Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NY Times Reveals SCO/Canopy Group Hypocrisy

Posted by timothy on from the strangely-enough dept.

rjamestaylor writes "The New York Times reports that 'SCO, the company that touched off a computer industry slugfest last spring by suing I.B.M. over its use of Unix software, may find itself embarrassed by a similar claim against a company once related to SCO.' Note that the reporter, John Markoff, ties together Noorda's Canopy Group companies, revealing that: 'Canopy is now SCO's largest shareholder, with two seats on the company's board, and has played an important role, analysts say, in shaping SCO's legal strategy.' He even quotes SCOSource shill Laura Didio as saying, 'All roads lead to Canopy...'"

5 of 223 comments (clear)

  1. Google Link by moshez · · Score: 1, Informative

    Article

  2. Ouch by theolein · · Score: 2, Informative

    Although I'm curious as to how cases in the US legal system can be sealed, I think this will not have much influence on the case of IBM suing SCO for breaching the GPL, as IBM has already subpoened Canopy records. I think the IBM legal team knows full well that canopy is behind it, and if it turns out that GPL software is in SCO without copyright notices, then Darl and Co are in for a lot of pain.

  3. Re:GPL involvment by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It may not set precedence in the judicial system in general, but it is a legal document just the same.

    If Canopy states that it is their position that the GPL is invalid, the settlement can be dug up, and if it states that Canopy concedes that the GPL is valid, that would probably be admissible in the courtroom. Now, if Red Hat sued MS over the GPL, you couldn't bring out Canopy's admission and use it against MS - but you can use it against SCO.

    Now, if a judge ruled that the GPL was valid, then that WOULD set precedence, and you could use it against ANYONE.

    The settlement in this prior case is similar to finding a memo documenting that a car manufacturer is willing to tolerate lawsuits of up to $x million for wrongful deaths when the company executive just testified that the company doesn't put a price on lives.

    Canopy can't argue in the courts that the GPL is invalid while conceding that it is valid after all.

    Now, if the settlement was a standard no-admission-of-wrongdoing settlement it may not make much impact in the case. But the article suggests this is not the case.

  4. Re:Time for a boycott of Canopy companies? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Informative
    Corperate law, at leas in the UK, says that the major share holder can by out everyone else at any price they want to and the minor share holders have to sell

    1) that's can't be true
    2) SCO isn't in the UK anyway
    3) even if it was, and they were, what's your point?

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  5. Re:Another example of SCO hypocrisy by kfg · · Score: 2, Informative

    The copyright is only on the photograph, not the grafitti.

    Under current law such a photograph might even be held to be in violation of the creator's copyright.

    Did you know that if you buy an original work of art all you own is the physical object? Just like a book.

    If your home is photographed and those photographs contain images of that art and the photographs are distributed you are in violation of the artists copyright.

    Print magazines have to deal with this issue all the time and either obtain written consent from the artist or remove the art before the photographs are taken.

    KFG