Slashdot Mirror
Australian Linux User Group Fights Back Against SCO
ashitaka writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that an Open Source group has gone on the offensive in response to SCO's latest demands that Linux users must buy a Unixware license to avoid any possible future unpleasantries. 'Open Source Victoria today filed a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, asking it to investigate SCO's activities in light of 'unsubstantiated claims and extortive legal threats for money' against possibly hundreds of thousands of Australians.' I especially like the last bit: 'One feels that this whole fiasco is the IT industry equivalent of a Nigerian scam or internet extortion ploy.' Oh yeah.."
... and before anyone starts whining, this is of course not technically a lawsuit (yet). But investigation by a public commission might be even better, as things there are not dictated simply by who's got the most money.
Someone (Mad Dog?) said that Linux and OSS are international treasures that should be protected, and government intervention might be just what we need. Obviously US government would never intervene (Bush & all), but there is hope that e.g. EU or Oz might have something to say.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I suggest that those of us that live in the US do the same and file a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
You can file online here.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
SCO..
Microsoft..
DirecTV..
MPAA/RIAA..
Did I miss something? Is this the Chinese "Year of the Evil Corperation"? Is modern business even legitimate business anymore? When did the underlying ethic behind fair competition become, "Enlist your friends, sue your enemies"?
Maybe if we stuck all SCO/Microsoft/MPAA/RIAA/etc's lawyers in a Monty Python worthy blender, grinding them into a fine red (or black, as some might claim) paste, we'd have enough environmentally friendly biodegradable waste to restore a rainforest somewhere.
Finally, a practical use for lawyers..
They came, they saw, they left, disguisted.
Anyone know the European equivalent of the competition and consumer office? Is there an online complaint form that I can use?
Thanks,
Karem
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
There's no reason to prevent SCO from talking if no one is listening in the first place.
On the contrary, a lot of people and companies are listening. If they are allowed to say anything they want, with nobody providing counterarguments, the unwashed will start believing that they are right.
I am almost happy that they are openly attacking Linux right now (it was bound to happen sooner or later). At least this forces everyone to wake up, instead of just ignoring the case as a contract issue between IBM and SCO.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
If a lawsuit happy company contacts you directly, do not just 'throw it out', show it to a good lawyer. Since you are linking to college-paintball.com, it appears you may still be in college. That usually means a limited exposure to the Real World(tm), remember these important items.
- Any lawsuit can be bad news, even if you are right.
- Most good liars can convince judge and jury.
- A half-hearted defense looks like a guilty defense.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Japan : Consortium of Electronics firms pledge to adopt Linux.
Not only that, the Japanese government is somewhat in favor of Linux.
In a decade-long recession, they are steadily shifting from costly proprietary to open source. It is amazing as the Japanese bureaucrats are generally the most conservative idiots in the universe.
> We all recognize that SCO is blowing hot air. Why not just ignore it? You get a nastygram from them, throw it out.
Surely it will be a valuable collectors' item in a couple of years?
> There's no reason to prevent SCO from talking if no one is listening in the first place.
Problem is, they're not spouting this nonsense for the benefit of well informed geeks. They're either targeting clueless PHBs (kamakazi attack on Linux hypothesis) or else clueless suckers wanting to make a quick buck on the stock market (finance golden parachutes hypothesis), and those people are going to listen whether we do or not. Far better that we should listen carefully and then point out the bullshit very publicly.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I filed mine, too. The FTC will only wake up and listen if enough of us file complaints. Remember they represent the people of The United States of America, not individuals, so if the FTC realizes that SCO is trying to extort money from a large number of Americans they will act.
I played pretty dumb when I filed my complaint. In short, "I've been using Linux for a long time, and now this other company, SCO says I owe them money because they own Linux and I don't know why, I didn't get my Linux from SCO"
why we haven't seen such thing happen in US yet. iirc threatening someone with lawsuit without any intention to take legal action, especially when money is involved(licence fee), is illegal in countries under common laws system. This is a serious case of anti-competitive business practise, and in worse scenario it can be regarded as blackmailing. Those FUD letters and 'offers to switch' falls perfectly into both.
I was kinda expecting the massive lawsuits against SCO from those fortune 500 companies whom SCO sent FUD letters to. Those fortune 500 lawyers are either too whimp or too lazy to actually look into the case.
No we shouln't ignore it because there are many who really believe SCO ! Why did SCO's stock jump 20 % ? All can't see the bluff of SCO .
This is actually better than a lawsuit. The ACCC has real teeth in Australia and can demand and enforce instant compliance. The fact that they use these powers for somewhat dubious outcomes is a point of contention here, but a referral their way has to be at least investigated.
These guys love publicity and this is win/win for them. They get to flex some muscle and no Aussie company(read Packer or Murdoch) will be asked to do anything.
The way SCO is acting reminds more a mob going wild over the street.
They come up with a full set of "services" to its customers. Their Web site just looks a Christmas tree full of that. Meanwhile, when you come up to it, the first thing you see is "Relax, worry free software" which is some sort of double-minded threat.
The court complaint is also pretty interesting. Most people believe that SCO is threatening IBM for some disclosure of trade secrets. In fact SCO is accusing IBM of conspiring against SCO by disclosing Unix code to Linux. All the comaplaint is a mess of distortions where Linux pre-2.4 looks much like a simple hobbiyst OS without any significance for the market. Then came IBM, changed the whole 2.4 kernel by inserting SCO code and started a campaign to drive SCO from the market. Worse than that, it seems that IBM is to blame for Linux being a workable kernel on the Intel platforms, as, in SCO's claims, they were nearly the exclusive producer and distributor of UNIX for Intel architecture!..
Among the claims filled to court one may clearly some foggy statements against the Linux community in the whole:
"This prohibition extends to derivative work products that are modifications of, or based on, UNIX System V source code or technology. IBM and certain other UNIX software distributors are violating this prohibition, en masse, as though no prohibition or proprietary restrictions exist at all with respect to the UNIX technology."
"As such, Linux 2.4.x and Linux 2.5.x are unauthorized derivatives of UNIX System V."
Note that SCO, in its complaint, is eager to generalize. Besides it leaves in the dark certain things as "other UNIX software distributors". And also it seems that BSD does not exist in SCO's Universum at all.
So what we have here? Considering the above, and the situation among the community, we have here a case that surely will take some good time to settle. SCO is clearly distorting reality so well that I fear that the court will have to take some time to digere all the confusion they created. Yes, SCO will loose it. Everyone who have seen the evolution of Linux since its start, knows perfectly that they pushed too far from reality. But courts need facts, and need testimonies, documents and expertise. And SCO seems to know that it will be rather difficult for the Linux community to gather all developers in one court room. That seems the strategy they are trying to play. If all developers gather, then SCO will have nothing to say. All the story will just be a soap bubble without any serious ground. But can IBM gather all the developers they need to counter the oversized history of UNIX, SCO is trying to tell the court? Personally I think it will be a bit difficult... Anyway, it will take time until the court gets into some conclusion. Which may be longer the DoJ vs Microsoft.
Meanwhile, even without court orders, SCO goes further and knocks every door with foggy threats of liability, if one doesn't pay for Linux. Now this clearly reminds mobs that created a FUD climate and then extorted money for "security" and "protection" services. In the whole this seems the main strategy SCO is playing. And, as in old times, commerces seem to bound to the new Capones of the 21th century, stocks are rising and SCOrface is getting richer.
No that is for complaining about the EU administration itself.
Correct. From this press release about a guide for citizens.
This Guide highlights the Ombudsman's efforts in recent years to solve citizens' problems with the Community's administration... I hope that it gives citizens a clear picture of the service that the European Ombudsman's office can provide.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
The problem isn't the trial by jury. In the U.S. it's widely believed that it's supposed to be a trial by a jury of your peers. To me, that means people you interact with regularly, or who are likely to have shared similar experiences to you, so that they have the capacity to judge you appropriately based in part on the insight their experiences bring.
But the Constitution calls for an impartial jury, and as a result the concept of a jury of one's "peers" has completely disappeared, to be replaced by a lottery system that almost guarantees that the people sitting on the jury will almost certainly be unable to properly judge you.
I think trial by jury may well be a sound concept when done right, but unfortunately it's not done properly at all here in the U.S.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
I'd be interested to know where you get your information from.
At least one australian distributor of xbox mod chips has been sued into oblivion that i know of, if not several more.
I'm sad to say that the government here in Australia happily pays lip service to America's godawful copyright laws, and what's more, we've got far FAR less 'fair use' rights to media than you do (we're not actually even allowed to create 'backups' of copyrighted media).
Go live in europe. We're better off than america is, but not by much.
ashridah
I'm glad to see the term "extortion" is now getting widespread press. The previous common description for SCO's activities has been "FUD" (apparently Linus' preferred term), and this unfortunately implies a semi-respectable strategy that many tech companies employ against competing products.
It's important not to underestimate the effect that labels can have in arguing one's case in a busy, harried world of people marginally familiar with an issue. Calling something "FUD" might not sway an IT manager or politician for whom the SCO issue is not completely clear; calling it "baseless extortion" is much more likely to raise the kind of ire needed to counteract this particular FUD in the mindset of the public and relevant decision-makers.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
We need to fight fire with fire at this point. Please as you speak, write or post about the SCO situation use the following terms. They have stronger meaning, and are "stickier" ideas - that is they are more likely to be reproduced:
* Use the SCO scam to refer to the situation and use extortion letter to refer to correspondence for SCO to a company.
* always use unproven allegation and unsubstantiated claim before the mentioning copyright.
* Describe SCO's letter: a letter that demands payment for a product I simply don't use. or this letter is asking me to pay a lot of money, speculating that they might win a lawsuit one day and then come after me. or this letter demands payment without any basis at all!
* Be quick to point out that Linux was not written by IBM, it was written by individual programmers all over the world.
* Point out that no industry group, supports SCO's unsubstantiated claims.
* On SCO's motivation: SCO is failing and is desperate to make money by any means. And, SCO's core product which is being replaced by a more cost-effective solution Finally: SCO is attemting to hijack Linux because their core product can't compete.
Finally, if you get a letter from SCO, send a copy and a cover letter the situation to your state's attorney general and secretary of state. One state AG or SecState has the budget, resources and clout to pull the plug on the SCO Copyright Scam nationally. Believe me, SCO is not the Tobacco Industry...
-- $G
Because SCO sure is. Evety ounce of FUD SCO can generate, every column inch they can get in the press without clear and credible rebuttal makes their clais more credible in the eyes of the PHB. The Laura Didios and Charles Coopers of this world are making SCO's job easier by lending an air of legitimacy to this farce. The press in general have NOT been doing a good job of presenting the true facts of this case, and often print SCO's assertions about UNIX ownership, among other lies and half-truths, as given. The mainstream press needs to be cahllenged to dig deeper into, for example, the likelihood that this is actually a 'pump-and-dump' scam: Thousands of shares issued at $0.001 in January now being sold en masse at $10. This is easily verified and I've seen it on Slashdot and some other sites, but the story has not broken out to the mainstream press. If the above were to break in, say, Forbes, CNN/Money, Motley Fool, etc., there would be an immediate effect
- SCO stock valuation would implode
- There would be an SEC investigation
- The whole SCO drama would gring to a quick and ugly stop.
So I urge everyone to write letters to the editor, call the paper, do whatever it takes to get the truth out. No screeds, no overblown rhetoric or anti-SCO insults, just clearly, coherently, and as objectively lay out the facts in this case. SCO has been trying this case in the courts of public opinion. So can we.
Wanted: One witty yet thought provoking
I think one of the major things in issues like this is the speed at which such cases are able to move.
When a persons life is at stake and they face the prospect of losing years of their lives or their very life itself I can understand why the US legal system might tend to seem slow, providing the defandant every opportunity to make sure that they are getting a fair trial.
However, when a reputation is at stake there needs to be either a) a swift resolution (Which I understand might not always be possable.) or b) if a swift resolution appears not to be possable then some sort of gag orders on both parties to prevent them from using the delay to boost stock on false claims, pressure clients to do something based on the outcome of a trial that has not even happened, etc.
Who knows how this would work in practice since IANAL but I agree something needs to be done.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Unfortunately it was also ruled that judges don't have to tell juries this and in fact can tell them the exact opposite, that the case has to be decided only on the facts in front of them. Some judges have even taken to jailing juries who acquit in ways they don't like.
Visit FIJA for more info.