Slashdot Mirror
SCO Expands Licensing Money Chase Worldwide
drizst 'n drat writes "Article posted recently on ZDNet that 'companies outside the United States that use Linux now face the threat of legal action from the SCO Group, following the announcement on Wednesday that SCO's licenses are available worldwide.'" And cbiltcliffe writes "Vnunet is reporting that SCO is now threatening legal action against UK businesses that run Linux.
Yet again, they claim they're going to initiate legal action against Linux users 'within a couple of weeks.' (Funny...weren't they saying that back in September?)
They also claim that Novell and HP indemnification schemes are essentially useless (similar to SCO's Linux licences).
It definitely appears the media is getting somewhat wiser to the FUD, however, as the story reports 'The run-time licence only permits use of what SCO says is its IP,' rather than 'The licence permits use of SCO's IP' like we would have heard a couple of months ago."
Translation: "We have them our ultimatum, and they gave us the finger!"
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
The US does have barratry law, troll, but it requires repeated lawsuits with the sole intent to harrass and without any valid claim. SCO has only been threatening lawsuits which is not barratry. You would also have to prove that not only are their claims without basis but that they knew that all along. That is not an easy case to persue.
I think that was a pretty fair response to what was obviously flamebait.
Titan Court
3 Bishop Square
Hatfield
Herts AL10 9NA
I don't know if they own their building or are renting, but surely there are some assets in it.
In Scotland, Extortion (the obtaining of money or goods by means of illegitimate threats or demands) is a criminal offence. As a result, such practises as private firms clamping your car for parking on private property then demanding money to release it is illegal in Scotland but not in England. As a result, any Scottish company receiving one of these demands may wish to request a copy of the infringing source and if it's not forthcoming deem the request as an illegitimate threat and report SCO to the police.
In addition the new Proceeds of Crime Act gives police the power to seize all assets belonging to criminals participating in the practise of extortion. Such assets could include cars, houses, boats and bank accounts.
For those of you who don't know what barratry is (I had no idea until 2 minutes ago): Wikipedia's Barratry entry.
$60/month Colo'd Linux Sever
Damn right, first in the UK the loser pays the costs of both sides. SCO is a foreign corporation and could probably be required to put up a surety if they brought a claim.
Second and more interesting there is actually a tort in the UK that covers this exact type of case.
It is not a good idea to send out demand letters to a UK address unless you can substantiate the claim made.
The UK legal systen is not the place to start frivolous lawsuits unless you have no money to start with and so won't be worse off if you get made bankrupt.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
btw. Wrong answer from me.
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant SCO hereby files its Notice of Compliance with this Court's Order entered on December 12, 2003, and states:
1. SCO has responded fully and in detail to Interrogatories 1-9, 12 and 13 of IBM's First Set of Interrogatories. (See SCO's Supplemental Response to Defendant's First and Second Set of Interrogatories dated January 12, 2004) (hereinafter "Supplemental Responses."). These Supplemental Responses, which exceed 60 pages, fully respond to the interrogatories based on the information in SCO's possession. Upon receiving complete discovery from IBM, including all versions of AIX and Dynix/ptx, there undoubtedly will be further evidence of IBM's contractual breaches and other violations of law, as detailed in the attached Declaration of Ryan Tibbits. Accordingly, SCO reserves the right to further supplement or amend its answers as discovery or further investigation may reveal.
2. SCO has also produced all non-privileged responsive documents requested by IBM. The only exception to such production is the files of certain officers and directors for whom SCO could not obtain the requested materials during the holidays with sufficient time to review the documents. The efforts to obtain these files and their expected production date are set forth in the attached Declaration of Ryan Tibbitts.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED this 12th day of January, 2004
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: seeks specific identification of all alleged trade secrets and confidential or proprietary information that SCO alleges IBM misappropriated or misused. This information is requested by product, file and line of code.
Forget the others as if they wouldn't be there, after all millions of code they produced.... exceed 60 pages????? bwaaahahaaa
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
The Republic of Ireland is not part of the UK (and hasn't been since 1948, IIRC). They've been functionally independent for longer than that.
You're thinking of Northern Ireland, which is not a republic. I don't think they even have a devolved government right now.
As far as the legal system goes, I'm not sure. On the other hand, the original poster said "Great Britain" has two legal systems, which means he was ignoring Ireland altogether, as it isn't part of Great Britain. UK, yes, GB, no.
If the SCO stock keeps going down like it has the past 3 days, they will need to jump ship soon. Perhaps the rats are swimming already for paradise island.
Causing Chaos Everywhere,
Nik J.
The strange world of a loner, in a populous city, drowning in society
UK -> United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Great Britain -> The island on which England, Scotland and Wales lie.
So Northern Ireland is part of the UK, but not of Great Britain.
The Republic of Ireland is part of neither.
"Ireland" by itself can refer both to the Republic and to the island on which the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland lie.
And remember people, you if you pay the license fee, you are giving SCO the permission to mess with you. You are untouchable (until a verdict is reached in a US court of law) period if you are not a customer. IF you are a "customer", they will then do everything they can do to take advantage of you. And unfortunately at that point, they will have your specific name and address.... etc. I have often wondered what the implications were of getting a SCO 'license' (i.e. paying the modern day Billy the Kid) - remember they say binary use only. Therefore, would it be a problem to compile your own kernel under that agreement? How do you compile a kernel to use under a 'binary use only' agreement?
No. When you sue someone in a court that doesn't have jurisdiction over that someone, the court just throws it out. It doesn't offer some sort of meaningless default win for failure to appear.
Nice theory, BUT ... ideas can't be copyrighted, and we know SCO holds no patents. Their only possible "IP" is copyrights on code. Even if there was a clear geneology of ideas, the only possible suit would be if they can show enough direct copying of code that they can also show a clear copyright on (and Novell says that SCO does not have the copyrights). It also has to be code that doesn't exist in any other source that is "libre" (such as BSD) that could have served as the source AND there has to be substantial originality in it. Code that has to be written a certain way (the infamous errno.h files) because of standards or hardware constraints is hard to copyright. It's like a description of how a USB port works: given the standards and the constraints of technical English, they all sound very similar.
"stop het in je nauwe gaatje Darl" Put it in your narrow little hole, Darl Very colourful, but I never heard of this expression. I believe the proper Dutch translation of "sod off Darl" is: "Rot op, Darl". Short and to the point.
"It wasn't me, I didn't do it, I don't post, the bite marks still haven't healed from last time." Ryan/jrc
Right version in Czech language is Di do prdele Darle or stronger version Tahni do prdele Darle
So if they can get inside of IBM records they can begin to stitch a winnable case together, while if the "Match code or acquit" theory holds then the case is over. So if they can satisfy the initial requests enough to make the judge open up IBM to their SCO discover, then they can begin to make the case.
/. or me for legal advice, you're going to get your money's worth)
What you're describing is known as a "fishing expedition", and is generally frowned upon when bringing a lawsuit. The judge in this case apparently understands this, which is why she decided that SCO has to show all of their cards first before the judge will decide on SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery.
In case you've forgotten, here are some of the questions that SCO must answer before they get a shot at IBM:
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: seeks specific identification of all alleged trade secrets and confidential or proprietary information that SCO alleges IBM misappropriated or misused. This information is requested by product, file and line of code.
This means that IBM wants SCO to show show which parts of Linux are deemed to be infringing, "by product, file and line of code". This is "The Code" that followers of the suit have been waiting for since at least March.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: For each alleged trade secret and any confidential or proprietary information identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, Interrogatory No. 2 seeks further identification of: (a) all persons who have or had rights to the same; (b) the nature and sources of SCO's rights in the same; and (c) efforts to maintain secrecy or confidentiality of the same.
This is IBM saying "For each item you identified in answer to the first question, we want to know who else can claim rights that information, the exact nature of any agreements between that entity and SCO, and what efforts were made on both parts to keep it a secret." (Novell, maybe?)
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: For each alleged trade secret and any confidential or proprietary information identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, Interrogatory No. 3 seeks the identity of all persons to whom the same was disclosed and the details of such disclosure. In particular, this interrogatory seeks: (a) the date of disclosure; (b) the terms of disclosure; (c) the documents relating to disclosure; (d) all places where the trade secret and/or confidential or proprietary information may be found or accessed.
This is IBM saying "For each of the items you identified in answer to the first question, we want to know who all you've shown that information to, when you showed it to them, why you showed it to them, all documentation relating to that disclosure, and any place where that information can be found." Remember, SCO not only charges that SCO's IP got into Linux against their wishes, but that IBM did it. IBM wants to see SCO's evidence that is had to be IBM and couldn't be someone else.
As far as what SCO wants this case to be about, SCO has contradicted itself on so many occasions that it's impossible to say with any certainty what SCO is suing over. We've gone from Darl McBride saying, on several occasions, that there is "line-by-line" copying of UnixWare code into Linux. But somehow we've gotten to the point where they're trying to tell the court that they can't possibly find has been infringed until they get their response from IBM.
So if you will excuse me, I will continue to believe that SCO are stupid scum, because they've not shown any evidence to the contrary.
Jay (=
(I'm not a lawyer either; if you're coming to
There are two factors that come into this. The first is that a judge can refuse to award costs to a plaintif if they win an award that is derisory.
The second more interesting one is that the defendant can make an offer to settle for a particular sum. If the plaintif wins the case and the damages are less than or equal to the amount of the payment into court the plaintif has to pay the costs of both sides from the date of the payment into court if full.
Usually you only get about 70% of your costs paid (part and party costs), but the judge can award costs in full (indemnity costs) if the case should never been brought or alternatively should never have been necessary.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Corporations protect shareholders from corporate missdeeds, not the officers of the company. If McBride and the rest of the clown car occupants conduct illegal activity they are not protected by the Limited Liabilty.
"There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
Perhaps you should try looking at a longer view. Short-term dips in stock prices are normal. There's nothing here to get excited about (yet).
But then again, I could be wrong.
"spierdalaj Darl" is Polish
xb0x