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?
Nigeria.
...the rest of the world also collectively gives SCO the finger.
SCO: OK guys, this US gig isn't going to get us anywhere. Let's go to Europe!
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
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.
Unless and until they can prove in a court of law that they really have these rights they claim, they cannot expect to be paid. On the contrary, they can expect to be investigated for fraud, an perhaps subject to criminal charges of extortion...
And trying to dodge the GPL does not count. Either the GPL is valid and must be obeyed, or it is invalid which makes everyone distributing Linux and other GPL'd software into copyright infringers. This latter seems somewhat less than likely...
SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
Dear silly CEO McBride,
I say NI to you. Your SysV was a hamster, and you SCOsource smells of elderberries. Now go go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
French Taunters, SARL
P.S. to legale departement: Fetchez la vache
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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.
According to InfoWorld, SCO is now claiming that in it's response to IBM interogatories, they have submitted no examples of copyright infrigement.
Blake Stowell is quoted as saying, "We've not introduced copyright infringement as part of our case with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that it's a contract issue."
Seems quite odd when a SCO press release from yesterday says exactly the opposite. Old Darl said this, "SCO is willing to enforce our copyright claims down to the end user level and in the coming days and weeks, we will make this evident in our actions."
What freakin planet are these guys from? I'm sorry, but I despise them like I despise neo-nazi, racists, thugs.
I'm sorry that I ever bought a Caldera product...
Your mom always said, a PB&J is better than nothing, and God is nothing, is a PB&J better than God?
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.
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/
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.
Indeed, here in the UK, you are imprisoned "at Her Majesty's pleasure". Many's the joke about some new convict "pleasuring her majesty".
So, rather like the US really, except whereas we have Her Majesty, you (I believe) have someone called Bubba.
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake