outcome. It is not in Boies' personal best interest to take this to trial in a timely manner. This thing is a cash cow! And even once this goes to court, there is prior art, expert witnesses, appeals, etc...
During this time SCO isn't making money.
IBM isn't going to lay down for this one. They've invested billions in Linux, and IBM employees a few lawyers too, so I'm told. IBM and the other companies with a stake in Linux can bury SCO in a shitload of paperwork, court fillings, etc... and Boies finds himself with more billable hours.
To make a long story stort, if this is a last ditch effort to save the company, they will go broke before they ever see a dime. And once the company goes broke, they aren't a problem to us anymore.
The lawyers are the only winners.
And hoist MS on their own petard. Microsoft gave^h^h^h^h loaned money to Caldera to buy SCO to kill SCO. MS used to have a chair on SCO's board, and SCO had to use code done on Xenix coded by MS (when MS was the developer of Xenix) in all versions of SCO.
The EU made MS back off of that, then MS bailed out of SCO, then sent money Calderia's way. MS denied they did so for Caldera to buy SCO, but it didn't take long between Caldera getting the money and gobbling up SCO.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
In this case, let us say (and it is only a possibility) that SCO Linux is considering suing Linux users for patent violations. This would be controversial, and so they float a trial balloon first. If a big enough fuss is made, NOW, then they will reconsider. If not, they will proceed with the legal nasty-grams to the smallish, underfunded websites to start building their precedents.
Think it can't happen here? Think again.
-renard
If this is serious, let's hear some patent numbers.
There might be some petty infringement in some miscellaneous piece of software that ships with Linux, but that could be fixed if necessary. I suspect this whole story is bogus. If there were valid patents involving the basics of UNIX-like operating systems, this would have surfaced long ago.
Everyone knows that Al Gore is the father of the internet and by logical extension owns anything that MS or Caldera/SCO does.
Napolean also invaded France and made peace with the Hebrews.
What's this do to United Linux, anyways? Does anyone care?
This space for rent.
So esentially, if SCOs to proved to be correct, that would make the GPL invalid for those portions of code, and thus it would be free game for anybody to use the code. Then SCO could be free to grab the code and enforce their patents anyway, an effort must made easier by removing that pesky GPL.
Without a valid licence, you have no right to redistribute or create a derivative work. Since the *copyright* does not lie with SCO (only the hypotetical patent), they have no right to do anything with that code. That's basicly what the GPL says too (if you can't redistribute it royalty free, you can not redistribute it at all).
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"but confirming that it does have significant asset claims in Unix IP" - this means "you can't emulate UNIX or include the ability to run UNIX binaries on other systems without paying us". and remember ppl, GNU is NOT UNIX, so as long as it doesn't run UNIX binaries there's nothing to worry.
"and it is discussing 'possible strategies." - means "we'll include UNIX support in SCO Linux to make it more apealing to UNIX users"
What ? Me, worry ?
You can redistribute your source code all you like, but anybody using it would be violating Thompson's patent.
However, as soon as Thompson starts redistributing your source code and tries to assert their patent claims against users of your code, they are violating the GPL.
Perhaps it involved a certain trial involving a certain freedom.
-BrentI gotta rush home, I'll definitely get back to you though: I have read a rebuttal from SCO where they say unequivocably that they are not going to seek anything from Linux distro's.
Sigged!
To demand that SCO turns over list of any possible infringements so that they can be coded out asap.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
...software patents in the first place.
If we didn't have that nightmare, then it would never be plausible when somebody comes out with one of these "gonna make Linux vendors pay" stories. It's only a matter of time before somebody *does* come out with a patent that Linux violates (since there are so many chickenshit patents). Either a precent needs to be set that people who come out with chickenshit patent claims get slammed, or Linux hackers are going to spend the rest of their lives writing ever more convoluted code to avoid violating every patent the head-in-butt patent office grants.
I'd much rather see software patents killed once and for all. No more granted, none in the past valid. This *will* become a nightmare for Linux, and soon, even if this SCO story is bullshit.
-Rob
An "outright denial" would have been:
The other acceptable response would have been:
Anything else is just PR-speak for "don't give us bad press--it's bad for our business".
So, does anyone know what non-expired US patents SCO has that might cover Linux? I tried a search at uspto.gov, but came up empty-handed.
Only trademarks need to be defended right away so that they don't fall into common usage.
A quick check of the USPTO searchable database turns up only TWO patents to SCO's name (Using SCO's name spelled out for the assignee name as the search criteria) and neither of the two seem to really apply to Linux in general.
Here's the link to the search request so you can see for yourselves
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
As the owner of UNIX, SCO probably has rights to a lot of patents from AT&T, USL, and Novell pertaining to UNIX. Those patents presumably wouldn't be recorded as being registered by SCO, even if SCO owns them now.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Is that these people are at least listening enough to us (geeks) to be aware that slashdot et al are a good source of the "voice of geekdom" and they are checking up on common opinion (whether correctly founded or not).
Seems that we have 2 slashdot articles today with various people "clarifying" (or perhaps muddying, but at least attempting to save face) actual circumstances. Perhaps if enough big companies read slashdot/etc they'll realize that such idiocy is tainting public opinion and could lead to more bad publicity, and possible sales loss.
We are in a situation of FUD right now.
First, Slashdot reported a rumor, which was of questionable validity but claimed that somebody was going to threaten to inflict a patent lawsuits on selected Linux users, going to demand settlements roughly equal to the cost of Windows to avoid being sued.
Now, that somebody has come forward with a less-than-satisfactory denial of the rumor. It's not clear what their intentions are, and we'd rather see an outright claim that the story is false.
Fear that this could wipe out Linux, uncertainty over what SCO is gonna do, and doubt that this going to go very well. Yep. FUD is in full effect, and so far it's justified.
From what I have heard, Win2K's Internet Protocol stack is taken from one of the BSD flavours of Unix...maybe SCO feels that they can use whatever IP ownership they have to go after MS? Maybe they are going to charge $95 for every use of their IP, but waive it if you are using an open source OS...which would either force MS to open source Windows XXX, or "tax" MS $95 every copy of Windows they have sold.
That would be nice.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
First of all, read this document: Microsoft Applauds European Commission Decision to Close Santa Cruz Operation Matter -Decision upholds Microsoft's right to receive royalties if SCO utilizes Microsoft's technology.
This means that it's probably not only SCO's IP, but also some of Microsoft's IP that is involved here.
Unfortunately, Microsoft sold its SCO stock, so this conspiracy theory doesn't quite work out. But hey, the Evil often returns to its former Servants to recruit them again, doesn't it?
The point here is that there really isn't any way for SCO to extract royalties here, but they could stop everyone from distributing Linux under the GPL (depending on how extensive and isolatable the violation are). This applies to SCO (caldera) just as much as the others.
A side point can be made that the very act of distributing Linux, suggests that they did not believe they had a patent claim against Linux. If it ever got to a court, I suspect they would be very hard on SCO for this history and the way the claim was made. This sort of behavior is very destabilizing in the markets, so the courts aren't going to reward it easily.
It doesn't matter to me what SCO might have. If they enforce claims to AT&T System V bits that exist in linux, then I can always run my stuff in one of the BSD variants.
SCO is just trying to find some way to stay afloat, since their own product is dated and proprietary to the point of uselessness. As they see people porting things to run under a generic unix-a-like, they see their closed market drying up and are desperate to grab anything that floats.
This does bring up (again) a point. There should be some requirement to enforce a patent BEFORE something reaches a critical mass in the marketplace. Holding a patent and then trying to cash in only after everyone else has done your work for you is just underhanded and cheap.
In short, SCO -- Blow Me.
There's also the GPL issue. A lot of people are confused regarding who would not have permission to distribute under the GPL patent terms. It would be anyone who owns the patent, and anyone who has acquired a license to the patent - unless that license applies to all GPL programs. So, SCO and its customers and licensees would effectively be locked out of using GPL code. Not the rest of the community.
There's also the matter of other companies that hold patents and would step on SCO hard.
If they had just done a press release publicizing that their corporation was considering suicide, it might have had a better effect.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
1) Nobody know's what SCO is doing. They've done nothing yet.
2) Apple uses FreeBSD, and the FreeBSD source went through this thing years ago (in a very ugly period of lawsuits) and came out clean.
Without copyright, people would still write music and songs.
OK, no immediate problems with that (but you didn't say everything you should have -- see below).
And without patents, for other market-led reasons, people will still create and improve designs. Can you imagine that?
I can imagine that. I can also imagine a system based in reality...
You're a creative guy... so you come up with this "Gnomish contraption" that will turn sewage into magical potions. You just spent 10 years of your life researching and developing prototypes. You barely made ends meet because you believed in your idea and in yourself. Now you're ready to release your product to the world.
You're so proud... the first day sales are through the roof! Everyone is buying "Gnomish contraptions" like they were worth their weight in gold! But what's this? You don't get any money from these sales...
That's right... there were no patents available. You had no protection for your own innovations (time limited of course) to regain your investment of time (== money). Your blood, sweat, and tears were for naught; the little old lady next door copied your idea and built it for cheaper and is making money hand over fist. Isn't that competition?
So why do we have patents? Is it to protect Mr. Big Bad Corporation? No, it's to encourage innovation (wow!), because no one will innovate unless it benefits them. Yes, some people will gain their "payoff" in being a "do-gooder" and offering their product with "freely" (for a very loose example, think of the GPL). But remember, even the GPL has stipulations on how you can use the product. I might make some music and make it freely available and distributable, which makes me happy, but happiness doesn't feed my family.
If there were no restrictions whatsoever, no one would produce anything new, as there would be no incentive to do so. Why should you produce something if someone else can "steal" (but it's not stealing since there are no patents) it away from you?
Patents are designed to allow monopolization of a market for a short period, to enable a high return on investment (yes, investment) for those who do the R & D. After that, it's open season... and you'd better be innovating while you're making your monopoly profits... or when your patent expires you're out of luck (and business).
Can patents/copyrights/guns/toothpaste/etc be abused? Yes. But to try and push your opinions across by distorting reality is not going to get you far (or convince your intended audience).
> Since patents cover ideas,...
Patents do not cover ideas. They cover inventions (modulo stupidity on the part of the examiners).
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
The assignee has to be changed when the IP rights change hands, otherwise it's still theirs. Any of the AT&T patents would most likely have expired and a rough check of the Novell patents doesn't seem to reveal much of anything applicable either.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Whatever happened to social responsibility? Way too many people seem to think that it is the responsibility of a corporation to generate profit, regardless of any other concerns (including even it's own long-term concerns).
It is the responsibility of a corporation to generate profit. Social responsibility lives in the wallet of the consumer, not in the offerings of the market. The owners of that corporation have a social responsibility to spend their money wisely, not make it.
There's no need for the supply side to preach a consistant morality. The supply side should offer any morality one can imagine. That's freedom.
Ethics created through lack of choices are not ethics, they're actions of ignorance. Real morals are made apparant by one's choices.
Teach those around you not to buy from companies you find immoral. But don't expect everyone to agree with your definition of right and wrong, and don't try to force it upon the rest of us by shutting down the supply side of that immorality just because the consuming side ignores you.
As for murder, it's illegal. Corporations should strive for maximum profits within the law. Laws should be written to prohibit people from harming each other, and penalize those who profit from that harm.
-pmb
Back when we were first throwing drivers left and right into the kernel (1992), someone brought up the point that Linux itself might be vulnerable to IP claims if it weren't developed "clean room" style. At that time it was thought that Sun would be the most likely threat, but a message was floated amongst the kernel and application developers, asking anyone who had worked on Sys III/V code or kernel code for anyone else, and I don't remember anyone raising their hand. I worked for Sun during that timeframe, but did not have access to the SunOS or Solaris source.
Of course, this could all be a desperate ploy by SCO to get cash in the door, but they want to leak it via the rumor mill, to gauge how well it would go over. Credits to Navy beans that, when they get inundated with bad press, they claim that it wasn't a consideration, plausible deniability, all that jazz.
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
all they have to do is go to Spain, or venuzuela or Mexico or any govenrnment thinking about converting to Linux and point out the possible complicationsif this ever did go to trial. Maybe the linux distro you are thinking about will have an accident, see...
It would be the cheapest way for MS to subvert Linux. Even sheaper than buying the Sony DRM patents that are in the news lately. (Buy DRM patents, dont let GNU use them. Eventually enough music/movies is out in DRM that without liscenced DRM enabled players linux desktops suck. end of linux withou microsoft having to compete at all).
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
''If there were no patents in place, than innovation would be halted''
Without copyright, people would still write music and songs. And without patents, for other market-led reasons, people will still create and improve designs. Can you imagine that?
People make this point, and miss the while point of a patent system-- the idea of a patent system is not supposed to be that it makes people rich if they invent something-- people will ALWAYS find a way to get rich off inventiveness. The point of a patent system instead is to reward people for publically explaining how their inventions work, so that once the patent expires everyone else can benefit. This mechanism is how patents are supposed to support innovation. And if the patent is still not particularly useful after it expires, then the patent system has failed.
Also there is an immense cost associated with enforcing a patent, so all these stupid business process patents that we heard so much about have more or less been stopped by the immense cost of enforcement.
I am not sure that SCO would benefit by sueing for patent violations-- in fact I think they would quickly ensure that Debian would be the only distribution available, and that SCO would go bankrupt. In which case, Microsoft might buy them and try to deny Linux a place in the markey, and we might have another round of antitrust litigation (one cannot use patents to engage in predatory practices).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
SCO probably doesn't have any patent that will affect Linux and won't do anything. There's probably some evil powers at work that are paying them to spread FUD.
Personally, I am laughin at them.
Awfully ambiguous on SCO's part; I'd feel better about a straight denial.
And I'd like SCO to give me a million dollars and a new Aston-Martin, but I don't see either happening.
Obviously they don't want to publicly cast off their IP rights simply because it would make some people more comfortable.
Ransome Love left Caldera^H^H^H^H^H^H^HSCO a while ago.
I almost pukad when I read this.
I want the truth!
--sdem
If I'm in California, can I use my software vouchers from Microsoft to pay my SCO license fees?
Read reviews of shopping cart software
"Little guys need protection, and the patent office gives them that."
Can you give an example of where a software patent has "help the little guy"?
To me, that's right up there with "protecting the children". Its more of an excuse than a reason.
But seriously, where is that example?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Even for SCO to respond with anything less than an emphatic denial is enough for them to deserve having their tires slashed, their houses graffiti'd and roadkill posted through their letter boxes. And for people to sit in vans outside their corporate HQ with jury-rigged gadgets blasting radio white noise at all the CPUs therein.