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."
So will they relax a bit and stop hounding us when the last executive has sold his last share ?
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
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.
Here's the mail fraud complaint form.
Hint: Select "False Bill or Notice" when you fill this out.
... 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!
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.
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)
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.
SCO's 10Q is due Sep 15.
SCO's reply to IBM is due Sep 25.
This could be an interesting month.
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