Slashdot Mirror
CD Duplicator Refuses Linux Job, Citing MS Contract
Jonathon writes "Seems a Microsoft imposed restraint of trade agreement and concerns about the SCO suit have prevented a New Zealand company duplicating 500 CDs for our upcoming installfest. The installfest was mentioned on /. just days ago."
52x writers are under $50USD and a 500 pack of cd-rs is probably well under $100, im sure they can get some volunteers to sit and burn all the discs needed.
They can sell to whosoever they like. The situation would presumably be different if they had a monopoly (I say presumably because I don't know about New Zealand law) but that can't be said of CD duplication. It's essential that companies do have the right to refuse orders without giving reasons, because every order taken on involves some degree of commercial risk ranging from nonpayment to public liability. Were this not so, it would make for some interesting scams by dishonest buyers. The best protection for buyers is that salesmen as a breed want to be able to sell to anybody with money, and that provides a certain counterweighting to the caution of the legal and finance departments.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Since this is under YRO, I figured I'd ask: whose rights are being violated here? (I can't see any rights violations)
This seems more like a story about how evil Microsoft is. And evil they are, which is why I neither purchase nor support their software.
Looks like they can't do anything for any of Microsoft's competitors ... but would linux itself really qualify as a competitor? I know there are many people who package distributions, but what if it was a non-commercial distro such as slackware they were trying to burn?
And as long as they mentioned SCO, I would love to see them driven into the ground for what they're doing.
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
Well, I don't think it'll go down like that. I mean, sure, Software Images didn't get the contract for 500 CDs, but someone else (like Stebbing Recording Ltd?) did and they probably made a buck out of it. I think it is Bill that needs to watch his back, lest the a flock of hungry penguins eat all the herring while he's busy throwing FUD into the media.
Silly little companies like SI need to go out of business. It sounds like they're being MS-NZ's little bitch, and while that's good for the moment (if you like biting the pillow, that is), I don't expect they'll get any OSS business in the future. Is that a big thing? Yes, because that's the direction the market is moving and they've just blown themselves out of that game.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
every linux supporter is somehow being effected by this SCO/Linux issue. Even YOU as a system admin. or programmer are. I mean i am a linux programmer where i work, and devlopers form the other side(MS dev.) keep on asking, whats up with this SCO thing, so are you planning to go back to Visual c with a wide smile.. . PERIOD..out of subject..
what i wanted to say is, companies like IBM, SUN, Oracle, Redhat, Suse and others are losing money, credability, business, and are instead gaining lots of headache, questions, bla bla bla...
Why the fuck dont they just group, put an end to it. They already spent billions in investments on Linux, espically IBM and Oracle(who supported Linux clustering), if they care for their business and investments, they should act, and FAST, before this thing really grows and starts to actually draw back customers who had linux on their considered solution list, knowing that Linux opened new business grounds for them, and they cant deny it, they owe linux exactly s much as linux owed them...
The lunatic is in my head
The trouble is Who will do the suing?
IBM? Redhat? Knoppix??? certainly not Knoppix.
Lets face it, even though this is in NZ, it sets a very nasty precedent internationally.
And although IBM have been playing it cool, as they should, with the rabid SCO flinging mud everywhere the concerning thing is that some of that mud might stick.
Feature for feature, tech for tech and even on usability grounds Linux is beginning to really become a desktop option with mountains more flexibility than Windows - any flavour of windows.
MS have played very very dirty in the past, and it would not surprise me in the slightest if it's their intention to do so again, and this case is testing the waters. Anyone remember Stacker?
However this is a delicate time for Linux in the hearts and minds of the general uninformed masses.
For the criminally insane at SCO to get some of their allegations to stick is a significant blow in Linux Marketing in the short term.
It would help significantly if IBM made an big, loud, international, and official statement about the Damage SCO is doing to their market and reputation, and threaten serious legal action.
A response form IBM like this would strengthen, not damage the reputation of Linux and Open Source software.
Rusty, Tridge, Martin, have you fellows had smoco with some IBM lawyers recently?
True, but the very fact that they believe they'd lose that contract for being "disloyal" says a lot about how Microsoft treat their suppliers.
I think Microsoft made a big mistake with the whole SCO thing. The more people are aware of licenses and the more people understand the GPL, the worse Microsoft looks in comparison.
The SCO case does hurt Linux in the short term, that's for sure. But in the long term, it will be just a confirmation of what many already know: That users of GPLed software are much safer from legal problems than users of commercial software.
With the millions of shares Microsoft executives sell constantly, maybe they don't care about the long term...
The problem isn't one of piracy - you can't pirate GNU / Linux - it's free. The fact is MS-SCO is spreading their FUD globally (where I live, Gartner is actively carrying the SCO FUD). Joe ServicePack's attention span and analytical-skills must not be over-estimated.
By moving the CD copying to Malaysia, it's sort of implied that there's some pirating going on here! Newbies to Linux don't need this FUD - it could deter a few of them from joining the fest.
Yesterday's interview, McBride stated that the case is entering a 'discovery' phase - this clearly indicates that SCO is only interested in FUD, and not a quick court action. It would help if more countries follow the example of Germany, Poland and others in exposing SCO's conduct, and seek penalties for future instances of FUD.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Well, that's a bit too late, recent police and government crackdowns have more or less crippled these duplication rings. I know, I live in Malaysia where everyone is complaining about not being to buy VCDs or DVDs for less than USD2.00 anymore (at least not easily :) Yes, what you want are LEGAL duplications as opposed to the illegal pirated ones, but the point is that the cheap CD makers are the pirates and their machines have just been consfiscated, so tough.
"The trouble is Who will do the suing?"
Huh.. why not some "Association for Open Source in New Zealand", like Linux Tag in Germany? After all, the Duplicator does mention the SCO case as a ground for refusal to honor a contract.
"Lets face it, even though this is in NZ, it sets a very nasty precedent internationally."
True, but when LinuxTag successfully asked SCO to shut up, and even got a penalty of 1000s of Marks if SCO spoke rotten things, did that not set an international precedent? In the US, the so called protests ended as a farce. Poland and Australia, I believe, have got restraint orders against SCO as well.
Let New Zealanders show which side they are on: The SCO-MS FUD GNUterrorists, or against. This is a good opportunity for them.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
>It's ironic that people will go to illegal channels as the most efficient way to get that which is free and legal anyway
No, it's ironic that most people, including the justice department that brought the action against them, still use products from a company convicted of illegally leveraging a monopoly.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
If he's so smart, then why can't he make a profit on anything besides his illegal monopolies?
This is +5 insightful??!
Microsoft started in a college dorm room. Within twenty-five years, Bill Gates turned it into an empire. In the competitive market for software in the 80s and early 90s, Microsoft swept over the competition, thanks largely to Bill Gates's ability to move MS into the right place at the right time, signing the right contracts with the right companies.
Now, he's reaping the benefits -- they've got $40 billion in cash, a 90%+ marketshare, and, yes, a monopoly. Bill Gates would eat you for breakfast in a "non-monopoly situation." Lord knows, he's done it to enough other companies.
Now, I'm sure Bill's still got a few tricks up his sleeve. If he were forced to compete in a free market, he'd probably still be doing pretty damn good for Microsoft. But why would he want to exert himself like that, if he can spend less effort maintaining the status quo, where not only does Microsoft make a profit, but they exceed the GDP of several small countries?
I'm certainly not an MS fanboy, but wisecracks like the parent post's are just ignorant. Monopolies don't come out of thin air -- you get to be the monopoly by being the best at the market (even, or probably especially, if that means being ruthless).