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."
If there is a ruling in the US against SCO which says there is no SCO IP in Linux, can they still try to force licenses upon those in other countries until a case is that country goes to trial?
Doesn't the UK have a law against barratry, something the USA desperately needs? SCO could get royally fucked by playing their legal games in the UK. We can only hope.
Remain calm! All is well!
Translation: we're not making enough cash from North America because they're not taking us seriously. So, we'll hit you guys up for a few bucks.
I really wonder if anybody in Europe will really take these guys seriously? Since SCO was sooooooooo successful in launching their lawsuits in the U.S., I'm sure they'll do just fine in Europe.
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
Sorry to burst your bubble but this started a couple of weeks ago. We got back from the Christmas break to find one of the letters from the SCO Group asking us to verify that we had not copied any code from our SCO servers into Linux machines.
As our last SCO server went into the trash a couple of years ago legal told us to ignore the letter and that's exactly what we did. Our three AIX machines continue to run as do our two Linux clusters, the only thing that's changed is the FUD from SCO.
Ed Almos
Budapest, Hungary
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
From Groklaw : SCO has posted a job opening, for an "Inside Sales Manager", as of January 9th. Here is the job description, in case you are interested: "The inside sales manager will be responsible to implement a successful campaign of generating daily revenue from selling IP licensing in the North American market. Initially, the sales manager will also be responsible for generating the revenue as a stand-alone sales entity with the goal to grow the department revenue to justify additional sales resources. All sales will be generated from outbound phone calls and incoming phone call leads based upon the SCO Group's IP campaign." Applicants should have the ability to "communicate the offerings of the SCO Groups [sic] IP license strategies in a manner that is successful in generating revenues." Daily. Of course, you have to live in Utah.
On Tuesday, McBride said that lack of indemnification proved that companies knew there was something wrong with Linux. On Wednesday, he said that indemnification programs proved that companies knew there was something wrong with Linux. Darl is obviously showing signs of short-term memory loss.
This whole thing is just starting to piss me off, as they want it both ways, want everyone to lay down and pay them money for just sitting on their asses and thinking about ways to rule the world. They keep making these threats, but with the resulting 60 pages of docs they handed over, it is now being widely assumed that these guys are smoking some of the local meth (Utah has a HUGE meth industry).
One other note is that Sontag backtracked and said that this case is not a copyright case, but a breech of contract case. If that is true (who knows) then the ONLY entity that they could get money out of is IBM. They cannot go after an end-user using a contractual basis for their case, as the end user has no contract with SCO, much less any implied of such. They could go after under the basis of the copyrights, but then any end user could defer the case until after the Novell v. SCO copyright fight is over.
This sounds like a last gasp of desperation from SCO. They had to put out something to pump the stock, and what better way to say they going to get money from the whole world! What they do not realize is, just like a TV show killing off a main character to garner interest, this latest tact will prove to be opening act of their permanent cancellation.
In other news, I'll be phoning Trading Standards.
-
Let's Put SCO Behind Bars
From the page: Thank You For Your Attention.Request your free CD of my piano music.
I've spent more time than I care to admit to in the last weeks and days trying to figure out what SCO might really be up to. Can they really be as stupid is most people claim? Sure they could be as evil, coniving and greedy as we claim, but could they be as stupid as we claim?
I assume that we have two sides here. One side says "show us the infringing code".... on the theory that in order to demonstrate copying you have to show more or less a letter perfect copy...
I assume that SCOs game is to get inside of the sausage making process and to demonstrate that even though the code is not literally system V you can trace a "legacy" that involves the gradual modification of ideas expressed in one form to ideas expressed today in Linux, and that by linking the people who worked on code to its evolution over time through evidence derived from the discovery process, they will make the case that current Linux code is derived from code that they claim to own. The continuity of people may be part of making the case of continuity of "ideas" and thus of "ownership."
From this perspective (IANAL, etc.) I would think that all of the moaning about how Linux code isn't exactly, or aproximately, Unix code is really beside the point. IBM would of course like to keep it at that level, arguing "if the glove does not fit you must aquit", eg. if this code isn't exactly the copyrighted code then they have no case.
But my understanding of the law (limited and amateur as it is) is that SCO would have a case to make if the concepts ideas, "manner of expression" and all sorts of other stuff in Linux could be shown to be derived through a chain of modification, backed up by the ongoing involvement of individuals in that modification process, even if the code and expression of programing ideas took a very different letter by letter form.
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.
Anyway that's my effort to understand what SCO might be thinking and why this might make more sense than we'd like it to make.
They are scum, but let's not assume that they are stupid scum.
More than that. SCO must resolve their fight with Novell AND IBM before anyone is "legally obligated" to license their alledged IP. Simply because you are in court arguing a case doesn't allow you to assume you will win, and thus all others must treat you like that beforehand.
SCO not only fails to act according to this simple logic, they taunt "more legal action" which just prolongs the course of when their suposed IP would be verifed. So, theoretically after IBM were to lose, they sue their next customer, and the chain would be very slow. You can run concurrently, but I would move that they are all related.
From the website:
The UI is a bit overdone, but the data rocks...
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
Indemnification is more like insurance than it is a warranty.
That means if you get sued for using the product, the distributor (or the person issuing the indemnification) will step in to take the bullet for you.
SCO, by virtue of it being a corporation, effectively indemnifies McBride, Stowell, et al. against individual prosecution for the company's misdeeds. There are ways, however, to "pierce the corporate veil" to go after individuals who are directly responsible for a company's misdeeds (as we are at very long last beginning to see with regards to Enron).
Hopefully that clarifies a bit...
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...