Slashdot Mirror
SCO Invoices For Unix Licenses Get Closer
beggs writes "BusinessWeek, InfoWorld and the EE Times Online all have stories about SCO's plans to send out license invoices to Linux vendors for 'Unix license fees for Linux.' The experts advice: Wait and see what happens with the court cases before you pay." RowLowy points to ZDnet's story, which says that "SCO will pursue commercial Linux users who have discussed their Linux work publicly ... However, it won't take action until it's done more research on those businesses." JayR writes to say that Michael Dell recently told a gathering of Dell investors that Dell Computer will offer no protection from SCO lawsuits to customers who buy Linux-based systems from Dell. Keep score: an anonymous reader points out that SCO executives are still selling off their stock. Total proceeds in August of over $600,000. Senior Vice President Reginald Broughton tops the list with over $300,000."
It looks like no one can leave a good thing alone for long. Do any of the majors actually want Linux to win?
The Slant
So will they relax a bit and stop hounding us when the last executive has sold his last share ?
now when you all recieve your invoices, its time to make a class action lawsuit claiming damages!
:V
also put this under caldera news so i can block stupid SCO articles
This is the most interesting thing I've seen so far today: "Docket Text: Return of service executed re: Subpoena served on Canopy Group c/o Ralph Yanno on 8/26/03" -- here.
Could this be IBM going for the neck of the hydra? That would be... wonderful.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Docket Text: Return of service executed re: Subpoena served on Canopy Group c/o Ralph Yanno on 8/26/03
The guy's name is Ralph Yarro actually. I happen to have met him personally when the Canopy company I worked for held its last Christmas party and he's definitely your typical hateable VC investor.
Good for him if he gets into trouble. That'll make my company's 7 rounds of layoffs in 2 years easier to swallow.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
First off, SCO would have to pay value added tax (VAT) on every invoice it issued (in the UK this would amount to 17.5%) which is a pretty major disincentive to start sending out invoices you have little chance of collecting. There is also the question (which is open) as to whether they would be committing the criminal offence of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.
If Audi stole Honda's copyrighted engine design, would Audi owners be sued because they their car contains a part that is the result of copyright infringement? No.
You can't copyright an engine design. Substitute "patent" and your comment makes sense.
I still don't see how there is any possible grounds for customer liability. But I've yet to see a piece of legislation that actually says so.
Doesn't matter. It's SCO's responsibility to find a law that says they can hold the customers liable, not our responsibility to find one that says they can't.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Please note that to have any basis whatsoever to bill you, SCO needs to demonstrate not only that "Linux" infringes, but that your build of Linux infringes. They haven't remotely done the first, much less the second.
And that's even if an end-user could be found liable, as the often-mentioned reader-of-an-infringing-New-York-Times analogy addresses.
As it stands now, this is analogous to a company that sells classical music billing you because they've heard you have classical music in your CD collection, and it's absurd.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
- These guys will only stop when they see a reason to do so, such as a court order.
They saw a cout order.They have not stopped yet.
Go figure.
Here's the mail fraud complaint form.
Hint: Select "False Bill or Notice" when you fill this out.
Corporation have WAY too much control over the legal process and society.
A society can only be ruled over with the consent of the people and the art of any "democratic" government is to perfume the shit they dump on people so no-one smells it's presence. Only when the whole population is up to their ears in it does it seem to spark them into action.
Whether or not anything can be done about it is down to the American people but I believe that Lincoln stated that (and I'm para-phrasing heavily here) If the government stops acting in the interests of the people the people have the right to bring down the government.
Get saving then and start funding candidates that will not take any corporate money and will make decisions based on what's best for Joe Average and not the likes of Darl McShitforbrains. As the "land of the free" you should feel obliged to show us foreigners how it's done.
Damn it man... For I minute I started believing it was possible myself.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
... This is a point that I think is very important and I don't see it mentioned here too often. Copyright law provides certain protection to the author of copyrighted works. The copyrighted works cannot be used beyond the normal "fair use" provided for by copyright law without the "express writtten permission" of the author.
The GPL provides this "express written permission" by the author and outlines the terms and conditions under which the permissions are granted. If the terms are not agreed to then the permissions are not granted. Any other use is in violation of the GPL "contract" and also copyright law!
Let's assume that Linux in fact DOES contain SCO code. There are two options. Remember that Linux existed and SCO code would have been added. SCO has two choices: 1) release their additions under the provisions of the GPL and be in compliance. 2) actively move to identify and remove the IP from the Linux code base and prosecute whoever was responsible for breaching SCO's intelectual property.
They cannot leave their IP in Linux and not release it under the GPL let alone try to license it. That is a violation of the GPL as well as a violation of the original author's (Linus's) copyright on Linux itself.
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
To: SCO
From: Linux Company with many machines
Dear SCO,
I have here in front of me your invoice saying that I owe you a license fee. In your letter you do not say what exactly infringes upon your IP, thus making it impossible for us to remove it. Even more disturbing is that you have yet to prove that any violation of you IP has taken place in a court of law. You seem to have gotten the cart before the horse and there is no legal precedant for us to pay for any "alleged violations".
Upon advice of counsel this letter is being turned over to our local state's attorney with a complaint. It is our feeling that SCO is attempting to illegally extort money from our organization. SCO's recent press releases are so inflated and obvioulsy false that we are going to pursue a class action civil suit and also file a complaint with the SEC. It is my personal feeling that you are no different than a mobster asking for protection money.
Sincerely,
Joe Linux User
The thing that disturbs me is that some in our community think tha SCO has shown it's "best hand" at recent events. If you truly think that, then you are sadly mistaken. SCO is running a media showcase, and NOTHING is "leaked" or gets out that isn't meant to. Think along the lines of a magicians miss direction. SCO probably doesn't have a case, but it most certainly has better "code" snippets than has been shown to anyone outside of the legal and technical team bringing suit.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Yes it is and if my company get's one the lawyers and financial department have already said that they will instantly persue legal action against SCO.
it is illegal to do what they are doing, and they know it.
it's time people start suing McBribe directly attack his pockets.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"Isn't this somewhat like extortion?"
Considering what we know of SCO's "evidence" against Linux, it's more like fraud: trying to use false pretense to get money.
Isn't this against the law in some way? They're harming everyone who invested money in sco and the employees by steering it directly at a train wreck. Not to mention the slanderous lies they are spewing around everyday.
But the high paid executives doing this don't care. They don't give one shit. They just want to get as much money out of the stock as possible in a short period of time. They're probably issuing each other multi-million dollar unsecured loans and stock options as we speak.
What a load of thieves. If anyone deserves to go to jail it's these fuckers. If they really believed their claims had any chance of being for real they would ALL hold on to ALL of their stock, not dump it.
And you wanna know what else makes me angry? The people who are buying their stock right now. They're the ones who make this scheme work, be it out of stupidity or whatever, by making the scox price higher. Fuck them too.
Liberty.
It's sad and funny to see a publically traded company resort to an ages-old scam in order to get revenue. Anyone who gets an invoice should contact the National Fraud Information Center.
A few definitions from Black's law.
"Estoppel" means that party is prevented by his own acts from claiming a right detriment of other party who was entitled to rely on such conduct and acted accordingly. Graham v. Asbury, 112 Ariz. 184, 540 P.2d 656, 658.
A principle that provides that an individual is barred from denying or alleging a certain fact or state of facts because of that individuals previous conduct, allegation, or denial. A doctrine which holds that an inconsistent position, attitude, or course of conduct may not be adopted to loss or injury of another. Brand v. Farmers Mut. Protective Ass'n or Texas, Tex,Civ.App., 95 S.W.2d 994, 997.
Thus by matter of record, SCO is Estopped from asserting any claims to the distribution or usage of GPL code which SCO has itself distributed. SCO is also prohibited by the doctrine of "Apparent authority" from asserting the claim that the distribution was not authorized.
Basically, an open and shut case. SCO loses. (Defendant should seek both costs and scantions on plaintiff)
Yes, it's dirty, but it obviously works for those selling otherwise moribund stock in SCO. The best thing the Linux distributors can do in this case is simply ignore SCO. Sooner or later they'll get bitchslapped in the courts by the big players whom they've taken the trouble to directly offend, and they'll crawl back into the compost whence they came.
They believe they own the rights to said product.
They are demanding a license fee to make you legal, or you are subject to a suit.
Nothing illegal about it, if they believe they are in the right.
Time may prove they are totally off the deep end and don't hold the rights, but they currently believe it, and are pursuing a legal course.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Before you do that, send them a letter asking to identify specifically which parts of Linux are infringing. Don't volunteer anything, just try to get them to elaborate as much as possible. Save all responses and their envelopes and give that to the authorities. Record any phone conversations and indicate at the start you are doing so.
Basically, if they admit on paper that they want payment from you for unsubstantiated claims then they're toast. If they won't admit it, save the copies of that as well. It will make an excellent shield if they try to take you to court. Any refusal to elaborate also makes a good spear if they try to bring collection and credit reporting agencies into it. You'll have a libel case.
What you want is a packet of papers that makes the scam SCO is pulling clear. The "invoice" they send you in and of itself won't mean much without the background information. Mr. Postal Inspector and A.G. probably won't know the blow by blow the way you do. They won't necessarily take your word for it either.
The gist of the case at this point seems to be that IBM allegedly released some code which was granted to SCO by a company IBM previously acquired. IBM's contract with SCO doesn't require them to give changes back to SCO, but Sequent's (and others') contracts did. This is ambiguous enough that no judge would award SCO damages unless SCO had worked in good faith to help IBM repair the damages and IBM hadn't then acted in good faith; from all appearances, SCO hasn't taken any steps in that direction. Instead, SCO have capitalized on the alleged mistake over and over again, already recovering the worth of the allegedly infringing code a thousand times over.
When SCO distributes it's "invoices" it will oficially be breaking the law. Without a legal buyer-seller agreeement, and without any court determination as to whether SCO's claims are legitimate, a counter-suit can be filed for extorsion. Get your legal department involved! Talk to your company's lawyers about filing a class-action suit.
SCO has already made it clear that any company getting this "invoice" is likely to be high on theie list to be sued. Companies should look at this as a threat and be pre-emptive. Further, a group of large companies filing a class action against SCO would be the best means of expediting the process and gaining closure.
By not having any buyer-seller agreement, and no legally recognized right to to the code they claim, SCO is no better than the neighborhood mafioso looking for protection money.
Mobster SCO: "I have no service to sell you, and I have no legal right to demand money by law, but I am billing you anyway. If you don't pay up...something "bad" will happen." Isn't this the classic definition of extorsion?
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
To whom it may concern:
As you are violating the GPL by claiming some of the code you destributed is now covered by your copyright, And as I retain the copyright to a portion of the Linux code you now must license from me, I am submitting this invoice.
Please remit $50,000 for the license to use my code as soon as possible as interest charges will accrue.
-
Any other Linux developer want to join in some action to bill SCO for their non-GPL use of our IP?
SCO's 10Q is due Sep 15.
SCO's reply to IBM is due Sep 25.
This could be an interesting month.
I might agree if SCO was a person, but it is not. If SCO were a person, you could admire (in some twisted way) the brazen disregard for sane self interest. But it is execs like McBride who are committing these bizarre acts, and they risk nothing (as long as they can keep the SEC off their backs). SCO will die, and they'll be rich. People dumb enough to have bought SCO stock at $16.3 per share (10AM this morning) will be the ones losing out. And the taxpayers who have to fund the legal system. There is nothing worthy of admiration in SCO's actions.
Taken from page 12 of SCO's Q2 FY2003 quarterly report:
This is in a footnote to the company's financials. Yet, when the company's CEO speaks publicly about the matter (and the related actions the company is taking), none of these risk factors are mentioned. Intellectual property litigation is a high-risk proposition under any circumstances. Given the convoluted pedigree of the rights involved in this case, asserting that a favorable outcome is certain -- as Mr. McBride has done with every reporter he has talked to -- is speculation of the most pernicious order, and shows a reckless disregard of his duty to provide the investing public with an accurate statement of the company's affairs.
The conscientious exercise of that duty would seem especially important for a publicly-traded corporation where insiders or related parties own almost 50% of the outstanding stock, and millions of low-balled options are in the portfolios of executives and board members. Based on Mr. McBride's statements -- which are ultimately self-serving, since he has an interest in 800,000 options priced between $0.76 and $2.07 a share -- the price of SCOX has septupled in just six months. Whether its the product of fact or fiction remains to be seen, but there seems to be something very, very wrong with a CEO publicly contradicting the risks reported in a company's financial statement.
The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected. -- Will Rogers
Seems our foes at SCO are at it again. I emailed them to inquire about why they'd request license for my two desktops, two servers. They actually replied, requesting name, address and info about my Linux installations (distribution etc.). I've written a very, very detailed explanation about it (quoting LOTS of material showing how wacky they are. Just facts), and this has in turn been forwarded to another sales representative. Now two of them have read my description of their sillyness.
If, based on this, they send me an invoice, I'll take them to court for fraud (it's just like those fake phone dictionaries sending out masses of bills).
And if sufficient many of us keem them busy like this, they'll be too busy to get any work done.
The letter is a bit too long to post here, but I'll email it to anyone interested. Just please do not send them a copy of this! Use it as inspiration, write your own.
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
Quite interesting to see which side Dell came down on. A totally irrelevant statement, but trying as best they can to dissuade people from buying Linux. Somebody explain to them the relevance of SCO_linux licensing on somebody who hasn't bought SCO linux, nor has any contract with SCO?
Note to Dell: I'll remember this very well when we replace our PCs at work. You want to insult the free software community? Well, we're no longer the ones who buy Dell computers at work.
Since we live in the West, the biggest issue is the unethical behavior of SCO and its managers. We have justifiably criticized them for trying to extort money via these ridiculous invoices. However, we need to go beyond criticizing only them. They actually work for someone: the shareholders.
Yes. The SCO shareholders own SCO and ultimately decide whether McBride keeps his job. The shareholders are the most guilty party in these pump-and-dump and extortion schemes hatched by SCO managers since the shareholders have the power to terminate the employment of McBride. The list at LionShares indicates the 15 financial institutions holding the largest number of shares of the SCO Group. Together, they hold 15% of the total outstanding shares. These financial institutions must immediately hold a special session of shareholders in order to terminate the employment of the managers (like McBride) at SCO group.
We, Slashdotters, should check our mutual funds immediately. If they own any shares of the SCO Group, then we should transfer the money out of those funds. Furthermore, there are several socially responsible mutual funds (SRMFs). We must bring the unethical behavior of the SCO group to the attention of the SRMF managers. They are bound, by the terms of their SRMFs, to sell all shares of the SCO Group.
Sure. But faith is not proof. It simply means someone believes in something. Faith can be misplaced. And it can be abused.
That's not to say one can't make a profit from faith. So who would be profiting? Tim Rushing has an interesting idea.
Just because you're able to spend money doesn't mean you actually know anything. I believe there is an entire industry roughly based on this concept out of Nevada... primarily Las Vegas.
Since they are pumping up the stock price with lots of big claims that it will probably be provable they knew were false, in order to sell their stock, will they be the next executives to go to prison?
If so, it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of &*%$@!
Here's hoping they enjoy having Ken Lay as a cellmate...
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
Tux Games and Linux Game Publishing are using Linux servers
SCO can bite me as they arent getting a penny from us. I'll spend every penny my companies have to defend our rights under the GPL and run my company into the ground doing it, before I let them have a penny of it.
I call on other Linux companies to make their claim to Linux. Tell SCO that you wont be bullied!
Tux Games. Your complete source for native Linux games.