Skeptical Reactions To SCO From Around The Globe

Besides the recent action in Australia, lots of others are choosing to make affirmative statements denying SCO's claims to own the name and code of all things *nix. Read below for a wrap-up of some recent public reactions to the SCO claims from a wide range of potential litigants (if the SCO case gets that far): Japanese conglomerates, American department stores, Bruce Perens, kernel developer Richard Gooch via Mozillaquest, and Joe ("Citizen") Barr.

IpsissimusMarr writes "The Inquirer reports that 'The biggest computer manufacturers in Japan that build systems running Linux will hold out against blustering by SCO to extract license fees based upon unsubstantiated infringement claims, it has emerged.' Its nice to see more support from the business world denouncing SCO's tactics."

janda writes "ComputerWorld is reporting that several companies, including Coastal Transportation, Burlington Coat Factory, and Boscov's Department Store are taking a wait-and-see attitude towards SCO and their new 'Linux license' arrangement.

Best quote from the article:

'I don't remember signing anything with SCO saying I owe them any kind of licensing fees.' (Tom Pratt, Coastal Transportation)

I find it refreshing that companies are starting to stand up to SCO's blackmail attempts."

An anonymous reader points to this story at Mozillaquest according to which IBM says that SCO does not have a viable claim to JFS, NUMA, RCU, etc., writing "IBM says it owns the AIX code it contributed to the Linux kernel despite SCO claims that it has registered its Unix System V copyrights. A big problem for IBM and the GNU/Linux community might be the inclusion of JFS, NUMA software, RCU, etc into the Linux kernel. SCO claims it owns them. However, IBM, SuSE, and kernel.org's Richard Gooch reject SCO-Caldera and Darl McBride's claims that GNU/Linux contains SCO-owned or SCO-copyrighted code. ... The Linux kernel code is copyrighted under the GNU GPL. IBM owns its AIX additions and copyrights to Unix System V code and its development of JFS, RCU, and NUMA software code."

arilian writes "According to this article from ARNnet, SCO's new license may leave them open to litigation by other contributers to the Linux kernel." Bruce Perens and intellectual property lawyer Jim LaBarre are quoted in this one.

Finally, Joe Barr writes "I just filed a complaint against The SCO Group with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was easy. I used their online complaint form at:

www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm.

The basis for my complaint is that SCO is using false and unsubstantiated claims of IP rights to UNIX and Linux in order to manipulate its stock price and force consumers to purchase SCO licenses.

Maybe someone else would like to do the same."

Comments

File FTC complaint against SCO!

[FatAssBastard]

You can find the online complaint form here.

To fill out the form, here is SCO's information:

The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax

Anyone who uses Linux is threatened by SCO and should file a complaint. I just filed mine, you should file yours too!

SCO can't sue for attorney fees or punitive damage

[isn't my name]

A recent posting on the Groklaw blog (see "SCO Can't Go After Statutory Damages or Atty's Fees" heading in the 7/22/03 section) states the US Copyright Office claims that SCO cannot go after statutory damages or attorney fees for any copyright infringement based on the most recent filing. They can only go after actual damages, which are very hard to prove in court.

What are SCO's actual damages from someone using Linux who would never have bought any SCO product in the first place? I mean, if I downloaded my ISO and burned it myself to install on 5 machines, it seems hard to argue that had Linux not included SCO IP, I would have purchased 5 copies of SCO UnixWare. No, if there had been no Linux, I'd have gone for one of the *BSD's. So even if SCO is correct, what are the actual damanges.

Doing some more copyright law searching.

Found these points at Bromberg and Sunstein LLP

Benefits of Federal Copyright Registration

Required for Infringement Suit. Generally speaking, unless the copyrighted work has been registered (or the Copyright Office has refused registration although the required deposit, application and fee were properly filed), a court action for infringement of the copyright will be dismissed.

Required for Statutory Damages. If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits.

Now, you can go to the Library of Congress Copyright site (www.copyright.gov) and search for the newly awarded SCO copyright: TX-5-705-356.

Notice that the SCO copyright lists publication date as 27Jun91, but registration date of 30Jun03. Combine that with "If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits." from above and it does seem like SCO will have a tough case to make in any litigation relating to copyright.

Presumption of Validity. In any judicial proceeding, a certificate of registration issued within five years of the first publication of the work confers a legal presumption that the copyright is valid and that all facts stated in the copyright registration certificate are true.

Also note that the 5 year presumption of validity time limit has expired.

Protection Against Importation of Infringing Copies. A copyright owner can record the registration with the U.S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing works.

Wonder how much of the alleged infringing work was done overseas? Wasn't some of it supposed to have been done by a German Caldera employee? Wonder if SCO has taken this step yet?

Don't forget to mention Vultus

[isn't my name]

If a lot of people file complaints, perhaps that will cause the SEC, or the government in general, to take some serious notice of this serious problem.

If you do decide to file, don't forget to mention the recent Vultus purchase. Vultus is owned by The Canopy Group, the same people who own a large portion of SCO. Both SCO and Vultus are in the same Lindon, Utah building owned by The Canopy Group. Seems to me that an argument could be made for an Enron like shuffling of companies.

Make specious claims about SCO IP. Run up the stock price. Sell some of that and use the funds to purchase other companies in the portfolio. Book the profit.

Re:The die is cast

[Draoi]

It needs to be pointed out, smartypants, that the BCF was one of the first companies to mass-migrate their internal manufacturing systems to Linux. They didn't stop there, though. They also migrated their office infrastructure as well as their POS systems. Impressive, seeing as Burlington is a massive organisation.

Link here

Re:SEC Form

[Anonymous Coward]

The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax

Yeah, that'll work

[dmaxwell]

The problem with this is that SCO's story keeps changing. First it was just a contract beef with IBM. Then SCO owned by proxy every modern operating system. Then it was a small amount of code in the Linux kernel: less than 80 lines. Then it was hundreds of thousands of lines and hundreds of files. Then SCO starting making noises that the BSD's weren't safe either.

The bottom line is that nothing SCO says can be trusted. They are a lawsuit company now and will use any pretext to harass developers and users and pump their stock price. I fully expect that if everyone did revert to 2.2 kernels that SCO would find something to extort with there as well.

Pre-filled SEC form to use to complain

[victorvodka]

This form allows you to send your comments to the SEC without having to fill in all the boring details:

http://www.vodkatea.com/sec.html