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.."

Comments

This is welcome news

[harryk]

This is truly welcome news. The community there is actually standing up, which, honestly, is more than I can say for the general LUGs here in the states. I am not referencing IBM, I know that they've got to keep quite until their day in court. But aside from the random ranting, I haven't read very much about Linux standing up against SCO. Understandably, there is little to defend, since SCO has been too vague.

Additionally, I really enjoy Linus' comments in his recent interview.

Good work guys!

Many hands make light work

[arvindn]

Just like many eyeballs make bugs shallow, the distributed nature of the community could work to our advantage here. If we fought them separately in each country, we would be fighting from a position of strength, wouldn't we (not to imply that we aren't already...) Just a thought.

BTW, /. should probably stop posting SCO stories every few hours and have a "Weekly SCO digest" feature (or "SCOback" like slashback) or something like that.

FTC complaints?

[smokeslikeapoet]

Maybe U.S. users should start taking the same action. Would the FTC listen?

Re:FTC complaints?

[Hanno]

In fact, the FTC accepts international complaints about US companies, as well. I just filed mine against SCO. :-)


Subject of Your Complaint: Investment
Name of Company You Are Complaining About: The SCO Group
Street Address: 355 South 520 West, Suite 100
City: Lindon
State or Canadian Province: Utah
Country: UNITED STATES
Zip Code or Postal Code: 84042
Company Web Site: http://www.sco.com
Phone Number: (801)7654999 Ext.

Explain Your Problem:

SCO is under new management which is currently engaging in a scheme that appears to be an elaborate "pump & dump" scam.

I urge the FTC to investigate recent stock market events and related SCO press releases and SCO legal threats against Linux users.

Thank you.

I would if I did

[Kris_J]

We call on any Australian Linux users who feel pressured by SCO's actions to immediately contact the ACCC and file a complaint.

As an Australian Linux user I must say that I don't feel so pressured.

Meanwhile, on Monday the company where I work received two fake "renew your domain" letters. Welcome to the modern business world...

The fake invoice scam

[panurge]

SCO increasingly reminds me of the fake invoice scam. The one in which you get an invoice for your entry in a "Trade directory", the idea being that many corporations cannot be bothered to reconcile invoices to orders for invoices under, say, $100. Having realised that IBM is not simply going to buy them at an inflated share price to make them go away(using FUD to try and boost the share price) SCO then proceeds to this type of scam which has the advantage that if anyone decides to pay, you can write a contract which makes it legal (include a clause that if SCO is found not to have IP rights, they will refund the licence money).

I conclude that SCOs next step will be to write to Microsoft explaining that they have a large amount of IP tied up in a foreign software product but are unable to get it out themselves. In exchange for 15% of their share capital...oh wait, they already did that. I guess it's going to be buying Utah politicians and going round selling "insurance" against your server being ripped out of the rack and thrown out the window next.

Re:Good job!

[phorm]

e.g. EU or Oz

What about Canada? We use linux too eh?

Maybe somebody needs to go out and help dig up the various ways we can legally fight back against SCO et al. Various countries, various investigative bodies, various laws.... it's confusing. If somebody in the legal "know" gives us the options, then perhaps more groups will form together as an organized coalition again the "evils that be (tm)".

Yes, I already know about donating to the EFF, etc... but how about organized legal or political opposition? What are my options there

p.s. from experience I can say that Linux is gaining ground within various branches/sectors of the Canadian gov't... so perhaps they'd be more open-minded about such things?

Canada Is Taking the Fifth

[ratfynk]

Living next door to a country that mostly dictates our economic policy, and the interpretation of our business law, is like sleeping next to an elephant. You hope it hasn't eaten too much green grass, and that it doesn't roll over on you. We have a regular habit of putting up with excrement from south of the border so it doesn't matter what we think. We wind up going along with the situation. The only company that is benefiting from this fiaSCO in Canada is Microsoft. By the legalised theft of good ideas by leveraging their OS to work better with their office and communication software, Microsoft have successfully modeled their business relationships on corporate despotism. Almost a Conquistador style conquor and plunder of the competition. As such Microsoft software in Canada has become like a business religion. YOU USE IT OR YOU DO NOT GET WORK, plain and simple, there is no choice.

From what I see and hear in computer stores everyone is hedging that Unix, SCO and IBM will self distruct and take Linux and open source with it. Such is the business attitude in Canada, they are all good MS sales people and will not rock the boat even if it sinks. The situation has become so monopolistic that it stinks.

Re:A Genteel Confrontation.

[Anonymous Coward]

What you have to realise though is that the ACCC actually has teeth - they can ban SCO from doing any business in Australia, and slap whopping great multimillion dollar fines on SCO subsiduaries in Oz. They can also petition the Courts for Prison Terms for Company Officers.

OK, so maybe all SCO would do is stop doing business in Oz, well then Oz becomes a leader in OSS development and consulting to the USA's detriment.

Re:File an SEC complaint

[kuwan]

Ah, you're probably right, though it probably wouldn't hurt to file with both. The following is from the SEC's complaint page:

We welcome hearing from you because your complaint may be the one that alerts us to a bad broker or firm, an unfair practice in the securities industry that needs to be changed, or the latest Internet fraud.

Certainly SCO's new licensing scheme would qualify as the latest Internet fraud. Also, the following complaint types appear on their complaint page:

• Manipulation of security price or volume (a pump and dump scheme)
• False or misleading statements about a company (including false or misleading SEC reports or financial statements) - Do we really need to list the false or misleading statements SCO has made?

I know I'll be filing complaints with both the FTC and SEC. And just because I'm doing it means that you should do it too. ;-)

Shows U.S. legal system is part of the problem

[Nice2Cats]

This shows one very important point that is not often made: A major part of the SCO problem is the American legal system. In Germany, SCO has either had to put up or shut up (and wow did they shut up quickly), Australia and other countries are going in the same direction, but in the U.S., SCO can go on making claims seemingly forever that damage the repution (and therefore livelihood) of Linux companies and professionals.

One commentator pointed out that the SCO farce was bad for the U.S. -- true, but more to the point, it is a symptom of a larger problem facing America. The legal system has ceased to function in any sane form, and it is hurting the U.S. bad. The lottery of trial by jury, abolished for good reason in almost all other western democracies, means that SCO could actually win this case in the U.S., while the rest of the world tells them to go jump in a lake. German companies such as SuSE won't be paying those license fees, that's for sure.

American readers should take note that the Constitution doesn't specify the details of how courts should be set up. Congress could overhaul the system any time they choose, and give the U.S. a system that doesn't suck money and talent from American companies and waste it on millionaire lawyers and legal fees. But then, Congress is full of lawyers...

Re:Good job!

[saitoh]

It may be true that because of the current Bush administration appearing to favor corperate interests over the common good of the country may prevent them from interfering, but if IBM were to do any ammount of real lobbying, something would happen. I mean, look at it from the eyes of an elderly bumbling technologically incompetent public official. The odds they recognize IBM's muscle over whatever SCO appears to have seems to be a preatty clear cut answer IMHO, and with the appearance that "bigger is better" for corperation size to this administration, I think its rather evident who they would side with. Just sit back and watch the fireworks *if* it happens (doubtful, but interesting if it did).

If you get a US Nastygram do NOT throw it out

[voss]

Instead file a complaint with the
Federal Trade Commission.
http://www.ftc.gov and click on
file a complaint right at the top.
Tell the FTC that SCO is making demands
for license fees based on unsubstantiated
claims. Keep the nastygram as evidence
for the FTC.

Re:Good job!

[Stephen Samuel]

Can those of us that are independent consultants sue SCO for some sort of cause of action?

If you've ever contributed code to GNU/Linux, then you may have some room to sue them for copyright violation and/or breach of contract (I think you'd defintitely want the legalese version of and/or).

One possible approach (especially for people with copyright interest in Linux code) would be to sue for a declaratory judgement that SCO has no rights to sue people for copyright violation or patent rights to any Linux code that's been distributed by them (or, at the very least, been distributed by them since they "became aware" that the impugned code was in Linux).

I think that one could also include suit for slander/0. 1libel -- especially given what they said in conjunction with their original complaint.
[note: you can't sue them for the original lawsuit, itself. Court filings have some sort of limited immunity against libel laws, but what they say outside the courtroom -- especially in press releases, et al. is potentially legally actionable].

I think that any such action should also include an injunction against them extorting companies for payments to prtect themselves against such actions.

The basis of the action would be that SCO is clearly now aware of the impugned violations, but they have not only continued to distribtute that impugned code under the GPL -- they have wilfully frustrated attempts to determine precisely what code is supposedly in violation (which would allow it's removal from the public code).

In frustrating attempts to determine which code could be removed to place Linux into compliance with any claimed copyright and/or patent rights, SCO is not only condoning the continued distribution of that code -- they are effectively forcing it's continued distribution. They are now claiming to have effectively poisoned the entirety of the Linux code base and, in that context, they are claiming effective control of that entire code base and attempting to effectively extort companies into buying 'protection' from SCO against this legal phantasm.

Note also: In the digital world, there is no way to tell the difference between allowing a copyright notice to remain in a piece of code and removing, then replacing that same notice. SCO's affirmative placement of GNU licence notices on their impugned code is indistinguishable from passive acceptance of its presence in code that they are distributing.
(That would be another declarative relief to ask for)

The longer-term relief to ask for from the courts would be for copyright violation. By attempting to limit the distribution of the Greater Linux code and by attempting to limit licencees to binary-only rights (in their latest moves), they are clearly in violation of both the spirit and letter of the GPL. As such, they have lost the redistribution rights to any Linux code that is not theirs, as of the initiation of their anti-linux campaing. Their continued distribution of that code absent the permissions given by the GPL are a copyright violation.
____

One final note: If the code that SCO attempted to NDA turned out to have not been code that was solely under their own copyright control, then attempting to NDA that code without the permission of the author who GPLed it would also be a violation of the GPL.

IANAL, but I like to play one in court sometimes.