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.
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
> 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
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 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'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