SCO Responds to OSDL Legal Aid Announcement

Greyfox writes "SCO has issued a response to the earlier OSDL legal aid announcement. Basically the same old story, noting: 'If vendors feel so confident with the intellectual property foundation under their massive contributions into Linux, then they should put their money where their mouth is and protect end users with true vendor-based indemnification.' The release also refers us to their SCOSource web site, which they claim in their announcement shows 'proof' of infringement. I was unable to find any such 'proof' other than their claim that they own errno.h. Since I'm obviously too much of an idiot to find the 'proof' they claim they're showing, maybe someone else could go look and tell me where it is."

Comments

SCO drumming the indemnification drums...

[u-235-sentinel]

"If vendors feel so confident with the intellectual property foundation under their massive contributions into Linux, then they should put their money where their mouth is and protect end users with true vendor-based indemnification," said Darl McBride, president and CEO, The SCO Group, Inc."

::sigh:: This is such a bunch of crap. I called up Microsoft and asked them about this. I'm running XP Pro (for gaming only... honest!) and wanted to know what if SCO started the same crap against Microsoft end users. Will I be indemnified for the use of their product? The answer was of course yes. Ok.. so how much then? If I'm reading the EULA correctly, I'm protected up to the purchase price of the product. So OEM that's what? $100? $150? They were unable to answer my question unfortunately. I think we all know what the answer is however.

"The actions of these vendors today doesn't change the fact that SCO's intellectual property is being found in Linux."

I can see it now. At then end when they are crushed. Daryll will say "Honest... we thought we owned the IP. It's not my fault!" Only thing he could say to try and stay outta jail.

SCO is full of it.

Re:Not tired of it yet

[NMerriam]

I agree completely.

What excites me is that this potential major court case involving open source will not be a david and goliath mismatch as I always feared would cast an unfair chill on free software.

Having IBM and Intel (among others) battling to protect the GNU license and clarify code ownership will ensure that the OSS side can't be simply defeated by burying them in paperwork and expensive legal maneuvers.

They be very smart

[BubbaTheBarbarian]

The question is why are they so pissed about this and keep asking for indemnification?
Easy answer.
First, it means that they cannot go after small time users. This kicks the legs out from under them, as they cannot build up case history by suing end-users and getting them to surrender (like the RIAA). This means the only thing they can do is go after companies in a vulnerable position, like Google (who in the midst of an IPO would HATE to have the pub of a SCO lawsuit)
Secondly, when a company indemnifies, all of the claims are paid out (most of the time) by it's insurance company. This would give SCO the ability to get money to eternity by suing end-users, have them spin to the company, and the company would pay via it's insurer. This is a brilliant move on OSDL's part. SCO was baiting them to push for the indemnification, but by NOT pushing for it and then getting the ability for end users to defend themselves, they have effectively castrated SCO in at least three strategies.

Unhappy with SCO?

[stuffedmonkey]

I would call their handy 1-800 number to complain! 1-800-726-8649 Call and say that you believe thier practices are unacceptable - on thier dime!

Re:Not tired of it yet

[vinton]

My theory is that this is yet another golden age of slashdot trolling. Not since Jon Katz was writing regularly could someone get modded up for a post as off-topic, unimaginative, inflammatory, and whiny as "I don't want to read this. You guys suck!".

Depends on where you live

[Kjella]

The paragraphs of such things as e.g. building codes are obviously copyrightable in the US. "The association of a number and its specific meaning in a specific context" sounds pretty much exactly like paragraph numbers and their related meaning.

"Sorry, your building application is rejected under paragraph 14." "Can I get a copy of what paragraph 14 says, so I can correct it?" "No, it is copyrighted, you have to *buy* a copy." "And if I don't want to?"

As for the rest of the conversation, it'll go something like this (adopted from Douglas Adam's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

"But Mr. Dent, the building code has been available in the government office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well, as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the code was on display..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well, the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the building code, didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'"

Even so, while they'll have a much harder time copyrighting error codes, rather than complex building codes, there's no clear precendent you can point to and outright dismiss the claim. It'll be word against word until settled by a judge.

I know they wouldn't be copyrightable here (in Norway). But then again DeCSS is legal here as well. What's that? You claim we're hiding Osama here? Invade? Aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!

Kjella

Re:System V

[danb35]

System V from the BSD OSes is public domain. That has been decided by a court of law.

No, that has not been decided by a court of law. The judge in the BSD case, in non-binding dicta, expressed doubt that any copyright on the SysV codebase could be enforced. However, since that issue wasn't actually before him at the time, that statement isn't binding on anybody (though if SCO ever gets around to filing a copyright infringement action against anybody based on SysV copyrights, it'll almost certainly be introduced to try to persuade the relevant court).

Now, if the judge had written something to the effect of "I find that there is no enforceable copyright in the SysV code", any copyright claim based on that material would be immediately sunk. Since he didn't, such a claim would still be sunk, but it'd take more work to sink it.

Re:Not tired of it yet

[Pharmboy]

Not intended to be a troll, but why do people bother commenting that they don't like seeing SCO stories? I mean, if I don't like potato peelers, I don't hang out in the kitchen utensils aisle and reminding the customers of my beliefs.

Its very misleading. They don't really mean to say "I hate all these SCO stories". What they really mean to say is "I love to bitch about something, and the SCO stories are a great bandwagon to jump on".

I see all kinds of stories that are meaningless to me. As a matter of fact, MOST of the stories on slashdot are not of interest to me, but they are to others, and thats the idea, to appeal to a broad audience.

The SCO situation is one of the more important issues to ever face Linux, GPL and Open Source in general. Ever. While most of us have faith that the courts will see the light, we know that we can't take this for granted. (ie: OJ) This will hopefully answer lots of legal questions on Linux, and in the end, be to the benefit of Linux and the GPL. Even the people bitching know this.

My conclusion is very simple: They just want to bitch, and like many other llamas, they are just following yet more llamas, and using SCO stories as a target for their bitching. Since it takes 100x more effort to post and complain than to ignore, this is obvious.