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

Apathy

[AllDigital]

This whole situation is really a gauge of the 'apathy' factor. How many peopel will be outraged and yet do nothing? I am not a LINUX or UNIX user, my company does not use LINUX or UNIX... and I see through this scam like double pane window. We should act by complaining now....or else we will get what we deserve! I also used the online complaint form at: www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm.

Before anybody files any complaints...

[Jerk City Troll]

(As if that were the case.) ...there needs to be some serious thought about what to say. You cannot just send complaints to the SEC or the FTC without hard, substantiated facts. In fact, the FTC doesn't want you to send complaints unless you have been directly affected. If you have been directly affected, you probably know what to do, so that leaves us with the SEC complaint form.

I am not exactly sure just how the SEC should be approached with these issues. I am a Linux user, but SCO has not yet attempted to extort money from me. So I cannot issue a complaint on that basis.

However, we are all aware of SCO's activities, and we find them ethically wrong and quite likely illegal. So what I am asking is does anybody have a generic, factual complaint summary that can be submitted the SEC?

Most of us do not have time to pour over all of the material in this situation. Even if we could, most of us are not lawyers. Could someone who has an measure of authority on the subject volunteer some time advise the rest of us on how best to alert the SEC (or not to) without sounding like a bunch of Slashbots?

I imagine a lot of people here are going to get themselves in trouble with the SEC by making silly accusations and libelous statements. A good write up would be appreciated or good reasons not to complain unless you've been approached by SCO to ensure that doesn't happen

Re:Too bad you'd lose to a proxy fight

[rc.loco]

Yes, that's right. Money != Morality. Might makes right. Welcome to the adult world. Don't get me wrong, I think the SCO executive team should be put in the stockade for being a public nuisance. But the only way to stop them is going to be through fiscal, legislative, regulatory or legal means.

You know what, I am tired of people/firms/governments assuming that you can unhitch business and moral/social responsibility without repercussions. It's not possible, it's a zero sum game ultimately. It seems like American business people (flame off, I'm American) are willing to be socially irresponsible if not downright morally reprehensible if it means good news for the "bottom line". I left corporate America for this very reason, despite taking a substantial hit financially as a consequence.

Fill out the SEC form, talk to peers about the issue, do what you can to focus on the socially irresponsible aspects of SCO's misbehavior. Ok, so they didn't create capitalism as it's practiced in America, but they are reinforcing the very worst parts of it.

Oh wait, I'm wasting my breath. This is America, land where 40% of our Senators are millionaires.